An Argument Against Creating a Separate Fencing Peerage

Anyone who has been fencing in the SCA for more than a month or two has heard the debate over the creation of a separate peerage for fencing. My view on this is that if we were to create a peerage for fencers, it should be built upon fencing's strength: its authenticity. After all, we strive to dress authentically, we use the most authentic weapons safety allows and we strive to fight in a period style. Of course, it's also this quest for authenticity that gets in the way of our creation of a peerage for fencers.

To begin with, we have to ignore the inconsistencies between peers in the SCA and their period counterparts. After all, a knight was not the equivalent of a master artisan and if there was a period equivalent to the Pelican, I am not aware of it. Knights were considered nobility, but master artisans were not. They were - at best - the middle class. Did they interact? Yes, but that interaction was not that of equals. It was the interaction of a better and his subjects (as seen by the knight) and of a craftsman and his customers (as seen by the artisan). While it's true that in the SCA they are treated as equals, there is no reason to build new policy based on the mistakes of the old.

So if we want to create a more period structure to develop an awards system for fencers, we have to look at what fencers - and specifically fencing masters - were in period. In the most basic form, they were teachers. To use a modern equivalent, they were the Sensei and their salon the Dojo. And what they taught was self defense. While it was not uncommon for a fencing master to have nobles as students, the majority of their students were of the middle class.

As teachers, fencing masters were required to have two things: a reputation and some skill. And of the two, the reputation was probably the most important. It was the master's reputation that brought him the higher-born students, that allowed him to charge higher rates. His skills were actually secondary to his reputation. Even in period times, celebrity was often more important than competency. If a master of mediocre skills found himself the favorite of the court for whatever reason, he could find himself awash in hangers-on, hoping to curry favor in court.

And as a reward for all their hard work, fencing masters could expect some payment and a little notoriety. That was it. They did not, as a rule, receive lands or other grants in return for their teachings.

When you look at what fencing masters in period were, you can see that they were far closer to the artisans and master craftsmen than to the knights of the period who had to stand ready to defend their liege's policies on the battlefield. In fact, the closest of what we now call peers in the SCA to the fencing master was the minstrel or bard. Like the fencing master, they were expected to perform rather than make, but even they created new songs and stories.

Going by that, fencing falls under the category of an art (something very few fencers would argue over), which is the purview of the Laurel. But a Laurel is expected not only to know and teach, but to be able to create as well. Perhaps a fencer's devotion to teaching might earn them a Pelican, but without that creation aspect, a fencer cannot rise to the level of a Laurel.

There is no way to create a peerage for fencing when we combine the existing rank structure of the SCA with the period truths of the fencing master. And likewise, it is difficult to fit fencing into our existing peerages. The best answer for recognizing fencers in something close to a period fashion would actually be to take the Grant of Arms away from the White Scarf, and give only the scarf as a token of skills. But barring that, our current awards system is probably the closest to period we can get.