Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 00:32:08 -0400
From: mfy@sli.com (Mike Yoder)
Message-Id: <9106190432.AA07743@ravel.sli.com>
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: guilds


The following is fact and inference from "The Armorial Bearings of the Guilds
of London" by John Bromley & Heather Child.  (The book is *really* good.)
Confirmation or disconfirmation of these theses is sought from people with
other sources.

It seems likely that our notion of "apprentice, journeyman, master" as three
stages of skill is wrong.  "Master" denoted the head of the guild, chosen by
election.  There were only two statuses which were skill-related: you were an
apprentice (not yet a guild member), or you were a guild member and entitled to
make your living by working within the guild's purview.  You might be admitted
by doing a "master piece" and having it judged by the appropriate people, which
I'd guess would be the Wardens (see the following).  But I know of no evidence
for gradations according to skill once you were in the Company.

From other sources I believe it was also common to simply purchase guild
membership, which was most useful if you also purchased the status of Master so
as to get a position on the Common Council of London.  So it would be entirely
period for a Master to have less skill than an apprentice!

The archetypical London guild seems to have worked as follows.  The members
elected four officials, usually a Master and three Wardens, which regulated the
craft and also were the representatives of the guild at Common Council.  The
Wardens (and Master, presumably) had the responsibility of enforcing guild
standards, perhaps by inspecting members' work.  I assume they also had a hand
in deciding when to admit new members (e.g., from the ranks of apprentices, or
from immigrants).

The Guilds were usually officially titled the "Company of X."  They were
usually referred to, however, as the "Worshipful Company of X," which
appellation nevertheless is not officially part of their name.  (It also has no
religious connotations: see the latest TI.)  Charters often refer to "The
Master, Wardens, and Commonality of X" or some such phrasing (there is a fair
amount of variation).  They sometimes had charters, sometimes not.  Sometimes,
as with the Pewterers, their authority to inspect goods extended throughout
England, but more often their purview was restricted to a distance of ten miles
from London, or three miles, or whatever.

There were only three period methods of making arms for a London guild.  Either
the arms referred to religion (e.g., were suggestive of a patron saint), or
they referred to the craft in some way, or (you guessed it) they combined
religious references with references to the craft.

Guilds could merge, split, or become defunct; they could assume a charter or
take a new one, and sometimes guilds had subordinate positions to other guilds.
Sometimes the joined guilds would impale their old arms.  They were very
specialized compared to our guilds -- with some exceptions, e.g., the
Worshipful Company of Musicians, called in their charter the Master, Wardens
and Commonalty of the Art or Science of the Musicians of London.  Note that it
seems to be period to be uncertain whether to call something an Art or Science.
:-) (This grant was in 1604, not quite Corpora-period.)  There were frequent
struggles over who regulated what or over other issues; my favorite was the
argument between the Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers and the College of
Arms over who regulated the painting of shields of arms, and whether the
Company could paint such devices independently of the College.

An example of specialization: there were two kinds of bakers, White Bakers and
Brown Bakers, each restricted by an article of their craft to baking only white
or brown bread respectively.  The Brown Bakers struggled against the White
Bakers' attempts to absorb them, and "emphasized their independence by the
acquisition of their own coat of arms on 28th June 1572."  However, in 1645 the
two merged by joint agreement.

The book has many, many more interesting details in it.

Enjoy,
                Franz

-------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 13:59:14 -0400
From: mfy@sli.com (Mike Yoder)
Message-Id: <9106191759.AA09983@ravel.sli.com>
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: hasty clarification


I have realized upon rereading my post on guilds that a clarification is needed
if I wish to not look ignorant.  I realize there is a difference between Master
(the title) and master, the role, but this isn't evident from what I wrote.

It *is* true that upon becoming jouneyman, a craftsman then worked to become a
master.  The OED gives many definitions of the latter; what I'd like to know is
if any definition used in period was a status requiring a test of some kind.  I
suspect not; my impression is that the transition was a matter of economics,
i.e., you became a master (one who hires apprentices and journeymen) when you
had enough capital.  A master would often be more experienced under such a
system than a "mere" journeyman, but this wouldn't imply formal requirements.

One definition of "master" in the OED says that it meant a person who was
"qualified" by virtue of skill and experience to have subordinate apprentices
and journeymen, but doesn't say that these qualifications were a formal thing
decided upon by the guild.

Another source (I omitted to write its name down, but can get it) indicated
that becoming a master could make one a "full" member of a guild, but gave no
direct citations to support this.  This source was talking about medieval
guilds in general, not just London guilds, and wasn't claiming this was a
universal guild custom.

As usual, details are frustratingly elusive when you deal with these things...
it might also be that different guilds had different customs.  Again, any
related info people have would be welcome.

In service to Carolingia,
                Franz
-----

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 00:45:17 -0400
From: mfy@sli.com (Mike Yoder)
Message-Id: <9107010445.AA08500@ravel.sli.com>
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: guilds


Greetings to all Carolingians from Franz, who wishes you well.

I've read more about medieval guilds... the info could be useful to you
guildfolk out there.  I'm working from memory, and so will only include details
I'm pretty sure about.

Guilds had two to four Wardens; a few (the Mercers, one or two others) styled
their Master "Prime Warden."  Some named their Wardens and gave them particular
duties, e.g. "Swan Warden" for a guild (the Mercers also, I think) that had the
right to keep a flock of swans on the Thames.

Some (most? all?) guilds had a "Beadle," a general assistant to the Master and
Wardens with a distinctive uniform.  The only specific duty I remember is that
he had to try to get the members to show up for meetings.

The "Assistants" of a guild were a consultative body formed of ex-Masters and
ex-Wardens.

Yearly duties performed for (or fees given to) the monarch were, I think, the
exception rather than the rule, but they certainly occurred.

As to journeymen and masters, I've not got a handle on how the London guilds
dealt with them, but it is clear that there was large regional variation across
Europe.  One German system had six ranks; a requirement for attaining one of
them was that you had to wander for a specified period of time!

                In service,                
                Franz