Guilds -- where to begin?
A guild was a local organization of the people (mostly men) who were
engaged in a specific craft: shoemaking, weaving, baking, etc. They were
created to control competition among their members and as such they could
control wages and hours for journeyman workers and their apprentices;
they also determined individual output and so controlled supply and
prices. They controlled who could belong -- as chartered institutions
they had law and tradition on their side in preventing anyone from just
opening shop. They were not like a modern union at all in that they were
really associations of mastercraftsmen -- not the laborers. They did
have some elements of fellowship in that they were supportive of their
membership and families.
All of this of course is an ideal -- the realities would be somewhat
different by the seventeenth century when England was in the throes of
the commercial revolution. Guilds were under pressure from entrepreneurs
who lived outside of their respective jurisdictions and who fed a growing
demand for goods. By the 18th century, there would be even greater
pressures brought by the introduction of industrial/mechanical innovations.
As to this "formula" for parcelling out sons into the world, I think this
should be taken with a grain of salt. Bruce was trying to set up an
analysis of the social origins of a certain class of Virginians, not
necessarily to define the nature of English society. I mean, if one
really had a "landed estate" to pass on, would one relegate even the
youngest son to a life in a vulger trade?
David Kiracofe
College of Charleston
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:39:11 -0500 Netti Schreiner-Yantis wrote:
> Dear History List Subscribers:
>
> I hope I am not imposing, but I have another question
> which I hope someone can help me with. Does anyone
> have knowledge about the English guilds? Or can
> someone suggest books or articles about them which might
> enlighten me?
>
> Philip Alexander Bruce states on page 84 of SOCIAL LIFE
> OF VIRGINIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY:
>
> “. . . it was usual, in the seventeenth century, to keep
> the eldest at home if he was to inherit the whole of
> the landed estates; the second was sent to one of the
> great universities, in order to prepare himself to enter
> a learned profession, such as law, physic, or divinity;
> the third was apprenticed to a local solicitor, apothecary,
> or surgeon; the fourth to a pewterer or watch-maker,
> or the like. It will be observed that the employments
> selected were graduated in social importance according
> to the relative ages of the sons; the youngest fared the
> worst in the dignity of the calling chosen for him, but
> in order that he might acquire the highest skill in his
> mechanical craft, it was customary for him to be
> dispatched to London . . . the membership of the
> guilds themselves was confned to men who had enjoyed
> a long and careful training.”
>
> Other questions:
>
> 1. Has anyone found the above rather rigid formula
> to be true? Or untrue? Or partially true?
>
> 2. How did one become part of a guild? Were you
> invited? Did you take a test? Did you apply and
> were voted on? Etc.
>
> 3. Was a guild more like a present-day union? Or
> was it a fraternity made up of buddies? Or just
> what? If the guild was—as stated above—open
> only to men who had a long and careful training,
> did this limit the members to families who had
> the money to provide this training? Or was an
> apprenticeship free to any who wanted it?
>
> 4. What were the advantages/disadvantages of
> belonging to a guild?
>
> 5. Are there any records which give names of members
> of the guilds going back to the 17th century?
>
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Netti Schreiner-Yantis
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
David Kiracofe
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
