Hi Greg.  

Young men could be apprenticed to any citizen who would have and wanted
them, however family or neighbors were preferred, especially if they lived
within the parish.  When men of the trades were available and open to having
young men within their home, such men were a first choice of any family
without relatives or the means to otherwise pay for such training.  

You know here that the boys were hers (not his), that one was likely 15-17
years old and the other some years younger and both old enough to do
carpentry work, that those boys were to serve terms of apprenticeship
(learning the "art and misteries" sic) - as stated in the entry, that at the
age when their terms were served, each could go about his business and learn
whatever other calling he chose, and, then too, at the end of that service,
each was to have a cow and a calf.  It is apparent that their "master" was a
husbandman or at the least it was anticipated that he or his family would
have such animals to give at the ending of service of the boys. If he did
not, then he and his heirs had a duty through will or otherwise to see to a
set of carpenter tools for each.

The trade of the carpenter was among the relatively few callings that there
were then, and surely that occupation was not considered atall "mundane".  I
suspect that, if men of other trades also were willing to take the boys in,
that their mother and her husband (with the boys having some input) when
making a choice, decided that carpentry was what the boys should and would
like to learn and do.  By so choosing, it was thought that there would
always be work and a livelihood for such men.  While, if a lawyer, physition
(sic) or merchant might take such boys in to "read" and study those
occupations, what few opportunities there were quite usually involved
physical labor.  All folks/boys of that day knew such likelihoods.  

To speak of a "middle class" rather mislabels the standing of men of the
occupations, and that term is almost unknown in early records.  If any
training and occupation above being a common laborer should be called
"middle class", I suppose the lawyers, physitions and businessmen might be
so labeled.  I prefer to think of that distant society in terms of a)
laboring people, b) those who were working in some trade or "calling", c)
those who by any means had risen to a position of affluence and a tad of
wealth, and d) those whose families had brought wealth with them when coming
here or had succeeded and were people of leisure. 

Paul      
**************
Subject: Question about 17th century apprenticeships

Can anyone tell me the likelihood of two young men who lost their father
around the 1680s being apprenticed to either a relative or someone
non-related?

The following is from "Charles City County, Virginia, Court Orders,
1687-1695 With a Fragment of a Court Order Book for the Year 1680"
abstracted and compiled by Benjamin B. Weisiger:

At a Court Holden at Westover 4th June 1688: With consent of Richard Mane(?)
(sic) and his wife, her two sons James Mathews and Tho. Charles Mathews are
bound to ISAAC COLESON, the oldes (sic) until 19 & youngest until 20, to
learn the trade of carpenter and at expiration of their time, he is to give
them each a cow and calf, etc. If Mane dies before they complete their
training he will give them each a set of carpenter's tools.

I'm pretty sure the James Mathews mentioned is my oldest known Mathews
ancestor.  I'm wondering about who Isaac Coleson was and what the
possibility or likelihood of Coleson being some relation to James' mother
(unnamed unfortunately).  Similar circumstances that I've seen in NC in the
18th century placed male children with a relative for apprenticeships.

Also, what was the signficance of the trade that a young man would be
taught?  Was it always something so mundane as carpentry? There are
indications that the brother Tho. Charles Mathews was an attorney later and
several of James' children and grandchildren were attorneys and judges which
leads me to believe that the family were middle to upper middle class
(definitely not upper crust).  Would being apprenticed to be carpenters be
indicative that they were not so well off at this time or was carpentry,
wheelwrights, coopers, etc. the norm for this kind of thing no matter the
social status of the family?

Greg Matthews
 
end

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.13/998 - Release Date: 9/10/2007
8:48 AM