CHAPTER II
THE SOURCES
The primary sources used in this study consist of unpublished manuscripts located in the City Archives of Augsburg.[1] The sources used were principally guild records, supplemented by tax books and muster lists. The guild records of Augsburg, called Handwerker-Akten, include tens of thousands of documents covering a period of about three centuries. Also relevant are the extensive surveys done of the citizenry for military and tax purposes, the Muster Lists (Musterbüchern) and the Tax Books (Steuerbücher), located in the same archive. These sources form the foundations of the present study. Because they have been used so rarely, a discussion of their form and content is in order.
The guilds of Augsburg ceased their independent existence in 1549, after which time al1 records related to guild matters were kept by the city government. These were eventually collected in the City Archives under the heading of Handwerker-Akten. The most important types of documents in this collection are the guild regulations, petitions to the City Council regarding guild matters, and reports to the City Council from guild officials. There are also lists, letters, decrees, even newspaper clippings.
The most familiar type of guild document is the Ord>unuror guild regulations. An Ordnung>u was drawn up by a committee and approved by the City Council (Rat). It provided the written rules for the guildsmen and the basis for judging them. The city from time to time also issued statutes (Acta) in response to specific needs or problems. Moreover, unwritten custom played a role as well, for there were ru1es and procedures that were never recorded as formal regulations.
Complete sets of regulations exist in Augsburg for both the millers and the barbers. An Ordnung was issued for the Millers Guild in 1530 and another was issued in 1549, while the barbers had Ordnungen for 1549 and 1638. There is no full set of regulations for the other two guilds. I have compiled the available articles (Articulen) for these guilds by culling the various other documents that comprise the Handwerker-Akten. Individual articles appear most frequently as addenda to petitions, presented as substantiating evidence for a petitioner's case or for some rebuttal. A search of these produced approximately 75% of the joiners regulations and about 25% of the shoemakers regulations.
Most Ordnungen were similar in their formal structure. An Ordnung always opened with a title, which included some statement that the articles therein had been adopted and approved by the City Council. The first few articles usually dealt in generalities, such as the reason for the formation of the guild. The regulations covering apprentice, journeyman and master then followed, nearly always in that order. There was seldom more than a few articles on apprentices, covering the conditions under which one could become an apprentice, and the fees he must pay. Journeymen received more attention, with additional articles on journeying and marriage. The section on masters normally dealt first with preconditions for admission to mastership, then with the masterpiece, then with business practice, quality control and prices. Special regulations peculiar to the guild were most often the last articles listed. The sequence of presentation might vary with certain guilds, but this was the common order, and the topics themselves appeared in most Ordnungen.
In addition to the formally compiled Ordnung were various decrees issued by the City Council from time to time in response to specific situations. These had as much force as the Ordnung. In some cases, special documents were created that also were part of the body of rules governing a craft. Chief among these were the oaths taken annually by all guildsmen.
The Handwerker-Akten also contain documents called Supplicationen, or petitions. These were letters, addressed to the City Council and originating from anyone in the city, including foreigners. A petition was normally a short document--between one and two pages--and usually concerned a single specific complaint or request. Most followed a standard format: after a formal address, the petitioner described the circumstances or the abuse, along with the reasons why the situation should be rectified. This was followed by a formal closing that also contained the request for action -- the actual petition. Each document was signed, with the author giving his title where appropriate.
No petition, to my knowledge, has ever been published in complete form; indeed, few have ever been cited in a historical work. Because the subject matter they cover is so broad, and because their form and content are virtually unknown in the scholarly community, I shall present here a basic typology along with some representative examples. Before proceeding to a look at the contents of the petitions, it will be helpful to examine for a moment their nature and the legal process involved. There are still many unanswered questions in this regard, but the outlines are clear enough.
Each petition was addressed to the mayor (Burgermeister), the city officials (Stadtpflegere) and the City Council.[3] For the period studied, an average of 15 to 20 petitions a month were received by the Council from these four guilds together. Once a decision was handed down, the supplicant was free to petition again, as often as he liked. Anyone could petition, man or woman, guildsman or non-guildsman, citizen or foreigner. Most of the petitions were actually drawn up by notaries, but some do appear to be autographs, since the signature matches the text. The supplicant normally went to a notary whether or not he was able to write himself, told the notary what he wanted said, and the notary wrote the document, supplying the correct honorifics, openings, closings, and so on. Perhaps he even transmitted the document to the Council. The procedure was probably akin to the modern process of drawing up a will, where a lawyer is used even though the individual is perfectly capable of writing the will himself. Moreover, as with a will, we can be sure that the words accurately reflect the spirit and intent of the author.
A guild official called the Overseer (Vorgeher) normally read each petition and presented his recommendation on the matter to the City Council in a report called a Bericht. The Bericht usually recapped the main points of the petition, then gave the reasons why the petition should be accepted or rejected, and closed with an explicit request that the petition be granted or denied. The Berichte are often the only reaction we have to the petition. On occasion, the Guild Deputies (the Verordnete--a group of appointed officials consisting partly of guildsmen and partly of outsiders) were consulted, usually to render an opinion on some point of precedent. They, too, presented their opinion in a Bericht to the City Council, following a similar format.
It is not clear from the sources what portion of the Council heard the petitions and ruled on them. The opening of the petitions always addressed the entire government: the mayor, the "honored sirs", and the City Council. It seems unlikely that a very large body, such as the Great Council, would hear the dozens of petitions received daily, yet it is equally unlikely that the Small Council would trouble itself over such comparatively petty matters. Most probably, some committee of the Great Council was authorized to hear the petitions and to recommend action to the council at large. The one certain fact is that, when a petition was granted, the permission took the form of a decretum in senatu, which was issued by the council as a whole.
This was the basic process that a petition followed. The form it took is represented by this sample, which is given in full, including the ceremonial opening and closing. Dated in 1549, the petition is one page long and reads:
Noble, honorable, venerable, wise and respected Lord Mayor, city officials and Council of this beloved city of Augsburg: I am a poor man, by God's will. I have been in this praiseworthy city for ten years and diligently support my wife and child. I respectfully declare that I was employed by others as a cobbler for five years, was on my own for two, and have had a family for three. Now, just the other day, the Shoemakers came and forbade me to continue to work as a cobbler until I should make a masterpiece. I have never made a new shoe, nor am I able to; nevertheless, I have the Shoemaker's privilege from my father.
So take into consideration my misfortune and grant my petition most honorable, respected, wise and venerable sirs, and decree that I may be exempted from the masterpiece, because I already have the privilege of the Shoemakers. For otherwise I shall not be able to support my wife and small child in my plight, but rather must live out of the poor sack in poverty. I ask again, under God's will, that you look favorably upon my plea. If you do not give a negative reply, my wife and I will pray our whole lives for your government to prosper.
It is signed, "The humble, obedient citizen, Coman Stauffer, cobbler on the Perlachstieg.[4] Although the subject matter contained in the various petitions varies widely, in its length, tone and structure Stauffer's petition is typical.
The opening (the first three lines on the above petition) was a standard formula, used in all petitions, Overseer's Reports and Deputies' Reports. It was so standard that the formula rema1ned virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries, right down to the order of the honorifics, which were routinely abbreviated as EVFW (edel, vesst, fürsichtig und weißherrn). The opening was followed by a statement of the petitioner's situation or of his purpose in addressing the City Council. In longer petitions, this could be further developed in several paragraphs. The argumentation, short or long, was concluded by a request for action on the part of the Rat. This was the formal petition and again employed the formulaic address (always abbreviated) to the government. Often the petitioner here repeated the grounds for his request in summary form. At the end of the petition was always some promise on the part of the petitioner -- at the least to respect and obey the government, but sometimes extending to a promise to pray for the government, to praise it, or to wish for its prosperity. All documents had a formulaic closing similar to Stauffer's, and all were signed by the author himself, who gave his profession, office or status.
Sometimes a petition would be directed not against the guild but against some individual. In this case the accused individual would present his side of the case in a Gegenbericht>u or counter-report. These were most common in the Barbers Guild, where a patient claimed poor treatment at the hands of the surgeon, while the doctor defended himself against the accusations.
The Handwerker-Akten do not usually indicate the results of these petitions, though occasionally there appears a Decretum>u granting some petition. Sometimes, though, we can tell that a petition was denied because the petitioner submitted a second or third petition, seeking to persuade the City Council to change its decision. This is an example of such supplementary documents:
The Overseer has turned down my petition on the basis of Article 11 of our Guild Regulations, which states that no journeyman should be made a master who learned his craft in a village, but I interpret it differently, for I learned the craft from my father, who was not a foreigner. Moreover, I worked for Thomas Mayr of the Shoemakers Guild (Schuster Stube) for four or five years and he never asked me where I came from, yet he registered me every year.
So grant my request, for I was not apprenticed to a foreigner but to my own father, who was an old master, and do not let the Overseer hinder me. For my part I shall faithfully obey all the guild rules.[5]
Each subsequent petition called forth another Bericht; there appeared to be no limit to the number of petitions that a person could present.
Not all petitions came from individuals. The Guild Deputies and other guild officials could speak on behalf of the guild as a whole. This example dates from 1549 and is signed by fourteen masters of the guild.
We have a rule in our craft that no master may have more than one journeyman and one apprentice. Now a few masters have taken on more journeymen than are allowed.... We are legally constituted with authority over this and other matters, and we desire a change. There is much work in the city and there are many journeymen and apprentices, but there are not enough masters to employ them; so fewer and fewer journeymen approach our guild for work, because they know that a master is allowed only one journeyman.
But look at Nuremburg and other cities. There, the master may have more journeymen. At Nuremburg he may have four. We must not hinder native and foreign workers but rather help them. So grant our plea and allow each master two journeymen plus an apprentice, to live in his home and to build according to need. This will promote work and will support and improve the condition of ourselves, our wives and our children.[6]
These documents sometimes had a signature line that simpiy described the group, as in the above example, but other times each co-petitioner signed separately.
The language in the above example is plain and straightforward--"businesslike" might be the best word. Sometimes, however, the topic of a petition was not business at all, and the sentiment expressed was more personal and touching, as in this example:
The petition submitted on 22 February 1618 by the wife of Daniel Ziegler has been denied. I call upon Burgermeister Stenglin and the honorable ruling men not to avoid the facts. Daniel Ziegler cannot travel, due to age and illness. He wants nothing more than to spend his final days in his native town, so he asks that the Hospital Keeper send out a cart and that he be allowed to die in the Hospital. This is an act of charity and will be rewarded greatly by God Almighty.[7]
One final example will suffice to complete the survey of the Suplicationen>u. This one is similar to the first, the petition from the cobbler Coman Stauffer, and asks the guild to allow him to sell second-hand shoes. I give the document untranslated, however, to give the reader a sample of the original German. After the formulaic opening, the document reads:
Ich armer mann bin von den Schustern für die Straffherren gefordert worden, von wegen des flickens, so die mir wollen woren so ich doch derselbigen gerechtigkait bin von meinem vatter her, und hab darauf gelernet, gleichwol meiner armut halben, nit furgeschnitten, dann ichs, nit vermag zuetreiben, anderst dann zueflicken, bitt derhalben Edel Vest Fursichtig und Weissherren wollen mir hierinn umb Gottes willen verholffen sein damit mir solliches nit abgestreckt werde, dann ich mir ain armer Tagwercker, und mich geren one das almusen wolte ernoren, so beger ich konnen zuemachen, hoff derhalben zue Edel Vest Fursichtig und Weissherren werden mein bitten und begeren gnedigclich erhoren, und ain genedige bewilligung verlerhen bin sollichs gwartende wa ich das umb Edel Vest Fursichtig und Weissherren kundte verdienen wer ich willig genaigt.[8]
Overseer's Reports and Deputies' Reports closely resembled the petitions in form. The following two example are respectively a recommendation that a petition be granted, and a recommendation for denial.
In regard to Hans Kummerlin's petition, we believe that the fine of four florins imposed on him is excessive. We also believe that, while he did go to the New Mill without authority and was working there illegally, he did so out of ignorance. Therefore, we ask that the fine be removed.[9]
Our regulations require that a journeyman work for six years prior to applying for mastership, but this petitioner has worked only two years for master joiners -- the rest of the time he has worked for a clockmaker. For this reason he cannot know how to make a joiner's masterpiece, for that is peculiar to the joiner's craft, nor can he know our regulations and articles, for he can neither have heard nor read them. Therefore, we do not recommend acceptance of this petition.[10]
In a few cases, the decision of the City Council is included in the Handwerker-Akten. These decisions took the form of a decree called a Decretum in senatu. Normally quite brief, a Decretum simply stated that so-and-so should refrain from or be allowed to do some thing from that day forward. These were usually quite brief and often appeared as addenda to petitions. For example, the following decree was an addendum to the petition presented above from the fourteen master joiners.
Any foreign journeyman who would become a master here must first have worked for one citizen master or two for six years. He must also pay twenty florins to the City Council for the guild privileges.[11]
The Handwerker-Akten also contain a miscellany of other useful documents. The most important of these are the various lists -- mainly lists of masters or of guildsmen who owed fines to the city -- and correspondence, mainly between guilds. There are also occasional imperial edicts and other communications from princes both secular and clerical. Finally there are occasional documents that are simply one of a kind: a diagram of the slaughterhouse and the owners of the stalls therein; samples of work done by book illustrators; a description of an invention for a new type of mill that would "do the work of a hundred men." Seldom can one make generalizations from these small treasures, but they are fascinating in their own right and do in fact sometimes shed unexpected light on a problem.
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the term Handwerker-Akten covers a wide variety of documents. It will facilitate an understanding of them to group them by type. The fundamental divisions are three: regulations and associated documents, petitions and associated documents, and miscellaneous documents. The first group includes Ordnungen, Decreta, and individual Articulen. The second includes Supplicationen, Vorgeher Berichte, Verordnete Berichte, and Acta. The miscellaneous group includes Briefe, Verzeichnisse, and a variety of random documents. Each group sheds light on a different area, but all are connected in some way to a specific guild.
The value of these sources should be immediately apparent. Here we have, as in the case of the cobbler Stauffer, a document directly from the gemeine Mann. The document tells us some of the circumstances of his life, tells us something about the Shoemakers Guild, and gives us a glimpse into the cobbler's mind as he tells why he feels the city should grant his petition. Where else may we find a source that speaks with a cobbler's voice? The traditional sources on the common man are all literary, and contain the bias inevitable in such records. In this petition, however, we have a cobbler, one step away from living on the public dole, speaking in his own words about his own life. Add to this document not merely a few, but literally thousands of others from artisans of every craft, and you have a chronicle of society of unparalleled value. Add to this social chronicle the reports from the guild officials that accompanied the petitions, and you have a continuous record of guild and civil administration that runs the length of the early modern period. Nor are these sources unique to Augsburg. Occasional citations by other historians prove that the system of petitioning was used in other early modern cities, and that at least a few collections have survived. Yet, the sources have not to date formed the basis of a single major study of any type. One purpose of my study is to bring attention to their full potential.
The information contained in the Handwerker-Akten is supplemented nicely by the statistical data of the tax books and muster lists. The former have been used by several historians, because Augsburg possesses an unusually complete set, running from 1378 to 1717. They have also been used because they provide a convenient means for dividing the city into "classes" and doing a variety of social and economic analyses. The Muster Lists have been used rarely, for they are based on occupation rather than "classes" (that is, wealth). Only one historian has connected Tax Book to Muster List, and his aim was to classify occupations according to class.[12]
As an imperial city, the government of Augsburg levied its own taxes to finance itself and its administration of the city. There were three types of personal taxes paid.[13] There was a nominal annual tax called the Wachgeld, which was owed by every citizen and which went for the maintenance of the city's defenses. In addition, every citizen paid a capitation tax of 30 pennies once every seven years.[14] Beyond these basic taxes was a property tax, levied on cash-on-hand, immovable property, rent income, brass, coal, wood, lead, livestock, grain, tools and other items connected with the workplace.[15] Specifically exempted from the tax were silverware, rings and other jewelry, all household effects, food for one year, two milk cows with their fodder and two horses for a gentleman.[16]
Silverware and the like that was used for guests was taxed at one-half the regular rate, so one cou1d not pass off too much wealth as "household effects.[17] Immovable property was taxed at ½ florin per 100 florins of value; for movable property the rate was ¼ florin per 100.[18] There was no income tax. Anyone who paid the per capita tax and the Wachgeld but no property tax was called habnits--literally, "have-nots". Each summer the Steuermeister (Tax Master) would oversee the levying of the taxes. A tax book was drawn up by the government that divided the city into districts.[19] Tax agents then worked district by district, recording names and amount of tax owed by each head of household, based on that individual's sworn statement of assets.[20]
The Tax Books represent propertied wealth, not income. It would have been possible for a craftsman with little taxable property to have a large income and so live better than the Tax Books would suggest. Similarly, someone with much property and a high tax might have had iittle cash and so have lived close to poverty. Both of these were possible, but without independent sources to confirm level of wealth we cannot determine the direction or even existence of any bias in the data; we can only acknowledge its possibility.
The Tax Books provide an invaluable resource and have been utilized by a number of historians.[21] Tax information is extremely useful, as the works of these historians have shown, but tax data alone is of limited utility. When figures on wealth stand alone, there is no context, making interpretation of the numbers more difficult. Wealth is a more useful measure to the historian when it is coupled with other data. This other data is supplied, in the case of Augsburg, by the Muster Lists (Musterbücher). The two in conjunction yield a depth to the statistical description that is lacking in studies based on the Tax Books alone.
The Muster Lists were surveys of the citizenry conducted whenever the government felt compelled to do so. In the volatile atmosphere of the 1610's, the City Council commissioned three such surveys in the course of ten years: 1610, 1615 and 1619.[22] The list of masters in each guild was complete save for widows, who appeared on the Muster Lists only when they had sons or journeymen. City agents conducted the survey, working from a list of questions supplied them by the Rat.[23] In 1610 these questions consisted of name, age, type of arms possessed, and military experience. In 1615 and 1619 the questions about arms and military experience were dropped while questions about the number of sons, journeymen and hometown of the journeymen were added. "Sons" probably meant military-aged sons and not children. All journeymen were of military age. The place of origin, called the Heimatort, was listed for each journeyman, but the names of the journeymen were not recorded.
A fourth survey was conducted in 1645, in the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War.[24] This Musterbuch was quite different from the earlier ones, listing name, number of people, district and religion. The heading Personen may mean household, in which case it would include resident apprentices and journeymen, or it may be restricted to family. Since the city will have been interested primarily in the number of able-bodied citizens, and as co-resident family members exclusive of non-related dependents was not a very meaningful social unit in pre-modern times, I am inclined to believe that Personen meant household. For the religion of these people there were two columns, one headed Protestant, the other Catholic. No other choices existed.
The information reported to the census takers was not consistent, particularly in the category of age. The difference in age from the 1610 to the 1615 Muster List was not always five years. Sometimes it was eight or two. Some individuals miraculously grew younger. The inconsistencies appear to have been random, so that the aggregate errors probably approximate zero. A second inconsistency was administrative. The city was divided into about 130 to 180 districts for the muster census, but the lines of division were different each time. The evidence for this is that so many individuals are found in a different district from one muster census to the next, we are forced to conclude either that there was an astonishing mobility rate in early modern Augsburg (over 50% in four years) or that the administrative boundaries shifted. Since the "move" most often was from one to an adjacent district, the latter conclusion is far more likely. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to derive a measure of geographic mobility within the city, which would have been interesting and worthwhile.
The Muster Lists have rarely been used and have not, to my knowledge, ever been used to analyze specific segments of the population. Yet with occupation, age, location and other vital statistics so readily available, it is a wonder why this should be the case. I have made full use of them in the present work to provide a detailed description of each Handwerk. The Muster Lists are the principal source of basic data on the middle classes of Augsburg in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. When coupled with the Tax Books, they provide a solid descriptive framework for subsequent interpretive analysis. I have connected the two together in more extensive fashion to provide correlation between craft, wealth, age, size of shop, religion, location and a variety of other factors. My purpose is to analyze craft rather than class, for it is my conviction that, for the social historian, occupation is a more meaningful unit of analysis than c1ass. Inasmuch as the craft belonged to a particular "class" (as measured by the Tax Books), then my conclusions are applicable to the class as wel1.
NOTES
1. The entire col1ection of guild records -- along with tax lists, muster rolls, citizenship records and other documents -- has been microfilmed and is available to scholars at the Genea1ogical Society Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. It is from this excellent and extensive microfilm collection that the documents used in this study are taken. All citations refer to documents whose originals are located in the Stadtarchiv Augsburg.
2. Genealogical Society Library Microfilm (GSLM)## 466,116 contains both the Ordnungen for the Millers Guild. It also contains the several editions of the 1549 Ordnung plus the Miller's Oath and other documents relating to the administration of the guild. The Bader und Barbierer Ordnung for 1549 is found on GSLM# 581,003, and the one for 1639 is on GSLM# 581,006.
3. The number of petitions submitted by a given guild varied greatly. Some guilds submitted ten or more petitions a month, while others might not submit a single petition all year.
4. Handwerker-Akten (H-A), Schuhmacher, Coman Stauffer, Suplication, 1549, GSLM# 469,607.
5. H-A, Schuhmacher, Matheiß Baur, Gericht, 27 Jan. 1611, GSLM# 548,059.
6. H-A, Kistler, 14 Geschworne Maistern, Suplication, 1550, GSLM# 534,604.
7. H-A, Barbierer und Bader, Daniel Schwarz, Suplication, 3 March 1618, GSLM# 581,005.
8. H-A, Barbierer und Bader, Paul Hirblinger, Supption>u, 1549, GSLM# 469,945.
9. H-A, Müller, Veordnete Bericht, 21 July 1611, GSLM# 466,463.
10. H-A, Kistler>u, Veordnete Bericht, 1610, GSLM# 534,607.
11. H-A, Kistler>u, Decretum in>u Senatu>u, 21 July 1604, GSLM# 534,607
12. Friedrich Blendinger, ''Versuch einer Bestimmung der Mittelschichte in der Reichsstadt Augsburg vom Ende des 14. bis zum Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts,'' in Stadtische Mittelschichten, eds. Erich Maschke and Jurgen von Sydow (Stuttgart, 1972), pp. 32 - 78.
13. The most important tax in terms of revenue, however, was the , which was a tax levied on basic foodstuffs at the point of sale.
14. Explanation of monetary units is always difficult. The units of conversion are simple enough: 60 pennies -- Pfennige -- equalled one Kreuzer. Sixty Kreuzer equalled one florin. What buying power these amounts represented is more difficu1t to ascertain, nor shall I attempt to do so here. Anyone wishing to convert the figures given in this book into buying power may refer to M. J. Elsas, Umriß einer Geschichte der Preise und Lohne in Deutschland vom ausgehenden Mittelalter bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (Leiden, 1936-1949).
15. Clasen, Weber, p. 8.
16. Blendinger, Versuch, p. 37.
17. Clasen, Weber, p. 9.
18. Blendinger, Versuch, pp. 37 and 39.
19. Claus Peter Clasen, Die Augsburger Steuerbücher um 1600, (Augsburg, 1976), p. l5.
20. The tax books are on GSLM# 407,871.
21. Prominent among these are: Clasen, Weber; Blendinger, Versuch; Jakob Strieder, Zur Genesis des modernen Kapitalismus. Forschungen zur Entstehung der großen burgerlichen Kapitalvermögen am Ausgang des Mittelalters und zu Beginn der Neuzeit, zunachst in Augsburg, 2nd ed., (Munich and Leipzig, 1931); Jakob Hartung, "Die direkten Steuern und die Vermogensentwicklung in Augsburg von der Mitte des 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert,"' Schmollers Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft 22 (l898); Anton Mayr, Die grossen Augsburger Veurmen in der Zeit von 1618 bis 1717, (Augsburg, 1931).
22. Like the tax books, the muster lists were indexed, not only by name but by craft as well. The indices for 1610 and 1615 are on GSLM# 476,285, and the index for 1619 is on GSLM# 476,286. The actual lists are on GSLM# 476,288 (for 16l0 and 1615) and GSLM# 476,289 (for 16l9).
23. Paul von Stetten, Geschichte der Heilige Romische Reichs Stadt Augspurg, aus bewahrten Jahr-Büchern, tuchtigen Urkunden und schriftlichen Handlungen Gezogen..., 2 vols., (Frankfurt, 1743-1758), p. 818.
24. The actual muster list for 1645 has not survived, but the index can be found on GSLM# 476,286.