CHAPTER III

THE CITY

The beginning of an analysis of a guild must lie in the investigation of the historical environment in which the guild existed. This chapter is a brief survey of that historical environment, the city of Augsburg. The survey does not begin to cover the whole of what is known, for Augsburg was a great city and has been studied by many scholars. Rather, those aspects that were important to the guilds themselves will be stressed, with the aim of presenting the historical context, the immediate environment, in which the craftsmen lived and worked. The survey begins with a look at the geography of the city.

Augsburg is located near the foot of the Tyrol, in the Bavarian county of Swabia. The city is situated adjacent to the Lech River, a major tributary of the Danube River and one of the principal trade routes connecting Venice to northern Europe. As with most important medieval cities, Augsburg was favored both by geography and politics. As the first significant city north of the Brenner Pass, Augsburg became closely tied to Venetian trade and Venetian prosperity. Lying close to the land routes leading east into Austria and Hungary, the city also developed trading connections with those regions. Finally, Augsburg's proximity to the Tyrol permitted its merchants to take early advantage of that region's mining industry.

Augsburg's favorable geographic position indirectly influenced its political position. Emperor Maximilian I chose Augsburg as one of his favorite cities, and had a residence built there. The city was beautiful, participated fully in the Renaissance, and was conveniently situated. It was adjacent to Hapsburg territory, close to Italy, and not too far from the campaigns in the east against the Turks. Furthermore, Maximilian, who was in chronic need of money, became dependent upon loans from wealthy Augsburg families, and this may have influenced his choice. A similar combination of money and geography affected his grandson, Charles V, who chose the city as the site for several imperial diets. Charles was, if anything, even more dependent upon Augsburg money than was Maximilian, and the city's proximity to Italy, Hungary and Hapsburg lands was probably as attractive to the grandson as it had been to the grandfather.

The physical topography of Augsburg was determined by the historical development of the town. Augsburg was a Roman foundation, Augusta Vindelicorum, though there was little, if any, continuity between the Roman and the medieval city.[1] It was founded atop a hill that overlooked the convergence to the north of two rivers: the Lech, and the smaller Wertach. The medieval settlement grew up around the cathedral and a noble residence to the south. Broadly speaking, there were four historical districts, or Viertel, in the town. The cathedral district was in the north-central section of the city, atop the hill. This was at one time the Bischofsstadt, entirely enclosed by its walls. The southern side of these walls were, by the seventeenth century, penetrated by numerous streets and alleys leading from the episcopal city to a merchant and tradesman's district. East was the Jacober Vorstadt, a major suburb that developed during the Middle Ages. To the north of the cathedral was another suburb, eventually referred to as the Weavers Quarter, but which at this time was divided into St. George's and St. Stephan's. These four districts -- the cathedral district, the Jacober Vorstadt, the Weavers Quarter, and the merchant's quarter -- comprised the basic physical divisions of the city (see Map One).[2]

The Lech River ran to the east of Augsburg, the Wertach River to the west, the two rivers meeting less than a kilometer north of the city. The Wertach was fished, but its waters were never diverted for use as canals. The entire Jacober Vorstadt, in contrast, was located on low-lying land and reached to within two or three hundred meters of the Lech. Canals led from the Lech into Augsburg at three points: a major canal, called the Lechkanal, entered the city at the Schwibboggen Tor just north of the Hospital and just south of the Hospital at the Rotes Tor (see Map Two). The southerly branch formed the Upper Lech canal, while the northern branch divided to form the Middle and Lower Lech canals, all running parallel to each other one block apart north through town. A second canal, called the Ochsenlech, built in 1445, entered the city at the Vogel Tor on the southwest side of the Jacober Vorstadt and ran north through that suburb. The two canal systems were joined by a small canal in 1495 on the northwestern side of the Jacober Vorstadt, where they exited the city to the north.[3] These canals powered most of the city's mills, which were under the supervision of the Master of the Lech (Lechmeister).[4]

The city was divided administratively in several different ways, and the lines drawn shifted regularly. The muster rolls normally divided the city into six districts: the two subdivisions of the Weavers Quarter mentioned above, plus the cathedral district, the merchant district, and the Jacober Vorstadt. The latter was large enough that it was subdivided into four sections, while the cathedral district and the merchant district were subdivided into two sections. Each section or district was divided again into neighborhoods or streets containing only one or two dozen houses on the average. These were the Gassen (streets) that formed the most immediate sense of community. Each Gasse had a neighborhood captain and lieutenant, and an assembly point to which citizens were to report in case of fire, war, or other alarm.[6] These boundaries for militia purposes were drawn differently than for tax purposes, and the militia lines shifted somewhat with each census. Both the tax and the military surveys, however, used six districts as the typical major administrative divisions.

The economic and social topography of Augsburg corresponded to these divisions. Land was expensive in the cathedral district, and most of it was owned by the Bishop of Augsburg. Those private citizens who resided in the district tended to be well-off, and there was a relatively low concentration of artisans here. The Weavers Quarter was poor and heavily populated, particularly in the two quarters of St. George and St. Stephan. The Heilige Kreuzer Viertel had a less heavy concentration of weavers in it. This was also the smallest quarter in Augsburg and may have been in some way a northwest extension of the Merchants Quarter. The heart of the city was concentrated in and around the Perlach and the Rathaus. Here resided the Fuggers, Welsers, Paumgartners and other famous families. Here were the public buildings such as the Metz, the Stadtmarkt, the Rathaus, the Zeughaus (see Map Two). Further south were the Hospital and the Poor House. The Jacober Vorstadt was populated mainly by artisans and small retailers.[6] The famous Fuggerei, a poor house founded by Jacob Fugger, was also located here. No one has ever done a study of occupational location for Augsburg, though the sources certainly exist for one. Judging from the data collected for the four guilds under consideration here, plus a purely subjective impression gained from researching those guilds, I would say that distribution of most trades was fairly even throughout the city. A high concentration of public or ecclesiastical buildings and restricted access to water power were the two main factors disturbing the evenness of this distribution. Such a spatial study is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but would provide valuable insights into the society and economy of Augsburg.

Augsburg's political history as an independent entity can be said to have begun in 1276, when it won free of the last vestiges of episcopal rule and became an imperial city.[7] In 1368 there occurred a Zunftrevolution, which was not so much a"guild revolution" as a coup carried out by a circle of merchants and their followers.[8] It was a bloodless coup and resulted in a new constitution (Zunftverfassung) for Augsburg, giving certain guilds direct representation on the City Council, where they now held a majority over the patricians. Far from bringing all artisans into the government, the Zunftverfassung provided representation to only seventeen guilds (Zunfte). The Zunfte were not only craft guilds but were political units, representing the most influential groups within the city: great merchants (Kaufleute), weavers (Weber), local merchants (Kramer), bakers (Baker), butchers (Metzger), shoemakers (Schuster), furriers (Kurschner), tailors (Gewandschneider), brewers (Bierbrauer and Bierschenken, or beer sellers), rough wool weavers (Loder, Geschlachtgewander), carpenters (Zimmerleute), leatherers (Lederer), shopkeepers (Hucker), smiths (Schmiede), turners (Schaffler), fishermen (Fischer), and salt and wine merchants (Salzfertiger, Weinschenken).[9] Although the commoners did not take over completely, power was nevertheless shared under the new constitution andthe hold of the patriciate on the City Council was broken.

The guilds of this period were autonomous entities. They elected their own leader, the Zunftmeister, and a Council of Twelve (Zwölfern) to rule them. They also elected supervisors, inspectors and other officials as appropriate. They held an absolute majority on both the Inner Council and the Great Council that comprised Augsburg's government. It was this independence and political power that has led most historians to characterize this period as the "height of the guilds". It is important to understand the limits of this characterization. In the first place, several of the most powerful guilds represented merchant interests more than artisinal interests. The butchers, salt and wine guild, and the weavers were all dominated by merchants. Three of the guilds were specifically mercantile in nature: the Kaufleute (most powerful of all the guilds), the Kramer, and the Hucker (who dealt in local distribution of agricultural products such and grain and timber). Moreover, most guilds had only a very indirect representation. Few guilds were powerful enough to form their own Zunft; namely, the bakers, butchers, brewers, shoemakers, furriers, weavers, and merchants (Kaufleute). Many guilds were not a part of the seventeen Zunfte at all. Many others were amalgamated. For example, the carpenters' Zunft included masons and other building trades, plus the millers. The turners included waggoners and others who worked in wood. The smiths guild included not only all who worked with forged metal (nailsmiths, coppersmiths, armorers, ironsmiths, etc.), but also glassmakers, painters, goldsmiths, engravers, and others. The Zunft, therefore, must be viewed as a political unit as much as an economic unit. Most artisans had little or no say in the decision-making process; indeed, many crafts were completely unrepresented.

During the next 150 years, the city grew enormously in size, wealth and prestige.[10] By the early sixteenth century, Augsburg was entering its economic golden age, but the Reformation brought religious strife and political eclipse. The majority of the citizens were Protestant, but many of the city's leading citizens were strongly Catholic. With no clear majority on the City Council, the government was torn between the demand of a majority of its citizens for church reform and the fear of reprisals from its Catholic lord and neighbors. The Rat consciously tried to steer a middle course between these two dangers, and succeeded for three decades, despite the problems arising from serving as host to two imperial diets while trying to placate the militant and vocal Protestant elements among the citizenry.[11]

Efforts at moderation failed in the volatile atmosphere of the 1540's. Led by the guildsman Jacob Herbrot, the militants took Augsburg into the Schmalkaldic League and into war. In 1548 Charles V laid siege to the city. Cut off from both food and markets, the great industrial and financial center soon capitulated, and imperial troops occupied the city. In a dramatic move that surprised nearly everyone, the Emperor called the Mayor and City Council to the main hall of the bishop's palace. At this meeting, the Imperial Vice-Chancellor read a statement from Emperor Charles to the effect that the City Council was dissolved, and that he was appointing a new one, which would be charged with redrawing the city's constitution.[12] The entire Council along with all city officials were thereupon relieved of their offices. The new City Council consisted of 21 patricians, three Mehreren (a position halfway between patrician and commoner), and seven commoners. Catholicism was fully restored in the city, and many leading Protestants were forced out.[13]

In 1549, following imperial instructions, the City Council drew up a new Workers' Ordinance, which dissolved the Zünfte. The Zunft master and the committees of the Twelvers were abolished, and each guild was placed under overseers (Vorgehern) appointed by the City Council. The plate and guild houses of ten guilds were confiscated, and the proceeds went to pay the large indemnity levied on the city as punishment for its resistance by Charles V. Guildsmen were forbidden to hold assemblies, openly or in private.[14] It was the end of the Zunftverfassung in Augsburg. Gone were the political guilds, the Zünfte, and representation on the Council was permanently tipped in favor of the patriciate and the merchants, though commoners still had a minority representation. Charles had no complaints with guilds or the guild system. He simply was determined to remove the guilds from political power and to eliminate the possibility that guildsmen or other commoners could ever dictate policy. This he accomplished in 1549.

The political issues of the Reformation were settled in Augsburg in 1555. The city was Catholic in its foreign policy, but passively so; internally, it was staunchly neutral. A tacit policy of parity in government offices finally was enacted into law in 1648. The situation in the early seventeenth century was stable, therefore, and the city had not seen any serious political debate since the Kalendarstreit of the 1570's.

Demographic data provide a yardstick frequently used to measure a city's economy and society. The most complete study of Augsburg's demography was made by Aloys Schreiber. Although his estimates of total population are somewhat high, he provides the only extended discussion of the subject. His figures show that Augsburg's population was essentially stable from 1537 to 1619, varying no more than seven percent over the entire eighty year span.[15] During the terrible plague years of 1627-1628 and the Swedish Occupation (1632-1635), the city suffered enormous losses, which had reached over fifty percent by 1634. It did not recover its prewar population until the population boom of the nineteenth century.[16]

The years under consideration here were exceptionally stable. There was no plague in the 1610's. There were three epidemics of fever, but losses were not extensive.[17] The ratios of births to deaths to marriages were very healthy and the city was enjoying a modest spurt of growth. The calamities of the Thirty Years' War were still a decade in the future, while no demographic crisis had befallen the town since 1607. Augsburg in 1610 was at the end of a period of rapid growth and had reached a historic high in population. The total taxed wealth of the city reached a level in 1618 that it never achieved again.[18]

The number of people in Augsburg doubled between 1475 and 1619, from around 15,000 to over 30,000. Certain crafts grew at an even faster pace: there were 96 tailors in 1475, 208 in 1619; there were 56 goldsmiths in 1529 and 189 in 1619.[19] By comparison, there were 90 shoemakers in 1536, 115 in 1615, and 130 in 1653. There were only three joiners in 1403, while there were 122 in 1615.[20] Most dramatic was the growth and decline of the weavers: 550 in 1475, 2,289 in 1619 and 660 in 1679. The city was ravaged by the Thirty Years' War and did not recover its pre-war population until well into the nineteenth century.[21]

Augsburg, for a time during the sixteenth century, was among the premier financial centers of Europe. Its mining companies were without peer, its trading companies operated on the largest scale, and its great families financed some of the most prestigious and powerful nobles in Europe. The city experienced its period of greatest economic growth in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, based on the weaving and mining industries together with international trade and finance. It was a European city of the first rank, and was generally considered the richest city in Germany.[22] A variety of factors put an end to the period of rapid expansion around the middle of the sixteenth century. By 1600, Augsburg was no longer in the first rank of financial and trading centers, and was entering the period generally described as the "decline of Augsburg".[23] The causes for this decline have been assigned to various factors by a variety of scholars.[24] I will not discuss those interpretations here, except to point out that Augsburg's so-called decline was, in the early seventeenth century, not so much a decline as it was slow or zero growth. Augsburg on the eve of the Thirty Years' War was as rich as she had ever been, and still brooked no rivals within Germany. If cities like Antwerp were overshadowing her, what late-medieval center did not share the same fate? Some of her great families had suffered severe losses and even bankruptcy, but others had risen to take their place. If there were symptoms of decline, they were restricted and not readily visible to contemporaries. Augsburg's economy, while no longer expanding, was at full maturity, and contemporaries had no reason to think that Augsburg's"Golden Age" would not continue indefinitely.

There were two economies in Augsburg, as there were in every large city: an external economy, with production for export, international finance and foreign investments and agents; and an internal economy, with production confined to the domestic market and little involvement with economies outside the central place region. Most goods and services consumed by Augsburgers were produced and sold by Augsburgers within the city. Three industries, however, had significant involvement in international markets: cloth, meat and precious metals.

The weaving industry was the original basis of Augsburg's late medieval prosperity, and much of the city's demographic growth in the sixteenth century was due to the influx of weavers.[25] The guild was extremely influential politically prior to 1548, and was also the source of repeated disturbances among the populace. The weavers of Augsburg primarily produced wool and linen, with nearly three thousand weavers being employed at the industry's height early in the 1600's. In 1610, 43% of the artisans were weavers; and for the population as a whole, every fifth person was a weaver.[26] Many of Augsburg's great families made their original fortunes in the export of Augsburg cloth.

There were other industries in Augsburg that produced for export as well. Although the next largest guild in Augsburg was the Tailors Guild, with 196 members in 1610, its activities were strictly local. The goldsmiths, however, sold to an international market and were only slightly fewer in number (187 goldsmiths in 1610). This industry continued to grow after the Thirty Years War. In the eighteenth century Augsburg goldsmiths were among the most prominent in central Europe, selling their products to the courts at Munich and Vienna as well as engaging in money lending.[27] The meat trade was the third important area of production. The butchers purchased cattle from as far away as Poland and Hungary, slaughtered them in Augsburg, and sold the meat to western markets.[28]

The export business was one important segment of the second major area of activity in Augsburg's externai economy -- trade. International trade formed the foundation of the wealth of the patriciate and was based not only on Augsburg's wool and silk but also on spices and cloth from the Mediterranean, with the city acting as a distribution node for Venetian goods.[29]

Mining was the third foundation of Augsburg's weaith, particularly in silver and copper. The city was one of the prime agents in the mining boom in central Europe during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In Hungary, the Tyrol, Carinthia and Bohemia Augsburg families hired or formed partnerships with men who introduced major innovations in mining technology, producing enormous fortunes. In a single year the Fuggers mined 27,000 florins worth of silver and 121,600 florins of copper.[30] The profit alone for a seven year period from the Tyrolean and Carinthian Trade Company (a mining company, despite its name) was 921,518 florins.[31] Eventually overwhelmed by the influx of American silver, the mines of central Europe played out in the seventeenth century, and Augsburgers were not significantly involved in mining after the Thirty Years' War.[32]

These three areas of activity -- weaving, trade and mining -- formed the basis of family fortunes that were a match for any in Europe. There was so much wealth here that Augsburg families could act as financiers on an unprecedented scale. Each area was related to the other so that, as the European economy prospered, Augsburg's economy boomed. Conversely, when the international economy sagged, the city's patrician fortunes crashed, and some even went bankrupt. The history of the renowned Fugger family illustrates the relationships.

Around the year 1380 a weaver named Hans Fugger, from the village of Graben, entered Augsburg, and a few years later purchased citizenship. He was highly successful, leaving an estate worth 3,000 florins. For two generations in the fifteenth century his descendants followed the twin paths of weaver and cloth merchant. In 1459, Jacob Fugger was born. He was the second in the family with that name, though the nickname given him by contemporaries was "the Rich".[33] When he was only eighteen years old, he was the seventh richest man in the city in taxed wealth.[34] In 1480 Jacob and his two brothers invested in mines in the Alpine Bergbau and in others near Salzburg. In 1483 the Fuggers expanded into Tyrolean copper and in 1494 into Hungarian and Carinthian mines.[35] The family soon developed a way to expand its mining operations at a phenomenal rate. Using the income from existing mines, the Fuggers made loans to nobles of high rank, who in turn pledged one or more years' income from their own mines. The Fuggers then took over operation of these mines, increased their output with advanced techniques, and reaped windfall profits. As often as not, the nobles defaulted on their loans and the Fuggers obtained the mines outright. One of the family's best customers was Emperor Maximilian I, whose favorite residence was Augsburg and who was in chronic need of cash. In 1515, Maximilian pledged the income from his copper mines for four years.[36] The princely income from these mines put the Fuggers in a powerful position. When Emperor Charles V was maneuvering for the imperial election, he went through a vast quantity of borrowed money. There were three main sources of funds in the whole process: the Welsers (another Augsburg family of note), who loaned 143,000 florins; the cities of Genoa and Florence, which together loaned 165,000 florins; and the Fuggers, who loaned nearly twice the amount of the others combined -- 543,000 florins.[37] The largest single loan ever made by the family was 560,000 florins; the largest loss absorbed was for 750,000 florins.[38] While few families operated on the scale of the Fuggers, there were many that had extensive business dealings in the three areas of weaving, mining and finance.

Besides being a center of industry, trade and finance, Augsburg was also the dominant city in Swabia. It was an administrative center even though it owned no land outside its own walls, for the Bishop of Augsburg administered many lands and jurisdictions.[39] Many of Augsburg's wealthier citizens, moreover, owned land outside the city, influencing life in those areas directly. In turn, these properties provided grain, wood and other vital supplies to the city. The holdings of religious institutions were especially important in the provision of goods.[40] Augsburg was the primary central place, with Kempten in the second rank, places such as Memmingen and Nordlingen in the third rank, and towns like Lauingen, Mindelheim and Wertingen in the fourth tier. All these towns fell within the effective reach of Augsburg's central place region; that is, within the range of forty to sixty kilometers.[41] The city was also a central place for communications such as mail, printing and news: the first post road was built through Augsburg in 1496; there were six Bibles printed between 1473 and 1490 alone; and the first newspaper, a Neue Zeitung, appeared in 1482.[42]

The internal economy of Augsburg in the early seventeenth century showed little or no sign of ailing health, despite the dislocations on the international scene. No one has written a history of Augsburg's domestic economy, so it is difficult to make an informed judgment in this regard, but the size of guilds (a relatively reliable measure of growth or decline) remained more or less constant for the years 1610-1619. Since the internal economy produced for the citizenry alone, growth would have been in direct relation to the size of the population, and the overall population of Augsburg had remained steady for decades. The reason for the divergent fortunes of the two economies is that the two really were quite unrelated. The flow of capital in the external economy was handled by a small coterie of great families whose investments, factors and interests lay outside the city walls.

The flow of capital in the internal economy was almost entirely confined within the city walls. Some guildsmen, such a butchers or goldsmiths, dealt directly with the outside world, but most guildsmen did not. They bought locally and sold locally; indeed, some were forbidden to do otherwise.[43] Consequently, dislocations in the one sector might not affect the other at all. The bankruptcy of the Welsers in 1610, for example, probably had little impact on the Shoemakers Guild. Conversely, problems in the Barbers and Bathhouse Keepers Guild would have had little effect on the Fuggers or the world of international finance. The two economies were not completely independent, of course. A strike by journeyman shoemakers in 1726 was extensive enough to provoke imperial reaction, and the runaway inflation around 1621, known as the Kipper- und Wipperzeit, had a devastating effect on most craftsmen.[44] In the normal course of business, however, there were two distinct economies whose paths, as far as most craftsmen were concerned, never crossed.

It would be a mistake to view the craftsmen as utterly provincial because of the local focus of their economic activites, for they were not unaware of events on a larger scale. Their active participation in the Reformation controversies is sufficient proof of that.[45] Francoise Levy-Coblentz, in a massive study of the joiners of Straßurg, has shown that even the common trade of furniture-making was sensitive to the artistic tastes and innovations of the Renaissance.[46] The Handwerker-Akten of Augsburg, moreover, reveal that letters were exchanged between guilds of different cities, discussing matters of common concern.[47] In other words, the horizon of the guildsmen was not so dominated by the city walls that they could not see beyond them.

The social structure of Augsburg was similar to that found in other German cities of the day. That is to say, it was a subtle, complex hierarchy baffling and, to the modern mind, seemingly full of contradictions, yet apparently understood readily by contemporaries in all its richness. An extended debate has been carried on for years over the best way to describe the structure of early modern society, centering on two approaches: Marxist and non-Marxist (or capitalist), the former arguing for "class" and the latter for "estate" as the correct social unit of analysis.[48] Taking my cue from the city I study, I shall take the via media and employ both with equanimity.

Most historians who analyze pre-modern class structure do little more than use tax records to construct a hierarchy of upper, middle and lower class, an approach that effectively makes class equal to the tax that an individual paid. Historians have used these categories to study change over

time, tracing the rise and fall of various classes.[49] This approach is fine for examining secular change, or for examining who held wealth in a society, but it is not very helpful in itself for examining the middle and lower layers of society. Few studies attempt to distinguish among those who paid taxes of less than ten florins, making it impossible to examine the lower classes in any detail.[50] I have used tax data in the present study, and have made several divisions in that under-ten florin category, but other sources must be utilized to achieve a more correct understanding of the social relationships.

A second approach is the estate theory, which argues that pre-modern society was ordered according to estates, based on social status. "Estate" in German is Stand, which can also mean "status". Status is not so easily measured as taxes and studies of "estate" lack the mathematical precision of class analyses. Using only the three estates of noble, cleric and commoner is no help at all for urban societies, but sub-divisions are available. One advantage of analysis by estates is that one can employ social units that were actually used and understood by the people of the time. One source for such social units is the Kleiderordnung (Clothing Ordinance) of Augsburg, issued in 1735, which gives a fairly detailed accounting of the social strata of the time.[51]

Before examining the divisions made by the Kleiderordnung, we must take account of the fundamental division between citizen and non-citizen. The citizen had full rights and obligations. Some citizens heId special status, the Immunitat; these included imperial appointees, the clergy and some villagers. In 1730 there were 516 people who possessed this privilege. There were also the Beisitzer, residents but not citizens, who paid an annual fee for the right to live and work in Augsburg. In 1730 there were 374 Beisitzer. There were in the same year 5,614 citizens (Burgerrechtsinhaber), of whom 3,096 were artisans. Additionally there may have been as many as 8,000 in the city with no legal status at all.[52] The Kleiderordnung applied to citizens only.

The Kleiderordnung divided the citizenry into five social groups, but in defining these five the document indentified other groups as well, allowing us to see who was on a par with whom. Group One was "the noble lords of the patriciate ... as well as the society of the Mehrer" (der Adelichen Herren Geschlechter-Stuben … auch die von Mehreren Gesellschaft), plus Doctors and Licentiates. The Geschlechter were the patricians of the city, and status as a Geschlechter was difficult to achieve. To qualify, one's family had to have married for a long time in patrician families, to hold a patent of nobility (Adelsbrief), and to have over 20,000 florins in wealth.[53] The Mehreren were patricians-in-the-making. When a non-patrician married a patrician, the couple became Mehrer. Depending upon the era, patrician status was conferred either upon their children or upon their grandchildren. The patrician clubs (Stuben) served to identify the patriciate publicly, as people could see who went to the clubs and who did not. The high status of the university-trained shows the enormous social impact these institutions had in early modern times. There were about 80 families in Group One in 1730.[54]

Group Two consisted of "common people who are elected to the City Council or the court" (Personen von der Gemeind, so bald in den Rath oder Gericht erwahlet werden), including "High Officials" of the city (Ober-Officiales) and"Citizen Captains" (Bürgerliches Capitains) and the "Members of the Upper Faculty" of the schools (Litterati der Hocheren Fakultaten) -- about 250 families in all.[55] Here we have the highest stratum to which a commoner could aspire. It was achieved only through public service or education, and probably could not be reached from the level of a simple artisan.

Group Three was labelled as"the middle class" (mittleren Dienst), by which was meant "anyone active in exports and imports'" (alle, so im Kauffen und Verkauffen importierliche Gewerb, Handlungen und Faktoreyen treiben). Note that even the great merchants were ranked at or below the educated and the upper governmental administration. Also in Group Three were those craftsmen who"excelled in their craft and are especially famous" (in der Stadt notorie in ihren Kunsten excellieren und sonderbar beruhmt synd), as well as the city officials who governed the Lech River, the city walls and public buildings. There were approximately 400 to 450 families in this group.[56] Group Three was the highest station a craftsman could hold, and even then he had to be more merchant than artisan, or he had to be a maker of beautiful objects. As education could raise one's social status, so could artistic skill and fame in one's craft.

Group Four were the"incorporated people" (einverleibt Lobl): masters, city employees, shopkeepers, and servants of Group One. Journeymen were in the same social class as their masters. All the craftsmen covered in the present study were ranked in Group Four. It is important to note that it was the possession of guild membership that distinguished Group Four from Group Five. This provides direct evidence of the social significance of guilds. It should be further noted that guild membership was not ipso facto a bar to moving up to Group Three; rather, it was the nature of one's craft that presented the difficulty. There were roughly 2,300 families in Group Four.[57]

The lowest rung, Group Five, held everyone else: "all others, who are not merchants or artisans; also, day laborers, wage earners, carters and the like" (alle obrige, die keine Handwerker oder Cramer sind; Item Lehen-Gutscher, Fuhr-Leute, Taglohner und dergleichen). This group also included the unemployed, beggars and factory workers.[58] Here is another bit of evidence for the social significance of early modern guilds. One could be employed, but without a Handwerk one was considered to be of the lowest sort.

There was actually a sixth group, but its social status was so low that it did not merit official attention. The members of this group were the unehrliche Leute, the people without station in life-- Jews, gypsies, prostitutes, criminals, serfs, and people with dishonorable professions such as the public executioner or grave diggers.[59] Some of these could still have been citizens, and so have a slightly higher standing than a similar person with no citizenship. Despite one's social standing in the city, one could always look down on the lowly peasants, trudging in from the countryside to the city's markets. Country people were regarded as a distinct step down the social ladder from city people.

The social heirarchy described in the Kleiderordnung of 1735 represents the social order as perceived at the time. It shows a highly-striated society at the top, with the great mass of the citizenry lumped indifferently on the bottom two rungs. As sumptuary legislation, this document was mostly concerned with those having the resources with which to be sumptuous. It is worth noting, however, that this hierarchy differs from one based solely on wealth. For example, a class analysis would place the rich merchant among the power brokers of Group One.

According to a class analysis, all the guildsmen studied in the present work were lower class. According to status, they were of respectable station, of the Third Estate, middle class. According to the Kleiderordnung, they were Group Four -- lower middle class. Regardless of the method of analysis, all agree in placing the guildsmen far from the centers of prestige and power in the social hierarchy. What is lacking in all three approaches is the ability to distinguish between the social standing of individual crafts. Yet, we know that some crafts had a higher prestige and a higher income than others. Placing the guilds in a hierarchy of crafts is one purpose of this study.

Guildsmen occupied the lower rungs of society, and the social structure was such that there was little hope of their ever moving up into the ranks of the wealthy (if one is class conscious) or the Mehrer and Geschlechter (if one is status conscious). Nevertheless, there was ample opportunity for mobility at the bottom: the master could slip back into the ranks of the poor, or he could see his children trained in higher trades and gain from that. Most guildsmen did not participate in foreign trade or finance, but were restricted to the internal, domestic economy. They had no political voice, and their guilds had no autonomy. They were not necessarily provincial and they certainly were not isolated, but their interests and activities were largely bounded by the urban environment.

That urban environment was generally stable and thriving. Augsburg in the early seventeenth century was a city facing problems, particularly in the areas of finance and mining, but few in the city would have believed that they lived in a century of crisis. Political relations with the outside world, as well as the situation internally, were both stable. This was a functioning city that was neither in transition nor in decline. Whether the problems it faced would have developed into crises is a question rendered speculative by the disastrous intervention of the Thirty Years' War, an event that was an unmitigated catastrophe for the city.<s60>s Prior to that event, however, the guildsmen could look at their world, their city, with satisfaction and pride.

NOTES1. Detlev Schroder Stadt Augsburg, Historischer Atlas von Bayern, Teil Schwaben, Heft 10, (Munich, 1975), pp. 34 - 41.

2. Blendinger "Versuch", p. 33.

3. Schroder, Stadt Augsburg, pp. 99-101; and Paul von Stetten, Kunst- Gewerb- und Handwerks Geschichte der Reichs-Stadt Augspurg, 2 volumes (Augsburg, 1779 and 1788), 1: 138 - 141.

4. von Stetten, Kunstgeschichte, 1: 149.

5. Neighborhood captains were listed at the head of every section on the muster rolls.

6. Blendinger, "Versuch", p. 34.

7. Wolfgang Zorn, Augsburg: Geschichte einer deutsche Stadt (Augsburg, 1972), p. 79.

8. Pius Dirr, "Studien zur Geschichte der Augsburger Zunftverfassung 1368 - 1548," ZHVSN 39 (1913): p. 165, called the coup "eine augsburgisch gemütliche Revolution".

9. Zorn, Augsburg, 94-153 covers this period, which was not entirely free of class conflict, contrary to the assertion by Karl Bosl, Die wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung des Augsburger Burgertums vom 10. bis zum 14. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1969), p. 33.

10. Phillip Broadhead examines these years in two essays,"Popular Pressure for Reform in Augsburg, 1524 - 1534" in Stadtburgertum und Adel in der Reformation. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Reformation in England und Deutschland, ed. W. J. Mommsen (Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 80 - 87; and "Politics and Expediency in the Augsburg Reformation", in Reformation Principle and Practice. Essays in Honour of A. G. Dickens, ed. P. N. Brooks (London, 1980), pp. 55 - 70. For a discussion of the role played by the prominent Catholic families see H. J. Kirch, Die Fugger und der Schmalkaldische Krieg (Munich and Leipzig, 1915); for the Protestant party see Paul Hecker, "Der Augsburger Burgermeister Jakob Herbrot und der Sturz des zunftischen Regiments in Augsburg," ZHVSN 1 (1874), pp. 34 - 98.

11. Friedrich Karl Gullman, Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg seit ihrer Entstehung bis zum Jahre 1806, 6 volumes (Augsburg, 1822), 4: 240 - 242.

12. Zorn Augsburg, p. 191.

13. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 192; and Clasen, Weber, pp. 73 - 74.

14. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 220.

15. Aloys Schreiber,"Die Entwicklung der Augsburger Bevolkerung vom Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts," Archiv für Hygiene und Bakteriologie 123 (1939 - 1940), pp. 106- 108 and 110.

16. Schreiber, "Augsburger Bevolkerung", pp. 112 - 117.

17. Dietrich Oeter, Sterblichkeit und kuchengeschichte der Bevölkerung bayerischer Städte von 1348-1870 (Cologne, 1971), pp. 45-46.

18. Mayr, Augsburger Vermögen, p. 9.

19. Blendinger, "Versuch'", p. 56.

20. Schreiber, "Augsburger Bevolkerung," pp. 156 - 157.

21. Schreiber, "Augsburger Bevolkerung," p. 129.

22. A popular song celebrated Augsburg among the great cities of the world, with a distinct German bias:

Quoted in Zorn, Augsburg, p. 159.

23. Wolfgang Zorn entitles his chapter on the seventeenth century "Glanzvoller Neidergang", Augsburg, p. 198.

24. Christel Warnemunde, Augsburger Handel in den letzten Jahrzehnten des 16. Jahrhunderts und dem beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert (n.p., 1956), calls the period around 1600 a time of retreat (Rückgang), and blames a variety of factors including the religious wars, new business methods, and a loss of "capitalist spirit" -- pp. 215 - 217. Hermann Kellenbenz points to the "epochal change" of the rise of the Atlantic economy and the concommitant shift in historic trade routes: "Die Wirtschaft der schwabischen Reichsstadte zwischen 1648 und 1740", Esslinger Studien 11 (1965), p. 164. See also Mayr, Augsburger Vermogen, pp. 10 - 12.

25. Blendinger, "Versuch," p. 53.

26. Clasen, Weber, p. 23.

27. Blendinger,"Versuch," p. 55.

28. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 197.

29. See, for example, Alfred Weitnauer, Venezianischer Handel der Fugger, nach dem Musterbuchhaltung des Matthaus Schwarz (Munich and Leipzig, 1931).

30. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 156.

31. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 195.

32. Kellenbenz,"Wirtschaft der schwäbische Reichsstädte," p. 154.

33. Jacob Strieder, Jacob Fugger the Rich, Merchant and Banker of Augsburg, 1459 - 1525, trans. Mildred L. Hartsough, ed. N. S. B. Gras (Hamden, Conn., 1931).

34. Strieder, Fugger, p. 60

35. Strieder, Fugger, p. 114; the Fuggers did not mine in the Tyrol directly until 1522, see p. 109.

36. Strieder, Fugger, pp. 127 and 131-132.

37. Strieder, Fugger, pp. 149 - 151.

38. Zorn, Augsburg, p. 184.

39. See Schroder, Stadt Augsburg, pp. 112 - 125 for areas controlled by the bishop, and 133 - 146 for the holdings of monasteries.

40. Rolf Kießling, Burgerliche Gesellschaft und Kirche in Augsburg im Spätmittelalter. Ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse der oberdeutsche Reichsstadt (Augsburg, 1971), p. 133.

41. Kießling, Burgerliche Gesellschaft, p. 132.

43. This was the case in the Joiners Guild, for example.

44. Rolf Wissell, Des alten Handwerks Recht und Gewohnheit, 2 vol umes (Berlin, 1929) 1: 524 ff. discusses "Der Aufstand der Augsburger Schuhknechte"; for the inflation of 1620 - 1622 see Erich Redlich, Die deutsche Inflation des fruhen siebzehnten Jahrhunderts in der zeitgenossischen Literatur: die Kipper und Wipper (Cologne, 1972).

45. The crowd that assembled outside the Rathaus on 6 August 1524 to protest the exile of a Protestant preacher was composed primarily of brewers, butchers and weavers -- Zorn, Augsburg, p. 171.

46. Françoise Levy-Coblentz, L'art du meuble en Alsace, Volume One, Du gothique au baroque 1480 - 1698 (Strasbourg, 1975), pp. 83 - 86.

47. See, for example, the letters sent to Regensburg and Nuremberg by the barbers and bathhouse keepers of Augsburg in 1638 -- H-A, Brief, April 1638, GSLM# 581,006.

48. Most prominent among the Marxist historians is Karl Czok, who redefined the social classes involved in the so-called guild revolutions of the fourteenth century in his essay "Zunftkämpfe, Zunftrevolution oder Burgerkampfe" Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat 8 (1958/1959), pp. 129 - 142. Also important is Erich Maschke,"Verfassung und soziale Krafte in der deutschen Stadt des spaten Mittelalters, vornehmlich in Oberdeutschland," VSWG 46 (1959): 289-349 and 433-476; a detailed but typical example of the analysis of society by class and wealth is Erik Fugedi,"Steuerlisten, Vermogen und soziale Gruppen in mittelalterlichen Stadten," in Stadtische Gesellschaft, ed. I. Batori, pp. 58 - 96; on the other side of the ideological fence lies Roland Mousnier, who began the controversy by presenting a scheme of analysis based on estate rather than class; see Social Hierarchies: 1450 to the Present (New York, 1973). An attempt to analyze society according to the principles of sociology is made by Erdmann Weyrauch, "Uber Soziale Schichtung" in Stadtische Gesellschaft, ed. I. Batori, pp. 5 - 57.

49. Jacob Strieder was the pioneer of this approach for Augsburg. He was followed by Anton Mayr and Jacob Hartung and, more recently, Friedrich Blendinger.

50. Mayr defines any who paid under twenty florins as having "kleine Vermogen" - Augsburger Vermogen, p. 13. Schreiber, Augsburger Bevolkerung, p. 150 distinguishes between those who paid no tax (habnits, pauperes) and those who paid under ten florins. Blendinger takes a more useful approach by distinguishing between those who paid under three florins and those who paid between three and ten florins. Even this approach, however, fails to capture most differences, as the bulk of the guildsmen still fall in the lowest group - over forty percent in most years; see"Versuch", p. 71.

51. Roland Bettger, Das Handwerk in Augsburg, beim Ubergang der Stadt an das Konigreich Bayern (1788 - 1818) (Augsburg, 1979), p. 33.

52. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, pp. 33 - 34.

53. Gullman, Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg, p. 231.

54. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, p. 35.

55. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, p. 35.

56. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, p. 36.

57. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, p. 37.

58. Bettger, Handwerk in Augsburg, p. 38.

59. See Werner Danckert's excellent study, Unehrliche Leute, Die verfermte Berufe (Bern, 1963), one of the few detailed studies of this social class.