CHAPTER VII

THE PETITIONS

The <uSupplicationen>u (petitions to the City Council) are the best source available for seeing into the shops and lives of the guildsmen. They contain a myriad of details on the mundane problems of guild and craft, and even provide occasional glimpses into personal lives. Thus, for example, Appollinia Negkassin wrote to the City Council in 1549 for help because an imperial soldier to whom she was engaged insisted on returning to Spain, as he could not make a living in Augsburg. She requested permission for him to become an Augsburg master, so that she could persuade him to stay.<s1>s In another example, from 1548, Peter Jorgen begged permission to retain his status as master shoemaker, even though he worked only in used leather. because he was too poor to buy it new.<s2>s As minor as these problems were in the rush of events at a time of war in the Reformation, they were of great moment to Frau Negkassin and Herr Jorgen. It is the immediacy of these sources and their focus on the individual that make them invaluable social documents.

The uses to which the petitions can be put by historians are without number. The techniques of literary analysis would reveal much about the mentality of those involved by studying the use of words and phrases. Lexicographers and linguists will find here thousands of pages written by city notaries in the Augsburg sub-dialect of Schw$bisch. Paleographers can

readily trace the evolution of humanist hands. Political historians will find the city's policy toward, and administration of, the guilds in actual operation, while the economic historian will find documents ranging from bills of sale to a record of grain prices that spans the Thirty Years' War. Social historians have in these sources the priceless treasure of words that came directly from the common man and woman. Finally, the guild historian at last has first-hand evidence on every major issue that faced early modern guilds. With all of this potential, we will restrict the present inquiry to a single decade (1610 - 1619) and to two basic questions: who petitioned, and what were the principal subjects of the petitions.

It is relatively easy to determine what types of people wrote petitions. Every petition was signed by the petitioner, who almost invariably described his status: master, <uKnecht>u or <uGesell>u, <uB^rger>u. Frequently, foreigners gave the name of their home town, and women usually identified their marital status, including their relationship with the guild: e.g., the widow of a master. I have assembled the data for the 188 petitions that were written during this decade from the four guilds that form the subject of this study. The results are given by Tables 34 and 35 below, with the former giving the actual numbers and the latter giving the vertical percentages to facilitate comparisons between guilds.

The percentage of masters petitioning fell in a range from twenty one percent for the shoemakers to forty-six percent for the barbers, with the joiners and millers falling between at thirty-three and thirty-nine percent respectively. Another way to view the figures is in relation to the number of

TABLE 34: STATUS OF THE PETITIONERS

TABLE 35: STATUS OF THE PETITIONERS (Percentages)

masters in the guild. I have averaged the number of masters as given by the Muster Lists of 1610, 1615 and 1619, since the petitions are drawn from the entire decade. This yielded the following ratios of petitions to masters: 1:6 (18:1 10) for the shoemakers (that is to say, one petition from a master for every six masters in the guild), 1:9 (13:112) for the joiners, 1:3 (20:66) for the barbers, and 1:7 (5:36) for the millers. All the ratios show that most masters did not petition the City Council; never, in fact, more than a third did so in the ten years studied. On the other hand, significant proportions of the guilds did petition, indicating that there was widespread faith among the guildsmen in the system of appeal by <uSupplication>u.

In the Joiners Guild, thirty-two percent of the petitions came from journeymen and forty percent from masters. In the Millers Guild, thirty-eight percent of the petitions came from journeymen and forty-six from masters. These figures appear to be comparable, but they take no account of the relative proportions of masters and journeymen in each guild. A look at the ratios reveals that there was one petition for every 8.6 master joiners and one for every 5.1 journeymen, while in the Millers Guild it was one petition per 7.2 masters and one per 11.2 journeymen. In other words, in the Joiners Guild, it was the journeymen who petitioned most frequently, but in the Millers Guild it was the masters. The masters were even more prominent in the Barbers Guild, where one out of three masters petitioned and only one in eighteen journeymen did so. The low percentage of petitions from journeyman barbers (Table 35) was not due merely to the small number of journeymen in this guild, but reflected the actual low level of activity from the journeymen. At the opposite end of the scale was the Shoemakers Guild, where sixty-one percent of the petitions were submitted by journeymen, which works out to a startling one petition per journeyman (in contrast to one petition per six masters). This is by far the lowest ratio of journeymen to petitions, and reflects not only widespread dissatisfaction in the ranks of <uGesellen>u, but also reflects the repeated attempt to win their case made by some individuals -- up to eight petitions from one <uSchuhknecht>u. This statistic gives some intimation that there were definite labor problems in the Shoemakers Guild.

It will be noted that there were very few women petitioners but, at the same time, neither were they wholly absent. Most of these petitions came from women who held some status in the guild as the relative of a deceased master, who held on that account certain privileges within the guild (even if extended only out of custom), and who were petitioning on behalf of someone -- frequently a suitor or a relative -- who wanted to gain entry to the guild. The women, because of their status, acted on behalf of someone with no status.

The final category is non-guildsmen, a status that ranged from eight percent in the Millers Guild, to ten percent in the Shoemakers Guild, to twenty-two percent in the Joiners Guild, to forty-one percent in the Barbers Guild. The variation stemmed from a difference in the number of customers who complained to the City Council about the treatment they received from the master. There were no such complaints about shoes or about flour, presumably because the cost of the items was outweighed by the costs associated with submitting a petition. There were only two such petitions about joiners, but twenty-eight percent of the petitions in the Barbers Guild came from patients complaining of the medical treatment received at the hands of a master barber. Discounting this type of petition, there were from eight percent (Millers) to eighteen percent (Joiners) petitions from non-guildsmen.

An idea of the overall level of activity in each guild can be gained by examining the ratio of the number of petitions to the total number of members in the guild. These ratios are as follows: Shoemakers Guild -- 1:2 (i.e., one petition for every two guildsmen) (87:180); Joiners Guild -- 1:5 (40:204); Barbers Guild -- 1:2 (44:88); Millers Guild -- 1:8 (13:105). These figures mean that there was a high level of activity in both the Barbers Guild and the Shoemakers Guild, although in the former it was the masters and customers who were responsible, while in the latter it was the journeymen. The large percentage of petitions from these guilds proves that petitioning was regarded as a legitimate legal recourse in cases of injustice or injury. The joiners and millers had low levels of activity, where four out of five or seven out of eight guildsmen did not submit a petition for ten years.

Summarizing the subject matter was a more difficult task, because of the great variety of subjects and of approaches taken to similar subjects. The list worked out here was derived from reading the petitions themselves, and petitions from another guild might produce an entirely different list of subjects. Furthermore, a researcher could define a list of topics prior to any actual reading of documents, in order to see if those topics were covered at all. In other words, the statistics presented here are derived from and tailored to this particular batch of petitions and can be interpreted only with regard to these guilds and for this decade (1610 - 1619). The categories are given in Tables 35 and 36.

The fact that many petitioners submitted a second petition after their first was denied, and that some submitted a third or fourth, presented a problem in regard to the counting process: I could either count petitions, or I could count petitioners. In the latter case, a petition from someone who petitioned only once would carry the same statistical weight as the several petitions submitted all on the same case by the same individual. This would not give a true picture of the major areas of concern in a guild. I felt that every petition should be counted regardless of who the petitioner was, since the petitioner had to go through the same procedures, making the same sacrifices in terms of time and money, and having the same hopes of success, whether it was his first or his fifth request. This approach, however, requires the reader to view each figure as representing only the number of petitions submitted on that particular topic and not (as would be natural) to view it as representing the number of separate incidents or occurrences of a problem. Both approaches have drawbacks. I have chosen the count of petitions for my analysis.

Table 36 shows that accession to mastership status was by far the most frequent subject of the petitions: ninety-two percent of the petitions in the Millers Guild fell in this category, sixty-nine percent of those in the

TABLE 36: SUBJECT OF THE PETITIONS

Shoemakers I Joiners I Barbers I Millers

Lngth of Trainingl 15 6 2 -

Type of Training I 18 9 1 -

Marriage I 27 3 -

Mastership/Other I - 6 - 12

Guild Business I 9 1 1 -

Customer Relatns I - 5 23 -

Labor Relations I 8 4 5 1

Guild Relations I 5 9 7 -

Personal Requestsl 5 4 5 -

Total 87 40 44 13

TABLE 37: STATUS OF THE PETI TIONERS

Shoemakers I Joiners I Barbers I Millers

Lngth of Trainingl 17.2 15.0 4.5 -

Type of Training I 20.7 22.5 2.3 -

Marriage I 31.0 - 7.5 - -

Mastership/Other I - 15.0 - 92.3 I

Guild Business I 10.3 2.5 2.3 -

Customer Relatns I - 12.5 52.3 -

Labor Relations I 9.2 10.0 11.4 7.7 I

Guild Relations I 5.7 22.5 15.9 -

Personal Requestsl 5.7 10.0 11.4 -

Shoemakers Guild, sixty percent in the Joiners Guild, and seven percent in the Barbers Guild. The very low percentage in the Barbers Guild reflects the relatively unimportant position journeymen occupied in this guild. On the other hand, the very high percentage in the Millers Guild does not represent problems or complaints, but comes from an abundance of applications to be appointed <uM^hlknecht>u at a mill. The significant data, therefore, relate only to the Shoemakers Guild and the Joiners Guild, where the petitions were nearly all complaints from journeymen who had been denied mastership. A foreign journeyman (i.e., one who was not an Augsburg citizen) was required to work for, and to receive training from, one or two citizen masters, usually for several years, before qualifying to apply for mastership. The requirement was designed to ensure that the practices and styles customary in the city were perpetuated by each generation of masters. A master was free to experiment with new styles, of course, but he must know the old styles first. In some cases, this regulation was intended to keep out foreign styles that would only cause disruptions in locai markets. In other cases it was designed to keep out rural techniques, as these were universally regarded as inferior. Serving a citizen master also provided the guildsmen the opportunity to look over new prospects carefully and to assure themselves of his ability and character. These were all legitimate concerns legitimately shared by the City Council, which also had an interest in the matter since citizen masters bore the lion's share of the city's taxes and administration. If the guilds ceased their vigilance in this area, that would indeed indicate a breakdown of the guild system. The many petitions complaining of this rule is evidence of how difficult it was to enforce in actual practice, for each petitioner believed that there were extenuating circumstances in his particular case. The city seldom agreed, but journeymen continued to petition.

Georg Seltman was a shoemaker who apprenticed in the town of

Waringen and subsequently journeyed for seven years, spending one year in Hungary serving against the''enemy'' (<uErbfeindt>u). He found life there too difficult and so came to Augsburg, where he worked for a year. After this time, the Overseer informed him that, as all Seltman's training had been in villages, he would be apprenticed to Conrad Ess,''in order to learn the craft and customs.''<s3>s His apprenticeship would last three years and would cost ten florins, a considerable sum. Seltman was angered by this, but he served his apprenticeship anyway. Now the Overseer asserted that he must do a further seven years training. By the time Seltman had completed his three-year apprenticeship, Conrad Ess was dead, Seltman was thirty-three years old and had married Ess' daughter. ''I have been a shoemaker for eighteen years,'' he told the City Council. ''This rule makes the time I spent in training outside the city worthless, but it is not worthless,'' he argued, but therein lay the crux of the problem, for the city and the guild did in fact regard that training as worthless.<s4>s The rule was enforced, and Seltman's petition was denied.

Rural training was also the issue with Jacob Weiss, and though his

case was stronger, yet he was denied as well. The originating document here came from Jacob's father, Martin, a citizen master who journeyed and who settled in the village of Pfersee, only two kilometers from Augsburg.<s5>s He instructed his son in the craft as his apprentice, then wrote a <uLehrbrief>u and sent Jacob into Augsburg as a journeyman. Jacob worked in town for two years,''during which time,'' Jacob wrote in his own petition,

I attained the position (<uStand>u) of journeyman here, holding to all guild customs and paying

my fees and dues <u(in>u <uallem>u <uhandtwerckhs>u <ugewonheit>u g<uehalten>u, <umein>u <uauflag>u <ugelt>u <uund>u <uandere>u <ugeb^r>u, <ubezalt>u <uund>u <uerstattet>u) and was hindered (<uverhindert>u) neither by masters nor by journeymen.<s6>s

Yet, when Jacob asked to marry the daughter of a deceased master, he was denied. The guild insisted that two years was insufficient training and that Jacob had to do the full six years as required by the <uOrdnun>ug.<s7>s

The case of Mattheis Baur illustrates how long the application for

mastership could be drawn out. In January of 1611, Baur first appeared in the <uHandwerker>u-<uAkten>u with a petition for mastership, which he had been denied on the grounds that he had been trained in a village.<s8>s Baur argued that, although he had apprenticed in a village, it had been with his own father, who had been a citizen master shoemaker in Augsburg. Thus, while he had been apprenticed in a foreign place, he had not apprenticed with a foreigner. Moreover, Baur had spent seven years journeymanship in the city. The guild stated flatly that foreign was foreign and Baur's petition was denied. He repeated his request in February, and was again denied.<s9>s Two years later, Baur again asked to be allowed to make a masterpiece, and to marry the widow for whom he had been working the last few years.<s10>s He was again denied, whereupon the widow herself wrote a petition in support of Baur, asserting with a simple persuasiveness that<u,>u

Baur is a pious, <uhaustlicher>u and <ueingezognen>u (literally,''domestic'' and''secluded'') journeyman who has worked for three impoverished masters and has done all he was asked.<s11>s

Baur was again turned down, but he returned a third time in April 16l4,''even though my request has been denied in the past.'' Baur conceded that he had apprenticed in a village ''where the masters are not required to make a masterpiece.'' Baur now tried a new tack, speaking not of his rights but of the widow's welfare. ''I will not be establishing a new shop but rather will take over an existing one that is now operated by a widow and her three fatherless children.'' He asked permission to make a masterpiece and marry the widow, becoming father to the children,''that I might provide for their welfare.''<s12>s Baur's request was refused once more. He tried again in 1615 and was yet again denied, after which we hear from him no more.<s13>s It may seem strange that Baur persisted so long in an apparently hopeless cause, yet he really had no choice. There was but one court of appeals in the city, and Baur had nowhere else to turn. The most extreme case of this was the journeyman shoemaker Hans M[ner, who not only petitioned eight times on his own, but was supported by two petitions from his mother and two more from his

aunt.<s14>s The first petition was dated 3 March 1611 and the last one appeared 15 November 1614.

Training in a village was not the only form of training unacceptable

to the guild, as Hans Jacob D^nzler discovered to his dismay. In his first petition, D^nzler recounted all the requirements he had met. He apprenticed with his father. He journeyed. He worked for the citizen and master clockmaker Marx G^nzer for five years. He also worked two years for another master and did hired work for others. He married the daughter of a shoemaker. Yet he was not allowed to make a masterpiece.<s15>s The problem was pointed out in the <uVerordnete>u report. D^nzler had worked only two years for master joiners, the rest of the time he worked for a master clockmaker. ''For this reason'', the report went on,

he cannot know how to make a 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.<s16>s

D^nzler replied with a new petition, withdrawing his earlier one. He repeated the guild rules, as if to acknowledge their authority in the matter, but asserted that''the Overseer never informed me of this rule.'' D^nzler argued that he was wronged by the guild because he had not been properly instructed.

Clockmakers should never be allowed to employ journeymen joiners. Why should a foreign

journeyman, with no knowledge of the guild's

regulations, obtain his privilege through

completion of his training (<uerstande>u <uzeit>u) only to lose it through ignorance? I would hope that no journeyman would suffer because the guild placed him with a clockmaker and yet required him to work for a joiner. Although clockmaking is an art unto itself, nevertheless under G^nzer's supervision I prepared the joined work myself, a fact not denied by the Council. I would not have done these things had I only heard the rules.<s17>s

Turned down again, D^nzler made one more attempt, in which we can glean a few more details. D^nzler admitted he had ''probably'' heard the regulations read at some point, but''there are very many of them'' (over one hundred, in fact), and''besides, I worked for Ulrich Hartmann with no word that a journeyman should attend the reading of the regulations.''<s18>s Clockmakers, it appears, were allowed to have journeyman joiners, for D^nzler complained that they should be forbidden to do so. Finally, in the Overseer's Report, there is the interesting comment made that the time

D^nzler spent with the clockmaker was''<udeterioris>u <uconditionis>u.'' Here we see the almost moral tenor to the distinctions made between crafts, distinctions that the guilds were entrusted with maintaining, as they evidently did successfully in the case of poor Hans Jacob D^nzler.

Mastership was aiso denied because of failure to marry or because

of marrying outside the guild. The married state was generally regarded as morally superior to the unmarried state and was taken as one sign of stability and maturity. For these reasons, marriage was required in all but the Barbers Guild, and foreign journeymen were required to marry into the guild. This did not always happen, as several petitions show. The most intruguing problem centered on religious differences.

The problem appeared only in the Shoemakers Guild, where there

were several incidents along the following lines. A foreign journeyman came

to Augsburg and conscientiously served the full length of his training, even, in some cases, completing his masterpiece. Seeking to meet the marriage requirement, the <uGesell>u courted widows and daughters of guildsmen, but when it became known that the young man was Catholic, he was turned down. The problem was peculiar to Catholic journeyman shoemakers, and was so persistent that they petitioned the City Council as a group on four separate occasions for help in their plight. It must have been disheartening to go through so much training only to be frustrated at the final step.

The Guild Overseer has denied my request. I

present this document to clarify my petition

further. I do not wish to dispute with the Overseer, still less to contest the guild's regulations, but I believe that this situation is detrimental to the guild, to the women, and to my faith.<s19>s

I do not want to keep my religion hidden but

rather to find a like-minded girl.<s20>s

I never desired to marry outside the Shoemakers Guild and therefore I went to every master I knew, to be allowed to entreat (<uwerben>u) and to propose (<uanhalten>u), but my earnest proposals went unheeded.<s21>s

One fellow went so far as to insist that, since it was not his fault that he

could find no wife, the City Council should find one for him <s22>s

It is not surprising to find religion a barrier in marriage or even in

guild business. Augsburg was deeply divided religiously and, as was shown in Chapter VI, religious loyalties tended to be guild-specific. Also in Chapter VI, it was seen that only one family in all the four guilds had a household with both Catholic and Protestant members. Religion was too important of an area to ignore in matrimony, for it affected every area of personal and social life. What seems inexplicable is that this problem with Catholic journeymen occurred only in the Shoemakers Guild. I have been unable to discover any clues to an explanation for this phenomenon.

Marriage also appeared as the topic in several petitions in the

aspect of requests for permission to marry. These requests did not come from masters or the sons of masters, but only from journeymen and widows, presumably because only they required permission. That guild and city would have any jurisdiction over such private matters seems odd today, but in pre-modern society this was not at all unusual. Control over marriage was not actually exercised at the altar in any case, but was exerted at the point of mastership.

An example of this can be found in the Shoemakers Guild, where

Anna Pre]lerin submitted a petition in 1616. Her husband had died, and Frau Pre]lerin found herself faced with the prospect of having to operate the shoemaking shop herself. She had determined to re-marry as soon as possibie, and already had a suitor in mind: a foreign journeyman. The one problem was that the journeyman had not completed his required length of

training, his <uerstande>u <uzeit>u. Pre]lerin had no intention of marrying someone who might never become a master, so she petitioned the City Council for permission to marry now and for assurances that the journeyman would be allowed to accede to his mastership after two years. The guild refused this request on the grounds that those two years could not be considered