Dealing with Mobility: Guilds and Tramping Journeymen in Seventeenth-Century Scandinavia

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to discuss the mobility of skilled labour within small and specialised guilds in peripheral Europe during the mid-seventeenth century. Based on archival records for passementerie makers and embroiderers in Stockholm, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark, the paper highlights conflicts brought on by labour mobility. What can these conflicts tell us about the situation within two small and specialised trades in Scandinavia, and how were they handled? The study examines examples of the actual implementation of both regulations and traditions associated with the crafts. This illuminates historical strategies for human resource management as well as economic relations between Scandinavia and the Continent. The results suggest a balancing act of negotiations between the needs of journeymen and masters respectively, paired with a pronounced need to align with their German counterparts. It also becomes clear that conditions differed between Stockholm and Copenhagen. Not only was the number of native artisans higher within the Danish guilds concerned, there was also substantial re-growth by apprenticeship. In contrast, Sweden was heavily dependent on immigration of skilled labour.

KEYWORDS:

• Guilds
• artisan
• labour mobility
• journeyman tramping
• Scandinavia

Journeyman tramping was an established practice in early modern Europe. These travels not only allowed the exchange of ideas and technical innovation, they also enabled mobility of skilled labour. However, conditions varied – depending on both geography and type of trade. For example, Reinhold Reith provides a picture of how demand for labour and access to worksites came to shape different patterns for tramping in Central Europe.¹ Based on these differences, Reith outlines various categories of labour markets during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.² For instance the building trades had a different outlook to trades which supplied everyday commodities. One of Reith’s categories is small and specialised crafts in larger towns. Their particular product output did not sustain a steady labour demand and long-distance tramping was common. Lack of labour was sometimes supported by engaging female family members and servants in work. Hence, these trades faced challenges in balancing human capital investment with a fluctuating market demand.

The current paper aims to investigate two such trades by highlighting conflicts brought on by journeyman mobility. What can these conflicts tell us about the situation within two small and specialised trades, and how were they handled? The focus is on embroiderers and passementerie makers in Stockholm, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark.³ This selection does not only make a comparative basis for viewing conditions in two Scandinavian capitals, it will also help to raise scholarly awareness of conditions in peripheral regions. Resting on the legacy of Hanseatic trade routes, the migration of trained craftsmen contributed to a high proportion of German artisans in Scandinavia.⁴ The practice of German guild customs, called Gewohnheit, was prominent and the use of German language in documents prevailed alongside the native tongue.⁵ This poses a question as to how dependent the Scandinavian guilds were on their German counterparts. Even though the European guilds have received much attention in recent research, there are still considerable gaps in our knowledge of different small and specialised trades.⁶ Far less is known about conditions in Scandinavia. Apart from Dag Lindström’s study on guilds in Sweden, Denmark and Norway during the period 1350–1622, the main body of research dates back to the first half of the twentieth century.⁷

This investigation roughly covers the mid-seventeenth century. Both Sweden and Denmark underwent State-governed guild reforms in the 1620s, and the lion’s share of extant guild records date from the 1640s onwards. Hence, this period represents a distinctive phase during which the Scandinavian guilds developed their structural organisation, both internally and in relation to the State.⁸ The trades of embroiderers and the passementerie makers shared common traits concerning the use of related raw materials and size of organisation. It is noteworthy that there is no conclusive term in English to describe what in Sweden was then known as a snörmakare, in Denmark as a possementmagere, and by the German terms Posamentmacher or Bortenwirker. In the sixteenth century, it was known as ‘parchmentry’ (a corruption of the French passementerie). This included a number of jobs such as ribbon maker, braid maker, cord maker or maker of narrow wares. But, as my paper will show, distinctions between trades were based on the application of tools and techniques. As a result, I have chosen to use the term ‘passementerie maker’ based on the goods they made, namely ornamental trimmings such as ribbons, cords, braids and fringes. The embroiderers’ output was predominantly directed towards custom-made, high-end items in metal-thread embroidery. The passementerie makers also worked with custom-made orders, although possibly also producing stock for a wider clientele. The study is based on archival records, where letter correspondence and minutes perform a central role to allow a discussion on how conflicts were perceived and managed. Extant guild records in Copenhagen provide a variety of documents on the passementerie makers, such as ordinances, minutes (lavsprotokoll), accounts, records of apprentices and letter correspondence. The archive in Stockholm covers both passementerie makers and embroiderers and contains membership records (rullor), minutes and correspondence (inkommande handlingar). Although the composition of extant sources is inconsistent, a comparative approach is pursued. The Scandinavian sources are to some extent complemented with a selection of German and Polish guild records to get some further points of reference.

Guild conflicts were often argued in terms of the artisan’s honourable status. To understand this mindset of artisanal culture, the investigation applies James Farr’s view on how the meaning of work was perceived during the early modern era, as an instigator of moral values.⁹ Farr defines the structure and function of guilds not primarily as an economic implement but instead as a paternal institution designed to organise the life of its members and define their place in society, providing social security, moral regulation and a political identity.¹⁰ I have found this approach useful in terms of being able to understand different actions as based on the internal logic of the guild community. One such core idea is the perception of the honest (German ehrlich) and upright (German redlich) journeyman, meaning a man of integrity and morals who was able to show a record of proper conduct and also meet the requirements of a legitimate birth. Farr describes this normative stand as a key factor of artisanal status using the word ‘honour’. He states: ‘honor was a paramount social value that enforced standards of accepted conduct and measured an individual’s action and worth against a norm recognised by peers, superiors and inferiors’.¹¹ Honour would hold different meanings in relation to the position of the beholder. Where the guild master might keep his economic status and the respectability of his household at centre, the honour of a journeyman was more focused on his freedom of mobility.¹² The concept of honourable status (German Erkbarkeit) has also been raised by Lars Magnusson with reference to older German research. Magnusson discusses similar thoughts as those highlighted by Farr, but also emphasises the changing nature of normative content over time and hence its dependence on historical context.¹³

Access to skilled labour can be viewed in terms of human capital investment. Re-growth of skilled labour within the guild system rested on keeping apprentices in training, which equalled long-term investments. Stephen Epstein describes apprenticeship training as well-adapted to mediate experience-based knowledge applied in crafts.¹⁴ However, keeping apprentices was costly, as it required support and training for many years. This investment did not pay off if the apprentice died or left his position without permission during training. Once he completed his training, he was also expected to sustain his master with low-paid skilled labour for some time.¹⁵ Sheilagh Ogilvie has addressed these problems in a discussion on foundations of the apprenticeship system.¹⁶ One such point is the length of apprenticeship, which was set arbitrarily when compared to the actual time needed to learn a trade. Hence, lengthy apprenticeships were aimed to secure the masters’ need for cheap labour. As a result, guild regulations also aimed to restrict unwanted mobility on behalf of the masters.¹⁷

The paper will begin with providing an overview of the size and composition of the guilds in focus. The main discussion that follows will be on cases of conflict that exemplify how the guilds acted to sustain labour and working conditions, as well as how definitions of trades and traditions were expressed. Finally, concluding remarks on labour management and journeyman mobility in Scandinavia are presented, comparing the conditions in Copenhagen and Stockholm.

Size and compilation of the guilds

In size, Stockholm and Copenhagen were comparable, with roughly 25,000–30,000 inhabitants respectively in the mid-1600s.¹⁸ Hence, there is nothing to suggest large differences in domestic demand for their goods, and their small-scale production did not include export. Overall, the passementerie makers in Stockholm and Copenhagen each comprised a group of about 10 to 15 masters in the 1640s and −50s.

The embroiderers in Stockholm started out as a small number in the 1640s, but gradually grew to encompass about 10 masters in the 1650s.¹⁹ In Sweden, the number of masters far exceeded the number of persons in training and existing journeymen and apprentices were often unevenly distributed among the masters. The embroiderers’ guild member record of 1655 counts a total of five journeymen, all working for one master, and the only apprentice is with another master, while the remaining five masters worked alone. Hence, records suggest many masters were forced to depend on help from other members of the household. The extent of informal participation of wives and daughters is hard to establish in records, but definitely occurred.²⁰

The most illuminating record of guild members is that of the year 1648, as it includes a detailed account of those that worked illegally (bönhasar), or under questionable conditions. The enforcement of guild regulations in Sweden was undermined by certain privileges which gave the royal family and all noblemen the right to employ household craftsmen to cover their own needs.²¹ These private craftsmen were exempt from guild membership as long as they did not engage in the open market. Hence many artisans claimed to work under the ‘defence’ (försvar) of such employers. The record of 1648 lists seven such embroiderers while the record of 1655 lists five illegal workers. Since the embroiderers primarily worked with commissions for the royal court, the military and the church, the defence system probably contributed to a slow disintegration of the guild. In 1671 there were only two registered master embroiderers and two journeymen. Information on the origin of the embroiderers is sparse, but a majority of the recorded names appear foreign.²² The ratio between native and foreign artisans was a matter of attention in Sweden and from 1654 there is a compilation of all guilds in Stockholm which specifies the number of Swedish and German journeymen and apprentices, but does not address the masters’ origin.²³ The compilation records 10 masters in the embroiderer’s guild, one German journeyman and three Swedish apprentices. Occasional mentions show that many had travelled via Danzig (present day Gdansk) and journeymen embroiderers emanating from Berlin, Strasbourg and Nuremberg are mentioned.²⁴

With the passementerie makers in Stockholm things looked somewhat different. In 1654 the 14 masters shared the benefits of 11 German and three Swedish journeymen, as well as one German and eight Swedish apprentices.²⁵ This would suggest the majority of the passementerie-maker masters had at least one or two journeymen each, and some also had an apprentice. Such a distribution of labour is consistent with records from 1655. However, in 1648 a total of 23 journeymen were unevenly distributed among eight masters. Some masters had five or eight journeymen each, while others employed one or two, and a few worked alone. Regarding illegal workers, there are no compiled records from the 1640s, but in 1655 about 10 such persons are recorded.²⁶ Unlike the embroiderers, the passementerie-makers’ guild in Stockholm maintained its size and function during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.²⁷ The origin of both passementerie-maker masters and journeymen in Stockholm are occasionally mentioned in records. With some reservations for the possible misinterpretation of the phonetic spelling, foreign towns and areas such as Luneburg, Berlin, Hamburg, Lübeck, Greifswald, Stralsund, Stettin, Danzig, Mecklenburg, Westphalia and Germany are mentioned as the place of origin. Further, some were born in Sweden, and at least two journeymen emanated from Nyland, in present day Finland.

If we turn our focus to Copenhagen, there is much less compiled data on masters and journeymen. A document dated 21 May 1639 names twelve journeymen and twelve masters. Although it is hazardous to set the origin based on their names, a rough estimate suggests about fifty percent of both masters and journeymen were Danish.²⁸ Less than 10 years later, in April 1648, fifteen passementerie-maker masters paid their quarterly fees.²⁹ Their names suggest the ratio between native and foreign is still about fifty-fifty.³⁰ There is also record of enrolled apprentices. Based on the period 1630–50, about one hundred and twenty-six apprentices were enrolled in training by twenty-five masters.³¹ Only seven of these apprentices were sons of a master within the same trade. Out of all apprentices, at least 35 ran away and 12 died before completing their indenture. Hence, the loss in human capital investment was close to forty percent. The large majority of apprentices were Danish. In the one hundred and five cases where their place of birth is stated, forty-three were born in Copenhagen while the rest came from other parts of Denmark or Germany.³² There are no compiled records of illegal workers.

Sustaining labour and working conditions

So, how did the influx and circulation of skilled labour manifest itself in Copenhagen and Stockholm? How often did foreign journeymen come wandering and how were they distributed among the masters in town?

Concerning the passementerie makers in Copenhagen, extant records suggest new journeymen did not arrive often enough. In the 1630s a six-month long debate on the distribution of journeymen among the masters can be traced in the minutes.³³ In December 1634 Johan Hegerfeldt presented complaints against his fellow master Conradt van Möllengrath, as Hegerfeldt had been promised the next journeyman that came wandering, but Möllengrath had received him instead. Möllengrath was not present at the meeting. However, at the next gathering three months later, in March 1635, Möllengrath answered the accusation by claiming not to recall such a promise. However, as the alderman remembered the promise Möllengrath agreed to pay a fine to settle the matter. But the discussion continued in May, as master Tönis van Harten had also been promised a journeyman. This time Möllengrath replied that he would only answer to the content of Article 13 of their ordinance, and would hence keep the two journeymen. The alderman appointed four masters to go about and ask the opinion of the others about following Article 13 to the letter. Article 13 of the 1634 ordinance for the Copenhagen passementerie makers prescribed a maximum of two journeymen per master, unless there were more candidates to distribute.³⁴ This was to be ‘until the guild came on better terms’, as it was expressed in the ordinance.³⁵ This suggests they considered current conditions unsatisfactory and wished for future expansion. Hence, provided that all masters already had two journeymen each, those masters who had need for further journeymen could seize those available. In July 1635 it was finally decided that when a journeyman came wandering, or wanted to leave one master for another, he should present himself before the alderman who was then to appoint him to the next master in turn. From this day the order of turn was to be from the first master to the last one. However, each master was entitled to recruit as many journeymen as he wished if he paid for their travel at his own expense and no other master would be allowed to seize these journeymen until they had served the prescribed time by the master who initiated recruitment. This agreement did not change the way Article 13 is worded in the renewed guild ordinance of 1647.³⁶ Hence, the solution of using the alderman as intermediary was not formalised and was possibly just a way of dealing with the current conflict. Nonetheless, both the conflict and the ordinance suggest a situation where the need for labour was greater than supply and a real hindrance for those that wanted to expand their practice. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that journeyman mobility within Copenhagen was limited. Article 15 in the passementerie-maker ordinance describe the formalities for a journeyman taking leave from a master to continue tramping.³⁷ In order to leave town there was a fourteen-day notice, but if a journeyman wanted to move between masters within Copenhagen he would have to announce his leave a month in advance. The journeymen’s own regulation, as well as several German ordinances, only refer to the normal fourteen-day interval.³⁸ The extended interval kept within Copenhagen was probably aimed at keeping journeymen from moving between masters to create more stability in labour supply.

Besides struggling to seize the journeymen that came wandering, the masters were allowed to recruit journeymen at their own expense by having them sent from abroad. This solution was also practiced by some crafts in central Europe.³⁹ By paying for the journeyman’s voyage and maintenance, as well as being able to guarantee work on arrival, it was probably an important incentive to attract journeymen to remote areas that lacked regular immigration, especially in small, specialised crafts. However, how common this procedure was in Scandinavia is difficult to determine. In 1650, records in Stockholm show that the upcoming coronation of Queen Christina of Sweden prompted the native Swedish embroiderer Niklas Stare to sign up journeymen from Germany at his own expense to fulfil his orders from the court. Problems arose when other masters in town seized the arriving journeymen.⁴⁰ One of these journeymen, A. Schuster, stated at a hearing that he had come to Stockholm for his own pleasure, to visit the country and see the coronation. He further emphasised that he wanted to work with the master he liked and made his own agreement with. Hence, this kind of recruitment seems to have been one way of dealing with a temporary upsurge in market demand which could not be sustained locally. But it also involved a potential risk of paying for someone’s journey without getting labour in return. Around this time another embroiderer by the name of Fredrich Feuerbrun arrived in Stockholm from France. He had previously worked for the royal workshops outside Paris and was now working on commission to the Swedish queen.⁴¹ The new competition fuelled a number of conflicts with the other masters involving access to labour. In August 1650 Feuerbrun was accused of having women working in his workshop. Feuerbrun admitted to this but claimed they were free to work as they were widows and daughters of embroiderers.⁴² This was, however, not accepted and Feuerbrun was issued with a fine. A year later, in September 1651, it was said that two journeymen had unlawfully left Master Valentin Busk to work for Feuerbrun. Further investigation showed that the journeymen had been free to leave and the matter was resolved with a handshake.⁴³ As Feuerbrun’s status was questioned by the other masters, he was issued a royal privilege letter that allowed him to keep an open workshop in town without having to comply with the guild.⁴⁴ This shows how royal privileges could outmanoeuvre the guild system and their attempts to regulate the labour supply.

We have now seen that people routinely come to Stockholm and Copenhagen from abroad. But what about the tramping of native Swedish and Danish journeymen? In the mid-seventeenth century, the formal expectations of a journeyman’s travels varied, depending on local conditions and also between different trades.

There are no extant ordinances for either embroiderers or passementerie makers in Stockholm. However, the Swedish guilds were governed by State directives. Ongoing work for a nation-wide general guild regulation generated in a proposal dated 1642, and a finalised order published in 1669, which aimed to cover all trades.⁴⁵ These records confirm the need for tramping, however without an obligation to go abroad.⁴⁶ The only Swedish journeyman that I have been able to trace in records is the previously-mentioned embroiderer Niklas Stare. He was born and raised in Gothenburg on the Swedish west coast, where he also received his training. He came to Stockholm as a travelling journeyman, eventually becoming master embroiderer.⁴⁷ Considering the passementerie makers in Stockholm, the later fates of the very few registered apprentices are unknown. However, those mentioned in Stockholm do not recur among the names of journeymen and masters in town.

In comparison, the ordinance for passementerie makers in Copenhagen had already, by the 1630s, specified a prescribed period of two years travelling abroad.⁴⁸ Going away, the Danish journeymen came to face situations where their background and artisanal honour were questioned. The passementerie-makers’ minutes of July 1637 record Master Johan Hegerfeldt making a statement about the Copenhagen journeymen not being accepted in Danzig. A letter had been sent and they were awaiting reply.⁴⁹ In another meeting two years later, in January 1639, journeyman Peter Hansen appeared and claimed that apprentices taught in Copenhagen were not able to move abroad.⁵⁰ This matter is not explored further in extant minutes. However, three months later, on 19 April 1639, Master Conradt van Möllengrath made complaints about some journeymen, of which one had recently arrived from Konigsberg.⁵¹ It appears the foreign journeymen were unwilling to comply with Article 18 of the passementerie-makers’ ordinance, which concern the number of apprentices allowed in a workshop. The Copenhagen ordinances of 1634 and 1647, Article 18, allowed one master to keep a maximum of four apprentices, with the option to take on a fifth apprentice by the time one of the previous four was close to completing his term. The master was also permitted to take on as many apprentices he wanted to do cording (dreyen) and silk winding and cover ‘other needs’.⁵² The opposing journeymen claimed that keeping five apprentices would bring destruction to the trade.⁵³ This was possibly to do with an idea that a master having to share his attention between too many apprentices would create a disadvantaged learning situation. They were hence only allowed to work for such master for a maximum of 14 days. The fourteen-day limitation for working with a disputed master is in line with the time for giving notice. This was later specified in Article 13 in the Copenhagen passementerie-maker journeymen’s own regulations of 1640 and 1641.⁵⁴ Article 14 in this regulation also addresses the need to keep down the number of apprentices in a workshop, not to damage the craft.⁵⁵ Compared with the standard fixed in a number of German regulations, which prescribed keeping one or two apprentices, the numbers allowed in Denmark appear high and suggest a conscious decision to prioritise increasing local re-growth.⁵⁶

On close inspection it appears Möllengrath himself was the only master to force the rules in 1639. A record of enlisted apprentices shows that the other masters in Copenhagen kept no more than one or two, at most three, apprentices in 1639.⁵⁷ Two of Möllengrath’s apprentices completed their training in 1639, one in January and the other in May. A further three were also in training when a new one was admitted during Easter 1639. Hence, Möllengrath went by the book, but did have five apprentices in April, when the matter was first up for discussion. It was decided that new journeymen should be approached on arrival and asked about their stance in this question. In a new meeting 14 days later, on 5 May, all twelve present journeymen were asked their opinion. All but one agreed to not accept masters that keep five apprentices.⁵⁸ Three days later Möllengrath’s fifth apprentice was declared to have completed his term. On 9 May the matter was presented by the alderman Abraham Caluart to the town mayor and council, telling them that all journeymen had resigned from their masters as they would not be able to travel to Danzig or other places in Germany.⁵⁹ Another two weeks pass and, in a meeting held on 21 May, the masters of the passementerie-makers guild chose to recognise that the practice of keeping five apprentices was a potential hindrance for journeyman tramping abroad. With consent from the town mayor and his council it was decided to no longer allow more than four apprentices. The conflict presents a fundamental gap between the masters’ need to sustain local re-growth of labour, and the journeymen’s need to comply with German standards in order to assure mobility. This conflict of interest was handled by negotiations, where in this case the demands of the journeymen were met, as the masters were probably not willing to risk losing skilled labour. Again, this was an informal and temporary solution, as the formal wording of the article was not changed in the 1643 ordinance. The example also shows how members of each group joined to support their respective claim, even though only one man (Möllengrath) had breached the rules.

In 1648 a record of journeyman wages for passementerie makers in Copenhagen stated that from this day no master would be allowed to keep more than three apprentices.⁶⁰ Despite this, eight years later the matter was yet again on the agenda. This time the issue was brought up by a group of Danish passementerie-maker journeymen currently in Hamburg. A first letter from Hamburg was conveyed on 16 March 1656, and a second about five weeks later, on 24 April. The first was signed by three journeymen and the second by just one of them, Severin Thomssen.⁶¹ Thomssen had been enlisted as an apprentice in Copenhagen in 1645 but then left. He returned in 1652 and was then declared free in January 1655.⁶² The guild’s accounts from 1656 register the purchase of stamps for at least one letter from Copenhagen to Hamburg, suggesting they did receive a reply.⁶³ However, this was probably not enough, as it prompted a second letter to spell out the problem in more precise terms. The core message from the journeymen was to let the passementerie-makers’ guild in Copenhagen know about the practice in Hamburg and all Germany – that here a journeyman who had learnt with a master keeping three or four apprentices was met with disgrace.⁶⁴ Because of this predicament they were unable to work with other upright journeymen for more than 14 days.⁶⁵ In order to improve this situation the second letter begged the guild in Copenhagen to set limitations to the number of apprentices in accordance with the German practice and lose one boy – or those who had learnt in Copenhagen would not be received as upright journeymen.⁶⁶ Thus, the accepted number of apprentices had gone down. Another document, dated 2 November 1656 and signed by 17 journeymen in Copenhagen, declares that they stood united with the older journeymen (German Altgesellen) to oppose, as much as possible, the keeping of three apprentices and, if problems appeared, to have a dialogue with the masters.⁶⁷ Hence, yet again the other members of the group closed ranks and supported their brothers by taking a stand, but still kept a door open for negotiations. As there are no ordinances of a later date to compare with, it is unclear if the Copenhagen passementerie makers took any formal measures to make revisions. The substance of the journeymen’s complaints are confirmed by a number of extant ordinances for passementerie and button makers in other German towns, where they are all restricted to a maximum of one or two apprentices per master.⁶⁸

The policy on the number of apprentices allowed in Sweden was even more liberal than that in Denmark. The general guild regulation of 1669 allowed a master to adopt as many apprentices as he could manage to teach.⁶⁹ It was also encouraged to engage those of native origin. However, considering the low number of apprentices recorded among passementerie makers and embroiderers, a breach of German standards was less likely to occur in Stockholm. The passementerie-makers’ record of members from 1655 shows that the 11 listed masters had no more than one or two apprentices each, and/or one or two journeymen.⁷⁰ Older records show lower numbers, with a total of three apprentices in 1644 and 1645. In 1649 there are no passementerie-maker apprentices at all in Stockholm. The number of apprentices enrolled by the embroiderer’s guild was even less, counting a total of one in 1648, three in 1654 and one in 1655. Hence the guilds in Stockholm did not face the same problems as those in Copenhagen.

In conclusion, the examination suggests the international circulation of journeyman labour in Scandinavia was smaller than the guild masters wanted. To meet a shortage of skilled labour, the growth of the native labour supply was encouraged by allowing a higher number of people in training in Scandinavia compared to restrictions enforced within the German Empire. These local differences had a direct impact on Danish journeymen that were forced to move abroad and hence needed to comply with foreign standards. Artisans in Sweden were less affected due to a smaller number of native persons in training and no forced mobility.

Defining trades and traditions

The urge to keep with German standards not only affected the distribution of journeymen and the number of apprentices. In Sweden it was also an issue of complying with less clearly defined customs. In December 1646 this came to affect the aforementioned embroiderer Niklas Stare, in Stockholm. In the guild, Stare claimed that the master Paul Rolandt had discredited him and his former master Winandt Schale, who worked in Gothenburg, calling them both Dutchmen.⁷¹ Why the Dutch were discredited is not explained and testimonies taken from other guild members claim there was no foundation for these accusations. It was just a false rumour made up by some journeymen with the aim to tease Stare. In November 1647 Stare presented documents verifying his own and master Schale’s honest birth and learning of the trade. As a resolution, the guild affirmed that: ‘Niclas Stare was acknowledged as an upright journeyman according to German custom and imperial privilege as long as no one else may prove him otherwise’.⁷² This statement suggests a separation between German and Dutch customs. Another conflict on the same theme was also negotiated by the embroiderers in 1647. In the record of members, written below the usual list of names it says: ‘Straight upon their arrival and greeting, Tobias and Augustinus were scolded for the words spoken by the journeymen in Danzig’, followed by three names previously unknown in Stockholm; Hans Stein, Carl Kütner and Hans Kätner.⁷³ Further information is provided by the guild minutes, which describe how journeyman Casper Gutke had scolded two recently arrived journeymen from Danzig, Tobias Dreijk and Augustinus Harden, calling them ‘rogues on basis of the imperial craft custom’.⁷⁴ The reason behind Gutke’s anger was said to be that the new arrivals were in liaison with other people in Danzig, already involved in a conflict with Gutke. Although the matter in Danzig had already been resolved by the town magistrate, Gutke claimed it was still considered an open case within the embroiderer’s guild, and to maintain himself as an upright journeyman according to the craft custom he felt forced to scold them. It is also suggested that those involved in the conflict were in financial debt to the guild. As a resolution to the dispute in Stockholm, Casper Gutke was fined for speaking inappropriately towards his fellow brethren.⁷⁵ To reach a solution was vital, considering all three involved journeymen (Gutke, Harden and Dreijk) were assigned to the same master in Stockholm, Gabriel von der Danne, and hence forced to work side by side.⁷⁶ This was however not the end of the matter. In 1648, a record kept in the minutes in Stockholm includes the following words: ‘what is written in the Danzig minutes is all lies and further lies of the Dutch and the Germans’.⁷⁷ The nature of the alleged lies is described in a document sent from Danzig to Stockholm in December 1647. In order to manage the situation, the Stockholm guild seems to have contacted Danzig to retrieve further information. The document from Danzig records a number of witness statements taken in July and August 1647. They reveal a conflict between two competing customs within the trade, a German and a Dutch tradition.⁷⁸ The testimonies make clear that the earlier-mentioned journeyman Casper Gutke had appeared as a witness on behalf of an embroiderer in Danzig named Henrich Willemsen, who had been accused of calling embroiderer Hans Stein a rogue and a Dutchman in 1646. Several witnesses appear on both sides and there is also mention of correspondence with parties in Denmark and Warsaw to obtain further information. Based on the testimonies given in Danzig, the supposed differences between a German and a Dutch tradition are not specified. While some urge against letting journeymen move between masters of each custom, others claim there are no differences. One statement declares that the custom within the Roman Empire (Romischen Reich) was that a journeyman who had been staying with a Dutchman for more than 14 days would himself be held for a rogue and a Dutchman. In contradiction, other testimonies state that in Danzig there was no difference between Dutch and German embroiderers regarding learning or work, and artisans of both traditions should be regarded as honest and having learned their craft in an upright manner.⁷⁹ Unfortunately for the historian, there is no further mention of these conflicts in extant records. Niklas Stare became a guild master in 1648 but is later recorded as an illegal worker in 1655.⁸⁰ Casper Gutke and Tobias Dreijk are still present as journeymen in 1648, but then disappear from the Stockholm records.⁸¹ However, Augustinus Harden remains, eventually becoming master embroiderer, and continues to work in Stockholm up until his death in 1654.⁸²

But why was the status of Dutch artisans questioned? The matter had been raised in Danzig, and this is important. In his paper on cultural traffic in Danzig and Lübeck in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Alexander Cowan shows how Danzig’s monopoly on grain and timber export gave rise to increased Dutch influence during the period.⁸³ An influx of Dutch artisans and goods in Danzig probably contributed to conflicts with local artisans. Further, a guild’s function in regulating working conditions was also intertwined with the ceremonial and social intercourse of the group. Hence, to receive training within a guild structure was not only to acquire technical skill, it was also an introduction to the customs of the trade.⁸⁴ The habitual association with a guild was expressed through codes of clothing and ceremonial conduct, including ways of speech and behaviour.⁸⁵ These codes differed between groups. For many Swedish guilds their relation to German customs is described as almost religious and they willingly let it precede formal regulation, even if it brought them punishment, as they wished to uphold their relations to enable mobility.⁸⁶ The fact that conflicts emanating in Danzig disrupted working conditions in Stockholm shows a strong connection to the larger context on the Continent.

There are no records to suggest the passementerie makers in Stockholm ever dealt with disputes regarding German and Dutch craft customs. However, what they did face were disputes with neighbouring trades such as button makers and makers of metal thread, called gold workers, gold beaters (guldslagare) or gold pullers (gulddragare). These conflicts not only concerned market shares and product output but also access to labour. The record of button makers in Stockholm in 1644 lists only one master, Hans Vogt, and his Swedish-born journeyman Anders Jönsson.⁸⁷ These two had caught the attention of the guildsmen in Danzig. In a document in the Danzig archives, it is recorded that three button makers and one passementerie maker had personally appeared in front of the mayor in Danzig with a written request to gather information about a Stockholm-based button maker from Sweden.⁸⁸ Hence, yet again the contacts between Stockholm and Danzig are highlighted. The obtained information made clear that the button maker in question had formal connections with the passementerie-makers’ guild without having much in common with them, as he did not work on a loom but did all his work by hand. In order to endorse a proper record, it was suggested that the mayor of his town should issue a guild book confirmed by the town seal. This concern in Danzig for the state of affairs in Stockholm was probably founded in a general threat posed by all craftsmen working outside regulation. The record provides us with information on the distinctions between trades being based on the application of tools and techniques.

The same distinctions are also stated in text and illustrations published in Christoph Weigel’s ‘Book of Trades’ first issued in 1698 (see Figures 1 and 2).⁸⁹ An analysis based on the illustrations used by Weigel should be done with some caution, as some technical details appear inaccurate, suggesting the illustrations were made by someone with limited technical knowledge. Figure 1 shows the passementerie maker sitting by his loom. He is working on a narrow warp, consistent with making some kind of ornamental band. As the loom is equipped with a large number of shafts and treadles, he would have been able to perform a number of different bindings. In the background another man is preparing a new warp using a wall-mounted warping board. Figure 2 shows a button-maker’s workshop. The man in the foreground is weaving on a hand-held warp using a table-mounted frame. By raising and lowering the warp in the frame he is able to create a reed for a tabby binding. This technique works for weaving simple narrow ribbons and fringes that do not require a steady warp tension. Another man is standing behind the table working with a needle using a support to make covers for buttons with a stiff core. At the back a third man is operating a wheel used for twisting cords. Pictured also are a number of other tools and finished products. On the table are several sheets with buttons and, hanging on the wall, cords, fringes and tassel ornaments.

Figure 1. ‘Passement maker’, Abbildung Der Gemein-Nützlichen Haupt-Stände Von denen regenten und ihren so in Friedens- als kriegs- zeiten zugeordneten bedienten an/biß auf alle kunstler und Handwercker/nach jedes ambts- und beruffs- verrichteungen … , C. Weigel, Regensburg 1711 (first print 1698). Private collection.

Figure 2. ‘Button maker’, Abbildung Der Gemein-Nützlichen Haupt-Stände Von denen regenten und ihren so in Friedens- als kriegs- zeiten zugeordneten bedienten an/biß auf alle kunstler und Handwercker/nach jedes ambts- und beruffs- verrichteungen … , C. Weigel, Regensburg 1711 (first print 1698). Private collection.

This separation based on tools and techniques is further verified by a conflict recorded in Stockholm in 1677. One document covers a list of products to be made by each guild, to some extent sanctioning similar goods being produced by both.⁹⁰ The passementerie makers were allowed to work with loom-based techniques while the button makers only performed hand-based techniques such as loop-braiding (slingade), cording (drejande), braiding (flätande), knotting (knytande) and sewing (sömmande) (see Figures 3 and 4).⁹¹ A similar approach to distinguishing trades based on the application of tools is also mentioned by Reiht, talking about bone carvers working with a bow and belt makers working with hammer and pliers.⁹² Further, Catharina Lis and Hugo Soly also put forward the representation of tools in their analysis of how images and poems in the genre of ‘Book of Trades’ embodied artisanal ideals.⁹³ It is difficult to judge how the Copenhagen passementerie makers saw themselves in this regard. Extant records of wage rates for journeyman work in Copenhagen confirm production of different kinds of ribbons, fringes and cords. Some work is hard to interpret and translate from German, for example ‘durichsichtig arbeit’, ‘Vberlegte arbeidt mit giempen’ and ‘Punthen arbeit vnd Rauthen arbeidt’.⁹⁴ The journeymen also prepared warps for the looms, being paid in relation to the number of threads. Hence, they did work with looms. However, there is no mention about making buttons or tassels.

Figure 3. Silk fringes dyed with indigo, seventeenth or eighteenth century. Private collection. The top fringe has a narrow edge that can be woven on a table-mounted frame. The adjacent broader section is tied by hand with cords. The lower fringe has a broad edge woven in velvet, a technique that requires an advanced loom with two parallel warp systems.

Figure 4. Silk and metal thread tassels, seventeenth or eighteenth century. Private collection. Both tassels have a wooden core. The red tassel on the right has metal thread details worked with a needle.

According to Farr, safeguarding the monopoly of different trades was not just an economic implement; it was also the expression of a moral idea, aimed at maintaining internal hierarchy and order.⁹⁵ Hence, it was forbidden to work within two trades simultaneously. However, factual conditions in Sweden show several examples of these boundaries being crossed. Such disruptions were to a large extent enabled by royal privileges overriding the guilds. For instance, some craftsmen received royal privileges which allowed them to operate two parallel trades. In 1651 the passementerie-maker Elias Reichenbach received a royal privilege to operate the trade of making gold thread (guldträckare handtering) alongside his regular trade, and in 1673 the same privilege was also granted passementerie-maker Elias Thede.⁹⁶ Both Reichenbach and Thede are recorded as masters in the passementerie-makers’ guild in Stockholm at the time when the privileges were issued.⁹⁷ In 1654 passementerie-maker Elias Reichenbach complained about gold beater (guldslagare) Andreas Knauer. Both Reichenbach and Knauer worked on royal commissions for the upcoming coronation and wedding of Karl X Gustav. Knauer delivered fringes, gold ribbons, and buttons, and this did not pass unnoticed.⁹⁸ During the autumn, several minutes record the dispute.⁹⁹ On 2 October the Royal Governor (ståthållaren) appeared and underlined the urgency of completing the orders. Reichenbach also stretched the boundaries and was accused of making buttons. On 3 October he promises to stop working with buttons, but still wants to keep a journeyman to fulfil the royal orders. On the same day, passementerie-maker Elias Thede was also accused of interfering by employing women, thus undermining the labour market for button-maker journeymen. Hence, yet again disruptions were caused by the royal commissions, where demand was clearly affected by an upsurge in relation to important royal ceremonies. A temporary lack of labour was thus handled by crossing boundaries set by the guilds. The similarities between trades also caused labour to move around. Two years earlier, Reichenbach lost one of his apprentices to the goldbeater Anders Skrickel, having served 18 months out of his five-year tenure.¹⁰⁰ In 1659, Reichenbach was himself accused by the button makers of having taken one of their journeymen.¹⁰¹ The button makers were eager to get their journeyman back, as they had no others. However, Reichenbach was allowed to keep the journeyman in order to complete a royal commission in Gothenburg.

Hence, while some of these conflicts had a direct relation to a German standard, they were argued in a more or less undefined manner calling on tradition. Other conflicts about access to skilled labour and market shares stemmed from competition between neighbouring trades. While the distinction between trades were defined by the application of different tools and techniques, these borders were, especially in Sweden, undermined by royal privileges that benefited the customer.

Conclusions

The aim of this paper has been to discuss conflicts related to mobility of skilled labour within two small and specialised guilds in Scandinavia during the mid-seventeenth century. By comparing the guilds of passementerie makers and embroiderers in Stockholm and Copenhagen the investigation has managed to get a closer view of actual conditions on the ground. The investigated cases of conflict offer valuable information on different challenges faced by small and specialised trades.

One challenge, which probably shaped conditions in many such trades, was the difficulty in balancing human capital investment with a fluctuating market demand. In Stockholm, a temporary rise in demand was clearly tied to the production of goods used in large ceremonial events such as a coronation or a royal wedding. This was met by different strategies. A legal solution was to recruit journeymen from abroad and pay for their journey. Other solutions, which breached guild restrictions, were to engage women or hire labour from other trades.

The other face of managing access to labour was to deal with a general shortage of skilled journeymen, and this may have been a more pronounced problem in peripheral regions such as Scandinavia. There were simply not enough journeymen to go around. This gave rise to conflicts about the allocation of those that came wandering. To enforce local re-growth of skilled labour there was an incentive to increase the number of people in training. Hence, keeping a large number of apprentices of native origin was encouraged in both Copenhagen and Stockholm.

This made the situation in Scandinavia differ from conditions in many German towns, which imposed more strict limitations to the number of people in training. Local differences in regulation which breached German standards for working conditions challenged the set of demands used for determining artisanal honour, hence posing a real hindrance for mobility of journeymen. The masters, on the other hand, were focused on improving local conditions, hence willing to go against German standards. This created a tension, forcing the guilds to navigate between the needs of journeymen and masters respectively. This situation was particularly challenging in Copenhagen where the number of native apprentices was high and journeyman tramping abroad was mandatory.

The investigation shows that the conditions for passementerie makers in Sweden and Denmark were different. These differences may have to do with Copenhagen being closer to the rest of the Continent, while Stockholm was more remote and accessed by sea. While a higher number of the Danes operated in the guild in Copenhagen, both passementerie makers and embroiderers in Stockholm seem to have been more dependent on immigration. With less incentives for journeyman tramping abroad, conflicts in Sweden focused more on market share and access to labour in situ. These conflicts provide us with valuable information on how distinctions between different trades were expressed, targeting the use of tools and techniques. Interestingly enough, the problems between related trades competing on the market for passementerie products did not manifest themselves in the same way in Denmark. Conditions in Sweden were more affected by royal privileges disrupting guild authority. Conflicts also arose over other issues, such as respecting German craft traditions beyond formal regulation.

Managing conflicts was in many cases a question of enabling negotiations between groups of people, as many problems were not seen as individual. If one master experienced problems with a journeyman, the other members of each group often closed ranks, and it became a question which engaged all. Much effort was placed on getting the facts straight, usually by asking the opinion of all involved. When matters stretched beyond the local scene, written correspondence was used to obtain information from abroad. Negotiations often ended with reaching some kind of middle ground, where the needs of both parties were at least partly met. This would generally not result in changes of formal regulation. Most cases were instead resolved by making informal adjustments to the interpretation of formal rules. However, in some cases, where focus was on one person, it often concerned the honour of an individual being questioned. In these cases, honour was often restored by the guild affirming it through written documentation. Further, in some cases where a formal rule was broken, this was generally settled with a fine.

Results suggest these small and specialised guilds in Scandinavia experienced more challenges than those on the Continent. A remote location did have a negative effect on the circulation of skilled labour. Both Copenhagen and Stockholm were dependent on tapping into a greater geographical area – in this case the northern parts of the German Empire – in order to facilitate mobility and access to skilled labour. This created a need to comply with a set of rules enforced far away from home. In comparison, larger towns on the Continent were probably able to act more independently. In conclusion, the examination confirms a prevailing strong German influence on the Scandinavian guilds, both in practice and in the composition of its members.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my colleagues in Textile Studies at the Department of Art History, Uppsala University who have been generous with comments on previous drafts of this paper. I would also like to show my appreciation to the anonymous reviewers, who have contributed with valuable comments on this work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Stiftelsen Else-Marie Zennströms minne, and Berit Wallenbergs stiftelse [grant BWS 2017.0023].

Notes on contributors

Cecilia Candréus

Cecilia Candréus is a researcher in Textile Studies at the Department of Art History at Uppsala University, Sweden. Her research interest is in the working conditions of the early modern artisan. She has previously published on court embroiderers and the use of ceremonial textiles as manifestations of power during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. She is currently working on two research projects; one on women’s occupational practices in crafts in the manufactory-system in Sweden, c. 1739–1846, and one on the manufacture and use of textiles at the Swedish Vasa-court during the sixteenth century.

Notes

1. Reinhold Reith, “Circulation of Skilled Labour in Late Medieval and Early Modern Central Europe,” in Guilds, Innovation, and the European Economy, 1400–1800, ed. Stephan R Epstein and Maarten Prak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 119–125.

2. Reith, Circulation of Skilled, 126–130.

3. In the seventeenth century Finland was under Swedish rule and Norway was a part of Denmark.

4. Jan von Bonsdorff, “Kunstproduktion und Kunstverbreitung im Ostseeraum des Spätmittelalters” (PhD diss., Helsinkki: Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja, 1993); Cecilia Candréus, “En svensk verkstad för utländska lyxvaror: De kungliga pärlstickarna vid Gustav I:s hov 1523–1560,” Historisk Tidskrift 133, no. 4: 587–620, see 608–10.

5. Carl Nyrop, Haandværksskik i Danmark. Nogle aktstykker samt nogle oplysninger om handwärksgebrauch und gewohnheit som et forsøg udgivne (København: Det nordiske forlag Ernst Bojesen, 1903); Ernst Söderlund, Hantverkarna. Andra delen. Stormaktstiden, frihetstiden och gustavianska tiden (Stockholm: Tidens förlag, 1949), 173–4, 315–17.

6. Sheilagh Ogilvie, The European Guilds: An Economic Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2019); Stephan R. Epstein and Maarten Prak eds., Guilds, Innovation and the European Economy, 1400–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); James R. Farr, Artisans in Europe 1300–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

7. Dag Lindström, “Skrå, stad och stat. Stockholm, Malmö och Bergen ca 1350–1622” (PhD diss., Uppsala University, 1991); Nyrop, Haandværksskik; Ernst Söderlund, Hantverkarna. Andra delen. Stormaktstiden, frihetstiden och gustavianska tiden (Stockholm: Tidens förlag, 1949).

8. The relation between guilds and state in Sweden and Denmark/Norway during an earlier period has been examined by Lindström, Skrå, stad och stat.

9. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 10–20. Farr’s investigation is based on a broad selection of research, and provides a valuable synthesis on the subject matter.

10. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 20–32.

11. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 6.

12. See note 11.

13. Lars Magnusson, Den bråkiga kulturen. Förläggare och Smideshantverkare i Eskilstuna 1800–1850 (Vänersborg: Författarförlaget, 1988), 251–55.

14. Stephan R. Epstein, “Transferring technical knowledge and innovation in Europe, c. 1200–1800,” in Technology, Skills and the Pre-Modern Economy in the East and the West ed. Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten van Zanden (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 29–34.

15. Epstein, Transferring technical knowledge, 31–2.

16. Ogilvie, The European Guilds, 356–78.

17. Epstein, Transferring technical knowledge, 33.

18. Befolkningen i Stockholm 1252–2005. Report by Stockholms stad, Utrednings- och statistikkontoret, 2005. https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/PostFiles/USK/historisk_befolkning_web.pdf, accessed 7 August 2023; Hans Christian Johansen, Danish Population History: 1600–1939 (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2002), 20–2.

19. If not otherwise stated, all information in this section is taken from records of guild members. Stockholms stadsarkiv (SSA), Stockholm, Sweden, Ämbetskollegium (ÄK) D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

20. Cecilia Candréus, “De hädangångnas heraldik: En studie av broderade begravningsfanor ca 1670–1720” (PhD diss., Hedemora and Möklinta: Gidlunds, 2008), 98–101.

21. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 90–4.

22. The guild member record of 1647 names masters: David Cantor, Hans Jörgen, Gabriel von der Danne from Kiel, and journeymen: Christopher Weisenberg, Tobias Dreijch, Casper Gutker and Nicklas Stare. The guild member record of 1655 name masters: David Cantor, Augustin, Fredrich, Bernhard Somen, Jörgen Ullrich, Jochum Kahler, Anthon Christian, and journeymen; Zacharias [W—], Påhl Sterner, [—] Meijer, Bothwid [—], Johan Person svensk (Swede), and further illegal workers (Bönhasar): Nicklas Stare svensk (Swede), Jacob Fromholt, And: Hansson, Hans Vogt. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

23. If not otherwise stated, all information in this section is taken from records of guild members. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

24. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 95.

25. If not otherwise stated, all information in this section is taken from records of guild members. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

26. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 1658–1663, 3, 10, 17 April and 8 May 1660; D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare 1655.

27. The passementerie makers can be followed in documents during the eighteenth century. SSA, Ämbets- och byggningskollegium, FIa:1 Företeckning över ämbeten och hantverkare 1673–1743.

28. The minutes name twelve masters: Abraham Callwarth, Dirick Eigenhoff, Iffuer Kier, Conradt V: Mölengratt, Clauss Thripsses, Mickell Wallumssen, Chresten Thomessen, Thönnis Van Harsten, Hans Anderssen, Johan Neibuhr, Pouell Förster, Peter Hanssen, and twelve journeymen: Dirick Hegerfeldt, Casper Zweisser, Johan Witboer, Hans Raabe, Jan van Vÿtriek, Hans Chrestenssen, Hans Söfrenssen, Anders Jackobssen, Simon Hanssen, Peder Lauridhzssen, Rasmus Hanssen, Fredrich Hanssen. Københavns stadsarkiv (KS), Lavsarkiver (LA), Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 1634–1750, 21 May 1639. Digitalized microfilm https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988418, accessed 14 April 2023.

29. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, Quarterly fees 9 April 1648.

30. The names are: Iffr Kier, Conradt v: Mölengracht, Claus Thripfes, Christen Thomesen, Thönis v: Harsten, Peter Hansen, Pouel Förster, Kield Pedersen, Hanns Jann, Gottfried Kleinschmidt, Dierick Eigenhoff, Peter Lorendsen, Pieter Weichfothz, Christopher Matisen and Suend Katt.

31. The disposition of different entries is messy and information of a later date has often been inserted on older pages, making chronology of the content confusing. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll. Digitalized microfilm https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988589 follow further, and https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272597,51988684 follow further (accessed April 14, 2023).

32. Mentioned towns and areas include: Lübeck, Hamburg, Kiel, Mecklenborg, Pommern, Landtholsten, Halmstad, Landskrona and Lund.

33. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 17 July 1635. Digitalized microfilm https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988400 follow further (accessed April 14, 2023).

34. Ordinances for passementerie makers 1634 and 1647, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium. Samling af dokumenter, breve og andre kilder til oplysning om Kjøbenhavs ældre forhold før 1728, vol. 3, ed. O. Nielsen (København: G. E. C. Gad. Thieles bogtrykkeri, 1877, 119–25, number 151; pp. 283–8, number 416. This volume is accessible at: https://slaegtsbibliotek.dk/931752.pdf, (accessed April 18, 2023).

35. Ordinance for passementerie makers 1634, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium, vol. 3., 119–25, original quote: ’ … førend lauget kommer bedre i suang … ’.

36. Ordinance for passementerie makers 1647, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium, vol. 3., 283–8.

37. Ordinance for passementerie makers 1647, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium, vol. 3, 119–25, number 151.

38. The investigated German ordinances are of a later date and only stipulate the formalities as far as that a journeyman, once assigned to a master, is obliged to stay a minimum of 14 days. See ordinance for passementerie makers in Stralsund 1674 and button makers in Stralsund 1755, Stadtarchiv der Hansestadt Stralsund (SHS), Strahlsund, Germany, HS-298-0167, HS-298-0169; passementerie- and button makers in Strassburg 1681, Eduin Siegel, Zur Geschichte des Posamentiergewerbes mit besonderer Rücksischtsnahme auf die erzgebirgische Posamentsenindustrie (Annaberg: Herman Graser’s Verlag, 1892), http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/92884/1/ (accessed April 18, 2023), 38.

39. Reiht, Circulation of Skilled, 139.

40. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 95.

41. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 302–3.

42. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 1643–1652, 20 August 1650. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, p. 101.

43. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 1643–1652, September 1651. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, p. 92.

44. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 92.

45. Söderlund, Hantverkarna, 150–65.

46. Söderlund, Hantverkarna, 169. Guilds with no travel requirements are also seen in other parts of Europe. Ogilvie, The European Guilds, 449–51.

47. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 95, 313.

48. Ordinances for passementerie makers 1634 and 1647, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium. vol. 3, 119–25, number 151; 283–8, number 416.

49. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 29 juli 1637. Digitalized microfilm, https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988407 (accessed April 14, 2023).

50. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 8 January 1639. Digitalized microfilm, https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988412 (accessed April 14, 2023).

51. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 19 April 1639. Digitalized microfilm, https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988414 (accessed April 14, 2023).

52. Ordinance for passementerie makers 1647, Kjøbenhavns diplomatarium, vol. 3., 283–8, number 416, original quote: ‘ … anden behoff … ’.

53. See note 51.

54. KS, LA, vol. 1, Possementmagerlauget, Artikler 1633, 1641, 1640.

55. See note 54.

56. See ordinances for: passementerie makers in Strahlsund 1674 and passementerie – and button makers in Strassburg 1681, SHS, HS-298-0167, HS-298-0169; passementerie makers in Geyer 1688; passementerie makers in Scheibenberg 1668, passementerie makers in Thum 1672, Siegel, Zur Geschichte, http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/92884/1/, accessed 18 April 2023, 39, 62, p. 67, 77.

57. The following section builds on KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll. Digitalized microfilm https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988589 follow further, and https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272597,51988684, follow further (accessed April 14, 2023).

58. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll 5 May 1639. Digitalized microfilm, https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272595,51988416, (accessed April 14, 2023).

59. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, a loose sheet excerpt from the town council minutes 9 May 1639.

60. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, wage register 25 June 1648.

61. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, letters from Hamburg to the passementerie-makers’ guild in Copenhagen, 16 March 1656 and 24 April without year. The latter is addressed to Alderman Paul Förster and deputies Peter Hansen and Hans Jahn. This constellation of people is consistent with an approximate date of around 1656 based on signatures found in other guild documents.

62. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, Lavsprotokoll. Digitalized microfilm https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=19981557#272597,51988704 (accessed August 14 2023).

63. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Regenskabsbilag 1633–1669, loose account sheet dated 1656 signed by Paul Förster.

64. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, letter from Severin Thomssen Nieber in Hamburg to the passementerie makers’ guild in Copenhagen, 24 April, without year.

65. See note 64.

66. See note 64.

67. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, loose sheet dated November 2, 1656

68. See ordinances for: passementerie makers in Strahlsund 1674 and passementerie – and button makers in Strassburg 1681, SHS, HS-298-0167, HS-298-0169; passementerie makers in Geyer 1688; passementerie makers in Scheibenberg 1668, passementerie makers in Thum 1672, Siegel, Zur Geschichte, http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/92884/1/, accessed 18 April 2023, 39, 62, 67, 77.

69. Söderlund, Hantverkarna, 169; Kongl: Mayst:z Allaemene Ordning och Skråå för handtwärckarne i Swerige och Finlandh (Stockholm: Georg Hantschs efterleverska, 1669).

70. This section is based on: SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

71. This section is based on: SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 1643–1652, December 15, 1646, November 1647.

72. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 1643–1652, 15 December 1646, November 1647, original quote: ’Niclas Stare bleff erkender för een redlig gesell effter teusch maner och keijserlig privilegio så länge någon honom annat kan bevijs’.

73. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare, skrårulla Pärlstickare 6 November 1647, original quote: ’Strax widh sin amkompst och sin gruß [hafje] skelt Tobias och Augustinus opå the gesellers ord j dantzig’. For more on the formal greeting ceremony – gruß – see Nyrop, Haandvaerksskik i Danmark, pp. 208–9.

74. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll, 6 November 1647, original quote: ’ … Skelmar beropat effter keijserlig handtwerkz bruk … ’.

75. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll, November 1647.

76. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare, skrårulla Pärlstickare 6 November 1647.

77. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll, loose sheet titled ’A:o 1648 Citationer’, original quote: ’ … huadh i Protocollet j dantzich skrifuit Står ähn idil Lögn, af the hollender och tÿske … ’.

78. SSA, ÄK, E: inkommande handlingar 1638–1672. Letter, Danzig to Stockholm December 26, 1647.

79. See note 78.

80. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 313

81. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare, skrårulla Pärlstickare 1648.

82. Candréus, De hädangångnas heraldik, 305.

83. Cowan, Alexander, “Cultural Traffic in Lübeck and Danzig in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Scandinavian Journal of History 28, no. 3–4: 175–158.

84. Farr, Artisans in Europe, p. 34; Nyrop, Haandværksskik i Danmark, 207–11.

85. Nyrop, Haandvaerksskik i Danmark, 189–190, 207–19. Reith, ‘Circulation of Skilled’, 130, footnote 66.

86. Söderlund, Hantverkarna, 173–4.

87. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare, 1644. There are several members of the Vogt/Fougt family recorded as button makers in Stockholm from 1570 onwards. Some worked for the royal court, which meant they were excluded from guild obligation according to Swedish regulation. Otto Helander, Något om knappens historia i Sverige (Stockholm: Kista snabbtryck, 2003), 85–6.

88. All information in this paragraph is from: Archiwum Państwowe w Gdańsku (AP), Gdansk, Poland, Knopfmacher 1644–1806, micro film 66,404, 300, c/483, November 4, 1644.

89. Christoph Weigel, Abbildung Der Gemein-Nützlichen Haupt-Stände Von denen Regenten Und ihren So in Friedens- als Kriegs- Zeiten zugeordneten Bedienten an/biß auf alle Kunstler Und Handwercker/nach Jedes Ambts- und Beruffs- Verrichteungen … , (Regensburg 1698) http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/88/1/ (accessed April 18, 2023), pp. 582–7.

90. The list of similar products includes: litzer, litzqvard and qvastar, meaning different kinds of decorative cords and tassels.

91. Helander, Något om knappens, 89.

92. Reiht, ‘Circulation of Skilled’, 130.

93. Catharina Lis and Hugo Soly, Worthy Efforts: Attitudes to Work and Workers in Pre-Industrial Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 349–59.

94. KS, LA, Possementmagerlauget, vol. 1, Dokumenter 1630–1668, wage registers 1633, 1640. 1641, 1648. Quotations from 1640.

95. Farr, Artisans in Europe, 22–9.

96. Riksarkivet, Stockholm, Sweden, Riksregistraturet 17 May 1651, micro card 3/18 vol. 272 E00583 and Riksregistraturet 7 April 1673, micro card 1–2/12 vol. 404 E00708; Söderlund, Hantverkarna, 443, note 30.

97. SSA, ÄK, D: Liggare, rullor över hantverkare.

98. SLA, Klädkammarens räkenskaper 1654, B:41, fol. 66–9.

99. This section builds on information in: SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll, 27 September. 2, 3, 5 and 31 October 1654.

100. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 27 May 1652.

101. SSA, ÄK, A: Protokoll 9 September 1659.