(The Venetian Ambassador to the Court of Henry VII, c. 1500. Trans. C.A. Sneyd, Camden Soc. Vol. 37, 1847)
The Ambassador goes on:
'...for having kept them at home till they arrive at the age of seven or nine years at the utmost, they put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another seven or nine years. And these are called apprentices, and during that time they perform all the most menial offices; and few are born who are exempted from this fate, for everyone,however rich he may be, sends away his own children to the houses of others, whilst he n return receives those of strangers into his own. And on enquiring the reason for this severity, they answered that they did it in order that their children might have better manners.'
The Ambassador then gives his own reasons:
'But I, for my part, believe that they do it because they like to enjoy all their comforts themselves, and that are better served by strangers than they would be by their own children. Besides which, the English being great epicures, and very avaricious by nature, indulge in the most delicate fare themselves and give their household the coarsest bread, and beer, and cold meat baked on Sunday for the week, which, however, they allow them in great abundance. That if they had their own children at home, they would be obliged to give them the same food as the made use for themselves.'
Thirteen sons and five daughters with their father on a monumental brass, 1501.
Families could be large.
The exception was the children of unskilled laborours on the land, who were denied even the opportunity of apprenticeship by a statute passed in the reign of Richard II (1367-1400) which tied agricultural workers' children to work on the land:
'It is ordained and assented, That he or she which used to labour at the plough and cart, or other labour or Service of Husbandry till they be of the age of Twelve Yeare, that from thenceforth they shall abide at the same labour, without being put to and Mystery or Handicraft; and if any Covenant or Bond of Apprentice be from henceforth made to the Contrary, the same shall be holden for none.'
(Statutes, Richard II Cap. V 1388. In: F. J. Furnivall, Introduction, EETS, Vol. 32 p. xlvi)
For children higher up the social scale being bound apprentice to a craft was the way to a good living. It was also quite common for the younger sons of great landowners to be apprenticed, so that their futures were proviced for, as the eldest son would inherit most of the estates.
The apprentices' rights and duties were laid out in a strict legal code and the numbers entering each craft were jealously guarded by the craft unions or guilds to keep up the wages of members and to keep the skill secrets. A child would usually have to take what was on offer, generally being apprenticed to the same trade as his father, either with another family member or a friend. So localities became associated with particular skills; In Europe, where the same system of apprenticeship also applied. So Nuremberg became famous for its clockwork mechanics and Toledo for its sword blades.
In the cities apprentices often formed strong and unruly bands, a bit like football supporters out on the town, and were quite often involved in riots. There were a number of local laws which suggest the way they behaved: in Newcastle apprentices were forbidden to 'daunce dice cardfs mum or use any musick in the strets' and they were criticised for their extravagant dress and long hair. In Carlisle in 1595 the apprentices were forbidden to play football. In London particularly apprentices became involved in national politics, taking to the streets with their cudgels.
)There is a very good detailed account of apprenticeship with a breakdown into trades of part of the Bristol Apprentice Roills 1532- in Dorothy Gardiner's English Girlhood at School, O.U.P. 1929)
Upper class children, from the European ruling elite, could suffer in a way that the children of less important
people would not, because they were important family assets.
The practice of taking the children of conquered, or even allied, rulers as hostages is extremely old. British noble-born children were brought in in Imperial Rome. Maybe because of this it became normal practise for nobly born children, especially boys to be sent away to the household of a nobleman or equal or greater rank, often their father's overlord, possibly the monarch. Boys were sent away about seven years old and girls a bit later. They would serve as pages, then squires, and the girls as ladies in waiting. The Earl of Arundel sent his son to the household of the Bishop of Norwich in 1620 and commanded him:
'You shall in all Things reverence honour and obey my Lord Bishop of Norwich as you would do any of your parents, esteeming whatsoever he shall tell or Command you, as if your Grandmother of Arundell, your Mother or myself should say it; and in all things esteem yourself as my Lord's Page; a breeding which youths of my house far superior to you were accustomed to....'
(EETS original series Vol. 32, p.ix)
It could be tough: Roger de Hoveden, clerk to Henry II in the 12th century, remembered that at the court of Richard I's Chancellor Longchamps, Bishop of Ely:
'All the sons of the nobles acted as his servants with downcast looks, nor dared they to look upward towards the heavens unless it so happened that they were addressing him; and if they attended to anything else they were pricked with a goad, which their lord held in his hand, fully mindful of his grandfather of pious memory who, being of servile condition in the district of Beauvais, had, for his occupation, to guide the plough....'
(EETS Vol. 32 p. vi)
(One of the ways in which children of very poor families might, just, raise to a higher station, was through the Church.)
e-mail: childhoodblog@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment