Editing Guild (section)

=== Women's guild activity ===
Early modern Rouen was an important center of guildswomen's activity. By 1775, there were about 700 female masters, accounting for 10% of all guild masters in the city. A survey that circulated in the late 18th century listed that the Rouen ribbonmakers had 149 masters, mistresses, and widows, indicating its mixed gendered composition. A tax roll of 1775 indicated that their total membership was about 160, with 58 men, 17 widows, 55 wives, and 30 unmarried women.<ref name="hafter">Hafter, Daryl M. "Female Masters in the Ribbonmaking Guild of Eighteenth-Century Rouen." French Historical Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1997, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, {{doi|10.2307/286795}}. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.</ref>

Historians have noted the essential contributions that women made to these guilds. Many scholars have asserted that it would have been impossible for male merchants and craftsmen to start a business, let alone run it, without the help of their wives.<ref name="hafter" />

The oldest women's guild in Paris dealt in linens, including household linens, layettes for babies, and undergarments. There seemed to be a major wealth disparity among its members. The linen workers whose sheds were at the center of [[Les Halles]] caused the guild some trouble. There was a perception that these workers also trafficked in sex as well as linens, which made the guild emphatic about its own morality. On the other end of the social divide, the linen trade was a respectable occupation for married and single women of high social standing.<ref name="coffin">Coffin, Judith G. "Gender and the Guild Order: The Garment Trades in Eighteenth-Century Paris". The Journal of Economic History, vol. 54, no. 4, 1994, pp. 768–93. {{JSTOR|2123610}}. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.</ref>

In France, special provisions had to be made in order to assure that woman could move relatively freely in the textile guilds of Paris and Rouen. They used a special legal formula, the privilege of the ''marchande publique''. This legal device made certain that a woman had the right to participate on her own behalf in the economy, and thus did not require references to her husband's resources or possible involvement. If a woman did not join a guild first, she was required to obtain her husband's permission in order to receive the status of ''marchande publique''. If she did join a guild, the status was conferred automatically. The privilege of ''marchande publique'' allowed a woman to participate in business as a legal adult, sign contracts, go to court, and borrow money.<ref name="hafter" />

In [[Amsterdam]], seamstresses acquired an independent guild in 1579. In several other cities of the [[Netherlands]], they obtained subordinate positions in the tailors' guilds during the late 17th and 18th centuries.<ref name="Crowston" />

Frenchwomen provided vocational training to apprentices. In apprenticeship contracts the names and trades of spouses would both appear.<ref name="loats">Loats, Carol L. "Gender, Guilds, and Work Identity: Perspectives from Sixteenth-Century Paris." French Historical Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1997, pp. 15–30. JSTOR, {{doi|10.2307/286796}}. Accessed 25 Nov. 2023.</ref> The trades were usually the same or closely related.<ref name="sewell">Sewell, William H. "Social and Cultural Perspectives on Women’s Work: Comment on Loats, Hafter, and DeGroat". French Historical Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 1997, pp. 49–54. JSTOR, {{doi|10.2307/286798}}. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.</ref> In earlier research, lack of contracts led scholars to believe that women and girls never received official training, and instead learned their trade at home. This was debunked with Clare Crowston's research on parish schools in France. Instead of apprenticeships, girls could receive an alternative form of vocational training from these schools. Students entered at around eight for two years of education, and were segregated by gender. Boys studied primarily religion, reading, writing, and mathematics; girls learned many of the same topics as well, but a significant portion was devoted to learning needlework. These schools were intended to enrich the vocational training that girls learned, so that they could go on and earn a living. According to Crowston, the most important religious community that offered such training were the Filles de Saint-Agnès, which offered instruction in four trades: linen work, embroidery, lace, and tapestry-making. The school provided all of the tools necessary for girls to learn, and also allowed students to choose which best suited them. Although this was far different than the model of apprenticeship practiced by guilds, the sisters referred to their students as apprentices.<ref name="Crowston" />

In July 1706, a group of women, members of the Parisian wigmakers, went to Versailles in order to petition [[Louis XIV]] to remove a stifling tax that had been levied on wigs that same year. The tax was removed in mid-July 1706 although historians do not believe that the guildswomen were the sole reason as to why.<ref name="gayne" />

==== Division of labor ====
When French seamstresses attained guild privileges in 1675, their corporate privilege extended to clothing for women and children. When they entered guilds, seamstresses in Paris, Rouen, and [[Aix-en-Provence]] acquired the right to make articles of clothing for women and children, but not for men or boys over age eight. This division reappeared in every French city where seamstresses entered guilds.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Crowston |first1=Clare |title=Fabricating women: the seamstresses of Old Regime France, 1675-1791 |date=2001 |publisher=Duke University Press |pages=2–3 }}</ref>

==== Underground business ====
Due to the political, legislative, and social power of many guilds during the medieval and early modern periods, any economic activity that encroached on guild purview was considered criminal activity. The black market was used to get around regulations set by the guild for membership, for the goods they produced, and to circumvent expensive fees and taxes that may be imposed by governments. Illegal work did not pass unnoticed by authorities at the time, and are documented by police reports and guild complaints. Guild officers were able to arrest people who were working in the trade without guild credentials, and could use municipal law enforcement to aid them in the arrest. Guilds often did take people to court for illegal work. In 18th c. [[Lyon]], about half of the defendants were men, and half were women. Daryl Hafter notes that many of the female defendants were practicing trades where they were either completely barred from guild membership, or had austere restrictions within the guild. As joining a guild was expensive, this explains why poorer men would turn to illicit craft.<ref name="hafter2">HAFTER, DARYL M. "Women in the Underground Business of Eighteenth-Century Lyon." Enterprise & Society, vol. 2, no. 1, 2001, pp. 11–40. {{JSTOR|23699806}}. Accessed 2 Dec. 2023.</ref> Clandestine artisans were seen as a severe encroachment on guild rights, liberties, and exclusivity. Many guilds feared that this would affect economic stability.<ref name="hoffman" />

In [[Paris]], the Barber-Wigmaker & Bath Provider Guild struggled against illicit wigmaking and styling. In this case, illicit wigmaking flourished in order to circumvent the expensive wig tax. Women and girls could enter this guild. Illicit wigmakers operated throughout the 18th c., and made continuous contributions to the industry.<ref name="gayne">Gayne, Mary K. "Illicit Wigmaking in Eighteenth-Century Paris". Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 38, no. 1, 2004, pp. 119–37. {{JSTOR|30053631}}. Accessed 2 Dec. 2023.</ref>

Judith Coffin posits that the number of clandestine linen drapers, seamstresses, and tailors, kept pace and probably outstripped the numbers from those guilds. Clandestine workers, male and female, worked in garret shops and rooms under guild jurisdiction. Not all non-guild work was illegal, too. A non-guild artisan could work directly for the crown, or in the "free zones" that were beyond the reach of the guild officers. Clandestine workers in the needle trade were often employed by larger merchant manufacturers. Guild members were also enmeshed in illegal labor, either carrying it out, or hiring those who did illegal work. Nearly everyone was in violation of guild statutes.<ref name="coffin" /> Masters of the guild would often hire illegal workers to do specific and low-paying parts of the job. In the case of the Wigmakers, it was hair-weaving, the most labor-intensive aspect of the craft. Hair weavers arranged pinches of hair side by side and interlaced them in intricate patterns between six silk threads extended on two wooden rods. Women called ''tresseuses'' seemed to perform a substantial amount of this work outside masters' shops.<ref name="gayne" />

Despite the guilds' fear of illegal craft, underground business often helped guilds survive. The creation of materials was often illicit, or outsourced from other locales. Masters hired non-guild workers to do high-intensive tasks and paid less, while at the same time denigrating their work. In many cities, guild masters purchased discounted materials and hired cheap labor to reduce costs. In Lyon, the underground silk economy thrived, and was a significant portion of the economy. It was made up of mostly female artisans whose work paralleled that of the legitimate trade. The female artisans were important to the guild as they were highly skilled in craft procedures that the guild heavily relied upon, and were essential to production. But they also worked for male entrepreneurs outside of the guild and frequently collaborated with each other to set up their own businesses. In an effort to curb this illicit activity, guildmasters wrote bylaws forbidding men and women to work outside of the guild. The buttonmakers guild of Lyon also complained about illicit work and theft from the non-guild female workers whom they hired. They also took it upon themselves to teach girls the buttonmaking trade, which was the real problem, as their instruction imparted the "mystery" of guild secrets to non-guild members which undermined the guild.<ref name="hafter2" />

In the mid-17th c., [[Lübeck]] experienced political conflicts as guilds petitioned the councils to ban clandestine work not only in the city but in rural areas. They were outraged that members of the upperclass in Lübeck would employ rural craftsmen at the expense of the city guild. A lot of their anger spurred from the fact that they were part of the council who had sworn to uphold the guild.<ref name="hoffman">HOFFMANN, PHILIP R. "In Defence of Corporate Liberties: Early Modern Guilds and the Problem of Illicit Artisan Work." Urban History, vol. 34, no. 1, 2007, pp. 76–88. {{JSTOR|44613682}}. Accessed 2 Dec. 2023.</ref>

Early modern Lyon continued to have a thriving underground economy into the late 18th century. In 1780, the hatters' guild complained that women and girls who sheared skins for the industry had established an underground manufacture 25 years earlier, and that it was still sustained. These women were the wives of hatters or girls who were hired day by day, and who were not content to be so dependent on the guild. The women were accused of theft of materials, buying stolen materials for cheap, and selling them for larger amounts. What was most surprising was the response from the government, which had previously always stood with guilds even at the economy's expense. A royal edict of 1777 formed a corps of these female workers, giving them legitimacy.<ref name="hafter2" />{{Integralism}}