Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The History and Historiography of Guild Hierarchies in the Middle Ages* Étienne Anheim “The operations which must necessarily be performed in order to pass from the inspection of documents to the knowledge of the facts and evolutions of the past are very numerous. Hence the necessity of the division and organization of labor in history. It is requisite, on the one hand, that those specialists who occupy themselves with the search for documents, their restoration and preliminary classification, should co-ordinate their efforts, in order that the preparatory work of critical scholarship may be finished as soon as possible, under the best conditions as to accuracy and economy of labor. On the other hand, authors of partial syntheses (monographs) designed to serve as materials for more comprehensive syntheses ought to agree among themselves to work on a common method, in order that the results of each may be used by the others without preliminary investigations. Lastly, workers of experience should be found to renounce personal research and devote their whole time to the study of these partial syntheses, in order to combine them scientifically in comprehensive works of historical construction.”1 It might be an instance of occupational bias, but on reading this passage from Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos’s Introduction to the Study of History, This article was translated from the French by Adrian Morfee and edited by Lucy Garnier, Chloe Morgan, and Nicolas Barreyre. * On Philippe Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti au Moyen Âge. Essai sur une production bien ordonnée (Toulouse: CNRS/Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 2009). I wish to thank Valérie Theis for her comments and observations. 1. Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History [1898], trans. George Godfrey Berry (New York: Henry Holt, 1904), 317-18. 685 Annales HSS, 68, no. 4 (October-December 2013): 685–696. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:28 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 685 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM a historian of the Middle Ages cannot help thinking of how urban guilds were organized from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, since, in the words of Louis Halphen, quoted by Pierre Bonnassie, “guilds were organized into a hierarchy of apprentices, journeymen, and masters.”2 The interpretation put forward by Philippe Bernardi in Maître, valet et apprenti au Moyen Âge—an examination of this tripartite structure viewed as characteristic of medieval trades and guilds—encourages us to take the parallel seriously,3 for rather than considering it as an anachronistic shortcut or tongue-in-cheek reference, he uses it to help map out an original approach to social history based on historiographical analysis. Bernardi’s study of the hierarchy structuring medieval trades weaves several different strands of argument together. Firstly, like works by Mathieu Arnoux and Catherine Verna, this book contributes to the general reinterpretation of medieval working practice being conducted in the intellectual footsteps of Jacques Le Goff and of Philippe Braunstein, who has written its preface.4 Work, in this perspective, is not simply resituated within the larger history of techniques, trades, and production; it is central to a way of conducting social history, where it is one of the key means by which social identities and hierarchies are constituted. By studying “work statuses,” that is, statuses as defined for work,5 Bernardi moves away from an overly narrow focus on the legal aspect of social status, in which production tends to go largely unanalyzed—or else is considered only in curtailed form, as in the model of the three orders, where forms of production apply solely to “those who work” and so play only a minor role in social ordering.6 But Bernardi’s examination of the tripartite hierarchy of guilds does not just contribute to new ways of thinking about the history of medieval societies, for in fact the originality of this book lies in the way it constructs its object of study, work hierarchies. These are systematically addressed both in historical terms, on the basis of the medieval archives, and in historiographical terms, by examining 686 2. Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 26. 3. Ibid., 54-55. 4. Mathieu Arnoux, Le temps des laboureurs. Travail, ordre social et croissance en Europe, XIe-XIVe siècle (Paris: Albin Michel, 2012); Catherine Verna, “Entreprises des campagnes médiévales. Innovation, travail et marché (XIIe siècle-vers 1550),” (Professorial thesis, Université Paris I, 2008). See also: Philippe Bernardi, Bâtir au Moyen Âge, XIIIe-milieu XVIe siècle (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2011); Mathieu Arnoux and Pierre Monnet, eds., Le technicien dans la cité en Europe occidentale, 1250-1650 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004); Philippe Braunstein, Travail et entreprise au Moyen Âge (Brussels: De Boeck, 2003); Jacques Le Goff, Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Philippe Bernardi, Laurent Feller, and Patrice Beck, eds., Rémunérer le travail au Moyen Âge. Pour une histoire sociale du salariat (Paris: Picard, 2014). For an overview of guilds in the early modern and modern eras, see Steven Kaplan and Philippe Minard, La France malade du corporatisme? (XVIIIeXXe siècles) (Paris: Belin, 2004). 5. For further discussion of this notion, in particular as used by Jean Andreau, see the article by Nicolas Tran in this issue. 6. For recent discussion of how the question of the three orders as developed by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff relates to the issue of growth and social hierarchies, see Arnoux, Le temps des laboureurs, which also provides an overview of the vast bibliography about the orders. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:29 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 686 STRATIFICATIONS the models according to which these archives have been interpreted since the nineteenth century. The study of medieval work is thus accompanied by a study of medievalists’ knowledge about work over the long term, sketching out a method that may be applied to both history and the social sciences in general. Moving Back Through the Literature The first half of the book, entitled “An Idea of Hierarchy,” is devoted to the historiographical survey, and is itself divided into two distinct phases.7 The first of these relates to the period from 1950 to 2000, and is based on a corpus of seventy-four books, mainly essays and university textbooks in French (any comparative observations being dealt with primarily in the footnotes), presenting the way guilds were organized in the late Middle Ages.8 Analysis of this corpus brings to light the existence of a veritable doxa, handed down since 1950 from one generation of historians to the next and based on two points. The first is the tenet, explicitly stated in 80 percent of the works in the corpus, that the tripartite hierarchy of masterjourneyman-apprentice forms the institutional basis on which trades were organized in the Middle Ages. The second is a periodization based on a dichotomy between a prosperous and harmonious thirteenth century, when upward social mobility meant it was generally possible to advance from one order to the next, and a fourteenth century viewed as a time of crisis. According to this model it is in this later period that guilds became closed institutions, with an opposition between, on the one hand, masters and certain apprentices destined to become masters (often from the same family) and, on the other, workers destined to remain in a position of dependence—a situation seen as foreshadowing the subsequent constitution of antagonistic social classes. The degree of unanimity is most surprising, and the doctrine has survived over the decades irrespective of methodological, political, and institutional differences between historians. Having identified this doxa, Bernardi introduces a first shift in perspective by examining the process of generalization at work within the community of historians that has resulted in such a widely shared and stable doctrine—a paradigm in the sociological sense of the word as used by Thomas Kuhn. A corollary of this generalization is the reductive approach taken towards the diversity of medieval work, and Bernardi points out certain important characteristics that the general literature about the topic often ignores or glosses over. First, medieval trades were not confined to the towns, for the countryside was also home to numerous craftsmen who fell outside the guild system. It is hard to assess the exact proportion from the available documentation, but for those cases where it is possible to provide regional estimates the figure can be put at around 10 percent of the population.9 7. Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 22-83. 8. For the presentation of the corpus see ibid., 147-56. 9. Ibid., 28-29, where Bernardi provides the available estimates. According to Robert Fossier the figure stood at 13 percent in Picardy, whereas Alain Belmont puts the figure for the Dauphiné at 10-15 percent, occasionally rising as high as 40 percent. 687 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:29 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 687 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM While these rural trades have recently attracted the attention of researchers,10 they still play only a marginal role in synthetic accounts of the Middle Ages. And yet, bearing in mind that in the late Middle Ages the urban population rarely exceeded 10 percent of the total population, rural trades probably exceeded urban trades in demographic terms, and perhaps also in terms of their total production—even though what they produced (when not integrated into urban supply chains) was probably of lesser quality and only sold locally. Bernardi then goes on to point out that numerous urban activities were not organized into guilds, and that there was great variety depending upon the type of activity and the geographical area. There was thus nothing systematic or natural about the existence of trade charters, trades structured around binding oaths, or the organization into guilds more generally. This provides Bernardi with the occasion to raise what strikes him as the key issue for medieval craft work (to which he returns at the end of his book), namely the problem of “free” work—in other words, work carried out irrespective of personal status and falling outside any guild or trade regulations. It would appear that even in towns the majority of work was in fact free, yet it rarely shows up in the historiographical literature except in very specific cases such as major construction projects, which even though they largely fell outside of the regulatory framework are well known from their accounting documents. But speaking of “free” work does not mean that it was not organized, just that the forms of organization were not institutionalized in the same way as those of the guilds, and that we know little of them due to a comparative lack of documentary evidence—even though contracts or accounts can help us to reconstruct the stable and ordered ways that this sort of “freedom” functioned by throwing light on actual practice. These documents also act as a reminder that the whole family was involved in craft production, in particular through the work of women, who virtually never appear in the statutory regulations on which the historiography has based its definitions of guilds. The final blow to the tripartite model is struck when Bernardi points out the central role of a text which, though undeniably crucial, has assumed a virtual monopoly over the illustration of guild and trade hierarchies: the Livre des métiers drawn up for Étienne Boileau, the Provost of Paris, in the 1260s. This work is explicitly referred to in 40 percent of the historiographical corpus, and inspires much of the rest.11 This is the ultimate stage in the double process of reduction and generalization: in most of the synthetic literature on work in the Middle Ages, craft production is shorn of its rural, non-regulated, and familial dimensions, and is primarily defined on the basis of one canonical example, namely regulations drawn up in mid-thirteenth-century Paris. This was, however, a specific case whose equivalent can only be found in certain towns, and it only related to certain categories of workers who can, on the whole, be considered as the most privileged members of medieval trades. It is of great interest, but it should not be taken as representative of the way that work was managed in the Middle Ages. Bernardi’s demonstration of how this particular case has subsequently been generalized can make one’s 688 10. See in particular Verna, “Entreprises des campagnes médiévales.” 11. Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 56-60. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:29 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 688 STRATIFICATIONS head spin: it is an instance of an example become a model, that is, once again, a paradigm (this time in the linguistic sense, also invoked by Kuhn). Bernardi thus sheds light on how history is actually written and knowledge transmitted within the historical profession. He shows how the structure of the documentation (where normative texts such as charters were better conserved than other sources), the overdetermination of its study by the history of law, and the progressive narrowing of the geographical and sociological focus all combined to establish a doctrine passed on to students and copied from textbook to textbook, and hence collectively considered to be “true” by the academic community. This situation is all the more paradoxical as the limitations of this paradigm, clearly brought out in Bernardi’s book, have in fact long been known. The principal exaggerations about the organization of work had already been pointed out in 1960: Few subjects have given rise to such an excess of flattering inexactitudes as medieval guilds—with the touching vision of a modest employer sharing his bread with his family, apprentices, and journeymen, a society of simple workshop supervisors living out the Christian ideal of a humble life of labor, in which everybody had their share in the common good. Not absolutely everything is wrong with this image. But a few characteristics that were spatially and temporally localized have been erroneously generalized in the service of a doctrine divorced from historical research.12 This leads on to the second phase of Bernardi’s regressive investigation, which seeks to understand how and why this interpretation of medieval trades, with its emblematic tripartite structure, has continued to dominate the historiography right up to the present day, despite the fact that its bias is well known. Bernardi’s hypothesis is that the model draws its strength and stability from its long history, which he traces from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. He successfully reconstitutes the main structural lines of a large-scale social, economic, and political discourse whose roots lie in the nineteenth-century reassessment of the Middle Ages. The positive value that Romanticism placed on the Middle Ages nourished the perception of a harmonious era that was contrasted with the tumults of the new industrial society, the tripartite model inspiring not only nostalgia but also hope. This was extensively taken up by antimodern currents seeking a counter-model that could be used against the liberal legacy of the French Revolution, as well as against socialism and later marxism. It was also favored in milieus that were more sensitive to the social question, where it was often tinged with a Christianity that also drew on the medieval imaginary, as evidenced by the examples of Frédéric Le Play and the encyclical Rerum Novarum of pope Leo XIII.13 And for that matter Karl Marx, 12. Louis-Henri Parias, ed., Histoire générale du travail, vol. 2, L’âge de l’artisanat (Ve-XVIIIe siècles), ed. Philippe Wolff and Frédéric Mauro (Paris: Nouvelle librairie de France, 1960), 132. Cited in Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 61. 13. Ibid., 64, quoting Le Play and his disciple René de la Tour-du-Pin, as well as Albert de Mun, who considered the guild system to be the “organization of work that best conforms to the principles of the Christian social order, and the most favorable to the reign of peace and general prosperity,” and Leo XIII, who affirmed that in terms of the social question, “the most important of all [were] working men’s unions.” 689 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:30 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 689 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM from the Manifesto of the Communist Party onwards, used the same idealized model of medieval guilds in his reflections on the emergence of wage labor and the class struggle.14 In this way a tacit agreement built up around the reality and centrality of medieval guilds and their hierarchy, whether this meant considering them as a lost paradise or as a stage in the historical process leading towards capitalist modernity. The social sciences were also part of this movement—a clue to both the inherent normativity of the nineteenth-century project for “sciences of society,” and to the weight of “vernacular” knowledge and concepts in the models social scientists devise. It was thus on the basis of this ideological model that Émile Durkheim argued for a corporatist organization of work.15 All of these questions relating to intermediary bodies and freedom of work (which had been raised at least since Turgot’s reforms of 1776, and then again during the French Revolution, in particular by the Le Chapelier Law) played a determining role not only in the models constructed by sociologists and economists but also in scholarly work by historians. The publication of major sources relating to the history of work during the second half of the nineteenth century needs to be placed within this specific context, starting with the 1879 scholarly edition of the Livre des métiers by René de Lespinasse and François Bonnardot, as indicated by the foreword written by Lazare Maurice Tisserand: A natural supplement to the Établissements de Saint Louis—a vast body of legal and administrative provisions laid down for the entire kingdom—was the Statuts des Métiers de Paris, local regulations that were so thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the period and corresponded so well to the society of the time that they may be considered as the faithful expression of its ideas and customs. ... The Statuts des Métiers de Paris are thus virtually those of all of France, except for a few local particularities. They provide an illustration of the truths and errors of the thirteenth century, the most brilliant period of the Middle Ages as it most completely encapsulated its past and its future, its evolutions and its traditions ... The guild system was not without its abuses, that nobody wants to revive today, as well as its advantages of time and place, which disappeared along with the social state of which it was the expression. What have not perished, however, are the essential qualities and intrinsic virtues of this regime, for these reside in the principle of association, the corrective measure for individual weakness. And above all the guild system provided for the organization and upkeep of the entire working family composed of the master, the journeyman, and the apprentice, who worked together and lived the same life. ... Economic science is sufficiently advanced nowadays to discern what is worth retaining from this vast collapse, and the modern state is sufficiently well founded to have nothing to fear in borrowing from a now abolished regime. It is the duty of this century of research and study, well used to and appreciative of comparative studies, to conduct the requisite comparisons between the two regimes. ... It was time to think about republishing the Livre des Métiers.16 690 14. Ibid., 76. 15. Ibid., 73. 16. Étienne Boileau, Le livre des métiers, ed. René de Lespinasse and François Bonnardot (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1879), with a foreword by Lazare Maurice Tisserand, pp. i-xviii. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:30 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 690 STRATIFICATIONS Early twentieth-century historians thus inherited a way of thinking about medieval guilds that was very similar to the one we still find in the literature today, but whose foundations, narrowly based on specific examples such as the case of Paris, were rooted primarily in nineteenth-century political debates about the social question and its relationship to modernity. One might have thought that the dual filter of the methodical history promoted by Langlois and Seignobos, followed by the social and economic history practiced by the Annales school would have led to the historiographical reevaluation of this very incomplete model, but this was not the case. This is all the more surprising given that during this time discourse about medieval guilds was once again taking on a political dimension. In Italy it played a crucial role in the Fascist conception of work during the 1920s and 1930s, while in France it was promoted by the Vichy regime,17 a fact which could easily have brought about a rupture with the hierarchical and idealized interpretation of medieval guilds during the postwar years. Yet this did not take place. One of the most striking aspects of Bernardi’s book is his description of how this interpretation continued to be transmitted even though its ideological premises—already barely concealed in mid-nineteenth-century antimodern circles—had been revealed in so harsh a light. Authors such as Édouard Dolléans, Émile Coornaert, and Maurice Bouvier-Ajam played an important part in this process after 1945, contenting themselves with tempering their enthusiasm and watering down the social project it could still potentially support. In the chapter about guilds in Dolléans’s Histoire du travail, written in 1944, the celebration of the harmony of medieval guilds takes on its full meaning in the light of his reflections on Vichy legislation of 1940-41: “The first characteristic trait of the Charter of Labor is thus the desire to replace social antagonism with an atmosphere of social peace and to replace class struggle with a policy of collaboration within the organization of professions.”18 This sentence, together with a few others, disappeared from the revised edition of 1953, but Dolléans’s interpretation of the guild phenomenon was left unmodified. Coornaert, similarly conscious of the pro-Vichy and corporatist zeal that had characterized the conclusion of his 1941 work about guilds in France, argued in a new preface to the 1968 edition that the “interest of this study was and still is external to these contingences [i.e., the politics of the 1940s].”19 In the absence of any new research or publications on the topic, the interpretation of medieval work available in the 1950s and 1960s was for the most part marked by the Vichy legacy and by neo-corporatist ideology, with only minor rewritings. And so the book by Coornaert, the only available synthesis on the subject, came to be regarded as a “classic,” and his definition of guilds was taken up by most subsequent syntheses without being subjected to any real critical analysis.20 17. Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, especially 66-69. 18. Ibid., 67. 19. Émile Coornaert, Les corporations en France avant 1789 (Paris: Gallimard, 1941; repr. Paris: les Éditions ouvrières, 1968). Cited in Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 69. 20. Ibid., 68. The word “classic” is used on numerous occasions. 691 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:30 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 691 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM The purpose of Bernardi’s work is not to disqualify the tripartite hierarchical model on political grounds, nor to denounce it on the basis of its ideological use by the Vichy regime. His aim is to show how the demarcation between the construction of historical knowledge and other ways of relating to the past can in fact be porous—in particular when it is appropriated by political or ideological projects. Indeed, it is this porosity that explains how interpretive models were built and subsequently transmitted even though a critical examination of the available documentation sufficed to call them into question. For Bernardi, the purpose of such an approach is not to discredit the possibility of constructing synthetic historical knowledge. The point is rather to help build up our knowledge of the object under study by throwing light on the biases of academic history, and on the effects caused by the interaction between the production of knowledge, the sociopolitical realm, and the ways that knowledge is transmitted within a discipline. A Historical Reinterpretation This is what is demonstrated in the second half of the book.21 Though Bernardi is well aware that he would need to replace the paradigm with a different model in order to meet the debatable ideal of totalization that tends to typify academic knowledge as it is transmitted to students, he in fact refuses to formulate any alternative to the tripartite model of master-journeyman-apprentice. His strategy in this part of the book is to conduct research on a regional scale and provide as precise a description as possible of how hierarchical terms are actually used in his sources. He chooses to study Provence between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, for which he has assembled a corpus of about four thousand deeds referring to urban workers.22 This enables him to shift the perspective away from the Parisian model to a region that, despite the reaffirmation of the tripartite structure in the existing bibliography, falls mainly outside the guild model.23 On the basis of this corpus, which for once gives pride of place to contracts instead of normative texts, Bernardi proceeds to conduct a series of focused readings centered on the main terms used to designate workers, without neglecting their statistical analysis when need be, studying in particular their distribution over time. By examining actual usage of the terms “maître,” “disciple,” “familier,” “apprenti,” “serviteur,” “valet,” and “compagnon,” he manages to draw up an alternative picture to the tripartite model, based on a series of small snapshots. He thus shows how the school-based model of master and pupil played an important part in the emergence of craft designations in the twelfth century, how the metaphors of family shaped the forms of dependency at work, and how the language of service, heavily influenced by feudal law, also had an extensive impact. In his opinion, the process whereby designations lost their original familial or feudal connotations and came to refer 692 21. Ibid., 85-137. 22. Ibid., 17 for the presentation of the documentary corpus. 23. Ibid., 85. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:31 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 692 STRATIFICATIONS exclusively to the conduct of a trade was a late phenomenon that was more characteristic of the fifteenth than the thirteenth century—the result of a complex process and not some precocious and harmonious synthesis which, if it existed, did so primarily as a theoretical point of view, or at least one found in the normative texts. He also shows how the same terms, such as “valet” and “compagnon,” occur alongside one another, at times overlapping but at others in opposition, and thus how designations themselves were not stable even within a given cultural, spatial, and chronological context. The emphasis on diversity might suggest that Bernardi’s point of view is purely negative, following the critical historian’s dictum that it is always “more complicated than that.” It is indeed always more complicated than that, if by complexity we mean the countless forms taken by traces of the past in comparison to the simplification inherent in scientific discourse. But in this case the effort taken to discern these many forms has a positive conclusion for our understanding of work in the late Middle Ages. For what the case of Provence reveals is that, at least in this context, the tripartite ideal does not really exist within the documentation, and is above all the product of a subsequent reconstruction by jurists and then historians. What the documents do show is that practices were primarily organized into a series of bipartitions, pairs of terms which, through their oppositions, defined the bonds of dependency at work. This observation has three major consequences. The first is to emphasize the large number of different people involved in work, something the tripartite model has minimized. Bernardi cites the characteristic example of a 1433 contract establishing a dyeing workshop which includes a very explicit list: far from describing the production unit as a structure consisting of master-journeyman-apprentice, it refers to the entrepreneur putting up the capital, the master craftsman, his wife, his “valets” and “compagnons,” an accountant, a courier, together with the various intermediaries in charge of supplies and the relationship with the urban environment.24 This multiplicity is directly related to Bernardi’s project, which is to repopulate the history of medieval work by reinstating its true context and reintroducing the problematic relationship between “free” work and work that was regulated or governed by binding oaths. The second consequence relates to chronology. Even concentrating on pairs of terms involving the words “valet,” “compagnon,” or “apprenti,” Bernardi shows that, for Provence, it is inaccurate to speak of a lexical chronology in which an original harmonious model would have given rise to the use of these terms in the thirteenth century. On the contrary, he observes that this vocabulary (which was more extensively used in northern France) was only gradually adopted, with the result that it was not until the fifteenth or early sixteenth century, a time when the guild-based social model was in fact in crisis, that we can observe the growing importance of these lexical items—and perhaps their partial use in working relationships. It is true that this is only a local and partial conclusion, but it draws our attention to a very important element that underpins Bernardi’s book, namely 693 24. Ibid., 135. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:31 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 693 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM the comparatively broad historiographical consensus in descriptions of how crafts evolved from the thirteenth through to the eighteenth century, with a properly medieval phase of harmony and fluidity characterized by a specific lexicon, followed by a crisis when guilds rigidified—contributing to the emergence of the modern categories of wage-earner, proletariat, and the opposition between employers and workers—that lasted throughout the early modern period and ultimately resulted in the refashioning of the model of work during the Industrial Revolution. And if one accepts Bernardi’s conclusions, then the whole system needs to be reconceived, for it is no longer possible to describe the period between the thirteenth and the eighteenth century as some sort of muted struggle between a feudal and guild-based heritage and a capitalist, wage-based modernity, thereby turning these five centuries (whether to one’s horror or delight) into some kind of vast buffer period between feudalism and capitalism. This is nevertheless the tendency that still informs numerous historical narratives. In fact, the question raised here is the same one that has occupied many historians over the past twenty years: as Jean-Yves Grenier’s book on the economy of the ancien régime illustrates,25 there is much to be gained from discussing the social and economic history of the period between the thirteenth and the eighteenth century in terms of a coherent world with its own specific rationales—not simply a combination of inherited archaic features and preliminary versions of modern characteristics, but a specific moment in the history of European societies. The third and final consequence is methodological and relates to the history of social status more generally, for the meanings of the terms used to designate work status need to be reconsidered. The shift from a stable tripartite model to a series of dynamic pairs, brought about by a shift away from the history of norms towards the history of practice, arising in turn from the selection of different documentation, brings with it a new way of thinking about status. The tripartite model is not completely invalidated but instead assigned to its proper place, that of a principle found in normative sources, whose ideological role had very tangible effects on the life of guilds and the way they represented themselves—but which did not actually govern the way production was organized. As Bernardi observes: What with masters who were also servants, with apprentices who only really become such at the end of the fifteenth century (and then only partially so), with journeymen (valets) who were both laborers and skilled workers, the classical hierarchy of master-journeymanapprentice does not really apply to production in Provence in the late Middle Ages. As we saw earlier, the regulatory texts accommodate a certain degree of vagueness, even though they seem to impose, or attempt to impose, a more rigid vision of internal relationships. The documentation from Provence reveals a complex and multifarious world where categories 694 25. Jean-Yves Grenier, L’économie d’Ancien Régime. Un monde de l’échange et de l’incertitude (Paris: Albin Michel, 1996). See also the critical analysis of this work by Alain Guerreau, “Avant le marché, les marchés: en Europe, XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle,” Annales HSS 56, no. 6 (2001): 1129-75, as well as his Le féodalisme, un horizon théorique (Paris: Le Sycomore, 1980) which raises a similar question in relation to the same chronology. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:31 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 694 STRATIFICATIONS overlap and intermesh, where the vocabulary used seeks to describe relationships rather than define social groups, and where words may be interpreted on several different levels. And, moreover, this is the picture which emerges from an examination of purely professional nomenclatures, leaving aside the parts played by sons, daughters, wives, and slaves in the production process.26 Apart from the emphasis on the necessary links between the history of categories, of practices, and of documentation, what is most striking about these lines is the simplicity of the conclusion—far from self-evident in the literature about the Middle Ages—that despite the etymology of the word, statuses need to be thought of not as states but as relationships. This makes it possible to analyze their multiplicity, the way they are bound up and entangled with one another, and the strategies potentially used by those who employ them, without thereby reducing them to performances, conventions, or linguistic fictions, and without overlooking the collective constraints these designations exerted on the way the social realm was constituted.27 This is no doubt the major conclusion of Bernardi’s book for any historian wanting to analyze social statuses and their relationship to production by examining forms of stratification and the practices of those involved. But the intellectual endeavor required to reach this conclusion is in fact only possible thanks to the central place accorded to the historiographical survey, which does not merely function as some sort of preamble or scholarly digression but instead lies at the very heart of Bernardi’s method. It is only by adopting his regressive approach and choosing to consider medieval history along similar lines to those adopted in the history of science over the past few decades that Bernardi is able to break free of the enclosed vision represented by the tripartite model.28 Not only does he succeed in putting forward a new reading of the documents, he also manages to explain why it was so difficult to arrive at this reading, namely because history as a discipline—even when approached as a social science—is still a historical production, forged from intellectual experiences and critical procedures, but also from beliefs, values, and forms of engagement.29 It is not in the slightest pessimistic to recognize this state 26. Bernardi, Maître, valet et apprenti, 134. 27. For a similar approach applied to the early modern era, see the work of Simona Cerutti, in particular her recent work on the question of status during the ancien régime, Étrangers. Étude d’une condition d’incertitude dans une société d’Ancien Régime (Paris: Bayard, 2012). 28. For a valuable perspective on historiographical issues within recent work on the history of science, viewed in an extensive timeframe running from the eighteenth century, see Éric Brian, “Le livre de la science est-il écrit dans la langue des historiens?,” in Les formes de l’expérience. Pour une autre histoire sociale, ed. Bernard Lepetit (Paris: Albin Michel, 1995), 85-98. 29. For discussion of this topic and the underlying genealogical issue that it implies, see Antoine Lilti, “Rabelais est-il notre contemporain? Histoire intellectuelle et herméneutique critique,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 59, no. 4bis (2012): 65-84, and Étienne Anheim, “L’historiographie est-elle une forme d’histoire intellectuelle? La controverse de 1934 entre Lucien Febvre et Henri Jassemin,” ibid., 105-130. 695 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:32 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 695 ÉTIENNE ANHEIM of affairs, in fact quite the contrary. It is simply a matter of acknowledging the links that exist between historians and the past, a past which is still present and which shapes all of their representations, even their most intellectual and scholarly ones. There is an uninterrupted thread running from the craftsman and notary of the Middle Ages, via the jurist of the ancien régime, the social thinker addressing a nineteenth century public, and the scholar of 1900, through to the historian of today—as also indicated by the observations by Langlois and Seignobos with which we started. It is only by thinking about his own historicity, by conducting a genealogical survey of his ideas and concepts, for instance, that a historian can fully live up to his ambition vis-à-vis his objects of study, for, even if he is not always aware of it, they too have played a part in fashioning him as a scholar. Étienne Anheim Université de Versailles/Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 696 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 02:55:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568200000145 506147 UN06 14-10-15 12:01:32 Imprimerie CHIRAT page 696