What could you call journeymen....

[Rosemary Tea]

You could just have a small child ask what the word means and a parent replying that it's someone who is no longer an apprentice but not yet a master.

Of course. Why didn't I think of it?

Swedish, like Danish, doesn't have masculine and feminine genders in its grammar. Both languages have common gender and neuter gender. Gesäll takes the common gender, and is gender neutral.

But those languages do have words like boy and girl, mother and father, which are inherently gendered, don't they? I was wondering if journeyman might fall into the same category. If it doesn't, problem solved!

 

[Mad Swede]

Of course. Why didn't I think of it?

But those languages do have words like boy and girl, mother and father, which are inherently gendered, don't they? I was wondering if journeyman might fall into the same category. If it doesn't, problem solved!

Yes, such words give a gender to a person. But grammatically, they're common gender nouns.

Incidentally, the German geselle takes the neuter gender, so it too is gender neutral.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Incidentally, the German geselle takes the neuter gender, so it too is gender neutral.

Interesting!

 

[skip.knox]

I second the Swede. Trot over to Google Translate. There are scads of languages from which to choose. Pick a few that tickle your fancy, maybe shift the spelling, and then use the explanation trick to deliver to the reader. Works for all sorts of situations.

 

[skip.knox]

Also, don't neglect shifting -man to -er. Journeyer is rather clumsy to say, but journeyman in Frisian is reisman, which has a nice sound, and reiser is a decent substitute. Finnish sounds good, too, to my ears: kisalli (umlauts unconscionably removed <g>). Which could become kisallist or kisaller.

BTW, you can use the explanation trick to explain the context for the word as well. You see, Person X, a kisaller is one who has learned the basics of the trade but only from one master. They must spend time with other masters (other schools, towers, whatever) where they not only learn different approaches, they will also be challenged in different ways. Too, through having lived in different places, they will have a better idea where they want to settle and take their mastership. You do know what a mage master is, right?

Many readers will go, oh, the author is just taking the idea of the journeyman. But many won't (most people are extremely vague in their understanding of historical differences between apprentice and journeyman), and those who recognize aren't likely to be distracted.

BTW, there are few good synonyms for master (which is also gendered in English) or for apprentice. BTW and quite beside the point <g>, the German for apprentice is Knecht (there are others), which through the wonders of migration both physical and linguistic, winds up as knight in English, and which is related to garçon in French but only in the sense of both can mean "boy". So ... gendered. Difficult to get away from that.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Also, don't neglect shifting -man to -er. Journeyer is rather clumsy to say, but journeyman in Frisian is reisman, which has a nice sound, and reiser is a decent substitute. Finnish sounds good, too, to my ears: kisalli (umlauts unconscionably removed <g>). Which could become kisallist or kisaller.

Maybe journeyer would work. Reiser or kisalli also sounds nice.

BTW, there are few good synonyms for master (which is also gendered in English)

Do you know of any that specifically mean what a master is to an apprentice? And that do not also have a more general meaning, like schoolteacher, or an unfortunate connection with slavery?

I've been playing with words that might specify the relationship of a master to an apprentice, specifically. For apprentice, I'm fine with using the word apprentice: it isn't inherently gendered, and people tend to know what it means.

As for master being gendered, historically, it is, but the language is evolving to a not really gendered use of master as in a master of an art or craft. Most of the reiki masters I know are female, for example. No such thing seems to be happening with journeyman, which isn't much in contemporary use.

 

[skip.knox]

Journeyman is indeed still in use, though only in a few corners. Journeyman electrician, for example, a phrase that always tickles me because one word is so medieval and the other so modern.

Anyway, I always have to state up front that I'm working from historical examples and we all are free to bend and generally mutilate these precedents to our heart's content.

First, the relationship varied by time, place, and even individual circumstance. It's not like there was a rule book, and we're talking about over a thousand years and a whole continent. So, plenty of room for variance. Almost everything you read is going to be drawn from late medieval / early modern England. Practices and customs on the Continent were different. OK, that's enough of that.

A master was a master because someone with authority said they were. The designation usually came from some formal body--a guild or the city council or a combination of the two. So, you don't see masters in the countryside. (usually, usually)

An apprentice was a youngster (ages varied) who was put under the authority of a master for a fixed period of time, often by formal contract. The master was supposedly obliged to teach the youngster the basics of the craft; we get complaints about apprentices used for house cleaning or animal tending or other unrelated work. For the duration of the contract, the apprentice lived in and was part of the master's household.

A journeyman has been explained on this thread. I can add that often the journeyman received a letter from his home town that gave him passage and credence in the other towns he would visit. Essentially a letter of recommendation. The journeyman would look to get other such letters from the other masters for whom he worked. Depending on the trade, the journeyman might be little more than a day laborer, visiting the job board at the guild hall, or he might live in a hostel or even have his own place and work in the shop of a master for years. Typically, the town where he wanted to win mastership would have rules, and he had to meet those. Among those rules would be things you might not expect, such as a requirement that the journeyman be married. The guild (in conjunction with the city council) used these rules to control entry and membership. You know how grandma would have this recipe that she wouldn't share with anyone except maybe a favorite niece? Yeah, like that.

So, a master might have multiple apprentices. They're sort of a burden because you're obliged to teach them. Journeymen, otoh, are more like employees. They do the work, often as well or nearly so as you can. Or, with someone like carpenters, they're just there to do the damn job. A well-to-do master might have six or ten journeymen, but it's unlikely they'd have six or ten apprentices. (but in England, apprenticeship could last well into a man's twenties and their working conditions were much like a journeyman's over in France or Germany)

I hope that helps, not least that it helps spark some ideas, whether or not they're consonant with historical precedent. FWIW, my dissertation was on the guilds of Augsburg, so if you have more questions and you delight in long forum posts, feel free to ask! <g>

 

[FifthView]

I've always liked the shorter version, prentice, particularly when used before a given name. Prentice Skip has a certain ring to it.

Until today I'd not given much thought to the idea of a "masterpiece." For me, the funniest thing is the way the word origin diminishes the word. Every day it seems, some movie or book is called "A masterpiece!"—But then this would signify that a journeyman has just barely demonstrated the very basics of mastery for the first time, heh. Sure, it's still a complement, but masterpiece isn't something a master does after decades of mastery. Calling a new movie by Spielberg a masterpiece would be like saying he's finally attained mastery, heh.

As for the original concern, I'm not sure I fully understand what is sought. Journeyman had a fairly limited scope and use historically. First, it applied to guild structure, which also tended to mean a more urban setting. Second, the vast majority of individuals never belonged to guilds but made their way through the world in their own way (if not as serf or servant.) The term, indeed the whole apprentice-journeyman-master structure, was thus a limited hierarchical system while also being rather rigid and controlled, applying to only the thinnest slice of the populace.

Naturally, in fantasy we often exaggerate historical realities, or "trope-ify" them if you will, and there's no harm in that. But calling the average craftperson, or tradesperson, etc., a "journeyman" is an unnecessary diminishment, a word adopted only to allow the generic address. It ignores a more varied and, well, rich society.

Of course, mages are also a creation of fantasy, heh. And maybe in your world the system of mages is indeed a limited, closed hierarchy that is rather rigid and controlled, or at least some mage guilds exist that operate this way. (I've often found the marriage of magic with such rigid institutionalization to be rather problematic, but this can be a good or a bad thing depending on how one approaches it, heh.) So maybe you need the apprentice-journeyman-master rule. In this case, I wonder whether finding a more specific terminology—i.e., ignoring the need for a generic term for such magical laborers—would benefit your project.

 

[Mad Swede]

Journeyman is indeed still in use, though only in a few corners. Journeyman electrician, for example, a phrase that always tickles me because one word is so medieval and the other so modern.

Anyway, I always have to state up front that I'm working from historical examples and we all are free to bend and generally mutilate these precedents to our heart's content.

First, the relationship varied by time, place, and even individual circumstance. It's not like there was a rule book, and we're talking about over a thousand years and a whole continent. So, plenty of room for variance. Almost everything you read is going to be drawn from late medieval / early modern England. Practices and customs on the Continent were different. OK, that's enough of that.

A master was a master because someone with authority said they were. The designation usually came from some formal body--a guild or the city council or a combination of the two. So, you don't see masters in the countryside. (usually, usually)

OK, that last point isn't quite true, certainly not in the UK. This was how the Oddfellows started, and how they got their name. They were a sort of guild for those master craftsmen who lived and worked in small provincial towns and larger villages in the UK. In such small settlement there might only be one master craftsman in each of the trades, and so all these single master craftsmen would get together in a sort of combined guild covering several trades. In this way they could suport each other in the way a guild wopuld normally do. And because they were an odd collection they became known as the Oddfellows... (This is also why there wasn't originally a single central organisation for the Oddfellows, they were all independent local groups/guilds.)

 

[skip.knox]

Thanks Mad Swede. I did very little research on England. I will note in my defense <g> that I prefaced all by saying there were many variations by time and place, and that I added (usually, usually) as a caveat.

But that's just pedantry. I don't know a thing about the Oddfellows. Looks like they got their start in the early 18thc, which puts them firmly post-medieval and at the beginning of an age when Europeans were more or less consciously modeling movements and organizations on what they believed the Middle Ages were like. I'm not finding much about rural masters, though. But I did learn that King Henry confiscated all guild property and Queen Elizabeth actually dissolved them. Didn't know that!

 

[Mad Swede]

Thanks Mad Swede. I did very little research on England. I will note in my defense <g> that I prefaced all by saying there were many variations by time and place, and that I added (usually, usually) as a caveat.

But that's just pedantry. I don't know a thing about the Oddfellows. Looks like they got their start in the early 18thc, which puts them firmly post-medieval and at the beginning of an age when Europeans were more or less consciously modeling movements and organizations on what they believed the Middle Ages were like. I'm not finding much about rural masters, though. But I did learn that King Henry confiscated all guild property and Queen Elizabeth actually dissolved them. Didn't know that!

Well, the Oddfellows are/were originally what in the UK are called friendly societies. That isn't quite the same as a guild, but they had a similar function. Whilst the guilds in the UK didn't exist by the end of the 17th century the concept of apprenticeships certainly did and the methods for taking on and training an apprenctice were formalised. Friendly Societies helped provide this structure by setting standard terms and then helping to sort out any disputes without the need for a court case. Later, friendly societies expanded their roles to provide things like medical benefits, simple insurance and educational grants. They were also social organisations, and there are quite a few records in the British provincial press mentioning the very nice dinner enjoyed by the Oddfellows in a pub in the town. (As you may have guessed, I have some British ancestors most of whom were master craftsmen and very many of whom were Oddfellows.)

 

[skip.knox]

It's interesting that the friendly societies expanded to include social services, as that was there quite early in medieval guilds.

So, now I'm curious. In later 18thc England there were apprentices and there were masters, but there were no guilds. So who decided mastership? How was an apprentice taken on, how was their training supervised, to whom did they appeal if they had complaints? IOW, how was all that guilds traditionally managed done in the absence of guilds?

Also, that phrase friendly society tickles me. Socius in Latin essentially means friend. Well, ally, but it has implications of friendliness. A Terry Pratchett sort would have good fun with the notion of an un-friendly society. Everyone would get together to drink and yell at each other. Oh wait, that's a rugby club. <g>

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This has all turned into good stuff for me, as I'm dealing with guild-like systems in my current WIP. Keep talking, LOL. I don't stick to historical standards, but it all inspires twists in systems.

 

[Mad Swede]

It's interesting that the friendly societies expanded to include social services, as that was there quite early in medieval guilds.

So, now I'm curious. In later 18thc England there were apprentices and there were masters, but there were no guilds. So who decided mastership? How was an apprentice taken on, how was their training supervised, to whom did they appeal if they had complaints? IOW, how was all that guilds traditionally managed done in the absence of guilds?

Also, that phrase friendly society tickles me. Socius in Latin essentially means friend. Well, ally, but it has implications of friendliness. A Terry Pratchett sort would have good fun with the notion of an un-friendly society. Everyone would get together to drink and yell at each other. Oh wait, that's a rugby club. <g>

Well, the guilds had officially been abolished. Except they hadn't for precisely the reasons you mention. Someone had to set the standards, and whilst the town council nominally did this it was (of course) made up of all those merchants and master craftsmen who lived in the town. So in practice and in reality the guilds continued to exist in the larger towns (they still do in some UK cities) and groups like the Oddfellows formed in the small towns.

 

[skip.knox]

Ah, so city councils supervised masters and apprentices (I'm not sure England had journeymen as a separate group). That makes sense, as guilds elsewhere worked very closely with town governments. Hand-in-glove most times but not always (there were some famous guild revolts in the 14thc and any number of not-famous revolts in later centuries, and even a few strikes by journeymen here and there).

WRT Oddfellows, did they actually supervise masters and apprentices? I'm guessing this would be in towns where there wasn't much of a town council, so there wasn't a strong local authority to set and supervise rules.

 

[Mad Swede]

Ah, so city councils supervised masters and apprentices (I'm not sure England had journeymen as a separate group). That makes sense, as guilds elsewhere worked very closely with town governments. Hand-in-glove most times but not always (there were some famous guild revolts in the 14thc and any number of not-famous revolts in later centuries, and even a few strikes by journeymen here and there).

WRT Oddfellows, did they actually supervise masters and apprentices? I'm guessing this would be in towns where there wasn't much of a town council, so there wasn't a strong local authority to set and supervise rules.

It depends on which Oddfellow lodge you're talking about. Some did, some didn't.

At least in the UK it all depends on the size of the town/settlement, and the period you're talking about. Originally, the parish looked after the poor and was supposed to maintain the KIngs highway. It didn't supervise craftsmen. In those towns and cities with a council, the council took on the parish responsibilities, but also supervised the merchants and craftsmen (which in practice went through any guilds which might exist). So in a small town parish, the Oddfellows might supervise the craftsmen and merchants. But, as parish administration developed and as companies developed most of the supervisory roles went over the councils or to central organisations (eg examining boards), and the friendly societies (or guilds or livery companies) became more of a social and support organisation.

 

[FifthView]

This has all turned into good stuff for me, as I'm dealing with guild-like systems in my current WIP. Keep talking, LOL. I don't stick to historical standards, but it all inspires twists in systems.

Well now the subject is interesting.

I began a long, meandering post exploring the reality of guilds—purpose, benefit, structure, etc.—but decided it was long and meandering and deleted it.

I think returning to the basics would help in determining the sorts of relationships and titles used for members. As usual, adding fantasy elements allows for a lot of plasticity, heh.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I wander way away from history and yet keep elements. I have guilds with apprentice systems but also trade houses with monopoly systems over such things as, important to the plot, a healing herb. They grew so powerful in the first couple years after the Great Forgetting that their minted coins became one of the primary standards of coinage throughout the region, which of course, is putting them at odds with rulers of several cities and other trade houses that mint coins, including their home base city of Aprelêu. It's all interweaving into a much more complicated tale than I originally planned, LOL.

All of these mechanics are threaded into the background of a very personal story of revenge, of course.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

And here I thought I was asking a simple question. Look what I started!

Seriously, it's an interesting discussion, everyone. I'm glad it's useful to others, even others who are doing very different things from me.

This is the first time I've ever heard that about the Oddfellows. I thought they were just one of those small town social/civic groups, like Jaycees or Elks.

 

[skip.knox]

>I don't stick to historical standards, but it all inspires twists in systems.
Absolutely. I provide what historical knowledge I have not to be prescriptive but in the hopes it inspires someone to dart off in other directions. Like laying down a riff so the rest of the band can take off with it.

The really interesting stuff often comes from adding a twist.

One aspect worth looking at is who gets to be admitted as master. I mentioned marriage as one prerequisite. That got complicated during the Reformation--the Reformed journeyman wants to settle in a Catholic town and can't find a partner.

Another big roadblock was urban versus rural. If you were a journeyman shoemaker out in villages, then you weren't allowed into the city, except as a cobbler (repairs only). Many very bitter complaints on that score. It could catch a fellow off guard; for example, the joiner who worked for a clock maker. He did plenty of joinery, but for the wrong master.

There's room there for something with magic. Studying with the wrong sort of master. Or in the wrong place. Maybe mages don't allow marriage (like medieval clerics). In general, raising barriers like that creates room for conflict, and conflict is the heart of story.