Apprenticeship contracts were rarely recorded in public
records unless the apprentice was an orphan or there was
a disagreement later on. With no formal guilds in place,
the length of an apprenticeship in America varied
considerably. This is especially true of those of orphans
because the Church and courts used apprenticing out as a
way provide foster care. An orphan might be apprenticed
at 4 months old!
One thing that is fairly standard is the
apprenticeship ended on the boy’s 21st birthday. That is
when he legally became an adult-- known in the period as
"reaching his majority." (Apprenticeships for girls
ended on their 18th birthday.) You should not be
surprised to see an odd seeming apprenticeship like six
years, three months, and ten days. That will bring the boy
to his 21st. birthday.
The terms of an apprenticeship have some fairly standard
language outlining the responsibility of both the master
and the apprentice. The master usually provided food,
clothing, and taught the apprentice “the entire arts and
mysteries of the trade.” He also taught or “caused to be
taught” the apprentice to read, write and “cipher to the
rule of three.” The latter means solving an equation for
one unknown which was necessary to keep account books
and assign values to the various coins in circulation.
In return the apprentice promised to learn the trade, keep the
master’s secrets, protect his master’s property, not to
marry, not to frequent taverns, fornicate, or gamble,
etc.
The printing office in Williamsburg sold apprenticeship
contracts with all the boiler plate language preprinted.
The same forms could be used for any trade by filling in
names, dates, etc. I suspect that many apprenticeship
were simply hand written or done with a handshake
between parent and master. A child could not legally
apprentice himself and if he needed to take a complaint
about his master (abuse, failure to provide food, etc.)
to court he would need an adult’s aid.
At the end of the apprenticeship the most common form of
freedom dues seems to be a new suit of clothes. Some
contracts also mention a set of tools but that is more
likely for a trade with only a few tools. You can be
fairly sure that an apprentice gunsmith didn’t get a
complete set of tools to start up his own shop (no
anvil, rifling machine, etc.). I have seen an occasional
mention of patterns being included and the presence of
evidence in castings of filled screw holes in the
pattern piece has lead some to conclude that
occasionally the apprentice gunsmith took his set of
patterns in the form of a finished rifle. That makes
sense in a number of ways but documentation for the
practice is THIN. Once an apprenticeship was over, the
21 year old would be required to have a gun of some sort
for his militia duty.
Now to the little bit we know about how an apprentice
learned. The apprenticeship was often 6 or 7 years but
the average work day was daylight to dark and six days a
week. Averaging shorter winter days and longer summer
days Thomas Jefferson came up with an average work week
for tradesmen of 72 hours. Seven years at 72 hours a
week is a heck of a lot of time. Also the apprenticeship
spanned those years when learning physical skills,
especially those involving repetitive acts and “motor
memory” is easiest.
For an apprenticeship to be worthwhile the master had to
get enough labor from the child to offset his costs and
teaching time. While doing grunt work like sorting
materials and sweeping up was certainly part of an
apprentice’s work, teaching fundamental skills, like
polishing, early in the apprenticeship makes the
apprentice’s labor much more valuable to the master. On
the other hand learning barrel welding would need to
wait until the boy was strong enough for that hard
physical work.
Was an apprentice taught to copy his master’s work? Not
exactly. An apprentice’s work was his master’s work. He
had to turn out parts and, eventually, finished rifles
that met the master’s standards of design, style and
quality. When studying an original rifle there is no way
to know how much of the production work is that of the
master. A master might have been most productive if he
limited his work to training and supervising the
apprentices, carving and engraving. A very different
picture from our 21st-century one man shops.
When we factor in the work of a journeyman or two in the
shop the picture can be even more confusing. In a big
shop the master may have had little to do with the
actual work of making a rifle. As the supervisor of a
Rev War factory in Fredericksburg, VA, Fredrick Kleete
is described as working at a raised bench in the center
of the shop where he could keep an eye on all the
workers. The surviving wall rifles made there show many
of the details found on his later work so it is clear he
was controlling architecture, casting patterns, etc. but
not doing the work himself.
(top)
|