ABSTRACT
In 1730, the widow of a pipe maker named Maria Alexander submitted a petition to the municipal council of Cologne. She, as a resident and pipe maker herself, had taken Christian Dupong’s son on for four years as an apprentice. However, after only six months the apprentice switched to another master. This went against the regulations governing pipe makers that stated that an apprentice might not move to a new master without informing the previous one. Nonetheless this all took place with the approval of the guild council, to which the father of the apprentice also belonged. Maria Alexander had no choice but to demand justice directly through the municipal council. The widow made quite clear through her choice of words at the beginning of her correspondence that she had an inferior position with regard to the municipal council. However, this form of address was expected of residents, whether female or male, and the widow seemed in no doubt of her right to file suit and request an investigation. Her agency was not disputed. She purported intimate knowledge of the guild’s regulations and was not afraid to criticise its council. She referred to herself as a pipe maker and there was no doubt about her ability to train an apprentice. Three months later she once again made a request to the municipal council. In this petition it is apparent that three journeymen worked alongside the apprentice in her workshop. 1 They also campaigned for Maria Alexander and negotiated with one of the heads of Gaffel— that is, the political organisation of the guilds—regarding the apprentice’s whereabouts. Throughout the petition, however, one can see that the guild had every right to take away the apprentice: no business should employ more than three artisans.
