Norms and Disputes: The Shoemakers' Guild in Eighteenth-Century Bologna

Author(s): Carlo Poni

Source: Past and Present, No. 123 (May, 1989), pp. 80-108
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/650991
Accessed: 04/09/2008 19:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
 NORMS AND DISPUTES:THE
SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURYBOLOGNA*

Historiansexaminingpopularculturehavecometo expressdifferent,
even conflictingviews. Some affirmthat popularculturewas ex-
traneousto that of the elite. Othersstressthe relationshipbetween
highcultureandlow culture.Forsome,popularcultureis a collection
of texts and customs; for others, it is neither an artefactnor a
documentbut a way of readingand appropriating a text. For some
historians,the alliancebetween throne and altarsuffocated popular
culture;for others, popular cultureis) like a phoenix, always capable
of being reborn.1
Amongtheseschoolsof thoughtmayalsobe foundpointsof contact
andcommonthemes.The terms"people"and "popular"oftenrefer
to an indistinct "romantic"collectivitylacking internaldifferen-
tiation, while the word "culture"occupies a space which many
identifywith rituals,festivalsandreligiouspractices.Oftenexcluded
from these analysesis the role of work as a componentof popular
culture.Yet in the vast majorityof the cities of the ancien regime the
peoplewereworkers:carpentersv tailors,weavers,masons,spinners,
tanners,barbers,hatters,bakers,porters,blacksmiths.In eachcraft
andtradethereweredifferenttools,rawmaterials,techniques,differ-
ent movementsof the body and the hands,differentwaysof buying
and selling. Accordinglyeach trade and each craft had different

* This articlewaspresentedanddiscussedat a workshopon "WorkandFamilyin

Pre-Industrial Europe"at the EuropeanUniversityInstituteof Florenceandduring
a seminarattheArbeitsbericht Wirtschafts-undSozialgeschichte attheFreeUniversity
of Berlin.Onbothoccasions,stimulatingcriticismswereforthcoming.I havebenefited
in particularfromthesuggestionsandcommentsof WolframFischer,AlbertoGuenzi,
HartmutKaelble, ReinholdReith, AnnamarieKleinert,GuntherTeubner,Stuart
Woolfand ChrisWoodall.Specialthanksare due to VivianGruderwho, fromits
earliestdraft, has read and provideduseful commentson the article. I am also
profoundlyindebtedto PhilippeC. Schmitterforhis acutesuggestionsandcriticisms.
1 A less superficialanalysisof the terms "popular"and "culture"has recently
been carriedout by P. Burke, "PopularCulturebetweenHistoryand Ethnology",
Ethnologia Europaea,xiv (1984),pp. 5-13. See also S. Clark,"FrenchHistoriansand
EarlyModernPopularCulture",Past anzlPresent,no. 100 (Aug. 1983),pp. 62-99.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 81

traditionsandsocialpractices,a differentidentityandstatusin society

and a differentcultureof work.2
Some years ago I suggestedthat researchbe conductedinto the
work cultureof differentgroupsof artisansin orderto "widenand
enrichthe historyof popularculture".3This investigationinto the
internalconflictsand disputesof the shoemakers'craftand guild in
a largeurbancentreis an attemptin that direction.4
In eighteenth-century
Bolognashoemakerswereprobablythefifth-
largestgroup of craftsmen,behind silk-weavers(mainlywomen),
silk-spinners,carpentersandhemp-workers.5 In 1752the numberof
ruraland urbanshoemakerscalledobbedienti the lowestandmost
numerouscategoryof mastershopkeepers was four hundred,of
whom approximatelya thirdwere in the city. To this numbermust
be added the membersof the guild council, an oligarchyof fewer
thantwentypersons,fromwhom the headand otherofficialsof the
guildwere annuallychosenby lot. Subjectto the shoemakers'guild
were the urbanand ruralcobblerswho numberedfive hundredin
1752.6Completingthe membersof the craftwere the journeymen
2 The idea is not new. See P. Burke, PopularCulturein EarlyModn Europe
(London,1978), pp. 36-42;H. U. Thamer,"On the Use and Abuseof Handicraft:
JourneymanCultureand EnlightenedPublic Opinion in 18th and 19th Century
Germany",in S. Kaplan(ed.), UnderstandingPopularCulture (Berlin,New Yorkand
Amsterdam,1984), p. 276.
3 C. Poni, "Misuracontromisura:come il filo di seta divennesottilee rotondo",
Quadernistorici,no. 47 (1981), p. 408.
4 In the lastfew yearstherehas beena revivalof interestin the historyof craftsmen
and guilds. See the widespreadsuccessof the Intetnational Handwertgeschichtliches
Symposium organizedat Veszpremin 1978,1982and 1986by the HungarianAcademy
of Science.
5 Shoemakerswere one of the most numerousgroupsof craftsmen.Accordingto
evidencethat Eric Hobsbawmand Joan WallachScott have publishedrecently,
shoemakersin eighteenth-century Sevilleexceededin numberall othercategoriesof
artisans.The samewastruein Prussiain 1800,wheretheotherlargegroupsof artisans
weretailorsandblacksmiths.In Bavariain 1771shoemakersweresecondin number
to weavers,while in marketvillagesthey were the largestgroup.In ruralFriesland
therewere six shoemakersper thousandinhabitants,as comparedto fourweavers,
four carpenters,and two bakersand two smiths. See E. J. Hobsbawmand J. W.
Scott, "PoliticalShoemakers",Past and Present,no. 89 (Nov. 1980), pp. 86-114;
A. Griessinger,Das sytnbolische Kapitalder Ehre:Streikbewegungen und kollektives
Bewasstsein deutscherHandwerksgesellen im18.3rahrhundert (Frankfurt-on-Main, Berlin
and Vienna, 1981), pp. 87-94.
6 Thesefiguresaregivenin theRiposta allenegativechedannoglihaomini delConsiglio
deicalzolaialli loroobbedienti.This petitionis attachedto thereportentitledSentimento
delconsultor Piella . . . sopradiversincorsidegliobbidienti dell?Arte dei Calzolaicontro
dettaArte, 17 Apr. 1752:Archiviodi Statodi Bologna(hereafterA.S.B.), Assunteria
d'Arti(hereafterArti),Miscellanea(hereafterMisc.), xv, no. 25. The figuresreferto
shoemakersandcobblerswho paidthe annualobbediensa fee to the guildcouncil.But
someshoemakers justlikeotherartisans oftendid notpaytheannualfee, thanks
(C. Otlp.82)
82 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
andtheapprentices,whoseexactnumberis unknown.Thisparticular
structurewas a result of a transformation which beganin the four-
teenthcentury,and was consolidatedduringthe sixteenthcentury,
when the municipalaristocracysucceededin stabilizingits political
power. Until the end of the fifteenthcenturythe majorityof the
masterswere full membersof the guild, and only a few wereobbed-
ienti. By the middle of the eighteenthcenturythose who were full
membershad been reducedto a handful,while the vast majorityof
mastercobblersand shoemakerswereincludedamongthe obbedienti
who had to pay an annualfee to-theguild council,the shoemakers4
lireandthe cobblers2 lire. This oligarchicaltransformation
involved
almostall the guilds and went hand in hand with a steadyloss of
autonomyas the guilds were increasinglysubjectedto the authority
of the aristocraticcity government.7
The shoemaker'stradeas traditionallypractisedcalledfor a wide
range of technicalknow-howand skills but a limited division of
labour. In the workshopthe masterfirst cut the leather,and then
latersewedit togetherwith the help of his apprenticesand journey-
(n. 6 cont.)
to patentsgrantedby certainnoble families,the archbishop,the Holy Office,some
universitycolleges(such as the Collegiodi Spagna),or becausetheyweremembers
of militarycorpsor lived in privilegedruralcommunities.A sourcewhichI consider
trustworthy,dated1745,putsthe numberof the urbanshoemakersat 117:Biblioteca
ApostolicaVaticana,MS. Patetta3041,"Artedeicallegaridi Bologna:attie documenti,
1745-1798".In 1766, accordingto a calculationmadeby the masterGiuseppeMin-
gardi,the urbanshoemakersnumbered140 (see n. 73). Accordingto an interesting
investigationcarriedout by FabioGiusberti,therewere 91 cobblers'and 109 shoe-
makers'shopsin Bolognain 1758.Butthesedataareincompletebecause,as theauthor
pointsout, his sourcesgive no indicationof thoseshopslocatedin the city centre.F.
Giusberti,"Lebotteghedi unacittapre-industriale: un paesaggioregolato",inMercati
e consumi:organizzaxione e qualificazione
del counmercioin Italia dal xii al xx secolo
(Bologna,1984),pp. 847-78.It is not knownwhatproportionof theruralshoemakers
andcobblerswasitinerant.The populationof the dioceseof Bolognaincreasedduring
the eighteenthcenturyfrom 220,000 to 295,000. The populationof the city-
approximately 65,000 remainedvirtuallyunchangedrightthroughthe century:A.
Bellettini,La popolazione di Bolognadal xv secoloallnuniMiwcazione
nazionale(Bologna,
961),p. 48.
7 On the oligarchical transformation of the Bologneseguilds, see R. Greci, "Il
contrattodi apprendistato nelle corporazioniBolognesi,xiii-xivsec.", pt. 2, in Atti e
me7norie dellaDeputazione di Stona Patna per le Provincedi Romagna,xxviii(1977),
pp.61-106; G. Tamba,"Da socio ad 'obbediente':la Societadei Muratoridall'eta
comunaleal 1796ss, in Muratonin Bolognadalleoriginial secolo3ctiii(Bologna,1981),
pp. 53-146;M. Fanti, I macellaidi Bologna:mestiere, politicae vita civile(Bologna,
1980),pp. 123-7,170-81, 199-200; and L. Gheza Fabbri, "Per lo studio delle
corporazioniBolognesifra il xvi e il xviii secolo:i libri matricularum", Economiae
storza,iii (1983),pp. 1-15. In somecraftseven the journeymenand apprenticespaid
the obediencefee. In practicethe masterpaid the obbeda of the employeesand
deductedit fromtheirwages.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 83

men. The mastershoemakerwas morethana workerwho possessed

the exclusiveright to make shoes; he was also a small traderwho
purchasedthe rawmaterialandsold the finishedproducton the local
market.8Above the mastershoemakerwas the guild council,which
was empoweredto selectnew masters;to regulateor ratherto decide
statusandgradesinsidethe guild, fromobbedienti to councilmember;
to guaranteethe qualityof production;andto actas a tribunalin civil
lawsuitsaffectingmembersof the guild and involvingan amountof
no more than 60 lire.9
Thisessayis dividedintothreeparts.The firstanalysesthedisputes
between urban and rural shoemakers;the second those between
shoemakersand cobblers;and the third partdescribesthe struggle
of masters(obbedienti)againstthe guildcouncil.The firsttwosections
examinethe strategiesevolvedby groupsof artisansin theirefforts
to extendor reinforcethe technicalmonopoliesandpracticesof their
craftto the detrimentof otherartisans,by prohibitingthe latterfrom
makinguse of particulartypes of raw materialand from practising
specific skills. These 'attacking" strategieswere counteredwith
strategiesof defenceand counter-attackdevelopedby those groups
threatenedwith the expropriationof theirknow-how.At stakewere
not only the economic livelihood of the groups but also ancient
statutorynorms, the defence of a culture of work that had been
inheritedandthathadto be handeddownto subsequentgenerations,
the safeguardingof an identity,and the conservationof a status.In
these conflicts the various craft groups whether in attack or
defence appearto be solidly and compactlyranged.The third
sectionof the article,which investigatesconflictsbetweenthe "bot-
tom"and the "top"of the shoemaker'scraft,revealsthe existenceof
processesof socio-economicdifferentiationandof majorstrainswithin
the single craft.
Commonto all these disputes is the continual, albeit at times
8 It would appearthat the Bologneseshoemakers tendedto workto orderrather
thanto supplya market.One seventeenth-century Bologneseauthorwrotethat the
shoemakersmade"newshoesto the exactmeasurements of a person'sfoot, in justthe
sameway as tailorscut and sew new clothesto measure":O. Montalbani,L'honore
deiCollegidellSArtidellacittadi Bologna(Bologna,1670),p. 63. This assertionseems
to be beliedby the factthata numberof ambulantshoemakerssold shoesin the city
and thatsome shoemakers'shopscontainedas manyas fromtwenty-fiveto forty-five
pairsof shoes:A.S.B., Tribunidella Plebe (hereafterTribuni),Atti, LibroBianco-
Rosso, xi (1730-2), fos. 55V,58; see also Table 2. We do not know if the large
workshopssuppliedthe exporttrade.
9 Statutiet ordini
dellaOnoranda Compagnia etArtede'CalzolaideUacittadi Bologna
(Bologna,1721), pp. 43-64.
84 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
inconsistent,interventionof the authoritiesandpoliticalpower:from
the city senate-and its protempore head, the gonfaloniere to the
cardinallegate(a politicalrepresentativeof the popein Bologna,not
the archbishop),from the Assuntertaal SollievodelleArti (a senate
committeeauthorizedto control trade corporationsand industrial
activity)to the Magistratodei TribunidellePlebee CollegidelleArti,
whose main responsibilitywas to keep watch over the qualityand
price of foodstuffs.10

URBAN SHOEMAKERSVERSUS RURAL SHOEMAKERS

Shoemakers in Bolognafearedthecompetitionof thosein thecountry-
side. Ruralshoemakerscouldsell shoesat low pricesbecause,as the
guild council explained,rent for shops and the cost of living were
lowerin the countryside,as werethe excisetaxes.To escapecompe-
tition from ruralshoemakers,the city shoemakerstriedto limit the
supplyof tannedskins and leathersto the countryside,wherefewer
animalswere slaughteredthanin the city, and to discouragethe sale
in Bolognaof shoes made in the countryside.Numerousorders,
issuedduringthe eighteenthcentury,stipulatedthatshoescouldonly
be sold in the shops of mastershoemakers.Ambulantshoemakers
who sold shoes in the city markethad to obtain a speciallicence
granted by one of the membersof the guild council. When the
licencewas grantedeachpairof shoeswas stamped,differentstamps
indicatingdifferentqualitiesand prices.1l
The needto protecttheirurbanmarketwasonlyoneof theconcerns
of the Bologneseshoemakers.Beginningin 1734, the guild council,
as the organ of the interestsof the urban members, complained
throughits legaladviserto the senateof the loss of the peasantshoe-
market,which had been almostcompletelytakenover by the rural
shoemakers.l2To wardoff competitionin the countryside,the city
shoemakers,aidedand counselledby the Assunteriaal Sollievodelle
Arti, beganto elaboratemore effectiveadministrativemeasures.
1OFor the institutionalstructureof the "governomisto"of Bologna,see "L'ordina-
mentoBolognesedei secolixvi-xvii:lo stato,il governoe i magistratidi Bolognadel
CavalierCiroSpontone:edizionedelMS. B. 1114dellaBibliotecadell'Archiginnasio",
ed. S. VerardiVentura,2 vols., Archiginnasio, nos. 74 (1979)and 75 (1981).
11 Statutiet ordinidellaOnoranda Compagnia et Artede' Calzolai,pp. 65-7. These
regulationswere often redrafted.See NotiAazionegeneralee bandosopraI?Artedei
Calzolaie suoiobbedienti dellacittae contadodi Bolognaof 1 Feb. 1741,republished
withamendmentsin 1744, 1745, 1756and 1770:A.S.B., Archiviodel Legato,Bandi.
12 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 4 (1733-4), 13 Sept. 1734, fo. 141r-V.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 85

Someof the stepsconsideredwereextreme.In early1735the guild

council proposedto the Assunterza to prohibitthe opening of new
shoemakers'shops in ruralareas.13 A few weeks laterthe Assunteria
debatedthe proposalto grant no more lifelong permitsto "those
openingshoe-shopsin the countryside"and insteadto issue three-
or four-yearpermits.14These planswere abandonedin favourof a
more moderateproposal.The purposewas to divide the tradeinto
two partsso as to limit the marketfor ruralshoemakers.The latter
would be prohibitedfrom makingshoes of fine workmanship,that
is, with the upperpartsmade of calfskinfor city wear;insteadthey
would only makesturdyshoes of cowhide,which were moreuseful
for the peasants.15Only the city shoemakers,who had virtually
stopped producingshoes of cowhide some decadesearlier,would
makethe finer shoes.16Eachgroupwas to have its own monopoly:
the formeroverthe countryside,thelatteroverthe city.Thisproposal
wasacceptedby the cardinallegateandthe gonfaloniereand,without
anyconsultationwiththe countryshoemakers,a neworderwasissued
on 17 October1735.17
A balancebetweenthe interestsof the urbanandruralshoemakers
seemedto havebeen introduced,but in practicethe city shoemakers
gained an importantadvantage.The new rules presupposedthat
cowhideshoes alonewere used in the countryside.In fact a variety
of socialgroupsliving there-priests, doctors,shopkeepers,estate
managers,and otherswho werewell off- wore calfskinshoes;but
even the peasants,who went barefootduringthe summermonths,
wore calfskinshoes on Sundays,holidays,to go to market,and on
13 A.S.B., Arti,Misc., i, no. 79,Memonaledell'ArtedeiCalzolaiall'Assuntenad'Arti
perchesiaproibitodi apnrebottegada calzolaioin campagna (n.d., but earlyJan. 1735).
The pamphletsof the Miscellaneavolumesare only numberedup to 1776.
14 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 5 (1735-6), 17 Jan. 1735, fo. 11.
15A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 5, 14 Mar. 1735, fo. 40; 3 Oct. 1735,fos. 79-80.
16 According to the shoemakers'guild, "of the eightyformercityworkshopswhich
used to manufacturesturdy[cowhide]shoes, thereare barelythreeleft":Memonale
dell'ArtedeiCalzolai.In Modenia shoemakers werein principleprohibitedfrommaking
bothsturdyshoesand fine shoesin the sameshop:see F. Valenti(ed.), Artigianato e
oggettidi artigianatoa Modenadal 1650 al 1800: catalogodi una mostraimpossibile
(Modena,1986),p. 83.
17 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., viii, no. 34, Bandosoprai lavon dellescatpeed altrochesi
fannoin campagna,Bologna,17 Oct. 1735. Researchundertakenby AlbertoGuenzi
has shownthat 1735and 1736,whenthe priceof breadrosequitesharply,wereyears
of poverty:A. Guenzi,Pane efornaia Bolognain eta mod (Venice,1982).If one
acceptsE. Labrousse'sthesis regardingcrises "de type ancien",it is reasonableto
supposethatthe increasein the priceof breadwenthandin handwith a dropin the
demandfor manufactured goods includingshoes. This too couldhavepersuaded
the politicalauthoritiesto issue the order.
86 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
otheroccasions.Whilethe salesof countryshoemakerswererestric-
ted, the marketfor urbanshoemakersexpandedas they obtainedat
least a partof the ruralmarket-that for good-qualityshoes.
Thisoutcome,not surprisingly,arousedoppositionamongcountry
shoemakers.In early1736theyexpressedtheirviewsin a longpetition
(entitledRepliche),probablywrittenby a lawyer,Dr. Ferrari.They
claimedthattheyhadalwaysenjoyedtherightto makecalfskinshoes,
whoseuse was widespreadin the countryside,even amongpeasants.
They should not have to bear the burdenof economicdifficulties
amongcity shoemakers.In conclusion,they offereda compromise
requestingthat the order be revisedto permitthem to produceat
least coarse calfskin shoes, leaving the urban shoemakerswith a
monopolyonly over fine calfskinshoe production.18
The countryshoemakersreformulatedthe dichotomy coarse
work / fine work-differently, shifting the terms of reciprocal
obligationin theirfavour,anddefendingtheireconomicinterestsand
their culture of work. Yet their requests were rejectedby both
the guild council and the Assunteria.Accordingto LorenzoPiella,
professorof civil law at the universityandofficiallegaladviserto the
Assunteria:
the distinctionbetween coarse calfskin and fine calfskin ... has no
foundation. . . becausecalfhidesareof one kindonly, andonly one part
of the hide is coarserthan the rest. The countryshoemakers,preparing
the coarsepartof the hides, wouldbe requirednot to workwith the finer
parts, and the magistrateswould encountera thousandcontroversieson
theirinspectionsto establishwhichwasfinecalfskinandwhichwascoarse
. . . makingthe orderunworkable.19
For its part, the shoemakers'guild councilassertedthat if shoes of
calfskinwere widely worn by peasants,the legate's order would
finallyput a stop to such an "abuse",to the advantageof the city

18 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., viii, no. 51, Ragionidell'ArtedeiCalzolaicontroli calzolaidi

campagna. . . e Replichedei nominaticalzolaidi campagna,1736. The pagesof this
manuscriptare dividedinto two parts,with the Ragionion the left and the Repliche
on the right.Fromnow on I shallcite the two sourcesseparatelyto avoidconfusion.
19A.S.B., Atti, Misc., i, [L. Piella],Relazionee votoal legatosoprail ricorso
fattogli
da alcunicalzolaidi campagna (n.d., but 1736). Piellataughtat the universityfrom
1717(whenhe discussedhis doctoralthesis)until 1762:U. Dallari,I notulideilettori
legistie artistidelloStudiodi Bolognadal1384al 1789,4 vols. (Bologna,1888-1924),iv.
As a lawyerhe publishedat leasttwo legalreportsfor his clients.Laudatorypoems
wereaddressedto him on twodifferentoccasions:see V. Corbelletti(ed.), Raccoltadi
variipoeticicomponimenti in occasione di conferirsi
la laureadottorale in ambole leggial
signorLorenzoPiellabolognese (Bologna,1717);All'illustrissimo. . . LorensoPiella. .
ricevendo la laureadottoralein Sacra TeologianellacelebreUniversitadi BolognaD.
IvaoloIgnazioI'ielladi lui degnissimofiglio (Bologna,1758).
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 87

shoemakers,manyof whomwerewithoutworkbecauseof a scarcity

of calfskin.20
In thisdebatethe Bologneseshoemakersclearlyexpressedanurban
mentalitythat was hosiile to the spreadof industrial(and proto-
industrial)activitiesin the countryside.The orderprohibiiingfine
leatherworkin the countrysidewas, in their view, inspiredby the
"justand economicprinciple"that"thecraftsmustbe carriedout in
the city and not in the countryside,exceptfor those withoutwhich
one cannotexist even in ruralareas''.2lThis same argument,also
embracedby the lawyerPiella, was rejectedby the countryshoe-
makers.In theirpetitionthey defended"thenaturalfreedom"of all
persons includingpeasants "to wear the shoes that are most
pleasingor mostadvantageousto them".In particulartheycriticized
as "totallymistakenand unreasonable"the proposition"that the
guilds shouldbe activein the city and not in the countryside".The
ruralshoemakersdid not denythatthe guildsshouldhavetheirmain
base in the city, but they arguedagainstany exclusiveprivilegeof
shoemaking,an activitywhich shouldbe commonto both city and
countryside.22
This debatelastedthroughout1736.Its dramaticclimaxcamewith
a trialinitiatedat theend of April1736by SanGiovanniin Persiceto,a
smallurban-rural communitythatcameunderBolognesejurisdiction.
The trialwas in defenceof two localshoemakerswho hadbeen sued
by the Tribunidella Plebe "for manufacturingshoes . . . of fine
workmanship,in violation of the rules laid down by the order
publishedon 17 October1735".23The interventionof the municipal
governmentof San Giovanniin Persicetochangedthe characterof
the dispute. No longer a corporateconflict between two groups
withinthe samecraft,it becamea confrontaiionbetweenthe vertical
organizationof a craftand a territorialbody. The lawyerGiuseppe
M. Taruffi,who representedthe municipalityof San Giovanniin
Persicetobeforethe Tribuni,arguedthat the privilegesgrantedby
Pope EugeneIV and the "agreementbetweenthe popeandthe town

20 Ragionidell'Artedei Calzolai.
21 Ibid. On city oppositionto the spreadof industrialactivityin ruralareas,see S.
FronzoniandC. Poni,"L'economia di sussistenzadellafamigliacontadina",in Cultura
popolarenell'EmiliaRotnagna:mestieridellatetrae delleacque(Milan, 1979),pp. 11-
49.
22Replichedei nominaticalzolaidi campagna.On the powerrelationshipbetween
Bolognaandits territory,see A. de Benedictis,Patnzie comunita: il governo
delcontado
bolognesenel 1700 (Bologna,1984).
23 A.S.B., Tribuni,Atti, LibroBianco-Rosso, xii (1732-6),30 Apr. 1736,fo. 286V.
88 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
authorities"gaveallinhabitantsof SanGiovanni"therightto exercise
anyartor craftof anykindwhatsoever,withoutbeinghinderedby the
communityof Bologna".This led to the requestthat"unwarranted"
seizuresbe suspendedand that the Tribuniconfirmthe privilegeof
the shoemakersof San Giovanniin Persicetoto "makeshoes of fine
workmanship,notwithstandingthe said order".24The lawsuitwas
rapidlysettled.Withoutmakingthe declarationof principlethathad
been requestedof them) the Tribuniacquittedthe two shoemakers
and orderedthat the confiscatedshoes be returnedto them.25
The decision of the Tribuniwas more than a passing incident.
There were more than ten other ruralcommunitieswith privileges
which could, with some hope of success,claimthe sameexemption
grantedto SanGiovanniin Persiceto.Amongthemweresuchimpor-
tantlocalitiesas Budrio,CastelS. Pietroand Medicina,whichwere
very active in the defence of their privilegesagainstBolognaand
had frequentrecourseto the final appealcourtsin Rome. Indeed,
immediatelyafterthe decision,inspectionsand lawsuitsin the small
privilegedcentresceasedalmostcompletely,whilethe variousorgans
of the governmentin Bolognabeganto draftan amendmentto the
order. In March 1737 a first versionof a modifiedorderbeganto
circulatebetweenthe senateand the legate.26It allowedthe shoe-
makersof the smallprivilegedcentresto continuethe productionof
fine-qualityshoes undisturbed.To which communitieswould this
applyandto howmany?The cardinallegate,GiovanBattistaSpinola,
refusedto name them in advance,wishing to retainthe right, "in
caseof doubt",to decidewhich"localiiieswereto enjoythe privilege
24 A.S.B., Tribuni,Atti, LibroBianco-Rosso, xii, 30 Apr. 1736.The papalprivi-
leges of the small countrytowns were grantedin the fifteenthcentury,beforethe
consolidationof firmcontrolby Bolognaoverits territory.The conflictsbetweencity
and ruraltownsinvolvedthe two majorauthorities(the senateand the legate)of the
"governomisto".The legatewasthe naturaldefenderof the privilegesgrantedby the
papacy.See G. Forni,Persicetoe S. Giovanniin Persiceto,dalleonginia tuttoil secolo
xix: storiadi un comunenzrule(Bolognaand RoccaS. Casciano,1921);de Benedictis,
Patri2ie comunita.
25 A.S.B., Tribuni,Atti, LibroBianco-Rosso, xii, 4May 1736,fo. 288. Someyears
laterthe communityof SanGiovanniin Persicetobeganlegalproceedingsagainstthe
shoemakers'guild of Bolognain defenceof local shoemakerswho refusedto accept
guild inspectionsand to pay the obbedienza.On 3 February1749 the disputewas
officiallysuspendedby a senate committeewho judged it inopportune:A.S.B.,
Congregazione di Governo,Reg. 13 (1748-50),fo. 25.
26 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., ix, Notifiraxione
soprail bandscircai lavoridellescarpeed
altrochesifannoin campagna, 26 Mar. 1737.Accordingto a surveycarriedout by the
senatein 1732,therewere(privilegedareasexcluded)about116shoemakersand 121
cobblersin the countryside:A.S.B., Arti, Notiziesoprale Arti,Arteficidel contado,
1732.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 89

of makingshoes of fine workmanship".27 The Assunteria,arguing

that"sucha reservation. . . wasprejudicialto the publicadvantage",
insistedthat all the privilegedcommunitiesbe indicatedby namein
the reform.28
This disagreement,which set the senate againstthe legate in a
strugglefor power,continuedfor severalyears.A solutionsatisfying
the senatecould not be foundduringthe termof the new legate,the
authoritarian CardinalGiulioAlberoni.29It only becamepossibleto
reachan agreementupon the appointmentof CardinalGiorgioDoria
(1744-54).In 1746 a new orderwas publishedprohibitingthe pro-
ductionof fine-qualityshoesin the countryside,with the additionof
a list specifyingthe eleven privilegedcommunitiesexemptedfrom
the order.30
The senateof Bolognain effecthadfoiledthe attemptof the legate
to extendhis power, but its victorywas paidfor by the limitationof
the areaover which the orderwas to be enforced.The effectiveness
of the order began to weaken after only a few months, when the
legatestartedto issuefreelicencesto a certainnumberof shoemakers,
almostall of whom were inhabitantsof the "suburbio"of the city,
so thatthey couldworkwith coarsecalfskin.3lIn the lastsevenyears
of his tenure CardinalGiorgioDoria grantedat least twenty-three
licences. (See Table 1.) His successor,LegateFabrizioSerbelloni,
also continuedto grantlicencesto ruralshoemakers,but only after
paymentof a fee of 10soldi.Hereafterpaymentof a fee forthe licences
becamestandardpractice,and was extendedto the non-privileged
areasof the territoryoutsidethe "suburbio".After 1781a growing
numberof ruralshoemakersbeganto ask for and to obtainlicences
forbothcoarseandfinecalfskin,costingthem20 soldi.However,the
numberof licences,grantedin principleforan undeterminedperiod,
27 A.S.B., Arti, Reg. 6, 8 Apr. 1737, fo. 21.
28 A.S.B., Arti, Reg. 6, 8 Apr. 1737, fo. 21.
29 On Alberoni'sadversefeelingstowardsthe Bolognesearistocracy, see P. Casta-
gnoli,II CardinaleGialioAlberoni,3 vols. (PiacenzaandRome, 1932),iii, pp. 175-6.
30 A.S.B., Archiviodel Legato,Bandi,Bandosoprai lavoridellescarpe ed altroche
sifannoincampagna,12Oct. 1746.Theelevenprivilegedcommunitieswere: Budrio,
Castelfranco,Crevalcore,Castelbolognese,CasalFiuminese,CastelSan Pietro, San
Giovanniin Persiceto,SanGiorgio,Molinella,MedicinaandVergato.To this list the
communityof Piumazzowas addedin the secondhalf of the century.
31 The legate'schancellery stipulatedthat only calfskinsweighingmore thanfive
pounds could be describedas coarse. All the quantitativedata to which I make
reference(see alsoTable1)havebeentakenfromtheExpeditionesof thelegate.These
dataare put forthhere in a preliminaryway. They will be thoroughlyanalysedin a
donogratica
laterarticle.On the size of the "suburbio",see A. Bellettini,L'evolazione
del suburbiobolognese durantel'etamodernae contemporanea (Bologna,1977).
90 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
TABLE 1
LICENCESGRANTEDTO THE RURALSHOEMAKERS
BY THE LEGATE1747-1796*
Legate Fine Coarse Total
calfskin calfskin licences
G. Doria(Jan. 1747- July 1754) 2 21 23
F. Serbelloni(July 1754- Oct. 1761) 68 68
G. Spinola(Nov. 1761- June 1768) 85 85
L. Pallavicino(June 1768- Nov. 1769) 55 55
A. Branciforti(Nov. 1769- Feb. 1777) 1 106 107
M. D'Aquino(Feb. 1777- Dec. 1777) 39 39
I. BoncompagniLodovisi(Jan. 1778- Aug. 1785)t 15 63 78
G. A. Archetti(Sept. 1785- Oct. 1794) 253 265 518
I. Vincenzi(Jan. 1795- June 1796) 74 85 159
* Source:Archiviodi Statodi Bologna,Archiviodel Legato,Expeditiones.These
data are takenfrom the followingregisters:nos. 238 (1747-50),239 (1750-2),240
(1752-3),242 (1753-4),243 (1754-7),245 (1757-61),246 (1761-5),248 (1765-8),249
(1768-9),251 (1769-74),253 (1774-7),254 (1777), 256 (1781-3),258 (1783-4),259
(1784-5), 261 (1785-6), 263 (1787-8), 264 (1789-90),265 (1791-2), 266 (1793-4).
Paymentfor the licencesbeganin 1755.
t There is no informationregardingthe first years (1778, 1779 and 1780) of
BoncompagniLodovisi'stermof office.

remainedrelativelylimited until August 1785. They grew rapidly

duringthe tenureof CardinalGiovanniA. Archetti,who beganto
imposeannualrenewalrequirements.In the nineyearsof his legation
he issued518 licences,morethanall of his predecessorsput together.
(See Table 1.) From then on, as many countryshoemakersliving
outside the privilegedareasrequestedand obtainedthe necessary
exemption,the old orderbecamecompletelyuseless.32
32 It would be interesting
to knowhow manyruralshoemakerscontinuedto work
coarseand fine calfskinclandestinelyand how manyemigratedto the eleven small
privilegedtownsandto Bolognain orderto be ableto carryon theirwork.The reports
of the inspectionsthatthe officialsof the shoemakers'
guildconductedperiodicallyin
thecountrysideto uncoverthoseshoemakers whodisobeyedtherulesareunfortunately
lost. But the reportsof the inspectionsof the Tnbunihave survived.These reports
wereintendedto enforcethe regulationsrelatingto the pricesandqualityof consumer
goods which were of interestto the provisioningauthorities(flour,bread,oil, lard,
caviar,chickens,pasta,freshandsaltedpork,etc.), buttheyalsocontaindenunciations
againsttanners,candlemakers, weaversand shoemakers.So far I havecarriedout a
preliminaryinvestigationof the reportsfor the years1737-43,the six yearsfollowing
thepublicationof theorderagainsttheruralshoemakers. The resultsarestilltentative:
so fartheyhaveenabledme to findevidenceof onlyninedenunciations. Oneexample
is thatof the shoemakerBernardoBrighentiof Arcoveggio,fromwhomninepounds
of calfskinand thirteenpairsof "finelymade"shoes were seized. From Giuseppe
Serra,"pork-butcher and shoemaker"of Sasso, seven pairsof calfskinshoes were
seized on 7 April 1742:A.S.B., Tribuni,Atti, LibroBianco-Rosso,xiii (1737-43),
fos. 248, 267-8.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 91

The realvictorin this conflictwas the legate.Whileit was not "to

the public advantage"for the legateto decide which shouldbe the
privilegedcommunities,it was even more prejudicialto the city's
autonomyfor him to granthundredsof licences.The factthatit was
the legate and his chancellerythat distinguishedcoarse from fine
calfskinrepresentedanotherhumiliationfor the Assunteriaand its
learnedlegaladviser.The Bolognesesenate,which had incautiously
raisedthe issue in the firstplace, was the realloserin termsof both
prestigeand power.33
Those who gained, on the otherhand, at least for a few decades,
werethe ruralshoemakerswhoobtainedlicencesforanundetermined
period (especiallythose who got them free). The picturechanged
towardsthe middleof the 1780swhenthe licencesbeganto be limited
to one year and a fee was chargedfor them. This changedid not
escapethe attentionof the shoemakerswho hadpreviouslybenefited,
asis revealedin a petitionof 1792froma groupof countryshoemakers
askingthe senateto reducethe "heavyburdens"whichweighedon
them:theywereforcedto paynotonlythe annualfee of theobbedienza
and for the licences, but also other duties to the "detriment"of
their families.Countryshoemakershad had some of their property
"unjustly"sequesteredby the collectorfor the guild councilbecause
they were late in payingthe annualobbedienza,but, the petitioners
pleaded,theirdelaywas due to theirbeing "poorandburdenedwith
large families".34
The Assunterza, to whom the senatetransmittedthe petition,re-
ceived the shoemakers'complaintswith sympathyand understand-
ing. Since they considered a reduction of the annual fee (the
obbedienza) andotherdutiesinopportune,an alternativewas to abol-
ish the licences. This courseof actionwas probablyencouragedby
hopes of healingan old wound, and becamemore likely when the
city shoemakers(andin theirnamethe guildcouncil),underpressure
fromthe senate,recognizedthe need to abolisha by now ineffectual
orderandto acceptthe rightof countryshoemakersto use calfskins.35
33 And alongwith the senate,the Assunteria al SollievodelleArti-to which the
task of combatingand limitingabusesand privilegeshad been assignedin 1730
also suffereddefeat. On the origin and role of this Assunteria)see A. Giacomelli,
"CarloGrassie le riformebolognesidel settecento,i: l'etaLambertiniana", Quaderni
culturalibolognesi,no. 10 (1979), pp. 18-19;A. Guenzi,La "fabbnca"delleteledi
Bologna:gruppiprofessionalie governodell'economiafra cittae campagna (forthcoming).
34 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., 1, Memoriale di diversicalzolaidel contado. . . per ottenere
diminazione dellegravezzepagateannualmente, 15 Dec. 1792.
35 The existenceof a negotiationbetween the guild council and the Assunteria

becomesapparentif one comparesA.S.B., Arti, Misc., liii, Prometrsnae progetto

Arti soprail ricorsodellicalzolaidi campagna,18
dell'Artedei Calzolaiall'Assunteria
(cont. on p. 92)
92 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123

The problemthenwas how to formulatea proposalfor abolitionthat

would both appearjust and be acceptedby the legate,who had the
finalword. The Assunteriaresortedto an argumentthatemphasized
the balance between "burden"(obligations)and "faculties"(re-
wards).GiuseppeGavazzi,the legal consultantof the Assunterza-
who was, like LorenzoPiella, professorof law at the university-
statedthatthe countryshoemakerspaidan annualobbedienza "equal
to thatof the city shoemakers".Wherethe burdenswere equal, "so
also should be the advantagesand abilityto work".36
Supportedby this legal argument,the proposalwas submittedto
Legate Archettifor approval.He rejectedit "absolutely".In his
opinion there was no need to abolishthe order, since "he already
grantedthe licenceswhenevertheywererequested".At mosthe was
ready to come to an agreementto make the fees "less burden-
some"37 a half-promisethat he did not keep.
This conflict, like the others I shall describe, reveals that the
shoemakers'guild had lost partof its autonomy.It could no longer
redefine,on its sole authority,the craftstatusof ruralshoemakers.
Municipalauthoritiesalsodemonstrateda lackof capacityto makeor
enforcedecisions.The casealso demonstrateshow conflictsbetween
groupsof low statuswere used by differentsegmentsof the elite in
orderto enhancetheir power.

II
COBBLERS VERSUS SHOEMAKERS
The conflictbetweenshoemakersand cobblersconcernedthe shoe-
makers'exclusiveright to producenew shoes and the consequent
restrictionof the cobblers'activityto the repairingof old shoes.This
divisionwasreinterpreted in 1688,whentheBolognesesenatedecided
thatcobblerscould sell "remade"shoesin which "the buyerscould
(n. 35 cont.)

Feb. 1793, and A.S.B., Arti, Misc., liii, Sentimento delconsultore Gavazziall?Assunteria
d?Artisoprali dueaffaridellvArte dei Calzolai,28 Feb. 1793. See also A.S.B., Arti,
Misc., liii, Promemona dellSAssunteria d?Artial legatoa favoredeicalzolaidelcontado,
13 Mar. 1793. In favour of the abolition of licences was the fact that "despite the order
of 1735, the amount of calfskins which left the city was almost the same as if the order
did not exist": Promemona e progetto.
36 Sentimentodelconsultore Gavazzi.Giuseppe Gavazzi taught at the university from
1772 until 1800: see Dallari, Notuli dei letton legisti,iv. He participated in the
debates on the "economic plan" of the city of Bologna with the pamphlet Ana Sacra
Congregazione
particolare
deputata. . . all'esame
delpianoeconomico
dellacittadiBologna
(Rome, 1792).
37 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 16 (1793-4), 13 Mar. 1793, fo. 36.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA
93
easilysee the inclusionof old material".38In short,the cobblerswere
permittedto reworkused goodsandto sell themon the market.
This
concessionwas an importantvictoryfor the cobblers,who could
now
learnthe craftof shoemaker,thatis, to makeshoes. Despite
this, in
Bologna,as in othertownsandcities,cobblersconstitutedan
inferior
craftand, though membersof the shoemakers'guild, they
had no
say ln 1OW
.

lt was run.
.

However, the demarcationbetween the two craftswas not res-

pected,sincethe shoemakerscontinuedto repairold shoes,
especially
those which they had sold as new merchandiseto their
clients. In
orderto defendthemselvesagainstsuchencroachments,the
cobblers
beganto petitionthe senate,requestinga reinforcementin the
regu-
lationsin orderto safeguardthe exclusiverightsof eachcraft.
Accord-
ingto the cobblers,if thosewho repairedandremadeold
shoescould
not makenew ones, then those who producednew goods
could not
repairold ones.39This principle,which the senate then
made its
own, was unanimouslyapprovedby the shoemakers'guild
on 11 November 1736. The eight memberspresentat the council
meeting
affirmedthat"sincethe cobblersareprohibitedfromproducing
new
shoes,whichis the exclusiverightof shoemakers,so the
shoemakers
areprohibitedfromrepairingold shoes, whichis the
exclusiveright
ofcobblers".40The regulationwas solemnlyapprovedby
the senate
ofBologna,in a Senatoconsulto.41 But the rulewas not
appliedin an
even-handed manner.In a petitionto the senate,of an unknowndate
after1741, a group of cobblersmaintainedthat the council
of the
shoemakers' guild, responsiblefor seeing that the rules were ob-
served,"every day" sent groups of inspectors, from which
the
cobblerswereexcluded,"to arrestthe cobblerswho disobeyed",but
theyneverarrestedany shoemakers,"whomwe see doing
dailywhat
iswithin our competence".42Furtherprotestsled the
Assunteriain
38 The order was incorporated in the shoemakers'
Statutiet ordini
statutes:
Onoranda et Artede' Calzolai,pp. 71-2. Moreover the regulation della
Compagnia
thatifthe sole was new the uppers should be old, and that stated
if the uppers were new,
thenthe sole ought to be old.
39 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 5
(1735-6), 31 Oct. 1735, fo. 91; 7 Nov. 1735, fo. 93.
40 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., viii, no.
37, Relazioneal senato. . . e congregazione quiunita
tenutadell'Artedei Calzolai,14 Nov. 1735.
41 A.S.B., Senato, Partitorum,
Reg. 49 (1731-7), 17 Mar. 1736, fos. 138V-9.See
alsoA.S.B., Senato, Filza 62, the Relazioneof the Assunteria
to the senate, 16 Jan.
1736,fos. 107-9.
42 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., ii, no.
31, Memoriale dei ciabattinidi citta . . . acciosiano
mantenute
le leggiproibitiveai calzolaidi rapezzarescarpeuse,giacche
lavorare
di nuovo(n.d.). essinonpossono
 94 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
1752to ask the Tribunito implementthe Senato
consulto,"especially
in responseto complaintsfromthe cobblers".43
A new phase in the dispute betweenthe cobblers
and the shoe-
makersstartedin 1784 with the interventionof the
and the gonfaloniereas mediators.The cobbler cardinal legate
VincenzoTabellini
was twice chargedby the guild councilwith having
new leatherin
his shop and manufacturingnew shoes. The legate
declaredhim
innocent on the first occasion. After the second charge
presentedto the Assunteriaa petitionsignedby forty-seven Tabellini
whichaccusedthe shoemakersof repairingold shoesand cobblers
at
time of "searchingfor cobblerswho, havinglittlework, the same
new shoes on occasion".The petitionconcludedwith might make
a requestthat
the orderof 1736be enforcedand the "exclusive
rightsof eachcraft
be respected".44The Assunteria's discussionwent beyondthe issues
raisedby the petition.The gonfaloniere,Giovanni
Lambertini,who
attendedthe meeting, found the cobblers'demand for
the strict
enforcementof the order"reasonable",but he consideredit
to apply. In his view it was impossibleto prohibit difficult
the shoemakers
"fromrepairingused shoes, since they are obligedto do
so by their
regularcustomerswho are unwillingto makeuse of the
He proposed instead that the cobblers also be cobblers".
allowed to make
new shoes, provided they passed the prescribed
examinationfor
shoemakers and did not employtheirworkersor apprenticesin
task.45 the
A few days later the Assunteria'slegal consultant
detailedplan for the approvalof the guild council.Thesubmitteda
butnot theirworkersor apprentices-would be cobblers-
newshoes once they had passedthe guild permitted to make
examinationand paid a
mastership fee of 5 lire (whilecontinuingto paythe cobblers'
obbedienza annual
of 2 lire). The shoemakerswould be permittedto
oldshoes, on conditionthat they did not employ repair
cobblers.46
43 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 8
(1749-53),29 May 1752,fo. 143. See alsothe petition
sentto the Tribuniby thecobblerAntonioRubbi:A.S.B.,
Rosso, xv (1749-56), 15 June 1752, fo. 165V.Towards Tribuni,Atti,LibroBianco-
the end of
cobblers delivereda list to the Tnbuni of those shoemakersmakingJune 1752 the
repairingold ones (fo. 167V).Unfortunately new shoes and
this list has not been preserved.
44 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xxxv,
no. 64, Memorialedi VincenzoTabelliniscarpinello,2
Aug.1784.
45 A.S.B., Arti,Atti, Reg. 13
(1784-6),2 Aug. 1784,
view, the gonfalonierewas also the "natural"judgefos.
of 40-1. Fromthe legalpoint
of disputesamongthe guilds.
Hisactionas a mediatordid not coincidewith his functions
hereexaminedhe intervenesas headof the senateandnot as aas a judge.In the cases
the
Gonfaloniere judge.The Archiveof
is atpresentbeingreorganized andcouldnotbeusedforthisresearch.
46 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xev,
no. 72, Progettofatto per provedereall'instanzafatta
dai
ciabattini, 16 Aug. 1784.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 9s

The proposalattemptedto establisha new equilibriumbetween

the two stilldistinctcrafts,bringingthe rulescloserto actualpractice.
But the guild councilrejectedit. They fearedthatthis concessionto
the cobblerswould lead to an excessiveincreasein the numberof
those making new shoes, thereby reducing the income that was
"necessaryto the sustenanceof men'sfamilies".Theyalsoconsidered
it unfairto lowerthe examinationfee to a mereS lire,whenthe statute
grantedthe guild 10 lire "in compensaiionfor the inconvenienceand
time" spent in conductingthe examination.In addition,they called
for an increasein the cobblers'annualobbedienza,to makeit equal
to the shoemakers'fee of 4 lire. The guildcouncilalsopredictedthat
the "promiscuousness" of the two craftswouldpavethe wayto every
kind of fraudinjuriousto the consumers.47
After this reply, the Assunterza,with the encouragementof the
legate, redraftedthe plan to satisfy the guild's demands for an
examinationfee of 10 lire and an annualobbedienza fee of 4 lire. If
the two craftswere to remainseparate,the Assunterta led the shoe-
makersto understandthat the alternativewas to include cobblers
amongthe inspectorssentto the workshops.To wardoff thatdanger,
the shoemakers'guild acceptedthe reformin January1785.48
Obstaclespreventingthe "promiscuousness" of the two craftsnow
seemedto have been overcome.At this point the cobblers,through
theirspokesmanTabellini,rejectedthe agreement,whichwouldhave
requiredthem to pay the same mastershipfee and yearlyfee as the
shoemakers,while denyingthem the right to teach shoemakingto
their apprenticesand sons.49 Although the cobblers' opposition
gainedthe sympathyof the cardinallegate,it seemsthatthe planthe
shoemakershad acceptedwas approvedby a Senato consulto.Its
effectivenessremainsdoubtful.S?Disputesand negotiationsbetween
47 A.S.B. Arti, Misc., v, no. 82)Rispostae opposizione dei Calzolai,8
dell?Arte
Nov. 1784.
48 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 13 (1784-6))8 Nov. 1784nfO.49r-v; 17Jan. 1785 fo.
62V;24 Jan. 1785n fo. 65.
49 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xevi, no. 48)Memonale . . . di VincenzoTabellini,6 June
1785.See also A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 13)6 June 1785)fo. 93.
Tabelliniandanothercobbler,GirolamoSandri,
50 In theirlettersto theAssunteria,
refertO a Senatoconsultoof 19 July 1785in favourof the "promiscuousness" of the
tWO crafts:see A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xvii, no. 9) Suppliche di VincensoTabellinie
GirolamoSandn ciabattiniconCtlidemanduno . . . I'esecuzione del Senatoconsultodei
19 luglio1785 . . . o chesia rinnevatala proibizione di talepromiscuita, 23 Jan. 1786.
I havenot beenableto findany traceof this decisionin the Partitorum of the senate.
Searchesfor a draftof this resolution(perhapsnot approvedor suspended)have so
farallbeenin vain.In theearly1790sTabelliniled a livelyprotestby fortyshoemakers
againstthe poorqualityof the leatherproducedby the tanners:A.S.B., Arti, Misc.,
(cont. o?Xp. 96)
96 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
cobblersandshoemakerscontinuedin the followingyear,afterwhich
the historicalrecordis silent for almosta decade.At leastin theory
the cobblerscouldhaveappealedto a tribunalto defendtheirrights.
But to do this they needed funds and thereforean autonomous
organizationof theirown suppliedwith revenues.It wasperhapsthe
absenceof suchan organizationthatpreventedthem andprobably
alsothe dispersedruralshoemakers-from bringingchargesagainst
their adversariesbefore a judge.SlWhen in 1794 the shoemakers'
guildaccusedthe cobblerG. Tinarelliof makingnew shoes, the issue
seemsto havebeenresolvedthrougha new formof compromise.The
Assunter?a ruled that the cobbler should take the examinationto
becomea mastershoemaker,while the guild shouldpermithim to
delay payingthe examinationfee.52
The reaction of the political authoritiesto guild disputes was
not uniform.In the conflictbetweencobblersand shoemakersthe
governmentseemed committedto devising proposalscapable of
winningthe agreementof both parties.Despite concessionsexacted
fromthe shoemakers,this effortfailedwhenthe cobblersrejectedthe
proposedsolution. In contrast,the concurrentconflictsetting city
shoemakersagainstcountryshoemakersfoundthe governmentsup-
portingone of the sides. Each case toucheddifferentinterestsand
convictionsof municipalofficials.The city authoritieswere on the
side of the urban shoemakerswith whom they shared the same
ideology,the beliefthatcities shouldbe devotedto industryand the
countrysideto agriculture.They were also concernedthat the crisis
in urban industrywould furtherreduce employmentin the city.
Moreoverthe noble senators,all of whom were landowners,feared
a loss of labourfor agriculturewith the spreadof industrialactivities
into rural areas, and opposed the consumptionof luxury goods
(such as calfskinshoes) among the peasants.The conflictbetween
shoemakersand cobblers,in contrast,affectedno broadinterests,
only those of the two groupsinvolved. The relativeimpartialityof
thecityauthoritiesmirroredthe scantinteresttheyhadin thisdispute.
(n. 50 cont.)
liv, Ricorsodi VincenzoTabellinied altrientroscritticalzolai. . . controli calegari,9
Sept. 1793.On 1 November1788the shoemakersof Minerbioaccusedthe ambulant
cobblersof the countrysideof makingnew shoes:A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 14 (1787-
8), fo. 173.
51 See the interesting analysisby H. L. Root, "Challenging the Seigneurie:Com-
munityand Contentionon the Eve of the FrenchRevolution",Zl.ModetnHist., lvii
(1985), pp. 652-81.
52 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 16 (1793-4),28 Apr. 1794,fo. 176V.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 97
III
MASTERSHOEMAKERSVERSUSTHE GUILDCOUNCIL
The conflict which opposed the shoemakerswho were masters-
obbedienti to the guild councilwas directedagainstthe hierarchical
power structurewithin the guild. It began in July 1749 with the
requestwhich the masters(shopkeeperswho employedapprentices
and journeymen)addressedto the Assunteriato reducetheirannual
obbediensa to the guild council.53They justifiedthis demandby their
povertyand by the factthatthe annualpaymentof 4 lire, whichhad
been fair in the past when "therewere not so many shoemakers'
shops . . . and as a result [everyshop] had a lot of work",was no
longerequitablenowthattherewere"amultitudeof shopsallwithout
workand the masterswithoutthe meansto makea living".54In later
petitions,from 1749 to 1754, this attackassumeda more complex
and acute form. The mastersquestionedthe policy and the role of
themembersofthe councilwho, theycharged,wereguiltyof boosting
the number of shoemakersby setting easy and even fraudulent
examinations.This uncontrolledincrease, the masters claimed,
yieldedgreaterrevenuesforthe guildcouncilmemberswhopocketed
the examinationfees, but also produced greaterpoverty for the
masters.Easierexaminations the only test grantingthe right to
practisethe trade also permittedthe guild council membersto
nominateas mastersrelativesandclientswho lackedtechnicalability
and who were laterdestined,thanksto furtherfavouritism,to climb
the hierarchyof the guild.55The council members, the masters
charged,"wereconcernedonly with theirown interestand not with
thatof the entirebody of the guild and the public".56Furthermore
they had neglectedto createdowriesfor the shoemakers'daughters,
as laid down in the guild statutes.
53 This petition(hereafter Petitionno. 1), untitledand undated but draftedin
July 1749 is an annexeto the report:A.S.B.) Arti, Misc., xv, no. 25, Sentimento
Piella . . . sopradiversiricorsidegliobbidienti
del consultor dell?Artedei calzolsicontro
dettaArte, 17 Apr. 1752. See alsoA.S.B., Arti,Atti, Reg. 8 (1749-53),22 July 1749,
fo. 44; 5 Aug. 1749, fo. 48V;12 Aug. 1749, fo. 50V.
54 See Petitionno. 1.
55 See theRisposta allenegativechedannogli haominidelConsiglio deiCalzolai(1749)
and the continuation undatedand untitled of this Risposta(hereafterPetition
no. 4). Bothreportsareannexesto theSenti?nento delconsultorPiella. SeealsoA.S.B.,
Arti,Misc., iii, Me?noriale degliobbedientidelRArtedeiCalzolai. . . coninformazione e
votosoprale domandeaccennate (n.d.). The mastersalso complainedthatthey had to
bearall the participation expensesin the AugustFair, fromwhichcouncilmembers
wereexempt,andwronglyaccusedthe guildcouncilof havingencouragedthe spread
of fine workin the countryside.
56 See Petitionno. 4.
98 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
The mastersmade proposalsdesigned to remedy such abuses.
They asked:(1) that one of their representatives
be admittedto the
guild council "when meetingswere held that relatedto the public
interest";(2) that applicantswho had not "practisedthe profession
for a minimumof ten years"be excludedfromexaminationfor the
mastership;and (3) that the annualfee (the obbediensa)
be set at an
amountproportionalto the size of the shops, someof which had no
apprenticesor journeymenwhile others employed ten to twelve
hands.S7Was this last perceptioncorrect?It would appearto be,
judgingby Tables2 and 3, basedon two officialsurveyscarriedout
by the guild councilitself in 1697and 1745.
TABLE 2
URBANSHOEMAKERS'
SHOPSCLASSIFIEDACCORDING
TONUMBEROF
JOURNEYMENIN 1697*
Journeymen per Shops Journeymen Pairsof shoes Monthly average
shop produced no. of pairs of
monthly shoes per shop
2 13 26 1,020 78.5
3 8 24 983 122.8
4 9 36 1,660 184.5
5 6 30 1,190 198.3
6 2 12 600 300.0
7 2 14 630 315.0
8 1 8 450 450.0
9 3 27 1,400 466.6
10 1 10 500 500.0
11
12 3 36 1,875 625.0
13 1 13 550 550.0
Total 49 236 10,858 221.6
* Source:Archiviodi Statodi Bologna,TribuniAtti, LibroRecentiore,vi (1688-
1701),23 Sept. 1697,fo. l99r-V.
Thesefiguresreferto only49 shops,thosewithmore
thanonejourneyman. The Tribuni calculatedthatS,429piecesof leatherwerenecessary
to produce65,148 pairsof shoes every six months.In 1745 the shoemakers'guild
calculatedthatthe 117 shopsin the city consumedannually11,379piecesof leather.
(SeeSourceto Table3.) The annualproductionof shoes morethan120,000pairs
seemshigh. Unfortunately we have no knowledgeof whatthe generalterm"shoes"
implied,regardingeitherthe categoriesof goods, the socialgroupsfor which they
were intendedor the productiontechniquesemployed.

The masterslookedto historyas a supportfor theirdiscourse.The

57 Petition no. 4. See also the Risposta
allenegativechedannogli haominidelConsiglio
deiCalzolaiand the Memoriale degliobbedienti
dell?Arte
deiCalzolai.Only the masters
of the largest shops should have had to pay a 4-lire obedience fee. The dispute about
the excessive cost of the obedience fee, although not a mere pretext, was used to air
more important issues.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 99

TABLE 3
SHOPSCLASSIFIEDACCORDINGTO NUMBEROF
URBANSHOEMAKERS'
CALFSKINSCONSUMEDIN 1745*
No. of skins No. of shops Totalno. of skins Averageno. of skins
consumed per shop
0-50 20 670 33.5
51-100 49 3,606 73.5
101-150 22 2,697 122.5
151-200 14 2,558 182.5
201-250 7 1,588 227.0
251-300 2 570 285.0
301-350 1 320 320.0
351+ 2 780 390.0
117 12,789
* Source:BibliotecaApostolicaVaticanaMS. Patetta3041, "Artedei callegaridi
Bologna:atti e documenti,1745-1798".The surveywas carriedout by the guild
council.The tendencytowardseconomicdisparitiesis confirmedby anotheranony-
mous sourcewith no date (probablyearlyeighteenthcentury)which if I readit
correctly attributesthelargestworkshopwitha dailyproductionof betweentwenty
andfiftypairsof shoes:Bibliotecadell'Archiginnasio di Bologna,MS. Malvezzi,Cart.
312, no. 3, "Relationedelle scarpeche si fabricanogiornalmente perl'ordinarionelle
botteghede' calzolaidi Bolognain ordinea' tacchiet altrecosebisognevoliperadoprar
li fianchi".

existingoligarchicalstructureof the guild was at loggerheads,they

maintained,with its ancient fifteenth-centuryform. In those days
there had been fewer mastersand they had been more skilled at
their work. The majoritywere full members only a few were
obbedienti and shops were widely dispersed,less vulnerableto
competitionand all of approximatelythe samesize. This argument,
and the requestthat the amountof the obbedienza be proportionate
to the size of the shop, seems to expressthe vision of impoverished
artisans,menacedby the expansionof largershops.
With the exception of the first petition in 1749, which carried
thirty-eightsignatures,none of the memorandaand requestsfrom
the masterswas ever signed.58We do know, however,thatin 1749,
at a meeting held in the Churchof SantaMariadella Morte, the
masterselected two representatives,GiuseppeMingardiand Giu-

58 We haveevidenceregarding the size of the shopsof eighteenof the thirty-eight

signatories.Elevenof these eighteenhandledfewerthan 100 calfskinsper year,five
handledbetween101and 150skinsandtwohandledbetween151and200 skins.This
informationcan be gatheredby comparingthe thirty-eightnamesof the signatories
with the list of shop-ownersaccountedfor in the 1745investigation:see Table3. The
twentymissingnamesare those of masterslicensedto practisesubsequentto 1745.
 100 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
seppePignoni,the latterof whomwas held to be an "expertin law".
Thesetwo leadersactedas the strategistsof the attackon the council.
The petitionsof the masters,probablyconceivedand writtenby
Pignoni or by a lawyer, and then "reproducedin not unpleasing
verse"by Mingardi,59receiveda favourablehearingfromthe Assun-
terza.In April1752the legaladviserto theAssunterza, LorenzoPiella,
supportedsome of the master shoemakers'requests, such as the
appointmentof a masterto assistthe councildeputiesin administering
the tests. ProfessorPiellaalsopleadedfortougherexaminations,with
preciseguidelinesas to the skillsto be tested,so as to guaranteebetter
workmanship.On the questionof the annualfee, he openedthe way
to a possible reduction,since, he wrote, "the laws governingthe
impositionof chargesshould be moderatedwhen a change of the
stateof affairsis such that the chargesbecomeexcessive".60
Thesesuggestionswerein largemeasureacceptedby theAssunter7a.
Within a few days this committeedecided to comparethe guild's
present and past income so that "any evidence of an increasein
incomemightpermita reductionin the master'sannualfee''.61The
Assuntmaalso undertookto ask the mastersto provide"a list of the
most able subjects"from whom would be selectedthose who were
to invigilatethe examinations.62 It seemedthaton some vital points
the conflicthad been resolvedin the masters'favour.
But afterthis decisionthe Assunteriadid not show any particular
hastein concludingthe affair.In January1754, wvoyears later, it
decidedto consultexpertmasters"whoarenot of the guild council,
to see if they can draw up tests which are less easy" than those
currentlyheld.63In the samemonthit openedan inquiryto discover
"atwhat age an apprenticenormallybecomesa journeyman,and at
whatage he demonstratessufficientabilityso thathe may be saidto
havelearnedthe shoemaker'scraft".64It wasnot untilMay 1754that
theAssunteria openlycriticizedthe guildcouncil,accusingit of having
59 This is Piella'sevaluation of Mingardi'spoeticabilities:Sentimento delconsultor
Piella.Unfortunately, onlyoneof Mingardi'sthreecompositions hassurvived.Pignoni
handled100calfskinsin 1745,Mingardi104:see BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,MS.
Patetta3041.
60 Sentimento delconsultorPiella. I shallnot give a summaryof Piella'ssecondlegal
report,since it is not very differentfromthe firstone: A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xvi, no.
3,Informazione e votodelconsultorPiella . . . sopradiversincorsidegliobbediergti
dell'Arte
deiCalzolai,14 Jan. 1754.
61 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 8, 24 Apr. 1752, fo. 139V.
62 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 8, 24 Apr. 1752, fo. 139V.
63 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 9 (1754-65),14 Jan. 1754,
fo. 3V.
64 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 9, 21 Jan. 1754, fo. 4V.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 101

acceptedas mastersthosewho werenot "wellinstructedandexpert"

in the craft.On the sameday, to limitthe "excessiveliberty"of entry
into the guild, the Assunteria
finallyorderedthe guild council "not
to pass any candidatein the future . . . without the Assunteria's
participationand consent".65The followingmonth,in a replyto an
appealby the guild council,the Assunteria reaffirmedits decision,in
practicaltermsequivalentto a suspensionof the examinations,until
new regulationscould be issued "regardingthe qualityof the tests
. . . and the way of conductingthem".66
The sharpclashwith theAssunteria (andthereforewith the senate)
broughtinto the open tensions within the guild council that had
previouslybeen repressed.In June 1756sevenof its "young"mem-
bers denouncedto the Assunteria those council officers(the head,
GiuseppeTempesta,andthreeother"old"members)whohadadmit-
ted AntonioLeoni as masterwithoutrequiringhim to perform"the
test for cutting and forminga shoe", and who had promotedhim
rapidlyinto the councilso thathe mightfill the placeleft vacantafter
the recentdemiseof his fatherLorenzo.67The Assunteria authorized
the lawyerAngeloPanellito conducta speedyand rigorousinquiry
into the matter.The investigation,completedwithin a month, re-
vealedthatLeoni, who had been promotedto the rankof masteron
14 February1755, becamea memberof the counciltwo weekslater:
a truly lightningcareer!
Dr. PanellirecommendednullifyingLeoni'sadmissionas master
and his appointmentto the council on the groundsof errorsand
falsehood.The "practical"test had been performed"by the handof
the shoemakerDomenico Spisaniand his apprentice"at the home
of Tempesta,the guild's head, clearlyan accomplice.Furthermore
Antonio Leoni, as two of his father's journeymentestified, had
neverpractisedthe craft"in any shop whatsoever".68 These events,

65 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 9, 6 May 1754, fo. 14V.

66 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 9, 10 June 1754,fos. 16V-17.
67 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xvii, no. 40, Ricorsodi alcuninovizzidellArtedei Calzolai
. . . controdettaArte, 14 June 1756.The principlethatnot only the tradebut alsothe
positionon theguildcouncilwashereditarywasstronglyrootedin corporative culture.
It was, however,subjectto preciserules. The son or brotherof a deceasedcouncil
membercouldonly succeedhim providinghe satisfiedcertainconditions.He hadto
be at leasttwenty-fiveyearsof age;to be bornof a legitimatemarriage;to havecarried
on the professionas a masterfor at leastfiveyears(laterreducedto three);to be able
to readandwrite;he requireda goodreputation,etc. The shopof LorenzoLeoni,the
biggestin thecity, handled368calfskins:BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,MS. Patetta.
68 A.S.B., Arti,Misc., xvii, no. 45, Infortnazione
delDott.AngeloPaneUi. . . sopra
il ricorsofatto, S July 1756. See also A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xvii, no. 45, Rispostaa
(con.onp. 102)
102 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
embarrassingto the council officers,came to an unpredictableend
on 30July1757,whenLeonifiredtwopistolshotsata realorsupposed
"opponent"(and missed).69Arrested, tried and condemned,he
was expelledfrom the guild by decreeof the head of the senate.70
The timenow seemedripeto reformthe abusesof the shoemakers'
guild. The senatorsand the Assunteria,however,were turningto a
more ambitiousand comprehensivestrategy.Insteadof reforming
one guildandthenanother,in responseto pressurefromthe masters,
these two municipalbodies plannedto reformall the guilds at the
same time. The scheme, put forwardin its entiretyin 1761, dealt
with four main issues: (1) a reductionin the numberof guilds; (2)
the appointmentof "assistants"fromthe senateto takepartin guild
meetings;(3) the poolingof all guild revenues;and (4) a reformof
relations between the masters (obbedienti)and their respective
guilds.71The project,which was similarto plans for the reformof
guilds in various states of enlightenedEurope, draggedon for a
numberof yearsand was eventuallyabandoned.
The mastershoemakers,disillusionedwith the turnof eventsand
dissatisfiedwith the leadershipof Mingardiand Pignoni,decidedto
convenea meetingin 1766,in the Churchof SantaMariadellaMorte,
in order to ask Mingardi(Pignonihavingdied) for an explanation
"of whathe had done". In requestingpermissionfromthe senateto
hold the meeting, the shoemakersasserted that since 1749, the
year of their first meeting)malpracticeshad multipliedratherthan
diminished,"becausesincethattimeuntilthe presentday"therehad
been a considerableincreasein the numberof unqualifiedmasters,
"causingnotable damageto the rest of them, because given the
numberof masters,they wereunableto bearthe burdenof 4 lirefor
the annualobbedienza fee".72
What happenedat the meetingis not known. In defenceof his
leadership,GiuseppeMingardiwrotea shortpoem of 202 versesin
(n. 68 cont.)

giustificazione
dell9Artedei Calzolai. . . circala legittimita
dell'aggregaxione
di Antonio
Leoni,2 Sept. 1756.
69 A.S.B., Tribunale delTorrone,Filzano. 8187(1756-7),fasc.66, pt. 2, deposition
of SanteNegrini,30 July 17S7.The shotswerefiredin the leathershopof Giuseppe
Tomba,whohaddenouncedLeonifornotsettlinga debtof 900lire.As the proprietor
was not there, Leonifiredhis pistol at Tomba'shelper,SanteNegrini.
70 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., xix, no. 74, Memonale di AntonioLeonicalzolaioal Senato
perotteneredi esseremantenuto e reintegrato,
S June 1764.
71 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 9, 10 Feb. 1761, fo. 124r-V
72 A.S.B., Arti, Misc., =, no. S4, Mele degliobbedienticalzolaia11FAssuntena
d'Arti,14 Apr. 1766.
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 103
terzarimawhichwas sentto theAssunteria
on behalfof the masters.73
The poem repeatedthe accusationsagainstthe council members,
who were guilty:
. . . of acceptingmasters
Who know not how to use eitherawl or cuttingknife;74
of considering:
Two papermodels, and a gold coin
. . . a sufficienttest
To obtaina master'slicence;75
of havingused their power:
. . . to cultivatethe vice
Of living only fromthe sweatof others
And not for commondecencyor advantage.76
Justiceand charityrequiredthat the annualfee, deemed"insuffer-
able",be reducedandthatonlythosewithanadequateapprenticeship
be allowedto take the mastershiptest:
Ten yearsshouldbe the time
That apprenticesspendas journeymen
And to these the licenceshouldnot be denied.77
In his poemMingardidid not requestthatthe mastersbe represented
on the guild council. Instead he voiced an even bolder political
aspiration:an alliance between masters and senatorsagainst the
corruptand incompetentoligarchy,the guild council. Praisingthe
senateas a judicialbody, Mingardiexpressedhis desirefor a judge-
ment in favourof the masters.This hope was sustainedby the idea
that there still survivedamongmembersof the urbanelite:
The love to preservethe just laws
That are embodiedin statutes.78

73 A.S.B., Arti,Misc., xx, no. 56, GiuseppeMingardiassontodegliobbedienticalzolai

a pie di Felsinadi lui madre.canzone,21 Apr. 1766.Mingardihadprobablyreadsome
passagesfromthe DivineComedy.
74 . . . di far certiobbedienti
Che lesinae coltellooprarnon sanno.
75 . . . provasufficiente
Due modellidi cartae un zecchind'oro
Per averda maestrouna patente.
A zecchinowas worth 10 Bologneselire.
76 Ma si vedragente aggregarsia vizio
Per viver quasidegl'altruisudori
Non per comundecoroe beneffizio.
77 Dieci anni esserdovriache i pretendenti
Fosserostati d'altruilavoranti
t a questlnon S1 c ee negarpatentl.
w . . .

78 L'amordi conservarle giusteleggi

Ch'espresseson nelli statutituoi.
 PAST AND PRESENT
104 NUMBER 123
The poem then depictedthe senateassembled
as a tribunalin the
"invisible"presenceof "thekingof kings".This
. .
tribunal,Mingardi
malntalnes .:
To the shameof the guilty, exaltsthe just;
Here they follow in the footstepsof Augustus
Here, in the end, they carryout what God Caesar . .
commands.79
This apologeticexhortationthen underwenta
suddenchangein tone
andconcludedwith the assertion,amountingto
a warning,thatGod
requiresof princesand judgesthat "justicebe
the poor, who with reasonrequestit against renderedrapidlyto
the powerfuland the
unjust".80
The Assunteria's replywas not long in coming;the masterswere
askedto presenttheir arguments"in prose
ratherthanin verse''.81
Thisacid and sarcasticanswerwas unfair,
especiallyif we consider
theintensedebateof the previousyears.The
didnot respond,and they apparently shoemakers(obbedienti)
disappearedfrom the public
scene.
One of the masters'earliestdemands
reappeared
yearslater, althoughin a more restrictedform, aboutseventeen
now,
presented by the head of the guild. In an application significantly,
1782to the Assunteria, datedJanuary
he calledfor a rulingagainstthose masters
whomanagedmorethanone shop.82Aftera
discussionlastingseveral
months, a Senatoconsulto orderedthatany mastershoemaker"who
hadseveralshoemakingshops"had to place at
the head of each "a
master approvedby the guild".83Thisregulation,which
toshops that were physicallyseparate, appliedonly
increasedthe burdenof the
obbedienza on the larger producersand helped to
guaranteethe
employment of masterswillingto workas waged
not employees. We do
know the circumstancesthat led the guild
councilto raisethis
issue.Neverthelessthe council'sapplicationis evidenceof a
concentrationof production,the intensityand character process
of
wecannotyet judge, given the limitedamountof of which
far
availablefor the second half of the eighteenth documentation so
and century. A later
isolatedattemptto reviveanotherdemand,madeat
thebeginning
79 Quiviad ontadel reosi esaltail giusto.
Quisi vedeseguirl'ormedi Augusto . .
Quialfinsi fa cio checomanda Iddio.
80Mingardiassontodegliobbedienti
81A.S.B.,Arti,Atti,Reg. 10
calzolai.
82A.S.B.,Arti,Atti,Reg. 12
(1766-77),28 Apr.1766,fo. 6V.
83A.S.B.,Archivio
(1782-4),Jan.1782,fo. 3; 18Feb.1782,fo. 13.
delLegato,Bandi,Notificazione
soprale botteghe
dicalsolaio,
July
1782. 8
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 105

ofthe conflict,occurredin 1787,in thepetitionof a mastershoemaker,

A. Tabarini.Complainingof the continued"disorders"in the guild,
Tabariniaskedthe Assunteria if he mightbe appointed"assistant"to
the guild council(followingthe patternof the silk-weavingguild)in
orderto representthe interestsof the masters.His requestwas not
heeded.84
The discoursewhich the mastersused to attackthe guild council,
as indeedthatwhichthe guild oligarchyemployedin its defence,was
constructedin such a way as to pass overin silencea significantand
perhapsfundamentalpartof the issueunderdiscussion.This silence,
which the Assunterzaalso observed, enabled these two groups of
shoemakers mastersandguild council-to dominatethe conflict.
The actualsituation,however,wasmorecomplex.The demandsthat
the masters made to the guild council tougher examinations,
a lengthy apprenticeship,membershipof the examiningboard
pursuedan objectivewhich, while absent from their explicit dis-
course, was of primaryimportance:to reinforcetheir controlover
apprenticesand journeymenin the workplace.Toughertests as well
as lengthierand more demandingperiodsof apprenticeshipwould
havebolsteredthe master'sauthority,restoringto him a rolethatthe
guild council'sloose practiceshad weakened.
In a perceptiveessay, StevenKaplanhas shownall the difficulties
thatbesetapprenticebakersin Parison their"Roadto Mastership".85
It would appear that for apprenticeshoemakersin Bologna this
"road"was not quite so arduous.The defeatof the masters and
hence the weakeningof corporateprivilege may have dampened
frictionsin a strategicareaof socialconflict.The prospectof a short
apprenticeshipand the loweringof entrancerequirementsmayhave
takenthe stingout of relationsbetweenmastersandthoseundertheir
charge(even if it createdother tensions).
Regrettably,the sources I have used have not enabled me to
reconstructthe waysin whichapprenticesandjourneymenperceived
and took part in this conflict,and how they reactedto the concen-
trationof productionin largeworkshops.LiketheirFrenchcounter-
parts, the journeymenof Bologna formed a "cabal", and held
clandestinemeetingsagainstthe masters.86The little evidencethat
fo. 73r-v.
26Nov. 1787n
84 A.S.B., Arti, Atti, Reg. 14(1787-9))
85 S. Kaplan,"Roadto Mastership" (typescript).I shouldlike to thankthe author
for lettingme readthis.
86 S. Kaplan,"Reflexionssur la police du mondedu travail,1700-1815") Revue
histonque,cclXi(1979)npp.17-77.On the conflictsbetweenmastershoemakersand
theirjourneymenin eighteenth-century Germany,see A. Griessingerand R. Reith,
(. on p. 106)
 106 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
we haveof thesemeetingsdoes not, however,relateto shoemakers.It
woulddoubtlessbe valuableto see how apprenticesandjourneymen,
especiallythose workingin largerworkshops,rephrasedand recon-
structedthe argumentsof the mastersin such a way as to voice their
differentneeds and interests.

CONCLUSION
The disputesbetweenthevariouscraftgroupsexaminedin thisarticle
were settled by applying existing rules (statutes, orders, procla-
mations)or by draftingnew rules to addressnew problems.These
rules, unlikethe normsof"good manners",werebinding.Yet they
were sufficientlyflexible and inconsistentto allow for a varietyof
interpretations,and they could be bent and distortedin the defence
of the interests in dispute.87Initially the principleof reciprocal
obligations,for example, was used to the detrimentof the rural
shoemakers,who then adoptedits termsin a compromisedesigned
to wardoff the attackagainstthem.
Amid all the strategiesof defenceand attack,the juristsplayeda
vitalrole. The craftgroupsinvolvedin disputefrequentlyturnedto
the legal professionfor assistance.The Assunteriaalso employed
lawyersas consultants.These intellectuals,who were numerousin
Bolognaowingto the reputationof the city'suniversityfor the study
of law, wereentrustedwith the taskof givinglegalformto the rights
of the partiesin conflictwhile followingproceduresthathadevolved
frompast practice.88
Did lawyersact as the spokesmenfor their clients?Or did they
(n. 86 cont.)

'iObrigkeitliche
Ordnungskonzeptionen und HandwerklichesKonfliktverhalten im
18. Jahrhundert:Nurnbergund Wurzburgim Vergleich",in R. S. Elkar(ed.),
DeutschesHandwerkin SpatmittelalterundFrukertIeuzeit (Gottingen,1987),pp. 117-
80.
87 Theseformulationsarecloseto thoseof R. Chartier,"Cultureas Appropriation:
PopularCultureUses in Early ModernFrance",in Kaplan(ed.), Understanding
PopularCulture,pp. 230-53;andofJ. Revel,"FormsofExpertise:Intellectualsand
PopularCulturein France, 1650-1800",ibid., pp. 255-73. But thereis one qualifi-
cation.In my opinionthe readingof a textconstitutesa furthertext. The dialogueis
notthereforebetweenone text and its readingbut betweenone text and another.
88 Anthropologists,
politicalscientistsand sociologistshavegreatlycontributedto
thedevelopmentof a corpusof literatureon the conflictsand theirsettlement.See,
forexample:P. H. Gulliver,DisputesandNegotiations: A CrossCulturalPerspective
(NewYork,1979);S. Roberts,Orderand Dispute(Harmondsworth, 1979);S. Roberts,
"TheStudyof Dispute:Anthropological Perspectives",in J. Bossy(ed.), Disputesand
Settlements:
Law andHumanRelationsin theWest(Cambridge,1983),pp. 1-24;W.
Streekand P. C. Schmitter(eds.), Pnvate InterestGovermnent: BeyondMarketand
State(London,BeverlyHills and New Delhi, 1985).
 THE SHOEMAKERS'GUILD IN BOLOGNA 107
tend to imposetheirown categoriesof thought,theirown discourse
upon that of the shoemakers?Ever since the statutes had been
compiled, legal languagehad penetratedthe world of work; crafts
andguildshadlearnedhow to manipulatethis language.Againstthis
backgroundof culturalcontactsbetweenartisansand legal experts,
the lawyerswrotetheirreportsforthe politicalauthoritiesanddrafted
the shoemakers'petitions,endowingthe artisans'demandswith the
clarityand ordercharacteristicof legal discourse.Of course,jurists
also pursuedtheirown interests,both as individualsand as a social
group. The question which remainsunansweredis how far they
succeededin exploitingsocial and work conflictsto perpetuateand
increasethe powerof legal practices,and thus to supplementtheir
own prestigeandwealth.The sourcesI havestudied(andthe reading
techniquesadopted)have not revealedany frictionor rifts between
the groupsin conflictand their legal representatives.They suggest
thatjuristsdid not in factalterthe characterof the disputestheywere
called upon to translateinto legal language.89Their discoursewas
straightforward and free from eruditequotations.They broughta
practicalframeof mind to real-lifesituations.The artisans,in turn,
appropriated legalargumentsfor theirown defence.This transferof
discoursewas facilitatedby the fact that the artisanscould hear in
the lawyers'legal languagethe echo of their own voice of their
rights,theirdemandfor justice.The identityandthe cultureof work
of the differentgroups of shoemakers,as well as their awareness
of their respectivestatus, were continuallyshapedthroughintense
dialoguesthat were at once horizontaland vertical.The disputes
betweencity and ruralshoemakers,betweenshoemakersand cob-
blers, and betweenthe mastersand the guild leadershad the effect
of strengtheningandsharpeningtheirgroupandindividualidentities.
And their relationswith learnedlegal circlesreinforcedtheir sense
of theirrights.90
B9 On relationsbetweenwork and law, see M. Sonenscher,"Journeymen, the
Courtsand the FrenchTrades, 1781-1791",Past andPresent,no. 114 (Feb. 1987),
pp. 77-109. I agreewith Sonenscheron a numberof essentialpoints. But thereare
variousdifferences.In particularI do not acceptthe separationbetweenhigh legal
cultureand the cultureof work.
90 In a recentdiscussionupon the politicalmilitancyof the artisans
of the firsthalf
of the nineteenthcentury,J. Rancierehas stressedthat the shoemakers'tradewas
seen as a "maligned"one both "withinthe literateas well as the populartradition":
J. Ranciere,"A Reply",Intetnat.Laborand Working ClussHist., no. 25 (1984), p.
46. Bolognesesourcesdo not confirmthis impression.In 1453whenall the headsof
the twenty-fourguilds were invitedto approveand confirmthe new statutesof the
city, the head of the shoemakers'guild, JacoboBartolomeo,signedthirteenthafter
fc. onp. 108)
108 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 123
Doubtlessnot everyindividualshoemakerwas awareof the privi-
legesof the trade.It is probablyreasonableto supposethatmembers
of the guild councilhad greaterknowledgethanthe simplemasters,
thatmastershoemakersknew morethan the cobblers,and thatcity
shoemakerswerebetterinformedthanthosein ruralareas.But they
all possessedsome degree of knowledge,all defendedthemselves,
attacked,invokedrules,andengagedin struggle.They all knewhow
to securethe assistanceof a lawyer,providedthey hadthe moneyto
pay for his services.91Clasheswereprecededor followedby genuine
compromisesor fake reconciliationsOpen conflictswere interlaced
with clandestineactivitiesor concealedpatternsof behaviourthat
infringedvarious norms. But these infringementswere often felt
to be morallyjustified. Shoemakersrepairedold shoes, cobblers
manufactured new ones, ruralshoemakersundertookfinework. It is
in this densetextureof socialexperience,in thisthick"plurivocality"
that the culturesof work took shape.92
University
of Bologna CarloPoni

(n. 90 cont.)
notariesand money-changersbut beforecarpenters,painters,tailorsand masons:
StatataciviliacivitatisBononias(Bologna,1532), fo. 95V.Accordingto the lawyer
AlessandroMachiavelli(in the secondhalfof theeighteenthcentury),theshoemakers,
who hadshowntheirpoliticalabilitymorethanonce, were'4honourable" and "valu-
able":Bibliotecadell'Archiviodi Statodi Bologna,MS. D.b.+rii.3,A. Machiavelli,
"Discorsosoprale ArtiCollegiatedellacittadi Bolognatdel loropregioe valoree del
modo di esercitarlesenza denigrarela nobiltadei natali".The view of Tommaso
Garzoni(fromBagnacavallo) was more realisticand morecomplex.He condemned
the tricksof shoemakerswho, he alleged,sold sheepskinas calfskinand passedoff
reworkeddown-at-heelshoes for brand-newones! But he acknowledgedthat ehe
shoemakers' swindling,like theirpoverty,was"common. . . to all the sortsof people
who serve others". He recognizedthat they were "uprightmen and honourable
becausethey are Christianslike everybodyelse, exceptingwhen a cobblerseeks to
discourseon holy writ which suits his mouthas well as a beretsuits a donkey's
head":T. Garzoni,Lapiazzauniversale di tutteleprofessionidelmondo(Venice,1589),
p. 824. In otherwordsthe accusationwas thatcobblersstrayedbeyondthe realmsof
theircraftandthattheypassedjudgementon thingsaboutwhichtheyknewnothing.
Thisamountedto a versionof theproverb"Ne sutorultracrepidamjudicet",a charge
thatcouldalsohavebeenlevelledat themilitantshoemakers of thenineteenthcentury.
91Those historianswho analysethe ways in which ruralcommunitiesturnedto
civil tribunalsto defendtheirprivilegesandrightsareengagedin the samecurrentof
rediscoveryof legal sources.Until now this groundhas been neglectedin favourof
investigationinto moredramaticeventssuch as peasantrevoltsand wars.
92 M. Bakhtin, Esteticae romanzo(Turin,1975),pp. 67-230.Thenotionof "plurivo-
cality" which does not exclude the conceptof domination-seems to me the
mosteffectiveconceptualinstrumentfor an understanding of the exchangesbetween
differentsocialgroups.