ring was still in the family in 1808 when John Savery wrote an unpublished family history and mentioned both rings though he does not seem to have known the whereabouts of the ‘CL’ ring. There are no further known records of the ‘KL’ ring until its sale by an unknown person to a Chichester jeweller from where it passed to the V&A. The other ring, marked ‘CL’ was made for Christian Lee, Katherine Lee’s younger sister. She died childless in 1660 and her ring passed to Katherine’s son Richard Savery (1661­1703). After Richard’s death, the ring passed to his son John (died 1760) and then to John’s daughter Ann Legasicke. Ann’s widower George Legasicke then gave the ring to the Revd. Servington Savery so that it might return to the Savery family. It was in the Savery family in 1850 when it was illustrated by William Cotton and is likely to have been kept in the family until it was sold, possibly by the solicitor for Mary Wise Savery Hawkins, in 1931. The sale was advertised in the Western Morning News. The Totnes Antiquarian Society eventually acquired the ring in 1935. Although much is now known of the history of these rings, there are still questions to be explored. Who was the goldsmith who made the rings? Where was the enamelling done? In 1655, the Church Walk was leased to Richard Punchard, a goldsmith. Was he involved in the commission for the rings? Are there other examples of rings being made as civic gifts? These rings represent a unique survival, a pair of rings, made as town gifts and treated as family heirlooms. They are on display together in the Totnes Museum until the end of October 2012, reunited for the first time in many years. With grateful thanks to Richard Wyatt whose curiosity and enthusiasm reunited the rings in Totnes, to Sue King who has generously shared her research on the Savery family and in the Devon archives, and to Hazel Forsyth for her advice on 17th­century goldsmiths. Rachel Church is a curator in the Sculpture, Metalwork, Ceramics and Glass Department at the Victoria and Albert Museum. She is the author of ‘Rings’ (V&A, 2011). Medieval Jewellers and their ‘Families’, a View from the Dijon Archives By Céline David Becoming a jeweller at the end of the Middle Ages took a great deal of dedication and hard work. Success was dependant on a number of factors such as birthright, age and financial circumstances. If we refer to Etienne Boileau’s 13th­century compilation of guild regulations in the city of Paris we can see that there was a very wide range of professions dedicated to personal adornment. No fewer than 24 different industries were involved in the work in Paris at this time, although in smaller markets, such as Dijon in Burgundy, the range was less. As well as the obvious goldsmiths and mercers, there were also purse­, pin­, button­ and girdle­makers. The production of jewellery and accessories for fine clothes took place in small home­based workshops. In Dijon, the entire organisation was very hierarchical with the ‘master’ as head of a household which included the workforce as well as his own family. The master To become a master, it was necessary to have been recognized as competent by the Guild, to have paid the necessary fees, to have sworn to follow its regulations, and to have served an apprenticeship or been a master’s son. Being a master conferred a certain respectability and visibility in the whole community, resulting in a more privileged status. Masters were members of the controlling authority and, if the body of jewellers in a town was too great, they could take steps to limit its size and to restrict the numbers of new members. This form of self­regulation seems to have been very efficient in maintaining the economic viability and profitability of the profession. Most regulations were used to control the methods of production, and the number of cases where goldsmiths did not follow the rules was very low, as we can see in manuscript AMD. M 73 (fig 1). The statutes of the profession were so precise, and the punishments so severe, that masters were not inclined to overstep the mark. One aspect that was essential in the Middle Ages was honour. This was one of the main factors in the smooth running of all society. If a craftsman lost his good name, his whole future would be compromised. The initial costs of setting up in business were huge. The fee paid to become a master was not the greatest outlay: the costs of hiring a compagnon (journeyman/ assistant), providing for apprentices, getting married, and establishing a workshop with the necessary tools, limited access to the profession to only the most fortunate. The master’s son The master’s son was privileged because he was born into the profession. The authorities considered that passive exposure ensured inherent competence. Because of the existence of the family firm, and the fact that he was expected to work there, the master’s son did not have to pay as large a fee as an apprentice to become a master, though he had the same role in most other aspects. He was not regarded as an addition to the workforce but as a successor to an existing master. In Dijon the lineage of goldsmiths was not firmly established, so sons had to study for as long as apprentices. Only one particular clause of the Goldsmith’s Statutes of Jewellery History Today ∙ Autumn 2012 5 Fig 1. AMD (Municipal archives of Dijon), M 73, fol. 49 r°, XV century. !"#$%&'()$*+#,-%*.(-'#($%-"/%'(()'0%+/*.+1$%.2%3(/$4%!"/%-"#+1%#-/&% concerns the goldsmith’s trade and the few lines explain that the workshops have been controlled and there is nothing wrong to record. 1443 relates specifically to the privileges of the master’s son, but the concept is present as a guiding principle throughout the entire text (fig 2). The wife The master’s wife played a central role in the business. Although she did not take part in the work herself, she protected the family against possible failure in her husband’s business by working outside the family home, and educated the children in preparation for their future work. She also looked after any apprentices, who were treated as members of the family. She did not necessarily come from a goldsmithing family herself. There was usually inter­ marriage between different professions, except in very rich and powerful families. For them, marriage was an opportunity to increase their social standing. It is also 6 Jewellery History Today ∙ Autumn 2012 “Orfèvrerie- Des maitrises et amendes d’orfevrerie. Neant pour l’an de ce present compte pour ce que aucune chose n’en est escheu, ne advenu, au contrerole des dictes amendes commil appert par icellui folio XLVI pour ce néant.” clear that the death of a wife could lead to impoverishment, especially when there were young children. The compagnon (journeyman) It is difficult to know how many compagnons were employed in each workshop. In Dijon it seems that the traditional structure was to employ one compagnon and one apprentice; although it was one of the capitals of the Dukes of Burgundy, it was only a small market. There were two sorts of compagnon: a few who wanted to develop their skills by working with an acknowledged master, and the rest who did it as a living, because they were too poor to set up their own workshops. These were usually former apprentices or itinerant craftsmen. The sources do not tell us much about them, and the main difference between them and the apprentices is how much they earn; most of the time apprentices were not paid. Their origin is sometimes mentioned in contracts, preserved in notary protocols. They could be paid in kind (tools, equipment, help in setting up their own establishment…), as well as money. Their contract also specified the duration of their term of employment and this was one of the most important clauses. If they did not remain with their master for the full period, they were liable for a sum which represented three times the total salary they had earned from the beginning of the contract. In return, the master promised to treat his compagnon well and to teach him his skills. The apprentice When a master had developed enough expertise, he could take on an apprentice. If not born as a master’s son, this was the most common way to enter the profession. The starting age varied, but the general trend was that the younger the child the longer the apprenticeship. In Dijon age does not seem to have been a major criterion and is rarely mentioned, in contrast to Orleans where the age of 90% of apprentices is known. The duration of the apprenticeship in the contracts ranges from three to twelve years, due to the technical nature of what the pupil had to learn. This was regulated in the statutes of 1443 to a term of six years. Apprentices had no right to a minimum salary as they received accommodation, clothes and food, as well as training from the master (fig 3). Good relations between master, compagnon, son and apprentice helped to develop the business. Taking on someone who had specialist skills could be a key to success and offered the clientele a range of expertise. The close bonds developed during apprenticeship might also result in future contract work, or in remaining in the household as a compagnon or servant. Working as a jeweller is not a common occupation. Only people whom the master trusted would be allowed to handle the precious stones and metals, and receive training in his skills. Fig 2. AMD, G 60, fol. 13 v°, 1443. Statutes of Goldsmithing. Item dedicated to the privilege of the master’s sons. They do not have to pay the amount of 60 sous tournois. !"#$%&'($&)$*&+),&-$*&%./*#0$*&-(-1&%$*#/$0&$#&)$*&.20$3#/,4&'(/&.(053#& fait leur terme de six ans, pourront ouvrer et lever leurs ouvreurs 2(6)/'($%$3#&$3&).-/7#$&8/))$&$#&*$053#&#$3(,&$399.3*&-$&%./*#0$*& de donner à disner aux maistres visiteurs dud. mestier pour une fois *$()$%$3#&'(.3#&/),&):8$053#&)$(0-1&%$*#/$0&$#&)$*&.20$3#/,&2./$053#4&$#& *$053#&#$3(,&-$&2./$0&.(*-1&%./*#0$*&8/*/#$(0*&-(-1&%$*#/$04&*5/;.3#$& *5),&#5(035/*&25(0&(3$&95/*&-53#&).&%5/#/<&*$0.&=&).&-/7#$&8/))$&$#&)>.(#0$& %5/#/<&.(*-1&%./*#0$*&8/*/#$(0*&$#&7$4&#.3#&-(&0$?.0-&-$*-1&+),&-$& %./*#0$*&75%%$&-$*-1&.20$3#/,4&.+3&'($&/7$();&%./*#0$*&8/*/#$(0*&)$*& congnoissent et les facent registrer et appeller avec les autres maistres leurs seings et poincons comme cy après sera déclairé.” Céline David is soon to complete her PhD in Social and Economic History at the Université catholique de Louvain under the supervision of J.P. Sosson and J.M Yante. Her research surrounds the social and economic impact of jewellery in 14th and 15th­century Dijon, France. She is the Belgian representative of the International Scientific Network on Shame: History, Law and Evolution; a member of the redaction committee of the Réseau Vêtement et Textile: Sources et Ressources; a member of the RMBLF (Belgian French­speaking medievalists network); a member of the MEDATS (Medieval Dress and Textile society) and a member of the Society of Jewellery Historians. Fig 3. AMD, G 60, 1470. Payment for two controllers visiting an apprentice goldsmith who became a master. They are both goldsmiths and receive therefore 9 gros tournois each. “Nous, Drouhot Rouyer et Jehan Regnauldet, orfevres demorant à Dijon, confessons avoir eu et recue de Estienne Gaulthier, orfèvre demorant à Dijon, par les mains de sa femme, la somme de dix huit gros, c’est assavoir chacun de nous neuf gros pour cause de avoir passé, ledit Estienne, maistre orfevre, ceste presente annee comme visiteur et commis du mestier d’orfevrerie pour ceste dite annee. Des quelx neuf gros, chacun de 35(*4&*5%%$*&753#$3*&$#&$3&'(/7#53*&-$*&-/,& XVIII gros ledit Estienne. Tesmoing, le seing manuel du notaire soubscript cy ma à nostre requeste, le samedi XVIe jour du moys de mars mil IIIIc LXX. Jehan de Dampmartin.” Jewellery History Today ∙ Autumn 2012 7