hyaku
25th November 2003, 00:49
Sharing what Guy Power Sensei posted this very good analogy on a thread over on Sword Forum:
Medieval guild system of Master, Journeyman, Apprentice.
A "master" is someone who is qualified to take on apprentices and run his own business. He has completed a "masterpiece": a product of his trade of a quality worthy of sale. Today, "masterpiece" means an item of great value, but in the medieval period it simply means that it's the "real thing" and not just a practice piece. The closest modern analogy is the Master's thesis.
An "apprentice" is someone who learns under the tutelage of a master.
A "journeyman" is literally a "day laborer." He has learned his trade well enough to provide a useful contribution, and he's qualified to do work for somebody other than his master. He has not yet completed a masterpiece, however, so he's not qualified to take on apprentices or to do work without supervision and assistance.
Not all journeymen are apprentices, but "journeyman apprentices" are common. Thus, the term is partly independent of the master/apprentice distinction. The closest modern analogy is the part-time employee (journeyman) or intern student (journeyman apprentice).
A journeyman is qualified to teach (the master's apprentices) but not take on his own apprentices. It's entirely possible for a journeyman to never become a master and still make a living performing his craft. In order to become a master a journeyman has to make a "master work" that is scrutinized and approved by the other masters in the guild. There is no guarantee that he will be successful on his first try.
This is more or less true, although I might argue with the "journeymen can teach" part. They might not be legally permitted to teach, but they probably do help masters with their apprentices, in practice.
A master is a full member of his guild (if there is one), may take on apprentices, and is (in theory) capable of running his own shop. Connotations of high quality and great skill are a later development, and probably began as figurative language.
Hyakutake Colin
Medieval guild system of Master, Journeyman, Apprentice.
A "master" is someone who is qualified to take on apprentices and run his own business. He has completed a "masterpiece": a product of his trade of a quality worthy of sale. Today, "masterpiece" means an item of great value, but in the medieval period it simply means that it's the "real thing" and not just a practice piece. The closest modern analogy is the Master's thesis.
An "apprentice" is someone who learns under the tutelage of a master.
A "journeyman" is literally a "day laborer." He has learned his trade well enough to provide a useful contribution, and he's qualified to do work for somebody other than his master. He has not yet completed a masterpiece, however, so he's not qualified to take on apprentices or to do work without supervision and assistance.
Not all journeymen are apprentices, but "journeyman apprentices" are common. Thus, the term is partly independent of the master/apprentice distinction. The closest modern analogy is the part-time employee (journeyman) or intern student (journeyman apprentice).
A journeyman is qualified to teach (the master's apprentices) but not take on his own apprentices. It's entirely possible for a journeyman to never become a master and still make a living performing his craft. In order to become a master a journeyman has to make a "master work" that is scrutinized and approved by the other masters in the guild. There is no guarantee that he will be successful on his first try.
This is more or less true, although I might argue with the "journeymen can teach" part. They might not be legally permitted to teach, but they probably do help masters with their apprentices, in practice.
A master is a full member of his guild (if there is one), may take on apprentices, and is (in theory) capable of running his own shop. Connotations of high quality and great skill are a later development, and probably began as figurative language.
Hyakutake Colin