Daughters’ Labour and Marital Choices
Daughters were a part of the artisan family, but it was mainly the boys’ task to inherit the family business and craft knowledge. First, there were professions in which women had no role in the workshop.
For instance, smiths’ work required a physical capacity that not even every man possessed. The tanners’ trade was also physically challenging. Second, Finnish girls could not be engaged in formal apprenticeship training or practice a profession as official artisans, although this was possible in some other European countries (Crowston 2008).Table 5.3 The spouses of artisans’ daughters (born 1780–1820) in Hollola (percentage)
There were no official female artisans until the late nineteenth century, when the trade of seamstress became established. This does not mean that women could not engage in crafts or make a living with handicrafts. Women were simply not referred to as artisans by occupation.32 It is nevertheless likely that in some crafts—for instance, in weaving and tailoring—daughters could have learned the secrets of the trade. For example, both daughters of the weaver Johan Helin learned how to weave. By the nineteenth century, there were only few male weavers left in rural areas, as women did most of the weaving either as part of their housework or as a cottage industry (Vainio-Korhonen 1998, 63–69; Vainio-Korhonen 2000, 48–54). This argument is supported by the fact that many women owned (according to probate inventories) weaving looms and spinning wheels.
In an artisan household, there was seldom need for the labour of girls because households usually included only a few domestic animals and a small garden. It was customary for daughters to leave the household as soon as they were able to find paid work outside the home (Gadd 1991, 167).
Some artisans’ daughters served as domestic servants in mansions, larger farms, and vicarages rather than as ordinary farm maids. Many daughters spent several years working and saving up funds before marrying.33 The path walked by Ulrika Landsroth, a shoemaker’s daughter, was quite long, though; she was in her forties when she finally married a shoemaker.As was typical for this era, women were seen through their fathers’ or husbands’ social standing. They could not achieve an independent position other than as a maid, which also referred to their unfree status as a servant. Generally, the social positon of women was formed through their spouses’ occupation. Therefore, it is appropriate to look at the daughters’ marriage choices. First of all, most artisans’ daughters got married (see Table 5.4). Only a small minority remained unmarried. Often a reason for this unmarried status was having children outside marriage.
Table 5.4 Artisans’ daughters’ (born 1780–1820) marriage patterns in Hollola (percentage)
Consequently, the role of girls in the transfer of a profession was formed through marriage, especially in cases where there were no sons to inherit the position. Particularly in smiths’ families, it was common practice to marry daughters off to other smiths and hence ensure the survival of the family business through the son-in-law. For instance, the smith Joran Thomasson had only one surviving child, a daughter. Her marriage was arranged with a smith’s apprentice, who specifically moved from a neighbouring parish to Hollola because of this marriage.34 This practice—a marriage arrangement where a newcomer agreed to marry the predecessor’s widow or daughter—is called conservation. It was more common among the clergy, but it was also practised in artisans’ circles. Especially in the towns, a new guild master often got his position by marrying the old master’s widow (or daughter if the age difference was too great) (Edgren 1987, 232; Vainio-Korhonen 1997, 175; Humphries 2003, 89; Uotila 2014, 191–193).
The artisanal background of the groom did not always have to be the same as the bride’s (Laakso 1974, 125; Juutila 1997, 162–163). The context of craft created enough common ground. For instance, tailor Erik Bertlin’s daughter married a guild-trained shoemaker who had acquired the parish artisan’s position. The spouse of mason Mats Häggstedt’s only daughter was likewise a shoemaker. There was especially great homogamy among specialised artisans, where most of the daughters married other artisans. This was also common among tailors’ daughters; forty percent of their husbands were shoemakers, smiths, or carpenters. If there were only a few suitable artisan bachelors available, spouses were also sought from the neighbouring parishes. While smith Johan Kaitlin’s daughter married a tailor from Asikkala, her younger sister’s groom was a smith from the parish of Lammi.
Most of the daughters’ spouses, however, had other occupations. Nearly one-third of smiths’ daughters married a farmer’s son. Although the husband could also be the younger son of a farmer who did not necessarily inherit a farm, the marriage nevertheless guaranteed the smith’s daughter the social status of land-holding farmer. For example, both of the weaver Helin’s daughters had farmer husbands. Nonetheless, it was slightly more common for an artisan’s daughter to find a husband among the tenant farmers’ sons, which was not necessarily a bad position.
On the other hand, not all daughters had a prominent marriage. For instance, many tailors’ daughters, especially in nineteenth century, married farmhands. They may have later achieved more permanent positions—for instance, as tenant farmers—but during the first years of marriage they were only hirelings. Then again, it was possible that there would be craftsmen in the next generation—this time the daughters’ sons—who would follow the family tradition into the trade.