• Home
• Flat glass in the Modern Times

The Master Piece

Guilds were organisations of craftsmen possessing a city-wide monopoly on the production of certain commodities. However, they invariably had to contend with competitors in other locations, often out in the countryside. Either the competing products were imported into the city or they were sold on the same regional or international markets as the items produced by the urban craftsmen. As producers in large towns usually faced higher costs (wages, taxes, housing, etc.) than rural producers or producers in smaller towns, they were unable to compete through pricing and often chose to provide better quality goods instead⁷. This preoccupation with product quality explains not only why norms and standards were prescribed, but also the system of apprenticeships and a master’s test.

In many cases, a compulsory apprenticeship had already been prescribed by the late Middle Ages, but the earliest references to a master’s test usually date back to the late 15^th century. Generally speaking, they were introduced during what historians refer to as the “long sixteenth century”. Precisely why they were introduced is still open to study, but it would appear that initially efforts were made to adapt the skills acquired during the apprenticeship period to the product market. In the case of Antwerp’s guild of cabinetmakers, for example, a test was introduced in 1497 that encompassed the production of three pieces of furniture, i.e. two different cabinets and a table, adapted to the rather broad standardisation that existed within the sector at that time⁸. As far as the table was concerned, the dean of the guild could choose between a circular-shaped ‘disch’ and a square table⁹, while the shape of the cabinet was strictly prescribed. This choice probably depended on the workshop where the apprentice had learnt the craft and the pieces that were generally produced there.

The oldest documents (Ghent, 1600)¹⁰ found in the sector under study would appear to suggest that matters were similar in the stained-glass and glaziers’ crafts. Three possible master’s tests could be imposed: ‘the production of a glass lantern’ or an ‘oval roundel with helm, coat of arms, and mantling’ (see fig. 1) or a stained-glass panel with a diced leading pattern (‘eenen teerlinck pandt’) (see fig. 2). These three tests would appear to coincide with three distinct disciplines within the craft, namely lantern making, stained-glass making, and glazing.

---

There are indications that, at a later stage, the direct relationship between the test and the product market was lost. In the case of the aforementioned carpenters, for example, just one cabinet would eventually be prescribed, and for ebony cutters, who were added to the carpenters’ guild in 1621, the test consisted exclusively in the making of a ‘crucifix’¹¹. It would thus appear that, as a result of the increasing complexity of the items made and the growing degree of specialisation within and among workshops, only the basic skills were now tested. In the case of the stained-glass artists and glaziers, we observe that the master’s test gradually evolved towards a standardised test in which glass cutting and leading were of central importance.

In a text from Lier (1619-1620)¹², we read that the local master’s test was based on the same criteria as those applied in Antwerp. However, the earliest details about the Master’s test in Antwerp are found in a text dating from 1660¹³. It involved a lead pattern with ‘six right angles’ and a piece of blue ‘holed’ (‘gegaet’) glass. Presumably, the composition represented the coat of arms of the St Luke’s Guild, as this was also the assignment in Aalst in 1700¹⁴. Moreover, it is commonly found on the early 18^th century pattern sheets for lead compositions in two pattern books that are preserved at the Steinmetz Cabinet in Bruges¹⁵ (see fig.3). Many models involve compositions with ‘angle bars’ (see fig. 4).

In Aalst (1700), the text was clear. It details that the coat of arms of the St Luke’s Guild should be produced from a piece of (blue?) glass in which three small arms (white glass?) should be cut out without breaking the surrounding larger piece of glass.

The skill of cutting or nibbling of one or several holes in a larger piece of glass had probably been one of the essential assignments in the master’s test for some time. Certainly in the case of two late 15^th century stained-glass windows depicting St. Michael and St. George, which probably used to adorn the chapel of the St Luke’s Guild in Bruges¹⁶, we notice that this ‘art of glass-cutting’ was applied several times in virtuoso fashion (see figures 5-6-7-8).

---

In an ordinance from Lier dating from 1736¹⁷, it is again mentioned that the criteria for the master’s test are the same as those laid down in Antwerp.

In 1752¹⁸, the Brussels guild prescribes three mandatory steps for obtaining the title of Master. Each step had to be assessed. The first phase involved the drawing of ‘the usual model’ over 2.5 square feet. In this drawing, the motif to be applied was a pattern conserved by the guild (‘den patroon ter Tresorije’). At the City Museum of Louvain, we encounter references to a comparable master’s test, probably dating from around 1790¹⁹. (see fig. 9) The lead composition of this stained-glass window is again also found in the pattern books in Bruges²⁰. (see fig. 10) This time, the coat of arms of the City of Louvain is the central element.

On the basis of a dispute in Malines in 1782²¹ regarding the execution of the Master’s test in blank glass, with blue glass for the central decorative element (‘loof ofte cieraerd’) as was the ‘tradition’, we conclude that the local guild stuck to the requirement of applying a decorative, coloured central element. The text also reveals that coloured (blue) glass was scarce and/or expensive around that time.

Not much later, in 1784²², also in Malines, no explicit reference is made to the requirement of a decorative element, as the test now apparently only consisted in the production of a square window measuring two by two feet and with the required lead pattern (‘sijn deceins’). Presumably the latter refers to the lead composition rather than to a central decorative element.

In order to understand these evolutions, three aspects are crucially important. First, the glass-staining test was scrapped from the regulations. This would appear to indicate that the production of quality non-stained glass windows was becoming increasingly important. Indeed, this assumption is confirmed by the previously observed trend by art historians that fewer and fewer monumental stained-glass windows were being made as the 17^th century wore on. Demand for non-stained glass windows – not only in churches but also in private homes – increased. Second, this sheds light on certain institutional evolutions. After all, the question arises how the guilds as organisations responded to the changing market situation and the resulting shifts in the balance of power between glaziers and stained-glass artists. Certainly in the documents studied, we find increasingly fewer references to stained-glass window production. Third, this evolution did not unfold independently from what happened in other crafts, where the standardised master’s test had essentially become a key skills test. We found no indications of specialisation within and between workshops.

---

---