Eugen Peter Schwiedland: Review of Charles Berteaux’s La crise de l’apprentissage en France (1911)

Schwiedland’s brief German review of Berteaux’s 1909 book combines a dismissive assessment of its scholarly execution with recognition of its evidence on French apprenticeship. His opening distinguishes the appeal of the title from the substance of the research:

Der hübsche Titel ist eine in Frankreich gangbare Bezeichnung, der Inhalt des Buches selbst Bibliotheksarbeit.

English translation: The pretty title is a designation current in France; the content of the book itself is library work.

The criticism targets a bulky, library-based treatment, yet Schwiedland identifies three substantive elements: the inadequacy of the French law of 22 February 1851 governing industrial apprenticeship contracts, a bleak account of vocational education, and the text of an apprenticeship bill introduced by several deputies in 1907. These points connect the crisis to legal regulation, instructional provision, and proposed reform, without developing an independent reform programme.

The review’s strongest emphasis falls on the disparity between formal apprenticeship and young people’s actual employment:

Hervorzuheben ist ein Zitat, wonach von 600 000 Jugendlichen im Lehrlingsalter nur 60 000 richtige Lehrverträge abschließen und die übrigen 540 000 nur auf Grund mündlicher Uebereinkunft „in die Lehre genommen“ oder gradezu als jugendliche Hilfsarbeiter verwendet werden.

English translation: One quotation deserves emphasis, according to which, of 600,000 young people of apprenticeship age, only 60,000 conclude proper contracts of apprenticeship, while the remaining 540,000 are "taken into apprenticeship" merely on the basis of a verbal agreement or are used outright as juvenile auxiliary laborers.

By singling out this statistic, Schwiedland makes the distinction between a proper training contract, an oral arrangement, and employment as a juvenile auxiliary worker the review’s conceptual hinge. Its relevance lies in this compact exposure of how the designation “apprenticeship” could encompass labour arrangements far removed from formally regulated vocational training.