Time to read: 19 minutes(s)

Any merchant can fall to the level of a bourgeois; a first-guild merchant can fall to the second, or even the third. When the Siberian gold rush began in the 1830s, people invested millions and went broke. We see how the Popovs, the pioneers of Siberian gold, rose to the rank of first guild within a few years, only to fall just as quickly.

STUDIO: It wasn't the gold miners who profited most from the gold rush, but those who served them. But we're not talking about gold; we're talking about guilds. This is the podcast "We'll Do It Ourselves." My name is Andrey Allahverdov. Hello.

The word "guild" is nothing new to us, but what it means in modern life is primarily social organizations, something akin to professional or creative unions. When applied to merchants, it denoted a class—with its own rules, charters, and self-government. What did the union of guilds—or rather, the division into them—gain for the merchants? What role did self-government play, and did it open up opportunities for participation in the country's public life? Today we're speaking with Arkady Kontev, a Siberian historian and researcher from Barnaul. Hello.

ARKADY KONTEV: Hello.

STUDIO: Why were guilds created? What are they, anyway, and how did they work?

ARKADY KONTEVWhen Peter created these guilds, he explicitly stated that he needed to gather this "disorganized temple of merchants" together. This is what determined all state policy from the perspective of guild merchants. That is, this organization was intended to facilitate fiscal, tax, and other control over collections, and, of course, to ensure self-government. They even somewhat copied the German system of the 18th century. That is, they elected elders, elected leaders. Each guild consisted of full members—craftsmen, artisans—and non-full members—journeymen and apprentices. The same applies to a guild. It elected its own leader and made all internal decisions.

It should be noted that when Peter the Great created, and essentially copied, the Western system of guilds and guilds, he didn't delve into the nuances, and there wasn't even a written explanation of how the work was supposed to be conducted. Researchers note that the creation of guilds in Rus' was top-down, not bottom-up, unlike in Western Europe. There, guilds were formed to advance political interests. What's interesting here is that workshop the system, unlike ours, was closed, so as not to let anyone in. But guild The system there was, after all, more open. And very early on, the merchant class perceived itself as a political force equal to the nobility. And that, of course, is precisely why parliamentarism is built on this foundation—that the Third Estate is allowed, at least partially, to exercise power. While in Western Europe, it was truly a corporation that protected interests and established rules of conduct, here the state appointed members to the guilds. And, in principle, the guilds themselves, and membership in them, were not entirely voluntary.

As early as the 16th and 17th centuries, the top ranks of merchants in Russia formed a special rank of "guests." It should be noted that merchants in Rus' in the 16th and 17th centuries not only traded but also had to perform certain services, and this rank was bestowed by the highest authority. The first evidence of such distinct groups comes from the 1530s, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. By the mid-17th century, a fairly coherent system had emerged. These "guests," the most privileged category, could hold financial positions, purchase estates, and so on. It should be noted that there were very few of these in Rus'. Researchers estimate that there were approximately 30 such individuals at that time. The second level was the salon and cloth hundreds. They were self-governing, elected their leaders and elders, and held financial positions. And according to indirect evidence, for example, a representative of the salon hundred was higher ranked than a cloth hundred, judging by the positions they held. And the third level was the so-called black hundreds and slobodas. This is the lowest rank of merchants, essentially artisans and small traders. Guilds were introduced by Peter the Great, but such a division already existed in the 17th century.

STUDIO: You say that merchants, besides trading itself, had certain duties, including certain services. What kind?

ARKADY KONTEV: These were mainly the duties of jurors, kissers, and overseeing the collection of wine taxes. This is, to some extent, related to their professional activities. Moreover, as a rule, they tried to appoint the wealthiest to these positions—they were honorary—so that, if necessary, they could cover losses out of their own pockets. Therefore, sometimes merchants who didn't want this even concealed their income. This tradition of assigning tasks to entrepreneurs continued under Peter the Great. Nikita Demidov, for example, held the position of commissar in the Urals and in his hometown of Tula. A commissar is someone who oversaw the fulfillment of contracts, government orders, and so on. In other words, it's a government position. This understanding that everyone must serve the state was, so to speak, mandatory under Peter the Great. Both nobles and merchants served.

From the Chief Magistrate's Regulations, January 16, 1721

Since everywhere in cities, not only in large ones, but also in small ones, there are residents of various ranks, except for tradesmen […] then all such people are not counted among citizens; but citizens are subject to the magistrate, and the following belong to two guilds:

Bankers (who lend money for bills of exchange), distinguished merchants who have large traveling markets and who trade in various goods in stalls, city doctors, apothecaries, physicians, shippers of merchant ships, goldsmiths, silversmiths, icon painters, painters [...] and the like, of whom the first guild or first-class members are members [...]. In the second guild, who trade in small goods and all kinds of provisions, also handicraftsmen, carvers, turners, carpenters, tailors, shoemakers and the like. The rest are all vile people, found in hired labor and in menial labor, who are nowhere counted among the noble and regular citizens.

ARKADY KONTEVPeter had two guilds since 1721. It was only in 1742—after Peter had already passed away—that a third guild emerged. It was established at the disposal of the Moscow merchant class. To be honest, there's no information anywhere about when this practice was adopted throughout Russia, but this division into three guilds and the election of elders and elders for the year were mandated by the Moscow merchant class. From then on, we had three guilds in Rus'. The first was for the highest-ranking wholesalers and major entrepreneurs. The second guild was for those who had the right to trade in cities and districts. And the third was for small, merchandise items, including provisions, that is, food.

The main thing was tax collection. Peter the Great introduced a poll tax. While all peasants initially paid a ruble, 10 rubles, or a ruble, 14 kopecks, merchants paid a 40-altyn tax. An altyn is 3 kopecks, or 120 kopecks per year. While peasants contributed to the army, these contributed to the artillery and navy. That's how Peter divided things up. And, frankly, that was the most important thing for him. For him, self-government wasn't the most important thing.

But there wasn't much consistency. Who should be in the first guild, who in the second, and who especially in the third, which was introduced in 1742, wasn't regulated until the guild reform of 1775. There, the empress, in honor of the victory in the Russo-Turkish War, abolished many taxes and for the first time wrote that city dwellers with a capital of less than 500 rubles could not be merchants; they were considered petty bourgeois. It was clearly stated that the third guild started at 500, the second at 1000 [rubles of capital]. The first, they go from the bottom up, 10. Then it increased. 1775 was the year the guild system was regulated. The poll tax for merchants was abolished, and a contribution of, say, 1% of the declared capital was introduced, according to conscience. That is, the merchant himself declared the contribution, and it was from this that he paid. If you have 500 rubles, 1000, and so on. True, this was later increased. But you decide for yourself, pay this fee, and accordingly, you have the right to a certain guild.

STUDIO: Merchants declared their capital, but did anyone check whether they did it in good faith?

ARKADY KONTEV: Well, that's interesting. Here, the word "in good conscience" is used. They didn't really check it. If you declare more capital than you actually have, you pay more taxes, which is disadvantageous. But then you gain a higher status. And in fact, overstating your capital wasn't advantageous. And understating it wasn't advantageous. So the system regulated itself. There was simply no need to misuse this information.

STUDIO: Has clarity and coherence emerged with the self-government system?

ARKADY KONTEVLook, 1775 was the year of the guild reform. It stipulated that each community would elect its own self-government. They became city citizens. The nobility, clergy, and commoners also lived in the city, but they were simply city dwellers. They weren't even considered citizens. But the system of governance itself wasn't introduced until the Charter Patent to the Cities of 1785, that is, 10 years later. That charter already laid out a system of self-government, a built-in one, that applied not only to merchants and townspeople, but, in principle, to all city residents. In fact, all city residents were divided into six categories.

From the Charter on the Rights and Benefits of the Cities of the Russian Empire, known as the Charter Patent to the Cities, April 21, 1785
The city register of citizens is divided into six parts […]
The second part of the city's register of citizens will include those who have joined the guilds, first, second and third in alphabetical order.

Interpretation.
Those registered in the guilds are all those (of whatever lineage, generation, family, wealth, trade, industry, craft, or trade), who declare a capital for themselves, namely: 1) who declares a capital of ten thousand rubles to fifty thousand rubles, shall be registered in the first guild; 2) who declares a capital of five thousand rubles to ten thousand rubles, shall be registered in the second guild; 3) who declares a capital of one thousand rubles to five thousand rubles, shall be registered in the third guild.

Note.
The calculation of guilds by capital must be the same from one general census in the state to another, and at the will of His Imperial Majesty it can be confirmed or corrected.

A guild is a status, but each city maintained its own guild merchant register. And by and large, a merchant wasn't just a first-guild merchant. They were also members of the first guild of Moscow, the first guild of St. Petersburg, Tobolsk, and so on. And, for example, they could only move from one city to another with permission from a higher-ranking magistrate. These three guilds—like levels—are nationwide, but each city had its own guild. If we look at Siberian cities, in principle, in the 1960s, before the guild reform had been implemented, there were first-guild merchants with 10,000-20,000 rubles, but there were also merchants with capital as small as 100 rubles. They were also registered in the guild, the second, and even the third guild. But if we look at the data, we'll see that a first-guild merchant appeared in Kuznetsk only in 1864. And of the 170 merchants in Kuznetsk, only 16 actually traded. But 175 were registered. Therefore, it was only later, when the property qualification was actually raised in 1775 and the requirements were spelled out, that the number of guild merchants immediately plummeted. In Tomsk, there were about 600 merchants before the 1775 reform. Then it plummeted: in the entire Tobolsk province in the last quarter of the 18th century, there were only 610 families. That's the entire Tobolsk province! Sometimes the entire first guild consisted of two or three people. A headman would be elected from among these three. One would be elected headman. Of course, there were Moscow and St. Petersburg, larger ones. But they also had a chief magistrate, so the situation there was a slightly different one.

What's so important and interesting about the charter is that for the first time, the city is presented as a unified whole; one researcher even coined the phrase "the city as a subject." And for the first time, the division wasn't by class, but by rank. These six ranks elected a common council; they had a single mayor, but they elected a council, called the six-member council. Because each of the six ranks elected its own representative, its own member. And these six people constituted this council—a permanent body. But, for example, here too, if there were three guilds, this second rank of merchants, each guild elected its own representative to the council. That is, even the merchants didn't act as a single, unified rank; they had three representatives, three guilds. If there were two guilds in the city, then two representatives. If there was one guild, then one representative. The Charter Patent did not address intra-class self-government; it concerned only city government. And yet, it did not abolish intra-class or intra-guild governance. That is, each category could hold its own assemblies, elect elders, and so on. In fact, this system of self-government had already developed naturally. This division, the election of elders.

From the Instructions of the Moscow merchants of the first, second and third guilds to the elders and elders with comrades, January 19, 1742

For the collection of merchant poll taxes and other merchant-related matters, each guild shall appoint elders, elders, and associates, who shall be responsible for the oath and election of all Moscow merchants from this year 1742 onward, elected elders, elders, and associates. And act in accordance with the provisions of this instruction: […] Each guild shall have an elder, elder, and associate, who shall serve for one year, and each guild elder shall have authority over the elder, his associate, and over that guild, and the elders of the second and third guilds shall carry out all matters with the knowledge of the chief elder of the first guild.

ARKADY KONTEV: In general, what was the city government's primary responsibility? Collections. After all, city residents, not just merchants (who paid this 1% to the state), also had what we now call "municipal fees." I'm not talking about charity. These were mandatory contributions: for the fire department, for roads, for bridges, for government buildings. All of this had to be collected. And this distribution was carried out by the head of his guild. Because each guild had to make a certain contribution. The second thing the headman did was, depending on the number of merchants, he distributed and recorded these contributions. Previously, it was a 40-altyn tax, and then this percentage, or later, up to 5% of the capital in the 19th century. In other words, he kept these documents and, among other things, kept track of the guild merchants themselves. Because a father might have three more sons, but only the head of the family was registered in the guild. Because, of course, we were talking about the heads of families. If a son distinguished himself and had his own capital, then he became independent. If not, then, in principle, it was one family and one guild certificate. But if there were many merchants, then assistants were needed. These were the elder and the headman. The elder was the general guild leader, and the headman was, strictly speaking, the headman's assistant, also elected. And even the elder's comrades—a comrade is an assistant—were also elected.

Incidentally, two periods stand out here: the 1960s and the early 19th century, when Russian merchants became very poor. Short-sighted policies led to cities being very poor; city governments had no resources at all, and especially in small towns, many merchants paid bribes to avoid being elected because it was expensive; they received nothing for it; it was unpaid work. It was only in the 19th century that a merchant mentality and responsibility to society began to develop, especially in the second half of the 19th century, when they became mayors and so on. But in the 1960s and early 19th centuries, there were merchants who, to avoid being elected to city or guild government, simply didn't renew their certificates, because it might have been honorable, but it was very expensive for merchants. These mayors simply abused their power horribly. And when he was expelled for this, he simply crossed himself and left. And this was a problem because there were no volunteers, and those who agreed saw it as an opportunity to make money and nothing more.

STUDIO: It's clear that for the state, a structured system, particularly a clearly defined guild, facilitated tax collection. But what did this mean for the guilds themselves?

ARKADY KONTEVOf course it did. Each guild had its own set of rights. If you wanted to engage in wholesale trade and foreign goods, travel abroad, maintain your own factories, and so on, you had to obtain first guild status. If you were a second guild member, you could only trade at fairs. For example, a third guild merchant couldn't trade at fairs. But the third guild had the right to conduct small-scale trade only within its own county, or, effectively, in its county seat. It's important to understand that a settlement, especially in the 18th century, only became a city if it became the county seat. In the 19th century, there were provincial towns, but in the 18th century, that wasn't the case. Therefore, one county meant one city, and the third guild could only trade there. Therefore, it was advantageous for merchants to obtain a higher guild status because it expanded their opportunities. But here's something important to note: as researchers say, joining the guild was harder than leaving it. As soon as a merchant failed to prove his capital and redeem his guild certificate—this was already the 19th century—he immediately became a bourgeois. Therefore, the turnover of the merchant class was very high. Merchants often went bankrupt, lost their status, or left—that is, they themselves became bourgeois. The turnover was very high. Estimates suggest that the composition of the merchant class changed literally every 50 years.

STUDIO: This inevitably brings to mind associations with Soviet times. If you're not a member of the writers' union, then you're not really a writer. So, you can do it, but you won't have the same status.

ARKADY KONTEVTo some extent, yes. We must understand that classism is feudalism. And this classism, especially since 1863, has been declining. In the 19th century, it was enough to buy a trade license. That's it. And you no longer needed a guild.

From the Senate Decree “On the procedure for issuing certificates for the right to trade and industry, and tickets for trade and industrial establishments” of April 11, 1863.

All types of certificates for the right to trade and engage in trade, as well as tickets for trade and industrial establishments... are issued: from district treasuries or from councils and institutions replacing these latter. […]
Trade certificates are issued…: for delivery and peddling trade, for the bourgeoisie and the clerks everywhere, and for petty trade only in the district where the person receiving the certificate wishes to engage in trade or industry. […]
When issuing any merchant's certificate, at least one ticket for a commercial or industrial establishment is issued along with it. […]
Certificates and tickets are issued ... from November 1 to January 1 of the following year, from  

ARKADY KONTEVHaving a guild certificate became completely unnecessary. People bought them, some acquired them for, so to speak, status. Jews did this to simplify their status, or those who had no intention of trading at all, simply to maintain their former reputation—a former merchant, but he still wanted to. And so, in the second half of the 19th century, indeed, as soon as capitalism began to develop, the authorities themselves replaced this guild certificate with a trade certificate, and it no longer mattered which guild you belonged to. A trade certificate no longer applied to an individual, but to an enterprise. The tax system changed; it was no longer the merchant's capital that was taxed, but the trade tax—that is, the enterprise itself. And so this guild division, the guild fee, became a merchant's right, not an obligation. And again, at the beginning of the 20th century, the number of merchants plummeted. Because there was simply no need for it anymore. Guilds gradually disappeared on their own, although they remained in place until 1917.

Self-government existed in other areas too—guilds and peasants had self-government. But, yes, even when municipal self-government was introduced, the charter for cities, and even in the 1870s, when urban reform had already been implemented, it must be said that merchants and city residents in Siberia weren't very active in city council elections. When something like this happened in Tomsk, for example, the city council closed 150 taverns, leaving only 40. The following year, in 1882, there was a stir because the merchants whose taverns had been closed were trying to get their own people elected. Otherwise, merchants in Siberia, especially citizens, weren't very active in elections. This, too, needs to be learned. And it happened gradually. But, nevertheless, it is true.

From the newspaper "Eastern Review" December 16, 1882 

Tomsk is going through a busy time: council elections are underway, voters are being actively canvassed, and a desperate partisan struggle is underway, completely devoid of civic sentiment and public interest. This was demonstrated by the election of first-class voters on October 27, although, truth be told, the current elections did not employ the tactics used in all previous elections. Back then, the voters—bigwigs and tavern-keepers—were trying to select "their" Duma, resorting to the most unacceptable means: enticing voters with money, treating them to wine in taverns, and organizing a grand feeding of hams, pies, and other delicacies and drinks right in the Duma itself, during the election period.

STUDIO: So it turns out that, unlike, say, Western countries, a guild is more of a restriction than some kind of structure that, through self-government, promotes the development of the merchant class itself and protects its rights?

ARKADY KONTEVYou see, they weren't defending their rights in the sense of guild rights, like the Third Estate in France and Western Europe, which advocated for its political rights. That didn't exist. And this, strictly speaking, only began in the second half, even at the end of the 19th century, when political parties already existed.

Many prominent merchants in the 18th century, for example, did everything they could to gain nobility, to rise above that level. The main thing was to secure a monopoly on certain types of trade, keeping out foreigners—protectionism. And, let's say, some tax breaks. That's all. In this regard, by the way, the orders of the deputies of the Legislative Commission in 1766 are very interesting. Catherine decided to create new legislation, a code. And each locality was to elect delegates to this Legislative Commission. And the delegates were to formulate their orders. And so the merchants formulate these orders, quite ridiculous ones: Mother Empress, order all merchants to keep income books, as is done in Europe. Or: let's ban peasants from making merchants drunk. Or: let's not allow them to trade, and so on. In other words, quite naive. Well, overall, it must be said that the educational level of merchants, even in the early 19th century and even the first half of the 19th century, was still low. Later, they began sending their children to schools, some even to university, mostly to institutes, trade schools, and so on. But the educational level was still not very high. And there was no such understanding of guild rights. Well, just like in society as a whole. While our nobility began to understand social responsibility—it was only with the Decembrists, let's say—the merchant class remained unaware for a long time. Charity—yes, schools—yes. But perceiving themselves as some kind of unified corporation with political goals—that's not the case. That never happened.

STUDIO: I thank Arkady Kontev, a Siberian historian and researcher from Barnaul, for his engaging story. It was part of the podcast "We'll Do It Ourselves." Listen to us, comment, we're very interested in your thoughts. See you there.