부유한 수공업자와 가난한 상인 - 오스만 길드의 ‘평등주의’에 대한 재검토

Rich Artisans and Poor Merchants: A Critical Look at the Supposed Egalitarianism in Ottoman Guilds

&nbsp;&nbsp;Although some Ottoman craft guilds did have a quasi-egalitarian streak, we may not consider it a product simply of sufi-futuwwa ethics. Some of the futuwwah literature explicitly accommodates both artisans and merchants, and the futuwwah mindset, given its flexibility and amorphousness, could often have tolerated the relatively rich, as long as they provided charity and showed sympathy toward their less fortunate colleagues. Likewise, we find craft-guilds less adamantly egalitarian than we have thought. There is evidence that quite different scales of businesses could coexist in the same guild or trade, from the shop sales/rent documents, a waqfdocument, and tereke documents as we have seen in this paper.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;In the light of seventeenth-century Istanbul court records, most guilds seem to have been self-organized and self-defined professional associations whose purpose was to promote common interests. Therefore, their internal arrangements could vary greatly depending on their situations and needs, and egalitarianism may or may not have featured prominently in such arrangements. What guilds were about was to uphold the advantageous order in and around their trade. What they wanted was to guard their established interests and not necessarily to curb the rich, as long as the latter did not disrupt the order in their system. The leaders of the guilds must have been relatively well-off, being able to give some material service to other members and get good reputation in return. There obviously was wider differentiation of wealth within a guild, and guildsmen may not necessarily have considered this problematic, as it could have been beneficial to have some rich members in their group.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, we may need to re-consider the boundary between artisans and merchants. The line between the two categories is blurred not only by rich artisans but also by poor local retailers whose behavior, outlook, and even organization was similar to craft guilds. There were quite different levels of wealth on both sides of artisans and merchants, so that those who were at the high and low extremes may not necessarily have felt that they had much in common or belonged together as artisans or merchants. Meanwhile, artisans and merchants were in close relationship as the latter brought raw materials for the former and often provided credits. Business partnerships crossing the imaginary boundary between artisans on one side and merchants on the other must have been common. In addition, some vague terms that could be applied to both artisans and merchants, such as ehl-i suk and ？elebi (designating the prominent ones among them) seem to indicate that the two classes could merge to some extent in the eyes of the contemporaries.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Now that it is clear that some artisan groups could tolerate economic differentiation in their guilds and that some individuals could become and remain relatively wealthy within the guild system, we should note significant exceptions to the stereotype of the Ottoman artisans as poor, egalitarian small producers. To further examine artisans&quot; economic status and the whole gamut of their relations to diverse group of merchants would be crucial in reconstructing the fabric of Ottoman urban society and the dynamics therein.