The figure of the merchant

Table of contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………...……… p. 3

I/ The merchant is an outcast……………………………………………………… p.
A/ Merchants are marginalized
B/ The example of The Merchant of Venice
C/ The merchant: an immoral figure

II/ The merchant is a marginal figure that plays an essential role in society and its development……………………………………………………………………….. p.
A/ The merchant is at the heart of community development
B/ Merchants take part in the economic development of a country
C/ The trader also creates problems in this development
D/ Trade broadcasts culture

III/ The figure of the merchant seems enclosed in the image that we have………. p.
A/ The merchant is the incarnation of uncontrolled desire
B/ He is an object of desire
C/ The merchant and the philosopher: two similar figures

Conclusion

Introduction:

I/ The merchant is an outcast

At the beginning of the 20th century, a german team of archeologists found a Mesopotamian town named Uruk, situated in what is today Iraq. The city is considered to have existed in 4000 BC and is thought to be one of the first cities of humanity. The searchers underlined that Uruk was divided into several areas: governors were separated from the craftsmen and traders. In this way, we see that since almost the beginning, traders are put together and parked apart from the rest of society. In this first part, we will answer these questions: why was trading an activity mainly done by foreigners? Why is the figure of the Jew associated with trade? Why is the merchant considered as an immoral person?
A/ Merchants are marginalized
In Philosophy of Money, the German philosopher Georg Simmel offers a very particular point of view on trade, on money and on the destiny of the merchant. He tried to understand why trading was at first an activity reserved to marginal people. Georg Simmel emphasizes that money became the center of interests for individuals and social classes that are excluded from the society. For instance, roman slaves started to be involved in trade, because it was the only way to succeed: the slave Pasion, that lived around 400 BC is a famous example of a slave that climbed the social ladder thanks to trade. It is the same in India, where the individuals that constitute the caste of Pārsis, a very segregated caste, are most often bankers. This type of repartition works well: a person who needs money is so desperate that he is ready to deal with a despised person, because he already has nothing to lose.
The most famous example of this social construction is the figure of the Jew. The particularity of Jews is that they are not just foreigners by their citizenship, but also by their religion. A trader is needed especially when there is a lack of a product that can only be found far away. A trader is most often a foreigner and a foreigner, in a new environment, is most often inclined to become a trader. In Laws, Plato describes a society where the possession of noble metals is forbidden for citizens, thus trade is reserved mainly for foreigners. He also encourages the closing of the ports, because he does not consider that the interaction with the outside is favorable for a city as people tend to forget their priority, which should be the city. Simmel explains that Jews became traders because they were dispatched all around the words, which facilitated the formation of a Diaspora. Disparted persons try to integrate their new society, but it is difficult, so they accept and assimilate much quicker and easier with other elements from the outside, elements that do not belong to the main group.
B/ The example of The Merchant of Venice
The emergence of a capitalist spirit in England during the 16th and 17th centuries played a leading role in reconfiguring the figure of the merchant. International trade developed and intensified and value lost its physical anchorage. This evolution is perceptible in British literature at that time, in particular for some of the playwrights who staged miserly characters imprinted in our collective imagination. Among the most famous figures of merchants in literature are the characters of Shakespeare popular drama The Merchant of Venice. Its plot centres on the merchants Antonio, a Christian ship-owner, and Shylock, a Jewish moneylender. Finding Antonio unable to repay the loan he took, Shylock demands a pound of Antonio’s flesh, as stipulated in their contract.
Shylock has all the negative traits that stereotyped the merchant over the years. He is hardly likeable in all aspects throughout the play. A marginalized member of society because he is Jewish and works as a moneylender; he is the very incarnation of hatred, wanting revenge over society. Shylock hangs on to an almost divine idea of gold and the world of money, medium he thinks he controls and believes is about to become the universal equivalent of any good. Even though he fits perfectly into the modern dynamic of economic, cultural and social exchanges of that time, he contributes, with his strictly usurious speech, to its depreciation.
Shylock only appears in five scenes, but always in a deciding way for the plot, and in a singular way. His language, his behaviour and his relationship to others clearly separate him from others: he is proud, brusque, sharp and critical. His language is always linked with an action, and because of his marginal position towards society, he feels the need to keep control over the world, to list things, to show and explain his prerogatives. Everybody, himself included, calls him “the Jew”, which underlines even more his role of outsider. “Faithless Jew” (II, 4), “old carrion” (III, 1), “inexorable dog [...] thy desires / Are wolfish” (IV, 1), Shylock is the dark side of mankind whose voracity deteriorates his image to the one of beast. Even during the lawsuit, he keeps insisting the contract should be executed, thus giving up on reason in favour of a revengeful passion. His marginality is confirmed by fate. However, by insisting that Shylock must be punished in the way that he is, Shakespeare raises doubts about the purity of Christian love and mercy, which certainly creates implications for the very notions of both punishment and villainy. The most common error is to assume that the merchant referred to in the title is in fact Shylock. But this is not the case, since Shylock is only a moneylender. Antonio is the merchant indicated in the title. The confusion surrounding the title is purposeful, because it shows that Christians are in many ways as awful as the Jews they criticize. Antonio has rarely been considered the most significant character of the play: he is a rich and popular man, who suffers from an inner sadness. He is quite a melancholic figure. He also is a fervent anti-Semite and shows absolutely no mercy towards Jews.
The reader, when performing a basic character analysis of Shylock, can feel compassion for this character, which is so clearly disliked. It is clear when he makes his moving speech in Act III: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?” He underlines the similarities between Jews and Christians saying, “Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means… as a Christian is” and then confronts his Christian accusers and judges with three questions “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?” Shylock has never been understood because no one has ever seen him for anything other than his Jewishness. This develops the ambiguous feeling toward the character because although he is not likable, we cannot help but sympathize with his plight as an outcast.
We could almost say that Shylock is the embodiment of justice. It is in his nature not to know mercy. No one has ever shown mercy to him, and as he belongs to a "chosen people," he owes nothing to the Christians. As Law is all the protection he has, he holds rigidly to it. He would murder Antonio, legally and personally because Antonio stands for all that he hates and because of Antonio's nastiness toward him. He states:
"I hate him for he is a Christian,
But more for that, in low simplicity,
He lends out money gratis, and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice”
Shylock is not a stupid, brutal, miserly thief. He is the cleverest man among his people. Being a Jew, his end is "his bargains and his well-won thrift", he demands only what by law is his and he doesn’t know the "charity that seeketh not her own." Rather than learn this lesson that is to say that revenge in the aspect of justice will never result in anything else than more revenge, Shylock receives a hard punishment, which shows that Christians are merciless as well, and maybe more. Thus, there always is a negative consideration of the merchant. Whoever he is, he is considered a ruthless, unscrupulous man.
C/ The merchant: an immoral figure
What about the representation of the Merchant in one of the founding works of the Occidental civilization? One of the most well-known episodes of the Bible in which merchants appear, the episode of the Cleansing of the Temple (an episode narrated in the four canonical Gospels), does not cast a very flattering light on the world of trade and money. What exactly happens in this episode? Jesus and his disciples, who have been travelling to Jerusalem, arrive at the temple of Herod, and they find that the courtyard of the temple is occupied by money-changers and cattle-sellers: “In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured down the coins of the money-changers and he overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons: Take these things away, do not make my Father’s house a house of trade!”
John, 2: 13-16
Jesus’s violent reaction to the presence of the merchants in the temple is a strong indicator of what people should give priority to: faith, prayer, thought, and not trade. In Western societies where the catholic religion was the most common, and where everyone knew this passage of the Bible, this gives us a clue about the way merchants were looked upon. People would consider the merchants as a category that stands between man and faith, which in a way does not care about the essential but prevents man from following the path of Jesus. In texts commenting the gospels that were written at the end of the Middle Ages, there are even stronger condemnations of the merchants: “Homo Mercator vix aut nunquam potest Deo Placere”, i.e. “The merchant can never, or barely, please God”. This proves how belittled and despised the figure of the merchant was during those times.
But more than the figure of the merchant, it is perhaps money itself that the Bible criticizes the most, and the faults that desiring and accumulating money bring into man:

“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Luke, 16, 13
The sentence “You cannot serve both God and money” also appears under the form “You cannot serve both God and Mammon”, Mammon being in the Bible the figure that embodies money and riches. The word “Mammon” is interesting because etymologically it might derive from the Hebrew word “aman” which means to trust, to confide, words that can also apply in a religious context – the danger for man is also to put money on the same level as God, to start idolizing it, which would prevent him from actually following God’s rules.
Throughout the Bible, man is invited to make a distinction between the riches of this world and the spiritual riches that come from faith. The happy man is the one who does not strive to be successful and wealthy during his life on earth, but who prepares his life in heavens with faith and prayer. True happiness cannot be found throughout the pursuit of wealth:
“Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.”
Ecclesiastes, 5:10
The pursuit of wealth cannot fulfil man, and this is repeatedly made clear in several episodes of the Bible. This recurring theme is another clue that shows how little consideration the merchants would receive in Western civilizations massively pervaded with biblical stories.
The symbolic of money as what corrupts people is made violently clear in the episodes where money comes as a reward for selling another human being. In the episode of the selling of Joseph, Joseph’s brothers, who want to get rid of him, seals the deal for twenty coins of silver. The criticism of trade reaches a high point: in the end the people that are involved in activities of trade and commerce will go as far as selling human beings – if the merchant chooses to serve and honour money rather than God, he will eventually lose the status of being a human being. The example of Judas is one of the most revealing. Even if he was one of Jesus’s followers, his secret love of money is what causes him to betray his master. There are forebodings that indicate us how Judas is attracted to money, for instance when he asks Mary, who washed Jesus’s feet with a very expensive perfume:
“Why wasn’t this perfume sold, and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages! – He did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; a keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.”
John, 12: 4-6
And this hidden love of money leads Judas to betray Jesus and to sell him to the chief of the priests for thirty pieces of silver. Even though he stayed with Jesus and his disciples, he was never himself truly believing what Jesus taught. His role of treasurer shows us that he was only following them in order to see whether there was profit to be made.
Throughout the Bible the figure of the merchant is also criticized when the merchant puts the success of his trades and businesses on the earth before the preparation of the afterlife through faith and prayer. This explains why the merchants, and more generally the people who make a profession of handling money, have not been seen in a very good eye in Western societies.

In this part, we have seen that the profession of trading is almost created thanks to marginalization. Nevertheless, the merchants have an important role in society. They have an increasing role in the development of countries and in economic metamorphoses. It is impossible today to consider a policy without taking into account trade.

II/ The merchant, a marginal figure that plays an essential role in society and its development
Mahomet, the prophet, has broadcast the speech of God and monotheism. He has been confronted to the great traders of the city of Mecca. They criticized what Mahomet said and assert that his speech was subversive, because it underlined the importance sharing. Despite the opposition to some ideas of the religion, merchants were able to find profit in the development of religion: the pilgrimage was a perfect occasion to make business. This example shows that even spiritual life was closely linked to trade and that merchants were involved in events and ceremonies that do not directly have a relation to trade. In this second part, we will answer the following questions: how does the trade help the construction of a community and of the society hierarchy? What is the place of trade in economic development of a country? Has the growing place of the merchant in the society been seen with a good eye by the individuals? Why is it considered that merchants have been important figures in the cultural development?
A/ The merchant is at the heart of community development
Even if the figure of the merchant is, as we have previously seen, widely despised throughout the ages, and in most cultures, it is quite paradoxical, in so far as exchange is at the basis of all human communities. First it is important to underline that for many philosophers the human being acquires his self-conscience only through the contacts he has with others. Kant, for instance, states that self-conscience is acquired through speech, and also through the contact with others. It is necessary, in order to take conscience of oneself, to have interaction with others – and that is the first form of trade that human beings are confronted with. Hegel, when he writes that “the subject only affirms itself in confrontation”, comes to a similar conclusion: it is through interaction that the subject can be formed. One always needs to oppose someone to build one’s own identity. Interaction with others is also at the basis of the formation of the individual. And trade is also what allows people to get together and form communities. Our social live revolves entirely around exchanges, whether they be economic – trade in the common sense of the term – or non economic (speech, favours that we might ask each other for, etc.).
Marcel Mauss, a French anthropologist, in his book The Gift (in French: Essai sur le don), shows that it is through exchanging objects that groups of humans become communities. He founds his analysis upon the study of archaic societies in Polynesia, Melanesia and America, asking this question:
“What is the rule of law and of interest which, in archaic societies, makes that the received gift has to be reciprocated? What force is there in the object that is given that makes the receiver reciprocate?”
Marcel Mauss studies the exchanges that take place between small groups of individuals, and shows that it is the structure of gift / reciprocation which defines the relations between these groups. There in an obligation to give, an obligation to receive, and an obligation to give back. To refuse would be to leave the system and the community, and, more importantly, it would mean to lose one’s dignity. Indeed according to Mauss, “To accept something from someone, it is to accept something from his spiritual essence, from his soul”. If he wants to have a place in the community, each individual must accept this cycle of gift and counterpart.
To have a place in the community, it is essential to be a part of the gift cycle. Moreover, it is through these exchanges that the social hierarchy is formed – the highest in the hierarchy being the one who have given and received the most. This system of reciprocal exchanges is also a way to hierarchize the different groups while pacifying them. Through the perpetual cycle of gifts and counterparts, potential conflicts are defused, making this system essential for the cohesion of the community. As Mauss puts it:
“If you give objects and if you reciprocate, it is because you give and reciprocate “respects”, but also because you give yourself when you give them, and if you give yourself, it is because you “owe” yourself and your possessions to the others.”
It is also important to underline that the exchange of gifts takes place at every level of the society (between individuals, between communities), and that the gifts exchanged take on many meanings: there is a legal dimension (each gift binds the donor and the receiver in a contract of reciprocity), an economic dimension (with the value of the gifts); the gifts are also what forms the society through all these exchanges. Through the mere action of exchanging an object, individuals acknowledge each other. And inside a system founded on reciprocity, it is through exchange that each individual takes his place inside the community. In the end, we can say that the exchange system answers the individual strong wish of being recognized as part of the group, and that makes exchange one of the most important basis of all human community.
Other philosophers had emphasized, before Marcel Mauss, the role of commerce and trade in the building of the society. Montesquieu for instance wrote:
“Trade cures from destructive prejudices, and it is almost a universal rule that wherever mores are sweet, there is trade, and wherever there is trade, mores are sweet”.
The commercial logic as logic of peace, an element that is present in Mauss’ theory is also underlined by Montesquieu. As opposed to the political logic, which brings conflict between communities, the commercial logic benefits everyone – and that is the case even if there are rivalries between communities. Adam Smith comes to similar conclusions: he considers that “passions are the soul’s diseases”, but in so far as they stimulate invention and work, they cannot be entirely bad. They have a social utility, and particularly when they develop in economic relationships. It is useless to try and fight human passions, so we might as well put it at a good use: trade.
Money, which was regarded in the Bible as a demon that might turn man away from God, has also a role in this exchange system, and must be also rehabilitated. As Aristotle writes:
“Money plays the role of measure, makes the objects commensurate and thus brings them on an equal footing; for there would not be community without exchange, nor would there be exchange without equality.”
Money, as it allows comparing the value of very different goods, facilitates exchanges. The value of an object is not determined by the people involved in the exchange, but is fixed to a certain amount of money, which makes the exchanges fair. The problem that appears is that soon money is no longer considered as a mean to exchange other goods, but as an end in itself – and thus loses its primary purpose of facilitating interactions between men.
B/ Merchants take part in the economic development of a country
As we saw, the exchange is the first element to make a social link between individuals and groups of individuals, and is thus at the basis of society. Social cohesion starts with exchanges. But one must not forget that trade is of significant value on other levels: first it is crucial for the economic development of countries.
That is why in this part, we will show that the merchant, as the main actor of trade, is at the heart of the economic and intellectual success of a nation, even though his role has not always been recognized. We could almost say that there has been a “rise of the merchant class” over the centuries, that one cannot explain without understanding how the merchant is an invaluable key to economic and cultural progress. Trade has taken place throughout much of recorded human history. And its development almost always led to an improvement in the economic situation of a country and thus to the widening of its international influence. Such significant economic development cycles have taken place many times over the centuries. Let us consider some historical examples.
From the beginning of Greek civilization until the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, a financially lucrative trade brought valuable products, in particular spices, to Europe from countries such as India and China. The Roman Empire was able to produce a secure transportation network that facilitated the shipment of trade goods without fear of piracy. Roman commerce allowed its empire to flourish and endure. In the 1400s, Venice held a very powerful position in the spice trade with the Eastern Hemisphere. It was formally known as the Most Serene Republic of Venice and is often referred to as La Serenissima. Despite its long history of war and conquest, the Republic's modern reputation is chiefly based on its status as an economic and trading power. Merchants (or traders) became the new 'rich' class, gradually taking power and prestige away from the nobility (or the land-owning upper class). To disrupt the Venetian near monopoly, other countries took to the seas to explore new sources of spices and other valuable goods. This massive enterprise became known as the Age of Discovery, since it resulted in the discovery of many new lands as well as foreign cultures, and led to the emergence of new dominating countries, such as Portugal in the 16th century, Holland in the 17th century, and Great Britain in the 18th century. The Spanish Empire developed regular trade links across both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. Figures of explorers such as Vasco da Gama, Christopher Columbus and Magellan are now considered as of central importance in the economic success of Europe at that time. But it should be noted that even though trade and manufacture gradually expanded at that time, the merchant remained the servant of the elite and not the master of production.
These examples help us to show the fact that trade contributes to the economic success of a country. But the rehabilitation of the merchant really becomes of importance with the development of a most integrated global trade, making the merchant an international actor and underlining his role as the key of economic success.
Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations published the first major concepts of international integration and trade in 1776. He argued that economic specialisation could benefit nations just as much as firms. Since the division of labour was restricted by the size of the market, he said that countries having access to larger markets and cooperating to do so would be able to divide labour more efficiently and thereby become more productive. The 20th century went even further in the process of rehabilitation of the merchant as a central figure in globalization. Event though he is still criticized, the merchant is now the most prominent and recognized figure of our time. Nowadays, we can see that trade is the most important element of our economy. The scale has changed and almost all countries in the world are now linked through trade. Trade, finance, people, and idea are now linked in one global marketplace. A solid foreign trade is the main indicator of the economic success of a country. Thus, the merchant is now the most valuable figure of our time. He is the key of economic success and influence all over the world. He plays an active role in politics as well.
C/ The trader also creates problems in this development
In his book “La Banque – Comment Goldman Sachs dirige le monde” Marc Roche gives one of the fairest examples of who and what the modern merchant is. Yet this complete view given in the book is often cast aside and only the negative parts are taken to give the modern merchant a bad reputation. The idea of the merchant today has evolved and merged with the idea of the banker to form the trader. The trader is at the center of the economic and financial discussions of the last decades and seems to have been cast by most media as the problem with the world today. The negative view of the trader can be found in a lot of press articles and columns with a single Google search these days, and most centers around the view that these people represent the problem with the world of finance and banking today. The economic issues of the past decade have been attributed to Wall Street with first the collapse of the internet bubble in the early 2000’s being seen as Wall Street and its traders getting ahead of themselves and getting caught up in exuberance before losing billions worth of other people’s money. This was followed by the subprime crisis which led to banks and bank employees again being seen as the cause of the downfall as they had been giving loans, something that until things started to fall apart was lauded by the majority of the public. The European sovereign debt crisis followed and has also been partly attributed to banks and traders which supposedly caused the issue through first the masking of Greek accounts as will be mentioned later, and second the pressure the market players put on European Countries to repay without allowing new market loans. The fact that the trader has become the scapegoat links its figure back to the older figures of the merchant which have often been cast in a negative light. Yet the figure can also be found to be seen as a positive by deeper research and by more careful analysis of texts that might appear at first glance to be negative.
Bernard Madoff, Nick Leeson, John Rusnak and Jérôme Kerviel are four names that to most people conjure up the worst images possible. The first defrauded people out of millions through his Ponzi scheme and was condemned for it, the second caused the bankruptcy and downfall of one of the oldest British banks, the Barings Bank, the third lost nearly 700m$ for his bank through fraud and spent over six years in prison, the last almost caused the downfall of one of the biggest banks in Europe, Société Générale, which could have in turn caused the fall of the financial system as the link between universal banks could not support the losses without a reset of the system. These are the names that most people think of when one talks about traders and through their actions they have given a negative view of the profession. This negative view has made the job of a trader harder as public pressures and the results of these scandals have made the governments react. This has led to such things as the harsher Bale agreements, with Bale III truly limiting the scope of what banks and traders can do. The remuneration of traders has also been affected as bonuses have seen a dip and taxes have been raised on them. The fact that the livelihood of these people has been put in jeopardy through harsher laws and regulations show the true negative view that they have been given by the media.
Yet a more nuanced and positive view of these people can be found when a deeper search is given. The Marc Roche book mentioned earlier is a perfect example. In his book what has been most talked about is the negative aspects of Goldman Sachs that are shown. These aspects are things such as the position of Goldman Sachs traders in their trading going against what the sales team is selling to customers, the use by the Greek government of Goldman Sachs to help it make its accounting look more legitimate then it actually was and the overall secrecy of the organization. This list is what has been used to show that traders and bankers and large banking institutions are a problem and cause the problems of the world. Yet when the novel is analyzed more clearly it is seen that nothing illegal has been done by the company and that it has a track record of stomping down on any activity that could lead to legal troubles. The company is also shown that while it may have traded against its clients at some points, the majority of Goldman Sachs clients have been enriched by their work with the bank and most clients keep returning to it. This more positive view can be found in other places but is often relegated to purer financial media which has a truer understanding of the world of finance but can be said to be in league with the world of finance as that world is what makes these media viable.
The direct negative view of the trader has also in recent times taken a larger context. This is through the emerging belief that democratic governments are not at the service of citizens but at the service of the market and private enterprises. This view has been exacerbated by the European sovereign debt crisis which put in charge of some countries bankers and technocrats. The biggest country to have its leaders “imposed” by the crisis was Italy with Mario Monti taking over the government. Monti worked for a time in his career for Goldman Sachs which allowed some to peg him as just another pawn in the machine that is Goldman Sachs. They have placed employees in key political positions throughout the world with the employees often returning to the bank after their tenure. This fact helped the case of those who believe that the markets and private enterprises have become the primary source of direction for governments. Another reason this view has become more popular is that the debt crisis originates in the fact that most governments have been living on borrowed money for the past decades. The money was borrowed on financial markets through the securitization of debt through bonds. The fact that the market could now demand repayment from governments and cause its downfall as in Greece allowed the view that traders and bankers are the real power to fully develop. This position while remaining on the fringe has become public and some of its advocates are able to use the fear created by the crisis to push against the traders and the banks.
Yet even with all of this negative imagery associated with the traders it remains something that aspires people. The crowd of students willing to go into the industry has not thinned and due to new regulations limiting the trading done by banks the competition for the jobs has become even tougher. This shows that while parts of the media and some of the masses may believe that the figure of the modern merchant is negative, it remains a figure that draws people to it. The figure creates a desire in others to follow in its footsteps to have what it has. The negative aspects of the figure are taken into account by people but they do not fully define the character of a modern merchant and a positive side can be found which motivates people to pursue the dream of become one of the modern merchants.
D/ Trade broadcasts culture
One must not forget that the figure of the merchant is not only linked to economy. Indeed, merchants and trade play a crucial role in the cultural and intellectual development of a country. The key to understand the diffusion of culture and the intellectual progress is the concept of interaction, and one of the most internationally spread interaction is trade. Trade promotes cultural diffusion because trading with different people from different areas means that their ideas, beliefs and culture are being spread to places where it wasn't originated – places they could not have had access to if it wasn’t for trade.
Many societies have enjoyed a surge in creativity after exposure to foreign ideas and people. For example, during the Han Dynasty (from 206 B.C.E. to 220 C.E.) Buddhism spread to China, as a consequence of the presence and influence of merchants, traders and missionaries. Another example could be the Golden Age of Greek civilisation, which likely resulted from the diffusion of diverse ideas from the civilisations of Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia, through the development of trade with all of these cultures. And at the height of Islam (8th – 14th century), Baghdad was one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world – which can be partly explained by the fact that it was a centre of trade in the Middle East.
Merchants also helped develop art over centuries. The concept of patronage of the arts has always been of importance in the cultural progress. In the history of art, arts patronage refers to the support that rich people (kings, popes, noble classes, rich merchants) have provided to musicians, painters, and sculptors. One of the most famous historical examples of the patronage of merchants is the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, main church of Florence, Italy. In 1331, the Arte della Lana, the guild of wool merchants, took over exclusive patronage for the construction of the cathedral. The guild organized a structural design competition for erecting the cathedral’s dome and the baptistery doors. The guild was also in charge of the maintenance of the building. In modern society, examples of patronage are numerous as well. Many large corporations are patrons of the arts and spend millions sustaining their development.

To conclude this part we can say all of this tends to show that merchants occupy a crucial role in society. Their involvement in the economic progress, as well as in the cultural and intellectual influence of a country is undeniable. Nevertheless, if the influence of traders is so important, why is the status of merchants not changing?

Comprend pas la phrase, he presents his wife with it?, or prevents his wife from having it?
Comprend pas la phrase, he presents his wife with it?, or prevents his wife from having it?
III/ The figure of the merchant seems enclosed in the image that we have of him
In the painting The Moneylender and his wife of Quentin Metsys, we can see how the traditional representation of a person is linked to a profession involving the manipulation of money. The moneylender is the one that prevent his wife of the spiritual wealth, he calculates everything: he forgets what should matter in life. Thus, the popular representation of traders is sometimes caricatured: people can enclose the trader in this aim of wealth, although his purpose should not be limited to that. We will try to understand what are the different stereotypes of the merchants? Why is there a popular hatred of traders? And, finally, why can we not enclose the trader in his economical purpose?
A/ The merchant is the incarnation of uncontrolled desire
The first clichés of the trader are similar to those of Jews with a strong figure of avarice present. In L’Avare, by Molière, we are confronted with the situation of a character that is so driven by his avarice for money that he will go to extreme length to try to make sure he gets his way. This burning need to gain something is common in all merchants which is why the merchant has long been linked with desire.
As we have seen with Simmel, the merchant has a strong link to money and wealth. This link can be used to study the merchant in relation to desire. The merchant and his link have two separate and distinct audiences and points of view. The first is internal with the desire coming from the basis of what a merchant is able to gain through his trade.
The internal desire of the merchant to gain is at the basis of the trade. Trade and commerce started as simple barter for essential needs during the early parts of human civilization but with the advent of herding and the creation of permanent settlements the modern form of trading for desire started. The merchant was able to go beyond bartering for necessities and into a territory where through his trades he was able to amass goods for his own personal pleasure. This view of the merchant as a character of desire can be seen in many different parts of history with the desire for personal gain being at the center but with secondary desires being integral parts of the character.
The desire for personal gain but also for something else can be seen with ancient Greek mythology and the relationship and study of two of its gods. Hermes is among many attributes the god of trade while Eros is the god of love and yet the two have been linked and are thought of as almost interchangeable in some areas. They are both often represented as young men or even children and they both are always lusting after something. Hermes starts his life with the intense desire to become the equal of the other gods and be recognized by them, he gains his status as one of the Olympian gods when he is able to trade his lyre to Apollo for among other gifts recognition. Eros also has a desire within Greek mythology which is love; he spreads that throughout the myths with sometimes disastrous regards for the characters stricken by his need to spread love. Both these gods are driven by a personal desire that is at the basis of the figure of the merchant, the desire for personal success and pleasure.
Another example of the merchant having the desire to succeed but also a secondary desire can be found in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights with the story of Sinbad the Sailor. Sinbad is a man who after having dilapidated his fortune is able to recreate it through voyages that take him around the world. He has lost a fortune that was inherited and thus that he did not have to gain himself and it is at this moment that the merchant in him comes out and he decides that he must go make his fortune on the seas. Through a series of adventures he is able to regain his fortune and fulfill his desire for wealth but he is left with the secondary desire which for him is travel as the first voyage gave him a taste of the wonders that can be seen and gained from traveling the world. The similarity in all of his voyages is the fact that throughout them he never forgets to look for a personal gain even when he is out to discover the world.
These two simple examples show the desire that the merchant has to succeed in his quest for personal gain and glory, but it also shows that while the merchant has his own commercial interest in mind he is able to gain much more personally from his desire, be it love or the sights of the world.
B/ He is an object of desire
The second is external and it is the desire created by the merchant in the view of others, this is jealousy but it is the desire by others to have what the merchant has.
The second desire that is at the center of the figure of the merchant is the desire others have to be in his position. This jealousy has been one of the key items in the formation of the view people have on the merchant. The fact that people are jealous of the merchant often leads them to denigrate them or ostracize them which in turn gives on the surface a negative view of the merchant.
The most well known real life example of the merchant figure being given a negative light leading to a tragedy is the rise of Nazi Germany and its instrumentalization of the rich Jewish merchant as the enemy of the true German people. The state of Germany in the late 1920’s and early 30’s is one of a country in complete disarray with hyperinflation ruining the economy and rendering the life of most of the nation at a decent level of comfort nearly impossible. One of the groups who had been able to partly rise above these challenges and thrive in a difficult environment was a Jewish middle class of shop owners and merchants. This, along with the latent anti-Semitism that was prevalent in Europe at that time, allowed the Nazi party to use the desires of ordinary Germans, to have more and be more successful to turn, to turn them against the “successful Jewish merchant” which was used as a counterpoint to the hardworking “True German” that the party would put back to work to eventually build an empire that would last a thousand years. This use of the basic jealousy of people to commit an act as horrendous as the Holocaust shows the power of the desire the merchant can create in others.
Other examples of the desire inspired by the merchant can be positive ones. The use of professionals in Business schools has been on the rise for the past decades in part due to the response by students when faced with a professional. The students are able to see the success gained by this person and are inspired by this to try to achieve the same level of success as that person. The desire and jealousy here is created in a purposeful way in order to achieve the specific goal of driving the students to succeed. This same approach of creating the desire for success has been replicated at a lower level with the use of students as ambassadors of their colleges in high school recruiting. Colleges are sending more of their own students to interact with potential enrollees in the hopes that these students will create the desire to attend the school. These examples are less merchant specific but they create the same desire that the merchant through his success has created.
Both positively and negatively, the desire experienced by others about the merchant is linked to the idea of the Superadditum of the rich person. This idea developed in part by Simmel explains that there is a sort of shame in being poor. The poor person sees a rich person and fantasizes about what he could do with all that the person has. The rich merchant represents the potential of what the poor person could be. The danger with this is that the rich person becomes almost a prisoner of his own success, and is dependent on which way the poor person will react, be it in a positive aspect or a negative one.
So the merchant has a close relationship with desire, be it his personal desire for success driving him forward or the desire he inspires in others which enables them to push themselves farther. Yet the relationship of the merchant with desire is broader than this direct link between the two.
C/ The merchant and the philosopher: two similar figures
The similitude of the merchant with the philosopher could be seen as paradoxical. The parallel between these two choices of life has been already written about by Plato in his texts Hippias and The Sophist. The sophist is the one that sells his services: he is the “trader of knowledge”. The sophists present their knowledge as a techné, thus they can sell it. Plato criticizes them a lot and explains that the error of the sophists was to evaluate their knowledge taking into account the profit it will bring to them. Nevertheless, Plato asserts also that a sophist is not a philosopher. Like the trader, the sophist has the priority to sell his skills, but it is not the right aim: the trader and the philosopher do not know their “product”. It is not the most important for them, so they skip this step. We can draw a parallel between the merchant and the philosopher because of their boosting by the desire and because of what money really brings. For Simmel for instance, money has not to be considered just on its economical level. Money is a privileged expression of human action, of human life. If the exchange is not made in a circle of known individuals, we have the opportunity to create links with people who we do not know. There is an opening of the world. Simmel is fascinated by the incredible possibilities opened to persons who can buy objects they do not understand from people they do not know and maybe they can not even understand. For him, money will be the great success of humanity, the vector of vitality that was born with animals. Whereas for Marx, there is a pathology of money, Simmel considers that nothing can be better than money. He asserts also that it is better when an action is not harmonic, when there is no coordination. When somebody does not feel well in a situation, his action is more thought, he is more aware of what his action implies. Thus, the foreigner that becomes a trader does not feel comfortable in the society, but this frustration will help him in his actions.
There is also important to underline that money brings a lot of opportunities: Simmel started with the Aristotle concept of the relationship between mean and purpose. With money, the capacity of means always opens up new horizons: the future is opened with the wealth of means that invent possibilities. Simmel does not privilege the aim, but the mean. The money has no purpose; you can do everything with it. It allows the man to emancipate himself from his aims. The money is how the intelligence: I discover what I can be more money I get. There is a similitude between money and love. It is similar in the way it gives a meaning to your life and to your actions. The money permits desire to bloom: there is an absolute liberty. The risk is the loss of humanity: a person can lose himself in all the possibilities and not see, finally, all the possibilities offered by money.

To sum up this part, we can say the idea of desire linked to the merchant can be understood in different ways, but this link defines the merchant. Like a philosopher, the trader is guided by his desire to go further. Thanks to money, the merchant can fulfill an infinite panel of wishes: he has no limit. Conclusion
The merchant has suffered from a damaged image for centuries. Criticized, marginalized, ill-treated, he has always been blamed for his profession and for the temper he is reputed to have: cunning, greedy, unscrupulous, dishonest and dangerous are characteristics often associated with merchants. Nomad, cosmopolitan, rootless, he seems like a threat to societies, and is considered an enemy by many philosophers. Even though this image evolved through time, the global perception of this profession remains quite negative.
But this reputation stems from a deep misunderstanding. Merchants have always been at the heart of society: trade is the first link between human beings; it is the basis of society, economic welfare and intellectual progress. At a time when economy prevails, the merchant has a most essential role. Merchants also embody desire. Desire has often been stigmatised by moral and religion, which could explain why the merchant has been hurt for centuries. But as we know, desire drives people through their lives, it gives them strength, and the will to understand the world they live in. The figure of the merchant could thus be perceived as a powerful one, one that give us the will to go on with our existences. That is why the merchant is not so far from the philosopher, who embodies the desire of knowledge.