A.P. WORLD HISTORY 2002 DBQ-SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS
Doc. 1: Source: Christian Bible, New testament (Matthew), about 70-980 C.E.
The rich will have a very hard time getting into heaven.
It will probably be difficult for students to analyze bias or point of view for the Bible and for the
Qur’an. That leaves five documents for them to analyze in terms of source.
Doc. 2: Source: Muslim Qur’an about 620-650 C.E.
Honesty, fairness and truthfulness in all transactions lead to a place in Heaven for the Muslim
merchant. Emphasis is on lawful and fair behavior. The honest Muslim merchant ranks with
martyrs.
Doc. 3: Source: Reginald, monk of Durham, younger contemporary and colleague of St.
Godric, The Life of St. Godric (a twelfth-century British Merchant), written before St.
Godric’s death in 1170.
Godric chose to be a merchant, and was very successful, making a great profit. He later became
disillusioned with his business and wealth, and decided to serve God and become a hermit. In
order to follow Christianity he gave all his wealth to the poor. (cf: Doc 1 and contrast with Doc.
2) This excerpt from the life of Godric was written by a colleague and a contemporary who very
much respects and admires Godric. Reginald is likely to present Godric in the best light possible
and does so.
Doc. 4: Source: Thomas Aquinas, leading Scholastic theologian, Summa Theologica, 1273.
As a leading Christian theologian, Aquinas seeks to bring merchant behavior and trade into line
with Christian teaching. He clearly tries to walk a line between allowing the merchant to pursue
his occupation and condoning profit. This document espouses, “Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you.” This means that buying and selling must be based on honesty and a just
price. Any other behavior is unjust, unlawful and by extension, ungodly. This is in line with Doc.
2 and Doc. 3, but the introduction of the idea of the “just price” seems to moderate the idea that
trade is inherently sinful and is closer to the Qur’an than to the biblical view.
Doc. 5 Source: Ibn Khaldun, laeading Muslim scholar, Universal History (Kitab al-ibar),
fourteenth century.
As a leading Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun might be expected to do the same as Aquinas, but
Khaldun’s discussion of merchants and trade is very much harsher than Aquina’s. his tone in
describing merchant practices is disdainful and condemnatory. Those who are merchants or
practice trade have to used deceitful practices in order to make a profit. Buyers also practice
dishonesty. People are generally dishonest, and trade brings this out. Those who practice trade
are inferior to those who rule society because of what they have to do to practice commerce.
Thus, merchants inevitably have weaker natures. By its very nature trade is disreputable, though
necessary to society. This is similar to Doc. 2 in describing bad trade practices, but in contrast to
Doc. 2. Ibn Khaldun sees merchants as inferior by the nature of their work; his position seems
closer to the early Christian position as stated in Doc.1 and Doc. 3.
Doc. 6: Source: Letters to and from Italian merchants in the fourteenth century.
1.
An order for religious paintings, but at a fair cost. Supply and demand.
2.
Don’t be excessive in the pursuit of wealth.
3.
God and profit go together.
Letters A and C support profit as the merchant’s goal and see no conflict between trade and
godliness. These letters seem in direct opposition to Ibn Khaldun, St. Godric and the Christian
Bible. They support the position that Christianity has come to a more positive view of merchants
and trade by the fourteenth century. Letter B urges some restraint in acquiring wealth,
nevertheless linking wealth and godliness. Perhaps in Letter B there is a faint echo of the
Christian condemnation of being rich. Since these are letters about business one would expect
frankness about business practices and feelings, and this indeed turns out to be so. But the letter
from the mother is much more personal and would reflect bias on her son’s behalf.
Doc. 7: Source: Islamic court decision, Ankara, 17th century but representative of Turkish
guild practices in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Religion and law are completely intermixed, and business practices only for profit are
condemned. Tradition, custom, and sharing are supported. The preeminence of tradition and
custom are more closely linked to the Qur’an (Doc. 2) and Aquinas (Doc. 4) than to most part of
the other documents. In contrast to the fourteenth century Italian merchants who revere profit,
here profit as the sole motive is condemned. The goals of society are more important than profit
for individuals.
The document is like an affidavit. The court is to rule on the complaint and the complaint is very
much from traditional guild members. The religious court has the power to control merchant
behavior.