The Crusades, the Genoese and the Latin East - DSpace at ...

ecause another branch of the family, that of Guglielmo Embriaco of Gibelet and his heirs, had
failed to observe the agreement concerning Genoese possessions in Gibelet, St Symeon, Latakia
and Antioch 404
This demand was described by the consuls of 1147 who were asked to judge in
this dispute:
consules comunis lanue... appellaverunt filios quondam Nicole Embriaci, dicentes omnia
bona eiusdem Nicole iure pervenissent comuni lanue, eo quod Guillielmus Embriacus
nec eius heredes non observaverint laudem et pactum de reddenda civitate Gibelli et
Sollino et Lezhia etAntiochia et de redditibus earum, expletis. xx. annis preteritis 405
Eventually, in January 1147, a settlement was reached according to which the heirs of
Nicola Embriaco, who were still minors at the time, paid £300 (which equals approximately a
three-year fee) 406 Genoa, in return, wrote off the debts that the Embriaci had acquired over
twenty years in Gibelet. Importantly, the actual payment seems to have fully fallen on the
Genoese branch of the Embriaco clan, the heirs of Nicola Embriaco. Does this imply that the
Embriaco family of Gibelet did not hold possessions in Genoa that could have been confiscated?
What authority did Genoa have in practice over its citizens who settled in the Latin East? How
did this financial dispute affect the relationship between Genoa and Gibelet? What was the impact
of this legal settlement on the relationship between the two branches of the Embriaco clan? The
answer to these questions is found in a series of contracts from 1154, in which the Genoese
possessions in the Latin East were divided between the two parts of the Embriaco clan. In three
contracts, the commune of Genoa leased its possessions in the Latin East, separately, to the two
branches of the Embriaci. The first contract was a renewal of the lease in Gibelet signed with
Guglielmo II Embriaco for another 29 years for an annual payment of 280 bezants. The two other
contracts were signed with the brothers Nicola and Ugo Embriaco of Genoa: one contract is a
lease of parts of Antioch and the second is a lease of the possessions in Acre 407 The three
contracts were hereditary, which means that the Embriaci were to possess the Genoese properties
throughout the crusader states for at least another generation. Significantly, for the first time, the
finances of the Embriaci were fully split, an important stage in the relationship within the
Embriaco clan. From an administrative aspect, the 1154 contracts signify another novelty because
this was the first recorded time in which Genoa leased its property in Acre. How much did
possessing the Genoese quarter in Acre cost the Embriaci? Did the terms of the contract include
404
See note I in CDG, vol. 1, no. 170, p. 218. According to this note, on the left margins of the document
there is a note: `hocfuit MCXXXXV, see also Byrne, `The Genoese Colonies in Syria', p. 151.
405 CDG, vol. 1, no. 170, p. 218
406 Assuming that the initial contract was similar to the one from 1154 in which the Embriaci were
requested to pay £100 for Gibelet per annum. I Libri lurium, vol. I/l, no. 164. Giovanni Barcha was the
minors guardian (tutor), who represented them in this court case.
4071Libri lurium, vol. I/l, nos. 164-6, pp. 239-242; see also Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im
Heiligen Land, pp. 170-171.
116