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

was Guglielmo's inexperience that motivated his partners in their instructions. Comparing the
above case to other contracts made with merchants in the process of training, it can be inferred
that Guglielmo was in fact given here wider responsibilities than was typical of his age.
Inexperienced merchants were usually sent along with other merchants, more experienced ones.
For example, in 1186 Simon Bonithome was given explicit instructions from Ugo Embriaco.
Simon was instructed to travel to Ceuta first and then continue to Alexandria. From Alexandria he
had to return to Ceuta, but only if Oglerio Agoxino or Guglielmo Bonithome undertook this
voyage. Otherwise, Simon was allowed to travel from Ceuta with one of the above mentioned
experienced merchants to a third destination and then return to Genoa. Alternatively, he could
return from Alexandria to Genoa, with no further changes of the journey. 178
Another merchant in
training was Obertino, nephew of Guglielmo Bonithome. Guglielmo registered a commenda
contract with Obertino's mother, in which they agreed that Obertino must travel with his uncle to
Ceuta and negotiate with the money his mother had invested. From Ceuta only Guglielmo had the
right to decide where to travel next. 179
In 1203 Guglielmo Batifoglio was twenty-years old,
however, he was sent on a long distance route to the Latin East with the permission to decide how
to proceed thence. Moreover, he was not attached to another merchant or required to sail on a
particular ship. The only indication that he was inexperienced was in the restricted destinations in
his contract. It is not clear, however, why Guglielmo was not allowed to travel to Sicily. Vivaldo
from Rapallo was another merchant who was asked in the same year not to travel to Sicily. Other
rare cases of prohibitions are found on travels to Apulia and Malta. The most likely reason for
these prohibitions is that the residing merchants wished to direct the travelling merchants to the
markets where the merchandise on board could be sold in the most profitable way and other
goods purchased with the proceeds of the sales. There might have been political reasons for these
prohibitions too, but the small number of cases does not allow one to draw more specific
conclusions. 180 The series of cases presented above shows that restrictions could have been a
the latest, although it is in Asia Minor and not exactly in what is generally considered as Ultramare. David
Abulafia suggested to read stallum as 'place' or'harbour' perhaps deriving from 'stabulum. I would like to
thank Professor Jacoby and Professor Abulafia for these comments.
178
Porto Setam causa mercandi et inde Alexandriam et de Alexandria Setam, si Oglerius aguxinus vel
Guilielmus i3onithome hoc fecerint viagium et si hoc non fecerint, de Seta in unum iter quod ipsefecerit vel
alter illorum me reverso de Alexandria non mutato alio itinere... ' OS, 1186, no. 136.
19 OS2 1186, no. 190, from 22 October 1186
180 With regard to Apulia see document GG, no. 779; on Malta GG, no. 793 (related to these are GG, nos.
773 and 788). In his article on Henry Count of Malta, David Abulafia suggested a few reasons for the
prohibition on Malta: it 'may have implied that Malta was not yet a safe haven, either because of Henry's
rapacity ... or because control of Malta was still in dispute' alternatively, Abulafia suggested that it was
because 'there was no market for cloth in Malta'. David Abulafia, 'Henry, count of Malta and his
Mediterranean activities: 1203-1230', in Anthony T. Luttrell, ed., Studies on Malta before the Knights
(London, 1975), p. 107.
61