By Andres Mesa (Università degli Studi di Teramo)
This research is due to be presented in the sixth New Researcher Online Session: ‘Spending & Networks’.
My project re-assesses the nature of Genoese family networks in the Atlantic, at the end of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The canonical understanding of these networks is based on three observations: family networks were highly co-dependent, centralized, and that Genoa was the centre of operations for all the Genoese. My research shows a multitude of scenarios and provides new explanations for these observations. Using a case study of the Rivarolo-Cassana family network, I show that this particular network functioned more in terms of cooperation, using a pluricentric language. As the title suggests, the economic endeavours of these merchants involved a complex migration process. Consequently, their trading activities coincided with the interests of those in permanent settlements.
Genoese merchants chose cities in the Iberian peninsula for their homes and as a base for their business activities. For example, Lisbon, Seville, and Valencia had a significant permanent Genoese population who were in the process of becoming naturalized Spanish and Portuguese citizens. In turn, some of the families that dominated the economic landscape of the 15th and 16th centuries disappeared in Genoa. Yet, their descendants still appear in Portugal and Spain with their original Ligurian surnames altered into Castilian or Portuguese.
The findings from my study indicate the need for a major reassessment of our understanding of Genoese family networks. The data I have collected shows that most of the day-to-day trade happened outside the family network, and the contractual relationships that emerged between partners extended well beyond familial ties. Because the structure of private property ownership was connected to new interests and new markets, it was inevitable that these, in turn, were linked to the discovery of new lands. Consequently, The Genoese adopted a new business model based on owning the means of production for the goods they traded, particularly soap, wheat, and sugar.
Finally, I argue that the economic ties between families and family members, did not always translate into a share of business responsibility or welfare. The relationships and partnerships functioned in terms of very particular historical and geographical contexts. The contracts were between ‘individuals (Societas) to share losses and gains.’ Thus, liability was an individual matter despite the frequent use of jurists.