Version classiqueVersion mobile

Forms of unfreedom in the Medieval Mediterranean

The manumission of slaves in fourteenth and fifteenth century Famagusta

Nicholas Coureas

Résumé

This paper is based on the records of manumissions of slaves found in the extant notarial deeds of Genoese and Venetian notaries working in Famagusta during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Subjects to be analysed and discussed are the following: the ethnic origins of the slaves, mainly Greeks but also Saracens, Slavonians, Bulgarians, Circassians and one Turkish female slave, the owners liberating them, chiefly Venetians and Genoese, but including some Eastern Christians, Cypriots and one Majorcan, as well as the reasons, if any, cited for freeing them, these usually being faithful service and the good of the owner’s soul. The last reason was cited more frequently during times of plague when mortality increased. The female to male ratio of the slaves freed, which fluctuated over time, will also be discussed. During the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries more female than male slaves were freed, but this proportion was reversed in the second half of the fourteenth century. Regarding the ages of slaves freed, they were unusually young in the recorded manumissions of the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries, and even those freed in the fifteenth century were in their mid-to late twenties in the cases where their ages are recorded. What preconditions if any were attached to their liberation from servitude, will be examined, since these usually involved serving their former masters or their heirs for a fixed number of years. In addition, the reasons why there are only four extant acts of manumission from fifteenth century Famagusta will be discussed. The limitations of the sources at our disposal and the imbalances they present in terms of space, quantity and time will also be dealt with, for the picture they present regarding manumissions of slaves is an incomplete one. The subject will also be placed in a wider Mediterranean context. Comparisons with other areas of the Mediterranean will be made and I will discuss how political, military, economic and religious developments taking place in the Mediterranean influenced the manumission of slaves on Cyprus. The closure of the Black Sea in the mid-fifteenth century as a result of the Ottoman conquests for example drove up the price of slaves and helps explain the relatively few manumissions recorded on fifteenth century Cyprus.

Entrées d'index

Texte intégral

1This contribution is based on the records of manumissions of slaves found in the extant notarial deeds of five Genoese and Venetian notaries working in Famagusta during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In this period Famagusta was the principal port of the Lusignan kingdom of Cyprus, a Latin kingdom established in 1291 as a result of the Third Crusade. Cyprus experienced great commercial prosperity in the first half of the fourteenth century on account of the final loss of the Latin possessions in the Holy Land by 1291 and the papal embargo on direct trade with Muslims, lasting from 1292 to 1344. After this period, however, commercial decline along with wars against the Turks, the Genoese and the Mamluks impoverished the kingdom, inaugurating a period of financial indebtedness and political powerlessness lasting into the late fifteenth century. Regarding the notaries on Cyprus with extant deeds, two of the early fourteenth century ones, Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha, were Genoese. The former worked in Famagusta in the years 1294–1307 and the latter in the years 1307–1310. The extant deeds, numbering well over 1,500, were all drafted in Famagusta except for 48 deeds of di Sambuceto drawn up in Nicosia between March and December 1297. Two Venetian notaries worked in Famagusta during the second half of the fourteenth century. The first one, Nicola de Boateriis, worked there in the years 1360–1362 and drafted 185 deeds. The second, Simeone the priest of San Giacomo dell’ Orio, worked in Famagusta in the years 1362–1371 and drafted 199 extant notarial deeds. The one fifteenth century notary whose deeds survive is Antonio Folieta, who worked in Famagusta in the years 1442–1458, drafting 219 deeds. In terms of subject matter, these deeds from Cyprus include loans, procurations for the recovery of unpaid debts, transhipments, currency exchanges, the establishment of trading associations, purchases and sales of agricultural produce, luxury items such as spices, gems and precious metals, wills, and manumissions. The documents recording the manumission of slaves fall chiefly into the last two categories.

2Subjects to be analysed and discussed here are the ethnic origins of the slaves, and of the owners liberating them; the reasons, if any, cited for granting them their freedom, the female to male ratio of the slaves freed, their ages, and what preconditions if any were attached to their liberation from servitude. The extent to which any or all of these factors varied over the course of time, either during the fourteenth century or between the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, will be examined, with possible or actual causes for this being outlined. In addition, the reasons why there are only four extant acts of manumission from fifteenth century Famagusta will be discussed. The limitations of the extant sources and the imbalances they present in terms of space, quantity, and time make the picture they present regarding manumissions of slaves an incomplete one. In addition, the subject of manumission of slaves in Cyprus must be placed in a wider Mediterranean context. Comparisons and contrasts with other areas of the Mediterranean will be made where possible. Political, military, economic and religious developments taking place in the Mediterranean basin during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had an impact on the overall phenomenon of the manumission of slaves in Cyprus. The kingdom of Cyprus became increasingly vulnerable from the mid-fourteenth century to changes in trading patterns, foreign invasions, and internal strife, all of which influenced the availability of slaves and their prospects of manumission.

  • 1 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 30-31, 38, 97, and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 176 and 418; Balard et al., (...)
  • 2 Dincer, 2016, pp. 5 and 8; Balard, 2017b, p. 352; Luttrell, 1986, pp. 82-83.

3 The slaves manumitted were of varied ethnic origins, and this information is not always given in the deeds of manumission. Nevertheless, discernible patterns emerge over time. Such deeds found in the notarial records of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha, two Genoese notaries living and working in Famagusta between the years 1296 and 1310, show that in instances where the ethnic origins are specified the greatest number of manumitted slaves were Greeks, these being fourteen out of thirty-two. The Greeks in question originated from ‘Romania’, a loose designation covering Byzantine and former Byzantine territories of continental Greece and the Aegean area, while one was from Trebizond on the Black Sea. The slaves of Saracen or African origin who were manumitted amounted to four, including one from the Maghreb and one described simply as dark and baptised, and the remaining ones were one Sclavonian and one Turk.1 From this sample one should not draw the simplistic conclusion that most slaves sold in Famagusta were Greeks. A large number of Greek slaves were manumitted on Crete between August and September 1312. By the early fourteenth century, between the years 1310 and 1314, legislation was set in place in Sicily and in territories of the Kingdom of Aragon prohibiting the use of Greek slaves and their sale to Muslims. At the other end of the Mediterranean King Leo III of Cilician Armenia granted the Genoese a treaty abolishing the duties they had been paying on trading in slaves but also prohibiting the sale of Christian slaves to Muslims. It is possible that Greeks had a higher chance of being manumitted because Latin Christians felt more uncomfortable about keeping their co-religionists, even if they belonged to the Greek Church as opposed to the Latin, in servitude. Nevertheless, numerous Greek slaves were brought to Hospitaller Rhodes for sale in the second decade of the fourteenth century, and the Order encouraged their arrival as settlers and workers for the defence of the island, although Greek slaves were also sold in the Rhodian slave market.2

  • 3 Arbel, 1993, pp. 152 and 154; Balard, 2017a, p. 238; G. Christ, 2017, pp. 304-306; Pavoni, 1987, no (...)

4 The slaves of Saracen or African origin are not invariably specified as such, but references to black or dark slaves refer to them in general, for Turks, Greeks and slaves of eastern European origin are never described in this fashion. Although the proportion of Saracen slaves sold in Genoa dropped from 18% in the first two decades of the fourteenth century to 0.5% in its last two decades, the acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto cover the earlier period, so the presence of Saracen slaves on Cyprus, where the Genoese maintained a strong commercial presence, is not surprising. Muslim merchants purchasing black slaves from sub-Saharan Africa brought them to the Mediterranean basin via North African ports. Two female slaves from the Maghreb are recorded on Cyprus and they may have reached the island via Valencia or Barcelona, the main centres for the sale of such slaves in the Crown of Aragon. Furthermore, Venetian merchants are also recorded as purchasing black slaves in Alexandria in the fifteenth century, but this practice may have begun earlier. Turkish slaves could easily reach Cyprus via the nearby kingdom of Cilician Armenia or the regions of western and southern Anatolia, while Sclavonian slaves were brought to Cyprus for sale via Ragusa from the Bosnian interior.3

  • 4 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4; Lombardo 1973, nos. 2, 48, 52-54, 60, 75, 77-78, 100, 123-124, 157, 173 (...)

5 On examining the ethnic origins of slaves manumitted on Cyprus from the second half of the fourteenth to the middle of the fifteenth centuries new patterns emerge. Every single slave in Cyprus recorded in the acts of manumission of the Genoese notary Domenico Oddone or Oddonis de Quatro and the Venetian notaries Nicola de Boateriis and Simeone, the priest of San Giacomo dell’ Orio, was ethnically Greek. In most cases, moreover, the collections of acts of manumission mentioned above also record the geographical origins of the Greek freed slaves, with Euboea, Crete, Constantinople, the Peloponnese and Palatia in Asia Minor all mentioned. In the few cases where the geographical origins are unrecorded the manumitted slave is described as originating from “Romania”, or as ethnically Greek, confirming his or her Greek origins. Furthermore, one observes that those manumitting the slaves were primarily Italians from Venice, Genoa, and Florence, although some “White Genoese”, as Eastern Christians who were subjects of Genoa were designated, Cypriots, one Majorcan and one Greek from Euboea were among them.4

  • 5 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 39, 73-74, 90, 93, 129, 145, 148-149, 153, 161 and 182; Otten, 2003, 28-32 and (...)
  • 6 Makhairas, 1932, §482; Arbel, 1993, p. 163; Borchardt et al, 2011, no. 130.

6Other than Greeks, the deeds of Nicola de Boateriis record the existence of Bulgarian and Tatar slaves from the Black Sea regions on Cyprus, while Turks, Circassians, other Muslims, and Jews are absent. Likewise, Tatars are the most numerous ethnic designation among the slaves recorded in the acts of Simeone, the priest of San Giacomo dell’ Orio, with four Bulgarians, one Turk and two black males also mentioned.5 Therefore, ethnic affinity was not a primary reason behind the manumissions, especially when one considers that Greek slaves were bought and sold by Greeks, including church men, on Cyprus and Crete. Nor did the Greeks of Cyprus necessarily show kindness to their own co-nationals. Leontios Makhairas, a fifteenth century Cypriot chronicler who was ethnically Greek, although his family worked for the royal court, vividly describes how they treated the Greek slaves from continental Greece and the Aegean area harshly to the point of making them commit suicide, regarding this as among the reasons why Famagusta was conquered by the Genoese, which he saw as divine punishment. One notes in this regard that references to Greek slaves from Cyprus itself occur very seldom.6

  • 7 Arbel, 1993, pp. 157-158 and 184-190.
  • 8 Lombardo, 1993, nos. 2, 60, 77, 100, 123-124 and 152; Coureas, 2003-2004, pp. 97-99; Armenteros Mar (...)
  • 9 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 52, 78, 157, and 167.

7 Some of the manumissions of Greek slaves on Cyprus in the second half of the fourteenth century were simply disguised ransoms. This is especially apparent in the case of slaves originating from Euboea. The table published by Benjamin Arbel regarding the ordinary sale prices of slaves recorded in the deeds of Nicola de Boateriis shows an average price of 127 white bezants, obtained from 24 such transactions.7 The average price, however, for the manumission of slaves in seven documents from the deeds of de Boateriis comes to 159 white bezants. In 1363 on florin was worth approximately 4.3 bezants. Furthermore, the average price for the manumission of slaves from Euboea, recorded in five out of those seven documents, reaches 166 white bezants, considerably more than the ordinary sale price. Clearly slave owners in such cases were profiting from their slaves’ ardent desire for freedom and repatriation, and the willingness of their relatives to pay large ransoms disguised as purchase prices. In one instance a slave named Nicholas the son of the late Demetrios of Negroponte (Euboea) had to pay his mistress Lucia of La Cava 300 bezants for his manumission, although he paid only 200 bezants in practice on condition of departing from Famagusta and Cyprus itself within the next six months, failing which he would have to give another 100 white bezants. The reasons for this curious condition are not given. This phenomenon of owners manumitting slaves in return for sums far higher than the normal sale price is also encountered in fifteenth century Barcelona, where the female slave Margarita paid 120 livres for her manumission, even though the normal price for a slave was around 35 livres.8 Not all slave owners were so grasping, for in three instances slaves from Euboea were manumitted without offering payment and in two instances were bequeathed sums of money when manumitted on their owners’ death.9

  • 10 Otten-Froux, 2003, pp. 32-37; Makhairas, 1932, §135.
  • 11 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13, 19 (=175), 177, 185, 193 and 197.
  • 12 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 31, 152, 168 and 170; Soyer, 2006, p. 140.

8 A number of slaves are recorded as gaining manumission in wills present in the acts of the priest Simeone. This priest lived and worked in Famagusta between the years 1362 and 1371. A major plague struck Cyprus in the year 1363 and some of the testators drawing up their wills mention how they had been afflicted by it. No less than 40 out of the 199 acts of Simeone were wills, just over one fifth of the total and the highest proportion of any type of deed. The 33 testators included 29 men and four women, and ten of these acts include provisions for the manumission of slaves.10 In these acts, however, only one emancipated slave, a woman named Chali from Gallipoli near Constantinople, can be securely considered Greek. Most of the emancipated slaves in the remaining acts have Greek names or names used among the Greeks.11 This, however, does not necessarily indicate a Greek ethnicity since non-Greek slaves, Tatars, Bulgars and Circassians sold in this period are recorded with Greek or Latin names. Clearly their owners or even the slave traffickers could give them such names, more familiar and acceptable in societies under Latin rule and, in the case of Cyprus, Crete and other former Byzantine territories, with large Greek native populations. A similar phenomenon is found in Spain and Portugal in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Christian masters unable or unwilling to pronounce certain Arabic names gave their Muslim slaves Latin names. Even those who kept their Arabic names usually adopted Latin names following their conversion to Christianity.12

  • 13 Makhairas, 1932, §482; Dincer, 2016, p. 5; Hoade, 1952, p. 60; Pahlitsch, 2017, p. 167.

9In attempting to explain why those manumitted were mainly or even exclusively Greeks according to the extant notarial deeds from Cyprus in the years 1362–1373 one can make two observations. One is that Greek slaves on Cyprus lived and worked in an environment where most of the population was ethnically Greek, although this was not true for Famagusta itself, where various denominations of Eastern Christians constituted the majority group, while in the capital Nicosia the Latins and Eastern Christians together would have formed a substantial minority if not a majority. Perhaps the owner manumitting these slaves took into consideration the fact that as ethnic Greeks they would integrate more easily among the local population than the slaves from the Black Sea area, who formed the majority of the recorded non-Greek slaves. Indeed, while Leontios Makhairas condemns the native Greeks of Famagusta for behaving cruelly towards their Greek slaves, non-Greek ones are not even mentioned. Even in Famagusta many of the Eastern Christians were Melkites, who belonged doctrinally to the Greek Church. Another observation is that with the rapid decline of Byzantium in the fourteenth century and the rise of Turkish and Catalan piracy, numerous Greeks from continental Greece, Crete, and the Aegean islands were seized, enslaved and sold in slave markets throughout the Mediterranean by these pirates, and were to be found in all parts of the inland sea during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Nor did the Roman Church apparently attempt to free Greeks enslaved in this way during the fourteenth century according to the account of a pilgrim known as the Anonymous Englishman, who travelled in the eastern Mediterranean in the years 1344–1345. Three quarters of the slaves sold in the deeds of Nicola de Boateriis were Greeks, and nearly a third of those sold in Crete at the end of the fourteenth century, by which time the sale of Greek slaves was condemned more strongly, were likewise Greeks. Since in the fourteenth century Greeks formed a very large proportion of the slaves in any case, it follows logically that all or nearly all those manumitted should be Greeks.13

  • 14 Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, nos. 34 and 76 (pt. 3); Pavoni, 1987, no. 280.
  • 15 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 48, 60, 75, 77, 100, 123-124, 157, and 181.
  • 16 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 21, 38-41, 44, 77, 81, 92, 106, 120, and 153.
  • 17 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13, 19, 177, 185, 193, and 197.

10A word is in order on the ethnic origins of those freeing their slaves. Here one has to allow for the ethnicity of the notaries themselves, for persons tended to use notaries of their own ethnic group although there are exceptions to this rule. Nearly all of the slave owners emancipating slaves in the deeds of the Genoese notaries Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha were likewise Genoese. Some originated from other Italian towns such as Venice and Cremona or are simply described as Italian while one of them was described as a “White Genoese”, in this case an Eastern Christian originating from Malacrea in Syria.14 Owners of slaves obtaining emancipation recorded in the deeds of the Venetian notaries Oddone or Oddonis de Quatro and Nicola de Boateriis were mainly Venetian, but with a number of exceptions. These included a “White Genoese” whose family originated from Jubail in Syria, a Greek from Euboea, and a carpenter from Cyprus. Even those classed as Venetian at times originated from other Italian towns like Ferrara or Belluno, or from the Venetian overseas possession of Crete.15 The notarial deeds of the Venetian notary and priest Simeone present further patterns regarding the owners of the slaves manumitted. The twelve deeds of manumission show varied ethnic origins, all with male owners. Three owners were Venetian, including one from Corfu and one from Crete, one was a Greek from Euboea, one from Genoa, one from Florence, one from Majorca, one a “White Genoese” resident in Nicosia and whose family originated from Jubail in Syria, and one of unknown origin. There were also three Cypriots, one from Nicosia and two burgesses from Famagusta.16 This relative heterogeneity regarding the owners’ origins is not found, however, in the ten wills that included the manumission of slaves in their provisions. In these cases, nine out of the ten testators were Venetian, including one woman. The single non-Venetian was Michael Çaibach, a Greek from Crete.17

Reasons for manumitting slaves

  • 18 Balard, 1983, nos. 13 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1 (...)
  • 19 Balard, 1983, nos. 30-31 and 38; Balard, 1984, nos. 34 (pt. 3), 74 (pt. 3) and 76 (pt. 3); Balard e (...)
  • 20 Balard, 1983, nos. 97 and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard, 1984, no. 73 (pt. 3); Pavon (...)
  • 21 Balard, 1983, no. 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 110 and 161.

11The reasons behind the manumission of slaves were various, although not always stated in the documentation from Cyprus extending from the late thirteenth to the mid-fifteenth century. In the documents of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovani de Rocha covering the years 1296–1310 slaves were manumitted in eight instances out of thirty two within the provisions of their owners’ wills.18 In seven instances they were manumitted on account of their good and faithful services towards their owners.19 In another six instances slaves were manumitted for the good of their owners’ souls, and in one case a woman who was probably of Genoese origin manumitted her female slave for the good of her father’s soul.20 Venturinus’s owner Riccobuono Ocello stated that he had done so for the good of his soul. Ianuinus de Murta who manumitted several slaves in the terms of his will cited feelings of compassion and the good of his soul as his reasons. Meanwhile, Lanfrancus de Mari had his slave Bona emancipated by his proctor Iohaninus as the result of a process of arbitration. Baldoynus Ricius had his slave Dobla freed conditionally. She is referred to as originating from Cervia. Her ethnicity is not specified, but her name indicates an eastern origin.21

  • 22 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4 (Premiere Partie, II); Lombardo, 1973, nos. 48, 52, 75, and 77.
  • 23 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 53-54, 78, 157, and 181.
  • 24 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 44, 77, 81, and 153.
  • 25 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 5-6, 8, and 19; Soyer, 2006, pp. 131 and 135.

12The variety of reasons given continues into the mid-fourteenth century. Papo Beligno, the Venetian owner of the Greek slave Kali from Livadia, manumitted her on 7 September 1344 in a deed drawn up in Beirut in order to show good faith before her. Turning to the notarial deeds of Nicola de Boateriis covering the years 1360–1362, good and faithful service on the part of the slaves are given as the reasons in four of the twelve acts of manumission.22 In two acts slaves were manumitted within the provisions of wills, and in a third act the owner manumitted a male slave in his will and, as he stated in the document, for the good of his soul. In a deed dated 22 July 1361 Çaninus Trivixanus, a court officer at the Venetian curia in Famagusta, enfranchised his female slave Cali from Euboea for the good of his soul, the good of his parents’ souls and the remission of his sins. The same reasons were given by the spice seller Nasimbene, an Italian from Ferrara resident in Famagusta, when he manumitted his Greek female slave Eirene de Vulero on 27 August 1362.23 Only four out of the twelve acts of manumission in the notarial deeds of the priest Simeone cite a specific reason for granting the slave his or her freedom. In three instances, the slaves in question were freed for the good of the owners’ souls and in the fourth instance Bartholomew de Chaneto, the Majorcan owner of the slave Michalis from the Peloponnese, freed him on receipt of 90 white bezants, the price for his manumission granted to him by Fetus Semitecolo.24 As stated above, testators manumitting slaves in their wills, especially for the year 1363 when the plague struck Cyprus, probably did so for the good of their souls, and in some cases they also bequeathed sums of money to the slaves about to be freed on their owners’ deaths. In Spain and Portugal during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there are also instances of masters freeing their slaves as an act of good will or for the good of their souls.25

  • 26 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13 and 177.
  • 27 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 19, 185,193 and 197.
  • 28 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 180-181, 183-184, 191-196 and 198.
  • 29 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200.

13The plague of 1363 constitutes a good reason for the preponderance of Venetian testators, with the only ethnic Greek originating from the Venetian colony of Crete. Persons from overseas, especially if struck by the plague, were more fearful of dying intestate on Cyprus. Consequently, most of the testators in this group cited illness or intestacy as their motive for drawing up a will. Of the six testators who made a will in 1363, the year of the plague, one stated his fear of dying intestate, two stated that they had been afflicted by the plague, two stated being ill, and only one stated being healthy.26 Of the four testators making wills and manumitting slaves in 1364, 1369, 1370, and 1371 one declared good health but feared to die intestate, two declared ill health, without any mention of plague and one did not cite any reason to make a will.27 Most of the testators drawing up wills not including provisions for manumitting slaves likewise originated from Venice or Crete, and in one instance from Padua, but their wills date either from 1362, one year before the plague, or to years after 1363.28 Perhaps the plague impelled testators to manumit slaves for the good of their souls, a possible explanation for the fact that most wills including such manumissions fall within 1363, the year of the plague. Three out of the four recorded instances of manumission in the fifteenth century deeds of Antonio Folieta concern Genoese slaveowners, the fourth one concerning a “White Genoese” named James, whose family originated from Jubail in Syria.29 It is noteworthy that three out of the four “White Genoese” recorded as manumitting slaves originate from Jubail, an indication that a number of Syrians from this town who had migrated to Cyprus had become affluent enough to own slaves.

14It is noteworthy that all four of the deeds of manumission in the acts of the Genoese notary Antonio Folieta who worked in Famagusta, then under Genoese rule, in the mid-fifteenth century give reasons for the manumission of the slaves in question. In the first three documents it is explicitly stated in the initial sentence that since all persons are born free, slavery having been introduced by the law of nations in contravention of natural law, the law of nations had nonetheless introduced the benefit of manumission. The slaves concerned were freed with this line of reasoning. The first act of manumission dated 14 March 1453 added, however, that the “White Genoese” James of Jubail was freeing his slave, a Bulgarian male named Joseph who had been purchased in Turkey, with the consent of his father Peter. In the second act of manumission dated 22 December 1453 the Genoese citizen Vincent Salvina acknowledged the numerous benefits and services that he had received from his female Circassian slave Elena as an additional reason for freeing her. Likewise, the Genoese citizen Geronimo Loreto acknowledged the numerous good services he had received from his slave Maria, who originated from the Black Sea region, when freeing her on 9 February 1456.

  • 30 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200; Pahlitsch, 2017, pp. 173-177; Grivaud, 1998, pp. 162 (...)
  • 31 Soyer, 2006, pp. 132-139; Salicrú i Lluch, 2013, p. 361.

15By the fifteenth century the enslavement of Greeks had declined greatly on account of the legislation discussed above, but not that of Tatars, Bulgarians, Circassians and other inhabitants of the Black Sea region. They continued to be enslaved despite being Orthodox Christians like the Greeks, and Greeks traded in such slaves without religious scruples. Different to all three documents cited above is the final deed of conditional manumission, dated 23 December 1456. According to its terms, Pietro de Carmadino sold to Andreas Justinianus the rights he had over a slave that had belonged to his late father Giovanni. Giovanni had manumitted the slave in question, Chiriacus de Strovili, on condition that he served him or his heirs for the next seven years, an obligation now transferred to Andreas. Although the ethnic origins of Chiriacus are not given, he was perhaps Cypriot, Strovili being a casale to the west of Famagusta abandoned by the early nineteenth century.30 Conditional manumissions were by no means peculiar to Cyprus. They are encountered in Leon-Castille and in Portugal during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, where slaves were conditionally manumitted in exchange for monetary payments, sometimes spread out over a period of years, or for a term of labour that could also be spread out over several years. In the Iberian Peninsula, however, it was easier for slaves to escape for two reasons. Unlike Cyprus, it was not an island, and Muslim slaves could escape more easily because the peninsula contained compact and populous Muslim communities, the aljamas, where escapee slaves could be hidden and assisted in their escape to Muslim territories. Muslim slaves seeking to raise ransom money for their manumission could likewise appeal to their co-religionists in such communities, possibilities not available for Muslim slaves on Cyprus.31

Conditions attached to the manumission of slaves

  • 32 Balard, 1983, nos.13 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165 and 176.
  • 33 Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, no. 34 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, no. 251.

16Throughout the period under discussion various conditions were sometimes attached to the manumission of slaves. The most common was that the freed slave had to serve the heirs or executors of his or her former owner for a number of years. In three acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto the freed slave had to serve the wife and children of his former owner for terms of either two or four years in order to acquire freedom. In another act the two slaves awaiting freedom had to serve the son and daughter of their master until they married, with the female slave serving the daughter and the male slave the son. If, however, either the son or the daughter died prior to getting married, the slave in the service of the deceased would automatically gain his or her freedom.32 One male slave was enfranchised in the will of his Italian owner on condition that he served the trustee for three years. A Venetian named Pietro de Sancto Bernabo freed a female slave named Eirene, whom he had bought from Giovanna, on condition that she served her erstwhile mistress for one year. Likewise, Facinus Arditus enfranchised his male slave Nicolas, alias Balaban of Ivrea, on condition that he continued to serve him for the next two years.33

  • 34 Balard et al., 2012, nos. 97 and 161.

17Slaves manumitted with their children served for longer periods of time, and the children were not invariably manumitted. Thomas de Viride, a Genoese resident of Famagusta, freed his slave Eleni together with her two sons and her daughter on condition that she serve him for the following five years, after which she and her three children would be considered free. When the abovementioned Baldoynus Ricius from Savona near Genoa sold his slave Dobla and her young son to Alegrus Fateinanti she was obliged to serve her new master for five years. After this she would gain freedom, but her son could be purchased by the son of a certain Nicolaus Cavazutus for not less than 300 white bezants.34

  • 35 Pavoni, 1982, no. 109; Balard, 1984, no. 76 (pt. 3).

18As seen from the examples given above, on Cyprus it was not uncommon for a manumitted slave to be associated to his master through having to work for him or his heirs. On occasion, other conditions not related to work were set for a slave to gain freedom, or the manumitted slave continued to maintain relations with his former master. Hence on 12 September 1301 Giacomo, a former slave of the Genoese citizen Gregorio Niger, acknowledged the purchase of an unspecified quantity of goods from him, for which he would pay on demand the sum of 200 white bezants. On 25 January 1310 Francesco of Cremona in Italy manumitted his slave Bunganus, the particular condition attached being that Bunganus would bring one capon per annum to his former master after his emancipation.35

  • 36 Pavoni, 1987, no. 281.
  • 37 Soyer, 2006, pp. 135-136

19Religion also played a role in the conditions attached to the emancipation of slaves. The Genoese resident of Famagusta Giacomo Porcus de Branducio in his will dated 8 August 1302 expressed his wish for his slave Fatima, a female of Turkish origin, to become a Christian and to acquire freedom following his death. In addition, he bequeathed the sum of 15 white bezants to her for the good of his soul. Although the document in question does not explicitly mention baptism as a precondition for Fatima acquiring her freedom, its wording is such that baptism would in fact be mandatory if she were to gain emancipation.36 The use of converting to Christianity as an incentive for Muslim slaves wishing to gain freedom is encountered on the Iberian Peninsula in the twelfth century. Wills from Iberia stipulate that following a master’s death those slaves becoming Christian were to gain freedom, and those remaining Muslim were to be sold, with the money from their sale to be used for ransoming Christian captives in Muslim lands.37

  • 38 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 60, 78, 100, 173 and 181.
  • 39 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 8, 19, 21, 120, 185, and 193.

20Sometimes on Cyprus, the conditions attached to a slave’s freedom burdened the owner as opposed to the slave. In five deeds of the Venetian notary Nicola de Boateriis it is specified that if the conditions of manumission were not honoured by the slave’s owner, then he or she would be liable to pay the slave the sum of five gold pounds. In one of the five instances, the female slave emancipated had to serve her former owner for as long as he lived, gaining freedom upon his death.38 The acts of Simeone record the instance of Dimitri of Euboea who manumitted his slave George, likewise from Euboea, who simply had to serve his former master for one more year. In a similar fashion when Giovanni del Zastel, a citizen of Venice and a burgess of Famagusta, manumitted various female and male slaves in his will, leaving them sums of money, this was done on condition that they served the executors of his will after his death for one year. Giovanni Contareno, another Venetian resident of Famagusta, freed his slave George on condition that he would continue serving his wife and executor of his will Jacobina for one year. If not, it would be up to her to decide whether to free him or not. At times slaves were required not simply to continue serving their former owners but also to depart from Cyprus to gain their freedom. The acts of Simeone also record the instance of Marcus Mauroceno who enfranchised his female slave Theodora after his death on condition that she moved to his residence in Venice and stayed there to serve him while he lived. Likewise, Antonio Bartolomei, a Venetian merchant resident in Famagusta, manumitted his female slave Margarita in his will, granting her 50 Venetian ducats and a furnished bed with all the vestments, but subject to the condition of going to Venice and remaining at the testator’s expense at the house of Sir Victor Muse and working there until she was released from this obligation, failing which she would not be emancipated. Sometimes Venetian owners freed their slaves but offered them money if they relocated, as the Venetian Çaninus Ranfo did when he emancipated his slave Antonio in his will, granting him 25 ducats if he went to Venice and nothing if he did not.39 No preconditions were attached to the manumissions recorded in the acts of Antonio Folieta, with the exception of the last one that has been discussed above.

The gender of the slaves obtaining manumission

  • 40 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 30-31, 38, 87, 97, 145, 165, 168, 170 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, nos. 46, 10 (...)
  • 41 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4; Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 48, 52-54, 60, 75, 77-78, 100, 123-124, 157, 17 (...)

21The notarial deeds of Lamberto de Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha, and indeed all the later collections of notarial deeds for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, invariably mention the gender of the manumitted slaves. Therefore, a discussion of the male to female ratio and how this fluctuated over time will now be ventured. As regards the deeds of Lamberto de Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha covering the years 1296–1310, 23 females are recorded as obtaining manumission as opposed to 13 males.40 The proportion is reversed for the remainder of the fourteenth century, for the notarial deeds of the Genoese notary Domenico Oddone or Oddonis de Quatro, and the Venetian notaries Nicola de Boateriis and Simeone, the priest of San Giacomo dell’ Orio record a total of 23 males as opposed to 18 females obtaining manumission. For the mid-fifteenth century the acts of the Genoese notary Antoni Folieta covering the years 1445–1458 record only four manumissions, two involving male and two female slaves, a number that is arguably too small for any statistics drawn from it to be relevant.41 One certainty is that the preponderance of females attested for the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century in recorded manumissions from Cyprus ends in the second half of the fourteenth century. Some explanation is required to understand this change.

  • 42 Balard, 2017a, pp. 244-248; Makhairas, 1932, §66.

22 It has been argued with reference to slavery in Genoa, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries inclusive, that several trends were at work with regards to the gender of manumitted slaves. One was that the price of slaves increased markedly during this period, especially after the Black Death of 1348, a bubonic plague affecting Europe and the Mediterranean area. A second trend is that the price gap between male and female slaves increased over the same centuries, with female slaves becoming increasingly more expensive than male ones. Manumissions were more common before the Black Death than after it, for the labour shortage caused by this plague was a major factor in driving up the price of slaves. These trends affecting Genoa also touched Cyprus, where the Black Death carried off one half of the population according to the Cypriot chronicler Leontios Makhairas and was followed by other bouts of plague in the following years.42 They explain why slaves emancipated after 1348, on the basis of the extant documentation, were mostly male, for although the prices of all slaves increased after the Black Death, the prices for female slaves increased even more. Therefore, owners on Cyprus were less willing to emancipate their female slaves, who had a higher market value. Nevertheless, in the instance of Cyprus the extant proportion of female slaves emancipated in the fourteenth century, around 44% of the total, remains fairly high.

  • 43 Salicrú i Lluch, 2009, p. 326 and note 10 and 339; Quirini-Poplawska, 2017, pp. 257, 278-279 and 28 (...)
  • 44 Kurt Franz, 2017, pp. 91-92 and 190; Balard, 2017a, pp. 236, 247 and 250-251; Arbel, 1993, pp. 160- (...)
  • 45 Salicrú i Lluch, 2009, pp. 339-340; Armenteros Martinez, 2018, p. 69.

23Female slaves, on the basis of the available evidence, predominated in urban settings in both Christian and Muslim territories of the Mediterranean, where they worked as domestic servants or wet nurses or were used as concubines. In both Barcelona and in Genoa the number of female slaves far exceeded the number of male slaves in the later Middle Ages. On Cyprus native female serfs, who unlike slaves could not be sold but nonetheless had servile obligations towards their owners, as well as female slaves from overseas were brought to towns to be employed as servants. Two such women, one from the rural Marathassa area and another from Turkey, were manumitted in 1468 in the will of Lady Zacha Audet. Most slaves sold in the Black Sea region were female, as were most slaves imported to Venice, Genoa and other Italian cities, or re-exported from Genoa to southern France or Spain.43 Male slaves on the other hand were in demand as agricultural labourers, and the raids conducted from Cyprus against the Egyptian and Syrian coastlines of the Mamluk sultanate by Catalans, Hospitallers from Rhodes and Cypriots until 1426 had precisely this objective in mind, the acquisition of Muslim slaves to work the labour intensive sugar plantations.44 Slaves in urban settings were likelier in general to obtain emancipation than those in rural settings throughout the Mediterranean, given that they usually served their owners directly and not through the intermediaries of estate-managers. In late medieval Barcelona for instance female slaves, unlike male slaves, were assigned household and family tasks, becoming friends and confidantes of their mistresses and even choosing burial after their emancipation alongside their former owners. This meant that they were far likelier to develop amicable relations with their owners, eliciting their sympathy.45 This, however, was not the case in Famagusta after 1348, where female slaves in urban settings were less likely to obtain freedom for the reasons discussed above.

The age of the slaves obtaining manumission

  • 46 Balard, 1983, no. 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 110 and 161.

24The age of the slaves, something that appears invariably in those deeds recording their sale, appear only occasionally in the Cypriot notarial deeds from Famagusta recording their emancipation, but this information when given is very valuable. The acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto record the age of the slaves manumitted on four occasions. On 22 May 1299 the slave Venturinus, described as being brown, baptised, and around five years of age, was manumitted. On 21 December 1300 the Genoese burgess of Famagusta Ianuinus de Murta manumitted several slaves. One was Catherina, described as white and being around 24 years of age, who was freed along with her daughter and her brother Giacomino. Their ages are not given, but the fourth slave he freed, Nayma, is described, notwithstanding her Muslim name, as a Christian girl aged eleven who was clearly baptised. The Genoese Lanfranc de Mari, a member of one of the most prominent Genoese families, had his female slave Bona, originating from Sclavonia and 16 years of age, manumitted on 23 April 1300. Baldoynius Ricius of Savona near Genoa sold his slave Dobla who at the time was around 24 years old and her young son to Alegrus Fateinanti for an unspecified price on condition that she would be freed after serving him for five years. The fact that the price for Dobla is not stated invites some questions. Was she perhaps sold at a reduced price precisely because despite her young age, and the many years of future service she could consequently render, she would serve her new owner for only five years due to the manumission clause?46 Furthermore, one observes that four out of the five manumitted slaves whose ages are given happen to be female, and that two of them are less than twelve years old. Another was sixteen and two were 24 years old.

  • 47 Balard, 2017a, p. 244.
  • 48 Arbel, 1993, p. 154; Balard, 2017a, p. 244; Balard, 2017b, p. 389.

25The relatively young ages of all these slaves obtaining emancipation is noteworthy, given that in general slaves were not manumitted until their late twenties. The demand for young women between 20 and 30 years of age for domestic service was especially strong.47 For manifestly economic reasons manumitted slaves tended to be older, the average age for slaves manumitted in Genoa being 28 for males and 32 for females, but some slaves were not freed until the age of 45 or 50, by which time their economic value was reduced. By way of comparison with late thirteenth and early fourteenth century Cyprus it can be observed that of the 69 manumissions of slaves in Genoa during the second half of the thirteenth century only one instance specifies the age, a five-year old girl whose mother remained in servitude.48

  • 49 Otten-Froux, 2003, no. 106; Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69 and 144.

26None of the acts of manumission in the notarial deeds of the Venetian Nicola de Boateriis record the age of the slaves obtaining emancipation. Only one of the acts of the Venetian notary and priest Simeone records the age of a manumitted slave. This slave, a Greek male named Corsi who was 24 years old, was manumitted along with his daughter Florentia, whose age is not given, on 27 August 1364 by his owner Giovanni de Chino of Florence. The acts drawn up by Antonio Folieta in Genoese Famagusta in the mid-fifteenth century are unusual inasmuch as the ages of the manumitted slaves are specified in three out of four instances. One of the slaves was an eighteen-year-old male and the other two were females who were 24 and 27 years old. All of them originated from the lands around the Black Sea. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that all the emancipated slaves in the period from the late fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries that have their ages recorded, were freed on Cyprus at ages considered the most productive from an economic point of view, their late teens to their mid-twenties.49

The acts of manumission: locations and witnesses

  • 50 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 31, 38 and 145; Balard, 1984, no. 73 (pt. 3).
  • 51 Balard, 1983, no. 97; Pavoni, 1982, nos. 107 and 109; Balard, 1984, no. 78 (pt. 3); Balard et al., (...)
  • 52 Balard, 1983, nos. 30 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 168, 170, 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; (...)
  • 53 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200.

27From the notarial deeds that provide the location of the act of manumission, it is clear that both public venues and private ones could be utilised. The acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni de Rocha record a variety regarding such venues. Sometimes these acts were concluded in public locations. One act was concluded in the royal court in Famagusta, in the presence of the viscount and the jurors, several in the Genoese loggia and one in front of the cathedral of St Nicholas.50 Sometimes these acts were concluded in shops, that of the spice seller Berthozius Latinus, where four such acts were concluded, being a popular venue. Other venues included the central square of Famagusta or at a warehouse.51 In most cases, however, the acts were drawn up in private houses, that of the slave’s owner, or of his guarantor, the house of some third party or in a house the slave’s owner happened to be resident in, and one must remember that not all slave owners were long-term or permanent residents of Famagusta. For example, Papo Beligno, the Venetian owner of the Greek slave Kali from Livadia, manumitted her in 1344 in a deed drawn up in a private house in Beirut, an act drawn up by Dominic de Oddone de Quarto, a notary working in Famagusta, Damascus, Beirut, and Messina during the 1340s.52 The published collections of documents of Nicola de Boateriis and of the priest Simeone do not give the locations in which the acts were drawn up. The four acts of manumission in the notarial deeds of Antonio Folieta also give the specific venues they were drawn up in. Two of these acts were concluded in public squares. The first was prepared in the square of Famagusta in a small loggia called the loggia of Malconsilio, and the second was drawn up in the same square, but on this occasion by the shop of Andrea del Ferro, a burgess of Famagusta who was a spice seller but also a notary. The third deed was drawn up in a private location, namely the house of Marco Gabriel that Geronimo de Loreto, the slave’s owner, happened to be staying in. The deed records that the manumission took place in a room of this house located at the top of the stairs, where Geronimo happened to be lying in a state of illness. The fourth and final deed of manumission was concluded in the Court of the Syrians in Famagusta. As in previous centuries, public, commercial and private venues are attested.53

  • 54 Frenkel, 2017, p. 194.
  • 55 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 31, 38 and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 168 and 170; Balard, 1984, no. 34 ( (...)
  • 56 Pavoni, 1982, nos. 107 and 109; Balard et al., 1982, no. 253; Pavoni, 1987, nos. 168 and 281; Balar (...)

28Contracts involving slaves including manumissions had to be recorded in front of witnesses, something characteristic of Muslim as well as Christian Mediterranean societies.54 The witnesses summoned to be present at deeds of manumission prepared in Famagusta during the period under discussion were a mixture of public and private persons, like the venues. Ethnically nearly all of them were Latin Christians, but a few were “White Genoese” originating from Latin Syria, while one was a Greek priest. Among the witnesses with public offices in the notarial deeds of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha are the viscount and jurors of the royal court of Famagusta, and various officers of the Genoese court of Famagusta who had jurisdiction over its own nationals in cases not involving treason or the effusion of blood, such as the town criers and toll-gatherers known as platearii, the censarii or rent collectors, and the rector of the Genoese commune in Famagusta. In one case the archdeacon of the cathedral of St Nicholas was also a witness.55 Private persons, sometimes described by their trade or profession, included masters of adzes, a tanner, a surgeon and two farriers. Sometimes witnesses, especially in Muslim territory, needed testimonials of their legitimacy. For example, those witnessing the emancipation in Beirut of Kali, a female slave from Livadia in Greece, in 1344 are described as omnes absoluti per sacram papam (“all absolved by the holy pope”).56

  • 57 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 77 and 173.
  • 58 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 21, 77, 81 and 106.
  • 59 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4, 8, 13, 19, 177 and 193.

29The witnesses to acts of manumission in the second half of the fourteenth century and in the fifteenth century are likewise a mixture of public officers and private persons. Those recorded in the acts of the Venetian notary Nicola de Boateriis included a bastonerius or court officer of the Venetian commune of Famagusta, and a Venetian ambassador to the kingdom of Cyprus from Euboea, which was largely under Venetian control by the second half of the fourteenth century. The remainder were private individuals, mainly Venetians but also including an Italian doctor from the town of Belluno and a physician from Pisa.57 A similar picture regarding the witnesses to acts of manumission or wills making provision for the emancipation of slaves emerges from the deeds of the Venetian priest and notary Simeone. Those witnessing the acts of manumission included a sergeant, probably of the Venetian curia in Famagusta, and a number of priests, one of whom came from Venice, another was a Latin priest with a small income known as an assize in the cathedral of St Nicholas of Famagusta, and the third was a Greek priest. Among the private individuals was a German named Frizele who witnessed two acts of manumission.58 Witnesses to the wills in which slaves were manumitted included, among those holding public office, two bastonerii and one sergeant of the Venetian curia in Famagusta. Private individuals included the physician Alexander of Pisa, who witnessed two such wills, the spice seller Nasimbene, several burgesses of Famagusta, two scribes and the boatswain of a cog. The witnesses to the four acts of manumission in the deeds of Antonio Folieta included two citizens of Genoa, seven burgesses of Famagusta, one burgess from Nicosia, one doctor, one notary, and the viscount of the court of the Syrians in Famagusta.59

  • 60 Querini-Poplawska, 2017, pp. 278 and 284.

30To conclude, one can state that on Cyprus recorded acts of manumission regarding Famagusta, begin to appear only from the late thirteenth century onwards, despite it being the island’s chief port and the city with its largest slave market. The information they offer is valuable but also problematic. Since the extant acts that have been analysed are all written by Genoese and Venetian notaries, they impart little information on the trade in slaves by Catalans, Provençals, or even non-Latins such as Greeks, Syrian Christians, and Armenians. Although practically all the manumissions in the fourteenth century concern Greeks, the attested practice of giving Greek and Latin names to slaves from the Black Sea area or even from Muslim lands makes nomenclature an unreliable indicator for the ethnicity of the manumitted slaves.60 Nomenclature is reliable only when accompanied by an explicit reference to the freed slave’s geographical origins.

31Finally, some of the deeds give more detailed and thorough information than others, even in cases where they come from the same notary. The likeliest explanation for this is that in some cases the owners of the slaves being manumitted wanted to include more details, whereas in other cases the details were simply left out. Notwithstanding the above caveats, the information gathered from the notarial deeds drawn up from the late thirteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries shows that trends at work on Cyprus reflected those found in a broader Mediterranean setting. The one clear exception to this rule was the greater incidence of male as opposed to female slaves gaining manumission after 1348, because female slaves went up in price more than male slaves. The closure of the Black Sea in the mid-fifteenth century as a result of the Ottoman conquests drove up the prices of slaves even more, both on Cyprus and in a wider Mediterranean context. This explains why very few slaves were manumitted in the mid-fifteenth century and after.

Bibliographie

Primary Sources

BALARD, Michel (ed.) (1983). Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (11 Ottobre 1296 – 23 Giugno 1299). Genoa: Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 39.

BALARD, Michel (ed.) (1984). Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (31 Marzo 1304 – 19 Iuglio 1305, 4 Gennaio – 12 Iuglio 1307): Giovanni de Rocha (3 Agosto 1308 – 14 Marzo 1310). Genoa: Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 43.

BALARD, Michel; DUBA, William; SCHABEL, Christopher (eds.) (2012). Actes de Famagouste du notaire génois Lamberto di Sambuceto (décembre 1299 – septembre 1300), Nicosia. Cyprus Research Centre.

BALARD, Michel, BALLETTO, Laura and SCHABEL, Christopher (eds.) (2013). Gênes et l’Outre Mer: Actes notariés de Famagouste et d’ autres localités du Proche Orient (XIVe – XVe s.). Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre.

BALARD, Michel; BALLETTO Laura; OTTEN-FROUX, Catherine (eds.) (2016). Gênes et l’ Outre Mer: Actes notariés rédigés à Chypre par le notaire Antonius Folieta (1445-1458). Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre.

BORCHARDT, Carl; LUTTRELL, Anthony; SCHÖFFLER, Ekhard (eds.) (2011). Documents concerning Cyprus from the Hospital’s Rhodian Archives: 1409-1459. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre.

HOADE, Eugene, O.F.M. (trans.) (1952). “Itinerary of the Anonymous Englishman (1344-1345)”. In Western Pilgrims (1322-1392). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.

MAKHAIRAS, Leontios (1932). Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus, entitled ‘Chronicle’. Dawkins, Richard M. (ed.), 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LOMBARDO, Antonio (ed.) (1973). Nicola de Boateriis, notaio in Famagosta e Venezia (1355-1365). Venice: Fonti per la Storia di Venezia.

PAVONI, Romeo (ed.) (1982). Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da notaio Lamberto di Sambuceto (6 Iuglio - 27 Ottobre 1301). Genoa: Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 32.

PAVONI, Romeo (ed.) (1987). Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (Gennaio – Agosto 1302). Genoa: Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 49.

POLONIO, Vera (ed.) (1982). Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (3 luglio 1300 – 3 agosto 1301). Genoa: Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 31.

Secondary Sources

ARBEL, Benjamin (1993). “Slave Trade and Slave Labor in Frankish Cyprus (1191-1571)”. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History XIV (o. s. vol. XXIV), pp. 151-190.

BALARD, Michel (2017a). “Slavery in the Latin Mediterranean (Thirteenth to Fifteenth Centuries): The Case of Genoa”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (eds.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 235-254.

BALARD, Michel (2017b). “Remarques sur les esclaves à Gênes dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle”. In Balard, Michel. Gênes et la Mer/Genoa e il Mare, 2 vols. Genoa: Società Ligure di Storia Patria, vol. 1, pp. 347-393.

CHRIST, Georg (2017). “Differentiated Legality: Venetian Slave Trade in Alexandria”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (eds.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 299-320.

COUREAS, Nicholas (2002). “Cyprus and Ragusa (Dubrovnik) 1280-1450”. Mediterranean Historical Review 17-2, pp. 1-13.

COUREAS, Nicholas (2003-2004). “Cyprus and Euboea in the mid-Fourteenth Century”. Symmeikta 13, pp. 87-100.

DINCER, Aysu (2016). “’Enslaving Christians’: Greek slaves in late medieval Cyprus”. The Mediterranean Historical Review 31-1, pp. 1-19.

FRENKEL, Yehoshua (2017). “Some Notes concerning the Trade and Education of Slave-Soldiers during the Mamluk Era”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (eds.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 187-212.

GRIVAUD, Gilles (1998). Villages désertés à Chypre (Fin XIIe- Fin XIXe siècle). Nicosia: Archbishop Makarios III Foundation.

FRANZ, Kurt (2017). “Slavery in Islam: Legal Norms and Social Practice”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (ed.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 51-141.

LÓPEZ PÉREZ, Maria Dolores (2002). “Marchands, esclaves et mercenaires: Les transferts de populations dans le Maghreb médiéval”. In Balard, Michel; Ducellier, Alain (eds.), Migrations et Diasporas Mediterranéennes (Xe – XVIe siècles). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, pp. 399-415.

LUTTRELL, Anthony (1982). “Slavery at Rhodes: 1306-1440”. In Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades 1291-1440. London: Variorum Reprints, VI.

ARMENTEROS MARTÍNEZ, Iván (2018). “L’identité culturelle et sociale des esclaves avant leur affranchisement (Barcelone XVe-XVIIIe siècle)”. In Rogers, Dominique; Lesueur, Boris (eds.). Sortir l’esclavage, stigmates, assimilations et recompositions identitaires du XVe au XXe siècle (Méditerranées, Amériques, Afriques). Paris: Éditions Karthala, pp. 59-78.

OTTEN-FROUX, Catherine (2003). “Gênes et l’Outre Mer Un notaire vénitien à Famagouste au XIVe siècle. Les actes de Simeone, prêtre de San Giacomo dell’ Orio (1362-1371)”. Thesaurismata 33, pp. 15-159.

PAHLITSCH, Johannes (2017). “Slavery and the Slave Trade in Byzantium in the Palaeologan Period”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (eds.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 163-184.

QUIRINI-POPLAWSKA, Danuta (2017). “The Venetian Involvement in the Black Sea Slave Trade (Fourteenth to Fifteenth Centuries)”. In Amitai, Reuven; Cluse, Christoph (eds.). Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000-1500 CE). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 255-298.

SALICRÚ I LLUCH, Roser (2013). “Luck and Contingency? Piracy, Human Booty and Human Trafficking in the Late Medieval Western Mediterranean”. In Jaspert, Nikolas; Kolditz, Sebastian (eds.). Seeraub im Mittelmeerraum. Piraterie, Korsarentum und Maritime Gewalt vor de Antike bis zur Neuzeit, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, pp. 349-362.

SALICRÚ I LLUCH, Roser (2009). “Slaves in the Professional and Family Life of Crafts men in the Late Middle Ages”. In Cavaciocchi, Simonetta (eds.), La famiglia nell’economia europea secoli XIII-XVIII/The Economic Role of the Family in the European Economy from the 13th to the 18th Centuries. Firenze: Firenze University Press, pp. 325-342.

SOYER, François (2006). “Muslim Freedmen in Leon, Castille and Portugal (1100-1300)”. Al-Masaq vol. 18/2, pp. 129-143.

Notes

1 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 30-31, 38, 97, and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 176 and 418; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 97, 110 and 197; Pavoni, 1987, nos. 168 and 280-281; Balard, 1984, no. 34 (de Rocha).

2 Dincer, 2016, pp. 5 and 8; Balard, 2017b, p. 352; Luttrell, 1986, pp. 82-83.

3 Arbel, 1993, pp. 152 and 154; Balard, 2017a, p. 238; G. Christ, 2017, pp. 304-306; Pavoni, 1987, no. 168; Balard et al., 2012, no. 172; López Pérez, 2002, pp. 411-412; Coureas, 2002, p. 2.

4 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4; Lombardo 1973, nos. 2, 48, 52-54, 60, 75, 77-78, 100, 123-124, 157, 173 and 181; Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 21, 38-41, 44, 77, 81, 92, 106,120, and 153.

5 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 39, 73-74, 90, 93, 129, 145, 148-149, 153, 161 and 182; Otten, 2003, 28-32 and nos. 20, 31, 36, 42-43, 54-55, 57-58, 61, 63, 65, 70, 75, 85, 91, 107, 112-113, 115, 121, 127, 134-135, 138, 141, 152, 154, 157, 163, 168 and 170.

6 Makhairas, 1932, §482; Arbel, 1993, p. 163; Borchardt et al, 2011, no. 130.

7 Arbel, 1993, pp. 157-158 and 184-190.

8 Lombardo, 1993, nos. 2, 60, 77, 100, 123-124 and 152; Coureas, 2003-2004, pp. 97-99; Armenteros Martinez, 2018, p. 73 and note 46.

9 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 52, 78, 157, and 167.

10 Otten-Froux, 2003, pp. 32-37; Makhairas, 1932, §135.

11 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13, 19 (=175), 177, 185, 193 and 197.

12 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 31, 152, 168 and 170; Soyer, 2006, p. 140.

13 Makhairas, 1932, §482; Dincer, 2016, p. 5; Hoade, 1952, p. 60; Pahlitsch, 2017, p. 167.

14 Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, nos. 34 and 76 (pt. 3); Pavoni, 1987, no. 280.

15 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 48, 60, 75, 77, 100, 123-124, 157, and 181.

16 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 21, 38-41, 44, 77, 81, 92, 106, 120, and 153.

17 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13, 19, 177, 185, 193, and 197.

18 Balard, 1983, nos. 13 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, no. 19; Balard et al., 2012, no. 253.

19 Balard, 1983, nos. 30-31 and 38; Balard, 1984, nos. 34 (pt. 3), 74 (pt. 3) and 76 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, no. 197.

20 Balard, 1983, nos. 97 and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard, 1984, no. 73 (pt. 3); Pavoni, 1987, nos. 280-281.

21 Balard, 1983, no. 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 110 and 161.

22 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4 (Premiere Partie, II); Lombardo, 1973, nos. 48, 52, 75, and 77.

23 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 53-54, 78, 157, and 181.

24 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 44, 77, 81, and 153.

25 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 5-6, 8, and 19; Soyer, 2006, pp. 131 and 135.

26 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13 and 177.

27 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 19, 185,193 and 197.

28 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 180-181, 183-184, 191-196 and 198.

29 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200.

30 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200; Pahlitsch, 2017, pp. 173-177; Grivaud, 1998, pp. 162, 455 and 557.

31 Soyer, 2006, pp. 132-139; Salicrú i Lluch, 2013, p. 361.

32 Balard, 1983, nos.13 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165 and 176.

33 Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, no. 34 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, no. 251.

34 Balard et al., 2012, nos. 97 and 161.

35 Pavoni, 1982, no. 109; Balard, 1984, no. 76 (pt. 3).

36 Pavoni, 1987, no. 281.

37 Soyer, 2006, pp. 135-136

38 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 60, 78, 100, 173 and 181.

39 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 8, 19, 21, 120, 185, and 193.

40 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 30-31, 38, 87, 97, 145, 165, 168, 170 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, nos. 46, 107 and 109; CSFS 43, nos. 19 (pt. 1), 34, 73-74 and 76 (pt. 3); Pavoni, 1987, nos. 168 and 280-281; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 97, 110, 167, 197, 251 and 253.

41 Balard et al., 2013, no. 4; Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 48, 52-54, 60, 75, 77-78, 100, 123-124, 157, 173 and 181; Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4-6, 8, 13, 19, 21, 38-41, 44, 77, 81, 92, 106, 120, 153, 177, 185, 193 and 197; Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200.

42 Balard, 2017a, pp. 244-248; Makhairas, 1932, §66.

43 Salicrú i Lluch, 2009, p. 326 and note 10 and 339; Quirini-Poplawska, 2017, pp. 257, 278-279 and 282-283; Dincer, 2016, pp. 1-2.

44 Kurt Franz, 2017, pp. 91-92 and 190; Balard, 2017a, pp. 236, 247 and 250-251; Arbel, 1993, pp. 160-161.

45 Salicrú i Lluch, 2009, pp. 339-340; Armenteros Martinez, 2018, p. 69.

46 Balard, 1983, no. 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 168 and 170; Balard et al., 2012, nos. 110 and 161.

47 Balard, 2017a, p. 244.

48 Arbel, 1993, p. 154; Balard, 2017a, p. 244; Balard, 2017b, p. 389.

49 Otten-Froux, 2003, no. 106; Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69 and 144.

50 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 31, 38 and 145; Balard, 1984, no. 73 (pt. 3).

51 Balard, 1983, no. 97; Pavoni, 1982, nos. 107 and 109; Balard, 1984, no. 78 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, nos. 161 and 251; Pavoni, 1987, no. 280.

52 Balard, 1983, nos. 30 and 87; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 168, 170, 176 and 418; Pavoni, 1982, no. 46; Balard, 1984, nos. 34 (pt. 3) and 74 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, nos. 97, 110, 197 and 253; Pavoni, 1987, nos. 168 and 281; Balard, et al., 2013, no. 4 (Premiere Partie, II).

53 Balard et al., 2016, nos. 41, 69, 144 and 200.

54 Frenkel, 2017, p. 194.

55 Balard, 1983, nos. 13, 31, 38 and 145; Polonio, 1982, nos. 165, 168 and 170; Balard, 1984, no. 34 (pt. 3); Balard et al., 2012, no. 161; Pavoni, 1987, no. 280.

56 Pavoni, 1982, nos. 107 and 109; Balard et al., 1982, no. 253; Pavoni, 1987, nos. 168 and 281; Balard et al., 2013, no. 4 (Premiere Partie, II).

57 Lombardo, 1973, nos. 2, 77 and 173.

58 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 21, 77, 81 and 106.

59 Otten-Froux, 2003, nos. 4, 8, 13, 19, 177 and 193.

60 Querini-Poplawska, 2017, pp. 278 and 284.

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search