Advertisement

Shipping profits in the early modern period

  • W. Brulez

Abstract

A few years ago Charles Wilson underlined the importance of transport in the history of economic development, with special reference to the role which sea transport had played in the economic development of the United Provinces. He concluded, in this connection, ‘there seems an incontestable case for arguing that the richest society so far in history had been the creation of sea transport’. The role of shipping lay in the following spheres: it was a source of income for individuals and an invisible export for the Republic, it exercised a multiplier-effect by its demand for ships, ships’ requirements, harbour equipment and related services; it provided for the supply of essential foodstuffs such as grain and salt, and above all of products which lay at the basis of the country’s industrial development: timber, barley, sugar, tobacco, rags and wool; sea trade was thus the foundation of an industrial system in which the author already detects the presence of a number of preconditions for the industrial revolution.1

Keywords

Eighteenth Century Seventeenth Century Sixteenth Century Grand Commerce Freight Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Wilson, “Transport as a factor in the history of economic development,” Journal of European economic history, II (Rome, 1973) 320–37, especially 327–32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Venice: G. Luzzatto, Storia economica di Venezia dall’XI° al XVI° secolo (Venice, 1961);Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Genoa: J. Heers, Génes au XVe siècle (Paris, 1961);Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    England: R. Davis, The rise of the English shipping industry in the 17th and 18th centuries (London, 1962);Google Scholar
  5. 2c.
    Bruges, Antwerp, Holland: G. Asaert, et alii, Maritieme Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, I-II (Bussum, 1976–7)Google Scholar
  6. 2d.
    W. Brulez, ‘De handel’ in Antwerpen in de XVIe eeuw (Antwerp, 1975) 110–1;Google Scholar
  7. 2e.
    Bordeaux: J. Bernard, Navires et gens de mer à Bordeaux, vers 1400 — vers 1550 (Paris, 1968) II, 482, 521;Google Scholar
  8. 2f.
    La Rochelle: J. Craeybeckx, Un grand commerce d’importation: les vins de France aux anciens Pays-Bas XIIIe–XVIe siècle (Paris, 1958) 153;Google Scholar
  9. 2g.
    Brittany: H. Touchard, Le commerce maritime breton à la fin du Moyen-Age (Paris, 1967).Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    J.R. Bruijn, ‘De vaart in Europa’ in Asaert et alii, Maritieme geschiedenis II, 238. Cf. Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 521.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    On shipbuilding, cf. R. Unger ‘Scheepsbouw en scheepsbouwers,’ in Asaert, Maritieme geschiedenis, I, 155–79 and S. Hart, ‘Scheepsbouw’, ibidem, II, 72–7. It ought to be observed in this connection that this industry also owed its prosperity partly to trade, via the import of cheap raw materials (and almost all the raw materials for shipbuilding had to be imported into the Netherlands); Unger, ‘Scheepsbouw’ 171.Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    For what follows cf. Davis, Rise, ch. xvi and especially xvii, where one finds the best and most complete discussion of the problem. A. Casanova, Specchio lucidissimo nel quale si vedono essere diffinito tutti i modi et ordini di scrittura (Venice, 1558) contains an accounting example of the building and operation of a ship by the Santvoort brothers in Venice. The result is very positive, especially as the ship, which cost them 10,000 ducats (plus 2,000 ducats lent by the republic) was sold for 12,000 ducats after a single voyage, without any insurance being taken out; it may be doubted whether this is a wholly realistic example.Google Scholar
  13. 7.
    Davis, Rise, 372 ff.; cf. W. Vogel, Geschichte der deutschen Seeschiffahrt (Berlin, 1915) I, 420–3, 427; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 138 (note 199) 212; Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 589 ff; G.V. Scammell, ‘Shipowning in England, c.1450–1550’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, XII (London, 1962) 111–3. Concrete details on building costs in Liguria are to be found in the articles of M. Calegari, R. Lenti, L. Gatti and V. Borghesi: Calegari in: Guerra e commercio nell’evoluzione della marina genovese tra XV° e XVII° secolo (= Miscellanea storica ligure, Nuova série, anno II, i) (Genoa, 1970) and two articles by L. Gatti in: Studidi storia navale. Centro per la storia della tecnica in Italia (Genoa, 1975). Some figures for Catalonia in the XVIIIth centrury in P. Vilar, La Catalogne dans l’Espagne moderne (Paris, 1962) III, 188–297, 302 ff.Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    Davis, Rise, 376; Vogel, Geschichte, 432–4. V. Borghesi and M. Calegari, ‘La nave Bertorota (1547–1561)’ in Guerra e commercio, 104; M. Calegari, ‘Navi e barche a Genova tra il XV° e il XV1° secolo’, ibidem, 35–7, arrives, on the basis of many examples, at an average life of 61/2 to 7 years c. 1500, and 5 to 10 years in 1540–70, which agrees with Luzzatto’s results for Venice. S. Hart calculated the average age of 142 Dutch ships in 1644 as 7 years, ‘Rederij’ in Asaert, Maritieme geschiedenis, II, 108. Cf. below, note 17.Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    Davis, Rise, 337; V. Barbour, ‘Dutch and English merchant shipping in the seventeenth century’ in E.M. Carus-Wilson, ed., Essays in economic history (London, 1954) I, 227–253; Brulez, ‘Handel’, 132.Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    Davis, Rise, 363 ff.; Vogel, Geschichte, 427 ff.; Borghesi and Calegari, ‘Nave Bertorota,’; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 138 note 199, 212; Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 589 ff.; Vüar, Catalogne, III, 188–297, 302–24.Google Scholar
  17. 11.
    Davis, Rise, 370 ff.; Vogel, Geschichte, 432–4 (hypothetical calculations). Case studies (see Borghesi and Calegari ‘Nave Bertorota,’ and Calegari ‘Navi e barche’, 37–9) show for XVIth century Genoa respectively 2 voyages per year of c. 1 1/2 months each for one ship whose course was traced over 14 years, and 1 1/2 voyages a year for 15 ships. See also the articles of E. Grendi, A. Medina and G.C. Calcagno in Guerra e commercio. For Catalonia Vilar, Catalogne, III, 188–297, provides precise data for 15 ships: 26 voyages in 14 years, 23 voyages in 18 years etc.Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    Davis, Rise, 379, 381, 382; Vogel, Geschichte, 437–9. Vogel mentions in passing that in the later medieval Hanseatic world there was probably significantly more shipping space available than cargo. Davis points out that although the extent to which a full cargo was carried cannot be determined, full loads became the rule in XVIIIth century English shipping, when much more cargo was available, while in the XVIIth century full loads remained uncertain. With regard to the trade to America, see W. Brulez, ‘Séville et l’Atlantique: quelques réflexions critiques,’ Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire, XLII (Brussels, 1964) 588–91; M. Morineau, Jauges et méthodes de jauge anciennes et modernes (Paris, 1966) 48–52.Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    Naturally one gets closest to the reality with the aid of shipping accounts but these are very rare and do not always contain all the desired information; examples in Vilar, Catalogne, III, 188–297; H.E. van Gelder, ‘Zestiende — eeuwsche vrachtvaart bescheiden’, Economisch-historisch jaarboek, III, (The Hague, 1917) 124–290.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    Heers, Gênes, 315. The profits of two shipowners mentioned by Touchard, Commerce maritime, 339, are trading profits and not profits from shipping, (cf. ibidem, 138, 211–2). The profits of the Nantes shipowners were also trading profits, J. Meyer, L’armement nantais dans la deuxième moitié du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1969) ch. vi. The profits which according to Scammell, ‘Shipowning’, 108–9, derive from shipowning, also came in the first place from trade and privateering.Google Scholar
  21. 15.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 411–8; Craeybeckx, Grand Commerce, 153–4, 160–1; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 138, 212; Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 598 ff.Google Scholar
  22. 16.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 377, 424–7; J. Tadic, ‘Le port de Raguse et sa flotte au XVIe siècle,’ in M. Mollat ed., Le navire et l’économie maritime du Moyen-Age au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1958) 16; Touchard, Commerce maritime-, Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 610.Google Scholar
  23. 17.
    Leaving aside the fact that a great many homonyms occur among names of ships and masters, and that master Jan Jansen may well have commanded two or three successive ‘St. Jans’ in his career, without this being evident from the sources. Cf. the references in note 8. Touchard, Commerce maritime, 339: the fact that of the 218 ships which come to Dartmouth, 8 return regularly during a period of 4 to 20 years, and 35 others appear two to five times, does not allow the conclusion that the average life of a ship was at least ten years. Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 598 ff., thinks that 15 years was amply sufficient for a ship’s value to be written off, but his data only permit the conclusion that 15 years was an exceptionally long life for a ship. Scammell, ‘Shipowning’, 108–9 says that ships lasted a long time, but cites as his only evidence two ships which lasted 24 years and 30 years respectively. The data of F.C. Lane, Navires et constructeurs à Venise pendant la Renaissance (Paris, 1965) 259–60, seem totally inadequate to arrive at an average life of ten years.Google Scholar
  24. 18.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 379; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 138, 339–40, 347; Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 161; Carrère, Barcelone, centre économique à l’époque des difficultés, 1380–1462 (Paris, 1967) 212 states that the shipmasters were not poor, but the three cases which illustrate this do not seem to be proof enough.Google Scholar
  25. 19.
    F. Braudel, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II (Paris, 1966) I, 383–419: in his global estimate of the Mediterranean economy, the author comes to the conclusion that shipping was a poor man’s trade. Heers, Gênes, 314, 320; Vilar, Catalogne, III, 201, 216–7; Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 613–5 concludes that according to his calculations the shipowners should have grown rich on shipping, but did not do so in practice. However, the calculations sometimes rest on scarce or rather ambiguous data, and the favourable results come in part from taking operating costs as 40% of the freight, whereas the author himself estimates that they in fact amounted to 40 to 60% (598–613). Davis, Rise, passim and especially 130–1, 159–74; G. Asaert, De Antwerpse scheepvaart in de XVe eeuw, 1394–1480 (Brussels, 1973) 162–96; J. van Roey, ‘Zeelui aan de wal’ in: Asaert, Maritieme geschiedenis I, 232–4.Google Scholar
  26. 20.
    Touchard, Commerce maritime, passim and especially 173, 341; for the modest prosperity of the shipowners see 347 81, especially 363–76, 377–81; Cf. also Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 161, 166–8.Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 379 and note 2, 436.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 527–88. Cf. also A.E. Christensen, Dutch trade to the Baltic about 1600 (The Hague-Copenhagen, 1941) 153–4; Carrère, Barcelone, 208, 264; P. Dardel, brought in enough to attract money from all quarters (108–9). Barbour, Dutch and English mer-169; Vogel, Geschichte, 375, 377, 379–81; Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 132–3, 154–5; Scammell, ‘Shipowning’, 116–8; Davis, Rise, 80.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 376; Carrère, Barcelone, 211; Craeybeckx, Grand commerce 150–4, 161; Scammell, ‘Shipowning’, 108–9, 113–4, 117–8. The last-named author states that the investment in shipowning by all strata of society is to be explained by the especially attractive character of this investment; then says that the return on shipowning is unknown, and concludes that in any case it brought in enough to attract money from all quarters (108–9). Barbour, ‘Dutch and English merchant shipping’, 242–3. On the wide dissemination of shipowning at Le Havre, R. Richard, ‘Le financement des armements maritimes du Havre au XVIIIe siècle,’ Revue d’histoire économique et sociale, XLVII (Paris, 1969) 5–31.Google Scholar
  30. 24.
    The best statement of these diverse reasons is in Davis, Rise, 82–3, 90–108, 117, 383–7. Cf. also Scammell, ‘Shipowning’, 108–11, 114–5; Vogel, Geschichte, 376, 438–9.Google Scholar
  31. 25.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 376, 438–9, makes the comparison with a lottery, speculation on the Stock Exchange and gambling, which also have a particularly strong attraction for the poorer strata of society — but in that case one can write off shipowning as a means of enrichment, from the point of view of society — and says that the chance of profit could be calculated with some certainty, leaving aside the risk of accident — but what are we to think of a calculation of chances which disregards the most notable chance of loss? Davis, Rise, 383–7, first thinks that profits did not vary greatly, and did not differ much from profits on other investments but then gives a list of reasons why they would have been lower in shipowning than elsewhere, and concludes that they fluctuated greatly, and that it was precisely the speculative character of profit which explains the low average return.Google Scholar
  32. 26.
    Heers, Gênes, 290, 320; Calegari, ‘Navi e barche’, 15–51, especially 47; A. Tenenti, Naufrages, corsaires et assurances maritimes à Venise, 1592–1609, (Paris, 1969) 13–27;Google Scholar
  33. 26a.
    R. Romano, ‘La marine marchande vénitienne au XVIe siècle’ in M. Mollat, Les sources de l’histoire maritime en Europe, du Moyen-Age au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1962) 33–68 especially 42–3; Lane, Navires et constructeurs, 93–123, especially 120, 122;Google Scholar
  34. 26b.
    E. Otte, ‘Das genuesische Unternehmertum und Amerika unter den katholischen Königen’, Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas, II (Cologne, 1965) 52; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 354–61; Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 482, 556–61 (and note 137), 565, 568, 573–4; H. Lapeyre, Une famille de marchands, Les Ruiz (Paris, 1955) 182–240;Google Scholar
  35. 26c.
    J. Gentil da Silva, Stratégie des affaires à Lisbonne entre 1595 et 1607 (Paris, 1956) 94–5;Google Scholar
  36. 26d.
    H. Pohl, Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen 1567–1648, (Wiesbaden, 1977) 104;Google Scholar
  37. 26e.
    H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (Wiesbaden, 1958) 206–9; Carrère, Barcelone, 208, 264; Vilar, Catalogne, III, 188 324, especially 189, 299.Google Scholar
  38. 27.
    M. Mollat, Le commerce maritime normand à la fin du Moyen-Age (Paris, 1952) 406 ff., 497 ff.; Dardel, Commerce, industrie, 154 ff., 169, 182;Google Scholar
  39. 27a.
    E. Trocmé and M. Delafosse, Le commerce rochelais de la fin du XVe siècle au début du XVIIe (Paris, 1952) 18;Google Scholar
  40. 27b.
    R. Collier and J. Billioud, Histoire du commerce de Marseille (Paris, 1951) III, 307, 318;Google Scholar
  41. 27c.
    L. Bergasse and G. Rambert, Histoire du commerce de Marseille (Paris, 1954) IV, 556–7;Google Scholar
  42. 27d.
    K.F. Olechnowitz, Der Schiffbau der hansischen Spätzeit (Weimar, 1960) 41–66;Google Scholar
  43. 27e.
    idem, Handel und Seeschifffahrt der späten Hanse (Weimar, 1965) 45;Google Scholar
  44. 27f.
    B. Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen und Einrichtungen des emder Seehandelsverkehrs in den letzten drei Jahrzehnten des 16. Jahrhunderts’ (I), Hansische Geschichtsblätter, XV (Leipzig, 1909) 337 98; Davis, Rise, 80;Google Scholar
  45. 27g.
    V. Barbour, ‘Marine risks and insurance in the seventeenth century’, Journal of economic and business history, I (Cambridge, U.S., 1928/9) 569–70; Barbour, ‘Dutch and English merchant shipping’, 242–3; Scammell, ‘Shipowning.’ Davis stresses that ship-owning and operation only became a separate occupation in the 19th century. Scammel however says that, exceptionally, merchants in his period (1450–1550) were sometimes exclusively shipowners.Google Scholar
  46. 28.
    Mollat, Commerce maritime normand, 406 ff., 497 ff. For forced acquisition of ships see Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 557; Brulez, De firma délia Faille en de internationale Handel van Vlaamse firma’s in de 16e eeuw (Brussels, 1959) 158–9; idem, ‘La navigation flamande vers la Méditerranée à la fin du XVIe siècle’, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, XXXVI (1958) 1229–30; J.C. van Es ‘Zestiende eeuwse vrachtvaartbescheiden’, Economisch-historisch faarboek, XX (The Hague, 1936) 258–93. Part-ownership as a remnant of activity as a shipmaster or shipowner is found in S. Hart ‘Rederij’, 108–11.Google Scholar
  47. 29.
    Davis, Rise, 90–9; Dardel, Commerce, industrie, 169; Trocmé and Delafosse, Commerce rochelais, 18; Meyer, Armement nantais, passim; C. Huetz de Lemps, Géographie du commerce de Bordeaux à la fin du règne de Louis XIV (Paris, 1975) 552–77;Google Scholar
  48. 29b.
    C. Carrière, Négociants marseillais au XVIIIe siècle (Marseilles, 1973) 907–15; Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen’ (I) 362–8, 394–8, states that at Emden, carriage on own-account ships was predominant in the trade in mass consumption goods to the Baltic, and in the import of salt, while expensive goods were carried on chartered ships.Google Scholar
  49. 30.
    The extent to which privateering and trade were combined is difficult to determine. In the later middle ages and the XVIth century, the practice was apparently very common in Normandy and southwest England, although it was nobles rather than merchants who played the leading role: Mollat, Commerce maritime normand, passim; Scammell, ‘Shipowning.’ The opinion of Touchard, Commerce maritime, 340, that the damage done to trade by privateering was compensated by the fact that privateers and traders were often one and the same, seems very optimistic, and cannot be proved from the two cases cited. Cf. Heers, Gênes, 315. Examples of opening up new trade routes with own-account ships, in H.E. van Gelder, ‘Scheepsrekeningen van enkele der vroegste Guineavaarten’, Economisch-historisch jaarboek, II (The Hague, 1916) 239–57;Google Scholar
  50. 30a.
    J.H. Kernkamp, A.J. Klaassen-Meyer and F. Nauta, ‘De rekeningen betreffende de exploratietocht van Den Swerten Ruyter naar het Middellandse Zeegebied in 1589–90’, Bijdragen en mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, LXXIII (Groningen, 1959) 3–54;Google Scholar
  51. 30b.
    S. Hart, The prehistory of the New Netherlands Company (Amsterdam, 1959) 7–38.Google Scholar
  52. 31.
    Davis, Rise, 90–9; Vogel, Geschichte, 387; cf. Brulez, Firma della Faille, 125–7.Google Scholar
  53. 32.
    Olechnowitz, Schiffbau’, Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen’, I; E. Baasch, ‘Zur Statistik des Schiffspartenwesens’, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, XV (Leipzig, 1919) 228 ff.; Carrère, Barcelone, 208, 211, 264; Vilar, Catalogne, III, 188–324, 410.Google Scholar
  54. 33.
    Davis, Rise, ch. xvi: the study of four ships gives these results: 1) 3 voyages with a profit, 3 with a loss, thus overall loss; 2) 5 voyages with a profit, 3 with a loss, overall loss; 3) 13 voyages with a profit, average profit 10% net per annum; 4) 12 voyages with a profit, 3 with a loss: overall profit, but a less than normal return; see also ch. xvii, especially 378–87.Google Scholar
  55. 34.
    Vilar, Catalogne, 111, 188–324, especially 300, 324 (ships a), b), f), g), n)). Davis too says that hiring ships to the crown in time of war was the best opportunity for profit in such a period, Rise, ch. xv.Google Scholar
  56. 35.
    R. Davis, ‘Earnings of capital in the English shipping industry 1670–1730’, Journal of economic history, XVII (London, 1957) 409–25; idem, Rise, 383–7. Similar conclusions: Heers, Gênes, 314, 320; Borghesi and Calegari, ‘Nave Bertorota’ (‘margini decisamente modesti’). The opinion of Vogel, Geschichte, is not entirely clear: on the one hand (376, 377, 379, 399, 418, 426–7, 434–6, 438–9) he gives optimistic estimates based on theoretical calculations which show a profit of 30 to 40% after depreciation, on the other hand he finds in the actual accounts (383–5, 436) results of 7, 26, -2, 9, 1, 11 and -12% and concludes that if the chances of enrichment by shipowning had been as great as his theoretical calculation suggested they should be, then contemporaries would have noticed it. (436) He finally states (437) that a profit of 20–33% without allowing for depreciation was perhaps very successful. In view of the actual results which he cites that seems indeed incredibly successful. Cf. the opinion of Bernard, cited above, note 19.Google Scholar
  57. 36.
    Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, II, 486–90, 527–88, especially 578–88.Google Scholar
  58. 37.
    Davis, Rise, ch. xv, indicates that privateering was attractive because of the hope of booty, which, however, was seldom realized. Cf. Scammell, ‘Shipowning’ 110–1.Google Scholar
  59. 38.
    There are, however, indications on this point in G. Asaert, ‘Scheepsbezit en havens’, in: idem, Maritime geschiedenis, I, 182–6, Van Roey, ‘Zeelui aan de wal’ I, 232–6; Hart ‘Rederij’, II, 106–23 and Lucassen, ‘Zeevarenden’, II 140–4. J.G. van Dillen, Van Rijkdom en Regenten (The Hague, 1970) 312–3 does not mention shipping among the sources of capital formation.Google Scholar
  60. 39.
    Barbour, ‘Dutch and English merchant shipping’, 236.Google Scholar
  61. 40.
    Ibidem, 242–3.Google Scholar
  62. 41.
    P.J. Blok, ‘Koopmansadviezen aangaande het plan tot oprichting eener compagnie van assurantie (1629–1635)’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, XXI (Amsterdam, 1910) 1–160, especially 13, 14, 35, 37, 46, 48, 73, 87.Google Scholar
  63. 42.
    H.E. van Gelder, ‘Zestiende-eeuwse vrachtvaartbescheiden’, Economisch-historisch jaarboek, III (1917) 124–290. The accounts in idem ‘Scheepsrekeningen’ concern trading voyages and can tell us nothing about profits from shipowrung.Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    Van Es, ‘Zestiende-eeuwse vrachtvaartbescheiden’, 258–93.Google Scholar
  65. 45.
    Christensen, Dutch trade, 117–8, 153–7, 176–240. Appointed shipmasters appeared for the first time at Emden around 1570 as a result of the immigration of South Netherlands merchants, who, having their trading agents in foreign countries, did not need the masters as trade representatives: Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen ’ I, 357, 359, 362–89, 395–6; idem, ‘Betriebsformen’, II, Hansische Geschichtsblätter XVI (1910) 270–1. At the same time pure freight shipping developed, whereas previously shipmasters had been accustomed to ship at least part of the cargo on their own account.Google Scholar
  66. 46.
    P.W. Klein, De Trippen in de 17e eeuw (Assen, 1965) 100, 102, 139–49, 150, 181, 287–9, 292, 300 ff., 307 and passim. Because of the nature of the sources, mainly notarial protocols, this study does not give figures concerning the spread of the diverse investments or their yield. Cf. above, note 34.Google Scholar
  67. 47.
    Hart, ‘Rederij’, 106–11.Google Scholar
  68. 48.
    O. Mus, ‘Scheepswinsten tijdens de negenjarige oorlog (1689–1697)’, Handelingen van het Genootschap voor geschiedenis Société d’émultation’ te Brugge, CVIII (Bruges, 1971) 261–99 especially 290–5. The purchase price of the goods seems not to have been included in the calculation; if it is included, the profit falls to 23% per annum.Google Scholar
  69. 50.
    Mus, ‘Scheepswinsten’, 263–4, 296, 297 (notes 153 and 155) 298–9.Google Scholar
  70. 51.
    Asaert, Antwerpse scheepvaart, 221, 233–41, 299–313, 333–41.Google Scholar
  71. 52.
    Ibidem, 142–56. ‘Mercers’ (‘Meerseniers’) were merchants who specialized in yarn and ribbons. On the heude (hoy) see ibidem, 57–8, 396.Google Scholar
  72. 53.
    Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 154 (For XVe siècle read XVIe siècle). Examples of merchants who owned ships: Brulez, Firma della Faule, 448, 451 note 3; E. Coornaert, Les Français et le commerce international à Anvers (Paris, 1961) II, 36.Google Scholar
  73. 54.
    Brulez, Firma della Faille, ch. iv; idem, ‘Navigation flamande’, 1228–30. The firm Du Gardin-Commelin which emigrated from the southern Netherlands to Emden in the sixteenth century, owned ships which it used for its grain trade: Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen’ II, 270–1.Google Scholar
  74. 55.
    E. Stols, De Spaanse Brabanders of de handelsbetrekkingen der Zuidelijke Nederlanden met de Iberische wereld 1598–1648 (Brussels, 1971) I, 308–9.Google Scholar
  75. 56.
    R. Baetens, De nazomer van Antwerpens welvaart (Brussels, 1976) II, 92, 93, 102, 155–7.Google Scholar
  76. 57.
    J. Everaert, De internationale en koloniale Handel der Vlaamse firma’s te Cadiz, 1670–1700 (Bruges, 1973) 82–8, 581–4.Google Scholar
  77. 58.
    Except of course in the colonial enterprises which had to work with their own ships. L. Michielsen, ‘De handel’ in: Antwerpen in de XVIIIe eeuw (Antwerp, 1952) does not mention any trace of investment in shipowning by Antwerp merchants. C. Koninckx, ‘Andreas Jacobus Flanderin. Een achttiende-eeuws koopman’, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis, LVI (Antwerp, 1973) 257–9 refers to a limited shipowning activity which seems to have produced little profit.Google Scholar
  78. 59.
    Vogel, Geschichte, 375, 379, 380 1; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 339; Heers, Gênes, 279, 309–14, 320; Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 154–5, 164–5; Davis, Rise, 117, 130–1, 159–74. The image which the last author evokes of the wealthy Breton shipmaster of the 15th century must be qualified; cf., above p. 70 and Touchard, Commerce maritime, 138, 340, 341, 347–81. Bernard, Navires et gens de mer, I, 578–88, says that shipmasters could easily become traders but his examples show that the masters’ trade was insignificant.Google Scholar
  79. 60.
    Heers, Gênes, 315–20; F. Melis, ‘Werner Sombart e i problemi della navigazione nel Medio Evo’ in L’Opera di Werner Sombart nel centenario della nascita (Milan, 1964) 87–149, a very important article. For the growth of productivity in shipping see F. Lane, ‘Progrès technologique et productivité dans les transports maritimes de la tin du Moyen-Age au début des temps modernes’, Revue historique, CCLI (Paris, 1974) 277–302.Google Scholar
  80. 61.
    Heers, Gênes, 315–20; Craeybeckx, Grand commerce, 154–5, 164–5; Touchard, Commerce maritime, 339; Baasch ‘Zur Statistik’, 228 ff., Christensen, Dutch trade, 176–240, describes the transition from trade by the master (albeit as a subordinate) to trade by a factor; Coornaert, Français, II, 90; C.R. Boxer, ‘Sedentary workers and seafaring folk in the Dutch Republic’ in J.S. Bromley and E.H. Kossmann ed., Britain and the Netherlands, II (Groningen, 1964) 164–5. As we have said before, in Catalonia the trading function and part ownership of the shipmaster by him endured into the eighteenth century. On the archaic character of shipping there see Vilar, Catalogne, III, 300–1, 410. Cf. also above, note 45.Google Scholar
  81. 62.
    Davis, Rise, 197–8, 392, mentions that the fall in freight charges in the XVIIIth century did not occur in northern Europe, since competition from the Dutch had already brought them down to a low (and apparently minimal) level there since the middle of the XVIIth century. The fall in the XVIIIth century had no major consequences as transport costs for most products were already too small to have much infuence on their price. On trade routes where there was a great imbalance in the volume of goods imported and exported, freight rates had already fallen to virtually nothing in the sixteenth century. For example at Emden, for the trade to the Baltic: Hagedorn, ‘Betriebsformen’ I, 376. The same applies for freight charges for English exports in most directions in the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries: Davis, Rise, 187. Since Dutch ships mostly sailed in ballast to two of their main destinations, the Baltic and the Iberian peninsula, their prices for freight in these directions must also have been minimal. Cf. Brulez, ‘Les escales au carrefour des Pays-Bas (Bruges et Anvers, 14e–16e siècles)’ in Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin, XXXII (Brussels, 1974) 464–6. Cf. J.E. Elias, Het voorspel van den eersten Engelschen oorlog (The Hague, 1920) I, 64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Uitgeverij Martinus Nijhoff, Lange Voorhout 9, Den Haag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Brulez

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations