Inheritance Practices, Marriage Strategies and Household Formation in European Rural Societies (Rural History in Europe) 9782503543956, 2503543952

Citation preview

Rural History in Europe 7

COST Action A 35 PROGRESSORE

COST – the acronym for European COoperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research – is the oldest and widest European intergovernmental network for cooperation in research. Established by the Ministerial Conference in November 1971, COST is presently used by the scientific communities of 35 European countries to cooperate in common research projects supported by national funds. The funds provided by COST – less than 1% of the total value of the projects – support the COST cooperation networks (COST Actions) through which, with EUR 30 million per year, more than 30,000 European scientists are involved in research having a total value which exceeds EUR 2 billion per year. This is the financial worth of the European added value which COST achieves. A ‘bottom up approach’ (the initiative of launching a COST Action comes from the European scientists themselves), ‘à la carte participation’ (only countries interested in the Action participate), ‘equality of access’ (participation is open also to the scientific communities of countries not belonging to the European Union) and “flexible structure” (easy implementation and light management of the research initiatives) are the main characteristics of COST (Web: www.cost.esf.org). As precursor of advanced multidisciplinary research COST has a very important role for the realization of the European Research Area (ERA) anticipating and complementing the activities of the Framework Programmes, constituting a “bridge” towards the scientific communities of emerging countries, increasing the mobility of researchers across Europe and fostering the establishment of ‘Networks of Excellence’ in many key scientific domains such as: Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences; Food and Agriculture; Forests, their Products and Services; Materials, Physical and Nanosciences; Chemistry and Molecular Sciences and Technologies; Earth System Science and Environmental Management; Information and Communication Technologies; Transport and Urban Development; Individuals, Societies, Cultures and Health. It covers basic and more applied research and also addresses issues of pre normative nature or of societal importance.

Inheritance Practices, Marriage Strategies and Household Formation in European Rural Societies

Edited by Anne-Lise Head-König In collaboration with Péter Pozsgai

H

F

EDITORIAL BOARD Gérard Béaur, director Rosa Congost Anne-Lise Head-König Socrates Petmezas Vicente Pinilla Jürgen Schlumbohm Bas van Bavel

This publication is supported by COST. It is the result of the work launched in the working group 3 ‘Peasant societies’ of the COST Action A35. It came into existence thanks to the funding of both the ESF (COST) and the GDR (Research Network) of the French CNRS ‘Histoire des Campagnes Européennes’.

We are grateful to Anne Varet-Vitu (UMR 8558, CNRS) who created the lay-out of the book and to Judith Le Goff and Julie Marfany who revised the translation of several articles.

Cover: Farm with watering trough (1960), painting by Albert Schnyder (1898-1989). Oil on canvas, 73.5 x 100.5 cm. Collection of the Kunstmuseum Thun. © D/2012/0095/186 ISBN 978-2-503-54395-6 Printed on acid free paper.

© 2012 Brepols Publisher n.v., Turnhout, Belgium and COST All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

CONTENTS List of Contributors List of Figures List of Tables

The series Rural History in Europe

1. Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies. Comparative perspectives in a changing Europe Anne-Lise Head-König

2. The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case, eighteenth century Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alós and Julie Marfany

3. Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-Western Spain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: an overview Ofelia Rey Castelao 4. Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850 Alice Velková 5. Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England 1800-1840s Steven King

6. Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland: evidence from County Fermanagh Jane Gray 7.

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth century Central Russia, Bun’kovskaia volost’, Moscow province, 1834-1869 Herdis Kolle

8. Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses Siegfried Gruber

9. Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community, 1810-1930 Sofia Holmlund

7 9 11

15

17 49

75 101 127 153

181

209 231

5

10. Marriage, inheritance and household formation on a Greek island, Mykonos (mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century) Violetta Hionidou 11. Farm transfer, marriage, household and parental power in rural Switzerland, 1860-1960 Anne-Lise Head-König

12. The transfer of farms in North Groningen (the Netherlands), 1591-1991. From sale towards family succession? Richard Paping

6

261 283

311

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Rosa Congost Llorenç Ferrer Alòs Jane Gray Siegfried Gruber Anne-Lise Head-König Violetta Hionidou Sofia Holmlund Steven King Herdis Kolle Julie Marfany Richard Paping Ofelia Rey Castelao Alice Velková

University of Girona Spain

University of Barcelona Spain

National University of Maynooth (NUI) Ireland Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Rostock Germany University of Geneva Switzerland Newcastle University United Kingdom

Stockholm University Sweden

University of Leicester United Kingdom

Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU) Norway Cambridge University United Kingdom

University of Groningen The Netherlands

University of Santiago di Compostela Spain

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Czech Republic

7

8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Figure 2.1. Figure 3.1.

The geographical location of regions analysed in the contributions to this volume

Location of case studies in Catalonia

Map of North-Western Spain

Figure 5.1. The counties of Great Britain

Figure 6.1. Two parishes in the County of Fermanagh

Figure 6.2. Percent men engaged in retail trade or handicraft by percent occupiers employing labourers, rural Fermanagh Parishes, 1831

Figure 6.3. Landholding size by occupation of household head in Derryvullan and Aghalurcher, 1821 Figure 6.4. Percent people living in extended family households by age category, Derryvullan and Aghalurcher, 1821 Figure 6.5. Social structure of Doonan, 1821 Figure 6.6. Social structure of Crann, 1821

Figure 7.1. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834 Figure 7.2. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1850 Figure 7.3. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun‘kovskaia volost‘, 1869 Figure 7.4. Structure of households created by division distributed according to the occupation of the head, Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869

Figure 7.5. Timing of household divisions in the period 1850–69 distributed according to the occupation of heads of newly established households, Bun’kovskaia volost’ 1869 Figure 7.6. Household positions over the life course, male agricultural workers in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869 Figure 7.7. Household positions over the life course, male textile workers in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869 Figure 8.1. Eight villages of the district of Jasenica

Figure 8.2. Percentage of unmarried men and women at different ages in 1863 and 1884 Figure 8.3. Marital status at different ages for men in 1884

Figure 8.4. Marital status at different ages for women in 1884

9

Figure 8.5. Household typology during the male life-cycle in 1884

Figure 8.6. Household typology during the female life-cycle in 1884 Figure 8.7. Living together during the male life-cycle in 1884

Figure 8.7. Living together during the female life-cycle in 1884 Figure 9.1. Location of Estuna

Figure 9.2. Average mantal value per child within the families of origin of married and unmarried children of freeholders. Estuna Parish, 1810-1930

Figure 9.3. Inheritors of landed property and landless children: proportions married in Estuna parish, 1810-1930 Figure 9.4. Marriages of male and female inheritors of landed property: Time-span in years before or after the inheritance. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 Figure 10.1. Location of Mykonos in Greece

Figure 11.1. Willisau Land in the district of Willisau, canton Lucerne, Switzerland Figure 12.1. Location of three villages in Gronigen

10

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 2.3. Table 2.4. Table 2.5. Table 2.6. Table 2.7. Table 2.8. Table 2.9.

Destinies of sons and daughters from wealthy families in Catalonia, late eighteenth century Age at first marriage in Igualada according to inheritance status, 16801829 Population growth for the three case study areas Age at first marriage in Igualada by cohorts

Presence of sons in the same occupational sector as their fathers, according to age rank, 1680-1829 Age at marriage according to existence of a marriage contract and age rank, 1680-1829 Land held on a sharecropping basis in selected Bages villages

Land held by rabassaires on rabassa morta contracts, selected Bages villages (nineteenth century) Concessions of land for building houses in Navarcles, eighteenth century

Table 2.10. Proportions of grooms in agriculture according to status

Table 2.11. Occupation of grooms according to occupation of fathers (diocese of Girona), 1769 and 1806 Table 3.1.

Inhabitants per km2 in North-Western Spain in 1787, 1860 and 1887

Table 3.3.

Percentage of urban population (towns with > 5,000 inhabitants) in NorthWestern Spain in 1787, 1860 and 1900

Table 3.2.

Table 3.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 3.7. Table 3.8. Table 3.9.

Inhabitants per km2 in the interior and coastal regions in 1887

Percentage of agricultural labourers in the total adult population of Northwestern Spain in 1887 Celibacy rates in North-Western Spain in 1787 Celibacy rates in North-Western Spain in 1887

Clergy in North-Western Spain, 1787 and 1860

Average age at first marriage in North-Western Spain in 1787 Average age at first marriage in North-Western Spain in 1887

Table 3.10. Proportion of consanguineous marriages (CM) and exchange marriages (EM) in South Galicia and in the Ulla Valley (West Galicia), seventeenthnineteenth centuries

Table 3.11. Proportion of consanguineous marriages (CM) and exchange marriages (EM) in Beariz (West Interior Galicia) and in Cerdado (West Interior Galicia), from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century

11

Table 3.12. Mean size of household in North-Western Spain in 1887

Table 3.13. Sex ratio in the 16-24 and 25-40 age groups in the territories of NorthWestern Spain in 1787 Table 3.14. Sex ratio in the 21-30 age group and for all ages in the territories of NorthWestern Spain in 1887 Table 4.1.

Mean age at first marriage, Šťáhlavy, 1791-1850

Table 4.3.

Mean age at marriage of cottager heirs by the time-period and circumstances of property transfer

Table 4.2.

Table 4.4. Table 4.5. Table 4. 6. Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 6.4. Table 7.1. Table 7.2. Table 7.3. Table 7.4. Table 7.5. Table 7.6. Table 7.7.

12

Age at first marriage of heirs and their brothers by social stratum, Šťáhlavy 1701-1850

Age at marriage of cottager heirs

Mean age at marriage of the heirs to owners of large farms and smallholders by time-period and circumstances of property transfer Marriage age of heirs to owners of large farms and smallholders Household structure in selected areas, 1821, 1841 and 1911

Percent men and women married in selected age cohorts, Aghalurcher and Derryvullan, 1821

Population and landholding in the townlands of Doonan (parish of Derryvullan (North) and Crann (parish of Aghalurcher), 1821-1862 Record of family names in Doonan and Crann, 1821-1862

Singulate mean age at first marriage for males and females in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834, 1850 and 1869 Proportion of single females and males in the population aged 15–29 years in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834, 1850 and 1869 Household divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1834 to 1869

Distribution of divisions by kinship of partitioning parties and distribution of post mortem and ante mortem divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’, in the two periods 1834-1850 and 1850-1869

Divided households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1834-1850, distributed according to the different household categories in 1834 and 1850 Divided households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1850-1869, distributed according to the different household categories in 1850 and 1869 Household structure of the new households created by division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the periods 1834-1850 and 1850-1869

Table 7.8. Table 8.1. Table 8.2. Table 8.3. Table 8.4. Table 8.5. Table 9.1. Table 9.2. Table 9.3. Table 9.4. Table 9.5. Table 9.6. Table 9.7.

Table 9. 8. Table 9.9.

Kin-relationship between partitioning parties distributed according to the occupation of the head in the newly created households, Bun‘kovskaia volost‘ 1869

Number of households and persons per village in 1831, 1834, 1863, 1884, and 1900 Average livestock per household (H) in 1859 and number of households under review

Average type of land use per household in hectares in 1863 and number of households under review

Household typology for eight villages in the district of Jasenica, 1831-1884

Proportion of population in different types of households in the eight villages, in the whole district of Jasenica and in thirteen districts, 1863-1884 (%) Number of Households (H) and their distribution according to social categories, Estuna parish 1810, 1870 and 1930

Married and never married children within 235 freeholder families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 Unmarried children within 235 families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930

Married and never married children within 235 families: number of siblings (median values within brackets). Estuna parish, 1810-1930

Average mantal value of holdings received by married and never-married male and female inheritors. Estuna parish, 1886-1930

Average age at first marriage among children within 235 freeholder families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 (median values in brackets) Parents’ disposal of the landed property. Estuna parish 1810-1930

Average mantal value per child within families disposing of their landed property entirely through decease, gift, or sale. Estuna parish 1810-1930 Inheritance and selling prices related to rateable values and to each other. Estuna parish, 1810-1930

Table 9.10. Eldest and younger sons taking over the entire real estate. The average mantal value of their holdings. Estuna 1810-1930 Table 10.1. Household structure, Mykonos, Greece, 1861

Table 10.2. Percentage distribution of households headed by a man, by head‘s occupational group, Mykonos, 1861 Table 10.3. Demographic characteristics and place of residence of the Mykoniati informants, 1994 13

Table 11.1. Proportion of farmers who farm land which is mostly their own Table 11.2. Distribution of farm headships by age, Willisau Land, 1920

Table 11.3. Age at first marriage of the farming population in Willisau Land

Table 11.4. Sex-ratio imbalance in the district of Willisau 1900, 1910, 1941 and 1950. Proportion of women per 1,000 men

Table 12.1. Farms, farm size and amount of cultivated land in Kloosterburen, Wierhuizen and Leens, 1630-1991 Table 12.2. Modes of transfer of farms in the eastern Marne, 1591-1991 (percentages)

Table 12.3. Rough estimates for (married) people of modes of accession to a farm (all transfers) in the eastern Marne, 1591-1991 (percentages) Table 12.4. Age at first mariage of farmers in the eastern Marne (marriage cohorts), 1715-1959

Table 12.5. Proportion of married children becoming a farmer in the Groningen clay area, 1721-1870

Table 12.6. Interval between the time of marriage of children and their accession to the farm either by succeeding their parents or by transfer inter vivos in the eastern Marne, 1680-1969 (percentages) Table 12.7. Interval between the time of marriage and the accession to the farm for people succeeding non-relatives in the eastern Marne, 1680-1969 (percentages)

Table 12.8. Modes of transfers of farms according to farm size in the eastern Marne, 1591-1991 (percentages)

14

The Series Rural History in Europe

Sometimes viewed as the producer of foodstuffs and raw materials, as a garden or a space for the production of energy; sometimes seen as a reservoir of manpower destined to be subverted to the needs of cities and industries or as a peaceful haven which welcomes weary city-dwellers; also regarded as a places of easily incensed ‘backward’ societies or as an idyllic spot, close to nature where societies act as guardians of a certain conception of quality of life, the countryside has not ceased to be at the centre of economic, social, political, and now environmental, concern of governments and public opinion. Pulled between contradictory demands, the countryside of today presents an image of a place and a society in clear transformation, which, in itself, is difficult to decipher. In Europe, the difficulty is that the countryside, which forms a complex and evolving universe, is experiencing ruptures and also exhibits inertias. These complex transformations of the rural world can only be fully understood if they are viewed in a manner which transcends national boundaries and if the discrepancies, which can only be observed by adopting a broad view, in fact at the continental scale, are taken into account. These changes cannot be explained without reference to their past. The question is how to create such a dialogue between researchers which goes beyond national boundaries, crosses chronological barriers and breaks disciplinary boundaries. The main objective of the ‘Rural History in Europe’ collection is to provide just such keys to unlocking the changes experienced by present-day European rural societies in the light of their historical experience. It is to produce the historical knowledge which will allow us to conceptualize the future of European country-dwellers, as they face the kinds of problems which historians have grappled with in examining societies in the past: under-employment and multiple occupations, migrations and rural depopulation, distortion of competition by the marketplace or by the policies established by political authorities, competition with non-European producers, problems of resource allocation (land and water), distribution and redistribution of heritages and land-holding, the future of owner-occupied farms and the function of agriculture as employer, the tensions between private ownership and public access to land, the changes induced by settlement of urban migrants, environment and sustainable development, and so on. In most European countries, rural society and long term change have been the subject of intensive research. Over the last half-century, a lively historiography has developed around questions concerning the factors of growth and systems of agricultural production, as well as the periodization of growth and the impact of agriculture on industrial development. As a result, a body of knowledge has built up on techniques, forms of land-use, levels of production, the differing conditions and nature of the peasantry and the strategies of economic agents. More recently 15

environmental concerns have made a dramatic impact on the consciousness of historians in the field, while previous findings have been questioned in a critical way and new perspectives have been drawn. The field known as Rural History remains very much alive, despite the decline of the agricultural sector over the last several decades. Rural History remains fundamental in a Europe which has for so long been kept together by its Common Agricultural Policy and which now has to face the heavy impact of Brussels-based initiatives upon its rural regions, and an unprecedented revision of current agrarian systems and systems of production in the countries which have recently joined the EU. How can the changes taking place in present-day Europe be understood without taking into account a past which is still very present, and which determines both structures and behaviour? The first volumes of this collection are the result of several workshops which have been held during the past three years and which have mainly been supported by funds of the European Action COST A 35 and by other institutions like CORN, GDR CNRS Sociétés Rurales Européennes, Universities… The COST Action, which was initiated seven years ago, intends to extend the historical analysis of rural society over the last millenium in order to envisage the problems of the countryside in an extended timeframe and also to draw upon the commentary and expertise of specialists from other disciplines (sociology, economics, anthropology). This will enable the first real comparison of Europe from historians from all over the continent, from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and from the western frontier to the eastern limits. Papers from these meetings will be published after a peer-review process, supported by the editorial board and, of course, the work of the authors and editors of the volumes. This collection will be constructed upon four main pillars: Landed property; The management of rural land; Peasant societies; The state, government, politics and peasants. Each of these will bring new perspectives and produce new tools to better understand the changes which are taking place today. In order to ask the relevant questions about the future of these peasantries and rural spaces in transformation, the books of this collection will deal with the ‘longue durée’ and will present either research in progress or a synthesis on a regional or national scale. The cumulative effect of this approach will be to produce volumes, the geographical coverage of which will be the whole of Europe. The volumes will also, of course, take into account the role of history as an explanatory factor for contemporary European Societies. If rural societies have been overthrown, if rural landscapes have been profoundly transformed and if the intervention of the State has considerably strengthened the regulation of production and trade, the contrast between a contemporary rural world in rapid transformation and a traditional rural world with frozen landscapes, petrified societies, immobile economies and lethargic political contexts will be an illusion. It is important, therefore, to detect, to measure and to interpret the range of recent changes by illuminating those that have taken place in past centuries in a European context.

16

1.

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies. Comparative perspectives in a changing Europe

Anne-Lise Head-König I.  Introduction In the last four decades much attention has been given to analysing the impact of inheritance systems on marriage and household formation in European rural societies1. The cases we deal with in this volume, which are based on a micro-level approach, show that marriage and household patterns in rural societies cannot be explained by inheritance customs alone. Peasant households employed a great variety of strategies to ensure either that only the successor to the family landholding should marry or that he/she as well as his/her siblings had the possibility of marriage. Clearly, the landless poor without any material inheritance prospects were obliged to resort to quite different means when it came to marriage and to establishing an independent household. There is need for a reassessment that takes into account not only environmental, institutional and legal constraints and the changes within these, but also cultural values, the land market, agricultural changes, proto-industry and openings away from the farm. This book originated in a workshop2 organised by Peter Pozsgai which took place in Sarospatak in May 2008 and is one of twelve that were funded under the auspices of COST Action A35 and its Programme for the Study of European Rural Societies (PROGRESSORE). The varying perspectives contained in the chapters of this book provide a more precise understanding of how inheritance progressively lost its impact on the formation of marriage and the household and how in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries socio-economic factors and the market came to be influential factors in the transmission of peasant holdings. This was true not only in many parts of western and southern Europe but also up to a point even in parts of eastern Europe. Thus, inheritance systems and practices on their own are   Among others: Laslett and Wall (1972); Goody, Thirsk and Thompson (1976); Segalen (1985); O‘Neill (1987); Sabean (1990); Bonnain, Bouchard and Goy (1992); Zink (1993); De Haan (1994); Schlumbohm (1994); Kaser (1995); Bouchard, Dickinson and Goy (1998); Devos and Kennedy (1999); Flygare (1999); Cerman and Zeitlhofer (2002); Duhamelle and Schlumbohm (2003); Lanzinger (2003); Grandits and Heady (2003); Béaur, Dessureault and Goy (2004); Brakensiek, Stolleis and Wunder (2006); Boudjaaba (2008); Štefanova (2009); Fertig, C. (2012). 2   Inheritance Practices, Marriage Strategies and Household Formation in European Rural Societies. 1

17

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

mostly inadequate when it is a question of describing marriage and the subsequent formation of a household, except for those who were heirs to a farm. Even in the case of heirs, and contrary to what has long been regarded as evident for the whole of western and central Europe, intrafamily peasant property transactions were not a matter of simply passing on property from one generation to another. Instead, they were very often designed as formal property sales (Cerman and Stefanova, 2010: 4950), or as a gift when an heir married, as in Mykonos (Hionidou, chapter 10), but a gift with strings attached based on reciprocity, with the parents gave some land to use in exchange for all the work done by the son on his father’s land from adolescence until his marriage. What also emerges from this volume with its 11 chapters are the intrinsic limits of both impartibility and partibility systems. There was hardly a single European region were the rules were applied without some sort of compromise, since both systems would ultimately have led a society to a dead end. If one assumes, as historians and anthropologists have for a long time, that impartible inheritance is generally associated with a low level of nuptiality and a predominance of stem family households3, then the system rarely existed as such, since migration, work outside the farm or (proto-)industrial activities frequently offered an alternative to allow the establishment of a new household. A close look at the situation in regions of strict impartibility where the goal was to preserve a viable property generating sufficient income to sustain a family and sometimes to pay heavy taxes and levies reveals the necessity for compromise, either with the use of communal land, postponement of the transfer of the land titles for as long as possible and the expulsion of surplus children, or in the demesne economy, with the development of a housing policy which allowed for the establishment of non-successors. On the other hand, partibility, as the current state of research shows, was a system which offered such a wide range of possibilities with regard to age at first marriage (from early age to late age), celibacy (from a low rate to a high rate) and households (from nuclear to multiple family households) that in fact no region resembles any other. The same multifaceted variations existed with regard to the possession of land as rural societies used maintained viable holdings through postponement of subdivision, the buying out of co-heirs, as well as reconstituting a viable holding via the market, using the land of unmarried kin, leasing parcels of land, even changing to a new type of agricultural production requiring less land, or simply the intensification of the use of hitherto poorly cultivated or even uncleared land.

  For a recent debate on the different types of co-residence within the stem families and joint families, see Gruber and Szoltysek (2012: 105-125). 3

18

Anne-Lise Head-König

Figure 1.1. The geographical location of regions analysed in the contributions to this volume

8 6 5

4 11 3 10

2 1

7

9 0

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11.

800 km

Catalonia, Spain North-western Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country) Št’áhlavy, Western Bohemia Rural counties of Berkshire and Northamptonshire, England. County Fermanagh, Ireland Bun’kovskaia volost’, Moscow province District of Jasenica, Central Serbia Estunia parish, Sweden Mykonos, Greece Willisau Land, Switzerland North Groningen (Kloosterburen, Wierhuizen, Leens), the Netherlands

Source. Map by Anne Varet-Vitu.

19

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

But it is also important to stress other variations in the approach to accumulating sufficient resources to marry. Indeed, many people in rural societies were not concerned with the land at all when marrying. In his study of two rural English counties, Steven King shows that more than 30 per cent and up to 40 per cent of the marriages concluded between 1750 and 1830 were marriages of poor people who needed to be subsidised either at marriage or as a household. However, one of the most original approaches can be seen in the fact that, thanks to their settlement rights, the poor in rural England could often expect some support from their Poor Law overseers to be able to marry and establish a household. Thus, ‘entitlement to poor relief represented a more effective dowry for the rural poor than could ever be generated by poor families in pure material terms’ (King, chapter 5). Support for the poor to be able to marry was not completely unknown on the Continent either, especially in German-speaking countries. There it was often also intended as a measure to transfer the legal settlement of a dependant pauper and to move the family to another parish. A large number of different strategies were nevertheless employed in order to accumulate sufficient resources to marry, depending on the child’s status within the family and his/ her possibility to inherit land. For the heir in a stem family system or for the young couples marrying into a multiple family household, though, the inheritance question did not arise at the time of marriage, since the heir (or in the case of a brotherless daughter, the heiress) was given little choice but to stay in his/ her parents’ house when marrying.

II.  Land transfers: modes and specificity With regard to land transfer, one has to insist on four main aspects. First, as has been mentioned before, property transactions were often designed as formal property sales, even when they concerned inherited land, that is to say transfers within the family. This form of transfer of a family farm to kin from one generation to another by means of a sale had several implications not only with regard to determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the siblings who did not inherit the land, but also concerning the level of indebtedness that resulted from the purchase. Second, the price could be and was adjusted in many cases in order to facilitate taking over the farm even if it was at the cost of the siblings non-inheriting the land and thus receiving a lower compensation. This was the case in Sweden (Holmlund, chapter 9), with the price often being about 60 or 75 per cent of the market value or in Switzerland, too (Head-König, chapter 11), and is a practice which has persisted until the present in several European countries. Third, a sale could also be a strategy which had nothing to do with a commercial sale, as the case of Estunia in Sweden illustrates. There, as 20

Anne-Lise Head-König

from the middle of the nineteenth century, for parents to sell their farm to their son was often a way to bypass their legal obligation to compensate the heir’s siblings. Fourth, in many regions and especially in the seventeenth and up to the beginning of the eighteenth century, not only was selling often the most common way to transfer a farm, but land transactions between non-related buyers were nearly as important, if not more important than transfers within the family. This is confirmed by several recent studies (Cerman and Štefanova, 2010: 50-51; Štefanova, 2009: 154; Zeitlhofer, 2007: 527) as well as for eighteenth and nineteenth century Normandy where the selling and buying was done without any consideration being given to kin affinity (Béaur, 2004: 39; Boudjaaba, 2010: 10) and also for Sweden (Dribe, Olsson and Svensson, 2012: 757). Several detailed studies of the transfer practices in this volume similarly insist on the importance of sales to non-kin (Velkovà, chapter 4; Paping, chapter 12; Holmlund, chapter 9; Congost, Ferrer Alòs and Marfany, chapter 2).

II.1 Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices: continuity and change The rules for inheritance and the inheritance practices dealt with in this volume could hardly be more varied. This is true not only at national level, but also within a country, a region, or even a village, and depended on the social strata the relevant individuals belonged to. The influence of the inheritance system on marriage and its impact on households additionally depended on a number of distinct elements, such as the institutional status of the peasants, demographic factors, environmental conditions, the agricultural system, the level of self-subsistence and the degree of commercial orientation of production. The manifold differences in the inheritance practices of the societies under review in this volume were related not only to partibility or to impartiblity, but also to the choice of a successor or successors and the compensation of co-heirs or its absence, the legal capacity of a single women to inherit land and the overall legal status of married women and widows. In the long run, in most regions under study inheritance practices underwent a certain number of transformations which fundamentally affected the way land and other resources were transferred and how the successor was chosen, either due to institutional changes, changes in the agriculture sector or to the expansion of the industrial sector. There were a number of telling legal changes. There was the shift from ultimogeniture to primogeniture within one generation in Bohemia after 1786 when the holders of serf farmsteads were granted the right to leave their farm by will and testament to any of their children, no longer requiring the landlord’s agreement. Then, the change in the Swedish inheritance law imposed equal treatment of sons and daughters and created a new situation for farming families, especially for smallholders. Those who wanted to retire with an adequate retirement contract were now obliged 21

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

to employ different strategies to enable only one son to take over the farm, with the result that from the end of the nineteenth century the designated successor was the youngest son and no longer the oldest as before (Holmlund, chapter 9). Further, as of 1912 the Swiss Civil Code created a specific law enabling a farmer to transfer his farm to one successor only – always a son, if one existed – which was also an important factor in preventing the subdivision and parcelling out of family land. With regard to the position of women in particular, the differences between societies could not have been greater. In the eighteenth century, the relative chances for daughters compared to sons of becoming the successor to a parental farm were far better in some societies, such as in the eastern Marne or in Galicia, than they were in Bohemia, Ireland, Russia, Serbia or Switzerland. In southwest Galicia, for instance, single women were much in evidence. Parents in eighty per cent of their wills – in exchange for care and sustenance – bequeathed the family house and its land to their youngest daughter, so providing her with the economic resources to be able to live on her own after her parents’ death. In Bohemia, at the end of the eighteenth century women were given the same rights in property matters as men and thus became coowners of the land. In the northern Netherlands, husband and wife each possessed half of the farm and both male and female children inherited equal shares. There, however, in the twentieth century, increasing specialisation on large and wealthy farms made women’s work less necessary. Consequently, the role of women changed; a daughter was hardly ever chosen as a successor and farming became largely a male enterprise (Paping, chapter 12). Serbia and Russia, though, were characterised by a male-centred inheritance system with equally partible inheritance for the sons whilst neither the wife nor the daughters were entitled to an inheritance portion or a dowry and brides received only a trousseau (Kaser, 1995: 266). In fact, in contrast to the system of the western part of Europe, the bride’s family had to be compensated for the loss of a member of its workforce. When a widow was head of a household in Russia – hardly ever in Serbia – it was only on sufferance and she was at the mercy of the land commune which sometimes even decided to remove her land allotment.

II.2

Inter vivos and post-mortem transfers

Within Europe the timing of the transfer of land and the mode of transfer – inter vivos or post-mortem – had implications which differed widely both for the heirs and for the older farmers. Inter vivos transfers could be the result of several factors. For example, a sufficiently profitable farm was able to provide the old couple with the means to secure its upkeep after both had retired. This was the case in eastern Marne after the 1880s and is the reason for the large increase in the number of transfers of a farm to a successor at the time of his marriage. In Bohemia, though, institutional factors related to labour service obligations helped to make retirement 22

Anne-Lise Head-König

attractive even when for the retirees retirement implied that they were obliged to go on exercising some form of economic activity to complement the provisions made for their retirement. Further, another reason for an inter vivos transfer could be the increasing frailty and physical incapacity to work of an aged farmer, which at some point made it necessary for him to transfer the farm, even unwillingly. Post-mortem transfers of the family land, on the other hand, were also a common arrangement not only in Eastern Europe with its complex multiple family households but also in mountain regions with their stem families. They existed, too, in commercialised economies where it was the preferred form of transfer of affluent farmers not wanting to give up their income and their power. Richard Paping insists on the fact that in the commercialised agrarian economy of the Northern Netherlands, where farming required large capital sums for investments in the farm and in the infrastructure of the land, ‘parents clung to their farms as long as possible’ with the result that the inter-generational transfer of the family farm usually took place very late and post-mortem, a practice facilitated by the legal context, since husband and wife each owned half of the property and the survivor always retained control of the farm (Paping, chapter 12). For quite the opposite reason post-mortem transfers prevailed also in regions where small farms were not sufficiently profitable to provide parents with the necessary means for their own upkeep after they had retired. In this case, the farm owner tended to postpone the transfer of his farm and remain on his farm as long as possible due to lack of any other viable economic arrangement and it was quite common then for a grown-up child, mostly an unmarried daughter, to remain with the parents and look after them (Head-König, chapter 11). In effect, the strategy of postponement has been widely used in Europe, but to attain very different objectives. In the eastern part of Europe – notably in Russia and Serbia – in a context of multiple family households the major strategy was to defer the division of the household and access to headship, while at the same time favouring marriage since the system of multiple family households was considered by the peasant family to be an indispensable means for survival. In the western part of Europe, postponement was also used in many different ways. In the Irish case, in a stem-family system, the aged father was frequently in the habit of postponing the transfer of his authority and of the management of the family farm. In the Galician case, parents proceeded only to a partial transfer of their patrimonial goods, whereas in the Catalonian single heir system the parents also sometimes reduced their commitment just to a promise of inheritance (Ferrer Alòs, 2009: 268). In Switzerland, the paying out of the legal portion to those who were not the successors to the farm was postponed in order to avoid too high an indebtedness of the family farm. Postponement was similarly a parental strategy in Mykonos. At marriage land and

23

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

goods were transferred in a verbal arrangement to those children who had stayed with their parents, the transfer becoming a legally binding transaction only several years later. This method was a way of ‘ensuring […] the younger generation’s continuous dependence on, and compliance with, the older generation’ (Hionidou, chapter 10). Postponement of the transfer of land has also to be considered in relation to yet two other factors: for medium to large farms it was a question of labour supply assured by retaining the family labour on the land, although it would affect the age at marriage of the potential heir when the farms were considered to be too small to support two families (Head-König, chapter 11). Also, it was a much used ploy to enable farmers to retain ownership and effective control until they reached such an advanced age that they were no longer able to manage the farm.

II.3

Transfers to non-kin

Clearly, the type of transfer and the obligations entailed in relation to the family have varied over time and among societies, even in places where there was a tendency to integral transfer of the landholding. Several factors were of great significance. One concerns the impact commercial agriculture had on the land market: there the proportion of the transfers to non-kin was always much higher. The main goal of these farmers was not the continuity of the farm and its transfer to the next generation, as the chapter on the eastern Marne in the northern Netherlands demonstrates (Paping, chapter 12). Here, up to the nineteenth century only a minority of farms were transferred to a relative. But, on the other hand, even in the province of Groningen, as from the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was nevertheless a tendency for an increase in intrafamilial transfers to the children when large farms were concerned, a factor which contributed to a significant increase in social endogamy. Those farms which were sold outside the family were mostly the smaller ones. The second aspect concerns the practices in a specific institutional context, such as the demesne economy in Bohemia or regions where landlords tried to impose new rules regarding tenancies, as in Ulster. In the case of Bohemia, the landlord accorded a relatively high degree of autonomy with regard to marriage and the transfer of property. As long as his power and authority were not brought into question and his economic interests were not jeopardised, his interventions were few and his interference had mostly to do with the expulsion of an incapable farmer and the appointment of another to replace him. Manorial rules, however, could vary considerably from one estate to another, as the comparison of two estates, those of Šťáhlavy in western Bohemia and Frýdlant in northern Bohemia demonstrates (Velkovà, 2008: 132ss; Štefanova, 2009: 154). But practices were not static and the expansion of the land market could result in notable changes in the mode of transfer of the farm. Despite an increase in farm transactions with non-kin in Bohemia in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, still 43 per 24

Anne-Lise Head-König

cent of the transfers went to a child compared with 60-62 per cent in the years 17901820 (Velkovà, 2010: 133). This is in marked contrast to Southern Sweden where the study by Lundh and Dribe mentions that in Scania sons and sons-in-law inherited the farm in about 40 per cent of the cases in the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but only 18 per cent in the years 1825-1849 (Lundh and Dribe, 2005: 175). In Ulster, despite legislative changes at the beginning of the nineteenth century which made it easier to evict tenants, it was often difficult for estate agents to find new occupiers and land was not only passed from one generation to another, but tenants of large farms were able to parcel out pieces of land to sub-tenants (Gray, chapter 6). A third occurrence which was at the root of a transfer to a non-kin successor was the financial failure of the farm due to a number of different factors such as bad management, climatic casualties, fall of the price of the agricultural products, etc. which resulted in the loss of the farm either through bankruptcy as shown in Paping’s chapter or in the expulsion of the peasant by the landlord in the demesne economy. Thus, the continuity of the farm within the family was not the main goal in all parts of Western Europe. Even within a single country there were marked differences. In Sweden, as in parts of France, different rules existed with regard to land transfer depending on whether the farm had been inherited or had been bought on the market from non-kin. In the Netherlands, the continuity of the lineage seems to have been of prime importance in the south (de Haan, 1994) in contrast to the situation in the eastern Marne. In Bohemia also, Alice Velkovà insists on the fact that at the end of the eighteenth century when the land market developed the transfer of a farm from one generation to the next continued to be important, although what was ultimately transferred to an heir was not necessarily the farm on which he had been born and where he had spent his youth. Of course, in the European regions where the Anerben principle prevailed, a very high proportion of succeeding heirs were related to their predecessors, as for instance in Westphalia (Fertig C. and Fertig, G. 2006: 171ss; C. Fertig, 2012) and farms stayed in the same family for centuries (Schlumbohm, 1994: 506ss), often until the twentieth century, which was also the case with Black Forest farms in Southern Germany (Head-König, 2010).

III.  Demography and its impact on inheritance rules and practices Additionally, and equally important, demography was an influential factor with regard both to the choice of an heir and the timing of the transfer of a landholding. Differing levels of mortality rates before the demographic transition influenced the number of potential tenants at a macro-level – as was the case in Sweden or Bohemia 25

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

after the seventeenth century wars when farms without tenants were numerous. At a micro-level, mortality influenced both the length of the ownership of a given farm and the number of the surviving children of a farming couple (Paping, chapter 12). Where still very high death rates prevailed, as for instance in the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe in the nineteenth century, these had a very differentiated impact upon the size of multiple family households and their land transfers (Kolle, chapter 7; Gruber, chapter 8). The question of demography was also of paramount importance in affecting the access to land of succeeding generations in different ways. Let us first consider some of the major purely demographic issues. When the number of potential heirs to a farm was nearly balanced, this factor reduced the necessity for those who could not succeed to look for alternative employment. By contrast, the low life expectancy of farm owners affected the taking over of the family farm by their potential heirs. Low population density due to external circumstances, such as the after-effects of wars and the destructions in all devastated regions of Europe created a considerable turnover of tenants till the beginning of the eighteenth century and increased the probability that individuals would accede to land. Similarly, in the case of Sweden, the imbalance in the sex ratio due to wars improved the chances of women attaining headship (Ǻgren, 2009: 90). On the Šťáhlavy estate, we can see that quite a large proportion of cottagers’ sons still managed to acquire a farm at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century. However, with the population increase during the eighteenth century, this possibility diminished substantially and disappeared entirely in the nineteenth century (Velkovà, 2008: 125-126). Families which were too prolific to enable their offspring to have access to land were a recurrent problem from the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century and this was exacerbated in many regions by institutional rules preventing the division of large farms, despite growing agricultural productivity. The comparison between regions with low fertility such as Normandy (Béaur, 2007: 44; Boudjaaba, 2008: 224-226) with 40 per cent of succession going to only one heir)) and regions with high fertility such as Sweden reveals the dilemma faced by farming families, and not only by smallholders but also by well-to-do farmers. When too many offspring reached adulthood, as from the middle of the nineteenth century and up to the beginning of the twentieth century, the surplus children had to find alternative sources of income or undergo social demotion with the concomitant increase in poverty of those without alternative resources (Holmlund, chapter 9; Head-König, chapter 11). Demographic factors – such as the life expectancy of the aged owner or his remarriage strategy – combined with specific inheritance practices could affect the way landed property was transferred within the family to the next generation, notably

26

Anne-Lise Head-König

the number of years that separated the old owner from the new owner, depending on whether ultimogeniture or primogeniture prevailed. I shall not go into detail regarding the problems encountered in practice with ultimogeniture (whether it was the youngest son of the owner’s first or of his succeeding marriages), but the time span with minorat being much longer than that of the majorat, this system put the prosperity of the farm at risk to a far greater extent than the primogeniture system in societies which had not yet begun their demographic transition. When, as was the case in Bohemia, coming of age was fixed at 24 years, and the custom was for the youngest to take over the farm, in a high proportion of cases the father had died before the transfer of the farm could take place (one third of the heirs had not yet reached the age of ten and this threatened the prosperity of the household). However, the high proportion of sons who were still minors when their father died increased the chances that an interim manager could acquire a farm since he was in a position to accumulate capital and was not obliged to pay back the debts incurred by his predecessor. The decision of the state to alter the conditions for the transmission of the farm and to favour the transfer to the oldest son, unless otherwise stipulated, was the answer to this demographic problem which threatened the interests of both the landlord and the state in Bohemia (Velková, chapter 4). Nevertheless, the majorat system as it existed in several countries was not unproblematic, especially from the second half of the nineteenth century when old peasant couples began to live longer. It could cause much internal dissent within the family when the old and the young generations were obliged to live together for a long time, and when the older generation still strove to maintain its authority.

IV.  The significance of marriage and the formation of the household Obviously, the significance of marriage differed widely, not only following an eastern/south-eastern and western rural divide, but also within Southern Europe itself. In Catalonia, at least as far as daughters were concerned, parents of all social strata tried to provide them with a dowry in order to help them to get married (Congost, Ferrer Alòs and Marfany, chapter 2), whereas celibacy was much higher in Galicia and North-western Spain where in some villages up to one third of the offspring did not marry (Rey Castelao, chapter 3). By contrast, in Mykonos, marriage was nearly universal and the goal was that ‘every young woman and every young man should find a marriage partner’, since children were necessary to cater for the needs of their elderly parents (Hionidou, chapter 10). More surprising is the attitude towards marriage of the landless poor in England. For quite different reasons from those put forward in Eastern Europe, Poor Law officials thought that the poor would be better off married than single and they intervened particularly to encourage the marriage and the remarriage of specific groups (King, chapter 5), whilst on the Continent the 27

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

opposite was mostly the case as the state legislation or landowners tended to prevent the formation of new, but poor, households. This can be observed in Sweden and in Bohemia until the beginning of the eighteenth century and sometimes even later, as in Southern Germany, Switzerland or Austria. For people to marry and to establish an independent household, the prime necessity in both the western and the eastern parts of Europe was to possess adequate resources. But the pressure exerted on young people in this matter differed considerably due to the varying institutional contexts, the power of parents, kin and cultural norms, and the type of resources required. But the fact is that the definition of ‘independent household’ is anything but clear, since the necessary three key elements were not always present. In the case of impartible inheritance, such factors as living and eating arrangements (which the French expression ‘à même feu et pot’ describes very well) and the administration of the economic resources leave little doubt, especially in the case of the stem family, that it was up to the head of the household to take the important decisions concerning the family and its holding. This was also the case when, despite the inheritance law requiring equal division of the property, at least for the sons, the aged peasant and his wife continued to live with the son who would eventually inherit the farm (Holmlund, chapter 9; Head-König, chapter 11). However, there were numerous borderline cases: for instance, the old peasant couple living in the same building as the present owner but in a separate room with its own kitchen, as was the case in Bohemia (Velkovà, chapter 4), or still cultivating some small plots, or alternatively occupying a cottage in the yard, this latter circumstance being often the custom of the better-off peasants and not the result of cultural norms. Even with the Russian multiple household system which was prevalent in the period studied by Herdis Kolle, we do not know to what extent the layout of the farm building included enough space for all potential family members and thus could offer opportunities for separate living quarters providing some minimal degree of independence. In fact, the conflicts inherent in the situation in which various generations lived in the same house could be partially resolved when the sons who were the successors were able to build their own house separate from that of their parents. Clearly then, the question was how far the potential successors’ autonomy in matters of economic autonomy did in fact go. Violetta Hionidou notes that while the parent and the married son lived and ate in separate houses and shared the income generated by working together on the father’s land this was not a static arrangement. When the old father could no longer work, ‘almost all earnings would go to the son, who would then allocate a part to the parental household’ (Hionidou, chapter 10).

28

Anne-Lise Head-König

As can be seen from several case studies in this volume, for a young peasant couple to live a completely independent life with regard to its sleeping and living quarters and its economic resources from the onset of married life was often more the exception than the rule4. This was especially true for various reasons relating to the difficulty of obtaining land when the influence of the land market was marginal or non-existent. It could also be linked to intrafamily arrangements, so that the succeeding heir to a farm had to go on living with the former owner of the farm due to the latter’s retirement contract which was part of the farm transfer clauses (as in Sweden or Switzerland). Thus, in several parts of Europe there was often no correlation between marriage and formation of the household. It has been suggested that for reasons of self-preservation Russian society favoured practically universal early marriage combined with high fertility rates (Mitterauer and Kagan, 1982) and that this combination of demographic factors and labour requirements was at the root of the family constellation with its multiple family households typical of Eastern and South-eastern Europe. The same can be said for Serbia. In both these relatively poorly developed areas, the strategy was to increase family labour, since the survival of the household depended on it providing its own labour supply for reasons specific to each society. In Serbia, the structure of the economy, based on land cultivation combined with animal-breeding, encouraged the formation of large households with several married couples living together. The spatial dispersion of resources was a factor requiring the presence of large numbers of people and the migration of livestock between winter and summer pastures necessitated the provision of much protection, since the borders in the Balkan regions were not well secured. Mutual assistance was needed and only very closely-related family members living together were able to provide it (Kaser, 2003; 59ss; Mitterauer 1996: 400). In Russia, a combination of several factors, such as unfavourable natural conditions and low productivity, also favoured families with numerous offspring. In the few months of the growing season, as no system with either farmhands or day-labourers existed to provide the additional workforce needed at the peak season, the labour force necessary for the management of the family land was taken from within the circle of the numerous relatives co-residing in the multiple family households. Numerous adult married sons meant that the area of the land which was at the disposal of the family household increased since when a man married he was entitled to an allotment of arable land put at his disposition by the peasant commune. In addition, thanks to his marriage he secured his wife’s labour as an additional member to the family workforce and so increased the working capacity of his family, hence improving   Segalen has demonstrated that even in such a region as the Pays Bigoudin Sud (in France), where nuclear households were the norm, the households were tightly bound by kin and neighbour relations: Segalen (1984: 172). 4

29

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

its survival chances. However, particularly in the post-emancipation period, with the development of proto-industry textile workers were able to leave their fathers’ household to become head of an independent household at an earlier age than sons working in agriculture (Kolle, 2010: 87; Kolle, chapter 7). But, as Gruber’s paper shows, despite the fact that nearly half of the population lived in multiple family households, most individuals spent only a limited part of their lives in a three generation household, due largely to the fact that mortality rates were high and only few people reached old age. Obviously, the average age of the male household heads was also very much dependent on the mortality rates. The numerous progeny that existed in such a system of multiple family households and that wanted to live mainly off the land could only do so by systematically postponing the moment of succession to the land. This system is not without analogy to the stem family system existing in parts of north-eastern Spain and Bizkaia where the family and not hired help was the main supplier of labour. Here the main difference, however, was that the adult offspring retained to work on the family farm were unmarried, with the exception of the heir, and their opportunities to marry and establish themselves at some later stage in their life-cycle were curtailed, since they often could not find work opportunities outside the farm, nor did they receive the legitimate portion of inheritance to which they were entitled (Rey Castealo, chapter 3). With regard to marriage, the papers collected in this volume point to several striking differences: those concerning age at marriage in western and eastern rural societies as well as the level of celibacy there – an old debate – also age at marriage according to social status, the connection between inheritance and marriage, and also the age at marriage of siblings compared to that of the successor. In the west, the age at first marriage depended on the way in which a young couple would accumulate enough resources to create a new household, so age at marriage was never low, even in Ireland, where there is little evidence to support the thesis that before the famine the Irish married at an unusually young age (Gray, chapter 6), nor was this the case in North-western Spain, either in regions of impartible or partible inheritance (Rey Castelao, chapter 3). But the age at marriage could vary considerably, depending on the individual family constellation, the entitlement to an inheritance portion or when either the economic or the demographic circumstances changed. In the west, in a society with few resources outside the farm, people would marry in their late twenties, sometimes even in their early thirties. From the nineteenth century there was a gradual rise in the age at marriage of the farming population. The age at marriage in rural western society also varied markedly according to social status. Even if the connection between marriage and the inheriting of a farm was a

30

Anne-Lise Head-König

loose one, the heir and successor to a large landholding mostly married at a lower age than the successor of a cottager. For the latter, there was a far greater likelihood of his first entering either life-cycle service, or learning a craft or finding alternative employment before he was able to marry. Within western rural Europe, however, the main difference regarding marriage did not concern age at first marriage, but the proportion of those not marrying at all, a proportion which varied from a few percent to nearly one third of those aged 45-49. We will deal with this later. In contrast, the age at marriage in the Russian and Serbian cases was very low, and people would marry in their early twenties, or in their late teens. This was due in part to the fact that a newly-wed couple was obliged to become a part of the groom’s father’s household. Age at marriage changed little until the twentieth century (Kaser, 2008: 62). It has also been stressed that in Serbia and Russia marriage was quasi universal. But the phenomenon of practically universal marriage raises two questions: that of the sex ratio, since it seems that, at least in the case of Serbia, more male than female infants were born, and than there is the problem of the handicapped, as severely mentally and physically handicapped people undoubtedly existed in societies characterised by high fertility and numerous consanguineous marriages. This latter problem, which seems hardly ever to have been touched on in historical studies, raises several significant issues since, in some other European regions, such as Sweden, Switzerland or Bohemia, to be unfit for marriage was a legal reason for excluding an individual from access to inheritance of land, but not for excluding him or her from any inheritance at all. It is possible, however, that eastern societies had the same attitude with regard to the marriage of the poor who were handicapped as did the English Poor Law overseers at the beginning of the nineteenth century (see King, chapter 5). In several chapters of this book, the authors insist on the fact that in many cases the effective transfer of the farm took place several years after the successor’s marriage, which is effectively in contrast to other regions of Europe not dealt with in this volume where an impartible system of inheritance was the rule (Schlumbohm, 1994: 444ss; C. Fertig, 2003: 83; C. Fertig, 2012). In fact, there were several reasons why the taking over of the family farm did not coincide with the marriage of the successor and this was mainly because it did not necessarily fit well into the family life-cycle. The parents either were not inclined to give up their farm because they considered themselves still to be too young for retirement, or because it was not the local custom, or they did not see the necessity for endowing the successor with the farm when he married, or because of the possibility of claims on the part of the successor’s siblings demanding their legal share. The mode of transfer – succession to a parental farm or buying a farm on the market from non-kin – had a significant

31

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

influence on the waiting time between marriage and the access to land. It is evident that being a prospective successor to an inherited farm reduced the time span between an individual’s marriage and his future ownership of the family farm compared to the number of years a newly married man had to wait before being able to acquire a farm from non-kin on the land market. In comparison with the successor’s age at marriage, though, that of his siblings seems always to have been higher, but this depended very much on the time at which the siblings could obtain their portion of the inheritance.

V.  The impact of intergenerational farm transfer on family relations V.1

The transfer of decision making and authority

In Russian and Serbian multiple family households – as described by Herdis Kolle (chapter 7) and Siegfried Gruber (chapter 8) – for the older generation retirement as a reality or even as a concept just did not exist, since household resources and headship did not pass from the father to those sons who had married and brought their wives into the parental household. Given the household structure and the demographic characteristics of Russia and Serbia in the nineteenth century, the aged were hardly ever without co-residing children and the aged father retained his position and his authority as head of the household as long as he lived even when the household resources were being shared. However, for the widowed mother the concomitant implication of this patriarchal system was that, when the oldest son took over as head of the household, she was still part of a complex family, but henceforth of an extended family. Retirement did not exist in the stem family system either. However, there appear to have been quite notable regional differences with regard to the timing of the transfer of authority. On the one hand, when the heir married he acquired recognition of his potential authority over his brothers and sisters as such, but no real authority (FauveChamoux, 1995: 88-90). But there was no change of headship; it was only transferred after the death of both parents, and as long as he lived the old father took all the decisions relating to the farm, as can be seen in Catalonia (Congost, Ferrer Alòs and Marfany, chapter 2), the Basque Country (Rey Castelao, chapter 3) or Pyrenean society. On the other hand, in some North-western regions of Spain the management of the family farm was often transferred to the heir, who then had to pay taxes and rent, but in this context the parents often kept some money and the usufruct of part of the goods in case of conflicts with the heir (Rey Castelao, chapter 3, Ferrer Alòs, 2009: 267). At the same time they tried to postpone the marriage of the heir in order to maintain their own authority. Similar difficulties arose with Irish fathers who balked at the idea of relinquishing their authority so that it was common practice for 32

Anne-Lise Head-König

farmers to retain ownership and usually effective control until they died or at least until they reached an advanced age (Ó Gráda, 1993: 190). Cohabitation was anything but ideal in view of the tensions of everyday life, especially when the responsibility for taking care of the elderly couple fell upon the inheriting son – or rather upon his wife. The intergenerational tensions that such a system could create have been graphically described for France by Claverie and Lamaison (Claverie and Lamaison, 1982). In economic terms, too, postponement of the transmission of authority could be very detrimental to the farm, since the older generation was probably less willing to innovate and to change their ways in order to increase production.

V.2.

The retirement of the elderly farmer

In many European regions, inter vivos transfers concluded as a sales contract mostly included retirement arrangements when the farm was transferred from one generation to another. In terms of household structure, this type of transfer marked the replacement of the old head of the household by a member of the following generation. But the frequency of retirement arrangements correlated closely with the size and the resources of the farm and thus were more common in regions of impartible inheritance. However, retirement arrangements did not mean that such arrangements provided an adequate living for the elderly, since that was contingent on several factors, such as the productive capacity of the farm, the willingness of an able heir to take over the farm and the capacity to negotiate between generations. In fact, retirement contracts differed widely within western Europe with regard to the age at which parents decided to transfer the farm, the contents of the contracts and the aims of the parents when transferring the farm. When possessing a large scale highly productive farm at retirement they might prefer to have a house built in the next village because the farm was doing extremely well and the successor would have no problems in paying them an ample rent – which meant that the ownership of the farm remained in the hands of the parents (Paping, chapter 12). Sometimes, even when the farm was not very successful the parents’ own satisfaction came first, as has been described for certain regions, burdening the successor with debts at the risk of his losing the farm (Gaunt, 1983). Or parents might have the survival of the farm as their primary objective and ask for an arrangement which the farm could finance. In some cases too, the retirement contract did not concern only the couple that retired. Some old farmers also took into account both the heir’s and his siblings’ interests. The contract could also include the obligation for the heir when he was the oldest son to allow his younger siblings to stay on the farm for a certain time – for instance up to the age of sixteen in Switzerland (Head-König, chapter 11) or up to their marriage (C. Fertig, 2003: 81-82), or to take care of a handicapped sibling. In some German regions, it could specify the amount of compensation the heir would have to pay his

33

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

siblings. Last, but not least, precise stipulations regarding the services and goods which had to be provided by the farm also functioned as a security for the retirees, since with the increase of land transactions or the risk of farm defaults, the ownership of the farm could change and the retirees would thus have to live on a farm where the farmer was not a member of their kin any more. In many European regions retirement had different implications from the meaning we attribute to the word today. It would often mean the older generation retiring from the farm but continuing with some other economic activities, either because they wanted to, or were obliged to by law – as for instance in Bohemia, where the landlord still expected the retirees (even when they had become assimilated to lodgers without access to land) nevertheless to do some robot (labour services) (Zeitlhofer, 2008: 41) – or they were forced to do so out of sheer necessity in order to survive. The age at which parents transferred the farm to the heir depended on such factors as the age of the heir, his desire to take control of the farm, how long the parents had already farmed the land, as well as on their willingness effectively to retire and let the younger generation take responsibility for the running of the farm. Institutional factors could also have an influence. In the demesne economy the interest of the landlord for an early transfer to the younger generation to maximise physical labour input could clash with the parental desire to stay in charge. This latter aspect, the unwillingness of parents to retire when getting older as a result of increasing life expectancy, has also been an important object of debate since the middle of the twentieth century before state legislation in many European countries forced farmers to take retirement at a certain age. If they refused, they would be penalised by losing their entitlement to all state subsidies. It is evident that the economic consequences devolving from the age of the farmer at the moment when the inter vivos transfer coupled with a retirement contract took place could be dire, especially when the transfer occurred when the parents were relatively young and still had many years to live, and the maintenance arrangements were very costly. Much has been written concerning this situation in northern countries (Gaunt, 1983: 258-276; Lundh and Dribe, 2005: Moring 2006, 399: 402). On the estate of Šťáhlavy half of the fathers were over 60 years old when their sons took over the farm at or after marriage and about a quarter were younger than 55 (Velkovà, chapter 4). This was in stark contrast to some of the data published by Gaunt, where for instance in Finland, in the middle of the nineteenth century, less than a quarter of the fathers were older than 60 at the time of the transfer (Gaunt, 1983: 264). According to Horáček, in Bohemia at the end of the nineteenth century there was a strong correlation between the length of time a couple had worked the

34

Anne-Lise Head-König

family farm and the moment of their retirement which amounted to about 25 to 35 years (Horáček, 1904: 31). In the province of Groningen, Paping mentions a working life of some 20 to 30 years before retirement due to an increase of riches there in the nineteenth century. But a relative low age at marriage, as was common in Central Europe, also induced retirement at an age when the farming couples or their survivor still had several years to live on the income the farm provided. Factors external to the family constellation could also influence the decision to retire. In Bohemia, for instance, as relative early retirement would free them from the most arduous labour service obligations to the landlord, parents had an interest in hastening the marriage of their offspring when the property was transferred in connection with the marriage of the youngest son. But, as has been mentioned before, this pattern differed from what can be observed elsewhere. The demanding labour service is also probably one of the reasons why in the seventeenth century in several regions of Bohemia it was not unusual for the aged farmer to exchange the family farm for a smaller one more adapted to his decreasing physical strength (Zeitlhofer, 2008: 14). With regard to the contents of the retirement contract there was obviously a wide variety of different arrangements linked to social status and local practice (Zeitlhofer, 2004: 83-84). In the poorer rural strata it could just be the provision of housing for the older generation, whilst in richer households, in addition to the goods and services needed for everyday life, it was the use of land together with cash payments. As mentioned above, wealthy peasant households were able to provide separate accommodation for the older generation. In fact, the divergence in the provisions made for the older generation was remarkable not only within a given rural society, but also from country to country, with at one extreme the wealthy farmers of the Northern Netherlands who were fully integrated in the market economy (Paping, chapter 12) and at the other the poorer strata in less developed economies where it was imperative for most retirees to go on with some form of proto-industrial work or with agricultural work as day labourers just in order to survive. In several European countries until at least the middle of the twentieth century the survival of a retirement contract practice is probably attributable to the survival of a traditional concept of family ties as well as in large part to low market penetration with little cash available for paying off the older generation. This is attested by the impressive number of retirement contracts still existing in Bohemia in the 1930s (nearly 140,000 contracts). In this context one should consider whether the retirement contract included an alternative provision specifying cash payment from the heir to the parents in case of disagreements when the parents did not want to go on living with the heir and his family.

35

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

VI.  Non-succeeding offspring and their options Depending on the inheritance system, the strategies of families and individuals differed widely with regard to the possibility of getting married and the formation of a new household. Structural change offered new employment opportunities within the agricultural sector as a result of more market-orientated production and outside the agricultural sector the expansion of crafts and proto-industrial production served a similar purpose. Beside this, celibacy and emigration were the two main methods for coping with a surplus of offspring reaching adulthood.

VI.1.

New employment opportunities

Opportunities for marriage and establishing a new household for those siblings not inheriting land were dependent on an ongoing structural transformation of the economy and of institutional regulations. New employment opportunities either in or outside the agricultural sector were necessary to make it possible for the successor’s siblings or the co-heirs in a partible system to accumulate adequate resources in order to marry or to create an independent household, as was the case in Russia with the development of the textile proto-industry (Kolle, chapter 7). But, when it came to forming an independent household a necessary prerequisite was also a relaxation of the restrictions regarding the building of cottages and access to some small parcels of land. For a long time, the opposition of the ruling classes in Western and Eastern Europe to the division of property and estates can be ascribed to their belief that smallholdings could not be economically viable and would be unable to pay either the rent due to the owner or the tax due to the state. The restrictions prohibiting the use part of the landowners’ land, the estate land or the commune’s land and to build cottages to accommodate the increased population were abolished progressively, but sometimes not before a system of full individual property rights was implemented – that is in the first half of the nineteenth century. The environmental arguments used by the commune and the Russian estate owners when refusing partition and the erection of new dwellings and farm buildings on land earmarked for cultivation or communal land (Bohac, 1985: 31) are very much reminiscent of the situation existing in parts of Europe until the beginning of the nineteenth century. There, strict institutional regulations in some agricultural, proto-industrial and mountain regions often prevented the possessor of land from establishing new cottages either on the estates of landlords, as in Bohemia, or outside the village, as Rudolf Braun has shown for the proto-industrial regions in Switzerland (Braun, 1960). The measures were dependent on the landlords’ decision and could vary considerably, depending on his interests. In many parts of Europe, though, from the eighteenth century there was what for 36

Anne-Lise Head-König

Bohemia Alice Velková has called a boom in the construction of crofts or cottages to accommodate new households on the land of a landlord which until then the landlord had prohibited (Velkovà, 2008: 117, 121; Cerman, 2001:297). These households usually made a living by engaging in a craft, in some (proto-)industrial activity or worked as day-labourers for wealthy landholders. There was also the apportioning of small parcels of land on the often freshly cleared land of the pagesos de mas, as well as better use of land and access to land thanks to the rabassa morta contracts in the wine-growing regions of Catalonia (Congost, Ferrer Alòs and Marfany, chapter 2). The same was true for Sweden where the restrictions concerning the establishment of the crofts which were becoming increasingly common on freehold and Crown land were progressively abolished (Gadd, 2011: 141-142; Moring, 2009: 231). A similar system developed in Germany, especially in Westphalia and Lower Saxony with landless households, the Heuerlinge, being able to rent tiny pieces of land and a cottage for which they paid rent to the farmers (Schlumbohm, 1992: 187-188); but this system was not without its conflicts, especially in the nineteenth century (Brakensiek, 2012). Letting some acres to undertenants was also a frequent action of the farmers in Ireland who had leased more land from their landlord than they could make direct use of (Gray, chapter 6). This change in attitude on the part of the landholders and owners not surprisingly derived from their own economic interests. They wanted to ensure an adequate supply of labour for their estates, farms or proto-industrial enterprises, or to increase their income through sharecropping, as in Catalonia, or, as was the case in Ireland, so that undertenants could assist the farmers in the payment of the latters’ rent to their landlords. Creation of new households was also facilitated by the use of collective land, but this was only possible where the conditions of access were not restricted by rigid regulations.

VI.2. Celibacy There were a number of similarities in the ways a family or the siblings themselves dealt with the fact that they did not inherit land. Promoting celibacy, of course, was one possible strategy apart from in Eastern Europe. The readiness to stay unmarried, however, varied greatly, from a few per cent to about thirty per cent for both sexes and it depended not only on access to land, but was also influenced by factors in the social environment, such as the ‘moral’ obligation for adult children, especially daughters to care for their aged parents (King, chapter 5). It is often not possible, apart from some rare exceptions, as in Galicia (Rey Castelao, chapter 3; Poska, 2005: 43), or in the French Basque country (Arrizabalaga, 2006: 140; Arrizabalaga, 2010: 227ss), to determine whether the high proportion of adult children remaining single in the parental home or the heir’s home or in their own home remained so by choice and was not due to a combination of economic and institutional factors which

37

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

reduced the possibilities available for accumulating adequate means to marry. For Estunia parish, Sofia Holmlund attributes the substantial increase in celibacy, both male and female (up to 18-20 per cent after the middle of the nineteenth century), to families having more surviving non-succeeding offspring, but lacking the means to endow them. This factor was also reflected in the growing number of intrafamily ‘commercial’ sales (Holmlund qualifies them as ‘pseudo-commercial sales’) which were a means to avoid paying the heir’s siblings the compensation they would have been legally entitled to if the transfer had not been a sale. But whilst these economic and institutional factors certainly played an important role in generating very high rates of celibacy in both sexes, the question of the incentive to remain single in view of certain cultural factors, such as religion, has also been raised. In the case of Ireland, for example, Guinnane suggests that the explanation of ‘lack of interest in the opposite sex’ has not been taken into consideration seriously enough (Guinnane, 1997: 225ss). Furthermore, in the course of the nineteenth century women lost many of their specific areas of competence in agriculture, and strenuous agricultural work, especially on small farms, drove them away from farming and the countryside not only in Scandinavia (Morell, 2011: 203-204), but also in Ireland, with the result that, contrary to the landless sons, the heirs to small farms were unable to marry for lack of a wife. Alternatively, the pressure parents put on their grown-up children to stay single because their labour input was necessary for the farm economy could contribute to a high rate of celibacy, which seems to have been the situation in two case studies, in canton Lucerne and in the Basque Country (Head-König, chapter 11; Rey Castelao, chapter 3). Sofia Holmlund emphasizes the fact that in earlytwentieth century Sweden farming fathers insisted both on retaining the management of the farm as well as expecting their children to work on the farm and abstain from education. But the variations in permanent celibacy were also influenced by the roles expected of sons and daughters, as can be seen in the northern parts of the Iberian Peninsula. In wealthy Catalonian families, the percentage of younger sons staying single was striking, but in fact at all levels of society there was a preference for helping daughters to marry, hence a much lower female celibacy rate (Congost, Ferrer Alòs and Marfany, chapter 2; Marfany, 2006: 93ss). However, where women replaced men in performing a large number of agricultural tasks, female celibacy was very high as in Galicia (around a quarter of women) and in north-western Portugal (around a third) (Brettell, 1986: 132). Of course, in these cases a decisive imbalance in the sex ratio due to permanent male emigration also contributed to a high level of celibacy, a factor which can be observed elsewhere in Europe, especially in mountains regions (Head-König, 1996: 367; Lorenzetti, 1999: 291). The influence of celibacy rates on household structure can be seen clearly in the Irish case. The data for 1821 show that at that time a certain number of people already 38

Anne-Lise Head-König

lived in a household constellation which was no longer associated with a family, a proportion which would increase considerably in the course of the ninetee nth century (Gray, chapter 6). Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the econom ic rationale for some siblings to stay single, both in the cases of highly commercialise d farming and because of the high cost of taking over the farm and the difficulties connected with small-scale farming. In the first case, Richard Paping attributes the emergence of new household structures, unknown before the nineteenth century, to the fact that farmers still had large families and that after the parents’ death unmarr ied siblings then stayed together to manage the farm. Alternatively, a married brother and an unmarried brother operated the farm jointly (Paping, chapter 12). In Sweden , in the period 1886-1930, celibacy was associated with smallholders (around a quarter of them never married), since contrary to large landholders they were financia lly unable to improve the working conditions on their farm to any great extent.

VI.3. The relevance of emigration

Emigration at different stages of the life-cycle, either as seasonal or yearly migration or definitive migration, was highly relevant to the position of the noninheriting children, both in north-western Spain and Catalonia, as well as in Bohemia and in Sweden, but the purpose of the migration with regard to the future residence of the migrant varied, as did the effect on the potential heir to the family farm. Ofelia Rey Castelao has insisted on the fact that in a number of cases, men and sometimes women – depending on the region – who migrated within Spain wanted to accumulate sufficient savings either to establish themselves at their place of residence or in order to return home and be able to purchase some small landholding or exercis e some craft and then to marry. But the post-nuptial migration of the husband who sent regular remittances home was also frequent in the Iberian Peninsula and this had the effect of lowering the birth-rate. In fact, as I have mentioned above, emigration influenced the position of those who stayed at home, either because parents then willed their small farm to their daughter, as in Galicia, or because, as in Bohemia, from the 1820s, daughters were able to take over the farm more frequently following the permanent emigration of their brothers – especially those of the lower social strata, the cottagers’ sons – who wanted to find other and better sources of income. And at the end of the nineteenth century, too, the level of emigration had an indirect impact in the structure of the farms, as can be observed in Sweden. Since large segments of the population had no access to land, emigration was so massive that the legislator felt compel led to change the law limiting the subdivision of land and the sale of small parcels of land.

39

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

VII.  Conclusion The papers presented in this volume examine why in rural societies inheritance practices, that is to say landed property transfers, were often inadequate to explain marriage and the formation of a household. It is argued that this was partly the result of different patterns regarding the timing of the transfer of ownership and access to land as well as to a number of demographic, macroeconomic and institutional changes. In respect of the timing of land transfer in connection with marriage we can clearly observe major differences within Europe, only the most significant of which are mentioned now. In Eastern Europe (Russia, Serbia) young people married and lived in the groom’s father’s household long before they inherited land. Then, in parts of Spain, when the heir married, the property transfer was often only conditional, the successor in fact having little responsibility in the management of the family farm and parents tending to retain authority as well as part of the farm income for as long as they were able. Elsewhere, the land was only given in usufruct whilst the parents were alive, and they did not necessarily favour an early marriage of their heir. This latter occurrence, however, was not the case in the demesne economy where parents in the eighteenth century favoured an early marriage of their successors in order to be able to retire from their manorial labour obligations. Then again, in the Groningen area, in the nineteenth century, parents often kept the ownership of a large farm and rented it out to their heir and successor. Yet in other parts of Europe, such as in Greece, succession was a process and there was a period of transition during which the control of the family and farm economy gradually passed from the father to the successor. However, as long as few alternative opportunities for employment existed, access to land could still play a role as a prerequisite for marriage, especially for the heirs’ siblings when they could be compensated with parcels of land. Of course, the changing economic circumstances of the family – either deteriorating or improving – would also alter the timing and the incidence of marriage. For the farmers’ offspring who were not the successors and who wanted to marry, the time needed for the accumulation of the necessary resources to form a household depended on the level of compensation they received –and whether they were in fact really paid off – and/or the resources they were able to acquire by making use of employment opportunities outside of the family. Demographic factors (high fertility rates which characterised most rural societies and the increased life expectancy of the aged farmers), market incentives (the expansion of commercial agriculture and viticulture thanks to a better use of land and/or of proto-industrial activities), the development of the land market (with the

40

Anne-Lise Head-König

increase in land prices) and cultural norms were also at varying times major elements which brought about changes in the way farms were transferred from one generation to another and were crucial variables in determining both the proportions of those marrying and the entry age into marriage. The impact of these factors was also decisive in many respects and productive of change not only with regard to the timing but also with regard to the modes of transfer (inter vivos versus post-mortem transfers), the choice of the successor to the family farm (from the youngest to the oldest son or vice versa) and, in many regions the increase of sales contracts between partners who were not related to each other. Such factors also affected intergenerational family relations and the social balance in the countryside. From the beginning or at least the middle of the eighteenth century the substantial increase of those successor’s siblings (or co-heirs where the inheritance laws stipulated that all children could claim a share of the estate) who could not be compensated with parcels of land served to contribute to the imbalance in the existing social structure in rural western and southern Europe. The owners of large and middle-sized farms were in due course considerably outnumbered because of the increase in the population of cottagers, crofters and landless people since their own number hardly changed, and farming families – with few exceptions, such as France – did not reduce their birth rate. The cases of Bohemia, Sweden and Catalonia clearly illustrate this European phenomenon. Coming now to household formation, the situation could not have been more diverse, and there was no immediate link between marriage and household formation. Household formation depended on economic opportunities, the availability of housing and land, all of which were in turn dependent on institutional factors (the landlord’s or the commune’s permission) and individual financial resources. Cultural norms which had become a normative behaviour pattern could also play an important role, such as, for instance, either permanent co-residence till the aged father’s death, or temporary co-residence until the younger couple had earned sufficient resources to live independently. But little is still known about the younger couple’s ‘independent’ and ‘autonomous’ household, since detailed information about the arrangements concerning living and sleeping quarters, eating, and working the land is rarely available. Exceptionally, as in England, when the landless married, they did not even need to worry about the immediate viability of the household, since the Poor Law would act as a safety net if the couple should not be able to cope. Neither was marriage always a necessary prerequisite for household formation as is demonstrated by the existence of the households of unmarried heirs and successors to small farms

41

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

(female and male) in parts of Iberia, Ireland and Sweden and even to large farms as in the Netherlands. Institutional interventions were ambivalent: the requirements of the inheritance laws often tended to amplify the problem, since the splitting up of farms was frequently forbidden and in any case money was not always available to pay off the non-succeeding heirs where agriculture was not particularly market-orientated. This in turn raises the question of whether the goal was ultimately the long-term viability of the family estate at the risk of a high level of celibacy when offspring remained numerous or whether it was the marriage of the offspring and the formation of an independent household. When the emphasis was on the viability of the farm, frequent options were the incentive or obligation for some offspring to remain single or the temporary or definitive emigration of surplus children. In the same context alternative options in Catholic regions could be the recourse to endogamous marriages, mostly consanguineous and exchange marriages, which peaked in the eighteenth century and which totalled nearly 30 per cent of all marriages in some parts of Galicia and especially in the less developed parts of the region (for the elements favouring this types of marriage in other Mediterranean countries, see Delille, 1985: 372). For a non-successor in many parts of Europe, though, new employment opportunities either in or outside the agriculture sector were necessary to accumulate adequate resources in order to marry and to establish an independent household, apart from the inheritance portion he/she received on marriage (which depended not only on the social position of the family, but also whether such a payment or gift was customary). However, the necessity for the family to survive often imposed the postponement of household fission until the aged father had died despite the offspring already being married as was the case in Eastern Europe. Here too, increasing economic opportunities impacted on household structure, since proto-industrial activities allowed textile workers to leave their parents’ household at a much earlier stage of their life-cycle than was the case for agricultural workers. To complicate matters still further significant new factors were emerging in many parts of Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century with regard to the transmission of the family farm. With the increase in the value of land, a successor’s siblings were often no longer prepared to be bought off for an amount which might be well below the market value of their share, nor would they agree to work hard on the successor’s farm and never marry. Since by remaining on the farm many such people had hardly any prospect of marrying, the most able, with young women being in the majority, left the countryside for good in order to work in industry or in the towns.

42

Anne-Lise Head-König

Bibliography Arrizabalaga, Marie-Pierre (2006), ‘Destins de femmes dans les Pyrénées au xixe siècle : le cas basque’, Annales de Démographie Historique, 2, p. 135-170. Arrizabalaga, Marie-Pierre (2010), ‘Celibacy and Gender Inequalities in the Pyrenees in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Tindara Addabbo et al. (eds), Gender inequalities, households and the production of well-being in modern Europe, Farnham, Ashgate, p. 219-234. Ǻgren, Maria (2009), Domestic Secrets. Women and Property in Sweden, 1600-1857, Chapel Hill, N.C., University Press of North Carolina.

Béaur, Gérard, Dessureault, Christian and Goy, Joseph (eds) (2004), Familles, Terres, Marchés. Logiques économiques et stratégies dans les milieux ruraux (xviie -xxe siècles), Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Béaur, Gérard (2007), ‘Trop de stratégie? Transmission, démographie et migration dans la Normandie rurale du début du 19e siècle (Bayeux, Domfront, Douvres, Livarot)’, in Jean-Pierre Poussou and Isabelle Robin-Romero (eds), Histoire des familles, de la démographie et des comportements, en hommage à Jean-Pierre Bardet, Paris, Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, p. 37-53. Béaur, Gérard (2004), ‘Land Transmission and Inheritance Practices in France During the Ancien Regime: Differences of Degree or Kind?’, in David R. Green and Alastair Owens (eds), Family Welfare: Gender, Property and Inheritance since the Seventeenth Century, Westport (Conn)-London, Praeger, p. 31-46. Bohac, Rodney D. (1985), ‘Peasant Inheritance Strategies in Russia’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16, no. 1, p. 23-42. Bonnain, Rolande, Bouchard, Gérard and Goy, Joseph (eds) (1992), Transmettre, hériter, succéder. La reproduction familiale en milieu rural: France-Québec, xviiie-xxe siècles, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon.

Bouchard, Gérard, Dickinson, John A. and Goy, Joseph (eds) (1998), Les exclus de la terre en France et au Québec, xviiie-xxe siècles. La reproduction familiale dans la différence, Sillery (Québec), Septentrion. Boudjaaba, Fabrice (2010), ‘Inheritance, Land Market and Social Reproduction in an Egalitarian System (Vernon, Normandy, 1750-1830)’, in Rosa Congost and Rui Santos (eds), Contexts of Property in Europe. The Social Embeddedness of Property Rights in Land in Historical Perspective, Turnhout, Brepols, p. 105-124.

Boudjaaba, Fabrice (2008), Des paysans attachés à la terre ? Familles, marchés et patrimoines dans la région de Vernon (1750-1830), Paris, Presses Universitaires ParisSorbonne. Brakensiek, Stefan, Stolleis Michael and Wunder Heide (eds) (2006), Generationengerechtigkeit. Normen und Praxis im Erb- und Ehegüterrecht 1500-1850. Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, Berlin, Duncker und Humblot.

43

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

Brakensiek, Stefan (2012), ‘Ländliche Klassengesellschaft. Eine Relektüre’, in Pascal Maeder, Barbara Lüthi and Thomas Mergel (eds), Wozu noch Sozialgeschichte? Eine Disziplin im Umbruch. Festschrift für Josef Mooser zum 65, Geburtstag, Göttingen, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, p. 27-42. Braun, Rudolf (1960), Industrialisierung und Volksleben. Veränderungen der Lebensformen unter Einwirkung der verlagsindustriellen Heimarbeit in einem ländlichen Industriegebiet (Zürcher Oberland) vor 1800, Winterthur, Keller. English translation: (1990), Industrialisation and Everyday Life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Brettell, Caroline B. (1986), Men Who Migrate, Women Who Wait: Population and History in a Portuguese Parish, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Cerman, Markus (2001), ‘Central Europe and the ’European Marriage Pattern’: Marriage Patterns and Family Structure in Central Europe, Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries’, in Richard Wall, Tamara K. Hareven and Josef Ehmer (eds), Family History Revisited. Comparative Perspectives, Newark, University of Delaware Press - London, Associated University Press, p. 282-307. Cerman, Markus and Zeitlhofer Hermann (eds) (2002), Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen: ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16.-19, Jahhundert, Wien, Verlag für Geschichte und Politik.

Cerman, Markus and Štefanova, Dana (2010), ‘Institutional Changes and Peasant Landtransfers in the Czech Lands, from the late Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century’, in Rosa Congost and Rui Santos (eds), Contexts of Property in Europe. The Social Embeddedness of Property Rights in Land in Historical Perspective, Turnhout, Brepols, p. 39-59.

Claverie, Elisabeth and Lamaison, Pierre (1982), L’impossible mariage : violence et parenté en Gévaudan, xviie, xviiie et xixe siècles, Paris, Hachette. De Haan, Henk (1994), In the Shadow of the Tree. Kinship, Property and Inheritance among Farm Families, Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis. Delille, Gérard, Famille et propriété dans le Royaume de Naples (xve-xixe siècle), Rome, École française de Rome. Devos, Isabelle and Kennedy, Liam (eds) (1999), Marriage and Rural Economy: Western Europe since 1400, Turnhout, Brepols.

Dribe, Martin, Olsson, Mats and Svensson, Patrick (2012), ‘If the Landlord so wanted… Family Farm Production, and Land Transfers in the Manorial System’, The Economic History Review, 65, 2, p. 746-769.

Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette (1995), ‘The Stem Family, Demography and Inheritance: the Social Frontiers of Auto-regulation’, in Richard L. Rudolph (ed.), The European Peasant Family and Society, Historical Studies, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, p. 86-113. Ferrer Alòs Llorenç (2009), ‘Achieving Well-Being in Spain through the Single Heir System (18th-19th Centuries)’, in Margarida Durães, Antoinette Fauve-Chamoux and Llorenç Ferrer Alòs (eds), The Transmission of Well-Being: Gendered Marriage 44

Anne-Lise Head-König

Strategies and Inheritance Systems in Europe (17th–20th Centuries), Bern, Peter Lang, p. 259-290. Fertig, Christine (2003), ‘Hofübergabe im Westfalen des 19. Jahrhunderts: Wendepunkt des bäuerlichen Familienzyklus?’, in Christophe Duhamelle and Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, p. 65-92. Fertig, Christine (2012), Familie, verwandtschaftliche Netzwerke und Klassenbildung im ländlichen Westfalen (1750-1874), Stuttgart, Lucius & Lucius.

Fertig, Georg and Fertig, Christine (2006), ‘Bäuerliche Erbpraxis als Familienstrategie. Hofweitergabe im Westfalen des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Stefan Brakensiek, Michael Stolleis and Heide Wunder (eds) (2006), Generationengerechtigkeit. Normen und Praxis im Erb- und Ehegüterrecht 1500-1850, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, p. 163-187. Flygare, Iréne A. (1999), Generation och kontinuitet. Familjejordbruket i två Svenska slättbygder under 1900-talet, Uppsala, Upplands Fornminnesförenings Förlag. Gadd, Carl-Johan (2011), ‘The Agricultural Revolution in Sweden, 1700-1870’, in Janken Myrdal and Mats Morell (eds), The Agrarian History of Sweden: from 4000 bc to ad 2000, Lund, Nordic Academic Press, p. 118-164. Gaunt, David (1983), ‘The Property and Kin Relationships of Retired Farmers in Northern and Central Europe’, in Richard Wall, Jean Robin and Peter Laslett (eds), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge [etc.], Cambridge University Press, p. 249-280.

Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan and Thompson, Edward P. (eds) (1976), Family and Inheritance. Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800, Cambridge [etc.], Cambridge University Press. Grandits, Hannes and Heady, Patrick (eds) (2003), Distinct Inheritances, Property, Family and Community in a Changing Europe, Münster, LIT-Verlag.

Gruber, Siegfried and Szoltysek, Mikolaj (2012), ‘Stem Families, Joint Families and the European Pattern: What Kind of a Reconsideration Do We Need?’, Journal of Family History, 37, p.105-125. Guinnane, Timothy W. (1997), The Vanishing Irish. Households, Migration, and the Rural Economy in Ireland, 1850-1914, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Head-König, Anne-Lise (1996), ‘Malthus dans les Alpes: La diversité des systèmes de régulation démographique dans l‘arc alpin du xvie au début du xxe siècle’, in Martin Körner and François Walter (eds), Quand la Montagne a aussi une histoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean-François Bergier, Berne, Peter Lang, p. 361-370.

Head-König, Anne-Lise (2010), ‘La dévolution des biens en pays d’ultimogéniture : obstacles et parades des pratiques familiales en Allemagne du sud (Forêt Noire) et en Suisse (Emmental) aux xviiie et xixe siècles’, in Bernard Derouet, Luigi Lorenzetti and Jon Mathieu (eds), Pratiques familiales et sociétés de montagne, xvie-xxe siècles, Itinera, 29, Société suisse d’histoire, p. 115-132.

45

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

Horáček, Cyrill (1904), Das Ausgedinge: eine agrarpolitische Studie. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der böhmischen Länder, Wien-Leipzig, Franz Deuticke. Kaser, Karl (1995), Familie und Verwandtschaft auf dem Balkan: Analyse einer untergehenden Kultur, Wien [etc.], Böhlau Verlag.

Kaser, Karl (2003), ‘Power and Inheritance: Male Dominastion, Property, and Family in Eastern Europe, 1500-1900’, in Hannes Grandits and Patrick Heady (eds), Distinct inheritances, Property, Family and Community in a Changing Europe, Münster, LITVerlag. p. 53-67. Kaser, Karl (2008), Patriarchy after Patriarchy: Gender Relations in Turkey and in the Balkans, 1500-2000, Wien, Lit, 2008.

Kolle, Herdis (2010), ‘‘Labour Relations in a ‘Dual Economy’. Agrosystem and Protoindustrialisation in Post-emancipation Central Russia’, in Erich Landsteiner and Ernst Langthaler (eds), Agrosystems and Labour Relations in European Rural Societies (Middle Ages-Twentieth Century), Turnhout, Brepols, p. 75-95. Lanzinger, Margareth (2003), Das gesicherte Erbe: Heirat in lokalen und familialen Kontexten: Innichen 1700-1900, Wien, Böhlau. Laslett, Peter and Wall, Richard (eds) (1972), Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries [...], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lorenzetti, Luigi (1999), Economie et migrations au reproduction familiale au Tessin, Bern, Peter Lang.

xixe

siècle : les stratégies de la

Lundh, Christer and Dribe, Martin (2005), ‘Retirement as a strategy for landtransmission: a micro-study of pre-industrial rural Sweden’, Continutiy and Change, 20, p. 165-191.

Marfany, Julie (2006), ‘Choices and Constraints: Marriage and Inheritance in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-century Catalonia’, Continuity and Change, 21, 1, p. 73-106.

Mitterauer, Michael and Alexander Kagan (1982), ‘Russian and Central European Family Structures: a Comparative View’ , Journal of Family History, 7, p. 103-131. Mitterauer, Michael (1996), ‘Family Contexts: The Balkans in European Comparison’, The History of the Family, 1, p. 387-406. Morell, Mats (2011), ‘Agriculture in Industrial Society, 1870 1945’, in Janken Myrdal and Mats Morell (eds), The agrarian history of Sweden: from 4000 bc to ad 2000, Lund, Nordic Academic Press, p. 165-213.

Moring, Beatrice (2006), ‘Nordic Retirement Contracts and the Economic Situation of Widows’, Continuity and Change, 21, 3, p. 383-418.

Moring, Beatrice (2009), ‘Men, Women and Property in Finland and Sweden in the 18th and 19th Centuries‘, in Margarida Durães, Antoinette Fauve-Chamoux and Llorenç Ferrer Alòs (eds), The Transmission of Well-Being: Gendered Marriage Strategies and Inheritance Systems in Europe (17th 20th Centuries), Bern, Peter Lang, p. 229-257.

46

Anne-Lise Head-König

Ó Gráda, Cormac (1993), Ireland before and after the Famine. Explorations in Economic History, 1800-1925, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2nd ed. O Neill, Brian Juan (1987), Social Inequalities in a Portuguese Hamlet, Land, late Marriage, and Bastards, 1870-1978, Cambridge [etc.], Cambridge University Press. Poska, Allyson M. (2005), Women and Authority in Early Modern Spain: The Peasants of Galicia, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Sabean, David Warren (1990) Property, Production, and Family in Neckarshausen, 17001870, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1992), ‘From Peasant Society to Class Society. Some Aspects of Family and Class in a Northwest German Protoindustrial Parish, 17th-19th Centuries’ Journal of Family History, 17, p. 183-199. Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1994), Lebensläufe, Familien, Höfe: die Bauern und Heuerleute des Osnabrückischen Kirchspiels Belm in proto-industrieller Zeit, 1650-1860, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Segalen, Martine (1984), ‘Nuclear Is Not Independent: Organization of the Household in the Pays Bigoudin Sud [France] in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Robert McM. Netting, Richard R. Wilk and Eric J. Arnould (eds), Households. Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group, Berkeley-Los Angeles, University of California Press, p. 163-186. Segalen, Martine (1985), Quinze générations de bas-bretons: parenté et société dans le pays bigouden Sud, 1720-1980, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Štefanova, Dana (2009), Erbschaftspraxis, Besitztransfer und Handlungsspielräume von Untertanen in der Gutsherrschaft: die Herrschaft Frýdlant in Nordböhmen, 1558 1750, Wien-München, Böhlau/R. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Velková, Alice (2008), ‘Transformations of Rural Society between 1700-1850’, Historica. Historical Sciences in the Czech Republic, 13, p. 109-158. Velková, Alice (2010), ‘Familie und Besitzinteressen. Veränderungen in der Wahrung des Familieninteresses in der ländlichen Gesellschaft Böhmens im 18. und beginnenden 19. Jarhrhunderts’, in Inken Schmidt-Voges (ed.), Ehe Haus Familie. Soziale Institutionen im Wandel 1750 1850, Köln-Weimar-Wien, Böhlau Verlag, p. 121-141.

Zeitlhofer, Hermann (2004), ‘Headship Succession and Retirement in South Bohemia, 1640 1840’ , in David R. Green and Alastair Owens (eds), Family Welfare: Gender, Property and Inheritance since the Seventeenth Century, Westport (Conn.)-London, Praeger, p. 73-96. Zeitlhofer, Hermann (2007), ‘Land, Family and the Transmission of Property in a Rural Society of South Bohemia, 1651-1840’, Continuity and Change, 22, p. 519-544.

Zeitlhofer, Hermann (2008), ‘Arbeit und Alter in ländlichen Gesellschaften der Frühen Neuzeit. Die Erwerbstätigkeit im Alter zwischen eigenem Besitz und den Zwängen einer ‘Ökonomie des Auskommens’’, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte/Economic History Yearbook, p. 31- 54. 47

Inheritance regulations and inheritance practices, marriage and household in rural societies

Zink, Anne (1993), L’héritier de la maison. Géographie coutumière du Sud-Ouest de la France sous l’Ancien Régime, Paris, Ed. de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.

48

2.

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case, eighteenth century1 Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

I.  Introduction All inheritance customs in the past can be viewed as aiming in part to balance population with resources (Goody, Thirsk and Thompson, 1976; Laslett and Wall, 1972; Levi, 1988; Derouet, 1995). The single heir system that prevailed in many areas of early modern Europe sought to do so by maintaining property, particularly land, intact from generation to generation, rather than dividing it equally among all surviving children (Arrizabalaga, 1997; Zink, 1993). In doing so, however, this type of inheritance system conditioned the formation of new households in various ways. Usually the designated heir and his (or occasionally her) spouse remained within the parental home, but the extent to which younger children remained at home after marriage or not varied. More usually, younger children would leave the parental home on marriage but, in order to avoid depleting the estate by paying out marriage portions, some families retained younger sons at home. The formation of new households in a single heir system was therefore heavily dependent upon the marriage possibilities available to younger children and particularly younger sons, since daughters would often be absorbed into existing households by marrying heirs. In turn, insofar as the formation of new households was a prime factor behind demographic growth, the rate of population growth would be, in part at least, dependent upon the opportunities for household formation. It is therefore often considered that single heir systems tended to hold back rather than facilitate demographic growth. Much depends of course on whether property transactions were carried out inter vivos or not. If children had to wait until the death of their parents to inherit, then prevailing mortality rates could affect household formation rates. For many areas of Europe with a single heir system involving inter vivos transactions, periods of population growth can be explained as resulting from new opportunities arising for younger children to form households, rather than through a breakdown in inheritance customs. Catalonia is one region where population growth, over the course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, can be explained in this manner, since the single heir system continued to dominate in this region until the late nineteenth century.   The research presented here is part of the larger comparative project HAR2008-02960/HIST on social inequality in rural societies, funded by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Technology. 1

49

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

This article will illustrate through three case studies how various changes in the structure of landholding, in the cultivation of land and in the expansion of protoindustry and other activities such as fishing, were enabling the younger sons of many Catalan families to overcome the restrictions inherent in the single heir system and to form new households in a more rapid and extensive fashion than in earlier periods. At the same time, however, the paper will show that despite such new opportunities, younger children remained victims of the single heir system (Bourdieu, 1962). Demographic growth in eighteenth century Catalonia was possible only at the expense of increased social differentiation, and the appearance of new social groups. The households formed on marriage by younger children were usually of lower social status than the households into which they had been born, though, as the comparison across the case studies will show, it is less clear if they were always subject to a lower standard of living. New economic opportunities were, however, more evident among the humbler levels of society than higher up, despite the fact that, until now, most studies of Catalan inheritance customs have tended to focus on wealthier families rather than those lower down the social scale. This paper seeks to address this imbalance and to highlight the social differentiation and the magnitude of the social change that accompanied demographic growth.

II.  Catalan inheritance customs The Catalan single heir system developed in the medieval period, as part of a process whereby land was consolidated into substantial family holdings (masos), varying in size from 40 to 200 hectares, which feudal lords then wished to keep intact in order to guarantee an income in the form of seigneurial dues (To Figueras, 1997). Until the nineteenth century, the mas was to remain the main unit of cultivation in most parts of Catalonia, particularly the north-east and central areas, and the holders of masos, the pagesos de mas, the dominant social group in the countryside. To maintain this agrarian structure, Catalan inheritance customs dictated that the bulk of the property, around 75%, should be transmitted intact to one heir, usually the eldest son (hereu) (Barrera, 1990; Ferrer Alòs, 2007a). This transmission of property occurred inter vivos, on the marriage of the heir, and was set out in his marriage contract (capítols matrimonials). This contract also recorded the dowry brought in by the incoming bride. The heir continued to live in the parental home with his bride, the jove, and their children, though he did not become head of household until after the death of both parents. The remaining 25% was to be shared out equally among younger children in the form of dowries for daughters and portions known as legítimes for sons which were sometimes also paid on marriage but could be paid earlier in the form of apprenticeships, education or on leaving home, or sometimes at the age of 25, the age of majority. Marriage contracts were also drawn up for 50

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

younger children, though not as frequently as for heirs, and in these cases the aim was simply to record the woman’s dowry, since this sum remained her property even after marriage. Younger children could remain in the parental home for as long as they remained unmarried, though they might leave earlier to pursue apprenticeships or to go into service. In practice, while virtually all families transmitted property to a single heir, the amounts paid to younger children tended to reflect the economic possibilities available to the household (les possibilitats de la casa) and its priorities at any given point in time, rather than the 25% decreed by law. Younger children represented a drain upon the family property, thus families sought as far as possible to minimise the amounts that had to be paid out by the household. Wealthier families did so, as Table 2.1 demonstrates, by encouraging younger sons to remain single, either at home, or preferably by entering the priesthood. While the priesthood involved an initial outlay of expenditure upon education, the family could recoup this later on as priests had considerable opportunities through benefices to build up fortunes that could then be transmitted to a nephew or used to supplement dowries for nieces. Priests often founded causes pies per donzelles maridar i estudiants estudiar, foundations ‘to enable women to marry and men to study’ i.e. enter the priesthood. These foundations were usually aimed at benefiting those of the founder’s lineage, but sometimes had a wider charitable focus. Table 2.1. Destinies of sons and daughters from wealthy families in Catalonia, late eighteenth century Sons Heirs Younger sons Married Priests Single Unknown Daughters Heiresses Younger daughters Married Nuns Spinsters Unknown

% of all sons and daughters

% of younger sons and daughters

16 48 19 9

11.6 34.8 13.8 6.5

17.4 52.2 20.7 9.8

3

2.2

110 6 7 8

82.1 4.5 5.2 6.0

N 46

33.3

84.0 4.6 5.3 6.1

Source. 17 genealogies of families paying dowries of over 1,000 liures (see Ferrer Alòs, 2007a, p. 52).

51

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

Another strategy pursued by families was to try as far as possible to use the dowry of the incoming daughter-in-law to pay the marriage portions of younger children, in order to avoid withdrawing any income from the household. In cases where there was only one daughter requiring a dowry, this dowry could be equal to that of her sisterin-law and she could thus marry someone of the same social status. If the incoming dowry had to be divided among two or more children, however, they entered the marriage market at a lower level than their sister-in-law and thus were likely to marry into households of lower social status than that into which they had been born, unless they married a widower with children, where a dowry was of lesser concern. This downward social mobility can be seen in all three case studies: the dowries of younger daughters were nearly always less than the amount brought in by the incoming daughter-in-law (Congost, 1992: 65-67; Ferrer Alos, 1991: 32-5; Marfany, 2006: 92). These strategies were, on the whole, limited to families with some degree of wealth. For younger children of families lower down the social scale, the ability to find economic resources outside the household was crucial if they were to marry. There were various means of achieving this for younger sons: agricultural wage labour (ploughing, sowing, harvest labour), work as a servant on a large holding during the winter or for longer, seasonal migration, carrying coal or ice, and making corks and tiles. All these forms of work were available in the rural economy. Parents tended to allow their sons to save the wages earned from this work as an addition to their legítimes. This could be the capital needed for a new household, provided there was land available. The second route to finding an income outside of the household was to emigrate to the town to learn a craft. An apprenticeship could be a more profitable option than remaining on the land, giving the prospect of setting up an independent workshop in time, providing that the craft guilds were receptive to new members, rather than seeing them as a threat to their own monopoly. A third option was long-distance migration. America offered one set of possibilities, as did trade with the interior of Spain. Some Catalan villages became trading centres, such as Copons (Muset Pons, 2004), Tortellà or the coastal villages (Yàñez Gallardo, 1992). This migration tended to be temporary, however, in order to make a fortune and return home to invest it (Ferrer Alòs, Segura Mas et al., 1996). The American colonies and the rest of Spain were a natural extension of Catalonia in terms of trade. Younger daughters from poorer families also had to find means of accumulating their own dowries, usually through work before marriage (Sanmartí Roset, 1994; 52

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Roca Fabregat, 2005). There were fewer options open to them than for men, though they could also go into service in wealthier rural or urban households, work at home spinning wool and silk, knitting stockings or other types of textile work as part of proto-industrial putting-out networks or earn wages in other types of urban work. On occasion, women might also have access to a charitable foundation (causa pia) set up to provide poor women with dowries. Igualada, for example, had one, the causa pia Geroni Cornet, whereby one poor woman a year was chosen by lottery to receive a dowry of 100 lliures. Insofar as families of modest means provided for the marriages of younger children at all, they tended to do so in the form of tools, furniture, clothing or occasionally providing some living space for a few years in the parental home while the couple continued to accumulate the necessary capital to form their own household. At all levels, however, there was still a preference for helping daughters to marry rather than sons (Marfany, 2006: 93-96). Younger sons thus laboured under a particular disadvantage as a result of impartible inheritance. This disadvantage shows up clearly in the differences in age at first marriage in Igualada, the only one of the three case studies for which age at marriage can be determined in any systematic fashion, between heirs and non-heirs. As illustrated in Table 2.2, both younger sons and younger daughters married at later ages than heirs and heiresses, but with a greater age difference for men. Table 2.2. Age at first marriage in Igualada according to inheritance status, 1680-1829 Men

Heirs Non-heirs

N

480 569

Mean age 22.6 25.1

Women

Heiresses Non-heirs

N

135 1033

Mean age 19.2 21.8

Source. Igualada marriage registers and marriage contracts. Based on the numbers where age at first marriage could be ascertained from the reconstitution and then linked to a surviving marriage contract to determine inheritance status.

III.  Population growth and economic change in Catalonia In the course of the eighteenth century, Catalonia experienced rapid population growth at a rate of 0.7 to 0.8% per annum. The most recent estimates of population size are between 610,694 and 687,948 in 1717-1718, increasing to between 1,001, 232 to 1,126,248 in 1787 (Ferrer Alòs, 2007b). Despite the problems with the census figures, those for the three areas studied show a similar upward trend, as illustrated in Table 2.3.

53

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

Table 2.3. Population growth for the three case study areas Anoia Bages Girona region*

1717

18,857 29,230 118,424

1787

33,417 48,213 184,898

Annual growth rate 0.77% 0.65% 0.56%

* The Girona region corresponds to four comarques or districts, as shown in the map. Anoia and Bages are single districts. Source. Ferrer Alòs, 2007b, p. 54-55. The figures for the Girona region are the sum of those given for the four districts.

Figure 2.1. Location of case studies in Catalonia

Source. Map by the author. 54

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

All the demographic studies carried out to date, some based on family reconstitutions, point to a fall in age at first marriage and, to a lesser extent, a decline in the proportions never marrying and a rise in marital fertility as the main factors behind this growth (Nadal, 1992; Torrents, 1993; Muñoz Pradas, 1990; Gual Vilà, 1993; Marfany, 2003). Infant mortality may have been in decline in some coastal and southern areas but in the interior both infant and child mortality were rising over the period, with mortality crises still evident in times of high prices. Population growth was happening alongside a series of rapid and inter-related transformations in the Catalan economy, namely, the expansion of commercial viticulture, proto-industrialisation and trade with other areas of Spain and with the colonies (Vilar, 1964-1968). In much of Catalonia, especially in the area known as Catalunya vella, most of the land was held by wealthy peasants (pagesos de mas), via emphyteutic transfers that conferred use rights (domini útil) with the obligation to pay dues to the feudal lord who owned the absolute rights (domini directe). In practice these use rights had become quasi-property rights by the early modern period, since the land could be freely sold or transmitted via inheritance. In the eighteenth century, the increasing demand for wines and spirits from northern Europe, America and from the domestic market stimulated the planting of vines on previously uncultivated land, often involving the clearing of trees or rocks (Valls Junyent, 2004). Viticulture was unique in that it was very labour-intensive, and only produced fruit four years after planting. Most landowners preferred not to plant the land themselves. Instead, they ceded small plots to poorer peasants on a sharecropping basis, usually in return for a quarter of the harvest. The contract used to cede these plots was a form of emphyteutic transfer known as a rabassa morta (dead vine) contract (Colomé Ferrer, 1990; Moreno Claverías, 1995; Valls Junyent, 1995; Ferrer Alòs, 1998; Carmona and Simpson, 1999). The smallholder had to plant the land within a given length of time, and pay a share of the harvest. Once the vines were dead, the land returned to the original owner, hence the name of the contract. Through practices such as grafting, however, it was possible to keep vines alive indefinitely, thus transforming the sharecropper into a quasi-owner, with the right to sell or bequeath his rights over the land. The smallholder also had to pay a small entry fine, usually in cash, which could often be borrowed from the landowner. For the poorer peasant, access to land and the ability to transmit it to future generations was thus achieved through an exchange of labour, with rent tied to efficient cultivation. As far as we can tell, given that exchanges between kin were less likely to involve a formal contract, while land was sometimes ceded in this way by households to younger sons, thus setting them up on the family estate, usually the exchanges were between non-kin.

55

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

Alongside this expansion of cultivation through small plots there took place a similar expansion of villages and towns by the ceding of small plots for building, again on an emphyteutic basis. Many couples thus acquired a small plot for planting vines and another on the edge of the town or village on which they built a house and perhaps a vegetable plot. In other areas, such as the Bages region, the plot ceded for planting vines also carried with it the right to build a house, giving rise to a series of small farmhouses scattered across the countryside, surrounding the larger farmhouses (masies) of the wealthier peasants who had ceded the plots of land. The expansion of viticulture initiated a process of regional specialisation within Catalonia whereby the south and west were increasingly given over to viticulture and agriculture respectively, while the interior, a mountainous region of poorer soils, went over to proto-industry, in the form of first wool, then cotton, though with one or two towns such as Manresa specialising in silk and with a certain amount of commercial viticulture also developing here as well (Torras, 1984). The coastal areas and the north-east of the region specialised in related activities, such as shipbuilding and the coastal trade and manufactures such as corks for the wine and spirits trade. The three case studies that follow illustrate different aspects of this regional transformation and the demographic growth that accompanied it. The first example is a clear case of urban growth, that of Igualada, which experienced a process of proto-industrialisation. The second case study is the growth of various villages from the Bages district, growth that would be difficult to explain without the expansion of viticulture through the rabassa morta contract. In fact, as will be described below, proto-industrialisation and the expansion of viticulture were two complementary processes. The villages of the Anoia district, of which Igualada was the capital, witnessed the rise of the rabassa morta contract in the same way as those of the Bages district, while Manresa, capital of the Bages, also experienced proto-industrialisation. Both proto-industrialisation and viticulture can be seen as examples of how important new economic opportunities could be in enabling demographic growth in a single heir system. The third case study reinforces this idea by focusing on the region of Girona, an extensive area which did not witness either of these two processes, but did undergo a wave of emphyteutic land transfers, without which demographic growth is hard to explain.

IV.  Proto-industrialisation and household formation: the example of Igualada Proto-industrialisation has received considerable attention as a possible proponent of demographic change (Kriedte, Medick, Schlumbohm, 1981; Medick, 1976; 56

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Schlumbohm, 1992; Ogilvie, 1993). The impact of proto-industrialisation is usually envisaged in terms of providing new opportunities to marry in contexts where marriage had previously been restricted to those with access to land. This section of the paper explores the impact of proto-industrialisation on household formation in a Catalan town, Igualada. Igualada is situated in central Catalonia, on the border between the proto-industrial and viticultural zones. As a result, the surrounding land was increasingly taken over by the cultivation of vines, mainly through sharecropping contracts, while the town itself grew as an important centre of the textile industries and, to a lesser extent, the leather industry (Valls Junyent, 1996; Torras Ribé, 1974, Marfany, 2010). The population grew from a low estimate of 1,630 in 1717 (the census underestimates the population) to 4,925 in 1787. This population growth has been examined in depth through a family reconstitution of the parish registers for the period 1680-1829. Some 50,000 baptisms, burials and marriages, which include details of occupations and places of birth and residence, have been linked to reconstitute some 8,700 families (Marfany, 2003, 2006, 2010). The reconstitution has been combined with 2,542 marriage contracts (capítols matrimonials) for the same period, allowing changes in age at marriage and occupational mobility to be matched with inheritance status and age rank2. Population growth in Igualada was driven by changes in marriage behaviour. The proportions never marrying are hard to measure through a family reconstitution, but the breakdown for the 1787 census for 1787 can be used to generate indirect estimates (Marfany, 2006: 79-81). The proportions single at age 50 and above can be taken as roughly equivalent to the proportions of the population never marrying. The figures for Igualada are 7.3% for men and 2.9% for women, compared with 14.6% and 11.9% for Catalonia as a whole. By European standards, the Igualada figures are extremely low (Hajnal, 1965). As Table 2.4 shows, ages at first marriage in Igualada, particularly the modal ages, fluctuated for the first half of the period, then fell sharply after the 1760s for both sexes, but particularly for men. When comparing mean age at marriage across occupations, by the last fifty years of the period, men in textile occupations were marrying earlier than other groups, with a mean age of 22.6, compared with 23.9 for agriculture and 24.1 for artisans and for those in the professions and commerce, in keeping with patterns observed elsewhere in Catalonia (Marfany, 2006: 81-83). There is therefore already evidence for a proto-industrial effect upon marriage behaviour, although clearly changes in other sectors were also important. Unfortunately, distinctions   These contracts are to be found in two separate archives: Arxiu Notarial d Igualada (henceforth ANI), kept in the Igualada local archive, and the Arxiu de la Corona d Aragó, Notariales, serie Igualada (henceforth ACA) in Barcelona. 2

57

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

cannot be made within the agricultural sector to see whether sharecroppers and smallholders were marrying earlier than more substantial landowners, since all are designated by the generic term pagès. Table 2.4. Age at first marriage in Igualada by cohorts Years

Women 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29 1730-39 1740-49 1750-59 1760-69 1770-79 1780-89 1790-99 1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 Men 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29 1730-39 1740-49 1750-59 1760-69 1770-79 1780-89 1790-99 1800-09 1810-19 1820-29

Mean

St.dev.

20.3 21.9 22.6 21.3 22.4 22.3 23.2 22.4 21.8 21.4 21.7 21.0 22.2

3.2 3.6 5.2 4.4 5.6 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.6

20.2 21.4 22.3 20.6 21.0 22.2 22.4 21.4 21.0 20.7 21.0 20.3 21.5

20 21 21 18 18 23 21 21 21 19 19 19 18

90 103 50 103 136 168 159 241 286 313 366 547 508

21.8 24.7 26.3 23.8 25.1 25.0 25.5 24.8 24.7 23.7 24.2 22.5 22.7

3.1 3.8 5.6 4.3 4.9 3.8 4.5 5.2 3.8 4.3 4.8 4.9 4.3

21.9 24.1 25.8 23.3 24.4 24.3 25.0 24.1 24.5 22.9 23.3 21.6 21.9

23 25 22 21 22 22 25 24 24 22 21 20 19

49 79 56 66 135 123 121 196 227 256 304 437 425

Source. Igualada reconstitution.

Median

Mode

N

The constraints under which younger sons operated when it came to marrying were illustrated earlier for Igualada in Table 2.2. These constraints, however, were being eroded in the eighteenth century, partly through new opportunities, partly through a more general separation of marriage from the transmission of property. Marriage behaviour was changing for all groups and both sexes, regardless of age rank, but the expansion of textiles and the particularly marked fall in age at first marriage in this sector impacted particularly on younger sons, as can be seen through an analysis 58

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

of occupational mobility. Intergenerational occupational mobility was limited in Igualada, as is to be expected in a traditional society where most occupations were restricted by guild regulations favouring the sons and particularly the eldest sons of those already in the guild when it came to entry costs (Molas Ribalta, 1974). When comparing the occupations of men at marriage with those of their fathers for the 5,167 marriages where occupation was recorded for both the groom and his father, in 2,.975 cases (58%), father and son were in exactly the same occupation and in 3,231 (63%) they were in the same sector. For younger sons, however, there was more occupational mobility than for eldest sons. Only 331 younger sons (44%) were in the exact same occupation as their fathers, compared with 1.040 (62%) of eldest sons. Table 2.5 gives the breakdown for occupational sectors rather than exact occupations, but the proportions are similar. Younger sons were still more likely to follow their fathers’ occupations than not, but to a lesser extent than their eldest brothers. Table 2.5. Presence of sons in the same occupational sector as their fathers, according to age rank, 1680-1829 Same occupational sector Eldest sons Younger sons Total

N 1.153 412 1.565

% 69 55

Different occupational sector N 527 342 869

% 31 45

Total 1.680 754 2.434

Source. Igualada marriage register, 1680-1829. Based on 2434 marriages for which occupa-

tions of both father and son were given, and the son’s age rank could be established from the baptism registers or a marriage contract.

In terms of overall intergenerational occupational mobility, agriculture and textiles were the most open sectors in that the incidence of fathers and sons both being in these sectors was only 2.4 times higher than expected, compared with 7.2 for the leather sector and 16.6 for the professional and commercial sector3. In part, this reflects the higher start-up costs involved in the latter groups, but also stricter guild regulations in the leather sector. Guild regulations broke down early in the woollen industry in Igualada, and cotton, as a new industry, was never guilded (Torras, 1993). Significantly, where sons were not in the same sector as their fathers, they were more likely to be in textiles than any other. Moreover, most of the cases of sons and fathers being in the same sector but not the same occupation are also within textiles, such as clothier fathers having weaver sons. The importance of the textile industry in offering more choices for younger sons is thus clear. The openness of agriculture is likely to be underestimated by estimates of intergenerational occupational mobility, since taking   By expected in this context, we mean the incidence that one would expect to find if the only determining factor were the size of the occupational sector within the overall population. 3

59

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

on small plots on a sharecropping basis was more likely to be a by-employment than a sole occupation. The mean size of plots ceded on this basis was just under a hectare, far below the five hectares considered the minimum for subsistence by Catalan historians (Congost, 1990: 79). Nonetheless, opportunities now existed for gaining access to land that had hitherto been unavailable for younger sons. Table 2.6. Age at marriage according to existence of a marriage contract and age rank, 1680-1829 Age rank Eldest Younger

Mean 23.6 24.9

Marriage contracts Median 23.1 24.3

Mode 23 24

No marriage contracts

Mean 23.5 24.2

Median 22.6 23.4

Mode 20 21

Source. Igualada marriage registers and marriage contracts. Based on 2449 marriages for which the age at marriage, age rank and existence or not of a marriage contract could be confirmed for the groom.

In essence, proto-industrialisation and the expansion of viticulture were combining to separate marriage from the transmission of property. Precise estimates of household wealth and property are hard to ascertain, but one approximation is to compare the age at marriage for those who drew up marriage contracts with those who did not, since it is generally more likely that those who left contracts were from wealthier families. This comparison is set out in Table 2.6. While the means register only a slight difference, the median and especially the modal values show a clear difference between those with contracts and those without. In both groups, eldest sons were still marrying earlier, suggesting that even families with few resources gave preference to eldest sons over younger ones. The sons of those whose property did not warrant drawing up contracts, however, were able to marry earlier than those with something to inherit. This could be interpreted as greater freedom, in the sense that marriage required fewer resources than previously, but it also implies that those marrying were accepting a lower standard of living or, at least, a less secure basis for household formation. The larger differences between mean, median and mode in this latter group may confirm this, since they point to a more skewed distribution, with many outliers marrying later, even though the overall trend was towards younger ages at first marriage. This skewed distribution may reflect a greater polarisation within this group than within those signing contracts. As many historians of proto-industrialisation have pointed out, in an increasingly waged economy, combining the labour and resources of as many family members as possible was even more essential for survival than in a pre-industrial economy (Medick, 1976). There is certainly evidence that both protoindustry and the expansion of sharecropping in Catalonia required a more intense selfexploitation of family labour (Garcia Balañà, 2004: 212; Congost, 1990: 271-276). 60

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Contrary to the case of Girona, discussed below, proto-industrialisation in Igualada was accompanied by proletarianisation and impoverishment. By 1824, according to the cadastre (tax register), only 40% of households owned a house and 80% of households were headed by someone of journeyman status. Only 7.9% of household heads paid the highest rate of tax, compared with 20.6% in 1765 and 44.7% in 1724 (Marfany, 2003: 81). All the evidence for Igualada thus points to a gradual eroding of traditional constraints upon marriage. Younger sons were still at a disadvantage under impartible inheritance customs, but increasingly the inheritance of property was no longer the factor determining marriage for most social groups. Proto-industrialisation and an overall trend towards proletarianisation were changing the expectations surrounding marriage for everyone, but particularly for younger sons, as is evident from their greater intergenerational occupational mobility and the fact that movement into a different sector from their fathers was likely to be into textiles or, for the sons of men in textiles, into occupations such as weaving, which were more proletarianised than clothiers or manufacturers.

V.  The expansion of viticulture: the example of the Bages region During the eighteenth century, the Bages district benefited from the increased demand for wine and spirits from abroad, as described above, but also from increased demand from western areas of Catalonia that did not grow vines themselves. Land in the Bages was divided into holdings of 70-80 hectares on average, the masos described above. Most masos were family farms, cultivated by owner-occupiers, although some were owned by religious institutions, minor nobles or urban merchants. A small part of the holding was cultivated to meet the needs of the household: a few acres of cereals, a small vineyard, some olive trees, but most of the land was uncultivated or wooded. The uncultivated and wooded land could be cleared, ploughed and planted with vines when circumstances were favourable, as happened in the eighteenth century. Then the landholders had two options: (a) to plant and cultivate vines at their own cost, using hired labour, or (b) to cede small parcels of land to smallholders (rabassaires) who would plant the vines themselves, in return for a share of the harvest. The landholders chose the second option for various reasons: such emphyteutic transfers were the traditional way of gaining access to land; there was no need to invest any capital of their own; the risks of poor harvests were shared with the cultivators and the landholders could benefit more from the self-exploitation of the cultivators, since sharecropping and the quasi-property rights conveyed by the rabassa morta contract guaranteed that efficient production was in the latter’s interests. As explained above, given the huge investment of labour required to clear and plant land with vines and the delay of four 61

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

years before any harvest was forthcoming, a long-term, in fact, indefinite contract was required. Also, given that the smallholder who took on the land only brought to it his labour and not any capital, it was impossible to cede large parcels of land. The holders of the mas resorted to the sons of smallholders from the villages in order to benefit from the increased demand for wine and spirits. The eldest sons of these smallholders inherited the family smallholding and could, if they wanted, take on more vines, but the youngest sons were sent to work when very young as live-in servants in the masos. They were able to use their saved wages to take on small plots of land from the masos to plant with vines, in return for a share of the harvest (usually between a quarter and a third). For these younger sons of smallholders, access to land was possible in this manner at very little cost and, moreover, enabled them to consolidate a stable property, given the indefinite length of the contract and the likelihood that both parties would agree to a renewal once it did come to an end. There was, of course, a high cost in terms of the labour required to clear trees and rocks or to cut furrows to plant vines. The only cost in terms of cash, however, was the entry fine (entrada). This payment fluctuated according to the price of wine and the demand for land from the symbolic payment of a cup of water, through various payments in kind such as poultry to varied amounts in cash. Where cash was required, if the smallholder did not have sufficient means, he had the option, as mentioned above, of borrowing the amount required and paying it back at the rate of 3% interest per annum, a cost that could be borne by the household economy, at least when times were good. In addition to this, the Bages district saw, as has been described above, the development of proto-industry in similar fashion to the Anoia district and the case of Igualada. As well as the Manresa silk industry, the most important activity was spinning of wool by women for the clothiers of certain villages (Sallent, Artés, Navarcles, Moià, Castellterçol, Santpedor). Their earnings also contributed to making the household economy of these sharecropping smallholders viable. In Table 2.7 we have calculated the amount of land cultivated through rabassa morta contracts for various villages in the Bages district, using land surveys (amillaraments) from the mid-nineteenth century. We can see that 41.1% of the cultivated land surface in these villages was cultivated on this basis, and in some villages, the proportion was nearer 60% (Artés, Calders and Rajadell) and in one case (Rocafort) nearly 70%. The average size plot ceded in this way was 1.36 hectares, with little variation around this mean across the different villages, suggesting that landholders opted to cede small parcels, the planting of which with vines could be taken on by smallholders with a reasonable guarantee of success. 62

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Table 2.7. Land held on a sharecropping basis in selected Bages villages Artés Calders Castelladral Navarcles Rajadell Rocafort Manresa Total

Total cultivated Land cultivated land (ha) by rabassa (ha) 1,167.9 657.6 1,632.4 917.0 1,290.1 482.3 247.9 78.9 1,036.4 595.0 786.1 548.7 2,563.2 305.2 8,724.2 3,584.7

% Rabassa 56.3 56.2 37.4 31.8 57.4 69.8 11.9 41.1

N holdings 448 811 344 66 356 322 293 2,640

Source. Aca, Village land surveys (amillaraments) (1852-1872).

Average size holding 1.47 1.13 1.40 1.20 1.67 1.70 1.04 1.36

Table 2.8 shows the total extent of land held by rabassaires. These figures must been taken as approximate, since a rabassaire could hold land in villages other than his village of residence, villages for which surveys do not survive, and he could also hold land of his own that was not on a sharecropping basis. According to the figures above, 72% of rabassaires had less than 2.4 hectares of land on a rabassa morta contract. The average land per rabassaire was 2 hectares. Even if we assume that these rabassaires had 25% of their holdings in villages not covered by these data, the average would still only be 2.5 hectares. 87.7% of the land held by rabassaires was planted with vines, showing the overwhelming importance of this crop for the local economy4. Table 2.8. Land held by rabassaires on rabassa morta contracts, selected Bages villages (nineteenth century)* Hectares 0-0.6 0.6–1.2 1.2–2.4 2.4–4.8 4.8 + Total

Rabassaires

%

198 402 558 340 113 1,611

12.3 25.0 34.6 21.1 7.0

Total land holdings by rabassa (ha) 83.9 369.0 952.9 1,132.9 740.9 3,279.6

% 2.6 11.3 29.1 34.5 22.6

Area of vines (ha) 73.7 327.8 857.5 993.2 622.9 2,875.1

* Villages: Artés, Calders, Castelladral, Navarcles, Rajadell, Rocafort.

% vines 87.9 88.8 90 87.7 84.1 87.7

Source. Ferrer Alòs, 1987, p. 258.

  Rabassa morta contracts in the Bages, as elsewhere in Catalonia, allowed for the planting of some cereals (interspersed with the vines), vegetables, olive or fruit trees, again, in return for a share of the crop. 4

63

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

In this way, younger sons could take on plots of land as the basis for the formation of new households. A vineyard, however, was not sufficient; a house and a vegetable garden were also needed, in the latter case, a small plot of irrigated land on which to practise an intensive cultivation. Small plots of land were also ceded to smallholders in order to build houses (5-8 metres wide by up to 40 metres long) and miniscule plots (250 m2) of irrigated land near a fountain or stream for a vegetable plot. Usually, these plots were ceded by emphyteutic transfers, in exchange for a modest annual rent and an entry fine in cash that could, again, easily be converted into a loan. For a relatively small annual payment and a share of the crop, therefore, smallholders had access to a house, to a vegetable garden and a vineyard. In this way, the villages of the Bages saw the appearance of new streets of houses built by smallholders, younger sons of other smallholders. In Artés, for example, there were 105 houses in 1693. By 1774, there were 251. In 80 years, the number of houses had increased by a ratio of 2.4 and there were new streets (Benet Clara and Ferrer Alòs, 1990:123). Navarcles witnessed a similar rate of building activity, as illustrated in Table 2.9. By the end of the eighteenth century, the number of houses had tripled. In the cadastre (tax register) for Navarcles in 1816, 70.2% of households had a house and vegetable garden in the village, 5% just had a vegetable garden, i.e. were resident elsewhere and 23.7% only had a house, though this last percentage would undoubtedly be higher if the vegetable gardens owned by Navarcles residents in other villages could be included (Ferrer Alòs, 1987: 51). Table 2.9. Concessions of land for building houses in Navarcles, eighteenth century Years

Before 1700 1701-1710 1711-1720 1721-1730 1731-1740 1741-1750 1751-1760 1761-1770 1771-1780 1781-1790 1791-1800 Total

Source. Ferrer Alos, 1987, p. 45.

64

Number of plots 80 6 8 20 28 8 21 5 28 0 33 237

%

33.8 2.5 3.4 8.4 11.8 3.4 8.9 2.1 11.8 0.0 13.9

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Finally, it should be noted that this process of household formation by younger sons through access to land via the rabassa morta contract did not change the structure of households. These younger sons, on forming new households, perpetuated the single heir system and the stem family household over future generations. Studies of household structure using nineteenth century population counts demonstrate that the stem family household (types 4 and 5 in the Laslett classification scheme), which indicates a predominance of the singe heir system, was the ideal household type in this region: in Navarcles in 1844, 36.8%; Artés, 1868, 37.1%; Sallent, 1836, 22.1%; Castelladral, 1877, 24.9%.

VI.  Household formation and social change: the example of the Girona region Although the Girona region, in the north-east corner of Catalonia, did not see a significant expansion of either proto-industry or viticulture, it did witness the same important population growth during the eighteenth century, especially the second half, as elsewhere. This population growth was in part due to the emergence of a new social group. The Girona sources, unlike those for other areas, such as the Anoia and the Bages, allow us to differentiate between two social categories in the countryside: the pagès (substantial landholder) and jornaler or treballador. The former category indicates those who lived on a mas (substantial holdings) whether as owner-occupiers or as tenants (masovers). The latter titles indicate those who worked as waged labourers, though in this context they were not necessarily landless, but had insufficient holdings for subsistence. This group existed elsewhere in Catalonia, but in most areas of the region, all those in agriculture are simply designated as pagesos, making any kind of differentiation impossible. While there were pockets of protoindustry in the Girona region, such as the cork industry, that allowed for processes of growth similar to that described above for Igualada, most of the growth of this new social category of treballadors has to be attributed to changes on the land. By means of emphyteutic transfers, of which the rabassa morta contract was one example, many plots of uncultivated or wooded land of the masos passed into the hands of these treballadors, among them many younger sons of tenant farmers. These younger sons were thus able to establish new households in a similar manner to that described above for the Bages, in turn permitting the rapid population growth illustrated in Table 2.3. The example of Girona also illustrates the problem described above for Igualada, in that marriage contracts are less likely to capture marriages between younger sons and daughters, and thus to rely too heavily on this source is to produce a biased and somewhat static picture of Catalan inheritance customs. Samples of marriage contracts from the notarial archives in Girona for selected years prove that most 65

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

contracts were indeed signed between hereus and cabaleres or between pubilles and younger sons5. Very few marriage contracts were therefore concerned with the formation of new households. In the majority of cases where contracts did correspond to the marriages of younger sons with younger daughters, where we can be sure new households were being formed, the dowries brought by the brides were superior to the amounts brought by the grooms. Sometimes the groom’s portion is not specified, referring simply to the wages earned through his labour. By contrast, women’s wages were usually incorporated into the dowry as a whole. On occasion, younger sons did bring some land to the marriage. On the whole, however, the number of contracts is too small to enable us to draw any firm conclusions. A better indication is provided by different contracts in the Registre d’Hipoteques, namely, the many emphyteutic contracts signed over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the purposes of ceding small plots of land in order to build houses, as described above. We can assume that the building of these new houses was linked to the marriages of younger children, since heirs would continue to live in the parental home. Even keeping to the marriage contracts signed by heirs suggests that the agricultural sector grew significantly between 1769-1770 (307 contracts) and 18061807 (587 contracts). The rise in the percentage of contracts where the groom was in agriculture (from 67,4 % to 77%) could be attributed to the importance of such contracts for those with land to transmit, but the overall rise in the number of contracts signed between these dates points to significant demographic growth. Table 2.10. Proportions of grooms in agriculture according to status 1769

Pagesos (substantial landholders) Treballadors (smallholders)

98 (47,3%) 109 (52,7%)

1806

166 (36,7%) 286 (63,3%)

Source. Marriage contracts from the Arxiu Històric d’Hipoteques.

1819

126 (32,5%) 261 (67,4%) de

1831

107 (36,1%) 189 (63,8%)

1843

164 (37,8%) 270 (62,2%)

Girona, Llibres del Registre

More significant is Table 2.10, which breaks down the agricultural group of grooms according to the two categories of pagès and jornaler/treballador. Even among the marriages of heirs, the former group decreased in relative terms, while the second group increased. The table suggests that the period 1769 to 1806 witnessed an important shift in the agrarian social structure of the Girona region, which would then   Arxiu Històric de Girona. Llibres del Registre d’Hipoteques. Volumes for the years 1769, 1770, 1806 and 1807, in which the information survives for all districts. The Registres d Hipoteques record all notarial contracts for the region in question, including marriage contracts. 5

66

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

remain stable until the mid-nineteenth century. In terms of the questions posed by this paper, what needs to be established is first, that this shift was due to the increased number of marriages between younger children and second, whether this represented a process of proletarianisation in the countryside. Evidence in support of the first hypothesis, which would require the analysis of parish registers in order to be confirmed beyond doubt, is provided by another source: the requests for dispensations for calling marriage bans made to the diocese of Girona. Since this source gives information on the occupations of grooms and those of their fathers, we can also analyse the intergenerational nature of this shift in the social structure. This is presented in Table 2.11. Table 2.11. Occupation of grooms according to occupation of fathers (diocese of Girona), 1769 and 1806 1769

1806

Occupation grooms

Occupation fathers

Pagesos Treballadors Other Total

Pagesos 145 (97.3%) 39 (18.4%) 26 (8.9%) 210 (32.1%)

Treballadors 0 143 (67.4%) 47 (16.1%) 190 (29.1%)

Pagesos Treballadors Other Total

Pagesos 161 (100%) 55 (11.7%) 17 (4.7%) 233 (23.4%)

Treballadors 0 352 (74.6%) 64 (17.6%) 416 (41.8%)

Occupation grooms

Other 4 (2.7%) 30 (14.2%) 220 (75.1%) 254 (38.9%)

Occupation fathers

Other

0 65 (13.8%) 282 (77.7%) 347 (34.8%)

Total 149 (22.8%) 212 (32.4%) 293 (44.8%) 654 Total 161 (16.2%) 472 (47.4%) 363 (36.4%) 996

Source. Arxiu Diocesà de Girona, Sèrie ‘Dispenses de proclames matrimonials’.

We have an overall rise in marriages between 1769 and 1806 as a result of the expansion of the treballador group. The group of pagesos could not increase by very much, since by definition they already have to have large holdings available to inherit. By contrast, social and economic conditions favoured the expansion of the treballadors and new households. The results in Table 11 confirm what was already suspected: nearly all grooms described as pagès were also sons of pagesos but, conversely, many sons of pagesos, almost certainly all younger sons, were described as treballadors or with other occupations upon marriage. The percentage of sons of treballadors who were not also treballadors, however, is much smaller, only 16.% in 1769 and 17.6% in 1806 and none were pagesos in either year. What is also significant, however, is that this is not a process of downward social mobility for the younger sons of pagesos, given that the proportion of treballador grooms with pagès fathers fell from 18.4% to 11.7%. In fact, intergenerational occupational mobility 67

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

was actually slightly lower in 1806 than in 1769, with 678 grooms (68.1%) in the same occupational category (pagès, treballador or other) as their fathers, compared with 427 or 65.3% for the earlier date. Instead, we are witnessing the consolidation of the treballador group within the social structure, as shown by the rise in the numbers not just of treballador grooms, but of treballador fathers. By 1806, treballadors outnumber pagesos in the marriage dispensations not just among grooms but among their fathers, and in the marriage contracts even among the marriages of heirs. We cannot say here whether demographic growth was responsible for the formation of new households by younger children or whether it was a rise in nuptiality among younger children that was responsible for demographic growth. (Inmigration can be ruled out as a factor: in 1769-1770, only 3.7% of grooms for whom the information was available had fathers resident outside the diocese of Girona. By 1806-1807, this figure was down to 0.6%). Most likely is that both processes were mutually reinforcing. What we want to stress in this paper is that the preservation of a single heir system was compatible not just with significant demographic growth but also with a changing social structure of rural society, even in a region such as Girona where both agrarian specialisation and proto-industry were largely absent. Here the key to change lies in the occupation of small plots of land. Inheritance customs did not change, but younger sons leaving the family farm could create new units, to the extent that the substantial peasantry (pagesos de mas) became a minority. The treballadors followed the same inheritance system, as evidenced by their heirs signing marriage contracts, but their overall number was increasing, as can be seen in Table 2.10. These new data could be interpreted in different ways. Was this a process of proletarianisation in the Girona countryside? At first sight, an increase in the proportion of wage labourers in a society traditionally dominated by self-sufficient family holdings (masos) could be interpreted negatively as a process of proletarianisation and impoverishment of the society in question. Certainly in Igualada, protoindustrialisation was accompanied by proletarianisation and impoverishment. However, as we have seen, this increase in treballadors was possible precisely because of the marriages of many younger sons who had new opportunities to marry. A more optimistic interpretation, therefore, would be that treballadors benefited from three factors: cheaper credit (down from 5% to 3% interest) from 1750; better access to land through emphyteusis and a general rise in wages. The last factor is hardest to explain, but may reflect the tendency of treballadors to take on land of their own wherever possible, thus curtailing the length of time they would be willing to work for wages on the masos.

68

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

The marriage contracts offer two indications in support of the more optimistic interpretation. One of these is quantitative: between 1768 and 1806, the dowries of those marrying treballadors tended to increase, particularly relative to dowries in general and to those of pagesos (Congost, 2007: 142-145). In 1769-70, the brides of treballadors accounted for 31.6% of dowries in the middle of the range (100-499 lliures); by 1806-7, the equivalent figure adjusted for inflation (200-999 lliures) was up to 46%. The other is qualitative: the appearance of a new occupational title for these labourers, that of menestral (Congost, 2007: 139). This new title was introduced in the nineteenth century to distinguish smallholders both from substantial landowners, now increasingly known as hisendats and, crucially, from landless wage labourers, both in agriculture and industry, who were known as jornalers. These facts make it more defensible to suppose that what we are witnessing is not entirely a process of proletarianisation, but also the construction of a new network of smallholders alongside the masos, an important social change nonetheless. The younger sons who from the mid-eighteenth century drove the process we have been describing had no idea nor could have known that they were the agents of a revolution in the Girona countryside, which within a few decades would look very different from the world they knew. The single heir system was not eroded in the Girona region during the period studied here. The younger sons of one generation selected single heirs from the next. What did change, however, was the social organisation of the countryside. The tendency of younger sons from the masos and their heirs to be treballadors was an important social change, and one which, surprisingly, was not entirely negative for its participants.

VII.  Conclusion In Catalonia, as we have seen, the rapid demographic growth of the eighteenth century was entirely compatible with a single-heir system. It was made possible by the new opportunities of varying types opened up by economic changes. In Igualada, proto-industry was the main factor enabling new marriages and particularly a fall in age at first marriage for men. In the Bages region, these new opportunities may have been provided by the expansion of commercial viticulture, especially since this often took place through the medium of establishing small plots on a sharecropping basis, rather than consolidating land into larger units. The formation of new households, however, does not imply the reproduction of the same social groups but, as we have seen in the case of Igualada, may promote changes in the social structure. Further evidence of this social change is provided by the region of Girona, to the north-east of Catalonia. Here we are concerned with a mostly rural society, where agricultural growth was not exclusively based on viticulture. In the Girona region, despite the 69

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

absence of commercial viticulture, a similar process to that of the Bages region took place, in that an ever-increasing group was emerging that could combine wage labour with access to small plots of land. While all three case studies show that demographic growth within the single heir system was only possible through the emergence of new social groups of proto-industrial workers, sharecropping smallholders or wage labourers, all to an extent proletarianised, they differ as to whether these new groups were necessarily impoverished. Proletarianisation and impoverishment were more evident in the case of Igualada, but less clear-cut in the Bages district and the Girona region. Overall, however, the three case studies in this paper suggest that any changes in the economy that enabled marriage and household formation to be separated from the transmission of property, particularly landed property, within a stem family or single heir system were of most benefit to younger children.

Bibliography Arrizabalaga, Marie-Pierre (1997), ‘The Stem Family in the French Basque Country: Sare in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Family History, 22, no. 1, p. 50-69. Barrera González, Andrés (1990), Casa, herencia y familia en la Cataluña rural, Madrid, Alianza. Benet Clara, Albert and Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç (1990), Artés. Societat i economia d‘un poble de la Catalunya Central, Artés, Ajuntament d‘Artés.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1962), ‘Célibat et condition paysanne’, Etudes Rurales, no. 5/6, p. 3236.

Carmona, Juan and Simpson, James (1999), ‘The Rabassa Morta in Catalan Viticulture: the Rise and Decline of a Long Term Sharecropping Contract’, The Journal of Economic History, 59, no. 2, p. 290-315. Codina, Jaume (1997), Contractes de matrimoni al delta del Llobregat (segles xiv a xix) Barcelona, Fundació Salvador Vives Casajoana. Colomé Ferrer, Josep (1990), ‘Les formes d’accés a la terra a la comarca de l’Alt Penedès durant el segle xix: el contracte de rabassa morta i l‘expansió vitivinícola’, Estudis d’Història Agrària, 8, p. 123-144. Congost, Rosa (1990), Els propietaris i els altres. La regió de Girona, 1768-1862 Vic, Eumo. Congost, Rosa (1992), Notes de societat (La Selva, 1768-1862) Santa Coloma de Farners. Congost, Rosa (2007), ‘Sobre casos intermediaris i creixements espontanis’, Estudis d’Història Agrària, 20, p. 133-154.

70

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Derouet, Bernard (1995), ‘Territoire et parenté. Pour une mise en perspective de la communauté rurale et des formes de reproduction familiale’, Annales HSS, no.3, p. 64586. Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç (1987), Pagesos, rabassaires i industrials a la Catalunya Central (s. xviii-xix), Barcelona, Publicacions de l‘Abadia de Montserrat. Ferrer  Alòs, Llorenç (1991), ‘Familia, iglesia y matrimonio en el campesinado acomodado catalán (siglos xviii-xix)’, Boletín de la Asociación de Demografía Histórica, 9, no. 1, p. 27-64. Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç (1998), La vinya al Bages. Mil anys d‘elaboració de vi, Manresa, Centre d‘Estudis del Bages. Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç (2007a), Hereus, pubilles i cabalers. El sistema d‘hereu a Catalunya, Catarroja, Afers. Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç (2007b), ‘Una revisió del creixement demogràfic de Catalunya en el segle xviii a partir de sèries parroquials ’, Estudis d‘Història Agrària, 20, p. 17-68.

Ferrer Alòs, Llorenç, Segura Mas, Antoni et al. (1996), Els catalans a Espanya (17601914), Barcelona, Afers. Garcia Balañà, Albert (2004), La fabricació de la fàbrica. Treball i política a la Catalunya cotonera (1784-1874) Barcelona, Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.

Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan and Thompson, Edward Palmer (eds) (1976), Family and Inheritance. Rural Society in Western Europe (1200-1800), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gual Vilà, Valentí (1993), La família moderna a la Conca de Barberà, Tarragona, Institut d’Estudis Tarraconenses Ramon Berenguer IV. Hajnal, John (1965), ‘European Marriage Patterns in Perspective’, in David Victor Glass and David Edward Charles Eversley (eds), Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, London, Edward Arnold, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, p. 101143.

Kriedte, Peter, Medick, Hans and Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1981), Industrialisation before Industrialisation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Laslett, Peter and Wall, Richard (eds) (1972), Household and Family in Past Time, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Levi, Giovanni (1988), Inheriting Power. The Story of an Exorcist, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Marfany, Julie (2003), Proto-industrialisation and Demographic Change in Catalonia, 1680-1829, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Marfany, Julie (2006), ‘Choices and Constraints: Marriage and Inheritance in Eighteenthand Early Nineteenth Century Catalonia’, Continuity and Change, 21, no. 1, p. 73-106.

71

The formation of new households and social change in a single heir system: the Catalan case

Marfany, Julie (2010), ‘Is it still helpful to talk about Proto-industrialisation? Some Suggestions from a Catalan Case Study’, Economic History Review, 63, no. 4, p. 942973. Medick, Hans (1976), ‘The Proto-industrial Family Economy: the Structural Function of Household and Family during the Transition from Peasant Society to Industrial Capitalism’, Social History, 3, p. 291-315. Molas Ribalta, Pere (1974), ‘Els gremis d’Igualada a la fi de l’Antic Règim’, Miscellanea Aqualatensia, 2, p. 139-149. Moreno  Claverías, Belén (1995), La contractació agrària a l‘Alt Penedès Durant el segle xviii. El contracte de rabassa morta i l‘expansió de la vinya, Barcelona, Fundació Noguera. Muñoz Pradas, Francesc (1990), Creixement demogràfic. Mortalitat i nupcialitat al Penedès (segles xvii-xix), unpubl. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Muset Pons, Assumpta (2004), Traginers i negociants de Copons (segle Cossetània.

xviii),

Valls,

Nadal, Jordi (1992), Bautismos, desposorios y entierros: Estudios de historia demográfica, Barcelona, Ariel. Ogilvie, Sheilagh C. (1993), ‘Proto-industrialization in Europe’, Continuity and Change, 8, no. 2 , p. 159-179. Roca  Fabregat, Pere (2005), ‘Quién trabajaba en las masías? Criados y criadas en la agricultura catalana, 1670-1870’, Historia Agraria, 35, p. 49-92. Sanmartí Roset, Carme (1994), ‘El treball assalariat en els masos de la Catalunya interior al segle xix: el mas Santmartí’, Estudis d‘Història Agrària, 10, p. 143-156. Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1991), ‘Social Differences in Age at Marriage: Examples from Rural Germany during the xviiith and xixth Centuries’, in René Leboutte and Michel Poulain (eds), Historiens et populations. Liber amicorum Étienne Hélin, Louvain-laNeuve, Academia, p. 593-607. Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1992), ‘From Peasant Society to Class Society: some Aspects of Family and Class in a Northwest German Proto-industrial Parish, 17th-19th Centuries’, Journal of Family History, 17, no. 2, p. 183-199. To  Figueras, Lluís (1997), Família i hereu a la Catalunya nord-oriental, segles x-xii, Barcelona, l’Abadia de Montserrat. Torras Elias, Jaume (1984), ‘Especialización agrícola e industria rural en Cataluña en el siglo xviii’, Revista de Historia Económica, 2, no. 3, p. 113-127. Torras Elias, Jaume (1993), ‘From Craft to Class: the Changing Organization of Cloth Manufacturing in a Catalan Town’, in Thomas Max Safley and Leonard N. Rosenband (eds), The Workplace before the Factory. Artisans and Proletarians, 1500-1800, Ithaca (N.Y), Cornell University Press, p. 165-178.

72

Rosa Congost, Llorenç Ferrer Alòs and Julie Marfany

Torras Ribé, Josep M. (1974), ‘Trajectòria d’un procés d’industrialització frustrat’, Miscellanea Aqualatensia, 2, p. 153-97. Torrents, Àngels (1993), Transformacions demogràfiques en un municipi industrial català: Sant Pere de Riudebitlles, 1608-1935, unpubl, PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona. Valls Junyent, Francesc (1995), ‘La rabassa morta a la comarca d‘Igualada en la transició de les velles a les noves formes de propietat (1750-1850)’, Estudis d‘Història Agrària, 11, p. 89-108. Valls Junyent, Francesc (1996), La dinàmica del canvi agrari a la Catalunya interior. L‘Anoia 1720-1860, Barcelona, Publicacions de l‘Abadia de Montserrat. Valls Junyent, Francesc (2004), La Catalunya atlàntica. Aiguardent i teixits a l‘arrencada industrial catalana, Vic, Eumo. Vilar, Pierre (1964-1968), Catalunya dins l‘Espanya Moderna. Recerques sobre els fonaments econòmics de les estructures nacionals, 4 vols., Barcelona, Edicions 62. Yañez Gallardo, César Roberto (1992), Sortir de casa per anar a casa. Comerç, navegació i estratègies familiars en l‘emigració de Sant Feliu de Guixols a América, en el segle xix, Sant Feliu de Guixols, Ajuntament de Sant Feliu de Guixols. Zink, Anne (1993), L’héritier de la maison. Géographie coutumière du Sud-Ouest de la France sous l’Ancien Régime Paris, Ed. de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.

73

3.

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-Western Spain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: an overview Ofelia Rey Castelao

I.  Introduction The territory between the frontiers of Spain and France and Spain and Portugal is very homogeneous in topographical, economic, and social terms, although not in political terms. This area comprises the Basque Country, Cantabria, Asturias and Galicia and represents 52,633 km2 or ten per cent of the Spanish territory (Figure 3.1). In 1787, 23.5 per cent of the Spanish population lived in this area (2,150,711 inhabitants), 18.5 per cent according to the censuses of 1860 (2,958,529) and 1887 (3,244,874). The relative demographic importance of the North diminished because, although its growth was important between 1787 and 1887, it was still less than that in the rest of Spain. In fact, the most intense growth in the North occurred in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a result of significant agrarian changes, such as the increased cultivation of maize. The population density of the North was very high, very much above the Spanish average (Table 3.1) It was unequally distributed, however; high on the coast and low in the interior (Table 3.2)1. Table 3.1. Inhabitants per km2 in North-Western Spain in 1787, 1860 and 1887 Spain Basque Country: Cantabria Asturias Galicia

1787 20,3 39,2 30,1 34,3 45,6

1860 31,0 59,3 40,6 51,0 60,1

1887 34,8 70,6 46,8 56,4 64,1

Source. Eiras Roel (1996); Reher (1993).

  The population censuses of 1787, 1860 and 1887 were compiled in a similar way, but comparison of 1787 with the later censuses is complicated by the changes that took place in the provincial boundaries in 1834. 1

75

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Table 3.2. Inhabitants per km2 in the interior and coastal regions in 1887 Interior regions

Alava (Basque Country) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia)

Inhab. per km2 30,5 44,1 55,8

Source. Reher (1993).

Coastal regions

Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Coruña (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

Inhab. per km2 106,3 91,1 77,9 99,0

We are dealing here with a territory that was fundamentally rural and agricultural and where the level of urbanization was very low (Tables 3.3 and 3.4). Table 3.3. Percentage of urban population (towns with > 5000 inhabitants) in North-Western Spain in 1787, 1860 and 1900 Spain Basque Country Asturias Galicia

Source. Eiras Roel (1996).

1787 26,2 9,5 11,5 2,2

1860 30,3 20,9 11,2 6,3

1900 39,2 44,5 13,3 8,3

Table 3.4. Percentage of agricultural labourers in the total adult population of North-Western Spain in 1887 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria

Source. Reher (1993).

64,6 64,3 36,2 45,6 56,0

The Asturias Coruña (Galicia) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

69,1 67,5 78,1 87,4 67,0

In general, the urban centres were unattractive from an economic point of view. During the greater part of the period studied here, they could neither absorb rural immigrants nor stimulate the rural economy. People in this area of Spain, therefore, lived to a great extent on the margins of the industrial and commercial changes that were occurring at the end of the early modern period elsewhere in the country. Nevertheless, in the nineteenth century, Asturias industrialized, as did the Basque Country from 1877, the end of the Second Carlist War. For example, in Bizkaia (the Basque Country), the rural population decreased from 62.4 per cent in 1787 to 55.5 per cent in 1860 and to 37.7 per cent in 1887. Galicia, the most Western territory, was not in a position to industrialize, with the result that its rural and agricultural population remained at a very high level. 76

Ofelia Rey Castelao

Figure 3.1. Map of North-Western Spain

Source. Map by the author.

The North was characterized by small agricultural holdings, whose production was not sufficient to sustain whole families. This created a situation in which supplementary resources were sought in the textile proto-industry, from fishing, and from other activities. However, these additional resources were not sufficient. People emigrated to other Spanish territories at least until the end of the eighteenth century, or to America, above all in the nineteenth century. The nature of the demographic, economic, and social changes in the territories of the North are well known, thanks to an extensive and rich bibliography, specialized in rural family history, migration and, recently, also in the history of women. The contribution of legal historians and anthropologists has been considerable. Research has been based on population counts from the end of the early modern period and on official census data from 1787, 1860, and 1887. We have data on family size and composition, sex ratios, age at marriage, celibacy, etc. Laws, norms, and customs have been researched in order to establish the legal framework within which families defined their strategies for transfer of property, and to elucidate how this juridical framework was interpreted by contemporary lawyers. The laws changed little, but the same is not true of the interpretation of these laws. Historians have also based their work on notarial documentation (wills, post-mortem inventories, divisions of inheritance, dowry deeds, etc.), that are fundamental in observing how families

77

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

managed the transmission of patrimony from one generation to the following. While fiscal documentation has been important, the Basque Country enjoyed its own fiscal regime, and thus the fiscal information there is not comparable to that of the other territories of the North, and moreover, it is incomplete. Many of the general aspects that have not been resolved by means of the aforementioned methods nor by the application of quantitative methods, which are predominant in the topics that we are studying, have been solved by employing other methods such as family reconstitution and the micro-analysis of small rural family genealogies. A synthesis of the results follows.

II.  Systems of inheritance Before the introduction of the Civil Code of 1889, there were two legal systems of inheritance in the Northwest: Galicia, Cantabria and the Asturias belonged to the system of Castile, whereas the Basque Country had its own system. II.1. Areas under Castilian inheritance law: Galicia, Cantabria and the Asturias The inheritance system that was in force in these territories was that of the Laws of Toro, laid down by the Catholic Kings in 1505 for the Crown of Castile. These laws, of Roman and Christian origin and developed in medieval times, consisted of the following fundamental points. 1. All sons and daughters could inherit their parents’ property and it was not possible to disinherit them, except in exceptional cases. This principle led not only to equal treatment of all the children, but conceded the same rights of inheritance to females as to males. 2. At marriage, women had the right to receive a dowry, although it was not obligatory. At least in theory, the dowry was the most important decision made intervivos and formed a part of an inheritance system that bestowed important power on the woman at the moment of marriage. Once married, the dowry continued to belong to the woman, although her husband was in charge of its administration. If widowed, she recuperated her dowry, which did not enter into the property to be divided among the children. 3. Wealth acquired by the couple after marriage belonged to both partners although the husband administered it. When one of the spouses died, this wealth was passed on to the children although the survivor could stay on in usufructo if so stated in the will. 78

Ofelia Rey Castelao

4. In terms of the division of the inheritance, when a person died four-fifths of the estate had to remain within the direct line and all legitimate heirs had equal shares in those four-fifths (their legitima); the remaining one-fifth (Quinto) of the estate was designated for funeral expenses, pious works and free bequests. Once the funeral was paid for and charity distributed, the testator could give the rest of that one-fifth to whomever he or she chose. More importantly, testators could also set aside onethird (Tercio) of the estate as an additional bequest (mejora de tercio) for a favoured heir. Consequently, a testator could bequeath to a single heir the entirety of the tercio as well the quinto (mejora de tercio y quinto). The remaining estate was then equally divided among all legitimate heirs, including the beneficiary of the mejora (Gacto, 1988: 51; Poska, 2005: 48). Why was the North in favour of unequal division of inheritance? Essentially, because small agricultural holdings owned by rural property owners of average or lesser means dominated, and the decisions made concerning inheritance had important repercussions because what was already scarce was being further divided. All children had a right to inherit, but at the same time, it was necessary to maintain the unity of the farm in order to feed a family. Therefore families did not follow the norm of equal division that the Laws of Toro imposed. Instead, a solution was found in favouring one child, be it son or daughter. This inequality was not applied in the same way in all areas; rather, there were clear differences in practice from one territory to another and even within the same territory, according to reasons that are not always easy to explain. Demographic factors – for example, the low number of males in the population due to emigration – opened up ample opportunities for women as possible inheritors. Economic factors – e.g. processes of agrarian intensification – and, of course, sociocultural factors such as the influence of urban practices and the knowledge of other rural models due to population mobility, etc. – might all have an impact. In general, we can distinguish two models that were quite widespread in the North, with regional differences in each case, areas of nuclear families and those of stem families. II.2.

Areas with nuclear families, in the Northwest

In the greater part of Galicia and on the coast of the Asturias and Cantabria, people practiced the mejora corta – mejora de tercio or short improvement – in such a way that a son or a daughter received the house and an important part of the land and the other children inherited small proportions of the land (Dubert, 1992; López Iglesias, 1999; Lanza, 1988). With each subsequent generation, the agricultural holdings became smaller and smaller. In the seventeenth century, the introduction of corn and the growth of agricultural production permitted small, nuclear families of the 79

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Western zones and the northern coast to survive on these small agrarian properties. In the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth, the same process took place in the interior zones. Thanks to the introduction of the potato, newly married couples were able to establish themselves on small agricultural holdings without having to wait for their inheritance from their parents. Nevertheless, when this type of solution was no longer possible, the progressive insufficiency of production made it necessary that people take on complementary work or opt for temporary or permanent emigration. The mejora corta was given to a son or a daughter indifferently. Although males were preferred, given that the number of children per family was small, statistical probability favoured women as inheritors. On the other hand, the need to avoid successive divisions of land obliged families to resort to consanguineous marriages, and crossed marriages – two brothers with two sisters – in order to unite two inheritances or to avoid paying the dowry of the daughters. These practices gave as much importance to women as to men where inheritance was concerned. Daughters who did not inherit could often not marry, and, rather than stay in their parents’ home or that of the sibling who inherited the farm, preferred to live on their own and might settle on a piece of property which constituted their legitimate inheritance. Frequently, they worked in some occupation or trade, thus creating a model of strong permanent female celibacy. To sum up, women played an important role in the inheritance process and this was reinforced due to masculine emigration. In the absence of a large number of males, the work and the management of the home remained in the hands of the women and, because they were the most stable and permanent members of the families, they became more and more important to the parents and to the domestic group. The most extreme case is that of the Southwest of Galicia: in eighty per cent of the wills, the parents chose a daughter as the preferred inheritor, especially the youngest daughters, to whom they gave the house together with the third and the fifth part of the inheritance. This pattern demonstrates the compatibility of women with family succession and patrimonial inheritance, taking advantage of the fact that the Laws of Toro did not prohibit female succession, but rather recognized women’s productive aptitude, their capacity as caretakers, and their rootedness in the land and in the family (Rial García, 2005: 247). II.3.

Areas with stem families

In other zones of the North – the interior of Galicia, Western Asturias, the interior of Cantabria – the division of inheritance based on the mejora larga or mejora de tercio y quinto – (‘large improvement’) – was practised in favour of the oldest male child. This pattern was the most common where the stem-family was important. For example, in the interior of Galicia, a less populated territory than the rest of the region, 80

Ofelia Rey Castelao

families were large – an average of 5.28 persons in 1753 – and there were many stemfamilies (31.1 per cent) and some multiple families (7.2 per cent). The mejora larga – the combination of the third and the fifth parts – predominated in 65.9 per cent of the wills. Of those 63.7 per cent were in favour of a son, 13.7 per cent in favour of a daughter and the remaining 22.6 in favour of more than one child or grandchildren. The ‘improved’ (increased) inheritance portion was given by the parents to the oldest male child at the moment of his marriage, with several conditions attached to the gift. The chosen heir had to live with them and take care of them, had to manage the family farm, pay the rent and taxes, maintain his siblings in the home while respecting their legitimate inheritance and the dowry of his sisters. The purpose of these obligations was to keep the estate intact (Sobrado Correa, 2001: 203). The younger children therefore had few options, as we will explain later. II.4.

Areas with their own norms: the Basque Country

It is in the Basque Country that we find the most clear model of unequal division, above all in two of the Basque provinces, Bizkaia and Guipúzcoa2. The Basque right of succession (or Fuero) assured the impartibility of family patrimonies: the child that was destined to inherit the home was the first-born without distinction of sex, except in noble territories. At the foot of the mountains in Zuberoa and Baja-Nafarroa where the privilege of masculinity (of feudal origin) had been introduced, the other children received what their parents wanted to give them when they left their paternal home. This was done according to the importance of the house and without prejudice to the unity of the family patrimony. That is to say, the farmstead was given to one of the children, compensating the others with dowries or with money which, as we have seen, was also the practice in other stem-family zones of the North. The house (caserio) was the only permanent and indivisible entity and political participation was reserved for the heads of families in each town – for which it was necessary to be a vecino, (a resident household head), to be at least twenty-five years of age, and to be married. It was therefore very important to control the number of households heads which in turn reinforced the practice of transmission to a single heir. In some parts of Guipúzcoa and Bizkaia, the house was the basic economic unit and the possession of the house provided access to the means of production. It was also the symbol of family lineage. The perpetuation of the family house depended   This system also affected the French Basque Country (Lafourcade, 1997: 167-174) and Western areas of Cantabria and Las Encartaciones bordering the Basque Country where, at the end of the nineteenth century, some factors associated with the Fuero of Logroño were introduced, forming a set of customs of private law such as the economic regime of marriage and the common property of goods shared by a husband and his wife, documented from the sixtennth to the nineteenth century (Porras, 1998: 43-126). 2

81

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

on the heirs. By inheriting the house, the male or female heir received the material as well as the symbolic patrimony, and, for that reason, he or she was differentiated from his or her siblings. The privilege of unity and continuity did not exclude women, who were able to inherit and moreover, thanks to the dowry system, were very important in uniting households through marriage. The notarial documents illustrate the Guipuzcoan statutory custom that allowed the inter vivos transfer of the estate by means of a pact agreed with the successor and avoided the division of the family patrimony (agricultural and industrial). It was made in agreement with the siblings of the successor. The other children received money and renounced their right to their legitimate part of the inheritance from their parents. The chosen heir, be it a son or a daughter assumed from the moment the house was received a series of responsibilities and obligations that lasted at least until the death of the parents, including payment of their food and their funerals, dowries of the siblings, etc. The dowry of the heir’s spouse was used to compensate the heir’s siblings and sisters-in-law. In this manner, the marriage contract of the male or female heir had legal implications for the whole family. For that reason, recourse to a notary was essential. In this contract, the shared personal and economic life of the donor spouse and the inheriting spouse was established. The notary stipulated all of the lawful guarantees in order to assure that the family farmstead be passed on in its entirety from one generation to the next and that, in the future, it would not only be conserved in that fashion, but be well managed and improved (Monasterio Aspiri, 1997: 217-233; 2005: 11). The parents retained money and the usufruct of a part of the goods in case there were conflicts with the male or female heir. The freedom of the parents to make a will meant that they did not discriminate according to sex. Consequently, women were of great importance as heirs and as the spouses of heirs. But at the same time, society demanded a great effort on the part of the non-inheriting daughters to establish a family of their own on the sole basis of their dowry. Married women also had an extraordinary importance as temporary heads of the family, due to the frequent absences of the men who worked in fishing, transportation, commerce, or who had emigrated. Everything indicates, however, that since the seventeenth century, there was progressively a preference for men as heirs, an indirect effect of the consolidation of the political and administrative regimes, the militarization of the area, and the influence of urban practices (Imizcoz, 2004; Arbaiza Villalonga, 1996; Oliveri-Korta, 2001; Mikelarena and Erdozáin Azpilicueta, 1997). The house (caserío) was not only the basic unit of the rural social and economic structure, as well as a unit of production, of family, and of residence; it was also a symbol of the Basque culture (Homobono, 1991: 102). For this reason, the house,

82

Ofelia Rey Castelao

the land, and even the graveyard were joined together as one single entity. The defining element was the co-resident household – the domestic group composed of the parents, the heir and his wife and children, his unmarried brothers and sisters and the household servants – if there were any, as the system was based on the expulsion of the non-heirs. Consequently the younger children, whether males or females, did not receive land and could not marry the heirs of other households, and therefore had to remain unmarried. Celibacy was very high. Men entered the Church if the family could afford it, or they learned a trade, or they emigrated, whilst the women stayed in the house of the eldest brother and worked for him or entered domestic service. To have a trade or to go away to work were strategies that were part of a regulatory system of relationships among the members of a family and of the matrimonial models. The system was not perfect, in spite of the fact that the Basque lawyers of the nineteenth century defended its advantages. For example, the joint property held between spouses was fixed in the clauses of the marriage contract. In theory, these were the result of negotiations between the parents and the relatives, but the abundant conflicts that ensued indicate that such consensus was not evident and families were not always able to ensure the security of the new household and establish an equilibrium. The ideal alliance between siblings was not easy to achieve because of the money needed to pay the non-heirs. Often the heir had to mortgage the farm he had received. On the other hand, in theory, the stem-family protected the contribution of the heir’s spouse – she (or he) was a privileged creditor, she recuperated her marriage portion if left a widow without descendants, and she received fifty per cent of the resources accumulated in marriage. In practice, however, these promises were broken for similar reasons. Thus, the communal property of wealth and goods reinforced the ties between lineages and within one’s own lineage, but it did not ensure total family peace.

III.  Marital strategies The solutions chosen in the North in order to elude official norms and the problems generated by an inflexible economic model showed that family practices and marriage strategies were adapted to the circumstances of each territory. Although a late age at marriage predominated, and the number of single females and males was very high, there was still a considerable degree of social and territorial endogamy, consanguineous marriages and exchange marriages. Similarly, emigration was an essential component of the system of succession: in some cases, it was the result of strategies used to maintain the family patrimony as whole as possible. The younger sons in the Basque Country saw themselves as forced to emigrate if they wanted to create a family and be independent. Emigration, however, was also the cause of important changes in society: the absence of men in Western Galicia created a 83

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

situation in which women were the preferred heirs since they were those who were least likely to leave home. In sum, we find ourselves facing a complex combination of practices whose essential element was the control of the access to marriage3. III.1.

Unmarried offspring

Obviously, the most drastic strategy with the greatest impact on human lives was to avoid marriage for some of the children. In all of the North, remaining permanently single was a frequently used stratagem although it was less common than the strategy of late marriage. It did not affect men and women equally and it was most intense in the West, especially in Galicia (Tables 3.5 and 3.6). The high female celibacy rates were the results of two factors: considerable male emigration coupled with very strict control of access to marriage. Table 3.5. Celibacy rates in North-Western Spain in 1787 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Galicia

Source. Eiras Roel (1996).

Men

9.9 10,2 6,0 9,0 6,1 11.6 8.8

Women 11,4 11,6 9,0 15,9 10,3 13,4 16,5

Table 3.6. Celibacy rates in North-Western Spain in 1887 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Coruña (Galicia) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

Source. Reher (1993).

Men 7,3 7,7 8,2 10,8 7,2 9,3 8,5 16,7 11,9 11,4

Women 10,9 7,7 10,0 11,5 14,4 21,4 26,2 25,9 19,2 30,1

  Some historians have affirmed with regard to the Basque Country that they had the impression that they were ‘facing a pre-established quota of marriage, a limit that was impossible to surpass without putting the entire stability of the system into danger’ (Ortega Berruguete, 1987: 461). 3

84

Ofelia Rey Castelao

As far as households were concerned, celibacy had different social implications depending on the area. For example, in Western Galicia where nuclear families prevailed and the division of inheritance was relatively equal, permanent female celibacy resulted in the existence of a large number of households of women living alone who were economically independent. They had a house, some land, a trade. On the contrary, in stem-family areas such as the interior of Galicia single men and women lived with the brother who inherited the farm and did not become independent. The men emigrated seasonally and the women tended to go away from the house for a while in order to go into domestic service and put together a dowry. In the interior of Galicia , celibacy was as high as 18.5 per cent in 1787. The solution for some of the later-born children was to enter the Church. It was an important institution in the Basque Country where the ecclesiastic population was much more numerous than in other territories of the North. In 1787, one in every 148 inhabitants was a member of the clergy in the Basque Country and one in every 295 in Asturias, as can be seen from Table 3.7. Table 3.7. Clergy in North-Western Spain, 1787 and 1860* 1787

1860

Galicia Asturias Basque Country Galicia Asturias Cantabria Basque Country

Population 1,346,000 364,203 283,500 1,777,000 540,600 211,729 429,200

Secular clergy

* The monasteries were abolished in 1835. Source. Sáez Marin (1975: 63, 152, 293).

9,121 1,236 2,883 5,817 1,213 830 1,899

Monks

3,074 491 850 0* 0* 0* 0*

Nuns

585 199 1,141 349 120 144 1166

There were not many monks and nuns. They were fewer in the North than in other areas of Spain, and after 1780 their number continually decreased. Moreover, religious houses were abolished in 1835, and thus no longer provided a solution for the placement of second-born children. Before then, the future life of boys and girls was decided by their parents long before they could speak up for themselves and children had entered the convent at the age of twelve or thirteen. The best option for country people with sufficient landed property was for their sons to enter the secular clergy, but this option also disappeared in due course. In Galicia, the number of priests grew slowly from the middle of the eighteenth century – in 1753, there were 8,532, in 1797 there were 9,121, then their number decreased drastically to 5,817 in 1860. In 1753 in Galicia, there was one priest for every 85

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

40 families, and for stem families one for every 27 families! Only a fraction of these priests had a parish (36.6 per cent in 1797) and lived from their own means. The majority did not have a clerical post, but lived with their families and from their families’ income and performed civil activities In reality, the distribution of the clergy mirrors the socio-economic characteristics of the different regions: numerous in the interior of Galicia and in the Basque Country (Catalán, 2000) as a consequence of the abundance of noblemen. Noblemen represented 16.6 per cent of the vecinos in the interior of Galicia, and more than eighty per cent in the Basque Country. Above all, it mirrors the abundance of children with little possibility of inheriting and marrying. The size of the properties of the stem families was comparatively larger than in Western Galicia, thus permitting the families to use a portion of the estate to provide for these members of the clergy. Also, these members of the clergy were exempt from military service, their property was free of taxes, and they were held in esteem by the family and by the heirs in the stem-family. In exchange, the family gained social prestige while at the same time eliminating an heir, even if he was unable to live by his own means. In Western Galicia, on the other hand, priests were much less abundant. In the coastal zones and in the vine-growing valleys, where the nobility was not numerous – it amounted to only 1.6 per cent of the population – and nuclear families predominated − there was a large pro portion of families with an only child who normally inherited. Few of these youngsters entered the clergy. From the end of the eighteenth century the number of clerics decreased in the North as well as in all of Spain at a rapid rhythm because society and the political institutions regarded them as too numerous. Diverse measures were taken to slow down their increase; for example, their fiscal and military privileges were reduced. Also, it became increasingly difficult to establish chaplaincies. However, new careers or professional civil options that allowed later-born children to find another means of making a livelihood were scarce. Emigration was the most frequent option for all later-born children across all of the North, as we shall see. IIl.2.

Late marriages

Late marriage was a generalized phenomenon in the North, not as a demographic novelty born of modernization, but as a traditional component of family structures. This has been shown in a number of investigations (Vara Recio, 1987: 477; Ortega Berruguete, 1988: 115; Eiras Roel, 1996; López Iglesias, 1999). Without doubt, delayed marriage was the most generalized and constant strategy employed to control population growth. The census data of 1787 and 1887 leave no doubt when we compare the territories of the North with the rest of Spain (Tables 3.8 and 3.9). 86

Ofelia Rey Castelao

Table 3.8. Average age at first marriage in North-Western Spain in 1787 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Galicia

Source. Eiras Roel (1996).

Men

25,4 26,9 26,0 27,5 28,5 24.9 25,8

Women 23,7 25,9 25,9 26,3 27,3 24,4 25,7

Table 3.9. Average age at first marriage in North-Western Spain in 1887 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Coruña (Galicia) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

Source. Reher (1993).

Men

26,8 26,7 27,2 27,9 26,5 26,8 27,1 28,3 28,2 27,5

Women 23,9 24,6 24,7 26,5 25,3 26,1 25,5 26,1 25,5 25,5

Although there were some areas of early marriage, they were less common than those characterized by late marriage, and even here, the age at marriage tended to increase with the passage of time. In Galicia, one of the areas of early marriage on the Western coast was the Peninsula de Salnés. There, in the years 1750-1825, not only agricultural activities but also fishing and proto-industrial activities prevailed. Men married early provided that they emigrated after marrying in order to sustain their families. Men married at an average age of 21.7 years, women at 24.9 years. However, the children of each generation married later and later, and the model of early marriage disappeared: men married at 25.1 years of age in 1810-1819 and at age 28.1 years in 1820-1825, and women at 24.7 years and 26.6 years for the same dates. An important finding is that 35.7 per cent of families did not have the means to marry off their daughters (Pérez García, 1986: 21). In a very different area, Rioja Alavesa (Basque Country), the female age at marriage was 22.8 years in 1787 and the male 24.7 years. These were low ages for the North, and seem to be related to the abundance of day-labourers, whose means 87

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

of livelihood were based on wages and not on inheritance. The consequence was that people married without waiting for their inheritance portion. In the Basque Country, average age at marriage was also under 25 years in the villas (little towns) of Bizkaia, where Castilian law predominated (Ortego Berruguete, 1987: 463), while in the lower lying areas where the Basque Law (the Fuero) dominated, the marital age was much higher. This situation initially attracted the attention of historians because this pattern appeared to be related to the hereditary system. However, the testing of the hypothesis of a systematic correlation between the system of inheritance according to the Fuero and age at marriage led to a contrary conclusion. In the area where Castilian law prevailed, there were, in effect, young marital ages – 22.5 years in localities which were characterized by fishing or mining activities – but there were also higher marital ages – 26,7 or 28.2 years in areas clearly dedicated to agrarian activities –. Where the Basque inheritance law applied age at marriage was higher, but nevertheless could be much lower, 21 to 24.4 years where there were alternative work opportunities, such as iron and mining industries or 23.2 years in Ubidea with its iron and steel industries. The same reasons explain why, without the law of inheritance changing until 1889, the age of marriage still changed. For example, in Llanada in the south of Alava, where inheritance was divisible, marriage was contracted late, above all for men. This area was a zone of traditional subsistence agriculture based on wheat with a predominance of small, independent farmers – owners or tenant farmers – but with no craft tradition to provide alternative occupations. There was no emigration either because of lack of resources or lack of appropriate skills, so that the need to control marriage was the main determinant of the age at marriage. Nevertheless, in 1887, the age at marriage was much lower than it had been in the eighteenth century – the opposite of what occurred in some parts of the Basque Country – because the economic context had changed. The rising demand for cereals encouraged this area to increase its productivity, selling its products on the market in Bilbao and thus facilitating the access to marriage (Ortega Berrugute, Rodríguez et al., 1988: 119). The existence of areas of early marriage was of little significance in the North and what was crucial was not the legal system, but the socio-economic conditions. For this reason, late marriage was the most generalized practice, reinforced in many cases by frequent pre-nuptial emigration in order to accumulate enough money to be able to marry and raise a family. In stem families and single heir areas of the Basque Country, late marriage was brought about by the desire of the parents to delay the transfer of their property to their successor for as long as possible.

88

Ofelia Rey Castelao

IIl.3.

Consanguineous marriages and exchange marriages

We find different means of controlling access to marriage in the North. Here we are faced with a strong economic, social, and geographic endogamy, destined to guide marriage towards an integral conservation of property. These strategies have been demonstrated by the combined use of parish records (the reconstruction of families and family genealogies) and of notarized written documents. Through the practice of endogamy, recourse to consanguineous marriages, exchange marriages, and other practices of alliance in force in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people tried to avoid the division of the estate, often with success. However, these practices changed over time and their frequency diminished as society and legislation allowed more and more freedom to young people in choosing a spouse, and new work possibilities other than agriculture arose. These external pressures explain the decadence of the old strategies, rather than this being the result of improved possibilities for marriage, since in 1887, the North still had the highest levels of permanent, unmarried persons. From the eighteenth century onwards in areas where it was necessary to avoid the dangerous effects of the break-up of agricultural properties, we observe new trends. Consanguineous marriages and exchange marriages were very frequent, albeit not the general practice in the eighteenth century, but in the nineteenth century they were becoming less frequent (Rey Castelao, 1990: 247; Dubert, 1989: 167). Table 3.10. Proportion of consanguineous marriages (CM) and exchange marriages (EM) in South Galicia and in the Ulla Valley (West Galicia), seventeenth-nineteenth centuries Period 1660-1709 1710-1739 1740-1789 1790-1819 1820/1839

Total M 732 461 952 546 330

South Galicia N CM 9 39 223 150 38

Source. Rey Castelao (1990: 247).

% CM 1.2 8.5 23.4 27.5 11.5

Period 1640-1709 1710-1759 1760-1819

West Galicia (Ulla Valley)

Total M 861 972 786

N EM 229 245 113

% EM 26.6 25.2 14.4

89

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Table 3.11. Proportion of consanguineous marriages (CM) and exchange marriages (EM) in Beariz (West Interior Galicia) and in Cerdado (West Interior Galicia), seventeenth-nineteenth centuries West Interior Galicia: Beariz Period

% CM

% EM

1709-24 1725-49 1750-74 1775-99 1800-24

2.0% 1.7 11.6 20.1 17.4

16.0% 15.2 9.5 9.3 2.8

% both together 18.0 16.9 21.1 29.4 20.2

Source. Fernández Cortizo (2001: 219).

West Interior Galicia: Cerdedo Period

% CM

% EM

1700-19 1720-39 1740-59 1760-79 1780-99 1800-19

5.7 9.1 17.9 19.4 18.4 15.6

24.1 3.9 15.6 15.4 4.7 0.0

% both together 29.8 13.0 33.5 34.8 23.1 15.6

Both approaches were based on the fine balance to be attained between the exploitation of land and the maintenance of the farm in its entirety, which depended on contact between the families involved and on an agreement to which the consent of the individuals marrying was not solicited. The result was a strong geographic endogamy. Exchange marriage avoided the disintegration of the family patrimony while, at the same time, it benefited one child more than the others and condemned the non-succeeding children to an unmarried life. In theory, there existed the possibility that male and female siblings from two homes with similar patrimonies would intermarry, thereby bestowing the improvement in the inheritance to the son with whom the parents lived. In all these cases, the exchange was a question of a movement of persons rather than the transfer of goods and, in that way, the division of the inheritance was avoided in the relevant homes and an increment in the patrimony was achieved from one generation to the next. Consanguineous marriages and exchange marriages did not tend to coincide either in time or in space. The relevant choice – and the combination with permanent celibacy – depended on socio-economic factors. The practice of one or the other continued in the periods of disequilibrium or of precarious equilibrium between the population and the available resources. However, cultural factors must be kept in mind, since these explain why people opted for one or the other solution with no apparent justification. For example, in the rich areas of Western Galicia, which were densely populated and subject to strong emigration, people did not resort to consanguineous marriage. They preferred exchange marriage. In the valleys close to Santiago de Compostela, in the period 1710-1759, the percentage of these marriages amounted to 22.3% in some villages and 29.8% in others, but in the period 1760-1819, these marriages declined to 10% in the first localities and 19,5% in the second, before eventually disappearing

90

Ofelia Rey Castelao

(Rey Castelao, 1990: 197). By contrast, consanguineous marriage was very strong in the mountainous areas of the Southwest next to Portugal, an area that also had strong emigration. Consanguineous marriages peaked between 1740 and 1819 (at about 28 per cent of the marriages for the whole area) and significantly decreased later depending on the villages with a proportion varying between 8 to 13 per cent). Nevertheless, there were other areas of the Galician interior that did not practise either of these strategies. Some were territories with stem families and a preference for inheriting the first-born, others were districts with smaller, nuclear families in which strong emigration was not a factor because the demographic pressure on the land there was less important.

IV.  The formation of households Based on what has been said up to this point, one can infer that a significant proportion of the men and the women of the North did not set up families – especially in stem-family areas – and that both in stem and nuclear family zones the creation of new families always occurred when the couple was older. This pattern was maintained, with some exceptions, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, at least until the publication of the Civil Code in 1889. There is a serious problem of documentation that makes it impossible to determine whether the consequence of the aforementioned pattern was the existence of family models that were particular to the North. General data that can be used to compare and contrast the different territories are not available. Before the nineteenth century, family structures can only be elucidated on the basis of fiscal documentation in Galicia, the Asturias and Cantabria, but not in the Basque Country given that it had a tax regime that was different. Fundamental for this question is the Cadaster of the Marqués de La Ensenada (1752-1753), but it was never set up in the Basque country. The general census of 1787, which includes the Basque Country, did not take households into account. The first proper census was that of 1860. However, the available information shows that, in general, the family size was larger in the North than in the rest of Spain (Mikelarena Peña, 1992: 15-62; 1993: 105-136). In general, in the North, larger families coincided with a model of stem-family formation, patrilocal residence, and a regimen of mejora larga – large improvement – or of integral inheritance in favour of one child. The smaller size families coincided with a predominance of the nuclear family, neo-local residence, and a more or less equal division of inheritance (Table 3.10). But, as we have seen, the correlation between the unequal division of the inheritance and the complexity of the family is not very strong. The only thing that is clear is the correlation between the stem-family

91

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

structure and a very high number of permanently single persons which contributed to the presence of numerous adult women in the households. Table 3.12. Mean size of household in North-Western Spain in 1887

Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Coruña (Galicia) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

Source. Reher (1993).

Persons per household 3,86 4,24 4,44 4,61 4,02 4,27 3,95 4,15 4,06 3,80

Adult women per household 0.97 1,03 1,04 1,09 1,05 1,15 1,14 1,16 1,08 1,21

For the formation of households and, above all, for their consolidation during the woman’s fertile period, diverse strategies were employed that were on the margin of the norms in force at the time. Historians agree that a standard practice for succession and for the re-structuring of the family might have been a theoretical ideal but that, in practice, domestic groups adapted themselves to the available resources and to the necessities of production and reproduction. For those same reasons, identical systems that at times were opposed occurred in very different areas (Mikelarena Peña, 1992: 15). It is certain that in the statutory area of the Basque Country, impartible inheritance for only one child and the transfer of the inheritance to that person at the moment of marriage generated complex household structures. At the end of the nineteenth century, 18.5 per cent of the households were extended and 15.6 per cent were multiple in rural Bizkaia. There, patrilocal households and late marriage resulted from the fact that the parents postponed the marriage of their heirs in all possible ways in order to maintain their own authority and to delay reproduction. But specialists in the history of the Basque Country do not explain the system only according to the existence of a norm that imposed this type of inheritance, rather, they directly refer to socio-economic causes (González Portilla et al., 2003: 145-150). When we look at the Basque Country and those other northern territories with similar practices to those of the Basque pattern, it is important to keep in mind the question of nobility. To be considered of noble status was almost universal in the Basque area and this also applied to a large percentage of the population of the area that extends from there to the interior of Galicia. Until the end of the Old Regime 92

Ofelia Rey Castelao

(1833) important fiscal and military liberties were granted to members of this nobility. Above all, young noblemen were less troubled by socio-economic problems than youths who did not belong to the nobility. For the latter, the lack of access to collective goods and rights which were customary in rural communities imposed serious limitations on the creation of new households. Use of collective lands, Basque or not, contributed to a large degree to the family resources. The land was either turned into two-years assarts (’rozas’) by tearing up and burning vegetation, in order to obtain cereals or it served as grazing pasture for the abundant livestock, or it was used to obtain wood and firewood to produce charcoal, etc. Due to all of these factors, the control of these lands and the right to use them was very important. On the other hand, where the collective lands were not submitted to rigid norms because they did not make a significant contribution to the agrarian income, communities did not set any limits on the creation of new families. Such was the case in a large part of Galicia and in the coastal zones in all of the North. It is necessary, however to keep in mind that one of the determining elements of family structures in the northern territories was emigration, as can be seen in Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Table 3.13. Sex ratio in the 16-24 and 25-40 age groups in the territories of North-Western Spain in 1787 Spain Alava (Bas que Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Galicia

Source. Eiras Roel (1996).

16-24 years 97 96 85 87 83 89 86

25-40 years 97 100 86 86 82 87 87

Total 98,4 89,3 90,1 87,9 92,0 91.7

93

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Table 3.14. Sex ratio in the 21-30 age group and for all ages in the territories of North-Western Spain in 1887 Spain Alava (Basque Country) Bizkaia (Basque Country) Guipúzcoa (Basque Country) Cantabria Asturias Coruña (Galicia) Lugo (Galicia) Ourense (Galicia) Pontevedra (Galicia)

Source. Reher (1993).

21-30 years 93,1 113,3 100,1 102,6 78,2 69,0 71,5 82,5 76,9 56,3

All ages 96,2 102,0 97,8 97,4 87,0 83,3 79,7 90,7 89,8 73,2

If single men emigrated and then married where they had newly taken up residence, they alleviated some demographic pressure within communities as well as on the family inheritance. If they left but then returned, the money that they had made could permit them to marry in the areas where the division of inheritance was unequal, although the age of marriage was thus increased. However, in zones of very unequal division of inheritance, this money more often contributed to the economy of a stemfamily home as later-born children could not easily marry. If the emigration was post-nuptial, it tended to indicate a younger age of marriage, but it also suggested a lower birth-rate given that the husband spent long periods of time away from home. It has been shown that, in the territories of the North, migrants generally came from families that were larger than average, and that the absence of one or more family members had the effect of reducing the family to a normal size. In the case of Western Galicia, characterized by nuclear families and the practice of dividing the inheritance in a manner that was not very unequal, many single men emigrated permanently in order to increase their fortunes. Sometimes they did not return home, if they married in their new place of residence or went to America. The married men left in order to obtain additional resources and, as a result, the pressure on the food resources of the household was reduced (Rey Castelao, 1994). The number of married male emigrants was always high and only began to decrease in the nineteenth century. In the areas of the interior of Galicia characterized by large families and inheritance practices that favoured the first-born, the system theoretically expelled the later-born children but, in reality, they were necessary to work on the farms as labourers since the farms here were larger than those in the rest of Galicia. Nevertheless, they were 94

Ofelia Rey Castelao

not necessary all of the time and, during periods of low demand, the single men went to Castile or, above all, to Madrid. The married men tended to be the first-born and they hardly ever emigrated. The central-eastern part of Asturias was very similar to Western Galicia both in economic terms and in terms of the neolocal, nuclear family model, but not with regards to emigration. Eighty per cent of the families were nuclear, with an average of 3.97 persons per family. The percentage of female heads of households (17.6 per cent) was similar, although there were fewer single females (13 per cent) and few women lived alone. But in contrast to Galicia, seasonal emigration to Castile was the most usual pattern in this part of Asturias. Small farms allowed people to stay on the land so there was a clear correlation between intensive cultivation and the equal division of the inheritance on the one hand and emigration for shorter periods of time on the other, the opposite of what occurred in Western Galicia. In the Western interior area of Asturias, bordering the interior of Galicia there was a model of succession which favoured the first born. On average, families had 4.9 members and 45 per cent of the families were complex, multiple and extended families In this region, emigration occurred in a different fashion. Given that the inheriting son or daughter stayed at home and married young, the rest of the children had often to remain single. Female celibacy was more than 18 per cent in 1787 and the fate of these single women was to stay at home as servants of their siblings there were 1.70 single adults per household or they could leave (López Iglesias, 1999: 90). Extensive agriculture and unequal inheritance contributed to an emigration pattern that was more lasting, as opposed to that of Galicia. Male emigration reinforced the stem-family as the departure of sons facilitated the path for the male or female heir inheritor and made possible the reproduction of the family economic unit. The two Asturian models produced different solutions to the same problems that affected Galician families, but these solutions changed during the nineteenth century. Between 1787 and 1860, emigration became more general and more frequent4 and there was a shift in the place of origin of the migrants. The Western interior area replaced the coastal area and above all the central- Western area as the region of maximum emigration. The districts with more emigrants were the most densely populated in 1860. Above all, the single men left, as well as older children, and although the destination for many was Madrid, the impact of emigration to America was very important (Barreiro, 1994: 131).

 

4

There was a sex ratio of 92 in 1787, of 83.9 in 1860.

95

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Emigration alleviated the problems of family pressure in a number of different ways. In the nineteenth century when previously important emigration destinations such as Andalucia and Castille entered into periods of crisis, the communities of the North continued to send a large number of male and female labourers to Madrid (Ringrose, 1985: 67). Of the 95,863 immigrants registered in Madrid in 1850, 54.4 per cent were women: Galicia contributed with 9,961 immigrants; Asturias with 17,195; Cantabria with 3,388; and the Basque Country – Bizkaia – with 2,881. Together, these territories had more than three per cent of their population in Madrid, both men and women, many of these women being wet nurses (Sarasua, 1994: 163). Of the migrants from Northwest Galicia, 42.5 per cent were women, of the migrants from South-west Galicia, 32.9 per cent were women, and of the migrants from Bizkaia, 64 per cent were women. It is clear that the other point of attraction was America. However, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Basque Country began to receive immigrants in its cities due to the beginning of the important process of industrialization. Emigration took all forms possible seasonal, pluriannual, definitive and it had a different effect in the zones of nuclear families (predominantly in Galicia, Asturias, and Cantabria) than it did in those areas characterized by extensive or stem-families which were the majority in a large part of the Basque Country and in some districts of other territories). Emigration changed in some zones of the North as a consequence of industrialization. The most clear case is in the Basque Country whose industrial nuclei changed into points of attraction for both Basque and non-Basque immigrants. The creation of factories and the exploitation of mining made it possible for the Basque maritime provinces, Bizkaia and Guipúzcoa, around 1880, to stop sending emigrants to Castile, Andalucia and America and instead to begin receiving immigrants. That did not mean the end of the rural Basque exodus; rather it meant a change in direction instead of leaving, they migrated to the new industrial zones in the eastern part of the Basque Country (Fernández de Pinedo, 1994: 196).

V.  Conclusion Until the introduction of the Civil Code of 1889 there were two legal systems of inheritance, the Basque law and in the Northwest, Galicia, Cantabria and the Asturias, were subject to Castilian law which was a very open legal framework. Historians agree that the law served only as a reference for organizing inheritance. As a result, families interpreted it in the way that was most convenient for them in order to organize the transfer of the inheritance according to the family’s particular characteristics, to the predominant customs in each territory, and to the historical moment at which the transfer occurred. Consequently, there was a great diversity of behaviour in the lands of the North, whether under the rule of Castilian law or under Basque law. There was 96

Ofelia Rey Castelao

a greater or lesser inequality depending on the area, but there were clear differences in practice from one territory to another and even within the same region, depending on demographic, economic and socio-cultural factors which cannot always be easily explained. The system of inheritance was not adequate for the purpose of keeping the farm impartible. In the North it was common for both sexes to have high celibacy rates and a high age at marriage, and there was a high frequency of consanguineous marriages and exchange marriages. All these were partial solutions and the only definitive solution was male and female migration.

Bibliography Arbaiza  Villalonga, Mercedes (1996), Familia, trabajo y reproducción social: una perspectiva microhistórica de la sociedad vizcaína a finales del Antiguo Régimen, Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco. Barreiro Mallón, Baudilio (1994), ‘Movimientos migratorios en Asturias y Cantabria (siglos xvi al xx)’, in Antonio Eiras Roel and Ofelia. Rey Castelao (eds), Migraciones internas y médium-distance en la Península Ibérica, 1500-1900, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, p. 131-182. Catalán Martínez, Elena (2000), El Precio del Purgatorio: los ingresos del clero vasco en la Edad moderna, Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco. Dubert, Isidro (1989), ‘Estudio histórico del parentesco a través de las dispensas de matrimonio y los archivos parroquiales en la Galicia del Antiguo Régimen’, in José Carlos Bermejo Barrera (ed.), Parentesco, familia y matrimonio en la historia de Galicia, Santiago, Tórculo Ediciones, p. 167-180. Dubert, Isidro (1992), Historia de la familia en Galicia durante la época moderna, 15501830: estructura, modelos hereditarios y conflictividad, Sada, Edicións do Castro. Fernández de Pinedo, Emiliano (1994), ‘Los movimientos emigratorios médium-distance vasco-navarros, 1500-1900: una visión de conjunto’, in Antonio Eiras Roel and Ofelia Rey Castelao (eds), Migraciones internas y médium-distance en la Península Ibérica, 1500-1900, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, p. 183-208. Eiras Roel, Antonio (1996), La población de Galicia, 1700-1860, Santiago de Compostela, Caixa Galicia. Gacto, Enrique (1987), ‘El grupo familiar de la Edad Moderna en los territorios del Mediterráneo hispánico: una visión jurídica’, in James Casey, Francisco Chacon, Enrique  Gactoc et al. (eds), La familia en la España mediterránea (siglos xv-xix), Barcelona, p. 36-64. González  Portilla, Manuel, Urrutikoetxea Lizarraga, José and Zarraga Sángróniz, Karmele (2003), Vivir en familia, organizar la sociedad: familia y modelos familiares: las provincias vascas a las puertas de la modernización (1860), Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco.

97

Inheritance, marital strategies, and the formation of households in rural North-western Spain

Homobono Martínez, José I. (1991), ‘Ambitos culturales, sociabilidad y grupo doméstico en el Basque Country’, Revista de antropología social, p. 83-114. Imizcoz, José María (ed.) (2004), Casa, familia y sociedad, Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco. Lafourcade, Maïte (1999), ‘Sistemas de herencia y de transmisión de la propiedad en Iparralde bajo el Antiguo Régimen’, Vasconia: Cuadernos de historia-geografia, no. 28, p. 167-174. Lanza García, Ramón (1988), Población y familia campesina en el antiguo régimen: Liébana, siglos xvi-xix, Santander, Librería Estudio. López Iglesias, Florentino (1999), El grupo doméstico en la Asturias del siglo Oviedo, Uría.

xviii,

Mikelarena Peña, Fernando (1992), ‘Las estructuras familiares en la España tradicional: geografía y análisis a partir del Censo de 1860’, Revista de Demografía Histórica, 10, no. 3, p. 15-62. Mikelarena  Peña, Fernando (1993), ‘Estructuras familiares en España y en Navarra en los siglos xviii y xix: Factores etnoculturales, diferenciación socioeconómica y comportamientos estratégicos’, Revista de antropología social, no. 2, p. 105-136. Mikelarena  Peña, Fernando and Erdozáin Azpilicueta, Maria Pilar (1999), ‘Algunas consideraciones en torno a la investigación del régimen de herencia troncal en la Euskal Herria tradicional’, Vasconia: Cuadernos de historia-geografia, no. 28, p.71-91.

Monasterio Aspiri, Iztiar (1997), ‘El pacto sucesorio y la disposición de la herencia a favor del sucesor único’, Vasconia: Cuadernos de historia-geografia, no. 28, p. 217233. Monasterio Aspiri, Iztiar (ed.) (2005), Contratos sobre bienes con ocasión del matrimonio. Dote y pacto sucesorio en BizKaia (1641-1785), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Gobierno-Vasco. Oliveri-Korta, Oihane (2001), Mujer y herencia en el estamento hidalgo guipuzcoano durante el Antiguo Régimen, siglos xvi-xviii, San Sebastian, Donostia. Ortega Berruguete, Arturo (1987), ‘La población de Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa y Araba a través del censo de Floridablanca’, La población española en 1787, Madrid-Murcia, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, p. 443-476. Ortega Berrugute, Arturo, Rodríguez, M., Fernández, A.B., Macías Muñoz, Olga and Acedo, B. (1988), ‘Nupcialidad y familia en el Pais Vasco peninsular a través del Censo de 1887’, Congreso de Historia de Euskal Herria, vol. 4, p. 115-136.

Pérez García, José Manuel (1986), ‘Mecanismos autorreguladores das demografías antigas. O exemplo galego’, III Xornadas de Hª de Galicia, Ourense, p. 53-79. Porras Arboledas, Pedro (1998), ‘El Fuero de Viceo como régimen económico especial del matrimonio (Cantabria, siglos xiii-xix)’, Cuadernos de historia del derecho, p. 43126.

98

Ofelia Rey Castelao

Poska, Allyson (2005), Women and Autority in Early Modern Spain. The Peasants of Galicia, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Reher, David Sven (1993), España à la luz del censo de 1887, Madrid, INE. Rey Castelao, Ofelia (1990), ‘Mecanismos reguladores de la nupcialidad en la Galicia atlántica. El matrimonio a trueque’, Obradoiro de Historia Moderna, p. 247-269. Rey Castelao, Ofelia (1994), ‘Migraciones internas y medium-distance en Galicia, siglos xvi-xix’, in Antonio Eiras Roel and Ofelia Rey Castelao (eds), Migraciones internas y medium-distance en la Península Ibérica, 1500-1900, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, p. 85-109. Rial García, Serrana (2005), Las mujeres de las comunidades marítimas de Galicia durante la Epoca Moderna: una biografía colectiva, Alcalá, Ayuntamiento. Ringrose, David R. (1985), Madrid y la economía española: 1560-1850, Madrid, Alianza Edt. Sáez Marin, Juan (1975), Datos sobre la Iglesia española contemporánea: 1768-1868, Madrid, Editorial Nacional. Sarasúa, Carmen (1994), ‘Emigraciones temporales en una economía de minifundio: los montes de Pas, 1758-1888’, Revista de Demografía Histórica, 12, nos. 2-3, p. 163-181. Sobrado Correa, Hortensio (2001), Las Tierras de Lugo en la Edad Moderna. Economía, familia y herencia, 1550-1860, A Coruña, Fundación Barrié. Vara Recio, Antonio (1987), ‘La población de Cantabria en el censo de Floridablanca’, La población española en 1787, Madrid-Murcia, INE, p. 477-496.

99

4.

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850 Alice Velková

I.  Introduction Marriage and property are central phenomena to pre-modern societies. The interaction between the two has inspired several generations of historians of the family. Although it might seem that this subject must have already been exhausted, in fact the debate about European Marriage Patterns has revived in recent years (Duhamelle, Schlumbohm, 2003; Engelen, Wolf, 2005). A number of new studies have been published which summarize and take stock of the existing research, but also seek to confront Hajnal’s theory with the findings of micro-historic analyses (Zeitlhofer, 2003; C. Fertig, 2003; G. Fertig, 2003; Iida, 2003). Still other studies have attempted to consider Hajnal’s theory from a different perspective, to see it in a different context, and to formulate new questions. There are also historians who ask whether subsequent interpretations of Hajnal’s theories have not taken us too far away from his original ideas (Hajnal, 1965; Hajnal, 1983), leading us to view the European Marriage Patterns as a universal principle which we expect to be applicable to all periods and contexts (Fertig, 2005: 41). Some have argued that the European Marriage Pattern cannot be taken as a universal model because Hajnal did not cover anywhere near all aspects of pre-modern marriage (Hendrickx, 2005: 86). The ability to enter into marriage has usually been viewed as relating mainly to economic conditions (Mackenroth, 1953: 119, 120, 408; Hajnal, 1965: 132, 133). Since economic conditions were placed at centre stage, and in many cases these did not permit people to marry, marriage was regarded as a privilege (Pfister, 1994: 24). This latter assumption lies at the core of what has been called the ‘niche model’, according to which men had to acquire a certain status before they were permitted to marry (Viazzo, 1989: 187, 221; Ehmer, 1991: 63-69; Zeitlhofer, 2003: 35-38; Fertig, 2003). This article seeks to examine what was the link between marriage and property transfer on the west Bohemian estate of Šťáhlavy. It will discuss the position of men who inherited property from their parents. Female heirs will not be taken into account since there were too few of them for a thorough analysis. The circumstances of an 101

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

heir’s marriage were doubtless influenced by the amount of property that he was to inherit. Different strategies were chosen by people who owned holdings with land than by owners of cottages without land. This is why these two social groups will be analyzed separately. This analysis will focus on the question o what was the timing of the heir’s marriage in relation to the property transfer. I will also examine whether heirs really had to wait to marry until they took over the holding. If that was the case, it would be logical to expect that the property transfer was immediately followed by the heir’s wedding. Did this really happen? When examining the circumstances of an heir’s entry into marriage, the timing is not the only important issue. The question of who decided about the circumstances of the wedding is of equal importance. Was it the heir or rather his father? It can be expected that the strategies of these two men were not always identical. The main subject of this study will be the question of whether the cases where the father was in the position to exert influence on the marriage of his heir were different from cases where the father had died before the son’s entry into marriage. The main method used in this micro-historical study of marriage patterns was family reconstitution. I created a database containing more than 15,000 individuals, based mainly on parish registers but enhanced with data from other sources such as land registers and tax cadastres. This method made it possible to obtain relatively accurate data on marriage age. For one-half to two-thirds of the individuals, the exact date of both birth and marriage are known. For the remainder, these data could be reconstructed with relative accuracy. For the first half of the nineteenth century I was also able to use population lists and registers, into which marriage contracts, wills and other important documents were entered. The estate of Šťáhlavy (Stiahlau) was situated in Western Bohemia, approximately 15 km south-east of the city of Plzeň (Pilsen). During the period examined in this article, that is from 1700 to 1850, it was owned by the noble family of Czernin of Chudenitz from 1710 to 1816, and from 1816 to 1945 by the Wallensteins. In the course of time the estate was considerably enlarged (cf. Figure 7.1). In the midnineteenth century it included more than fifty villages. This is why it was not possible to include the entire estate in this study. I carried out a microhistoric study in four selected localities on the estate: Šťáhlavy, the administrative centre of the domain, Starý Plzenec, the only small town on the estate, and two villages. Around 1700, these localities had a total of about 1,000 inhabitants living in 130 houses. During the ensuing 150 years there was considerable population growth, so that by 1850 these four localities had about 2,800 people living in 300 houses. The main source of livelihood in all four localities was agriculture. At the end of the seventeenth century, local landlords began to introduce proto-industrial iron production into the region,

102

Alice Velková

and this began to provide employment for part of the population. In addition to that, in the second half of the eighteenth century an increasing number of men practised a craft which in many cases was not their principal source of livelihood, but served as a supplementary source of income, particularly in the case of smaller holders. The majority of the population of the estate lived in farmsteads or cottages over which their families had the right of disposal. They could sell them or transfer them to their descendants or other relatives. They were, however, not the real owners of the property. The supreme owner of the land was the landlord, while the farmers themselves, since they were the landlord’s subjects (a variant form of the personal subjection of ‘serfdom’), were in fact mere holders of the farmsteads. In this article I distinguish two basic social strata – landless holders and owners of holdings with land who were usually divided into two groups: peasants owning large holdings (sedláci/ Bauern) who had the largest amount of land and (chalupníci/Chalupner) who usually held less than five hectares. Šťáhlavy farms tended to be small – only 30 per cent of holdings had more than ten hectares. Most families were thus able to manage all the work on their own. In case they needed additional labour (if the holder was not married or his children were too young or the holder’s parents too old), they could use two different solutions. The first solution was taking into their lodging one or several families, who could, but did not have to be related to the holder. These families of houseless lodgers (podruzi/ Inwohner) usually stayed at the farm for several years. The other possibility was employing servants. They also lived on the farm, but their contracts tended to be short-term, usually lasting one year, afterwards they went somewhere else and their places were filled by new young people. Householders without land were called cottagers (domkáři, Häusler). They usually made their living by engaging in a craft or they often worked as day-labourers for peasants owning large holdings (sedláci/Bauern) or landlords. This social group originated in the beginning of the eighteenth century, until then only holdings with land existed on the estate of Šťáhlavy. During the eighteenth century, however, as the result of a huge wave of cottage building, the number of cottages without land outnumbered the existing holdings with land. At the same time, the number of the landless, i.e. people who owned neither land nor a cottage without land, was equally on the rise (Velková 2008: 115-123; Cerman and Maur 2000: 753-757). These people are usually called houseless lodgers because they lived in lodgings, i.e. in houses that belonged to someone else. They worked as day-labourers. In the course of the eighteenth century the social structure of these four groups changed substantially. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century families of peasants owning large

103

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

holdings (sedláci/Bauern) and smallholders (chalupníci/Chalupner) accounted for only 25 per cent of the population, the much larger group of cottagers made up 3540 per cent, houseless lodgers accounted for another 25 per cent and the remainder of the population consisted of craftsmen and persons in the service of the noble landlords (mainly senior officials) (Velková, 2002: 31-34).

II.  Marriage and inheritance in Šťáhlavy, Western Bohemia For a long time, the marriage of an heir has been regarded as having been very closely connected with the transfer of a family’s property (C. Tilly, R. Tilly, 1971; Wrigley, Schofield, 1981; Duhamelle, Schlumbohm, 2003). Undoubtedly, however, the heir’s marriage was also influenced by the rules determining who would be selected as heir, i.e. by the inheritance system prevailing in a given culture (Goody, Thirsk and Thompson, 1976; Kaser, 2000). On the estate of Šťáhlavy, like in the rest of Bohemia, impartibility of farmland, one main heir, and prevalence of nuclear-family households were typical. Even when there were retirement contracts the older generation could live in separate dwellings, and usually had a separate kitchen. At the same time no unified inheritance system existed in Bohemia until as late as the end of the eighteenth century. It was the overlords of different estates who formulated and decided on the principle of inheritance, which consequently differed considerably from region to region (Maur, 1996: 101-104, 115-117; Velková, 2008: 838-846). Most often in the eighteenth century it was the existing holder’s youngest son who inherited the holding (Procházka, 1963: 504-505; Maur, 1996: 106), which was also the case on the estate of Šťáhlavy. But this principle meant that the existing holder often died before his heir reached majority and could become a regular holder and marry, as is demonstrated by the findings from the estate of Šťáhlavy. Here, in the eighteenth century, 60 per cent of the heirs were younger than 24 years and one third of the heirs had not even reached the age of 10 when their father died. It was therefore necessary to entrust the holding to an interim holder, usually the new husband of the widowed heir’s mother, or possibly the widow herself or the heir’s brother-in-law or older brother. However, such a provisional solution tended to reduce the prosperity of the holding and threatened the economic interests of both the landlord and the state (Velková, 2005: 155), since while being entitled to make use of the proceeds of his agricultural activity, the interim holder was not obliged to pay back debts incurred by his predecessors in the holding. Often, the result was that the holding became more and more indebted (Procházka, 1963: 421). That is why in 1787 Emperor Joseph II issued a Patent stipulating that if the holder died without leaving a will naming his heir, then his eldest son was to succeed to the holding (Kropatschek XIII, 1789: 98). A year before, in 1786, the subject holders obtained the right to make a will 104

Alice Velková

and testament (Kropatschek X, 1788: 89-92). Until then they had not been allowed to choose their heirs freely without permission of the landlord. Findings from the estate of Šťáhlavy show that the years 1786-1787 triggered a significant change in the behaviour of the rural population. In the pre-1787 period the youngest son did not become heir only in exceptional cases, such as when he was handicapped in some way, or possibly when his father no longer wished to farm and could not wait for him to reach adulthood. The youngest son was thus chosen as heir seven times more often than the eldest son was. Once the reforms were put into effect, however, a change occurred (Velková 2008: 146-147), but it obviously did not take place immediately. The family strategy was a long-term affair, and the father could hardly transfer the right to inherit from the youngest son, who was raised as the heir, to the eldest one, who had often already built his livelihood elsewhere. In the first twenty years following the issue of the Patent the eldest son became the heir mainly in cases when the father did not leave a will. Nevertheless, families that were formed after the year 1787 mostly adapted their strategies to the new situation. One generation later – after the year 1810 – holders on the estate of Šťáhlavy generally gave preference to the eldest son rather than to the youngest son. Another important legislative change was brought by a Patent issued by the Emperor Leopold II in 1791 (Kropatschek XVII, 1791: 35-37), which gave women the same rights in property matters as men had. Thus, from the beginning of the nineteenth century, property holders had many more possibilities to use the solution that would be to the advantage of the whole family when choosing their heir. If the fathers wanted to farm as long as possible, they could opt for the former pattern. Nevertheless this earlier model ceased to be satisfactory for most fathers and so they not only increasingly gave preference to the eldest son, they also increasingly chose other sons, or sometimes even a daughter. In this article I therefore take the year 1787 as a watershed, which divides the period under study into two parts. I assume that the change of the inheritance right influenced the strategy of property holders in the planning of their offsprings’ marriages. On the estate of Šťáhlavy there is every indication that the father was involved in decisions about the circumstances of the heir’s marriage in a decisive manner. He exercised influence on its timing and he also took part in the choice of his daughter-in-law. If a child refused to marry as the father wished, he or she could be disinherited (Maur, 1996: 106). This practice is confirmed by concrete examples from the estate of Šťáhlavy. If a son wanted to marry before reaching the age of 24, which was the age defined in the Civil Code of 1811 as majority, he needed his father’s or his guardian’s approval. At the same time he was represented by the father or the guardian if he wanted to conclude a marriage

105

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

contract. The father, however, acted as a person of authority in marriage contracts even in cases when the son was of age (Velková, 2007: 84). The cases when the father could act on his strategy regarding his heir’s marriage were much fewer in number prior to 1787 than in the later period – because in the first period the father often did not live until the heir’s adulthood. It can be assumed that the fathers’ strategy differed in cases when the youngest son as the heir married after his elder siblings from cases when the eldest son as the heir was the first one to marry. On the estate of Šťáhlavy, it was the heir’s father who was entitled to dispose of the bride’s dowry, especially if the heir was still in his minority at marriage. The marriage of the youngest son could have hardly any impact on the future lives of his older siblings, since their share often had to be paid out earlier by the father. On the contrary, if the eldest son was the heir, the father could use his daughter-in-law’s dowry to secure the future of his younger children, or possibly use the heir’s marriage to divide the property and to award the shares to all his offspring. More and more fathers adopted this pattern, which is demonstrated by the fact that after 1787 the heir’s marriage was most frequently connected with the transfer of the holding (cf. Tables 4.3 and 4.5 below). It cannot be entirely excluded that the change of the inheritance right had a certain impact on the decline of the mean marriage age, which occurred in the first quarter of the nineteenth century on the estate of Šťáhlavy. This is to say that if the heir married before his siblings did, the siblings had a better chance of getting their shares of inheritance than if they had to wait for the heir to marry. The mean age at first marriage on the estate of Šťáhlavy in the period 1650–1850 was not substantially different from the average in north-west Europe (Cerman, 2001) (Table 4.1). Usually it was around 28-29 years for men and 25 years for women, and this was similar to other regions of Bohemia (Dokoupil, Fialová and Maur, 1999: 7778)1. On average seven to eight per cent of women on the estate of Šťáhlavy remained permanently unmarried throughout their entire lives; the percentage of men who never married was even lower. Even in this respect the findings for Šťáhlavy do not greatly differ from the average for the rest of Bohemia in this period (Fialová, 1997: 48). These averages, however, do not reflect the differences in marriage age between the different social strata, nor between heirs and non-heirs of holdings. It is obvious that there was a difference in marriage age between the sons of peasants owning large holdings (sedláci/Bauern) and smallholders (chalupníci/Chalupner) on the one hand and the sons of cottagers on the other hand (Table 4.2). Before 1787 it was common for half of the sons of owners of large farms and sons of smallholders to marry before   Research conducted by Hermann Zeitelhofer in the Kapliky parish near the Czech-Austrian border has revealed somewhat different figures. The mean age at first marriage in the eighteenth century was 30-31 years for men, 28-30 for women. In the first half of the nineteenth century it declined to 28-29 for men and 27-29 for women (Zeitlhofer, 2003: 40). 1

106

Alice Velková

the age of 25. But, on the other hand, less than 30 per cent of cottager sons were married at this age. Their most typical marriage age was 25-29 years. There was not a significant difference between the age at first marriage of heirs and their brothers. In the following period, however, heirs married very young – 60 per cent of heirs to large farm-holdings and as many as 74 per cent of smallholder heirs married before reaching the age of 25. Also almost one half of cottager heirs were married at that age. By contrast brothers of heirs did not marry so early, their marriage age did not change compared to the pre-1787 period, and if it did, there was an increase in the number of men who married only after reaching 35 years of age. Table 4.1. Mean age at first marriage, Šťáhlavy, 1791-1850 Period

Men Number

Women

Mean Age

Median

Number

Mean Age

Median

1701–1725

124

28.0

27.0

169

25.0

24.0

1726–1750

146

27.6

26.0

180

24.9

23.0

1751–1775

126

28.3

27.0

181

25.2

23.0

1776–1800

205

28.7

27.0

281

25.8

23.0

1801–1825

262

26.5

25.0

343

24.0

22.0

1825–1850

258

27.8

26.0

394

25.5

24.0

Source. Family reconstitution. Data drawn from Regional State Archives of Plzeň (Pilsen), Roman Catholic parish registers at Starý Plzenec, 1651-1850, volume numbers 1-9, 12, 1518, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35; ibid., Roman Catholic parish registers at Šťáhlavy, 1814-1850, volume numbers 1-6.

It seems therefore that after the year 1787 there was a considerable interest in seeing heirs marry as soon as possible. Who exercised this pressure? Was it the heir who wanted to take over the property as soon as possible? Or the father who considered the heir’s marriage as the right moment to arrange his property affairs? How can we interpret the situation when on the estate of Šťáhlavy, half of the heirs were married as young as 23 years of age? Was it linked to the advantages that property brought? Was property not rather something to which people subordinated their behaviour? It is often thought that lack of property forced people to postpone marriage. But why should men without property or with little property have rushed into marriage? Would it not have been more natural for them to marry later? Was early marriage, which for various reasons people were often denied permission to conclude, really something they were longing to do? And exactly what age can be regarded as ‘late’ Fertig, 2003: 107-108)?

107

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

Table 4.2. Age at first marriage of heirs and their brothers by social stratum, Šťáhlavy 1701-1850 Age at marriage

Social category of father Large farmstead holder

Smallholder

Altogether Cottager

Heirs % Brothers % Heirs % Brothers % Heirs % Brothers % Heirs % Brothers % 1701–1787 15–19

4.2

1.7

2.1

–

1.8

5.9

2.9

1.8

20–24

46.5

40.7

41.7

41.2

25.0

23.5

38.2

38.2

25–29

39.4

39.0

37.5

38.2

44.6

47.1

40.6

40.0

30–34

5.7

15.2

12.5

14.7

18.3

17.7

11.4

15.5

35–39

4.2

1.7

6.3

5.9

7.1

–

6.2

2.7

–

1.7

2.1

–

3.6

5.9

1.7

1.8

25.0

26.2

25.8

26.4

28.0

26.9

26.2

26.3

Median

24.0

25.0

25.0

26.0

26.0

26.0

25.0

26.0

Number

71

59

48

34

56

17

175

110

40+

Mean age at marriage

1788–1850 15–19

8.8

3.4

17.9

6.7

1.5

2.2

6.3

3.4

20–24

51.2

43.2

56.5

40.0

43.7

34.8

48.0

39.5

25–29

30.0

37.9

17.9

26.6

36.8

23.9

30.7

31.0

30–34

10.0

5.2

2.6

20.0

12.6

17.4

10.3

11.8

35–39

–

8.6

5.2

6.7

5.9

13.0

3.0

10.1

40+

–

1.7

–

–

1.5

8.7

0.8

4.2

24.0

25.8

23.1

25.3

26.1

28.8

25.0

26.9

23.0

25.0

23.0

25.0

Mean age at marriage Median

Source. See Table 4.1.

One possible way to seek answers to these questions is to look more closely at the stage of the lifecycle when young people had already reached adulthood but had not yet entered into marriage. Hajnal describes this stage as ‘a period of maximum productive capacity without responsibility for children; a period during which saving would be easy’ (Hajnal, 1965: 132). Young people were doubtless very well aware of a certain attractiveness of that stage in their lives. At the same time, they were in general also aware of the benefits of a marriage concluded at a given stage of life (Hendrickx, 2005: 86). They must also have been conscious of the fact that later marriage brought about lower fertility. Raising fewer children implied fewer problems with supporting a family and providing for the children in future. This is 108

Alice Velková

perhaps one of the reasons why men chose partners who were only slightly younger than themselves. In north-west Europe, a husband was usually one to three years older than his wife (Hendrickx, 2005: 83). An average three-year difference between spouses also emerges from the data for the estate of Šťáhlavy. Moreover, with respect to fertility, what mattered was of course the marriage age of women, not that of men, which is yet another problem connected with the European Marriage Pattern (Hajnal, 1965: 134; Hendrickx, 2005: 83; Fertig, 2005: 41). Undoubtedly, one of the benefits of marriage was a lawful and relatively unhindered sexual life. This sphere was nonetheless influenced to a considerable degree by local traditions and by what the society considered to be acceptable behaviour. My research on the estate of Šťáhlavy has shown that for people from lower social strata (i.e. landless families, including cottagers) pre-marital sexual activity was quite widespread at the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In the cohort of people born between 1791 and 1800, 20 per cent of women, who were born in landless families, gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Another roughly 40 per cent of married women of the same social stratum conceived their child before the wedding. Sexual relations of the future spouses probably did not take place only after their marriage was arranged. The contrary seems to be the case, considering the fact that in 82 per cent of cases the child was born less than six months after the wedding. It actually seems that the wedding began to be dealt with only after the partners started sexually living together and a child was on the way. We may therefore reasonably estimate that about three-quarters of young people in the lower strata were sexually active before marriage, with a probably even higher proportion among the men (Velková, 2003: 223). By postponing marriage, young but not very well-off men (among them also cottager sons) could enjoy a relatively trouble-free stage of their lives during which they were not forced to abstain from sexual relationships and moreover, they had the possibility to save money for the future. For young people, especially for migrant craftsmen, it was a period during which they could move around relatively freely, were no longer subject to their fathers’ authority and did not yet have any economic obligations or family responsibilities. If they married later with a relatively mature woman, they usually had fewer children and could thus hope to have a smaller family which would be easier to maintain (Schlumbohm 1992: 328). In Hajnal’s words ‘late marriage brings about wealth’. However, Hajnal also adds that ‘wealth may equally cause late marriage’, since people often postponed their marriage until they had acquired a certain standard of living (Hajnal, 1965: 133).

109

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

In the following two parts I will attempt to establish whether the marriage of heirs to cottager holdings on the one hand and marriage of heirs to large farms or to small farms on the other hand was influenced by the fact that the father lived to arrange the wedding of his heir. Can it be said that if the father was alive, he tried to have the heir marry early? Or was he afraid that by marrying the heir would free himself from the father’s authority and insist on taking over the property? Did heirs themselves have an interest in marrying early or did they tend to marry later if their father had died before their wedding? How did an heir who took over his property before he married decide? Did he tend to marry soon afterwards or did he drag his feet? How close was the connection between marriage and property transfer?

III.  Marriages of heirs to cottager holdings As we have seen, sons of cottagers married on average considerably later than inheriting sons from families of smallholder or of large farm owners. Was that because the landholding inherited by cottagers was less substantial? Or was it due to a different lifestyle? The life cycle of cottager sons was in fact quite different from that of sons of owners of large farms or smallholders. Indeed, it was much closer to the life-cycle of the houseless. Like the sons of houseless lodgers, the sons of cottagers often entered into life-cycle service or learned crafts before they married. In the cohort of cottager heirs born between 1791 and 1800 on the estate of Šťáhlavy, only 10 per cent did not do either of these things before they married. By contrast, at least 25 per cent of smallholder sons and 50 per cent of large farm owners’ sons remained in their parents’ house until they married. It would seem, therefore, that the value system of heirs coming from cottager families was similar to that of other poor people and that they, too, may have viewed the pre-marital period as attractive and consequently tried to postpone marriage. But did they really voluntarily wish to postpone marriage? Or might a father’s negative attitude to his son’s marriage play a certain role? What if a cottager’s heir was obliged to postpone marriage simply because his father refused to give his consent to an earlier transfer of the holding or to his heir’s marriage, and as a result, the son had to wait until his father’s death before he could marry? How strong was the impact of the paternal factor on the marriage age of heirs? The first way in which a father could influence the timing of his son’s marriage was by postponing the transfer of the holding, since according to a theory often advanced by historians in the past, before an heir could marry he had to have a niche, i.e. he first had to take over the holding and only then could he marry (Hajnal, 1965: 132134; Rödel, 1989: 32). Some fathers on the estate of Šťáhlavy did indeed prefer to 110

Alice Velková

hang on to the holding until death. There were more such fathers among cottagers since they, unlike peasants owning large holdings or smallholders, were not granted any substantial retirement allowances after transferring the holding. Findings from the estate of Šťáhlavy did not confirm that heirs had to postpone marriage until their father’s death, moreover it was not even the case that the transfer of property had to precede the marriage (Schlumbohm 1996: 90). Table 4.3. Mean age at marriage of cottager heirs by the time-period and circumstances of property transfer Circumstances of property transfer

Date of property transfer 1701–1787

1788–1850

age Mean age Number atMean marriage Median Number at marriage Median Heir marries while father still alive Property transfer – wedding – father’s death

1

(27)

(27)

5

(26.4)

(27.0)

*Property transfer + wedding – father’s death

–

–

–

26

26.8

26.0

Wedding – property transfer – father’s death

4

(24.3)

(24.5)

24

25.0

24.0

Wedding – father’s death – property transfer

12

25.6

26.0

14

24.1

23.5

Total number of marriages while father alive

17

25.4

26.0

69

25.6

25.0

Total with unknown circumstances

18

25.6

26.0

69

25.6

25.0

Heir marries after father’s death Property transfer – father’s death – wedding

-

-

-

1

(36.0)

(36.0)

Father’s death – property transfer – wedding

21

31.0

29.0

25

28.6

28.0

Father’s death – property transfer + wedding

3

(26.3)

(27.0)

19

24.1

24.0

Father’s death – wedding – property transfer

5

(27.6)

(26.0)

5

(25.0)

(26.0)

Total number of marriages after father’s death

29

29.9

27.0

50

26.7

25.0

Total with unknown circumstances

34

29.4

27.0

57

26.5

25.0

* Property transfer + wedding = events situated less than one year apart. Sources. State Regional Archives of Plzeň (Pilsen), Roman Catholic parish registers at Starý Plzenec, 1651–1850, volume numbers 1-9, 12, 15-18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35; ibidem, Roman Catholic parish registers at Šťáhlavy, 1814-1850, volume numbers 1-6; State Regional Archives of Prague, Collection of State land registers of Blovice, 17571850, No. 133-139, 161, 168; ibidem, Collection of State land registers of Plzeň (Pilsen), 1694-1850, No. 134-136; ibidem, Collection of State land registers of Rokycany, 1686-1850, No. 233, 268, 270, 273-276.

111

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

Heirs frequently married even before they took over the family holding (Velková, 2005: 169), a fact which was already pointed out by other analyses (Fertig, 2003: 8485; Moring, 2002: 177). If the heir only married after taking over the holding, it was usually in a situation where he inherited it after his father’s death at an age when he was still too young to marry. Such heirs were on average 21 years old in both periods, before and after 1787. When the eldest son increasingly became heir after 1787, the share of heirs marrying after taking over the holding dropped from 48 per cent before the year 1787 to only 26 per cent. On the contrary, it was frequent in both periods for the heir to take over the holding only after his wedding: 46 per cent before the year 1787, 36 per cent after the year 1787. After 1787, this was replaced by a new pattern, in which the transfer of the holding coincided with the son’s marriage (in 38 per cent of cases, but in only 7 per cent of cases before 1787). A time link between marriage and property transfer, however, did not mean that the transfer was a necessary precondition for the marriage. It is equally possible that in some cases the marriage of the heir just logically followed a previously taken decision on the property transfer (Fertig, 2003: 85-86). Neither was it necessarily the case that an heir’s marriage prior to property transfer was caused by a son’s pressure on his father. Cottager heirs who married before the property transfer took place were by no means very old: rather the contrary – 65per cent of them were younger than 26 before the year 1787 and 71 per cent of them after the year 1787. It does not seem very probable, therefore, that those sons who found out that they could not expect the holding to be transferred to them very soon insisted on marrying in spite of their father’s disapproval. The father probably did not oppose his son’s marriage; on the contrary, it seems likely that it was the father who initiated the marriage, which gave him the possibility to verify before the property transfer took place whether he would get along with the newly-wed couple. The transfer of the holding itself must in these cases be regarded as a kind of formal confirmation of an already existing practice. In the case of cottagers it was not important who the formal holder of the house was – the holding of the cottage was not a source of livelihood. This is probably how we can explain why three-quarters of these heirs took over their property up to more than five years after their wedding. The theory that the father would have opposed the heir’s marriage and the heirs therefore had to wait to marry until the father died and then they took over the property is refuted also by the time elapsed between the heir’s wedding and the father’s death. If the heir had to wait for the father’s death, it would have been logical for him to marry as soon as possible after inheriting the holding. Nevertheless, only 18 per cent of these men married less than two years after the father’s death before 1787 and only

112

Alice Velková

31 per cent after 1787. In both periods nearly one half of them waited more than five years to marry. It is these heirs, who are of particular interest, since they married later than heirs who entered into marriage at a time when the father was still the holder of the house. In fact, before 1787 they did not marry until the age of 31 (48 per cent of them were older than 30), after 1787 still at the average age of 29 years (42 per cent of them were older than 30). At the time of marriage these men had already been holders of the house for 7 years on average. Later marriage can be observed also for men who married at a time when the father was still alive, but who had already been holders of the house. It can be supposed that they decided about the timing of marriage themselves. It turns out that suitable economic conditions did not always mean an early marriage for cottager heirs. I presume that an early marriage was rather in the interest of the father, mainly before 1787, when the youngest son was chosen as heir. His adulthood was awaited as much by the father, who intended to leave his place to his son (many cottagers engaged in a craft and therefore also left this craft to the son) as by his siblings, who hoped to receive their shares of inheritance. If the father was alive to see his son’s wedding at this earlier period, the share of the sons who married very young, i.e. before age 25, was significantly higher than in cases when the father had died before the son’s wedding. (Table 4.4). Table 4.4. Age at marriage of cottager heirs Property transfer 1701-1787 Age

Property transfer 1788-1850

Heir marries while father still alive

Heir marries after father’s death

Heir marries while Heir mar ries after father still alive father’s death

Number

Number

Number

%

%

%

Number

%

15–19

0

0

1

2.9

1

1.4

1

1.8

20–24

6

33.3

6

17.6

32

46.4

25

43.9

25–29

10

55.6

14

41.2

25

36.2

17

29.8

30–34

2

11.1

8

23.5

8

11.6

7

12.3

Over 35

0

0

5

14.7

3

4.3

7

12.3

Together

18

100.0

34

100.0

69

100.0

57

100.0

Source. See Table 4.3.

At the same time not many sons entered into marriage after age 30. If the heir’s father was alive, only 11 per cent of sons married at this age, if he was dead however, 38 per cent of heirs married after 30. After 1787 the differences between the two 113

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

situations were smaller because if the eldest son was the heir, the pressure on him to marry early was not as great as before. It is however still apparent that there were more heirs who married after the age of 30 if the father was dead at the time of the heir’s wedding (25 per cent), than if the father was alive (16 per cent). It can therefore be concluded that the heir’s marriage was not influenced as much by the economic conditions or the timing of the transfer of the holding as by the family strategy, which was significantly determined by the father. If the son married only after the father’s death or after taking over the house and freeing himself from the father’s authority, he had a tendency to postpone his marriage.

IV.  Marriages of heirs to owners of large farms (sedláci/Bauern) and heirs to smallholders (chalupníci/Chalupner) For the heirs to owners of large farms and heirs to smallholders marriage was even more closely connected with a family strategy – the outcome of an intricate web of different interests. A large farm holding or a smallholding involved a much more substantial property which the father had to share out equally among his offspring. On the estate of Šťáhlavy, all the offspring were entitled to receive an equal share – an heir took over the farm, but all the other siblings were entitled to a share in cash. The shares were calculated by dividing the value of the holding by the number of offspring; in some cases, the widowed mother also received the same share. Given this web of interests surrounding the transfer either of a large farm holding or a smallholding, a father was even more likely to try to influence the marriage of the inheriting son. But fathers behaved very differently before 1787 than they did afterwards. In the pre-1787 period the heir took over the holding before marriage only in exceptional cases (in 10 per cent of cases). However, it was common that he became an independent farmer after he married (61 per cent). Most heirs (68 per cent) married when their father was still alive, in the other cases an interim holder managed the farm. If the father was still actively farming at the time of the son’s wedding, it meant that the heir was obliged to go on living in a position of dependence on his father for quite a long time – 83 per cent of heirs became independent holders more than three years after their wedding. On average, heirs to a large farm or to a smallholding had to wait for 6.5 years before they took over the farm. Their mean marriage age was relatively high (26 years), hardly different from that of cottager heirs. If the father died before the heir married, two scenarios were possible: either the heir took over the holding immediately after his father’s death, or he was too young and an interim holder managed the farm. The person of interim holder, most frequently the heir’s mother alone or together with her new husband, was of greater 114

Alice Velková

importance for owners of large farms and smallholders than for cottagers. In cottager holdings, the role of the interim manager was to maintain the inheritance in good condition, holding of the house itself did not bring any proceeds. Managing a holding with land on the other hand brought proceeds to the interim holder. If the interim holder was an heir’s stepfather, it was in his interest to keep the position of interim manager for as long as he could. As a result, it was probably not altogether easy for an heir to obtain his inheritance even after he reached majority. What mattered here were relationships inside the family. In some cases the heir himself might prefer not to exacerbate family relationships and would decide not to insist on marrying or taking over the farm. Heirs who wanted to take over the farm could use their marriage as a means of exerting pressure on the interim holder. They could have been supported in this by their father-in-law, who benefited if the young couple started managing their own holding immediately after the wedding. Indeed before 1787 more than half of the heirs whose inheritance was managed by an interim holder (most frequently the heir’s stepfather) linked their marriage with the taking over of the holding. At the time of marriage 42 per cent of the heirs were older than 25. Their mean age at marriage was more than two years higher than the age of heirs who married at a time when the holding was still managed by an interim holder. In this second group of heirs the interim holder was most often the heir’s unremarried mother and it is probable that she was not the only manager, but that the heir became involved in the management of the holding even before he officially took it over and he probably was even to some extent independent. In these cases nothing obviously stood in the way of his early marriage. It can be shown in fact that this group of heirs married at the youngest age: 53 per cent of them were married before age 24. Before 1787, only 10 per cent of heirs who were to become owners of large farms or of small farms were in a position to make a decision about their marriage entirely without their father’s or the interim holder’s involvement. Such men became independent farmers already before getting married. This represents a marked difference from heirs of cottagers, who were able to make an independent decision in almost half of all cases. There were however no differences in the behaviour of these two social groups. Like heirs of cottagers, heirs of owners of large farms and of smallholders did not rush into marriage in these situations: 56 per cent of them married between two and four years after taking over the holding. It was this group of heirs that, similarly to cottagers, tended to marry late even though they had the best conditions possible for marriage.

115

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

Table 4.5. Mean age at marriage of the heirs to owners of large farms and smallholders by time-period and circumstances of property transfer Date of property transfer Circumstances of property transfer

1701–1787

1788–1850

Number Mean age at Median Number Mean age at Median marriage marriage

Heir marries while father still alive Property transfer – wedding – father’s death

–

–

–

11

26.8

27.0

*Property transfer + wedding – father’s death

6

(25.3)

(24.5)

27

23.9

23.0

Wedding – property transfer – father’s death

17

26.1

26.0

15

21.3

21.0

Wedding – father’s death – property transfer

20

25.6

25.0

8

(25.9)

(26.0)

Total number of marriages while father alive

43

25.7

25.0

61

24.0

23.0

Total with unknown circumstances

43

25.7

25.0

62

24.0

23.0

Heir marries after father’s death Property transfer – father’s death – wedding

–

–

–

1

(22.0)

(22.0)

Father’s death – property transfer – wedding

9

26.0

25.0

14

26.6

26.5

Father’s death – property transfer + wedding

19

25.6

25.0

22

22.4

22.0

Father’s death – wedding – property transfer

17

23.9

23.0

6

20.7

20.0

Total number of marriages after father’s death

45

25.1

25.0

43

23.5

23.0

Total with unknown circumstances

50

24.9

25.0

44

23.5

23.0

* Property transfer + wedding = events situated less than one year apart. Source. See Table 4.3.

While in the pre-1787 period there was not a significant difference between the age at first marriage of men who married as independent holders and other heirs, the situation changed in the later period. Men who married only after taking over the property made up already one quarter of all heirs, besides heirs who took over the property after their father’s death as well as men who took over their inheritance while their father was still alive. Such men married on average at age 26.5, thus at a similar age as before 1787. Nevertheless, considering that the mean age at marriage of the other heirs whose marriage decision was influenced by the father or the interim holder was lower than 23 years, the difference between the two groups was almost 4 years. Independent holders entered into marriage a relatively long time after taking over their inheritance: almost 75 per cent did so after 3-6 years. It seems therefore that even heirs to peasants owning large holdings and to smallholders included a group who for some reason preferred to marry later than their economic condition would have permitted. The marriage age of 26.5 cannot be regarded as being too

116

Alice Velková

high. These men may simply have refused to marry as young as other heirs to a large farm holding or to a smallholding. Heirs with the lowest age at first marriage were those who were too young to be an independent holder at the moment of their father’s death. In these cases the interim holder was mostly their unremarried mother. These women, probably due to their age (64 per cent of them were older than 56 at the time of the heir’s wedding) were not interested in managing the holding and welcomed being replaced in their role of housewife by their daughter-in-law. Mothers therefore pushed heirs into a marriage as soon as possible: 71 per cent of heirs married before the age of 22, and in the majority of cases (80 per cent) they handed the property over to them at the moment of their wedding. If the interim holder was somebody else than the widowed heir’s mother, the heir married later, on average at the age of 23.5. The heir’s marriage can in these cases be considered as a means of obtaining the handover of the holding. After the year 1787 the taking over of a full peasant holding or a smallholding was often, in almost half of the cases, in connection with the heir’s marriage. This marks a significant change in comparison with the earlier period. This change came about as a consequence of state interventions into the rural society in the 1780s and 1790s. After 1791, when women’s rights concerning landholding were strengthened, we also witness an increasing number of cases in which the wife, through marriage, becomes co-owner either of a holding owned by her husband or of one that was given to him by his parents (Velková, 2007: 82). The co-ownership did not result automatically from entering into marriage; it had to be specified in the marriage contract. Until the end of the eighteenth century, such written documents were used only sporadically on the estate of Šťáhlavy, mainly in more affluent families. But in the course of the nineteenth century they became widespread even among cottagers. The bride’s family more and more frequently insisted that she actually become the co-owner and that the transfer of the holding to the newly-wed couple take place at the time of the wedding, not after it. The heir’s father, however, had an interest in connecting the property transfer with the heir’s marriage as well (Velková, 2005: 171). After all, a father had to try to arrange a marriage that would benefit the whole family. One priority was undoubtedly to obtain a decent dowry from the future bride, which could be used to buy out his non-succeeding offspring. Unlike in the earlier period, the eldest son’s marriage made this possible after 1787. But a father was also interested in the personal qualities of the bride-to-be and particularly whether she would make a good housewife. If the heir married young, the father could increase his influence over the conditions of the marriage and the selection of the bride. Postponing the marriage, by contrast, was

117

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

risky, as the father would perhaps not live long enough to control these aspects of the succession. Could an heir also have had an interest in connecting the property transfer with his marriage? An heir might try to put pressure on his father to make him consent to the transfer. The timing of a marriage, or rather of the property transfer, may thus have been a demonstration of paternal authority (Sabean, 1990: 322). In Šťáhlavy, however, it seems that in most cases the son did not need to exert a lot of pressure, since it was often the father himself who, due to his age, wanted his son to set up a family as soon as possible so that he himself might retire. Half of all fathers whose sons took over the property at or after marriage were over age 60 when their sons married. Only 27 per cent of such fathers were younger than 55. Heirs who married in connection with the property transfer or before it while their father was still alive entered into marriage slightly later than men who married after their father’s death in the same situation, but the difference in marriage age was only one year. While 57 per cent of heirs who married when their father was still managing the property were younger than 23, it seems improbable that their marriage was a result of their pressure on the father. A low marriage age could also mean that the heir and his father succeeded early in finding a suitable bride for the heir. Sometimes, a difference of opinion arose between the heir and his bride’s father –who wanted the newly-wed couple to take over the holding immediately after the wedding – and the heir’s father – who may still be reluctant to give up the holding. In such cases, in the nineteenth century, the usual solution in Šťáhlavy was that the ownership was indeed transferred to the newly married couple but, at the same time, the father was granted the right to manage the farm for as long as he wished. In return, until he actually transferred the holding, he had to provide maintenance to his heir’s family, while the heir was obliged to assist his father. The estate of Šťáhlavy, therefore, differed from the more usual pattern according to which the parents had little interest in hastening the marriage in those cases in which the property was transferred in connection with the heir’s marriage (Schlumbohm 1992: 329–330; Sabean 1990: 247, 260).

118

Alice Velková

Table 4. 6. Marriage age of heirs to owners of large farms and smallholders Property transfer 1701–1787 Age group

Property transfer 1788-1850

Heir marries while father still alive

Heir marries after death

Heir marries while father still alive

Heir marries after father’s death

Number

Number

Number

Number

%

%

%

%

15–19

0

0

2

4.0

6

9.7

5

11.4

20–24

19

44.2

22

44.0

33

53.2

23

52.3

25–29

18

41.9

21

42.0

16

25.8

13

29.5

30–34

4

9.3

3

6.0

6

9.7

2

4.5

over 35

2

4.7

2

4.0

1

1.6

1

2.3

Together

43

110.1

50

100.0

62

100.0

44

100.0

Source. See Table 4.3.

In summary, when the heir to a large farm holding or a smallholding planned his marriage, he seems normally to have conformed to a family strategy dominated by issues relating to division and transfer of property to the following generation. Generally, both fathers and widowed mothers as interim holders preferred to see the heir married as young as possible. Perhaps with a young son it was easier for them to assert parental authority. Moreover, if the heir was a minor, his parents concluded the marriage contract on his behalf, and could thus influence the marriage in line with their plans. Furthermore, early marriage for the heir was a kind of ‘safeguard’ for his parents since it guaranteed that they would be able to train the young couple to become successful farmers. Finally, an early marriage of the heir allowed the parents time to provide for the non-succeeding offspring (Fertig, 2003: 83). For heirs of owners of large farms and of smallholders it was less important than for heirs of cottagers that the wedding took place during the father’s lifetime. More important was the strategy behind the timing of the wedding, as much for the father as for the heir himself. If an heir’s marriage was the solution to a situation where the holding was managed by an ageing mother, or if the marriage was a tool to demand a property transfer from the interim holder, the heir tended to marry at an earlier age. A different situation arose only if the father decided to transfer the holding before his son’s marriage or if the father died when his son was already adult and was able to take charge of the holding immediately. In that case, the heir could decide on his marriage by himself, and this – interestingly – led to a higher mean age at marriage.

119

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

V.  Conclusion The aim of this study has been to examine the overall context of marriage patterns of heirs of rural holdings in Western Bohemia, along with the factors influencing marriage age. Marriage in north-west Europe is often viewed as being mainly influenced by economic conditions. According to this view, a late marriage is caused by poor economic conditions which prevented a couple from marrying earlier, whereas more affluent people found it much easier to marry young. This study, by contrast, suggests that the economic conditions could have played a dual role. Whereas poor people postponed their marriage in the hope of finding a more suitable partner or until they had saved enough financial means, rich heirs may have been constrained to marry younger than they themselves wished precisely because of their property. These findings cast doubt on the claim that property always provided people with liberty and freedom of choice in marriage. On the contrary, property often represented a commitment which obliged its holder to act not merely in his own personal interest but with due regard to the well-being of the entire extended family. The analysis in this paper shows that on the estate of Šťáhlavy sons of owners of large farms and those of small farmers married relatively young on average (2425 years). This resulted from a certain family constellation which did not always allow heirs to take free decisions. The marriage of an heir to a large farm or a small farm necessarily has to be seen in connection with the transfer of property. Most fathers seem to have regarded the heir’s marriage as an opportunity to settle the inheritance claims of all their offspring who had not yet obtained their share of inheritance. They could achieve this if the heir’s marriage took place before the transfer of property or simultaneously with it, which was the most widespread pattern from the nineteenth century on. In both these cases, what proved to be most beneficial for the whole family was for the heir to marry as young as possible. After 1787 one half of the heirs were already married at the age of 23. It was probably not only the heir’s father who was interested in seeing his son marry as early as possible. If the father was dead, the unremarried widowed mother of the heir, who did not wish to manage the farm herself, also wanted her son to marry as soon as possible and take charge of the management of the holding. This raises the question whether such an early marriage was also beneficial for the heir himself, especially if the wedding took place long before the transfer of property or if at the time of marriage the holding was transferred to him only formally and he could not therefore be certain of when he would actually become independent. In fact, one group of heirs took over their holdings when they were adults but before they married, and these heirs tended to behave rather differently. They preferred to

120

Alice Velková

marry relatively late (at the age of 27 on average), despite the fact that they had been regular holders for several years, so lack of sufficient economic security cannot have been a reason for postponing marriage. At the same time, given that the property had already been transferred and the succession had been shared out to the siblings, there was no strategic pressure from their family pushing them toward early marriage. Similar behaviour can be observed among cottager heirs, the difference being that cottagers married on average two to three years later than owners of large farms and owners of small farms (Knodel, 1988, 132-134). Like owners of large farms and of small farms, cottagers also followed two different patterns of behaviour. If an heir married before taking over the holding or in connection with the transfer, he married on average at the age of 25-26 in both periods. On the other hand, those heirs who married only after they took over the holding (which was usually only after their father had died), tended to postpone marriage, even though no economic obstacle hindered their marriage. Before 1787 such cottager heirs married on average at age 31, after 1787 their mean marriage age was as high as 29. This study has shown that in pre-industrial Western Bohemia there was a group of young men who did not see it as a priority to marry as soon as economic conditions permitted. These men may have seen advantages in prolonging the pre-marital stage of their lives, since without family responsibilities they could build up their savings. Marriage, by contrast, meant responsibility and possible difficulties in providing for a family. Moreover, on the estate of Šťáhlavy, it was quite common for people to have sexual relationships even before marriage – and at least from the middle of the eighteenth century on, neither the landlords nor the state imposed any severe punishment for such behaviour. This may have weakened the attractiveness of marriage as a means of legalizing a sexual relationship. It is equally possible, however, that if an heir was seeking a bride on his own, without his parents’ assistance, he needed more time to find a suitable woman. A certain attractiveness of the pre-marriage phase as compared to married life concerned mainly cottagers’ sons. It was in this social stratum that heirs tended to marry latest if their father was not alive and therefore could not use his authority in this sense. This is apparent mainly in the pre-1787 period when the heir’s siblings awaited his wedding. In families of peasants owning large farms and small farms such a definite pattern did not exist. The deciding factor was not the fact whether the father was alive at the time of the marriage, the circumstances of the transfer of the holding were much more important. Many more aspects entered into play than in the case of cottagers because the interests of many people clashed: those of the heir himself, of his father or of the possible interim holder or even of the future father-in-law.

121

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

Unfortunately, this study was only able to deal with a limited set of issues connected with the topic of marriage in pre-industrial society. It has nevertheless confirmed that the debate about the European Marriage Pattern is far from exhausted and that there is a whole range of questions to be answered as well as paths leading to these answers.

Bibliography Cerman, Markus (2001), ‘Central Europe and the ‘European Marriage Pattern’: Marriage Patterns and Family Structure in Central Europe, Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries’, in Richard Wall, Tamara K. Hareven, Josef Ehmer (eds), Family History Revisited. Comparative Perspectives, Newark, University of Delaware Press, p. 282-307.

Cerman, Markus, Maur, Eduard (2000), ‘Proměny vesnických sociálních struktur v Čechách 1650-1750’ [Transformations of Rural Social Structures in Bohemia between 1650–1750], Český časopis historický, 98, p. 737-772. Dokoupil, Lumír, Fialová, Ludmila, Maur, Eduard, Nesládková, Ludmila (1999), Přirozená měna obyvatelstva českých zemí v 17. a 18. století. [Natural Growth Rate of the Population of the Czech Lands in the 17th and 18th Centuries], Prague, Sociologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky. Duhamelle, Christophe, Schlumbohm, Jürgen (eds) (2003), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ehmer, Josef (1991), Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel. England und Mitteleuropa in der Formationsperiode des Kapitalismus, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Engelen, Theo, Wolf, Arthur P. (eds) (2005), Marriage and the Family in Eurasia. Perspectives on the Hajnal Hypothesis, Amsterdam, Aksant Academic Publishers. Fertig, Christine (2003), ‘Hofübergabe im Westfalen des 19. Jahrhunderts: Wendepunkt des bäuerlichen Familienzyklus?’, in Christophe Duhamelle, Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 65-92. Fertig, Georg (2003), ‘‘Wenn zwey Menschen eine Stelle sehen’. Heirat, Besitztransfer und Lebenslauf im ländlichen Westfalen des 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Christophe Duhamelle, Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 93-124.

Fertig, Georg (2005), ‘The Hajnal Hypothesis before Hajnal’, in Theo Engelen, Arthur P. Wolf (eds), Marriage and the Family in Eurasia. Perspectives on the Hajnal Hypothesis, Amsterdam, Aksant Academic Publishers, p. 37-48. Fialová, Ludmila (1997), ‘Sňatečnost obyvatelstva v  českých zemích v  19. století’ [Marriage Rate of Population in the Czech Lands in the Nineteenth Century ], Studie k sociálním dějinám, 19. Století, 7/1, p. 45-58.

122

Alice Velková

Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan, Thompson Edward P. (eds) (1976), Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe 1200-1800, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hajnal, John (1965), ‘European Marriage Patterns in Perspective, in David Victor Glass, David Edward Charles Eversley (eds), Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, London, Edward Arnold, p. 101-143. Hajnal, John (1983), ‘Two Kinds of Pre-industrial Household Formation Systems’, in Richard Wall in collaboration with Jean Robin, Peter Laslett (eds), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 65-104. Hendrickx François (2005), ‘West of the Hajnal Line: North-West Europe’, in Theo Engelen, Arthur P. Wolf (eds), Marriage and the Family in Eurasia. Perspectives on the Hajnal Hypothesis, Amsterdam, Aksant Academic Publishers, p. 73-103. Iida, Takashi (2003), ‘Wiederheiraten und Verwandtschaftsnetze auf dem unteilbaren Hof. Bauern, Büdner und Einlieger des brandenburgischen Amtes Alt-Ruppin im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Christophe Duhamelle, Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 125-155. Kaser, Karl (2000), Macht und Erbe. Männerherrschaft, Besitz und Familie im östlichen Europa (1500-1900), Vienna, Böhlau Verlag. Kropatschek, Joseph (ed.), Handbuch aller unter der Regierung des Kaisers Joseph II. für die k. k. Erbländer eingegangenen Verordnungen und Gesetze vom Jahre 1780 bis 1789, vol. X (1788); vol. XIII (1789); vol. XVII (1791), Vienna, J. G. Mösle Verlag. Knodel, John. E. (1988), Demographic Behavior in the Past: A Study of Fourteen German Village Populations in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mackenroth, Gerhard (1953), Bevölkerungslehre. Theorie, Soziologie und Statistik der Bevölkerung, Berlin, Springer Verlag 1953. Maur, Eduard (1996), ‘Das bäuerliche Erbrecht und die Erbschaftspraxis in Böhmen im 16-18. Jahrhundert’, Historická demografie, 20, p. 93-118. Moring, Beatrice (2002), ‘Systems of Survival. Continuities and Discontinuities after the Death of the Household Head’, in Renzo Derosas, Michel Oris (eds), When Dad Died. Individuals and Families Coping with Family Stress in Past Societies, Bern, Peter Lang, p. 173-193. Pfister, Christian (1994; repr. 2007), Bevölkerungsgeschichte und historische Demographie 1500-1800, Munich, Oldenbourg Verlag. Procházka, Vladimír (1963), Eská poddanská nemovitost v pozemkových knihách 16. a 17. století [Czech Subject Holding in Land Registers in the 16th and the 17th Centuries], Prague, Nakladatelství eskoslovenské akademie vd.

Rödel, Walter G.(1989), ‘Die demographische Entwicklung in Deutschland 1770 1820’, in Helmut Berding, Étienne François & Hans-Peter Ullmann (eds), Deutschland und

123

Marriage and property transfer in rural Western Bohemia 1700-1850

Frankreich im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag, p. 21-41. Sabean, David Warren (1990), Property, Production and Family in Neckerhausen, 17001870, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1992), ‘Sozialstruktur und Fortpflanzung bei der ländlichen Bevölkerung Deutschlands im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Befunde und Erklärungsansätze zu schichtspezifischen Verhaltensweisen’, in Eckart Voland (ed.), Fortpflanzung: Natur und Kultur im Wechselspiel. Versuch eines Dialogs zwischen Biologen und Sozialwissensch, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag, p. 322-346.

Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1996), ‘Micro-History and the Macro-Models of the European Demographic System in Pre-Industrial Times: Life Course Patterns in the Parish of Belm (North-west Germany), Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries’, The History of the Family, 1, p. 81-95. Tilly, Charles, Tilly, Richard (1971), ‘Agenda for European Economic History in 1970’, Journal of economic history, 31, p. 184-198

Viazzo, Pier Paolo (1989, repr. 2006), Upland Communities. Environment, Population and Social Structure in the Alps Since The Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Velková, Alice (2002), ‘Die Herrschaft `eáhlavy: Wirtschaft, soziale Strukturen und Demographie’, in Markus Cerman, Hermann Zeitlhofer (eds), Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. Ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16. 19. Jahrhundert, Vienna, Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, p. 29-41.

Velková, Alice (2003), ‘Neman~elské dti ve venkovské spolenosti na pYelomu 18. a 19. století Markus Cerman & Robert Luft’ [‘Illegitimate Childern in the Rural Society at the Turn of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth century’], in Tomáa Jiránek, JiYí Kubea (eds), Dít a dtství napYí staletími [Child and Childhood across the Centuries], Pardubice, Univerzita Pardubice, p. 205-227. Velková, Alice (2005), ‘Staatliches Eingreifen in die Beziehung zwischen Gutsherrschaft und Untertanen. Zu Erbrecht und ländlicher Familienstruktur in Westböhmen an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert’, in Markus Cerman, Robert Luft (eds), Untertanen, Herrschaft und Staat in Böhmen und im Alten Reich. Sozialgeschichtliche Studien zur Frühen Neuzeit, Munich, Oldenbourg Verlag, p. 153-175. Velková, Alice (2007), ‘Svatební smlouvy ve venkovském prostYedí v  1. polovin 19. století’ [‘Marriage Contracts in the Rural Society in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century’], in Martina HalíYová (ed.), Oznamuje se láskám naaim... aneb svatby a svatební zvyky v eských zemích v  probhu staletí [Let It Be Known to Our Loves... or Weddings and Wedding Customs in the Czech Lands in Course of Centuries], Pardubice, Východo eské muzeum v Pardubicích, p. 75-87. Velková, Alice (2008), ‘Transformations of Rural Society between 1700-1850‘, Historica, 13, p. 109-158.

124

Alice Velková

Wrigley, Edward Antony & Schofield, Roger S. (1981), The Population History of England 1541-1871, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Zeitlhofer, Hermann (2003), ‘Die ‘eisernen Ketten der Heirat. Eine Diskussion des Modells der’ ökonomischen Nischen am Beispiel der südböhmischen Pfarre Kapliky, 1640 1840’, in Christophe Duhamelle, Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Eheschließungen im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 35-63.

125

5.

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England 1800-1840s Steven King

I.  Introduction On 28 January 1824, a correspondent from the Northamptonshire village of Spratton wrote to the editor of the Northampton Mercury newspaper on the subject of pauper marriages. His article, supposedly detailing a Spratton ‘beggar’s marriage’, is worth quoting at length: ‘This curious and extraordinary wedding took place between Robert Colson and Margaret Wilson he was formerly a labouring man and she a servant girl, but latterly of the above profession [beggar]. Upon this occasion they invited all their friends, which consisted the following highly distinguished personages: six good looking women, four wholesale timber merchants, three with wooden legs, six blind fiddlers, three jolly sandmen, five bouncing fish girls, and several others, whom I shall decline mentioning as I am indebted to them for this piece of information. At the wedding, as at most others, the bride and the bridegroom invited their former sweethearts, which caused the bride to be jealous. Their caps flew into ribbons, as also did the rest of their clothes, so that in two minutes the one had no more clothes upon her than would beat the flies off a sugar hogshead, and the other had no more than would clean a candlestick, but upon interference they were both parted, and all became peace and harmony once again, which caused them to dance in aggravation to each other. Their clothes that had been well mended for this entertainment, once more became as if they had been in the wind or as if shot at. There was one man apparently blind would dance also; his wife became jealous, and not without a cause for he said he could see a pretty girl though he was blind, and one more handsome than his own wife. His wife then got him by the ear to whisper in it but loud enough for everyone to hear ‘You shall have hot tongue for supper my dear, you cannot say that black’s white in my eye, but you are a deceitful old rogue’. The sumptuous dinner was got up in the following manner: six pounds of mouldy cheese, twelve salt herrings and three sheep’s heads and plucks. It was agreed that it should all be clashed together and made into a medley pie, which afforded a most sumptuous meal. After dinner was over, it was agreed by the party that there should be a three handed reel [dance] danced by the three men with wooden legs which afforded great amusement, for in turn they wet their wooden pins [legs] as mowers do their sickles, but unfortunately in repeating this wooden-legged reel one of the pins broke and broke the shins of the bridegroom. It was now become a late hour at night and the bride and bridegroom were put to bed, he being so drunk one of the party blackened his face with soot and grease so that in the morning the bride

127

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

exhibited a droll appearance, with a mouth like a person’s that is black with swearing’. (Northamptonshire Record Office [hereafter NRO] ZB 68/1/306)

This account is, of course, a parody both of the beggars and the English middling and upper sorts who, fed by an early nineteenth century diet of Malthusian population analysis and perennial fears of social unrest (and much like their continental counterparts), were increasingly worried about the capacity for pauper marriages to beget more paupers (Hollen Lees, 1998; Wrigley, Souden, 1986). Thus, the beggarly poor are mocked for their attempts to patch up ragged clothing and for desiring the same sorts of ceremonials as their independent peers. The honesty of the couple and their guests (the blind man who can see a pretty woman) is called into question, and their manners and morals subject to sustained attack. We are faced with a couple and their guests prone to rancorous argument, licentiousness and (the bride’s mouth likened to a latrine) foul language. The beggarly couple and their ceremony appear ridiculous. In this ridicule, we discover the other side of the parody, for while many saw pauper marriages as a threat to stability and order our Spratton correspondent eschewed such pessimism. The poor were to be mocked rather than feared (Reiss, 2006).

II.  Motivations to marry Notwithstanding the frequency with which concerns over pauper marriage were expressed in contemporary debates (Innes, 1996), almost all discussion of marriage motivations and the nature of courtship in the context of eighteenth and nineteenth century England has focused on the independent labouring classes, middling sorts and aristocrats. Particularly with respect to the English labouring classes, we have an increasingly strong empirical purchase on marriage motivations. The legal system did little to control either who could marry or at what age, since Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753/54 only codified how and where to marry and not when and if. In any case it came at the end of fifteen failed attempts to create marriage legislation (Outhwaite, 1995; Lemmings, 1996; Francis, 2004). Scholars have highlighted the importance to the decision of when and who to marry to simple chance (Levine, 1982; King, 1999; Gillis, 1997), to the nature and speed of proletarianisation (Seccombe, 1992), to kinship and friendship networks (O’Hara, 2000; Tadmor, 2001; Frances, 2005), to an intersection of economic co-dependency and love (Frances, 2005), to changing patterns of service (Gillis, 1985), to changing courtship patterns and practices (Adair, 1996) and to ingrained long-term marriage cultures (Hudson and King, 2003). In turn we can see a backlash against Hajnal’s idea that entry into the marriage market was related to economic conditions in general and the current or expected economic position of the couple in particular (Hajnal, 1965; Hajnal, 1982). At least 128

Steven King

using English sources, it is difficult to know how people put together a living before and after marriage, and even more difficult to trace changes in the level of resources necessary for a young couple starting out in life to be economically independent in Hajnalian terms. For most communities there would appear to be no clear idea about what ‘economic independence’ actually meant in terms of a level of possessions, type of job or size of landholding. Rather, the act of marriage has become the confirmation that such a status was reached. Moreover, our understanding of the role of inheritance in the marriage decision has increasingly been complicated by regionally nuanced reconstitution studies showing that religious background, whether parents were alive or dead, migratory status and other variables were much more important in determining age at marriage than either ante- or post-mortem asset disposal, even amongst the 20 per cent or less of the population for whom inheritance in any formal sense had a relevance (Hudson and King, 2003). Yet if we seem to know ever more about the English marriage market, it might be argued that we know little about the nature of the segmentation of that market. In particular, and notwithstanding the fact that contemporary commentators overimagined the scale of the ‘problem’, we know little about what motivated the very poorest sections of English society, those dependent upon charity or community poor relief, to marry. To some extent the neglect of this group is explicable by problems of definition, of understanding ‘who’ should be seen as ‘poor’ at the time of marriage and how to differentiate ‘the poor’ from groups such as beggars and vagrants. Some vicars in their parish registers denoted those dependent upon poor relief (but not charity) with a ‘P’, and analysis of such registers suggests that somewhat under 5 per cent of marriage partners could be regarded as part of the dependent poor (Gillis, 1984). Such a limited definition of pauperism is, however, fraught with danger. If instead we disaggregate local marriage cohorts over the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, classifying as ‘poor’ those individuals who came from families that had received poor relief in the previous five year period, or who were receiving poor relief at the time of their marriage, or who were to go on and claim poor relief during the first six years of married life (long enough to beget 2-4 children and thus to test the robustness of household economics), then the proportion of rural marriage cohorts falling into the dependent poor category rises significantly. While the exact figure varies according to the socio-economic complexion of the communities concerned and whether it is possible to reconstruct who was receiving charitable donations as well as or instead of formal poor relief, in the rural parishes that are the focus of this chapter, an average 32 per cent of marriages included at least one partner who would be classified as ‘poor’ between 1750 and 1830. There was a significant rise in this proportion over time, with 40 per cent of all marriages containing at least one poor partner by the early 1820s (King, 2009). Our lack of understanding of the marriage 129

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

motivations of the very poor is thus not just a side-issue for our appreciation of the nature and dynamics of English courtship and marriage patterns. It matters for our understanding of the whole nuptiality system.

III.  Pauper marriages: competing perspectives Empirical and theoretical work on the marriage motivations of the dependent rural poor, especially in a socio-political and legal system which unlike those of the continent did not allow banning of marriages involving such people, presents us with a complex picture. Thus, we might conceive of them as outside of the economic drivers that may have had at least some influence in the marriage decisions of other socio-economic groups. The dependent poor had little to bring to a marriage and thus little to lose by getting married. This was certainly a theme in the contemporary pamphlet literature. Such literature also frequently accused the English Old Poor Law, particularly in the rural south and midlands where it sometimes gave family and wage allowances, of encouraging pauper marriages (and subsequent fertility) by stripping away the need for a young couple to achieve sustained independence as part of their courtship process. This was a major concern of Malthus, and although his suggestions for rethinking the treatment of the poor are often misunderstood and misquoted at base he did see the poor law as an institution that promoted over-breeding and misery (Wrigley, 1988). How far contemporary writers were correct in such views is still a matter of dispute (Boyer, 1990: 152-161; Williams, 2004). Certainly concern over economically irrational pauper marriages had proved widespread in the seventeenth century (Hindle, 1998), while some commentators have claimed that the dependent poor were those most able to marry for love (Eustace, 2001; Ehmer, 2002; Fauve-Chamoux, 2002). Yet, when we look carefully at family reconstitution data for (mainly rural) English parishes we usually find that the dependent poor did not marry at younger ages than their contemporaries in a marriage market where variables such as migratory status, survival of parents or religious persuasion were more important drivers of marriage age (Hudson and King, 2003). The idea that the poor could marry with the sort of abandon demonstrated in Spratton is thus not easily supportable. Some sense of why this might be so can be seen in letters written by paupers from their parish of residence to their parish of settlement (on settlement, see Snell, 2007) and who were out of their ‘place’ in poor law terms. One example might suffice to exemplify both the potential value of such letters and the competing influences on the young marriageable poor. Thus, Walter Keeling wrote to the small Staffordshire village of Colwich (his settlement parish) from the town of Hull on 10 November 1795, suggesting:

130

Steven King

‘Mr Turnner Sir I have meade Bould [made bold] To Rite to once again as my Wife hase Been Verrey Badley this maney years Not able to help hir [her] Self and me getting Old and Lame in my Leg and Side Where my Bowels was Lett out at Mr Cooks At Marton Which is Verrey Trobelsom To me Now I am old Sir if you and the Gentelemen over seers Would be so Kind as to Send one Ginney [guinea] to Pay my Rent Which his Due the 11th Day of this month if will be so kind as wee Pay 4 Shillings for forteen Pond of Flore [14 pounds of flour] here if you will be so kind to Send this I shall Be for Ever ablidge [obliged] to you as I have had Nothing from you this maney years I Shall Never Troble you no more as my Son is just out of his Prentis ship [apprenticeship] Which he has Sarved 7 years Which is Verrey good Lad and Sir if you will be so kind I am Bown [bound] to Bless you for Ever’. (King, Nutt, Tomkins, 2006: 146. My italics)

This letter is a classic of its type in terms of orthography, rhetorical structure and range of concerns (Sokoll, 2001; Sokoll, 2006), but at its core is a promise that Keeling will be restored to independence by the return of his young son from an apprenticeship. The unnamed son would thus have been squarely torn between his own aspirations to independence and marriage and the demands of his father and family. While Goose has argued from nineteenth century census data that the intergenerational flow of resources was firmly towards the young from the old until parents got into very advanced old age, the sorts of underlying intergenerational tensions that this broad statement masks, and which might impact on marriage decisions, is rarely exposed in the way that we see with Keeling (Goose, 2005). It is unsurprising, given such potential tensions, that the English dependent poor tended to marry at much the same age as their peers. Yet, even if the poor married at the same age as their cohort peers, this does not mean that their motivations for marriage were the same, and it is against this backdrop that we must return once again to the issue of the potential impact on marriage of the poor law. There are good reasons to doubt the existence of a simple causal relationship between the scale of welfare spending under the Old Poor Law or the proclivity to fund family allowances, and the age of, or motivations for, marriage of poor recipients. At a national level, female marriage ages stabilised in the thirty years when poor relief expenditure rose at its fastest rate (1780-1810). It is also the case that the regions and communities with the fastest decline in marriage ages were usually those with the most parsimonious poor law systems. Moreover, Williams offers an important critique of the idea that the poor law actively encouraged early marriage and rapid childbearing through its family allowance practices (Williams,  2004; Blaug, 1963). Nonetheless, by the early nineteenth century the poor law was often the most important economic entity in rural parishes, and some work has been done to draw out the wider significance of this fact. Thus, Solar has argued that the existence of a national, tax-funded and locally administered poor

131

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

relief system provided a safety net for proletarianized workers, facilitating earlier and more intense regional industrialisation than in comparable continental countries (Solar, 1995; also Patriquin, 2007). Similarly, in work elsewhere I have explored the relationship between mortality levels and the nature and scale of poor law spending, highlighting the central importance of the institution of the poor law to the nature and drivers of local demographic systems (King, 2006). The idea that the poor law had no impact on the marriage market is thus probably insupportable. However, if there was a relationship between poor relief and nuptiality, then what mattered must have been the type (rather than level) of spending, in pauper understandings of their rights and community duties as they formed expectations of marriage, and in the role of the poor law as an institution of insurance. This complex backdrop frames the current chapter, the central focus of which is the dependent poor and their marriage motivations. Focusing on the period 1800-1840 (the so called ‘crisis of the Old Poor Law to the advent of the New Poor Law) the chapter uses the accounts of local officials (the overseers of the poor), the minutes of ratepayer meetings (the so called ‘vestry’) and letters written by the dependent poor themselves as they sought to establish entitlement to relief, to develop three core arguments: First, that notwithstanding contemporary condemnation of pauper marriages, local officials had a number of mechanisms by which they could and did directly influence the nature of the pauper marriage market and pauper marriage motivations. Unlike the continent, and in contradistinction to the concerns of contemporary pamphleteers, their actions were usually aimed at fostering rather than preventing pauper marriages. Second, that because the English poor law gave no group an actual entitlement to relief, a combination of custom, moral imperative and the negotiation strategies of the poor themselves created relief policies and precedents that could fundamentally influence how the dependent poor viewed the acts of marriage and the prospect of household formation. In effect, the chapter will argue, the poor law acted as an inheritance mechanism for those who, while their inability to accumulate may have been overplayed (Styles, 2007), had least by way of economic considerations in their marriage plans. Just as Snell has argued that having a settlement was like a definable asset, a currency, so this chapter will suggest that the acceptable criteria by which the poor were enabled to try and establish their entitlement represented a more effective dowry than could ever be generated by poor families in pure material terms (Snell, 2007). Finally, the chapter will argue that the impact of the operation of the poor law was more fundamental for the rural than for the urban poor. Reflecting this idea, the major spatial focus for the chapter will be the poor law in the rural counties of Berkshire and Northamptonshire (see Figure 5.1). While both counties fall notionally in the broad supra-region in which Speenhamland policies (a generic name for relief paid to supplement wages or to support large families through the 132

Steven King

Figure 5.1. The counties of Great Britain

Source. Map by the author.

systematic payment of family allowances, started in the Berkshire parish of Speen in the late 1790s) were instigated (Neuman, 1982), it is easily possible to overstate the longevity and intensity of such practices. Moreover, the lessons to be drawn from these two counties do seem to have much wider resonance in the records of other (and non-Speenhamland) English rural areas (Patriquin, 2007). 133

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

IV.  The poor law and direct intervention in the marriage market The question of how far late eighteenth and early nineteenth century rural poor law policies such as Speenhamland or the roundsman and other ‘make-work’ schemes had a direct impact on the expectations, marriage motivations, household formation experiences and fertility of the dependent poor still awaits resolution. For Williams (Williams, 2004) such allowances were a response to large family sizes rather than a cause. In any case, there is accumulating evidence that the family sizes of the dependent poor in most areas were not noticeably greater than the wider population and may even have been smaller, a reflection of the fact that the poor tended to have more fractured fertility histories (with, for instance, husbands being more often away) than the independent labouring classes. More work is clearly needed on this issue. However, if we widen the scope of our understanding of the potential relationship between the poor law and the marriage market it quickly becomes clear that officials had a positive incentive to shape the marriage chances and timing of the dependent poor. Poor law supported marriage (or remarriage) could be used to reduce community exposure to large future bills for individual paupers, potentially shifting the legal settlement of a dependent pauper to another parish, creating stronger economic units and shifting the long-term responsibility for children from the community to the new family unit and its wider kinship and friendship networks. Thus, one contemporary criticism of the poor law was that overseers sometimes paid for wedding rings, clothes and celebrations or gave cash inducements for marriages as a way of reducing longterm exposure to single female paupers by marrying them off. Some eighteenth and nineteenth century European communities followed similar norms of burden sharing and shifting, though most did not have any functional poor law. There is certainly evidence of these practices in the West Yorkshire rural industrial parish of Calverley, where in August 1763 the overseer ‘Paid to William Nicholson when married with Rebecca Broadley, £3 4s.’. Broadley had been in receipt of relief several times in the recent past and this substantial sum clearly forestalled future relief payments. Similarly, in August 1787, the overseer recorded ‘given to Hannah Armitage when she was married, £1 6s.’, and for the later eighteenth century we can trace nineteen probable incidences of poor law-supported marriage in Calverley1. If anything, evidence of the intervention of officials in the marriage strategies of the dependent poor is even more common in Northamptonshire and Berkshire. By way of example, the overseer of the hamlet of Welton in May 1773 paid for a pair of shoes for Elizabeth Burrows, and the next entry in the accounts is for a carriage to take her to her wedding. Parish support for the newly married woman continued until April 1774, when the overseer paid for various items of clothing of the sort which 1

 

134

West Yorkshire Archive Service P17/83, ‘Memorandum and Account Book’.

Steven King

might alternatively have formed part of a dowry for the independent labouring poor. Other evidence abounds. In April 1789, for instance, the Welton overseer paid £3 9s. 17d., for ‘marrying Mary Benjamin and taking them to their settlement’. Similarly, in March 1828, the vestry resolved that Thomas Woods was to be allowed ‘a pair of shoes and agreed to allow £1 to be spent by the neighbours’, at the time of his wedding2. Such examples litter overseers’ accounts across Northamptonshire. To return to the parody with which we started this chapter, the one character missing from the comedic scene was the overseer himself. The evidence of overseers directly supporting the marriages of the dependent poor spans all types of pauper, even extending to the remarriage of the aged. However, there is strong evidence that they intervened particularly in the marriage or remarriage decisions of certain groups. The mothers and fathers of illegitimate children, a rapidly growing problem in the period covered by this chapter (Levene, Nutt and Williams, 2005), received particular attention in these terms since marriage had both immediate benefits by reducing the call on the community purse and potentially shifting the settlement of an illegitimate child. Such was the case of Sarah Harber of Thrapston, Northamptonshire, impregnated by John Swaine of St John’s parish, Huntingdon (Huntingdonshire). The parish advertised for the apprehension of Swaine, and when he was located bound him over to either marry Harber or pay an allowance for the child. Evidence from Thrapston overseers’ correspondence suggests clearly that Swaine chose marriage3. The physically and mentally disabled were another group to receive the special attention of the rural overseer. Thus, in 1833, the overseer for the small village of Crick in Northamptonshire paid Joseph Muscott for attending a young man called John Hopkins. Later entries in the overseers’ account for the same year (for handcuffs, restraining straps, clothing and then a journey to an asylum in London) clearly indicate that Hopkins was mad. Yet, on his release from St Luke’s asylum in 1834, the overseer quickly paid for a marriage to a local woman4. Nor should we forget that a rising proportion of all marriages in many late eighteenth and early nineteenth century communities were remarriages. Here too the overseers might have a direct and strong influence. Thus, in order to facilitate a marriage between a widow and a widower with dependent children, the vestry of Welton determined in March 1820 that ‘Thomas Townsend petition for rent rejected unless he permits the widow Baseley to live with him’. The two were married in December 18205. Overseers might also shape the timing of marriage by offering subsidies of different sorts to the newly married. While we rarely see the existence of such     4   5   2 3

NRO 356P/7. NRO 325P/193. NRO 92P/132, Crick Overseers account 1833-1835. NRO 356P/7.

135

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

subsidies elaborated either in vestry minutes or overseer correspondence, they are often recorded in overseers’ accounts and would thus have been very much part of the public knowledge of the dependent poor. Such subsidies might be in the form of buying goods and passage for the newly married, allowing them to move to another (usually urban) parish, in effect an inheritance funded by the community. Such was the fate of recently re-married gingerbread seller William Bateman who was equipped with a stock of gingerbread and the cost of passage as an inducement by his home parish of Thrapston in Northamptonshire to take his family and seek fortune in the Suffolk town of Bury St. Edmunds. On 20 March 1826 he wrote back seeking a last period of support, for: ‘after I got to Bury [St Edmunds] my wife was confined about 14 days after and the House being intirely [entirely] New it has taken a great deal of caoles [coals] as we were obliged to keep good fires the weather being cold after my wife got about two of my children [from a previous marriage]were taken ill and kept their beds some weeks a Nurse and a Doctor I was obliged to have and Trade being dull the situation a new one and myself a stranger to Bury it is brought me very low in circumstances my rent being due on 25 March and other bills to pay which I am not Able to meet I am under the Necessity of asking Thrapston Parish for assistance and you being the overseer I address myself to you’. (NRO, 325P/193/132)

For those who stayed put in their marital parish, the willingness of the overseer to either pay initial rent, pay rent arrears built up while the marriage partners were single, or to subsidise economic activities such as petty selling, could make the difference between independence and not. Thus the overseer of Welton in Northamptonshire paid to equip the rented house of the newly married former pauper Ann Web, buying items ranging from blankets and pots through to spoons and bedsteads. Similarly, in September 1825 (and in numerous other cases between these dates) the overseers gave the newly married Abraham Clark ‘10/ towards buying him leather’, presumably to get him off of the poor relief lists6. Most of the time, these sorts of small intercessions go unremarked, buried in the welter of detail that characterise the best overseers’ accounts. It is thus difficult to assess how many rural marriages were conducted with the temporary support, or expectation of support, of the poor law. However, occasionally the parish officials speak more directly of their strategies, as was the case with Joseph Sims of the small Northamptonshire parish of Bradden who wrote in February 1812 that ‘I tyre of the insistent claims of Elizabeth Hall, might we not pay for a marriage and be rid of this problem?’7. Why English overseers thought that the poor were better off married than single when communities on the continent thought exactly the opposite is problematic. The dependent poor did not marry at lower ages 6 7

   

136

NRO 356P/7.

NRO 43P/15.

Steven King

than their cohort peers, and hence the impact of poor law intervention directly in the marriage market may have been to prevent later marriages or compress remarriage intervals, not to encourage earlier marriage. Moreover, we have already seen that the fertility effects of poor law intervention in the marriage market were often muted, so that overseers were unlikely to make a direct link between their policies and rising fertility in the community as a whole. This observation is exacerbated by the fact that (and as will become apparent when we move on to pauper letters below) rural overseers seem to have been quite successful in exporting their poor, particularly their newly married poor, to urban communities. Ultimately, however, we must recognise that the English poor were enmeshed in a complex economy of makeshifts where to be married was generally seen as yielding more opportunities than being single. Equally, we must acknowledge that while there were demo-economic costs to the actions of the overseer, there were also costs associated with not acting, including long-term dependency for the sick, insane, women who bore illegitimate children, motherless families and the like.

V.  The poor law and indirect influences on marriage and household formation These are important observations, but it is possible to suggest that the real intersection between the poor law and the marriage motivations of the dependent poor lay at a more indirect and subliminal level, in terms of shaping the way in which people formed their expectations of marriage. I have argued elsewhere, for instance, that the increasing willingness of the poor law to provide nursing care for the aged in the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries freed up children (such as the son of Walter Keeling, encountered above) to marry who might otherwise have been prevented from marrying at all or married late (Hudson and King, 2003). Moreover, there is substantial evidence that by the later eighteenth century officials were paying increasing amounts to women for providing services to others in the parish. Such (often ongoing) subsidies may have represented the difference between establishing a broadly viable household in the aftermath of marriage and not, and may have come to form part of the structure of expectations that shaped female decisions of when to marry and what sort of household they might form (Boulton, 2007; Williams, 2004b). If Moodie’s comment that poorer English women ‘married when they could, not when they should’ (Moodie, 1983: 142) has a purchase on eighteenth and nineteenth century life, the prospect of small and ongoing interventions by the poor law in favour of a significant minority of parish women may have been an important component of the marriage decision.

137

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

Yet, a further and more subtle aspect of the relationship between the poor law and the marriage motivations and decisions of the dependent poor can also be elaborated. Neither the 1601 poor law Act, nor the significant body of amending legislation up to its repeal in 1834, gave definitive rights to poor relief. Rather, parishes were tasked with providing relief (unspecified in amount or form) to poor people who were both ‘impotent’ and had a legal settlement in the parish. While several legislative vehicles suggested who should be considered ‘impotent’ (later ‘deserving’), including for instance the aged beyond work or the disabled, the category was never officially constructed. This left parishes free to define their own list of who should be considered deserving and what they should get, leading to a patchwork of regional and intra-regional variation in the scope of the poor law and the scale of resources that individual parishes deployed to combat poverty (Hindle, 2004). However, this freedom was bisected by the evolution of customary norms (Sokoll, 2000), the interference of magistrates (P. King, 2004), the development of a significant core of non-settled paupers in most communities (King, 2005), and the evolution of a large borderland in the understanding of entitlement, within which the poor were enabled to claim eligibility (either in person or writing) and officials were more or less obliged to listen. It is the argument of this chapter that both the ability to claim relief and the precedents set by officials in response to the negotiating tactics of the poor may have framed the structure of expectations that influenced the marriage decisions of the dependent poor. To develop this argument, we can turn to a substantial body of pauper letters. Such narratives become relatively common from the later eighteenth century. Initial collections for Essex and Westmorland (Hitchcock, King and Sharpe, 1997) have turned out to be the tip of a large iceberg (King, Nutt and Tomkins, 2006). While both individual letters and wider collections pose thorny problems of orthography, representativeness, truthfulness and methodology it is possible to significantly overplay these issues (Sokoll, 2001; King, 2005). In particular, it is all too easy to assume that letters told only partial truths or contained outright lies. Yet in practice overseers often had complex mechanisms for surveillance at their disposal even in the most distant places, including fellow overseers, tradesmen with links to the home locality and even kin networks in host parishes. Paupers frequently recognised this, actively inviting inspection by representatives of settlement parishes as a way of showing they had nothing to hide. The remainder of this chapter thus draws on perspectives from 2,576 pauper letters and associated pieces of correspondence collected from parish archives in the archetypal rural counties of Northamptonshire and Berkshire. In particular it draws on the experiences and rhetorical strategies of two families at either end of the age spectrum, and whose experiences seem to embody the potential impact of the poor law on the marriage decision. We do not as yet have letters 138

Steven King

specifically about the marriage event and so our case studies must imply motivations and expectations from subsequent family histories and analysis of the rhetoric of family and household. While this notionally represents a weakness in the analysis, the sources are sufficiently rich and varied to give confidence that we are accurately reading the intersection of the poor law with the formation of marriage motivation. Thus, Jacob and Sophia Curchin had a settlement in the Northamptonshire village of Thrapston, but they were resident at various addresses in the Wisbech area of rural Cambridgeshire. They wrote or were the subject of at least fifty letters between Thrapston and Wisbech between 1824 and 1830. At the time their letters started, the couple must have been less than four years into married life, since later overseer correspondence suggests their eldest child could only have been three when the letter series starts. A second couple, at the opposite end of the age spectrum to the Soundy family, provide an equally compelling case study. Frances and James Soundy were both around fifty years of age when they began writing back to rural Pangbourne in Berkshire (their parish of settlement) from Battersea, Surrey, in 1818. They wrote or were the subject of thirty-eight letters between 1818 and 1831. Such letters are ample testimony of the success of rural overseers in exporting their poor.

VI.  Evidence from pauper letters The Curchins first come to our attention in a letter from the overseer of Walsoken near Wisbech (Thomas Wooton) to his counterpart in Thrapston of 14 June 1824, asking for permission to relieve them. Wooton noted ‘I understand you have relieved him when at [sic] Wisbeach in the past’, and reconciling all available evidence suggests that the Thrapston poor law had indeed been supporting the Curchin’s since just after their likely marriage date in 1821 or 18228. The Thrapston overseer was hardly impressed, replying on 17 June 1824 that Wooton should ‘observe that he [Jacob Curchin] is a very troublesome and imposing man, and therefore shall be obliged by your being guarded against his crafty insinuations’9. In short, Curchin would clearly have fitted in at the beggars’ wedding with which we started this chapter. Nonetheless, the overseer still authorised payment of relief. Jacob Curchin wrote on his own behalf on 26 September 1824, asking the Thrapston overseer to pay his rent, the justification for which was that ‘my wife is quite large in the familyway and I declare I have not a bedsted to lie on’10. This was the fourth Curchin child in almost as many years since their marriage, and the letter testifies both to the lack of material underpinnings for the household (no bed for the wife to give birth on) in its relatively early stages, and to the grey areas over entitlement thrown up by     10   8 9

NRO, 325P/193/2. NRO, 325P/193/3. NRO, 325P/193/22.

139

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

the intersection of custom (childbirth was often equated with deservingness), morals (would the overseer see Curchin’s wife give birth on a floor) and economy (it would cost less to relieve Curchin in Wisbech than to bring him home). The overseer replied on 11 November 182411 authorising his counterpart in Wisbech to purchase a bed. While the vestry at Thrapston did not grant formalised family allowances they clearly supported families in the early stages of household formation and childbearing. It is interesting to wonder how far the expectation of such support was part of the public knowledge of courting couples in Thrapston. Jacob Curchin wrote again on Christmas Day 182412 asking for relief and payment of rent arrears. Once again, the centre of his claims-making apparatus was the fact of his wife’s confinement and the inability of the family to cope with such events. Thus ‘I had not a shilling nor nothing in the house, and no nurse, therefore she must be lost if you don’t send me something by return of post. … I cannot stop at Wisbeach as my wife is in a lost state and my quarters rent is due today’. The dependent poor, then, seem to have conceived of the poor law as a resource, a support to household formation and a substitute both for accumulation prior to marriage and alternative forms of support (family, friends etc) in its aftermath, a resource to be accessed by the application of moral and rhetorical pressure such as the notion of being ‘lost’. We see these themes played out most strongly in a series of letters sent by Jacob’s wife, Sophia. Hers of 12 March 1825 thanked the overseer for paying the rent at Christmas but reminded him that a further payment was due (direct testimony to the financial fragility of newly formed pauper households), holding out the prospect that the family would be bankrupted and suggesting that13 (), ‘as for my poor children they are almost naked and I am sure that it is not in our power to clothe them. I hope you will do something for them to keep out the cold’. The image of naked children was a powerful rhetorical device. Sophia wrote again on 20 April 1825 when she lamented: ‘what can I do with four small children as mine towards a living they are so young that I cannot my husband as noting to but a little wool to pack sometimes, sometimes nothing to do for a week or to together and then what few shillings he brings home it is soon spent that frequently before he can get any more to do we are almost starving as to pay the rent’. (NRO, 325P/193/61)

Notwithstanding a note to Sophia from the Thrapston overseer14 stating that ‘the parish has tyred with your applications and letters’ and another of 13 August15     13   14   15   11

12

140

NRO, 325P/193/35. NRO, 325P/193/42. NRO, 325P/193/50. NRO, 325P/193/62. NRO, 325P/193/83.

Steven King

suggesting that ‘we are convinced you must manage very bad, or are extravagant’, Thrapston still paid the rent and ongoing allowance for a couple barely five years out of first marriage. The interwoven themes of the potential starvation and nakedness of children, the economic fragility of the household in the face of large bills such as rent, the vulnerability of Jacob Curchin’s work to economic downturns and the rhetoric of having made do until nothing more could be done can be seen in further letters on 14 November 1825, 31 December 1825, 2 February 1826, and 15 February, when Sophia Curchin noted ‘my Husband as nothing to do brignin [bringing] one farthing and not one thing to help ourselves with we have not a norsel [morsel] of any thing to eat nor nothing we can sell to make a sixpence of If you do not send as soon as possible we shall all be starved’16. Cash from Thrapston followed. Letters of 31 March 1826, and 1 June 1826 also elicited responses, while on 26 June 182617 Sophia Curchin played a further moral card in the sense of emphasising the need to protect common decency, asking ‘I hope you will have the goodness to pay my Rent and assist me a Trifle more a week in my confinement as every one of feeling will allow it a shocking thing to want at such a time as I expect very shortly’. Sophia Curchin had located herself squarely in the grey area of entitlement under the Old Poor law that now allowed her to negotiate with the overseer. This said her most powerful rhetoric was saved for later letters. Thus, the theme of the parish and overseer as ‘friend’ was deployed on 18 July 1826 (), when Sophia Curchin told the overseer: ‘as to clothing I am sorry to say we have not a change to put on My Quarter rent just at hand and my confinement in a short time and if not assisted from this Quarter I do not no one friend to help me there but I hope you will be so kind as to assist me & not let me be lost as I am willing to come home if there goodness think well or have them assisting here but one or other it must be as I cannot help myself … Sir I have to return you many thanks for what I have received and hope I shall be relieved be for long as I am all anxiety and more unhappy than anyone can think for at seeing so much trouble before me but I hope the Almighty will find me friends as I am sure friends at Thrapston have been kind I hope they will not forget’. (NRO, 325P/194/18)

The poor law was, in other words, her insurance policy and relative substitute. Conceived in this way, Sophia Curchin clearly felt and was elaborating a personalised relationship with the parish, one that afforded her the rhetorical and strategic space to bargain with the overseer when tension arose. Thus, on 11 May 182818, and in the face of a vestry demand that she return home, Sophia Curchin argued ‘it is your wish for us to come home but it is not ours as I am near my confinement therefore I should     18   16 17

NRO, 325P/193/123. NRO, 325P/194/7. NRO, 325P/194/121.

141

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

afraid to venture and Husband and children is better therefore we are willing to do without the allowance if you will have the goodness to pay rent and if required at the time of my confinement to allow me a trifle’. Similarly, on 29 November 182919, and faced with further determination from the vestry that the family should return to Thrapston, she carefully argued that ‘I am certain you will have the goodness to write immediately and help us through this as I am certain we are doing all we can to keep ourselves from troubling you but you must be certain that 5 children and ourselves take a great deal of doing for’. Notwithstanding this language of bargaining and even underlying threat, the overseer was unable to simply dismiss the case, and the Curchins never returned home. This morris dance around the issue of returning home is one seen time and again in pauper letters, testimony to a common point of reference between overseer and pauper. In the case of the Curchins the parish clearly did not in fact want them back in the settlement parish. They had already invested resources in relocating them and to have the Curchins return would be both expensive and disruptive given that they had few remaining local kin or other connections and that bringing them home would rip them out of local employment and credit networks. Nonetheless, the threat of return was useful in putting pressure on Jacob and Sophia Curchin to accept lower payments than they might have got if they were in their settlement parish while the parish still met its implicit obligation to support the young couple. At the same time, the Curchins did not want to return home and their threat to do so at considerable expense was a way of securing at least some payment of relief. Numerous letters from other paupers demonstrate the same sorts of logic, and in general while payments to the out-parish poor tended to be lower than for equivalent paupers in their parish of residence, we can nonetheless point to allowances comprising up to 50 per cent of the equivalent adult male wage paid by settlement parishes to paupers living elsewhere. Sophia’s final letter of 7 December 1829 brings many of these motifs (moral obligation on the parish, customary rights, the poor law as friend etc.) together and is worth quoting at length: ‘I am sorry that I should be obliged to trouble you so many times but my troubles are so many that I cannot bare they lay so heavy my children is so small so many and so young that they cannot do nothing nor myself through it my Husband at this time ill and if he was well no work to do nor no one to assist without either money or friend in this condition what am I to do I can take no other steps better than to apply to your goodness to assist which I hope you will do as I am sure grief will soon bring me to my grave my husband says he will go and see for work as soon as he is a little better and we must come home until he gets him a something and then he will send for us. So I hope your goodness will send us a few shillings and we will come home immediately but the Poor children  

19

142

NRO, 325P/194/162.

Steven King

are so distressed for clothing I forgot to name this before I hope you will order a coat of something for they this severe weather or I am sure they will get their deaths to come so long a journey I hope you will write immediately’. (NRO, 325P/194/172)

By the close of their letter sequence Thrapston had contributed to the household economy of the Curchin family every single year of their marriage. At no point did the parish offer a formal family allowance or aid in support of wages in a Speenhamland sense, but it nonetheless paid substantial resources to keep the family just viable within the context of a wider economy of makeshifts that involved work, pawning goods, friends etc. The parish officers did not always pay gladly, but the striking thing about the correspondence in its totality is that though the Curchins were regarded as slothful, dissembling and morally tainted, they nonetheless had the rhetorical and strategic space to try and establish and re-establish their deservingness. Exactly how many other pauper letter writers in the Northamptonshire sample were relieved from the date of their marriage is unclear, not least because such support was often dressed up as sickness relief. As a rough estimate, however, some 24 per cent of distinct correspondents were people who we might surmise to be either of marriageable age, recently married or in the remarriage market, and their letters comprised 22 per cent of all the 1392 items of correspondence collected for Northamptonshire as a whole. In turn, the moral levers and rhetorical tools used by the Curchins resonate strongly in the letters of others seeking relief soon after marriage, both for Thrapston and other rural Northamptonshire communities. In particular the idea that the poor law might stand as a friend/relative substitute for the dependent poor in the aftermath of marriage, was consistently elaborated. Against this backdrop, and in light of the fact that requests in pauper letters were usually met by parishes, it is surely possible to argue that the marriage motivations of the dependent poor were not tied up with the notion of achieving sustained economic independence. In the case of the Curchins, and given the proximity of relief applications to their likely marriage date, there was clearly an expectation that the poor law would provide a material floor to marriage, particularly through the payment of lump sum expenses (rent, clothing and doctoring for instance) early in the marriage life-cycle. The same can certainly be said of other recently married writers in the Northamptonshire letter sample. In this sense, we may have underplayed the importance of the poor law and the range and scale of its interventions for marriage motivations generally and those of the dependent poor in particular. Such observations may encourage us to regard the reports of the beggar’s wedding at Spratton in a less comedic light. These themes are revisited in the conclusion. In the meantime, however, other serial letter writers at different stages of the life-cycle spectrum provide testimony to further indirect relationships between the poor law and marriage. The nature of 143

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

these relationships is perhaps best exemplified by the letters of the Soundy family (John and his wife Frances). While the Soundys were physically resident in the Surrey parish of Battersea, they were writing back to the rural Berkshire parish of Pangbourne, and the key issue for this chapter is the range of support that the Soundys thought it appropriate to ask for and the responses of their parish to these demands. We first encounter the family on 22 December 1818, when Frances Soundy wrote to Pangbourne seeking relief having been abandoned by her husband after a family argument. This letter20 suggests that the Soundys had a range of children across the age spectrum, from very young to young adult, a fact that becomes central to the ensuing narrative. After intervening letters of 29 December 1818 and 4 January 1819, the family reappeared in September 1823, when a neighbour wrote asking the parish to pay for clothes so as to enable one of the Soundy children (John) to be apprenticed. Frances Soundy wrote in her own capacity on this matter on 29 September 1823, adding that the reason she could not afford the apprenticeship fee and clothing was because the lump sum she had accumulated was instead applied to: ‘pay for counsel for his unfortunate brother [Charles] and other exspences [expenses] wich was vary hevey [heavy] for we ad [had] his wife [Mary] and child with us from the time she came from you and my son must have starved in prison if we ad not assised [assisted] him wich the 6 months he was thar [there] it cost us a grat deall [great deal] wich we was oblig [obliged] to run be hind wich we have not ad it in our pouwer to git [get] paid and he as not bene in constant imploy sins [employment since] he as bene home so that we are o bilge [obliged] to do a litell [little] for him now to keep him from starving. (BRO, D/P 91/18/4)

In short, Frances Soundy had provided houseroom for her daughter-in-law and grandchild from the time that they arrived in Battersea, which other evidence suggests to have been just after marriage. The fact that Frances Soundy used this co-residence as both part of her claims-making apparatus and as part of her rhetorical strategy for establishing deservingness suggests that she thought the overseers would not see it as strange for the family to provide support to a newly married couple or for the parish to be asked, as a result, to help with support for the wider family. By 13 February 1826 (and after several intervening letters), Charles and Mary Soundy and their child were co-resident once more and Frances Soundy wrote to implore relief given the strains on the family economy thus engendered, noting that: ‘if you have any doubt that i have serliseted [solicited] you inbelhalf [on behalf] of my son and keept wot [what] you have been so kind to send they have now lived with me 11 weeks if you think proper to authorise any one to inquire you will find gentillmen that i have not mencioned [mentioned] one half of the disstrees that we have brote [brought]  

20

144

Berkshire Record Office [hereafter BRO], D/P 91/18/6.

Steven King

to throw [through] surporting of them for I keeps it as much as i can in my hone brast [own breast] gentillman I humbly intreet [entreat] you that you will assist them in a trifell [trifle] … stand his frand [friend] in regard to my self i leave that to you gentillmen’. (BRO, D/P 91/18/4)

Here, then, relief for the son was tied up with relief for Frances herself, but the key point is that the poor law was being asked to find relief indirectly for a young couple living on the edge of economic and residential independence. As with the Curchins and Thrapston, the Pangbourne poor law was urged to stand as a friend to the Soundy family and the overseers were invited to make further enquiries as to the probity of the family, emphasising their honesty and integrity. By 16 November 1826 Pangbourne had not replied and Frances wrote again saying that their son would have to return home to his parish of settlement, a threat that appears to have elicited relief for both families. To receive back a disabled adult threatened unlimited future bills for the parish of settlement. However, the overseers were to get no respite from the Soundys. Frances wrote again on 1 February 1827 to say that ‘the 2 Pound you was so kind to remit to me for them [Charles and Mary] thay paid £1.4s.0. for thar rant [their rent] and relesed thar goods [from the pawnbroker] and 1s.11d. pence I paid for the post the other 14s.1d. I gave them to help to surport them and I took them home with me wich gentillmen is 10 weeks a go it is now 5 months sins he as been at work exseptin [excepting] 4 days at hise [his] cart for the gardins [gardens] and gentillman being oblige to find them house rant & fireing and wittles [vittles] for 3 persons and but one poor old man to work for it as brout [brought] us to the gratist [greatest] poverty’. By 3 June 1827 the situation had worsened, with Frances writing that: ‘in my last letter [now apparently missing] that i wrote [illegible] i told you that my younger son John Soundy and his wife [Hannah] was com to me for surport and a home and that his wife was in the famely way and gentellmen he cam to me a bout [about] the midell [middle] of March and he have not arnt [earned] as many shillings as he have bene weeks and gentellmen my elder son and wife and child for 20 weeks brot [brought] me to so much disstrees that i can not see this ones wife throw her trobell [trouble – childbirth] as he is not in the least vew [view] of work … I have provided for tham with their own bed but gentellmen thay have no bedstead and i can not aforde to by them one so gentellmen if you can not assist them thay must wan [when] she is taken [missing] she must go to the workhous for i can not bare to see her lay on the ground at such a time gentellmen i have no objecton [objection] to attend on her and do all that lay in my power for her but intirely [entirely] to surport her throu her trobell i can not for I have my elldist darter at hom who ad lost the youse [use] of her lims [limbs] with the rumaxtick [rheumatic] fever and nou [now] she is gitin [getting] better i can not git her the norris[ment] that she requires to git her strenk [strength] to inable her to git her liven’. (BRO, D/P 91/18/4)

145

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

While we have no evidence of the marriage date for John Soundy (the boy apprentice of earlier letters) he had been fifteen years of age in October 1823 and could have been no more than nineteen and thus only recently married at the time Frances wrote. He had clearly not formed a viable economic or residential unit, and may even have been out of work at the time he married. The parody of the beggar’s wedding with which we started this chapter could surely have applied to John Soundy as keenly as it did to its subject in rural Spratton. The key point in this case, however, is that Frances Soundy felt duty bound to provide house room, a bed, subsistence, and to ask the parish for assistance, an indirect subsidy to the beggar’s wedding. Even more importantly, the overseer paid an allowance, suggesting that this rural parish saw little wrong in subsidising embryonic households of the dependent poor, even if, in this case, indirectly through support to an aged couple. Frances was to write again on 7 June 182821 asking for relief in part because of ‘a little grand darter [grand daughter] to our son Charles soundy your perrishoner [parishioner] that was doun with you in October last wich genttellmen he represented to you that he ad no home but wot we found him with us till we furnished him a room on the account of his wife being pregnant wich she was put to bed at christmas and sins [since] have ad a vary bad feaver and his money that he hearnt was only 9 shillings pr weeke and his income being so small we kept the child out of charity’. Again, there is no sense in which Charles Soundy had (or perhaps could have been expected) to form an independent economic and residential unit. Indeed, we find repeated evidence of such financial and residential fragility for all of the Soundy children in subsequent letters. Thus, Frances’s letter of 24 September 182822 noted that ‘i allrady have one of his [Charles Soundy’s] children with me and a nother son and wife and child and have found tham a home for this last 3 months and som tims [sometimes] keep them’, while hers of 2 February 182923 suggested that it was ‘vary hard that 2 old popell shuld be brote [people should be brought] in to the gratest disstrees and trobell throu finding a home for thar chilldren my son charles soundy that was doune with you have not hearnt a shilling sins he came from you and is now in a state of starvation and we can not assist him with any think exsepting a plase [excepting a place] to be in’. By 14 November 182924 the strain of providing for two married children had begun to bite for ‘I have been oblige to sand my eldist son charls Soundy little girl home and my youngest son John soundy littell boy to his mother wich i was vary sorry as poor woman she as but 2 days a week work but gentillman i found tham all a home as long as i culde [could] because that thay shuld not be trobellsom [troublesome] to you gentillmen as our disstres as not bene     23   24   21 22

146

BRO, D/P 91/18/10. BRO, D/P 91/18/10. BRO, D/P 91/18/10. BRO, D/P 91/18/7.

Steven King

throw [through] any misconduct but throw providing a home for our chilldren and my husband being out of work’. Finally, on 11 October February 1831: ‘we have assisted tham [Charles and Mary] till we can not stand thar frand any longer as my husband has vary indiferrant [very indifferent] health and we supported them 3 or 4 months last winter and we have not bene able to git our salves any ways so that we give them we are oblige to go without my salf for i can not bare to see my children starve but gentillman I humbly hope that you will take it in to considerration and sand them som small support if not they must apply to the parrish for reeleaf [relief] for if thay do not pay thar rant by next tuesday octr 17 thay will take thar goods’. (BRO, D/P 91/18/4)

In other words, the parish was invited to pay rent and other relief immediately or pay rather more once the family goods had been sold and would need replacing. These letters provide both evidence of the sorts of informal support to young (and in the case of Charles Soundy increasingly not so young) married couples offered by parents and of the sorts of claims-making apparatus that overseers were susceptible to in such cases. It is important in this sense to note that while Pangbourne did not always pay as much as was wanted, pay on time or respond to the first letter asking for relief, they did generally pay. In the underlying sample of 1184 Berkshire overseer and pauper letters, 28 per cent of all distinct correspondents seem to have been either of marriageable age, recently married or in the remarriage market. As with their Northamptonshire counterparts, such paupers found the rhetorical, moral and strategic space to make a case for ongoing support of fragile households. The Soundy letters also show keenly that providing support to the newly married was a legitimate claim for deservingness on the part of parents and others. While Berkshire is often (and perhaps mistakenly) conceived as a ‘Speenhamland county’ (Neuman, 1982), officials responded to letters such as these with lump sum or other small payments in support of dependent households, not with family allowances. Even in Berkshire, then, we may misunderstand and understate the role of the poor law in marriage motivations.

VII.  Conclusion Nowhere are the English records sufficiently detailed to pinpoint definitively the proportion of each marriage cohort that might be classed as dependent poor, or to detail their personal marriage motivations. Yet, in Northamptonshire and Berkshire there is evidence that a significant minority of all marriages included at least one partner who might be classified as ‘dependent poor’ on the definition employed here. How such people, and their partners, conceived of marriage, made their marriage decisions and experienced early married life will remain uncertain, characterised by parodies of the sort with which we started this chapter. However, there is evidence 147

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

that poor law officials intervened directly in the marriage market and marriage decision-making process, even if we discount links between family/wage allowances and the marriage decisions of the dependent poor. How important such intervention was at the level of the individual remains obscure, but it is clear that officials believed that paupers were better off married than single, that the fertility consequences of their interventions were muted and that rural overseers were in any case good at passing on the demographic consequences of their decisions to urban communities in particular. Meanwhile, an analysis of pauper letters suggests that the households formed by the dependent poor may have been financially and residentially fragile, requiring support from parents, neighbours and ‘friends’ and above all from the poor law. Without extensive linkage between family reconstitutions and poor law data, it is impossible to document the extent of such dependence, but pauper letters suggest it to have been substantial. Importantly, the claims-making rhetoric of the newly married or those (such as parents) applying to the poor law indirectly so as to allow them to continue offering support to poor newlyweds, appears to have touched a nerve in the rural communities analysed here. While relief may have been intermittent, it was often substantial when worked out on a yearly basis, and officials clearly expected to be approached to help in supporting the households of the newlywed poor. Even where officials had real and enduring concerns over the moral standing and household management of paupers like Jacob and Sophia Curchin, they still paid rent, got clothes and furniture out of pawn, paid allowances and met doctoring bills. While we have concentrated here on pauper letters from just two pauper families, the underlying expectations that supporting new households was a valid part of the claims-making rhetoric and the underlying expectation of parish officials that they would eventually pay, is a clear thread running through all pauper letters from those who might be seen to be newlywed or those supporting them. Thus, while it is possible to underplay the extent to which poor people could accumulate resources prior to marriage and the potential for poor families to provide their younger members with dowry-type help or inheritance, it has been all too common to forget that the greatest inheritance of all for such people was a settlement and the right to negotiate for poor relief. How the expectation of an engagement with the poor law shaped the marriage decision is complex, but we might note that only the claims of the sick were more successful than the claims of newlyweds or those supporting them in a league table of success and failure in the underlying pauper letter sample. The poor law was an inheritance much as settlement was a currency and its omission from the parody with which we started this chapter is striking, though not unexpected given the current state of historiography.

148

Steven King

We might conclude with two further observations. The first is that the paupers writing to urban communities rarely sought support for newly established households. This might reflect a different pattern of migration from urban areas, with, for instance, more people leaving once families had established themselves. Equally, it might reflect a different set of expectations/experiences of the urban poor law. More work is clearly needed on this issue. A second observation is increasing evidence that the sorts of narratives which are the mainstay of this chapter survive in considerable numbers elsewhere in Europe (Gestrich, 2008; Fontaine and Schlumbohm, 2000). Where, as in most European states, we lack the information for a detailed discussion of the marriage motivations of the dependent, marginal and labouring poor, perhaps a close analysis of pauper narratives provides one way forward. Certainly in England they are a vital corrective to the analyses of marriage motivations that emphasise wages and wage expectations (Wrigley, Davies, Oeppen and Scholfield, 1997), inheritance, land availability, the ingrained nature of courtship patterns, and even simply chance. If poor men and women married for their own reasons and without any hope of formalised inheritance, the marriage decision was nonetheless taken under the auspices of the English Old Poor Law and with its considerable resources clearly in mind. The frequency with which the poor in general but the sick and newlywed poor in particular, implored poor law officials to stand as their ‘friend’ (within which terminology we might also include family (Tadmor, 2001)), speaks volumes for the necessity of seeing the poor law as a heritable resource much like material goods or an active and accumulative family.

Bibliography Adair, Richard (1996), Courtship, Illegitimacy and Marriage in Early Modern England, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Blaug, Mark (1963), ‘The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the Making of the New’, Journal of Economic History, 23, p. 151–184. Boulton, Jeremy (2007), ‘Welfare Systems and the Parish Nurse in Early Modern London, 1650-1725’, Family and Community History, 10, p. 127–52.

Boyer, George (1990), An Economic History of the English Poor Law, 1750-1850, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ehmer, Joseph (2002), ‘Marriage’, in David Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli (eds), Family Life in the Long Nineteenth Century, New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 282-321 [284–90]. Eustace, Nicola (2001), ‘‘The Cornerstone of a Copious Work’: Love and Power in Eighteenth Century courtship’, Journal of Social History, 34, p. 48–76.

149

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette (2002), ‘Marriage, Widowhood and Divorce’, in Family Life in Early Modern Times 1500-1789, in David Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli (eds), Family Life in the Long Nineteenth Century, New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 221-56. Fontaine, Laurence and Schlumbohm, Jürgen (eds) (2000), Household Strategies for Survival 1600-2000, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Frances, Christine (2005), ‘Making Marriages in Early Modern England: Rethinking the Role of Family and Friends’, in Maria Agren and Amy Louise Erickson (eds), The Marital Economy in Scandinavia and Britain 1400-1900, Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 39-55.

Francis, Katherine (2004), ‘An Absurd, a Cruel, a Scandalous, and a Wicked [bill]’: The Church of England and the [clandestine] Marriage Act of 1753’, in David J. P. Trim, Peter J. Balderstone and Harry Leonard (eds), Cross, Crown and Community: Religion, Government and Culture in Early Modern England, Bern, Peter Lang, p. 277-310.

Gestrich, Andreas (ed.) (forthcoming), The Dignity of the Poor: Concepts, Practices, Representations, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gillis, John (1984), ‘Peasant, Plebeian and Proletarian Marriage in Britain 1600-1900’, in David Levine, Proletarianization and Family History, Orlando, Academic Press, p. 121148. Gillis, John (1985), For Better, For Worse: British Marriages 1600 to the Present, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gillis, John (1997), A World of their Own Making: A History of Myth and Ritual in Family Life, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Goose, Nigel (2005), ‘Poverty, Old Age and Gender in Nineteenth Century England: The Case of Hertfordshire’, Continuity and Change, 20, p. 1-34.

Hajnal, John (1965), ‘European Marriage Patterns in Perspective’, in David Victor Glass and David Edward Charles Eversley (eds), Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, London, Arnold, p. 101-143. Hajnal, John (1982), ‘Two Kinds of Pre-industrial Household Formation Systems’, Population and Development Review, 8, p. 449-494. Hindle, Steve (1998), ‘The Problem of Pauper Marriages in Seventeenth Century England’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 8, p. 71-89.

Hindle, Steve (2004), On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England 1550-1750, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hitchcock, Tim, King, Peter and Sharpe, Pamela (eds) (1997), Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor 1640-1840, Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Hollen Lees, Lynn (1998), The Solidarities of Strangers: The English Poor Laws and the People 1700-1949, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hudson, Pat and King, Steve (2003), ‘Marriage in Textile Manufacturing Townships in the Eighteenth Century’, in Christophe Duhamelle, Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds) , Eheschliesungen in Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts: Muster und Strategien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeke and Ruprecht, p. 27-59. 150

Steven King

Innes, Joanna (1996), ‘‘The Mixed Economy of Welfare’ in Early Modern England: Assessments of the Options from Hale to Malthus (c.1683-1803)’, in Martin J. Daunton (ed.), Charity, Self-Interest and Welfare in the English Past, London, University College London Press, p. 139-80.

King, Peter (2004), ‘Social Inequality, Identity and the Labouring Poor in Eighteenth Century England’, in Henry French and Jonathan Barry (eds), Identity and Agency in England, 1500-1800, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 60-87.

King, Steve (1999), ‘Chance Encounters: Paths to Household Formation in Early Modern England’, International Review of Social History, 44, p. 23-46. King, Steve (2005), ‘‘It is Impossible for our Vestry to Judge his Case into Perfection from here’: Managing the Distance Dimensions of Poor Relief, 1800-40’, Rural History, 16, p. 161–189.

King, Steve (2006), ‘Pauvreté et assistance  : la politique locale de la mortalité dans l’Angleterre des xviiie et xixe siècles’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales, 61, n° 1, p. 3132. King, Steve, Levene, Alysa, King Peter, Nutt Thomas, Symonds, Deborah A., Tomkins Alannah and Zunshine Lisa (2006), Narratives of the Poor in Eighteenth Century Britain, London, Pickering and Chatto. King Steve (forthcoming), Sick, Poor and Dead: The English Poor 1750-1850, Palgrave.

Lemmings, David (1996), ‘Marriage and the Law in the Eighteenth Century: Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753’, Historical Journal, 39, p. 339-360.

Levene, Alysa, Nutt Thomas and Williams Samantha (eds), (2005), Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700-1920, Basingstoke, Palgrave. Levine, David (1982), ‘‘For their own reasons’: Individual Marriage Decisions and Family Life’, Journal of Family History, 7, p. 255-264.

Levine, Edward (1983), ‘The Population History of England: A Review Symposium’, Social History, 8, p. 139-168. Neuman, Mark (1982), The Speenhamland County: Poverty and the Poor Laws in Berkshire 1782-1834, New York, Garland. O’Hara, Diana (2000), Courtship and Constraint: Rethinking the Making of Marriage in Tudor England, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Outhwaite, Brian (1995), Clandestine Marriage in England 1500-1850, London, Hambledon.

Patriquin, Larry (2007), Agrarian Capitalism and Poor Relief in England 1500-1860, Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Reiss, Matthias (2006), ‘The Image of the Poor and Unemployed: The Example of Punch, 1841-1939’, in Andreas Gestrich, Steven King and Lutz Raphael (eds), Being Poor in Modern Europe, Bern, Peter Lang, p. 389-416.

151

Too poor to marry? ‘Inheritance’, the poor and marriage/household formation in rural England

Seccombe, Wally (1992), A Millenium of Family Change: Feudalism to Capitalism in North West Europe, London, Verso.

Snell, Keith D. M (2007), Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales, 1700-1950, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sokoll, Thomas (2000), ‘Negotiating a Living: Essex Pauper Letters from London, 1800-1834’, in Laurence Fontaine and Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Household Strategies for Survival 1600-2000, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 19-46. Sokoll, Thomas (2001), Essex Pauper Letters 1731-1837, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sokoll, Thomas (2006), ‘Writing for Relief: Rhetoric in English Pauper Letters 18001834’, in Andreas Gestrich, Steven King and Lutz Raphael (eds), Being Poor in Modern Europe, Bern, Peter Lang, p. 91-112. Solar, Peter (1995), ‘Poor Relief and English Economic Development before the Industrial Revolution’, Economic History Review, 48, p. 1-22.

Styles, John (2007), The Dress of the People: Everyday Fashion in Eighteenth-Century England, New Haven, Yale. Tadmor, Naomi (2001), Family and Friends in Eighteenth Century England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Samantha (2004), ‘Malthus, Marriage and Poor Law Allowances Revisited: A Bedfordshire Case Study 1770-1834’, Agricultural History Review, 52, p. 56-82. Williams, Samantha (2004b), ‘Caring for the Sick Poor: Poor Law Nurses in Bedfordshire c. 1770-1834’, in Penelope Lane, Neil Raven and Keith D. M. Snell (eds), Women, Work and Wages in England, 1600-1850, Woodbridge, Boydell & Brewer, p. 141-169.

Wrigley, Edward (Tony) (1988), ‘Malthus on the Prospects for the Labouring Poor’, Historical Journal, 31, p. 813-829. Wrigley, Edward (Tony) and Souden, David (1986), The Works of Thomas Robert Malthus, London, Pickering and Chatto.

Wrigley, Edward (Tony), Davies, Ros, Oeppen, Jim and Schofield, Roger (1997), English Population History from Family Reconstitution 1580-1837, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

152

6.

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland: evidence from County Fermanagh Jane Gray

I.  Introduction At the beginning of the twentieth century, Irish social structure was dominated by a class of small landholders. Average farm size was 38.9 acres in 1911 compared to 35.7 in 1861. Just over half of all landholdings were between 5 and 30 acres in size, a proportion that had changed little since the middle of the previous century (Turner, 1996: 86 and 89, Tables 3.8 and 3.9). The distinctive ‘stem family’ pattern of marriage and inheritance, supposed to have been practised by this smallholding class, acquired an iconic status through its representation in the classic ethnographic study carried out by Arensberg and Kimball (2001 [1940]) in the 1930s1. But the small farm households observed by the anthropologists resulted from an extended process of simplification of the rural social structure since before the Great Famine of 1845-1850. Since the pioneering work of K.H. Connell (1950), this social transformation has been conceived as a rupture in Irish patterns of household formation: from early marriage and partible inheritance within a simple family system before the Famine, to late marriage and impartible inheritance within a stem family system in its aftermath. More recent empirical scholarship – described in further detail below – has cast doubt on this classic representation, raising the possibility of greater continuity across the Famine divide. In addition, scholars have identified a number of conceptual shortcomings in the structural-functionalist model of household formation inherited from Arensberg and Kimball, including a failure to account for processes of adaptation and change, and inadequate attention to the relationships between households and the wider family and kinship environment. This chapter makes a contribution to this developing scholarship through a detailed examination of household and landholding patterns in two parishes in County Fermanagh – Aghalurcher and Derryvullan North – between 1821 and 1862. The analysis draws principally on a sample of households from the surviving census schedules for 1821, supplemented by land valuation   For an overview of the significance of Arensberg and Kimball ’s classic monograph in Irish social science see Byrne, Edmondson and Varley (2001). 1

153

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

data from 1832 and 1862, and by data from published census sources2. Fermanagh formed part of the northern proto-industrial ‘linen complex’ that extended to the west and south from its heartland in east Ulster. This may mean that the social and demographic processes in the county were unusual compared to other parts of Ireland (see Guinnane, 1997: 83 and 163). But it can also be argued that scholars have underestimated the significance of proto-industrial, and other forms of artisan activity in rural Irish household economies before the Famine (see Clarkson, 1996 and Gray, 2005a). The 1821 census data for Fermanagh provide a useful opportunity to consider how rural industrial processes may have impacted on changing patterns of household formation and inheritance3. The chapter begins with a brief overview of landholding patterns in nineteenth century Ireland, and of the current state of knowledge about marriage, household formation and inheritance systems before and after the Famine. I then provide a summary account of the changing socio-economic environment in County Fermanagh during the first half of the century, before presenting a detailed cross-sectional analysis of social, family and household structures in the parishes of Aghalurcher and Derryvullan North. In the second part of the paper, I show how the social patterns revealed by quantitative analysis at the spatial level of parishes, manifested themselves as a set of dynamic social relationships within the smaller administrative units of ‘townlands’4. I conclude by arguing that the changes in marriage and household formation that occurred in nineteenth century Ireland might more fruitfully be understood as adaptations within a dynamic system of inheritance, than as consequences of a transformation from one system to another.

  The 1821 census manuscripts are held at the National Archives of Ireland (CEN 1821/16 and 17) and are now available on microfilm (MFGS 34, 36 and 37), as are the Tithe Applotment Books (MFA 63/1-28) - valuation data from the 1830s. 154 Griffith s Primary Valuation was the first full scale valuation of property in Ireland. Published between 1847 and 1864, it is widely available and may now be consulted online on the 154 Ask About Ireland website: http://www.askaboutireland.ie/griffithvaluation/index.xmlcootiert is Griffith s Primary Valuation? 3   For a general discussion see Crawford (1994a). 4   Townlands are described in more detail below. 2

154

Jane Gray

Figure 6.1. Two parishes in the County of Fermanagh

Source. Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. EN 0072711. © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland.

II.  Landholding and family systems in nineteenth century Ireland Following the colonial plantations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the system of landholding in Ireland was formally organised on more ‘capitalist’ terms than in many other western European countries. As S. J. Connolly (1992: 55) observed: ‘the rural lower classes became subject to the same broad body of property law as in England, but with none of the multiple accretions of use rights and customary entitlements that offered the population there and elsewhere a measure of protection from the pressures of a rapidly developing market economy’. Ulster tenancies were normally leased for terms of three lives, or thirty-one years (Crawford, 1977: 113), and increasingly, by the early nineteenth century, were held from year to year ‘at will’. In principle, tenants did not have any legal right to renewal when leases expired, so that no head of household could assume that either he or his heirs would occupy the same plot of ground indefinitely. In practice, however, this insecurity of tenure was mitigated in two ways. First, the custom of ‘tenant right’ granted occupiers not just the option to renew their tenancies, but also the right to sell their ‘goodwill’ to 155

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

an incoming tenant if they did not renew the lease themselves. Irish tenants also attempted to ensure their continuity on the land through the ‘moral economy’ of the local community. Despite the introduction of legislative changes making it easier to eject tenants in the early nineteenth century, modernising estate agents often found it difficult to find new occupiers for holdings from which the ‘rightful’ tenants had been evicted (Dowling, 1999)5. Sometimes this moral economy was embedded in the landholding structure through the practice of granting joint leases to whole communities under the system known as ‘rundale.’ Rundale seems to have originated as a form of open-field cultivation in which joint landholders lived in nucleated settlements called ‘clachans’, and farmed individual plots scattered throughout the ‘infield’ and ‘outfield.’ Under ‘changedale,’ the land was periodically redistributed within the rundale community in order to ensure that each family had equal access to land of the same quality. By the nineteenth century, however, changedale was largely a folk memory (Johnson, 1961: 167), and joint holdings usually comprised fixed strips farmed continuously by individual families (Dowling, 1999: 186). Rights to membership of the rundale community seem to have been rooted in kinship. According to Dowling (1999: 186): ‘The fixed rundale situation may be one where land is not redistributed but labour decisions are still made collectively and other mobile capital resources are shared. With greater demographic intensity the scope of collective redistribution and shared labour was reduced from the entire village to smaller kin-based groups within the village. Parts of a townland might be fixed between families but the rundale system continued to operate within and between networks of families linked by marriage and descent’.

Rundale certainly seems to have facilitated subdivision; at least one scholar has suggested that the rundale practices described by nineteenth century observers represented adaptations to demographic pressure rather than survivals of ancient farming systems (Whelan, 1994). According to Dowling (1999: 196), as well as subdividing joint holdings amongst kin, rundale communities sublet portions of the outfield to outsiders, just as the ‘head tenants’ of compact holdings sublet to undertenants using a range of leasing arrangements. Tenants might sub-lease portions of their holdings in order to ensure an adequate supply of labour for their farms or proto-industrial enterprises, or simply to assist them in paying their rents to the head landlord. In the latter case, according to one estate agent, the tenant ‘who considers the farm all his right is seldom friendly to the little tenant who lives on a part he intended for a son on a future day’ (quoted in Dowling, 1999: 75). By the early decades of the   For an authoritative discussion of the custom of 156 tenant right, see Dowling (1999). The custom was exercised almost universally in the province of Ulster, of which County Fermanagh was a part (Guinnane and Miller, 1996: 116). 5

156

Jane Gray

nineteenth century, landlords and their agents were attempting to rationalize these arrangements by breaking up joint tenancies and by renting directly to under-tenants when leases came up for renewal. They faced a multi-layered tenantry with complex and overlapping sets of mutual obligations and competing interests that were largely opaque to outsiders. This is the background against which Connell posited a system of household formation characterized by early and universal marriage together with partible inheritance – one that gradually gave way after the Famine to a stem family system characterized by the impartible transfer of land to a single male heir, late marriage and the dispersal of surplus siblings through emigration following the retirement or death of the patriarchal household head and his wife. Many of the components of Connell’s argument have been challenged by subsequent scholarship. We now know that Irish people did not marry at an exceptionally young age before the Famine (see Guinnane, 1997: 82-83). Beginning in the 1970s, a number of scholars attempted to assess the prevalence of the stem-family system, as it was described by Arensberg and Kimball, through systematic analysis of early twentieth century census returns (Gibbon and Curtin, 1978; Fitzpatrick, 1983; Birdwell-Pheasant 1992; Corrigan 1993; Guinnane, 1997). Generally speaking, they concluded that Irish farming households were characterized by relatively high proportions of extended families, but insufficient numbers of multiple-couple households to support the proposition that stem families were the norm (Guinnane, 1997: 146). Aggregate data demonstrate that the number of family members per household declined, and that the subdivision of farms ceased over time during the post-Famine period but, as Guinnane (1997: 162-165) noted, neither of these trends necessarily imply anything about household formation systems. Nor do they tell us anything about whose behaviour changed. According to Ó Gráda (1993: 182), ‘impartible inheritance was common practice on wealthier farms even before the Famine’. Evidence of settlement patterns also belies the image of a universal pattern of egalitarian subdivision. Johnson (1961: 167) emphasized the extent to which rundale settlements and individual holdings co-existed in the same areas over extended periods of time, and posited the existence of ‘two agricultural systems existing side by side, one wedded to life in clachans and the cultivation of open-field plots, and the other favouring scattered farmsteads with fields compactly arranged around them’. In a survey of townlands in County Monaghan (adjacent to County Fermanagh), Duffy (1977: 7) identified a wide range of landholding patterns, ranging from cases with a single large holding occupying either the entire area, or co-existing with a number of smallholdings, to ‘intensively parcellated’ townlands with large numbers of both smallholding and landless households.

157

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

Scholars have proposed a number of explanations for these variations. Subdivision was clearly associated with land of marginal quality, and with poor estate administration. There may have been ethnic differences in inheritance practices. Duffy (1977: 11) found that, in County Monaghan, ‘the holdings in the bigger farm districts were occupied mainly by tenants with Protestant surnames’. However, since Protestants were also more likely to occupy better quality land, it is not simple to disentangle the likely effects of cultural and economic factors in giving rise to this variation. McGregor (1992) demonstrated that the presence of rural industry was associated with the homogenisation of landholdings. It is important to remember, however, that there were multiple pathways through which land subdivision could occur. In the vicinity of major linen markets, cottiers were able to use their earnings from weaving to outbid the head tenants for their holdings when leases came up for renewal (Crawford, 1977: 135). Elsewhere there is evidence that farmers’ sons used the income from weaving to purchase farms of their own (Crawford, 1994: 51). Finally, of course, landholders may have calculated that they could afford to subdivide their farms to a greater extent when additional income was available from the linen industry, and they may have been more likely to do so where the quality of land was poor or where rundale was practised (Almquist, 1979). In light of the substantial variations in landholding patterns before the Famine, and of the absence of clear evidence of a change in household formation systems, a number of scholars have suggested that the Famine did not represent as great a rupture in inheritance practices as Connell’s account implied. As part of a complex analysis of the ‘lifelines’ of farm units in a south-western parish of County Tipperary (in south-central Ireland) between 1820 and 1970, Smyth (2000: 43) concluded that ‘the maintenance of the family name on the land was a central ambition of the majority of leaseholders in the region’, both before and after the Famine. In contrast to Arensberg’s and Kimball’s stylized representation of the interplay between household formation systems and inheritance, Smyth (2000: 45) depicted a flexible set of practices that – while incorporating a clear preference for succession by the eldest son – implied that ‘most if not all means are justified in protecting the patrimony’. In an earlier call for treating succession systems as flexible practices, Ó Gráda (1993: 185) wrote that: ‘I find it instructive to regard both [partible and impartible] systems as the product, in different [socio-economic] circumstances, of a common desire for intrafamilial equity or ‘fairness’. Birdwell-Pheasant (1998, 1999) has described the Irish succession system as ‘preferential inheritance with some partibility’. By this account the ‘home place’ and most of the land went to one heir, who occupied a substantial ‘long-cycle house’. Other children might occupy less permanent, ‘short-cycle’ houses on the family land. According to Birdwell-Pheasant, then, the subdivision of landholdings before the Famine represented a proliferation of 158

158

Jane Gray

‘short-cycle houses’ that was not necessarily inconsistent with an enduring objective of maintaining the patrimony.

III.  County Fermanagh before the famine: an introduction to the study area Like other counties within the northern proto-industrial zone, Fermanagh experienced significant social and economic change after about 1780, in the context of growing demand in Great Britain and the North American colonies for both agricultural and manufactured commodities. Compared to neighbouring counties, the value of linens sold in Fermanagh remained low throughout the eighteenth century, although the county was incorporated into the regional linen complex at an early date through the supply of yarn and cattle to the core weaving districts around Belfast (Crawford, 1975). When Young visited the district around Florencecourt in 1776, he observed a rural-industrial pattern in which the production of butter and young cattle was combined with employing young women to spin: ‘Many servants are hired for spinning, at 12s. a quarter, who do the business of the house, and spin a hank a day’ (Young, 1892: 204). Crawford (1975: 248) suggested that the absence of weaving in the county ‘may be linked with the success of the cattle trade which gave the inhabitants a comfortable living without much labour’. The end of the eighteenth century saw the beginning of a shift towards tillage agriculture, in response to growing wartime demand from Great Britain (Bell 2004). In contrast to neighbouring counties, however, the parallel growth in demand for linens did not lead to an increase in the output of cloth in County Fermanagh. Around Enniskillen Young (1892: 196) found that linen weaving had not taken ‘deep root,’ but was increasing. Paradoxically, after 1803, sales of linen cloth more than doubled in value at Fermanagh markets during a period when other markets outside the core weaving zone, now centred on north Armagh, had begun to stagnate. Between 1816 and 1820, the average number of weavers attending Fermanagh’s linen markets increased from 150 to about 1000 (Crawford, 2005: 149). So, while Fermanagh remained a minor player in the weaving sector of the industry, more men in the county began to devote labour time to weaving during a period of contraction and centralization in the industry as a whole. The reasons for this counter-intuitive trend in Fermanagh remain obscure, but it is possible that it can be accounted for as a result of increasingly seasonal demand for male labour (Gray, 2005b). An analysis of the 1831 census data reveals a distinct regional pattern of agricultural and proto-industrial development in the county in the decade preceding the Famine. Parishes in the eastern part of the county were most developed, with relatively 159

159

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

high proportions of farmers employing labourers and of men engaged in trade or handicraft activities. By contrast, parishes to the south and west were characterized by fewer agricultural labourers and male artisans, but relatively high proportions of women engaged in spinning in1841. A third pattern was observed in the parishes containing the two most important linen market towns in Fermanagh: Enniskillan and Derryvullan North (encompassing the linen market of Irvinestown). Here the numbers of men engaged in retail trade or handicraft were comparatively high, with fewer men occupied as agricultural labourers (Gray, 2005b). Figure 6.1 illustrates the relationship between the employment of agricultural labourers and male participation in ‘retail trade or handicraft’ across Fermanagh parishes in 1831. It also shows where the two parishes for which 1821 census data survive were located on this axis. Figure 6.2. Percent men engaged in retail trade or handicraft by per cent occupiers employing labourers, rural Fermanagh Parishes, 1831

Source. 1831 Census.




Notes. 1. Parish of Enniskillen not included; 2. Identifying parishes for which 1821 census manuscripts survive.

160

Jane Gray

The processes of agricultural intensification and proto-industrialization described above were accompanied by a significant increase in the population of County Fermanagh. The total number of houses increased from 11,983 in 1792 to 22,585 in 1821 (see Dickson, Ó’Gráda and Daultrey, 1982) and 27,844 in 1841, implying that the rate of new household formation was slowing in the decades before the Famine. According to Arthur Young (1892: 188 and 205), in 1776 there was ‘a great deal of letting lands in the gross to middle men, who re-let it to others’, and also ‘great numbers’ of farms taken in partnership in a western part of the county, but that in an eastern part, ‘Tierney begs [middlemen] are now done with’. By the 1830s, according to evidence from the Ordnance Survey Memoirs, ‘the operations of middlemen, and the rundale system, had become very uncommon’, at least partly due to the practice of ‘improvement’ on the part of landlords and their agents (Bell, 2004: 505).

IV.  Households and the landholding structure in 1821, Aghalurcher and Derryvullan The original 1821 enumerators’ schedules survive for parts of two parishes in County Fermanagh: that portion of Derryvullan that lies in the barony of Lurg (Derryvullan North), including the market town of Irvinestown, and the eastern part of Aghalurcher, comprising most of the townlands in the landed estate of Sir Arthur Brooke. Lieutenant J. Greatorex, who compiled the Ordnance Survey memoir for Aghalurcher, was greatly impressed by the extent of ‘improvement’ on the Brooke estate: ‘The late Sir Henry Brooke by his attention to the habits and comforts of his tenantry went far towards affording his dependants an opportunity of rising above the general humiliating state of the Irish farmer, and the effect is very evident in the very respectable appearance the present occupiers of the property at this day show. This improvement in the character of the peasantry has a correspondent effect in the improvement of agriculture’. (Greatorex, 1990 [1835]: 10)

In Derryvullan, Lieutenant Robert Boteler (1992 [1835]: 34 and 36) was less effusive, but nonetheless impressed by the contrast between agriculture here and in the more northern parts of the barony of Lurg, commenting on the ‘well shaped’ fields and hedgerows. He also mentioned the practice of landlords extracting ‘duty, given in addition to the rents, consisting of so many days gratis work with a man and a horse’. In Aghalurcher, rent was sometimes received in labour ‘to assist poor deserving men’, but here landlords also established cattle shows, provided premiums to encourage good farming, and assistance for improving farm buildings (Greatorex, 1990 [1835]: 10 and 14).

161

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

In both parishes spinning and weaving represented important additional sources of income to rural households. According to my sample of the 1821 census manuscripts, 27% of Aghalurcher households, and 13% of Derryvullan households had at least one weaver resident. In Derryvullan, a further 12% of households were engaged in an artisan activity other than weaving. Eighty percent of all weavers in Derryvullan were heads of households, in contrast to Aghalurcher where sons accounted for more than half of all weavers, and unrelated and otherwise unidentified residents accounted for a further 25%6. In 1835 Greatorex (1990 [1835]: 12) reported that: ‘In the leisure time intervening sowing and harvest time the more industrious among the young men apply themselves to weaving coarse linens’, but he also noted that weaving was no longer carried on to any extent, since the fall in value of webs. By contrast: ‘The female part of the community invariably spin and earn but a very scanty profit for their almost incessant application to the wheel.’ This was the case even though: ‘Of late years the linen trade has become so depreciated that the profit earned by the spinner is very trifling. Probably a hard working woman at present could not earn above 4d per diem, a very poor remuneration for incessant labour’. Similarly, the magistrate J. E. Taylor7 wrote that the general condition of the ‘poorer classes’ in Aghalurcher had not improved since 1815 because ‘the female part of the poor man’s family can bring their industry to little account since the deterioration of the linen manufacture; the women can make little or nothing by spinning (not more than 2d. a-day): from that resource many of the poor man’s comforts were derived’. However he also noted that many labourers ‘maintain themselves by weaving when out of other employment’8. In Derryvullan, according to the Ordnance Survey memoir: ‘Hand-spinning and weaving formerly prevailed to a great extent in the cottages but have now nearly ceased as a means of adding to the small means of the country people’. The Reverend George Miller9 similarly reported to the Poor Inquiry that ‘The wife and grown daughters used to work at spinning, but this occupation is almost withdrawn, as even a woman can now scarcely earn 2d. in a whole day’. Nonetheless, the yarn market at Irvinestown was still ‘tolerably attended’ (Boteler, 1992 [1835]: 37). Figure 6.3 shows the distribution of households by landholding size and head of household’s occupation in each parish in 1821. It can be observed that while landless and micro-holdings of less than five acres accounted for nearly two-thirds of all households   The analysis is based on a population sample of all households with at least one weaver resident, and a systematic sample with a random start of one in five households not engaged in weaving. When both samples are combined for the purpose of making inferences about the population in each parish as a whole, the weaving data are weighted by multiplying them by 0.2. 7   B. H. C. 1836, Poor Inquiry, Ireland, Supplement to Appendix E: 354 [407]. 8   B. H. C. 1836 Poor Inquiry, Ireland, Supplement to Appendix D: 354 [471]. 9   B. H. C. 1836 Poor Inquiry, Ireland, Supplement to Appendix D: 355 [471]. 6

162

Jane Gray

in Derryvullan, the distribution in Aghalurcher was bi-modal with proportionally fewer micro-holdings. However, while the median landholding size in Aghalurcher (8 acres) was greater than that in Derryvullan (5 acres), the latter parish had a greater range of holding sizes, extending to 110 acres compared to a maximum of 40 in the former10. In Derryvullan, farmers engaged in weaving, or another artisan activity, tended to have somewhat smaller landholdings (median 4.3 acres) compared to those who did not (6 acres). The average age (44) of heads of landholding households engaged in weaving was about four years younger than landholders not so engaged (48). In Aghalurcher, farmers engaged in weaving did not differ from the rest according to landholding size, but their average age was six years older (51 compared to 45), and they were more likely to have sons of working age living at home (71 percent compared to 48% of households). Twenty-five percent of all landless households in Derryvullan and fortyone percent in Aghalurcher were headed by spinners. Figure 6.3. Landholding size by occupation of household head in Derryvullan and Aghalurcher, 1821

Source. 1821 Fermanagh Sample. For details, see footnote 5.




  One statute acre is equal to 0.405 hectares. Unfortunately, a number of other measurements, including Cunningham or Plantation acres (1.29 statute) and Irish acres (1.62 statute) were in widespread use during this period. Considerable caution should therefore be exercised when making comparisons across space or time.

10

163

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

Despite the presence of improving landlords, the responses to the Poor Inquiry imply that subletting was still practised in Aghalurcher in the 1830s11. According to the Reverend R. Russell: ‘From 10 to 30 acres is generally the extent of farms set by the head landlords; and from 2 to 10 acres are generally set by the head tenants to under-tenants’. Taylor calculated similarly that the average size of farms rented by the ‘head landlord’ was just over 19 acres; he worried about ‘a most lamentable subdividing and breaking down of large farms into small ones, taking place to an extent that it is fearful to contemplate the result of’. Greatorex (1990 [1835]: 14), however, found that ‘there is little or no subletting practised in this parish, they [the landlords] setting their faces against so ruinous a custom’. In Derryvullan, Boteler (1992 [1835]: 36) observed no great social distinctions amongst the occupiers of land, describing them as ‘generally speaking, cottiers’. Miller12 reported similarly to the Poor Inquiry that the farmers were ‘nearly all of one class’, and that the number of labourers was ‘not considerable because the land is chiefly distributed among very small farmers’. While this observation is inconsistent with the 1821 census evidence showing that 17% of household heads were labourers, it may perhaps be explained by the tiny size of so many landholdings, and by the fact that those living on both micro-holdings and garden plots were frequently also engaged in by-employments. Many of those occupying the smallest plots of land lived in and around the town of Irvinestown where, according to Boteler (1992 [1835]): 37): ‘Most of the inhabitants hold some small patch of ground, by the produce of which they either add to their comforts or increase the profits of their various trades’. According to Miller13, farms in Derryvullan were ‘generally held from the head landlord’. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the distribution of household types in each parish, using the Hammel-Laslett (1974) classification system. Data from other studies of pre-Famine census fragments, and from an analysis of the 1911 census for Ireland, are provided for comparison.

    13   11

12

164

B. H. C. 1836 Poor Inquiry, Supplement to Appendix F: 354. B. H. C. 1836 Poor Inquiry, Supplement to Appendix E: 355 [471]. Poor Inquiry, Supplement to Appendix F: 355.

Jane Gray

Table 6.1. Household structure in selected areas, 1821, 1841 and 1911 Aghalurcher 1821 Household Classification

N

%

Derryvullan 1821 N

Meath and Galway 1821

Killashandra, Cavan, 1841

Ireland 1911

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Solitaries

3

2.9

7

3.3

36

3.5

33

0.5

165

6.6

No family

3

3.1

7

3.5

39

3.7

23

0.3

315

12.6

Simple family

85

82.1

148

69.3

679

65.8

6,075

90.2

1,547

62.0

Extended family

10

9.9

39

18.5

203

19.6

141

2.1

427

17.1

Multiple family

1

1.0

7

3.1

77

7.4

466

6.9

38

1.5

Unclassifiable

1

1.0

5

2.3

-

-

-

-

3

0.1

103

100.0

213

100.0

1,034

100.0

6,738

100.0

2,495

100

Total

Sources. Aghalurcher and Derryvullan 1821: Author’s 1821 Fermanagh Sample, weighted Ns; Meath and Galway 1821: Carney (1980: 157), one in six sample of census fragments, aggregated across disparate study areas; Killashandra 1841: O’Neill (1984: 199), population data; Ireland 1911: Corrigan (1993: 71, stratified probability sample, see n. 1, 70).

There was a greater proportion of extended family households in Derryvullan compared to Aghalurcher. Furthermore, fewer simple family households in Derryvullan were made up of married couples with children, compared to Aghlurcher. However, about one in five (21%) Aghalurcher households had at least one resident person with no clear relationship to the household head, compared to 6 percent of households in Derryvullan. If, as seems likely, at least some of those unidentified residents were relatives, then the proportion of extended households in Aghalurcher may be underestimated. Comparison with the 1911 sample seems to confirm a point made by Guinnane (1997): the real change in household structure since the Famine lay in the increased proportions of solitaries and no-family households, caused by rising rates of celibacy from the end of the nineteenth century. Returning to the Fermanagh samples, there were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of a household being extended according to landholding status or to landholding size in either parish. Similarly, weaving households were no less likely to be extended, in either case. As Figure 6.4 shows, the likelihood of living in an extended family household was linked to life course stage, but no evidence of a link to inheritance strategies can be gleaned from the census data. Unfortunately, the 1821 census enumerators did not record the marital status of individuals, so this can only be inferred from their relationship to the head of household. Table 6.2 provides estimates of the percentages of men and women who 165

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

were married in each parish, in selected age categories. It suggests a possible lower average age at marriage for women in Aghalurcher, but this must be treated with extreme caution given the small number of cases, and also given the proportionally small size of the 35-39 year old male cohort. The latter is consistent with the pattern of emigration at the time (Ó Gráda, 1994: 75; Collins 1982: 140. See Appendix for more detail on age at marriage). Figure 6.4. Percent people living in extended family households by age category, Derryvullan and Aghalurcher, 1821

Source. 1821 Fermanagh Sample. For details, see footnote 5.

166

Jane Gray

Table 6.2. Percent men and women married in selected age cohorts, Aghalurcher and Derryvullan, 1821 Age Category Aghalurcher

Weighted N

Men

N Married

% Married

Weighted N

Women

N Married

% Married

20-24

29

3

10.3

38

6

15.8

25-29

25

7

28.0

26

13

50.0

30-34

19

11

57.9

20

11

55.0

35-39

7

6

85.7

16

14

87.5

40-44

15

12

80.0

18

14

77.8

Derryvullan 20-24

66

7

10.6

65

16

24.6

25-29

41

13

31.7

47

16

34.0

30-34

36

18

50.0

33

22

66.7

35-39

36

25

69.4

46

27

58.7

40-44

25

21

84.0

35

28

80.0

Source. Estimates based on 1821 Fermanagh Sample.

In summary, my analysis of landholding and household structures in the 1821 census data, together with evidence from the published 1831 census and from the Ordnance Survey memoirs, demonstrates the existence of two distinct patterns of proto-industrial embedding in Aghalurcher and Derryvullan. Aghalurcher was characterized by a class of farmers occupying modest landholdings on one hand and a landless spinning and labouring class on the other. Linen weaving was carried on mainly in farmers’ households by sons and unrelated male dependents. Of the thirtysix weavers who were heads of households in Aghalurcher, more than half were landless. In this context, weaving may have represented a strategy of diversifying household income while also maximizing the amount of male labour available for agriculture by delaying the departure of older sons from the household. Farmers who wanted to avoid subdividing their land may also have elected to provide noninheriting sons with a trade. An examination of which sons were engaged in weaving provides some evidence in favour of this supposition. Of the 105 sons living in weaving households with more than one adult son in Aghalurcher, 61 percent of youngest sons were weavers, compared to just 5% of oldest sons. In Derryvullan, by contrast, the prevailing socio-economic pattern was one of micro landholding and landless households, whose occupants survived through the

167

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

flexible allocation of family labour to agriculture and rural industry, alongside a small, but not insignificant number of larger farmers who employed labourers. Weaving was carried on mainly by household heads on micro-holdings, who tended to be somewhat younger than other landholders. Household structures in Derryvullan exhibited forms of extension and fragmentation with no clear relationship to inheritance strategies. Instead, they are reminiscent of those classically described by Medick (1981: 59) as ‘a private means to redistribute the poverty of the nuclear family by way of the family and kinship system’. In the next section, I shift the perspective away from cross-sectional quantitative analysis at the level of individual households, to a more qualitative examination of the distribution and composition of household complexes in two townlands – one in each parish. Townlands are vernacular territories surviving from the medieval period that became ‘the basic unit for tenurial purposes [...] [and] for the collection of data by central and local government from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries’. Originally, they ‘probably […] operated as the equivalent of a family holding’ (Duffy, 1995: 29). In his detailed study of a parish in County Tipperary, Smyth (2000: 15) found that all landholdings were ‘locked into and partially administered within the townland framework’ even at the peak of the farming population in the period immediately preceding the Famine. In Clogheen-Burncourt, ‘The landlord’s private farm alone transcends these ancestral boundaries – symbolizing the lack of congruence between the estate-administered landholding system and the hidden forces of territorially-based kinship and neighbourhood systems which struggle for expression within and between these townlands’ (Smyth, 2000: 15). In this context, detailed qualitative examination of the census schedules for individual townlands represents a reasonable approach to identifying relationships within and across rural households in 1821.

V.  Varieties of rural industrial embedding: the townlands of Doonan and Crann In order to facilitate the selection of townlands for detailed analysis, I carried out a simple k-means cluster analysis of all townlands according to the numbers of household heads who were identified as farmers employing weavers, farmerweavers, and weavers (who were usually landless) in each townland where at least one household was engaged in weaving in 1821. Four main clusters of rural industrial townland were identified in this way: 1. Farmers employing weavers with some farmer-weavers (11 cases, all in Aghalurcher)

168

Jane Gray

2. Farmer-weavers (9 cases, all in Derryvullan) 3. Landless weavers with some farmers employing weavers (10 cases, 6 in Derryvullan) 4. Sparse weaving households of any kind (53 cases, 38 in Derryvullan) On the basis of this information, I selected the townland of Crann as an example of the distinctive ‘farmer’ pattern of rural industrialization in Aghalurcher (Cluster 1) and that of Doonan as an example of the ‘farmer-weaver’ pattern that was characteristic of Derryvullan (Cluster 2). Table 6.3 provides summary information on the distribution of population and households in the two townlands between 1821 and 1862. Table 6.3. Population and landholding in the townlands of Doonan (parish of Derryvullan (North) and Crann (parish of Aghalurcher), 1821-1862 1821

1832

1841

1851

1861

138

108

31

23

21

8

1862

Townland of Doonan Population

107

Households

19

Landed Households

12

18

6

5

3

6

Median Landholding Size* Townland of Crann Population

143

185

55

55

Households

25

31

8

12

Landed Households

12

8

8

8

11

18

Median Landholding Size*

* The data on landholding size should be treated with great caution, because both the townland boundaries and types of acres recorded may have changed over time, or have been recorded inconsistently before 1862. Sources. 1821 Fermanagh Sample, Detailed Townland Datafile. Tithe Applotment Books Fermanagh 1832. B.H.C. 1862 [3204] Census of Ireland 1861.

Doonan is situated in the south-western part of Derryvullan North. It experienced continued population growth between 1821 and 1841, and a comparatively modest decline in population and household numbers during the Famine decade. During the subsequent decade, however, there was a sharp reduction both in population and in the number of landholdings. Crann (or Cran) is a townland on the north-western border of Aghalurcher. The growth in population between 1821 and 1841 must have entailed an increase in the proportion of landless households, since the total number 169

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

of households grew while the number of landholdings was reduced to 8 in 1832. That figure remained stable through 1862, but the population declined by more than two-thirds between 1841 and 1851. The landless class of agricultural labourers and spinners had effectively disappeared during the Famine years. Figure 6.4. Social structure of Doonan, 1821 


John MAGREGOR Gentleman Farmer 12 (2a)

Peter PETTY Farmer Weaver 5 (5b)

George SCALLON Farmer 16 (2b) George TURNAUTH Farmer Weaver 9 (3b)

Phelix MCMANUS Farmer Tailor 5 (3b)

James CONNOLLY Farmer 6 (4b)

James CONNOLLY Farmer Stonemason 5 (3b)

Margaret SCALLON Farmer 6 (4c) 
 6
Acres


John THOMPSON Farmer Weaver 2 (5b)

John ROBB Weaver (3b)

Thomas MCMANUS Farmer Weaver 2(3b)


 Thomas MAGUIRE Farmer 4 (3a)

James MCCARNEY Flax Dresser (3b)

Margaret BEACON Spinner (3d)

Eliza HALL Spinner (2a)

Patrick CUNNINGHAM Labourer (3b)

Jane MAGUIRE Spinner (5a)

John MAGUIRE Farmer 4 (3d)

Edward MCCANN Labourer (3c)

Figure 6.5. Social structure of Crann, 1821 James TEALOR Gentleman Farmer 30 (3b) James BURNSIDE Farmer Weaver 13 (4a) James BOUCHANAN Farmer 8 (3b)

Patrick CAVANAGH Farmer Bricker 10 (3b)

Robert CRAWFORD Farmer 7 (3b)

Edward DOGHERTY Farmer Schoolmaster 5 (3b)

William JOHNSTON Farmer 11 (3b) Robert WALLACE Farmer 4 (3b)

Patrick TIERNEY Farmer 11 (4b)

Matthew MCELROY Farmer 4 (3b)

Bernard MCELROY Farmer 6 (3b)

Hugh MURPHY Farmer 9 (4b)

5

John HANNA Stonemason 3b

Judith CORRAKIN Spinner 1b

Patrick MAGUIRE Herd 3b

Alice COULTER Spinner 3d

Cormick MCANANLY Labourer 3b

Catherine CUNNINGHAM Spinner 1b

Source. Figures by the authors. 170

Owen MCCAGHERY Labourer 4b

Catherine JOHNSTON Spinner 3d

Mary HOGAN Spinner 1b

Bernard MCCARROW Labourer 3b

Elizabeth MCNEILL Spinner 1b

James MURPHY Labourer 1 (3b)

Catherine MURPHY Spinner 3d

Jane Gray

Figures 6.5 and 6.6 illustrate the social structures of Doonan and Crann in 1821. Each shape represents a household; oval shapes represent households headed by women; shaded shapes illustrate family names surviving to 1862 (amongst landholders). The numbers without parentheses refer to the acreage reported in the 1821 census schedules, while those within parentheses refer to the Hammel-Laslett classification system. The solid lines represent family relationships that can be inferred from the census data; dotted lines represent more tenuous possibilities. Table 6.4. Record of family names in Doonan and Crann, 1821-1862 1821 N Family Name Holdings

1832 Acres

N Holdings

1862 Acres

N Holdings

Acres

1

3

Landholding in nearby townlands?

Doonan Scallon

2

16 & 6

2

12& 12

Maguire

2

4&4

3

11, 1 & 2

Connolly

2

6&5

2

3&3

Turnauth

1

9

McManus

2

5&2

3

4, 3 & 2

Petty

1

5

1

4

Thompson

1

2

1

1

Magregor

1

12

Taylor

1

30

1

Burnside

1

13

1

Cavanagh

1

10

Johnston

1

11

Tierney

1

11

Murphy

2

9&1

McElroy

2

4&6

Wallace

1

4

Dogherty

1

5

Crawford

1

7

Bouchanan

1

8

Yes Yes Possible(Tumath) 1

4

Yes

30

1

55

4

1

61

Yes

1

11

2

7&3

Yes

1

11

1

18

Yes

Crann

1 (Joint)

22 Yes

Source. See footnote 2.

Table 6.4 summarizes what can be inferred by comparing family names from the 1821 census schedules against the Tithe Applotment (1832) and Valuation (1862) 171

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

records. Three family-household complexes implying forms of land subdivision are identifiable in the data for Doonan. The Scallon-Maguire complex links the largest landholding in the townland to a number of smaller holdings through likely relationships of marriage and descent. At the heart of the complex, we might infer that the Maguire family have subdivided their holding to allow Thomas (24) to set up a household with his new wife on four acres, while the remaining four acres continue to be occupied by his widowed mother Margaret (62), and apparently unmarried younger brothers and sisters. It is notable that Margaret’s son, John (20) is named in the census record as the head of household on this parallel holding. By 1832 Thomas appears to have increased his holding to 11 acres, while John is now recorded as holding just 3 acres in this townland. Neither appears in the 1862 records for Doonan but, interestingly, a Thomas Maguire occupied 27 acres, and a John Maguire 10, in the nearby townland of Drummal. It seems plausible that the elderly Eleanor Maguire (90) was Margaret’s mother-inlaw. She lived with her daughter Jane (47) in a house without land attached, together with Jane’s daughter Sarah Bell (who may already have been a widow at 24), and five-year-old William Scallon, whose relationship to Jane is not recorded. However, Jane was almost certainly a sister of Ann Maguire (40) and widowed Margaret Scallon (42), who farmed six acres in 1821 with Margaret’s sons Patrick (19) and James (17). Margaret’s husband had probably been a brother of George (40) and Thomas (45) Scallon, who farmed the largest holding (16 acres) in this complex (and in the townland of Doonan), together with their uncle Charles (61). In 1832, George Scallon continued to hold sixteen acres while Margaret appears to have increased her holding to twelve acres. The Connolly family-household complex suggests a similar pattern of subdivision, whereby a married man (James, 42) occupied a holding of similar size to his younger, apparently unmarried brother (George, 32) who continued to live with their elderly parents. In this case, however, there were also three young grandchildren living in the parental household, and the father (James, 74, a stonemason) was named as the household head. In 1832, George was recorded as occupying three acres of land, and a Henry Connolly, whose relationship to the family cannot be inferred from the census data, occupied another three. The Connollys appear to have disappeared from the townland by 1862, although a George Connolly occupied five acres and a house in an adjoining townland. The McManus family-household complex represents a similar pattern of land subdivision at a later stage of the family lifecycle in 1821: here, both brothers (Felix and Thomas) were married men in their fifties, with adult sons and daughters in their twenties together with some younger children. Both were engaged in artisanal activities – Felix being a tailor and Thomas a weaver. By 1832 they

172

Jane Gray

appear to have re-divided the land in order to accommodate Hugh, Thomas’s second oldest son on two acres, while Felix and Thomas occupied approximately three and four acres respectively. Two women with the McManus surname were present in the townland in 1862, but their relationship to the family members recorded in 1821 is unknown. In addition to the three ‘family-household complexes’ already described, there were four other landholding households in Doonan in 1821. The ‘gentleman farmer’ Magregor family, occupying twelve acres of land and thirty acres of bog, had disappeared from the townland by 1832. The remaining three holdings were occupied by farmer-weavers. The most substantial was George Turnauth who occupied nine acres with his wife and adult sons and daughters. The family had left the townland by 1832, but an Edward Tumath, occupying thirteen acres in an adjacent townland in 1862 was possibly George’s oldest son. Peter and Ann Petty’s household included their daughter Eleanor Martin (24) and five-year-old grandson, Michael Martin. We must guess that she had been widowed or deserted. The Petty family name does not appear in the records for Doonan after 1821, but Nicholas Petty, Peter’s second oldest son, appears to have secured five acres in an adjoining parish by 1832. Finally, John Thompson’s daughter-in-law Martha lived with her husband and his family on two acres in 1821. The family continued to occupy a tiny holding in the townland in 1832, but had disappeared from the records by 1862. Whereas the landholding structure of Doonan exhibited a complex pattern of both vertical and horizontal social relationships mediated through kinship that of Crann (in parish Aghalurcher) suggests a more clearly class-divided community, in which the role of kinship in structuring relationships between households is less visible. An examination of Figure 5 immediately demonstrates 6the greater significance of landless households in its social structure compared to that of Doonan. The prevalence of female-headed, spinner households is also striking, as is the predominance of simple family household structures. At the ‘top’ of Crann’s social structure, the most substantial landholder was 60-year-old James Tealor (Taylor), a ‘gentleman farmer’ whose son John Edward must have taken over as head of household shortly after 1832, since he is identified as a magistrate occupying the ‘gentleman’s seat’ at Cranbrooke in 1835 (Greatorex, 1990 [1835]: 8 and 10), and we have met him earlier through his responses to the Poor Enquiry. Next to the Taylor family, Crann was characterized by the presence of four ‘strong’ farmer households each occupying more than ten acres of land. Three of these families – each of which was engaged in weaving in 1821 – appear to have survived into the 1860s. The Burnside household was occupied by a stem-extended family in

173

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

1821, headed by 32-year-old farmer-weaver James whose elderly parents lived in the same house as his wife and young children. In 1832 the only Burnside occupying land in Crann was a Matthew – with no relationship to James identifiable from the 1821 census record – and who held just four acres. In 1862, however, the family name reappears with the Reverend William Burnside who was then a very substantial landholder with sixty-one acres in Crann and other holdings in adjacent townlands. Both the Johnston and Tierney families appear to have succeeded in transmitting their holdings to their descendents across the Famine decades. An Andrew Johnston, possibly the younger son of William (who was head of household in 1821) occupied seven acres in 1862, while an Anne Johnston held nearly three. In 1821, 56-yearold Patrick Tierney farmed eleven acres with his wife Isabella (also 56), their four adult children, and two-year-old grandson. His oldest resident son John (24) was a weaver. In 1862 a John Tierney occupied two holdings in the townland of eighteen and twenty-four acres respectively. In light of the data from the Poor Inquiry discussed above, it is likely that the more substantial farmers in Crann leased more land then they occupied, renting some acres to undertenants. This would explain why three of the surviving families occupied considerably larger holdings in 1862, and also why none of the six smaller landholders appeared in the Tithe Applotment books in 1832, although one of the family names (Murphy) does reappear as a joint leaseholder with another party in 1862. Within the social layer of smallholders in Crann there were two ‘household complexes’ reminiscent of those in Doonan. Hugh Murphy (60) occupied 9 acres with his wife Anne (61), son John (20) and two adult daughters. Also living in the same household were his young granddaughter Jane (10), and 62 year old Thomas Murphy, described as a labourer and ‘lodger’. 32-year-old James Murphy was described as a ‘labourer’ although he occupied one acre of land with his wife Alice (28) and three young children. 40-year old flax-spinner Catherine Murphy lived separately with her 70-year-old mother. The McElroy household complex was similar to that of the McManuses in Doonan, with two male householders of similar age occupying equivalent landholdings. However, there were no surviving McElroys holding lands in Crann in 1862, although the name appears frequently in nearby townlands. In summary, this qualitative examination of the landholding structure in two different townlands has accomplished a number of objectives when interpreted in light of the cross-sectional, quantitative analyses at the level of households and parishes. First, it has highlighted the extent to which the land fragmentation that accompanied rural industrial activity could evolve along distinct pathways leading to different social formations and outcomes. Under the ‘farmer-weaver’ pattern of rural industrial

174

Jane Gray

embedding illustrated by Doonan, land fragmentation seems to have occurred through the subdivision and reallocation of land within family-household complexes. With proportionally few landless occupiers, smallholders depended primarily on family members to meet their labour requirements, whether in agriculture or in rural industrial activity. Under the ‘farmer’ pattern illustrated by Crann, by contrast, land subdivision occurred primarily because strong farmers (who employed their sons and others as weavers) sublet holdings to undertenants. They also generated employment for a comparatively high number of landless labourers and spinners. The analysis in sections III and IV above indicate that a range of factors are likely to have given rise to these territorial differences, including distance from major linen markets, quality of land and the type of agriculture engaged in, and forms of estate supervision. Second, the qualitative analysis has revealed the extent to which different patterns of land-holding and land transmission could co-exist within small geographical boundaries. Third, it has demonstrated that the relationship between land subdivision and household structure was not that predicted by Connell’s classic account. On the contrary, the subdivision and reallocation of land in Doonan seems to have given rise to greater household complexity as family groups sought to accommodate marriage and household formation on the part of some sons, while also providing support on the land for unmarried or widowed siblings and elderly parents. By contrast, in Crann where there was a pattern of subletting rather than subdivision, simple family households predominated in 1821, most likely in the context of high levels of outmigration.

VI.  Conclusion Three conceptual obstacles have stood in the way of understanding historical family and household formation systems in Ireland. First, as Ó Gráda pointed out, there has been a widespread tendency (beginning with Connell’s analysis) to treat Irish behaviour before the Famine as a helpless response to extreme poverty and lack of control over their circumstances, rather than as a strategic set of adaptations to the changing demographic and economic context. According to this view, marriage was an ‘inferior good’ and no attempt was made to adapt to deteriorating conditions by modifying patterns of family and household formation that were inherently weak and transitory. The second obstacle derives from the stylized, structural-functionalist representation of the stem family that Irish scholars, including Connell, inherited from Arensberg and Kimball. More recent scholarship has emphasized the flexibility and adaptability of the stem-family system, including a capacity for ‘branching 175

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

out’ when circumstances permitted (Fauve-Chamoux and Arrizabalaga, 2005). As Schlumbohm (1996: 93) observed, people modified the ‘rules’ surrounding family and household formation to meet the challenges posed by changing conditions. A third conceptual obstacle has been the failure to theorize the interaction between household formation processes and kinship and neighbourhood groups within the wider community (Plakans and Wetherell, 2003). Scholars have drawn attention to the importance of local networks for meeting the seasonal labour requirements of small farm households, and for providing sustained assistance in times of economic crisis (Hannan, 1972; Slater and McDonough, 1994). It might prove useful, therefore, to think about the kinship environment as a set of potential resources or constraints around which decisions about household formation were made under different socio-economic circumstances. According to Smyth (2000: 29) there were strategic advantages to increasing the size of the local kin group during the twentieth century. He found that farming families with larger kin groups were best placed to take advantage of opportunities for land acquisition because they controlled a greater share of the local resource base. Birdwell-Pheasant (1999: 115) argued, similarly, that insecurity of tenure in the pre-Famine context led to the proliferation of short-cycle houses as ‘the balance in the nexus of family and place shifted toward the family as the only reliable source of security’. The analysis in this chapter has emphasized the extent to which the processes of land subdivision associated with rural industrialization evolved along multiple pathways, leading to diverse social structures and settlement patterns, even within a single county in Ireland during the decades preceding the Famine. In order to make sense of the household formation processes that gave rise to this diversity, we may need to change our focus away from models that rest on stylized assumptions about ‘rules’ in favour of those that emphasize flexibility in response to changing circumstances, and that recognize the extent to which relationships within wider community and kin circles formed part of the set of resources and constraints that framed people’s actions. Viewed from this perspective, the growth in employment afforded by the linen industry (especially in Ulster and the northern counties of Leinster and Connacht), and the shift to tillage from the late eighteenth century onwards increased the potential for families to settle more offshoots locally, without necessarily weakening their foothold on the land. Indeed, the growing demand for labour may have represented an opportunity to strengthen their presence within the community by expanding the kinship circle. However, during the time period discussed in this article, farm families were confronted with enormous challenges: declining opportunities for employment in both domestic industry and agriculture, changing expectations and demands from

176

Jane Gray

landlords and, not least, the threat of total household failure due to starvation and illness. In this context, it might be argued that a remarkable number of families succeeded in maintaining their name on the land, and that this success may have been due to the flexibility and strength of Irish household formation systems, as well as to inherent economic advantage and sheer good fortune

Appendix By inferring marital status from relationship to the household head, and assuming that apparently unrelated residents were single, the singulate mean age at marriage for women can be calculated as 27.4 in Aghalurcher and 28.8 in Derryvullan. However, because of the relatively high numbers of lodgers and other residents who were neither servants, nor clearly related to the household head, the proportions married are likely to be underestimated by this method, so that the true age at marriage was almost certainly younger (see Gray, 2005a). Fitzpatrick (1985: 130) calculated a SMAM of 26.0 for women in Ulster in 1821 using published data from the 1841 census. Neither Fitzpatrick’s estimates, nor my own, take any account of the likely effects of emigration. An alternative (but also flawed) estimate of the average age at marriage for women may be obtained by calculating the gap between the ages of married women in their twenties and thirties and that of their eldest resident child (Ó Gráda, 1994: 9). This implies an average age at marriage of 22 in Derryvullan and just 20 in Aghalurcher.

Bibliography Almquist, Eric L. (1979), ‘Pre-Famine Ireland and the Theory of European Protoindustrialisation: Evidence from the 1841 Census’, Journal of Economic History, 39, p. 699-718.

Arensberg, Conrad M. and Kimball, Solon T. (2001), Family and Community in Ireland, 3rd ed., Ennis, County Clare, Clasp Publications. Bell, Jonathan (2004), ‘Changing Farming Methods in County Fermanagh’, in Eileen.M. Murphy and William J. Roulsten (eds), Fermanagh: History and Society. Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County, Dublin, Geography Publications, p. 501-523. Birdwell-Pheasant, Donna (1992), ‘The Early Twentieth-Century Irish Stem Family: A Case Study from County Kerry’, in Marilyn Silverman and Philip H. Gulliver (eds), Approaching the Past: Historical Anthropology through Irish Case Studies, New York, Columbia University Press, p. 205-235. Birdwell-Pheasant, Donna (1998), ‘Family Systems and the Foundations of Class in Ireland and England’, History of the Family, 3, p. 17-34.

177

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

Birdwell-Pheasant, Donna (1999), ‘The Home ‘Place’: Center and Periphery in Irish House and Family Systems’, in Donna Birdwell-Pheasant and Denise Lawrence-Zuňiga (eds), House Life: Space, Place and Family in Europe, Oxford, Berg, p. 105-129. Boteler, Lieutenant Robert (1992 [1835]), ‘Parish of Derryvullan’, in Angelique Day and Patrick McWilliams (eds), Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland Parishes of Co. Fermanagh II, Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies, p. 31-46. British House of Commons (1833), vol. 39, Abstract of Population Returns for Ireland, 1831. British House of Commons (1836), vol. 31, Poor Inquiry, Ireland, Supplement Appendix D, E and F.

ii

to

British House  of  Commons (1863), vol. 55, Census of Ireland 1861: Part i. Area, Population, and Number of Houses, by Townlands and Electoral Divisions Provinces of Ulster and Connaught. Byrne, Anne,  Edmondson Ricca and Varley Tony (2001), ‘Introduction to the Third Edition’, in Conrad Arensberg and Solon T. Kimball, Family and Community in Ireland, 3rd ed., Ennis, County Clare, Clasp Publications, p. i-ci. Carney, Francis J. (1980), ‘Household Size and Structure in Two Areas of Ireland, 1821 and 1911’, in Louis M. Cullen and François Furet (eds), Ireland and France 17th-20th Centuries: Towards a Comparative Study of Rural History. Proceedings of the First Franco-irish Symposium on Social and Economic History/Irlande et France xviiie-xxe siècles : pour une histoire rurale comparée, Actes du premier colloque franco-irlandais d’histoire économique et sociale, Paris, Editions de l’EHESS, p. 149-165. Clarkson, Leslie A. (1996), ‘Ireland 1841: Pre-industrial or Proto-industrial; Industrializing or De-industrializing?’, in Sheilagh C. Ogilvie and Markus Cerman (eds), European proto-industrialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 67-84. Collins, Brenda (1982), ‘Proto-Industrialization and Pre-Famine Emigration’, Social History, 7, p. 127-146. Connell, Kenneth H. (1950), The Population of Ireland, 1750-1845, Oxford, Clarendon. Connolly, Sean J. (1992), Religion, Law and Power: the Making of Protestant Ireland, 1660-1760, Oxford, Clarendon. Corrigan, Carmel (1993), ‘Household Structure in Early Twentieth Century Ireland’, Irish Journal of Sociology, 3, p. 56-78. Crawford, William H. (1975), ‘Economy and Society in South Ulster in the Eighteenth Century’, Clogher Record, 8, p. 241-258. Crawford, William H. (1977), ‘Ulster Landowners and the Linen Industry’, in John Towers Ward and Richard George E. Wilson (eds), Land and Industry. The Landed Estate and the Industrial Revolution: A Symposium, Newton Abbot, David and Charles, p. 117-144. 178

Jane Gray

Crawford, William H. (1994a), ‘Kinship and Inheritance in Ulster’, Ulster Local Studies, 16, p. 59-70. Crawford, William H. (1994b), The Handloom Weavers and the Ulster Linen Industry, Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. Crawford, William H. (2005), The Impact of the Domestic Linen Industry in Ulster, Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. Dickson, David and Ó Gráda, Cormac and Daultrey, Stuart (1982), ‘Hearth Tax, Household Size and Irish Population Change, 1672-1821’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 82, p. 125-181. Dowling, Martin W. (1999), Tenant Right and Agrarian Society in Ulster, 1600-1870, Dublin, Irish Academic Press. Duffy, Patrick J. (1977), ‘Irish Landholding Structures and Population in the MidNineteenth Century’, Maynooth Review, 3, p. 3-27. Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette (2006), ‘Family Reproduction and Stem-Family System: From Pyrenean Valleys to Norwegian Farms’, The History of the Family, 11, p. 171-184. Fitzpatrick, David (1983), ‘Irish Farming Families Before the First World War’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 25, p. 339-374.

Gibbon, Peter and Curtin, Christopher (1978), ‘The Stem Family in Ireland’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20, p. 429-453. Gray, Jane (2005a), Spinning the Threads of Uneven Development: Gender and Industrialization in Ireland during the Long Eighteenth Century, Lanham (Maryland), Lexington Books. Gray, Jane (2005b), ‘The Puzzle of Fermanagh’, Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Economic and Social History Society of Ireland. St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, November 11-12. Greatorex, Lieutenant J. (1990 [1835]), ‘Parish of Aghalurcher’, in Angelique Day and Patrick McWilliams (eds), Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland. Volume 4. Parishes of Co. Fermanagh I: 1834-5. Enniskillen and Upper Lough Erne, Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies, p. 1-16. Guinnane, Timothy W. (1997), The Vanishing Irish: Households, Migration and the Rural Economy in Ireland, 1850-1914, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Guinnane, Timothy W. and Miller, Ronald I. (1996), ‘Bonds without Bondsmen: TenantRight in Nineteenth Century Ireland’, Journal of Economic History, 56, p. 113-142. Hammel, Eugene A. and Laslett, Peter (1974), ‘Comparing Household Structure over Time and Between Cultures’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16, p. 73-109. Hannan, Damien F. (1972), ‘Kinship, Neighbourhood and Social Changes in Irish Rural Communities’, Economic and Social Review, 3, p. 163-188.

179

Household formation, inheritance and class-formation in nineteenth century Ireland

Johnson, James H. (1961), ‘The Development of the Rural Settlement Pattern of Ireland’, Geografiska Annaler, 43, p. 165-173. McGregor, Pat (1992), ‘The Labor Market and the Distribution of Landholdings in PreFamine Ireland’, Explorations in Economic History 29, p. 477-493. Medick, Hans (1981), ‘The Proto-Industrial Family Economy’, in Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick and Jürgen Schlumbohm (eds), Industrialization before Industrialization, transl. by Beate Schempp, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 38-73. Ó Gráda, Cormac (1993), Ireland Before and After the Famine: Explorations in Economic History, 1800-1925, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Ó  Gráda, Cormac (1994), Ireland: A New Economic History, 1780-1939, Oxford, Clarendon. O’Neill, Kevin (1984), Family and Farm in Pre-Famine Ireland: The Parish of Killashandra, Madison, Wisconsin, University Press.

Plakans, Andrejs and Wetherell, Charles (2003), ‘Households and Kinship Networks: the Costs and Benefits of Contextualization’, Continuity and Change, 18, p. 49-76. Schlumbohm, Jürgen (1996), ‘Micro-History and the Macro-Models of the European Demographic System in Pre-Industrial Times: Life-Course Patterns in the Parish of Belm (north-west Germany), Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries’, The History of the Family, 1, p. 81-95. Slater, Eamonn and McDonough, Terence (1994), ‘Bulwark of Landlordism and Capitalism: The Dynamics of Feudalism in Nineteenth Century Ireland’, Research in Political Economy, 14, p. 63-118. Smyth, William J. (2000), ‘Nephews, Dowries, Sons and Mothers: the Geography of Farm and Marital Transactions in Eastern Ireland, c. 1820-c. 1970’, in David J. Siddle (ed.), Migration, Mobility and Modernization, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, p. 9-47.

Turner, Michael E. (1987), After the Famine: Irish Agriculture, 1850-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whelan, Kevin (1994), ‘Settlement Patterns in the West of Ireland in the Pre-Famine Period’, in Timothy Collins (ed.), Decoding the Landscape, Galway, University College/ Galway-Centre for Landscape Studies, p. 60-78. Young, Arthur (1892), Arthur Young’s Tour in Ireland (1776-1779), ed. with an introduction and notes by Arthur Wollaston Hutton, London, George Bell and Sons.

180

7.

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth century Central Russia, Bun’kovskaia volost’, Moscow province, 1834-1869 Herdis Kolle

I.  Introduction In nineteenth century rural Russia, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the peasant population practised a pattern of equally partible male inheritance, in which existing households were divided into several smaller units. The division implied a legal act under peasant customary law in which the common land rights and property of the household were distributed among the male heirs, who in turn formed their own independent households (Bohac, 1985; Frierson, 1987; Worobec, 1991; Kaser, 2002). The timing of household division/formation seems to have been the decisive factor in this inheritance pattern. Variation in the timing of household division determined if and when in his life course an heir could expect to form an independent household and attain headship, and this was an important factor in the household system. Moreover, in nineteenth century Russia, appropriate timing of household divisions was considered crucial for the economic prosperity of peasant households, the peasant commune, the serf-owner, and ultimately the state (Czap, 1983). Thus, the timing of household division/formation was closely connected to the rural economy. In many Western European countries young couples were required to have a livelihood in order to marry and form an independent household. In rural Russia, newly-wed couples mostly moved into the parental household of the groom and stayed there for a considerable time before they could establish their own household. Still, even in Russia the possibility to form independent households in the end depended on the availability of resources. Probably, a large household with several marital units was a great economic asset in Russian peasant society. The peasant commune (mir or obshchina) distributed arable land among its member households according to the number of tax-paying units (tiaglo), which usually corresponded to a married couple. The marriage of a son meant that the household not only obtained an additional worker (the daughter-in-law) but also an additional allotment of arable land. This combination of the land tenure system and patrilocality greatly stimulated the demographic growth of households. Several micro-studies of rural households in Southern Russia have found that peasants aspired to keep their 181

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

households complex at all times, so-called ‘perennial multiple family households’ (Czap, 1982). Such households were supposed to be better able to survive economically and demographically, thus ensuring the viability of the local rural community and fulfilling its obligations towards serf-owners and public authorities. Accordingly, multiple family households were the norm and household division/formation was delayed until both existing and new households contained at least two marital units (Czap, 1982; Frierson, 1987: 42-43). This system of delayed household division was clearly connected to the agricultural economy of arable farming in Southern Russia. Thus, it makes sense to study inheritance practices in Russian rural regions where the local economy was more differentiated than, for instance, in the Central Industrial Region1. This paper is based on a micro-level analysis of census data taken from Bun’kovskaia volost’, a rural district in the eastern part of Moscow Province, where a majority of the peasant population combined arable farming with proto-industrial production of silk and cotton textiles. The study of the inheritance practices among the peasants in Bun’kovskaia volost’ aims to explore the frequency and the timing of household division/formation and how authority was transferred from one generation to the next. It will also be important to discuss the way the local economy in the area influenced the connection between inheritance practices and the marriage pattern in Bun’kovskaia volost’.

II.  Marriage pattern in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834-1869 In many European pre-industrial societies, the timing of marriage and the timing of property and authority transfer coincided, as married couples tended to live independently. This led to high mean ages at first marriage and a high celibacy rate, particularly among women; a pattern that has been labelled the ‘European marriage pattern’ (Hajnal, 1965). Eastern European populations, however, did not generally conform to this pattern (Hajnal, 1982), which, in the nineteenth century, was also the case amongst others with the Serbian2 and Hungarian rural populations who similarly married in their late teens or early twenties. In both of these instances newly-wed couples moved into the parental household of the groom upon marriage. In nineteenth century Russia, too, patrilocal residence was the rule. During the first half of the nineteenth century, young men and women in Bun’kovskaia volost’ conformed to the pattern of early marriage that was common in   The Central Industrial Region roughly equalled the area that earlier formed the ‘heart of Muscovy and included Moscow, Tver, Iaroslavl’, Kostroma, Nizhnii Novgorod, and Vladimir Provinces. 2   Cf. Gruber, in this volume. 1

182

Herdis Kolle

pre-industrial Eastern Europe. However, they married somewhat later than peasants in other parts of Russia, notably the agricultural south, where most young men and women married while still in their teens (Czap, 1978: 113; Hoch, 1982: 230). The calculations of singulate mean age at first marriage for Bun’kovskaia volost’ shows that in 1834, the mean age at first marriage was 21.6 years for women and 21.7 years for men (Table 7.1). By 1850 the marital age had decreased to 20.2 years for females and 20.9 years for males. But in 1869 the mean age at first marriage had increased considerably. It was now 23.1 years for women and 23 years for men. Accordingly, the age at first marriage varied rather much over a relatively short period but there seems to have been a shift towards higher marital ages during the second half of the nineteenth century. Table 7.1. Singulate mean age at first marriage for males and females in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834, 1850 and 1869 Year

Males

Females

1834

21.7 years

21.6 years

1850

20.9 years

20.2 years

1869

23.0 years

23.1 years

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

The proportions of single young women and men give a more precise picture of how the timing and frequency of marriage developed in Bun’kovskaia volost’ from 1834 to 1869. The analysis reveals two different trends. The years around 1850 represented an exceptional time when people in the area married earlier than was usually the custom. In 1834 and 1869 approximately 60 to 70 per cent of the men and women in the age group 15-24 years were single. In 1850, only 52 per cent of the women and 56 per cent of the men in the age group were single. Moreover, already at 19 years, nearly half of the population was married or widowed (Table 7.2).

183

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Table 7.2. Proportion of single females and males in the population aged 15-29 years in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834, 1850 and 1869 Age

Females 1834

Males

1850

1869

1834

1850

1869

15

100.0

98.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

16

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

17

92.7

87.9

91.3

100.0

98.6

100.0

18

83.6

55.4

95.2

98.0

78.9

95.8

19

66.7

51.2

83.9

80.2

55.4

94.7

15–19

88.6

78.7

94.9

93.6

84.8

98.1

20

44.4

30.6

72.1

65.5

45.9

75.8

21

39.6

25.7

48.0

34.1

21.1

60.5

22

40.4

20.0

35.8

10.7

20.9

40.0

23

22.0

31.3

38.6

30.0

10.6

31.3

24

25.0

16.4

19.8

4.1

15.6

27.8

20–24

34.3

24.8

46.9

31.4

22.5

50.3

25–29

14.0

13.8

18.4

8.3

8.8

10.5

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Still, the general trend seems to have been towards an increased marital age for both women and men during the period 1834 to 1869. In 1834, most young women and men remained single while they were adolescent. This status changed quite quickly in the following twenty-five years, though. In the age group 20-22 years approximately forty per cent of the women were still unmarried and in the age group 23-24 years only about one quarter. The young men were somewhat older when they married for the first time. Accordingly, 65.5 per cent of the twenty-year-old men were single. Still, their likelihood of marrying before their twenty-fifth birthday was even greater, so that only about twenty per cent of the men aged 21-24 years remained single. In 1869, compared to the two first census years, a larger fraction of young women remained single longer. At age 21 almost half of the women were unmarried and at age 23 almost forty per cent were still single. The young men too tended now to delay marriage. In the age group 20-24 years, half of the men were still unmarried. However, at age 22 the proportion married exceeded the proportion of single males (Table 7.1). The proportions of single females and males among those aged 25-29 further confirm this trend. In 1834, 14 per cent of the women in this age group were single,

184

Herdis Kolle

13.8 per cent in 1850, but their proportion had increased to as much as 18.4 per cent in 1869. For men at ages 25 to 29, the corresponding proportions were 8.3 per cent in 1834, 8.8 per cent in 1850 and 10.5 per cent in 1869. Accordingly, the mean age at first marriage as well as the distribution of single individuals in the age group 15 to 29 years show that the population of Bun’kovskaia volost’ gradually tended to postpone marriage. The increased marital age was not accompanied by a change in the residence pattern for young married couples. The household positions of married couples over the life course show that patrilocal residence prevailed in Bun’kovskaia volost’ throughout the period investigated. Patrilocality was the dominating residence form for young couples from marriage until they were approximately thirty to thirty-five years old (Figures 7.1 to 7.3). Figure 7.1. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1834 In percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-

Age Other married relatives

Married grandchild/grandchild's spouse

Married sibling/In-law

Married child/child's spouse

Married head/spouse

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM), fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, and 189.

185

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Figure 7.2. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1850 In percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

Age

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

Married non-kin

Married sibling/In-law

Married child/child's spouse

Other married relatives

Married grandchild/grandchild's spouse

Married head/spouse

75-79

80-

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM), fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, and 189.

Most of the married young males were children of the head in the household where they resided, but some of them were living either as grandsons or sons-in-law to the household head. Likewise, the majority of the married women in these age groups were daughters-in-law. A few were married daughters, who had brought a son-in-law into the household, or women married to a grandson or nephew of the household head. Still, headship was not entirely impossible for the newly-wed couple. Some 10 to 20 per cent of the young married couples were already heading households. Moreover, it seems as if the overwhelming majority attained headship at some point in their life. Broadly speaking, transfer of headship sometimes after the thirtieth birthday appears to have taken place in most young couples’ lives. It was as unusual for a fifty-year-old male to be son in a household as it was for a twenty-year-old male to be household head.

186

Herdis Kolle

Figure 7.3. Distribution of household positions at different ages among the married population in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869 In percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-

Age

Married non-kin

Married sibling/In-law

Married grandchild/grandchild's spouse

Other married relatives

Married parent/parent's spouse

Married child/child's spouse

Married head/spouse

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM), fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 386, 392, 393, 394, 396 and 399.

Thus, the population in Bun’kovskaia volost’ essentially conformed to the Eastern European pattern of early marriage and patrilocality. Still, several aspects of the family pattern in Bun’kovskaia volost’ differed from the family pattern among previously investigated rural populations in Southern Russia. First, young men and women in Bun’kovskaia volost’ married somewhat later than their peers in Southern Russia, particularly towards the end of the period under review. Second, the attainment of headship happened at a somewhat earlier point in the development cycle of the household and in the individual’s life course than was the case among the peasants in Southern Russia. Third, the overall chance of heading an independent household seems to have been greater in Bun’kovskaia volost’ than in the purely agricultural regions of the south. Finally, patrilocal residence should probably be seen as one of several stages in the development cycle of the household, not as a permanent arrangement. Altogether, these factors indicate that the inheritance strategies of the rural population in Bun’kovskaia volost’ deviated considerably from the strategy of delayed household division/formation found among peasants in the purely agricultural regions of Southern Russia. 187

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

III.  The division of households in Bun’kovskaia Volost’, 1834-1869 In Bun’kovskaia volost’ household divisions were a rather common occurrence throughout the period investigated. Altogether, almost 16 per cent of the households existing in 1834, that is 153 households, had been divided into two or more units by 1850 (Table 7.3). The household divisions resulted in the establishment of 194 new households, which gave a division rate of approximately 1.3 new households for every divided household. In the period 1850-1869, there was a large increase in the number and the proportion of households that were divided. By 1869, as many as 293 or 27.4 per cent of the original households existing in 1850 had partitioned. As in the period 1834-1850, the division rate was around 1.3 new households for each of the divided households. Thus, during the nineteenth century, household divisions were a stable feature in the development cycle of the households in Bun’kovskaia volost’. Still, the population in this area clearly tended to divide their households more often during the last years of serfdom and in the first post-emancipation years. Table 7.3. Household divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1834 to 1869 Period

Divided households Number

N households Proportion of all established as a result of division existing households

Rate of division*

1834-1850

153

15.9 %

194

1.27

1850-1869

293

27.4 %

383

1.31

446

21.7 %

577

1.29

Total 1834-1869

*Rate of division: The number of new households established as a result of division according to the number of divided households. Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Previous research has established that one of the main reasons for the higher frequency of household divisions in the post-emancipation years was that divisions between kin of different generations and during the lifetime of the household head increased, while divisions after the death of the household head had been the norm during serfdom (Worobec, 1991: 92). Can the increased frequency of household division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ also be attributed to such a development?

188

Herdis Kolle

Table 7.4. Distribution of divisions by kinship of partitioning parties and distribution of post mortem and ante mortem divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’, in the two periods 1834-1850 and 1850-1869 Division types Between siblings

1834-1850

1850-1869

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

109

56.2

166

43.3

Between father and son

50

25.8

126

32.9

Between mother and son

20

10.3

43

11.2

Between stepmother and stepson

4

2.1

2

0.5

Between grandfather and grandson

–

–

2

0.5

Between in-laws of different generations

–

–

5

1.3

Between in-laws of the same generation

–

–

15

3.9

Between uncle or aunt and nephew

8

4.1

19

5.0

Between cousins

3

1.5

5

1.3

Post mortem divisions

120

61.9

197

51.4

Ante mortem divisions

74

38.1

186

48.6

Total

194

383

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

By linking individual records from the three different census years, it is possible to reconstruct the kin relations of the partitioning parties in the household divisions. The distribution of the household divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’ according to kinship shows that there was a longitudinal pattern of household division that included intergenerational as well as same-generation divisions (Table 7.4). In both periods, 1834-1850 and 1850-1869, divisions between siblings were the most common form of household division. In the period 1834-1850, they represented over half of the divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’. In the following period, though reduced by almost 13 per cent, they were still very widespread (over 43 per cent). Still, household divisions between kin belonging to different generations were also very common among the peasants in Bun’kovskaia volost’. Between fathers and sons, this type of division represented 25.8 per cent of the divisions in the period 1834-1850, and such divisions increased to almost 33 per cent of all divisions in the years 18501869. If household divisions between mothers and sons and between stepmothers and stepsons are added to this type of division, the proportion of intergenerational partitions represented over 38 per cent in the period 1834-1850 and almost 45 per cent in the period 1850-1869. Thus, they constituted the most significant type of division in the last period under study.

189

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

An increase in divisions involving household members of different generations has been regarded as being widespread among Russian peasants during the postemancipation period, but in the years before the abolition of serfdom such household divisions were regarded as being a rarity. The existence of a considerable share of father/son divisions for a relatively long period before the abolition of serfdom means that the pattern of household divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’ broke with the pattern found in Southern Russia during the first half of the nineteenth century. Here the majority of household divisions involved co-resident siblings, who decided to break up the household after the death of the parental generation (Hoch, 1982: 238-239; Worobec, 1991: 98; Czap, 1982: 19; Frierson, 1987: 42; Bohac, 1985: 31). Even though the kin-relations of the partitioning parties is a good indicator of the timing of household division, it is necessary to combine the census data on kinship of the partitioning parties, demographic development in the original household, and headship in the original and newly created households to determine the exact prevalence of ante- and post mortem division in Bun’kovskaia volost’. Post- and ante mortem divisions were both common in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the years 1834–69. In the period 1834-1850, households clearly tended to wait until the death of the household head before they arranged a division. The post mortem variant of household division made up 62 per cent of the total divisions, while ante mortem household divisions made up 38 per cent. In the following period, there was a considerable increase in the number and proportion of household divisions conducted in the lifetime of the household head. The share of ante mortem divisions constituted approximately half of the household divisions in the period, while the other half of the household divisions was still the result of post mortem fissions. To sum up, previous research has maintained that Russian peasants in the period before the abolition of serfdom tended to delay the partition until at least after the death of the household head, and often they continued to live together for a considerable time after if the economic and demographic situation within the household was such that it would be impossible to sustain several domestic units after a division. In the post-emancipation period, the peasants increasingly divided their households during the lifetime of the household head. In Bun’kovskaia volost’, both types of household division were common throughout the period under study. Still, from 1834 to 1850, it was more common for heirs to wait until after the death of the household head before splitting up. In this period, the parental generation generally seems to have kept the household together, but when the parents died, children tended to break up the household. This connection between the presence of a parental generation and the undivided household was diminishing in the last decade of serfdom and in the first post-emancipation years.

190

Herdis Kolle

IV.  Household structures and household division Although a considerable share of the households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ undertook ante mortem divisions under serfdom, this does not necessarily mean that they broke with prevailing inheritance customs. If the households were divided at a point in time when both the original household and the households established as a result of division could survive economically, divisions would receive the support of serfowners as well as that of the peasant commune. Thus, the timing of division did not depend exclusively on the development cycle and demographic growth within the original household but also on the economic prosperity of the household and individual household members. Still, according to prevailing research, the economic prosperity of the household was closely connected to its size and complexity. Following this, Russian peasant households were divided only when they had developed into multiple family households and when the original as well as the new households could stay multiple also after division (Czap, 1982: 21; Bohac, 1985: 29-34; Hoch, 1982: 237241; Worobec, 1991: 78-79; Frierson, 1987: 42-43; Mironov, 2003: 230). In the period 1834-1850, the majority of the households which divided in Bun’kovskaia volost’ contained at least two conjugal units and thus were defined as multiple family households. In total 85.6 per cent of the partitioned households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were multiple family households before division, of which almost three quarters were extended vertically (Table 7.5). The horizontally extended multiple family households and the combined multiple family households made up approximately one quarter of the partitioned multiple family households in this period. Thus, households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were usually divided only when they had developed into multiple family households but before they reached the stages of horizontal kin-relations. Table 7.5. Divided households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1834-1850, distributed according to the different household categories in 1834 and 1850 Household structure

Household structure before division (1834) Number

‘No family’ households Simple family households Extended family households Multiple family households Total

Per cent

Household structure after division (1850) Number

Per cent

1

0.7 %

–

–

17

11.1 %

30

19.6 %

4

2.6 %

11

7.2 %

131

85.6 %

112

73.2 %

153

100.0 %

153

100.0 %

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, and delo 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399. 191

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Simple family households made up the second largest category of divided households in the period 1834-1850. Approximately 11 per  cent were of this household type, the majority of which were married couples with children. In 1834, most of these households were at a point in their development cycle where one child or several children were adolescent or young adults but not yet married, but in 1850 all these young men were married and headed households consisting of themselves, their wives, and in most cases children. Marriage must have been a precondition for the possibility of establishing an independent household, also for the children in the simple family households. This means that, in fact, the simple family households had developed into multiple family households before the moment of division, but that the departing sons in these households must have left the parental household at a relatively early point after marriage. Most of the original households stayed complex also after partition. In 1850, 73.2 per cent of the divided households were multiple family households, 19.6 per cent were simple family households, and 7.2 per cent were extended family households. However, very few of the multiple family households had horizontal kin-relations after division. Complex households extended vertically made up nine-tenths of the multiple family households after division. There was also a marked increase in simple and extended forms among the original households after division. This pattern of household division continued in the following period, maybe to an even greater extent (Table 7.6). The large majority of the households which were divided in the period 1850-1869 were multiple family households. This was the case for as much as 88.1 per cent of the original households. As in the previous period, approximately three-quarters of the multiple family households divided at the point in their development cycle when they were vertically extended, either upwards or downwards. The remaining twenty-five per cent of the divided multiple family households were extended horizontally. Another twelve per cent of the original households belonged to the categories of simple family and extended family households before division, of which the overwhelming majority consisted of married couples with children. Most likely, the majority of the children, who in 1850 lived in simple family households and by 1869 had established their own households, were married and had lived in the parental household of the husband for a while before they had set up their own household. In 1869, the majority of these newly formed households were nuclear families and some of them consisted of young married couples without children, indicating that they had moved out of the parental household shortly after marriage.

192

Herdis Kolle

Table 7.6. Divided households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the period 1850-1869, distributed according to the different household categories in 1850 and 1869 Household structure

Household structure before division (1850) Number

‘No family’ households Simple family households Extended family households Multiple family households Total

Household structure after division (1869)

Proportion

Number

Proportion

–

–

4

1.4 %

28

9.6 %

68

23.2 %

7

2.4 %

18

6.1 %

258

88.1 %

203

69.3 %

293

100.0 %

293

100.0 %

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Likewise, the original households’ composition after division followed a pattern similar to the one shown for the previous period. A majority of almost 70 per cent remained multiple family households after division, while 23.2 per cent had become simple family households and 6.1 per cent extended family households. A few of the households were lacking a central conjugal family unit, such as for instance those of co-resident siblings. Of the households which continued as multiple family households after division, over 93 per cent were extended with vertical kin (parents, children, grandchildren), while only around 7 per cent were extended with horizontal kin (brothers, nephews, uncles, cousins). Moreover, in this period, multiple households with secondary units disposed downward from the head and where the main conjugal unit was intact had become more frequent at the expense of similar households where the head was widowed or single. This could mean that the households were dividing at a somewhat earlier point in their development cycle, or it could mean that the risk of widowhood was reduced compared to the previous period. The same tendency is sustained by the increase in the proportion of simple family households among the original households in the period 1850-1869. Generally, the timing of household division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ seems to have depended on three different aspects of the demographic development within the household. First, a minimum precondition for household division was that the junior household member had to be married before he could establish an independent household. Second, household division often coincided with the death of the household head of the original household, but it increasingly happened during the lifetime of the household head. Finally, household division was rarely postponed for an extensive period after a household head’s death, which means that households containing coresident kin with a horizontal relation to the household head were highly temporary 193

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

arrangements. This pattern seems to have been quite stable throughout the period investigated and was reinforced during the period 1850-1869. Table 7.7 shows how the newly created households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were distributed among different household categories during the period 1834-1850 and the period 1850–69. In both periods, the newly created households were considerably less complex than was the case for newly formed households in the agricultural south of the country. In the period 1834-1850 as well as the period 1850-1869, approximately 70 per cent of the newly created households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were simple family households. Of these, nuclear families were most widespread. In the period 1834-1850, over 60 per cent of the new households were nuclear families, while this was the case for 55 per cent of the new households in the period 1850-1869. Table 7.7. Household structure of the new households created by division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ in the periods 1834-1850 and 1850-1869 Household structure

New households 1834-1850 Number

Solitaries ‘No family’ households Simple family households

1

Per cent 0.5 %

New households 1850-1869 Number 4

Per cent 1.0 %

3

1.5 %

3

0.8 %

136

70.1 %

271

70.8 %

Extended family households

13

6.7 %

22

5.7 %

Multiple family households

41

21.1 %

83

21.7 %

194

100.0 %

383

100.0 %

Total households

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Moreover, in the period 1850-1869, there was a relatively significant increase in the proportion of newly formed households consisting of married couples without children as well as in the proportion of widowers and widows with children. This development indicates first, that even though the peasants in Bun’kovskaia volost’ most often established independent households after producing at least one child, there was a growing tendency for relatively newly-wed couples to establish their own household, and second, that individuals who according to prevailing research had a quite marginal position in Russian peasant society, such as widows with children, were increasingly able to maintain an independent household. Thus, in Bun’kovskaia volost’ the norm seems to have been that the original households had to be complex in order to divide, but that the newly created households preferably should be nuclear families. Even though this seems to have been the rule, 194

Herdis Kolle

some of the newly created households were complex. In both the period 1834-1850 and the period 1850-189, approximately 20 per cent of the newly created households were multiple family households, while extended family households made up between 6 and 7 per cent of the households. The majority of the newly established complex family households were extended vertically. Such households made up 13.9 per cent of the newly created households in the period 1834-1850 and 15.9 per cent in the period 1850-1869. In other words, also in Bun’kovskaia volost’ household division did not necessarily imply a universal return to simple household forms. Contemporary observers as well as modern scholars have generally attributed the increase in ante mortem household divisions and simple household forms during the post-emancipation years to economic factors. Following their argumentation, when the peasant population became involved in non-agricultural activities, this stimulated the break-up of the large patriarchal Russian peasant household. Accordingly, a main task in this paper is to make an assessment of whether the economy influenced the pattern of household division. The 1869 household census contains occupational data that in combination with the analysis of the household divisions in Bun’kovskaia volost’ during the period 1850-1869 can give us an understanding of this issue.

V.  The household economy and household division The newly established households in Bun’kovskaia volost’ displayed a variety of structures, which was the result of divisions made at different points in the development cycle of the original households. To what extent was the variety in composition of the new households connected to the occupation of the head in these households? Figure 7.4 shows that in 1869 the distribution of household structures according to the occupation of the head in the newly formed households differed widely. There was a clear correlation between simple household forms, in particular the nuclear family, and the head’s employment in the textile industry. In contrast, the heads working in agriculture were obviously more likely to form complex households after division. Almost 80 per cent of the newly created households headed by individuals working in the textile industry were simple family households, while this was the case for only 39 per cent of the newly created households headed by individuals who were working in agriculture. The newly formed multiple family households were mostly headed by agricultural workers. As much as 47.5 per cent of the agricultural workers and only 15.7 per cent of the textile workers headed newly formed multiple family households.

195

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Figure 7.4. Structure of households created by division distributed according to the occupation of the head, Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869 In percentage 80 70 60

Solitaries 'No family' households Simple family households Extended family households Multiple family households

50 40 30 20 10 0

Agriculture

Textile Industry

Occupation

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

The textile workers in Bun‘kovskaia volost’ were generally considerably younger that the agricultural workers. Thus, the correlation between newly established simple family households and textile work and between newly established multiple family households and agriculture might in part be attributed to the age-specific occupational pattern in the area. Even so, these figures still indicate that the timing of household division to some extent depended on the occupation of the departing junior household member. The junior household members who were employed in agriculture seem to have waited longer to establish their own households than was the case for the junior household members who were employed in the textile industry. Similarly to the analysis of household division on the general level, the timing of household division according to occupation can be measured by studying the kin-relations between the partitioning parties and the prevalence of ante mortem versus post mortem household divisions in the two occupational groups (Table 7.8). The analysis shows that over half of the newly established households where the household head was working in agriculture were the result of household divisions between siblings, while this was the case for 36.5 per cent of the newly established households headed by textile workers. Moreover, household divisions between mothers and sons, between in-laws of the same generation and between and uncle 196

Herdis Kolle

or aunt and a nephew also quite frequently resulted in the formation of households headed by agricultural workers. In other words, the newly established agricultural households seem frequently to have been the result of divisions taking place at a relatively late point in the development cycle of the original households. Table 7.8. Kin-relationship between partitioning parties distributed according to the occupation of the head in the newly created households, Bun‘kovskaia volost‘ 1869 Agriculture

Generations

Number

Per cent

Textile Industry Number

Per cent

Cousins

0

0.0 %

4

1.7 %

Father/son

7

11.9 %

89

38.7 %

Grandfather/grandson

0

0.0 %

2

0.9 %

In-laws different generations

1

1.7 %

3

1.3 %

In-laws same generation

6

10.2 %

8

3.5 %

Mother/son

8

13.6 %

28

12.2 %

32

54.2 %

84

36.5 %

Stepmother/stepson

1

1.7 %

1

0.4 %

Uncle/aunt and nephew

4

6.8 %

11

4.8 %

59

100.0 %

230

100.0 %

Siblings

Total

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179, 180, 180a, 181, 185, 186, 189, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

In contrast, the newly formed households headed by individuals working in the textile industry were more frequently the result of household divisions between fathers and sons. Almost 40 per cent of the new textile households were the product of such divisions, while only approximately 12 per cent of the new agricultural households were attributed to divisions between fathers and sons. Thus, even though a considerable share of the new households headed by textile workers was the result of divisions between brothers and between mothers and sons, the textile households frequently appear to have been established at a relatively early point in the development cycle of the original households. The distribution of post mortem and ante mortem divisions in the period 18501869 according to the occupation of the heads in households established as a result of division largely confirms the trend seen above. The majority of the agricultural households were established after the death of the household head in the original household; over 60 per cent of the agricultural households were the result of post mortem divisions, while approximately 40 per cent had been established while the 197

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

head of the original household was still alive. The textile households were to a much greater degree the result of household divisions that had taken place during the lifetime of the head of the original household. Approximately half of the individuals working in the textile industry headed households that were established due to ante mortem fission, while the other half headed households established after the death of the head of the original household (Figure 7.5). Figure 7.5. Timing of household divisions in the period 1850–69 distributed according to the occupation of heads of newly established households, Bun’kovskaia volost’ 1869

Source. Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 51, opis’ 8, 386, 392, 393, 394, 396, 399 and fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Thus, the pattern of kin-relations between partitioning parties as well as the distribution of ante mortem and post mortem household divisions suggest that employment in the textile industry accelerated the timing of household division and the establishment of new households, while employment in agriculture often implied that household division was delayed until after the death of the household head in the original household. In other words, in Bun’kovskaia volost’ there seems to have been a certain correlation between industrial work and the acceleration in the household division rate during the last decade of serfdom and in the first post-emancipation years. Still, part of the distinction in the timing of household establishment between these two occupational groups might be attributed to an age-specific occupational structure. The textile workers were usually quite young while agricultural workers

198

Herdis Kolle

were considerably older. This means that household division should be approached not only according to its timing in the development cycle of the household and occupational differences but also according to the age of the departing junior household members. In other words, it becomes essential to study the timing of headship attainment in Bun’kovskaia volost’ during the period 1834-1869.

VI.  Headship The inheritance pattern common among Russian peasants ensured that in the course of a household division every male heir in the household would receive an equally large share of the household‘s communal land-allotment and its accumulated property, independently of his position in the household hierarchy. Thus, access to property was distributed according to essentially egalitarian principles, at least in respect of the male population. On the other hand, household authority was transferred through primogeniture (Czap, 1982: 20; Bohac, 1985: 23; Kaser, 2002). Within the parental household, headship authority was reserved for the eldest son, leaving younger sons, brothers, and nephews of the current household head in junior positions until they either collectively or individually decided to move out. Accordingly, there were essentially two ways of attaining headship in Russian peasant society: through succession within an already existing household or through establishment of an independent household after division. The reasons for maintaining this pattern of headship transfer were generally connected to the agricultural economy among Russian peasants. To what extent did the population in Bun’kovskaia volost’ behave according to these principles, and was the transfer of authority from one generation to the next somehow influenced by the proto-industrial development in the district? Due to the significance of seniority in headship attainment, the average age of household heads in Russian peasant society was quite high. Broadly speaking, being a household head was the privilege of the mature man. This was also the case for the household heads in Bun’kovskaia volost’. The mean age of all household heads varied between 48.4 years in 1834, 48.7 years in 1850, and 50.2 years in 1869. Throughout this period a substantial minority of the household heads in the area were female. In 1834, females made up approximately 16 per cent of the household heads and approximately 20 per cent in 1869. Most female household heads seem to have been elderly widows and the average age of all female household heads was about 55 years, increasing slightly towards the end of the period under review. The same was true for the male household heads. The mean age of the male heads increased by nearly two years during this period, from 47.1 years in 1834 to 48.9 years in 1869. Simultaneously, very young household heads disappeared from the household listings towards the end of our period. The adolescent household heads, that were 199

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

mentioned in the 1834 census material, seem all to have attained headship due to demographic changes within their parental households, that is, due to the death of a father, a mother, or an older brother. But in 1850 and particularly in 1869, very few of the household heads in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were younger than 20 years old. Simultaneously, the number of households – and thus, the number of household heads – increased considerably during our period. This indicates that succession through death in the oldest generation became increasingly rare among the peasants in Bun’kovskaia volost’, while succession through household division became ever more common. This is further confirmed by the fact that the majority of the nuclear family households were the result of household division rather than demographic development within existing households. Already in the period 1834-1850, almost 65 per cent of the nuclear families in Bun’kovskaia volost’ were established after the division of an existing household. In the following period, 1850-1869, as much as 71.3 per cent of the nuclear families were the result of a division. The following analysis will focus on the junior household members who attained headship through household division. In order to study the timing of headship transfer, one should preferably have individual age data to determine the exact point in time when the various household divisions took place, but such information is not available for Bun’kovskaia volost’. What we have is age data from successive censuses that along with information on household divisions between two censuses, make it possible to estimate the approximate age at which most junior household members established independent households. The analysis shows that there was an increase in the mean age of household heads who attained headship through division in the period 1834-1869. The heads in households established during the years 1834-1850 were on average 38.5 years old in 1850, while the heads of households established during the period 1850-1869 were on average 42.1 years old in 1869. There might have been several reasons for this. The calculations include households that were established at the beginning of both periods as well as shortly before the next census was taken. Because the intervals between the censuses were quite long, and even longer in the latter period, this could have influenced the results. In addition, Bun’kovskaia volost’ experienced a considerable population growth during the whole period under review. On the household and community level this probably meant that available resources had to be distributed to a larger number of individuals, which in turn might have contributed to the postponement of the formation of junior households as independent households.

200

Herdis Kolle

Although it is difficult to measure the development in the timing of headship attainment, it is still possible to discern a clear pattern of headship attainment in Bun’kovskaia volost’ on the basis of the available sources. Generally, household heads who attained headship due to a household division between siblings, were several years older than household heads who had departed from the parental households during the lifetime of their father. While household heads who had departed from their fathers’ household were on average between 36 and 38 years old, the household heads who had attained headship due to division between siblings were on average between 41 and 44 years old. During the period 1850-1869, there were also clear differences in the timing of headship attainment according to the occupation of the departing junior household member. The mean age of heads in recently established agricultural households was almost 50 years, while the mean age of heads in recently established textile households was 40 years. It appears that textile work stimulated the establishment of independent households, while junior household members working in agriculture remained longer in the parental household. This assumption can be tested in a cross-sectional analysis of the life course pattern of individuals working in agriculture and the textile industry. In Figures 7.6 and 7.7 the household position of males working either in the textile industry or in agriculture is shown distributed according to their age. Figure 7.6. Household positions over the life course, male agricultural workers in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869 100

In percentage

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

10-14

15-19

Other

20-24

25-29

Son-in-law

30-34 Brother

35-39

40-44

Grandson

45-49 Head

50-54

55-59

Son

60-64

65-69

70-74

Age

Source. Tsentral nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715. 201

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Figure 7.7. Household positions over the life course, male textile workers in Bun’kovskaia volost’, 1869

100

In percentage

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

5-9 Other

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 Son-in-law

Brother

Grandson

Head

Son

Age

Source. Tsentral nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (TsIAM): fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715.

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 show several important differences in headship attainment between agricultural workers and textile workers. First, some textile workers had attained headship quite early in the life course. In the age group 20-24 years, a few of the textile workers were already heading their own households and in the age group 25-29 years, approximately 15 per cent of the textile workers were household heads. None of the agricultural workers in these age groups headed independent households; all the household heads working in agriculture were thirty years or older. Second, after the age of thirty, an increasing number of both textile workers and agricultural workers gradually attained headship. In the age group 30-34 years, 23 per cent of the textile workers and 20 per cent of the agricultural workers were heading their own households. In the age group 35-44 years, which seems to be the phase in junior household members’ lives when household authority was frequently transferred, there were large differences in the distribution of household positions between the agricultural workers and the textile workers. Approximately half of the textile workers in the age group 35-39 years headed their own households in 1869, while this was the case for only around 30 per cent of the agricultural workers. Moreover, in this age group, a considerable share of the individuals working in agriculture had the position of ‘brother’ or ‘other kin’ to the household head, while this was not the case among the textile workers. Most of the textile workers aged 35-39 years who had 202

Herdis Kolle

junior household positions were sons of the household head. A similar tendency can be observed between agricultural and textile workers in the age group 40-44 years, although here the distinction was less apparent. In other words, agricultural workers tended to delay headship transfer compared to the textile workers. It might be that, to attain headship, junior agricultural workers were dependent to a larger extent on the demographic development within their parental households, i.e. death of the older generation. The textile workers, on the other hand, had probably a greater economic as well as personal freedom, which in turn made it possible for them to establish independent households through household division at an earlier point in their life course.

VII.  Conclusion During the 1880s, the increase in household divisions that had taken place in the post-emancipation period, which was reflected in the pattern of household division in nineteenth century Bun’kovskaia volost’, became a matter of concern on the highest political level in Russia. The government was concerned that the rapid rate of household division among peasants and the significant increase in the number of households would weaken their labouring power and impoverish the peasantry. Thus, the government decided to regulate the divisions more strictly. In 1886, this political process resulted in a law that required peasant households to obtain the village assembly’s permission before carrying out a household division. It authorised the assembly to consider the request only if the household head had agreed to the partition. The village assembly would determine the possibility of a household division on the basis of explicit criteria, which emphasised the authority of the household head and the importance of economic viability for the original as well as the newly created households (Worobec, 1991: 93). Substantial evidence suggests that economic considerations lay at the root of the pattern of postponed household division as well as the considerable acceleration of household divisions in the post-emancipation period. Under serfdom the economic interests of serf-owners and the peasant community s leaders seem frequently to have coincided. This also means that we have to reckon with a large degree of variation in the pattern of household division between different economic regions within Russia. It might well be that the postponement of household division until the original and new households contained at least two conjugal family units was a reasonable strategy among serfs living in local communities that were highly dependent on agriculture. The household division pattern in Bun’kovskaia volost’ demonstrates that even though the peasants in this area were serfs for most of the 203

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

period under study, they did not consistently conform to the strategy of postponed household division. Under the economic conditions in the Central Industrial Region, and perhaps especially in proto-industrial areas such as Bun’kovskaia volost’, the postponement of household division seems to have been rather unnecessary for maintaining the economic viability of the partitioning parties, both from the serfowners’ and the peasants’ point of view. This argument is largely supported by evidence of the development of household division during the post-emancipation period. Even though the authorities attempted to regulate household divisions, reports from several different regions in Russia stated that the village assembly rarely blocked a division, but simply stepped in to make the distribution of property as fair and economically viable as possible (Frierson, 1987:  50). Accordingly, the peasants themselves were probably not as concerned about the acceleration in the division rate as the contemporary observers from the educated elite and the government were. This means that household division was a natural element in the development cycle of the Russian peasant household. Moreover, the strategy of postponed household division was probably more closely connected to the specific economic conditions in the purely agricultural regions of Southern Russia than to the prevalence of a patriarchal worldview among Russian peasants and serf-owners. As briefly noted above, the contemporary observers in post-emancipation Russia thought that one of the reasons for the acceleration in the rate of household divisions during the post-emancipation years was that the peasants increasingly found employment outside agriculture. They connected employment in industry to an increased ‘urge for independence’ among the young industrial labourers, which in turn made them want to live separately from their parents. However, the most important factor must have been that the industrial workers earned their own money. Due to the generally poor agricultural conditions in the eastern part of Moscow Province, the earnings obtained in the textile industry must have been extremely important in the household economy. Moreover, because it was mainly the junior household members who worked in the textile industry, particularly in branches and positions where payments were relatively high, they were also the ones who provided the household with vital incomes. Most likely, this situation altered the power balance within the multiple family household, so that junior members had a greater personal freedom than was the case for junior household members in purely agricultural areas. Obviously, this freedom was used to establish independent households relatively early in life. Furthermore, earnings from industrial work must have provided an extra guarantee against economic extinction for the newly established households. Thus, in the villages where industrial work was a real income alternative the original

204

Herdis Kolle

household did not have to be at the peak of its demographic development in order to undertake a division. Moreover, in an industrial community such as Bun’kovskaia volost’, the availability of land resources must have been less important than was the case in the Central Agricultural Region. The connection between land availability and household structures is well documented for several communities in largely agricultural areas of the Russian Empire. In areas where the availability of work in industry seems to have been more important than land resources, less complex household structures seem to have been the norm. Furthermore, this household pattern was closely connected to household division strategies that deviated from those found in purely agricultural areas. In Bun’kovskaia volost’ these processes seem to have been reflected on the local level with textile workers attaining headship earlier in the life course than agricultural workers. However, because we lack occupational data for the period before the abolition of serfdom, it is still uncertain to what extent the industrial boom in the eastern districts of Moscow Province from the 1820s on immediately influenced the pattern of household division. The overall stability of the pattern of household division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ during the nineteenth century indicates that the inheritance pattern in this area in fact should be regarded as being part of a larger regional trend, which had deep roots in the forest zone of Central Russia. This inheritance pattern seems to have adhered to a stem-family ideology that required only one married son to remain in the parental household, while other sons sooner or later moved out. Research on household formation patterns in the Central Agricultural Region, on the other hand, shows that at least during the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, the peasants in this region rather adhered to joint-family ideology in which at least two married sons lived in the parental household for an extensive period of time. However, the increased frequency of household division in Bun’kovskaia volost’ towards the end of the period under study seems clearly to have been connected to the proto-industrial development in the area. In the post-emancipation years, the textile industry in the eastern part of Moscow Province attracted an increasing number of workers, and the dependency on industrial income seems also to have increased due to a general deterioration of agriculture in the area. The young men who were employed in the textile industry had probably a greater economic and personal freedom than the agricultural workers, a freedom that they used to establish their own households.

205

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Primary sources Tsentral

nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv

Moskvy (TsIAM):

Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 179: Moskovskaia kazennia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Bogorodskii uezd. Revizskie skazki kuptsov, meshchan g. Bogorodska udel nykh krest ian Karpovskogo prikaza fabrichnykh vol nykh khlebopashtsev.

Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 180: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy R Ia.

Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 180a: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy L P. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 181: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki sviashchenno- i tserkovnosluzhitelei g. Bogorodska i uezda. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 185: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy A D. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 186: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy E K. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 189: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 8. Reviziia, 1834 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian i dvorovykh, prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy N R.

Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 386: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia, 1850 god. Revizskie skazki fabrichnykh kazennoi losinnoi fabriki, Frianovskoi fabriki kuptsa Efimova, Uspenskogo porokhovogo zavoda i bumazhnoi fabriki Gubina, possesionnoi fabriki s-tsa Chudinok Rybnikovykh, sukonnoi possesionnoi fabriki s. Kupavnoi i Ostrovkov. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 392: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia, 1850 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy M O. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 393: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia, 1850 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy A K. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 394: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia, 1850 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy R Ia. Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 396: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia, 1850 god. Revizskie skazki krest ian prinadlezhashchikh pomeshchikam s familiiami na bukvy L P.

Fond 51, opis’ 8, delo 399: Moskovskaia kazennaia palata. 9. Reviziia,1850 god. Dopolnitel nye revizskie skazki kuptsov, meshchan g. Bogorodska i Pavlovskogo Posada, pomeshchichnykh krest ian i dvorovykh (1851). Fond 184, opis’ 10, delo 1715: Zemskaia statistika. Podvornaia perepis selenii Bun kovskoi volosti Bogorodskogo uezda Moskovskoi gubernii, 1869 71 gg.

206

Herdis Kolle

Bibliography Bohac, Rodney D. (1985), ‘Peasant Inheritance Strategies in Russia’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16, no. 1, p. 23-42. Burds, Jeffrey (1991), ‘The Social Control of Peasant Labour in Russia: The Response of Village Communities to Labour Migration in the Central Industrial Region, 1861 1905’, in Esther Kingston-Mann and Timothy Mixter (eds), Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921, Princeton, Princeton University Press, p. 52-100. Burds, Jeffrey (1998), Peasant Dreams and Market Politics: Labour Migration in the Russian Village, 1861-1905, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Czap, Peter (1978), ‘Marriage and the Peasant Joint Family in the Era of Serfdom’, in David L. Ransel (ed.), The Family in Imperial Russia: New Lines of Historical Research, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, p. 103-123. Czap, Peter (1982), ‘The Perennial Multiple Family Household, Mishino, Russia, 17821858’, The Journal of Family History, 7, no. 1, p. 7-26.

Czap, Peter (1983), ‘A Large Family: The Peasant‘s Greatest Wealth: Serf Households in Mishino, Russia, 1814-1858’, in Richard Wall in collaboration with Jean Robin and Peter Laslett (eds), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 105-149. Frierson, Cathy A. (1987), ‘Razdel: The Peasant Family Divided’, The Russian Review, 46, no. 1, p. 35-52. Gestwa, Klaus (1999), Proto-Industrialisierung in Rußland. Wirtschaft, Herrschaft und Kultur in Ivanovo und Pavlovo, 1741-1932, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hajnal, John (1965), ‘European Marriage Patterns in Perspective’, in David Victor Glass, David Edward Charles Eversley (eds), Population in History. Essays in Historical Demography, London, Edward Arnold, p. 101-143. Hajnal, John (1982), ‘Two Kkinds of Pre-industrial Household Formation Systems’, Population and Development Review, 8, no. 3, p. 449-494. Hoch, Stephen L. (1982), ‘Serfs in Imperial Russia: Demographic Insights’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 13, no. 2, p. 221-246. Hoch, Stephen L. (1986), Serfdom and Social Control in Russia: Petrovskoe, a Village in Tambov, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Kaser, Karl (2002), ‘Power and Inheritance. Male Domination, Property, and Family in Eastern Europe, 1500-1900’, The History of the Family, 7, no. 3, p. 375-395. Kolle, Herdis (2006), Social Change in Nineteenth Century Russia: Family Development in a Proto-industrial Community, unpubl. PhD, University of Bergen, Norway. Mironov, Boris (2003), Sotsial‘naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (xviii-nachalo xx v.): Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi sem‘i, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravogo gosudarstva, 3rd ed., vol. 1, St. Petersburg, Dmitrii Bulanin. 207

Marriage, household division and headship attainment in nineteenth-century Central Russia

Orlov, V. I. (1879), Formy krest‘ianskogo zemlevladeniia v Moskovskoi gubernii, 1st ed., vol. 4: Sbornik statesticheskikh svedenii po Moskovskoi gubernii. Otdel khoziaistvennoi statistiki, Moscow, Zemskaia statistika. Worobec, Christine D. (1991), Peasant Russia: Family and Community in the Postemancipation Period, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

208

8.

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses Siegfried Gruber

I.  Introduction Hajnal, in his influential article on ‘European Marriage Patterns’ (Hajnal, 1965), distinguished two different forms of marriage pattern in Europe, divided by a line from Leningrad/St. Petersburg to Trieste: a ‘(Western) European Marriage Pattern’ characterised by late age of marriage, especially for women and a high proportion of people who never married, and an ‘Eastern European Marriage Pattern’ characterised by early age of marriage and almost universal marriage (Hajnal, 1965: 101f.). Subsequently, Hajnal added household formation patterns to marriage patterns. The formation rules common to joint household systems were that men and women married early and started their marriage living in the household of an older couple, most often the husband’s parents, in conformity with the prevalent agnatic kinship model. When the system was studied from the point of view of the individual it was not necessary that the majority of households should be joint households, but that the majority of people should be members of a joint household at some stage in their lives (Hajnal, 1983: 69). This study applies these theories to data about Serbian villages in the nineteenth century. Hajnal’s theories provide a conceptual starting point for looking into the dynamics of marriage, household formation, and inheritance patterns. This study is based on the investigation of cross-sectional data in the absence of existing large-scale longitudinal data. Longitudinal data is only available for selected persons through their autobiographies (Halpern, 1958: 205-222) or for selected households by linking data from different sources (Halpern, 1977). The unit of research used in this analysis will be the individual, which has many advantages compared to the household or family (Ruggles, 1987: 142-147). Data from the tax list of 1831 and the population censuses of 1863 and 1884 for eight villages in the district of Jasenica in Central Serbia will be used for this paper. This tax list of 1831 is part of a series of surviving tax lists from the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1830 all household members were listed with their ages for the

209

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

first time, but the tax list of 1831 is used because the age-heaping pattern is almost the same as for both censuses (Gruber, 2004: 54f.). Figure 8.1. Map of eight villages in the district of Jasenica BELGRADE Kovin

Dan

u be

Smederevo

Obrenovac Vranic

Pozareva

BEOGRAD

Mladenovac

Smederevska Palanka

V

T

J

Valjevo

a

eni

O K

B G

c

S

Jas

LUBARA

Lazarevac

Morava

PODUNAVLJE

Stepojevac

SS EE RR BB I E SUMADIJA 8 villages in the district of Jasenica B : Bukovik G : Garaši J : Jelovik K : Kopljari

Gornji Milanovac

Kragujevac

Svetozarevo

O : Orašac S : Stojnik T : Topola V : Vrbica 0

10 miles

Source. Christ. Gottfr. Dan. Stein: Türkei und Griechenland 1865 (www.davidrumsey.com); cartography by Anne Varet-Vitu.

The village of Orašac, the ‘Serbian village’ of Halpern’s research (Halpern, 1958), is among these villages (see e.g. Halpern, 1972). The tax list of 1831 was used for collecting a head tax from all married men and all males over seven. The census of 1863 is the only one which has been preserved for about 70 per cent of the population (Palairet, 1995: 46). The data has been partly published, especially for cities (e.g. Peruničić, 1968). The census of 1884 is the most detailed of them, but only ten registers still exist (Vuletić, 2002: 34). Some results of these censuses were published officially (Državopis 1865; Državopis 1889) and the number of persons and households used for this paper and comparative data can be seen in Table 8.1.

210

Siegfried Gruber

Table 8.1. Number of households and persons per village in 1831, 1834, 1863, 1884 and 1900* Villages

1831 H

1834

1863

1884

1900

P

P

H

P

H

P

P

Orašac

71

231

612

131

1083

187

1322

1628

Garaši

48

131

376

87

471

108

629

903

Jelovik

38

108

253

57

350

69

485

679

Bukovik

55

131

344

108

589

168

1,029

1,343

Topola

106

341

827

250

1,611

376

2,224

3,133

Vrbica

111

337

920

205

1,328

265

1,798

2,318

Kopljari

38

142

331

91

683

141

926

1,207

Stojnik

56

154

396

105

639

160

1,021

1,371

523

1,575

4,059

1,034

6,754

1,474

9,434

12,582

Total

*H means households, P means persons. The data for 1831 does not include women, and male children are listed only in part.

Source. 1831, 1863, 1884: Gruber (2004: 60). The original material is kept in the Serbian State Archives); 1834: Cvijetić (1984, 75f.); 1900: Prethodni resultati (1906: 26-29).

II.  Nineteenth century Serbia The medieval Serbian lands were conquered by the Ottoman armies after the end of the fourteenth century. In 1804 the so-called ‘First Serbian Uprising’ began, which eventually led to the creation of an autonomous Serbian Principality within the Ottoman Empire after years of war, negotiations and pressure from Russia and internal developments within the Ottoman administration. The political development of Serbia was hindered by the continued existence of the Ottoman State in the Balkans. The new and struggling Serbian State was burdened by the Ottoman infrastructure which it inherited. Serbia remained a predominantly rural-based economy until well into the twentieth century, with the majority of its population living in villages. In 1878 an enlarged Serbia gained full independence and in 1882 it became a kingdom. In 1839 a law declared all Serbs to be the legal owners of the land they were tilling in October 1833, which was the date when the borders of the autonomous Serbian Principality within the Ottoman Empire were fixed. New land could only be acquired if there were no pre-existing private or state claims. Publicly owned land belonged to the local communities and the state, which could distribute it to needy peasants (Sundhaussen, 1989: 194). In 1844 private property was finally separated from public 211

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

land (communally- or state-owned). New settlers could now obtain land only by purchase or through public allotment (Drobnjaković, 1923: 211). The Serbian rulers promoted immigration to Serbia from the neighbouring countries, but statistical data is only available for the years 1860-1875 with a net immigration of 50,000 persons, mostly of Serbian origin, into Serbia (Sundhaussen, 1989: 136). These migrations were not a new phenomenon, since there was a constant flow of people during the time of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the villages in this study were deserted for some time in the eighteenth century (Gruber, 2004: 112f.) and Šumadija (literally ‘Woodland’) was largely a deserted and forested land in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – travellers’ reports told of huge oak forests (Halpern, 1999: 81f., 88). Only six per cent of the population of these villages were old settlers, according to investigations into the origin of the population at the beginning of the twentieth century. More than half of the population were descendants of immigrants from the Dinaric Mountains (Drobnjaković, 1923: 248-251; Gruber, 2004: 114-120). In 1850 cadastral offices were introduced, but a general survey was not made until the twentieth century (Sundhaussen, 1989: 195f.). Most of the land was owned by smallholders since there were no large estates due to the law of 1839. During the nineteenth century the emphasis shifted from animal husbandry to agriculture. Pigs had replaced sheep as the most important livestock and for a long time they were the main source of cash income for the rural population (Palairet, 1997: 94). The livestock census in 1859 yielded almost 30 pigs and 30 sheep and less than 10 head of cattle per household for the settlements in Šumadija covered by this paper. The average number of horses per household was below one (half of the households had no horses at all), while almost all of them had at least one pig, one sheep, and one cow (Gruber, 2004: 173). The average number of livestock per inhabitant in Serbia decreased by about 50 per cent (pigs 80 per cent) from 1859 to 1900 (Sundhaussen, 1989: 265), showing this shift from animal husbandry to agriculture. The average household in the villages under review had about 4 to 7 hectares of land, depending on the type of land since in the hilly areas there were more woods than in the valleys. More than half of the area was used for fields and 20 to 25 per cent for meadows. Poorer households had a larger proportion of fields, while the richest households had more meadows and more land for other uses (Gruber, 2004: 170f.). Communal land consisted of pastures and forests; the poor could maximise the marginal use of such land, e.g. grazing the family cow (but not a horse) on the grassy banks along the road. Such activities maximised the use of marginal labour such as old women or children who were not able to work in the fields. Therefore most households had no private pastures or forests (Sundhaussen, 1989: 195, 220).

212

Siegfried Gruber

Table 8.2. Average livestock per household (H) in 1859 and number of households under review Villages

Horses

Pigs

Sheep

Beehives

8.7

31.8

34.4

2.0

100

1.1

7.2

19.4

26.5

0.7

66

1.0

10.0

30.7

32.9

0.8

43

Bukovik

0.7

6.7

21.7

24.0

2.3

89

Topola

0.5

5.7

26.4

16.9

2.3

183

Vrbica

0.8

6.6

22.3

32.1

1.1

156

Kopljari

1.2

8.7

31.7

39.0

3.3

63

Stojnik

0.8

9.4

31.7

30.1

1.6

60

0.8

7.3

26.2

27.8

1.8

Total 760

Orašac

0.9

Garaši Jelovik

Average for these 8 villages

Head of cattle

NH

Source. Gruber (2004: 173).

Table 8.3. Average type of land use per household in hectares in 1863 and number of households under review* T

V

K

S

O

G

J

B

Fields

2.26

4.04

3.48

3.70

3.21

2.31

3.35

2.39

Meadows

0.70

2.02

2.28

1.66

1.01

0.75

0.65

0.87

Courtyards and orchards

0.43

0.55

0.59

0.73

0.70

0.31

0.62

0.56

Vineyards

0.11

0.04

0.08

0.11

0.18

0.09

0.12

0.07

Other use

0.06

0.25

0.10

0.20

0.23

0.41

0.09

0.02

Overall area

3.57

6.89

6.54

6.40

5.33

3.88

4.81

3.92

Overall area per person

0.48

1.39

1.29

1.21

0.87

0.75

0.76

0.79

N Households

131

87

56

108

249

65

91

104

* The villages have been abbreviated to their first letter (O Orašac, G Garaši, J Jelovik,

B Bukovik, T Topola, V Vrbica, K Kopljari, S Stojnik). In Vrbica, for most households the surface area of the land they owned was not recorded, only the number of their plots.

These are not listed here, hence the limited number of households in the table for which we have data: Gruber (2004: 170).

Source. Gruber (2004: 172).

The crop yields per hectare were among the lowest in Europe and the increase in harvests during the nineteenth century was mainly a result of increasing the area of fields and not of improving productivity or technology in agriculture (Sundhaussen,

213

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

1989: 235, 261; Sundhaussen, 2007: 177). The population increased steadily due to high natural growth and immigration from neighbouring countries. This was a major reason for the disappearance of the vast oak forests (Sundhaussen, 1989: 220). The proportion of people living from agriculture in Serbia was still 84.23 per cent in 1900 (Sundhaussen, 1989: 180). In these eight villages 93.5 per cent of the population were engaged in agriculture in 1884 (Gruber, 2004: 157) and almost all of them were Serbian by nationality, as well as being members of the Orthodox Church. Overall, the emergence of large estates was successfully avoided within the principality of Serbia, the area south of the Danube. The predominance of peasants with small and medium-sized holdings is confirmed by the fact that in these eight villages, out of seven classes seventy per cent of the households belonged to property classes one to three and only 0.6 per cent to the richest classes (six and seven). In addition, only 7.2 per cent of the households had no property according to the census of 1863, which only recorded real estate. Household size and property class correlated positively. The average income of these eight villages was almost the same as for the whole district of Jasenica, which was ranked eleventh among fifty-two districts with available data (Gruber, 2004: 166; Palairet, 1995: 75-80). The peasant economy was still oriented overwhelmingly towards subsistence (Gruber, 2004: 181f.).

III.  Marriage patterns in nineteenth century Serbia Age at marriage was low in Serbia in the nineteenth century: the average age at marriage was 19.9 years for women and 22.4 years for men in 1889 in the prefecture of Kragujevac (Statistika, 1895: 166f.), including these eight villages. The singulate mean age at marriage was 19.2-19.4 years for women and 22.2-22.6 years for men for the years 1831, 1863, and 1884 in these eight villages. The marriage records of Orašac show an average age at first marriage of 19.8 years for women and 22.2 years for men in the period 1877-1900 (Gruber, 2004: 135), which is slightly lower than in the villages of the Hungarian sample studied by Peter Pozsgai in his Sarospatak paper. In Serbia excluding the city of Belgrade in 1889 the average age at marriage ranged from 18.0 to 21.1 years for women and from 19.3 to 23.8 years for men (Statistika, 1895: 166f.). In Belgrade the age at marriage was considerably higher, at least for men: 21.8 years for women and 28.7 years for men in 1889 (Statistika, 1895: 166f.). Marriage was almost universal: only 3.3 per cent of men and 0.2 per cent of women over 50 years remained unmarried in these villages (Gruber, 2004: 154), which corresponds to Hajnal’s figures of 3 and 1 per cent respectively (Hajnal, 1965: 101). We see in Figure 8.2 that marriage took place within a short period of time for women 214

Siegfried Gruber

(between ages seventeen and twenty) and a period twice as long for men (between ages eighteen and twenty-six). Figure 8.2. Percentage of unmarried men and women at different ages in 1863 and 1884 100

In percentage women 1863 women 1884

90

men 1863 men 1884

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Source. Census of 1863 and 1884 for eight villages.

The reason for this low age at marriage was the need to continue the male line. An early marriage was likely to lead to higher rates of female fertility and this helped to ensure an early maintenance of the patriline. These arguments were more important than the financial burden of the bride price (Kaser, 1995: 153f.). In a patriarchal society it was also important to control female sexuality in order to guarantee that the children were really the descendants of the male members of the household or lineage. First the father had to control his daughters and hand them over as virgins to their husbands. This prevented illegitimate children, who were very rare in Serbia at that time. The whole database of this study mentions only one illegitimate child, since an early marriage reduced the time of control for the household of origin. An early marriage also favoured the incorporation of the bride into an alien household in an inferior position and made it easier for her husband and his parents (as long as they were alive) to hold a much superior position. The average age difference between husband and wife was 3.1 years according to the census of 1863 and 3.3 years according to the census of 1884. Only six per cent of 215

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

wives were older than their husbands in 1863, fourteen per cent were of the same age, and eighty per cent were younger than their husbands in 1863. In 1884 the proportion of older wives had increased to nine per cent, sixteen per cent of wives were of the same age and seventy-five per cent were younger than their husbands in 1884. The age difference was quite low for most of the couples: it was less than five years for 83 per cent in 1863 and for 77 per cent of them in 1884 (Gruber, 2004: 136). The average age difference according to the marriage registers in Orašac was 2.9 years and it decreased during the last decade of the nineteenth century (Gruber, 2004: 136). In marriages later in life, the age difference increased between husband and wife. For men aged 50, this difference was already five years. There was a rapid increase after the age of 60, caused by remarriages of widowers with younger women (Gruber, 2004: 137). Palairet found a similar increase in age difference between spouses for 1863: 2.0 years for those aged 15 to 19 years and 6.5 years for those aged 70 to 99 years (Palairet, 1995: 61). Figure 8.3. Marital status at different ages for men in 1884 In percentage

100 90

married

80

widowed

70 60

married

unmarried

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Source. Census of 1863 and 1884 for eight villages.

216

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Siegfried Gruber

Figure 8.4. Marital status at different ages for women in 1884 In percentage 100 90 80 70 60

unmarried

married

widowed

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Source. Census of 1863 and 1884 for eight villages.

Half of the women were already widows at the age of fifty (1863) or sixty (1884), while half of the men were widowers at the age of seventy. The marriage registers of Orašac report remarriages for 8.5 per cent of men and for 7.2 per cent of women marrying from 1870 to 1900, but this information was obviously not always recorded (Gruber, 2004: 138). Official statistics report a rate of only 79.6 per cent of first marriages for both partners in 1888 for the region of Kragujevac (Statistika, 1895: 20). Most marriages were terminated by the death of one of the spouses, since divorces were quite rare. The yearly average for the whole of Serbia was 281 divorces for the time period of 1891 to 1900 (Sundhaussen, 1989: 133). Husbands mostly remained in the parental home after marriage and brides were mostly from the same village or surrounding villages. From 1870 to 1900 almost a third of the brides of Orašac men were born in the same village, the others were mostly from the villages of Vrbica, Stojnik, Kopljari, Banja, Bukovik and Lipovac. The census of 1884 reported the place of birth for the inhabitants of the villages of Garaši and Jelovik. In both villages, a similar proportion of married and widowed women were born in these villages: twenty per cent in Garaši and twenty-eight per cent in Jelovik (Gruber, 2004: 140). High fertility rates led to a very young population: half of the people were younger than 16 years in 1863 and younger than 18 years in 1884 (Gruber, 2004: 149). This

217

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

was similar to the overall Serbian population: 53.7 per cent under 20 in 1900, the youngest population in Europe at that time (Sundhaussen, 1989: 116). Crude fertility rates in Serbia were almost constantly above forty per thousand during the period of 1862 to 1900 and reached their peak with 47.6 per thousand in 1884. Crude mortality rates were likewise high, ranging from 22.6 to 47.7 per thousand during the same period (Sundhaussen, 1989: 142f.).

IV.  Household formation in Serbia The term zadruga for multiple family households in Serbia appeared for the first time in Karadžić’s dictionary of 1818 (Karadžić, 1818: 191). The notion of very large households in the past was the reason why many scholars in the nineteenth century believed that this institution was decaying (e.g. Milićević, 1876). Multiple family households and nuclear family households are not in opposition to each other, since growth and division of households turn one type into the other (Mosely, 1940: 28). The multiple family household in Serbia ‘can be considered primarily a patrilocal unit existing within a society which places stress on patrilineal descent and where the formal authority patterns are patriarchal’ (Halpern-Kerewsky and Halpern, 1972: 17). In addition, in a Balkan family household the property is owned jointly, there are religious practices for strengthening the bonds within the lineage, and blood feuds were a possible means of conflict management between lineages (Kaser, 1995: 266). Kaser distinguishes four different traditional household formation patterns in Southeastern Europe. In the pattern prevailing in most of Serbia (excluding the East) divisions of households should occur only at the changeover of generations, and this pattern was also widespread in parts of Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Western Bulgaria, Macedonia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, Albania, and Northern Greece. The southern variant of this pattern was characterised by an especially patriarchal culture (Kaser, 1996: 381-383).

V.  Household structures in Serbia in the nineteenth century The average household size in these eight villages was 6.5 persons in 1863 and 6.4 persons in 1884, which was almost the same as for the whole district of Jasenica: 6.5 persons in 1863 and 6.7 persons in 1884, while the Serbian average was 6.3 persons in 1863. Multiple family households were the largest households with an average of 9.9 (1863) or 9.8 (1884) members, while simple family households contained only 5.2 (1863) or 4.9 (1884) persons on average. Household size varied over the life cycle; people experienced the largest households at birth, at about thirty-five years and in

218

Siegfried Gruber

old age. More than half of the population lived in households with two generations, only 31.5 per cent (1863) and 40 per cent (1884) lived in households with three generations. The highest probability of living in three generation households was at birth, at about the age of twenty-five and in old age. The peaks correspond to the three phases in life: at birth as a child, in young adulthood as a father or mother and in old age as a grandfather or grandmother (Gruber, 2004: 185-188). Those living in these households were mostly relatives of the household head in the male line. The most important members of the household were wives, brothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, sons and daughters of brothers and finally grandchildren. The small proportion of more distant relatives such as cousins contradicts the notion of households which did not divide for generations. The average composition of households did not change much from 1863 to 1884. The proportion of daughters-in-law increased by about half and already surpassed sisters-in-law, and the increase in grandchildren was a clear consequence of this development. These changes were connected to the beginning of transition from a predominantly lateral extension of households to a predominantly vertical extension of households (Halpern and Anderson, 1970). Table 8.4. Household typology for eight villages in the district of Jasenica, 1831-1884* 1831 Household types

H

1863 Men

H

1884

Men

Women

H

Men

Women

Institution

-

-

0.5

-

-

0.5

-

-

Solitary

15.5

5.1

7.1

2.0

0.1

4.9

1.4

0.2

No family

2.1

1.5

3.3

1.9

1.3

1.5

0.9

0.3

Simple family household

43.0

41.0

43.2

34.5

34.6

45.7

35.7

34.9

Extended family household 10.7

10.0

15.2

14.0

16.2

16.8

14.7

16.7

Multiple family household

42.3

30.7

47.7

47.7

30.6

47.3

48.0

28.7

* H means households. The data of 1831 only partly includes women and children, therefore solitaries and simple family households are over represented. Source. Gruber (2004: 203).

In the nineteenth century, simple family households were more common than multiple family households in these villages and the distribution of household types within the population was rather stable, at least in the second half of the century. Nevertheless, almost half of the population lived in multiple family households, since these households were on average twice as large as simple family households. Only 219

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

a third of the population lived in simple family households. These data clearly reveal that simple family households did not dominate and that the theory of the dissolution of multiple family households in Serbia in the second half of the nineteenth century cannot be verified. There were differences between the eight villages: Orašac always had a higher proportion of multiple family households than the average. Bukovik and Topola with an increasing sector of trade and crafts had higher percentages of simple family households (Gruber, 2004: 206f.). These eight villages were very similar in household typology to the whole district of Jasenica and the average of thirteen districts of Serbia in 1863. Multiple family households were slightly more common in these eight villages, but this was only a small difference. Herdis Kolle’s paper shows that, in the part of Russia under review, there were much higher percentages of multiple family households before division and lower percentages after division (Kolle, 2010). This is not surprising, since household divisions in Serbia also normally occurred within multiple family households. Unfortunately there is no data available for the whole population of this Russian region. On the other hand, in his study of Hungarian villages presented in Sarospatak, Peter Pozsgai shows that the population lived to a higher degree in simple family households and to a lesser degree in extended family households. Table 8.5. Proportion of population in different types of households in the eight villages, in the whole district of Jasenica and in thirteen districts, 1863-1884 (%) 1863 Household types Solitary No family

District of Eight villages Jasenica 1.0

0.8

1884 13 districts Eight villages 0.7

0.8

District of Jasenica 0.3

1.6

-

-

0.6

-

Simple family household

34.5

37.5

38.6

35.3

36.2

Extended family household

15.1

20.0

18.8

15.7

17.5

Multiple family household

47.7

41.7

42.0

47.6

45.9

Sources. Gruber (2004: 200, 203); Vuletić (2002: 39-52, 61).

The composition of households changed over the life cycle due to births, marriages, deaths, and divisions of households. The hypothetical life cycles in 1831, 1863, and 1884 were very similar to each other and also for both sexes; the differences were of higher significance only in old age. At birth about half of the children were born into multiple family households and during their childhood simple family households increased due to the death of the grandfather and household divisions between the 220

Siegfried Gruber

father and his brothers. The trend reverses in late childhood due to the marriages of older siblings and later due to their own marriage. After this peak of living in multiple family households their proportion decreased due to the death of the father and household divisions with married brothers until an age of about forty to forty-five years. Sons began to marry and the share of multiple family households increased once again. The vast majority of men lived in multiple family households in old age, while half of the women lived in extended family households in old age after the death of their husbands. Not all people went through all of these stages, since simple family households, extended family households and multiple family households existed at all ages. Excluding the oldest age groups with their small number of people, multiple family households ranged between thirty and seventy per cent and simple family households between fifteen and fifty-five per cent over the life-cycle. This means that more than half of the population lived in a simple family household at least once in their lifetime and three-quarters of the population lived in a multiple family household at least once in their lifetime (Gruber, 2004: 212). Figure 8.5. Household typology during the male life-cycle in 1884 100

In percentage

90

multiple family

80 70 60 50 40

extended family

30

simple family

20 10 0

no family solitary 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Source. Gruber (2004: 211).

221

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

Figure 8.6. Household typology during the female life-cycle in 1884 100

In percentage

90 80

multiple family

70 60

extended family

50 40 30 20

simple family 10 0

no family 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Source. Gruber (2004: 212).

In Figures 8.7 and 8.8 we can see major transitions over the hypothetical life course of men and women according to the census of 1884. The tax list of 1831 and the census of 1863 yield similar results and therefore only one figure is presented here for men and women. The female life-cycle is different insofar as women ceased living with their blood-relatives at marriage and transitions in life happened some years earlier for them than for men because of a lower age at marriage. The similarity of the results confirms the reliability of the data and that these patterns did not change drastically during the nineteenth century. Living with grandparents was not very common at that time and also many parents died during childhood and young adulthood. In young adulthood men married, had sons and became household heads. The rapid decrease in co-residence with brothers cannot be attributed to mortality alone, but divisions of households are a major factor. The majority of men and women who survived into old age also had grandchildren living in the same household (Gruber, 2004: 231-263).

222

Siegfried Gruber

Figure 8.7. Living together during the male life-cycle in 1884 In percentage 100 90

brother

is household head

father grandchild

80

son

70 60 50

wife

brother

40 30

grandfather

20 10 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Source. Gruber (2004: 258).

Figure 8.8. Living together during the female life-cycle in 1884 In percentage 100 90

father

mother

grandchild son

80 70 60

brother 50 40 30

grandfather

20

husband

10

is household head

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75+

Source. Gruber (2004: 259).

The household head was the person who maintained authority and hierarchy within the household. This authority was very often based upon unquestioning acceptance of the hierarchical order, founded on social relations, in such households (Kaser, 1995: 343). Very few women were in such a position: they were only 1.8 per cent 223

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

in 1863 and 2.6 per cent in 1884 and were most often widows (Gruber, 2003: 172). Their households were much smaller and almost never extended or multiple family households. There were no adult men in most of these households (Gruber, 2004: 277-279). In comparison, in the Russian villages studied by Herdis Kolle there were much higher rates of female household heads, mostly widows (Kolle, 2010). Household heads were often referred to as ‘elders’, but in fact half of the male household heads were younger than thirty-nine years in 1831 and 1884 and even younger than thirty-four years in 1863. This astonishingly young age of household heads was the effect of a very young population with a high mortality rate and only very few old people; this is in clear contrast to the Russian situation where the average age of household heads was about 50 (Kolle, 2010). Less than 10 per cent of male household heads were unmarried and the share of widowed household heads was even lower (Gruber, 2004: 277). The household head was almost always the oldest man, and in households with at least two men over the age of twenty the oldest man was head of the household in over 90 per cent (Gruber, 2004: 278).

VI.  Inheritance In Eastern Europe (including South-Eastern Europe) equally partible male inheritance dominated. The original economic basis for this inheritance system was animal husbandry and slash-and-burn agriculture. Both required the cooperation of the male members of the household or even larger groups. In the mountainous areas of the Balkans the summer pastures were usually the joint property of these groups. Security in these areas was not guaranteed by the Ottoman Empire and so they had to provide it themselves. The male members of the group were exclusively responsible for the livestock and this rigid division of labour made possible a male monopoly on property and inheritance (Kaser, 2003: 59f.). This inheritance pattern is connected to the patriarchal organisation of households and of society as a whole. The property of the household was not owned by the household head, but by all adult male members of the household (Sundhaussen, 1989: 72). Therefore, equally partible male inheritance was a logical consequence. The property was divided upon the division of the household and not upon the death of the household head, since the death of the household head did not affect the ownership of the other members of the household. The death of the household head led to inheritance only if there were no other male members of the household. In such a case the closest male relative in patrilineal descent was the heir.

224

Siegfried Gruber

Divisions of households related to the ideological system of patrilineal descent groups according to Kaser. Such a division ended the existence of one household but could be the beginning of a lineage. The founding father of such a group was often the head of a multiple family household and his sons and grandsons were the origin of lineages/segments within this group (Kaser, 1995: 368). The principles for dividing a multiple family household had different regional variants, but there were some general guidelines. Only the number of the male members of the household was important, the number of the female members was of no relevance. A distinction was always made between inherited land and land acquired through purchase. The purchased land was divided according to the number of all men (brothers and their sons), while the inherited land was divided according to descent lines (only among brothers, irrespectively of the number of their children). The land was divided by the oldest brother and the younger ones had first choice or the portions were allocated by chance. These procedures were intended to prevent unfair distribution after the division of a household (Kaser, 1995: 368f.). Normally these divisions took place after the death of the father. It was easier for a father to prevent his sons from dividing the household than for a household head who was a brother of the other adult male members of the household to keep them together (Gruber, 2004: 282-285). In Russia the pattern differed widely, with almost half of the household divisions taking place during the lifetime of the father or the mother (Kolle, 2010), while in Hungary household divisions were postponed until the death of the father. During the nineteenth century there was public interest in and debate about the size of peasant farms, household divisions and inheritance patterns. The new state of Serbia was first an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire, later it became an independent principality and finally, a kingdom. But throughout these changes this society was primarily based on a land-owning peasantry. There was a rudimentary nobility, related to the hereditary monarchy (split between two competing dynasties), but large estates did not develop. There were, however, a number of threats to an egalitarian society of smallholders of this kind. There were problems of impoverishment through indebtedness, economic stagnation and fragmentation of property by inheritance. Access to loans was rather difficult for peasants because of the small number of banks in the country. From 1836 there were regulations on the minimum of land property for a single household (including the house and some cattle). To prevent excessive indebtedness, forced sales and pauperisation of the peasantry this minimum property could not be auctioned off or used for mortgages (Calic, 1994: 49). The size of the minimum landholding changed over the course of the nineteenth century and it was sometimes as much as 3.5 hectares (Sundhaussen,

225

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

1989: 198f.). This regulation, however, prevented easy access to loans since potential creditors knew that they would have difficulty in getting their money back if the debtor defaulted. Economic development was hindered by the poor state of roads and failed economic policies (Palairet, 1997). Land fragmentation did not immediately become a problem, since there was enough additional land available to be cleared. At a later stage Serbian society became socially stratified. This was clearly evident at the end of the nineteenth century; more than 100,000 rural households (about a third of the total) had no draught animals and no wagons in 1897 (Sundhaussen, 1989: 201). Even by 1889 thirteen per cent of the peasants had less than 1 hectare of land and an additional nineteen per cent had less than two hectares (Sundhaussen, 1989: 223). Despite all these developments the inheritance law was not changed in the nineteenth century.

VII.  Conclusion The nineteenth century was a time of profound changes for Serbia which was transformed from being a province of the Ottoman Empire to existing as an independent kingdom, from an economy based on livestock to one dependent on arable land producing grain, from a small population to a rapidly growing one with the development of towns. Contemporary scholars in the nineteenth century complained that all these changes caused the dissolution of the traditional Serbian multiple family households. But this was an illusion since three quarters of the population lived in a multiple family household at least once during their lifetime while half of the population lived in a simple family household at least once. There was a steady process of dividing multiple family households into simple family households and simple family households becoming multiple family households through the co-residence of married male members in a patrilocal society. These were the changes people experienced during their life-cycle with the consistent practice of inmarrying women. The share of multiple family households was stable during the nineteenth century in the villages of this study and therefore there was no dissolution of multiple family households. The study also shows that there were considerable differences between neighbouring villages and that there was no ‘typical Serbian life-cycle’ in the nineteenth century. Age at marriage remained low, and the age difference between spouses remained stable. There was almost universal marriage, but remarriage after the death of a spouse was much more common for men than for women. The basic orienting kin ideology was patrilocal residence within an agnatic framework and most of the brides came 226

Siegfried Gruber

from the same village or from neighbouring villages. Male equal partible inheritance dominated in this region, but inheritance in the strict sense of the word only occurred on the death of a household head when there was no other man left in the household. All adult male members of the household were joint owners of the property and therefore the death of the household head did not necessarily lead to inheritance and property distribution.

Bibliography Calic, Marie-Janine (1994), Sozialgeschichte Serbiens 1815-1941. Der aufhaltsame Fortschritt während der Industrialisierung, München: Oldenbourg, (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, 92).

Cvijetić, Leposava (1984), ‘Popis stanovništva i imovine u Srbiji 1834. godine’, Mešovita građa 13/Istorijski institut, Građa, Belgrade, 25, p. 9-118.

Drobnjaković, Borivoje M. (1923), ‘Jasenica. Antropogeografska ispitivanja’, Naselja i poreklo stanovništva XIII/Srpski etnografski zbornik xxv, Belgrade, Srpska kraljevska akademija, p. 191-435. Državopis Srbije/Statistique de la Serbie, pečat‘nja.

ii

(1965),

ii,

Belgrade, Knjažesko-srbska

Državopis Srbije/Statistique de la Serbie, xvi (1889), Belgrade, Državna knjigopečatna.

Gruber, Siegfried (2003), ‘Auf der Suche nach serbischen Lebensläufen des 19. Jahrhunderts’, Anzeiger für Slavische Philologie, 31, p. 163-178. Gruber, Siegfried (2004), Lebensläufe und Haushaltsformen auf dem Balkan: das serbische Jasenica im 19. Jahrhundert, unpubl. PhD thesis, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Hajnal, John (1965), ‘European Marriage Patterns in Perspective’, in David Victor Glass and David Edward Charles Eversley (eds), Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, London, Edward Arnold, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, p.  101143.

Hajnal, John (1983), ‘Two Kinds of Pre-industrial Household Formation Systems’, in Richard Wall (ed.) Family forms in historic Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 65-104. Halpern, Joel Martin (1958), A Serbian Village, New York, Columbia University Press.

Halpern, Joel Martin and Anderson, David (1970), ‘The Zadruga, a Century of Change’, Anthropologica. n. s., 12, no.1, p. 83-97.

Halpern, Joel Martin (1972), ‘Town and Countryside in Serbia in the Nineteenth Century, Social and Household Structure as Reflected in the Census of 1863’, in Actes du iie Congrès International des Études du sud-est Européen II, Histoire, Athens, Association Internationale des Études du Sud-Est Européen, p. 569-624.

227

Inheritance, marriage and household formation in nineteenth century rural Serbian life courses

Halpern, Joel Martin and Kerewsky-Halpern, Barbara (1972), A Serbian Village in Historical Perspective, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Halpern, Joel Martin (1977), ‘Demographic and Social Change in the Village of Orašac: A Perspective over two Centuries’, in Barbara Kerewsky Halpern and Joel M. Halpern (eds), Selected Papers on a Serbian Village: Social Structure as Reflected by History, Demography and Oral Tradition, Amherst, University of Massachusetts, p. 37-124 (Research Reports No. 17, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts). Halpern, Joel Martin (1999), ‘The Ecological Transformation of a Resettled Area, Pig Herders to Settled Farmers in Central Serbia (Šumadija, Yugoslavia) during the 19th and 20th centuries’, in László Bartosiewicz and Haskel J. Greenfield (eds), Transhumant Pastoralism in Southern Europe: Recent Perspectives from Archaeology, History and Ethnology, Budapest, Archaeolingua Publishers, p. 79-95.

[Karadžić] Stefanović, Vvuk (1818), Lexicon Serbico-Germanico-Latinum, Vienna, P. P. Armenier. Kaser, Karl (1995), Familie und Verwandtschaft auf dem Balkan. Analyse einer untergehenden Kultur, Wien-Köln-Weimar, Böhlau. Kaser, Karl (1996), ‘Introduction’, The History of the Family, 1, no.4, p. 375-386.

Kaser, Karl (2003), ‘Power and Inheritances: Male Domination, Property, and Family in Eastern Europe, 1500-1900’, in Hannes Grandits, Patrick Heady (eds), Distinct Inheritances: Property, Family and Community in a Changing Europe, Münster, Lit Verlag, p. 165-179 (Halle Studies in the Anthropology of Eurasia, II).

Kolle, Herdis (2012), ‘Marriage, Household division and Headship Attainment in Nineteenth-Century Central Russia: Bun’kovskaja volost’, Moscow province, 18341869’, in this volume. Milićević, Milan D. (1876), Kneževina Srbija: geografija-orografija-hidrografijatopografija-arkeologija-istorija-etnografija-statistika-prosveta-kultura-uprava, 2 vols, Belgrade, Državna štamparija. Mosely, Philip E. (1940 and 1976), ‘The Peasant Family: The Zadruga, or Communal Joint-Family in the Balkans, and Its Recent Evolution’, in Caroline F. Ware (ed.), The Cultural Approach to History, Washington: Kennikat Press, p. 95-108. Reprint in Robert F. Byrnes (ed.), Communal Families in the Balkans: The Zadruga. Essays by Philip E. Mosely and Essays in His Honor, Notre Dame-London, University of Notre-Dame Press, p. 19-30. Palairet, Michael (1995), ‘Rural Serbia in the Light of the Census of 1863’, The Journal of European Economic History, 24, no.1, p. 41-107.

Palairet, Michael (1997), The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Modern Economic History 6). Peruničić, Branko (1968), Čačak i Gornji Milanovac 1815-1865. Čačak, Istorijski arhiv.

Prethodni resultati popisa stanovništva i domaće stoke u Kraljevini Srbiji 31. decembra 1905 (1906), Godine, Belgrade, Uprava državne statistike. 228

Siegfried Gruber

Ruggles, Steven (1987), Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth-Century England and America, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

Statistika Kraljevine Srbije IV (1895), Statistika rođenja, venčanja i umiranja u Kraljevini Srbiji za 1888. 1889. i 1890. Godini, Belgrade, Ministarstvo narodne privrede, Statističko odeljenje. Sundhaussen, Holm (1989), Historische Statistik Serbiens 1834-1914. Mit europäischen Vergleichsdaten, München, Oldenbourg (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, 87)

Sundhaussen, Holm (2007), Geschichte Serbiens. 19.-21. Jahrhundert, Wien-KölnWeimar, Böhlau. Vuletić, Aleksandra (2002), Porodica u Srbiji sredinom 19. Veka, Belgrade, Istorijski Institut.

229

9.

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community, 1810-1930 Sofia Holmlund

I.  Introduction Was there a general connection between marriage and inheritance in pre-industrial Europe? In a landmark 1965 paper demographer John Hajnal identified a Western European pattern of late marriages and high levels of celibacy. He related this to the prevailing nuclear family structure where marriage was delayed until the couple could take over a farm (Hajnal, 1965). This argument implies that farming was the principal source of income, which was in fact the case with much of preindustrial Europe, but far from all. In marginal areas, for example, livelihood strategies were diverse and not particularly dependent on landed property (Sporrong & Wennersten, 1995; Johansson, 2002). The same goes for proto-industrial districts, where alternative means of livelihood reduced the importance of landed property and caused both marriage and fertility rates to rise (Kriedte, Medick & Schlumbohm, 1981). It can thus be assumed that the connection between inheritance and marriage varied with local economic conditions, the crucial factor being whether there were options for supporting a family by means other than farming. When these options were few there should have been a stronger dependence on inheritance, since farming required a holding, which was hard to obtain without an inheritance of either real estate, or capital. Correspondingly, with a variety of less capital-intensive options at hand, dependence on inheritance should have diminished. Hajnal’s thesis should be applicable primarily to economies of the former type; that is to say typical farming districts, with few sidelines or nearby industry that could reduce the importance of landed property. Even here though, one needs to consider the possible impacts of economic change. Hajnal was interested in preindustrial society, but his data derived primarily from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By this time, industrialization was gaining momentum in most Western European countries, creating a variety of openings outside agriculture, in the countryside as well as in the growing towns. What were the effects of this development on rural marriage behaviour? What were the implications for the role of inheritance?

231

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

This paper investigates inheritance and marriage patterns among freeholders in a typical Swedish farming district between 1810 and 1930 (when used in the text, the term ‘peasants’ refers to freeholders). The period was one of thorough transformation. Beside the economic, social and demographic changes described below, there were also important legislative innovations, among which the 1846 introduction of equal rights of inheritance is particularly relevant in this context. This paper presents a number of quantitative analyses of the possible connection between marriage and inheritance of landed property. Do marriage and inheritance co-vary in a way that indicates such a connection? Did, for example, inheritors of landed property marry more frequently or at other ages than landless children? Were family resources determining for marriage? What were the effects of industrial breakthrough on marriage behaviour in respect of its connection with inheritance? The patterns of action revealed will be analysed as expressions of strategies, meaning actions directed towards specific goals. Is it possible to deduce from the data what families and family members were aiming at? Were strategies collective or individual and did this change over time? The study is based on a large quantity of data recorded in a database1. The main points of the analysis are the social structure in respect of inheritance practices and the marriage behaviour of 724 peasant children. It concludes with a number of arguments on marriage, inheritance and family strategies.

II.  Social structure in Estuna parish, Sweden, 1810-1930 The second half of the eighteenth century involved a steady increase of Swedish agricultural production and a contemporaneous intensification of market relations. Population grew rapidly, in particular from 1810 onwards, and so did the landless stratum of the countryside. This rural demographic boom did not slow down until the late 1800s, with the industrial breakthrough and the ensuing drift to towns. In 1930, the terminal point of the study, half of the Swedish population was settled in towns. Estuna parish is situated in east-central Sweden about 70 kilometres north of the capital Stockholm, and close to the country town of Norrtälje. It was a typical ‘Hajnal area’ in the previously discussed sense, that is, a markedly agrarian one with few sidelines. This meant that, before the industrial breakthrough, all households, landed and landless alike, supported themselves by agricultural work of some kind. The landowning stratum of the parish was involved in market relations at a relatively early stage, and commercial land transactions were common throughout the period. Farms were quite large in comparison to other areas, and they were becoming larger 1

 

232

Sources and methods are described in Appendix 1.

Sofia Holmlund

over time since many of the commercial transactions consisted of incorporating smaller farms into already existing units. Throughout the investigation period, land ownership, as well as the land market, was dominated by peasants (freeholders), not by squires or other persons of rank. Figure 9.1. Location of Estuna in Sweden

Source. Map by the author.

In 1810, at the beginning of the period investigated, there were around 1,100  inhabitants in the parish and by 1865 the population had increased by 30% (1,509 inhabitants). After that there was a slow but accelerating decline. In 1930 at the end of the investigation period, the population was once again around 1,100. During this time, radical social changes took place as well. Table 9.1 shows the households divided into social categories at intervals of sixty years.

233

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

Table 9.1. Number of Households (H) and their distribution according to social categories, Estuna parish 1810, 1870 and 1930 1810

Year

N of H Landowners

113

of whom persons of rank

5

Leaseholders

29

of whom persons of rank

1870 % 48



N of H

1930 %

83

22

3 12

3

N of H 65

% 22

2

20

5

5

32

11

1

Other farmers and other Persons of rank

12

5

34

9

23

8

Landless

71

30

215

56

128

44

of whom crofters

34

57

of whom agricultural workers

29

50

of whom without regular support Occupied outside agriculture Total

Sources. Municipal Archives erty taxation.

of

8



40 57

108

31

11

5

30

8

45

15

236

100

382

100

293

100

Stockholm: Registers of population; registers of prop-

Social structure was not particularly equal even to begin with. In 1810, scarcely half of the households owned landed property (most of them peasants), while 30% were landless (mostly crofters or agricultural workers). Nevertheless, social gaps grew tremendously during the course of the century. By 1870, the proportion of landowners had dropped to 22%, their holdings being much larger than before. At the same time, the unpropertied households increased to 56%. Furthermore, the unpropertied stratum of 1870 included a much larger number of very poor households, with no property, income or occupation noted in the register. Unlike before, those households often consisted of whole families and not just of one or two persons. The increase of unpropertied households, together with the concomitant decline in the number of propertied, suggests that a large part of the 1870 landless households were former freeholders and/or their children (Winberg, 1977). In other words there was an actual danger of becoming proletarianized which was particularly the case for smallholders. Very likely families were aware of this and adapted their generational strategies accordingly. By 1930, circumstances were very different: the proportion of landowners was the same as before, but the landless stratum, especially the destitutes ones, had become much smaller. Moreover, there was a large group of households maintaining

234

Sofia Holmlund

themselves by working outside the agricultural sector – as carpenters, bricklayers, postmen, etc.

III.  Inheritance practices: tradition and change Some features of the local inheritance system persisted throughout the investigation period. First, holdings were kept undivided unless the family had several units sufficient to support a household (there were a few exceptions which will be discussed later on). Second, sons had priority in inheritance of the landed property, albeit there being no unequivocal preference for the eldest son. Daughters inherited real estate if there were no sons or if the sons were already provided with viable estates. Third, retirement contracts, drawn up in connection with the conveyance, specified the children’s material obligations towards their parents. The few existing investigations of such contracts picture them as burdensome for the succeeding generation (Wohlin, 1910; Högnäs, 1938). My impression from the area researched is that contracts were extensive and very detailed. Parents stayed on the grounds of the estate, most often in a house of their own, which was sometimes built for this purpose. Finally, sons and daughters who did not inherit the land were compensated with money. Real estate was distributed fictitiously among the children in accordance with their legal right of inheritance. Then one of them (several if there were several holdings) bought the others off the estate. None of the elements described so far were unique to the area researched. Studies of other parts of Sweden report similar features, albeit not exactly the above combination of them (Winberg, 1981; Zernell Durhàn, 1992; Rosén, 1994; Fiebranz, 2002). What was unusual about the Estuna inheritance system, however, was its interlinking with the judicial system, as represented by the rural court of Lyhundra. There was a strong promotion here of formal property relations, involving written documents and legal registration of land transactions. Any owner of a holding was obliged to have his title registered; this applied to inheritors as well as to regular buyers of landed property (with the exception of only-child inheritors). Without a title registration the inheritor of a holding would not be able to take out a mortgage loan, sell the property, or even transfer it to his own children in a legally valid way. Accordingly, virtually all inheritance transfers were accounted for in court in order for the inheritor to have his title registered. There, transactions were carefully scrutinized, especially those involving the property of minors (including unmarried women of all ages). Legal sanctions were demanded for guardians selling the real property of their wards, and the rural court of Lyhundra had somewhat unusually come to include buying-out transactions with this as well. The scrutiny of those transactions involved among other things comparing the amounts paid with reliable valuations of the holdings. 235

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

Naturally, this procedure also influenced conveyances where the parents were still alive, but procedures there were not actually very different. This formal property-rights system was established in the area under study before 1800 and its impact on the inheritance system were indeed profound. Marital economy was affected as well, since the inherited money of a wife was used for buying the husband’s siblings off his inherited estate. In compensation, the wife received a legally registered share of the estate. This was to the advantage of women, whose money could otherwise easily merge into the joint personal property of the spouses, for which the husband had the right of free disposal without compensating his wife with other assets (Holmlund, 2008). The practices described so far prevailed throughout the investigation period, to a greater or lesser extent. What did change, however, was the modalities relating to the inheritance; that is, how the landed property was transferred to the next generation. There were three ways for the parents to dispose of their property: pre-mortem gifts, sales (to a child), or post mortem transfers. Each form of disposal involved different consequences regarding the court’s interference with the distribution and the compensation of the joint-heirs. As we shall see, altered practices in this respect reflect the families’ attitudes towards overall structural change. The time-span under investigation is divided into three periods, 1810-1845, 18451885 and 1886-1930, based on social and economic development together with the major 1846 change of inheritance law. Below is a survey of the most important characteristics of each period2. III.1. 1810-1845 During this time, social stratification and impoverishment were only beginning to emerge. Medieval inheritance law was still in force, giving sons twice as much as daughters of the parental property as daughters. The real estate was not explicitly reserved for sons, but male succession was strongly promoted by a complementary statute saying that unless the holding could be divided, the owner of the largest part was to buy off his joint heirs. In Estuna during this period, holdings were preferably transferred to eldest sons. Typical conveyances were pre-mortem gifts with retirement contracts, or post mortem transfers. Both were regarded as inheritance transfers by the rural court, which meant that each part of them – the legal distribution, the transactions with fictitious shares,   Methods and figures concerning modes of disposal and their development are presented in Appendices 2 and 3. 2

236

Sofia Holmlund

and the sums obtained by the minor siblings – were accounted for in court. This being so, compensation levels could probably not go below a certain point. The comparisons with sales and rateable values suggest an approximate level of 75% of the market value during this time3. The fact that most parents chose forms of conveyance that obliged them to distribute the property in accordance with inheritance law indicates that this was generally accepted. The entailing and fairly generous compensation of the landless children indicates that most parents were capable of providing their children with means for their future establishment4. For those who were not, there were ways to get around the legal distribution – by selling the farm directly to the chosen child. For some reason, courts would not interfere with such transactions but dealt with them as regular commercial sales. However, very few families chose that form of conveyance during the first sub-period. This was to change after 1845. III.2. 1846-1885 This was a time of rapid social and demographic change. Social differentiation within the area researched grew so fast and became so profound it must have been obvious even within one generation. Moreover, in 1846 equal rights of inheritance were introduced, making it more difficult to transfer the estates undivided. There was always an economic risk involved with the generational transfer, or more precisely with the compensation of the landless siblings, which might burden the farm with debts. Naturally, with an equal distribution this risk increased. Growing family sizes posed another problem. Population growth was not as large here as in some other parts of Sweden; nevertheless there were now 3.6 surviving children in each freeholder family at the time of inheritance, in comparison with between 2.8 during the first period5. As mentioned, one way of getting around the fictitious distribution and thus avoiding the court’s scrutiny, was for the parents to sell the holding directly to the chosen son (still of course with a retirement contract). During this sub-period 1846-1885, such sales became very frequent (49 per cent of the transfers involved or consisted entirely of a sale, in comparison with 19 per cent during the previous sub-period). The deeds of transfer of those transactions sometimes record the relationship between seller and buyer, but they never mention the siblings of the buyer. The court seems to have dealt   Methods of calculation and precise figures are found in Appendix 4.   Minor and unmarried children may have received promissory notes which were registered at court, while children who were already married and those who were about to marry probably received cash. Capital was provided by loans, judging from very long mortgage records in the court material. 5   Figures concern freeholder families transferring landed property to the next generation during the periods investigated. All direct heirs surviving at the time of the transfer are included. 3 4

237

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

with these ‘pseudo-commercial’ sales as with regular commercial transactions; that is, no distribution of the real estate was required, and no questions were asked about the remaining family members. Prices were anything but commercial though: on an average only 60 per cent of the market value. With the conveyance shaped as a regular sale, the inheriting son could have his title registered without any formal obligations towards his joint-heirs. Probably at least part of the sum obtained from the sale was informally apportioned among the other children, unless of course it was consumed by mortgages or other debts. The fact that the sales involved retirement contracts indicates that the parents did not intend to keep all the money for their own support. Still, those children did not get what they were entitled to according to the law. Was this increasingly common way of dealing with inheritance a matter of principle against female rights of inheritance? Probably not. The families arranging the inheritance through ‘pseudo-commercial’ sales were primarily large ones with small holdings. Well-to-do families, on the other hand, continued as before with premortem gifts and post mortem transfers. They had their real estate equally distributed among the children and did nothing to avoid the court’s supervision of the buying-off transactions. Moreover, the sums obtained by bought-out siblings for their respective fictitious shares were very close to the market value: almost 90 per cent. In other words, those who could afford to follow the new law did so, arranging their transfers in the usual formal way. This involved certain advantages, beside the possible prestige value of being seen to be wealthy enough to accomplish it. Formal property relations created security, not least for the landless children who would have the amounts they obtained publicly recorded. My conclusion from this is that the new inheritance law presented a threat primarily to those whose resources were scarce in proportion to the number of children. And, as indicated by the ongoing downward social mobility, there were more such families now within the parish. The prevailing inheritance system – the fictive distributions; the strictly proportional monetary compensations of the landless children; the dependence on judicial ratifications – was clearly not functioning as well as before. During this period, an increasing number of families were not able to transfer their holdings in a sustainable state, and provide all the children with sufficient means at the same time. Fewer freeholder children could expect to be freeholders themselves, to be married in accordance with their station or in fact, as we shall see further on, to be married at all. The introduction in 1846 of equal rights of inheritance affected vulnerable families especially economically. The increasing number of sales of

238

Sofia Holmlund

holdings directly to a chosen heir was an immediate answer to this; it was a deliberate strategy aimed at avoiding the potentially fatal consequences of the new law. III.3. 1886-1930 This period was marked by the drift to towns. Apart from the landowning families, more and more households who were still living in the parish supported themselves with occupations outside the agrarian sector. Quite a few people combined petty farming with wage-earning, some of them being brothers and sisters who had split up the parental holding among themselves (Holmlund, 2003). The typical conveyance during this time was realized through the demise of a parent (usually at an advanced age), followed by the other parent’s sale of his or her share to the succeeding son with no record of any retirement contract. Inheritors generally waited a long time for the formal takeover; on the other hand this was often preceded by a long-term lease of the farm. A marked difference from the two earlier periods was that younger sons were preferred as inheritors. Before 1886, holdings went twice as often to eldest sons, while now, 1886-1930, they went twice as often to younger sons6. Moreover, holdings taken over by those younger sons were considerably smaller than others, while before 1886 there had been no such differences (Appendix 9.5). One probable reason for farm heads to stay in charge during this time was improved health in old age. And of course parents, in their capacity as owners of the valuable landed property, still held a great deal of power. This counts above all for fathers, who until 1920 were legal managers of the entire property of the household. A field study among Swedish farming families gives evidence of early twentieth century fathers exercising their power by retaining management as long as possible, expecting the children to work on the farm and abstain from education (Flygare, 1997: 348-360). However, the general prolongation of the transfer process is not in itself a sign of increasing paternal power. My reading is rather the opposite: parents’ clinging to formal ownership reflects a gradual shift of power towards the younger generation, resulting from general social progress. During the earlier sub-periods, parents withdrew early, disposed of the land and lived well for many years on extensive retirement contracts. Perhaps this was possible because at that time paternal power was strong enough not to depend on formal ownership? There is evidence that twentieth- century parents were not able to hand over their farms on equally favourable conditions. A 1910 public survey of inheritance practices in Sweden found that inheritors would   L. Kennedy (1991) observed a similar change of preference in favour of younger sons in twentieth century Ireland. 6

239

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

no longer accept burdening retirement contracts with parents who could live many years after the take-over. Their brothers and sisters, on the other hand, would not be bought off for amounts below the market value but rather sold their shares on the open market instead (Wohlin, 1910: 31-39). This being the case, it was probably essential for parents to retain formal ownership as long as possible.

IV.  Marriage patterns among 724 peasant children Below is an analysis of marriage patterns among 724 children of 235 freeholder couples realizing inheritance transfers at some point between 1810 and 1930 (children who died before the inheritance are not included)7. The following information was recorded in the database: A) the point of time of the inheritance; B) the possible real estate received; C) the time of first marriage (if this took place); D) the age at first marriage; E) the size of the family’s real estate; F) the number of siblings within the family. Most of the information was collected from parish registers: records of catechetical meetings, settlements and removals, marriages, deaths, births, and more. Public databases such as the 1890 and 1900 censuses (published by the Swedish National Archives) have been of great assistance in locating individuals who seem to be lost from the other registers. All persons were followed up until their first marriage, whether it took place within Estuna parish or not. Those who were still unmarried at the age of forty-nine, or died unmarried, were noted as ‘not married’. IV.1.

Marriage rates: who married and who did not?

The first question concerns those who married. Was there a difference between men and women? Between land inheritors and landless heirs? What distinguished those who did not marry from those who did? Table 2 shows the number and percentages marrying or not marrying during their lifetime. Some individuals I have been unable to trace (classified as ‘unclear cases’) are presented in italics in the table. Percentages, however, apply only to the proven cases. The division into sub-periods is based on the time of the inheritance, not the time of birth or marriage.

  In addition to those 235 families there were 31 (with a total of 114 children) where the estate of a deceased parent was sold to non-relatives in connection with the distribution. 7

240

Sofia Holmlund

Table 9.2. Married and never married children within 235 freeholder families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930* Time of inheritance Number of families Children per family

1810-1845

1846-1885

1886-1930

1810-1930

106

63

66

235

2.8

3.6

3.1

3.2

Years of birth

1769-1834

1809-1877

1841-1920

1769-1920

Years of marriage

1793-1864

1829-1882

1869-1965

1795-1965

154

127

101

382

Sons Unclear cases

–22

–3

–1

–26

121 (92%)

95 (77%)

80 (80%)

296 (83%)

11 (8%)

29 (23%)

20 (20%)

60 (17%)

143

98

101

342

–2

–5

–5

–12

138 (98%)

76 (82%)

72 (75%)

286 (87%)

3 (2%)

17 (18%)

24 (25%)

44 (13%)

Total

297

225

202

724

Unclear cases

–24

–8

–6

–38

259 (95%)

171 (79%)

152 (78%)

582 (85%)

14 (5%)

46 (21%)

44 (22%)

104 (15%)

Married Never married Daughters Unclear cases Married Never married

Married Never married

*Percentages do not include unclear cases.

Sources. Stockholm Municipal Archives: Rural Court of Lyhundra: Legal confirmations of land acquisitions; Parish Archives of Estuna and surrounding parishes: Records of catechetical meetings; marriage, settlement and migration; Collection district of Mellersta Roslagen: Registers of population; External databases: Censuses of population 1890 and 1900; Registers of population in departments of Stockholm; Records of deaths in Sweden 1947-2003.

There is an imbalance during the middle period between the number of daughters (98) and sons (127) shown in Table 2 which needs a comment. This is due to the fact that a certain group of families with many daughters is not represented in the table, namely those in which the estate of a deceased parent was sold to non-relatives in connection with the distribution of the inheritance (see note 7). Those families were especially numerous during the middle period (Holmlund, 2007: 182). The unclear cases represent a total of 38 persons (5 per cent). Twenty-two of them were sons during the first period (1810-1845). Males (especially landless sons) quite often moved across the parish borders, which made it more difficult for them to be traced in the parish registers. The absence of a database listing these migrants during 241

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

the first half of the nineteenth century is the reason for the apparent decline in this particular group after 1845. It is clear that a large proportion of the 1810-1845 generation married: 98 per cent of the women and 92 per cent of the men. During the middle period, 1846-1885, marriage rates were considerably lower: only 77 per cent of the sons and 82 per cent of the daughters ever married. The low marriage rates persisted during the last period (1886-1930); it is only here that the rates for daughters fell below those of the sons. Between 1750 and 1900 there was a general fall of marriage rates in Sweden, in this respect, the Estuna peasants followed an overall demographic pattern. But although it is well known, the exact course and causes of this transition have not yet been established (Lundh, 1993). Our present study allows us to make some suggestions as to why these changes occurred. The questions to be looked into here are: who remained unmarried? What distinguished them from those who did marry? IV.2.

The unmarried children

A Swedish local study of the early nineteenth century has shown that during this time most peasant daughters married. Those few who did not were often noted as handicapped in the parish registers (Carlsson, 1977: 68, 112). Carlsson’s findings correspond with the time frame of the first period of this study (1810-1845) when, as demonstrated in Table 2, only a few persons remained unmarried. Were they, like the peasant daughters in Carlsson’s study, unable or not allowed to marry because of handicaps? Or did they simply not live long enough to marry? This study includes all children alive at the time of the inheritance, some of them inevitably being very young. Finally, were there any changes in this respect when marriage rates fell during the later sections of the study? During the whole investigation period, 1810-1930, there were altogether 104 children who never married. Table 9.3 shows the numbers who had handicaps noted in the parish register and below that the numbers of the remaining ones who died before the age of 30, and thus might have married if they had lived (even though the average age of marriage was well below this, see Table 9.6). Because of the small numbers, men and women are not separated. During the first period, 6 out of 14 unmarried persons (43 per cent) were handicapped or died young, and during the middle period 18 out of 46 (39 per cent). During the last period, however, only two out of 44 were handicapped, and there were no deaths before the age of thirty. It was not just that marriage rates fell in general during this time; the not-marrying ones were also increasingly often healthy and able-bodied persons who would not have remained unmarried during the early nineteenth century. 242

Sofia Holmlund

Even though the sample is small (in all 78 persons), this particular group is worth a closer investigation. In what way – concerning family conditions and inheritance – did they differ from those who married? Table 9.3. Unmarried children within 235 families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 Time of inheritance

1810-1845

1846-1885

1886-1930

1810-1930

Handicap noted

1

7

2

10

Deceased before the age of 30

5

11

0

16

8

28

42

78

14

46

44

104

Remaining persons Total

Sources. See Table 9.2.

One determining factor – given that there is a connection between inheritance and marriage – should be the size of the family. With many children there would be fewer resources for each of them. This hypothesis is tested in Table 9.4 below, which shows the average number of siblings of married or never married children. Because some sequences consist of only a small number of data, median values are shown as well. Table 9.4. Married and never married children within 235 families: number of siblings (median values within brackets). Estuna parish, 1810-1930* Time of inheritance Years of birth

Married children, number of siblings

1810-1845 1769-1834

Number of married siblings Never married children, number of siblings

Number of married siblings

1846-1885 1809-1877

1885-1930 1841-1920

1810-1930 1769-1920

2.6 (2)

3.3 (3)

3.9 (5)

3.1 (3)

259

171

152

582

3.4 (3,5)

4.4 (5)

3.5 (2.5)

3.8 (4)

8

28

42

78

*This table does not include unmarried children who died before the age of thirty, or had handicaps noted in the parish records. Sources. See Table 9.2.

It can be seen that during the first two sub-periods (1810-1885), the unmarried children had one more sibling on average than their married counterparts. Obviously, for a long period of time, family size did affect marriage behaviour. The crucial point here, however, is not family size in itself but its proportion to family resources. In the 243

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

investigation below, family resources – in the form of landed property – and family sizes are combined. The following method was used. First, the amount of each family’s real estate (stated in the Swedish land measurement mantal which is described in Appendix 9.2) was divided by the number of children within that family. In this way, each individual investigated was allotted a fictitious mantal value corresponding to his or her prospective inheritance (given that this was equally distributed). The actual outcome of the inheritance is not considered here; what is estimated is the general ability of his or her family to provide its children with sufficient means. Second, average mantal values were calculated for two sequences of individuals: married and not married. The results are presented in Figure 9.2 below. Figure 9.2. Average mantal value per child within the families of origin of married and unmarried children of freeholders. Estuna Parish, 1810-1930* Average mantal value

Married

Unmarried

1/4

3/16

1/8

1/16

0 1810-1845

1846-1885 Time of inheritance

1886-1930

*This figure does not include unmarried children who died before the age of thirty, or had handicaps noted in the parish records. Sources. See Table 9.2.

The diagram shows that the prospective means were considerably smaller for the unmarried children than for their married counterparts. This pattern lasted throughout the investigation period but was especially evident during the first two periods (18101845, 1846-1885), suggesting a close correlation between inheritance and marriage during this time. As mentioned before, large families with small holdings often shaped their inheritance transfers as sales to a chosen son, in order to avoid the legal distribution and the ensuing proportional compensation of the landless children. 244

Sofia Holmlund

This was particularly evident in the years 1846-1885 when social conditions were worsening. Figure 9.1 shows that those children who never married came precisely from that particular stratum of families. Here a direct connection between celibacy and the lack of inheritable property seems obvious. There was a remaining, albeit smaller, difference between married and unmarried children during the following period (1886-1930) as well. Families were generally smaller now (as evident from Table 9.4), but celibacy was still related to scarce family resources. The unmarried children of the last sub-period will be dealt with separately later. IV.3.

Inheritors of landed property and landless children

Most studies of inheritance practices stress the importance of the actual take-over of the farm. There seems to have been an overall preference for sons over daughters and for elder sons over younger (e.g. Goody, Thirsk and Thompson, 1976; Winberg, 1981; Rosén, 1994). This was true for Estuna parish as well during the first two periods, while after 1885 there was a shift toward younger rather than eldest sons. What then were the consequences of coming into possession of landed property or of not doing so? An earlier cohort study of the first half of the nineteenth century suggests that landless children had worse social prospects than did inheritors of landed property. The area in south-west Sweden examined in that study resembles Estuna in the sense that they were both farming districts with few sidelines beside agriculture (Winberg, 1981). It is not clear whether the worse prospects of landless children included marriage as well, but given the economic resources required for setting up a new household, it is not unlikely that this was the case. In the following I have examined whether in respect of the Estuna peasant children inheritance of landed property was a determining factor for the marriage or not. Were there any differences in the marriage rate between those who took over a holding and those who did not? What were the differences between men and women in this respect? The diagrams below show the percentages within each category of those who married. Precise numbers can be found in Table 9.2 and Table 9.6. As we can see, there were considerable differences for the sons (Figure 9.3.a) but not for the daughters (Figure 9.3.b). As noted above few daughters received landed property. Since they were expected to become landowners by marriage rather than by inheritance, inheriting landed property was not nearly as decisive for them as for their brothers. Figure 9.3.a shows that during the first period (1810-1845) marriage rates were about 10 per cent higher among land-inheriting sons than among their landless counterparts. During the second period (1846-1885) only slightly more than 245

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

70 per cent of the landless sons ever married. As described above, this was a time of rapid transformation of local social conditions. Social differentiation was growing fast, the number of proprietors declined and large proportions of the population were pauperized. There was an ongoing downward social mobility of freeholders which of course involved children of freeholders as well. As Figure 9.1 shows, the unmarried children more often came from families with scarce resources, and the opportunities to raise families of their own must have been limited, at least for the sons of such families. Figures 9.3. Inheritors of landed property and landless children: proportions married in Estuna parish, 1810-1930*

100

a. Sons

b. Daughters

Percentage ever married

Percentage ever married

Inheritors

Landless sons

Inheritresses

Landless daughters

1846-1885

1886-1930

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60

1810-1845

1846-1885

1886-1930

1810-1845

* These figures do not include unclear cases, or unmarried children with handicaps or deceased before the age of thirty. Sources. See Table 9.2.

The above investigation shows that for males during most of the nineteenth century, inheriting a holding remained a significant factor for marriage. After 1885, however, patterns were reversed. During the last sub-period it was the landless sons who had the higher rates: 85 per cent of them married, as against 75 per cent of the inheritors. Evidently, receiving a holding was no longer obviously associated with marriage. But did it count for all holdings?

246

Sofia Holmlund

IV.4.

Sons and daughters of smallholders, 1886-1930

Below, the size of the holdings of marrying and not-marrying inheritors of this period is examined. Table 9.5 shows the average amount of land (mantal) received by each category. Table 9.5. Average mantal value of holdings received by married and never-married male and female inheritors. Estuna parish, 1886-1930 Number of children

Size of inherited real estate (mantal)

Sons, married

40

11/16 (0.663)

Sons, never married

13

6/16 (0.348)

Daughters, married

23

7/16 (0.436)

8

6/16 (0.374)

Daughters, never married

Sources. See Table 9.2.

The figures are unambiguous, albeit small. Holding sizes hardly differed at all among the few land-inheriting daughters. This was expected: for them the inheritance of landed property was not at all a determining factor (Figure 9.3.b). On the other hand, holding sizes differed considerably among the sons. Evidently, it was the sons taking over smallholdings who remained unmarried. Their holdings had a mantal value of 6/16 (0.348), only half as much as their married counterparts who inherited 11/16 (0.663) mantal. How is this to be interpreted? Since the phenomenon concerned only males, it might be connected with a national problem, that is large numbers of young women leaving the countryside and strenuous agricultural work. An official report from the 1930s specifically mentioned the situation on smallholdings. Unlike larger landowners, smallholders could not afford to mechanize, or take on help for the women’s work, and so the wives were burdened with agricultural work as well as with household duties. Even in the 1940s many households lacked basic conveniences, e.g. drainage and mains water (Morell, 2001: 310-319). Whatever the reason it is clear that for the sons, taking over a smallholding had become closely associated with celibacy. It should be noted here that during this time holdings were more frequently taken over by younger sons, and moreover that those holdings were considerably smaller than those taken over by eldest sons (precise figures are given in Appendix 9.5). Thus we have a group of land-inheriting unmarried younger sons during the more recent period (1885-1930) whose situation should perhaps be compared with that of the landless unmarried younger sons of the two earlier periods. Being a younger son in a poor family then meant inheriting 247

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

neither a holding (this went to the eldest son) nor the means to acquire one (since the holding was sold to the eldest son without any preceding distribution). After the industrial breakthrough, during the years 1886-1930, it meant taking care of ageing parents on an insufficient holding, whereas the elder siblings left home and established themselves elsewhere. The problem in the latter case was not primarily the scarcity of resources, but not being able to benefit from the more attractive options now available outside agriculture. IV.5.

Ages of marriage

So far, the focus has been on the distinction between those who did not marry and those who did. The remaining analysis concentrates on marriage patterns and whether they demonstrate any connection with inheritance. Table 9.6 shows the average age at first marriage of land-inheriting and of landless sons and daughters. Since there were relatively few daughters inheriting landed property, median values complete the averages for this particular category. Table 9.6. Average age at first marriage among children within 235 freeholder families. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 (median values in brackets) Time of inheritance

1810-1845

1846-1885

1886-1930

1810-1930

Years of birth

1769-1834

1809-1877

1841-1920

1769-1920

Years of marriage

1793-1864

1829-1882

1869-1965

1795-1965

N Sons

Age at marriage

N

Age at marriage

N

Age at marriage

N

Age at marriage

123

26.5

95

29.7

80

28.2

296

27.1

Inheritors

86

25.6

55

28.8

40

28.0

179

27.1

Landless

37

28.5

40

30.9

40

28.2

147

29.2

Daughters

138

22.0

76

26.0

72

26.9

286

24.3

Inheritors

52

20.0 (19)

22

23.6 (23)

23

24.9 (25)

94

22.0 (21)

Landless

86

23.1

71

26.8

49

27.8

192

25.4

Sources. See Table 2.

As can be seen, the age at first marriage was rather high, and it rose in general between the first and the second period. In contrast, it did not rise significantly between the second and the last period when it even decreased among the landless sons. Apart from this, it is evident that inheriting a holding lowered marriage age considerably for both men and women. During the first period (1810-1845), both male and female inheritors married three years earlier (ages 25.6 and 20.0) than their 248

Sofia Holmlund

landless counterparts (ages 28.5 and 23.1) The difference between land-inheriting and landless children still existed in the second period (1846-1885), but was somewhat smaller among the sons. During the last period however (1886-1930), only daughters were affected. Female inheritors still married three years younger than landless daughters (ages 24.9 and 27.8) whereas for sons the possible inheritance of a holding made no difference (ages 28.0 and 28.2). This, together with the fact that fewer male inheritors married at all (Figure 9.2.a), suggests that for males during this time, inheriting a holding was no longer obviously associated with marriage. As seen before, for sons taking over smallholdings inheritance even tended to obstruct family formation. IV.6.

Time-span between inheritance and marriage

The influence of inheritance on marriage ages indicates a concrete connection in time between inheritance and marriage. The question of the time of marriage in relation to the take-over has not been very well explored, and the existing findings are highly ambiguous. One study states that inheritors were usually married at the time of the takeover, but another states that they usually married afterwards (Zernell Durhàn, 1990: 41-42; Perlestam, 1998: 164). Of course, this concerns only land-inheriting children, since there is not much sense in studying such a correlation for the landless children for two reasons. First, the timing of the distribution and the ensuing sales of shares had nothing to do with their immediate needs but with those of the parents and the heir to the farm. Second, as mentioned before, it is hard to establish exactly when a bought-out child took out his or her legally registered means in cash. Figure 9.4 shows the time between take-over and marriage for each male and female inheritor in Estuna. Each dot represents one individual. The horizontal axis indicates the year of his or her take-over of the holding. The vertical axis indicates the distance in time between take-over and first marriage. Positive numbers on the vertical axis mean that the marriage took place after the inheritance, whereas negative numbers mean that it took place before. A dot located at point zero on the vertical axis means that this particular individual took over a holding and married in the same year. The diagram shows a wide diffusion. There were sons who married many years before inheriting, and there were daughters who married afterwards. It is clear however that during the first period (1810-1845), marriage very often took place in direct connection with the inheritance. This kind of arrangement persisted up to 1930, but occurred less frequently towards the end. Apart from this, there were distinct differences between men and women. It is evident from Table 6 (age at marriage) that land-inheriting daughters married early in comparison with the landless ones. Figure  9.4 confirms this pattern: daughters taking over a holding were already 249

250 1865

1825

1815

1805 Time of inheritance

1875

Sources. See Table 9.2.

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of years between inheritance and marriage

Sons

Figure 9.4. Marriages of male and female inheritors of landed property: Time-span in years before or after the inheritance. Estuna parish, 1810-1930

Daughters

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

1935

1925

1915

1905

1895

1885

1855

1845

1835

Sofia Holmlund

married, or married in that connection. Marriage seems to have been more or less a prerequisite for daughters to inherit the farm. Up till 1884, unmarried women were not legally capable of managing their own property unless they applied for this at court (married women were represented by their husbands until 1920). But even after that, as evident from the figure, only a few daughters took over without being married. For sons, on the other hand, there seem to have been no conditions of the kind. Rather the opposite: they married after, or in connection with, the takeover – at least roughly up till 1885. Probably it was advantageous for a man to have inheritance matters settled before marriage – in that way potential alliances were facilitated. Male patterns were not nearly as clear as female ones, however, and during the last subperiod (1886-1930) they were no longer evident. As conveyances were arranged later and later within the life cycles of both parents and children, more and more land-inheriting sons were married long before the formal takeover. In addition to this, many of them did not marry at all (Figure 9.3).

V.  Marriage and inheritance in a long-term perspective This analysis of behavioural patterns in a Swedish rural parish shows a strong connection between marriage and inheritance. For a long period of time, marriage and inheritance formed a coherent whole. This was evident from the impact of inheritance on rates, ages and timing of marriages. A generally important factor was the size of the inheritance. As we have seen, children with many siblings and limited family resources were more likely to remain unmarried. There were, however, differences between sons and daughters. For males, the significance of landed property was especially evident. Land-inheriting sons married more frequently and earlier in life than landless sons. For daughters, inheritance of landed property affected ages but not rates of marriage (Figures 9.3.a and 9.3.b, and Table 9.6). The time between inheritance and marriage differed as well: whereas daughters married before or at the latest at the takeover, sons married in connection with the takeover or afterwards (Figure 9.4). Eventually, however, those patterns disappeared. Inheritance matters no longer influenced marriage rates, marriage ages, or the timing of the marriage. Marriage prospects were no longer improved by the inheritance of landed property; for sons inheriting smallholdings they were actually worsened. The turning-point was around 1885 when industrial development was gaining momentum. I will argue that in the end, by reducing children’s dependence on family resources, this progress separated marriage from inheritance. In the following section, those long-term changes are discussed in terms of strategies. 251

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

VI.  Family strategies or individual choice? The term ‘strategies’ implies that actions are aimed towards something that is apprehended as attainable. In this respect strategies relate to individual circumstances as well as structural restrictions and openings. By means of a strategy analysis, structural connections like the one between marriage and inheritance may also be more clearly in evidence. The strategy concept has been widely used within family history, and the meaning of it consequently debated (Tilly, 1979, Page Moch et al., 1987; Fontaine & Schlumbohm, 2000). Pierre Bourdieu was among the first to apply the strategy concept to family history in a 1972 study of peasant families in southern France. He argued that neither marriage nor inheritance should be conceived of as expressions of fixed, customary rules. Rather, they should be seen as flexible strategies, aimed at upholding a coherent system of social reproduction. As such they were guided by a set of implicit principles (habitus) consisting among other things of the transfer of impartible units along male family lines (Bourdieu, 1976). The question of whether the strategy concept can be applied to families as well as to individuals is very important. Laurel Cornell, a social anthropologist, considers that families can be regarded as actors, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. There must be mechanisms within the household to handle individual expressions that may threaten its solidarity. This, she says, implies that the households of a given society provide the individual either with access to considerable resources, or with protection against considerable risks (Cornell, 1987). From the above description, the key question in the following analysis is: whose strategies are manifested by the behavioural patterns appearing in the study? I will argue for the part of this study that inheritance and marriage patterns manifested family strategies during the first phases of the investigation period (1810-1885), whereas they were expressions of individual strategies during the last phase (18861930). VI.1. 1880s

Family strategies in the pre-industrial society up to the middle of the

In this period there is no way of separating the interests of the individuals from those of the family as a whole. Parents needed support during their old age, which required that the farm remain undivided and economically sound. Children needed support as well, which was not easily found outside the family before industrialization had gained momentum. The Swedish economy was still exclusively agrarian, and so agricultural work of some sort was the only option for peasant children to support themselves. A landless son who had not received money to buy a holding, or a daughter 252

Sofia Holmlund

who had no inherited means to invest in a future husband’s farm, had few alternatives but to remain at home, unmarried. Becoming a poor crofter or cottar was the best option, or being a farmhand on another family’s estate. That is to say that in their capacity as landowners, the families of the present study offered their members both resources and protection that were not available elsewhere. The cohesive inheritance and marriage patterns during this time should be seen in this light. In accordance with this system, those who received landed property married early, while landless children married late. Or, as was often the case with landless children within large and poor families, they refrained from marrying at all. Here, family strategy involved the holding being sold directly to their eldest son without mention of the other children’s right of inheritance rights. This solution was particularly common during the period 1846-1885 when social stratification, together with the new inheritance law, made an increasing number of peasant families economically vulnerable. Probably, strategies were particularly repressive within families struggling to retain what property they had left. In that struggle some children were expected to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Can individual strategies exist at all under such circumstances? One may argue that conforming to collective strategies is actually an individual act and that for the peasant children in question it was a rational choice reflecting their limited scope of action. Doubtless, their decisions were preceded by negotiations and agreements of which we know nothing. This study only reveals general behavioural patterns where individual strategies do not emerge as long as collective family strategies are the prevailing ones. VI.2.

Individual strategies in the industrial society after 1886

At this time, Swedish industrial development and the growth of towns had created openings outside the agrarian sector. The location of Estuna in close proximity to the growing town of Norrtälje and less than a day’s journey from Stockholm meant that those options were real alternatives. With supporting options available other than farming or agricultural work the significance of family resources for children’s future prospects diminished. In addition, institutional progress was liberating individual family members – not leat women – from paternal power. Accordingly, there were fewer legal or economic bonds – beside the ones between husband and wife – that tied adult family members together. The diminishing connection between inheritance and marriage should be seen in the light of this development. With resources and protection no longer exclusively available within the family, the basis of coherent family strategies had ceased to exist.

253

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

I would say that the diffusive behavioural patterns after 1886 were reflections of individual strategies which were sometimes not mutually compatible. Children leaving home, marrying and establishing themselves elsewhere without the help of inheritance are examples of individual action in this respect. Parents’ clinging to formal ownership is another, aiming among other things at securing their retirement conditions, which were tied to the farm, since old-age pensions were still rudimentary and non-existent for others than wage-earners throughout the investigation period. Contemporary reports give quite a dark picture of rural generation changes marked by colliding individual interests. Given that there is some truth in those descriptions, premature conveyances could involve family disintegration or an external sale of the farm. For the parents, who had invested a lifetime’s work in the farm, which was also their only pension insurance, it was still crucial that it should be handed over in an economically sound state. A sale outside the family would imply moving away from the farm, or living there with strangers. For the children, on the other hand, a sale could be favourable, especially for those who were not chosen to take over the farm. By virtue of their right of inheritance they had legal claims on it, and those claims were best satisfied by a commercial sale outside the family or, as actually occurred a few times during the period under review, by a permanent division of the estate among all the children. Parcelling out of land was permitted without any restrictions after the change in the law in 1881. With openings available in the nearby town of Norrtälje, wage-earning employment could be combined with small-scale farming (Holmlund, 2003).

VII.  Conclusion To sum up, this study of a Swedish rural parish indicates a strong correlation between marriage and inheritance. As expected, this area which was a farming district with few occupations outside agriculture before the development of industry confirms the Hajnal thesis. However, with the economic development in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the picture changed. New openings and supporting options were created which reduced children’s dependence on family resources and opened the possibility for individual, as opposed to family-based, strategies. As a result of individualization, the long-standing interrelationship between marriage and inheritance became less marked. This affected children of propertied peasants especially; their lives, more than others, had been guided by considerations of the family estate and family arrangements.

254

Sofia Holmlund

Appendices Appendix 1. Database Collecting and linking information together in a database create very good options for quantitative analysis. Different aspects of the transactions (e.g. the size of the holding) or of the persons involved (e.g. age, gender, marriage) can easily be selected and cross-analysed in order to reveal connections with other variables. All results presented in the text - with the exception of the social structure analysis in Table 9.1 for which more traditional methods were used - were obtained by such analyses. The database was built up as follows. First, all transactions with landed property were extracted from the legal records and controlled against information of ownership in the population register (very few transactions in fact turned out to be missing). Second, all land transactions were recorded in a database, which was designed exclusively for this purpose. Information on the families involved in each transaction was collected from the parish registers, using the dates of birth as identification codes. This procedure to ascertain the exact relation between buyer and seller was necessary for determining whether a transaction was a regular sale to a non-related person, or constituted part of an inheritance transfer. The latter were collected together and recorded as one transfer, regardless of the number of transactions involved. As a result, there are fewer ‘inheritance transfers’ (266) than ‘commercial sales’ (401) recorded in the database. There are also some 150 other land transactions that do not fit into either category, e.g. exchanges of land, inheritance from other than parents, and transactions between relatives which had no direct connection with inheritance. Most inheritance transfers involved at least a few separate transactions. First, there was the transfer of the holding to the children, followed by a fictitious distribution. Then came sequences of transactions where one of the children bought the others off. In this respect inheritance was a process, beginning when the parents disposed of the estate and ending when one of the children (or several, if there were several holdings) had become the owner of it. In the majority of cases all this was done at the same time, but occasionally the process required a considerable time. When parents died prematurely there could be a long delay before the inheritance was finally settled. This was also the case with parents who had several holdings which were distributed on different occasions. Of necessity this whole process is treated in the database as if it were one single act. In those cases the dating regards the point of time when the process was complete, that is, when the entire holding was acquired by the succeeding child. In a few complicated cases which took a long time to settle, I have taken into consideration the point of time when most of the holding was acquired. Finally, in those rare cases where there was no title registration at all (a number of simple transfers within onechild families) information from the population registers was used instead. 255

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

Appendix 2. Mantal and rateable values The mantal was a fiscal unit measuring the tax-paying capacity of holdings. It is not an ideal measurement since it does not take into account reclamation or other improvements on the farms. The rateable values from the annual national property tax (starting in 1810) are more reliable but of limited use since they fluctuated over time. In the present context, they are only used for estimating the relation between inheritance valuation and market values (below); other investigations rest on mantal values. The statistical correlation between mantal values and rateable values was very strong (rxy 0.95, see Holmlund, 2007: 213) so there is no danger of systematic errors. The mantal was usually stated in fractions; in this text it is sometimes converted into decimal values. Appendix 3. Different modes of disposing of the landed property All disposals of landed property between parents and children in the material under review resulted either from the decease of parents, from pre-mortem gifts, or pre-mortem sales. Sales were always designed to favour one child, in contrast to gifts, which went to all the children. Since the parents often owned separate parts of the estate, and since some families had several separate holdings, several modes of disposal could be involved in the same transfer. An example: when a mother died, her share of the property was automatically inherited by the children. But this would not leave any trace in the legal records until years later when the father disposed of his share as well, and the children started to deal with each other. Only then would the mother’s disposal (through decease) be accounted for, together with that of the father, which in this case was a pre-mortem gift. On the other hand, many disposals were carried out jointly by the couple in one single and uncomplicated act. As Table 9.7 shows the number of inheritance transfers being realized entirely or partly after the death of parents, as gifts or by sales, the same transfer may be recorded in several categories. Percentages refer to the total number of families realizing inheritance transfers within each sub-period. Table 9.7. Parents’ disposal of the landed property. Estuna parish 1810-1930 1810-1845 Number of families

1846-1885

1886-1930

1810-1930

106

63

66

235

Entirely or partly after death

60 (56%)

27 (43%)

21 (32%)

108

Entirely or partly as a gift

67 (63%)

28 (44%)

6 (9%)

101

Entirely or partly by sale

21 (19%)

31 (49%)

38 (57%)

90

Sources. See Table 2.

256

Sofia Holmlund

In the text, I also refer to social differences between the categories and to the fact that large families with small holdings were over-represented among those who sold directly to a child. In the following table (Table 9.8) I have taken into account only those families whose entire property was transferred after death, as a gift or by sale. The mantal value of each family’s holding (see Appendix 9.2) was divided by the number of children within the family and the average values were calculated for each of the three categories. The results are given in Table 9.8. Table 9. 8. Average mantal value per child within families disposing of their landed property entirely through decease, gift, or sale. Estuna parish 1810-1930 Mode of Transfer

1810-1845

1846-1885 N

1886-1930

1810-1930

N

Mantal

Mantal

N

Mantal

N

After death

20

0.266

7

0.297

21

0.508

48

As a gift

36

0.257

14

0.349

4

0.371

54

By sale

8

0.129

18

0.177

19

0.471

45

Sources. See Table 9.2.

Appendix 4. Inheritance value versus market value In order to compare the inheritance value of the holding with that of the market, I have used the rateable values which were used for measuring the size of the holdings. They are more reliable than the mantal values but of limited practical use for the historian since they cannot be used for comparing holdings over time. The following method was used. First, an ‘inheritance value’ was calculated for each transferred holding by adding together the amounts that the bought-out siblings received for their fictive shares of the estate (plus the proportional value of the inheritor’s own share). Possible debts burdening the estate were also added (retirement contracts were not considered since they burdened most holdings, including those which were sold in the open market). Second, each holding’s ‘inheritance value’ was compared with its contemporary rateable value, stated as the former in per cent of the latter. Commercial sales were also compared with their rateable values, and this was uncomplicated. Third, the average percentages of the rateable values were calculated for each of the three periods under consideration. Those figures are stated as ‘average per cent of rateable value’ in the table below. Finally, the average of ‘inheritance prices’ was divided by the average of ‘sales’, which resulted in a quotient for each sub-period called ‘inheritance versus market value’ in the table. All the necessary information was not available for all transfers, which is evident from the limited number of transfers included in the table below. 257

Family strategies or individual choice? Marriage and inheritance in a rural Swedish community

Table 9.9. Inheritance and selling prices related to rateable values and to each other. Estuna parish, 1810-1930 Inheritance values, average per cent of rateable values

1810-1845

1846-1885

1886-1930

117%

148%

124%

Number of transfers Selling prices, average per cent of rateable values

43

23

15

155%

169%

178%

Number of transactions Inheritance prices versus market value

123

118

159

75%

88%

70%

Sources. See Table 9.2 and also Stockholm Municipal Archives: Registers of property taxation (County registers of Lyhundra).

The difference between sales and market values was statistically significant for the 1810-1845 period (3 T-tests, all