Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T22:44:03.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Southern Italian family in the early modern period: a discussion of co-residential patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Francesco Benigno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Continuity and Change , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 165 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Hajnal, J., ‘European marriage patterns in perspective’, Glass, D. V. and Eversley, D. E. C. eds., Population in history: essays in historical demography (London, 1965) 101–43.Google Scholar

2 Wrigley, E. A., ‘Population history in the 1980s’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13 (1981) 218.Google Scholar

3 Peter Laslett elaborated on Hajnal's hypothesis by suggesting a correlation between nuclear household structure, late marriage and the institution of service: the latter enabled young men and women to accumulate the savings necessary to marry; Laslett, P., ‘Introduction; the history of the family’, Laslett, P. and Wall, R. eds., Household and family in past time (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laslett, P. and Hammel, E. A., ‘Comparing household structure over time and between cultures’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974) 73–103Google Scholar; Laslett, P., ‘Characteristics of the western family considered over time’, Family life and illicit love in earlier generations (Cambridge, 1977) 12–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Hajnal, J., ‘Two kinds of pre-industrial household formation system’, Population and Development Review 8 (1982) 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 For a further discussion of this concept, see Burguière, A., ‘De Malthus à Max Weber: le mariage tardif et l'esprit d'enterprise’, Annales E.S.C. 27 (1972) 1128–38.Google Scholar

6 Hajnal, , ‘Two kinds of pre-industrial household formation system’, 476.Google Scholar

7 Herlihy, D. and Klapisch-Zuber, C., Les Toscans et leurs families: une étude du catasto florentin de 1427 (Paris, 1978).Google Scholar

8 Kertzer, D. I. and Brettell, C. B., ‘Recenti sviluppi nella storia della famiglia italiana ed iberica’, Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 28 (1987) 249–50.Google Scholar

9 Pitt-Rivers, J. ed., Mediterranean countrymen (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; Peristiany, J. G. ed., Honour and shame. The values of Mediterranean society (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Peristiany, J. G. ed., Mediterranean family structures (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar These perspectives have been synthesised by P. Burke, who has postulated three great cultural European areas: north-western, eastern and southern. The last, also indicated as Mediterranean, would be so characterised: ‘Romance speaking … with an outdoor culture … low literacy … and a value-system laying great stress on honour and shame’: Burke, P., Popular culture in early modern Europe (London, 1978) 56–7.Google Scholar See also, for a different point of view, Davis, J., People of the Mediterranean (London, 1977).Google Scholar

10 Smith, R. M., ‘The people of Tuscany and their families in the fifteenth century: medieval or mediterranean?’ Journal of Family History 6 (1981) 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11 Smith, , ‘The people of Tuscany’, 113.Google Scholar As R. Rowland has recently pointed out, ‘visto deste el Norte, el sur de la Francia, Toscana y Castilla son todas zonas “Mediterráneas”’. ‘Matrimonio y familia en el Mediterráneo occidental: algunas interrogaciones’, Jiménez, F. Chacón ed., Familia y sociedad en el Mediterráneo occidental (University of Murcia, 1987) 251.Google Scholar

12 Laslett, P., ‘Family and household as a work group and kin group’, Wall, R., Robin, J. and Laslett, P. eds., Family forms in historic Europe (Cambridge, 1984).Google Scholar

13 Viazzo, P., ‘Il Cambridge Group e la ricerca storica sulla famiglia’, Introduction to the Italian edition of Wall, R. et al. eds., Family forms in historic Europe [Forme di famiglia nella storia europea] (Bologna, 1984) 22.Google Scholar

14 Kertzer, D. I. and Brettell, C. B., ‘Recenti sviluppi’, 279.Google Scholar For a critique of the concept of the mediterranean family see Jiménez, F. Chacón, ‘La familia en España: una historia por hacer’, Chacon, F. et al. eds., La familia en la España Mediterránea (siglos XV–XIX) (Barcelona, 1987) 30–5.Google Scholar

15 Barcelona, , 22–25 04 1987.Google Scholar The proceedings of this congress are not yet published. I will quote from the provisional collection of papers assembled under the title Congrés Hispano Luso Italià de demografia histories.

16 Of special importance was the debate on the role of the southern-Italian family opened by the book of Banfield, E. C., The moral basis of a backward society (Glencoe Ill., 1958).Google Scholar See Moss, W. L., American Sociological Review 23 (1958) 759–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCorkle, T., American Anthropologist 61 (1959) 133–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanders, T., American Journal of Sociology 64 (1959) 522CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cancian, F., ‘The south-Italian peasant: world view and political behaviour’, Anthropological Quarterly 34 (1961) 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silverman, S., ‘Agricultural organization, social structure and values in Italy: amoral familism reconsidered’, American Anthropologist 70 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, J., ‘Morals and backwardness’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 12 (1970) 340–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a general reflection on the south Italian peasant world see Giarrizzo, G., ‘Mezzogiorno e civiltà contadina’, Campagne e movimento contadino del mezzogiorno d'Italia dal Dopoguerra ad oggi, vol. II, (Bari, 1980) 293–348.Google Scholar On Sicily see the studies of Blok, A., The Mafia of a Sicilian village 1859–1860 (New York, 1975)Google Scholar and , J. and Schneider, P., Culture and political economy in western Sicily (New York, 1976).Google Scholar For a critique, from an historical point of view, of the anthropological approach to the south Italian reality: Lupo, S., ‘Storia e società nel mezzogiorno d'Italia: a proposito di alcuni studi recenti’, Italia contemporanea 154 (1984) 71–92.Google Scholar

17 A good example is Tamassia, N., La famiglia Italiana nei secoli decimoquinto edecimosesto (Milano, 1911).Google Scholar

18 Barbagli, M., Sotto le stesso tetto. Mutamenti della famiglia in Italia dal XV at XX secolo (Bologna, 1984).Google Scholar

19 Rowland, R., ‘Sistemas matrimoniales en la península ibérica (siglos XVI–XX): una perspectiva regional’, Moreda, V. Pérez and Reher, D. S. eds., Demografía histórica de España (Madrid, 1987).Google Scholar

20 Galasso, G., ‘Gli studi di storia della famiglia e il Mezzogiorno d'Italia’. Mélanges de l'École française de Rome 95 (1983) 150–9.Google Scholar

21 Barbagli, , Sotto lo stesso tetto, 108–21Google Scholar; De Sarno Prignano, A., ‘La struttura delle famiglia “nucleari” e “non nucleari” in Italia in base ai censimenti del 1951, 1961, e 1971’, Genus 34 (1978) 53–81.Google Scholar

22 Nunes, J. A., ‘Nupcialidade e familia em Portugal (séculos XVI–XX). Balanço critico e perspectivas’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 484.Google Scholar

23 In Murcia, for example, they represented 89% of the total in 1850. Carrión, J. M. Martínez and Soriano, C. Fenollós, ‘Familia y nupcialidad en el sureste de la Península ibérica: la Nora (Murcia) 1850–1929’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 561.Google Scholar

24 Benigno, F., Una casa, una terra. Ricerche su Paceco, paese nuovo nella Sicilia del sei e settecento (Catania, 1985) 166–78.Google Scholar

25 Davies, T., Aspects of the economy and society of 16th-17th-century Sicily: noble families and the foundation of new feudal villages (Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading, 1976)Google Scholar; Davies, T., ‘La colonizzazione feudale della Sicilia’, Annali della storia d'Italia 3 (Torino 1985) 419–75.Google Scholar

26 Raffaele, S., Dinamiche demografiche e struttura della famiglia nella Sicilia del seisettecento (Catania, 1984)Google Scholar; Grillo, M. and Raffaele, S., ‘Butera nel 1700: dinamica demografica e struttura della famiglia’, in Le forme e la storia 1 (1980) 121–30Google Scholar; Grillo, M., ‘Demografia e società ad Acicastello fra '700 e '800: evoluzione e permanenze’, Istituto di studi umanistici, La Sicilia nel settecento (Messina, 1984) 111–17.Google Scholar

27 On the Riveli see Ercole, F., I Riveli di beni e di anime nel Regno di Sicilia (Roma, 1931)Google Scholar; Aymard, M., ‘Sicilia: sviluppo demografico e sue differenziazioni geografiche’, Sori, E. ed., Demografia storica (Bologna, 1975) 195–219.Google Scholar

28 Archivio di Stato di Noto, Università di Noto, Rivelo di frumenti, 1647.

29 On the Sicilian historical background, see Giarrizzo, G., ‘La Sicilia dal viceregno al regno’, Romeo, R. ed., Storia delta Sicilia vol. VI (Napoli, 1978) 115–21.Google Scholar

30 Parish of Santa Maria, Militello, , Libri status animarum, 1746–49Google Scholar; Archivio di Stato di Catania, Censimento del 1831, Acireale. In both cases the percentage of complex households is negligible.

31 Bresc, H., ‘La famille dans la société sicilienne médiévale’, Ministero per i beni culturali, La famiglia e la vita quotidiana in Europa dal '400 al '600 (Rome, 1986) 187–206Google Scholar; Di Pasquale, A., Palermo nel 1480. La popolazione del quartiere della Kalsa (Palermo, 1975).Google Scholar

32 The mean household size of the Sicilian household appears to have ranged throughout this period between 4 and 5. The incidence of adult members other than parents is invariably low.

33 Barbagli, M., ‘Sistemi di formazione della famiglia in Italia’, Boletín de la Asociación de Demografia Histórica 5 (1987) 80–127.Google Scholar

34 Da Molin, G., ‘Strutture familiari nell'Italia meridionale (sec. XVII–XIX)’, Congrès Hispano Luso Italià, 713–30.Google Scholar

35 Giacomini, M., Sposi a Belmonte nel Settecento (Milano, 1981).Google Scholar

36 The nuclear household appears to have also prevailed in the Latium region since the Middle Ages. See Toubert, P., Les structures du Latium médiéval (Rome, 1973).Google Scholar

37 Bresc, H., ‘La famile’, 193.Google Scholar

38 Martínez, J. Hurtado, ‘Análisis del hogar en una comunidad murciana durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII, Lorca (1761–1771)’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 520.Google Scholar

39 Laslett, , ‘Family and household as a work group’, 526–35.Google Scholar For a critique of the Laslett typology based on material from the Balearic Islands, see Blanes, I. Moll, ‘La estructura familiar del campesinado de Mallorca 1824–1827’Google Scholar, Chacón, F. et al. eds., La familia en la España mediterránea 254–57.Google Scholar

40 Smith, , ‘The people of Tuscany’, 107–28.Google Scholar

41 Pitré, G., ‘Proverbi Siciliani’, Biblioteca delle tradizioni popolari siciliane (Palermo, 1870–1913), 9 112–13.Google Scholar

42 Cancila, O., Baroni e popolo nella Sicilia del grano (Palermo, 1983) 55Google Scholar; Longhitano, G., ‘Bronte: una crescita’, Longhitano, C. ed., Studi di demografia storica siciliana (sec. XVIII) (Catania, 1979) 81–2.Google Scholar

43 Rettaroli, R., ‘Età al matrimonio e celibato nell’ Italia del XIX secolo: un ‘analisi regionale’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 642.Google Scholar

44 Ibid, 642–3.

45 Delille, G., Famille et propriété dans le Royaume de Naples (XV–XIX siècle) (Rome, 1985) 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Barbagli, , ‘Sistemi di formazione’, 111–16.Google Scholar

47 The effects of age at marriage on fertility are obviously very complex, as Louis Henry remarked long ago; Henry, L., ‘Fécondité des mariages dans le quart sudouest de la France de 1720 à 1829’, Annales E.S.C. 27 (1972) 985.Google Scholar

48 See Bacci, M. Livi, A history of Italian fertility during the last two centuries (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar; and more recently, Rettaroli, , ‘Età al matrimonio’, 642–3.Google Scholar

49 Sánchez, B. Cachinero and Serratosa, J. Soler, ‘Nuptiality and celibacy in Spain at the end of the eighteenth century’Google Scholar, Smith, R. M. ed., Regional and spatial demographic patterns in the past, forthcoming.Google Scholar

50 Weir, D., ‘Rather never than late: celibacy and age at marriage in English cohort fertilìty 1541–1871’, Journal of Family History 9 (1984) 341–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51 Schofield, R., ‘English marriage patterns revisited’, Journal of Family History 10 (1985) 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51 a See Pitrè, G., Usi e costumi, credenze e pregiudizi del popolo sicilianoGoogle Scholar, in Biblioteca delle tradizioni popolari siciliane, Palermo, 1870–1913, 15 106–9. This is the most important Sicilian collection of folklore and popular traditions. Pitrè quotes many traditional popular sayings and provides a large bibliography on Italian customs.

52 Raffaele, , Dinamiche demografiche, 48–9.Google Scholar

53 Bacci, M. Livi, ‘On the frequence of remarriage in nineteenth-century Italy: methods and results’, Dupâquier, J. et al. eds., Marriage and remarriage in the populations of the past (London, 1981) 347–60.Google Scholar

54 See ibid, the articles of Akerman, S., ‘The importance of remarriage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, 169–74Google Scholar; and Schofield, R. and Wrigley, E. A., ‘Remarriage intervals and the effects of marriage order on fertility’, 211–17.Google Scholar

55 Raffaele, , Dinamiche demografiche, 50.Google Scholar

56 Barbagli, , ‘Sistemi di formazione della famiglia’, 28–30.Google Scholar

57 Pina, M. Della, ‘Gli insediamenti e la popolazione’, Guarini, E. Fasano ed., Prato, storia di una cilià, vol. II, (Prato, 1985) 43–121.Google Scholar

58 Barbagli, , ‘Sistemi di formazione della famiglia’, 40–4.Google Scholar

59 Day, J., ‘La condizione femminile nella Sardegna medievale, La famiglia e la vita quotidiana, 241–49.Google Scholar

60 Rowland, , ‘Sistemas matrimoniales’, 51Google Scholar, and ‘Matrimonio y familia en el Mediterráneo occidental’, 255.Google Scholar

61 M. Livi Bacci has, for example, pointed out that female nuptiality is more intense in southern regions of Portugal as compared to the north because the labourers without land ‘do not have problems of inheritance to solve’. Bacci, M. Livi, A century of Portuguese fertility (Princeton, 1971) 52–3.Google Scholar

62 Macfarlane, A., ‘Demographic structures and cultural regions in Europe’, Cambridge Anthropology 6 (1980) 1–17.Google Scholar

63 The very concept of ‘late marriage’ should be discussed. E. A. Wrigley, elaborating on Hajnal, has recently contrasted a West-European pattern of late marriage ‘more likely to be determined by economic circumstances’ to a pattern which is ‘biologically controlled’. The delay, he has argued, should be measured with reference to the age at menarche. This, however, leads to new complications because of the possibility of regional variability in the age at menarche. Wrigley, E. A., ‘The means to marry: population and economy in pre-industrial England’, The Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs 1 (1985) 275.Google ScholarPubMed For some data on variability in age at menarche, see Shorter, E., ‘L'âge des premières règies en France 1750–1950’, Annales E.S.C. 38 (1983) 1040–57.Google Scholar

64 For a general discussion, see Bideau, A., ‘Les mécanismes autorégulateurs des populations traditionelles’, in Annales E.S.C. 38 (1983) 1040–57.Google Scholar

65 ‘C'est de la mort qu'il faut partir, car c'est autour d'elle que tout s'ordonne. Elle frappe et emporte les hommes avec plus ou moins de force suivant les régions et les classes sociales.… Mais c'est elle aussi qui donne le signal des manages, de la nouvelle vie’. Delille, G., Famille et propriété, 214.Google Scholar Also Ohlin, G., ‘Mortality, marriage and growth in pre-industrial populations’, Population Studies 149 (1960) 190–7.Google Scholar

66 For a general perspective, see Schofield, R., ‘The relationship between demographic structure and environment in pre-industrial western Europe’, Conze, W. ed., Sozialgeschiche der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas (Stuttgart, 1976) 147–60.Google Scholar

67 The view that a marriage pattern can be shaped more effectively by environmental constraints than by the formal properties of inheritance systems is supported by evidence recently analysed by P. Viazzo. See Viazzo, P. and Albera, D., ‘Population, resources and homeostatic regulation in the Alps. The role of nuptiality’, Itinera 5/6 (1986), 103–54.Google Scholar See also Viazzo, , ‘Illegitimacy and the European marriage pattern: comparative evidence from the Alpine area’, Bonfield, L., Smith, R. M., Wrightson, K. eds., The world we have gained (Oxford, 1986) 100–21Google Scholar; and Viazzo, and Albera, , ‘Nupcialidad, fecundidad y estructura familial: el caso de los Alpes occidentales’, in Boletín de la Asociación de Demografia Histórica 5:3 (1987) 5–36.Google Scholar

68 See particularly Delille, G., Agricoltura e demografia nel Regno di Napoli (Napoli, 1977).Google Scholar

69 On the role of grain and other mediterranean cultivations see the classic book of de la Blache, P. Vidal, Principles de geographie humaine (Paris, 1955) 81–95, 134–5.Google Scholar

70 Delille, , Agricultura e demografia, 5–12.Google Scholar

71 Historically there are many examples of a differential death-rate by sex in some age groups. Moreover, ‘there are a number of factors which it has been claimed, give women a stronger resistance to the majority of diseases. These include the possession of two X chromosomes, the presence of estrogen prior to menopause, a greater ability than men to adjust to changes in environmental temperature, and a higher index of cephalization (relative brain weight)’. Wall, R., ‘Inferring differential neglect of females from mortality data’, Annales de Démographie Historique (1981) 120.Google Scholar See also Lopez, A. D., Ruzicka, L. T. eds., Sex differentials in mortality (Canberra, 1983) 147–9.Google Scholar

72 In the Sicilian town of Pietraperzia, for example, in the course of the seventeenth century, the sex ratio at death for the age group 30–49 was 174.8 compared to a sex ratio at birth of 105.4 and a general sex ratio at death of 109.6. Raffaele, , Dinamiche demografiche, 57.Google Scholar For more conclusive results longitudinal evidence is desirable. See Prinking, G., ‘L'incidence de la surmortalité masculine sur le cycle de la vie familiale’, Cuisenier, J. ed., The family life cycle in European societies (Paris, 1977).Google Scholar

73 ‘In the south, high levels of permanent celibacy are associated with low age at marriage, especially for women, this suggesting an early deadline for the marriageable pool: either early marriage takes place or there are high probabilities of remaining unmarried’: Cachinero Sánchez and Soler Serratosa, ‘Nuptiality and celibacy’.

74 G. Delille tends to attribute the major role in explaining the death ratio unfavourable to men in the adult classes of Puglia's population to the immigration of labourers. Delille, , Famille et propriété, 170–97 and 387–407Google Scholar; Delille, , Agricultura e demografia, 59–65.Google Scholar Also, Da Molin, G., ‘Mobilità dei contadini pugliesi fra fine '600 e primo '800’, Storica, Societò-Italiano di Demografia, ed., La popolazione Italians nel Settecento (Bologna, 1980) 435–67.Google Scholar

75 Burguière, A., ‘Pour une typologie des formes d'organisation domestique de l'Europe moderne (XVIe–XIXe siècles)’, Annales E.S.C. 41 (1986).Google Scholar

76 Bloch, M., French rural history: an essay on its basic characteristics (London, 1966).Google Scholar

77 This correlation has been postulated by Silverman, , ‘Agricultural organization’, 9–13.Google Scholar

78 In the so-called ‘new serfdom’ areas the influence of the socio-productive structure on the forms of the household appears to be much more direct and effective, as shown by Czap's research on Russia and Kula's on Poland: Czap, P., ‘The perennial multiple family household, Mishino, Russia, 1782–1858’, Journal of Family History 7 (1982) 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kula, W., ‘La seigneurie et la famille paysanne dans la Pologne du XVIIIe siècle’, Annales E.S.C. 27 (1972) 949–58.Google Scholar Also in general, Plakans, A., ‘Seigneurial authority and peasant family life’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 6 (1976) 629–54.Google Scholar

79 Rowland, R., ‘Nupcialidade, familia, Mediterraneo’, Boletín de la Asociación de Demografia Histórica 5:2 (1987) 128–43.Google Scholar

80 Cf. Viazzo, and Albera, , ‘Population, resources and homeostatic regulation’, and especially Viazzo, Upland communities: environment, population and social structure in the Alps since the sixteenth century (Cambridge, 1989), 246–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 Benigno, , Una casa, una terra, 178–84.Google Scholar

82 Delille, G., ‘Dots de filles et circulation des biens dans les Pouilles aux XVIe–XVIIe siècles’, Mélanges de l'École française de Rome 95 (1983) 195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pappalardo, A., ‘Scelte testamentarie e politica matrimoniale a Bitonto tra XVI e XVII secolo’Google Scholar, ibid. 161–94.

83 Day, , ‘La condizione femminile’, 242.Google Scholar

84 Day, , ‘La condizione femminile, 241Google Scholar; Mattone, A. and Tangheroni, M. eds., Gli statuti sassaresi (Sassari, 1986).Google Scholar

85 See, however, the articles collected in a special issue of the Mélanges de l'École française de Rome 95 (1983)Google Scholar; Luise, F., ‘Solofra fra il 1640 e il 1676 nei capitoli matrimoniali e nei testamenti’, 299–338Google Scholar; Villone, A., ‘Contratti matrimoniali e testamenti in una zona di latifondo: Eboli a metà '600’, 225–98Google Scholar; Belli, C., ‘Famiglia, proprietà e classi sociali a Montefusco nella prima metà del XVII secolo’, 339–92.Google Scholar

86 Goody, J., The development of family and marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87 Berkner, L., ‘Inheritance, land tenure and peasant family structure: a German comparison’, Goody, J., Thirsk, J. and Thompson, E. P. eds., Family and inheritance. Rural society in western Europe 1200–1800 (Cambridge, 1976) 76.Google Scholar But see also Collomp, A., ‘Ménage et famille. Études comparatives sur la dimension et la structure du groupe domestique’, Annales E.S.C. 29 (1974) 785.Google Scholar

88 Demangeon, A., ‘De l'influence des régimes agraires sur le mode d'habitat dans l'Europe occidental’, Problèmes de géographie humaine (Paris, 1952) 153–62.Google Scholar

89 Da Molin, G., ‘Strutture familiari’, 724–5.Google Scholar

90 A similar situation is found in Lanheses, north-west Portugal, Brettell, C. B., ‘Nupcialidad en un pueblo de la provincia del Miño 1700–1970: una nota de investigatión’, Boletin de la Asociación de Demografia Histórica 2 (1984) 2–19.Google Scholar

91 Burguière, , ‘Pour une typologie’, 645Google Scholar; Woolf, S. J., ‘The domestic economy of the poor of Florence in the early nineteenth century’, EUI working paper no. II (Firenze, 1986).Google Scholar

92 Nunes, , ‘Nupcialidade e familia’, 488.Google Scholar

93 Pina, M. Delia, ‘Famiglia mezzadrile e celibate: le campagne di Prato nei secoli XVII e XVIII’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 670–1.Google Scholar

94 Da Molin, , ‘Strutture familiari’, 719–23.Google Scholar In 1754, in Mpntegrassano, a Calabrian village. 80% of the poor lived in nuclear households. On the other hand, 80% of those with more than 40 ducati of rent lived in complex households, while 12.5% lived in nuclear households. Moretti, P., ‘L'economia del matrimonio. L'aggregazione domestica in una comunità calabrese nei '700’, Miscellanea di studi storici del Dipartimento di Storia dell'Università della Calabria 3 (Cosenza, 1983) 1–39.Google Scholar

95 For a different point of view, see Douglass, W. A., ‘The south Italian family: a critique’, Journal of Family History 5 (1980) 338–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Douglass, W. A., ‘Cross sectional and longitudinal analyses of extended family households in an eighteenth-century south Italian hill town’Google Scholar, paper presented to the congress, Strutture e rapporti familiari in età moderna: esperienze italiane e riferimenti europei (Trieste, 1983).Google Scholar

96 As Agnes Fine and Jean Claude Sangsi point out, the labourers of south-west France ‘ne peuvent nourrir une famille trop nombreuse’: ‘Accès aux biens et mariage dans le sud-ouest de la France (XVIII–XIX siècles)’, in Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 570.Google Scholar On the relation between producers and consumers see Levi, G., Centro e periferia di uno stato assoluto: tre saggi su Piemonte e Liguria in età moderna (Torino, 1985) 101–40.Google Scholar

97 The results of a recent research seem to substantiate this position. Briggs, J. W., ‘Fertility and cultural change among families in Italy and America’, American Historical Review 91 (1986) 1129–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

98 Pina, Delia, Famiglia mezzadrile, 671.Google ScholarMenzione, A., ‘Composizione delle famiglie e matrimonio in diversi gruppi contadini nella Toscana del secolo XVII’, Congrés Hispano Luso Italià, 743–53.Google Scholar For a comparison with English data, see Wall, R., ‘Real property, marriage and children, the evidence from pre-industrial communities’, Smith, R. M., ed., Land, kinship and life cycle (Cambridge, 1984) 443–79.Google Scholar

99 Mendels, F., ‘La composition du ménage paysan en France au XIXe siècle: une analyse économique du mode de production domestique’, Annales E.S.C. 33 (1978) 780–802Google Scholar; Berkner, L. K., ‘The stem family and the developmental cycle of the peasant household’, American Historical Review 77 (1972) 398–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and his; ‘The use and misuse of census data for the historical analyses of family structure’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5 (1975) 721–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100 Rochefort, R., Le travail en Sidle. Étude de géographie sociale (Paris, 1961) 80–3.Google Scholar The presence of servants, generally speaking, seems to fit with this scheme: only the richest families can employ servants.

101 On these aspects see, in general, Boulant, M., ‘La famille en miettes: sur un aspect de la démographie du XVIIe siècle’, Annales E.S.C. 27 (1972) 958–68.Google Scholar

102 Bresc, , ‘La famille’, 193–4.Google Scholar

103 Raffaele, , Dinamiche demografiche, 109.Google Scholar

104 Of course even solidarity had its limits. In his study on the city of Lorca, in Murcia, Hurtado Martinez has shown that between a census in 1761 and one in 1771 the proportion of extended households grew from 4.2 to 5.2%. During those ten years, however, a period characterised by sharp economic crises, the number of the coresidential relatives decreased among the daily labourers while the number increased among the group of the labradores (farmers). Martínez, Hurtado, ‘An´lisis del hogar’, 523.Google Scholar

105 Da Molin, , ‘Strutture familiari’, 718Google Scholar; Agmard, M., ‘Un bourg de Sicile entre XVIe et XVIIe siècle; Gangi, Braadel, F. et al. eds., Conjoncture économique, structures sociales. Hommage à Ernest Labrousse (Paris, 1974) 356–680.Google Scholar

106 Burguière, A., ‘Pour une typologie’, 640.Google Scholar

107 Delille, G., ‘Le strutture familiari nella società meridionale’, Di Bella, S. ed., Economia e storia (Sicilia-Calabria XV–XIV sec.) (Cosenza, 1976) 370.Google Scholar

108 ‘Le système des quartiers lignagers n'est done pas present partout… si nous quittons la Vallée de l'Irno et les collines situées en arrière de Salerne pour la plaine du Sele, si nous quittons les régions de culture arbustive et d'artisanat rural pour les régions d'élevage et d'agriculture extensive, si nous quittons les zones oü la petite propriété paysanne est fortement enracinée pour les zones de latifondo’ we do not find lineage quarters anymore: Delille, , Famille et propriété, 107.Google Scholar For the Longobard influence see Marongiu, A., La famiglia nell 'Italia meridionale, secc. VIII–XIII (Milano, 1944).Google Scholar

109 Much research, in this field, has been influenced by the work of P. Lamaison on the French region of Gévaudan. See Claverie, E., Lamaison, P., L'impossible marriage. Violence et parenté en Gévaudan 17e, 18e, et 19e siècles(Paris, 1982) 301.Google Scholar

110 See the interesting case-study of a village of Latium: Ago, R., Un feudo esemplare (Fasano, 1988).Google Scholar

111 Bresc, , ‘Le famille’, 194.Google Scholar

112 This theme should not, in any case, be separated from a more general discussion of social mobility. See for example Giarrizzo, G., ‘Del ratto consensuale in Sicilia: una proposta di ricerca’, Archivio Storico per la Sicilia Orientale 69 (1973) 527–32.Google Scholar