1 Peter, Laslett, ‘La famille et le ménage: approches historiques’, Annales ESC 4–5 (1972). The only change we have made has been to add types 3e and 4e to cover cases where certain relationships are ambiguous (see Table 1, below).Google Scholar

2 A similar approach is offered by Alain, Collomp, ‘Ménage et famille: une histoire comparative’, Annales ESC 3 (1974), 781.Google ScholarFor an example of the linkage of census-type documents and parish registers see Fine-Souriac, , ‘La famille-souche pyrénéen au XIXe siècle: quelques réflexions de méthode’, Annales ESC 3 (1977), 479.Google Scholar

3 There were three reasons for using supplementary information from the parish registers: first the identification of children under eight years of age who would have been alive in 1788 and who, as is known, were not included in the Easter books; secondly, the tracking of generational succession; and, thirdly, the discovery of the social status of the families, crudely indicated by the spiritual obligations mentioned in the death certificates.

4 The most fervent advocate of the importance of the nuclear family in this context is perhaps Rowland, R., whose position is stated in ‘Matrimonio y familia en el Mediterràneo Occidental: algunas interrogaciones’, in Chacón, R. ed., Familia y sociedad en el Mediterràneo occidental, siglos XV–XIX (Murcia, 1987).Google ScholarHe offers a more nuanced view in ‘Sistemas matrimoniales en la Península Ibérica (siglos XVI–XIX). Una perspectiva regional’, in V. Pérez, Moreda and Reher, D. eds., Demographía Histórica en España (Madrid, 1988), principally pp. 119–20 and 123–5.Google Scholar The nuclear family which predominates in Cuenca also appears to be regulated by a relatively early marriage age for women, equality among heirs, and the formation of independent households on marriage; see Reher, D. S, Familia, población y sociedad en Ia provincia de Cuenca 1700–1970 (Madrid, 1988), 77–8, 210 and 223.Google ScholarSimilar arguments can be found in Francisco, Chacón et al. , ‘Contribution à l'histoire de la famille dans les pays de la Méditerranée occidentale 1750–1850’, Annales de Démographie Historique (1986), 167.Google Scholar It should be stressed that Valencian statute law neither rejected nor favoured equality among heirs, but in practice tolerated various systems, as may be seen from Rosa, Matali's ‘Estudio de las transmisiones intrafamiliares en la Valencia foral. Testamentos y bodas en el siglo XVII’ (Estudis 11 (1984), 167–9). We will return to this much-discussed point later.Google Scholar

5 The position is quite different in the adjoining regions of Murcia and Cuenca. For an overall view of the situation in the former see Franciso, Chacón, ‘Notas para el estudio de la familia en la región de Murcia durante el Antiguo Régimen’, in Centre d'Estudis d'Historia Modern Pierre Vilar, La familia en Espanã Mediterrànea (siglos XV–XIX) (Barcelona, 1987), 129–71, and especially 142–5. The situation in Cuenca is documented by Reher (Familia, poblacidn y sociedad, 5–6).Google Scholar

6 In Villalonga (coastal Galicia) 31.7 per cent of households were complex in 1752, while in Millarada (interior of Galicia) only 22.6 per cent of households were complex. See Camilo Fernandez Cortizo, ‘Vivir y comer a mesa y manteles: el grupo doméstico en el litoral e interior pontevedrés a mediados del XVIII’ (unpublished). In Galician towns the cases of complexity were much fewer, constituting only 10.4 per cent of all households in Pontevedra, and 11.7 per cent in Santiago de Compostela, both in the mid- 1700s. The calculations are from Camilo Fernández Cortizo, ‘Estructura y composición del grupo doméstico en medio urbano a mediados del siglo XVIII’, in the University of Santiago's Homenaje de la Facultad de Geografia e Historia a los Profesores D. Manuel Lucas y a D. Angel Rodriguez (Santiago, 1988), and Isidro, Dubert, Los comporranhienros de Ia familia urbana en la Galicia del Antiguo Régimen (Santiago, 1987), 40. However, 16.6 per cent of all households were found to be complex in Valencia between 1770 and 1781Google Scholar; see Fernando Diez Rodríguez, , ‘La organización social del trabajo en la ciudad preindustrial: Valencia. Siglo XVIII’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Valencia, 1987). Finally, we can cite the remarkable complexity of households in Liébana (Santander) in 1752 (18.5 per cent were complex)Google Scholar; see Ramón Lanza, Garcí, Población y familia cainpesina en el Antiguo Régimen, siglos XVI–XIX (Santander, 1988), 138–9.Google Scholar

7 On this fundamental point see Gérard, Bouchard, ‘L'étude des structures familiales préindustrielles: pour un renversement des perspectives’, Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine XXVIII (1981), 548–9 and also Collomp, ‘Ménage et famille’, 781–2.Google Scholar

8 This line of reasoning follows that suggested by Fine-Souriac, in ‘La famille-souche pyrénéen’, 478.

9 One such case was the family formed by Francisco Coll and his wife Emerenciana Blat who came from another parish and settled in Benimaclet in 1736 with five children over eight years of age but with further children to come (Maria Rosa was born on 8 March 1736 and Felipa on 28 March 1740). The household during this period was essentially nuclear in structure, being extended beyond the parent–unmarried child group simply by the presence of nephews (José Coll between 1737 and 1741, José Boscá between 1746 and 1749 and in 1754, and who was classed as a servant in 1746, and Vicente Boscá between 1752 and 1757, who was also classed as a servant in 1753). The household's nuclear phase began to break up with the marriages of the children. In 1744 Francisco married, appeared in the Easter books with his parents that year, and was listed the following year in a separate home. Then in 1756–1757 the other son, Bartolomé, married outside the parish but he was clearly the principal heir since after 1757 he resided with his mother until her death. His father, Francisco, had died in 1753, but his mother, Emerenciana, did not do so until 1777, when she was given an expensive funeral (12 priests and 30 Valencian pounds assigned for her soul), as was fitting for a wealthy country family living in a farmhouse. Meanwhile Rosa, one of Bartolomé's sisters, had remained a spinster and the family went through a lengthy multiple family household phase between 1757 and 1777, which was further complicated by the marriage of Felipa on 20 November 1763 to Asensio Sales, both of whom remained in the family farmhouse until 1772. From the date of the mother's death, the household would have re-entered a nuclear phase but for the presence of the spinster sister – Rosa. It should be pointed out that the daughters of the original family, as is quite common in such cases, had to move out of the family farmhouse to live with their respective husbands: Vicenta married Cristóbal Dolz of Alboraya in 1750, Emerenciana married Luis Navarro also from the neighbouring parish of Alboraya in 1751, while Felipa married in 1768 the above-mentioned Asensio Sales from another neighbouring parish, Santo Tomás of Valencia. Only the last of these remained in the family home for a limited period following her marriage, before leaving to form a separate household. One of the daughters of Bartolomé, also called Felipa like her aunt, was to marry Tomás Sánchez in 1784 and appeared in the 1788 list as living in another farmhouse with her mother-in-law, Rosa Palau, as part of another multiple family household. When Rosa died in 1795, seven priests assisted at her funeral and 50 pounds were assigned for her soul. Clearly, Felipa had married into a family of means commensurate with her own standing.

10 A major influence on the argument here is the Provençal model brilliantly developed by Alain, Collomp in La maison du père. Famille et village en Haute Provence aux XVlle et XVlle siècles (Paris, 1983), 148.Google Scholar

11 The historiographical proofs of this relationship are abundant. Studies of Tuscan households, for example, indicate that both household size and complexity vary according to the wealth of the household: see Christiane, Klapisch and Michael, Demonet, ‘A uno pane e uno vino. La famille rurale toscane au début du XVe siècle’, Annales ESC 4–5 (1972), 885–6.Google Scholar

12 Out of a total of 338 inventories and partitions between 1706 and 1845 from three temporal courts, only 54 would appear to refer to families without land, i.e. 15 per cent. Even so, this does not mean that these families did not rent land, since the deeds would only register freehold and leasehold property.

13 The differences between the households of day-labourers and those of peasants have been emphasized by various authors. See, for example, Bernard, Derouet, ‘Famille, ménage paysan et mobilité de la terre et personnes en Thimerais au XVIIIe siècle’, Etudes rurales 86 (1986), 48–9Google Scholar; and see also F. Chacón et al., Contribution à l'histoire’, 168–9. Comparable evidence is also available for some Majorcan communities, for instance in Fornaluxt where though the households of peasants contained an average of 4.4 members, households of day-labourers had only 3.7 see Isabel Moll Blanes, ‘La estructura familiar del campesinado de Mallorca, 1824–27’, in the Centre d'Estudia Pierre Vilar's La familia, 246. There is also a marked contrast between Calabria, where there were many property-owning peasants, and Apulia, a region of large landed estates and many day-labourers see Gérard, Delille, Famille et propriéré dans le Royaume de Naples (XVe–XIXe siècles) (Paris, 1985).Google ScholarRobert, Rowland (La Hisroria 3 (1984), 15–17), also points out that ‘the most complex structures appear in areas where peasant economy predominates’ as opposed to those where day-labourers predominate.Google Scholar

14 This information was derived from death certificates. Out of the 254 families resident in 1788, data were available on 2320, the remaining 34 having moved away, thus being excluded from this analysis.

15 Prior to the nineteenth century, social polarization in the province of Valencia was very marked. For the specific case of La Huerta de Valencia, see José, Manuel Palop Ramos, ‘Propiedad, explotación y renta en la Huerta de Valencia. Moncada, 1740’, Esiudis 10 (1983), 116–17.Google Scholar See also Joan, Romero González, Propiedad agraria y sociedad en la España Mediterrànea. Los casos castellano y valenciano en los siglos XIX y XX (Madrid, 1983), 143–8 and 157–8.Google Scholar

16 These comparisons between farm size, the need for labourers, the size of the family and household complexity have been made for Eastern as well as Western Europe. See respectively Witold, Kula, ‘La seigneurie et la famille paysanne dans la Pologne du XVIIIe siècle’, Annales ESC 4–5 (1972)Google Scholar, and Jean-Claude, Peironnet, ‘Famille élargie ou famille nucléaire en Limousin au début du XIXe siècle’, Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Conternporaine XXII (1975), 569 and 580.Google Scholar

17 For a closer look at different types of Valencian houses, see F. Almela, Vives, La vivienda rural valenciana (Valencia, 1960).Google Scholar

18 On the differences between the houses of the poor and the rich, as well as for their implications for family strategies, see Collomp, La maison du père, 69–72. Between 1788 and 1808, according to the partitions, the average price of a cottage was less than 100 pounds (84, to be precise) whereas that of a farmhouse exceeded 700 (709 pounds). Among the latter would be included the house referred to in the partition of the possessions of Carlos Heres in Masamagrell. This countryman owned a fine property of 10.6 hectares and counted 6 mules, 1 horse, 24 wineskins and 5 ploughs as his principal possessions (Archivo Reino Valencia (hereafter ARV), protocol 7,500, folio 81, 27 July 1748).

19 These would include the Catalan masía (farmhouse) which is also present in the north of Valencia (in Morella, for example), the French maison and the Italian mezzadría. Research has confirmed that this Mediterranean family type had appeared in many different regions. See André, Burguière, ‘Les formes d'organisation domestique de L'Europe moderne’, Annales ESC 3 (1986), 646–7Google Scholar; Antoinette, Fauve-Chamoux, ‘Vieillesse et famille-souche’, Annales de Démographie Historique (1985), 111 and 116–17.Google Scholar

20 For a general account of this demographic growth, its causes and regional variations, see José, M. Pérez Garcia and Manuel, Ardit Lucas, ‘Bases del crecimiento de la población valenciana en la edad Moderna’, in Carmen Pérez, Aparicio ed., Estudis sobre la población del País Valenciá (Valencia, 1988), Vol. 1, 211–13 and 220–1.Google Scholar

21 The crude birthrate of Benimaclet in the eighteenth century averaged 42.8 per thousand and the total marital fertility ratio (the mean number of children born to married women surviving to age 45) averaged 7.37. See José, Manuel Pérez García, ‘Demografía coyuntural y factores autorreguladores in la Huerta de Valencia. El ejemplo de Benimaclet (1710–1855)’, in Pérez, Aparicio ed., Estudis sobre lapoblació, Vol. 1, 407ff.Google Scholar

22 The mean marriage duration in Benimaclet between 1711 and 1780 was 27.9 years. This, in combination with high fertility, assured numerous offspring, a considerable proportion of whom survived to form families of their own as well, despite the high mortality rate of infants prevalent throughout the eighteenth century (392.8 per thousand). This can be established by comparing the evidence contained in the notarial records with that from the family reconstitutions on the numbers of children ever born.

Children born and those surviving to the death of their parents (comparison of wills and partitions with family reconstitutions)

23 In Santiago de Compostela, dotal deeds constitute just 2 per cent of all deeds in the mid-eighteenth century, very different from the 8.7 per cent which we find for 1710–19, not to mention the 15.3 per cent for 1790–9. Whereas in the case of Extremadura it proved necessary to consult a total of 28 notaries and 81 files to obtain only 195 dotal deeds, we for our part only needed to consult 3 notaries for the period 1710–1719 and 2 for the period 1790–1799 to obtain 303 deeds. Wills are also abundant, representing 11.9 per cent of notarial deeds in the first half and 11.3 per cent in the second half of the century. For the Compostelan case, see M. Carmen Burgo, López, ‘Niveles sociales y relaciones matrimoniales en Santiago y su comarca (1640–1750) a través de las escrituras dotales’, and for Extremadura, Angel Rodríguez Sánchez, ‘Las cartas de dote en Extremadura’, both studies in the University of Santiago's La Documentación Notarial y la Historia (Salamanca, 1984), Vol. 1, pages 180 and 166 respectively.Google Scholar

24 In the work by Enrique Galto, ‘El grupo familiar en Ia Edad Moderna en los territorios del Mediterráneo hispánico una visión jurídica’ (in Centre d'Estudis Pierre Vilar, La familia, 36–64), equality of heirs in Valencia is not mentioned and Galto reports that distribution among legitimate heirs was determined at between one-third and one-half of the total, according to whether there were fewer than five, or five heirs and over, thus leaving the larger part of the estate for free disposition. This system would give, in theory, more freedom than the Castilian one, where as well as the one-fifth bequest it was possible also to dispose of one-third of the remaining four-fifths, raising the total value of the bequest, as the law required, to 53.3 per cent. Nevertheless, the Valencian system was in reality more complicated, as can be seen simply by studying the actual distributions detailed by the partitions. For the dichotomy between inheritance law and inheritance practice see Bernard Derouet, ‘Pratiques successorales et rapport à la terre: les sociétés paysannes d'Ancien Régime’, Annales ESC 44 (1989), 173 and especially 199–201.Google Scholar

25 For example, in the division of possessions of Manuel Soler, a resident of Rafelbuñol whose possessions totalled 6,982.5 pounds, his wife received the largest share, a total of 2,796 pounds (40 per cent), thanks to the dowry and earnest-money which she had contributed upon her marriage, the donation received, the bequest of one-fifth from her husband and a half-share of what they had accumulated during the marriage. Meanwhile, her four children (Joaquín, José, Manuel and María) – almost certainly minors, since they were all unmarried – received equal shares of what remained: 1,046 pounds each. As a result, the widow controlled the two houses, two lots of fertile land and other lesser items. The remaining lots (six) were reserved for the children. In total only two lots out of eight were theoretically divided up since the widow herself was to decide upon the endowment or endowments which she felt to be suitable. (See ARV, prot. 419, s/f, 2 April 1797.)

26 In the division of possessions which totalled 3,080 pounds of a resident of Aldaya, Francisca Ferrandiz (widow of Dionisio Folgado) received by dowry 189 pounds, by earnings 463 pounds and by bequest of one-fifth 486 pounds, that is 36.9 per cent of the possessions (including half of the house, all the furniture, five and half hanegadas of vines and other minor items). Her son Dionisio through an endowment of one-third (349 pounds) and a paternal bequest according to the law (531 pounds) accumulated 880 pounds or 28.6 per cent of the total. The most important elements of this were the other half of the house, three plots of land to own outright and a share in two others. His sisters, Rosa and María, had to be content with bequests as stipulated by law (17.2 per cent each), receiving two lots which they divided in half and another two which were divided in thirds among the three children. It is clear that Dionisio would probably be endowed by his mother in due course with the other half of the house, and the furniture and half of the lot which he shared with her, and the strategy in this respect is fairly clear. The paternal choice of principal heir had already been made while both parents were alive, and preference had been given to the son. It is highly likely that Dionisio would end up accumulating nearly two-thirds of the real estate (ARV, prot. 5,750, 1 July 1795). For a broader analysis of these strategies and their outcome see my paper ‘Crecimiento agrario y explotaciones campesinas en las Rías Bajas gallegas y en la Huerta de Valencia: un estudio comparativo’ (communication presented to the Simposio Internacional sobre Historia Rural, Séculos XVIII–XX, Santiago, 1988 and now in press). This pattern of change in Valencia is concomitant with that described by Ramón Lanza Garcí (‘Población y familia’, 154ff.), for the Santanderian mountain region.

27 A good example is provided by the division of real estate which was carried out among the Royo children on the death of their parents, involving a house valued at 360 pounds, ten hanegadas of vines and three hanegadas of fertile land valued at 380 pounds. José received the bequest as stipulated by law (235 pounds) and 100 pounds which his mother left him, but in actual fact he was awarded 460 pounds in possessions including the house. From out of this he was obliged to make compensatory payments of 124 pounds to his brother Miguel and 100 to his sister Rosa. For her part, Vicenta also received 470 pounds subject to compensatory payments as before, all the land as well as half the dowry already received (90 pounds) and had to make compensatory payments of 9 pounds to Rosa, 26 to Miguel and 200 to Pedro Royo – undoubtedly a close relative – in repayment of a family debt. Mariana, Rosa and Miguel, therefore, received no real estate and had to be content with the amounts which they had been granted in the form of dowries, the compensatory payments of their siblings José and Vicenta and the money from the patrimony. (See ARV, prot. 5,394, fo. 77v, 12 December 1794.)

28 This is probably the case with the distribution of the possessions of José Fuertes, a resident of Foyos, on 21 October 1797. The widow of this modest peasant, Bautista Ballester, received a total of 420 pounds by way of dowry, earnest-money, half the assets accumulated during the marriage, and her one-fifth bequest, in the form of furniture, the product of the current year's harvest and the horse. Her son Vicente as required by the law and a one-third special bequest received a total of 153 pounds awarded by way of two cottages and clothes. Finally, his sister Rosa was left with that proportion of the estate allowed by law (96 pounds), out of which she had already received 77 pounds in the form of a dowry and 18 pounds which were owed in connection with the inheritance by Mariano Ballester. It seems that the widow would live the rest of her life with her son, who had been granted the two cottages, and who would probably receive another bequest upon her death. (See ARV, prot. 5,494, fo. 70.)

29 To illustrate the strategy of a rich countryman we may cite the division of property of Felix Ferrer, a resident of Puebla de Famals, whose personal fortune was estimated at no less than 23,140 pounds (347,100 reales), he and his wife together having 26,401 pounds. This countryman had been able to give his daughters Josefa, Mariana and Vicenta magnificent dowries of 1,000, 914 and 1,000 pounds respectively, vastly in excess of the 130 pounds which their mother had brought as dowry Félix and his wife also accumulated some 4,000 pounds while married, a respectable figure indeed. In fact, the widow was left with 7,278 pounds by way of assets accumulated during the marriage, a one-fifth bequest, patrimonial possessions (of 1,000 pounds), dowry earnest-money and wedding bed, and she received among other things three houses (one of them being the parental home) as well as 17.84 hectares of land. Her son Félix, by half share of a one-third bequest and his share of the estate as stipulated bylaw, received 5,431 pounds in the form of real estate consisting of one house, one cottage and 3.34 hectares of land. The other son, José, through the application of the same principles and proportion of the shares, received 6.24 hectares of land. The three remaining daughters each received 2,754 pounds as authorized by the law and a house divided in two between Josefa and Vicenta as real estate, accompanied by 1.37 and 1.25 hectares of land each, while Mariana received 2.49 hectares. The widow and the two sons thus accumulated 69 per cent of the possessions and 84 per cent of the land, whereas the three daughters had to be content with much smaller shares. (ARV, prot. 3,714, fo. 35v, 7 May 1794.)

30 As evidence of the application of this policy, reference may be made to the distribution of Bautista Aparisi's estate among his children. Fray José received one house, which was to be passed on to his brother Bautista after his death. Francisco received all the land, that is, 2.742 hectares. Rosa was granted simply the 40 pounds she had already received as a dowry plus 15 pounds which she would receive from Francisco. Finally, Bautista received 45 pounds also as dowry plus 10 pounds from Francisco. (See ARV, prot. 7,800, fo. lO6v, 6 December 1748.)

31 For a somewhat exaggerated account of the small farms during this period, see de Orueta, Eugenio Burriel, La Huerta de Valencia. Zana Sur. Estudia de Geografia Agraria (Valencia, 1971), 285–93.Google Scholar In this context of demographic pressure and extreme demand for land, households rarely progressed from the basic nuclear form (parents plus unmarried children) into a complex one.See Burguière, , ‘Les formes’, 653.Google Scholar

32 In the division of the estate of Tomás Ballester, a resident of Puebla de Farnals, the widow received 1,282 pounds in respect of assets accumulated during the marriage, a one-fifth bequest, dowry and earnest-money, and was awarded half the house, as well as 2.21 hectares of land and the produce of the harvests. For his part, her son Francisco received 1,142 pounds as stipulated by the law, a donation and a bequest of one-third awarded by way of the other half of the house and the rest of the land, amounting to 3.54 hectares. His share was worth 1,922 pounds. His sister Josefa received, as required by law, the equivalent of 355.5 pounds, which was to be met by a compensatory payment from her brother. The defensive strategy is clearly evident. Mother and son, who were to share the house and land, probably set up a common home, while the daughter was displaced and would almost surely, in due course, receive as dowry when she married the amount which was due to her under the terms of the law. (See ARV, prot. 4,119, s/f., 27 May 1797.)

33 This is the case with the agreement between the sons of José Iborra, concluded on 12 December 1795. Vicente received half the house and farmyard with 1.10 hectares of land by way of the bequest of one-third and one-fifth of the total, valued at 710 pounds, while his brother Agustín received exactly the same, constituted in an identical way. For their part, their sisters Rosa and Maria were granted, as the law required, 260 pounds each, awarded in the form of identical lots of I hectare. (See ARV, prot. 8,044, fo. 38v, 12 December 1795.)

34 See Pérez García, ‘Demografia coyuntural’, 414. Trends in the mean age at marriage in Benimaclet

35 See Mira's, Joan ‘Organisation sociale et stratégie matrimoniale dans la région de Valence (Espagne)’ (Etudes Rurales 75 (1979)) in which the situation is described as radical egalitarianism where ‘everything is distributed in equal portions’ (p. 85). The situation is quite different from that found in earlier periods and provides a useful warning that social customs are not immutable.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Succession procedures can be significantly modified by adapting to changing situations. On the relevance of this important point for the transformation of the manner of social reproduction by means of succession strategies, see Derouet, ‘Pratiques successorales’, 202–4.

37 See Belda Soler, Marí Angles, El régimen matrimonial de bienes en los ‘furs de Valencia’ (Valencia, 1966), 45–57.Google Scholar

38 Thus in the dowry deed in favour of Marí Mateu, an inhabitant of Vinalesa, her future husband José Alcaina, also of Vinalesa, made known that ‘despite being aware of the laws of Castilla which only call for a tenth part as earnest-money, because of the love and affection which he feels for her, freely and without constraint, he increases it to 104 pounds’ which is nearly equivalent to what she would have received had the previous legal system been in force. (See ARV, prot. 1,564, 27 December 1708.) José Guillén, a resident of Manises, was not so generous in offering his future wife, who had brought a dowry of 232 pounds, only 40 pounds ‘according to the laws of Castilla’. (See ARV, prot. 8,084, fo. 6v, 11 December 1708.)

39 Juan Bautista, a neighbour from Quart, applied the strict Castilian law and offered as earnest-money to his future wife the tenth of ‘my free possessions’ but added that ‘should the laws which reigned previously in this Kingdom be re-established by his Majesty (God save him) he promises to pay the increase, vulgo creix, of half of the established dowry’. (See ARV, prot. 6,687, fo. 21v, 23 March 1719.)

40 The tables below give examples of two dowries whose contents are approximately that of the average values of their respective periods.

Dowry of Vicenta Cabedo (1715)

The differences appear to be minimal, both as regards their content and the size of the compensatory payments. See respectively ARV, prot. 6,686, fo. 26 and prot. 8,043, fo. 92.

41 Thus when the division of possessions of Manuela Badia, an inhabitant of Meliana, occurred, her children would have to add into their inheritances the amounts received when they were married which were as follows: Manuel 536 pounds, Bautista 250, Manuela 825 (greater than that required by the law, which was only 549), Maria Rosa 900 (the same) and Vicenta 297. These advance payments would have to be taken into account when they received their inheritance from their father, who was still alive. (See ARV, prot. 8,940, fo. 39, 19 January 1845.) In the same way we see that when the offspring of Joaquin Palau and Marí Badía, residents of Foyos who died intestate, decided to divide their parents' possessions in equal parts, they had to add the amounts received when they were married, as follows: Vicente 1,983 reales, Marí 2477, Mariana 2,264. However, Josefa had not received anything as she had remained a spinster. (See ARV, prot. 3,936, fo. 415, 13 March 1841.)

42 I would argue that this particular family pattern identified in Valencia has many similarities to the one which Rowland adduced for Aragon and Catalonia, where a predominance of complex households is linked to the hereu, the exclusion of women from the process of transmission of the patrimony, and with women marrying at a relatively early age. (See Rowland, , ‘Sistemas matrimoniales’, 127.)Google Scholar The differences seem to be that in Valencia women were not completely excluded from inheriting and that the advantages of the hereu are shared to a greater degree here by one or more of the males. However, the emphasis on descent in the male line is similar in both cases and this would explain the continuity of family names.

43 In 1787 26.8 per cent of the patients treated in the Hospital of Valencia originated in the area under study. SeeRodríguez, Fernando Díez, ‘La poblacidn de Ia ciudad de Valencia en el siglo XVIII. Censos y vecindarios’, in Aparicio, Pérez ed., Esiudis sabre Ia población, Vol. 1, 533.Google Scholar

44 As well as the example already cited (see note 25) we could add the division of the possessions of Francisco Cortina, verified on 9 December 1798, whose capital amounted to 18,769 pounds composed of real estate in the form of two houses and 14 hectares of land (valued at 17,539 pounds), cattle (284 pounds) and the annual harvest (946 pounds). His comfortable surpluses in December are indicated by his 135 hl. of wine and 39 hl. of wheat. (See ARV, prot. 4,068, fo. 33, 9 December 1798.) Another significant example is the division of the possessions of Juana Bautista Val, whose inventory, made on 23 October 1844, listed furniture and household equipment (604 pounds), a set of farming tools (475), lands (18,486) and jewellery (360) amounting altogether to 19,925 pounds. To this must be added the patrimony of the widowed husband (2,160 pounds) and some possessions acquired during the marriage (land valued at 1,630 pounds and a large house at 2,294 pounds). In total, property and possessions worth over 26,000 pounds were recorded, a splendid fortune without any doubt. Between 1825, when she provided a dowry of 515 pounds, and 1843, when she died, the accumulated earnings were 3,192 pounds. (See ARV, prot. 8,940, fo. 387v, 4 June 1845.) Finally we may mention the division of the possessions of Juan Falcó, an inhabitant of Masamagrell, who before the inflation of the eighteenth century owned a patrimony in real estate valued at 8,503 pounds and furniture at 877, a total of 9,380 pounds. The real estate consisted of two houses, one cottage and no less than 39 hectares of land. His wife's dowry in 1702 was 460 pounds but they were able to endow their children with ever-increasing amounts: to José in 1724 they gave 400 pounds, to Josefa in 1725 461 pounds, to Teresa in 1740 625 pounds and to Policarpa in 1742 620 pounds, demonstrating thereby the improvement in this family's material circumstances. (See ARV, prot. 7,500, fo. 16, 12 February 1747.)

45 From a combination of communion registers and Easter books we have been able to take a close, though incomplete, look at one of these privileged families of Ia Huerta de Valencia. The origins of the family can be traced back to the marriage of Tomás Suay and Marl Monros: Tomás died on 19 July 1723, leaving for the benefit of his soul a magnificent legacy of 100 pounds, and when this family appears on the first surviving Easter list (1725), his widow is stated as living in a farmhouse with three children and one servant. One of the sons, Francisco, married twice (first to Josefa Donderis in 1734, who died shortly afterwards and was buried with spiritual obligations of 50 pounds, and secondly to Gertmdis Bartual in 1739. On the death of his mother in 1742, he took over the ownership of the farmhouse. At this point he had 11 heirs, 9 of whom reached 8 years of age and were written down in the Easter books. Three married in Benimaclet, and 3 married elsewhere. The position in regard to the remaining 3 is unknown. There is no doubt that Francisco preserved his position as a rich country gentleman and when he was buried in 1790, having set aside 100 pounds for his soul, 13 priests attended. His sons, Luis and Mariano, continued to share the parental farmhouse. Francisco's brother, like his father also called Tomás, married Josefa Belenguer with whom he resided in another farmhouse and 9 priests assisted at his funeral, both of which facts are proof of his high social standing. His son, another Tomás, was to receive his father's farmhouse on his father's death, while his sister Teresa married in 1762 Vicente Esteve, a rich widowed farmer with whom she lived in another farmhouse shared with her brother-in-law, José Esteve, who was also married. There is no doubt about the standing of the Esteve family and when both brothers died in the 1790s 13 priests assisted at their funerals. This is a clear case of privileged countrymen and of a family's rise in wealth: one farmhouse in the first generation, two in the second and one more in the third through the female line. And it must be remembered that this is in the absence of complete information, due to inability to trace all the various descendants.

46 This situation could be a source of tension and conflict between the children who had received bequests and those who had not, which might explain the climate of great violence and criminality typical of the area. On this point see García, Pablo Pérez, ‘Una magistratura de la Valencia moderna: el Justicia criminal (1598–1621)’, Estudis 12 (1985–1986).Google ScholarSee also Burguière, , ‘Les formes d'organisation’, 656.Google Scholar

47 In other words, a single Mediterranean family type as such does not exist. On this point see F. Chacón Jiménez, ‘La familia en España: una historia por hacer’, in the Centre d'Estudis Pierre Vilar's La familia, 35.