Laslett and Herlihy notes--last bit of background for papers, all!

Laslett

“In spite of attempts at complete definition, important concepts have been left indefinite, as for example that of ‘work’” (538).

“Presence on the spot in the house or whatever counted as home, working there, reproducing there, or simply usually being there, has been the almost universal criterion of those who have written out household descriptions. Very seldom have they taken note of connections among households or among persons within separate households” (516).

As a number of responses acknowledged, an impregnable definition of either household or work is almost impossible to agree upon. Residency remains a terminally inconsistent term and may not even require an actual “residence,” as opposed to something “familiar”. I hesitate in writing “household” completely off as a universal concept, however, in that though the specific, or even the broader descriptions of different households change, even are in contrast to one another—households acting as descriptions of blood ties, marital trade-offs, work relationships, organization for financial accounting, etc—the idea of the household remains, something that is implicitly “held” in a grouping. This grouping is or becomes ordered in some way—the “householder” emerges, and could be a master craftsman, a breadwinner, or a mother for example. Issues of gender, age and experience enter into the hierarchy. The aim? Self-sufficiency.

It is here that we encounter a quandary: what about households that are not self-sufficient? Are they households? Those mentioned in the article included households headed by poor widows or wage earners out of work. What interventions maintain these households—how are they regulated? Domestic group. Household. Work group. How do these interrelate to create a “familiar” experience?

Herlihy

If the household is a unit of measurement for organization and regulation of a population, the purpose of the household in the case of the Tuscans in the 1420s was to maintain the state through economic support—serve as a means for efficient tax collection. But how did this economic reality affect the way in which the household was experienced on a daily basis by (a) the citizens and (b) the state? Wrote Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber: “we see our Tuscan families through the spectacles of tax collectors. We must determine what they marked clearly, and what they ignored” (1).

Florentine financial history:

• Forced loans: “[the government] required that its citizens lend the needed moneys; and it promised to pay interest on the sums it took, and ultimately to repay the loans themselves, when peace and prosperity allowed” (3)
o Implications? Citizens have vested interest in bringing about peace to avoid being forced to lend. What behavior ensued? Citizen responsiveness? State enforcement?
o Better methods for assessing tax rates needed. Policies for division of revenue? Agency for citizens now in a financial relationship with state?
• Estimo—rural, measured the ability of a household to pay in relation to neighbors, not “true worth of its holdings” (6)
o Teste, “head” of household—male, “able-bodied”—subject to special tax rate
o Earlier studies allowed for a comparison, but caused problems in methodology because surveys were not identical
• Venice: wealth, “real property” assessed, and tools of production excluded to prevent potentially industrious residents from leaving. Exemption provided for family members. Adult males not taxed.
• Florence: wealth assessed, but not property without returns, tools. Deductions for family members, but not members of work group (“salaried person”). Adult males taxed.
• Via Catasti: unit of measurement was “fiscal hearth”—tax-paying household
o Definition of family outlined, work and domestic groups separated
o Could be “resident” in one house, head of another—male servants
o Could be living elsewhere, but be included in a Florentine household if close relative
o Household—blood, obligations of support, reliance, responsibility, kinship
o What becomes of those households that are not self-sufficient? How does the state consider them? How does social policy react to them?
o How do collection methods reflect cultural or national policies or biases?