| Hello
and welcome to the history page. This week we will resume our examination of Pitiusan
society prior to the outbreak of civil war. In our last instalment we learned
that, due to fundamental differences in the islands’ social organization,
Ibiza and Formentera had developed along completely separate political lines,
the larger island defending the status quo and the smaller island challenging
it. We also noted that the reason for this divergence rested on the fact that
Ibiza’s peasantry had abided for centuries as tenant farmers under the yoke
of the landowning class, whereas the settlers of Formentera - out of sheer necessity
- had established a ‘society of solidarity’ in which most families personally
owned the small patch of land on which they lived and worked. The result in political
terms was that Ibiza leaned heavily to the right of the spectrum while Formentera
leaned almost just as heavily to the left. Searching and
Fearless Historical Inventory Undoubtedly, I skimmed
too lightly over Ibiza’s agrarian set up last week, perhaps painting a portrait
of social injustice where none existed. It has since been brought to my attention
that, in fact, Ibiza’s landowning oligarchy was largely a benevolent one
- arguably so if the vast majority of the island’s peasantry did not join
forces with the leftist/socialist organizations that were sweeping up adherents
all over Spain - neighbouring Formentera being no exception. In order to rectify
my reportage and present a clearer picture of how Ibiza’s agrarian society
actually functioned, I have availed myself of an excellent article written by
the Ibicenco lawyer, Bernardo Cardona, in Missèr, the Balearic Bar Newsletter. Sharecropping
in Ibiza According to Cardona, sharecropping was the
agrarian custom most widely practiced in Ibiza, coming down to the 20th century,
basically unaltered, since the early days of Catalan rule. The laws governing
this practice were so implicitly understood by all members of society that written
contracts were considered unnecessary and verbal covenants formed the basis of
land-leasing arrangements. These covenants, generally made in the presence of
two third-party witnesses, were considered valid and binding in a court of law
should disagreements arise between the landlord and the sharecropper. How
It Worked One of the primary considerations in the
ceding of fincas to tenant farmers was the age and number of children the perspective
farmer had sired. Male offspring were especially valued as the entire family was
expected to work the land to its maximum yield. As a rule, the period of exploitation
of a given farmstead was left undetermined, the only stipulation being that the
occupation of the land invariably commenced on St. John’s Day (24th June)
and ended on the same date should either of the parties choose to discontinue
the tenancy. In most cases, however, agrarian tenures spanned many generations
with the right of exploitation passing directly from father to son upon the elder’s
death. The sharecropper - or mayoral in local parlance
- was entitled to half of the farmstead’s gross yield, either in kind or
in coin should any of the surplus have been sold at market. He and his family
were also entitled to live in the farmhouse rent-free for the duration of their
tenancy. Moreover, the mayoral was at total liberty to choose which crops he would
sow and how much tillage he would allocate to each crop. In return, the tenant
was expected to provide his own farming implements and beasts of burden, either
mules or horses. The Upkeep of Animals Two
sets of conditions existed in regard to the maintenance and repartition of 1)
plough animals, and 2) those types of livestock destined for consumption. In the
first case, the sharecropper was responsible for supplying his own utility animals
which, though held to be his personal property, were entitled to feed freely off
the produce of the finca. The landlord was subsequently entitled to a third of
any brood of work animals that was born and raised on the farm. In the case of
consumer-destined livestock, animals such as sheep, goats, cows, chickens, etc.
were supplied in equal number by tenant and landlord each. These animals were
also entitled to feed on the produce generated by the finca, however, as the livestock
was owned jointly, the landlord received half (rather than a third) of the young
of each litter. When, as sometimes happened, the farm’s produce proved insufficient
to maintain either category of animals, the purchase of extra feed fell to the
tenant in cases of utility animals, but was divided equally between landlord and
tenant in cases of consumer-bound animals. Termination
of a Contract When, for whatever reason, either of
the parties in a sharecropping contract wished to conclude the covenant, a process
called desvis was initiated. Again, the negotiations were carried out verbally,
in the presence of two witnesses, and always with an ample time margin so that
each party could make alternate arrangements for the coming year. If notice was
given by the tenant, the landlord went about finding a new mayoral for his finca.
If notice was given by the landlord, the ousted tenant quickly began to seek a
new farmstead on which he and his family could work. Given that the changeover
was always effected on 24th June, the latest date on which a desvis could be communicated
was 31st December. By tacit consent, a new mayoral was
allowed to visit the farm he would occupy come St. John’s Day in order to
prepare it for his occupancy. An outgoing sharecropper, for example, would neither
plough not plant any of the fields on the farm he would soon be vacating. Nor
was he entitled to collect any of the so-called ‘fruit of St. John’
(e.g. early figs, apricots, tiny pears, plums, etc,), leaving these harvests for
the incoming tenant. The all-important question of manure was a two-way street:
as of the first of the year, the new mayoral had the right to use any manure produced
on the farm he was to occupy; though, in exchange, he was bound to supply the
old mayoral with the straw that the livestock slept on and that would eventually
compost into manure. Closing On
that note, I shall bid you all farewell until next week when we will carry on
with an interesting legal case arraigned against an Ibicenco sharecropper in 1937. Note:
Many thanks to Carlos Espinosa for cuing me in to Bernardo Cardona’s interesting
article, published in Missèr, Revista del Ilustre Colegio de Abogados
de Baleares, Num. 54, July 2002, pages 32 and 33.
Emily
Kaufman
emilykaufman@ibizahistoryculture.com
| |
