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. |