The research for this project was supported by a Fulbright-Hays predoctoral fellowship and a grant from the University of California. The author wishes to acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of Gary Nigel Howe in the development of the conceptual framework. Others whose comments and editorial advice have been especially helpful are Robert Gilmore, Andrew Debicki, and Shirley Harkess.

¹ There is an enormous literature on this question, much of which is cited in Laslett, Peter, ed. Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A useful crosscultural statistical analysis of household and economy is Burch, Thomas, ‘The Size and Structure of Families, a Comparative Analysis of Census Data,” American Sociological Review 32:3 (1967): 347–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² The Sāo Paulo census enumerations were instituted by Luis Antonio de Sousa, the Morgado de Matheus and Captain-General of Sao Paulo from 1765 to 1775, and included the entire captaincy. His motivations were: to identify a population available for conscription in the southern wars; an interest in the development of commercial agriculture and of exports, i.e., to find out who could produce for these purposes; and to identify possible sources of tax revenues. Although such motivations usually led subjects to avoid the census, this was difficult when neighborhoods were so small and cohesive and the census taker a member of the neighborhood. The listing for each household was also checked by a separate enumerator against the previous year's listing. The censuses list all inhabitants (except slaves, between 1765 and 1776) by name, age, marital status, race (only sometimes and categories are inconsistent), place of birth (the best cite city and captaincy but censuses after 1817 note little beyond ‘Brazilian” and other nationalities), relationship to head of household, occupation (most censuses), income (few censuses after 1798) or property (only the 1765 census), production by household of crop, amount of harvest, and use for subsistence or sale (most censuses, some in detail), livestock and other animals owned by the household, other types of household production (rum, quilts, woven cloth, etc.), location of house by street and number (about half the censuses), members added or departed since last census and sometimes the reason, and empty houses on the street.

³ See especially Laslett, P., ed., Household and FamilyGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Michael, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; and Demos, John, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony (London, 1971).Google Scholar

⁴ This is analogous to the distinction between production for ‘use” (emphasis on ‘use value') and production for ‘exchange” (emphasis on ‘exchange value” in terms of money). See Marx, Karl, Capital, (London, 1887), Vol. I, Chap. IGoogle Scholar. The major studies of the domestic mode of production are the provocative and complex study of the Russian peasant household economy by Chayanov, A. V., The Theory of Peasant Economy (Homewood, 1966)Google Scholar and the more general theoretical study by Sahlins, Marshall, Stone Age Economics (Chicago, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵ Most important both for historical material and the present discussion is Candido, Antonio, Os parceiros do Rio Bonito (São Paulo, 1964)Google Scholar. See also Fukui, Lia Freitas Garcia, ‘Parentesco e familia entre sitiantes tradicionais,” unpublished Ph.D.dissertation in ciencias sociais, Universidade de São Paulo, 1972.Google Scholar

⁶ Studies on the city and province of Sao Paulo in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries include Morse, Richard M., From Community to Metropolis: a biography of Sao Paulo, Brazil (Gainesville, 1958)Google Scholar; Taunay, Alfonso d'Escragnolle, Historia do cafe no Brasil, 15 vols. (Rio de Janeiro, 1927–1937)Google Scholar; História da cidade de São Paulo no século xviii (São Paulo, 1945)Google Scholar; Ellis, Alfredo Jr., A economia paulista no século xviii (São Paulo, 1950)Google Scholar, Petrone, Maria Thereza Schorer, A lavoura canavieira em São Paulo (São Paulo, 1968)Google Scholar, Marcilio, Maria-Luiza, La Ville de São Paulo (Rouen, 1968).Google Scholar

⁷ From Marx, Karl I drew on Pre-capitalist Economic Formations (London, 1964)Google Scholar, Grundrisse, Nicolaus, Martin, trans. (London, 1974)Google Scholar, and Capital, Vol. IGoogle Scholar. The História Geral da Economia (São Paulo, 1968)Google Scholar by Weber, Max, The Great Transformation (New York, 1944)Google Scholar by Polanyi, Karl, and The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London, 1926) by Ricardo, David were also utilized in the theoretical argument.Google Scholar

⁸ Marcílio, , La ville de São Paulo, Tableau34, provided the raw data for these calculations.Google Scholar

⁹ Marcílio, Maria-Luiza, ‘Crescimento Demográfico e Evolução Agrária Paulista: 1700–1836,” Lime docencia submitted to the University of São Paulo 1974, pp. 238–40.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sex ratio figures for the district of São Paulo were based on the ‘maços de população,” capital, 1765, 1802, 1836, AESP. Figures on the captaincy of São Paulo were taken from Marcílio, , ‘Crescimento Demografico,” p. 135.Google Scholar

¹¹ Candido, , Os parceiros, pp. 36–80Google Scholar; Franco, Maria Sylvia de Carvalho, Homens livres na ordem escravocrata (São Paulo, 1969), pp. 80–81Google Scholar; Kuznesof, Elizabeth, ‘Household Economy and Composition in an Urbanizing Community: São Paulo 1765 to 1836,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1976Google Scholar; Sahlins, , Stone Age Economics, pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., pp. 130–43.

¹³ Candido, , Os parceiros, pp. 37–41Google Scholar, provides contemporary evidence for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on homemade utensils and manufactured goods. The role of women and children in the eighteenth-century household is here partly based on structural similarities to present-day subsistence slash-and-burn cultures as described especially in Fukui, ‘Parentesco e familia” and de Queiroz, Maria Isaura Pereira, Bairros rurais paulistas (São Paulo, 1972). Fukui, Pereira de Queiroz, and Candido also present historical evidence suggesting ways in which present practice follows or is different from that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Other evidence is found in Carvalho Franco, Homens livres.Google Scholar

¹⁴ A typical example is the discussion in Smith, T. Lynn, Brazil, Portrait of Half a Continent (New York, 1951).Google Scholar

¹⁵ This estimate is based on the assumption that the slave population in 1765 was equivalent to that of 1767 and also that 50 percent of households had at least one slave. Note that 43.6 percent of households owned slaves in 1778. An assumption that more households possessed slaves would result in an estimate of fewer households with more than four slaves. The 1767 slave census is found in Publicação oficial de documentos interessantes para a história e costumes de São Paulo XXIII (São Paulo, 1895–)Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as DI, XIX, p. 285.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Neither household agricultural production nor farming as an occupation were listed in the 1765 census. The 1770, 1772, 1776, 1777 and 1778 censuses, although incomplete, do include data on crops produced for each household and whether crops were consumed within the household or sold in the market. The first two censuses indicate that all households, both urban and rural, cultivated small plots for subsistence. The last three also indicate that subsistence farming continued to be the rule even within the urban area in 1776 and 1778.

¹⁷ The municipal market, constructed in 1774, was initially financed by a wealthy merchant, Jeronymo de Castro Guimaraēs. See Taunay, , História da cidade, II:1, pp. 133ff. Before that time wandering street vendors, selling mostly their own products, constituted the only form of marketing. One major objection to this form of commerce was the almost total impossibility of taxing it.Google Scholar

* Subsistence agriculture was practiced universally by households in São Paulo in 1765.

#72.5 percent of household heads had no listed occupation beyond subsistence agriculture in 1765.

1. Extractive occupations include agriculturalists, cattle ranchers, woodcutters, fishermen, and miners. 2. Artisans include cobblers, tailors, coppersmiths, blacksmiths, saddlers, goldsmiths, watchmakers, spoonmakers, tanners, cabinetmakers, guitarmakers, and apprentices. 3. Construction includes bricklayers or masons, stoneworkers, and carpenters. 4. Textile includes seamstresses, spinners and weavers, quiltmakers, silk-makers, and cotton carders. 5. Service includes hairdressers, barbers, cooks, door-keepers, gardeners, servants, butchers, and laundresses. 6. Manufacturing includes comb and whistle manufacturers, sugar and rum producers, flour producers, potters, brickmakers, makers of hats, soap, and cigarettes, and gunpowder manufacturers. 7. Professions include public employees, lawyers, profes- sors in the law faculty, bailiffs, doctors, surgeons, pharmacists, scribes, accountants, engineers, elementary teachers, men of letters. 8. Business and Commercial include small grocers, sales clerks, businessmen, beverage importers, wholesalers, taverners, exporters of food products, importers of food from nearby towns, retail sugar vendors, slave dealers and their assistants, money lenders, drygoods storekeepers and wholesalers, greengrocers and street vendors. 9. Transport includes oxcart drivers, drovers, drivers and owners of mule teams. 10. Religious includes priests, chaplains, sanchristians, and bishops. 11. Paid Military needs no explanation. 12. Artistic includes painters, musicians, writers, actors and sculptors. 13. Non-productive includes students, those living with assistance of parents or sons, beggars and pensioners. 14. ‘Other” Occupations include day laborers, those living on interest from capital or previous earnings, various undefined occupations, i.e., in arrangements (arranjos) or agencies (agendas), landlords and those renting out slaves for a living.

Source: These figures are based on ‘maços de populaçao” capital 1765, 1802 and 1836, AESP. For 1765 all occupations are included, subsistence plus one other at most. For 1802 the major occupation of the head of household is included, though 45 percent had more than one occupation. For 1836 only the occupation of the head of household was counted even though there was a mean 2.2 earners per household in that year.

¹⁸ de Matheus, Morgado, ‘Cartas escriptas a S. Mage, pelo seu conselho ultramarino no anno de 1767” DI, São Paulo, AESP.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Fukuí, , ‘Parentesco e familia'Google Scholar; de-Queiroz, Pereira, Bairros rurais paulistasGoogle Scholar; Sahlins, , Stone Age Economics.Google Scholar

²⁰ Sahlins, discussing the political economy of subsistence societies, points out, ‘…the economic is not necessarily the dominant basis of authority in the simpler societies: by comparison with generational status, or with personal attributes, and capacities from the mystical to the oratorical, it may be politically negligible,” ibid., p. 139. The Morgado de Matheus attributed the difficulties in dealing with the local populace to their dispersed residence patterns, but he also stated that paulistas deliberately (and successfully) avoided any contacts with the authorities, DI, XIII, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

²¹ See n. 5.

²² Rendon, Jose Arouche de Toledo, ‘Reflexoēs,” DI, XLIV, p. 196.Google Scholar

²³ DI, XXIII, pp. 1–10. An alqueire was a grain measure of the colonial period, but varied from locality to locality. Dauril Alden suggests that an alqueire of rice weighed 72 pounds. In modern Brazil an alqueire is usually the unit of land needed to grow an alqueire of grain.Google Scholar

²⁴ Registro Geral da Camara Municipal de São Paulo, XI, 9 novembro 1765Google Scholar, Actas da Camara Municipal de São Paulo, XV, 5 de marco 1766, XVI, 4 de Janeiro 1772, 17 de junho 1775.Google Scholar

²⁵ The companhias de ordenança (militia companies) were organized by neighborhood and could not be used outside the district of the city of their residence. See Prado, Caio Jr., The Colonial Background of Modern Brazil (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 361–84.Google Scholar

²⁶ DI, XXIII, pp. 1–10Google Scholar. It is clear from all contemporary records that the large land grants did not keep the common agriculturalist from occupying lands. The major problem was to persuade people to settle down and be of use to the community. For the relationship between available land and the settlement patterns that evolved in São Paulo through the nineteenth century, as well as related social patterns, see Prado, Caio Jr., ‘Problemas de Povoamento e a Divisão da Propriedade Rural,” in Evolução Politico do Brasil e Outros Estudos (São Paulo, 1961).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Kuznesof, Elizabeth, ‘Clans, the Militia and Territorial Government: the Articulation of Kinship, with Polity in Eighteenth-Century São Paulo,” in Robinson, David J. and Browning, David G., eds., Social Fabric and Spatial Structures in Colonial Latin America (New York, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁸ ‘Reflexoēs,” DI, XLIV, pp. 196–97.Google Scholar

²⁹ DI, LXXIII, p. 92Google Scholar. It is clear from ethnographic studies of primitive bairros of presentday São Paulo as well as from studies of other primitive areas that more leisure time was consistent with the subsistence economy. See Fukuí, , ‘Parentesco e familia,” pp. 208–17Google Scholar; Candido, , Os parceiros, pp. 39–41Google Scholar. Lia Fukui, in her monograph on subsistence society in Itapecerica da Serra (São Paulo), found that 124 days of the year were formally defined as free from work, 140 included working time on the farm, and the rest were ‘more or less” dedicated to tasks away from the fields. See also Sahlins, , Stone Age Economics, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar

³⁰ This statement directly follows Karl, Marx, Grundrisse, p. 146.Google Scholar

³¹ According to Sahlins' scheme of ‘several reciprocities from freely bestowed gift to chicanery,” this falls into the category of ‘balanced reciprocity,” where reciprocation is the customary equivalent of the thing received and is immediate (Stone Age Economics, p. 194Google Scholar). Sahlins points out that this type of exchange is less ‘personal” than generalized reciprocity. From our own vantage point it is ‘more economic” The parties confront each other with distinct economic and social interests. The material side of the transaction is at least as critical as the social: there is more or less precise reckoning, as the things given must be covered within some short term. So the pragmatic test of balanced reciprocity becomes an inability to tolerate one-way flows; relations between people are disrupted by failure to reciprocate within limited time and equivalence leeways. In the main run of generalized reciprocities the material flow is sustained by prevailing social relations; whereas, for balanced exchange, social relations hinge on the material flow (p. 195). Marx, on the other hand, believed that the modern concepts of equality and freedom rose out of this moment of equivalent circulation; they are the opposite of the same concepts in the ancient world. See Grundrisse, p. 245.Google Scholar

³² It is important to notice here that this type of exchange has already come some distance from ‘generalized reciprocity’—a ‘pooling” of resources determined by social ties. Individualization in the social sense has already made considerable inroads, with exchange making ‘economic” as opposed to ‘social” sense.

³³ This is analogous to the positive sum game posited by Ricardo, David, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (London, Everyman's Library, 1926), pp. 86–87. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage, in which he argues the advantages of an international division of labor, is convincing as long as the assumption is made that politics and relative power have nothing to do with trade. Ironically enough, Ricardo used precisely the example of Portugal's trade of wine for English woollen goods, a trade agreement that clearly reflected Portugal's need for English military protection in spite of the damage done to her woollen industry by trade.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Lipton, M., “Theory of the optimizing peasant,” J. Dev. Studies, 43 (1970), on peasants entering and leaving the market according to harvest and price.Google Scholar

³⁵ DI, XXIII, p. 383.Google Scholar

³⁶ Weber, , História Geralda Economia. p. 86, Ch. 1, Sect. 4, ‘O regime senhorial.’Google Scholar

³⁷ The primitive state of eighteenth-century roads in São Paulo is described in Bruno, Ernani Silva, Historia do Brasil geral e regional (São Paulo, s.d.), V, pp. 72–80Google Scholar. The story of the development of the road system and the production and commercialization of sugar on the plateau from 1776 to 1850 has been well established in the excellent work of Petrone, A lavoura canaveieira. See also Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. II.Google Scholar

³⁸ This is clear from the city council records. See ibid. for detailed discussion of the importance of private contributions to the development of a ‘public” infrastructure.

³⁹ The valorization of property, both improved and unimproved, is demonstrable from an examination of the property inventories of the late eighteenth century, as are other changes in rents and types of construction. See ibid., Chap. VII. Marcilio, , ‘Crescimento demografico,” pp. 285–88, clearly demonstrated the increase in land values on the captaincy level as well as the gradual concentration of property and slave ownership.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Comments by provincial president Almeida Torres in 1820 on land litigation problems are found in Revista do Instiluto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, XXXVI, p. 256Google Scholar. See Marcilio, , ‘Crescimento demografico,” pp. 285–88Google Scholar on the captaincy of São Paulo; and AESP, Cartas de datas de terras, VI, for the city of Sao Paulo from 1800 to 1820. Further cases of harassment, bullying, threats, and even kidnapping as a means of forcing cession of lands are found in AESP, TC, ‘Requerimentos sobre dividas, herancas, queixas, relaxacao de prisoes, annos 1800–1819,” no. ordem 34, caixa 93.Google Scholar

⁴¹ By 1820 most of the land of the province of São Paulo had been officially granted or sold, although much of it had not been cultivated. See Henderson, James, A History of Brazil (London, 1821), pp. 86–87Google Scholar. This fact should not be seen as indication of a land ‘shortage.” The official ‘use” of the titles was to produce laborers, and that was also what happened in practice. See Prado, J. F. de Almeida, D. Joao VI eo início da classe dirigentedo Brasil (São Paulo, 1968), pp. 31–46Google Scholar on the great land grants to friends of the government in the early nineteenth century and the efforts to force small farmers into social and economic dependency. The debates over the 1850 land law (proposed in 1842) bring out especially well the doctrine of the ‘sufficiently high price.” One State Council report states, ‘One of the benefits of the proposal that the Council has the honor to propose to Your Imperial Majesty is to make the acquisition of land more expensive…. Since the profusion in land grants has, more than other causes, contributed to the difficulty that today we feel in finding free workers, it is our view that from now on land should be available only by sale. By thus raising the value of land and making the acquisition of land difficult, we can expect that the poor immigrant will rent his labor out for some time, before finding the means of becoming a proprietor.” Consulta do Conselho de Estado Sobre assuntos da competencia do Ministerio do lmpério, cologidas e publicadas por ordem do governo por Joaquim Jose da Costa Medeiros e Albuquerque (Rio de Janeiro, 1888)Google Scholar. For a discussion of land ownership, land legislation, and the development of export crops in the Paraíba Valley, see Stein, Stanley, Vassouras (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 10–17Google Scholar. Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. V, provides discussion for the paulista plateau.Google Scholar

⁴² Although perpetually dependent and imprisoned by not being privileged to hold title to land, the landless agriculturalist was not tied to any particular estate, except through ritual kinship and patronage. The instability of the rural worker was well known; the poverty and marginality of the agregado was so great that any apparent advantage could draw him to another fazenda. See Prado, Jr., Evolucdo Politico, pp. 227–28.Google Scholar

⁴³ Although I have no proof of concentration of land ownership within the district of the city of São Paulo, the evidence for the province of São Paulo in this period is good and has been commented on by several scholars. In addition to Stein Vassouras, see Marcilio, , ‘Crescimento demografico,” pp. 285–87Google Scholar; Canabrava, Alice Piffer, ‘A repartição da terra na capitania de São Paulo, 1818,” Estudos Econimicos, II:6 (12. 1972), 104–10Google Scholar; Guimaraes, Alberto Passos, Quatro séculos de latifundio (Rio de Janeiro, 1968), pp. 80–98Google Scholar; Franco, Carvalho, Homens Livres, pp. 95–110Google Scholar; Herrmann, Lucila, ‘Evolução da estrutura social de Guaratinguetá num período de trezentos anos,” Revista de Administração (03–06 1948), 108–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. V.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Crops whose cultivation within the district were clearly concentrated in certain bairros in 1836 included rice (Guarulhos, 61.07 percent of district's production), coffee (São Bernardo, 91.01 percent), peanuts (Juquery, 90.56 percent), tobacco (Cutia, 100 percent), manioc flour (Guarulhos, 48.67 percent; São Bernardo, 32.42 percent). These figures are based on the mapa geral of 1836, found in AESP, TC, No. Ordem 31, Caixa 31.

⁴⁶ Similar risk-spreading behavior was noted by Geertz, Clifford for a contemporary Indonesian town: Peddlars and Princes (Chicago, 1963), p. 40.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ One example of many possible is the following: Census of the south of the Sé, 1836, Quarteirão 17, Household 13, AESP, TC, ‘macos de população,” No. Ordem, 36, Caixa 36. Head: Luiza Maria, 30, white, born São Paulo, single seamstress; agregada: Gertrudes Maria da Conceicao, 48, brown, free, born city, single laundress; her son: Marcelino Joze, 18, single, soldier, musician, salaried; agregada: Manoela Maria, 32, brown, free, single, laundress; agregado: Luiz Joaquim, 31, white, single, 72 mil reis annual salary; agregada: Brasileira Joaquim, 29 parda, freed, single, seamstress.

⁴⁸ See Filho, Nestor Goulart Reis, Quadro da arquitetura no Brasil (São Paulo, 1970), for urban development and land use based on architectural evidence.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Demos, John, A Little Commonwealth, Family Life in Plymouth Colony, p. 187, concluded that the major reason for the change in household composition in Plymouth from 1689 to the present was ‘…the separation of work from the individual household, in connection with the growth of an urban, industrial system.’Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Contemporary evidence on female-headed households in central America and the Caribbean is especially striking: Smith, Raymond T., The Negro Family in British Guiana (London, 1956)Google Scholar; Smith, M. G., Kinship and Community in Carriacau (New Haven, 1962)Google Scholar and West Indian Family Structure (Seattle, 1962)Google Scholar; and Gonzalez, Nancie L. S., Black Carib Household Structure (Seattle and London, 1969). Households headed by single males do not appear in these societies.Google Scholar

⁵¹ This data, derived from the records of the Santa Casa, was reported in a paper presented at the I Congresso de Historia de São Paulo, Campinas, Universidade Católica, in July 1972 by Mesgraves, Laima, ‘A “roda” da Santa Casa de São Paulo: a assistencia social aos enjeitados no seculo xix.”Google Scholar Governor Antonio Manoel de Mello Castro e Mendonça, ‘Memória economico-politica da capitania de São Paulo,” Anais do Museu Paulista, XV (1961), pp. 103–04, spoke of illegitimate children in 1800 as follows: ‘A falta de providencias a respeito daquelles innocentes cujo nascimento as circumstancias de suas mays obriga occultar, he cauza nãó so de muitos infanticidios, que ordinariamente acontecem, mas tambem de near a sociedade privada do bem, que lhe rezultaria de os fazer educar, sendo muito poucos os que a ma trato dos particulares, a cujas portas são lancados, deixa viver….’Google Scholar

⁵² Laslett, , ed., Household and family, p. 25, defined a household as follows: ‘they slept habitually under the same roof (a locational criterion); they shared a number of activities (a functional criterion); they were related to each other by blood or by marriage (a kinship criterion).” All residing members (listed under one head of household) who can be viewed as sharing production and/or consumption activities are defined as household members in this study. The household must be distinguished from all those living in the same building. For the 1836 census designations such as ‘in the same house” or ‘downstairs” often precede the listing of a new household in the same building.Google Scholar

⁵³ Wade, Richard, The Urban Frontier (Chicago, 1959), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Anderson, Michael, Family Structure, pp. 45–55.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Urban poverty in the early phases of modernization was common in both Great Britain and the United States. Nevertheless, it may be that the development of export agriculture without the concomitant development of urban industry produced more acute economic problems for the urban poor in Brazil than in industrializing countries.

⁵⁵ Ramos, Donald, ‘Marriage and the Family in Colonial Vila Rica,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 55:2 (05 1975), 220CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, Ann Hagerman, ‘The Impact of Market Agriculture on Family and Household Structure in Nineteenth Century Chile,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 58:4 (11. 1978), 646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Handicraft cotton textile production in Brazil and its importance in the market is seldom mentioned in the literature. See, however, the discussion of the decline in handicraft production in Brazil with the entrance of imported cloths in Stein, Stanley, The Brazilian Cotton Textile Manufacture (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ See Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. V.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The sex ratio in 1836 is much improved even over the 1765 figure but households headed byfemalesin 1836 increased 10.5 percent over 1765, and the ratio of ‘married’ couples is over 20 percent lower. Sex ratio is often viewed as the critical variable in the development of households headed by females. See, for example, Marino, Anthony, ‘Family, Fertility and Sex Ratios in the British Caribbean,” Population Studies, XXIV:2 (07 1970), 159–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Hilaire, Auguste de Sainte, Viagem a provincia de São Paulo (São Paulo, 1972), p. 169.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. V.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The valorization of property, both improved and unimproved, is demonstrable from the property inventories of the late eighteenth century, as are changes in rents and types of construction. See Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. VIIGoogle Scholar. Also see Marcilio, , ‘Crescimento demografico,” pp. 285–88Google Scholar, on increase in land values on the captaincy level. Johnson, , ‘The Impact of Market Agriculture,” 644–47, considers that pressure on land was the major cause for change (i.e., migration or expansion) in household structure during a period of economic development.Google Scholar

⁶² Wade, , The Urban Frontier, pp. 214–15Google Scholar; Anderson, , Family Structure, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar

⁶³ See the discussion in Filho, Reis, Quadro da Arquitetura, pp. 21–42Google Scholar. I encountered many examples of this in the unpublished property inventories stored in AESP, TC, Inventários não publicados, caixas 50–94, 1740–1820Google Scholar. A typical example is that of da Silva, Jose Antonio, 1797, Caixa 92.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Freyre, Gilberto, The Masters and the Slaves (New York, 1946).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For developments in the rural elite household see Kuznesof, , ‘Household Economy,” Chap. V.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Laslett, , ed., Household and Family, p. 126.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 104.