1 Blom, Ida, ‘Widowhood: from the Poor Law society to the Welfare society: the case of Norway, 1875–1964’, Journal of Women's History 4 (1992), 52–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘The history of widowhood: a bibliographic overview’, Journal of Family History 16 (1991), 191–210Google Scholar; Rose, Sonya O., ‘Widows and poverty in nineteenth-century Nottinghamshire’, in Henderson, John and Wall, Richard eds., Poor women and children in the European past (London, 1994), 269–91.Google Scholar

2 Blom, , ‘Widowhood’, 53–4.Google Scholar

3 See Gunnarsson, Gísli, The sex ratio, the infant mortality and adjoining social response in pre-transitional Iceland (Lund, 1983).Google Scholar

4 Calculated on basis of Manntalið á Íslandi hinn 1. nóvember 1901 (Copenhagen, 1904), 28–9.Google Scholar

5 Due to the skewed sex ratio, widows were almost three times more numerous than widowers in the age groups above 50 (1,136 widowers compared to 2,823 widows) (Manntalið á Íslandi hinn 1. nóvember 1901, 28–9).

6 Sokoll, Thomas, ‘The household position of elderly widows in poverty: evidence from two English communities in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries’, in Henderson and Wall eds., Poor women and children, 207.Google Scholar

7 See for instance, Borscheid, Peter, Geschichte des Alters. Vom Spätmittelalter zum 18. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1989)Google Scholar, and Berkner, Lutz K., ‘The stem family and the developmental cycle of the peasant household: an eighteenth-century Austrian example’, American Historical Review 75 (1972).Google Scholar

8 Gunnlaugsson, Gísli Agúst and Guttormsson, Loftur, ‘Transitions into old age: poverty and retirement possibilities in late eighteenth and nineteenth century Iceland’, in Henderson, and Wall, eds., Poor women and children, 251–68.Google Scholar

9 For an overview see Blom, ‘The history of widowhood’, Elles Bulder has recently dealt with the social economics of old age in the Netherlands; see her published thesis The social economics of old age: strategies to maintain income in later life in the Netherlands 1880–1940 (Amsterdam, 1993).

10 The way in which widowhood affected women was, of course, dependent upon other factors as well, for instance, class, religious beliefs, previous work experience and skills and the nature and timing of the spouse's death. See Arlene Scadron, ‘Introduction’, in Scadron, Arlene ed., On their own: widows and widowhood in the American Southwest 1848–1939 (Urbana and Chicago, 1988), 1–2.Google Scholar

11 There has been some debate about the extent to which English widows preferred to remarry in previous centuries. Barbara J. Todd has challenged the view that remarriage improved the economic position of widows. She maintains that in many cases remaining single was preferable to marrying a poor or otherwise unsuitable suitor. Her observations have relevance for the study of remarriage in other populations. See Todd, Barbara J., ‘Demographic determinism and female agency: the remarrying widow reconsidered…again’, Continuity and Change 9 (1994), 421–50,CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Boulton, Jeremy, ‘London widowhood revisited: the decline of female remarriage in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries’, Continuity and Change 5 (1990), 323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Statistics of Iceland II, 82. Statistical abstract of Iceland 1984 (Reykjavik, 1984), 39–41.Google Scholar; For a discussion on remarriage in Iceland, see Hansen, Hans O., ‘The importance of remarriage in traditional and modern societies: Iceland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the cohort of Danish women born between 1926 and 1935’, in Dupâquier, J. et al. eds., Marriages and remarriage in populations of the past (London, 1981).Google Scholar; See also Gunnlaugsson, Gísli Ágúst, Family and household in Iceland 1801–1930: studies in the relationship between demographic and socio-economic development, social legislation and family and household Structures (Uppsala, 1988), 112–14.Google Scholar

13 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 39.

14 Marriage prospects of elderly widowers were far better than was the case with widows. Thus about 15 per cent of those marrying in Iceland during the period 1866–1906 were widowers above the age of 50 (ibid.). The proportion of widows and widowers remarrying in nineteenth-century Iceland closely resembles that reported for nineteenth-century England. See Todd, Barbara J., ‘The remarrying widow: a stereotype reconsidered’, in Prior, Mary ed., Women in English society, 1500–1800 (London, 1985), 56.Google Scholar; See also Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, Roger, The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (London, 1981), 258–9.Google Scholar

15 Kälvemark, Ann-Sofie, ‘Kommer familjen att överleva? Historiska aspekter påäktenskap och familj i det svenska smahället’, in Norman, Hans ed., Den utSatta familjen: liv, arbete och samlevnad i olika nordiska miljöer under de senaste ivåhundra åren (Stockholm, 1983).Google Scholar

16 Gunnlaugsson, Gísli Ágúst, ‘Living arrangements of the elderly in a changing society: the case of Iceland, 1880–1930’, Continuity and Change 8(1993), 103–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gunnlaugsson, and Guttormsson, , ‘Transitions into old age’, 251–68Google Scholar; Gunnlaugsson, Gísli Ágúst and Garðarsdóttir, Ólöf, ‘Availability of offspring and the household position of elderly women: some evidence drawn from the Icelandic census of 1901’, Journal of Family History 20 (1995), 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Magnússon, Magnús S., Iceland in transition: Labour and socio-economic change before 1940 (Lund, 1985), 98–114.Google Scholar

18 Erlendsdóttir, Sigriður Th, ‘Reykvískar konur í atvinnulifinu 1880–1914’, in Ástgeirsdóttir, Kristín ed., Reykjavík miðstöð þjóðlifs (Reykjavik, 1978), 41–61Google Scholar; Sigurðardóttir, Anna, Vinna kvenna á Íslandi í 1100 ár (Reykjavik, 1985)Google Scholar; Jóhannsson, Simon Jón and Vigfúsdóttir, Ragnhildur, Íslandsdætur. Svipmyndir úr lifi íslenskra kvenna 1850–1950 (Reykjavik, 1991;)Google ScholarVigfúsdóttir, Ragnhildur, ‘Saumakonur í Reykjavík 1900–1940’ (unpublished BA thesis, University of Iceland, 1985).Google Scholar

19 Gunnlaugsson, , ‘Living arrangements of the elderly’, 119.Google Scholar

20 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15.

21 Gunnlaugsson, , Family and household in Iceland, 157–8.Google Scholar

22 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15; Gunnlaugsson, , Family and household in Iceland, 138–71Google Scholar; Skúlason, SigurðurSaga Hafnarfjaðar (Reykjavik, 1933).Google Scholar

23 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15; Þór, Jón Þ., Saga Ísafjarðar og Eyrarhrepps hins forna II (Ísafjörður, 1986).Google Scholar

24 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15; Jónsson, Klemens, Saga Akureyrar (Akureyri, 1948).Google Scholar

25 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15; Garðarsdóttir, Ólöf, ‘A faraldsfæti. Fólksflutningar og félagsgerð á Seyðisfirði 1890–1905’ (unpublished BA thesis, University of Iceland, 1993).Google Scholar

26 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15.

27 Gunnlaugsson, Family and household in Iceland and ‘Living arrangements of the elderly’; Gunnlaugsson and Guttormsson, ‘Transitions into old age’; Gunnlaugsson and Garðarsdóttir, ‘Availability of offspring’.

28 Statistics of Iceland II, 82, 14–15.

29 Ibid.

30 For Reykjavik, , Árnessýsla, Húnavatnssýsla and Norður-Múlasýsla see Manntalið á Íslandi hinn 1. nóvember 1901, 14–16 and 21–3. For the four towns, see National Archives of Iceland, Reykjavik (hereafter NAI), the Icelandic census of 1901.Google Scholar

31 Owing to insufficient information in the census we were forced to leave out of the study a few widows in all the districts.

32 Manntalið á Íslandi hinn 1. nóvember 1901, 14–23.

33 All the widows in these two groups (boarders and lodgers) were living ‘alone’, i.e. without dependants. Widows with dependants (offspring or relatives) who according to the census were lodgers or boarders are in the present study classified as heads of household.

34 Tamara K. Hareven has shown that ‘contrary to prevailing theories, urbanization and industrialization did not break down traditional kinship patterns’; see Hareven, Tamara K., ‘The life course and aging in historical perspective’, in Hareven, Tamara K. and Adams, Kathleen J. eds., Aging and lfe course transitions: an interdisciplinary perspective (New York, 1982), 23.Google Scholar

35 A small proportion (4–6 per cent) of widows were living with relatives other than offspring. These are included among those tabulated as living in ‘other’ arrangements. The household position of the other women belonging to the group ‘other’ is less clearly defined in the census. Some of them are classified in terms such as ‘sick’, ‘in need of care’, ‘is partially cared for at the expense of her son’, ‘lives partly on her own money’, etc., which make it virtually impossible to determine the actual household position of the widow in question or to establish beyond doubt the nature of her relationship with the head of household.

36 Richard Wall points out that ‘Prior to the demographic transition, women continued to bear children into their late 30s or early 40s. When parents reached the age of 65, it was entirely feasible, therefore, for them still to have unmarried children in their household without these children necessarily having to postpone unduly the date of their own marriage, or not marrying at all, unless of course one or both parents survived into extreme old age and still insisted on keeping the parental household intact and unchanged’ (‘Elderly persons and members of their households in England and Wales from pre-industrial times to the present’, in Kertzer, David I. and Laslett, Peter eds., Aging in the past: demography, society, and old age (Berkley, 1995), 101).Google Scholar

37 See Hareven, Tamara K., ‘Historical changes in the timing of family transitions: their impact on generational relations’, in Fogel, R. W. et al. eds., Aging: stability and change in the family (New York, 1981), 143.Google Scholar; For a discussion of life-course analysis, see for instance Hareven, Tamara K. ed., Transitions: the family and the ilfe course in historical perspective (New York, 1978).Google Scholar

38 For a discussion of poor relief policy in nineteenth-century Iceland, see Gunnlaugsson, Family and household in Iceland, chapter III. A similar view prevailed in England as to the potential threat which widows posed to the existing social order. Barbara J. Todd has formulated this as follows: ‘But the independent widow was also an anomaly. English patriarchal society required that, like the state, the household should be headed by a man. The woman heading her own household contradicted the patriarchal theory; the ungoverned woman was a threat to the social order’ (‘The remarrying widow’, 55).

39 We have compiled data files incorporating all information included in the census on widows in the areas studied. All our calculations are based on these files.

40 The year in which the women entered widowhood was recorded in the census for 140 out of 161 urban widows heading households, or 87 per cent. The corresponding number for rural widows heading households was 93 out of 102, or 91.2 per cent (NAI, the Icelandic census of 1901).

41 The year when entering widowhood was recorded in the census for 131 out of 144 urban widows living with offspring, or 91 per cent. The corresponding number for rural widows was 128 out of 143, or 89.5 per cent (NAI, the lcelandic census of 1901).

42 Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household in Iceland.

43 NAI, the Icelandic census of 1901.

44 NAI, the Icelandic census of 1901.

45 For a discussion on life-cycle dependency, see Walker, Alan, ‘Dependency and old age’, Social Policy and Administration 16 (1982), 115–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Gunnlaugsson, , Family and Household in Iceland, 93–8.Google Scholar

47 Recent research has suggested that the family was ‘relatively more important in the income package of women’ than was employment. See Bulder, , The social economics of old age, 26.Google Scholar

48 Statistique de l'Islande 46. Recensement de la population de l'Islande le ler Décembre 1920 (Reykjavik, 1920), 30Google Scholar; Statistique de l'Islande 122. Recensement de la population de l'Islande le 2 Décembre 1940 (Reykjavik, 1949), 28Google Scholar; Gunnlaugsson, , Family and household in Iceland, 152–5.Google Scholar

49 Ibid.

50 Gunnlaugsson, Gísli Ágúst, ‘“Everyone's been good to me, especially the dogs”: foster-children and young paupers in nineteenth-century southern Iceland’, Journal of Social History 27(1993), 341–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; For the importance of children's work in nineteenth-century Iceland, see Magnússon, Sigurður Gylfi, ‘The continuity of everyday life: popular culture in Iceland 1850–1950’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993), 115–97.Google Scholar

51 NAI, the Icelandic census of 1901.

52 Ibid.

53 Only a third of Icelandic farmers were owner-occupants at the turn of the twentieth century. This proportion rose rapidly between 1890 and 1930. Simultaneously the rights of tenants improved. Until the 1880s most tenants leased their farms for one year at a time and did not receive any compensation if they had invested in improving houses or the productivity of the land (Teitsson, Björn, Eignarhald og ábúð á jörðum í SuðurÞingeyjarsýslu 1703–1930 (Reykjavik, 1973), 149Google Scholar; Gunnlaugsson, , Family and Household in Iceland, 32–3 and 145).Google Scholar

54 Gunnarsson, , The sex ratio; Gunnlaugsson, Family and household in Iceland, 107–16.Google Scholar

55 Jónsson, Guðmundur, Vinnuhjú ´ 19. öld (Reykjavik, 1981)Google Scholar; Gunnlaugsson, , Family and household in Iceland, 96–7.Google Scholar

56 NAI, the Icelandic census of 1901.

57 Ibid. In rural areas only one household included two lodgers.

58 Todd, , ‘Demographic determinism and female agency’, 442.Google Scholar

59 For a discussion, see Gunnlaugsson, , ‘Living arrangements of the elderly’, 121.Google Scholar