¹ His main work on the family (L'organization de la famille, 1871Google Scholar) was published by Mame of Tours, the principal French Catholic publishers.

² Author of the encyclical Quanta curo (‘The Syllabus,’ 1864),Google Scholar which denounced liberalism.

³ Author of the encyclical Return novarum (1893)Google Scholar, which denounced socialism.

⁴ This account of Le Play's ideas is derived from Pitt, J., ‘Frederic Le Play,’ International Encyclopaedia of Social Science, Vol. 9, 84–89 (New York, 1968).Google Scholar Le Play's conclusions were somewhat laboriously arrived at again, eighty years later, by Habbakuk, H. J., ‘Family structure and economic change in nineteenth-century Europe,’ Journal of Economic History, Vol. 15 (1955).Google Scholar

⁵ Levy, M., ‘Aspects of the analysis of family structures,’ in Coale, A. J. et al. , Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structures (Princeton, 1965);CrossRefGoogle ScholarNimkoff, M. F., ed., Comparative Family Systems (Boston, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶ Anderson, M., The Family in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

⁷ Arensberg, C. M., The Irish Countryman (London, 1937)Google Scholar; Arensberg, C. M. and Kimball, S., Family and Community in Ireland (Cambridge, Mass., 1940; second ed., 1968);Google ScholarHumphries, A., The New Dubliners (London, 1966).Google Scholar

⁸ See Frankenberg, R., Communities in Modern Britain (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Bell, C. and Newby, H., Community Studies (London, 1971).Google Scholar

⁹ Laslett, P. and Wall, R., eds., Family and Household in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 21f.

¹¹ See ibid., pp. 58–59.

¹² Arensberg, and Kimball, , Family, pp. 11–12, 13, 15.Google Scholar All references to this book are to the second edition, except where stated.

¹³ Ibid., p. 131.

¹⁴ Arensberg, , Countryman, pp. 87–89Google Scholar; Arensberg, and Kimball, , Family, p. 121.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Arensberg, and Kimball, , Family, p. 148.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Arensberg, , Countryman, p. 22;Google ScholarArensberg, and Kimball, , Family, pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Connell, K. H., ‘Marriage in Ireland after the famine: the diffusion of the match’, Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. 19 (1955);Google Scholar‘Peasant marriage in Ireland after the famine,’ Past and Present, Vol. 12 (1957);Google Scholar‘Peasant marriage in Ireland: its structure and development since the famine,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 14 (1962);Google Scholar‘Catholicism and marriage in the century after the famine,’ in Connell, K. H., Irish Peasant Society (London, 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See, e.g. Lyons, F. S. L., Ireland since the Famine (London, 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Connell, ‘Peasant marriage.’

²⁰ Connell, ‘Catholicism and marriage.’

²¹ Connell, ‘Marriage in Ireland,’ ‘Peasant marriage.’

²² Connell, ‘Catholicism and marriage.’

²³ Kennedy, R. E., The Irish: Emigration, Marriage and Fertility (Berkeley, 1973).Google Scholar

²⁴ Symes, D. G., ‘Farm household and farm performance: a study of twentieth-century changes in Ballyferriter, South-west Ireland,’ Ethology, Vol. 11 (1972).Google Scholar

²⁵ Mogey, J. M., Rural Life in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1947).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., p. 94.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 160.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 128.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 32.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 180.

³¹ Harris, R., Prejudice and Tolerance in Ulster (Manchester, 1972).Google Scholar

³² McNabb, P., ‘Demography’ in Newman, J., ed., The Limerick Rural Survey (Tipperary, 1964), p. 188.Google Scholar The ‘Italian system’ is presumably a reference to that reported in Calabria by Banfield, E. in The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

³³ Messenger, J. C., Inis Beag, Isle of Ireland (New York, 1969), p. 71.Google Scholar

³⁴ Brody, H., Iniskillane: Change and Decline in the West of Ireland (London, 1973), pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

³⁵ Mogey, , Rural Life, p. 15.Google Scholar

³⁶ Fox, J. R., ‘Kinship and land tenure on Tory Island,’ Ulster Folklife, 12 (1966).Google Scholar

³⁷ Kane, E., ‘Man and kin in Donegal; a study of kinship functions in a rural Irish and Irish American community,’ Ethnology, Vol. 7 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ McNabb, P., ‘Social structure’ in Newman, ed., The Limerick Rural Survey, p. 227.Google Scholar

³⁹ Symes, ‘Farm household’; of 22 cases of three-generation households, succession had taken place in 10, joint management existed in S, and succession had not taken place in the other 7.

⁴⁰ Mogey, , Rural Life, pp. 108–09, 140.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Harris, , Prejudice and Tolerance, p. 60.Google Scholar

⁴² McNabb, ‘Social Structure.’

⁴³ Fox, J. R., ‘Tory Island’ in Benedict, B., Problems of Smaller Territories (London, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Kennedy, , The lrah, p. 145.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ An average of 100 English communities between 1541 and 1821 (Laslett and Wall, chs. 1,4).

⁴⁶ Lee, J., ‘Irish agriculture,’ Agricultural History Review, Vol. 17, pt. 1 (1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Solow, B., The Irish Land Question after 1870 (London, 1971).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ O'Grada, C., ‘Seasonal migration and post-famine adjustment in the west of Ireland,’ Studia Hibernica, Vol. 13 (1973)Google Scholar; ‘Supply responsiveness in Irish agriculture during the nineteenth century,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 27 (1975).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cousens, S. H., ‘Emigration and demographic change in Ireland 1851–61,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 14 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The regional variations in population changes in Ireland 1861–81,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 17 (1964).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Lee, ‘Irish agriculture.’

⁵¹ Anderson, M., ‘Family, household and the industrial revolution,’ in Anderson, M., ed., Sociology of the Family (London, 1971).Google Scholar

⁵² Anderson, , The Family in Nineteenth Century Lancashire, ch. 7.Google Scholar

⁵³ Arensberg, and Kimball, , Family (1940 ed.), p. xiii.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Whyte, J. H., Church and State in Modern Ireland (Dublin, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ E.g. Rev. Cronin, M., Primer of the Principles of Social Science (Dublin, 1954).Google Scholar