Page 61 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 61
Porters in the Eighteenth-century Port City of Trieste ...
also stemmed from the reputation and protection of employers, and
the consideration they received on this account. Good examples are the
unanimous actions of Triestine traders against the return of military
conscripts, which were demanded by the authorities in the immigrants’
districts of origin. This was advocated by the police themselves, who took
care not to flee abroad, as this would be detrimental to the state and the
urban economy (AGCT, MC, b. 29, 22, 1, 1779; Dorsi 1989, 149). There was
also no sympathy among the private porters for joining some undisci-
plined or even rebellious associations, as the nature of their work was
different and under the control of employers. Differences are also notice-
able in family situations. A characteristic of the urban proletariat was
that families tried to compensate for low and precarious earnings by the
gainful engagement of all able-bodied members. Porters were the most
prominent examples of such an economic strategy, which is particular-
ly clear among general market porters. According to the 1775 census, in
more than 80 percent of cases, porters’ wives were also busy in a job. The
wives of porters regularly employed by companies and private individu-
als worked in about 45 percent of cases, while the wives of customs por-
ters worked in barely 15 percent. The porters’ wives performed various ac-
tivities, most often being washers or even porters themselves, serving in
homes and engaged in retail sales. Although the term ‘housewife’, used by
the census source to describe married women who do not pursue a profes-
sion, does not exclude some form of gainful employment, it nevertheless
draws attention to the different economic situations between the catego-
ries of porters. Many indications also reveal that market porters helped
themselves by performing other heavy jobs, so that in many cases porter-
age was only their primary activity. Female porters, who accounted for
37.5 percent of the market and nearly a quarter of all porters, are a some-
what special case. They were generally at the bottom of society, and their
lucrative activities were often the only source of income. Many were, as
mentioned, the wives of porters, but many were the wives of peasants
and other unskilled workers. Moreover, many were widows and therefore
single women who had to take care of themselves and often of the fam-
ily. If they really have preceden in transshipment of grain, what offered
them the opportunity to earn, many also competed with men and adapt-
ed to the lowest tasks.
In short, market porters represented a particularly endangered and
problematic segment of the urban society. This is highlighted by the re-
61
also stemmed from the reputation and protection of employers, and
the consideration they received on this account. Good examples are the
unanimous actions of Triestine traders against the return of military
conscripts, which were demanded by the authorities in the immigrants’
districts of origin. This was advocated by the police themselves, who took
care not to flee abroad, as this would be detrimental to the state and the
urban economy (AGCT, MC, b. 29, 22, 1, 1779; Dorsi 1989, 149). There was
also no sympathy among the private porters for joining some undisci-
plined or even rebellious associations, as the nature of their work was
different and under the control of employers. Differences are also notice-
able in family situations. A characteristic of the urban proletariat was
that families tried to compensate for low and precarious earnings by the
gainful engagement of all able-bodied members. Porters were the most
prominent examples of such an economic strategy, which is particular-
ly clear among general market porters. According to the 1775 census, in
more than 80 percent of cases, porters’ wives were also busy in a job. The
wives of porters regularly employed by companies and private individu-
als worked in about 45 percent of cases, while the wives of customs por-
ters worked in barely 15 percent. The porters’ wives performed various ac-
tivities, most often being washers or even porters themselves, serving in
homes and engaged in retail sales. Although the term ‘housewife’, used by
the census source to describe married women who do not pursue a profes-
sion, does not exclude some form of gainful employment, it nevertheless
draws attention to the different economic situations between the catego-
ries of porters. Many indications also reveal that market porters helped
themselves by performing other heavy jobs, so that in many cases porter-
age was only their primary activity. Female porters, who accounted for
37.5 percent of the market and nearly a quarter of all porters, are a some-
what special case. They were generally at the bottom of society, and their
lucrative activities were often the only source of income. Many were, as
mentioned, the wives of porters, but many were the wives of peasants
and other unskilled workers. Moreover, many were widows and therefore
single women who had to take care of themselves and often of the fam-
ily. If they really have preceden in transshipment of grain, what offered
them the opportunity to earn, many also competed with men and adapt-
ed to the lowest tasks.
In short, market porters represented a particularly endangered and
problematic segment of the urban society. This is highlighted by the re-
61
