Page 342 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 342
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
in rokodelstvo). In 1884 discussions were made in the provincial assembly
about the development of “house industry” (so called hišna industrija). The
Slovenian territory was captured in waves of migrations and peasants were
indebted. The solution was seen in domestic crafts. Endeavours were made
for creating schools for different crafts, industrial-craft exhibitions were
made on the local and national level with granting awards (for instance in
Ljubljana in 1844), laws were issued to make domestic crafts tax-free (wood-
en ware – suha roba – producers from Ribnica had income tax relief already
centuries before) (Bras 1988–1990, 208‒14; Sedej 1988–1990, 18).
This reconstruction by Ljudmila Bras is based on the works of some
among the most important Slovenian historians of the second half of the
20th century, such as Ferdo Gestrin (1972), and Bogo Grafenauer (1974), as
well as the above cited (encyclopaedic) publication on Slovenian agrarian
history (Blaznik, Grafenauer and Vilfan 1970; 1980) and on the “History of
Slovenians,” an overview by Čepič and Nećak (1979). Nevertheless, most of
her cited literature is constituted by the works of Slovenian ethnologists
such as Vilko Novak (eg. 1960), Boris Orel (eg. 1951), Angelos Baš (1987),
Franjo Baš (eg. 1951), and Rajko Ložar (1944; 1959).
Bogataj underlined how the term “domestic crafts” (domača obrt)
was established in the second half of the 19th century, when this econom-
ic branch was perceived as very important. Previously domestic crafts were
considered simply as “additional” or “supplementary” peasant work in the
countryside. In contrast to today’s understanding of crafts as various works
and products made at home or in home workshops for people’s own use
or for sale, according to Bogataj the perception of crafts in the past was
connected with the countryside economic activities, while the element of
countryside is today omitted, because many crafts derive also from urban
or other environments. Today’s stereotyped connection of domestic crafts
with tradition would derive from the Austro-Hungarian legislation from
1883 where domestic crafts or cottage industries (Hausindustrie) were un-
derstood as productive activities which people carried out in their own
homes “according to their local customs.” Also the link with tradition is to-
day omitted because the stress is on the development of crafts which is not
limited to the imitation of heritage. Because of the connection with mech-
anised production (which today presents a need) the term of cottage in-
dustry already at that time provoked dissatisfaction about the proper ter-
minology that has replaced the previous term – “secondary housework”
(postranska hišna opravila) (Bogataj 1989, 3‒5, 229). These economic activi-
340
in rokodelstvo). In 1884 discussions were made in the provincial assembly
about the development of “house industry” (so called hišna industrija). The
Slovenian territory was captured in waves of migrations and peasants were
indebted. The solution was seen in domestic crafts. Endeavours were made
for creating schools for different crafts, industrial-craft exhibitions were
made on the local and national level with granting awards (for instance in
Ljubljana in 1844), laws were issued to make domestic crafts tax-free (wood-
en ware – suha roba – producers from Ribnica had income tax relief already
centuries before) (Bras 1988–1990, 208‒14; Sedej 1988–1990, 18).
This reconstruction by Ljudmila Bras is based on the works of some
among the most important Slovenian historians of the second half of the
20th century, such as Ferdo Gestrin (1972), and Bogo Grafenauer (1974), as
well as the above cited (encyclopaedic) publication on Slovenian agrarian
history (Blaznik, Grafenauer and Vilfan 1970; 1980) and on the “History of
Slovenians,” an overview by Čepič and Nećak (1979). Nevertheless, most of
her cited literature is constituted by the works of Slovenian ethnologists
such as Vilko Novak (eg. 1960), Boris Orel (eg. 1951), Angelos Baš (1987),
Franjo Baš (eg. 1951), and Rajko Ložar (1944; 1959).
Bogataj underlined how the term “domestic crafts” (domača obrt)
was established in the second half of the 19th century, when this econom-
ic branch was perceived as very important. Previously domestic crafts were
considered simply as “additional” or “supplementary” peasant work in the
countryside. In contrast to today’s understanding of crafts as various works
and products made at home or in home workshops for people’s own use
or for sale, according to Bogataj the perception of crafts in the past was
connected with the countryside economic activities, while the element of
countryside is today omitted, because many crafts derive also from urban
or other environments. Today’s stereotyped connection of domestic crafts
with tradition would derive from the Austro-Hungarian legislation from
1883 where domestic crafts or cottage industries (Hausindustrie) were un-
derstood as productive activities which people carried out in their own
homes “according to their local customs.” Also the link with tradition is to-
day omitted because the stress is on the development of crafts which is not
limited to the imitation of heritage. Because of the connection with mech-
anised production (which today presents a need) the term of cottage in-
dustry already at that time provoked dissatisfaction about the proper ter-
minology that has replaced the previous term – “secondary housework”
(postranska hišna opravila) (Bogataj 1989, 3‒5, 229). These economic activi-
340
