The growing population of eighteenth-century Europe increased demand for cloth to clothe people. Urban merchants turned to rural people for additional, inexpensive labor: farming families would do spinning and weaving for supplementary income. This system was called “putting-out” and became a crucial source of income later in the century when agricultural yields failed to support these people.
The simplicity of the putting-out system was one of its most valuable features. All of its essential elements were already present in rural communities. The small savings of a prosperous farmer or small trader was all the money needed to make the first purchase of raw materials. The raw materials could be put out to family or closest neighbors and finished goods then delivered to market along with surplus crops. Not only could a small amount of cash begin the cycle of putting-out, but that capital continued to circulate to keep the process in motion.
The small scale of the initial enterprise can be seen in the fact that many entrepreneurs had themselves begun as workers. In Bohemia (a region in the present-day Czech Republic), for example, some of the largest putting-out operations were run by serfs (peasants who lived on land owned by lords) who paid their lords fees for the right to engage in trade. At the end of the eighteenth century, there were more than one-quarter million spinners in the Bohemian linen industry alone, most of them organized into small groups around a single entrepreneur, though one monastery employed more than 650 women spinners. Putting-out also required only a low level of skill and common, inexpensive tools. Rural families did their own spinning and rural villages their own weaving. Thus, putting-out demanded little investment, either in equipment or education. Nor did it inevitably disrupt traditional gender-based tasks in the family economy. In most places spinning was women’s work, weaving was done by men, and children helped at whichever task was under way. In fact, certain occupations, such as lacemaking in France, were so gender-based that men would not even act as entrepreneurs. Performed at home, rural manufacture remained a traditional family-oriented occupation.
Gradually, the putting-out system came to dominate the lives of many rural families. From small networks of isolated villages, domestic manufacture grew to cover entire regions. Perhaps as many as one-quarter of the inhabitants of the Irish province of Ulster were engaged in manufacturing linen by the end of the eighteenth century. Spinning and weaving became full-time occupations for families that kept no more than a small garden. Without agricultural earnings, piece-work rates (the rate paid for one piece of work) became starvation wages, and families unable to purchase their subsistence were forced to rely upon loans from the entrepreneurs who set them at work. Long hours in damp and cold cottages performing endlessly repetitive tasks became the lot of millions of rural inhabitants, and their numbers increased annually. While the sons of farmers waited to inherit land before they formed their families, the sons of cottage weavers needed only a loom (weaving device) to begin theirs. They could afford to marry younger and to have more children, for children could contribute to manufacturing from an early age.
Consequently, the expansion of the putting-out system, like the expansion of traditional agriculture, fueled the continued growth of population. Like traditional agriculture, putting-out contained a number of structural inefficiencies. Both entrepreneur and worker were potential victims of unscrupulousness. Embezzlement (theft) of raw materials was a problem for the entrepreneur, arbitrary wage cuts for the laborers. Because the tasks were performed at home, the entrepreneur could not supervise the work. Most disputes in domestic manufacturing arose over specifications of quality. Workers would not receive full pay for poorly produced goods that could not be sold for full value. Inexperienced, aged, or infirm workers could easily spoil costly raw materials. One Bohemian nobleman created village spinning rooms on his estates so that young girls could be given four weeks of training before they set up on their own. Finally, the putting-out system was labor-rather than capital-intensive. As long as there were ready hands to employ, there was little incentive to seek better methods or more efficient techniques.
1
The growing population of eighteenth-century Europe increased demand for cloth to clothe people. Urban merchants turned to rural people for additional, inexpensive labor: farming families would do spinning and weaving for supplementary income. This system was called “putting-out” and became a crucial source of income later in the century when agricultural yields failed to support these people.
The word “supplementary” in the passage is closest in meaning to
Aadditional
Boccasional
Cmajor
Dnecessary
2
The growing population of eighteenth-century Europe increased demand for cloth to clothe people. Urban merchants turned to rural people for additional, inexpensive labor: farming families would do spinning and weaving for supplementary income. This system was called “putting-out” and became a crucial source of income later in the century when agricultural yields failed to support these people.
According to paragraph 1, how did the income of farming families change over the course of the eighteenth century?
AAgricultural income decreased so much that farming families were no longer able to buy their own clothing.
BThe total income of farming families rose steadily over the course of the century.
CIncome from spinning and weaving became more important as agricultural income decreased.
DIncome earned from spinning and weaving declined as more laborers became involved in the putting-out system.
3
The simplicity of the putting-out system was one of its most valuable features. All of its essential elements were already present in rural communities. The small savings of a prosperous farmer or small trader was all the money needed to make the first purchase of raw materials. The raw materials could be put out to family or closest neighbors and finished goods then delivered to market along with surplus crops. Not only could a small amount of cash begin the cycle of putting-out, but that capital continued to circulate to keep the process in motion.
In paragraph 2, all of the following are mentioned as reasons that the putting-out system was easily established EXCEPT.
AIn growing crops, rural communities were already using a system similar to the putting-out system.
BRelatively small sums of money were enough for purchasing raw materials.
CFamily and neighbors were available for the production of goods.
DCrops and finished goods could be transported to markets together.
4
The small scale of the initial enterprise can be seen in the fact that many entrepreneurs had themselves begun as workers. In Bohemia (a region in the present-day Czech Republic), for example, some of the largest putting-out operations were run by serfs (peasants who lived on land owned by lords) who paid their lords fees for the right to engage in trade. At the end of the eighteenth century, there were more than one-quarter million spinners in the Bohemian linen industry alone, most of them organized into small groups around a single entrepreneur, though one monastery employed more than 650 women spinners. Putting-out also required only a low level of skill and common, inexpensive tools. Rural families did their own spinning and rural villages their own weaving. Thus, putting-out demanded little investment, either in equipment or education. Nor did it inevitably disrupt traditional gender-based tasks in the family economy. In most places spinning was women’s work, weaving was done by men, and children helped at whichever task was under way. In fact, certain occupations, such as lacemaking in France, were so gender-based that men would not even act as entrepreneurs. Performed at home, rural manufacture remained a traditional family-oriented occupation.
Why does the author provide information about “the Bohemian linen industry”?
ATo challenge the claim that serfs could run large putting-out operations
BTo explain why serfs had to pay fees to their lords
CTo support the claim that monasteries once employed a large number of women
DTo provide evidence that putting-out operations were generally run on a small scale
5
The small scale of the initial enterprise can be seen in the fact that many entrepreneurs had themselves begun as workers. In Bohemia (a region in the present-day Czech Republic), for example, some of the largest putting-out operations were run by serfs (peasants who lived on land owned by lords) who paid their lords fees for the right to engage in trade. At the end of the eighteenth century, there were more than one-quarter million spinners in the Bohemian linen industry alone, most of them organized into small groups around a single entrepreneur, though one monastery employed more than 650 women spinners. Putting-out also required only a low level of skill and common, inexpensive tools. Rural families did their own spinning and rural villages their own weaving. Thus, putting-out demanded little investment, either in equipment or education. Nor did it inevitably disrupt traditional gender-based tasks in the family economy. In most places spinning was women’s work, weaving was done by men, and children helped at whichever task was under way. In fact, certain occupations, such as lacemaking in France, were so gender-based that men would not even act as entrepreneurs. Performed at home, rural manufacture remained a traditional family-oriented occupation.
Which of the following can be inferred from paragraph 3 about lacemaking in France?
ALacemaking required much more work than other manufacturing tasks did.
BLacemaking differed from other types of rural manufacture in that it was performed outside the home.
CMen often provided investment in the equipment and education needed for lacemaking.
DAll the work involved in lacemaking was done by women and the children helping them.
6
Gradually, the putting-out system came to dominate the lives of many rural families. From small networks of isolated villages, domestic manufacture grew to cover entire regions. Perhaps as many as one-quarter of the inhabitants of the Irish province of Ulster were engaged in manufacturing linen by the end of the eighteenth century. Spinning and weaving became full-time occupations for families that kept no more than a small garden. Without agricultural earnings, piece-work rates (the rate paid for one piece of work) became starvation wages, and families unable to purchase their subsistence were forced to rely upon loans from the entrepreneurs who set them at work. Long hours in damp and cold cottages performing endlessly repetitive tasks became the lot of millions of rural inhabitants, and their numbers increased annually. While the sons of farmers waited to inherit land before they formed their families, the sons of cottage weavers needed only a loom (weaving device) to begin theirs. They could afford to marry younger and to have more children, for children could contribute to manufacturing from an early age.
According to paragraph 4, which of the following was a major negative consequence of the putting-out system for rural families?
AThey were forced to use their small gardens for linen production instead of for growing crops.
BThey were no longer able to obtain loans from entrepreneurs.
CThey became increasingly isolated as they spent a large amount of time spinning and weaving at home.
DThey became too dependent on spinning and weaving for their subsistence.
7
Gradually, the putting-out system came to dominate the lives of many rural families. From small networks of isolated villages, domestic manufacture grew to cover entire regions. Perhaps as many as one-quarter of the inhabitants of the Irish province of Ulster were engaged in manufacturing linen by the end of the eighteenth century. Spinning and weaving became full-time occupations for families that kept no more than a small garden. Without agricultural earnings, piece-work rates (the rate paid for one piece of work) became starvation wages, and families unable to purchase their subsistence were forced to rely upon loans from the entrepreneurs who set them at work. Long hours in damp and cold cottages performing endlessly repetitive tasks became the lot of millions of rural inhabitants, and their numbers increased annually. While the sons of farmers waited to inherit land before they formed their families, the sons of cottage weavers needed only a loom (weaving device) to begin theirs. They could afford to marry younger and to have more children, for children could contribute to manufacturing from an early age.
According to paragraph 4, for those involved in the putting-out system, rural family life changed in all of the following ways EXCEPT:
AFamilies farmed less land.
BChildren left home earlier to participate in manufacturing.
CMen were able to marry at a younger age.
DFamilies found it desirable to have more children.
8
Consequently, the expansion of the putting-out system, like the expansion of traditional agriculture, fueled the continued growth of population. Like traditional agriculture, putting-out contained a number of structural inefficiencies. Both entrepreneur and worker were potential victims of unscrupulousness. Embezzlement (theft) of raw materials was a problem for the entrepreneur, arbitrary wage cuts for the laborers. Because the tasks were performed at home, the entrepreneur could not supervise the work. Most disputes in domestic manufacturing arose over specifications of quality. Workers would not receive full pay for poorly produced goods that could not be sold for full value. Inexperienced, aged, or infirm workers could easily spoil costly raw materials. One Bohemian nobleman created village spinning rooms on his estates so that young girls could be given four weeks of training before they set up on their own. Finally, the putting-out system was labor-rather than capital-intensive. As long as there were ready hands to employ, there was little incentive to seek better methods or more efficient techniques.
According to paragraph 5, disagreements between entrepreneurs and workers were most often about
Awhether the quality of finished goods was deserving of full pay
Bhow much the raw materials should cost
Chow quickly goods should be produced
Dwhere the work should be performed
9
Gradually, the putting-out system came to dominate the lives of many rural families. From small networks of isolated villages, domestic manufacture grew to cover entire regions. Perhaps as many as one-quarter of the inhabitants of the Irish province of Ulster were engaged in manufacturing linen by the end of the eighteenth century. [■] Spinning and weaving became full-time occupations for families that kept no more than a small garden. [■] Without agricultural earnings, piece-work rates (the rate paid for one piece of work) became starvation wages, and families unable to purchase their subsistence were forced to rely upon loans from the entrepreneurs who set them at work. [■] Long hours in damp and cold cottages performing endlessly repetitive tasks became the lot of millions of rural inhabitants, and their numbers increased annually. [■] While the sons of farmers waited to inherit land before they formed their families, the sons of cottage weavers needed only a loom (weaving device) to begin theirs. They could afford to marry younger and to have more children, for children could contribute to manufacturing from an early age.
Look at the four squaresthat indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage
In addition to this lack of income security, the putting-out system also brought unpleasant working conditions.
Where would the sentence best fit？Click on a square sentence to the passage.
10
The putting-out system provided a cheap source of labor to meet the needs of Europe’s growing population.
AUnlike traditional agriculture, which was primarily a man’s occupation, the putting-out system employed a large number of women and few men.
BThe putting-out system grew most quickly in places like Bohemia and Ireland, where spinning and weaving already made up a large part of the income of rural families.
CAs the putting-out system expanded, families spent long hours working on repetitive tasks and became dependent on the entrepreneurs who provided them with work.
DThe putting-out system allowed families to work together at home, but this made it difficult for entrepreneurs to control the quality of work.
EThe putting-out system was successful because it required little investment or skill and maintained gender-based separation.
FAs Europe’s population grew, it became necessary to move spinning and weaving from rural communities to the urban areas where populations were concentrated.
