{"id":719,"date":"2024-02-06T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-06T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.exeter.ac.uk\/materialcultureofwills\/?p=719"},"modified":"2024-06-27T09:16:33","modified_gmt":"2024-06-27T09:16:33","slug":"whats-in-an-early-modern-will","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.exeter.ac.uk\/materialcultureofwills\/2024\/02\/06\/whats-in-an-early-modern-will\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s in an early modern will?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Emily Vine <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s in an early modern will? On the one hand the answer to this question is straightforward \u2013 according to the legal definition a will is the documentary instrument by which a person regulates the rights of others to their property or family after their death. Yet their value as historical records is much broader than this might suggest. The key aim of our project is to use wills to analyse the \u2018meaning\u2019 of material culture, and how people\u2019s relationships to material culture changed over time. Read on to find out more about the nature of wills and why they are peculiarly well suited to exploring this theme.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Highlighted excerpt from The National Archives PROB 11\/850\/326 Will of Hannah Bonoist, Midwife of Saint Mary Whitechaple, Middlesex, 19 November 1759.  <\/em> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The content of wills<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early modern wills generally followed a formulaic structure which set out an individual\u2019s intentions for the dispersal of their estate and possessions. The example above, the will of Hannah Bonoist, a midwife whose will was proved in 1759, is an excellent example of these generic features.[1] Wills began by naming the individual, identifying where they lived (e.g. \u2018The Parish of St Mary Whitechaple\u2019) and offering details of their status or occupation, such as \u2018widow\u2019, \u2018mariner\u2019, or \u2018midwife\u2019. Often they would contain a statement which confirmed their state of health and mind: that they were sick in body, but \u2018sound\u2019 enough of mind and reason to make and understand the content of their will. Occasionally individuals were reported as being in perfect bodily health, but mindful that death was inevitable but the timing uncertain. The next phrase would generally be religious in nature, commending their soul to God, and setting out directions for the burial of their body, often identifying a preferred parish churchyard. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wills often then named an executor or executrix, who may have been the testator\u2019s spouse, adult child, or friend, and who would be tasked with ensuring that the directions made in the will were carried out. Hannah Bonoist appointed her two adult daughters, Mary and Sarah, as \u2018joint executrixes\u2019 of her will. The main body of the will would then follow, listing the bequests of money, land, property, farm animals, and personal and household objects that were to be divided up amongst family and kin. Often the will would begin with the largest or most significant bequests of land or money, or those left to \u2018closest\u2019 relatives, and subsequently list smaller sums or items, occasionally to increasingly distant kin. Sometimes these itemised lists of bequests would take up less than a page, and other times stretch to seven, eight, or more sheets of paper.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The meaning of wills <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So where does \u2018meaning\u2019 come into this? For some wills, such as those that comprise little further detail beyond itemised sums of money, it can be difficult, on first glance, to see how we can gauge the meaning of such bequests. But there are several ways that we can ascertain what objects or bequests might have meant, and how they could encapsulate the relationship between testator and beneficiary. Even fairly standard bequests, such as the division of money or an estate between surviving children, were often presented alongside conditions or directions that provide further explanation about life stage or relationships. It was common to state that an individual could not inherit until they had reached a certain age e.g. \u2018the age of xxj yeres\u2019. Some parents left different amounts for their married daughters than for their unmarried daughters, or specified that sums would only be received once they got married. Other people left bequests which were dependent on which child, or niece, or nephew, lived the longest. Occasionally bequests were rooted in the assumption that a beneficiary would enter certain careers, for example, ministerial training, or sought to shape how they would make a living. One will, made in 1538, left \u2018the occupacion of my ffarme with all my Catell ther to the Use and profite of my Children\u2019.2<\/sup> Bequests of farmland and farm animals appear to have been common, particularly in the sixteenth century \u2013 distributing an individual\u2019s most valuable assets, but also providing the means for surviving relatives to continue to make their living. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Bequests of animals, like these cows, regularly feature in pre-modern wills. Image: Philip James de Loutherbourg, Pastoral Scene; Southend Museums Service; http:\/\/www.artuk.org\/artworks\/pastoral-scene-2687 <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

With bequests of objects and references to material culture \u2013 the focus of our study \u2013 there are many more ways to ascertain meaning or the personal value that certain items held. Discussions of objects often used adjectives which provide an insight into the appearance, materiality, use, or household location of an item. Hannah Bonoist left to her daughter Mary \u2018a looking Glass in a black frame in the Kitchen\u2019 and \u2018my Gold Wedding ring\u2019. Looking glasses would still have been fairly fashionable household items at the time when Bonoist made her will, and the description suggests that this was a substantial and fixed mirror, perhaps wall-mounted. This account suggests that the looking glass was prized more than Bonoist\u2019s other household furniture, perhaps because it denoted a degree of status, or demonstrated her engagement in forms of fashionable consumption. The gold wedding ring was of both financial and emotional value: Bonoist\u2019s husband, who was not mentioned in this will, was presumably dead. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other descriptions of objects in wills hinted at how the owner ranked or determined value, using phrases such as \u2018my best\u2026\u2019 or \u2018a new\u2026\u2019: this is perhaps most famously encapsulated by Shakespeare\u2019s will, and his bequest of his \u2018second best bed\u2019. In a similar manner, Bonoist left her daughter Mary \u2018my best Mantle\u2019 (a type of cloak or gown) alongside \u2018half my Linnen and Wearing apparel\u2019. The other half was left to her daughter Sarah, while a Mrs Ann Brown was appointed to divide the linen between the two daughters \u2018in an impartial manner\u2019. Her daughters were named executrixes of the estate, but they were seemingly not trusted to equally and fairly share out the inherited wearing apparel between them. Sarah did not get the \u2018best mantle\u2019, but she did get \u2018the Rest and Residue of my Estate and Effects\u2019. It is notable which items were singled out and described, and which were grouped together under \u2018wearing apparel\u2019 or \u2018Effects\u2019. The singling out of specific items, with clear directions for their dispersal, provides an indication of the possessions that may have been most treasured by the testator.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
A black-framed looking glass, perhaps similar to the one that Hannah Bonoist left to her daughter Mary. Pier Glass, 1740-1760, Currently on loan to the National Trust, Mompesson House. \u00a9 Victoria and Albert Museum, London. https:\/\/collections.vam.ac.uk\/item\/O371813\/pier-glass\/<\/a> <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Bonoist\u2019s will is a fairly short example: beyond her goods, meticulously divided between her daughters, she left only one further bequest, a single shilling to her husband\u2019s son from his first marriage. Yet even from just three sets of bequests we can gauge a lot about the meaning of Bonoist\u2019s possessions \u2013 her best mantle, her gold wedding ring, and her looking glass with its black frame, and about her relationship with her two adult daughters, her step-son, and her trusted friend Ann Brown. We also get an insight into the life and circumstances of a comfortable middling working woman, a widow and a midwife, who had once perhaps engaged in fashionable consumption practices and owned a handful of treasured possessions (the mantle, the looking glass) but ostensibly did not have a large amount of money to leave. Most significantly, the will gives an insight into the living circumstances and relationships of a woman who has otherwise left little trace in the historical record.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Material Culture of Wills project<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our project seeks to analyse the wills of 25,000 individuals like Hannah Bonoist who died in England between c.1540 and 1790. In each will, the objects bequeathed and described tell a story. In our blog posts that follow over the coming months, particularly our \u2018Will of the month\u2019 blog, we\u2019ll be exploring some of these wills in much greater detail. We hope to explore the wide range of lives captured by these documents, and to reveal the insights that wills provide into their living circumstances, possessions, and what certain objects may have meant to each testator.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1] The National Archives PROB 11\/850\/326 Will of Hannah Bonoist, Midwife of Saint Mary Whitechaple, Middlesex, 19 November 1759.<\/p>\n\n\n