¹ Archives 14(1979): 67–74Google ScholarPubMed.

² See, for example Jennings, John M., “Distribution of Landed Wealth in the Wills of London Merchants, 1400–1450,” Medieaval Studies 39 (1977): 261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Miskimin, Harry A., “The Legacies of London: 1259–1330,” in The Medieval City, Miskimin, Harry A., Herlihy, David, and Udovitch, A. L., eds. (New Haven, 1967), pp. 209–227Google Scholar. Some of the essays in Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan and Thompson, E. P., eds. Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200–1800 (Cambridge, Mass., 1976)Google Scholar are based, in part, on the evidence of wills.

³ “Women in the Medieval City: Sources and Use of Wealth by Sienese Women in the Thirteenth Century,” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁴ Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660 (London, 1959)Google Scholar; The Charities of London, 1480–1660 (London, 1960)Google Scholar; and The Charities of Rural England, 1480–1660 (London, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁵ The Purchase of Paradise: Gift-giving and the Aristocracy, 1307–1485 (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

⁶ Attreed, Lorraine C., “Preparation for Death in Sixteenth-Century Northern England,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 13, 3 (1982): 37–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Chaunu, Pierre, “Mourir à Paris (XVIe-XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles),” Annales, E. S. C. 31 (1976): 29–50Google Scholar; Heath, Peter, “Urban Piety in the Later Middle Ages: The Evidence of Hull Wills,” in The Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Dobson, Barrie (Gloucester and New York, 1984), pp. 209–234Google Scholar; Shinners, John R., “Religion in Fourteenth-Century England: Clerical Standards and Popular Practice in the Diocese of Norwich,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1982)Google Scholar; and Tanner, Norman P., The Church in Late Medieval Norwich, 1370–1532 (Toronto, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁷ Gottfried, Robert S., Epidemic Disease in Fifteenth-Century England: The Medical Response and the Demographic Consequences (New Brunswick, N.J., 1978)Google Scholar.

⁸ Moran, Jo Ann Hoeppner, “Literacy and Education in Northern England, 1350–1550: A Methodological Inquiry,” Northern History 17 (1981): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Davis, Natalie Zemon, “Ghosts, Kin, and Progeny: Some Features of Family Life in Early Modern France,” Daedalus 106 (1977): 87–114Google Scholar; Epstein, Stephen, Wills and Wealth in Medieval Genoa, 1150–1250 (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar; and Lorcin, Marie-Thérèse, Vivre et mourir en Lyonnais: à la fin du Moyen Age (Paris, 1981)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For example, it is estimated that 100–150,000 wills survive in Provençial archives alone. Chiffoleau, Jacques, “Les testaments provençaux et comtadins à la fin du moyen áge: Richesse documentaire et problèmes d'exploitation,” in Sources of Social History: Private Acts of the Late Middle Ages, ed. Brezzi, Paolo and Lee, Egmont (Toronto, 1984), p. 133Google Scholar.

¹¹ Among the studies cited above, for example, Lorcin used 15,000 testaments, Gottfried 15,000, Chaunu 7,000, and Attreed 1,960. By comparison, the documentary basis of Epstein with 632, Hanawalt 389, Heath 355, and Beauroy 125 is modest.

¹² Chiffoleau, , “Les testaments provençaus,” pp. 146–7Google Scholar. For an earlier discussion of some of the problems associated with various methodologies employed by social historians, including quantitative analysis, see Henretta, James A., “Social History as Lived and Written,” American Historical Review 84(1979): 1309–1318Google Scholar.

¹³ Beauroy, Jacques, “Family Patterns and Relations of Bishop's Lynn Will-makers in the Fourteenth Century,” in The World We Have Gained. Histories of Population and Social Structure. Essays presented to Peter Laslett on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Bonfield, Lloyd, Smith, Richard M. and Wrightson, Keith (Oxford, 1986), pp. 23–42Google Scholar. Testamentary evidence has also been used in conjunction with various sources in Hanawalt, Barbara A., The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (New York and Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. The combination of methodologies used here is similar to that employed by Beauroy. The present study, however, is based on roughly twice as many testaments from a more limited time period. Both seek to isolate the patterns and values of a limited social group in a specific locale.

¹⁴ Darlington, Ida, ed., London Consistory Court Wills 1492–1547 (London, 1967)Google Scholar. All references to the testaments are by the testament number in Darlington. While generally, a will disposed of immoveable property and a testament of chattels and moveables, the use of these terms in this period was fluid. In London burgage land was divisible whereas freehold land was generally considered indivisible elsewhere in England. A will disposing of such land in London should have been proved in the secular Court of Husting. Wunderli, Richard M., London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 113–15Google Scholar. In this collection there is little mention of land and none of the testators had wills proved before the Court of Husting. See Calendar of Wills proved and enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, A.D. 1258–A.D. 1688, ed. Sharpe, Reginald R., 2 vols. (London, 1889)Google Scholar. However, two testators, James Breton and William Browne (nos. 58, 75), made a joint “will of londes” which has fortuitously survived in another register of Bishop FitzJames (Darlington, , Court Wills, pp. xiii, 155–157Google Scholar).

¹⁵ Ibid., p. xiv.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ For purposes of this examination, Thomas Palmer's testament (no. 1) has been omitted because of its early date. As well, a Statement of Account for the estate of Thomas Walden (no. 199) has been omitted because it contains insufficient information.

¹⁸ Darlington, , Court Wills, pp. xvi–xviiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Only those men who had sworn loyalty to the city government and were paying taxes and performing public service were considered citizens or freemen of London. Residents of London who were English but not enfranchised were called foreigns and, even if native Londoners, were nevertheless considered outside the community. It is from this group that most of the humbler folk came. Merchants and others who were not English were designated aliens (Thrupp, Sylvia L., The Merchant Class of Medieval London (1300–1500) [Ann Arbor, 1948; reprint, 1962], pp. 2–4Google Scholar).

²⁰ Nos. 93, 135, 164 had apprentices and no. 123 was a gentlewoman.

²¹ The testator of no. 110 was a Spaniard and those of nos. 121, 209, and 242 were Dutchmen.

²² No. 64.

²³ No. 173.

²⁴ No. 202.

²⁵ Nos. 3, 17, 28, 29, 33, 35, 38, 45, 55, 69, 73, 76, 80, 171, 202.

²⁶ No. 33.

²⁷ No. 171.

²⁸ Henry Thorpe does not indicate any family in his testament, but one of his executors bears the same surname and therefore relationship has been assumed (no. 80).

²⁹ No. 10. Others doing so were nos. 12, 22, 23, 26, 34, 35, 36, 53, 55, 56, 58, 67, 76, 86, 88, 90, 92, 98, 171.

³⁰ No. 53.

³¹ The testamentary power of clerics was limited by their status. Canon law identified two types of property which a cleric could hold: that which pertained to his benefice and that which pertained to him as a private individual, his patrimony. The patrimonial property could be disposed of freely by the cleric, by sale or gift during his lifetime, or by will upon his death. Property which a cleric held as part of his benefice was not to be willed but was to revert to the Church and be passed on to the next occupant. In theory, members of religious orders had no testamentary power according to canon law, because their vows precluded an ability to own property. Needless to say, in practice religious did occasionally make wills. A full discussion of this aspect of testamentary law may be found in Sheehan, Michael M., The Will in Medieval England (Toronto, 1963), pp. 241–253Google Scholar.

³² No. 18.

³³ The extended family is understood here to refer to all persons related to the individual by biology or marriage beyond the nuclear core of parents and children. Thus siblings who were not co-resident with the individual would be included as members of the extended family.

³⁴ No. 49.

³⁵ Clergy who mention no living relatives: Nos. 3, 16, 17, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 39, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 62, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 89, 91, 95, 171, 180, 202, 203. The reference to a daughter in the testament of Thomas Symson is assumed to refer to a goddaughter rather than a biological daughter, an assumption which may be unwarranted (no. 70).

³⁶ For example, nos. 30, 62, 72, 95.

³⁷ Barbara Hanawalt has used the term “surrogate family” to describe the relationship which could develop between godparents and godchildren, as well as to describe close relationships between friends, neighbors, and confreres (Ties That Bound, pp. 245–67).

³⁸ Nos. 14, 81.

³⁹ No. 6.

⁴⁰ Priests were chosen as executor over the following relatives: brother, no. 51; sister, nos. 59, 86; mother and father, no. 66; mother and brother, no. 82; brothers and sisters, nos. 18, 40, 44, 75, 94, and 92 who designated the church wardens rather than his siblings.

⁴¹ Nos. 37, 42, 49, 90, 98, 118.

⁴² Examples of unrelated laywomen acting as executor are nos. 3, 5, 48, 56, 62. Nos. 5 and 56 were chosen before sisters, and no. 48 before a brother. Nos. 3 and 62 give no indication of having any surviving family.

⁴³ No. 90.

⁴⁴ No. 53.

⁴⁵ No. 32.

⁴⁶ No. 95.

⁴⁷ Laymen were chosen before a mother and brother, no. 2; sister and niece, no. 20; brother, no. 87; and cousin, no. 90. Fbr sixteen of the clerics there is no indication of any surviving family: nos. 6, 27, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 72, 73, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 89, 202.

⁴⁸ No. 40. In his testament, Thomas Nelsone briefly mentioned a brother, two sisters and a kinsman, but the majority of the document is devoted to bequests to Barking and various of its inhabitants.

⁴⁹ No. 91. Thomas Everade also remembered Barking in his bequests, no. 83.

⁵⁰ No. 148. Other examples are nos. 126, 130, 213, 230, 235, 243. The division of a married man's property into thirds was not based on canon law but on custom which had developed in various parts of Europe. The process by which this custom was introduced into the City of London is not known, but it divided the estate into thirds. One third was to be used by the testator for charitable bequests for the good of his soul. The remaining two thirds was called the legitim and was to be divided equally, with the wife receiving one third and the children sharing the final third. In the absence of children, the custom provided that the wife receive one half of the estate. For a discussion of the development of the custom of the City of London see Sheehan, , The Will in Medieval England, pp. 289–293Google Scholar.

⁵¹ These are, in order: father, no. 206; mother, no. 189; brother, no. 119; sisters, nos. 101, 129; brother-in-law, no. 134; cousin, no. 114; kinsmen, nos. 224, 238.

⁵² No. 101.

⁵³ No. 206.

⁵⁴ No. 133.

⁵⁵ No. 201.

⁵⁶ No. 219 is only one of many such examples.

⁵⁷ It is not due to haphazard survival that there are so few testaments of women and that of those none of the women had a surviving husband. Feudalism had severely restricted a woman's ability to control property. A married woman could not dispose of property without the consent of her husband, and she needed his consent to make a will. Widows and unmarried adults were free to own property and dispose of it while alive or in a will. Secular society gradually considered it due respect to allow a married woman to bequeath that part of her husband's moveable property which would fall to her should she survive him. It also was considered appropriate for a married woman to bequeath her personal goods such as clothing. Ecclesiastical law attempted to reinforce a married woman's right to make a testament in the latter part of the thirteenth century but this trend was resisted by common law and the independent testamentary power of women was not firmly established in this period. In the surviving documents all the female testators are widows or single women. For a full discussion of women as testators in the medieval period see Sheehan, , The Will in Medieval England, pp. 234–239Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Nos. 115, 176, 244 all named friends while nos. 138, 166, 232 did not specify an executor.

⁵⁹ Nos. 112, 154.

⁶⁰ Nos. 174, 194.

⁶¹ No. 174.

⁶² No. 112.

⁶³ Nos. 212, 175, 135.

⁶⁴ Mothers: nos. 2, 9, 13, 24, 60, 65, 82, 126, 134, 156, 177, 189, 206, 220, 236. Both parents: nos. 66, 243.

⁶⁵ No. 232.

⁶⁶ No. 100.

⁶⁷ No. 242.

⁶⁸ The absence of such explicit statements in other testaments should not be taken to imply the absence of trust and affection. Indeed, the very act of constituting an individual as one's executor is indictive of such sentiments because the testator, in line with the doctrine concerning Purgatory, was entrusting the future well-being of his immortal soul to his executor's discretion. Another six testators described their wife as “well-beloved”: nos. 126, 131, 142, 172, 221, 237.

⁶⁹ No. 163.

⁷⁰ No. 128.

⁷¹ Nos. 15, 164, 166, 178, 232, 244, and 135 who requested burial beside her first husband.

⁷² No. 154.

⁷³ Nos. 85, 101 who had two deceased wives, no. 213 who requested burial beside his first wife.

⁷⁴ No. 130.

⁷⁵ No. 168.

⁷⁶ No. 56.

⁷⁷ No. 140.

⁷⁸ Perhaps the most unusual attempt to control behavior by means of a conditional bequest was that of Wylliam Pokynhorn (no. 243). In his testament of 9 June 1545, he stated: “I wyll to my father and to my mother my joynyd bedstyd in the parlowr and the fethyr bed with all other thynges that to hyt doth apertayn as yt stondythe. I bequethe to my said father and mother in mony or other goodes the valuew of 4 li. sterlyng to be worthe to kepe and fynde them wythe all and so that thay abyde and dwell in London but yf they wyll go out of London at any tyme to dwell then I wyll them no thing of that spokyn of before.”

⁷⁹ Nos. 111, 220.

⁸⁰ No. 109.

⁸¹ No. 110. This testament is useful as an indicator of the cosmopolitan influences to which the sixteenth-century English could be exposed. Such a domestic arrangement would not have been acceptable or institutionalized in the ecclesiastical climate prevailing in England. But the family of Diego Sanchez does suggest a certain sophistication in world view. A discussion of the English family is found in Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800 (Harmondsworth, 1979), pp. 69–89Google Scholar. For a discussion of concubinage in Spanish society see Heers, Jacques, Esclaves et domestiques au moyen-áge dans le monde méditerranéen (Paris, 1981)Google Scholar.

⁸² No. 110.

⁸³ No. 149.

⁸⁴ No. 227.

⁸⁵ Many testators left minor children. Nos. 41, 116, 136, 213, 237 were men survived by a wife and at least one minor child and no. 124 was survived by a minor son. Three widows, nos. 176, 227, and 232 also left minor children. Four men, nos. 41, 126, 148, and 235, referred to their wife's pregnancy.

⁸⁶ No. 117.

⁸⁷ No. 176.

⁸⁸ No. 227.

⁸⁹ No, 124. The will of Henry Balle appears later in the collection (no. 152), but does not mention Peter Agarston and his fate. Both these documents are of uncertain date, but come from the 1540s.

⁹⁰ No. 156.

⁹¹ No. 65.

⁹² No. 126. In addition, Edward Barton bequeathed his mother £20 in ready cash (no. 177), Thomas Hollton left his mother £5 sterling (no. 206), Thomas Taby gave his a life lease in some land (no. 220) and Wylliam Pokynhorn's parents have been discussed above in note 79.

⁹³ No. 133.

⁹⁴ Nos. 135, 148, 164, 183, 229, 232, 237.

⁹⁵ Nos. 135, 148, 183

⁹⁶ No. 229.

⁹⁷ No. 135.

⁹⁸ It is difficult to identify accurately the exact nature of the relationship between the testators and each beneficiary. The formula used in these testaments suggests that the conventions of the period dictated that relatives be identified as such. Those with the same surname as the testator are assumed to be relatives. Those who are not identified as relatives, and who bear a surname different from that of the testator, are assumed to be friends and neighbors. Sometimes, friends and neighbors are identified as such. However, there does not appear to have been a hard and fast rule in this period. The social group studied here is of such modest rank that it does not appear in other documents, and identification cannot be cross-checked. It is possible that some of the people who are included here as friends were in fact relatives who were not identified as such.

⁹⁹ Barbara Hanawalt's conclusions are based on Bedfordshire wills from the same period. She, too, found that priests tended to make bequests to the extended family and other clergy and concludes that this is “typical of the networks of affection that the unmarried built into their lives” (Ties That Bound, p. 255). Hanawalt has also concluded that “wills tend to confirm the conclusion that neighbors and friends, rather than extended kin, played a significant role in [the] daily life” of the laity (ibid., p. 261). It is important to note that the same patterns of affective relationship appear in the modest ranks of society, in both rural and urban settings. The similarities and differences between urban and rural family structures and value systems needs further investigation and promises fruitful results.