Women and the Desire for Gentility in Colonial America

by Ryann Guthrie

In Colonial America, it would not have been a stretch to say that one’s reputation was everything. Particularly for women, reputation determined respectability, which equated to economic and marriage opportunities. In Colonial America, genteel expectations demanded that women be respectable. It was a performance and the material objects that women owned were just as important as acting properly and were used to elevate the authenticity of her performance.^[1] This paper will discuss three aspects of material culture and the value material culture had on women’s lives in Colonial America: defining gentility and respectability for women, the role of material culture in women’s respectability, and, finally, to what degree material culture could actually convey gentility. For primary sources, this paper will examine the probate inventories of twenty-three different women, ranging from the years 1746 to 1770 and ranging in value from £11.0.0 ½  to £663.13.6.

The first step in creating an understanding of the performance that was expected of women in this time period is to identify what respectability looked like and what women and their families were trying to achieve.

The foremost marker of respectability for Colonial American women, across all social classes, was being married. This was both for social and practical reasons. As historian Martha Saxton put it, “The goal of all white parents, whether of the gentry or not, was to produce daughters who would be obedient and make good wives. There were virtually no opportunities for a girl to support herself outside of marriage.”^[2] Aside from the ever-important economic support that marriage provided these women, Saxton also points out that “Marriage was never just a private contract between a husband and wife, it was an alliance of families and a linchpin in the social structure.”^[3] For women and young girls, this meant that life centered around the process of becoming and then the practice of being a wife.

There were, of course, class differences when it came to the search for a husband. Girls who were raised in higher economic circles had different expectations than lower-class girls. Genteel girls were expected to be accomplished in traditionally feminine arts and activities. Activities such as needlework, learning languages such as French and Italian, and playing an instrument were acceptable and desirable traits in a wife.^[4] According to Saxton, “Their accomplishments represented their privileged social station in the same way that fine clothes did, and were intended to make young women attractive companions to well-off men.”^[5] Lower-class women were expected to bring skills into marriage as well, but these were primarily focused on the ability to work within the household. As historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich stated in her book Good Wives, “Pretty gentlewomen simply refined the skills which all good housewives shared. To a knowledge of plain sewing and common cookery they added a concern for grace and style.”^[6] Therefore, women were expected to contribute to the marriage, whether through practical or performative skills and what she was expected to provide depended heavily on her family’s financial status.

While gentility was extremely hard to define, the best definition is this: gentility was a performance, based on manners that used material culture as props in order to convey a sense of refinement and superiority. It is important to note that gentility was a means through which the upper echelons of society strove to differentiate themselves from the supposed vulgarity of the lower classes.^[7] While this was exhibited through material culture, certainly, it was also exhibited through stringent control of one’s surroundings and self and the idea of the immaculate body that required avoidance of “baseness” at all times.^[8]

The performance of gentility included proper etiquette in all situations, participating in the activities of the genteel,- including tea drinking, dancing, and letter writing- and of course, having the material objects needed in order to authenticate this performance. These objects included expensive clothes, tea sets, specialized furniture, dishes, utensils, and of course the houses that they lived in. Gentility was desirable because, according to Richard L. Bushman, “Gentility bestowed social power.”^[9] This social power allowed people, and men specifically, to better gain access to political and economic power.

For women, then, participating in the rituals of gentility, whether they were actually genteel or not, was of the utmost importance. As mentioned earlier, women relied on marriage for economic stability. By presenting as genteel, women made themselves more desirable to men who would be able to provide for them financially, bettering their options for a more comfortable life.

Appearing genteel through both manners and material culture also made a woman more respectable to her peers.^[10] Entertainment was a central tenet of gentility, as will later be proven through the inventories. People who identified as genteel wanted only to associate with other genteel people and wanted to participate in genteel activities together, in order to separate themselves from those they considered vulgar and unrefined.^[11]  For example, while tea drinking will be discussed in more depth later, it is imperative to mention that tea was an important social event throughout every class, though it began as a genteel practice. Historian Rodris Roth states that “tea seems to have been the excuse for many a social gathering, large or small, formal or informal.”^[12] Therefore we can see people aspiring to demonstrate their gentility to their peers.

The acquisition of the physical measures of gentility can be seen through the social strata of the Colonial era in women’s probate inventories. This section of the paper will show how aspirations to gentility can be seen throughout the twenty-three inventories studied. The inventories have been divided into five categories based on the monetary value of the estates. Category one includes six estates valued at under £50, category two includes five estates between £51 and £100, category three includes five estates between £101 and £250, category four includes four estates between £251 and £500, and finally, category five includes three estates valued at more than £501.

Clothing and accessories were a major aspect of genteel society, especially for women. Saxton stated that “Women had an obligation to make themselves attractive.”^[13] Being attractive meant wearing extravagant clothing and accessories. The genteel ideal of the immaculate body was demonstrated first and foremost via the clothing one wore.^[14] Extravagant clothing also, according to Saxton, “ensured that there would be great contrasts in apparel between rich and poor.”^[15] Clothing is an important aspect to look at when it comes to assessing the gentility of a woman as the color, fabric, and type of clothing can all be indicators of aspirations of gentility.

Interestingly, when it comes to apparel, there are no entries that record clothing beyond category two. There is no clear reason why, however, these records do not account for items in a woman’s collection that might have been taken by family members or friends before her estate was inventoried. In category one, Agnes Hilliard's inventory from 1746 whose estate was valued at a total of £11.0.0 shows“1 dunjar gown” and “1 silk damask gown” valued at fifteen shillings and seven shillings, respectively. She also owned “2 old gowns and 3 petticoats” valued at £0.2.6.^[16] Also in category one, in  Ann Stevens’s 1748 inventory, valued at a total of £20.1.0, she owned “12 gowns” valued at £3, which represented over 1/10 of her whole estate.^[17] In category two, Elizabeth Williamson’s 1757 estate, valued at £54.17.2, is the only one of the five in her category that lists clothing or accessories, however, her collection is extensive. The entirety of her wardrobe was valued at £15.15.10, a significant portion of her estate.^[18] Her collection also included valuable materials such as silk and velvet. While there are no clothes listed in the upper categories, there is a substantial amount of jewelry including jewelry that is noted to be made with gold and precious stones.^[19]

Though the data is skewed due to the lack of findings in the upper categories, the fact that there is proof of women with so little money investing in clothing at all is extremely telling of the importance that clothing had in women’s lives. Clearly, women of all social standings were trying to make themselves appear outwardly genteel.

Another area in which genteel ideals are demonstrated, regardless of economic circumstances, is through furniture. Specialized furniture and sets of furniture became extremely popular and desirable during this period.^[20] To quote Rosemary Troy Krill, “Interest in a genteel lifestyle is manifest through such evidence as the popularity of tea tables and chests of drawers.”^[21] Having the means to acquire furniture that was for presentation rather than purpose was a significant status symbol in this period.

Sets of furniture, especially chairs, indicated that there was a commitment to having designated places to sit for meals and when entertaining. Sets of furniture can be seen throughout every category. There are only four women’s inventories in which a set of chairs was not listed in their estates. The owner of the most chairs, as well as the most expensive set of chairs in a single set, belonged to Mrs. Mary Moody, whose 1767 estate was valued at £35.2.3, who owned eighteen “black walnut leather bottom chairs” that cost a total of £9.^[22] This is extremely impressive, considering that this set of chairs constituted almost a third of her total estate.

Many women also showed a desire to be seen as genteel through material culture through the ownership of specialized furniture. Tea tables, desks, and cupboards are numerous in these inventories. Eleven women across all of the categories owned at least one piece of specialized furniture. Tea tables were significant because, while they certainly could be used for other purposes, they were intended specifically to be used for a tea service.^[23] Desks are probably the most significant of these three examples. Desks were intended for writing; they did not serve any other major purpose. Having a desk indicated not only that the person who owned it was literate, but also that they could engage in the proper calligraphy and stylized language that was associated with writing letters.^[24] Cupboards were important for two reasons. Firstly, because owning a cupboard indicates that the person who owned it had enough materials to store items in it; and secondly because what was stored in a cupboard was often a family’s valuable dishes that they wanted to display for guests.^[25]

Owning any of these pieces was significant, specifically for women in the lower categories of wealth. While there is a definite increase in the amount of specialized furniture in the upper categories, the fact that women with significantly less money were willing to spend the money on unnecessary furniture for very specific purposes was important to their genteel aspirations. For example, just from category one, Moody owned a tea table priced at £0.12.6 and a desk priced at £1.5.0, and Frances Brewer’s 1770 estate, worth £13.3.0, there was also a tea table worth £ 0.15.0.^[26] Of course, along with the amounts growing as the wealth increased per category, so did the price of the object. The most expensive specialized furniture across any category was from category four. In Sarah Green’s 1757 inventory, valued at £338.17.2, there is a “desk & book case” valued at £5.^[27] Across all the estates, there were a total of six tables listed specifically as tea tables, eight desks, and five cupboards. Again, through the inventories, we can see that women of every social class were using material culture in order to appear genteel.

In addition to the fact that genteel culture was important to women because it helped to increase their social currency and therefore marriageability, the material culture of gentility was important because it was one of the few ways in which women could truly own their own property. In The Age of Homespun, Ulrich says, “Cupboards and textiles belonged to a category of household goods called “moveables.” Unlike real estate, which was typically transmitted from father to son, movables formed the core of female inheritance.^[28]

One of the most important ways in which material culture conveyed gentility was through the ownership of entertainment materials. Bushman states that “Entertainment received more material support than any other activity within the house.”^[29] The ambitions of entertainment can be seen easily through all of the categories, especially in objects relating to eating. Because entertainment was not as financially unobtainable as other aspects of gentility entertainment became arguably the most popular way of displaying genteel aspirations. The most popular entertainment materials were tea and coffee paraphernalia and dishes and utensils.

As mentioned earlier, tea drinking began as an exclusively genteel activity. Roth has explained that “At first the scarcity and expense of the tea, the costly paraphernalia used to serve it, and the leisure considered necessary to consume it limited the use of this commodity to the upper classes.”^[30] By the mid-eighteenth century, however, tea drinking was accessible, to varying degrees, to every level of society. While the vast majority of people might not have been able to afford full tea service sets made of porcelain, sixteen of the twenty-three women in this study owned at least one tea or coffee pot. The most expensive of all of these was from Lydia Charlton’s 1761, £126.5.1 estate. She owned a silver teapot that was valued at £4.13.4.^[31]

Sets of dishes are seen throughout every category of wealth and could indicate gentility. While owning just a few cups and saucers did not convey gentility as well as someone who had a fully matching tea service, it was still acceptable.^[32] For example, in Mary Ripping’s 1744 estate, valued at £407.8.6,  there is a listing of eleven china cups and eight saucers, valued at eight shillings.^[33] While Frances Brewer’s “3 china cups & saucers” valued at £0.2.6 cannot display gentility in the same way, the aspiration of gentility is there simply by owning these objects.^[34] The primary difference across the categories is that the wealthier the woman was, the more of a type of dish she could own, and usually at a better quality. Again using Frances Brewer as an example, she owned “2 pewter dishes” valued at five shillings. Whereas Elizabeth Hubard, in her 1748 inventory, valued at £598.11.9, was shown to own a total of thirty-one pewter dishes, valued at a total of £2.15.0.^[35]

Similarly to dishes, sets of utensils were also important for being considered genteel. It is important to note that while dishes, and sometimes a higher number or quality of dishes can be found in category one, there are no forks listed. Only in Judith Moore’s 1751 inventory, valued at £43.6.6 that there are any utensils listed, and it is “17 spoons,” valued, along with eighteen pounds of pewter, at £0.14.6.^[36] While there are these utensils and larger cooking utensils present in the first category, it is a stark contrast to categories three and up, in which out of the twelve inventories across these three categories, ten of them list some kind of eating utensil, and eight list forks specifically.^[37] By listing a multitude of eating utensils in their inventories, it demonstrates that these women cared about entertaining in their homes and having enough utensils for all of their guests to eat with. It also demonstrates that they subscribed to the genteel idea of control over the body and cleanliness, which is the reason forks became a popular eating utensil in the first place.^[38]

Over the course of twenty-three inventories, there are 112 people that are listed as being the property of another person.^[39] The vast majority of enslaved people were, of course, in categories four and five. The person from these inventories with the most enslaved people was Mrs. Ann Allen in her 1751 inventory worth £254.3.1 ½, who enslaved twenty-six people whose monetary value was unspecified.^[40] In category one, there is only one enslaved person, belonging to Mary Moody, valued at £3.^[41] Household goods like frying pans and other kitchenware as well as tools of production, such as spinning wheels, tools that would have been used for women’s work, are present across every category. However, the likelihood that the women who owned any given estate directly interacted with these objects had a direct correlation with the number of slaves she owned. If a woman had free labor cooking food and preparing materials that could be sold for a profit without her direct involvement, she had much greater control over her own time. The ability to spend time with friends, have tea, or generally entertain with enough regularity to convey true gentility was heavily dependent on having another means by which to accomplish everyday tasks.

Thus far, this paper has demonstrated that genteel objects were found in women's households in every socioeconomic class in Colonial America. What this does not demonstrate, however, is the degree to which lower-class women actually achieved respectability through their participation in material culture.

There is no singular answer to be found here. It depends heavily on the socioeconomic status of each individual woman and the resources that were available to her. It is also difficult to assess due to the fact that, while much of gentility did revolve around material objects such as clothes and dishes, another very important part of gentility relied on specific mannerisms and behaviors.^[42] As aforementioned, gentility was a performance, and costuming was only one aspect of said performance. It is impossible to conclude based on a list of objects whether or not any individual woman, no matter her socioeconomic status, achieved true gentility since we do not have a full picture of her life.

What can be determined, however, is that by owning objects that were inherently genteel, the owners were trying to convey their own gentility and make themselves appear more respectable. As Bushman stated “By acquiring a part, a person enjoyed some benefits of the whole.”^[43] This is largely because objects were not merely objects. As addressed in the previous section, owning a desk conveyed that at least one person in the house was literate, as well as a myriad of other implications. Hosting a tea party was an excuse for socialization, to be sure, but it was also a way for people to demonstrate that they could perform the manners that were associated with taking or serving tea.^[44] Therefore, while we cannot tell exactly how well these women executed genteel rituals from their inventories, we can see the importance that comes through the implications associated with simply owning these objects.

Especially for poorer women, the importance of intentionally spending money on genteel objects cannot be overstated. Bushman says “People justified the purchase of luxury items as a means of raising themselves to a higher plane.”^[45]  This includes every socioeconomic class. When discussing how material culture raised women to higher planes and increased social standing, it must be noted that it was almost wholly within their own communities when it came to poorer women. Bushman states that “Lesser people might look on with envy, awe, or hatred, they might imitate and borrow, but they were onlookers, thought to be presumptuous if they assumed the manners or showed the possessions of a gentleman.”^[46] Another example from Saxton states that “Thus dress was… supposed to identify a woman’s circumstances with the difference that among the rich and elaborate clothing conveyed respect, while among the poor it betrayed improper ambition.”^[47] Of course, these are only the perspectives of the upper classes. Poorer women clearly did not think this, or else they would not have spent such significant amounts of money on genteel paraphernalia.

While the social standing of many women might not have actually been raised, the owning of genteel material did make a difference when it came to the stark contrast between the upper and lower classes that the elite desired. Kevin M. Sweeney says, “Such competitive consumption could blur rather than strengthen class distinction and posed a threat to the position of more established upper-class colonial families, who had relied on goods, homes, and other material props to express their genteel status.”^[48] While it might have been a threat to the upper classes, that is what made it so desirable to the lower classes. The desire to have access to the physical manifestations of wealth and power that the upper classes possessed and convey that gentility was not completely exclusive to the upper echelons of society.

It is impossible to conclude how any one woman succeeded in her performance of gentility simply by examining a list of items that she owned. What can be concluded, however, is the importance that women placed on appearing genteel through the material culture they participated in. It has been demonstrated that in every single category of wealth, women owned objects that served a purpose beyond pure functionality. The desire to be seen as genteel, to raise oneself above others, even if she was at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder of white women, is omnipresent. The social benefits that a woman gained from being perceived as more respectable by her peers justified the purchase of items that could be considered frivolous but clearly served an important purpose to the women who owned them. 

^[1] Meticulous etiquitte was also a crucial aspect of a genteel performance, however, that is not the focus of this paper.

^[2] Martha Saxon, Being Good Women's Moral Values in Early America (New York: Hill and Wang, 2003), 100.

^[3] Saxton, Being Good, 119.

^[4] Saxton, Being Good, 100.

^[5] Saxton, Being Good, 100.

^[6] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650-1750 (New York: Penguin Random House, 1980), 71.

^[7] Richard L. Bushman The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities, (New york, Vintage Books, 1993), 41-43

^[8] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 77

^[9] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 62.

^[10] Kevin M. Sweeney, “High-Style Vernacular: Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite.” In Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, 1-57. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.1994), 6.

^[11] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 52.

^[12] Rodris Roth & Robert Blair St. George, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: It’s Etiquette and Equipage” in Material Life in America, (Boston, MA, Northeastern University Press, 1988), 445.

^[13] Saxton, Being Good, 104.

^[14] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 42.

^[15] Saxton, Being Good, 103.

^[16] Inventory Estate of Agnes Hilliard, York County Virginia, March 16, 1764, Williamsburg

Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[17] Inventory Estate of Ann Stevens, York County, Virginia, September 19, 1748, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[18] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County, Virginia, August 15, 1757, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[19] See the inventories of Anna Maria Thornton (May 18, 1761, £663.13.6) and Elizabeth Hubard (March 19, 1764, £598.11.9), Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[20] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 75.

^[21] Rosemary Troy Krill, Early American Decorative Arts,1620-1860 (Revised Edition), (Rowman

& Littlefield, 2010), 91.

^[22] Inventory Estate of Mary Moody, York County, Virginia, July 20, 1767, Williamsburg  Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[23] Roth, St George, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America,” 447.

^[24] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 90-92.

^[25] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth (New York, Vintage Books, 2001), 112.

^[26] Inventory Estates of Mary Moody and Frances Brewer, York County, Virginia, July 20, 1767, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[27] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759, Williamsburg

Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[28] Ulrich, The Age of Homespun, 111.

^[29] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 19.

^[30] Roth, St George, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America,” 440.

^[31] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County, Virginia, March 16, 1761, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[32] Roth, St George, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America,” 450.

^[33] Inventory Estate of Mary Ripping, York County, Virginia, February 18, 1744, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[34] Inventory Estate of Frances Brewer, York County, Virginia, July 12, 1770, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[35] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Hubard, York County, Virginia, March 19, 1764, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[36] Inventory Estate of Judith Moore, York County, Virginia, July 15, 1751, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[37] See the inventories of Judith Moore, (July 15, 1751 £43.6.6), Sarah Hankins (June, 18, 1750, £51.14.8 ½), Ann Wright (February 21, 1757, £96.13.4), Elizabeth Williamson (August 15, 1757, £54.17.2), Joanna McKenzie (May 18, 1676, £98.14.0), Lydia Charlton (March 16, 1761, £126.5.1),  Rebecca Goodwin (February 20, 1749, £220.0.0), Mary Thomas (December 17, 1759, £131.2.6 ½), Betha Morris (March 18, 1765, £262.5.0), Mary Ripping (February 18, 1744, £407.8.6), Ann Allen (March 28, 1751, £254.3.1 ½), Sarah Green (May 21, 1759, £338.17.2), Anna Maria Thornton (May 18, 1761, £663.13.6), Elizabeth Baptist (May 16, 1748, £612.13.10), and Elizabeth Hubard (March 19, 1764, £598.11.9). Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[38] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 77.

^[39] See inventories of Mary Moody (July 20, 1767, £35.2.3), Sarah Hankins (June, 18, 1750, £51.14.8 ½), Mary Steele (July 22, 1767, £87.17.6), Ann Wright (February 21, 1757, £96.13.4), Joanna McKenzie (May 18, 1676, £98.14.0), Rebecca Goodwin (February 20, 1749, £220.0.0), Ann Singleton (July 15, 1765, £209.8.3), Betha Morris (March 18, 1765, £262.5.0), Mary Ripping (February 18, 1744, £407.8.6), Ann Allen (March 28, 1751, £254.3.1 ½) , Sarah Green (May 21, 1759, £338.17.2), Anna Maria Thornton (May 18, 1761, £663.13.6), Elizabeth Baptist (May 16, 1748, £612.13.10), Elizabeth Hubard (March 19, 1764, £598.11.9), Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[40] Inventory Estate of Ann Allen, York County, Virginia, March 28, 1751, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[41] Inventory Estate of Mary Moody, York County, Virginia, July 20, 1767, Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[42] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 57.

^[43] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 28.

^[44] Roth, St George, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America,” 457.

^[45] Bushman, The Refinement of America, xviii.

^[46] Bushman, The Refinement of America, xiii.

^[47] Saxton, Being Good, 105.

^[48] Sweeney, “High-Style Vernacular: Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite,” 28.