HEREDITARY GENIUS. HEREDITARY GENIUS: 
AN INQUIRY INTO 
ITS LAWS AND CONSEQUENCES, 
BY 
FRANCIS GALTON, F. R. S., Etc. 
NEW AND REVISED EDITION, WITH AN 
AMERICAN PREFACE. 
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 
i, 3, and s BOND STREET. 
NEWYORK: 
1884. PREFACE 
TO THE SECOND AMERICAN EDITION. 
The first American edition of this work having been sold, 
and a second being called for, the publishers have acceded 
to requests made from various quarters that the book 
should be made more generally accessible by reissuing 
it in a cheaper and more convenient form. 
The principle of hereditary descent, by which the char- 
acteristics of races and species are preserved, is a funda- 
mental law of life, and the investigation of its action, 
limits, and causes, as displayed in both the vegetable 
and animal kingdoms, is the task of biological science. 
Coupled with the principle of variation, it is the basis of 
the art of breeding and improving stock; while these two 
agencies are held by Mr. Darwin and his school to afford 
the true clue to the origin of the numerous forms of life. 
To the operation of this principle, man is confessedly 
no exception; those peculiarities, physical, intellectual, 
and moral, which distinguish the various races being per- PREFACE. 
petuated by descent through all the generations of history. 
Yet there has been much confusion in people’s notions 
concerning the descent of mind in families. For, while, 
on the one hand, observing persons are constantly re- 
marking the obvious transmission of certain mental traits 
from parents to children, on the other hand there has been 
a general denial of the inheritance of talent; in other 
words, it is held that, while certain mental characteristics 
are transmissible the characteristic of genius is not. 
It is clear, therefore, that what the subject required was 
a searching and systematic inquiry into the facts, and that 
has been now supplied by the present work. The following 
pages embody the result of the first vigorous and method- 
ical effort to treat the question in the true scientific spirit, 
and place it upon the proper inductive basis. Mr. Galton 
maintains that mind offers no exception to the principle 
of hereditary descent, and he makes out his case conclu- 
sively. He proves, by overwhelming evidence, that genius, 
talent, or whatever we term great mental capacity, follows 
the law of organic transmission—-runs in families, and is 
an affair of blood and breed; and that a sphere of phe- 
nomena, hitherto deemed capricious and defiant of rule, is 
nevertheless within the operation of ascertainable law. 
The argument has three stages. In the first there is an 
analysis of the elements of human greatness, and of the 
conditions that must conspire to its attainment. A scale 
of mental valuations is constructed as a basis for classifica- 
tion, and the method of arriving at generalized results in 
social phenomena is elucidated. An ingenious and simple 
notation is adopted which the reader will acquire with a PREFACE. 
VII 
little attention, and will find of great service in prosecuting 
the discussion. 
In the second stage of his work, Mr. Galton enters 
upon a pains-taking and exhaustive research of the histo- 
rical data by which his thesis is supported. The question 
is here one of difficult detail respecting family affiliations, 
and could only be safely pursued in the home district. 
The number of great men and women of various types 
which England has produced, the intensity of the family 
feeling there, and the consequent completeness of the 
genealogical records, render that country an especially 
favorable field for such an investigation, and Mr. Galton 
has accordingly concentrated his labors upon it. The 
subjects of his inquiry have been judges, statesmen, com- 
manders, literary men, men of science, poets, musicians, 
painters, and divines. The results of this extensive re- 
search are given in alphabetical and tabulated forms, and 
they bring the author to the conclusion “ that a man’s 
natural abilities are derived by inheritance under exactly 
the same limitations as are the form and physical features 
of the whole organic world.” 
In the third part of his work Mr. Galton passes to a 
comparison of his results, and to the general conclusions 
which they appear to justify. He here considers the vari- 
ous agencies by which the descent of talent is counteract- 
ed, and is led to a consideration of the comparative worth 
of different races, and to the influences which affect the 
natural ability of nations. His problem is comprehensive 
and profound, involving as it does the causes of human 
advancement and degeneracy, and what may be termed PREFACE. 
the dynamics of civilization. Of the interest of these 
topics it is unnecessary to speak; of the ability with which 
they are treated the reader can judge; the work may be 
commended to the students of human nature as an origi- 
nal and valuable contribution to the science of mind in 
that larger aspect which it is now assuming as a result of 
modern inquiries. PREFACE. 
The idea of investigating the subject of hereditary genius 
occurred to me during the course of a purely ethnological 
inquiry, into the mental peculiarities of different races; 
when the fact, that characteristics cling to families, was 
so frequently forced on my notice as to induce me to pay 
especial attention to that branch of the subject. I began 
by thinking over the dispositions and achievements of my 
contemporaries at school, at college, and in after life, 
and was surprised to find how frequently ability seemed 
to go by descent. Then I made a cursory examination 
into the kindred of about four hundred illustrious men of 
all periods of history, and the results were such, in my 
own opinion, as completely to establish the theory that 
genius was hereditary, under limitations that required to 
be investigated. Thereupon I set to work to gather a 
large amount of carefully selected biographical data, and 
in the meantime wrote two articles on the subject, which 
appeared in Macmillan's Magazine in June and in August, 
!865. I also attacked the subject from many different 
sides and sometimes with very minute inquiries, because 
it was long before the methods I finally adopted were 
matured. I mention all this, to show that the foundation 
for my theories is broader than appears in the book, and PREFACE. 
as a partial justification if I have occasionally been be- 
trayed into speaking somewhat more confidently than the 
evidence I have adduced would warrant. 
I trust the reader will pardon a small percentage of 
error and inaccuracy, if it be so small as not to affect the 
general value of my results. No one can hate inaccuracy 
more than myself, or can have a higher idea of what an 
author owes to his readers, in respect to precision; but, in 
a subject like this, it is exceedingly difficult to correct 
every mistake, and still more so to avoid omissions. I have 
often had to run my eyes over many pages of large biogra- 
phical dictionaries and volumes of memoirs to arrive at 
data, destined to be packed into half a dozen lines, in an 
appendix to one of my many chapters. 
The theory of hereditary genius, though usually scouted, 
has been advocated by a few writers in past as well as in 
modern times. But I may claim to be the first to treat 
the subject in a statistical manner, to arrive at numerical 
results, and to introduce the “ law of deviation from an 
average” into discussions on heredity. 
A great many subjects are discussed in the following 
pages, which go beyond the primary issue,—whether or 
no genius be hereditary. I could not refuse to consider 
them, because the bearings of the theory I advocate are 
too important to be passed over in silence. 
* * I am glad of this opportunity to correct a mistake in an article I pub- 
lished this spring, in Macmillan's Magazine, on the “English Judges.” I gave 
in it, provisional results from unrevised data, corresponding to those in column 
Ein the table p. 6l; but by a clerical error in the computation, I made the 
entry under Sons more nearly equal to those under Fathers and Brothers, than 
it should have been. CONTENTS. 
CHAPTER I. 
PAGE 
Introductory 
CHAPTER 11. 
Classification of Men according to their Reputation 6 
CHAPTER 111. 
Classification of Men according to their Natural 
Gifts . . . . .14 
Comparison of the two Classifications . . 37 
CHAPTER IV. 
Notation . . . . , . *s° 
CHAPTER V. 
CHAPTER VI. 
The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865 55 
CHAPTER VII. 
Statesmen . . . . . . .104 
CHAPTER VIII. 
English Peerages, their Influence upon Race . 130 
CHAPTER IX. 
Commanders . . . . . • .141 
Literary Men . , . • ,167 
CHAPTER X. CONTENTS. 
FACE 
Men of Science . . . . . .192 
CHAPTER XI. 
CHAPTER XII. 
Poets 225 
CHAPTER XIII. 
Musicians . . . . , , . 237 
CHAPTER XIV. 
Painters ....... 247 
Divines ........ 257 
CHAPTER XV. 
CHAPTER XVI. 
Senior Classics of Cambridge .... 299 
CHAPTER XVII. 
Oarsmen ....... 305 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
Wrestlers of the North Country . . . 312 
CHAPTER XIX. 
Comparison of Results . . , , .316 
CHAPTER XX. 
The Comparative Worth of Different Races . 336 
CHAPTER XXI. 
Influences that affect the Natural Ability of 
Nations. . . . . . • 351 
CHAPTER XXII. 
General Considerations . ... 363 
APPENDIX 
INDEX . • • • a 385 HEREDITARY GENIUS. 
CHAPTER I. 
INTRODUCTORY. 
I PROPOSE to show in this book that a man’s natural 
abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the 
same limitations as are the form and physical features of 
the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, 
notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful 
selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with 
peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so 
it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted 
race of men by judicious marriages during several con- 
secutive generations. I shall show that social agencies of 
an ordinary character, whose influences are little suspected, 
are at this moment working towards the degradation of 
human nature, and that others are working towards its 
improvement. I conclude that each generation has enor- 
mous power over the natural gifts of those that follow, 
and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to 
investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it 
in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves, 
shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the 
earth. 2 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 
I am aware that my views, which were first published 
four years ago in Macmillan's Magazine (in June and 
August 1865), are in contradiction to general opinion ; but 
the arguments I then used have been since accepted, to my 
great gratification, by many of the highest authorities on 
heredity. In reproducing them, as I now do, in a much 
more elaborate form, and on a greatly enlarged basis of 
induction, I feel assured that, inasmuch as what I then 
wrote was sufficient to earn the acceptance of Mr. Darwin 
(“Variation under Domestication,” ii. 7), the increased 
amount of evidence submitted in the present volume is 
not likely to be gainsaid. 
The general plan of my argument is to show that high 
reputation is a pretty accurate test of high ability; next 
to discuss the relationships of a large body of fairly 
eminent men—namely, the Judges of England from 1660 
to 1868, the Statesmen of the time of George 111., and 
the Premiers during the last 100 years—and to obtain 
from these a general survey of the laws of heredity in 
respect to genius. Then I shall examine, in order, the 
kindred of the most illustrious Commanders, men of 
Literature and of Science, Poets, Painters, and Musicians, 
of whom history speaks. I shall also discuss the kindred 
of a certain selection of Divines and of modern Scholars. 
Then will follow a short chapter, by way of comparison, 
on the hereditary transmission of physical gifts, as deduced 
from the relationships of certain classes of Oarsmen and 
Wrestlers. Lastly, I shall collate my results, and draw 
conclusions. 
It will be observed that I deal with more than one 
grade of ability. Those upon whom the greater part of 
my volume is occupied, and on whose kinships my argu- 
ment is most securely based, have been generally reputed 
as endowed by nature with extraordinary genius. There 
are so few. of these men that, although they are scattered INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
3 
throughout the whole historical period of human existence, 
their number does not amount to more than 400, and yet 
a considerable proportion of them will be found to be 
interrelated. 
Another grade of ability with which I deal is that which 
includes numerous highly eminent, and all the illustrious 
names of modern English history, whose immediate de- 
scendants are living among us, whose histories are popularly 
known, and whose relationships may readily be traced by 
the help of biographical dictionaries, peerages, and similar 
books of reference. 
A third and lower grade is that of the English Judges, 
massed together as a whole, for the purpose of the pre- 
fatory statistical inquiry of which I have already spoken. 
No one doubts that many of the ablest intellects of our 
race are to be found among the Judges; nevertheless the 
average ability of a Judge cannot be rated as equal to that 
of the lower of the two grades I have described. 
I trust the reader will make allowance for a large and 
somewhat important class of omissions I have felt myself 
compelled to make when treating of the eminent men 
of modern days. I am prevented by a sense of decorum 
from quoting names of their relations in contemporary life 
who are not recognised as public characters, although their 
abilities may be highly appreciated in private life. Still 
less consistent with decorum would it have been, to intro- 
duce the names of female relatives that stand in the same 
category. My case is so overpoweringly strong, that lam 
perfectly able to prove my point without having recourse 
to this class of evidence. Nevertheless, the reader should 
bear in mind that it exists; and I beg he will do me 
the justice of allowing that I have not overlooked the 
whole of the evidence that does not appear in my pages. 
I am deeply conscious of the imperfection of my work, 
but my sins are those of omission, not of commission 4 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
Such errors as I may and must have made, which give 
a fictitious support to my arguments, are, I am confident, 
out of all proportion fewer than such omissions of facts as 
would have helped to establish them. 
I have taken little notice in this book of modern men 
of eminence who are not English, or at least well known 
to Englishmen. I feared, if I included large classes of 
foreigners, that I should make glaring errors. It requires 
a very great deal of labour to hunt out relationships, 
even with the facilities afforded to a countryman having 
access to persons acquainted with the various families; 
much more would it have been difficult to hunt out the 
kindred of foreigners. I should have especially liked to 
investigate the biographies of Italians and Jews, both of 
whom appear to be rich in families of high intellectual 
breeds. Germany and America are also full of interest. 
It is a little less so with respect to France, where the 
Revolution and the guillotine made sad havoc among the 
progeny of her abler races. 
There is one advantage to a candid critic in my having 
left so large a field untouched ; it enables me to propose 
a test that any well-informed reader may easily adopt who 
doubts the fairness of my examples. He may most reason- 
ably suspect that I have been unconsciously influenced 
by my theories to select men whose kindred were most 
favourable to their support. If so, I beg he will test my 
impartiality as follows:—Let him take a dozen names of 
his own selection, as the most eminent in whatever pro- 
fession and in whatever country he knows most about, and 
let him trace out for himself their relations. It is necessary, 
as I find by experience, to take some pains to be sure that 
none, even of the immediate relatives, on either the male 
or female side, have been overlooked. If he does what 
I propose, I am confident he will be astonished at the 
completeness with which the results will confirm my INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER, 
5 
theory. I venture to speak with assurance, because it has 
often occurred to me to propose this very test to incre- 
dulous friends, and invariably, so far as my memory serves 
me, as large a proportion of the men who were named 
were discovered to have eminent relations, as the nature 
of my views on heredity would have led me to expect. CHAPTER 11. 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR 
REPUTATION. 
The arguments by which I endeavour to prove that 
genius is hereditary, consist in showing how large is the 
number of instances in which men who are more or less 
illustrious have eminent kinsfolk. It is necessary to have 
clear ideas on the two following matters before my argu- 
ments can be rightly appreciated. The first is the degree 
of selection implied by the words “eminent” and “illus- 
trious.” Does “eminent” mean the foremost in a hundred, 
in a thousand, or in what other number of men ? The 
second is the degree to which reputation may be accepted 
as a test of ability. 
It is essential that I, who write, should have a minimum 
qualification distinctly before my eyes whenever I employ 
the phrases “eminent” and the like, and that the reader 
should understand as clearly as myself the value I attach 
to those qualifications. An explanation of these words 
will be the subject of the present chapter. A subsequent 
chapter will be given to the discussion of how far 
“eminence” may be accepted as a criterion of natural 
gifts. It is almost needless for me to insist that the 
subjects of these two chapters are entirely distinct. 
I look upon social and professional life as a continuous 
examination. All are candidates for the good opinions of 
others, and for success in their several professions, and they ACCORDING TO THEIR REPUTATION. 
7 
achieve success in proportion as the general estimate is 
large of their aggregate merits. In ordinary scholastic 
examinations marks are allotted in stated proportions to 
various specified subjects—so many for Latin, so many for 
Greek, so many for English history, and the rest The 
world, in the same way, but almost unconsciously, allots 
marks to men. It gives them for originality of conception, 
for enterprise, for activity and energy, for administrative 
skill, for various acquirements, for power of literary ex- 
pression, for oratory, and much besides of general value, 
as well as for more specially professional merits. It does 
not allot these marks according to a proportion that can 
easily be stated in words, but there is a rough common- 
sense that governs its practice with a fair approximation 
to constancy. Those who have gained most of these 
tacit marks are ranked, by the common judgment of the 
leaders of opinion, as the foremost men of their day. 
The metaphor of an examination may be stretched much 
further. As there are alternative groups in any one of 
which a candidate may obtain honours, so it is with repu- 
tations—they may be made in law, literature, science, art, 
and in a host of other pursuits. Again: as the mere 
attainment of a general fair level will obtain no honours 
in an examination, no more will it do so in the struggle 
for eminence. A man must show conspicuous power in at 
least one subject in order to achieve a high reputation. 
Let us see how the world classifies people, after ex- 
amining each of them, in her patient, persistent manner, 
during the years of their manhood. Fow many men of 
“ eminence ” are there, and what proportion do they bear 
to the whole community ? 
I will begin by analysing a very painstaking biographical 
handbook, lately published by Routledge and Co., called 
“ Men of the Time.” Its intention, which is very fairly 
and honestly carried out, is to include none but those 8 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
whom the world honours for their ability. The catalogue 
of names is 2,500, and a full half of it consists of American 
and Continental celebrities. It is well I should give in a 
foot-note1 an analysis of its contents, in order to show the 
exhaustive character of its range. The numbers I have 
prefixed to each class are not strictly accurate, for I 
measured them off rather than counted them, but they 
are quite close enough. The same name often appears 
under more than one head. 
On looking over the book, I am surprised to find how 
large a proportion of the “Men of the Time” are past 
middle age. It appears that in the cases of high (but by 
no means in that of the highest) merit, a man must outlive 
the age of fifty to be sure of being widely appreciated. 
It takes time for an able man, born in the humbler ranks 
of life, to emerge from them and to take his natural posi- 
tion, It would not, therefore, be just to compare the 
numbers of Englishmen in the book with that of the whole 
adult male population of the British isles; but it is neces- 
sary to confine our examination to those of the celebrities 
who are past fifty years of age, and to compare their number 
with that of the whole male population who are also above 
fifty years. I estimate, from examining a large part of 
the book, that there are about 850 of these men, and that 
i Contents of the “ Dictionary of Men of the Time," Ed. 1865 : 
62 actors, singers, dancers, &c.; 7 agriculturists; 71 antiquaries, archae- 
ologists, numismatists, &c.; 20 architects; 120 artists (painters and designers); 
950 authors; 400 divines; 43 engineers and mechanicians; 10 engravers ; 
140 lawyers, judges, barristers, and legists; 94 medical practitioners, physi- 
cians, surgeons, and physiologists; 39 merchants, capitalists, manufacturers, 
and traders ; 168 military officers ; 12 miscellaneous ; 7 moral and meta- 
physical philosophers, logicians ; 32 musicians and composers ; 67 naturalists, 
botanists, zoologists, &c.; 36 naval officers ;40 philologists and ethnologists; 
60 poets (but also included in authors); 60 political and social economists and 
philanthropists ; 154 men of science, astronomers, chemists, geologists, mathe- 
maticians, &c.; 29 sculptors ; 64 sovereigns, members of royal families, &c.; 
376 statesmen, diplomatists, colonial governors, &c. ; "j6 travellers and 
geographers. according to THEIR REPUTATION. 
9 
500 of them are decidedly well known to persons familiar 
with literary and scientific society. Now, there are about 
two millions of adult males in the British isles above fifty 
years of age; consequently, the total number of the “Men 
of the Time” are as 425 to a million, and the more select 
Part of them as 250 to a million. * 
The qualifications for belonging to what I call the more 
select part are, in my mind, that a man should have dis- 
tinguished himself pretty frequently either by purely 
original work, or as a leader of opinion. I wholly exclude 
notoriety obtained by a single act. This is a fairly well- 
defined line, because there is not room for many men to 
be eminent. Each interest or idea has its mouthpiece, and 
a man who has attained and can maintain his position as 
the representative of a party or an idea, naturally becomes 
much more conspicuous than his coadjutors who are nearly 
equal but inferior in ability. This is eminently the case 
in positions where eminence may be won by official acts. 
The balance may be turned by a grain that decides whether 
A, B, or C shall be promoted to a vacant post. The man 
who obtains it has opportunities of distinction denied to 
the others. I do not, however, take much note of official 
rank. People who have left very great names behind them 
have mostly done so through non-professional labours. I 
certainly should not include mere officials, except of the 
highest ranks, and in open professions, among my select 
list of eminent men. 
Another estimate of the proportion of eminent men to 
the whole population was made on a different basis, and 
gave much the same result. I took the obituary of the 
year 1868, published in the Times on January Ist, 1869, 
and found in it about fifty names of men of the more 
select class. This was in one sense a broader, and in 
another a more rigorous selection than that which I have 
just described. It was broader, because I included the 10 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
names of many whose abilities were high, but who died 
too young to have earned the wide reputation they de- 
served ; and it was more rigorous, because I excluded old 
men who had earned distinction in years gone by, but had 
not shown themselves capable in later times to come again 
to the front. On the first ground, it was necessary to lower 
the limit of the age of the population with whom they 
should be compared. Forty-five years of age seemed to 
me a fair limit, including, as it was supposed to do, a year 
or two of broken health preceding decease. Now, 210,000 
males die annually in the British isles above the age of 
forty-five; therefore, the ratio of the more select portion of 
the “ Men of the Time” on these data is as 50 to 210,000, 
or as 238 to a million. 
Thirdly, I consulted obituaries of many years back, 
when the population of these islands was much smaller, 
and they appeared to me to lead to similar conclusions, 
viz. that 250 to a million is an ample estimate. 
There would be no difficulty in making a further selec- 
tion out of these, to any degree of rigour. We could 
select the 200, the 100, or the 50 best out of the 250, 
without much uncertainty. But Ido not see my way to 
work downwards. If I were asked to choose the thousand 
per million best men, I should feel we had descended to 
a level where there existed no sure data for guidance, 
where accident and opportunity had undue influence, and 
where it was impossible to distinguish general eminence 
from local reputation, or from mere notoriety. 
These considerations define the sense in which I propose 
to employ the word “eminent.” When I speak of an 
eminent man, I mean one who has achieved a position 
that is attained by only 250 persons in each million of 
men, or by one person in each 4,000. 4,000 is a very 
large number—difficult for persons to realize who are 
not. accustomed to deal with great assemblages. On the ACCORDING TO THEIR REPUTATION. 
11 
most brilliant of starlight nights there are never so many 
as 4,000 stars visible to the naked eye at the same time ; 
yet we feel it to be an extraordinary distinction to a star 
to be accounted as the brightest in the sky. This, be it 
remembered, is my narrowest area of selection. I propose 
to introduce no name whatever into my lists of kinsmen 
(unless it be marked off from the rest by brackets) that is 
less distinguished. 
The mass of those with whom I deal are far more 
rigidly selected—many are as one in a million, and not 
a few as one of many millions. I use the term “ illus- 
trious ” when speaking of these. They are men whom the 
whole intelligent part of the nation mourns when they die; 
who have, or deserve to have, a public funeral; and who 
rank in future ages as historical characters. 
Permit me to add a word upon the meaning of a million, 
being a number so enormous as to be difficult to conceive. 
It is well to have a standard by which to realize it. Mine 
will be understood by many Londoners ; it is as follows; 
One summer day I passed the afternoon in Bushey Park 
to see the magnificent spectacle of its avenue of horse- 
chestnut trees, a mile long, in full flower. As the hours 
passed by, it occurred to me to try to count the number 
of spikes of flowers facing the drive on one side of the 
long avenue—l mean all the spikes that were visible in 
full sunshine on one side of the road. Accordingly, I fixed 
upon a tree of average bulk and flower, and drew ima- 
ginary lines—first halving the tree, then quartering, and 
so on, until I arrived at a subdivision that was not too 
large to allow of my counting the spikes of flowers it 
included. I did this with three different trees, and arrived 
at pretty much the same result: as well as I recollect, the 
three estimates were as nine, ten, and eleven. Then I 
counted the trees in the avenue, and, multiplying all to- 
gether, I found the spikes to be just about 100,000 in 12 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
Dumber. Ever since then, whenever a million is mentioned, 
I recall the long perspective of the avenue of Bushey Park, 
with its stately chestnuts clothed from top to bottom with 
spikes of flowers, bright in the sunshine, and I imagine a 
similarly continuous floral band, of ten miles in length. 
In illustration of the value of the extreme rigour 
implied by a selection of one in a million, I will take 
the following instance. The Oxford and Cambridge boat- 
race excites almost a national enthusiasm, and the men 
who represent their Universities as competing crews have 
good reason to be proud of being the selected champions 
of such large bodies. The crew of each boat consists of 
eight men, selected out of about 800 students ; namely, the 
available undergraduates of about two successive years. In 
other words, the selection that is popularly felt to be so 
strict, is only as one in a hundred. Now, suppose there 
had been so vast a number of universities that it would 
have been possible to bring together 800 men, each of 
whom had pulled in a University crew, and that from this 
body the eight best were selected to form a special crew 
of comparatively rare merit: the selection of each of these 
would be as 1 to 10,000 ordinary men. Let this process 
be repeated, and then, and not till then, do you arrive at 
a superlative crew, representing selections of one in a 
million. This is a perfectly fair deduction, because the 
youths at the Universities are a hap-hazard collection 
of men, so far as regards their thews and sinews. No 
one is sent to a University on account of his powerful 
muscle. Or, to put the same facts into another form : 
it would require a period of no less than 200 years, before 
either University could furnish eight men, each of whom 
would have sufficient boating eminence to rank as one of 
the medium crew. Twenty thousand years must elapse 
before eight men could be furnished, each of whom would 
have the rank of the superlative crew. according to their reputation. 
13 
It is, however, quite another matter with respect to brain 
power, for, as I shall have occasion to show, the Uni- 
versities attract to themselves a large proportion of the 
eminent scholastic talent of all England. There are 
nearly a quarter of a million males in Great Britain who 
arrive each year at the proper age for going to the Uni- 
versity: therefore, if Cambridge, for example, received 
°nly one in every five of the ablest scholastic intellects, 
she would be able, in every period of ten years, to boast 
°f the fresh arrival of an undergraduate, the rank of whose 
scholastic eminence was that of one in a million. CHAPTER 111. 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR 
NATURAL GIFTS. 
I HAVE no patience with the hypothesis occasionally ex- 
pressed, and often implied, especially in tales written to 
teach children to be good, that babies are born pretty 
much alike, and that the sole agencies in creating dif- 
ferences between boy and boy, and man and man, are 
steady application and moral effort. It is in the most 
unqualified manner that I object to pretensions of natural 
equality. The experiences of the nursery, the school, the 
University, and of professional careers, are a chain of 
proofs to the contrary. I acknowledge freely the great 
power of education and social influences in developing 
the active powers of the mind, just as I acknowledge the 
effect of use in developing the muscles of a blacksmith’s 
arm, and no further. Let the blacksmith labour as he 
will, he will find there are certain feats beyond his powrer 
that are well within the strength of a man of herculean 
make, even although the latter may have led a sedentary 
life. Some years ago, the Highlanders held a grand 
gathering in Holland Park, where they challenged all 
England to compete with them in their games of strength. 
The challenge was accepted, and the well-trained men of 
the hills were beaten in the foot-race by a youth who 
was stated to be a pure Cockney, the clerk of a London 
banker. ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
Everybody who has trained himself to physical exercises 
discovers the extent of his muscular powers to a nicety. 
When he begins to walk, to row, to use the dumb bells, 
or to run, he finds to his great delight that his thews 
strengthen, and his endurance of fatigue increases day after 
day. So long as he is a novice, he perhaps flatters himself 
there is hardly an assignable limit to the education of his 
muscles; but the daily gain is soon discovered to diminish, 
and at last it vanishes altogether. His maximum per- 
formance becomes a rigidly determinate quantity. He 
learns to an inch, how high or how far he can jump, when 
he has attained the highest state of training. He learns 
to half a pound, the force he can exert on the dyna- 
mometer, by compressing it. He can strike a blow against 
the machine used to measure impact, and drive its index 
to a certain graduation, but no further. So it is in running, 
in rowing, in walking, and in every other form of physical 
exertion. There is a definite limit to the muscular powers 
of every man, which he cannot by any education or 
exertion overpass. 
This is precisely analogous to the experience that every 
student has had of the working of his mental powers. 
The eager boy, when he first goes to school and confronts 
intellectual difficulties, is astonished at his progress. He 
glories in his newly-developed mental grip and growing 
capacity for application, and, it may be, fondly believes 
fi to be within his reach to become one of the heroes who 
have left their mark upon the history of the world. The 
years go by; he competes in the examinations of school 
and college, over and over again with his fellows, and soon 
finds his place among them. He knows he can beat such 
and such of his competitors ; that there are some with 
whom he runs on equal terms, and others whose intellectual 
feats he cannot even approach. Probably his vanity still 
continues to tempt him, by whispering in a new strain. It 16 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
tells him that classics, mathematics, and other subjects 
taught in universities, are mere scholastic specialities, and 
no test of the more valuable intellectual powers. It 
reminds him of numerous instances of persons who had 
been unsuccessful in the competitions of youth, but who 
had shown powers in after-life that made them the foremost 
men of their age. Accordingly, with newly furbished hopes, 
and with all the ambition of twenty-two years of age, he 
leaves his University and enters a larger field of compe- 
tition. The same kind of experience awaits him here that 
he has already gone through. Opportunities occur—they 
occur to every man—and he finds himself incapable of 
grasping them. He tries, and is tried in many things. In 
a few years more, unless he is incurably blinded by self- 
conceit, he learns precisely of what performances he is 
capable, and what other enterprises lie beyond his compass/ 
When he reaches mature life, he is confident only within 
certain limits, and knows, or ought to know, himself just 
as he is probably judged of by the world, with all his 
unmistakeable weakness and all his undeniable strength. 
He is no longer tormented into hopeless efforts by the 
fallacious promptings of overweening vanity, but he limits 
his undertakings to matters below the level of his reach, 
and finds true moral repose in an honest conviction that 
he is engaged in as much good work as his nature has 
rendered him capable of performing. 
There can hardly be a surer evidence of the enormous 
difference between the intellectual capacity of men, than 
the prodigious differences in the numbers of marks ob- 
tained by those who gain mathematical honours at Cam- 
bridge. I therefore crave permission to speak at some 
length upon this subject, although the details are dry and 
of little general interest. There are between 400 and 450 
students who take their degrees in each year, and of these, 
about 100 succeed in gaining honours in mathematics, and ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
17 
are ranged by the examiners in strict order of merit. 
About the first forty of those who take mathematical 
honours are distinguished by the title of wranglers, and it 
ls a decidedly creditable thing to be even a low wrangler; 
h will secure a fellowship in a small college. It must be 
carefully borne in mind that the distinction of being the 
first in this list of honours, or what is called the senior 
wrangler of the year, means a vast deal more than being 
the foremost mathematician of 400 or 450 men taken at 
hap-hazard. No doubt the large bulk of Cambridge men 
are taken almost at hap-hazard. A boy is intended by 
his parents for some profession ; if that profession be either 
the Church or the Bar, it used to be almost requisite, and 
is still important, that he should be sent to Cambridge 
or Oxford. These youths may justly be considered as 
having been taken at hap-hazard. But there are many 
others who have fairly won their way to the Universities, 
and are therefore selected from an enormous area. Fully 
one-half of the wranglers have been boys of note at their 
respective schools, and, conversely, almost all boys of note 
at schools find their way to the Universities. Hence it is 
that among their comparatively small number of students, 
the Universities include the highest youthful scholastic 
ability of all England. The senior wrangler, in each suc- 
cessive year, is the chief of these as regards mathematics, 
nnd this, the highest distinction, is, or was, continually 
won by youths who had no mathematical training of 
Hnportance before they went to Cambridge. All their 
instruction had been received during the three years of 
their residence at the University. Now, Ido not say 
anything here about the merits or demerits of Cambridge 
mathematical studies having been directed along a too 
narrow groove, or about the presumed disadvantages of 
ranging candidates in strict order of merit, instead of 
grouping them, as at Oxford, in classes, where their names 18 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
appear alphabetically arranged. All lam concerned with 
here are the results; and these are most appropriate to 
my argument. The youths start on their three years’ 
race as fairly as possible. They are then stimulated to 
run by the most powerful inducements, namely, those of 
competition, of honour, and of future wealth (for a good 
fellowship is wealth) ; and at the end of the three years 
they are examined most rigorously according to a system 
that they all understand and are equally well prepared 
for. The examination lasts five and a half hours a day 
for eight days. All the answers are carefully marked by 
the examiners, who add up the marks at the end and 
range the candidates in strict order of merit. The fair- 
ness and thoroughness of Cambridge examinations have 
never had a breath of suspicion cast upon them. 
Unfortunately for my purposes, the marks are not 
published. They are not even assigned on a uniform 
system, since each examiner is permitted to employ his 
own scale of marks ; but whatever scale he uses, the 
results as to proportional merit are the same. I am 
indebted to a Cambridge examiner for a copy of his marks 
in respect to two examinations, in which the scales of 
marks were so alike as to make it easy, by a slight pro- 
portional adjustment, to compare the two together. This 
was, to a certain degree, a confidential communication, so 
that it would be improper for me to publish anything 
that would identify the years to which these marks refer. 
I simply give them as groups of figures, sufficient to show 
the enormous differences of merit. The lowest man in 
the list of honours gains less than 300 marks ; the lowest 
wrangler gains about 1,500 marks; and the senior wrangler, 
in one of the lists now before me, gained more than 7,500 
marks. Consequently, the lowest wrangler has more than 
five times the merit of the lowest junior optime, and less 
than one-fifth the merit of the senior wrangler. ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
19 
Scale of merit among the men who obtain mathematical honoters at 
Cambridge. 
The results of two years are thrown into a single table. 
The total number of marks obtainable in each year was 17,000. 
Number of marks obtained by 
candidates. 
Number of candidates in the two 
years, taken together, who obtained 
those marks. 
Under 500 
241 
500 to 1,000 
74 
1,000 to 1,500 
38 
1,500 to 2,000 
21 
2,000 to 2,500 
11 
2,500 to 3,000 
8 
3,000 to 3,500 
11 
3,500 to 4,000 
5 
4,000 to 4,500 
2 
4,500 to 5,000 
1 
5,000 to 5,500 
3 
5,500 to 6,000 
1 
6,000 to 6,500 
0 
6,500 to 7,000 
0 
7,000 to 7,500 
0 
7,500 to 8,000 
1 
200 
The precise number of marks obtained by the senior 
wrangler in the more remarkable of these two years was 
7,634; by the second wrangler in the same year, 4,123; 
and by the lowest man in the list of honours, only 237. 
Consequently, the senior wrangler obtained nearly twice 
as many marks as the second wrangler, and more than 
thirty-two times as many as the lowest man. I have 
received from another examiner the marks of a year in 
which the senior wrangler was conspicuously eminent. 
1 I have included in this table only the first 100 men in each year. The 
omitted residue is too small to be important. I have omitted it lest, if the 
precise numbers of honour men were stated, those numbers would have served 
to identify the years. For reasons already given, I desire to afford no data to 
serve that purpose. 20 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
He obtained 9,422 marks, whilst the second in the same 
year—whose merits were by no means inferior to those 
of second wranglers in general—obtained only 5,642. The 
man at the bottom of the same honour list had only 309 
marks, or one-thirtieth the number of the senior wrangler. 
I have some particulars of a fourth very remarkable year, 
in which the senior wrangler obtained no less than ten 
times as many marks as the second wrangler, in the 
“ problem paper.” Now, I have discussed with practised 
examiners the question of how far the numbers of marks 
may be considered as proportionate to the mathematical 
power of the candidate, and am assured they are strictly 
proportionate as regards the lower places, but do not afford 
full justice to the highest. In other words, the senior 
wranglers above mentioned had more than thirty, or thirty- 
two times the ability of the lowest men on the lists of 
honours. They would be able to grapple with problems 
more than thirty-two times as difficult; or when dealing 
with subjects of the same difficulty, but intelligible to 
all, would comprehend them more rapidly in perhaps the 
square root of that proportion. It is reasonable to expect 
that marks would do some injustice to the very best men, 
because a very large part of the time of the examination 
is taken up by the mechanical labour of writing. When- 
ever the thought of the candidate outruns his pen, he gains 
no advantage from his excess of promptitude in conception. 
I should, however, mention that some of the ablest men 
have shown their superiority by comparatively little writing. 
They find their way at once to the root of the difficulty in 
the problems that are set, and, with a few clean, apposite, 
powerful strokes, succeed in proving they can overthrow it, 
and then they go on to another question. Every word 
they write tells. Thus, the late Mr, H. Leslie Ellis, who 
was a brilliant senior wrangler in 1840, and whose name 
is familiar to many generations of Cambridge men as a ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
21 
prodigy of universal genius, did not even remain duiing 
the full period in the examination room: his health was 
weak, and he had to husband his strength. 
The mathematical powers of the last man on the list of 
honours, which are so low when compared with those of 
a senior wrangler, are mediocre, or even above mediocrity, 
when compared with the gifts of Englishmen generally. 
Though the examination places 100 honour men above 
him, it puts no less than 300 “ poll men ” below him. 
Even if we go so far as to allow that 200 out of the 300 
refuse to work hard enough to get honours, there will 
remain 100 who, even if they worked hard, could not 
get them. Every tutor knows how difficult it is to drive 
abstract conceptions, even of the simplest kind, into the 
brains of most people—how feeble and hesitating is their 
mental grasp—how easily their brains are mazed—how 
incapable they are of precision and soundness of know- 
ledge. It often occurs to persons familiar with some 
scientific subject to hear men and women of mediocre gifts 
relate to one another what they have picked up about it 
from some lecture—say at the Royal Institution, where 
they have sat for an hour listening with delighted attention 
to an admirably lucid account, illustrated by experiments 
of the most perfect and beautiful character, in all of which 
they expressed themselves intensely gratified and highly 
instructed. It is positively painful to hear what they say. 
Their recollections seem to be a mere chaos of mist and 
misapprehension, to which some sort of shape and organi- 
zation has been given by the action of their own pure 
fancy, altogether alien to what the lecturer intended to 
convey. The average mental grasp even of what is called 
a well-educated audience, will be found to be ludicrously 
small when rigorously tested. 
In stating the differences between man and man, let it 
not be supposed for a moment that mathematicians are 22 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
necessarily one-sided in their natural gifts. There are 
numerous instances of the reverse, of whom the following 
will be found, as instances of hereditary genius, in the 
appendix to my chapter on “ SCIENCE.” I would espe- 
cially name Leibnitz, as being universally gifted ; but 
Ampere, Arago, Condorcet, and D’Alembert, were all of 
them very far more than mere mathematicians. Nay, 
since the range of examination at Cambridge is so ex- 
tended as to include other subjects besides mathematics, 
the differences of ability between the highest and lowest 
of the successful candidates, is yet more glaring than what 
I have already described. We still find, on the one hand, 
mediocre men, whose whole energies are absorbed in getting 
their 237 marks for mathematics ; and, on the other hand, 
some few senior wranglers who are at the same time high 
classical scholars and much more besides, Cambridge has 
afforded such instances. Its lists of classical honours are 
comparatively of recent date, but other evidence is obtain- 
able from earlier times of their occurrence. Thus, Dr, 
George Butler, the Head Master of Harrow for very many 
years, including the period when Byron was a schoolboy, 
(father of the present Head Master, and of other sons, two 
of whom are also head masters of great public schools,) 
must have obtained that classical office on account of his 
eminent classical ability ; but Dr. Butler was also senior 
wrangler in 1794, the year when Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst 
was second. Both Dr. Kaye, the late Bishop of Lincoln, 
and Sir E. Alderson, the late judge, were the senior 
wranglers and the first classical prizemen of their respective 
years. Since 1824, when the classical tripos was first esta- 
blished, the late Mr. Goulburn (brother of Dr. Goulburn, 
Dean of Norwich, and son of the well-known Serjeant 
Goulburn!) was second wrangler in 1835, and senior classic 
of the same year. But in more recent times, the necessary 
labour of preparation, in order to acquire the highest 
1 Erroneous; corrected at p. 301. ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
23 
mathematical places, has become so enormous that there 
has been a wider differentiation of studies. There is no 
longer time for a man to acquire the necessary knowledge to 
succeed to the first place in more than one subject. There 
are, therefore, no instances of a man being absolutely first 
m both examinations, but a few can be found of high 
eminence in both classics and mathematics, as a reference 
to the lists published in the “ Cambridge Calendar” will 
show. The best of these more recent degrees appears to 
be that of Dr. Barry, late Principal of Cheltenham, and 
now Principal of King’s College, London (the son of the 
eminent architect, Sir Charles Barry, and brother of Mr. 
Edward Barry, who succeeded his father as architect). He 
was fourth wrangler and seventh classic of his year. 
In whatever way we may test ability, we arrive at equally 
enormous intellectual differences. Lord Macaulay {see under 
“ Literature ” for his remarkable kinships) had one of 
the most tenacious of memories. He was able to recall 
many pages of hundreds of volumes by various authors, 
which he had acquired by simply reading them over. An 
average man could not certainly carry in his memory one 
thirty-second—ay, or one hundredth—part as much as 
Lord Macaulay. The father of Seneca had one of the 
greatest memories on record in ancient times (see under 
“ Literature ” for his kinships). Person, the Greek 
scholar, was remarkable for this gift, and, I may add, the 
“Person memory” was hereditary in that family. In 
statesmanship, generalship, literature, science, poetry, art, 
just the same enormous differences are found between man 
and man; and numerous instances recorded in this book, 
will show in how small degree, eminence, either in these or 
any other class of intellectual powers, can be considered 
as due to purely special powers. They are rather to be 
considered in those instances as the result of concentrated 
efforts, made by men who are widely gifted. People lay CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
24 
too much stress on apparent specialities, thinking over- 
rashly that, because a man is devoted to some particular 
pursuit, he could not possibly have succeeded in anything 
else. They might just as well say that, because a youth 
had fallen desperately in love with a brunette, he could not 
possibly have fallen in love with a blonde. He may or 
may not have more natural liking for the former type of 
beauty than the latter, but it is as probable as not that the 
affair was mainly or wholly due to a general amorousness 
of disposition. It is just the same with special pursuits, 
A gifted man is often capricious and fickle before he selects 
his occupation, but when it has been chosen, he devotes 
himself to it with a truly passionate ardour. After a man 
of genius has selected his hobby, and so adapted himself 
to it as to seem unfitted for any other occupation in life, 
and to be possessed of but one special aptitude, I often 
notice, with admiration, how well he bears himself when 
circumstances suddenly thrust him into a strange position. 
He wrill display an insight into new conditions, and a powrer 
of dealing with them, with which even his most intimate 
friends were unprepared to accredit him. Many a pre- 
sumptuous fool has mistaken indifference and neglect for 
incapacity; and in trying to throw a man of genius on 
ground where he was unprepared for attack, has himself 
received a most severe and unexpected fall. I am sure 
that no one who has had the privilege of mixing in the 
society of the abler men of any great capital, or who is 
acquainted with the biographies of the heroes of history, 
can doubt the existence of grand human animals, of natures 
pre-eminently noble, of individuals born to be kings of men. 
I have been conscious of no slight misgiving that I was 
committing a kind of sacrilege whenever, in the preparation 
of materials for this book, I had occasion to take the 
measurement of modern intellects vastly superior to my 
own, or to criticise the genius of the most magnificent ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
25 
historical specimens of our race. It was a process that 
constantly recalled to me a once familiar sentiment in 
hygone days of African travel, when I used to take alti- 
tudes of the huge cliffs that domineered above me as I 
travelled along their bases, or to map the mountainous 
landmarks of unvisited tribes, that loomed in faint grandeur 
beyond my actual horizon. 
I have not cared to occupy myself much with people 
whose gifts are below the average, but they would be an 
interesting study. The number of idiots and imbeciles 
among the twenty million inhabitants of England and 
Wales is approximately estimated at 50,000, or as 1 in 
400. Dr. Seguin, a great French authority on these 
matters, states that more than thirty per cent, of idiots 
and imbeciles, put under suitable instruction, have been 
taught to conform to social and moral law, and rendered 
capable of order, of good feeling, and of working like the 
third of an average man. He says that more than forty 
per cent, have become capable of the ordinary transactions 
of life, under friendly control; of understanding moral and 
social abstractions, and of working like two-thirds of a man. 
And, lastly, that from twenty-five to thirty per cent, come 
nearer and nearer to the standard of manhood, till some 
of them will defy the scrutiny of good judges, when com- 
pared with ordinary young men and women. In the order 
next above idiots and imbeciles are a large number of 
milder cases scattered among private families and kept out 
of sight, the existence of whom is, however, well known 
to relatives and friends; they are too silly to take a part 
in general society, but are easily amused with some trivial, 
harmless occupation. Then comes a class of whom the 
Lord Dundreary of the famous play may be considered 
a representative ; and so, proceeding through successive 
grades, we gradually ascend to mediocrity. I know two 
good instances of hereditary silliness short of imbecility, 26 
CLASSIFICA TION OF MEN 
and have reason to believe I could easily obtain a large 
number of similar facts. 
To conclude, the range of mental power between—l will 
not say the highest Caucasian and the lowest savage—but 
between the greatest and least of English intellects, is 
enormous. There is a continuity of natural ability reaching 
from one knows not what height, and descending to one can 
hardly say what depth. I propose in this chapter to range 
men according to their natural abilities, putting them into 
classes separated by equal degrees of merit, and to show 
the relative number of individuals included in the several 
classes. Perhaps some persons might be inclined to make 
an offhand guess that the number of men included in the 
several classes would be pretty equal. If he thinks so, I 
can assure him he is most egregiously mistaken. 
The method I shall employ for discovering all this, is an 
application of the very curious theoretical law of “ deviation 
from an average.” First, I will explain the law, and then 
I will show that the production of natural intellectual gifts 
comes justly within its scope. 
The law is an exceedingly general one. M. Quetelet, 
the Astronomer-Royal of Belgium, and the greatest 
authority on vital and social statistics, has largely used it 
in his inquiries. He has also constructed numerical tables, 
by which the necessary calculations can be easily made, 
whenever it is desired to have recourse to the law. Those 
who wish to learn more than I have space to relate, should 
consult his work, which is a very readable octavo volume, 
and deserves to be far better known to statisticians than it 
appears to be. Its title is “ Letters on Probabilities,” trans- 
lated by Downes. Layton and Co. London: 1849. 
So much has been published in recent years about 
statistical deductions, that I am sure the reader will be 
prepared to assent freely to the following hypothetical 
case:—Suppose a large island inhabited by a single race, ACCORDING TO THEIR NA2URAL GIFTS. 
27 
*ho intermarried freely, and who had lived for many 
generations under constant conditions; then the average 
Might of the male adults of that population would un- 
doubtedly be the same year after year. Also—still arguing 
from the experience of modern statistics, which are found 
to give constant results in far less carefully-guarded 
examples—we should undoubtedly find, year after year, 
the same proportion maintained between the number of 
men of different heights, I mean, if the average stature 
was found to be sixty-six inches, and if it was also found 
m any one year that 100 per million exceeded seventy- 
eight inches, the same proportion of 100 per million would 
be closely maintained in all other years. An equal con- 
stancy of proportion would be maintained between any 
other limits of height we pleased to specify, as between 
seventy-one and seventy-two inches; between seventy-two 
and seventy-three inches ; and so on. Statistical expe- 
riences are so invariably confirmatory of what I have 
stated would probably be the case, as to make it unneces- 
sary to describe analogous instances. Now, at this point, 
the law of deviation from an average steps in. It shows 
that the number per million whose heights range between 
seventy-one and seventy-two inches (or between any other 
limits we please to name) can bz. predicted from the previous 
datum of the average, and of any one other fact, such as 
that of 100 per million exceeding seventy-eight inches. 
The diagram on p. 28 will make this more intelligible. 
Suppose a million of the men to stand in turns, with their 
backs against a vertical board of sufficient height, and 
their heights to be dotted off upon it. The board would 
then present the appearance shown in the diagram. The 
line of average height is that which divides the dots into 
two equal parts, and stands, in the case we have assumed, 
at the height of sixty-six inches. The dots will be found 
to be ranged so symmetrically on either side of the line of 28 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
average, that the lower half of the diagram will be almost 
a precise reflection of the upper. Next, let a hundred dots 
be counted from above 
downwards, and let a line 
be drawn below them. Ac- 
cording to the conditions, 
this line will stand at the 
height of seventy-eight 
inches. Using the data 
afforded by these two 
lines, it is possible, by the 
help of the law of devia- 
tion from an average, to 
reproduce, with extraordi- 
nary closeness, the entire 
system of dots on the 
board. 
M. Quetelet gives tables 
in which the uppermost 
line, instead of cutting off 
100 in a million, cuts off 
only one in a million. He divides the intervals between 
that line and the line of average, into eighty equal divi- 
sions, and gives the number of dots that fall within each 
of those divisions. It is easy, by the help of his tables, 
to calculate what would occur under any other system of 
classification we pleased to adopt. 
This law of deviation from an average is perfectly general 
in its application. Thus, if the marks had been made by 
bullets fired at a horizontal line stretched in front of the 
target, they would have been distributed according to the 
same law. Wherever there is a large number of similar 
events, each due to the resultant influences of the same 
variable conditions, two effects will follow. First, the 
average value of those events will be constant; and, ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
29 
secondly, the deviations of the several events from the 
average, will be governed by this law (which is, in prin- 
ciple, the same as that which governs runs of luck at a 
gaming-table). 
The nature of the conditions affecting the several events 
must, I say, be the same. It clearly would not be proper 
to combine the heights of men belonging to two dissimilar 
races, in the expectation that the compound results would 
be governed by the same constants. A union of two dis- 
similar systems of dots would produce the same kind of 
confusion as if half the bullets fired at a target had been 
directed to one mark, and the other half to another mark. 
Nay, an examination of the dots would show to a person, 
ignorant of what had occurred, that such had been the 
case, and it would be possible, by aid of the law, to dis- 
entangle two or any moderate number of superimposed 
series of marks. The law may, therefore, be used as a 
most trustworthy criterion, whether or no the events of 
which an average has been taken, are due to the same or 
to dissimilar classes of conditions. 
I selected the hypothetical case of a race of men living 
on an island and freely intermarrying, to ensure the con- 
ditions under which they were all supposed to live, being 
uniform in character. It will now be my aim to show there 
is sufficient uniformity in the inhabitants of the British Isles 
to bring them fairly within the grasp of this law. 
For this purpose, I first call attention to an example 
given in Quetelet’s book. It is of the measurements of the 
circumferences of the chests of a large number of Scotch 
soldiers. The Scotch are by no means a strictly uniform 
race, nor are they exposed to identical conditions. They 
are a mixture of Celts, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, and others, 
m various, proportions, the Highlanders being almost purely 
Celts. On the other hand, these races, though diverse in 
orlgm, are not very dissimilar in character. Consequently, CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
it will be found that their deviations from the average, 
follow theoretical computations with remarkable accuracy. 
The instance is as follows. M. Quetelet obtained his facts 
from the thirteenth volume of the Edinburgh Medical 
Journal, where the measurements are given in respect to 
5,738 soldiers, the results being grouped in order of mag- 
nitude, proceeding by differences of one inch. Professor 
Quetelet compares these results with those that his tables 
give, and here is the result. The marvellous accordance 
between fact and theory must strike the most unpractised 
eye. I should say that, for the sake of convenience, both 
the measurements and calculations have been reduced to 
per thousandths ; 
Measures of 
the chest in 
inches. 
Number of 
men per 1,000, 
by experience. 
Number of 
men per 1,000, 
by calculation. 
Measures of 
the chest in 
inches. 
Number of 
men per 1,000, 
by experience. 
Number of 
men per i,coo, 
by calculation. 
33 
5 
7 
41 
1,628 
1,675 
34 
31 
29 
42 
I,148 
1,096 
35 
141 
no 
43 
645 
560 
36 
322 
323 
44 
160 
221 
37 
732 
732 
45 
87 
69 
38 
i, 3°5 
i,333 
46 
38 
l6 
39 
1,867 
1,838 
47 
7 
3 
40 
1,882 
1,987 
48 
2 
1 
I will now take a case where there is a greater dis- 
similarity in tha elements of which the average has been 
taken. It is the height of 100,000 French conscripts. 
There is fully as much variety in the French as in the 
English, for it is not very many generations since France 
was divided into completely independent kingdoms. 
Among its peculiar races are those of Normandy, Brit- 
tany, Alsatia, Provence, Bearne, Auvergne—each with 
their special characteristics; yet the following table shows 
a most striking agreement between the results of experience ACCORDING TO THEIR NAIURAL GIFTS. 
31 
compared with those derived by calculation, from a purely 
theoretical hypothesis 
Number of Men. 
Height of Men. 
Measured. 
Calculated. | 
Inches. 
Under 61-8 
28,620 
i 
26,345 
61 -8 to 62-9 
11,580 
13,182 
62 -9 to 63 -9 
13.990 
14,502 
63 -9 to 65 0 
14,410 
13,982 
65-0 to 66'I 
11,410 
11,803 
66-i to 67-1 
8,780 
8,725 
67'! to 68‘2 
5.530 
5,527 
68 -2 to 69'3 
3,190 
3,187 
Above 69‘3 
2,490 
2,645 
The greatest differences are in the lowest ranks, Th*y 
include the men who were rejected from being too short 
for the army. M. Quetelet boldly ascribes these differences 
to the effect of fraudulent returns. It certainly seems that 
men have been improperly taken out of the second rank 
and put into the first, in order to exempt them from 
service. Be this as it may, the coincidence of fact with 
theory is, in this instance also, quite close enough to serve 
my purpose. 
I argue from the results obtained from Frenchmen and 
from Scotchmen, that, if we had measurements of the 
adult males in the British Isles, we should find those 
measurements to range in close accordance with the law 
of deviation from an average, although our population is 
as much mingled as I described that of Scotland to have 
been, and although Ireland is mainly peopled with Celts. 
Now, if this be the case with stature, then it will be true 
as regards every other physical feature —as circumference 
of head, size of brain, weight of grey matter, number 32 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
of brain fibres, &c.; and thence, by a step on which no 
physiologist will hesitate, as regards mental capacity. 
This is what I am driving at—that analogy clearly shows 
there must be a fairly constant average mental capacity in 
the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that the deviations 
from that average—upwards towards genius, and down- 
wards towards stupidity—must follow the law that governs 
deviations from all true averages. 
I have, however, done somewhat more than rely on 
analogy. I have tried the results of those examinations 
in which the candidates had been derived from the same 
classes. Most persons have noticed the lists of successful 
competitors for various public appointments that are 
published from time to time in the newspapers, with the 
marks gained by each candidate attached to his name. 
These lists contain far too few names to fall into such 
beautiful accordance with theory, as was the case with the 
Scotch soldiers. There are rarely more than 100 names 
in any one of these examinations, while the chests of 
no less than 5,700 Scotchmen were measured. I cannot 
justly combine the marks of several independent exami- 
nations into one fagot, for I understand that different 
examiners are apt to have different figures of merit; so 
I have analysed each examination separately. I give a 
calculation I made on the examination last before me ; it 
will do as well as any other. It was for admission into 
the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, December 1868. 
The marks obtained were clustered most thickly about 
3,000, so I take that number as representing the average 
ability of the candidates. From this datum, and from the 
fact that no candidate obtained more than 6,500 marks, 
I computed the column B in the following table, by the 
help of Quetelet’s numbers. It will be seen that column B 
accords with column A quite as closely as the small number 
of persons examined could have led us to expect. ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
33 
Number of Candidates who obtained 
those marks. 
by the Candidates. 
A. 
According to fact. 
B. 
According to theory 
6,500 and above 
O 
O 
*■> 
5>8oo to 6,500 
I 
I 
5>ioo to 5,800 
3 
5 
4>4°o to 5,100 
3)7oo to 4,400 
6 
11 
[ 73 
8 
13 
t- 72 
3,000 to 3,700 
22 
16 
2,300 to 3,000 
22 
16 
1,600 to 2,300 
8 > 
13 
J 
1,100 to 1,600 ( 
400 to 1,100 < 
below 400 f 
Either did not 
) 8 
venture to com- 
pete, or were 
plucked. 
[ 5 
\ 1 
The symmetry of the descending branch has been rudely 
spoilt by the conditions stated at the foot of column A. 
There is, therefore, little room for doubt, if everybody in 
England had to work up some subject and then to pass 
before examiners who employed similar figures of merit, 
that their marks would be found to range, according to the 
law of deviation from an average, just as rigorously as the 
heights of French conscripts, or the circumferences of the 
chests of Scotch soldiers. 
The number of grades into which we may divide ability 
18 purely a matter of option. We may consult our con- 
venience by sorting Englishmen into a few large classes, or 
lnto many small ones. I will select a system of classifi- 
cation that shall be easily comparable with the numbers 
°f eminent men, as determined in the previous chapter. 
We have seen that 250 men per million become eminent; 
accordingly, I have so contrived the classes in the following 
table that the two highest, F and G, together with X (which 
mcludes all cases beyond G, and which are unclassed), 34 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN 
shall amount to about that number—namely, to 248 per 
million;— 
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
Grades of natural 
ability, separated by 
Numbers of men comprised in the several grades of natural ability, whether in 
respect to their general powers, or to special aptitudes. 
p 
T , 
In total male population of the United Kingdom, 
viz. 
tionate. 
million 
15 
millions, of the undermentioned ages;— 
Below 
Above 
viz. 
of the 
average. 
average. 
one in 
same age. 
20 30 
30—40 
40—50 
50—60 
60—70 
70-so 
a 
A 
4 
256,791 
651,000 
495,000 
391,000 
268,000 
171,000 
77,00° 
b 
B 
6 
162,279 
409,000 
3-12,000 
246,000 
168,000 
107,000 
48,0cfi 
c 
C 
16 
63,563 
l6l,000 
123,000 
97,000 
66,000 
42,000 
19,00° 
d 
D 
64 
15,696 
39,80° 
SOjSOO 
23,900 
16,400 
10,400 
4,7°° 
e 
K 
413 
2,423 
6,100 
4,700 
3.700 
2,520 
1,600 
729 
f 
F 
4.300 
233 
S9° 
45° 
355 
243 
iS5 
f 
g 
G 
79,000 
14 
35 
27 
21 
IS 
9 
4 
X 
X 
all grades 
all grades 
below 
above 
1,000,000 
1 
3 
2 
2 
2 
— 
— 
g 
G 
J 
On either side of average . . 
500,000 
1,268,000 
964,000 
761,000 
521,000 
332,000 
149.0^ 
Total, both sides . 
1,000,000 
2,536,000 
1,928,000 
1,522,000 
1,042,000 
664,000 
298,0-' 
The proportions of men living at different ages are calculated from the pro- 
portions that are true for England and Wales. (Census 1861, Appendix, p. 107.) 
Example.—The class F contains lin every 4,300 men. In other words, 
there are 233 of that class in each million of men. The same is true of class f. 
In the whole United Kingdom there are 590 men of class F (and the same 
number of f) between the ages of 20 and 30; 450 between the ages of 30 
and 40; and so on. 
It will, I trust, be clearly understood that the numbers 
of men in the several classes in my table depend on no 
uncertain hypothesis. They are determined by the assured 
law of deviations from an average. It is an absolute fact 
that if we pick out of each million the one man who is 
naturally the ablest, and also the one man who is the 
most stupid, and divide the remaining 999,998 men into 
fourteen classes, the average ability in each being separated ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS. 
35 
from that of its neighbours by equal grades, then the 
numbers in each of those classes will, on the average of 
many millions, be as is stated in the table. The table may 
be applied to special, just as truly as to general ability. 
It would be true for every examination that brought out 
natural gifts, whether held in painting, in music, or in 
statesmanship. The proportions between the different 
classes would be identical in all these cases, although the 
classes would be made up of different individuals, according 
as the examination differed in its purport. 
It will be seen that more than half of each million 
is contained in the two mediocre classes a and A; the 
four mediocre classes a, b, A, B, contain more than four- 
fifths, and the six mediocre classes more than nineteen- 
twentieths of the entire population. Thus, the rarity of 
commanding ability, and the vast abundance of mediocrity, 
18 no accident, but follows of necessity, from the very nature 
°f these things. 
The meaning of the word “ mediocrity ” admits of little 
doubt. It defines the standard of intellectual power found 
ln most provincial gatherings, because the attractions of a 
more stirring life in the metropolis and elsewhere, are apt 
to draw away the abler classes of men, and the silly and 
the imbecile do not take a part in the gatherings. Hence, 
the residuum that forms the bulk of the general society 
of small provincial places, is commonly very pure in its 
mediocrity. 
The class C possesses abilities a trifle higher than those 
commonly possessed by the foreman of an ordinary jury. 
D includes the mass of men who obtain the ordinary 
prizes of life. E is a stage higher. Then wc reach F, 
the lowest of those yet superior classes of intellect, with 
which this volume is chiefly concerned. 
On descending the scale, we find by the time we have 
reached f, that we are already among the idiots and im- 36 
CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO GIFTS. 
beciles. We have seen in p. 25, that there are 400 idiots 
and imbeciles, to every million of persons living in this 
country ; but that 30 per cent, of their number, appear to 
be light cases, to whom the name of idiot is inappropriate. 
There will remain 280 true idiots and imbeciles, to every 
million of our population. This ratio coincides very closely 
with the requirements of class f. No doubt a certain pro- 
portion of them are idiotic owing to some fortuitous cause, 
which may interfere with the working of a naturally good 
brain, much as a bit of dirt may cause a first-rate chrono- 
meter to keep worse time than an ordinary watch. But 
I presume, from the usual smallness of head and absence 
of disease among these persons, that the proportion of 
accidental idiots cannot be very large. 
Hence we arrive at the undeniable, but unexpected 
conclusion, that eminently gifted men are raised as much 
above mediocrity as idiots are depressed below it; a fact 
that is calculated to considerably enlarge our ideas of the 
enormous differences of intellectual gifts between man 
and man. 
I presume the class F of dogs, and others of the more 
intelligent sort of animals, is nearly commensurate with 
the f of the human race, in respect to memory and powers 
of reason. Certainly the class Gof such animals is far 
superior to the g of humankind. CHAPTER IV. 
COMPARISON OF THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
Is reputation a fair test of natural ability ? It is the only 
one I can employ—am I justified in using it ? How much 
of a man’s success is due to his opportunities, how much 
to his natural power of intellect ? 
This is a very old question, on which a great many 
commonplaces have been uttered that need not be repeated 
here. I will confine myself to a few considerations, such 
as seem to me amply adequate to prove, what is wanted 
for my argument. 
Let it clearly be borne in mind, what I mean by reputa- 
tion and ability. By reputation, I mean the opinion of 
contemporaries, revised by posterity—the favourable result 
of a critical analysis of each man’s character, by many 
biographers. Ido not mean high social or official position, 
nor such as is implied by being the mere lion of a London 
season; but I speak of the reputation of a leader of 
opinion, of an originator, of a man to whom the world 
deliberately acknowledges itself largely indebted. 
By natural ability, I mean those qualities of intellect 
and disposition, which urge and qualify a man to perform 
acts that lead to reputation. Ido not mean capacity 
without zeal, nor zeal without capacity, nor even a com- 
bination of both of them, without an adequate power of 
doing a great deal of very laborious work. But I mean 38 
COMPARISON OF THE 
a nature which, when left to itself, will, urged by an in- 
herent stimulus, climb the path that leads to eminence, 
and has strength to reach the summit—one which, if 
hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until the hin- 
drance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its 
labour-loving instinct. It is almost a contradiction in 
terms, to doubt that such men will generally become emi- 
nent. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence in 
this volume, to show that few have won high reputations, 
without possessing these peculiar gifts. It follows that 
the men who achieve eminence, and those who are naturally 
capable, are, to a large extent, identical. 
The particular meaning in which I employ the word 
ability, does not restrict my argument from a wider appli- 
cation ; for, if I succeed in showing—as I undoubtedly shall 
do—that the concrete triple event, of ability combined 
with zeal and with capacity for hard labour, is inherited, 
much more will there be justification for believing that any 
one of its three elements, whether it be ability, or zeal, or 
capacity for labour, is similarly a gift of inheritance. 
I believe, and shall do my best to show, that, if the 
“ eminent ” men of any period, had been changelings when 
babies, a very fair proportion of those who survived and 
retained their health up to fifty 'years of age, would, not- 
withstanding their altered circumstances, have equally risen 
to eminence. Thus—to take a strong case—it is incre- 
dible that any combination of circumstances, could have 
repressed Lord Brougham to the level of undistinguished 
mediocrity. 
The arguments on which I rely, are as follow. I will 
limit their application for the present, to men of the pen 
and to artists. First, it is a tact, that numbers of men rise, 
before they are middle-aged, from the humbler ranks of 
life to that worldly position, in which it is of no importance 
to their future career, how their youth has been passed. TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
39 
They have overcome their hindrances, and thus start fair 
with others more fortunately reared, in the subsequent race 
of life. A boy who is to be carefully educated is sent to 
a good school, where he confessedly acquires little useful 
information, but where he is taught the art of learning. 
The man of whom I have been speaking, has contrived 
to acquire the same art in a school of adversity. Both 
stand on equal terms, when they have reached mature life. 
They compete for the same prizes, measure their strength 
by efforts in the same direction, and their relative successes 
are thenceforward due to their relative natural gifts. There 
are many such men in the “ eminent” class, as biographies 
abundantly show. Now, if the hindrances to success were 
very great, we should expect all who surmounted them, to 
be prodigies of genius. The hindrances would form a 
system of natural selection, by repressing all whose gifts 
were below a certain very high level. But what is the 
case ? We find very many who have risen from the ranks, 
who are by no means prodigies of genius; many who have 
no claim to “ eminence,” who have risen easily in spite of 
all obstacles. The hindrances undoubtedly form a system 
of natural selection that represses mediocre men, and even 
men of pretty fair powers—in short, the classes below D ; 
but many of D succeed, a great many of E, and I believe 
a very large majority of those above. 
If a man is gifted with vast intellectual ability, eagerness 
to work, and power of working, I cannot comprehend how 
such a man should be repressed. The world is always 
tormented with difficulties waiting to be solved—struggling 
with ideas and feelings, to which it can give no adequate 
expression. If, then, there exists a man capable of solving 
those difficulties, or of giving a voice to those pent-up 
feelings, he is sure to be welcomed with universal accla- 
mation. We may almost say that he has only to put his 
pen to paper, and the thing is done. I am here speaking 40 
COMPARISON OF THE 
of the very first-class men—prodigies—one in a million, 
or one in ten millions, of whom numbers will be found 
described in this volume, as specimens of hereditary 
genius. 
Another argument to prove, that the hindrances of 
English social life, are not effectual in repressing high 
ability is, that the number of eminent men in England, 
is as great as in other countries where fewer hindrances 
exist. Culture is far more widely spread in America, than 
with us, and the education of their middle and lower 
classes far more advanced; but, for all that, America most 
certainly does not beat us in first-class works of literature, 
philosophy, or art. The higher kind of books, even of the 
most modern date, read in America, are principally the 
work of Englishmen. The Americans have an immense 
amount of the newspaper-article-writer, or of the member- 
of-congress stamp of ability; but the number of their 
really eminent authors is more limited even than with us. 
I argue that, if the hindrances to the rise of genius, were 
removed from English society as completely as they have 
been removed from that of America, we should not become 
materially richer in highly eminent men. 
People seem to have the idea that the way to eminence 
is one of great self-denial, from which there are hourly 
temptations to diverge : in which a man can be kept in 
his boyhood, only by a schoolmaster’s severity or a parent’s 
incessant watchfulness, and in after life by the attractions 
of fortunate friendships and other favourable circumstances. 
This is true enough of the great majority of men, but it 
is simply not true of the generality of those who have 
gained great reputations. Such men, biographies show to 
be haunted and driven by an incessant instinctive craving 
for intellectual work. If forcibly withdrawn from the path 
that leads towards eminence, they will find their way back 
to it, as surely as a lover to his mistress. They do not TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
41 
work for the sake of eminence, but to satisfy a natural 
craving for brain work, just as athletes cannot endure 
repose on account of their muscular irritability, which 
insists upon exercise. It is very unlikely that any con- 
junction of circumstances, should supply a stimulus to 
brain work, commensurate with what these men carry in 
their own constitutions. The action of external stimuli 
must be uncertain and intermittent, owing to their very 
nature ; the disposition abides. It keeps a man ever em- 
ployed—now wrestling with his difficulties, now brooding 
over his immature ideas—and renders him a quick and 
eager listener to innumerable, almost inaudible teachings, 
that others less keenly on the watch, are sure to miss. 
These considerations lead to my third argument. I have 
shown that social hindrances cannot impede men of high 
ability, from becoming eminent. I shall now maintain that 
social advantages are incompetent to give that status, to 
a man of moderate ability. It would be easy to point 
out several men of fair capacity, who have been pushed 
forward by all kinds of help, who are ambitious, and exert 
themselves to the utmost, but who completely fail in 
attaining eminence. If great peers, they may be lord- 
lieutenants of counties ; if they belong to great county 
families, they may become influential members of parlia- 
ment and local notabilities. When they die, they leave a 
blank for awhile in a large circle, but there is no West- 
minster Abbey and no public mourning for them—perhaps 
barely a biographical notice in the columns of the daily 
papers. 
It is difficult to specify two large classes of men, with 
equal social advantages, in one of which they have high 
hereditary gifts, while in the other they have not. I must 
not compare the sons of eminent men with those of non- 
eminent, because much which I should ascribe to breed, 
others might ascribe to parental encouragement and ex- 42 
COMPARISON OF THE 
ample. Therefore, I will compare the sons of eminent 
men with the adopted sons of Popes and other dignitaries 
of the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of nepotism 
among ecclesiastics is universal. It consists in their giving 
those social helps to a nephew, or other more distant 
relative, that ordinary people give to their children. 
Now, I shall show abundantly in the course of this book, 
that the nephew of an eminent man has far less chance 
of becoming eminent than a son, and that a more remote 
kinsman has far less chance than a nephew. We may 
therefore make a very fair comparison, for the purposes of 
my argument, between the success of the sons of eminent 
men and that of the nephews or more distant relatives, 
who stand in the place of sons to the high unmarried 
ecclesiastics of the Romish Church. If social help is really 
of the highest importance, the nephews of the Popes will 
attain eminence as frequently, or nearly so, as the sons of 
other eminent men; otherwise, they will not. 
Are, then, the nephews, &c. of the Popes, on the whole, 
as highly distinguished as are the sons of other equally 
eminent men ? I answer, decidedly not. There have been 
a few Popes who were offshoots of illustrious races, such as 
that of the Medici, but in the enormous majority of cases 
the Pope is the ablest member of his family. I do not 
profess to have worked up the kinships of the Italians 
with any especial care, but I have seen amply enough of 
them, to justify me in saying that the individuals whose 
advancement has been due to nepotism, are curiously un- 
distinguished. The very common combination of an able 
son and an eminent parent, is not matched, in the case 
of high Romish ecclesiastics, by an eminent nephew and 
an eminent uncle. The social helps are the same, but 
hereditary gifts are wanting in the latter case. 
To recapitulate : I have endeavoured to show in respect 
to literary and artistic eminence—• TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
43 
I. That men who are gifted with high abilities—even 
men of class E—easily rise through all the obstacles caused 
by inferiority of social rank. 
2. Countries where there are fewer hindrances than in 
England, to a poor man rising in life, produce a much 
larger proportion of persons of culture, but not of what 
I call eminent men. 
3. Men who are largely aided by social advantages, are 
unable to achieve eminence, unless they are endowed with 
high natural gifts. 
It may be well to add a few supplementary remarks on 
the small effects of a good education on a mind of the 
highest order. A youth of abilities G, and X, is almost 
independent of ordinary school education. He does not 
want a master continually at his elbow to explain diffi- 
culties and select suitable lessons. On the contrary, he is 
receptive at every pore. He learns from passing hints, 
with a quickness and thoroughness that others cannot 
comprehend. He is omnivorous of intellectual work, 
devouring in a vast deal more than he can utilize, but 
extracting a small percentage of nutriment, that makes, 
in the aggregate, an enormous supply. The best care 
that a master can take of .such a boy is to leave him 
alone, just directing a little here and there, and checking 
desultory tendencies. 
It is a mere accident if a man is placed in his youth in 
the profession for which he has the most special vocation. 
It will consequently be remarked in my short biographical 
notices, that the most illustrious men have frequently 
broken loose from the life prescribed by their parents, and 
followed, careless of cost, the paramount dictation of their 
own natures : in short, they educate themselves. D’Alem- 
bert is a striking instance of this kind of self-reliance. He 
was a foundling (afterwards shown to be well bred as 
respects ability), and put out to nurse as a pauper baby, 44 
COMPARISON OF THE 
to the wife of a poor glazier. The child’s indomitable 
tendency to the higher studies, could not be repressed by 
his foster-mother’s ridicule and dissuasion, nor by the 
taunts of his schoolfellows, nor by the discouragements of 
his schoolmaster, who was incapable of appreciating him, 
nor even by the reiterated deep disappointment of finding 
that his ideas, which he knew to be original, were not 
novel, but long previously discovered by others. Of course, 
we should expect a boy of this kind, to undergo ten or 
more years of apparently hopeless strife, but we should 
equally expect him to succeed at last; and D’Alembert 
did succeed in attaining the first rank of celebrity, by the 
time he was twenty-four. The reader has only to turn 
over the pages of my book, to find abundant instances of 
this emergence from obscurity, in spite of the utmost dis- 
couragement in early youth. 
A prodigal nature commonly so prolongs the period 
when a man’s receptive faculties are at their keenest, that 
a faulty education in youth, is readily repaired in after 
life. The education of Watt, the great mechanician, was 
of a merely elementary character. During his youth and 
manhood he was engrossed with mechanical specialities. 
It was not till he became advanced in years, that he had 
leisure to educate himself, and yet by the time he was an 
old man, he had become singularly well-read and widely 
and accurately informed. The scholar who, in the eyes of 
his contemporaries and immediate successors, made one of 
the greatest reputations, as such, that any man has ever 
made, was Julius Caesar Scaliger. His youth was, I be- 
lieve, entirely unlettered. He was in the army until he 
was twenty-nine, and then he led a vagrant professional 
life, trying everything and sticking to nothing. At length 
he fixed himself upon Greek. His first publications were 
at the age of forty-seven, and between that time and the 
period of a somewhat early death, he earned his remark- TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
45 
able reputation, only exceeded by that of his son. Boy- 
hood and youth—the period between fifteen and twenty- 
two years of age, which afford to the vast majority of men, 
the only period for the acquirement of intellectual facts 
and habits—are just seven years—neither more nor less 
important than other years—in the lives of men of the 
highest order. People are too apt to complain of their 
imperfect education, insinuating that they would have done 
great things if they had been more fortunately circum- 
stanced in youth. But if their power of learning is 
materially diminished by the time they have discovered 
their want of knowledge, it is very probable that their 
abilities are not of a very high description, and that, how- 
ever well they might have been educated, they would 
have succeeded but little better. 
Even if a man be long unconscious of his powers, an 
opportunity is sure to occur—they occur over and over 
again to every man—that will discover them. He will 
then soon make up for past arrears, and outstrip com- 
petitors with very many years’ start, in the race of life. 
There is an obvious analogy between the man of brains 
and the man of muscle, in the unmistakeable way in 
which they may discover and assert their claims to supe- 
riority over less gifted, but far better educated, competitors. 
An average sailor climbs rigging, and an average Alpine 
guide scrambles along cliffs, with a facility that seems like 
magic to a man who has been reared away from ships and 
mountains. But if he have extraordinary gifts, a very 
little trial will reveal them, and he will rapidly make 
up for his arrears of education. A born gymnast would 
soon, in his turn, astonish the sailors by his feats. Before 
the voyage was half over, he would outrun them like an 
escaped monkey. I have witnessed an instance of this 
myself. Every summer, it happens that some young 
English tourist who had never previously planted his foot 46 
COMPARISON OF THE 
on crag or ice, succeeds in Alpine work to a marvellous 
degree. 
Thus far, I have spoken only of literary men and artists, 
who, however, form the bulk of the 250 per million, that 
attain to eminence. The reasoning that is true for them, 
requires large qualifications when applied to statesmen and 
commanders. Unquestionably, the most illustrious states- 
men and commanders belong, to say the least, to the classes 
F and G of ability; but it does not at all follow that an 
English cabinet minister, if he be a great territorial lord, 
should belong to those classes, or even to the two or three 
below them. Social advantages have enormous power in 
bringing a man into so prominent a position as a statesman, 
that it is impossible to refuse him the title of “ eminent,” 
though it may be more than probable that if he had been 
changed in his cradle, and reared in obscurity, he would 
have lived and died without emerging from humble life. 
Again, we have seen that a union of three separate quali- 
ties—intellect, zeal, and power of work—are necessary to 
raise men from the ranks. Only two of these qualities, in 
a remarkable degree, namely intellect and power of work, 
are required by a man who is pushed into public life; 
because when he is once there, the interest is so absorbing, 
and the competition so keen, as to supply the necessary 
stimulus to an ordinary mind. Therefore, many men who 
have succeeded as statesmen, would have been nobodies 
had they been born in a lower rank of life : they would 
have needed zeal to rise. Talleyrand would have passed 
his life in the same way as other grand seigneurs, if he 
had not been ejected from his birthright, by a family 
council, on account of his deformity, and thrown into the 
vertex of the French Revolution. The furious excitement 
of the game overcame his inveterate indolence, and he 
developed into the foremost man of the period, after 
Napoleon and. Mirabeau, As for sovereigns, they belong TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
47 
to a peculiar category. The qualities most suitable to the 
ruler of a great nation, are not such as lead to eminence 
in private life. Devotion to particular studies, obstinate 
perseverance, geniality and frankness in social relations, are 
important qualities to make a man rise in the world, but 
they are unsuitable to a sovereign. He has to view many 
interests and opinions with an equal eye; to know how 
to yield his favourite ideas to popular pressure, to be 
reserved in his friendships and able to stand alone. On 
the other hand, a sovereign does not greatly need the 
intellectual powers that are essential to the rise of a 
common man, because the best brains of the country are 
at his service. Consequently, Ido not busy myself in this 
volume with the families of merely able sovereigns; only 
with those few whose military and administrative capacity 
is acknowledged to have been of the very highest order. 
As regards commanders, the qualities that raise a man 
to a peerage, may be of a peculiar kind, such as would not 
have raised him to eminence in ordinary times. Strategy 
is as much a speciality as chess playing, and large practice 
is required to develop it. It is difficult to see how strate- 
gical gifts, combined with a hardy constitution, dashing 
courage, and a restless disposition, can achieve eminence in 
times of peace. These qualities are more likely to attract 
a man to the hunting-field, if he have enough money; or 
if not, to make him an unsuccessful speculator. It con- 
sequently happens that generals of high, but not the very 
highest order, such as Napoleon’s marshals and Cromwell’s 
generals, are rarely found to have eminent kinsfolk. Very 
different is the case, with the most illustrious commanders; 
They are far more than strategists and men of restless 
dispositions; they would have distinguished themselves 
under any circumstances. Their kinships are most re- 
markable, as will be seen in my chapter on commanders, 
which includes the names of Alexander, Scipio, Hannibal, 48 
COMPARISON OF THE 
Csesar, Marlborough, Cromwell, the Princes of Nassau, 
Wellington, and Napoleon. 
Precisely the same remarks are applicable to demagogues. 
Those who rise to the surface and play a prominent part 
in the transactions of a troubled period, must have courage 
and force of character, but they need not have high in- 
tellectual powers. Nay, it is more appropriate that the 
intellects of such men should be narrow and one-sided, 
and their dispositions moody and embittered. These are 
not qualities that lead to eminence in ordinary times. 
Consequently, the families of such men, are mostly un- 
known to fame. But the kinships of popular leaders 
of the highest order, as of the two Gracchi, of the two 
Arteveldes, and of Mirabeau, are illustrious. 
I may mention a class of cases that strikes me forcibly 
as a proof, that a sufficient power of command to lead to 
eminence in troublous times, is much less unusual than is 
commonly supposed, and that it lies neglected in the course 
of ordinary life. In beleaguered towns, as for example 
during the great Indian mutiny, a certain type of character 
very frequently made its appearance. People rose into 
notice who had never previously distinguished themselves, 
and subsided into their former way of life, after the occa- 
sion for exertion was over; while during the continuance 
of danger and misery, they were the heroes of their situa- 
tion. They were cool in danger, sensible in council, cheerful 
under prolonged suffering, humane to the wounded and 
sick, encouragers of the faint-hearted. Such people were 
formed to shine only under exceptional circumstances. 
They had the advantage of possessing too tough a fibre to 
be crushed by anxiety and physical misery, and perhaps 
in consequence of that very toughness, they required a 
stimulus of the sharpest kind, to goad them to all the 
exertions of which they were capable. 
The result of what I have said, is to show that in TWO CLASSIFICATIONS. 
49 
statesmen and commanders, mere “ eminence ” is by no 
means a satisfactory criterion of such natural gifts as 
would make a man distinguished under whatever circum- 
stances he had been reared. On the other hand, statesmen 
of a high order, and commanders of the very highest, who 
overthrow all opponents, must be prodigiously gifted. 
The reader must judge the cases I quote, in proof of 
hereditary gifts, by their several merits. I have endea- 
voured to speak of none but the most illustrious names. 
It would have led to false conclusions, had I taken a larger 
number, and thus descended to a lower level of merit. 
In conclusion, I see no reason to be dissatisfied with the 
conditions under which I am bound, of accepting high 
reputation as a very fair test of high ability. The nature 
of the test would not have been altered, if I had attempted 
to readjust each man’s reputation according to his merits, 
because this is what every biographer does. If I had 
possessed the critical power of a St. Beuve, I should have 
merely thrown into literature another of those numerous 
expressions of opinion, by the aggregate of which, all 
reputations are built. 
To conclude: I feel convinced that no man can achieve 
a very high reputation without being gifted with very high 
abilities; and I trust I have shown reason to believe, that 
few who possess these very high abilities cap fail in 
achieving eminence. CHAPTER V. 
NOTATION. 
[ln connection with this chapter consult folding sheet in the Appendix.] 
1 ENTREAT my readers not to be frightened at the 
first sight of the notation I employ, for it is- really very 
simple to understand and easy to recollect. It was im- 
possible for me to get on without the help of something 
of the sort, as I found our ordinary nomenclature far 
too ambiguous as well as cumbrous for employment in 
this book. 
For example, the terms “uncle,” “nephew,” “grand- 
father,” and “grandson,” have each of them two distinct 
meanings. An uncle may be the brother of the father, 
or the brother of the mother; the nephew may be the 
son of a brother, or the son of a sister; and so on. 
There are four kinds of first cousins, namely, the sons of 
the two descriptions of uncles and those of the two cor- 
responding aunts. There are sixteen kinds of first cousins 
“ once removed,” for either A. may be the son of any one 
of the four descriptions of male or of the four female 
cousins of 8., or B. may bear any one of those relation- 
ships to A. I need not quote more instances in illustration 
of what I have said, that unbounded confusion would have 
been introduced had I confined myself in this book, to our 
ordinary nomenclature. 
The notation I employ gets rid of all this confused 
and cumbrous language. It disentangles relationships NOTATION. 
51 
in a marvellously complete and satisfactory manner, and 
enables us to methodise, compare, and analyse them in any 
way we like. 
Speaking generally, and without regarding the type in 
which the letters are printed, F. stands for Father; G. for 
Grandfather; U. for Uncle ; N. for Nephew; B. for 
Brother; S. for Son ; and P. for Grandson {Petit-fils in 
French). 
These letters are printed in capitals when the relation- 
ship to be expressed has passed through the male line, 
and in small type when through the female line. There- 
fore U. is the paternal uncle ; G. the paternal grandfather ; 
N. is a nephew that is son of a brother; P. a grandson 
that is the child of a son. So again, u. is the maternal 
uncle; g. the maternal grandfather; n, a nephew that is 
son of a sister; p. a grandson that is the child of a 
daughter. 
Precisely the same letters, in the form of Italics, are 
employed for the female relations. For example, in cor- 
respondence with U. there is U. to express an aunt that 
is the sister of a father; and to u. there is u. to express an 
aunt that is the sister of a mother. 
It is a consequence of this system of notation, that F. 
and B. and S. are always printed in capitals, and that 
their correlatives for mother, sister, and daughter are 
always expressed in small italicised type, as fi, b., and s. 
The reader must mentally put the word his before the 
letter denoting kinship, and was after it. Thus:— 
Adams, John; second President of the United States. 
S. John Quincey Adams, sixth President. 
P. C. F. Adams, American Minister in England; author. 
would be read— 
His (i.e. John Adams’) son was J. Q. Adams. 
His „ „ grandson was C. F. Adams. 52 
NOTATION. 
The following table comprises the whole of this no- 
tation : 
G. G. 
Grandfather. = Grandmother. 
1 
S- g- 
Grandfather. = Grandmother. 
1 
1 
u. 
Uncle. 
1 1 
U. F. 
Aunt. Father. 
1 
f. 
= Mother. 
1 
1 
u. 
Uncle. 
i 
U. 
Aunt. 
1 1 
B. The Person 
Brother, described. 
1 1 
1 
b. 
Sister. 
1 
1 
N. 
Nephew. 
1 ! 
N. S. 
Niece. Son. 
1 
1 
S. 
Daughter. 
1 
n. 
Nephew. 
1 
11. 
Niece. 
A A 
Gr -son, Gr.-danghter. 
1 1 
p. p. 
Gr.-son. Gr.-daughter. 
Two or more letters are employed to express relation- 
ships beyond the compass of this table. Thus the 
expression for a first cousin, speaking generally, is US., 
which admits of being specialized in four different forms, 
namely, US., US., uS., and «S. As a matter of fact, 
distant relationships will seldom be found to fall under 
our consideration. 
The last explanation I have to make, is the meaning 
of brackets [] when they enclose a letter. It implies 
that the person to whose name the letter in brackets is 
annexed has not achieved sufficient public reputation to 
be ranked, in statistical deductions, on equal terms with 
the rest. 
For facility of reference I give lists, in alphabetical 
order, of all the letters, within the limits of two letters, 
that I employ. Thus I always use GF. for great-grand- 
father, and not FG., which means the same thing. NOTATION. 
53 
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE LETTERS, AND THE MALE 
RELATIONSHIPS TO WHICH THEY CORRESPOND.1 
B. Brother, 
F. Father. 
G. g. Grandfather. 
GB. gB, GB. Great-uncle. 
GF. gF. GF. gF. Great-grandfather. 
GG. gG. GG. gG. Gg. gg. Gg. gg. Great-great-grandfather. 
GN. gN. GN. Gn. ga. Gn. gn. First cousin, once removed, ascending. 
GU. gU. G\J. gU. Gu. gu. Gu. Great-great-uncle. 
N. n. Nephew. 
NS. nS. yVS. «S. Great-nephew, 
P. p. Grandson. 
PS. pS. PS. /S. Great-grandson, 
PP. pP. PP. pP. Pp. pp. Pp. pp. Great-great-grandson. 
S. Son. 
U. u. Uncle. 
UP. uP. ÜB. uV. up. Up. up. First cousin, once removed, descending. 
US. uS. US. uS. First cousin. 
1 When the last letter is in Italics, whether small or capital, the corresponding 
female relation is indicated ; as N. a niece, Nr. a great-niece. 
The double letters are to be mentally read as follow: 
GB. His brother was, &c. 
UP. His Uncle'r grandson was, &c. CHAPTER VI. 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
The Judges of England, since the restoration of the 
monarchy in 1660, form a group peculiarly well adapted 
to afford a general outline of the extent and limitations of 
heredity in respect to genius. A judgeship is a guarantee 
of its possessor being gifted with exceptional ability ; the 
Judges are sufficiently numerous and prolific to form an 
adequate basis for statistical inductions, and they are the 
subjects of several excellent biographical treatises. It is 
therefore well to begin our inquiries with a discussion of 
their relationships. We shall quickly arrive at definite 
results, which subsequent chapters, treating of more illus- 
trious men, and in other careers, will check and amplify. 
It is necessary that I should first say something in 
support of my assertion, that the office of a judge is really 
a sufficient guarantee that its possessor is exceptionally 
gifted. In other countries it may be different to what it 
is with us, but we all know that in England, the Bench is 
never spoken of without reverence for the intellectual 
power of its occupiers. A seat on the Bench is a great 
prize, to be won by the best men. No doubt there are 
hindrances, external to those of nature, against a man 
getting on at the Bar and rising to a judgeship. The 
attorneys may not give him briefs when he is a young 
barrister; and even if he becomes a successful barrister. 56 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
his political party may be out of office for a long period, 
at a time when he was otherwise ripe for advancement. 
I cannot, however, believe that either of these are serious 
obstacles in the long run. Sterling ability is sure to make 
itself felt, and to lead to practice; while as to politics, the 
changes of party are sufficiently frequent to give a fair 
chance to almost every generation. For every man rvlio 
is a judge, there may possibly be two other lawyers of 
the same equally fitted for the post, but it is 
hard to believe there can be a larger number. 
If not always the foremost, the Judges are therefore 
among the foremost, of a vast body of legal men. The 
Census speaks of upwards of 3,000 barristers, advocates, 
and special pleaders; and it must be recollected that 
these dp not consist of 3,000 men taken at hap-hazard, 
but a large part of them are already selected, and it is 
from these, by a second process of selection, that the 
judges are mainly derived. When I say that a large part 
of the barristers are selected men, I speak of those among 
them who are of humble parentage, but have brilliant 
natural gifts—who attracted notice as boys, or, it may be, 
even as children, and were therefore sent to a good school. 
There they won exhibitions and fitted themselves for col- 
lege, where they supported themselves by obtaining scholar- 
ships. Then came fellowships, and so they ultimately 
found their way to the Bar. Many of these have risen to 
the Bench. The parentage of the Lord Chancellors jus- 
tifies my statement. There have been thirty of them 
within the period included in my inquiries. Of these, 
Lord Hardwicke was the son of a small attorney at Dover, 
in narrow circumstances; Lord Eldon (whose brother was 
the great Admiralty Judge, Lord Stowell) was son of a 
“ coal fitter;” Lord Truro was son of a sheriff’s officer; 
and Lord St. Leonards (like Lord Tenterden, the Chief 
Justice of Common Pleas) was son of a barber. Others BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
57 
were sons of clergymen of scanty means. Others have 
begun life in alien professions, yet, notwithstanding their 
false start, have easily recovered lost ground in after life. 
Lord Erskine was first in the navy and then in the army, 
before he became a barrister. Lord Chelmsford was 
originally a midshipman. Now a large number of men 
with antecedents as unfavourable to success as these, and 
yet successful men, are always to be found at the Bar, and 
therefore I say the barristers are themselves a selected 
body; and the fact of every judge having been taken 
from the foremost rank of 3,000 of them, is proof that his 
exceptional ability is of an enormously higher order than 
if the 3,000 barristers had been conscripts, drawn by lot 
from the general mass of their countrymen. I therefore 
need not trouble myself with quoting passages from 
biographies, to prove that each of the Judges whose name 
I have occasion to mention, is a highly gifted man. It 
is precisely in order to avoid the necessity of this tedious 
work, that I have selected the Judges for my first chapter. 
In speaking of the English Judges, I have adopted the 
well-known “Lives of the Judges,” by Foss, as my guide. 
It was published in 1865, so I have adopted that date as 
the limit of my inquiries. I have considered those only as 
falling under the definition of “judges” whom he includes 
as such. They are the Judges of the Courts of Chancery 
and Common Law, and the Master of the Rolls, but not 
the Judges of the Admiralty nor of the Court of Canter- 
bury. By the latter limitation, I lose the advantage of 
counting Lord Stowell (brother of the Lord Chancellor 
Eldon), the remarkable family of the Lushingtons, that of 
Sir R. Phillimore, and some others. Through the limitation 
as regards time, I lose, by ending with the year 1865, the 
recently-created judges, such as Judge Selwyn, brother 
of the Bishop of Lichfield, and also of the Professor 
of Divinity at Cambridge. But I believe, from cursory 58 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
inquiries, that the relations of these latter judges, speaking 
generally, have not so large a share of eminence as we 
shall find among those of the judges in my list. This 
might have been expected, for it is notorious that the 
standard of ability in a modern judge is not so high as 
it used to be. The number of exceptionally gifted men 
being the same, it is impossible to supply the new demand 
for heads of great schools and for numerous other careers, 
now thrown open to able youths, without seriously limiting 
the field whence alone good judges may be selected. By 
beginning at the Restoration, which I took for my com- 
mencement, because there was frequent jobbery in earlier 
days, I lose a Lord Keeper (of the same rank as a Lord 
Chancellor), and his still greater son, also a Lord Chan- 
cellor, namely, the two Bacons. I state these facts to 
show that I have not picked out the period in question, 
because it seemed most favourable to my argument, but 
simply because it appeared the most suitable to bring out 
the truth as to hereditary genius, and was, at the same 
time, most convenient for me to discuss. 
There are 286 judges within the limits of my inquiry; 
109 of them have one or more eminent relations, and three 
others have relations whom I have noticed, but they are 
marked off with brackets, and are therefore not to be 
included in the following statistical deductions. As the 
readiest method of showing, at a glance, the way in which 
these relations are distributed, I give a table below in 
which they are all compactly registered. This table is 
a condensed summary of the Appendix to the present 
chapter, which should be consulted by the reader when- 
ever he desires fuller information. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
59 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 109 JUDGES, GROUPED 
INTO 85 FAMILIES. 
Abney U. 
One relation {or two in family). 
Keating F. 
Alibone G. 
Bedingfield U. 
Best (Lord Wynford) . . g. 
Bickersteth (Lord Langdale) u. 
Bramston F. 
King, Lord u. 
Lawrence F. 
Lee B. 
Mansfield, Lord . . . . P. 
Milton B. 
Browne uS. 
Brougham, Lord. . . . gB. 
Patteson S. 
2. Powis, Sir L. and brother . B. 
2. Raymond, Lord, and father F. 
2. Reynolds, Sir J. and nephew N. 
Romilly, Lord1 . . , . S. 
Campbell, Lord . . . . N. 
Cooper (Earl Shaftesbury). P. 
Copley (Lord I.yndhurst) . F. 
De Grey (Lord Walsingham) S. 
Erie B. 
Scott (Earl Eldon) . . . B. 
Sewell p. 
3. Eyre, Sir R. and father . F. 
Forster F. 
Thesiger (Lord Chelmsford) S. 
Thurlow, Lord . . . . B. 
Gurney S. 
Harcourt, Lord . . . . G. 
Heath ' S. 
Treby S. 
(Twisden, see Finch). 
Verney g. 
Henley (E. of Northington) F. 
Hotham B. 
Wigram B. 
Wood (Lord Hatherley) . F. 
Two and three relations (or three and four in family) 
Alderson . . . . F, Uj. 
(Bathurst, 
Blackburn . . . . B. g. 
Blackstone . . . . S. N. 
Lechmere . . . . P. u. 
Lovell pS. pF. 
Nares S. B. 
Parker (E. of Maccles- 
field) and Sir Thomas S. UP. 
Pepys(E.ofCottenham) G. g. B. 
2. Buller and Bathurst, Earl U. u. N. 
Burnet G. F. 
Churchill2 . . . . UP. n. 
Pollock 2 B. S. 
2. Clive, Sir E. and uncle U. UP. 
2. Cowper, Earl, & brother B. NS. 
Dampier F. B. 
Clarke B. u. 
Rolfe (Lord Cranworth) GN. gF, 
Scarlett (Lord Abinger) 2S. 
Spelman F. GF, 
Sutton (Lord Manners) B. N. 
Talbot, Lord . . . F. N. 
Dolben S. B. gB. 
2. Erskine, Lord, and son B. S. 
2. Gould, Sir H. and 
grandson . . . . P. p. 
Hewitt (Lord Lifford). 2S. 
2. Jeffreys, Lord, and 
Trevor G. US. 
Turner 2 U. 
2. Wilde, Lord Truro, and 
nephew . . . . B. N. 
2. Willes, Sir J. and son . B. S. 
Willmot P. PS, 
2. Windham, Sir W. and 
brother . . . . B.P. (7N 
Jervis F. GN. 
Four or more relations (or five and more in family). 
4. Atkyns, Sir R. and three others . . . . G. F. B. p. 
Coleridge3 S. s. 3N. P. NS. 
Denison 4 NS." 
Denman F. S. 
F. S. uS. uP. 
1 The kinship is reckoned from Sir Samuel Romilly. 
3 Ditto, from the Great Duke of Marlborough. 
3 Ditto, from Coleridge the Poet. 60 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
3. Viz. Finch (Earl of Nottingham), Twisden, 
and Legge F. 2 S. US. GN. PS. (?gN.) 
2. Herbert, Lord Keeper, and son . . . . 2S. 2 US. 
2. Hyde, Earl Clarendon, and cousin . . . 2U. 3 US. S. 
Law (Lord Ellenborough) F. 2 S. 2 B. 
(Legge, see Finch.) 
Lyttletonl B. F. u. g. pS. 
3. Viz, 2 Montagu2 and 1 North (Ld. Guilford) G. B. 2S. 2N. 2P. NS. 5 
(North, see Montagu.) 
2. Pratt, Earl Camden, and Sir J. . . . . F. S. n. nS. 
Somers, Earl {put see Yorke) 2jVS. 2.VP. 
Trevor, Lord g. F. S, U. GB. 
(Trevor, Master of the Rolls, 
Vaughan 3 B. 2 N, p. 
2. Yorke, Earl Hardwicke and son; also, in 
part, Earl Somers 2 S. 2 P. PS. 
will catch the eye at once. I will begin by shortly alluding 
to them, and will enter more into details a little further 
on. First, it will be observed, that the Judges are so 
largely interrelated, that 109 of them are grouped into 
only 85 families. There are seventeen doublets, among 
the Judges, two triplets, and one quadruplet. In addition 
to these, might be counted six other sets, consisting of 
those whose ancestors sat on the Bench previously to the 
accession of Charles 11., namely, Bedingfield, Forster, 
Hyde, Finch, Windham, and Lyttleton. Another fact to 
Several remarkable features in the contents of this table 
be observed, is the nearness of the relationships in my list. 
The single letters are far the most common. Also, though 
a man has twice as many grandfathers as fathers, and pro- 
bably more than twice as many grandsons as sons, yet the 
Judges are found more frequently to have eminent fathers 
than grandfathers, and eminent sons than grandsons. In 
the third degree of relationship, the eminent kinsmen are 
yet more rare, although the number of individuals in those 
degrees is increased in a duplicate proportion. When a 
judge has no more than one eminent relation, that relation 
1 The kinship is reckoned from the Lord Keeper. 
2 Ditto, from Chief Justice the first Earl of Manchester; the two nephews 
are William, Ch. B. E., and the Earl of Sandwich; the two grandsons, the 
Earl of Halifax and James, Ch.B.E. The genealogical table in the Appendix to 
this chapter, will explain these and the other kinships of the Montagu family BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
61 
is nearly always to be found in the first or second degree. 
Thus in the first section of the table, which is devoted to 
single relationships, though it includes as many as thirty- 
nine entries, there are only two among them (viz. Browne 
and Lord Brougham) whose kinships extend beyond the 
second degree. It is in the last section of the table, which 
treats of whole families, largely gifted with ability, that the 
distant kinships are chiefly to be found. I annex a table 
(Table II.) extracted from the preceding one, which exhibits 
these facts with great clearness. Column A contains the 
facts just as they were observed, and column D shows the 
percentage of individuals, in each degree of kinship to 
every 100 judges, who have become eminent. 
TABLE 11. 
r- 
Degrees of Kinship. 
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
Name of the degree. | Corresponding letter. 
Father .... 
22 F. 
22 
26 
IOO 
26‘o 
9*1 
tn 
o 
Brother .... 
30 B. 
3° 
35 
150 
23 "3 
8-2 
Son 
31 s. 
31 
36 
IOO 
36-0 
12*6 
Grandfather . . 
7ft 
6g- 
13 
i5 
200 
7 '5 
2-6 
£ 1 
Uncle .... 
9 U. 
6 u. 
15 
18 
400 
4‘5 
1*6 
N ephew.... 
14 N. 
2 n. 
l6 
J9 
400 
4 "75 
17 
is 
Grandson . . . 
11 P. 
5 p. 
l6 
x9 
200 
9’5 
37 
Great-grandfather 
1 GF. 
1 gF. 
0 GF. 
ogF. 
2 
2 
400 
°"5 
0*2 
V 
Great-uncle 
1 GB. 
2gB. 
oCB, 
og’B. 
3 
4 
800 
o-5 
0*2 
.Si 
First-cousin . . 
5 us. 
2 uS. 
1 US. 
1 «s. 
9 
II 
800 
i‘4 
0*5 
Great-nephew. . 
7 NS. 
1 nS. 
7 ArS. 
0 «S. 
is 
17 
800 
2*1 
0*7 
Great-grandson . 
2 PS. 
2 pS. 
1 PS. 
0/S. 
s 
6 
400 
1 "5 
o*5 
All more remote . 
12 
14 
? 
0*0 
0*0 
A. Number of eminent men in each degree of kinship tq the mpgt eminent man of the family 
(85 families). 
B. The preceding column raised in proportion to too families. 
C. Number of individuals in each degree of kinship to 100 men. 
D. Percentage of eminent men in each degree of kinship tq the most eminent member of 
distinguished families; it was obtained by dividing Bby C and multiplying by 100. 
E. Percentages of the previous column reduced in the propprtion of (286 24,1 or) 242 to 
85, in order to apply to families generally. 
1 That is to say, 286 Judges, less 24, who are included a? subordinate members of the 
85 families. 62 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Table 11. also gives materials for judging of the com- 
parative influence of the male and female lines, in con- 
veying ability. Thanks to my method of notation, it is 
perfectly easy to separate the two lines in the way lam 
about to explain. I do not attempt to compare relations 
in the first degree of kinship namely, fathers with 
mothers, sons with daughters, or brothers with sisters, 
because there exists no criterion for a just comparison of 
the natural ability of the different sexes. Nay, even if 
there were means for testing it, the result would be falla- 
cious. A mother transmits masculine peculiarities to her 
male child, which she does not and cannot possess; and, 
similarly, a woman who is endowed with fewer gifts of a 
masculine type than her husband, may yet contribute in 
a larger degree to the masculine intellectual superiority 
of her son. I therefore shift my inquiry from the first, to 
the second and third degrees of kinship. As regards the 
second degree, I compare the paternal grandfather with 
the maternal, the uncle by the father’s side with the uncle 
by the mother’s, the nephew by the brother’s side with the 
nephew by the sister’s, and the grandson by the son with 
the grandson by the daughter. On the same principle 
I compare the kinships in the third degree : that is to 
say, the father of the father’s 
mother’s mother, and so on. 
distinctly exposed to view 
table i—- 
father with the father of the 
The whole of the work is 
in the following compact 
In the Second Degree. 
7 G. -)- 9 y. + 14 N. + II P, = 41 kinships through males. 
6g.+6u.+2 n. + 5 p. =l9 „ „ females. 
In the Third Degree. 
I GF. + 1 GB. + 5 US. + 7NS. + 2 ES. = 19 kinships through males. 
+ o £-B. -p I «S. + o «S. + o/S. = 1 M „ females, 
Total, 60 through males, 20 through females. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
63 
The numbers are too small to warrant any very decided 
conclusion ; but they go far to prove that the female in- 
fluence is inferior to that of the male in conveying ability. 
It must, however, be observed, that the difference between 
the totals in the second degree is chiefly due to the 
nephews—a relationship difficult to trace on the female 
side, because, as a matter of fact, biographers do not speak 
so fully of the descendants of the sisters of their hero as 
of those of his brothers. As regards the third degree, the 
relationships on the female side are much more difficult to 
ferret out than those on the male, and I have no doubt 
I have omitted many of them. In my earlier attempts, 
the balance stood still more heavily against the female 
side, and it has been reduced exactly in proportion to the 
number of times I have revised my data. Consequently, 
though I first suspected a large residuum against the 
female line, I think there is reason to believe the influ- 
ence of females but little inferior to that of males, in 
transmitting judicial ability. 
It is, of course, a grief to me, in writing this book, that 
circumstances make it impossible to estimate the influence 
of the individual peculiarities of the mother—for good or 
for bad—upon her offspring. They appear to me, for the 
reasons stated, to be as important elements in the inquiry 
as those of the father, and yet I am obliged to completely 
ignore them in a large majority of instances, on account of 
the lack of reliable information. Nevertheless, I have nume- 
rous arguments left to prove that genius is hereditary. 
Before going further, I must entreat my readers to 
abandon an objection which very likely may present itself 
to their minds, and which I can easily show to be untenable. 
People who do not realize the nature of my arguments 
have constantly spoken to me to this effect: “ It is of no use 
your quoting successes unless you take failures into equal 
account. Eminent men may have eminent relations, but THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
they also have very many who are oi dinary, or even stupid, 
and there are not a few who are either eccentric or down- 
right mad.” I perfectly allow all this, but it does not in 
the least affect the cogency of my arguments. If a man 
breeds from strong, well-shaped dogs, but of mixed pedigree, 
the puppies will be sometimes, but rarely, the equals of 
their parents. They will commonly be of a mongrel, 
nondescript type, because ancestral peculiarities are apt to 
crop out in the offspring. Yet notwithstanding all this, it is 
easy to develop the desirable characteristics of individual 
dogs into the assured heirloom of a new breed. The 
breeder selects the puppies that most nearly approach the 
wished-for type, generation after generation, until they 
have no ancestor, within many degrees, that has objection- 
able peculiarities. So it is with men and women. Because 
one or both of a child’s parents are able, it does not in the 
least follow as a matter of necessity, but only as one of 
moderately unfavourable odds, that the child will be able 
also. He inherits an extraordinary mixture of qualities 
displayed in his grandparents, great-grandparents, and 
more remote ancestors, as well as from those of his father 
and mother. The most illustrious and so-called “well- 
bred” families of the human race, are utter mongrels as 
regards their natural gifts of intellect and disposition. 
What I profess to prove is this : that if two children are 
taken, of whom one has a parent exceptionally gifted in 
a high degree—say as one in 4,000, or as one in a million 
and the other has not, the former child has an enormously 
greater chance of turning out to be gifted in a high degree, 
than the other. Also, I argue that, as a new race can be 
obtained in animals and plants, and can be raised to so 
great a degree of purity that it will maintain itself, with 
moderate care in preventing the more faulty members of 
the flock from breeding, so a race of gifted men might be 
obtained, under exactly similar conditions. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
65 
I must apologize for anticipating, in this off-hand and 
very imperfect manner, the subject of a future chapter by 
these few remarks; but I am really obliged to do so, 
knowing from experience how pertinaciously strangers to 
the reasoning by which the laws of heredity are established, 
are inclined to prejudge my conclusions, by blindly in- 
sisting that the objection to which I have referred has 
overbearing weight. 
I will now proceed with an examination of what may be 
learnt from the relationships of the Judges. First, I would 
ask, are the abler judges more rich in eminent relations 
than those who are less able ? There are two ways of 
answering this question: the one is to examine into the 
relationships of the law lords as compared with that of 
the puisne judges, or of the chancellors compared with 
that of the judges generally ; and the other is to determine 
whether or no the persons whose names are entered in the 
third column of Table I. are above the average of judges 
in respect to ability. Here are a few of the Lord Chan- 
cellors. There are only 30 of those high legal officers 
within the limits of my inquiry, yet 24 of these have 
eminent relations ; whereas out of the (286 30 or) 256 
other judges, only (114 24 or) 90 have eminent relations. 
There are therefore 80 per cent, of the chancellors, as 
compared to 36 per cent, of the rest of the judges, that 
have eminent relations. The proportion would have been 
greater if I had compared the chancellors, or the chan- 
cellors and the other law lords, with the puisne judges. 
The other test I proposed, is equally satisfactory. There 
can be no doubt of the exceptionally eminent ability of 
the men whose names appear in the third column. To 
those who object to my conclusion because Lord Chan- 
cellors have more opportunities of thrusting relatives, by 
jobbery, into eminence than are possessed by the other 
judges, I can do no more than refer them to what I have 66 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
already said about reputation being a test of ability, and 
by giving a short list of the more remarkable cases of 
relations to the Lord Chancellors, which I think will 
adequately meet their objection. They are— 
I. Earl Bathurst and his daughter’s son, the famous 
judge, Sir F. Buller. 2. Earl Camden and his father, 
Chief Justice Pratt. 3. Earl Clarendon and the remark- 
able family of Hyde, in which were two uncles and one 
cousin, all English judges, besides one Welsh judge, and 
many other men of distinction. 4. Earl Cowper, his 
brother the judge, and his great-nephew the poet. 5. Earl 
Eldon and his brother Lord Stowell. 6. Lord Erskine, his 
eminent legal brother the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and 
his son the judge. 7. Earl Nottingham and the most re- 
markable family of Finch. 8, 9, 10. Earl Hardwicke and 
his son, also a Lord Chancellor, who died suddenly, and 
that son’s great-uncle, Lord Somers, also a Lord Chancellor. 
11. Lord Herbert, his son a judge, his cousins Lord Herbert 
of Cherbury and George the poet and divine. 12. Lord 
King and his uncle, John Locke the philosopher, 13. The 
infamous but most able Lord Jeffreys had a cousin just 
like him, namely, Sir J. Trevor, Master of the Rolls. 
14. Lord Guilford is member of a family to which I simply 
despair of doing justice, for it is linked with connexions 
of such marvellous ability, judicial and statesmanlike, as 
to deserve a small volume to describe it. It contains thirty 
first-class men in near kinship, including Montagus, Sydneys, 
Herberts, Dudleys, and others. 15. Lord Truro had two 
able legal brothers, one of whom was Chief Justice at the 
Cape of Good Hope ; and his nephew is an English judge, 
recently created Lord Penzance. I will here mention Lord 
Lyttleton, Lord Keeper of Charles 1., although many 
members of his most remarkable family do not fall within 
my limits. His father, the Chief Justice of North Wales, 
married a lady, the daughter of Sir J. Walter, the Chief BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
67 
Justice of South Wales, and also sister of an English 
judge. She bore him Lord Keeper Lyttleton, also Sir 
Timothy, a judge. Lord Lyttleton’s daughter’s son (she 
married a cousin) was Sir T, Lyttleton, the Speaker of the 
House of Commons. 
There is, therefore, abundant reason to conclude that the 
kinsmen of Lord Chancellors are far richer in natural gifts 
than those of the other judges. 
I will now take another test of the existence of here- 
ditary ability. It is a comparison of the number of entries 
in the columns of Table I. Supposing that natural gifts 
were due to mere accident, unconnected with parentage, 
then the entries would be distributed in accordance with 
the law that governs the distribution of accidents. If it 
be a hundred to one against some member of any family, 
within given limits of kinship, drawing a lottery prize, it 
would be a million to one against three members of the 
same family doing so (nearly, but not exactly, because the 
size of the family is limited), and a million millions to one 
against six members doing so. Therefore, if natural gifts 
were due to mere accident, the first column of Table I. 
would have been enormously longer than the second column, 
and the second column enormously longer than the third ; 
but they are not so. There are nearly as many cases of 
two or three eminent relations as of one eminent relation; 
and as a set off against the thirty-nine cases that appear in 
the first column, there are no less than fifteen cases in 
the third. 
It is therefore clear that ability is not distributed at hap- 
hazard, but that it clings to certain families. 
We will proceed to a third test. 
If genius be hereditary, as I assert it to be, the charac- 
teristics that mark a judge ought to be frequently trans- 
mitted to his descendants. The majority of judges belong 
to a strongly-marked type. They are not men who are THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
carried away by sentiment, who love seclusion and dreams, 
but they are prominent members of a very different class, 
one that Englishmen are especially prone to honour for at 
least the six lawful days of the week. I mean that they 
are vigorous, shrewd, practical, helpful men ; glorying in 
the rough-and-tumble of public life, tough in constitution 
and strong in digestion, valuing what money brings, 
aiming at position and influence, and desiring to found 
families. The vigour of a judge is testified by the fact 
that the average age of their appointment in the last 
three reigns has been fifty-seven. The labour and respon- 
sibility of the office seem enormous to lookers-on, yet 
these elderly men continue working with ease for many 
more years ; their average age of death is seventy-five, 
and they commonly die in harness. Now are these 
remarkable gifts and peculiarities inherited by their sons ? 
Do the judges often have sons who succeed in the same 
career, where success would have been impossible if they 
had not been gifted with the special qualities of their 
fathers ? The best answer is a list of names. They will 
be of much interest to legal readers ; others can glance 
them over, and go on to the results. 
JUDGES OF ENGLAND, AND OTHER HIGH LEGAL OFFICERS 
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865, WHO WERE, OR ARE, RELATED. 
I mark those cases with an asterisk (*) where both relations are English Judges. 
FATHERS. 
SONS. 
Atkyns, Sir Richard, Chief Just. N. Wales. Sir Edward, B.E. (Chas. II.) 
*Bramston, Sir Francis, Chief K.B. (Chas. I.)l Sir Francis, B.E. (Chas. II.) 
Coleridge, Sir John, Just. Q.B. (Viet.) Sir John Duke, Solic.-Gen. 
Dolben, Sir Wm., Just. K.B. (Will. III.) Sir Gilbert, Just. CP. Ireland; cr. Bart 
*Erskine, T.; cr. Lord Erskine ; Lord Chan. Hon. Sir Thomas, Just. C.P. (Viet.) 
*Eyre, Sir Samuel, Just. K.B. (Will. III.) Sir Robert, Chief just. C.P. (Geo. II.) 
1 I count the fathers of the judges of Charles 11. because the judges ct 
the present reign are too young to have judges for sons. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
69 
Finch, Heneage, L. Ch.; cr. E. of Nottingham. Heneage, Solic.-Gen.; cr. Earl Aylesford. 
Finch, Sir Heneage, Recorder of London. Heneage, Ld. Chan.; cr. E. of Nottingham, 
"Forster, Sir James, Just. C.P. (Chas. I.) Sir Robert, Chief Just. K.B. (Chas. II.) 
Gurney, Sir John, B.E. (Viet.) Rt. Hon. Russell Gurney, Recorder of London. 
"Herbert, Sir Edw., Lord Keeper. (Chas. II.) Sir Edward, Chief Just. K.B. (Jas. II.) 
Hewitt, James; cr. Ld. Lifford ; Just. K.B. Joseph, Just. K.B. Ireland. 
Jervis, , Chief Just, of Chester. Sir John, Chief Just. C.P. (Viet.) 
Law, Edw.; cr. Ld. Ellenborough ; Ch. K.B. Chas. Ewan, M.P., Recorder of London. 
"Pratt, Sir John, Chief Just. K.B. (Geo. II.) Earl Camden, Lord Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
‘Raymond, Sir Thomas, Just. C.B. Robert: cr.Ld.Raymond ; Ch.K.B. (Geo.ll. 
Romxlly, Sir Samuel, Solic.-Gen. Cr. Lord Romilly, Master of Rolls. (Viet.) 
"Willes, Sir John, Chief Just. C.P. (Geo. III.) Sir Edward, Just. K.B. (Geo. III.) 
"Yorke, Philip, Ld. Chanc.; cr. E. Hardwicke. Hon. Charles, Lord Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
FATHERS. 
SONS. 
BROTHERS. 
*Atkyns, Sir Robert, Chief C.P. (Will. III.) Sir Edward, B.E. (Jas. II.) 
*Cowper, Wm.; cr. Earl Cowper; Ld. Chanc. Sir Spencer, Just. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
Erskine, T.; cr. Lord Erskine ; Lord Chanc. Henry, twice Lord Advocate, Scotland. 
Hr*. Chief K.B. ,Ch.S. II.) & 
Lee, Sir William, Chief K.B. (Geo. II.) George, Dean of Arches, &c. 
*Lyttleton, Lord, Lord Keeper. (Chas. I.) Sir Timothy, B.E. (Chas. II.) 
North, F.; cr. Earl of Guilford; Lord Chanc. Roger, Attorney-Gen. to Queen. 
Pollock, Sir F. Chief B.E. (Viet.) Sir David, Chief Just. Bombay. 
*Powis, Sir Lyttleton, Just. K.B. (Geo. I.) Sir Thomas, Just. K.B. (Geo. I.) 
Scarlett, Sir J.; cr. Ld. Abinger ; Ch. B. E. Sir Wm. Ch. Just. Jamaica. 
Scott, John ; cr. Earl of Eldon; Lord Chanc. William ; cr. Lord Stowell; Judge Adra. 
Wilde, T.; cr. Lord Truro ; Lord Chanc. Sir , Ch. Just. Cape of Good Hope. 
*Wynham, Sir Hugh, B.E. (Chas. II.) Sir Wadham, B.E. (Chas. II.) 
‘Atkyns, Sir Robt. Chief C.P. (Will. III.) Sir J. Tracy (assumed name of Atkyns) 
Cursitorß.E. (Geo. III.) 
Burnet, , Scotch Judge; Lord Cramond. Sir Thomas Burnet, Just. C.P. 
* Gould, Sir Henry, Just. Q.B. (Anne.) Sir Henry Gould, Just. C.P. (Geo. III.) 
Jeffreys, , Judge in N. Wales. Jeffreys, Lord, Lord Chanc. (Jas. II.) 
Finch, H. Solic.-Gen.; cr. E. Aylesford. Hon. H. Legge, B.E. (Geo. II.) 
Walter, Sir E. Chief Just. S. Wales. Lyttleton, Sir T. B.E. (Chas. II.) 
"Heath, Sir R. Chief K.B. (Chas. I.) Vemey, Hon. Sir J. Master of Rolls. 
GRANDFATHERS. 
GRANDSONS. 
Out of the 286 Judges, more than one in every nine of 
them have been either father, son, or brother to another 
judge, and the other high legal relationships have been 
even more numerous. There cannot, then, remain a doubt 
but that the peculiar type of ability that is necessary to 
a judge is often transmitted by descent. 
The reader must guard himself against the supposition, 
that because the Judges have so many legal relations, 
therefore they have few other relations of eminence in 
other walks of life. A long list might be made out of THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
70 
those who had bishops and archbishops for kinsmen. No 
less than ten judges—of whom one, Sir Robert Hyde, 
appeared in the previous list—have a bishop or an arch- 
bishop for a brother. Of these, Sir William Dolben was 
brother to one Archbishop of York and son of the sister 
of another, namely of John Williams, who was also the 
Lord Keeper to James I. There are cases of Poet-relations, 
as Cowper, Coleridge, Milton, Sir Thomas Overbury, and 
Waller. There are numerous relatives who are novelists, 
physicians, admirals, and generals. My lists of kinsmen 
at the end of this chapter are very briefly treated, but 
they include the names of many great men, whose deeds 
have filled large volumes. It is one of my most serious 
drawbacks in writing this book, to feel that names, which 
never now present themselves to my eye without asso- 
ciations of respect and reverence, for the great qualities 
of those who bore them, are likely to be insignificant and 
meaningless to the eyes of most of my readers—indeed 
to all of those who have never had occasion to busy them- 
selves with their history. I know how great was my own 
ignorance of the character of the great men of previous 
generations, before I occupied myself with biographies, and 
I therefore reasonably suspect that many of my readers 
will be no better informed about them than I was myself, 
A collection of men that I have learned to look upon as 
an august Valhalla, is likely to be regarded, by those who 
are strangers to the facts of biographical history, as an 
assemblage of mere respectabilities. 
The names of North and Montagu, among the Judges, 
introduce us to a remarkable breed of eminent men, set 
forth at length in the genealogical tree of the Montagus, 
and again in that of the Sydneys (see the chapter on 
“ Literary Men ”), to whose natural history~if the ex- 
pression be permitted—a few pages may be profitably 
assigned. There is hardly a name in those pedigrees BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
71 
which is not more than ordinarily eminent: many are 
illustrious. They are closely tied together in their kin- 
ship, and they extend through ten generations. The 
main roots of this diffused ability lie in the families of 
Sydney and Montagu, and, in a lesser degree, in that 
of North. 
The Sydney blood—I mean that of the descendants 
of Sir William Sydney and his wife—had extraordinary 
influence in two different combinations. First with the 
Dudleys, producing in the first generation, Sir Philip 
Sydney and his eminent brother and sister; in the second 
generation, at least one eminent man ; and in the third 
generation, Algernon Sydney, with his able brother and 
much be-praised sister. The second combination of the 
Sydney blood was with the Harringtons, producing in the 
first generation a literary peer, and Elizabeth the mother 
of the large and most remarkable family that forms the 
chief feature in my genealogical table. 
The Montagu blood, as represented by Sir Edward, who 
died in the Tower, 1644, is derived from three distinct 
sources. His great-grandfather was Sir John Fin- 
nieux, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench ; his grandfather 
(g.) was John Roper, Attorney-General to Henry VIII.; 
and his father—by far the most eminent of the three— 
was Sir Edward Montagu, Chief Justice of the King’s 
Bench. Sir Edward Montagu, son of the Chief Justice, 
married Elizabeth Harrington, of whom I have just 
spoken, and had a large family, who in themselves and 
in their descendants became most remarkable. To men- 
tion only the titles they won : in the first generation they 
obtained two peerages, the earldom of Manchester and 
the barony of Montagu ; in the second they obtained two1 
more, the earldom of Sandwich and the barony of Capel; 
in the third five more, the dukedom of Montagu, earl- 
doms of Halifax and of Essex, the barony of Guilford, 72 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
and a new barony of Capel (second creation) ; in the 
fourth one more, the dukedom of Manchester (the Premier 
in i/o1) lin the fifth one more, the earldom of Guilford. 
The second Earl of Guilford, the Premier of George 111. 
(best known as Lord North), was in the sixth generation. 
It is wholly impossible for me to describe the charac- 
teristics of all the individuals who are jotted down in 
my genealogical tree. I could not do it without giving a 
vast deal more room than I can spare. But this much 
I can do, and ought to do ; namely, to take those who 
are most closely linked with the Judges, and to show that 
they possessed sterling ability, and did not hold their 
high positions by mere jobbery, nor obtain their reputa- 
tions through the accident of birth or circumstances. I 
will gladly undertake to show this, although it happens 
in the present instance to put my cause in a peculiarly 
disadvantageous light, because Francis North, the Lord 
Keeper, the first Baron Guilford, is the man of all others, 
in that high position (identical, or nearly so, with that 
of a Lord Chancellor), whom modern authorities vie in 
disparaging and condemning. Those who oppose my 
theories might say, the case of North being Lord Keeper 
shows it is impossible to trust official rank as a criterion 
of ability ; he was promoted by jobbery, and jobbed 
when he was promoted ; he inherited family influence, 
not natural intellectual gifts : and the same may be said 
of all the members of this or of any other pedigree. As 
I implied before, there is enough truth in this objection 
to make it impossible to meet it by a flat contradiction, 
based on a plain and simple statement. It is necessary 
to analyse characters, and to go a little into detail, I 
will do this, and when it is concluded I believe many of 
my readers will better appreciate than they did before, 
how largely natural intellectual gifts are the birthright of 
some families. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
73 
Francis North, the Lord Keeper, was one of a family of 
five brothers and one sister. The lives of three of the 
brothers are familiarly known to us through the charming 
biographies written by another brother, Roger North. Their 
position in the Montagu family is easily discovered by 
means of the genealogical tree. They fall in the third of 
those generations I have just described—the one in which 
the family gained one dukedom, two earldoms, and two 
baronies. Their father was of a literary stock, continued 
backwards in one line during no less than five generations. 
The first Lord North was an eminent lawyer in the time 
of Queen Elizabeth, and his son—an able man and an 
ambassador—married the daughter of Lord Chancellor 
Rich. His son again—who did not live to enjoy the 
peerage—married the daughter of a Master of the Court 
of Requests, and his great-great-grandsons—the inter- 
mediate links being more or less distinguished, but of 
whose marriages I know little—were the brothers North, 
of whom I am about to speak. 
The father of these brothers was the fourth Baron North. 
He was a literary man, and, among other matters, wrote 
the life of the founder of his family. He was an “ eco- 
nomical ” man, and “ exquisitely virtuous and sober in 
his person.” The style of his writings was not so bright 
as that of his father, the second baron, who was described 
as full of spirit and flame, and who was an author both 
in prose and verse ; his poems were praised by Walpole. 
The mother of the brothers, namely, Anne Montagu, is 
described by her son as a compendium of charity and 
wisdom. I suspect it was from the fourth Baron North that 
the disagreeable qualities in three of the brothers North 
were derived—such as the priggishness of the Lord Keeper, 
and that curious saving, mercantile spirit that appeared 
under different forms in the Lord Keeper, the Finan- 
cier, and the Master of Trinity College. I cannot avoid THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
alluding to these qualities, for they are prominent features 
in their characters, and find a large place in their bio- 
graphies. 
In speaking of the Lord Keeper, I think I had better 
begin with the evil part of his character. When that has 
been admitted and done with, the rest of my task will be 
pleasant and interesting. In short, the Lord Keeper is 
mercilessly handled in respect to his public character. 
Lord Campbell calls him the most odious man that ever 
held the Great Seal, and says that throughout his whole life 
he sought and obtained advancement by the meanest arts. 
Bishop Burnet calls him crafty and designing. Lord 
Macaulay accuses him of selfishness, cowardice, and mean- 
ness. I have heard of no writer who commends his public 
character except his brother, who was tenderly attached to 
him. I should say, that even Lord Campbell acknowledges 
the Lord Keeper to have been extremely amiable in all his 
domestic relations, and that nothing can be more touching 
than the account we have of the warm and steady affec- 
tion between him and his brother, who survived to be his 
biographer. I am, however, no further concerned with 
the Lord Keeper’s public character than to show that, 
notwithstanding his most unworthy acts to obtain advance- 
ment, and notwithstanding he had relatives in high offices 
to help him, his own ability and that of his brothers were 
truly remarkable. 
Bishop Burnet says of him that he had not the virtues 
of his predecessor (Lord Nottingham), but he had parts 
far beyond him. However, Lord Campbell dissents from 
this, and remarks that “a Nottingham does not arise above 
once in a century.” (I will here beg the reader not to 
be unmindful of the marvellous hereditary gifts of the 
Nottingham or Finch family.) Macaulay says his in- 
tellect was clear, his industry great, his proficiency in 
letters and science respectable, and his legal learning more BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
75 
than respectable. His brother Roger writes thus of the 
Lord Keeper’s youth : 
“ It was singular and remarkable in him that, together 
with the study of the law, which is thought ordinarily to 
devour the whole studious time of a young gentleman, he 
continued to pursue his inquiries into all ingenious arts, 
history, humanity, and languages; whereby he became not 
only a good lawyer, but a good historian, politician, mathe- 
matician, natural philosopher, and, I must add, musician 
in perfection.” 
The Hon. Sir Dudley North, his younger brother, was 
a man of exceedingly high abilities and vigour. He went 
as a youth to Smyrna, where his good works are not 
yet forgotten, and where he made a large fortune; then, 
returning to England, he became at once a man of the 
highest note in Parliament as a financier. There was 
an unpleasant side to his character when young, but he 
overmastered and outgrew it. Namely, he first showed a 
strange bent to traffic when at school; afterwards he 
cheated sadly, and got into debts ; then he cheated his 
parents to pay the debts. At last he made a vigorous 
effort, and wholly reformed himself, so that his brother 
concludes his biography in this way:— 
“ If I may be so free as to give my thoughts of his 
morals, I must allow that, as to all the mercantile arts and 
stratagems of trade which could be used to get money 
from those he dealt with, I believe he was no niggard ; but 
as for falsities ... he was as clear as any man living.” 
It seems, from the same authority, that he was a very 
forward, lively, and beautiful child. At sdjpol he did not 
get on so well with his books, as he had an excessive desire 
for action ; still, his ability was such that a little application 
went a long way with him, and in the end he came out 
a moderate scholar. He was a great swimmer, and could 
live in the water for a whole afternoon. (I mention this, 76 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
because I shall hereafter have occasion to speak of physical 
gifts not unfrequently accompanying intellectual ones.) He 
sometimes left his clothes in charge of a porter below 
London Bridge, then ran naked upon the mud-shore of the 
Thames up almost as high as Chelsea, for the pleasure of 
swimming down to his clothes with the tide, and he loved 
to end by shooting the cascade beneath old London Bridge. 
I often marvel at his feat, when I happen to be on the 
river in a steamer. 
I will now quote Macaulay’s description of his first 
appearance, in his after life, on the stage of English 
politics. Speaking, in his “ History of England,” of the 
period immediately following the accession of James 11., 
Macaulay says— 
“ The person on whom devolved the task of devising 
ways and means was Sir Dudley North, younger brother 
of the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the ablest 
men of his time. He had early in life been sent to the 
Levant, where he had long been engaged in mercantile 
pursuits. Most men would, in such a situation, have 
allowed their faculties to rust; for at Smyrna and Con- 
stantinople there were few books and few intelligent 
companions. But the young factor had one of those 
vigorous understandings which are independent of external 
aids. In his solitude he meditated deeply on the philo- 
sophy of trade, and thought out, by degrees, a complete 
and admirable theory—substantially the same with that 
which a hundred years later was expounded by Adam 
Smith.” North was brought into Parliament for Banbury; 
and, though a jpew member, was the person on whom the 
Lord Treasurer chiefly relied for the conduct of financial 
business in the Lower House. “ North’s ready wit and 
perfect knowledge of trade prevailed, both in the Treasury 
and the Parliament, against all opposition. The old members 
were amazed at seeing a man who had not been a fortnight BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
77 
in the House, and whose life had been chiefly passed in 
foreign countries, assume with confidence, and discharge 
with ability, all the functions of a Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer.” He was forty-four years old at the time. 
Roger North describes the financial theories of his 
brother, thus: “ One is, that trade is not distributed, as 
government, by nations and kingdoms, but is one through- 
out the whole world; as the main sea, which cannot be 
emptied or replenished in one part, but the whole more or 
less will be affected.” Another was “ concerning money ; 
that no nation could want money (specie), and they would 
not abound in it. . . . For if a people want money, they 
will give a price for it; and then merchants, for gain, 
bring it and lay it down before them.” 
Roger North, speaking of Sir Dudley and of the Lord 
Keeper, says : “ These brothers lived with extreme satis- 
faction in each other’s society ; for both had the skill and 
knowledge of the world, as to all affairs relating to their 
several professions, in perfection, and each was an Indies 
to the other, producing always the richest novelties, of 
which the best understandings are greedy.” 
The Hon. Dr. John North, Master of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, differed in some respects from his brothers, 
and resembled them in others ; 
“ When he was very young, and also as he grew up, he 
was of a nice and tender constitution—not so vigorous and 
athletic as most of his brothers were.” “ His temper was 
always reserved and studious. ... If anything so early 
seemed amiss in him, it was a non-natural gravity, which 
in youths is seldom a good sign, for it argues imbecility 
of body and mind, or both ; but his lay wholly in the 
former, for his mental capacity was vigorous, as none 
more.” 
Thus he became devoted to study, and the whole of his 
expenditure went to books ; in other respects he was penu- 78 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
rious and hoarding. Consequently, as his brother says, 
“ he was over-much addicted to thinking, or else he per- 
formed it with more labour and intenseness than other men 
ordinarily do. . . . He was, in a word, the most intense and 
passionate thinker that ever lived, and was in his right 
mind.” This ruined his health. “ His flesh was strangely 
flaccid and soft; his going weak and shuffling, often crossing 
his legs as if he were tipsy; his sleep seldom or never easy, 
but interrupted with unquiet and painful dreams—the re- 
poses he had were short and by snatches ; his active spirit 
had rarely any settlement or rest.” 
It is evident that he played foolish tricks with his brain, 
and the result was that he had a stroke, and utterly broke 
up, decaying more and more in mind and body until death 
relieved him, set. 38. 
There is no doubt that Dr. John North deserved more 
reputation than he has obtained, partly owing to his early 
death, and partly to his exceeding sensitiveness in respect 
to posthumous criticism. He left peremptory orders that 
all his MSS. should be burnt. He appears to have been 
especially skilled in Greek and Hebrew scholarship. 
The Lord Keeper and the Master of Trinity resembled 
each other in their painfully shy dispositions and studious 
tastes. The curious money-saving propensities were 
common to all three brothers. The indolent habits of the 
Master of Trinity were shared by Sir Dudley after his 
return from England, who would take no exercise what- 
ever, but sat all day either at home, or else steering a little 
sailing-vessel on the Thames, The Lord Keeper was 
always fanciful about his health. 
The Hon. Mary North, afterwards Lady Spring, was the 
sister of these brothers, and no less gifted than they. 
Roger North says— 
“ Besides the advantage of her person, she had a superior 
wit, prodigious memory, and was most agreeable in con* BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
79 
versation.” She used to rehearse “by heart prolix romances, 
with the substance of speeches and letters, as well as pas- 
sages ; and this with little or no hesitation, but in a continual 
series of discourse—the very memory of which is to me at 
this day very wonderful.” 
She died not long after the birth of her first child, and 
the child died not long after her. 
Roger North, the biographer of his brothers, from whom 
I have quoted so much, was the author of other works, and 
among them is a memoir on Music, showing that he shared 
the musical faculty that was strongly developed in the 
Lord Keeper. Little is known of his private life. He was 
Attorney-General to the consort of James 11, There can 
be no doubt as to his abilities. The “Lives of the Norths” 
is a work of no ordinary writer. It is full of touches of 
genius and shrewd perception of character. Roger North 
seems to have been a most loving and loveable man. 
Charles, the fifth Lord North, was the eldest of the 
family, and succeeded to the title ; but he did not, so far 
as I am aware, show signs of genius. However, he had 
a daughter whose literary tastes were curiously similar to 
those of her uncle, Dr. John. She was Dudleya North, 
who, in the words of Roger, “ emaciated herself with study, 
whereby she had made familiar to her not only the Greek 
and Latin, but the Oriental languages.” She died early, 
having collected a choice library of Oriental works. 
I will conclude this description of the family with a 
characteristically quaint piece of their biographer’s preface: 
“ Really, the case is memorable for the happy circumstance 
of a flock so numerous and diffused as this of the last 
Dudley Lord North’s was, and no one scabby sheep in it.” 
The nearest collateral relation of the North family by 
the Montagu side is Charles Hatton, their first cousin. 
He is alluded to three times in Roger North’s “ Lives,” 
and each time with the same epithet—“ the incomparable THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Charles Hatton,” Why he was so distinguished there is 
no information, but it is reasonable to accept Roger North’s 
estimate of his merits, so far as to classify him among the 
gifted members of the Montagu family. 
I will mention only four more of the kinsmen of the 
Norths. The first is their great-uncle, Sir Henry Montagu, 
Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and created Earl of 
Manchester, who was grandfather to James Montagu, Ch. 
B. E. (Geo. HI.), and uncle of William, Ch. B. E. (Jas. II.), 
both of whom are included in my list. Lord Clarendon 
says of Sir Henry, that he was “a man of great industry 
and sagacity in business, which he delighted in exceedingly; 
and preserved so great a vigour of mind, even to his death, 
that some who had known him in his younger years 
did believe him to have much quicker parts in his age 
than before.” 
The second Earl of Manchester, gN. to the Norths, was 
the Baron Kimbolton, of Marston Moor, and, as Lord 
Campbell says, “ one of the most distinguished men who 
appeared in the most interesting period of our history; 
having, as Lord Kimbolton, vindicated the liberties of his 
country in the Senate, as Earl of Manchester in the field, 
and having afterwards mainly contributed to the sup- 
pression of anarchy by the restoration of the royal line.” 
The first Earl of Sandwich, also gN. to the Norths, was 
the gallant High Admiral of England in the time of 
Charles 11. He began life as a soldier, when only eighteen 
years of age, with a Parliamentary regiment that he himself 
had raised; and he ended it in a naval battle against the 
Dutch in Southwold Bay. He also translated a Spanish 
work on Metallurgy. I do not know that the book is of 
any value, but the fact is worthy of notice as showing that 
he was more than a mere soldier or sailor. 
The last of the eminent relations of the Norths of whom 
I shall speak at length, was the great-grandson of the BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
81 
eldest brother, who became the famous Premier—the Lord 
North—of the time of the American was. Lord Brougham 
says that all contemporaries agree in representing his talents 
as having shone with a great and steady lustre during that 
singularly trying period. Lie speaks of a wit that never 
failed him, and a suavity of temper that could never be 
ruffled, as peculiar qualities in which he, and indeed all his 
family (his immediate family), excelled most other men. 
The admirable description of Lord North by his daughter, 
Lady Charlotte Lindsay, that is appended to his bio- 
graphy by Lord Brougham, is sufficient proof of that lady’s 
high ability. 
There is yet another great legal family, related to the 
Norths, whose place in the pedigree I do not know : it is 
that of the Hydes, and includes the illustrious first Earl 
of Clarendon. It appears that the Lord Chief Justice 
Hyde used to take kindly notice of the Lord Keeper, 
Francis North, when a young rising barrister, and allude 
to his kinship, and call him “ cousin.” 
It is want of space, not want of material, that compels 
me to conclude the description of the able relatives of the 
Norths and Montagus, But lam sure I have said enough 
to prove the assertion with which I prefaced it, that natural 
gifts of an exceedingly high order were inherited by a 
very large number of the members of the family, and that 
these owed their reputations to their abilities, and not to 
family support. 
Another test of the truth of the hereditary character of 
ability is to see whether the near relations of very eminent 
men are more frequently eminent than those who are 
more remote. Table 11. (p. 61) answers this question with 
great distinctness in the way I have already explained. 
It shows that the near relations of the Judges are far 
richer in ability than the more remote—so much so, that 
the fact of being born in the fourth degree of relationship 82 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
is of no sensible benefit at all. The data from which 
I obtained column C of that table are as follow:—I find 
that 23 of the Judges are reported to have had “large 
families,” say consisting of four adult sons in each ; 11 
are simply described as having “ issue,” say at the rate of 
II sons each ; and that the number of the sons of others 
are specified as amounting between them to 186; forming 
thus far a total of 294. In addition to these, there are 
9 reported marriages of judges in which no allusion is 
made to children, and there are 31 judges in respect to 
whom nothing is said about marriage at all. I think we 
are fairly justified, from these data, in concluding that 
each judge is father, on an average, to not less than one 
son who lives to an age at which he might have distin- 
guished himself, if he had the ability to do so. I also 
find the (adult) families to consist on an average of not 
less than 2\ sons and 2\ daughters each, consequently 
each judge has an average of i\ brothers and 2\ sisters. 
From these data it is perfectly easy to reckon the 
number of kinsmen in each order. Thus the nephews 
consist of the brothers’ sons and the sisters’ sons: now 
100 judges are supposed to have 150 brothers and 250 
sisters, and each brother and each sister to have, on the 
average, only one son; consequently the 100 judges will 
have (150 + 250, or) 400 nephews. 
I need not trouble the reader with more figures; suffice 
it to say, I have divided the total numbers of eminent 
kinsmen to 100 judges by the number of kinsmen in each 
degree, and from that division I obtained the column D 
in Table 11., which I now project into a genealogical tree 
in Table 111. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
TABLE 111. 
Percentage of Eminent Men in each Degree of Kinship to the 
MOST GIFTED MEMBER OF DISTINGUISHED FAMILIES. 
4 Great-grandfathers. 
7 4 Grandfathers. A Great-uncles. 
26 FATHERS. 
( 
44 Uncles. 
The most eminent members of 
lOO distinguished families. 
n 
23 BROTHERS. 
I 
l4 First cousins. 
36 SONS. 
1 
4| Nephews. 
1 
94 Grandsons. 
1 
2 Great-nephews. 
1 
i4 Great-grandsons. 
It will be observed that Table 111. refers only to distin- 
guished families. If we modified it to correspond with 
column E of Table 11., in which all the Judges, whether 
they have distinguished relations or no, are considered, 
the proportion between the eminent kinsmen in each 
different degree would be unchanged, though their abso- 
lute numbers would be reduced to about one-third of 
their value. 
Table 111. shows in the most unmistakeable manner 
the enormous odds that a near kinsman has over one that 
is remote, in the chance of inheriting ability. Speaking 
roughly, the percentages are quartered at each successive 
remove, whether by descent or collaterally. Thus in the 
first degree of kinship the percentage is about 28 ; in the 
second, about 7 ; and in the third, i\. 
The table also testifies to another fact, in which people 
do not commonly believe. It shows that when we regard 
the averages of many instances, the frequent sports of 
nature in producing prodigies must be regarded as appa- 
rent, and not as real. Ability, in the long run, does not 84 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
suddenly start into existence and disappear with equal 
abruptness, but rather, it rises in a gradual and regular 
curve out of the ordinary level of family life. The statistics 
show that there is a regular average increase of ability 
in the generations that precede its culmination, and as 
regular a decrease in those that succeed it. In the first 
case the marriages have been consentient to its production, 
in the latter they have been incapable of preserving it. 
After three successive dilutions of the blood, the descen- 
dants of the Judges appear incapable of rising to eminence. 
These results are not surprising even when compared with 
the far greater length of kinship through which features 
or diseases may be transmitted. Ability must be based 
on a triple footing, every leg of which has to be firmly 
planted. In order that a man should inherit ability in 
the concrete, he must inherit three qualities that are 
separate and independent of one another : he must in- 
herit capacity, zeal, and vigour ; for unless these three, 
or, at the very least, two of them, are combined, he 
cannot hope to make a figure in the world. The proba- 
bility against inheriting a combination of three qualities 
not correlated together, is necessarily in a triplicate pro- 
portion greater than it is against inheriting any one 
of them. 
There *s a marked difference between the percentage of 
ability in the grandsons of the judge when his sons (the 
fathers of those grandsons) have been eminent than when 
they have not. Let us suppose that the son of a judge 
wishes to marry: what expectation has he that his own 
sons will become eminent men, supporters of his family, 
and not a burden to it, in their after life ? 
In the case where the son of the judge is himself emi- 
nent, I find, out of the 226 judges previous to the present 
reign, 22 whose sons have been distinguished men. I do 
not count instances in the present reign, because the BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
85 
grandsons of these judges are for the most part too young 
to have achieved distinction, 22 out of 226 gives 10 in 
100 as the percentage of the judges that have had distin- 
guished sons. (The reader will remark how near this 
result is to the as entered in my table, showing the 
general truth of both estimates.) Of these 22 I count the 
following triplets. The Atkyns family as two. It is true 
that the grandfather was only Chief Justice of North 
Wales, and not an English judge, but the vigour of the 
blood is proved by the line of not only his son and two 
grandsons being English judges, but also by the grandson 
of one of them, through the female line, being an English 
judge also. Another line is that of the Pratts, viz. the 
Chief Justice and his son, the Lord Chancellor, Earl 
Camden, and his grandson, the son of the Earl, created 
the Marquis Camden ; the latter was Chancellor of the 
University of Cambridge, and a man of note in many 
ways. Another case is in the Yorke line, for the son of 
the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Hardwicke, was Charles 
Yorke, himself a Lord Chancellor. His sons were able 
men : one became First Lord of the Admiralty, another 
was Bishop of Ely, a third was a military officer of dis- 
tinction and created Baron Dover, a fourth was an admiral 
of distinction. I will not count all these, but will reckon 
them as three favourable instances. The total, thus far, is 
six ; to which might be added in fairness something from 
that most remarkable Montagu family and its connexions, 
of which several judges, both before and after the acces- 
sion of Charles 1., were members. However, I wish to be 
well within bounds, and therefore will claim only six 
successes out of the 22 cases (I allow one son to each 
judge, as before), or I in 4. Even under these limita- 
tions it is only 4 to i? on the average, against each 
child of an eminent son of a judge becoming a distin- 
guished man. 86 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Now for the second category, where the son is not emi* 
nent, but the grandson is. There are only seven of these 
cases to the (226 22 or) 204 judges that remain, and 
one or two of them are not a very high order. They 
are the third Earl Shaftesbury, author of the “ Charac- 
teristics Cowper, the poet; Lord Lechmere, the Attor- 
ney-General ; Sir Wm, Mansfield, Commander-in-Chief in 
India ; Sir Eardley Willmot, who filled various offices with 
credit and was created a baronet; and Lord Wyndham, 
Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Fielding, the novelist, was 
grandson of Judge Gould, by the female line. Hence it 
is 204 to 7, or 30 to 1, against the non-eminent son of 
a judge having an eminent child. 
The figures in these two categories are clearly too few 
to justify us in relying on them, except so far as to show 
that the probability of a judge having an eminent grand- 
son is largely increased if his sons are also eminent. It 
follows that the sons or daughters of distinguished men 
who are themselves gifted with decidedly high ability, as 
tested at the University or elsewhere, cannot do better 
than marry early in life. If they have a large family, the 
odds are in their favour that one at least of their children 
will be eminently successful in life, and will be a subject of 
pride to them and a help to the rest. 
Let us for a moment consider the bearing of the facts 
just obtained, on the theory of an aristocracy where able 
men earn titles, and transmit them by descent through the 
line of their eldest male representatives. The practice 
may be justified on two distinct grounds. On the one 
hand, the future peer is reared in a home full of family 
traditions, that form his disposition. On the other hand, 
he is presumed to inherit the ability of the founder of the 
family. The former is a real justification for the law of 
primogeniture, as applied to titles and possessions; the 
latter, as we see from the table, is not. A man who has BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
87 
no able ancestor nearer in blood to him than a great- 
grandparent, is inappreciably better off in the chance of 
being himself gifted with ability, than if he had been taken 
out of the general mass of men. An old peerage is a 
valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as it may 
have been furbished up by a succession of wise inter, 
marriages. When, however, as is often the case, the direct 
line has become extinct and the title has passed to a 
distant relative, who had not been reared in the family 
traditions, the sentiment that is attached to its possession 
is utterly unreasonable. I cannot think of any claim to 
respect, put forward in modern days, that is so entirely 
an imposture, as that made by a peer on the ground of 
descent, who has neither been nobly educated, nor has any 
eminent kinsman, within three degrees. 
I will conclude this chapter with a few facts I have 
derived from my various jottings, concerning the “ natural 
history ” of Judges. It appears that the parentage of the 
Judges in the last six reigns, viz, since the accession of 
George 1., is as follows, reckoning in percentages: noble, 
honourable, or baronet (but not judges), 9; landed gen- 
tlemen, 35 ; judge, barrister, or attorney, 15 ; bishop or 
clergyman, 8; medical, 7; merchants and various, un- 
classed, 10; tradesmen, 7 ; unknown, 9. There is, there- 
fore, no very marked class peculiarity in the origin of the 
Judges. They seem to be derived from much the same 
sources as the scholars of our Universities, with a decided 
but not excessive preponderance in favour of legal parents. 
I also thought it worth while to note the order in which 
the Judges stood in their several families, to see whether 
ability affected the eldest more than the youngest, or if 
any important fact of the kind might appear. I find in 
my notes that I have recorded the order of the birth of 
72 judges. The result of the percentages is, that the judge 
was an only son in 11 cases; eldest in 17; second in 38; 88 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
third in 22 ; fourth in 9; fifth in 1 ; and of a yet later 
birth in 2 instances. It is clear that the eldest sons do 
not succeed as judges half as well as the cadets. I suppose 
that social influences are, on the whole, against their 
entering, or against their succeeding at the law. 
APPENDIX TO JUDGES. 
There have been 286 Judges, according to the “ Lives of the Judges,” by 
Foss, between the accession of Charles 11. and the year 1864. No less than 
112 of them find a place in the following list. Among the Judges are included 
the Lord Chancellors, 30 in number, and of these eminent officers no less 
than 24, or 80 per cent, of the whole, will be found to have eminent relations. 
Contractions ei7iployed in the List. 
The name of a Sovereign in parentheses, as (Charles II.), shows the latest 
reign in which each judge held office. 
Ch. K. B. (or Q. B.) = Chief Justice of the King’s (or Queen’s) Bench. 
Just. K. B. (or Q. B.) = Justice of the King’s (or Queen’s) Bench. 
Ch. B. E. = Chief Baron of the Exchequer. 
B. E. = Baron of the Exchequer. 
Curs. B. E. = Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer. 
Ch. C. P. = Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 
Just. C. P. = Justice of the Common Pleas. 
M. R. = Master of the Rolls. 
Abinger, Lord. See Scarlett. 
Abney, Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
U. Sir Thomas Abney, a famous Lord Mayor of London ; 
one of the promoters of the Bank of England; protector 
of Dr. Isaac Watts. See Watts’ Elegy on him. 
[F.J Sir Edward Abney, LL.D. and M.P., a man of importance 
in his day. 
Alderson, Sir Edward Hall; B. E. (Viet.) 
F. Recorder of Norwich, Ipswich, and Yarmouth, 
Uj. Mrs. Opie, the novelist. 
Alibone, Sir Richard j Just. K. B. (James II.) 
G. Eminent Protestant divine. (F. turned Papist.) BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
89 
Atkyns, Sir Edward ; B. E. (Charles II.) 
[G.] Thomas, twice Reader in Lincoln’s Inn. 
F. Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales. 
S. Sir Robert, Ch. Just. C. P. (Will. III.) 
S. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.) 
A*S. Sir John Tracy, who assumed his mother’s name of Atkyns, 
Curs. B. E. (Geo. III.) 
Thomas, Reader in Lincoln’s Inn. 
Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales. 
Sir Edward, B. E. (Chas. II.) 
Sir Robert, Ch. Just. C. P. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.) 
Daughter. 
Sir J. Tracy (Atkyns), Curs. B. E. 
Atkyns, Sir Robert; Ch. C. P. (Will. III.) 
G. Sir Richard, Ch. Just, N. Wales. 
F. Sir Edward, B. E. (Charles II.) 
B. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.) 
Atkyns, Sir Edward; B. E. (James II.) 
p. Sir John Tracy, who assumed the name of Atkyns, Curs.B.E. 
G. Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales. 
F. Sir Edward, B. E. (Charles II.) 
B. ' Sir Robert, Ch. C. P. 
Atkyns, Sir John Tracy (his mother was named Atkyns, and he 
adopted her name); Curs. B. E. (Geo. III.) 
Bp. Sir J. Tracy, assumed name of Atkyns, Curs. B. E. 
g. Sir Robert Atkyns, Ch. C. P. 
gB. Sir Edward Atkyns, B. E. (James II.) 
gF. Sir Edward Atkyns, B. E. (Charles II.) 
Bathurst, Henry; 2d Earl of Bathurst; Ld. Chanc. (Geo, III.) 
F. The first Earl, an accomplished wit. 
n. Sir Francis Buller, Just. K. 8., the famous judge. (Geo. III.) 
Bedingfield, Sir Henry; Ch. C. P. (James II.) 
U. Sir Thomas Bedingfield, Just. C. P. (Charles I.) 
Best, Wm. Draper; created Ld. Wynford ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. IV.) 
g. General Sir William Draper, the well-known antagonist of 
“Junius.” 
Bickersteth, Henry; created Lord Langdale; M. R. (Viet.) 
u. Dr. Batty, the famous physician. THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
90 
Birch, Sir John; Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
[U.] Colonel Thomas Birch, well known under the Common- 
wealth. 
Blackburn, Sir Colin ; Just. Q. B. (Viet.) 
B. Professor of Mathematics at Glasgow. 
g. Rev. John Gillies, LL.D., historian, and successor to Dr. 
Robertson (the gr. uncle of Lord Brougham) as historio- 
grapher of Scotland. 
Blackstone, Sir William ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
S. His second son held all his University preferments. 
N. Henry, wrote “ Reports ” that were even more popular than 
Bramston, Sir Francis; B. E. (Charles II.) 
F. Sir John Bramston, Ch. K. B. under Charles I. 
Browne, Samuel; Just. C. P. (Charles II.) 
uS. Oliver St. John, Ch. Just. C. P. under the Protectorate. 
Brougham, Sir Henry; cr. Ld. Brougham ; Ld. Chan. (Will. IV.) 
gB. Robertson, the historian. 
his own. 
Buller, Sir Francis; Just. C. P. (Geo. HI.) 
U. William Buller, Bishop of Exeter. 
u. Earl of Bathurst, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. HI.) 
N. Rt. Hon. Charles Buller, statesman. 
Burnet, Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
G. Eminent Scotch lawyer, titled Lord Cramond. 
F. The celebrated Whig bishop, Bishop Burnet. 
Camden, Earl, See Pratt. 
Campbell, Lord ; Lord Chancellor. (Viet.) 
[G.] Eminently successful scholar at St. Andrew’s. 
[F.] Had distinguished literary attainments; was pious and 
eloquent. 
N. George Campbell, member of Supreme Court of Calcutta; 
writer on Indian politics. 
Chelmsford, Lord. See Thesiger. 
Churchill, Sir John; M. R. (James II.) 
GIST. John Churchill, the great Duke of Marlborough. 
GNS. Duke of Berwick, great general. 
Clarendon, Earl. See Hyde. 
Clarke, Sir Charles ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
B. Dean of Chester. 
u. Charles Trimnell, Bishop of Winchester. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
Clive, Sir Edward ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
U. Sir George Clive, Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
UP. The great Lord Clive, Governor-General of India. 
Clive, Sir George ; Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
N. Sir Edward Clive, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
NS. The son of another nephew was the great Lord Clive. 
Cockburn, Sir Alexander James; Ch. Q. B. (Viet.) 
[F.] Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary to Columbia. 
Coleridge, Sir John Taylor; Just. Q. B. (Yict.) 
U. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet and metaphysician. See under 
Poets. (He was father of Hartley, Derwent, and Sara. 
US. Hartley Coleridge, poet. 
US. Edward, Master at Eton. 
US. Derwent Coleridge, Principal of St. Mark’s College, Chelsea. 
LIN, Sara Coleridge, authoress. (Married her cousin, Henry 
Nelson Coleridge.) 
US. Henry Nelson Coleridge (son of Col. Coleridge, brother of 
Samuel Taylor C.), author. 
S, Sir John Duke Coleridge, Solicitor-General. 
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley; created Earl of Shaftesbury; Lord 
Chancellor. (Charles II.) 
P. The 3d Earl, author of the “ Characteristics.” 
Copley, Sir John Singleton; cr. Ld.Lyndhurst; Ld.Chanc. (Viet.) 
F. A painter, and an eminent one, judging from the prices that 
Cottenham, Lord. See Pep vs. 
his pictures now fetch. 
Cowper, Sir Wm.; created Earl Cowper; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.) 
B. Sir Spencer Cowper, Just. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
NS. The grandson of Sir Spencer was Cowper the poet. Set 
Poets. 
Cowper, Sir Spencer ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
B. Ist Earl Cowper, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. I.) 
P. William Cowper, the poet. 
Cranworth, Lord. See Rolfe. 
Dampier, Sir Henry; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.) 
F. Dean of Durham. 
B. Bishop of Ely. 
De Grey, Sir Wm.; cr. Lord Walsingham ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
S. Thomas, 2d Baron; for twenty years Chairman of Com- 
mittees in House of Lords. 92 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Denison, Sir Thomas; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.) 
4 NS. and [2 NS.] His brother was grandfather to a remarkable 
family of six brothers, namely, the present Speaker of the 
House of Commons, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Arch- 
deacon of Taunton, the ex-Governor of South Australia, 
and two others, both of whom are scholars. 
Denman, Sir Thomas; created Lord Denman; Ch. Q. B. (Viet.) 
F. Physician, a celebrated accoucheur. 
S, Hon. George Denman, Q.C., M.P., and the first classic of 
his year, 1842, at Cambridge. 
uS. Sir Benjamin Brodie, Ist Bart., the late eminent surgeon. 
uP. The present Sir Benjamin Brodie, 2d Bart, Professor of 
Dolben, Sir William ; Just. K. B. (Will. HI.) 
Chemistry at Oxford. 
S. Sir Gilbert Dolben, Just. C. P. in Ireland, created a Bart. 
B. John Dolben, Archbishop of York. 
gB. Archbishop John Williams, the Lord Keeper to James I. 
Eldon, Lord. See Scott. 
Ellenborough, Lord. See Law. 
Erie, Sir William ; Ch. C. P. (Viet.) 
B. Peter Erie, Commissioner of Charities. 
Erskine, Sir Thomas ; cr. Ld. Erskine ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
B. Henry Erskine, twice Lord Advocate of Scotland. 
S. Hon. Sir Thomas Erskine, Just. C. P, (Viet.) 
Erskine, Hon. Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Viet.) 
F. Lord Erskine, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. III.) 
U. Henry Erskine, twice Lord Advocate of Scotland. 
Eyre, Sir Robert; Ch. C. P. (Geo. II.) 
F. Sir Samuel Eyre, Just. K. B. (Will. III.) 
Eyre, Sir Samuel; Just. K. B. (Will. III.) 
S. Sir Robert Eyre, Ch. C. B, (Geo. II.) 
[Sir Giles Eyre, Just.K.B. (Will, III.), was only his 2d cousin.] 
Finch, Sir Heneage; cr, E. of Nottingham; Ld. Chanc. (Chas. II.) 
F. Sir Heneage Finch, Recorder of London, Speaker of the 
S. Daniel, 2d Earl, and Principal Sec. of State to Will. 111. 
S. Heneage Finch, Solicitor-General, and M.P. for University 
House of Commons. 
US. Thomas Twisden, Just. K. B. (Charles II.) 
of Cambridge; created Earl Aylesford. 
GN. Lord Finch, Ch. C. P. and Lord Keeper. (Charles I.) BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
93 
Finch, Sir Heneage, continued— 
gN.(?) Dr. William Harvey {see in “Science”), discoverer of the 
circulation of the blood. 
PS. Hon. Heneage Legge, B. E. See. 
Harvey. 
Family of Finch. 
Dr. William Harvey. 6 = Sir Heneage, O Lord Finch, 
(Circulation of blood.) I Speaker H. C. I Lord Keeper. 
Heneage, T. Twisden, 
istE. Nottingham, Ld. Chan. Just. K. B. 
i 1 
Daniel, Heneage, 
2d Earl; Prin. Sec. State. Sol.-Gen.; Ist E. Aylesford. 
6 = William Legge, 
I Ist Earl Dartmouth. 
Heneage Legge, 
B. E. (Geo. II.) 
Forster, Sir Robert; Ch. K. B. (Charles II.) 
F. Sir James Forster, Just. C. P. (Charles I.) 
Gould, Sir Henry; Just. Q. B. (Anne.) 
P. Sir Henry Gould, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
p. Henry Fielding, the novelist. (“ Tom Jones.”) 
Gould, Sir Henry; Just. C. P. (Geo. HI.) 
G. Sir Henry Gould, Just. Q. B. (Anne.) 
NS. Henry Fielding, the novelist. 
Guilford, Lord. See North. 
Gurney, Sir John ;B. E. (Viet.) 
S. Rt. Hon. Russell Gurney, M.P., Recorder of London. 
Harcourt, Sir Simon; cr. Lord Harcourt; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.) 
G. Waller, the first Parliamentary general (and himself a relative 
of Waller the poet). 
Hardwicke, Earl of. See Yorke. 
Heath, Sir John; Just. C. P. (Geo. HI.) 
S. Dr. Benjamin Heath, Head Master of Eton. 
Henley, Sir Robert; cr.E.of Northington; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
F. One of the most accomplished men of his day. M.P. for 
Weymouth. THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Herbert, Sir Edward ; Lord Keeper. (Charles II.) 
S Arthur, an admiral, created Lord Torrington. 
S Sir Edward Herbert, Ch. K. B. and C. P. (James II.) 
US. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, statesman and philosopher. 
US. George Herbert, poet and divine. 
Herbert, Sir Edward ; Ch. K. B. and Ch. C. P. (James II.) 
F Sir Edward, Lord Keeper. (Charles II.) 
B. Arthur, an admiral, created Lord Torrington. 
Hewitt, Sir James ; created Lord Lifford; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.) 
S. Joseph Hewitt, Just. K. B. in Ireland. 
S. Dean of Cloyne. 
Hcrtham, Sir Beaumont; B. E. (Geo. III.) 
B. An admiral, created Lord Hotham for naval achievements. 
Hyde, Sir Edward ; cr. Earl Clarendon ; Ld. Chanc. (Chas. II.) 
The Hydes were a very able family both in law and state 
for many generations; but emerging, as they did, out of 
the regions of competition into that of I 
cannot rightly appraise their merits. Moreover, the male 
line became extinct. The following are the near relations 
of the Lord Chancellor :—• 
U. Sir Nicholas Hyde, Ch. K. B. (Charles I.) 
U. Sir Lawrence Hyde, a great lawyer and Attorney-General 
to Consort of James L, who had eleven sons, most of 
whom distinguished themselves in their several vocations. 
Of these are : 
US. Sir Robert Hyde, Ch. K. B. (Charles II.) 
US. Sir Frederick Hyde, a judge in S. Wales. 
US. Alexander, Bishop of Salisbury. 
[US.] Fellow of New College, and Judge of the Admiralty. 
[US.] Dean of Windsor. 
[US.] James, Principal of Magdalen Hall. 
S. Henry, 2d Earl, Lord Privy Seal. 
S. Lawrence, cr. Earl of Rochester, Lord Lieut, of Ireland, 
a person of great natural parts and honesty. 
[A.] Anne, married to the Duke of York, afterwards James 11. 
A woman of strong character, who insisted, in spite of 
menace, that publicity should be given to the marriage, 
let the consequences be what they might. 
(See pedigree of the Hyde family on the next page.) BETWEEN 166 a AND 1865. 
95 
Family of Hyde. 
Sir Lawrence, Sir Nicholas, 
A ttorney-Gen. to Consort of James I. Ch. K. B. 
Robert, Frederick, Alexander, 3 others, all Ist Earl of Clarendon, 
Ch. K. B. Judge, Wales. Bishop. distinguished. Ld. Chanc. & historian. 
Henry, Lawrence, Anne, 
2d Earl. cr. E. Rochester. marr. Jas, 11. 
I 
Duchess of Queensberry, 
patroness of Gray, the poet 
Hyde, Sir Robert; Ch. K. B. (Charles II.) 
F., 2 8., [3 B.], U., and US. See above. 
Jeffreys,Geo.; cr.Ld.Jeffreys ofWem; Ch.K.B.,Ld.Chan. (Jas.ll) 
G. A judge in N. Wales. 
CAS. Sir John Trevor, M. R. (Geo. I.) 
Jervis, Sir John; Ch. C. P. (Viet.) 
F. Ch. Justice of Chester. 
GN. J. Jervis, Admiral, Ist Earl St. Vincent. See Parker. 
Parker. 
I 1 
X Earl Macclesfield, 
J Ld. Chanc, (Geo. I.) 
Jervis. 
X = Sister. 
Sir Thos. Parker, 
Ch. B.E. (Geo. HI.) 
X Admiral, 
Ist Earl St. Vincent, 
Sir John Jervis, 
Ch. C. P. (Viet.) 
Keating, Sir Henry Singer; Just. C. P. (Viet.) 
F. Sir Henry Keating, K.C.8., distinguished in India, &c. 
King, Sir Peter; created Lord King; Ld. Chancellor. (Geo. II.) 
u. John Locke, the philosopher. 
Langdale, Lord. See Bickersteth. 
Law, Sir Edward; cr. Ld, Ellenborough ; Ch. K.B. (Geo. III.) 
F. E. Law, Bishop of Carlisle, author. 
S. Edward, Governor-General of India, cr. Earl Ellenborough. 
S. C. Ewan, Recorder of London and M.P. for Camb, University. 
B. G. H., Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
B. John, Bishop of Elphin, in Ireland. 
There are many other men of ability in this family. THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Lawrence, Sir Soulden j Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
F. President of the College of Physicians. 
Lechmere, Sir Nicholas ;B. E. (Will. III.) 
P. Nicholas Lechmere, Attorney-Gen., created Baron Lechmere 
u. Sir Thomas Overbury, poet (poisoned). 
Lee, Sir William ; Ch. K. B. (Geo. II.) 
B. George, Dean of the Arches and Judge of the Prerogative 
Court of Canterbury, Thus the two brothers were simul- 
taneously, the one at the head of the highest court ol 
Common Law, and the other of the highest court of Civil 
Law ; a similar case to that of Lords Eldon and Stowell. 
Legge, Hon, Heneage ;B. E. (Geo. II.) 
F. William, ist Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State, &c. 
G. George, ist Baron Dartmouth, Master of the Ordnance and 
Admiral of the Fleet. 
g. ist Lord Aylesford, Attorney-General and eminent lawyer. 
gF. (Father of Lord Aylesford) was the ist Earl of Nottingham, 
Lord Chancellor (see Finch). 
Lifford, Lord. See Hewitt. 
Lovell, Sir Salathiel; B. E. (Anne.) 
pS. Was Richard Lovell Edgeworth, author. 
pF. Maria Edgeworth, novelist. 
Lyndhurst, Lord. See Copley. 
Lyttleton, Sir Timothy (see next page)— 
Sir Thos. Lyttleton, the eminent judge. 
Richard, 
eminent lawyer. 
Sir Edmund Walter, 
Ch. Just. S. Wales. 
Sir Edward, 
Judge, N. Wales. 
Sir J. Walter, 
Ch. B. E. 
Edward, 
Lord Keeper. 
I 
Timothy, 
B. E. Sergeant-at-law. 
Sir Thos. Lyttleton, Speaker 11. Commons*  
MONTAGU AND NORTH. 
Sir John Finnieux, 
Ch. Just. King’s Bench. 
! Tc /ace page 97 
(See also under “LITERATURE” 
for Sydney, 
1 
I 
1 
Lord Rich, Edward, ist Baron North ; Daughter. = 
Lord Chancellor. Chancellor of Court of Augmentations. 
1 
I 
= John Roper, 
Attorney-General, 
Henry VIII. 
Sir John H 
Treasurer 
Boulogne to 
ARRINGTON, 
of Army at 
Henry VIII. 
Sir Valentine 
Dale, 
Master of the 
Requests. 
i 
Daughter. = 
1 ,, 1 
Roger, 2d Baron; Sir J homas, Ellen 
Ambassador. a learned man. (his 3c 
Roper 
wife). 
= Sir Edward Montagu, 
Chief Justice, King’s 
Bench. 
Sir Ja 
Harrin 
MES = 
3TON. 
= Lucy Sidney 
sister of Sir 
Henry Sidney. 
Sir John 
Ch. B. 
jEFFRf YS, 
Exch. 
1 
Daughter. ; 
= Sir Jons 
North. Sir Edwak 
1 
d Montagu. = Elizabeth Harrington. 
1 
1 
i 
John, created Baron Harrington, 
Tutor to Princess Elizabeth, 
daughter of James I. 
I 
Sir Ralph El 
Winwood, 
Brin. Sec. to 
James I. 
1Z 
= Sir Edward, 
ist Baron 
Montagu. 
1 
Sir Henry, 
Ch. Just. K. B. 
ist Earl Manchester. 
3d Baro 
Hte 
"Full 
and f 
n North, 
-ary., 
of spirit 
ame.” 
i i 
Sir Charles. James, 
| Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
1 
1 
1 
Sir Sydney, = 
Master of 
Court of 
Requests. 
I 
= Paulina Bro 
Pepys. 
her. Bro 
her. 
Theodosia. = 
Sir Henry 
Capel. 
Anne. = 
1 
= Edward, 
ad Baron 
Montagu. 
1 1 „ 
William, Edward, Geo 
Ch. B. 2d Earl. 
Exch. The Baron 
Kimbolton 
of Marston 
Moor. 
1 
rge. Walter, 
Abbot of 
Pontoise. 
Dudley North, 
4th Baron North. 
= Anne Montagu. Daughter. = 
“ Compendium of 
charity and wisdom. ” | 
Lord Sir Ei 
Hatton. ist E 
Sand 
Lord 
Adn 
ward, Saw 
arl of Pe 
wich; (F 
High "Dia 
lira!. 
UEL RlCP 
pys. Pe 
'is Ch. 
ry.”) o 
Irsl 
tARD 
JYS, 
Just. 
f 
and. 
Arthur Cap 
Capel of H 
headed, 1648, 
el, ist Baron 
adham. Be- 
as a Royalist 
Ra 
3d B 
Amba 
ores 
Duke of 
J 
-PH, 
aron; 
>sador; 
ted 
Montagu. 
Rob 
3d ' 
ert, Cha 
Sari. 1st E 
Hal 
Stale 
1 
rles, James, 
arl of Ch. B. 
fax; Exch. 
sman. 
Cha 
5th E 
RLES, 
aron. 
I 1 il ! 
Francis, Dudley, John, Roger, Mary. 
Ld. Keeper; Financier. D.D. the Prodigious 
ist Baron Master biographer, memory. 
Guilford. ofTrin. J. 
Coll. V 
j 
Char 
Hatt 
“Their 
parab 
LES 
ON. 
cora- 
e.” 
r 
Arthur, 
ist Earl of 
Essex; 
Viceroy of 
Ireland. 
D. in Tower. 
1 
Henry, ist 
Baron Capel 
of Tewkes- 
bury ; Lord 
Lieut, of Ire- 
land. 
\ 
r 
1 1 
Charl 
EarlMa 
Premie 
ist D 
Mane 
ES, 4th 
nchester. 
r, 1701. 
uke of 
lester. 
d. s. p. 
William, 
6th Baron. 
Served 
under Marl- 
borough. 
Dudleya, Francis, 
Scholar, 2d Baron 
Orientalist. Guilford. 
1 
d. s. p 
Francis, 
3d Baj-on 
and 1st Earl 
Guilford. 
Frederick, 
ad Earl. The I.ord North, 
Premier to George HI. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
97 
Lyttleton, Sir Timothy; B. E. (Charles II.) 
GG. Sir Thomas Lyttleton, the eminent judge under Edward IV. 
g. Sir E. Walter, Ch, Justice of S. Wales. 
u. Sir John Walter, Ch. B. E. (Charles I.) 
F. Sir Edward Lyttleton, Ch. Justice of N. Wales. 
B. Edward, Lord Lyttleton, Lord Keeper. (Charles I.) 
NS. Sir Thomas Lyttleton, Speaker of the House of Commons, 
1698. (His mother was daughter of the Lord Keeper.) 
Macclesfield, Lord. See Parker. 
Manners, Lord. See Sutton. 
(See pedigree on preceding page.) 
Mansfield, Sir James ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
P. General Sir William Mansfield, K.C.8., Commander-in-chief 
in India. 
[There are other gifted brothers.] 
Milton, Sir Christopher ; Just. C. P. (James II.) 
B. Milton the poet. See under Poets. 
[Milton’s mother was a kinswoman (1 what) of Lord President 
Bradshaw, the regicide.] 
Montagu, Sir William; Ch. B. E. (James II.) 
F. Created Baron Montagu. 
FB. Sir Henry Montagu, Ist Earl of Manchester, Ch. K. B. 
(James I.) 
N. Created Duke of Montagu; statesman, 
g. Sir John Jeffreys, Ch. B. E, 
GF. Sir Edward Montagu, Ch. K. B. (Henry VIII.) 
(See pedigree opposite.) 
Montagu, Sir J.; Ch. B. E. (Geo. I.) 
G. Henry Montagu, Ist Earl of Manchester, Ch. K. B. 
U. Walter, Abbot of Pontoise; poet, courtier, councillor to 
U. Edward, 2d Earl of Manchester, the successful Parliamen- 
tary General, Baron Kimbolton of Marston Moor. 
Marie de Medicis. 
GB. Ist Baron Montagu. 
UP. (Grandson of Baron Kimbolton.) The 4th Earl of Man- 
chester, Principal Secretary of State, 1701, created Ist 
Duke of Manchester. 
Nares, Sir George; Just. C. P. (Geo. HI.) 
S. Regius Professor of Modem History at Oxford. 
B. Dr. James Nares, musician. 98 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
North, Francis; created Ld. Guilford; Ld. Chanc. (James II.) 
B. Dudley North, Levantine merchant, eminent English financier. 
B. Rev. John North, D.D., scholar, Master of Trin. Coll. Camb. 
B. Roger North, the biographer; Attorney-General to the Queen. 
b. Mary, had a prodigious memory. 
uS. Charles Hatton, “ the incomparable.” (See “ Lives of the 
Norths.”) 
gB. Sir Henry Montagu, ist Earl of Manchester. See Mon- 
tagu, Sir J. 
gN. Edward, 2d Earl of Manchester, the Baron Kimbolton of 
Marston Moor. 
gN. George Montagu, Abbot of Pontoise, courtier and minister 
of Catherine de Medicis. 
gN. Sir Edward Montagu, ist Earl of Sandwich. (His uncle [u.] 
was Pepys, “his Diary.”) 
[W] Dudleya North, Oriental scholar. 
PS. Frederick, 2d Earl Guilford, Premier. (The “Lord North” 
of George lll.’s reign.) 
Northington, Lord. See Henley. 
Nottingham, Earl of. See Finch. 
Parker, Sir Thomas; cr. E. of Macclesfield; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.) 
S. 2d Earl, President of the Royal Society, mathematician and 
UP. Sir Thomas Parker, Ch. B. E, 
astronomer. 
Parker, Sir Thomas ; Ch. B, E, (Geo, III.) 
n. John Jervis, admiral, ist Earl St. Vincent. See Jervis. 
GN. Sir T. Parker, ist Earl of Macclesfield, Lord Chancellor. 
Patleson, Sir John ; Just. K. B. (Viet.) 
S. Missionary Bishop to Pacific Islands. 
Pengelly, Sir Thomas ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
[G.] (Reputed, but questionable.) Oliver Cromwell. (Foss’s 
“ Judges.”) 
Pepys,SirChas.Christopher; cr,E.ofCottenham; Ld.Chan. (Viet) 
[F.] A Master in Chancery. 
G. Sir L. Pepys, physician to George 111. 
g. Rt. Hon. W. Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
B. Bishop of Worcester. 
Pollock, Sir Frederick; Ch, B. E. (Viet.) 
B. Sir David, Ch. Justice of Bombay. 
B. Sir George, general in Affghanistan. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
99 
Pollock, Sir Frederick, continued— 
S. Frederick, Master in Chancery; translator of Dante. 
[P.] Frederick (also [p.] to the Right Hon. C. Herries, Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer); second classic of his year, 1867, 
at Cambridge. 
Powis, Sir Lyttleton ; Just. K. B. (Geo, I.) 
B. Sir Thomas Powis, Just. K. B. (Geo. I.) 
Powis, Sir Thomas; Just. K. B. (Geo. I.) 
B. Sir Lyttleton Powis, Just. K. B. (Geo. I.) 
Pratt, Sir John; Ch. K. B. (Geo. I.) 
S. Sir Charles Pratt, Ist Earl Camden, Ld Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
P. J. J. Pratt, 2d Earl and created Ist Marquis Camden, Lord 
Lieut, of Ireland, Chancellor of University of Cambridge, 
p. George Hardinge. (See next paragraph.) 
ps. Field Marshal Ist Visct. Hardinge, Governor-Gen. of India, 
[ps.] {See next paragraph.) 
Pratt, Sir Charles; cr. Earl Camden ; Ld, Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
F. Sir John Pratt, Ch. K. B. (Geo. I.) 
S. J. J. Pratt, 2d Earl and created Marquis of Camden, Lord 
Lieutenant of Ireland, and Chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge. 
n. George Hardinge, Attorney-General to the Queen, Chief 
Justice of the Brecon Circuit. 
nS. Field Marshal Ist Viscount Hardinge, Governor-General 
of India. (His father was a literary man.) 
[nS.] A naval Captain, to whom a monument in St. Paul’s was 
voted by the nation. 
Raymond, Sir Edward; cr. Ld. Raymond; Ch.K.B. (Geo. II.) 
F. Sir Thomas Raymond, a Judge in each of the three Courts. 
(Charles II.) 
Raymond, Sir Thomas; Just. K. B. &c. (Charles II.) 
S. Robert, Lord Raymond, Ch. K. B. (Geo. II.) 
Reynolds, Sir James (1); Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
N. Sir James Reynolds (2), B. E. (Geo. II.) 
Reynolds, Sir James (2); B. E. (Geo. II.) 
U. Sir James Reynolds (1), Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.) 
Rolfe, Sir Robt. Monsey; cr. Ld. Cranworth ; Ld. Chan. (Viet.) 
GN. Admiral Lord Nelson. 
gF. Dr. Monsey, the celebrated and eccentric physician to 
Chelsea Hospital. THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Romilly, Sir John; created Lord Romilly; M. R. (Viet.) 
F. Sir Samuel Romilly, Solicitor-General and eminent jurist. 
Scarlett, Sir James ; created Lord Abinger ; Ch. B. E. (Viet.) 
[B.] Sir William Scarlett, Ch, Justice of Jamaica. 
S. Gen. Sir James Scarlett, chief in command of the cavalry 
in the Crimea; then Adjutant-General. 
S. Sir Peter Campbell Scarlett, diplomatist. 
Scott, Sir John; created Earl of Eldon ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. IV.) 
B. Sir William Scott, created Lord Stowell, Judge of the High 
Court of Admiralty. (See remarks under Ch. Just. Sir 
W. Lee.) 
Sewell, Sir Thomas ; M. R. (Geo. III.) 
p. MatthewG. Lewis, novelist, commonly called “ Monk” Lewis. 
Shaftesbury, Earl of. See Cooper. 
Somers, Sir J.; created Earl Somers; Lord Chanc. (Will. III.) 
NS. Charles Yorke, Ld. Chan. (Geo. III.) 
iVS. and 2 AT. See Yorke. 
gNP. Richard Gibbon, the historian. 
Spelman, Sir Clement; Curs, B. E. (Charles II.) 
GF. Just. K. B. (Henry VIII.) 
F. Sir Henry, antiquarian author of celebrity. 
[B.] Sir John Spelman, also an antiquary. “Alfred the Great,” 
Sutton, Sir Thomas Manners; B. E.; subsequently Lord Chan 
cellor of Ireland, and created Lord Manners. (Geo. III.) 
B, Charles Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
N. (Son of the Archbishop.) Charles Manners-Sutton, Speaker 
of the House of Commons, created Viscount Canterbury. 
Talbot, Hon. Chas.; cr. Lord Talbot; Ld. Chanc. (Geo, II.) 
F. Bishop successively of three sees. 
N. Rev. William Talbot, an early and eminent advocate ot 
Evangelism. (See Venn’s Life, Preface, p. xii.) 
Thesiger, Sir Frederick; cr. Ld. Chelmsford; Ld. Chan. (Viet.) 
S. Adjutant-General of India. 
[G., F., U.] All noteworthy, but hardly of sufficient eminence 
to be particularly described in this meagre outline of re- 
lationships. 
Thurlow, Edward; cr. Lord Thurlow; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.) 
B. Bishop of Durham. 
[S.] (Illegitimate.) Died at Cambridge, where, as is said, he 
was expected to attain the highest honours. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
101 
Treby, Sir George ; Ch. C. P. (Will. III.) 
S. Rt. Hon. Robert Treby, Secretary at War 
Trevor, Sir Thomas; created Lord Trevor; Ch. C. P. (Geo. I.) 
g. J. Hampden, the patriot. 
F. Sir John Trevor, Secretary of State. 
S. Bishop of Durham. 
U. Sir John Trevor, Ch. B. E. (Charles I.) 
GB. Sir Thomas Trevor, B. E. (Charles I.) 
Trevor, Sir John; M. R. (Geo. I.) 
uS. Lord Jeffreys, Lord Chancellor. (James II.) 
Truro, Lord. See Wilde. 
Turner, Sir George James; Lord Justice. (Viet.) 
U. Dawson Turner, botanist and antiquary. 
U. Dean of Norwich and Mast, of Pembroke Coll., Cambridge. 
[S.] Bishop of Grafton and Armidale, in Australia. 
(There are numerous other distinguished members of this 
family, including Dr. Hooker, the botanist, Gifford Palgrave, 
the Arabian traveller, and Francis Palgrave, author.) 
Twisden, Sir Thomas ; Just. K. B. (Charles II.) 
uS. Earl of Nottingham (Finch), Lord Chancellor. (Chas. II.) 
[B.] Roger, antiquary and historian. 
Vaughan, Sir John ; Just. C. P. (Viet.) 
B. Henry Vaughan, assumed name of Halford and became the 
celebrated physician, Sir Henry Halford, Ist Bart. 
B. Rev. Edward (of Leicester), Calvinist theologian. 
B. Sir Charles R., Envoy Extraordinary to the United States. 
[B.] Peter, Dean of Chester. 
N. Rev. Charles Vaughan, D.D., joint first classic of his year, 
1838, at Cambridge; Head Master of Hanow; refused 
two bishoprics. 
N. Professor Halford Vaughan, of Oxford. 
p. Vaughan Hawkins, first classic ofhis year, 1854,atCambridge. 
Verney, Hon. Sir John ;M. R. (Geo. II.) 
g. Sir R. Heath, Ch. K. B. (Charles I.) 
Walsingham, Lord. See De Grey. 
Wigram, Sir James; V. C. (Viet.) 
B. Bishop of Rochester. 
Wilde, Sir Thomas; created Lord Truro; Ld. Chanc. (Viet.) 
B. Ch. Justice, Cape of Good Hope. 
N. Sir James Wilde, B. E. (Viet.); now Lord Penzance. 102 
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND 
Wilde, Sir James Plasted; B. E. (Viet.); since cr. Ld. Penzance 
U. Lord Truro, Lord Chancellor. (Viet.) 
Willes, Sir John ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
U. Ch. Justice, Cape of Good Hope. 
B. Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
S. Sir Edward Willes, Just. K. B. (Geo. III.) 
Willes, Sir Edward ; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.) 
F. Sir John Willes, Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
U. Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
Wilmot, Sir John Eardley; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
P. F.R.S. and F.A.S., Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, and 
ist Baronet. 
PS. Recorder of Warwickshire and Judge of the County Court 
of Bristol. 
Wood, Sir William Page; V. C. (Viet.) (Since created Lord 
Hatherly, Lord Chancellor, 1868.) 
F. Sir Matthew, M.P. for London for twenty-eight years and 
twice Lord Mayor. 
[U.] Benjamin Wood, M.P. for Southwark. 
[B.] Western Wood, M.P. for London. 
Wyndham, Sir Hugh; B. E., C. P. (Charles II.) 
B. Sir William Wyndham, Just. K. B. (Charles II.) 
GN. Sir Francis Wyndham, Just. C. P. (Eliz.) 
NS. Thomas Wyndham, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Geo. I.), 
created Baron Wyndham. 
Wyndham, Sir Wadham; Just. K. B. (Charles II.) 
B. Sir Hugh Wyndham, B. E., Just. C. P. (Charles II.) 
P. Thomas Wyndham, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Geo. I.), 
created Baron Wyndham. 
GN. Sir Francis Wyndham, Just. C. P. (Eliz.) 
Wyndham Family. 
Francis, just. C, P 
Hugh, Just. C. P. Wadham, Just. K. B. 
—-, Sergeant- 
at-law. 
Thomas, Ld. Chan. Ireland, 
created Baron Wyndham. 
Rt. lion Wm. Wyndham. BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. 
103 
Wynford, Lord. See Best. 
Yorke, Philip; cr. Earl of Hardwicke; Ld. Cbanc. (Geo. II.) 
S. Hon. Charles (by niece of Lord Chancellor Somers), Lord 
Chancellor. (Geo. III.) 
S. Hon. James, Bishop of Ely. 
P. Philip, 3d Earl, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. 
P. Rt. Hon. Charles Philip, F.R.S., First Lord of the Admiralty. 
I*S. Lord Goderich and Earl of Ripon, Premier. 
John Somers, 
Ist Earl Somers, Ld. Chanc. 
R. Gibbon, 
the historian. 
= Philip Yorke, Ist E. 
Hardwicke, Ld. Chan. 
1 
Charles, 
Ld. Chan. 
James, 
Bishop of Ely 
Philip, 3d Earl, 
Lord Lieut. Ireland. 
Chas. Philip, 
Ist Lord Adm. 
F. J. Robinson, 
Ist Earl Ripon, Premier. 
Yorke, Hon. Charles; Lord Chancellor. (Geo. HI.) 
F. Ist Earl of Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. II.) 
S. Philip, 3d Earl, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 
S. Rt. Hon. Charles Philip, F.R.S., First Lord of the Admiralty 
B. Hon. James, Bishop of Ely. 
gb. Ist Earl Somers, Lord Chancellor. (Will. III.) 
NS. Lord Goderich and Earl of Ripon, Premier. CHAPTER VII. 
STATESMEN. 
I PROPOSE in this chapter to discuss the relationships of 
modern English Statesmen. It is my earnest desire, 
throughout this book, to steer safely between two dangers : 
on the one hand, of accepting mere official position or 
notoriety, as identical with a more discriminative reputa- 
tion, and on the other, of an unconscious bias towards 
facts most favourable to my argument. In order to guard 
against the latter danger, I employ groups of names 
selected by others ; and, to guard against the former, 
I adopt selections that command general confidence. It 
is especially important in dealing with statesmen, whose 
eminence, as such, is largely affected by the accident of 
social position, to be cautious in both these respects. It 
would not be a judicious plan to take for our select list the 
names of privy councillors, or even of Cabinet ministers ; 
for though some of them are illustriously gifted, and many 
are eminently so, yet others belong to a decidedly lower 
natural grade. For instance, it seemed in late years to 
have become a mere incident to the position of a great 
territorial duke to have a seat in the Cabinet, as a minister 
of the Crown. No doubt some few of the dukes are highly 
gifted, but it may be affirmed, with equal assurance, that 
the abilities of the large majority are very far indeed from 
justifying such an appointment. STATESMEN. 
105 
Again, the exceptional position of a Cabinet minister 
cannot possibly be a just criterion of a correspondingly 
exceptional share of natural gifts, because statesmanship 
is not an open profession. It was much more so in the 
days of pocket boroughs, when young men of really high 
promise were eagerly looked for by territorial magnates, 
and brought into Parliament, and kept there to do gladia- 
torial battle for one or other of the great contending parties 
of the State. With those exceptions, parliamentary life 
was not, even then, an open career, for only favoured 
youths were admitted to compete. But, as is the case in 
every other profession, none, except those who are extra- 
ordinarily and peculiarly gifted, are likely to succeed in 
parliamentary life, unless engaged in it from their early 
manhood onwards. Dudley North, of whom I spoke in 
the chapter on Judges, was certainly a great success ; so, 
in recent times, was Lord George Bentinck; so, in one 
way or another, was the Duke of Wellington; and other 
cases could easily be quoted of men beginning their active 
parliamentary life in advanced manhood and nevertheless 
achieving success ; but, as a rule, to which there are very 
few exceptions, statesmen consist of men who had ob- 
tained—it little matters how—the privilege of entering 
Parliament in early life, and of being kept there. Every 
Cabinet is necessarily selected from a limited field. No 
doubt it always contains some few persons of very high 
natural gifts, who would have found their way to the 
front under any reasonably fair political regime, but it also 
invariably contains others who would have fallen far behind 
in the struggle for place and influence, if all England 
had been admitted on equal terms to the struggle. 
Two selections of men occurred to me as being, on the 
whole, well worthy of confidence. One, that of the Premiers, 
begun, for convenience’ sake, with the reign of George III.; 
their number is 25, and the proportion of them who cannot STATESMEN. 
claim to be much more than “ eminently ” gifted, such as 
Addington,— 
“ Pitt is to Addington as London to Paddington,”— 
is very small. The other selection is Lord Brougham’s 
“ Statesmen of the Reign of George III.” It consists of 
no more than 53 men, selected as the foremost states- 
men in that long reign. Now of these, 11 are judges 
and, I may add, 7 of those judges were described in the 
appendix to the last chapter, viz. Lords Camden, Eldon, 
Erskine, Ellenborough, King, Mansfield, and Thurlow. 
The remaining 4 are Chief Justices Burke and Gibbs, Sir 
William Grant, and Lord Loughborough. Lord Brougham’s 
list also contains the name of Lord Nelson, which will be 
more properly included among the Commanders ; and that 
of Earl St. Vincent, which may remain in this chapter, for 
he was a very able administrator in peace as well as a 
naval commander. In addition to these, are the names of 
9 Premiers, of whom one is the Duke of Wellington, whom 
I count here, and again among the Commanders, leaving 
a net balance, in the selection made by Lord Brougham, 
of 31 new names to discuss. The total of the two 
selections, omitting the judges, is 57. 
The average natural ability of these men may very 
justly be stated as superior to class F. Canning, Fox, 
the two Pitts, Romilly, Sir Robert Walpole (whom 
Lord Brougham imports into his list), the Marquess of 
Wellesley, and the Duke of Wellington, probably exceed 
G. It will be seen how extraordinary are the relationships 
of these families. The kinship of the two Pitts, father and 
son, is often spoken of as a rare, if not a sole, instance 
of high genius being hereditary; but the remarkable 
kinships of William Pitt were yet more widely diffused. 
He was not only son of a premier, but nephew of 
another, George Grenville, and cousin of a third, Lord STATESMEN. 
107 
Grenville. Besides this, he had the Temple blood. His 
pedigree, which is given in the appendix to this chapter, 
does scant justice to his breed. The Fox pedigree is also 
very remarkable in its connexion with the Lords Holland 
and the Napier family. But one of the most conspicuous 
is that of the Marquess of Wellesley, a most illustrious 
statesman, both in India and at home, and his younger 
brother, the great Duke of Wellington. It is also curious, 
from the fact of the Marquess possessing very remarkable 
gifts as a scholar and critic. They distinguished him in 
early life and descended to his son, the late Principal of 
New Inn Hall, at Oxford, but they were not shared by his 
brother. Yet, although the great Duke had nothing of the 
scholar or art-critic in him, he had qualities akin to both. 
His writings are terse and nervous, and eminently effective. 
His furniture, equipages, and the like were characterised 
by unostentatious completeness and efficiency under a 
pleasing form. 
I do not intend to go seriatim through the many names 
mentioned in my appendix. The reader must do that for 
himself, and he will find it well worth his while to do 
so ; but I shall content myself here with throwing results 
into the same convenient statistical form that I have 
already employed for the Judges, and arguing on the 
sa me bases that the relationships of the Statesmen abun- 
dantly prove the hereditary character of their genius. 
In addition to the English statesmen of whom I have 
have been speaking, I thought it well to swell their scanty 
numbers by adding a small supplementary list, taken from 
various periods and other countries. I cannot precisely 
say how large was the area of selection from which this 
list was taken. I can only assure the reader that it contains 
a considerable proportion of the names, that seemed to me 
the most conspicuous among those that I found described 
at length, in ordinary small biographical dictionaries. STATESMEN. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 35 ENGLISH STATESMEN 
GROUPED INTO 30 FAMILIES. 
One relation [or two in the family). 
Bolingbroke (Visct. St. John) 
g- 
Perceval 
Disraeli 
F. 
Romilly, Sir S. . . 
. . S. 
Francis, Sir P 
F. 
Scott (Lord Stowell) . 
. . B. 
Grattan 
g- 
Wilberforce.... 
. . S 
Horner 
B. 
Two or three relations [or three or four in the family). 
2. Bedford, Duke of, and gr.-gr.-grandson, Earl Russell 
. GF. Gf. PP. 
Bentinck (Duke of Portland) 
. S. P. 
Canning 
. US. s. 
Jenkinson (Earl of Liverpool) 
Jervis (Earl St. Vincent) 
Lamb (Viscount Melbourne) 
Petty (Marquess of Lansdowne) 
. GF. S. 
Russell (see Bedford). 
Stanley (Earl of Derby) 
Stewart (Marquess of Londonderry) 
Dundas (Viscount Melville) 
G. 
F. B. N. S, P. 
2. 
Fox and Lord Holland 
u. F. B. N. WS. 2 uS 
3- 
Grenville, Lord; his father, George Gren- 
ville ; also his cousin, William Pitt. . 
B. 
F. g. «S. U. 
Grey, Earl 
F. 
B. 2 S. 
Holland, Lord (see Fox). 
Peel 
F. 
2 
Pitt, viz. Earl Chatham and his son, Wm. 
Pitt (also, see Grenville) 
F. 
Robinson (Earl Ripon) 
G. 
F. gB. gF. S. 
Sheridan 
F. 
/ g. G. S. P. PS. 
Temple (Viscount Palmerston) .... 
B. 
GGB. GG, GGF. 
Stuart (Marquess of Bute) 
GF. G. GU. GB. u. B. 2S 
Walpole (Earl of Orford) 
G. 
B. 2 S. nG. 
2. 
Wellesley, viz. the Marquess and his 
brother, the Duke of Wellington . . 
B. 
N. S. gGF. 
Four or more relations [or four or more in the family). STATESMEN. 
109 
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST of 13 GREAT STATESMEN of VARIOUS 
PERIODS and COUNTRIES GROUPED into 9 FAMILIES. 
2. Arteveldt, James, and son John S. 
Mirabeau F. 
More, Sir Thomas . . F, 
2. De Witt, John, and brother Cornelius , . . . B. 
Adams S. P. 
3. Cecil, Robt.; father, Lord Burleigh; and cousin, 
Lord Bacon F. «S. 
Colbert U. B. 2 S. 2 N. 
Guise, Due de B. 2S. P. PS. 
Richelieu . . . . F. B. BP. BPS. nS, 
TABLE II.1 
Degrees of 
Kinship. 
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letters. 
Father 
13 F. 
13 
33 
IOO 
33-o 
Brother .... 
i5 B. 
15 
39 
15° 
26.0 
Son 
19 S. 
19 
49 
IOO 
49-o 
Grandfather. . . 
6 G. 
S g. 
II 
28 
200 
14.0 
Uncle 
3U. 
4 u. 
7 
18 
400 
4-5 
Nephew .... 
6 N. 
i n. 
7 
x8 
400 
45 
Grandson. . . . 
4P- 
op. 
4 
IO 
200 
5.0 
Great-grandfather. 
1 GF. 
i gF. 
i GF. 
o^F. 
3 
8 
400 
2.0 
Great-uncle . . . 
1 GB. 
1 gB. 
0 GB. 
ofB. 
2 
5 
800 
0.6 
First cousin . . . 
2 US. 
3 uS. 
0 US. 
3 »S. 
8 
21 
800 
2.6 
Great-nephew . . 
oNS. 
1 nS. 
1 NS. 
0 «S. 
2 
5 
800 
0.6 
Great-grandson. . 
oPS. 
0 pS. 
oFS. 
0/S. 
O 
O 
400 
0.0 
All more remote . 
_ 
14 
... 
... 
... 
14 
37 
... 
... 
First,, have the ablest statesmen the largest number of 
able relatives ? Table I. answers this in the affirmative. 
There can be no doubt, that its third section contains more 
illustrious names than the first; and the more the reader 
will take the pains of analysing and “ weighing ” the 
relationships, the more, I am sure, will he find this truth 
to become apparent Again, the Statesmen, as a whole, 
1 For explanation refer to the similar table in p, 6x. STATESMEN. 
are far more eminently gifted than the Judges; accordingly 
it will be seen in Table 11., by a comparison of its column 
B with the corresponding column in p. 61, that their rela- 
tions are more rich in ability. 
To proceed to the next test; we see, that the third 
section is actually longer than either the first or the second, 
showing that ability is not distributed at haphazard, but 
that it affects certain families. 
Thirdly, the statesman’s type of ability is largely trans- 
mitted or inherited. It would be tedious to count the 
instances in favour. Those to the contrary are Disraeli, 
Sir P. Francis (who was hardly a statesman, but rather 
a bitter controversialist), and Horner. In all the other 
35 or 36 cases in my appendix, one or more statesmen 
will be found among their eminent relations. In other 
words, the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in 
dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and 
ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary. 
Table 11. proves, just as distinctly as it did in the case 
of the Judges, that the nearer kinsmen of the, eminent 
Statesmen are far more rich in ability than the more 
remote. It will be seen, that the law of distribution, as 
gathered from these instances, is very similar to what we 
had previously found it to be. I shall not stop here to 
compare that law, in respect to the Statesmen and the 
Judges, for I propose to treat all the groups of eminent 
men, who form the subjects of my several chapters, in a 
precisely similar manner, and to collate the results, once 
for all, at the end of the book. STATESMEN. 
APPENDIX TO STATESMEN. 
STATESMEN OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE 111. 
AS SELECTED BY LORD BROUGHAM IN HIS WELL-KNOWN 
WORK BEARING THAT TITLE. 
The list consists of the following 53 persons, of whom 33, whose names are 
printed in italics, find a place in my dictionary of kinships. It often happens 
in this list that the same person is noticed under his title, as well as surname ; 
as, “Dundas (Viscount Melville) —“Melville, Lord (Dundas).” 
Allen. *Bedford, 4th Dttke. Bolingbroke. Bushe, Ld. Ch. Just. Camden, 
Earl {Pratt). * Canning. Carroll. Castlereagh, Lord (Londonderry) ; see 
Stewart. * Chatham, Lord {Pitt). Curran. Dundas {Visct. Melville). Eldon, 
Lord {Scott). Erskine, Lord. Ellenborough, Lord {Law). Fox. Francis, Sir 
Philip. Gibbs, Ld. Ch. Just. Grant, Sir Wm. Grattan. * Grenville, George. 
* Grenville, Lord. Holland, Lord. Horner. Jefferson. *Jenkinson {Earl 
Liverpool). Jervis {Earl Si. Vincent). King, Lord. Law {Lord Ellenborough). 
Lawrence, Dr. * Liverpool, Earl {Jenkinson). Loughborough, Lord (Wed- 
derburn). Londonderry, Lord (Castlereagh: see Stewart). Mansfield, Lord 
{Murray). Melville, Lord {Dundas). Murray {LordMansfield). Nelson, Lord. 
*North, Lord. *Perceval. *Piit {Earl of Chatham). *Piti, William. Pratt 
{Earl Camden). Ricardo. Romilly. St. Vincent, Earl (Jervis). Scott {Lord 
Eldon). Scott {Lord Siowell). Stowell, Lord {Scott). Stewart {Lord Castle- 
reagh, Marquess of Londonderry). Thurlow, Lord. Tierney. Tooke, Horne. 
Walpole. Wedderbum (Lord Loughborough). Wellesley, Marquess. Wilber- 
force. Wilkes, John. Windham. 
PREMIERS SINCE ACCESSION OF GEORGE 111. 
There have been 25 Premiers during this period, as shown in the following 
list, of whom 17, whose names are printed in italics, find a place in my dic- 
tionary of kinships. 
Nine of these have already appeared under the title of “ Statesmen of 
George III.” They are distinguished by a+. 
It occasionally happens that the same individual is noticed under his surname 
as well as his title; as “ Chatham, Earl (Pitt) —“ Pitt (Earl Chatham).” 
Aberdeen, Earl. Addington (Sidmouth). +Bedford, 4th Duke. Bute, Mar- 
quess. tCanning. f Chatham, Earl {Pitt). Derby, Earl. Disraeli. Glad- 
stone. Goderich. Grafton, Duke. Grenville, George. J*Grenville, Lord. 
Grey, Earl. Lansdowne {Shelburne). +LiverpoolEarl. Melbourne, Visct. 
Newcastle, Duke. North, Lord. Palmerston, Lord. Peel, Sir Robert. 
+Perceval. Pitt {Earl Chatham). +Pitt, William. Rockingham, Marquess. 
Russell, Earl. Shelburne, Earl {Lansdowne). Sidmouth, Lord (Addington). 
Wellington. 
* Premier. + Included also in Brougham’s list of Statesmen of Geo. 111. 112 
STATESMEN. 
Bedford, John, 4th Duke. 
GF. William, Lord Russell; patriot; executed 1683 
GF. Lady Rachel W. Russell, her husband’s secretary, “Letters.” 
PP. Ist Earl Russell; Reform leader as Lord John Russell, and 
three times Premier. 
Bentinck, William H. Cavendish; 3d Duke of Portland; Pre- 
mier, 1783-4 and 1807-10. 
S. Lord Wm. Henry Bentinck; Governor-General of India, who 
abolished Suttee, and established the liberty of the Indian 
press. 
P. Lord George Bentinck, M.P.; became an eminent financier 
and a leading statesman in middle age, after a life previously 
devoted to racing interests. 
Bolin gbroke, Henry; created Viscount St. John ; the cele- 
brated Secretary of State to Queen Anne. (His name is 
appended to Brougham’s list of Statesmen of Geo. HI.) 
g. Sir Oliver St. John, Ch, Just. C. P. under the Protectorate 
(and who himself was cousin to another judge, S. Brown 
{see), under Charles II.). 
Bute, Earl. See Stuart. 
Camden, Earl; Lord Chancellor. See under Judges. 
Canning, George; created Lord Canning; Premier, 1827. 
Not precocious as a child, but remarkable as a schoolboy. 
(“Microcosm,” set. 15, and “Anti-Jacobin,”) Scholar, 
orator, and most able statesman. The Canning family had 
sensitive and irritable temperaments. 
F. and S. 
[F.] A man of considerable literary acquirements. 
[/] Had great beauty and accomplishments. She took to the 
stage after her husband’s death without much success ; 
they had both been separated from the rest of the Can- 
ning family. 
US. Stratford Canning; created Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; 
ambassador at the Porte; the “ great Elchi.” 
[US.] George Canning, F.R.S., F.S.A., created Lord Garvagh. 
S, Charles ; created Earl Canning; was Govern or-General ot 
India during the continuance and suppression of the 
Indian Mutiny. 
Castlereagh. See Stewart. 
Disraeli, Rt. Hon. Benjamin; Premier, 1868. Precocious; STATESMEN. 
began life in an attorney’s office; became, when quite 
young, a novel-writer of repute, and, after one noted 
failure, an eminent parliamentary debater and orator. 
F. Isaac Disraeli; author of “ Curiosities of Literature.” 
Dundas, Henry; created Viscount Melville; friend and coad- 
jutor of Wm. Pitt, and a leading member of his adminis- 
tration in various capacities. 
F. Robert Dundas, of Arniston ; Lord President of the Court 
of Session in Scotland. 
G. Robert Dundas; Lord Arniston, eminent lawyer; Judge 
of Court of Session. 
[GF.] Sir James Dundas, M.P. for Edinburgh, Senator of the 
College of Justice. 
B. (A half-brother.) Robert Dundas; Lord President of the 
Court of Session, as his father had been before him. 
N. (A half-nephew.) Robert Dundas (son of above); Lord 
Chief Baron to the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. 
S. Robert; 2d Viscount; Lord Privy Seal in Scotland. 
P. Richard Saunders Dundas; twice Secretary to the Admiralty; 
succeeded Sir C. Napier in chief command of the Baltic 
fleet in the Russian War, 1855, and captured Sweaborg. 
{Mem. He was no relation to Sir James W. D. Dundas, 
who was in chief command of the Black Sea fleet during 
the same war.) 
Eldon, Earl of; Lord Chancellor. See in Judges, under Scott. 
Ellenborough, Lord; Chief Justice King’s Bench. See in 
Judges. 
Erskine, Lord; Lord Chancellor. See in Judges. 
Fox, Rt. Hon. Charles James; statesman and orator; the great 
rival of Pitt. At Eton he was left much to himself, and 
was studious, but at the same time a dissipated dandy. 
He was there considered of extraordinary promise. JEt. 25, 
he had become a man of mark in the House of Commons, 
and also a prodigious gambler. 
G. Sir Stephen Fox; statesman; Paymaster of the Forces. 
Chelsea Hospital is mainly due to him ; he projected it, 
and contributed towards it. 
u. Charles; 3d Duke of Richmond; principal Secretary of 
State in 1766. 
F. Henry; created Lord Holland; Secretary at War. STATESMEN. 
Fox, Rt. Hon. Charles James, continued— 
B. Stephen; 2d Lord Holland ; statesman and social leader. 
N. Henry R.; 3d Lord Holland ; F.R.S., F.S.A., Recorder of 
Nottingham. (See Lord Brougham’s panegyric of these 
men in his “Statesmen of George III.”) 
His aunt, Lady Sarah, sister of the Duke of Richmon 1, 
married Colonel Napier, and was mother of the famous 
Napier family. Colonel Napier was himself cast in the 
true heroic mould. He had uncommon powers, mental 
and bodily; he had also scientific tastes. He was Super- 
intendent of Woolwich Laboratory, and Comptroller of 
Army Accounts. 
uS. General Sir Charles James Napier, G.C.8.; Commander- 
in-Chief in India; Conqueror of Scinde. 
uS. General Sir William Napier; historian of the Peninsular 
War. 
[3 «S.] There were three other Napiers, brothers, who were con- 
sidered remarkable men, namely, General Sir George, 
Governor of the Cape; Richard, Q.C.; and Henry, Cap- 
tain, and author of “ History of Florence.” 
NS. H. Bunbury, senior classic of his year (1833) at Cam- 
bridge. 
Francis, Sir Philip; reputed author of “Junius;” violent 
antagonist of Hastings in India. 
F. Rev. Philip; poet and dramatic writer; translator of “Horace” 
and other classics. Had a school where Gibbon was a 
pupil. He was also a political controversialist. 
Goderich, Viscount. See Robinson. 
Grattan, Henry ; orator and statesman. 
[GB.] Sir Richard Grattan, Lord Mayor of Dublin, 
g. Thomas Marley, Chief Justice of Ireland. 
[F.] James Grattan, Recorder of, and M.P. for, Dublin. 
[S.] Right Honourable James Grattan. 
Grenville, George, Premier, 1763. 
The very remarkable relationships of the Grenville family, and 
the results of the mixture of the Temple race with that 
of the Ist Earl of Chatham on the one hand, and of the 
Wyndham on the other, is best understood by the annexed 
table:— STATESMEN. 
Sir Richard Temple, 
a leading member of the House of Commons. 
1 
1 1 
General Sir Richard Temple, Hester Temple, - 
created Viscount Cobham, 1st Countess Temple. 
d. s. p. 
= Richard Grenville Sir William Wyndham, Bart. 
M.P. for Andover, Secretary at War, and 
Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
1 1 1 1 
William Pitt, = Hester. Richard Grenville, Rt. Hon. Henry, George 
1st Earl of Chatham, j 1st Earl Temple, James Ambassador to the Prer 
Premier. 1 Lord Privy Seal, Grenville. Porte. His dau. 
married Earl 
d. s. p. Stanhope. 
Grenville, = Elizabeth, 
nier. 
Ill 1 1 
Daughter of = Earl Stanhope, = Lady William George Grenville, William Wyndham Thomas Grenville, 
Hon. Henry mechanician. Plester. Pitt, 2d Earl Temple, Grenville, created Rt. Hon.: 
Grenville. Premier. 1st Marq. Buckingham, Lord Grenville, left Library to 
twice Viceroy of Ireland, Premier. British Museum. 
i . 1 
X Lady Hester Stanhope, Present Duke of a'S- P* 
eccentric, d. in Syria. Buckingham. 
5th Earl Stanhope, 
historian. 
Intermarriages of the Temple, Grenville, Pitt, and Wyndham Families. STATESMEN. 
Grenville, George, continued— 
g. Sir Richard Temple; a leading member of the House of 
Commons. 
u. General Sir Richard Temple; created Viscount Cobham, 
served under Marlborough. 
B. Richard, succeeded his mother the Countess, as ist Earl 
Temple; statesman; Lord Privy Seal. 
S. William Wyndham Grenville; created Lord Grenville ; Pre- 
mier, 1806. 
S. George, 2d Earl Temple; created Marquis Buckingham; 
twice Viceroy of Ireland. 
S. Thomas, who bequeathed his library to the British Museum, 
Grenville, William Wyndham; created Lord Grenville; Pre- 
mier, 1806; Chancellor of Oxford University. 
B. Marquess Buckingham, twice Viceroy of Ireland. 
F. George Grenville, Premier, 1763. 
g. Sir William Wyndham, Bart, Secretary at War and Chan 
cellor of the Exchequer. 
uS. William Pitt, Premier. 
U. Richard Grenville, created Earl Temple; statesman 
Grey, Charles, 2d Earl; Premier, 1830-1834. 
F. General in America, and early part of French War; created 
Earl Grey for his services. 
B. Edward, Bishop of Hertford. 
S. Henry G, 3d Earl; statesman; writer on Colonial govern- 
ment, and on Reform. 
Holland, Lord. See Fox, 
S. Sir Charles Grey, Private Secretary to the Queen. 
Horner, Francis ; statesman, financier. One of the founders 
of the Edinburgh Review; afterwards he rapidly rose to 
great note in Parliament, His career was ended by early 
death, set. 39. 
B. Leonard Horner, geologist, for very many years a venerated 
member of the scientific world. 
Jenkinson, Robert Banks; 2d Earl of Liverpool; Premier, 
1812-27. 
F. Right Hon. Charles Jenkinson, created Earl Liverpool; 
Sec. of State; a confidential friend and adviser of Geo. 11l 
[U.] John Jenkinson, colonel; Joint Secretary for Ireland. 
[US.] John Banks Jenkinson, D.D., Bishop of St. David’s. STATESMEN. 
117 
Jervis, John, admiral; created Earl St. Vincent; Ist Lord of the 
Admiralty, 
u. Right Hon, Sir Thomas Parker; Ch. B. E. 
UP. Thomas Jervis, M.P., Ch. Justice of Chester. 
UPS. Sir John Jervis, M.P., Attorney-General; Ch. C. P. (Viet.) 
King, Lord. See Judges. 
Lamb, William, 2d Visct. Melbourne; Premier, 1834 and 1835-41. 
B. Frederick, diplomatist, ambassador to Vienna; created Lord 
Beauvale. 
B. George, M.P., Under-Sec. of State for Llome Department 
b. Lady Palmerston. 
p. Rt. Hon. Wm. F. Cowper, President of the Board of Works, &a 
Lansdowne, Marquis. See Petty. 
Liverpool, Lord. See Jenkinson. 
Londonderry. See Stewart. 
Nelson, Admiral; created Earl Nelson. See Commanders. 
North, Lord; created Earl Guilford; Premier, 1770-82. 
[G.F.] Francis, Ist Baron Guilford. Lord Keeper. (James II.) 
Whose three brothers and other eminent relations are 
described in Judges. [See also Genealogical Table.) 
Palmerston. See Temple. 
Peel, Sir Robert; Premier, 1834-5, 1841-5, 1845-6. 
F. Sir Robert Peel, M.P.; created a Bart. A very wealthy 
cotton manufacturer and of great mercantile ability, who 
founded the fortunes of the family. He was Vice-Pre- 
sident of the Literary Society. 
g. Sir John Floyd, General, created a Bart, for service in India. 
B. Right Hon. General Peel, Secretary of State for War. 
B. Right Hon, Lawrence Peel, Chief Justice of Supreme Court 
There were also other brothers of more than average ability. 
S. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert, 2d Bart; Chief Secretary for Ireland. 
S. Right Hon. Frederick, Under Secretary of State for War, 
S. Captain Sir William Peel, R.N., distinguished at Sebastopol 
of Calcutta. 
and in India. 
Perceval, Spencer; Premier, 1810-12. 
n, 2d Lord Redesdale, Chairman of Committees of House of 
Lords. (He was son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.) 
n. Right Hon. Spencer Walpole, Secretary of State for Home 
Department. STATESMEN. 
Petty, William Petty; 2d Earl Shelburne; created Marquia 
Lansdowne; Premier, 1782-3. An ardent supporter of the 
Earl of Chatham ; in early life he distinguished himself in 
the army, at Minden. 
(ST. Sir William Petty, physician, politician, and author; Sur- 
veyor-General of Ireland; a man of singular versatility, 
and successful in everything, including money-making. 
S. 3d Marquis Lansdowne, statesman and man of letters. In 
youth, as Lord Henry Petty, he was one of the set who 
founded the Edinburgh Review. He then became promi- 
nent as a Whig, in Parliament, and was Secretary of State 
more than once. Was Chancellor of the Exchequer, jet. 26, 
Pitt, William; created Earl of Chatham; Premier, 1766. Origi- 
nally in the army, which he left set. 28 ; then the vigorous 
opponent of Walpole in Parliament, “ the terrible comet 
of Dragoons;” afterwards, Jet. 49, he became one of the 
ablest of statesmen, most brilliant of orators, and the prime 
mover of the policy of England. Married a Grenville. 
(See Grenville for genealogical tree.) 
[G.] Thomas Pitt, Governor of Fort George, who somehow or 
other amassed a large fortune in India. 
S. William Pitt, Premier. 
p. Lady Hester Stanhope. 
Pitt, William; 2d son of the Ist Earl of Chatham. Illustrious 
statesman; Premier, 1783-1801; and 1804-6. Preco- 
cious, and of eminent talent; frequent ill-health in boy- 
hood ; jet. 14 an excellent scholar. Never boyish in his 
ways; became a healthy youth set. 18. He was Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer set. 24, and Prime Minister set. 35; 
which latter office he held for seventeen years consecutively. 
His constitution was early broken by gout; died set. 47. 
F. Earl of Chatham, Premier. 
N. Lady Hester Stanhope. 
u. George Grenville, Premier. 
uS. Lord Grenville, Premier. 
n. Lady Hester Stanhope, who did the honours of his house, 
and occasionally acted as his secretary; she was highly 
accomplished, but most eccentric and more than half mad. 
After Pitt’s death, she lived in Syria, dressed as a male 
native, and professed supernatural powers. ST A TESMEN. 
119 
Portland, Duke of. See Bentinck. 
Ripon, Earl of. See Robinson. 
Robinson, Frederick John ; Ist Viscount Goderich and Earl of 
Ripon; Premier, 1827-8. 
G. Thomas Robinson, created Baron Grantham, diplomatist; 
afterwards Secretary of State. 
F. Thomas Robinson, 2d Baron, also diplomatist, and after- 
wards Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
gB. Charles Yorke, Lord Chancellor. See Judges. 
gF. Philip Yorke, Ist Lord Hardwicke, Ld. Chan. See Judges. 
S. George F. (inherited) Earl de Grey and Ripon, Secretary 
of State for War. 
Romilly, Sir Samuel; eminent lawyer and statesman. His 
parents were French refugees. He was of a serious dispo- 
sition in youth, and almost educated and supported him- 
self. Entered the bar, and attracted notice by a pamphlet. 
He rose rapidly in his profession, and became Solicitor- 
General and M.P. Eminent reformer of criminal laws; 
committed suicide set. 61. 
S. Right Hon. Sir John Romilly, created Lord Romilly; Attorney- 
General and Master of the Rolls. See Judges. 
Russell, Ist Earl; Premier. See Bedford. 
Scott, William; cr. Lord Stowell, Judge of the Admiralty Court. 
B. Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor. Judges. 
Lord Stowell and Eldon were each of them twins, each 
having been born with a sister. 
Shelburne, Earl of. See Petty. 
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley; orator, extraordinary wit, and 
dramatist. Was stupid as a boy of 7. When set. 11 was 
idle and careless, but engaging, and showed gleams of 
superior intellect, as testified by Dr. Parr. On leaving 
school he wrote what he afterwards developed into the 
“ Critic.” Wrote the “ Rivals” ast. 24. Died worn out in 
body and spirits set. 65. 
He eloped in youth with Miss Linley, a popular singer of 
great personal charms and exquisite musical talents. Tom 
Sheridan was the son of that marriage. Miss Linley’s 
father was a musical composer and manager of Drury Lane 
Theatre. The Linley family was “ a nest of nightingales : ” 
all had genius, beauty, and voice. Mrs. Tickel was one of STATESMEN. 
them. The name of Sheridan is peculiarly associated with a 
clearly marked order of brilliant and engaging but “ ne’er- 
do-weel” qualities. Richard Brinsley’s genius worked in 
flashes, and left results that were disproportionate to its 
remarkable power. His oratorical power and winning 
address made him a brilliant speaker and a star in society; 
but he was neither a sterling statesman nor a true friend. 
He was an excellent boon companion, but unhappy in his 
domestic relations. Reckless prodigality, gambling, and 
wild living, brought on debts and duns and a premature 
break of his constitution. These qualities are found in a 
greater or less degree among numerous members of the 
Sheridan family, as well as in those whose biographies 
have been published. It is exceedingly instructive to 
observe how strongly hereditary they have proved to be. 
F. Thomas Sheridan, author of the Dictionary, Taught oratory, 
connected himself with theatres, became, mt. 25, manager 
of Drury Lane. He was a whimsical but not an opinion 
ated man. 
f Frances Chamberlain, most accomplished and amiable. Her 
father would not allow her to learn writing; her brothers 
taught her secretly : set. 15, her talent for literary composi 
tion showed itself. She wrote some comedies, one of 
which was as highly eulogized by Garrick, as her novel 
“Sydney Biddulph” was panegyrized by Fox and Lord 
North. 
g. Rev. Dr. Philip Chamberlain, an admired preacher, but a 
humorist and full of crotchets. (I know nothing of the 
character of his wife Miss Lydia Whyte.) 
G. Rev. Dr. Thomas Sheridan, friend and correspondent of 
Dean Swift. A social, punning, fiddling man, careless and 
indolent; high animal spirits. “ His pen and his fiddle- 
stick were in continual motion.” 
S. Tom Sheridan; a thorough scapegrace, and a Sheridan all 
over. (He had the Linley blood in him—see above); 
married and died young, leaving a large family, of whom 
one is— 
P. Caroline, Mrs. Norton ; poetess and novelist 
PS. Lord Dufferin, late Secretary for Ireland, is the son of 
another daughter. STA TESMEN. 
Stanley, Edward Geoffrey; 14th Earl of Derby; Premier, 1852, 
1858-9, 1866-8; scholar; translator of “Homer” into 
English verse, as well as orator and statesman. 
F. Naturalist; President of Linnsean and Zoological Societies; 
known by his endeavours to acclimatize animals. 
uS. Rev. J. J. Hornby, Head Master of Eton; scholar and 
athlete. 
S. Edward, Lord Stanley, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
Stewart, Robert; the famous Viscount Castlereagh, and 2d 
Marquess Londonderry. Great hopes were entertained of 
him when he entered Parliament, barely of age, but he 
disappointed them at first, for he was a very unequal 
speaker. However, he became leader of the House of 
Commons set. 29. Committed suicide. 
F. Was M.P. for county Down, and raised through successive 
peerages to the Marquisate. 
uS. Sir George Hamilton, G.C.8.; diplomatist, especially in 
Russia and Austria. 
B. (Half brother, grandson of Lord Chancellor Camden.) 
Charles William; created Earl Vane ; Adjutant-General 
under Wellington in Spain set. 30. 
[p.] (And P. to Duke of Grafton, Premier 1767.) Admiral 
Fitzroy; eminent navigator (“Voyage of the Beagle”). 
Superintendent of the Meteorological Department of the 
Board of Trade. 
Stuart, John; 3d Earl of Bute; Premier, 1762-3. 
u. 2d Duke of Argyll; created Duke of Greenwich; states- 
man and general. In command at Sheriffmuir : 
“ Argyll, the State’s whole thunder born to wield, 
And shake alike the senate and the field.”—Pope. 
GY. Sir George Mackenzie, Lord Advocate ; eminent lawyer. 
G. Sir James Stuart, rst Earl of Bute; Privy Councillor to 
Queen Anne. 
GU. Robert Stuart, rst Baronet; a Lord of Session, as Lord 
Tillicoultry, 
GB. Dugald Stuart, also a Lord of Session, 
B. Right Hon. James Stuart, who assumed the additional 
name of Mackenzie; Keeper of Privy Seal of Scotland. 
S. General Sir Charles Stuart; reduced Minorca. 
S. William, D.D. ; Archbishop of Armagh. 122 
ST A TESMEN. 
Stuart, John, continued— 
P. Charles ; ambassador to France; created Baron Stuart de 
Rothesay. His great grandmother (Gf.'.) was Lady Mary 
Wortley Montagu; charming letter-writer; introducer of 
inoculation from the East. 
Temple, Henry J.; Lord Palmerston; octogenarian Premier, 
1855-8, 1859-65. Was singularly slow in showing his 
great powers, though he was always considered an able 
man, and was generally successful in his undertakings, 
He had an excellent constitution, and high animal spirits, 
but was not ambitious in the ordinary sense of the word, 
and did not care to go out of his way to do work. He 
was fully 45 years old before his statesmanlike powers 
were clearly displayed. 
His father is described as a model of conjugal affection; he 
wrote a most pathetic and natural epitaph on his wife. 
He was fond of literature and of pictures. 
B. Sir William Temple; Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court 
of Naples; founder of the “ Temple Collection ”of Italian 
antiquities, and works of art in the British Museum, 
GGB. Sir William Temple, Swift’s patron. 
GG. Sir John Temple, Attorney-General, and Speaker of the 
House of Commons in Ireland. 
GGF. Sir John Temple, Master of the Rolls in Ireland; even 
he was not the first of this family that showed ability. 
Thurlow, Lord ; Lord Chancellor. See under Judges. 
St. Vincent, Earl. See Jervis. 
Walpole, Sir Robert; created Earl of Orford; Premier, 1721- 
42 (under Geo. I. and 11., but included in Brougham’s 
volumes of the Statesmen of Geo. III.). 
In private life hearty, good-natured, and social. Had a 
happy art of making friends. Great powers of persuasion. 
For business of all kinds he had an extraordinary capa- 
city, and did his work with the greatest ease and tran- 
quillity. 
G. Sir Edward Walpole, M.P.; distinguished member of the 
Parliament that restored Charles 11. 
B. Horatio; diplomatist of a high order; created Baron 
Walpole. 
S. Sir Edward ; Chief Secretary for Ireland. STATESMEN. 
123 
Walpole, Sir Robert, continued— 
S. Horace; famous in literature and art. Strawberry Hill. 
Excellent letter-writer: Byron speaks of his letters as 
incomparable. Gouty. Died set. 80. ' 
np. Admiral Lord Nelson. 
A grandson [G.] of Horatio was minister at Munich, and 
another was minister in Portugal. One of the sons of the 
former is Rt. Hon. Spencer Walpole, Secretary of State. 
Id. Mrs. Damer, sculptor, daughter of Field-Marshal Conway, 
cousin to Horace Walpole. 
Wellesley, Richard; created Marquess of Wellesley; Gover- 
nor-General of India ; most eminent statesman and scholar. 
B. Arthur; the great Duke of Wellington. 
[B.] ist Baron Cowley, diplomatist. 
[F.] ist Earl of Mornington; eminent musical tastes. He in- 
herited the estates and the name, but not the blood, of the 
Wesleys, whose descendants were the famous Dissenters, 
his father, Richard Colley, having obtained them from his 
aunt’s husband, who was a Wesley. 
gGT. The infamous judge, Sir John Trevor, M.R., the cousin 
and the rival of the abler, but hardly more infamous, 
Judge Jeffreys. 
N. Henry Wellesley; created Earl Cowley; diplomatist; am- 
bassador to France. 
S. (Illegitimate.) Rev. Henry Wellesley, D.D.; Principal of 
New Inn Hall, Oxford ; a scholar and man of extensive 
literary acquirements and remarkable taste in art. 
Wellesley, Arthur ; created Duke of Wellington; Premier. See 
Commanders. 
B. Marquess Wellesley j 
F. Earl Mornington ( 
N. Earl Cowley i aS above' 
N. Rev. Henry Wellesley ) 
Wilberforce, William ; philanthropist and statesman; of very 
weak constitution in 
remarkable talent for 
infancy. Even aet. 7 showed a 
elocution; had a singularly melo- 
dious voice, which has proved hereditary; sang well; was 
very quick ; desultory at college. Entered Parliament 
get. 21, and before get. 25 had gained high reputation. 
S. Samuel, Bishop of Oxford ; prelate, orator, and administrator. 124 
STATESMEN. 
Wilberforce, William, continued-— 
[S.] Robert, Archdeacon ; Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford ; sub- 
sequently became Roman Catholic. 
[S.] Henry William; scholar, Oxford, 1830. Subsequently be- 
came Roman Catholic. 
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF GREAT STATESMEN 
OF VARIOUS PERIODS AND COUNTRIES. 
Adams, John (1735-1826), the second President of the United 
States. Educated for the law, where he soon gained great 
reputation and practice; was an active politician set. 30; 
took a prominent part in effecting the independence of 
his country. 
S. John Quincey Adams, sixth President of the United States; 
previously minister in Berlin, Russia, and Vienna. 
P. Charles Francis Adams, the recent and well-known American, 
minister in London ; author of “ Life of John Adams.” 
Arteveldt, James Van (1345?); brewer of Ghent; popular 
leader in the revolt of Flanders; exercised sovereign 
power for nine years. 
S. Philip Van Arteveldt. See below. 
Arteveldt, Philip Van (1382 ?); leader of the popular party, 
long subsequently to his father’s death. He was well 
educated and wealthy, and had kept aloof from politics 
till aet. 42, when he was dragged into them by the popular 
party, and hailed their captain by acclamation. He led 
the Flemish bravely against the French, but was finally 
defeated and slain. 
F. James Van Arteveldt. See above. 
Burleigh, Earl. See Cecil. 
Cecil, William; created Lord Burleigh; statesman (Elizabeth); 
Lord Treasurer. “ The ablest minister of an able reign.” 
Was Secretary, or chief Minister, during almost the whole 
of Queen Elizabeth’s long reign of forty-five years. He 
was distinguished at Cambridge for his power of work 
and for his very regular habits. Married for his second 
wife the daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, director of the 
studies of Edward VI., and sister of Lady Bacon, the 
mother of the great Lord Bacon, and had by her— STATESMEN. 
125 
Cecil, William, continued— 
S. Robert Cecil, who was created Earl of Salisbury the same 
day that his elder brother was created Earl of Exeter. 
He was of weakly constitution and deformed. Succeeded 
his father as Prime Minister under Elizabeth, and after- 
wards under James I.; was unquestionably the ablest 
minister of his time, but cold-hearted and selfish. Lord 
Bacon was to him. 
[B.] rst Earl of Exeter. 
[F.] Master of the Robes to Henry VIII. 
Colbert, Jean Baptiste ; French statesman and financier (Louis 
XIV.); eminent for the encouragement he gave to public 
works and institutions, to commerce and manufactures. 
He was fully appreciated in his early life by Mazarin, who 
recommended him as his successor. He became minister 
set. 49, and used to work for sixteen hours a day. His 
family gave many distinguished servants to France. 
U, Odart; a merchant who became a considerable financier. 
B. Charles; statesman and diplomatist. 
S. Jean Baptiste; statesman; intelligent and firm of purpose; 
commanded, when still a mere youth, the expedition 
against Genoa in 1684. 
S. Jacques Nicholas, archbishop; member of the Academy. 
N. Jean Baptiste (son of Charles); diplomatist. 
N. Charles Joachim ; prelate. 
The family continued to show ability in the succeeding 
generation. 
Cromwell, Oliver; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. 
US. Hampden the patriot, whom Lord Clarendon speaks of 
as having “ a head to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and 
a heart to execute any mischief;”—this word “ mischief” 
meaning, of course, antagonism to the King. 
Up. Edmund Waller, the poet, a man of very considerable abili- 
ties both in parliamentary eloquence and in poetry, but he 
was not over-stedfast in principle. He was n. to Hampden. 
S. Henry; behaved with gallantry in the army, and acted 
with much distinction in Ireland as Lord Deputy. 
He had one other son and four daughters, who married 
able men, but their descendants were not remarkable. 
The Cromwell breed has been of much less importance ST A TESMEN. 
than might have been expected from his own genius and 
that of his collaterals, Hampden and Waller. Besides 
his son Henry, there is no important name in the 
numerous descendants of Oliver Cromwell. Henry’s sons 
were insignificant people, so were those of Richard, and 
so also were those of Cromwell’s daughters, notwith- 
standing their marriage with such eminent men as Ireton 
and Fleetwood. One of Oliver’s sisters married Arch- 
bishop Tillotson, and had issue by him, but they proved 
nobodies. 
Guise, Francis Balafre, Duke of. The most illustrious among 
the generals and great political leaders of this powerful 
French family. He had high military talent. He greatly 
distinguished himself as a general set. 34, and was then 
elevated to the dignity of Lieutenant-General of the 
kingdom. 
B. Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine. 
S. Henry (Duke of Guise, also called Balafre). He was less 
magnanimous and more factious than his father; was the 
adviser of the massacre of St. Bartholomew; and he caused 
Coligny to be murdered ; was himself murdered by order 
of Henri HI., set. 38. 
S. Cardinal, arrested and murdered in prison, on the same 
day as his brother. 
[S.] Due de Mayenne. 
P. Charles, who, together with his uncle, the Due de Mayenne, 
was leader of the league against Henri IV, 
PS. Henry, conspired against Cardinal Richelieu. 
Thus there were four generations of notable men in the 
Guise family. 
Mirabeau, H. G. Riquetti, Comte de; French statesman, 
“ The Alcibiades of the French Revolution.” A man oI 
violent passions, ardent imagination, and great abilities. 
He had prodigious mental activity, and hungered for every 
kind of knowledge. 
F. Marquis de Mirabeau; author of “ L’Ami des Homines,” a 
leader of the school of the Economists; a philanthropist 
by profession, and a harsh despot in his own family. 
[B and A] There were remarkable characters among the 
brothers and sisters of Mirabeau, but I am unable ST A TESMEN 
127 
to state facts by which their merits may be distinctly 
appraised. 
It is said that among many generations of the Mirabeaus— 
or more properly speaking, of the Riquettis, for Mirabeau 
was an assumed name—were to be found men of great 
mental vigour and character. Thus St. Beuve says—and 
I give the extract in full and without apology on account 
of the interest ever attaching itself to Mirabeau’s charac- 
teristics— 
“ Les Correspondances du pere et de I’oncle du grand tribun, 
la Notice sur son grand-pere, et en general toutes les 
pieces qui font le tissu de ces huit volumes, ont revel e une 
race k part des caracteres d’une originalite grandiose et 
haute, d’ou notre Mirabeau n’a en qu’a descendre pour se 
repandre ensuite, pour se precipiter comme il l’a fait et se 
distribuer k tous, tellement qu’on peut dire qu’il n’a dte 
que I’enfant perdu, I’enfant prodigue et sublime de sa race.” 
He combined his paternal qualities with those of his 
mother:— 
“Ce n’etait suivant la definition de son pere qu’un male 
monstreux au physique et au moral. 
“II tenait de sa mere la largeur du visage, les instincts, les 
appetits prodigues et sensuels, mais probablement aussi ce 
certain fond gaillard et gaulois, cette faculte de se fami- 
liariser et de s’humaniser qui les Riquetti n’avaient pas, et 
qui deviendra un des moyens de sa puissance. 
“ Une nature riche, ample, copieuse, genereuse, souvent 
grossiere et vicee, souvent fine aussi, noble, meme ele- 
gante, et, en somme, pas du tout monstreuse, mais des 
plus humaines.” 
More, Sir Thomas; Lord Chancellor (Henry VIII.); eminent 
statesman and writer; singularly amiable, unaffectedly 
pious, and resolute to death. When set. 13, the Dean of 
St. Paul’s used to say of him, “ There was but one wit in 
England, and that was young More.” 
F. Sir John More, Just. K. B. 
[S. and 3 s.] Besides his three accomplished daughters, Margaret 
Roper, Elizabeth Dauncy, and Cecilia Heron, Sir Thomas 
More had one son called John. Too much has been said 
of the want of capacity of this son. His father com- 128 
STATESMEN. 
mended the purity of his Latin more than that of his 
daughters, and Grynseus {see under Divines) dedicated to 
him an edition of Plato, while Erasmus inscribed to him 
the works of Aristotle. He had enough strength of 
character to deny the king’s supremacy, and on that 
account he lay for some time in the Tower under sentence 
of death. (“ Life of More,” by Rev. Joseph Hunter, 1828, 
Preface, p. xxxvi.) 
Richelieu, Armand J. du Plessis, Cardinal Due de. The 
great minister of France under Louis XIV. He was 
educated for arms, but devoted himself to study, and 
entered the Church at a very early age—earlier than was 
legal—and became Doctor. AEt. 39 he was chief minister, 
and thenceforward he absolutely reigned for eighteen 
years. He was not a loveable man. He pursued but 
one end—the establishment of a strong despotism. Died 
set. 57. 
F. Francois du Plessis, seigneur de Richelieu; signalized 
himself as a soldier and a diplomatist. Was promoted to 
be “ grand prevot de France,” and was highly rewarded 
by Henri IV. 
[B,] Henri; became “ marshal de camp,” and was killed in a 
duel just when he was about to be promoted to the 
government of Angers. 
B. Alphonse L.; Cardinal of Lyons. Became a monk of 
the Chartreuse, and practised great austerity. He behaved 
nobly in Lyons at the time of the plague. 
BP, (Grandson of Henri.) Louis F. Armand, Due de Riche- 
lieu. He was Marshal of France, and personified the 
eighteenth century; being frivolous, fond of intrigue, 
immoral, without remorse, imperturbably good-humoured, 
and courageous. He was a seven months’ child, and lived 
to let. 92. His children were— 
BPS. The “ trop celebre ” Due de Fronsac. 
BPS. The witty and beautiful Countess of Egmont. 
BPP. (Son of the Due de Fronsac.) Armand E., Due de Riche- 
lieu ; Prime Minister of France under Louis XVIII. Died 
in 1822. 
aS. Comte de Gramont, wit and courtier. See under Literary 
Men. ST A TESMEN. 
129 
Witt, De, John. The younger brother of two of the ablest and 
more honourable of Dutch statesmen. They were in- 
separable in their careers, but different in character; each, 
however, being among the finest specimens of his peculiar 
type. John played the more prominent part, on account 
of his genial, versatile, and aspiring character. He rose 
through various offices, until, set. 27, he became Grand 
Pensionary, virtually the chief magistrate, of Holland. He 
was savagely murdered, set. 47. 
B. Cornelius De Witt. See below. 
[F.] A party leader of some importance. 
Witt, De, Cornelius; had more solid, though less showy parts, 
than his brother, but was in reality the most efficient sup- 
porter of that power which his brother John exercised. 
He, also, was savagely murdered, set. 49. 
B. John De Witt. See above. 
[*•] See above. CHAPTER VIII. 
ENGLISH PEERAGES, THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
It is frequently, and justly, remarked, that the families of 
great men are apt to die out; and it is argued from that 
fact, that men of ability are unprolific. If this were the 
case, every attempt to produce a highly-gifted race of men 
would eventually be defeated. Gifted individuals might 
be reared, but they would be unable to maintain their 
breed. I propose in a future chapter, after I have dis- 
cussed the several groups of eminent men, to examine the 
degree in which transcendent genius may be correlated 
with sterility, but it will be convenient that I should now 
say something about the causes of failure of issue of 
Judges and Statesmen, and come to some conclusion 
whether or no a breed of men gifted with the average 
ability of those eminent men, could or could not maintain 
itself during an indefinite number of consecutive genera- 
tions. I will even go a little further a-field, and treat 
of the extinct peerages generally. 
First, as to the Judges: there is a peculiarity in their 
domestic relations that interferes with a large average of 
legitimate families. Lord Campbell states in a foot-note 
to his life of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, in his “Lives of 
the Chancellors,” that when he (Lord Campbell) was first 
acquainted with the English Bar, one half of the judges 
had married their mistresses. He says it was then the THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
131 
understanding that when a barrister was elevated to the 
Bench, he should either marry his mistress, or put her 
away. 
According to this extraordinary statement, it would 
appear that much more than one half of the judges that 
sat on the Bench in the beginning of this century, had no 
legitimate offspring before the advanced period of their 
lives at which they were appointed judges. One half of 
them could not, because it was at that stage in their career 
that they married their mistresses ; and there were others 
who, having then put away their mistresses, were, for the 
first time, able to marry. Nevertheless, I have shown that 
the number of the legitimate children of the Judges is 
considerable, and that even under that limitation, they are, 
on the whole, by no means an unfertile race. Bearing in 
mind what I have just stated, it must follow that they are 
extremely prolific. Nay, there are occasional instances of 
enormous families, in all periods of their history. But do 
not the families die out ? I will examine into the de- 
scendants of those judges whose names are to be found 
in the appendix to the chapter upon them, who gained 
peerages, and who last sat on the Bench previous to the 
close of the reign of George IV. There are thirty-one of 
them ; nineteen of the peerages remain and twelve are 
extinct. Under what conditions did these twelve become 
extinct ? Were any of those conditions peculiar to the 
twelve, and not shared by the remaining nineteen ? 
In order to obtain an answer to these inquiries, I 
examined into the number of children and grandchildren 
of all the thirty-one peers, and into the particulars of their 
alliances, and tabulated them ; when, to my astonishment, 
I found a very simple, adequate, and novel explanation, 
of the common cause of extinction of peerages, stare me 
in the face. It appeared, in the first instance, that a con- 
siderable proportion of the new peers and of their sons ENGLISH PEERAGES, 
married heiresses. Their motives for doing so are in- 
telligible enough, and not to be condemned. They have 
a title, and perhaps a sufficient fortune, to transmit to their 
eldest son, but they want an increase of possessions for the 
endowment of their younger sons and their daughters. On 
the other hand, an heiress has a fortune, but wants a title. 
Thus the peer and heiress are urged to the same issue of 
marriage by different impulses. But my statistical lists 
showed, with unmistakeable emphasis, that these marriages 
are peculiarly unprolific. We might, indeed, have expected 
that an heiress, who is the sole issue of a marriage, would 
not be so fertile as a woman who has many brothers and 
sisters. Comparative infertility must be hereditary in the 
same way as other physical attributes, and I am assured it 
is so in the case of the domestic animals. Consequently, 
the issue of a peer’s marriage with an heiress frequently 
fails, and his title is brought to an end. I will give the 
following list of every case in the first or second generation 
of the Law Lords, taken from the English Judges within 
the limits I have already specified, where there has been 
a marriage with an heiress or a co-heiress, and I will 
describe the result in each instance. Then I will sum- 
marize the facts. 
Influence of Heiress-marriages on the Families of those English 
Judges who obtai7ied Peerages, and who last sat on the Bench 
between the begitming of the reign of Charles 11. and the aid 
of the reign of George IV 
(The figures within parentheses give the date of their peerages.) 
Colpepper, ist Lord (1664). Married twice, and had issue by both 
marriages ;in all, five sons and four daughters. The eldest son 
married an heiress, and died without issue. The second son 
married a co-heiress, and had only one daughter. The third 
married, but had no children, and the other two never married 
at all, so the title became extinct. 
Cooper, ist Earl of Shaftesbury (1672). His mother was a sole THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
133 
heiress. He married three times, and had only one son. How 
ever, the son was prolific, and the direct male line continues. 
Cowper, Ist Earl (1718). First wife was an heiress ;he had no 
surviving issue by her. Elis second wife had two sons and two 
daughters. His eldest son married a co-heiress for his first wife, 
and had only one son and one daughter. The direct male line 
continues. 
Finch, Ist Earl of Nottingham (1681). Had fourteen children. 
The eldest married a co-heiress for his first wife, and had only 
one daughter by her. 
Harcourt, Ist Lord (1712). Had three sons and two daughters. 
Two of the sons died young. The eldest married an heiress, 
whose mother was an heiress also. He had by her two sons 
and one daughter. Both of the sons married, and both died 
issueless, so the title became extinct. 
Henley, Ist Earl of Northington (1764). His mother was a co- 
heiress. He married, and had one son and five daughters. 
The son died unmarried, and so the title became extinct 
Hyde, Ist Earl Clarendon (1661). Married a lady who was 
eventually sole heiress, and had four sons and two daughters by 
her. The third son died unmarried, and the fourth was drowned 
at sea, consequently there remained only two available sons to 
carry on the family. Of these, the eldest, who became the 
2d Earl, married a lady who died, leaving an only son. He then 
married for his second wife, an heiress, who had no issue at all. 
This only son had but one male child, who died in youth, and 
was succeeded in the title by the descendants of the Ist Earl’s 
second son. He (the son of an heiress) had only one son and 
four daughters, and this son, who was 4th Earl of Clarendon, 
had only one son and two daughters. The son died young, so 
the title became extinct. 
Jeffreys, Ist Lord (of Wem—1685). Had one son and two 
daughters. The son married an heiress, and had only one 
daughter, so the title became extinct. 
Kenyon, Ist Lord (1788). Had three sons. Although one of 
them married a co-heiress, there were numerous descendants in 
the next generation. 
North, Ist Lord Guilford (1683). Married a co-heiress. He had 
only one grandson, who, however, lived and had children. 
Parker, Ist Earl of Macclesfield (1721). This family has ENGLISH PEERAGES, 
narrowly escaped extinction, threatened continually by its 
numerous errors of alliance. The ist Earl married a co-heiress, 
and had only one son and one daughter. The son married a 
co-heiress, and had two sons; of these, the second married a 
co-heiress, and had no issue at all. The eldest son (grandson of 
the ist Earl) was therefore the only male that remained in the 
race. He had two sons and one daughter. Now of these two, 
the only male heirs in the third generation, one married a 
co-heiress, and had only one daughter. The remaining one 
fortunately married twice, for by the first marriage he had only 
daughters. A son by the second marriage is the present peer, 
and is the father, by two marriages—in neither case with an 
heiress—of eleven sons and four daughters. 
Pratt, ist Earl of Camden (1786). This family affords a similar 
instance to the last one, of impending destruction to the race. 
The ist Earl married an heiress, and had only one son and four 
daughters. The son married an heiress, and had only one son 
and three daughters. This son married a co-heiress, but fortu- 
nately had three sons and eight daughters. 
Raymond, ist Lord (1731)- He had one son, who married a 
co-heiress, and left no issue at all, so the title became extinct. 
Scott, Lord Stowell. See further on, under my list of Statesmen. 
Talbot, ist Lord (1733). This family narrowly escaped extinction. 
The ist Lord married an heiress, and had three sons. The 
eldest son married an heiress, and had only one daughter. The 
second son married a co-heiress, and had no issue by her. 
However, she died, and he married again, and left four sons. 
The third son of the first Earl had male issue. 
Trevor, ist Lord (1711). Married first a co-heiress, and had two 
sons and three daughters. Both of the sons married, but they 
had only one daughter each. Lord Trevor married again, and 
had three sons, of whom one died young, and the other two, 
though they married, left no issue at all. 
Wedderburn, ist Lord Loughborough and Earl of Rosslyn (1801). 
Married an heiress for his first wife, and had no issue at all. 
He married again, somewhat late in life, and had no issue. So 
the direct male line is extinct. 
Yorke, ist Earl of Hardwicke (1754). Is numerously represented, 
though two of his lines of descent have failed, in one of which 
there was a marriage with a co-heiress. THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
The result of all these facts is exceedingly striking. 
It is : 
Ist. That out of the thirty-one peerages, there were no 
less than seventeen in which the hereditary influence of an 
heiress or co-heiress affected the first or second generation. 
That this influence was sensibly an agent in producing 
sterility in sixteen out of these seventeen peerages, and 
the influence was sometimes shown in two, three, or more 
cases in one peerage. 
2d. That the direct male line of no less than eight 
peerages, viz. Colpepper, Harcourt, Northington, Claren- 
don, Jeffreys, Raymond, Trevor, and Rosslyn, were actually 
extinguished through the influence of the heiresses, and 
that six others, viz. Shaftesbury, Cowper, Guilford, Parker, 
Camden, and Talbot, had very narrow escapes from ex- 
tinction, owing to the same cause. I literally have only 
one case, that of Lord Kenyon, where the race-destroying 
influence of heiress-blood was not felt. 
3d. Out of the twelve peerages that have failed in the 
direct male line, no less than eight failures are accounted 
for by heiress-marriages. 
Now, what of the four that remain ? Lords Somers and 
Thurlow both died unmarried. Lord Alvanley had only 
two sons, of whom one died unmarried. There is only his 
case and that of the Earl of Mansfield, out of the ten 
who married and whose titles have since become extinct, 
where the extinction may not be accounted for by heiress- 
marriages. No one can therefore maintain, with any show 
of reason, that there are grounds for imputing exceptional 
sterility to the race of judges. The facts, when carefully 
analysed, point very strongly in the opposite direction. 
I will now treat the Statesmen of George 111. and the 
Premiers since the accession of George 111. down to recent 
times, in the same way as I have treated the Judges; in- 
cluding, however, only those whose pedigrees I can easily 136 
ENGLISH PEERAGES, 
find, namely, such as were peers or nearly related to peers. 
There are twenty-two of these names, I find that fourteen 
have left no male descendants, and that seven of those 
fourteen peers or their sons have married heiresses—namely, 
Canning, Castlereagh, Lord Grenville, George Grenville, 
Lord Holland, Lord Stowell, and Walpole (the first Earl 
of Orford). On the other hand, I find only three cases of 
peers marrying heiresses without failure of issue,—namely, 
Addington (Lord Sidmouth), the Marquis of Bute, and the 
Duke of Grafton. 
The seven whose male line became extinct from other 
causes are Bolingbroke, Earl Chatham, Lord Liverpool, 
Earl St. Vincent, Earl Nelson, William Pitt (unmarried), 
and the Marquess of Wellesley (who left illegitimate issue). 
The remaining five required to complete the twenty-two 
cases are the Duke of Bedford, Dundas (Viscount Melville), 
Perceval, Romilly, and Wilberforce. None of these were 
allied or descended from heiress-blood, and they have all 
left descendants. 
I append to this summary the history of the heiress- 
marriages, to correspond with what has already been given 
in respect to the Judges, 
Bute, Marquess of. Married a co-heiress, but had a large family. 
Canning, George, Married an heiress, and had three sons and 
one daughter. The eldest died young; the second was drowned 
in youth; and the third, who was the late Earl Canning, married 
a co-heiress, and had no issue : so the line is extinct. 
Castlereagh, Viscount. Married a co-heiress, and had neither son 
nor daughter; so the line became extinct. 
Grafton, Duke of. Married an heiress, and had two sons and 
one daughter. By a second wife he had a larger family. 
Grenville, Lord. Had three sons and four daughters. The eldest 
son married an heiress, and had no male grandchildren; the 
second was apparently unmarried; the third was George Gren- 
ville (Premier): he married, but was issueless; so the line is 
extinct. THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
137 
Holland, Lord. Had one son and one daughter. The son married 
an heiress, and had only one son and one daughter. That son 
Rockingham, 2d Marquis. Married an heiress, and had no issue; 
died issueless; so the male line is extinct. 
Sidmouth, Viscount (Addington). Was son of an heiress, and he 
so the title became extinct. 
had only one son and four daughters. The son had numerous 
Stovvell, Lord. Married a co-heiress. He had only one son, who 
descendants. 
died unmarried, and one daughter; so the male line is extinct. 
Walpole, Ist Earl of Orford. Had three sons and two daughters. 
The eldest son married an heiress, and had only one son, who 
died unmarried. The second and third sons died unmarried; 
The important result disclosed by these facts, that inter- 
marriage with heiresses is a notable agent in the extinction 
of families, is confirmed by more extended inquiries. I 
devoted some days to ransacking Burke’s volumes on the 
extant and on the extinct peerages. I first tried the 
marriages made by the second peers of each extant title. 
It seemed reasonable to expect that the eldest son of the 
first peer, the founder of the title, would marry heiresses 
pretty frequently ; and so they do, and with terrible destruc- 
tion to their race. I examined one-seventh part of the 
peerage. Leaving out co-heiresses—for I shall weary the 
reader if I refine overmuch—the following were the results : 
so the male line is extinct. 
No. of cases. 
1 Abingdon, 2d Earl; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue. 
2 Aldborough, 2d Earl; married two heiresses. No issue. 
1 Annesley, 2d Earl; wife and mother both heiresses. 3 sons and 2 daughters, 
I Arran, 2d Earl; wife and mother both heiresses. 4 sons and 3 daughters. 
1 (His son, the 3d Earl, married an heiress, and had no issue.) 
1 Ashburnham, 2d Baron; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue. 
1 (His brother succeeded as 3d Earl, and married an heiress; by her no issue.) 
1 Aylesford, 2d Earl; wife heiress, mother co-heiress. 1 son and 3 daughters. 
1 Barrington, 2d Viscount; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue. 
2 Beaufort, 2d Duke; marr. two heiresses. By one no issue; by the other 2 sons. 
1 Bedford, 2d Duke; married heiress. 2 sons and 2 daughters. 
1 Camden, 2d Earl; wife and mother both heiresses. 1 son and 3 daughtenii 138 
ENGLISH PEERAGES, 
Making a grand total of fourteen cases out of seventy 
peers, resulting in eight instances of absolute sterility, and 
in two instances of only one son. 
I tried the question from another side, by taking the 
marriages of the last peers and comparing the numbers 
of the children when the mother was an heiress with those 
when she was not. I took precautions to exclude from 
the latter all cases where the mother was a co-heiress, or 
the father an only son. Also, since heiresses are not so 
very common, I sometimes went back two or three gene- 
rations for an instance of an heiress-marriage. In this 
way I took fifty cases of each. I give them below, having 
first doubled the actual results, in order to turn them into 
percentages :—• 
Number of sons 
to each marriage. 
ioo Marriages of 
EACH DESCRIPTION. 
Number of cases in 
which the mother 
was an heiress. 
N umber of cases in 
which the mother 
was not an heiress. 
O 
22 
2 1 
I 
16 
IO 
2 
22 
14 
3 
22 
34 
4 
IO 
20 
5 
6 
8 
6 
2 
8 
7 
O 
4 
above 
O 
o 
IOC 
IOO 
I find that among the wives of peers— 
ioo who are heiresses have 208 sons and 206 daughters. 
100 who are not heiresses have 336 sons and 284 daughters. 
1 I fear I must have overlooked one or two sterile marriages; otherwise 
I cannot account f >r the smallness of this number. THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE. 
The table shows how exceedingly precarious must be 
the line of a descent from an heiress, especially when 
younger sons are not apt to marry. One-fifth of the 
heiresses have no male children at all; a full third have 
not more than one child ; three-fifths have not more than 
two. It has been the salvation of many families that the 
husband outlived the heiress whom he first married, and 
was able to leave issue by a second wife. 
Every advancement in dignity is a fresh inducement to 
the introduction of another heiress into the family. Con- 
sequently, dukes have a greater impregnation of heiress- 
blood than earls, and dukedoms might be expected to be 
more frequently extinguished than earldoms, and earldoms 
to be more apt to go than baronies. Experience shows 
this to be most decidedly the case. Sir Bernard Burke, 
in his preface to the “ Extinct Peerages,” states that all 
the English dukedoms created from the commencement 
of the order down to the commencement of the reign of 
Charles 11. are gone, excepting three that are merged in 
royalty, and that only eleven earldoms remain out of the 
many created by the Normans, Plantagenets, and Tudors. 
This concludes my statistics about the heiresses. I do 
not care to go farther, because one ought to know some- 
thing more about their several histories before attempting 
to arrive at very precise results in respect to their fertility. 
An heiress is not always the sole child of a marriage con- 
tracted early in life and enduring for many years. She 
may be the surviving child of a larger family, or the child 
of a late marriage, or the parents may have early left her 
an orphan. We ought also to consider the family of the 
husband, whether he be a sole child, or one of a large 
family. These matters would afford a very instructive field 
of inquiry to those who cared to labour in it, but it falls 
outside my line of work. The reason I have gone so far 
is simply to show that, although many men of eminent 140 
ENGLISH PEERAGES. 
ability (I do not speak of illustrious or prodigious genius) 
have not left descendants behind them, it is not because 
they are sterile, but because they are apt to marry sterile 
women, in order to obtain wealth to support the peerages 
with which their merits have been rewarded. I look 
upon the peerage as a disastrous institution, owing to its 
destructive effects on our valuable races. The most 
highly-gifted men are ennobled ; their elder sons are 
tempted to marry heiresses, and their younger ones not 
to marry at all, for these have not enough fortune to 
support both a family and an aristocratical position. So 
the side-shoots of the genealogical tree are hacked off, 
and the leading shoot is blighted, and the breed is lost 
for ever. 
It is with much satisfaction that I have traced and, I 
hope, finally disposed of the cause why families are apt 
to become extinct in proportion to their dignity—chiefly 
so, on account of my desire to show that able races are 
not necessarily sterile, and secondarily because it may put 
an end to the wild and ludicrous hypotheses that are 
frequently started to account for their extinction. CHAPTER IX. 
COMMANDERS. 
IN times of prolonged war, when the reputation of a great 
commander can alone be obtained, the profession of arms 
affords a career that offers its full share of opportunities 
to men of military genius. Promotion is quick, the demand 
for able men is continuous, and very young officers have 
frequent opportunities of showing their powers. Hence it 
follows that the list of great commanders, notwithstanding 
it is short, contains several of the most gifted men recorded 
in history. They showed enormous superiority over their 
contemporaries by excelling in many particulars. They 
were foremost in their day, among statesmen and generals, 
and their energy was prodigious. Many, when they were 
mere striplings, were distinguished for political capacity. 
In their early manhood, they bore the whole weight and 
responsibility of government; they animated armies and 
nations with their spirit; they became the champions of 
great coalitions, and coerced millions of other men by the 
superior power of their own intellect and will. 
I will run through a few of these names in the order in 
which they will appear in the appendix to this chapter, to 
show what giants in ability their acts prove them to have 
been, and how great and original was the position they 
occupied at ages when most youths are kept in the back- 
ground of general society, and hardly suffered to express COMMANDERS. 
142 
opinions, much less to act, contrary to the prevailing 
sentiments of the day. 
Alexander the Great began his career of conquest at the 
age of twenty, having previously spent four years at home 
in the exercise of more or less sovereign power, with a 
real statesmanlike capacity. His life’s work was over 
aet. 32, Bonaparte, the Emperor Napoleon 1., was general 
of the Italian army set. 26, and thenceforward carried 
everything before him, whether in the field or in the State, 
in rapid succession. He was made emperor set. 35, and 
had lost Waterloo set 46. Csesar, though he was prevented 
by political hindrances from obtaining high office and from 
commanding in the field till set. 42, was a man of the 
greatest political promise as a youth; nay, even as a boy, 
Charlemagne began his wars set. 30. Charles XII. of 
Sweden began his, set. 18; and the ability showed by him 
at that early period of life was of the highest order. 
Prince Eugene commanded the imperial army in Austria 
set. 25. Gustavus Adolphus was as precocious in war and 
statesmanship as his descendant Charles XII. Hannibal 
and his family were remarkable for their youthful supe- 
riority. Many of them had obtained the highest commands, 
and had become the terror of the Romans, before they 
were what we call “of age.” The Nassau family are 
equally noteworthy. When William the Silent was a mere 
boy, he was the trusted confidant, even adviser, of the 
Emperor Charles V. His son, the great general Maurice 
of Nassau, was only eighteen when in chief command of 
the Low Countries, then risen in arms against the Spaniards. 
His grandson, Turenne, the gifted French general, and 
his great-grandson, our William HI., were both of them 
illustrious in early life. Marlborough was from 46 to 50 
years of age during the period of his greatest success, but he 
was treated much earlier as a man of high mark. Scipio 
Africanus Major was only 24 when in chief command COMMANDERS. 
143 
in Spain against the Carthaginians, Wellington broke the 
Mahratta power ast. 35, and had won Waterloo set. 46. 
But though the profession of arms in time of prolonged 
war affords ample opportunities to men of high military- 
genius, it is otherwise in peace, or in short wars. The 
army, in every country, is more directly under the influ- 
ence of the sovereign than any other institution. Guided 
by the instinct of self-preservation, the patronage of the 
army is always the last privilege that sovereigns are 
disposed to yield to democratic demands. Hence it is, 
that armies invariably suffer from those evils that are 
inseparable from courtly patronage. Rank and political 
services are apt to be weighed against military ability, 
and incapable officers to occupy high places during periods 
of peace. They may even be able to continue to fill 
their posts during short wars without creating a public 
scandal; nay, sometimes to carry away honours that 
ought in justice to have been bestowed on their more 
capable subordinates in rank. 
It is therefore very necessary, in accepting the reputation 
of a commander as a test of his gifts, to confine ourselves, 
as I propose to do, to those commanders only whose 
reputation has been tested by prolonged wars, or whose 
ascendency over other men has been freely acknowledged. 
There is a singular and curious condition of success in 
the army and navy, quite independent of ability, that 
deserves a few words. In order that a young man may 
fight his way to the top of his profession, he must survive 
many battles. But it so happens that men of equal 
ability are not equally likely to escape shot free. Before 
explaining why, let me remark that the danger of being, 
shot in battle is considerable. No less than seven of the 
thirty-two commanders mentioned in my appendix, or 
between one-quarter and one-fifth of them, perished in 
that way; they are Charles XII., Gustavus Adolphus, Sir 144 
COMMANDERS. 
Henry Lawrence, Sir John Moore, Nelson, Tromp, and 
Turenne. (I may add, while talking of these things, though 
it does not bear on my argument, that four others were 
murdered, viz, Caesar, Coligny, Philip 11. of Macedon, and 
William the Silent; and that two committed suicide, viz. 
Lord Clive and Hannibal. In short, 40 per cent, of the 
whole number died by violent deaths.) 
There is a principle of natural selection in an enemy’s 
bullets which bears more heavily against large than against 
small men. Large men are more likely to be hit. I cal- 
culate that the chance of a man being accidentally shot is 
as the square root of the product of his height multiplied 
into his weight;1 that where a man of 16 stone in weight, 
and 6 feet 2\ inches high, will escape from chance shots for 
two years, a man of 8 stone in weight and 5 feet 6 inches 
high, would escape for three. But the total proportion of 
the risk run by the large man, is, I believe, considerably 
greater. He is conspicuous from his size, and is therefore 
more likely to be recognised and made the object of a 
special aim. It is also in human nature, that the shooter 
should pick out the largest man, just as he would pick out 
the largest bird in a covey, or antelope in a herd. Again, 
of two men who are aimed at, the bigger is the more likely 
to be hit, as affording a larger target. This chance is a 
trifle less than the ratio of his increased sectional area, for 
it is subject to the law discussed in p. 28, though we are 
unable to calculate the decrease, from our ignorance of 
1 The chance of a man being stmck by accidental shots is in proportion to 
Ms sectional area—that is, to his shadow on a neighbouring wall cast by a 
distant light; or to his height multiplied into his average breadth. However, 
it is equally easy and more convenient to calculate from the better known data 
of his height and weight. One man differs from another in being more or less 
tall, and more or less thick-set. It is unnecessary to consider depth (of chest, 
for example) as well as width, for the two go together. Let h= a man’s 
height, w = his weight, b = his average breadth taken in any direction we 
please, but it must be in the same direction for all. Then his weight, w, varies 
as hP, and his sectional area varies as hb, or as x hU1, or as s!h w% COMMANDERS. 
the average distance of the enemy and the closeness of 
his fire. At long distances, and when the shooting was 
wild, the decrease would be insensible ; at comparatively 
clcse ranges it would be unimportant, for even the sums of 
A and B, p. 34, are only about one-fifth more than 2 A. 
(In the last column of the table 77 + 48 = 125 is only 21, 
or about one-fifth more than 2x48 = 96.) As a matter 
of fact, commanders are very frequently the objects of 
special aim. I remember, when Soult visited England, 
that a story appeared in the newspapers, of some English 
veteran having declared that the hero must have lived 
a charmed life, for he had “ covered ” him with his rifle 
(I think my memory does not deceive me) upwards of 
thirty times, and yet had never the fortune to hit him. 
Nelson was killed by one of many shots aimed directly 
at him, by a rifleman in the maintop of the French vessel 
with which his own was closely engaged. 
The total relative chances against being shot in battle, 
of two men of the respective heights and weights I have 
described, are as 3 to 2 in favour of the smaller man in 
respect to accidental shots, and in a decidedly more 
favourable proportion in respect to direct aim; the latter 
chance being compounded of the two following,—first, a 
better hope of not being aimed at, and secondly, a hope 
very little less than 3 to 2, of not being hit when made 
the object of an aim. 
This is really an important consideration. Had Nelson 
been a large man, instead of a mere feather-weight, the 
probability is that he would not have survived so long. 
Let us for a moment consider the extraordinary dangers 
he survived. Leaving out of consideration the early part 
of his active service, which was only occasionally hazardous, 
as also the long interval of peace that followed it, we find 
him, set. 35, engaged in active warfare with the French, 
when, through his energy at Bastia and Calvi, his name 146 
COMMANDERS. 
became dreaded throughout the Mediterranean. JEt 37, 
he obtained great renown from his share in the battle of 
St. Vincent. He was afterwards under severe fire at Cadiz, 
also at Teneriffe where he lost an arm by a cannon-shot. 
He then received a pension of £ 1,000 a year. The memo- 
rial which he was required to present on this occasion, 
stated that he had been in action one hundred and twenty 
times, and speaks of other severe wounds besides the loss 
of his arm and eye. ALt 40, he gained the victory of the 
Nile, where the contest was most bloody. He thereupon 
was created Baron Nelson with a pension of £ 3,000 a year, 
and received the thanks of Parliament; he was also made 
Duke of Bronte by the King of Naples, and he became 
idolized in England. MX. 43, he was engaged in the severe 
battle of Copenhagen, and aet. 47 was shot at Trafalgar. 
Thus his active career extended through twelve years, 
during the earlier part of which he was much more fre- 
quently under fire than afterwards. Had he only lived 
through two-thirds, or even three-fourths, of his battles, he 
could not have commanded at the Nile, Copenhagen, or 
Trafalgar. His reputation under those circumstances would 
have been limited to that of a dashing captain or a young 
and promising admiral. Wellington was a small man ; if 
he had been shot in the Peninsula, his reputation, though 
it would have undoubtedly been very great, would have 
lost the lustre of Waterloo. In short, to have survived 
is an essential condition to becoming a famed commander; 
yet persons equally endowed with military gifts—such as 
the requisite form of high intellectual and moral ability 
and of constitutional vigour—are by no means equally 
qualified to escape shot free. The enemy’s bullets are 
least dangerous to the smallest men, and therefore small 
men are more likely to achieve high fame as commanders 
than their equally gifted contemporaries whose physical 
frames are larger. COMMANDERS. 
I now give tables on precisely the same principle as 
those in previous chapters. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 32 COMMANDERS, 
GROUPED INTO 27 (or P241) FAMILIES. 
One relation (or two in family). 
Berwick, Duke {see Marlborough). 
Pyrrhus (see Alexander). 
Doria .... 
. . N. &c. 
Titus F. 
Hyder Ali . . . 
. . S. 
Tromp S. 
Lawrence, Sir H.. 
. . B. 
7wo or three relations {or three or four in family). 
2 Charlemagne & Chas. 
Eugene 
gB. gN. 
Martel.... 
F. G. GF. 
2. Marlborough and 
Charles Martel {see 
Duke of Berwick 
n. UP. 
Charlemagne). 
Moore, Sir John . . 
F. B. 
Clive 
GB. GN. 
Nelson 
uP. £U. 
Coligny {but see 
Runjeet Singh , . 
G. F. 
Maurice) . . . 
F. u. pP. 
Saxe, Marshal . . 
F. u. pj. 
Cromwell .... 
S. z*S. uV. 
Wellington 
B. 2 N. 
Four or more relations [or five or more in family), 
3. Alexander, Philip, and Pyrrhus . 
F. f. B. N. gBP. 
Bonaparte 
Caesar 
Charles XII. {see Gustavus Adolphus). 
2. Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII. . 
s. GF. Gb. NP. 
Hannibal 
F. 3B. 
(? 4). Maurice of Nassau, William the Silent, 
Coligny, and Turenne ..... 
F. g. n. NS. 
Napier 
GGF. F. «S. 2 B. n. US. &c. 
Napoleon {see Bonaparte). 
• 
Philip and Pyrrhus (see Alexander). 
Raleigh 
3 B. 2uS. 
Scipio 
F. G. 2S, 2 P. GN. 
Turenne (but see Maurice) 
F. &c. 
William I. (but see Maurice) .... 
2 S. P. PS. 
1 Coligny, Maurice, Turenne, and William I. are impossible either to separate 
or to reckon as one family. If they were considered as only one family, the 
number of groups would be reduced from 27 to 24. COMMANDERS. 
TABLE II.1 
Degrees of Kinship. 
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letters. 
Father .... 
12 F. 
12 
47 
IOO 
47.0 
Brother .... 
13 B. 
13 
5° 
150 
33-3 
Son 
8 S. 
8 • 
3i 
IOO 
32.0 
Grandfather. . . 
3G. 
1 g. 
4 
l6 
200 
8.0 
Uncle 
oU. 
2 U. 
2 
8 
400 
2.0 
Nephew .... 
6 N. 
3 "• 
9 
35 
400 
9.0 
Grandson.... 
3P- 
op. 
3 
12 
200 
6.0 
Great-grandfather . 
2 GF. 
0 gF. 
0 GF. 
ogF. 
2 
8 
400 
2.0 
Great-uncle . . . 
1 GB. 
igB. 
0 GB. 
ogB. 
2 
8 
800 
1.0 
First-cousin . . . 
1 US. 
2 uS. 
1 U S. 
1 z^S. 
5 
20 
800 
2-5 
Great-nephew . . 
1 NS. 
0 nS. 
oNS. 
1 nS. 
2 
8 
800 
1.0 
Great-grandson. . 
oPS. 
0 pS. 
0 PS. 
0/S. 
O 
O 
400 
0.0 
All more remote . 
11 
44 
Precisely similar conclusions are to be drawn from these 
tables, as from those I have already given ; but they make 
my case much stronger than before. 
I argue that the more able the man, the more numerous 
ought his able kinsmen to be. That, in short, the names in 
the third section of Table I. should, on the whole, be those 
of men of greater weight, than are included in the first 
section. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is the 
fact. But the table shows more. Its third section is pro- 
portionally longer than it was in the Statesmen, and it was 
longer in these than in the Judges. Now, the average 
natural gifts of the different groups are apportioned in 
precisely the same order. The Commanders are more 
able than the Statesmen, and the Statesmen more able 
than the Judges. Consequently, comparing the three 
groups together, we find the abler men to have, on the 
average, the larger number of able kinsmen. Similarly, 
the proportion borne by those Commanders who have 
1 For explanation, see similar table, p. 6i. COMMANDERS, 
149 
any eminent relations at all, to those who have not, is 
much greater than it is in Statesmen ; and in these, much 
greater than in the Judges. 
Their peculiar type of ability is largely transmitted. 
My limited list of Commanders contains several notable 
families of generals. That of William the Silent is a most 
illustrious family, and I must say, that in at least two out 
of his four wives—namely, the daughter of the Elector of 
Saxony and that of the great Coligny—he could not 
have married more discreetly. To have had Maurice of 
Nassau for a son, Turenne for a grandson, and our 
William 111. for a great-grandson, is a marvellous instance 
of hereditary gifts. Another most illustrious family is 
that of Charlemagne. First, Pepin de Heristhal, virtual 
sovereign of France; then his son, Charles Martel, who 
drove back the Saracenic invasion that had overspread 
the half of France ; then his grandson, Pepin le Bref, the 
founder of the Carlovingian dynasty ; and lastly, his great- 
grandson, Charlemagne, founder of the Germanic Empire. 
The three that come last, if not the whole of the four, 
were of the very highest rank as leaders of men. 
Another yet more illustrious family is that of Alexander, 
including Philip of Macedon, the Ptolemys, and his second 
cousin, Pyrrhus. I acknowledge the latter to be a far-off 
relation, but Pyrrhus so nearly resembled Alexander in 
character, that I am entitled to claim his gifts as hereditary. 
Another family is that of Hannibal, his father and his 
brothers; again, there is that of the Scipios; also the in- 
teresting near relationship between Marlborough and the 
Duke of Berwick. Raleigh’s kinships are exceedingly 
appropriate to my argument, as affording excellent in- 
stances of hereditary special aptitudes. I have spoken in 
the last chapter about Wellington and the Marquess of 
Wellesley, so I need not repeat myself here. Of Com- 
manders of high but not equally illustrious stamp, I should 150 
COMMANDERS. 
mention the family of Napier, of Lawrence, and the 
singular naval race of Hyde Parker. There were five 
brothers Grant, all highly distinguished in Wellington’s 
campaigns. I may as well mention, that though I know 
too little about the great Asiatic warriors, Genghis Khan 
and Timurlane, to insert them in my appendix, yet they 
are doubly though very distantly interrelated. 
The distribution of ability among the different degrees 
of kinship, will be seen to follow much the same order that 
it did in the Statesmen and in the Judges 
APPENDIX TO COMMANDERS. 
List of Commanders that have been examined. 
Those printed in Italics are included in my Dictionary of Kinships. They are 
32 in number; the remaining 27 are by no means wholly destitute of gifted 
relations. 
Alexander. Baber. Belisarius. Berwick, Duke of. Blake. Blucher. 
Bonaparte. Ccesar. Charlemagne. Charles Martel. Charles XII, Clive, 
Coligny. Conde. Cromwell. Cyrus the elder. Dandolo. Doria. Dun- 
donald, Lord. Ezigene, Prince. Frederick the Great. Genghis Khan. 
Gustavus Adolphics. Hannibal. Henri IV. Hyder AH. Lawrence, Sir H. 
Mahomet Ali. Marius. Massena. Maurice of Nassau. Marlborough. 
Miltiades. Moore, Sir f. Moreau. Napier, Sir Charles. {Napoleon, see 
Bonaparte.) Nelson. Peter the Great. Pericles. Philip of Macedon. 
Pompey. Pyrrhus. Raleigh. Runjeet Singh. Saladin. Saxe, Marshal. 
Schomberg. Scipio Africanus. Soult. Themistocles. Timurlane. Titus. 
Trajan. Tromp Marten. Turenne. Wallenstein. Wellington. William I 
of Orange. Wolfe. 
Alexander the Great, Is commonly reputed to be the com- 
mander of the greatest genius that the world has produced. 
When only set. 16 he showed extraordinary judgment in 
public affairs, having governed Macedonia during the 
absence of his father. He succeeded to the throne, and 
began his great career of conquest at. 20, and died at. 32. 
Living as he did in a time when the marriage tie was 
loose, there necessarily exists some doubt as to his re- COMMANDERS. 
151 
lationships. However, his reputed relationships are of a 
very high order. He inherited much of the natural dispo- 
sition of both of his parents; the cool forethought and 
practical wisdom of his father, and the ardent enthusiasm 
and ungovernable passions of his mother. 
He had four wives, but only one son, a posthumous child, 
who was murdered set. 12. 
E. Philip 11. of Macedonia, an illustrious general and states- 
man, who created and organized an army that was held 
together by a system of discipline previously unknown, 
and kept the whole of Greece in check. Hit. 24 he had 
shown his cool forethought and practical skill in delivering 
himself from embarrassing political difficulties. He had 
a robust frame, a noble and commanding presence, a ready 
eloquence, and dexterity in the management of men and 
things. Cicero praises him for having been u always great.” 
He keenly enjoyed the animal pleasures of life. He was 
murdered set. 47. 
f Olympias, ardent in her enthusiasms, ungovernable in her 
passions, ever scheming and intriguing. She suffered death 
like a heroine. 
B (Half-brother.) Ptolemy Soter I. He became the first king 
of Egypt after Alexander’s death, and was the son of 
Philip 11. by Arsinoe. Alexander rated him very highly. 
He was very brave, and had all the qualities of an able 
and judicious general. He was also given to literature, 
and he patronised learned men. He had twelve descend- 
ants, who became kings of Egypt, who were all called 
Ptolemy, and who nearly all resembled one another in 
features, in statesmanlike ability, in love of letters, and 
in their voluptuous dispositions. This race of Ptolemys 
is at first sight exceedingly interesting, on account of the 
extraordinary number of their close intermarriages. They 
were matched in and in like prize cattle; but these near 
marriages were unprolific—the inheritance mostly passed 
through other wives. Indicating the Ptolemys by numbers, 
according to the order of their succession, 11. married his 
niece, and afterwards his sister; IV. his sister; VI. and 
VII. were brothers, and they both consecutively married 
the same sister—Vll. also subsequently married his niece; 152 
COMMANDERS 
VIII. married two of his own sisters consecutively; XII 
and XIII. were brothers, and both consecutively married 
their sister, the famous Cleopatra. 
Thus there are no less than nine cases of close intermarriages 
distributed among the thirteen Ptolemys. However, when 
we put them, as below, into the form of a genealogical 
tree, we shall clearly see that the main line of descent was 
untouched by these intermarriages, except in the two cases 
of 111, and of VIII. The personal beauty and vigour of 
Cleopatra, the last of the race, cannot therefore be justly 
quoted in disproof of the evil effects of close breeding. 
On the contrary, the result of Ptolemaic experience was 
distinctly to show that intermarriages are followed by 
sterility. 
Genealogical Tree of the Ptolemys. 
I. 
1 
Niece. = II. 
1 
III. 
i 
IV. 
1 
V. 
1 
VI. = Sister. = VII. ■= 
i I 1 
Dan. marr. I son. VI 
to her uncle, 
and mother of VIII. X 
1 
1 . 
XII. = Cleof 
= Sister. 
A 
= To his niece (doubly). 
II. = Also to his 2 sisters. 
1 
I. ° 
i 
1 1 
>atra. — XIII. (a mere boy). 
Surnames of the Ptolemys. 
11. Philadelphus. 
111. Euergetes. 
IV. Philopator. 
V. Epiphanes. 
I. Soter. 
VIII. Soter 11. 
IX. Alexander. 
X. Alexander 11. 
XI. Auletes. 
XII. Dionysus. 
XIII. Murdered when a boy. 
VII. Euergetes 11. (Physon.) 
VI. Philometor. 
N. (Half-nephew.) Ptolemy Philadelphus, a man of feeble and 
sickly constitution, but of great ability and energy. He 
cleared Egypt of marauding bands. He was the first to COMMANDERS. 
153 
tame African elephants, the elephants previously used in 
Egypt having been invariably imported from India. He 
founded the city Ptoleraais, on the borders of Ethiopia, 
expressly to receive the captured African elephants, for 
the purpose of training them. He recommenced the old 
Egyptian enterprise of the Isthmus of Suez canal, sent 
voyages of discovery down the Red Sea, founded the 
Alexandrian library and caused the Septuagint translation 
of the Bible to be made. With all this intelligence and 
energy, he had, as we have before said, a feeble and 
sickly constitution, and the life he led was that of a refined 
voluptuary. 
'NS.] Ptolemy Euergetes. Was by no means his father’s equal 
in virtue and ability; but he was scarcely less celebrated 
for his patronage of literature and science. 
gBP. Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, the famous general. (I am not 
sure of the second of these letters, whether Bor b.) He 
was one of the greatest commanders that ever lived, and 
might have become the most powerful monarch of his day 
if he had had perseverance. The links that connected 
him in blood with Alexander appear to have mostly been 
of a remarkable character, but hardly deserving of special 
record here. The character of Pyrrhus resembled that of 
Alexander, whom he also took as his model from an early 
age, being fired with the ambition of imitating his exploits. 
Berwick, James Fitzjames, Duke of. One of the most distin- 
guished commanders of the reign of Louis XIY. He was 
the illegitimate son of James 11. by Arabella Churchill, 
and became commander-in-chief of his father’s Irish army. 
He accompanied James 11. into exile, and entered the 
French service, where he obtained great distinction, espe- 
cially in the war of the Spanish succession. He was then 
made lieutenant-general of the French armies, and created 
a Spanish grandee. 
u. John Churchill, the great Duke of Marlborough. See. 
Bonaparte, Napoleon I, His extraordinary powers did not 
show themselves in boyhood. He was a taciturn lad. The 
annual report of the Inspector-General of Schools, made 
when Bonaparte was set. 15, describes him as “Distin- 
guished in mathematical studies, tolerably versed in history COMMANDERS. 
and geography, much behind in his Latin and belles- 
lettres and other accomplishments, of regular habits, 
studious and well-behaved, and enjoying excellent health” 
(Bourienne). He first distinguished himself, set. 24, at the 
siege of Toulon. Became general of the army of Italy, 
when it was in a disorganized condition, jet. 26 ; and 
thenceforward began his almost uninterrupted career of 
victory. He was emperor, set. 35; was vanquished at 
Waterloo, set. 46; and died at St. Helena six years after. 
Among the more remarkable qualities of this extraordinary 
man were a prodigious memory and intellectual restless- 
ness. His vigour was enormous. 
There are so many considerable persons in the Bonaparte 
family, while at the same time some of these have been so 
helped and others so restrained by political circumstances, 
that it is very difficult to indicate which should be and 
which should not be selected as instances of hereditary 
genius. I will give a genealogical tree of the family 
(p. 155), and shall assume the ratio of hereditary influence 
to be— 
/., 8., A, S., and 2 N. 
Lucien, Eliza, and Louis were very gifted persons, and others 
of the brothers and sisters of Napoleon I. were certainly 
above the average. There are members of the family yet 
alive, including the Cardinal at Rome, who may have high 
political parts to play. 
Caesar, Julius; Dictator of Rome. Was not only a general of 
the highest order and a statesman, but also an orator and 
man of letters. He gave the greatest promise, even when 
a boy, and was remarkable in his youth for his judgment, 
literary ability, and oratorical powers. Owing to the dis- 
turbed state of Roman politics, he did not become consul 
till set. 41, nor begin his military career till set. 42. 
Thenceforward he had unbroken success for fourteen years. 
He was assassinated set. 56. He must be considered as 
a peculiarly profligate man, even when his character is 
measured by the low standard of the time in which he 
lived. He had no brothers, only two sisters. He was married 
four times, and had one illegitimate son, by Cleopatra, 
called Csesarion, whom Augustus caused to be executed COMMANDERS. 
GENEALOGY 
OF THE BONAPARTE FAMILY. 
" I, 
Joseph, King of Na- ' 
pies and then of 
Spain ; 
r Daughters. 
hi. Julia Clary. y 
" 1. 
King of Rome, but 
now styled 1 lapoleon 
II.; a consumptive 
2. 
Napoleon I.; 
in. twice. 
2. 
- 
youth, d. set, 20. 
Count Wale’./.la ille- 
gitimate) ; eminent 
diplomatist; IB rerch 
ambassadoi in Eng- 
land. 
3- 
Lucien, Prince de Ca- i 
1. 
Charles Lucien. 
nino ; 
>■ 2. 
Prince Louis ; philo- 
in, twice. 
logist. 
4- 
Eliza, Princess Piom- ' 
bino and Lucca; 
“ the Italian Se- 
> Napoleon Eliza. 
miramis;” 
m. Baciocchi. 
5. 
Louis, King of Hoi- ' 
Napoleon Ch. 
land ; 
*• 
in. Hortense Beau- 
r2- 
Charles Napoleon. 
harnais. 
3- 
Louis, Napoleon III. 
6. 
Marie Pauline ; ' 
in. I. Genl. Leclerc. 
2. Prince Camillo 
r No children. 
Borghese. x 
7- 
Jerome, King of West- 
phalia; President 
1, 
Princess Mathilde ; 
of State Council 
in. Prince Demidoff. 
under Napoleon 
> 2, 
Prince Napoleon; 
Hi-; 
m. Clothilde, dau. of 
m. Princess of Wur- 
King of Italy. 
temburg. y 
8. 
Caroline; 
m. Murat, King of 
- Lucien Napoleon Murat 
Naples. 
* 
Carlo Bonaparte, 
a Corsican judge. 
Letitia Namolini, 
known as “ Madame 
la Mere.” Was a 
heroine by nature, and 
one of the most beau- 
tiful young women of 
her day. She followed 
her husband in all his 
journeys through the 
then dangerously dis- 
turbed island. She 
was firm and un- 
daunted. Afterwards 
she became “ a pale 
but earnest woman, 
who, after speaking 
of anything that inte- 
rested her deeply, sat 
with compressed lips 
and wide-open eyes, 
an image of firmness 
of purpose combined 
with depth of feeling ” 
(Duchesse d’Abrantes). 
Napoleon esteemed 
her highly. 156 
COMMANDERS. 
while still a boy, for political reasons; also one daughter, 
as follows— 
s. Julia, married to Pompey, and greatly beloved by him 
(though the marriage was merely made up for political 
reasons) and by the whole nation. She was singularly 
endowed with ability, virtue, and beauty. Died prema- 
turely, four years after her marriage, from the shock of 
a serious alarm, when she was advanced in pregnancy. 
/. Aurelia: Seems to have been no ordinary woman ; she care- 
fully watched over the education of her children, and Caesar 
always treated her with the greatest affection and respect. 
7i. Atia, the mother of Augustus, who carefully tended his edu- 
cation, and who is classed along with Cornelia, the mother 
of the Gracchi, and Aurelia, the mother of Caesar. 
«S. Augustus Caesar, ist Emperor of Rome. The public opinion 
of his own time considered him to be an excellent prince 
and statesman. He was adopted by Caesar, who rated 
him very highly, and devoted much time out of his busy 
life to his education. He had great caution and modera- 
tion. Was very successful as a general in early life, after 
the death of Julius Caesar. Married three wives, but left 
only one daughter. 
U. Sex. Julius Caesar; Consul, b.c. 91. 
?. Mark Antony. His mother belonged to the family of Julius 
Caesar, but in what degree she was connected with it is 
unknown. 
(Caius Marius, the general, married the aunt (u.) of Julius 
Caesar, but had no children by her : Marius the younger, 
who had much of the character and ability of Caius, being 
only an adopted son.) 
Charlemagne, founder of the Germanic Empire and a great 
general. Began his wars aet. 30; died aet. 72. Was an 
eminent legislator and great patron of learning. Had very 
many children, including Louis le Debonnaire, both legi- 
timate and illegitimate. 
GF. Pepin le Gros (de Heristhal), general of distinction. He 
put an end to the Merovingian dynasty, and was virtual 
sovereign of France. 
G. Charles Martel. See below. 
F. Pepin le Bref, the first of the Carlovingian kings of Franca COMMANDERS. 
Charles Martel. Ancestor of the Carlovingian race of kings 
of France. Victor over the Saracens in the great and 
decisive battle between Tours and Poictiers. 
F. Pepin le Gros. See paragraph above. 
S. Pepin, the first of the Carlovingian kings of France. 
P. Charlemagne. See above. 
Charles XII. of Sweden. See under Gustavus Adolphus. 
Clive, ist Lord; Governor-General of India. “A heaven-bom 
general, who, without experience, surpassed all the officers 
of his time” (Lord Chatham). Victorious at Plassy set. 32. 
Committed suicide set. 49. 
GB. Sir G. Clive, Judge, Curs, B. Exch. (Geo. II.) 
GN. Sir E. Clive, Judge, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.) 
Coligny, Gaspard de; French admiral, general, and statesman. 
Famous Huguenot leader. Perished at the Massacre of 
St. Bartholomew. 
F. Gaspard de Coligny, Marshal of France; distinguished in 
the Italian wars of Charles VIII., Louis XL, and Francis I. 
u. Due de Montmorency, Marshal and Constable of France. 
The most illustrious member of a great French family. 
He was illiterate, but, owing to his natural ability and large 
experience, became a most able counsellor and statesman. 
pP. William HI. of England. See pedigree under Maurice. 
Cromwell, Oliver; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. 
US. Hampden the patriot, whom Lord Clarendon speaks of 
as having “ a head to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and 
a heart to execute any mischief;”—this word “mischief” 
meaning, of course, antagonism to the King. 
Up. Edmund Waller, the poet, a man of very considerable 
abilities both in parliamentary eloquence and in poetry, 
but he was not over-steadfast in principle. He was n. to 
Hampden. 
S, Henry; behaved with gallantry in the army, and acted 
with much distinction in Ireland as Lord Deputy. 
He had one other son, and four daughters, who married 
able men, but their descendants were not remarkable. 
Doria, Andrea; naval commander and illustrious statesman. 
He drove the French from Genoa, and was entitled by 
the Genoese Senate “The father and saviour of their 
country.” Famous for his victories over the corsairs of COMMANDERS. 
the Mediterranean. He was set. 85 at his last battle. He 
was of a younger branch of the great Doria family, very 
many of whom are highly distinguished in Italian history. 
He had no children. Died set. 94. 
N. Fillipino Doria, who succeeded him as admiral, and obtained 
an important victory over the French. 
Eugene, Prince ; Austrian general and statesman. Colleague of 
Marlborough; victor over the Turks. He was intended 
for the Church, but showed a decided preference for arms. 
He had eminent bravery and ability, and great physical 
strength. His qualities and birth ensured him such rapid 
promotion that he commanded the Austrian imperial army 
in Piedmont set. 25. Napoleon ranked him in generalship 
along with Turenne and Frederick the Great. 
gB. Cardinal Mazarin, the great minister during the minority of 
Louis XIV. 
gN. Hortense Mancini, the accomplished and beautiful Duchess 
of Mazarin, and married to the Duke de la Meilleraie. 
She was greatly admired in England, where she died 1699, 
Gustavus Adolphus. Not only a very eminent general and 
statesman, but also a patron of science and literature. He 
succeeded to the throne set. 17, and immediately afterwards 
distinguished himself in war. He became the head of the 
German Protestant cause. He was shot in battle, at 
Lutzen, set. 38. 
s. Christina, Queen of Sweden ; his only child. She was a 
woman of high ability, but of masculine habits, and very 
eccentric. She was a great admirer of Alexander the 
Great. She attracted to her court many eminent European 
philosophers and scholars, including Grotius, Descartes, 
and Vossius. She became 
Roman Catholic, and abdi- 
cated the crown in a fit of 
caprice, but endeavoured, un- 
successfully, after some years, 
to resume it 
There was much ability and 
eccentricity in the Swedish 
royal family, scattered over 
several generations. Thus 
Gustavus Vasa. 
1 1 
X Cecilia. 
1 
X 
, I 
Gustavus Adolphus. X 
.1. i 
Christina. X 
1 
X 
Charles XII COMMANDERS. 
Gustavus Vasa, his daughter Cecilia, and, in a much lower 
generation, Charles XII., were all of them very remarkable 
and, in many respects, very similar characters. The con- 
nexion between them is easily seen in the table above. 
I will now describe them in order. 
GF. Gustavus Vasa, though proscribed and an outcast, yet, set. 
31, succeeded in uniting the Swedes to expel the Danes, 
and became the founder of the Swedish dynasty. 
Gib. Cecilia his daughter, who was “a very prototype of the 
wayward and eccentric Christina • had an intense longing 
to travel, and imitate the far-famed example of the Queen 
of Sheba.” She went to England with her husband, where 
she got frightfully into debt. She died set. 87, after leading 
a rambling and dissolute life. (Introduction to “ England 
as seen by Foreigners,” by W. B. Rye, 1865.) 
NP. Charles XII. Showed great self-will and remarkable fond- 
ness for military exercises from his earliest youth. He 
had a great desire to emulate Alexander. Succeeded to 
the throne set. 15 ; begun his wars, set. 18, with Russia, 
Denmark, and Poland, defeating them all in turn. He 
had great courage and constitutional power; was obstinate, 
rash, and cruel (his father, Charles XL, was also obstinate, 
harsh, and despotic). He was killed in battle set. 37. 
Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general. He was entrusted 
with high command set. 18, and had become illustrious 
set. 26. He led his Carthaginian army, with its troops 
of elephants, from Spain across France and the Alps. 
Descending into Italy, he forced his way against the Roman 
power, and at that immense distance from his base of 
operations utterly defeated them at Cannse. He was after- 
wards defeated by them under Scipio in Africa, He 
poisoned himself to avoid Roman vengeance, set. 64. 
F. Hamilcar Barca, “ the Great; ” commanded in Spain while 
still a mere youth. Nothing is known of his ancestry. 
B. Hasdrubal, a worthy rival of the fame of his father and 
brother. He crossed the Alps subsequently to Hannibal, 
and was at last defeated by the Romans and killed. 
B. Mago, a good general, who co-operated with his brothers. 
B. (Half-brother, son of Hannibal’s mother.) Hasdrubal, general 
in Spain. COMMANDERS. 
Hyder Ali. The ablest and most formidable enemy of the 
British power in India. He began life as a soldier of 
fortune; he rose to be prime minister, and then Sultan 
of Mysore, at. 44. 
S. Tippoo Saib. Less able than his father, but more ferocious, 
and an equally determined enemy of England; killed in 
battle at Seringapatam. 
Lawrence, Sir Henry; Governor of Oude; a man of high 
military and administrative genius; the principal support 
of the British rule at the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny; 
he defended Lucknow, and was killed there. He was 
greatly beloved and eminently esteemed. 
[F.] An officer of some distinction in India. 
B. John, created Lord Lawrence, Governor-General of India; 
excellent administrator ; was one of the principal saviours 
of the British rule at the time of the Indian Mutiny. 
Maurice of Nassau. One of the greatest captains of his age; 
governed the Low Countries, set, 18, after his father’s 
death, with great courage and talent; defeated and drove 
away the Spaniards in 1597, set. 30, 
Montmorency, Due de, O 
Marshal of France; 
great soldier and statesman. 
= Coligny.G.de, 
Marshal of 
France. 
Maurice, 
Elector of Saxony; 
great general. 
Coligm 
admiral; 
and Hugu 
h G. de, 
jreat soldier 
enot leader. 
William I. = 
of Nassau; 
illustrious states- 
man and general. 
= 2d wife. = 
= 3d wife. = 
= 4th wife. 
Mau 
greatest 
of his 
Stadth 
rice, da 
captain 
age; 
older. 
u. = 
= Due de Bouillon, Fred 
able general Stac 
and Huguenot 
leader. 
V 
1th 
William, 
older. 
Ture 
ablest ol 
pre-Napolec 
nne, 
French 
nic generals. 
> 
William III 
ablest of 
of England, 
our kings. 
F. William the Ist of Nassau, “the Silent.” “ The guiding-stai 
of a great nation” (Motley). When set. 15 he was the 
intimate and almost confidential friend of Charles V. He COMMANDERS. 
161 
became the fierce antagonist of Philip in defence of Pro- 
testantism, and finally, after vanquishing the Spaniards, 
created the Union of Utrecht, the basis of the Dutch 
Republic. He was assassinated set. 51. He married four 
times; was father of Maurice of Nassau, grandfather of 
Turenne, and great-grandfather of our William HI. 
g. Maurice, Elector of Saxony; great military genius. 
n. (half-brother’s son.) Turenne, the great French general. See. 
NS. William HI., Stadtholder, and King of England. He was 
an able general in Holland set. 22, and then, partly by 
virtue of his marriage, became King of England, and was 
the ablest monarch we ever possessed. He was cold and 
taciturn, but singularly clear-sighted, steadfast, and coura- 
geous. He was a seven months’ child. Died set. 52, from 
an accident when riding. 
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of. The ablest general 
and most consummate statesman of his time. He in- 
variably distinguished himself in his early campaigns. 
He attracted the notice of Turenne set. 22, who prophe- 
sied that his “ handsome Englishman ” would one day 
prove himself a master of the art of war. He was 
singularly cool in danger, and had more head than heart, 
for he was selfish and calculating. He had one son, who 
died very young, and four daughters. 
ii. James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick. See Berwick. “ A com- 
mander of renown, only less illustrious than his maternal 
uncle.” 
UP. Sir J. Churchill, Judge, M. R. (James II.) 
Moore, Sir John. One of the most distinguished British officers 
of modern times ; commanded the reserve of the British 
army in Egypt, set. 40; was killed in battle at Corunna, 
set. 48. He was a man of chivalrous courage. 
F. Dr. John Moore, a well-known miscellaneous writer, “Zeluco,” 
&c. A man of high morals, shrewd in his remarks, and 
of a caustic humour. 
B. Admiral Sir Graham Moore, G.C.8., &c. 
[S.] Captain John Moore, R.N.; distinguished himself in com- 
mand of the Highflyer in the Crimean War, and was private 
secretary to the Duke of Somerset when First Lord of the 
Admiralty. COMMANDERS. 
Napier, Sir Charles ; general; conqueror of Scinde. The most 
eminent member of a very eminent military family. 
GGF. Napier of Merchistoun, inventor of logarithms. 
F. Colonel Napier; was himself cast in the true heroici 
mould. He had uncommon powers of mind and body; 
had scientific tastes and ability; was Superintendent of < 
Woolwich Laboratory and Comptroller of Army Accounts. 
uS. Right Hon. Charles James Fox, statesman and orator. See 
Fox for his numerous gifted relatives. 
B. General Sir William Napier, historian of the Peninsular War. 
B. General Sir George Napier, Governor of the Cape; was 
offered in 1849 the command of the Piedmontese army, 
which he declined. 
[2B.] There were two other brothers, Richard, Q.C., and Henry, 
Captain, R.N., who might fairly be also adduced, as ex- 
amples of inherited genius. 
UN. Admiral Sir Charles Napier; distinguished for gallantry in 
his youth in the French War, afterwards in Portugal, then 
at the Siege of Acre. When broken in health, he was 
made Commander-in-Chief of the Baltic Fleet in the 
Russian War. 
Lord Napier, the diplomatist, is another able relative. 
Mem. Lord Napier of Magdala is not a relative of this family. 
Napoleon I. See Bonaparte. 
Nelson, Lord ; admiral. The greatest naval hero of England. 
He had neither a strong frame nor a hardy constitution 
when a boy. He had won all his victories, and was 
killed, set. 47. His remarkable relationships are distant, 
but worthy of record ; they are— 
[g.] Maurice Suckling, D.D., Prebendary of Westminster. 
«P. Lord Cranworth, Lord Chancellor. 
ga. (Mother’s mother’s uncle.) Sir Robert Walpole. See. 
Philip of Macedonia. See tinder Alexander. 
S. Alexander the Great. "| 
S. Ptolemy I. of Egypt. b See under Alexander, 
P. Ptolemy Philadelphus. J 
Pyrrhus. 
GBp. Alexander the Great was his second cousin through 
Alexander’s mother, but I am not informed of the 
other links. See under Alexander. COMMANDERS. 
163 
Raleigh, Sir Walter 3 adventurous explorer and colonizer, also 
statesman, courtier, and writer, as well as an eminent 
commander by land and by sea. 
B. Sir Humphrey Gilbert, renowned navigator3 
proposer of the North-west passage to China. It was he 
who took possession of Newfoundland. He was lost at sea. 
28. John and Adrian Gilbert. “ Sir Humphrey’s fame has 
eclipsed that of his brothers John and Adrian, but all three 
helped notably to make England what it is, and all were 
fellow-workers -in the colonization of North America” 
(Edwards’ “ Life of Raleigh ”). 
uS. Henry Champernoun, leader of the band of English volun- 
teers to the Huguenot camp. 
uS. Gawen Champernoun, engaged with Raleigh in later service 
in the civil wars of France. 
Runjeet Singh, founder of the Sikh empire. His father died 
when he was still a boy3 and his mother, who was young 
and handsome, did all she could to corrupt him, that he 
might be unfit to rule when he grew to manhood : never- 
theless he entered, set. 17, on a career of ambition, and 
by set. 29 he had acquired large dominion. This energetic 
man ruled for forty years in undisputed mastery over 
numerous turbulent provinces, although his health was so 
broken by excesses and low indulgence, ast. 50, that he 
could not stand without support. He retained authority 
till his death in 1839, set. 59. 
G. Churruth Singh, from a low condition and a vagrant life, 
became master of Sookur Chukea, in the Punjaub. 
F. Maha Singh extended his father’s rule, and though he died 
set. 30, had carried on war with his neighbours for four- 
teen years, and, it is said, had commanded at one time 
60,000 horsemen. 
Saxe, Marshal3 famous general under Louis XV. He was of 
large size and extraordinary physical strength 3 was distin- 
guished in bodily exercises from childhood. Hit. 12 he 
ran away to join the army. In character he was exceed- 
ingly Doji Juanesque. He was a well-practised commander, 
who loved his profession, but his abilities were not of the 
very highest order. 
F. Augustus 11., Kiing of Poland (the Marshal being one of his COMMANDERS. 
numerous progeny of illegitimate sons). Augustus was 
elected king out of many competitors, and though beaten 
by Charles XII. was, nevertheless, a man of mark. He 
was luxurious and licentious. 
u. Count Koningsmarck was brother to Marshal Saxe’s beau- 
tiful but frail mother. He intrigued with the wife of 
George I. of England, and was assassinated. Was a hand- 
some dashing man, always in gay adventures. 
pj. Madame Dudevant (Georges Sand), the French novelist. 
Her grandmother was a natural daughter of Marshal Saxe. 
Scipio, P. Cornelius; Africanus Major; conqueror of Hannibal, 
and scholar. The greatest man of his age; perhaps the 
greatest of Rome, with the exception of Julius Caesar. 
He was only 24 years old when appointed to the supreme 
command of the Roman armies in Spain. 
The Scipio family produced many great men, and to that 
family Rome was largely indebted for obtaining the empire 
of the world. 
F. P. Cornelius Scipio; a great general, but defeated by 
Hannibal, and finally defeated and killed by the Cartha- 
ginian forces under Hasdrubal and Mago. 
G. L. Cornelius Scipio; drove the Carthaginians out of Cor- 
sica and Sardinia. 
S. P. Com. Sc. Africanus; prevented by weak health from 
taking part in public affairs, but Cicero remarks that with 
the greatness of his father’s mind he possessed a larger 
amount of learning. 
His brother, L. Corn. S. Afr., is called “ a degenerate son 
of his illustrious sire.” 
S. Cornelia, who married Tiber. Sempr. Gracchus, was almost 
idolized by the people. She inherited from her father 
a love of literature, and united in her person the severe 
virtues of the old Roman matron with the superior know- 
ledge, refinement, and civilization which then began to 
prevail in the higher classes of Rome. Her letters were 
extant in the time of Cicero, and were considered models 
of composition. 
2P. Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, bold defenders of popular 
rights ; famous for their eloquence and their virtues. Both 
were assassinated. COMMANDERS. 
165 
Scipio, P. Cornelius, continued— 
GN, Scipio Nasica, the jurist. 
Mem. P. Corn. Sc. Africanus Minor, was not 
of Scipio blood, but was cousin by the mother’s side 
of P. Cora. Sc. Africanus (see above), who adopted him 
as his son. He was a most accomplished scholar and 
distinguished orator. 
Titus, Flav. Vesp.; Emperor of Rome. Able and virtuous ; 
distinguished in war; exceedingly beloved. In his youth 
he was somewhat dissipated, but after he became emperor 
he showed himself eminently moderate and just. 
F. Vespasian. Rose through successive ranks to be Emperor of 
Rome, entirely through his own great merits as a general 
and as a statesman. 
Tromp, Marten ; famous Dutch admiral, who rose through his 
own merits to the supreme command at a momentous 
epoch. Though he was captured in youth, and his profes- 
sional advancement thereby checked for some years, he 
had become a noted admiral and a dreaded opponent of 
the English set. 40. Killed in battle set. 56. 
S. Cornelius van Tromp, celebrated Dutch admiral, who obtained 
that rank, on active service, set. 33. His professional 
eminence was beyond all question, though scarcely equal 
to that of his father. 
Turenne, Henri, Viscount de; the greatest of French generals 
before the time of Napoleon. All his acts bear the impress 
of a truly great mind. He was clear and comprehensive in 
his views, energetic in action, and above the narrow feelings 
of a mere religious partisan. He was eminently pure in 
domestic life. He had weak health till set. 11. As a boy 
he was fond of books, and pored over the lives of eminent 
warriors. He learned slowly and with difficulty, rebelled 
against restraint, and showed dogged perseverance. He 
was very fond of athletic exercises, and improved his 
health by practising them. His first opportunity of dis- 
tinction was set. 23, on which occasion he was made 
“ marechal du camp,” then the next step in rank to mard- 
chal de France. He was killed by a cannon-shot set. 64. 
F. Henri, Due de Bouillon, one of the ablest soldiers bred in 
the school of Henry IV. His high rank, love of letters, COMMANDERS. 
attachment to the Calvinistic faith, and abilities as a states- 
man, raised him to the leadership of the Huguenot party 
after the death of that prince. 
g. William I. of Orange, “the Silent.” See under Maurice. 
u. (mother’s half-brother.) Maurice of Nassau. See. 
uP. William 111. of England. 
Wellington, the Duke of; greatest of modem English generals, 
a firm statesman, and a terse writer. He broke the 
Mahratta power in India set. 35; then became Secretary 
for Ireland. JEt 39 was appointed to command the British 
army in Spain, and he had won Waterloo and completed 
his military career set. 46. 
B. Marquess of Wellesley (see under Statesmen), Governor 
General of India, statesman and scholar. 
[B.] Baron Cowley, diplomatist. 
[F.] Earl of Mornington, of musical ability. 
N. Earl Cowley, diplomatist, English ambassador to France. 
N. Rev. Henry Wellesley, D.D., scholar and man of remark 
able taste, Principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford. 
William I. of Orange, “the Silent.” See under Maurice. 
S. Maurice of Nassau. See. 
S. Frederick William, Stadtholder in the most flourishing days 
of the Republic. 
p. Turenne {see), the great French general 
SP. William HI. of England. CHAPTER X. 
LITERARY MEN. 
Those who are familiar with the appearance of great 
libraries, and have endeavoured to calculate the number 
of famed authors, whose works they include, cannot fail to 
be astonished at their multitude. The years go by : in 
every year, every nation produces literary works of sterling 
value, and stores of books have accumulated for centuries. 
Among the authors, who are the most eminent ? This is 
a question I feel incompetent to answer. It would not be 
difficult to obtain lists of the most notable literary cha- 
racters of particular periods, but I have found none that 
afford a compact and trustworthy selection of the great 
writers of all times. Mere popular fame in after ages is 
an exceedingly uncertain test of merit, because authors 
become obsolete. Their contributions to thought and 
language are copied and re-copied by others, and at length 
they become so incorporated into the current literature and 
expressions of the day, that nobody cares to trace them 
back to their original sources, any more than they interest 
themselves in tracing the gold converted into sovereigns; 
to the nuggets from which it was derived or to the gold- 
diggers who discovered the nuggets. 
Again: a man of fair ability who employs himself in 
literature turns out a great deal of good work. There is 
always a chance that some of it may attain a reputation LITERARY MEN. 
very far superior to its real merits, because the author may 
have something to narrate which the world wants to hear; 
or he may have had particular experiences which qualify 
him to write works of fiction, or otherwise to throw out 
views, singularly apposite to the wants of the time but of 
no importance in after years. Here, also, fame misleads. 
Under these circumstances, I thought it best not to 
occupy myself over-much with older times; otherwise, I 
should have been obliged to quote largely in justification 
of my lists of literary worthies: but rather to select authors 
of modern date, or those whose reputation has been freshly 
preserved in England. I have therefore simply gone through 
dictionaries, extracted the names of literary men whom I 
found the most prominent, and have described those who 
had decidedly eminent relations in my appendix. I have, 
therefore, left out several, whom others might with reason 
judge worthy to have appeared. My list is a very incon- 
gruous collection; for it includes novelists, historians, 
scholars, and philosophers. There are only two pecu- 
liarities common to all these men; the one is a desire 
of expressing themselves, and the other a love of ideas, 
rather than of material possessions. Mr, Disraeli, who is 
himself a good instance of hereditary literary power, in 
a speech at the anniversary of the Royal Literary Fund, 
May 6, 1868, described the nature of authors. His phrase 
epitomizes what has been graphically delineated in his own 
novels, and, I may add, in those of Sir Edward Bulwer 
Lytton, now Lord Lytton (who, with his brother Sir Henry 
Bulwer, and in his son “ Owen Meredith,” is a still more 
remarkable example of hereditary literary gifts than Mr. 
Disraeli). He said : “ The author is, as we must ever 
remember, a peculiar organization. He is a being with 
a predisposition which with him is irresistible—a bent 
which he cannot in any way avoid ; whether it drags him 
to the abstruse researches of erudition, or induces him LITERARY MEN. 
169 
to mount into the fervid and turbulent atmosphere of 
imagination.” The majority of the men described in the 
appendix to this chapter justify the description by Mr, 
Disraeli. Again, that the powers of many of them were 
of the highest order, no one can doubt. Several were 
prodigies in boyhood, as Grotius, Lessing, and Niebuhr; 
many others were distinguished in youth; Charlotte Bronte 
published “Jane Eyre” ast 22 ; Chateaubriand was of note 
at an equally early age; Fenelon made an impression 
when only 15 ; Sir Philip Sydney was of high mark before 
he was 21, and had acquired his great fame, and won 
the heart of the nation in a few more years, for he was 
killed in battle when only 32. I may add, that there are 
occasional cases of great literary men having been the 
reverse of gifted in youth. Boileau is the only instance 
in my appendix. He was a dunce at school, and dull till 
he was 30. But, among other literary men of whom I have 
notes, Goldsmith was accounted a dull child, and he was 
anything but distinguished at Dublin University. He 
began to write well aet. 32, Rousseau was thought a dunce 
at school, whence he ran away set. 16. 
It is a striking confirmation of what I endeavoured to 
prove in an early chapter—that the highest order of 
reputation is independent of external aids—to note how 
irregularly many of the men and women have been edu- 
cated whose names appear in my appendix—such as 
Boileau, the Bronte family, Chateaubriand, Fielding, the 
two Gramonts, Irving, Carsten Niebuhr, Person (in one 
sense), Roscoe, Le Sage, J. C. Scaliger, Sevigne, and Swift. 
I now give my usual table, but I do not specify with 
confidence the numbers of eminent literary people con- 
tained in the thirty-three families it includes. They 
have many literary relations of considerable merit, but 
I feel myself unable, for the reasons stated at the begin- 
ning of this chapter, to sort out those that are “ eminent * LITERAR Y MEN. 
from among them. The families of Taylor, both those of 
Norwich and those of Ongar, have been inserted as being 
of great hereditary interest, but only a few of their 
members (see Austen) are not summed up in the follow- 
ing table. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 52 LITERARY PERSONS. 
GROUPED INTO 33 FAMILIES. 
One relation {or two in the family). 
Addison .... 
. . F. 
Edgeworth . . 
Aikin 
. . b. 
Lamb .... 
. . b. 
2, 
Arnold .... 
. . S. 
2. 
Mill .... 
2. 
Bossuet .... 
2, 
Niebuhr , . . 
2. 
Champollion . 
. . B. 
Roscoe . . . 
Chateaubriand . . 
. . b. 
2. 
Scaliger . . . 
Two or three relations {or three or four in the family) 
Austen, Mrs. 
s. N. 
Lessing . . 
2 B. N. 
Bentham 
B. N. 
2. Palgrave 
2 S. 
Boileau . . 
2 S. 
Sage, Le . 
2 s. 
Bronte . . 
B. 2 b. 
3. Seneca . . 
F. B. N. 
3, Fenelon . . 
N. 2 NS. 
Sevigne . . 
S. 2 us. 
2. Gramont 
gB. B. P. 
2. Swift. . . 
UN. UP. UPS 
Helvetius . 
F. G. 
Trollope. • 
2 s. 
Four or more relations {or five or more in the family). 
Alison . . 
Fielding . 
2. Grotius 
. G. F. U. B. S. 
HaUaxn 
. F./2S.J. 
Macaulay . 
. G. F. 2 U. US. n. 
Person . . 
2. Schlegel 
. F. 2 U. B. 
2. Stael . . 
. G. F. U./. US. UP. 
2. Stephen . 
. F. B. 2 S. 
4, Stephens . 
Sidney . . 
. F. g. u. vuSl b. n. P, PS. &c. 
[Taylors of Norwich.] 
[Taylors of Ongar.] LITERARY MEN. 
TABLE IH 
Degrees of 
Kinship 
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letters. 
Father 
16 F. 
• •• 
••• 
l6 
48 
IOO 
48 
Brother 
14 B. 
... 
... 
H 
42 
150 
28 
Son 
x/ S. 
... 
... 
*7 
Si 
IOO 
5i 
Grandfather . • . 
4 G. 
4 S- 
... 
8 
24 
200 
12 
Uncle 
6 U. 
2 U. 
... 
8 
24 
400 
6 
Nephew .... 
6 N. 
2 n. 
... 
8 
24 
400 
6 
Grandson .... 
2P. 
I p. 
... 
3 
9 
200 
4-5 
Great-grandfather . 
0 GF. 
I gF. 
oGF. 
o/F. 
I 
3 
400 
I 
Great-uncle . . . 
oGB. 
2 gB. 
0 GB. 
o^B. 
2 
6 
800 
I 
First-cousin . . . 
4 US. 
2 uS. 
0 l/S. 
0 wS. 
6 
18 
800 
2-5 
Great-nephew . . 
2 NS. 
0 nS. 
oNS. 
0 «s. 
2 
6 
800 
I 
Great-grandson . . 
1 PS. 
0 pS. 
0 PS. 
0 /S. 
I 
3 
400 
I 
All more remote . . 
s 
... 
s 
IS 
O 
It would be both a tedious and an unnecessary task, if 
I applied the same tests to this table with the same minute- 
ness that they were applied to those inserted in previous 
chapters. Its contents are closely similar in their general 
character, and therefore all that can be derived from an 
analysis of the others may, with equal justice, be derived 
from this. The proportion of eminent grandsons is small, 
but the total number is insufficient to enable us to draw 
conclusions from that fact, especially as the number of 
eminent sons is not small in the same ratio. There are 
other minor peculiarities which will appear more distinctly 
when all the corresponding tables are collated and dis- 
cussed towards the end of the book. In the meantime, 
we may rest satisfied that an analysis of kinsfolk shows 
literary genius to be fully as hereditary as any other kind 
of ability we have hitherto discussed. 
1 See p. 61 for explanation. 172 
LITERARY MEN 
APPENDIX TO LITERARY MEN. 
The merits of literary men are so differently rated by their contemporaries 
and by posterity, that I gave up in despair the project of selecting a small list 
of first-class authors. I have, therefore, confined myself to the names of able 
writers that came most prominently in my way, and have occasionally inserted 
men who were not quite of the first class, but who were interesting in other 
respects. It is remarkable to find how little is known of the near kinsmen 
of many of the greatest literary men, especially of those who lived in ancient 
times ; and I have reason to think that our ignorance is in many cases due to 
mere historical neglect rather than to the fact of their abilities or achievements 
being unworthy of record. The general result of my inquiries is such as to 
convince me, that more than one-half of the great literary men have had 
kinsmen of high ability. 
The total number of names included in my list of kinships is thirty-seven. 
I will here add the names of those into whose lives I inquired, who do not 
appear to have had “ eminent ” relations ; they are nineteen in number, as 
follow ; 
Cervantes; De Foe (his son wrote, but was ridiculed by Pope); Fichte; 
La Fontaine; Genlis, Mme.; Gibbon (however, see Lord Chancellor Hard- 
wicke for a distant kinship); Goldsmith; Jeffrey; Samuel Johnson (but his 
father was not an ordinary man); Montaigne; Montesquieu; Rabelais; 
Richardson, the novelist; Rousseau; Scott, Sir W.; Sydney Smith; Smollett; 
Sterne; and Voltaire. 
Addison, Joseph; author of the Spectator, &c. He was well 
known to the great patrons of literature, set. 25. Was a 
most elegant writer. Secretary of State under George I. 
F. Launcelot Addison ; a divine of considerable learning and 
observation; Dean of Lichfield ; author. 
Aikin, John, M.D.; eminent physician and popular author of 
the last century, (“ Evenings at Home.”) 
b. Mrs. Barbauld, charming writer of children’s tales. 
[S.] Arthur Aikin, inherited much of his father’s literary talent, 
but was chiefly interested in science. Editor of the 
“ Annual Review.” 
[j.] Lucy Aikin, also authoress. LITERARY MEN, 
173 
Alison, Sir Archibald; author of “ History of Europe created 
a Baronet for his literary merits. 
B. Dr. William Pulteney Alison, Professor of Medicine in 
Edinburgh, and first Physician to the Queen in Scotland. 
F. Rev. Archibald, author of “ Essays on the Nature and 
Principles of Taste.” 
u. Dr. James Gregory, Professor of Medicine in Edinburgh, 
g. Dr. John Gregory, Professor of Philosophy and of Medicine 
in Aberdeen, afterwards of Medicine in Edinburgh. 
gB. and gF., also Professors of Medicine. 
gG. James Gregory, inventor of the reflecting telescope. See 
Gregory, under Science. 
Arnold, Thomas, D.D.; Head Master of Rugby; scholar, historian, 
divine, and administrator; founder of the modern system of 
public school education. Was stiff and formal as a child; 
hated early rising; became highly distinguished at Oxford, 
and was singularly beloved by those who knew him. 
S. Matthew Arnold, poet, and Professor of Poetry at Oxford. 
[Also other sons of more than average ability.] 
Austen, Sarah; author and translator. 
s. Lady Duff Gordon, author of “ Letters from Egypt,” &c. 
[5 B.] See Taylors of Norwich. 
N. Henry Reeve, editor of the “Edinburgh Review,” translator 
of De Tocqueville. 
Bentham, Jeremy; political and juridical writer; founder of a 
school of philosophy. 
B. General Sir Samuel Bentham, an officer of distinction in the 
Russian service, who had a remarkable mechanical genius. 
N. George, eminent modern botanist. President of the Linmean 
Society. 
Boileau, Nicholas (surnamed Despreaux); French poet, satirist, 
and critic. Was educated for the law, which he hated; 
showed no early signs of ability, but was dull until set. 30. 
As a boy he was thought a confirmed dunce. 
S. Gilles, an eminent literary man, writer of satires of great 
merit; had a lively wit. His health was bad; d. young, set. 38. 
S. Jacques, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, of great learning and 
ability. Author of various publications, all on singular 
.. subjects. LITERARY MEN. 
Bossuet, Jacques Benigne; one of the most famous of Papal 
controversialists against Protestantism ; was a laborious 
student. He was a priest, and therefore had no family. 
N, Bishop of Troyes ; editor of his uncle’s works. 
Bronte, Charlotte (her nom de plume was Currer Bell); novelist 
She was the most conspicuous member of a family re- 
markable for their intellectual gifts, restless mental activity, 
and wretched constitutions. Charlotte Bronte and her 
five brothers and sisters were all consumptive, and died 
young, “ Jane Eyre ” was published when Charlotte was 
set. 22. 
[F.] Rev. Patrick Bronte. Had been precocious and was am- 
bitious, though a clergyman of scanty means, in a rude, 
out-of-the-way village. 
[U. and U several.] Rev. Patrick Bronte had nine brothers and 
sisters, all remarkable for their strength and beauty. 
[/] Was refined, pious, pure, and modest. 
[?<'.] Was precise, old-looking, and dressed utterly out of fashion. 
B. Patrick, who went altogether astray, and became a grief to 
the family, was perhaps the greatest natural genius among 
them all. 
b. Emily Jane (Ellis Bell), “Wuthering Heights” and “Agnes 
Grey.” 
b. Anne (Acton Bell), “ Tenant of Wildfield Hall.” 
[2Maria and Jane; were almost as highly endowed with intel- 
lectual gifts as their sisters. 
Champollion, Jean Francois; interpreter of hieroglyphic 
writing, and author on Egyptian antiquities. He was one 
of the party of savans in Napoleon’s expedition. 
B. Jean Jacques, historian and antiquary. Author of several 
works. Librarian to the present Emperor of the French, 
Chateaubriand, Fr. Aug. Vicomte de; a distinguished French 
writer and a politician, but half mad ; his education was 
desultory, for he was first intended for the Navy, then for 
the Church, and then for the Army, He wholly abandoned 
himself to study and retirement, set. 20; afterwards he 
sought adventures in the unsettled parts of America. He 
served in several ministerial posts under Louis XVIII. 
He sank into despondency in advanced life. Most of his 
ten brothers and sisters died in youth; several of them LITERARY MEN. 
175 
resembled him in genius and disposition; one of them, 
viz.— 
b. Lucile, had the genius, the constitution, and the eccentricity 
of J. J. Rousseau. 
Edgeworth, Maria; a favourite authoress and moralist, whose 
writings exhibit “a singular union of sober sense and inex- 
haustible invention.” She was set. 31 when she began to 
write; d. set. 83. 
F. Richard Lovell Edgeworth {see Lovell the Judge), writer on 
various subjects, in much of which he was aided by his 
daughter; a wonderfully active man in body and mind; 
interested in everything, and irrepressible. Married four 
wives. There was forty years’ difference of age between 
the eldest and youngest of his numerous children. Maria 
was daughter of the first wife. 
Etienne. See Stephens. 
Pension, Frangois; Archbishop of Cambrai, in France; author 
of “ Tel<fmaque ;” remarkable for his graceful, simple, and 
charming style of composition; a man of singular serenity 
and Christian morality. He was very eloquent in the 
pulpit. He preached his first sermon set. 15, which had 
a great success, (Being a priest, he had no family.) 
?. Bertrand de Salagnac, Marquis de la Mothe, diplomatist, 
Ambassador to England in the time of Elizabeth, and a 
distinguished officer, was his ancestor (but qucere in what 
degree : he died seventy years before Francois was born). 
N. Gabriel Jacques Fenelon, Marquis de la Mothe, Ambassador 
of France to Holland; wrote “ Memoires Diplomatiques.” 
NS. Francois Louis, litterateur. 
NS. Abbe de Fenelon, head of a charitable establishment for 
Savoyards in Paris; greatly beloved. Was guillotined in 
the French Revolution. 
Fielding, Henry; novelist, author of “Tom Jones.” Byron 
calls him the “ prose Homer of human nature.” His 
education was desultory, owing to the narrow means of his 
father, then a Lieutenant, but afterwards General. Began 
play-writing set. 2r, was very dissipated, and reckless in 
money matters. Entered the Temple and studied law with 
ardour; wrote two valuable pamphlets on crime and 
pauperism, and was made a Middlesex Justice. LITERARY MEN. 
Fielding, Henry, continued— 
g. Sir Henry Gould, Justice Queen’s Bench. (Q, Anne.) 
uS. Sir Henry Gould, Justice Common Pleas. (Geo. III.) 
[G.] John Fielding, Chaplain to William HI. 
B, (Half brother.) Sir John Fielden, excellent magistrate, though 
blind. He wrote on police administration. 
Gramont, Anthony, Duke of; marshal of France; soldier and 
diplomatist; author of famous “ Memoirs,” but not quite 
so charming to read as those of his brother. 
b. Sarah, a woman of considerable learning, and an authoress. 
Cardinal Richelieu. See. 
B. Gramont, Philibert, Comte de; wit and courtier; d. set. 86. 
His memoirs, written by a friend, containing all his youthful 
escapades, were commenced for his amusement when he 
was set. 80. 
[S.] Armand, French general. 
P, Due de Gramont and Due de Guiche, marshal of France. 
Grotius, Hugo (de Groot); an illustrious and profound Dutch 
writer, statesman, and authority on international lav ; 
showed extraordinary abilities as a child; was educated 
carefully, and at set. 14 his learning attracted considerable 
notice. He was a man of great mark, and lived an eventful 
life; was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment for his 
Armenian religious opinions, but escaped, first to France, 
then to Sweden. He became ambassador from Sweden to 
France, in which capacity he did his duties in a trying time, 
with great credit. Ultimately he was received with high 
honours in Holland. He belonged to an eminently 
gifted and learned family. He married a woman of 
rare merit. 
G. Hugues de Groot, great scholar. 
F, John, Curator of the University of Leyden; a learned man. 
U. Corneille, professor both of philosophy and of law. 
B. William, who collected and edited Hugo’s Poems; was him- 
self a learned man and an author. 
S. Peter, able diplomatist and scholar. 
Hallam, Henry; one of the most distinguished of modern 
writers, and most just of critics; author of the “ Consti- 
tutional History of England ” and of the “ Literature of 
Europe;” was one of the earliest contributors to the LITERARY MEN.. 
Edinburgh Review. The epitaph on his own tomb is so 
condensed and just, and those written by himself on his 
children who died before him are so accurate as well 
as touching, that I insert them here. His own epitaph in 
St. Paul’s Cathedral is as follows : 
“ Henry Hallam, the historian of the Middle Ages, of the 
Constitution of his country, and of the Literature of Europe. 
This monument is raised by many friends, who, regarding 
the soundness of his learning, the simple eloquence of his 
style, his manly and capacious intellect, the fearless honesty 
of his judgments, and the moral dignity of his life, desire 
to perpetuate his memory within these sacred walls, as of 
one who has best illustrated the English language, the 
English character, and the English name.” 
He had a vigorous constitution; his massive head was well 
carried by a robust frame ; he was precocious as a child ; 
could read well at 4 years old, and wrote sonnets at 9 or 
10; d. set. 82. Married a sister of Sir Charles Elton, Bart; 
he was author of poems and translations. 
F John Hallam, D.D., Dean of Bristol, Canon of Windsor; 
declined the Bishopric of Chester; educated at Eton ; the 
son and the only child that lived beyond childhood, of 
John Hallam, surgeon, twice Mayor of Boston. 
f Daughter of Richard Roberts, M.D.; was a very superior 
person, somewhat over-anxious; she resembled her son 
in features ; had only two children that lived. 
u. Dr. Roberts, Provost of Eton, 
[A] Elizabeth ; had great intellectual taste. 
S. Arthur Henry, d. set. 23 ; the subject of Tennyson’s “In 
Memoriam.” His epitaph at Clevedon is as follows:— 
“ And now, in this obscure and solitary church, repose the 
mortal remains of one too early lost for public fame, but 
already distinguished among his contemporaries for the 
brightness of his genius, the depth of his understanding, 
the nobleness of his disposition, the fervour of his piety, 
and the purity of his life. Vale dulcissime, desideratissime. 
Requiescas in pace usque ad tubam.” 
/. Eleanor Hallam, d. set. 21. “ Her afflicted parents, bending 
under this second bereavement, record here that loveliness 
of temper and that heavenly-minded piety which are lost LITERARY MEN. 
to them, but are gone to their own reward.” She had 
great abilities. 
S. Hemy Fitzmaurice Hallam, d. set. 26. “In whose clear 
and vivid understanding, sweetness of disposition, and 
purity of life, an image of his elder brother was before 
the eyes of those who had most loved him. Distinguished, 
like him, by early reputation, and by the affection of many 
friends, he was, like him also, cut off by a short illness in 
a foreign land.” 
Helvetius, Claude Adrian (Schweitzer) (1715-1771). The 
celebrated and persecuted author of a materialistic philo- 
sophy. He was universally accomplished; handsome, 
graceful, robust, and full of genius. By set. 23 he had 
obtained a farmer-generalship in France. liecame a refugee 
in England and elsewhere. He married a charming lady— 
Mdlle. de Ligueville, whom, it is said, both Franklin and 
Turgot desired to marry in her widowhood. He had two 
daughters. 
F. John Claude Adrian, physician of great eminence in Paris; 
Inspector-General of Hospitals; was liberal and benevolent 
G. Jean Adrian, Dutch physician, who died in Paris; was 
Inspector-General of Hospitals. It was he who first 
showed the importance of ipecacuanha as a medicine. 
Irving, Washington; American author, novelist, and historian; 
was minister to Spain; had weak health; was educated by 
his elder brothers; had desultory habits; his means were 
ample. 
[2B.] His brothers were men of considerable literary attainments; 
one of them conducted the New York Chronicle. 
Lamb, Charles (“ Essays of Elia”); a quaint and genial humorist; 
dearly beloved. 
b. A sister, who, in a fit of insanity, murdered her mother, and 
whom Charles Lamb watched with the utmost solicitude. 
She ultimately recovered her reason, and was then described 
by those who knew her, as of a strong intellect and of a 
heart the counterpart of her brother’s in humanity. She 
was authoress of many pieces that are published in her 
brother’s works. 
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim; a universal writer, who added 
immensely to the stores of German literature. He was LITERARY MEN. 
179 
a devourer of books from his earliest childhood. His 
health broke rapidly set. 50. 
B. Karl Gotthelf, 'v 
B. Johann Gottlieb, were all distinguished as literary men. 
N. Karl Friedrich, j 
Macaulay, Thomas Babington ; created Lord Macaulay; his- 
torian, poet, essayist, and conversationalist; a man of 
transcendent power of memory. 
G. Rev. John Macaulay, Scotch minister at Inverary; most 
eloquent preacher; mentioned in Dr. Johnson’s Tour. 
F. Zachary, slave abolitionist; very able; a lucid and rapid 
writer, but singularly wanting in facility of oratorical ex- 
pression. 
U. Colin Macaulay, general. Was the right-hand man of the 
Duke of Wellington, in his Indian campaigns. He governed 
for many years a large part of the Madras Presidency, and, 
in spite of his active life, was a first-rate scholar both in 
ancient and modern literature. He was constantly men- 
tioned in contemporary literature as a wonder for his 
erudition and abilities. 
U. Aulay Macaulay, brilliant conversationalist; wrote much 
of value, that remains unfinished and unprinted; tutor to 
Caroline of Brunswick; d. in prime of life. 
[US.] (Son of Aulay.) John Heyrick, Head Master of Repton, 
a good scholar. 
US. Kenneth Macaulay, M.P. for Cambridge, was the son of 
the above. There were also other brothers who had ability. 
n. George Trevelyan, M.P., Junior Lord of the Treasury (son 
of Sir Charles Trevelyan, statesman), was second classic of 
his year (1861) at Cambridge; author of “ Cawnpore,” &c. 
Mill, James ; historian of British India. 
S. John Stuart Mill, the eminent modern philosopher and poli- 
tical writer. 
Niebuhr, Barthold George; historical critic (“Roman His- 
tory ”); afterwards a financial statesman. All his time was 
devoted to study. He had a fair education. ZEt. 7 he 
was considered a prodigy of application ; but his consti- 
tution was weak and nervous, and further injured by a 
marsh fever. Macaulay (Preface, “ Lays of Ancient 
Rome ”) says, Niebuhr would have been the first writer ol LITERARY MEN. 
his age if his talent in communicating truths had been 
more in proportion to his talent in discovering them. He 
was Prussian Ambassador at Rome. 
F. Carsten Niebuhr, a celebrated traveller and writer on 
Arabia. His father had been a farmer. Both parents 
died when he was a child, and he had to work as a 
labourer, and was almost uneducated, till set. 21. Thence- 
forward he zealously educated himself. Died set. 82. 
[S.] Marcus, a high official in the Prussian civil service. 
Palgrave, Sir Francis; historian and antiquary, especially of 
the Anglo-Saxon period. Married a Dawson-Turner (see 
Hooker in “ Science ”). 
S. Francis; literature and art (“ Golden Treasury ”). 
S, Giffard ; orientalist and traveller in Arabia. 
Person, Richard; eminent Greek scholar and critic. From 
childhood, his mother used to say, whatever Richard did, 
was done in a superior manner. He spun better yam 
than his brothers or sisters, and yet he had always a book 
lying open before him while he was spinning. Before he 
could write, he had taught himself, from an old book, as 
far as the cube root in arithmetic. As he grew up his 
memory became stupendous. He had unwearied appli- 
cation, great acuteness, strong sound sense, a lively 
perception both of the beautiful and the ludicrous, and 
a most pure and inflexible sense of truth. He had 
great bodily strength; was often known to walk from 
Cambridge to London, a distance of fifty-two miles, to 
attend his club in the evening, not being able to afford 
the coach fare. Got drunk occasionally, as was not an 
infrequent custom in his day, but he ended by doing so 
habitually. 
F. A weaver and parish clerk, a man of excellent sense and 
great natural powers of arithmetic. 
f A housemaid at the clergyman’s, who read his books on 
the sly. He found her one day at Shakespeare, and dis- 
covered, to his amazement, that she had a sound know- 
ledge of the book, and of very much else, so he helped 
her as he best could. She had a remarkable memory. 
B. Thomas. In the opinion of Dr, Davy, the then Master of 
Caius College, Cambridge, who was intimately acquainted LITERARY MEN. 
181 
with both brothers, he was fully the equal of Richard in 
scholastic ability. He kept a classical school, but died 
set. 24. 
b. Had the wonderful Person memory. She married and had 
children, but they were of no mark whatever. 
[B.] Henry; a good arithmetician, who had no inclination for 
literature. Died set. 33. 
Roscoe, William; historian and poet (“Life of Lorenzo de 
Medici ”); son of a market gardener, educated at a 
common school; placed with a bookseller, then at an 
attorney’s office, where he taught himself. Began to be 
known set. 30. Became a banker; founded the Royal 
Institution at Liverpool; was M.P. for that place. Died 
set. 78. 
S. Henry; wrote his lather’s life. “ Lives of Eminent Lawyers.” 
[S.] Robert; was a lawyer; wrote the epic “Alfred.” 
[S.] Thomas; wrote several poems and tales, and illustrated 
works of travel. 
Le Sage ; novelist (“ Gil Bias ”); was an only son, and early an 
orphan. He became a handsome and engaging youth; 
he married at 26, and worked hard. His first success was 
the “ Diable Boiteux,” set. 39. He was 67 when the last 
volume of “ Gil Bias ” appeared. He began to be deaf at 
40, and at last his deafness became complete. He had 
three sons, as follow: 
S, Rene-Andre (Montmenil) was an abbe, but broke away 
from the Church and joined the stage, to his father’s great 
grief. He was an excellent comedian. The father saw 
him act, and forgave him. He died young and suddenly. 
S. A canon. He was a jolly fellow, with whom Le Sage spent 
his last days. He enjoyed life, and loved theatricals, and 
would have made an excellent comedian. 
[S.] Became a bad actor, and died in obscurity. 
Scaliger, Julius Caesar; scholar and natural philosopher (1484 
-1558, set. 64); was of doubtful parentage. He served 
in the army till set. 29, then studie4 theology, which he 
abandoned for medicine, and then began to learn Greek. 
He commenced his studies so late in life, that none of his 
works were published till set. 47. He was one of the 
most extraordinary men of his age. He had a most tena- LITERARY MEN. 
cious memory and sound understanding, but was exces- 
sively irritable and vain, and made enemies. Scholars of 
subsequent ages have vied in panegyrising him, but his 
fame as a scholar and critic, though very great in his own 
days, was far eclipsed by that of his son Joseph, 
S. Joseph Justus Scaliger. See below. 
Scaliger, Joseph Justus; scholar and critic (1540-1609, aet. 69). 
Was well educated, and he read intensely on his own 
account. He was one of that constellation of great 
scholars who ornamented the University of Leyden at 
the end of the sixteenth century. He was wholly 
absorbed in study. He never married. Was irritable 
and vain, like his father. As a critic he is considered 
to have been pre-eminent, and there are very few 
scholars who can be compared with him. 
F. Julius Caesar Scaliger. See above. 
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von; celebrated German scholar, 
critic, and poet; a translator of Shakespeare, and of 
Indian literature. At an early age he showed remarkable 
aptitude for languages. His fault, if any, was that of 
aiming too much at universality. He attached himself to 
Madame de Stael, and entirely abandoned himself to her 
intellectual influence. Died set. 78, He and his brother 
have been called the “literary Dioscures” of their day. 
His grandfather was Councillor of the Court of Appeal 
of Meissen. He educated his children—the father and 
the uncles—carefully. 
F. Jean Adolphe ; preacher of repute, also writer of poems. 
U. Jean Elie; poet, dramatist, and critic. “He is without 
exception the best dramatic author that Germany produced 
during the first half of the eighteenth century.” Died 
set. 31, overworked. 
U. Jean Henri; Danish Historiographer Royal. Resided in 
Copenhagen. 
B. Friedrich Carl Wilhelm von Schlegel. See below. 
Schlegel, Friedrich Carl Wilhelm von; historian, philosopher, 
and philologist. Was not precocious as a child, but 
became strongly drawn to literature when a youth. He 
lectured on the philosophy of history and language, edited, 
wrote poems, and at last became a diplomatic official LITERARY MEN. 
183 
under Metternich, who was his constant pation. Died 
aet. 57. 
F. U. U. As above. 
B. August Wilhelm von Schlegel. See above. 
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus; Roman philosopher; educated for 
rhetoric, but his taste rebelled against it, and he devoted 
himself to philosophy. His noble sentiments and grand 
stoicism have greatly influenced even the Christian world, 
for Seneca was formerly much read and admired. He 
amassed an immense fortune, no one knows how, but it is 
suspected by equivocal means. He was the tutor of Nero, 
and naturally has not acquired much credit by his pupil, 
who put him to death set. 63. 
F. Marcus Annaeus Seneca; rhetorician and author. He was 
a man of prodigious memory; he could repeat two thousand 
words in the order he heard them. Married a Spanish 
lady. 
B. Marcus Novatus, who took the name Junius Gallio, and 
became proconsul of Achaia. It was before his tribunal 
that St. Paul was brought, on the accusation of introducing 
innovations in religious matters. Eusebius describes him 
as a distinguished rhetorician, and his brother calls him 
the most tolerant of men. 
N. Lucanus Marcus Annaeus (Lucan), the poet. His “ Phar- 
salia” is the only one of his works that has reached us. 
His father, the brother of Seneca, married the daughter of 
Lucanus, an eminent orator, from whom the son took 
his name. 
Sevigne, Marquise de (bom Marie de Rabutin Chantal); 
authoress of charming letters. She was unsurpassed, per- 
haps unequalled, as a letter-writer. Her father was killed 
in battle when she was an infant, her mother died when 
she was aet. 6. She was an only child. Married, not 
happily, to a profligate man, who was killed in a duel on 
account of another lady. She wrote well before her 
widowhood, but not much; then she retired from the 
world to educate her children, and reappeared aet. 27, 
when she shone in society. Society improved, and did 
not spoil her. Her daughter married the Lieutenant- 
Governor of Provence, and it was to her that the famous LITERARY MEN. 
letters were written. She had a joyous nature, beauty, 
grace, and wit; nothing concealed; all open as day. 
Even while living, her letters were celebrated in the Court 
and in society; they were handed about and read with 
infinite pleasure. 
S. Marquis de Sevigne; a man of much ability and courage, 
who ended a restless and somewhat dissipated life in the 
practice of devotion, under the direction of ecclesiastics. 
He had not sufficient perseverance to succeed in anything. 
US. Bussy-Rambutin; a very excellent soldier, adventurous, 
rash, and somewhat dissipated. Would certainly have 
been made Marshal of France but for his ill-natured, 
caustic personalities, which led to his exile, and loss of all 
hope of advancement. He was an excellent letter-writer. 
He was really a man of great literary power, who improved 
the French language. 
There was a great deal more of sporadic talent in the family 
of Madame de Sevigne, but it never elsewhere achieved a 
full success. 
Stael, Anne Germaine de; one of the most distinguished writers 
of her age. She was an only child. When quite young, 
she interested herself vastly in the philosophy and politics 
talked at her father’s table. Then she overworked herself, 
set. 15, partly urged on in her studies by her mother. 
After a serious illness she became quite altered, and was 
no longer a pedantic child, but full of abandon and charm. 
She married twice, and had three children. 
G. Charles Frederick Necker, a German legal and political 
writer, who settled in Geneva, where a chair of law was 
instituted for him. 
F. Jacques Necker, the celebrated French statesman and finance 
minister of Louis XVI. Had a strong natural bias for 
literature; set. 18, showed remarkable aptitude for busi- 
ness ; was intensely fond of his daughter, and she of him. 
U Louis Necker, Professor of Mathematics at Geneva. He 
began by banking in Paris, and had much success in his 
speculations, both there and afterwards at Marseilles, but 
the troubled state of France determined him to return 
to Geneva. 
/ Susanna Curchod ; Gibbon had wished to marry her. She LITERARY MEN. 
was a precocious child; singularly well read, a distinguished 
wit, but pedantic. She was a vigorous Calvinist. It is 
a wonder she did not stifle her daughter’s wit. 
US. Jacques Necker, son of Louis, Professor of Botany at 
Geneva; married a daughter of De Saussure the geologist. 
UP. Louis Albert, son of Jacques and grandson of De Saussure, 
Professor of Geology and Mineralogy in Geneva. (See a 
long memoir of him, by Dr. James David Forbes, in an 
Address to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1863.) 
Stephen, Right Hon. Sir James; historian (“Essays in Eccle- 
siastical Biography ”) ; Under Secretary of State for the 
Colonies. 
F. John Stephen, Master in Chancery; a leading slave abo- 
litionist. 
B. Henry John Stephen, eminent legal writer (“Stephen on 
Pleading ”). 
[B.] Sir George, barrister, successful novelist (“Adventures of 
an Attorney in search of Practice ”). 
S. Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C., author of “ Criminal Law;” large 
contributor to periodical literature. 
S. Rev. Leslie Stephen., also a well-known contributor to perio- 
dical literature; mountaineer, president of the Alpine Club 
Stephens, Robert (or Etienne), was the first eminent member 
of a family of the most illustrious scholars and printers that 
has ever appeared. It must be recollected that in the 
early days of printing, all printers were scholars. Robert 
was an extraordinary scholar, exceedingly precocious, 
considered by his contemporaries greater than any other 
scholar. He printed the Bible in many forms, was perse- 
cuted, and driven to Geneva. Married Petronella (see below). 
B. Charles, a sound classic, but chiefly attached to physical 
science, medicine, and natural history. 
S. Henry. See below. 
S. Robert (2); was worthy of his father in his activity and in 
the accuracy of his editions. 
N. Nicole, no less celebrated for her beauty than for her talents 
and accomplishments. 
Stephens, Henry (or Etienne), the greatest of the whole 
family. He was exceedingly precocious. He invested a 
large part of his fortune in costly preparations lor his 186 
LITERARY MEN. 
Greek Lexicon, which one of his employes, Scapula, 
pirated from him in the form of an abridgment. Through 
this piece of roguery Stephens became greatly embarrassed, 
and died poor, but Scapula made a fortune. 
F. Robert. See above. 
g. Jodocus Badius, celebrated scholar and printer. 
f Petronella, a woman of great talents and literary accom- 
plishments. 
B. Robert (2). See above. 
Uj. Nicole. See above. 
Henry, b. about 1470, 
a printer in Paris. 
1 1 
F rancis. Robert. = Petronella, dau. of Jodocus 
j Radius, scholar and printer. 
Cha 
rles. 
Francis. 
1 I 
Henry, ruined Robert. 
by Scapula, d. poor. 
Nic 
DDE, 
1 
Paul, 
printed with zeal 
and energy, but 
did not succeed. 
1 
1 
Florence. = 
= Isaac Robert, 
Casaubon printer. 
(see descrip- 
tion below). 
1 
Henry, 
Treasurer of 
the Royal 
palace. 
1 
Anthony, 
Royal printer, 
died in Hotel Dieu. 
I 
Meric O 
and numei 
chik 
VSAUBON, 
ous other 
ren. 
1 
Henry, 
some reputa- 
tion as a poet. 
1 
Henry, 
died in father’s life. 
Isaac Casaubon, whose name appeals in the above list, was 
a learned Swiss divine and critic; professor of Greek at 
Geneva set. 23, and subsequently at Paris. He passed 
the last years of his life in England, where he was highly 
esteemed, and was made Prebend of Westminster and was 
highly pensioned by James I. 
p. Meric Casaubon, his son, was equally eminent, but seems 
to have shrunk from public service. He was in vain 
solicited by Cromwell to write the history of the war, 
and by Christina, Queen of Sweden, to superintend the 
universities in her kingdom. 
Swift, Jonathan, D.D.; Dean of St. Patrick’s; satirist, politician. 
Was tall, muscular, and well-made; had attacks of giddi- 
mess all his life. Educated by help of his uncles, at Trinity LITERARY MEN. 
187 
College, Dublin, where he was idle. Then he became 
secretary to Sir Wm. Temple, who had married a relation 
of his mother, and began to work seriously get. 21. Lost 
his mind get. 69, d. get. 78 of water on the brain. 
Several of the Swift family, in. some distant degrees, have 
had abilities. Thus— 
£N. Dryden the poet. 
UP. Deane Swift, biographer of Dean Swift. 
UPS. Theophilus Swift, son of above ; political writer. 
Sydney, Sir Philip; scholar, soldier, and courtier. “ A gentle- 
man finished and complete, in whom mildness was asso- 
ciated with courage, erudition modified by refinement, and 
courtliness dignified by truth.” Was grave as a boy. He 
left Cambridge aet, 18 with a high reputation, and at once 
became a courtier, and a very successful one, owing to his 
1 accomplishments and figure. His “Arcadia” is a work 
of rare genius, though cast in an unfortunate mould. It 
had an immense reputation in its day. He was killed in 
battle get. 32, and was mourned in England by a general 
mourning,—the first, it is believed, of the kind in this 
country. (See also the genealogical tree under Montagu, 
in “ Judges,” p. 97.) 
Sir William Sydney, 
Soldier and knight 
of renown. 
1 
John Dudley, Earl of Warwick 
and Duke of Northumberland ; Earl 
Marshal. “ The minion of his time.” 
1 
I 1 
Lucy, marr. Sir Henry Sydney, = 
Sir James three times Lord 
Harrington. Deputy of Ireland. 
1 . ! 
= Mary Sir Robt. Dudley, 
Dudley, the great Earl of 
Leicester. 
William 
1st E. Pembroke, 
Statesman and 
soldier. 
1 
Sir Philip Sydney, 
Scholar, soldier, 
courtier. 
1 1 
Sir Robert, Mary. = 
1st Earl Leicester, Epitaph by 
Soldier & courtier, Benjonson. 
=2d Earl Pembroke. 
Sir Robert, 2d Earl. 3d Earl 
“ Learning, observation, Patron 
and veracity.” 
5embroke, 
of letters. 
Philip Sydney, 
3d Earl, 
one of Cromwell’s 
Council. 
Algernon Sydney, Dorothy, 
Patriot. Waller’s 
Beheaded, 1683. “ Saccharissa.” LITERARY MEN. 
Sydney, Sir Philip, continued— 
F. Sir Henry Sydney, a man of great parts, much considered 
by both Mary and Elizabeth; was three times Lord 
Deputy of Ireland, and governed wisely. 
[G ] Sir William Sydney, a soldier and knight of some renown 
in the time of Henry VIII. 
g. John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumber- 
land, “ the minion of his time Earl-Marshal of England, 
and the most powerful of subjects; attainted and be- 
headed 1553. 
u. Sir Robert Dudley, the great Earl of Leicester, the favourite 
of Queen Elizabeth. 
uS. Sir Robert (son of the great Earl of Leicester, but not 
enjoying the title), was “a complete gentleman in all 
suitable employments, an exact seaman, an excellent 
architect, mathematician, physician, chemist, and what not. 
... A handsome personable man, .. . noted for ... tilting, 
and for his being the first of all that taught a dog to sit, 
in order to catch partridges.” (Anthony Wood, as quoted 
in Burke’s “ Extinct Peerages.”) 
b. Mary, Countess of Pembroke; was of congenial tastes and 
qualities with her brother, who dedicated his “Arcadia” 
to her. Was the subject of Ben Jonson’s well-known 
epitaph: 
“ Underneath this sable hearse 
Lies the subject of all verse, 
Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother. 
Death, ere thou hast slain another 
Wise and fair and good as she. 
Time shall throw a dart at thee.” 
n. 3d Earl of Pembroke, Chancellor of Oxford ; a scholar, 
poet, and patron of learned men. 
[B.] Sir Robert Sydney, created Earl of Leicester, (There 
almost seems a fatality attached to this title, judging from 
the number of times it has been re-created ; no less than 
six different families have held it and become extinct.) 
He was a soldier of some renown. 
P. Sir Robert Sydney, 2d Earl of Leicester; a man of great 
learning, observation, and veracity. 
PS, Algernon Sydney, the patriot, beheaded 1683. He had 
great natural ability, but was too rough and boisterous to LITERARY MEN. 
189 
bear contradiction. He studied the history of government 
in all its branches, and had an intimate knowledge of men 
and their tempers. Was of extraordinary courage and 
obstinacy. 
[Pr.] Dorothy, Waller’s “ Saccharissa.” 
Up. Sir Henry Montagu, Ist Earl of Manchester, Ch. Just. King’s 
Bench. See Montagu (in Judges) for this most remark- 
able family, whose high qualities appear to have been 
mainly derived through an infusion of the Sydney blood, 
inasmuch as of the vast number of the other descendants 
of the first Ch. Just. Montagu in Henry VIII.’s reign, no 
line was distinguished except this that had mixed its 
blood with that of the Sydneys. 
3 I7pS. Baron Kimbolton; Walter Montagu, Abbot of Pontoise; 
and the Ist Earl Sandwich, the great admiral. 
8 UpY. Ist Duke of Montagu; William Montagu, Ch. Baron 
Exchequer; Charles Montagu, Ist E. of Halifax; Francis 
North, Ist Lord Guilford, Lord Chancellor; and his three 
brothers; Charles Hatton, “ the incomparable.” 
Still more could be said, but I refer the reader to the 
Montagu genealogy. 
Taylors of Norwich. This family—Mrs. Austen being the most 
eminent among its deceased members—contains a large 
number of well-known names. The Martineau section 
also includes a large amount of diffused ability, much more 
than would be supposed from the scanty records in the 
annexed diagram. Many of its members have attained 
distinction in the law, in the arts, and in the army. The 
Nonconformist element runs strong, in the blood of the 
Martineaus and Taylors. 
(1) (See pedigree oji next page.) The five sons were— 
John and Philip Taylor, both of them men of science. 
Richard, editor of the “ Diversions of Purley ” and of the 
Philosophical Magazine. 
Edward, Gresham Professor of Music. 
Arthur, F.S.A., author of “The Glory of Regality.” 
(2) The three grandsons are— 
Edgar Taylor, an accomplished writer on legal subjects, and 
translator of Grimm’s “ Popular Tales.” 
Emily, a pleasing poetess. LITERARY MEN. 
Taylors of Norwich, continued— 
Richard, geologist, author of “ Statistics of Coal.” 
(3) Colonel Meadows Taylor, writer on Indian affairs. 
> 
1 
< Sir Philip Meadows, 
one of the Latin Secretaries 
under the Commonwealth, 
Dr. John Taylor, 
author of “ Hebrew 
Concordance,” &c. 
< 
f 
X = Dau. 
1 
Dau. = David Martineau 
1 
1 1 
X X > 
1 1 
Gr. -son. Gr. -sons. 
(3) (2) 
< 
( 
Philip M. > 
Distinguished 
surgeon. 
< 
1 1 
5 sons. Dau. = 
(I) 
= Dr. Reeve. 
I I 
Sarah, Harriet M. 
author and trans. Theology and 
mar, J. Austen, philosophy. 
1 
Rev. James M. 
Unitarian write* 
and preacher. 
Henry 
Edit 
Edinb. 
Reeve, Lady Duff Gordon, 
or of “ Letters from 
Review, Egypt,” &c. 
Taylors of Ongar. This family is remarkable from the univer- 
sality with which its members have been pervaded with 
Isaac Taylor, 
came to London with an artist’s ambition, 
and became a reputable engraver. 
Charles Taylor, 
a learned recluse, 
editor of 
Calmet’s Bible. 
Rev. Isaac Taylor, = 
author of “ Scenes in 
Europe,” &c.; educated 
as an engraver, and far 
surpassed his father in 
ability. 
= Ann Martyn, 
author of 
“The Family 
Mansion.” 
Josiah Taylor, 
eminent publisher 
of architectural 
works, and made 
a large fortune. 
1 1 1 
Ann and Jane Taylor, Isaac Taylor, Martyn 
joint authors of author of 
“ Original Poems.” “ Natural History 
Ann war. Rev. Joseph of Enthusiasm.” 
Gilbert. 
Taylor. 
1 
Jeffreys Taylor, 
author of “ Ralph 
Richards,” “Young 
Islanders,” &c. 
Josiah Gilbert, 
author of 
“The Dolomite 
Mountains.” 
Rev. Isaac Taylor, 
author of “ Words 
and Places,” and of 
“The Family Pen.” 
Helen' 
auth 
“ Sal 
Bel 
Taylor, 
or of 
>bath 
Is.” LITERARY MEN. 
191 
a restless literary talent, evangelical disposition, and an 
artistic taste. The type seems to be a very decided one, 
and to be accompanied with constitutional vigour; thus 
Mrs. Gilbert died a short time since at the advanced age 
of 84. None of its members have attained the highest 
rank among authors, but several are considerably above 
the average. The accompanying genealogical tree, taken 
from “ The Family Pen,” by the Rev. I. Taylor, explains 
their relationships. 
I should add that Mr. Tom Taylor, dramatic author, &c., is 
not a relation of either of these families. 
Trollope, Mrs. Frances; novelist of considerable power. 
[F-] Rev. Miller, an able man. 
S. Anthony Trollope, eminent novelist. 
S. Thomas Adolphus Trollope, miscellaneous writer. 
ADDENDA TO PAGE 173. 
Austen, Jane; “Pride and Prejudice,” “Sense and Sensibility,” 
&c. An abundance of sterling ability exists among her 
relations. 
gB. Dr. Theophilus Leigh, master of Baliol for nearly half a 
century; overflowing with puns, witticisms, and sharp 
retorts. 
[F.] A good scholar. 
[/.] had strong common sense and a lively imagination. 
[B.] Henry, had great conversational powers. 
B. Francis, G. C. 8., senior admiral of the fleet. 
[B.] Charles, also an admiral; dearly beloved by those whom he 
[$ NS.] 5 brothers, sons of the Rev. J. E. Austen Leigh, the 
biographer of his aunt. They have all been fellows Of 
their respective colleges, at Oxford or Cambridge; four 
of them were university prizemen, and two were Newcastle 
medallists at Eton. 
commanded. CHAPTER XI. 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
My choice of Men of Science, like that of the men of 
literature, may seem capricious. They were both governed 
to some extent by similar considerations, and therefore the 
preface to my last chapter is in a great degree applicable 
to this. There is yet another special difficulty in the 
selection of a satisfactory first-class of scientific men. 
The fact of a person’s name being associated with some 
one striking scientific discovery helps enormously, but 
often unduly, to prolong his reputation to after ages. *lt is 
notorious that the same discovery is frequently made simul- 
taneously and quite independently, by different persons. 
Thus, to speak of only a few cases in late years, the dis- 
coveries of photography, of electric telegraphy, and of the 
planet Neptune through theoretical calculations, have all 
their rival claimants. It would seem, that discoveries are 
usually made when the time is ripe for them—that is to 
say, when the ideas from which they naturally flow are 
fermenting in the minds of many men. When apples are 
ripe, a trifling event suffices to decide, which of them shall 
first drop off its stalk; so a small accident will often 
determine the scientific man who shall first make and 
publish a new discovery. There are many persons who 
have contributed vast numbers of original memoirs, all of 
them of some, many of great, but none of extraordinary 
importance. These men have the capacity of making a MEN OF SCIENCE. 
striking discovery, though they had not the luck to do so. 
Their work is valuable, and remains, but the worker is 
forgotten. Nay, some eminently scientific men have shown 
their original powers by little more than a continuous flow 
of helpful suggestions and criticisms, which were individually 
of too little importance to be remembered in the history 
of Science, but which, in their aggregate, formed a notable 
aid towards its progress. In the scanty history of the once 
well-known “ Lunar Society ” of the Midland Counties—of 
which Watt, Boulton, and Darwin were the chief nota- 
bilities—there is frequent allusion to a man of whom 
nothing more than the name now remains, but who had 
apparently very great influence on the thoughts of his 
contemporaries—l mean Dr. Small. Or, to take a more 
recent case, I suppose that Dr. Whewell would be generally 
ranked in the class Gof natural ability. His intellectual 
energy was prodigious, his writing unceasing, and his 
conversational powers extraordinary. Also, few will doubt 
that, although the range of his labours was exceedingly 
wide and scattered, Science in one form or another was 
his chief pursuit. His influence on the progress of Science 
during the earlier years of his life was, I believe, consider- 
able, but it is impossible to specify the particulars of that 
influence, or so to justify our opinion that posterity will be 
likely to pay regard to it. Biographers will seek in vain for 
important discoveries in Science, with which Dr. WheweU’s 
name may hereafter be identified. 
Owing to these considerations, the area of my choice is 
greatly narrowed. I can only include those scientific men 
who have achieved an enduring reputation, or who are 
otherwise well known to the present generation. I have 
proceeded in my selection just as I did in the case of the 
literary men—namely, I have taken the most prominent 
names from ordinary biographical dictionaries. 
I now annex my usual tables. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
194 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 65 SCIENTIFIC MEN, 
GROUPED INTO 43 FAMILIES. 
One relation (or two in family). 
Ampere . . . 
. . . S. 
2. Hooker. , . , 
Buckland . . . 
. . . S. 
Humboldt . . . 
Cavendish . . . 
• • • gB. 
Linnaeus . . . 
z Cuvier .... 
. , . B. 
Pliny .... 
Davy .... 
. . . B. 
Porta .... 
. . B. 
Galilei .... 
. . . F. 
2. Stephenson . . 
Harvey .... 
. . . Up. 
Watt .... 
Two or three relations (or three or four in family). 
Aristotle . . . 
. F. P. UP. 
Haller 
Buffon .... 
. /S. 
2. 
Herschel .... 
6. S. 
2. Celsius .... 
. S. P. 
2. 
Hunter 
Condorcet . . . 
U. 2? 
Huyghens .... 
F. B. 
2. Darwin .... 
. 2 S. P. 
Leibnitz .... 
g. F. u. 
2. De Candolle . . 
. F. S. 
Napier 
F. S. 
Euler .... 
3 S. 
3- 
Newton and Huttons 
2 «Pp. 
Forbes .... 
f B. 
Oersted 
B, N. 
Franklin . . . 
. 2 PS. 
2. 
Saussure .... 
F. S. 
Geoffrey . . . 
B. S. 
Four or more relations (or five or more in family). 
Arago . . 
3 B. 2 S. 
Bacon . . 
. F. f. g. «S. 2 B. N. 
4. Bernoulli 
B. 3 N. 3 NS. 2 ? 
Boyle. . . 
F. f g. 2 US. UP. 4 B. 2 NS. 2 NP. 
2. Brodie . . 
. «S. «P. s. 
3. Cassini . . 
G. F. S. P. 
D’Alembert. 
f u. 2 «S. 
4. Gmelin . . 
F. U. US. S. 
Gregory . . 
g. f gB. B. 3 N. NS. NS. S. 2 P. PS. 2 Pp. 
3. Jussieu . . 
3 U. S, MEN OF SCIENCE. 
TABLE II.1 
Degrees of Kinship. 
A. 
B. 
C. 
D 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letter. 
" , Father .... 
n F. 
II 
26 
IOO 
26 
y J Brother .... 
20 B. 
20 
47 
*50 
3* 
1 Son 
26 s. 
26 
60 
IOO 
60 
"> 1 Grandfather . , 
I G. 
5 g- 
6 
14 
200 
7 
sj Uncle . . . . 
su. 
2 U. 
7 
l6 
400 
4 
•o Nephew.... 
8 N. 
2 n. 
IO 
23 
400 
6 
°* \ Grandson . . . 
6 P. 
op. 
6 
14 
200 
7 
/ Great-grandfather 
0 GF. 
ogF. 
0 GF. 
o/F. 
O 
O 
400 
O 
JJ I Great-uncle . . 
0 GB. 
2gB. 
0 GB. 
o^B. 
2 
5 
800 
0.6 
m ' First-cousin . . 
3 US. 
0 uS. 
0 US. 
4 «S. 
7 
l6 
800 
2.0 
I Great-nephew . . 
6 NS. 
0 nS. 
1 NS. 
0 «S. 
7 
l6 
800 
2.0 
\ Great-grandson . 
3 PS. 
0 pS. 
oPS. 
0 pS. 
3 
7 
400 
2.7 
All more remote . 
IO 
23 
0.0 
Table I. confirms all that has been already deduced from 
the corresponding tables in other groups, but the figures 
in Table 11. are exceptional. We find a remarkable dimi- 
nution in the numbers of F. and G., while S. and P. hold 
their own. We also find that, although the female in- 
fluence, on the whole, is but little different from previous 
groups, inasmuch as in the first degree— 
X G. + 5 U. + BN. + 6P. = 20 kinsmen through males, 
sg. + 2u. + 2n, + op. 9 „ females; 
and in the second degree— 
oGF. + oGB. + 3 US. + 6 NS. + 3 PS. = 12 kinsmen through males, 
+ + 4 «S. + onS. + o/S. = 4 „ females; 
Totals, 32 through males; 13 through females; 
yet, when we examine the lists of kinsmen more closely, 
we shall arrive at different conclusions, and we shall find 
the maternal influence to be unusually strong. There are 
sg.to 1 G,; and in fully eight cases out of the forty-three^ 
1 See, for explanation, the foot-notes to the similar table, p. 61. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
the mother was the abler of the two parents. These are 
the mothers of Bacon (remember also his four maternal 
aunts), of Buffon, Condorcet, Cuvier, D’Alembert, Forbes, 
Gregory, and Watt. Both Brodie and Jussieu had remark- 
able grandmothers. The eminent relations of Newton were 
connected with him by female links. 
It therefore appears to be very important to success in 
science, that a man should have an able mother. I believe 
the reason to be, that a child so circumstanced has the good 
fortune to be delivered from the ordinary narrowing, partisan 
influences of home education. Our race is essentially slavish; 
it is the nature of all of us to believe blindly in what we 
love, rather than in that which we think most wise. We 
are inclined to look upon an honest, unshrinking pursuit of 
truth as something irreverent. We are indignant when 
others pry into our idols, and criticise them with impunity, 
just as a savage flies to arms when a missionary picks his 
fetish to pieces. Women are far more strongly influenced 
by these feelings than men ; they are blinder partisans and 
more servile followers of custom. Happy are they whose 
mothers did not intensify their naturally slavish dispositions 
in childhood, by the frequent use of phrases such as, “ Do 
not ask questions about this or that, for it is wrong to 
doubt;” but who showed them, by practice and teaching, 
that inquiry may be absolutely free without being irre- 
verent, that reverence for truth is the parent of free 
inquiry, and that indifference or insincerity in the search 
after truth is one of the most degrading of sins. It is 
clear that a child brought up under the influences I have 
described is far more likely to succeed as a scientific man 
than one who was reared under the curb of dogmatic 
authority. Of two men with equal abilities, the one who 
had a truth-loving mother would be the more likely to 
follow the career of science; while the other, if bred up 
under extremely narrowing circumstances, would become MEN OF SCIENCE. 
197 
as the gifted children in China, nothing better than a 
student and professor of some dead literature. 
It is, I believe, owing to the favourable conditions of 
their early training, that an unusually large proportion of 
the sons of the most gifted men of science become dis- 
tinguished in the same career. They have been nurtured 
in an atmosphere of free inquiry, and observing as they 
grow older that myriads of problems lie on every side of 
them, simply waiting for some moderately capable person 
to take the trouble of engaging in their solution, they 
throw themselves with ardour into a field of labour so pecu- 
liarly tempting. It is and has been, in truth, strangely 
neglected. There are hundreds of students of books for 
one student of nature; hundreds of commentators for one 
original inquirer. The field of real science is in sore want 
of labourers. The mass of mankind plods on, with eyes 
fixed on the footsteps of the generations that went before, 
too indifferent or too fearful to raise their glances to judge 
for themselves whether the path on which they are travel- 
ling is the best, or to learn the conditions by which they 
are surrounded and affected. Hence, as regards the emi- 
nent sons of the scientific men—twenty-six in number— 
there are only four whose eminence was not achieved in 
science. These are the two political sons of Arago (himself 
a politician), the son of Haller, and the son of Napier. 
As I said before, the fathers of the ablest men in science 
have frequently been unscientific. Those of Cassini and 
Gmelin were scientific men ; so, in a lesser degree, were 
those of Huyghens, Napier, and De Saussure ; but the 
remainder—namely, those of Bacon, Boyle, De Candolle, 
Galilei, and Leibnitz—were either statesmen or lite- 
rary men. 
As regards mathematicians, when we consider how many 
among them have been possessed of enormous natural gifts, 
it might have been expected that .the lists of their eminent 198 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Kinsmen would have been yet richer than they are. There 
are several mathematicians in my appendix, especially the 
Bernoulli family; but the names of Pascal, Laplace, Gauss, 
and others of class Gor even X, are absent. We might 
similarly have expected that the senior wranglers of Cam- 
bridge would afford many noteworthy instances of hereditary 
ability shown in various careers, but, speaking generally, 
this does not seem to be the case. I know of several 
instances where the senior wrangler, being eminently a 
man of mathematical genius, as Sir William Thompson and 
Mr. Archibald Smith, is related to other mathematicians 
or men of science, but I know of few senior wranglers 
whose kinsmen have been eminent in other ways. Among 
these exceptions are Sir John Lefevre, whose brother is 
the ex-Speaker, Viscount Eversley, and whose son is the 
present Vice-President of the Board of Trade ; and Sir 
F. Pollock, the ex-Chief Baron, whose kinships are 
described in “JUDGES.” I account for the rarity of such 
relationships in the following manner. A man given to 
abstract ideas is not likely to succeed in the world, unless 
he be particularly eminent in his peculiar line of intellectual 
effort. If the more moderately gifted relative of a great 
mathematician can discover laws, well and good; but if 
he spends his days in puzzling over problems too insig- 
nificant to be of practical or theoretical import, or else 
too hard for him to solve, or if he simply reads what other 
people have written, he makes no way at all, and leaves 
no name behind him. There are far fewer of the numerous 
intermediate stages between eminence and mediocrity 
adapted for the occupation of men who are devoted to 
pure abstractions, than for those whose interests are of 
a social kind. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
199 
APPENDIX TO MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Here, as in the previous chapter, I have confined myself to the names that 
are most prominent in biographical collections, or that otherwise came most 
readily in my way. I add the names of those into whose lives I also inquired, 
who seem to have had no kinsmen of marked ability. They are eighteen in 
number, and as follow : 
Bacon, Roger; Berzelius; Blumenbach; Brahe, Tycho; Bramah; Brewster; 
Brown, Robert; Copernicus; Galen; Galvani; Guericke; Hooke; Kepler, 
Priestley; Reaumur; Count Rum ford ; Whewell; Dr. Young. 
Ampere, Andre Marie (1775-1836, ret. 61); eminent man of 
science—mathematician, electrician, and philologist. He 
was entirely self-taught, for his parents were in humble cir- 
cumstances. Even in early boyhood, he read voraciously 
and showed a most tenacious memory. He was endowed 
with a vast vigour of brain, accompanied by a very shy 
and sensitive organization. Thus, though his genius was 
universal, he became in after life a great oddity, and his 
pupils made fun of him. He wanted perseverance in any 
one direction; he was always flying off to new subjects. 
Arago thought that the discipline of a public school would 
have had a most salutary influence on his character. 
S. Jean Jacques Antoine, historian and literary man of con- 
siderable eminence and originality. Educated by his 
father, who left him free to follow the bent of his genius. 
He travelled much, and always with literary and scientific 
results. Was Professor of Modern French History in the 
College of France. 
Arago, Dominique Francois; mathematician and astronomer. 
Writer on many scientific subjects; also a politician and 
strong republican. As a boy, he made great and almost 
unassisted progress in mathematics. Became Academician 
set. 23. He had a good deal of brusqueness of manner 
and of self-assertion. His three brothers were distinguished 
in their different professions, as follow : 
B. Jean, driven from France by an unjust accusation; became MEN OF SCIENCE. 
a noted General in the Mexican Service, and rendered 
great service in their War of Independence. 
B. Jacques; traveller, artist, and author. He led a restless, 
wandering life, and was a man of great energy and literary 
power and productiveness. 
B. Etienne ; dramatic author of considerable repute, and a most 
prolific writer; was a hot republican. He held office 
under the provisional government of 1848; was exiled 
under Napoleon 111. 
S. Emmanuel, barrister, elected, at the early age of thirty-four, 
“ membre du conseil de I’ordre,” politician and hot repub- 
lican. He took a prominent part in the Revolution of 
1848, but was silenced after the coup d'etat. 
S. Alfred, a painter, Inspecteur-General des Beaux Arts. 
Aristotle. Founder of the Peripatetic School, one of the ablest 
of men in science and philosophy, teacher of Alexander. 
He joined Plato’s academy, who called him, jet. 17, “the 
intellect of his school.” He had weak health, but mar- 
vellous industry. Was restless ; taught as he walked—hence 
the name of the Peripatetic School. Was very particular 
about his dress. Was wealthy; lost his parents early in life. 
F. Nicomachus, friend and physician to Amyntas 11., King of 
Macedonia; author of works, now lost, on medicine and 
science. 
P. Nicomachus. According to Cicero, he was considered by 
some to have been the author of the “Nicomachean 
Ethics,” generally attributed to Aristotle. 
Up. (? about the form of the U). Callisthenes, the philosopher 
who accompanied Alexander the Great to the East, an 
imprudent man, wanting in tact, but otherwise able. His 
mother, Hero, was Aristotle’s cousin. 
Bacon, Francis; created Lord Bacon, Lord Chancellor. “ The 
wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind ” is an over-hard 
sentence on this most illustrious philosopher and states- 
man. His natural gifts were formed by the simple addition 
of those of his mother to those of his father. It is 
doubtful whether or no he was very precocious, but Queen 
Elizabeth certainly took delight in his boyish wit, gravity, 
and judgment. 
F. Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. He MEN OF SCIENCE. 
201 
was the first Lord Keeper who ranked as a Lord Chancellor. 
He was a grave stately man, fond of science, gardening, 
and house-building. In all this, his son was just like him. 
Married twice. 
f Anne Cooke, a member of a most gifted family, and herself 
a scholar of no mean order. Eminent for piety, virtue, 
and learning. Exquisitely skilled in Latin and Greek. 
[4 The four sisters of his mother are all spoken of in terms 
of the highest praise. 
g. Sir Anthony Cooke is described by Camden as “vir antiqua 
serenitate.” Lloyd (State Worthies) says, “ Contemplation 
was his soul, privacy his life, and discourse his element.” 
Lord Seymour standing by when he chid his son, remarked, 
“ Some men govern families with more skill than others 
do kingdoms,” and thereupon recommended him to the 
government of his young nephew Edward VI. “ Such the 
majesty of his looks and gait, that awe governed,—such 
the reason and sweetness, that love obliged all his family : 
a family equally afraid to displease so good a head, and 
to offend so great.” He taught his daughters all the 
learning of the day. I greatly regret I have been unable 
to obtain any information about Sir Anthony’s ancestry or 
collateral relations. 
«S. Cecil, Ist E. of Salisbury, eminent minister under Elizabeth 
and James I. His father was the great Lord Burleigh. 
B. Anthony; had weak health, but a considerable share of the 
intellectual power which distinguished this remarkable 
family. 
B. (but by a different mother). Sir Nathaniel, Bart., a man of 
rare parts and generous disposition. He was a very good 
painter. Walpole considered him to have “ really attained 
the perfection of a master.” Peacham in his “Graphics” 
says, “None in my opinion deserveth more respect and 
admiration for his skill and practice in painting, than 
Master Nathaniel Bacon of Brome, in Suffolk, not inferior, 
in my judgment, to our skilfullest masters.” 
B (by the same parents as the above). Sir Nathaniel of Stivekey. 
His father remarks of him, aet. 22 (when Lord Bacon was 
set. 7), “ Indeed of all my children he is of best hope in 
learning.” 202 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Bacon, Francis, continued— 
N. (son of another brother). Nathaniel, antiquarian writer, 
Recorder of Bury, and Admiralty Judge. He was M.P. 
for Cambridge, and a sturdy republican. 
Bernoulli, Jacques, The first that rose to fame in a Swiss 
family that afterwards comprised an extraordinary number 
of eminent mathematicians and men of science. They 
were mostly quarrelsome and unamiable. Many were 
long-lived; three of them exceeded eighty years of age, 
Jacques was destined for the Church, but early devoted 
himself to mathematics, in which he had accidentally 
become initiated. He had a bilious, melancholic tempera- 
ment, Was sure but slow. He taught his brother Jean, 
but adopted, too long, a tone of superiority towards him; 
hence quarrels and rivalry. Jacques was a mathematician 
of the highest order in originality and power. Member of 
French Academy. 
Jacques. 
Jean. 
ill I 
Nicholas. Daniel. Jean. Nicholas. 
Jean. Jacques. 
Jean, destined for commerce, but left it for science and 
chemistry. Member of French Academy. (“ Eloge ”by 
D’Alembert.) He was the ancestor of the five following: 
Nicholas, d. set. 31. He was also a great mathematical 
genius. Died at St. Petersburg, where he was one of the 
principal ornaments of the then young Academy. 
Daniel, physician, botanist, and anatomist, writer on hydro- 
dynamics ; very precocious. Obtained ten prizes, for one 
of which his father had competed; who never forgave him 
for his success. Member of the French Academy. (Con- 
dorcet’s “ Eloge.”) 
Jean, jurisconsult, mathematician and physicist. Obtained 
three prizes of the Academy, of which he was a member. 
Professor of eloquence and an orator. Would have been 
a great mathematician if he had not loved oratory more. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
203 
He was destined for commerce, but hated it. (D’Alem- 
bert’s “ Eloge.”) 
NS Jean, astronomer, mathematician, and philosopher. Wrote 
many works and some travels. 
NS. Jacques, physician and mathematician. Drowned when 
bathing, ret. 30. 
NS. Nicholas (son of a third brother), mathematician, member 
of the French Academy. 
There were yet two others, descendants of the same family, 
but I do not know the precise degree of their kinship. 
(?) Christophe (1782-1863), Professor of Natural History at 
the University of Basle, author of many works on science 
and on statistics. 
(?) Jerome (1745-1829), chemist and pharmacist by trade, 
but he had a passion for natural history, and by set. 20 
had made a considerable collection of mineralogy, which 
he afterwards improved until it became one of the most 
complete in Switzerland. 
Boyle, Plon. Robert. “ The Christian philosopher.” Eminent 
in natural science, especially in chemistry; a scholar and 
a theologian. He also takes rank as a religious statesman, 
from his efforts in causing Christianity to be propagated 
among the natives of India and North America. He was 
seventh son and fourteenth child. Was shy and diffident, 
and stedfastly refused the numerous offers of preferment 
that were pressed upon him. He was a member of a very 
remarkable family, of whom I give a genealogical tree 
(see next page). 
F. Richard, Ist Earl of Cork, commonly called the Great Earl, 
Lord High Treasurer of Ireland; distinguished in the 
Great Rebellion by his energy and military skill. He 
made a large fortune by improving his Irish estates. 
f. Catherine. “ The crown of all my ” (the Earl’s) “happiness. 
. . . Religious, virtuous, loving; the happy mother of all 
my hopeful children.” 
g. Sir Geoffrey Fenton, Principal Sec. of State for Ireland. 
US. Michael Boyle, Bishop of Waterford. 
US. Richard Boyle, Archbishop of Tuam. 
UP. Michael Boyle, Archbishop of Armagh, and Lord Chan- 
cellor of Ireland. 204 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Sir Geoffrey Fenton, 
Principal Secretary of 
State for Ireland. 
Catherine. = 
1 
Richard Boyle, 
1st (the Great) 
Earl of Cork, 
Lord Treasurer 
of Ireland. 
Michaei 
Boyle. 
Rich 
2d Earl 
created 
Burlii 
ARD, 
of Cork; 
Earl of 
igton. 
Lei 
ere; 
Viscoun 
VIS, 
ited 
t Boyle. 
Roger, 
created Earl of 
Orrery and Lord 
President of 
Munster. 
1 
Frai 
created 
Shar 
'I CIS, 
Viscount 
mon. 
Robert, 
the Christian 
philosopher. 
Michael, Rich 
Bishop of Archt 
Waterford. ofT 
ARD, 
ishop 
11am. 
) 
: 
d. s 
, p. Rog 
ER. 
Hei 
'TRY, ) 
: 
Mich; 
Archbishop 0 
and Lord C 
of Irel 
i.EL, 
f Armagh, 
hancellor 
md. 
Cha 
3d Earl 
and 2d 
Burlii 
RLES, 
of Cork, 
Earl of 
igton. 
1 „ 1 
Lionel, Charles, 
3d Earl of cr. Baron Boyle, 
Orrery. 4th Earl of Orrery, 
the “Orrery” named 
after him. 
Hen 
Speake 
& Chan 
in Irela 
Earl SI 
RY, d. S 
rH. C. 
. Exch, 
nd; cr. 
lannon. 
I 
P- 
Son cr 
Viscount B1 
sated 
essington. 
Richard, 
4th Earl of Cork, 
3d Earl of Burlington 
the friend of Pope. 
1 
John, 
5th Earl of Orrery, 
and 5th Earl of Cork; 
the friend of Swift. 
< 
d. s. 
P. 
♦ 
d. g. p. 
The Boyle Family ; Earls of Cork, Orrery, Burlington, and Shannon, and other acquired Titles MEN OF SCIENCE. 
205 
Boyle, Hon. Robert, continued— 
48. All did well, all prosperously married. One inherited the 
title, and the others were created peers. The most 
eminent of these is Roger, Ist Earl of Orrery, Military 
Commander under Cromwell in Ireland, afterwards en- 
gaged in the restoration of Charles 11., who ennobled him. 
Was offered, but refused, the Chancellorship. 
[?A] Also seven sisters married peers, and from the general 
accounts of the family I conclude, in the absence of 
knowledge of details, that some at least of them must 
have had considerable merits. 
NS. Chas. Boyle, 4th E. Orrery; scholar (“Epistles of Phalaris” 
controversy); diplomatist. The astronomical instrument 
the “ Orrery” was named after him by its grateful inventor. 
NS. Henry Boyle, Ist Earl of Shannon; Speaker of House of 
Commons in Ireland, and Chanc. of the Exchequer there. 
NP. Richard Boyle, 4th Earl of Cork, encourager of the fine 
arts, the friend of Pope. 
NP. (But descended from another brother of the philosopher.) 
John Boyle, sth Earl of Cork, the friend of Swift. 
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, Bart. ; eminent surgeon; President of 
the Royal Society. The following relationships are taken 
from his Autobiography : 
[(7.] “ Had the reputation of being a person of very considerable 
abilities; and I have formerly seen some of her MSS., 
which seemed to prove that this really was the case.” 
[F.] “ Was altogether remarkable for his talents and acquirements. 
He was well acquainted with general literature, and was an 
excellent Greek and Latin scholar. ... He was endowed 
with a large share of energy and activity, but .... I 
cannot doubt he was a disappointed person” (owing to 
politics). He attended to local business, and acquired a 
considerable local influence. 
[B.] “ My elder brother became a lawyer, and has since obtained 
the highest place in his profession as a conveyancing 
barrister.” 
uS. Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice (see in “Judges”). 
(His father was an eminent London physician.) 
&P. George Denman, Q.C., M.P.; the senior classic of his year 
(1842) in Cambridge. 206 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, Bart., continued. 
S. Sir Benjamin Brodie, second Bart.; Professor of Chemistry 
at Oxford. 
Buckland, William- D.D., Dean of Westminster; eminent 
geologist. 
S. Frank Buckland; naturalist; well-known popular writer on 
natural history, especially on pisciculture. 
Buffon, G. L., Comte de; naturalist. “ Majestate naturae pai 
ingenium.” Nature gave him every advantage in figure, 
bearing, features, strength, and general energy. Voltaire 
said he had “le corps d’un athlete et fame d’un sage.” 
He was educated for the law, but had an irresistible bias 
to science—at first to physics and mathematics, and finally 
to zoology. 
f. From her he said that he derived his qualities. He always 
spoke with great affection of his mother. 
S. His abilities were considerable, and his attachment to his 
father was extreme. He was guillotined as an aristocrat. 
Cassini, Jean Dominique (1625-1712, set. 87); celebrated 
Italian astronomer, whose name is chiefly connected with 
the discovery of the satellites of Saturn, with the rotations 
of the planets on their axes, and with the zodiacal light. 
He had an immense reputation in his day. Colbert in- 
duced him, by the offer of a pension, to settle in France, 
and to be naturalized as a Frenchman, He founded the 
Observatory of Paris. He was of a strong constitution, 
calm temper, and religious mind ; was the first of a family 
of a remarkable series of long-lived astronomers. 
S. Jacques Cassini (1677-1756, set. 79); author of “Theories 
on the Figure of the Earth;” succeeded his father in the 
French Academy. 
P. Caesar F. Cassini de Thury. "| 
PS.'J f See below. 
pp > His descendants. 
Cassini, de Thury, Csesar Francois (1714-1784, set. 70); showed 
early abilities in astronomy; was received into the Academy 
set. 22 ; was author of the governmental survey of France ; 
published many scientific memoirs. 
G, Jean Dominique Cassini. J 
T r. ■ ■ c See above. 
F. Jacques Oassini. J MEN OF SCIENCE. 
207 
Cassini, de Thury, Caesar Francois, continued— 
S. Jacques Dominique (1747-1845, aet. 98); succeeded his father 
as director of the Observatory, and finished the “ Carte 
Topographique de la France.” 
P. Alex. Henri Gabriel (1781-1832, aet. 51); passionately fond 
of natural history; no taste for astronomy ; wrote “ Opus- 
cules Philologiques ; ” was member of the Academy, He 
was a lawyer; President of the Cour Royale at Paris; and 
peer of France ; d. prematurely of cholera. 
Cavendish, Hon. Henry (1731-1810, aet. 79); celebrated 
chemist; founder of pneumatic chemistry. 
gB. William, Lord Russell; patriot; executed 1683, See. 
Celsius, Olaus; a Swedish botanist, theologian, and orientalist 
He is regarded as the founder of the study of natural 
history in Sweden, and was the master and patron of 
Linmeus. He wrote on the plants mentioned in Scripture; 
was professor of theology and of the Eastern languages 
at Upsala; d. set, 86. 
S. Magnus Nicholas Celsius, mathematician and botanist; pro- 
fessor at Upsala, 
P. Andrew Celsius, astronomer. It was he who first employed 
the centigrade scale of the thermometer; professor at 
Upsala; d. set. 43.. 
Condorcet, Jean Caritat, Marquis de; secretary of the French 
Academy ; also a writer on morals and politics. He was 
precocious in mathematical study, and had an insatiable 
and universal curiosity ; was very receptive of ideas, but 
not equally original; had no outward show of being vain, 
simply because he had a superb confidence in his own 
opinions. He was deficient in brilliancy. His principal 
faculty was in combining and organizing. Different people 
estimate his character very differently. St. Beuve shows 
him to have been malign and bitter, with a provoking 
exterior of benignity. He poisoned himself set. 51, to 
avoid the guillotine. 
[yi] His mother was very devout. She devoted him to the 
Virgin, when a child, to dress in white for eight years, 
like a young girl. 
LT. A distinguished bishop. (Arago’s “ Eloge.”) 
(2 ?) He was also nearly connected with both the Archbishop of MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Vienne and with the Cardinal de Bernis, but I do not 
know in what degree. 
Cuvier, George, Baron de; one of the most illustrious of 
naturalists. He became well known set. 26 ; d. set. 63, 
He had delicate health as a boy. 
[/] His mother was an accomplished woman, who took especia. 
care in his early education. 
B. Frederick, who early devoted himself to natural history, 
and was little inferior in research to George, though he 
never accomplished anything comparable in scientific value 
to his brother’s works, except his “ Teeth of Animals.” 
D’Alembert, Jean le Rond; mathematician and philosopher of 
the highest order. He was illegitimate; his mother aban- 
doned him, and left him exposed in a public market, near 
the church of Jean le Rond, whence his Christian name; 
the origin of his surname is unknown. He showed, as 
a child, extraordinary eagerness to learn, but was dis- 
couraged at every step. The glazier’s wife, in whose 
charge he had been placed by the authorities as a found- 
ling, ridiculed his pursuits; at school he was dissuaded 
from his favourite mathematics ; whenever he persuaded 
himself that he had done something original, he invariably 
found that others had found out the same thing before 
him. But his passion for science urged him on. He 
became member of the Academy set. 24, and thence- 
forward his career was one of honour. He was totally 
free from envy, and very charitable. Never married, but 
had curious Platonic relations with Mdlle. de Espinasse. 
His father was said to be M. Destouches, a commissary of 
artillery. 
f. Mdlle. de Tencin, novelist of high ability; originally a nun, 
but she renounced her vows. She and both her sisters 
were adventuresses of note. She allied herself closely 
to her brother, the Cardinal de Tencin; loved him pas- 
sionately, and devoted herself to his advancement. She 
managed his house, which became a noted centre for 
eminent men. She was anything but virtuous. Fontanelle, 
the Secretary of the French Academy {see in “Poets” 
under Corneille), was one of her admirers, previous tc 
the birth of D’Alembert. iEt. 34 she threw herself into MEN OF SCIENCE 
political intrigue. After D’Alembert had attained fame, il 
is stated that she for the first time introduced herself to 
him as his mother; to whom he replied, “You are only 
my step-mother; the glazier’s wife is my mother.” 
The maternal relatives of D’Alembert formed a curious group. 
They were— 
(«.] Madame Feriol, mother of Pont de Yeyle and of D’Ar- 
gental; and 
[a.] Countess of Grolee; and the following brothers— 
u. Cardinal de Tencin, minister of state and nearly premier. 
&S. Pont de Yeyle, song-writer and dramatist; full of spirit, but 
a selfish man. He was brought up by a pedant, who 
roused in him a hatred of study. 
«S. Argental, Charles Aug. Feriol, Comte de; the confidant and 
great admirer of Voltaire, who made him the depositary of 
his writings. He was a polished literary critic. 
Darwin, Dr, Erasmus, physician, physiologist, and poet. His 
“ Botanic Garden ” had an immense reputation at the time 
it was written; for, besides its intrinsic merits, it chimed 
in with the sentiments and mode of expression of his day. 
The ingenuity of Dr. Darwin’s numerous writings and 
theories are truly remarkable. He was a man of great 
vigour, humour, and geniality. 
[F.] It is said that Dr. Darwin “ sprang from a lettered and 
intellectual race, as his father was one amongst the earliest 
members of the Spalding Club.” 
S. Charles, student in medicine, died young and full of 
promise, from the effect of a wound when dissecting. He 
obtained the gold medal of Edinburgh University for 
a medical essay. 
S, Dr. Robert Darwin, of Shrewsbury, was a physician of 
very large practice, and of great consideration in other 
respects. 
P. Charles Darwin, the illustrious modern naturalist; author 
of the “ Theory of Natural Selection.” 
,2PS.] One of the sons of the above was second wrangler at 
Cambridge, 1868, and another was second in the Woolwich 
examination of the same year. 
The number of individuals in the Darwin family who have 
followed some branch of natural history, is very remark* MEN OF SCIENCE. 
able—the more so because it so happens that the tastei 
appear (I speak from private sources of knowledge) tc 
have been more personal than traditional. There is a 
strong element of individuality in the different members 
of the race which is adverse to traditional influence. 
Thus— 
[S.] Sir Francis Darwin, a physician ; was singularly fond of 
animals. His place in Derbyshire was full of animal 
oddities—half-wild pigs ran about the woods, and the like. 
[P.] One of his sons is a well-known writer—though under a 
nom deplume—on natural history subjects, and on sporting 
matters. 
I could add the names of others of the family who, in a 
lesser but yet decided degree, have shown a taste for 
subjects of natural history. 
Davy, Sir Humphry; chemist and philosopher. He was not 
precocious as a child, but distinguished himself as a youth. 
He published his first essays aet. 21. Was Professor of 
Chemistry at the Royal Institution set. 23. 
B. Dr. John Davy, author of many memoirs on physiology, 
Inspector-General of Army Hospitals, 
De Candolle, Augustin Pyrame ; eminent Swiss botanist. His 
infancy resembled that of Cuvier; both had mothers who 
were intelligent and affectionate; both were of delicate 
health, and also of a most happy disposition. Fie had 
hydrocephalus, and nearly died of it set. 7. Being unable 
to share the pursuits of other boys, he became studious, 
very fond of verse-making and of literature, but v/as not 
interested in science. He collected plants merely as sub- 
jects to draw from, but before long he became deeply 
interested in them. When set. 15, his weakness of health 
ceased. His is almost a solitary instance of complete 
recovery from hydrocephalus. He then became very 
vigorous. He wrote a memoir set. 20, that gained him 
some reputation. His essay, set. 26, on being admitted 
Doctor of Medicine, was a very masterly one. Died 
set. 63. 
F. Premier Syndic of Geneva on two occasions. 
3. Alphonse; also a Swiss botanist; Professor and Director of 
the Botanical Garden in Geneva, MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Euler, Leonard; Swiss mathematician. His father taught him 
mathematics, but destined him for the Church; however, 
the younger Bernoulli discovered his talents, and there- 
upon his father left him free to follow his bent. He wrote 
an important essay set. 20. Lost one eye set. 28, and 
became quite blind set. 63. Died set. 76. Was of a 
happy and pious disposition. Had three sons. Twenty- 
six grandchildren survived him. 
[F.] Paul; a Calvinist clergyman of good mathematical abilities. 
S. Jean Albert; set. 20, was Director of Observatory at Berlin. 
S. Charles ; physician and mathematician. 
S. Christopher; astronomer. He served in Russia. 
Forbes, Edward; naturalist of high achievement, and of yet 
higher promise; Professor of Natural History at Edin- 
burgh, but died young, set. 39, of kidney disease. He was 
a true genius and a man of rare social and conversational 
powers. In early childhood he showed that he had re- 
markable moral and intellectual gifts. While still a young 
student in Edinburgh, he travelled and wrote on the 
natural history of Norway. He was constantly on the 
move, sea-dredging and the like. Married, but had no 
children. The following is taken from Geikie’s Life of 
him: “ His immediate paternal ancestors were most of 
them characterised by great activity and energy. The 
men were fond of travel, fond of society and social 
pleasures, free-handed, and better at spending than saving 
money.” 
f Gentle and pious, passionately fond of flowers—a taste 
that she transmitted to her son, the future Professor of 
Botany. 
[3 a.] One died in Demerara, one in Surinam, and one was lost 
in Africa. 
[2 B.] One died by drowning in Australia, and another was 
accidentally killed in America. 
B. The other brother, an excellent mineralogist, was formerly 
engaged in the mines of South America. 
A love of roving certainly runs in the blood of the Forbes 
family, and in none of them was it stronger than in that 
of the great naturalist. 
Franklin, Benjamin; philosophical, political, and miscellaneous MEN OF SCIENCE. 
writer, and a man of great force and originality of character, 
American patriot and statesman. 
pS. Alexander Dallas Bache, superintendent of the United Coast 
Survey; was professor of natural philosophy, also of 
chemistry and mathematics. 
pS. Franklin Bache, M.D., author of many medical works; pro- 
fessor of chemistry. 
[P.] W. T. Franklin, editor of his grandfather’s works. 
Galilei, Galileo; illustrious physicist. Used, when a child, to 
construct mechanical toys. He discovered that the beats 
of the pendulum were isochronous, when a boy, before 
he knew any mathematics. He was intended for the 
profession of medicine, but he broke loose and took to 
mathematics. Became blind. Died aet. 82. 
F. Vicenzo was a man of considerable talent and learning. 
He wrote on the theory of music. 
[B.] A brother seems to have attended to natural history. 
[S.] His son, Vicenzo Galilei, was the first who applied to 
clockwork his father’s invention of the pendulum. 
Geoffrey, St. Hilaire (Etienne); celebrated French naturalist. 
He was one of the savan; that accompanied Napoleon to 
Egypt. 
B. Chateau; a distinguished officer of engineers, much appre- 
ciated by Napoleon. Died, after Austerlitz, of the fatigues 
of campaigning. Napoleon adopted his two sons, both of 
whom were authors, but of no particular importance. 
S. Auguste; zoologist. 
Gmelin, John Frederick; eminent German chemist, naturalist, 
and physician. He is the most prominent member of a 
family that has given at least five names to science : 
John Conrad. John George. Philip Frederick. 
Samuel Gottlieb. John Frederick. 
Leopold. 
F. Philip Frederick; botanist and physician, who made scien- 
tific journeys in Europe, and wrote numerous monographs. 
U. John George; botanist and physician, member of the St. 
Petersburg Academy, Siberian traveller, author of “ Flora 
Siberica.” MEN OF SCIENCE. 
213 
Gmelin, John Frederick, continued— 
[U.] John Conrad; a physician of repute. 
US. Samuel Gottlieb; scientific traveller in Astrakan and by 
the Caspian, where he was seized by Tartars, and died in 
confinement, set. 29. 
S. Leopold; chemist. 
Gregory, James; mathematician; inventor of the reflecting 
telescope; a man of very acute and penetrating genius. 
He was the most important member of a very important 
scientific family, partly eminent as mathematicians, and 
largely so as physicians. The annexed pedigree (p. 214) is 
necessary to explain their relationships, but I should add 
that I know it does not do full justice to the family. The 
talent came from the Andersons, of whom I wish I knew 
more. We may accept, at least, the following letters for 
the subject of this notice: f, g., gB., 8., 3 N., NS., WS., 
S., 2 R, PS., and 2 Pp, 
Haller, Albert von (1708-1777, set. 69); a Swiss physician, 
considered as the father of modern physiology. He was 
exceedingly precocious; the accounts of his early genius 
are as astonishing as any upon record. He was rickety, 
feeble, and delicate as a child. Was exceedingly labo- 
rious, having written above 200 treatises, including some 
good poetry. He suffered from gout, and took opium 
immoderately. 
[F.] His father belonged to an hereditarily pious family, and 
had the reputation of being an able lawyer. 
g. One of the members of the Supreme Council of Switzer- 
land. 
S. Gottlieb Emmanuel; wrote various works on the history 
and literature of Switzerland. 
Harvey, William, M.D.; eminent physician; discoverer of the 
circulation of the blood ; a good scholar. He was a little 
man with a round face, olive complexion, and small black 
eyes full of spirit. He became gouty, and acquired fanciful 
habits. He lay in bed thinking overmuch at night time, 
and slept ill. He and all his brothers were very choleric. 
Married, no children. His relationships show sterling 
ability. 
[5 B.] Five of his brothers were merchants of weight and sub- 214 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
PeniQREE of THE FAMILY OF GREGORY. 
Rev. John Gregory. 
— Anderson (?his profession). 
Mathematical genius was said to 
be hereditary in his family. 
I 1 
? Name. ? Name. 
David, Presbyterian Minister’. Alexander, Prof. Math, it 
Had a singular turn for me- Paris, 
chanics and mathematics. 
=» Daughter, who inherited the 
1 genius of her family, and taught 
1 mathematics to her sons. 
1 
David; had all the genius of his family, 
but was a merchant. Married twice, 
and had thirty-two children. 
James, born 1635; invented 
reflecting telescope ; an eminent 
mathematician. 
i I i 
David, b. l66l, Prof. Med. James, succeeded Charles, Prof. 
| 1 1 
Daughter. &c. James, b. 1674, Pro- 
Edinb. and subsequently David as Prof. Math, St. 
fessor of Medicine 
Savilian Prof, at Oxford. Med. at Edinb. Andrew’s. 
at Aberdeen. 
David, succeeded 
Reic 
' 1 
1, the John, b. 1724, Prof. James, succeeded 
his father as Prof. 
famous meta- Philos, and Med. Aberd.; his father as Prof. 
Math.St. Andrew’s. 
physician. thenProf.Med.atEdinb. Med. at Aberdeen. 
( 1 
Rev. Arch. Alison. = Dorothea. James, Prof. 
“ Essays on Nature 1 Med. Edinb. 
of Taste.' 
J 
1 
Sir Archibald Alison, 
I 
Wm. Pulteney Alison, Prof. 
created Bart., Author of Med. Edinb. and 1st Phys. 
“ History of Europe.” 
to Queen in Scotland. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
215 
stance, chiefly trading in the Levant, and most of them 
made large fortunes. “The Merchants’ Map of Com- 
merce ” is dedicated to all the brothers, who were remark- 
ably attached to each other throughout their lives. They 
were also fondly attached to their mother, as shown by 
the very touching epitaph on her tombstone. 
[N, ? how many.] His nephews were prosperous merchants, and 
several made fortunes and achieved titles (?). {Mem. This 
is the statement in the biography prefaced to his works, 
published by the Sydenham Society.) 
Up. (I believe.) Heneage Finch, created Ist Earl of Nottingham, 
Lord Chancellor. His father was also eminent (see Finch, 
in Judges). William Harvey calls Heneage Finch “ his 
loving cousin ” in his will, and leaves him a legacy for his 
assistance in making it. Ido not know the exact relation- 
ship. Earl Nottingham’s mother was daughter of a William 
Harvey, and she was not a sister of the physician. There 
were forty-three years’ difference of age between the physi- 
cian and the Earl. It is probable that the Earl was first 
cousin once removed to Harvey, viz. the son of his father’s 
brother’s daughter. 
Herschel, Sir William; eminent astronomer; President of the 
Royal Society. Educated as a musician; came to England 
with the band of the Hanoverian Guards, then was organist 
at Bath, By aet, 41 he had acquired some knowledge of 
mathematics. Made his own telescopes, and became a 
renowned astronomer set. 43. Died set. 83. 
IF.] Isaac; son of a land-agent, but was so fond of music that 
he joined the military band of the Hanoverian Foot 
Guards :it was a band of select performers. He became 
a musician of some note, chiefly as a performer on the 
violin and oboe. 
[B.] Alexander; good performer on the violoncello; had also 
a strong turn for mechanics. 
b. Miss Caroline Herschel co-operated in the most helpful 
manner, with her brother, in all his astronomical work. 
She received the gold medal of the Royal Society. Died 
aet. 98. 
S. Sir John Herschel, also famous as an astronomer, and 
one of the foremost philosophers of the day. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Herschel, Sir William, continued— 
[3 P.] Two of his grandsons have already made a name in the 
scientific world—Professor Alexander Herschel as a writer 
on meteorites, and Lieut. John Herschel, the first of his 
year at Addiscombe, who took charge of the expedition 
organized in 1868 by the Royal Society, to observe the 
total eclipse in India. The other son, William, a Bengal 
civilian, was first of his year at Haileybury. 
Musical gifts are strongly hereditary in the Herschel family. 
Hooker, Sir William ; botanist; late Director and the promoter 
of the Royal Gardens at Kew; author of numerous works 
on systematic botany. 
S. Dr. Joseph Dalton Hooker, botanist and physicist, Director 
of the Royal Gardens at Kew; formerly naturalist to Sir 
J. Ross’s Antarctic expedition, and afterwards traveller in 
the Sikkim Himalayas. His mother’s father, g., was 
Dawson Turner, the botanist; and his cousins are, 2 wS., 
Giffard Palgrave, Arabian explorer and author of a work 
on Arabia, and Francis Palgrave, a well-known writer on 
literature, poetry, and art. 
Humboldt, Alexander, Baron von; scientific traveller and philo- 
sopher, and a man of enormous scientific attainments. 
He had an exceedingly vigorous constitution, and required 
very little sleep. His first work on natural history was 
published set, 21 ; d. set. 90, working almost to the last. 
He concluded his “ Kosmos ” set. 82. 
B. Wilhelm von Humboldt, philologist of the highest order, 
classical critic, and diplomatist. The different tastes of 
the two brothers were conspicuous at the university where 
they studied together—Alexander for science, Wilhelm for 
philology. 
Hunter, John; the most eminent of English anatomists; Sur- 
geon-General of the Army, Surgeon Extraordinary to the 
King. His education was almost wholly neglected in his 
youth. He was a cabinet-maker between set. 17 and 20 ; 
then he offered himself as assistant in the dissecting-room 
to his elder brother William (see below). He rapidly dis- 
tinguished himself, and ultimately formed the famous 
Hunterian Museum. 
B. William Hunter, President of the College of Physicians and MEN OF SCIENCE, 
217 
Physician Extraordinary to the Queen; whose reputation 
as an anatomist and surgeon, especially in midwifery, was 
of the highest order. He was of a sedate and studious 
disposition from youth; was first intended for the Church, 
but he took to medicine instead. He formed a splendid 
anatomical museum. He never married. 
n Matthew Baillie, M.D., an eminent physician, anatomist, and 
pathologist. 
n. Joanna Baillie, authoress, dramatist; d. set. 89. 
Huyghens, Christian; Dutch astronomer and physicist; one of 
the eminent foreigners whom Colbert invited to Paris and 
pensioned there. He was very precocious ; made great 
progress in mathematics as a boy; published a mathema- 
tical treatise set. 22 ; d. set. 68 of overwork. Never married. 
F. Constantine, a mathematician and a scholar; author of 
“Monumenta Desultoria;” Secretary of three Princes of 
Orange in succession, and though a politician, he bravely 
avowed himself the friend of Descartes. 
B. Constantine, succeeded his father in his royal secretaryship, 
and accompanied William 111. to England, 
Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de; one of the greatest of botanists, 
author of the “ Natural System,” and the most eminent 
member of a very eminent family of botanists. Became 
Professor in the Royal Garden get. 22, and therefore chief 
to his uncle Bernard (see below), then 71 years old, who 
had refused the post, believing himself happier and more 
free where he was. There is some doubt how far he was 
the interpreter of Bernard’s ideas and how far he was 
original. Became academician tet. 25. Had a strong 
constitution; was tall; had the appearance of a man of 
thought, always master of himself. Became blind : all the 
botanists of his family were very short-sighted. He was 
simple in his tastes, and had a long and healthy old 
age :d. aet. 88. He was descended from a family that 
had been notaries generation after generation. His grand- 
father broke through the tradition, and became a chemist 
at Lyons. 
[G.] His grandmother had great influence over her numerous 
children for their good, in keeping them united and 
mutually helpful. MEN OF S CIENCE. 
Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de, continued— 
His father was one of a family of sixteen children, and the 
only one of them that married. 
U. Antoine Jussieu. Had a love of observing plants even 
when a child ; it became a passion when he was a youth, 
and drove him in a contrary direction to the path of life 
intended for him by his father. He became a student at 
Montpellier, had a rapid success, and set. 23 succeeded 
Tournefort as Professor of Botany at Paris. 
U. Bernard Jussieu, a great botanical genius, some say the 
greatest in this family. He, at first, had no taste for 
botany, not even when he was a youth, and had shared in 
a botanizing excursion. Then he performed the duty of 
assistant demonstrator of botany to his brother Antoine, 
who persuaded him to follow that science as a profession, 
and he kept throughout life to the same subordinate post, 
for he preferred it. He was exceedingly attached to 
his brother. He became a most patient observer. He 
was a calm, composed man ; very orderly; very temperate 
and simple in his habits. He was a virtuous, able, and 
kindly man. He had strong health, but he became blind, 
just as his nephew did after him ; d. set. 78. 
IT. Joseph Jussieu. Was deficient in the steadiness of his 
eminent brothers, but had plenty of ability. He was suc- 
cessively, or rather simultaneously, botanist, engineer, 
physician, and traveller. He was botanist to the expe- 
dition sent to Peru under Condamine, whence he returned 
to Europe with a broken constitution: however, he lived 
to set. 75. 
S. Adrien Jussieu, the only male heir of the family, succeeded 
his father as Professor of Botany, Married ; had only two 
daughters; d. set. 56, in 1853. 
Bernard. 
Antoine. Joseph. 
Antoine Laurent. 
Adrien. 
Jussieu, Bernard. See above. 
2 8., N., NS. MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm; profound mathematician and 
metaphysician. He was very precocious, and read every- 
thing he could get. Was an excellent scholar, and became 
eminently proficient in law, philosophy, history, politics, 
and mathematics before aet. 22. He had a great taste for 
poetry, knew a vast deal by heart; even in his old age he 
could repeat all Virgil. He was strong, and seldom ailed, 
except in later life; had a great appetite, but drank little; 
was of prodigious activity—everything interested him 
equally; was a little subject to giddiness and to gout; d. 
ret. 68 of gout. Is said to have been vain and avaricious. 
Was never married. 
g.] Guillaume Schmuck, Professor of Jurisprudence at Leipsic. 
F. Professor of Morale (? Casuistry) at Leipsic. 
u. A renowned jurisconsult. 
Linnaeus (Von Linne), Carl; the great Swedish botanist, founder 
of the Linnsean system of classification of plants. Was 
ill taught. He had the strongest predilection for botany, 
but his intellectual development in boyhood was slow. He 
began to be of high repute set. 24. He had a curious 
want of power of learning languages; he could not speak 
French, and therefore always corresponded with foreigners 
in Latin. He was a man of impetuous character; had 
strong health, except some gout; slept but little. Was 
a poet by nature, though he never versified. He married ; 
but “ his domestic life does not bear examination, for it is 
well known that he joined his wife, a profligate woman, in 
a cruel persecution of his eldest son, an amiable young 
man, who afterwards succeeded to his botanical chair.” 
(l£ngl. Cycl.) 
S. Charles, a botanist of distinction, though far from equalling 
his father. 
Napier, John; Baron of Merchiston; inventor of logarithms. 
F. Master of the Mint of Scotland. He was only 16 years old 
when his son was born. 
S. Archibald, Privy Councillor to James VI., created Lord 
Napier. 
This is an exceedingly able family. It includes the generals 
and admiral of the last generation (see “ Commanders ”), 
and in this generation, Capt. Moncrieff (Moncrieff’s bat- 220 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
tery), and Mr. Clerk Maxwell, second wrangler in 1854, 
and eminent in natural philosophy. 
Newton, Sir Isaac; the most illustrious of English mathema- 
ticians and philosophers. Was exceedingly puny as a 
child; his life was then despaired of, but he grew to 
be strong and healthy. “ The three grand discoveries 
which form the glory of his life, were conceived in his 
mind before the completion of his twenty-fourth year” 
(Libr. Univ. Knowl.): that is to say, the theories of 
gravitation, fluxions, and light. D. set. 84, 
Newton’s ancestry appear to have been in no way remarkable 
for intellectual ability, and there is nothing of note that 
I can find out among his descendants, except what may be 
inferred from the fact that the two Huttons were connected 
with him in some unknown way, through the maternal line. 
The following paragraph is printed in the Catalogue of 
Portraits belonging to the Royal Society; it will be found 
under the description of a portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, 
which was presented by Mr. Charles Vignolles, the eminent 
engineer:—“ The mother of James Hutton and the mother 
of Dr. Charles Hutton were sisters; and his grandmother 
and the mother of Sir Isaac Newton were also sisters.” 
Mr. Vignolles, who is grandson of Dr, Charles Hutton, 
has kindly given me the history of the paragraph. It 
appears it was written on one of the few scraps of paper 
that he inherited from Dr. C. Hutton; it was in the hand- 
writing of his aunt Miss Isabella Hutton, and appears to 
have been dictated by her father, Dr. C. Hutton. There 
is absolutely no other information obtainable. Now the 
word “ his ” in the paragraph is not grammatical • its inter- 
pretation is therefore ambiguous. It might be supposed 
to be intended to apply to Dr. C. Hutton, but a compari- 
son of dates makes me doubt this. Sir Isaac was born 
in 1642, and Dr. C. Hutton in 1737, leaving a difference 
of 95 years to be bridged over by only one intervening 
generation. This is not absolutely impossible, but it is 
exceedingly incredible. It could have come to pass on 
some such extravagant hypothesis as the following, viz. 
that Newton’s mother may have been only 20 when her 
son was born; also—which is just possible—that her sister MEN OF SCIENCE. 
221 
may have been 35 years her junior. Also, that this sister 
may have been as much as 40 years old when her daughter 
was born, and that that daughter may also have been 40 
years old when she gave birth to Dr. C. Hutton. As 
40 +4O + 35 20 = 95, this hypothesis would satisfy 
the dates. However, I strongly suspect that Miss Hutton, 
writing from her father’s not very clear dictation, in his 
old age (he d. set. 83), had omitted a phrase which I will 
supplement in brackets, and had thereby unintentionally 
struck out one or even two intervening generations. Thus, 
‘‘The mother of Dr. James Hutton and the mother of 
Dr. Charles Hutton were sisters; [they were children (or 
? grandchildren) of Mr. Hutton ;] and his grandmother 
and the mother of Sir Isaac Newton were also sisters.” 
This reading would satisfy the possessive pronoun “ his,” 
it would satisfy the dates, and it would also account for 
the exact nature of the relationship not having been a 
matter of distinct family tradition. If, on the other pre- 
sumption, the mothers of the Huttons had been first 
cousins to Sir Isaac, the Huttons would assuredly have 
often alluded to the fact; it is a simple form of kinship, 
easy to remember, and would have become well known to 
their contemporaries, especially to those who were Fellows 
of the Royal Society, of which Dr. Charles Hutton was 
the secretary; and it would never have been overlooked 
by the biographers, either of Sir Isaac or of the Huttons. 
In the biographies of the Huttons, Newton is simply spoken 
uPp. Charles Hutton, LL.D., was the well-known mathematician, 
Secretary to the Royal Society, and Professor at Woolwich. 
of as having been their ancestor by the maternal line. 
uPp. James Hutton was the geologist and chemist, and founder of 
modern geology; a man whose reputation was very great in 
his day, and whose writings some of our modern leading geo- 
logists consider as extraordinarily good and far from obsolete 
[n.] John Conduit; succeeded Sir Isaac as Master of the Mint. 
Oersted, Hans Christian; Danish physicist and chemist, dis- 
B. Anders Sandde Oersted, Premier of Denmark and author j 
d. set. 82, 
coverer of electro-magnetism; d. set. 74. 
N. Anders Sandoe (also); S. American traveller and naturalist. 222 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
Pliny the Elder, naturalist. A most industrious compiler and 
a student of extraordinary devotion, but curiously devoid of 
critical ability. He was parsimonious of his time ; slept 
little; was grave and noble. Lost his life in visiting 
Vesuvius during an eruption. 
n. Pliny the Younger (he took the name of his mother’s family), 
author of the “ Epistles.” Very precocious; a man of 
great accomplishments, a great orator, a patron of men of 
learning, and an able statesman. 
Porta, Giovanni Baptista; an Italian philosopher of high emi- 
nence in his day, 1550—1615. Inventor of the camera 
obscura. He was a youthful prodigy, and became univer- 
sally accomplished. He wrote well on many subjects 
besides science. He founded societies, and gave a notable 
impulse to the study of natural science. Unmarried. 
B. A younger brother shared his ardour for study. 
Saussure, H. B. de; Swiss geologist and physicist. Carefully 
educated ; was appointed Professor at Geneva set. 22. 
His constitution became injured by the effects of Alpine 
exploration, also by anxiety on money matters. Died 
set. 59. 
F. Agriculturist and author of works on agriculture and 
statistics. 
S. Nicholas Theodore; naturalist and chemist. Died set. 78. 
He was first associated with his father in his pursuits, but 
afterwards followed an independent line of inquiry. 
Stephenson, George ; eminent engineer. The father of rail 
ways. A big, raw-boned youth, who educated’himself. By 
steady but slow advances, he became engineer to a colliery 
at a year, set. 41. His first steam-engine was made 
set. 43. He gained the prize for the best design for a 
locomotive set. 49, and thenceforward his way to fortune 
was short. He invented the whole system of railway 
labour, its signals, “ navvies,” rails, stations, and locomo- 
tives ; and his success was gained in the teeth of all kinds 
of opposition and absurd objections. 
S. Robert; precocious and industrious. Became the foremost 
engineer of his day. 
Volta, Alexandre; an Italian physicist of the highest order, best 
known by his electrical (Voltaic) researches. Napoleon MEN OF SCIENCE. 
223 
desired to make him the representative of Italian science, 
and pushed him forward in many ways, but Volta had no 
ambition of that kind. He was a man of noble presence, 
strong and rapid intelligence, large and just ideas, affec- 
tionate and sincere character. His scholars idolized him. 
He distinguished himself early at college. Began to write 
on electricity aet. 24. During the last six years of his life, 
he lived only for his family. Died aet. 82. 
|S.] One of his two sons died aet. 18, full of promise. 
Watt, James; inventor oDthe steam-engine and of much else. 
He had a share in the discovery of the composition of 
water. Was very delicate as a child ; was precocious, fond 
of experiment; read with avidity and indiscriminately. 
JEt. 2i, he had attracted the notice of the authorities of 
the University of Glasgow, as being an ingenious and 
philosophical workman. His progress to fortune was slow 
and mainly due to his fortunate association with Boulton, 
who supplied energy, concentration of purpose, daring, 
administrative skill and capital. Watt ailed continually, 
and he was very irresolute until he approached old age, 
when his vigour became more and more remarkable. Few 
men had read so much as Watt, or remembered what they 
had read with such accuracy. He had a prodigious and 
orderly memory, and singular clearness in explaining. As 
an inventive genius he has never been surpassed. 
[G.]A humble teacher of mathematics, and something of an 
oddity. Mr. Muirhead says of him, in his Life of Watt, 
“ It is curious to observe how decidedly a turn for scientific 
pursuits seems, in some measure at least, to have been 
common to every male of that family, so as to have 
become almost the birthright of both the grandsons of 
Thomas Watt, ‘ the old mathematician.’ And it may be 
added, that the same inclination still continued to * run in 
their veins’ till the line of direct male descent itself 
became extinct by the death, without issue, of both the 
sons of the illustrious improver of the steam-engine.” 
(Page 17.) 
[F.] A man of zeal and intelligence, for twenty years town 
councillor, treasurer, and baillie of Glasgow. 
[/] Agnes Muirhead was a superior woman, of good under 224 
MEN OF SCIENCE. 
standing, fine womanly presence, orderly, and ladylike. 
An old woman described her from recollection, as “ a braw 
braw woman, none now to be seen like her.” 
fu.] John Muirhead seems to have been of kindred disposition 
to Watt’s father; the two were closely united in many 
adventures. 
[B-] Died at sea, set. 21. (See above, the allusion to the two 
grandsons.) 
S. Gregory died set. 27. Was of great promise as a man of 
science, and intimately attached to Sir Humphry Davy. Is 
well known to geologists by his experiment of fusing stones 
and making artificial basalt. 
[S.j James died unmarried, set. 79, Had great natural abilities, 
but he was a recluse, and somewhat peculiar in his habits. 
Wollaston, William Hyde, M.D.; a very ingenious natural 
philosopher and experimentalist, known chiefly by his 
invention of the goniometer, which gave an accurate basis 
to the science of crystallography, and by that of the 
camera lucida. Also by his discovery of the metal pal- 
ladium. 
“ A peculiar taste for intellectual pursuits of the more exact 
kind appears to have been hereditary in the family.” CHAPTER XIL 
POETS. 
The Poets and Artists generally are men of high aspi- 
rations, but, for all that, they are a sensuous, erotic race, 
exceedingly irregular in their way of life. Even the stern 
and virtue-preaching Dante is spoken of by Boccaccio in 
most severe terms.1 Their talents are usually displayed 
early in youth, when they are first shaken by the tem- 
pestuous passion of love. Of all who have a place in the 
appendix to this chapter, Cowper is the only one who 
began to write in mature life; and none of the others 
who are named in the heading to my appendix, except 
possibly Camoens and Spenser, delayed authorship till 
after thirty. It may be interesting, and it is instructive, 
to state a few facts in evidence of their early powers. 
Beranger, a printer’s compositor, taught himself and 
began to publish at 16. Burns was a village celebrity at 
16, and soon after began to write : Calderon at 14. Camp- 
bell’s “ Pleasures of Hope ” was published when he was 20. 
Goldoni produced a comedy in manuscript that amazed all 
who saw it, at 8. Ben Jonson, a bricklayer’s lad, fairly 
worked his way upwards through Westminster and Cam- 
bridge, and became famous by his “Every Man in his 
Humour,” at 24. Keats, a surgeon’s apprentice, first pub- 
lished at 21 and died at 25. Metastasio improvised in 
1 See Preface to the Translation of the “ Inferno,” by Rossetti, p. riv. 226 
POETS. 
public when a child, and wrote at 15. Tom Moore pub- 
lished under the name of Thomas Little, and was famous 
at 23. Ovid wrote verses from boyhood. Pope published 
his “ Pastorals ” jet, 16, and translated the “Iliad” between 
25 and 30. Shakespeare must have begun very early, for he 
had written almost all his historical plays by the time he 
was 34. Schiller, a boy of promise, became famous through 
his “ Brigands ”at 23. Sophocles, at the age of 27, beat 
in the public games. 
I now annex the usual tables. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 24 POETS GROUPED INTO 
20 FAMILIES. 
One relation {or two in family). 
Byron .... 
Milman . . . 
Chaucer . . . 
Racine .... 
2. Chenier . . , 
. . . B. 
2. Tasso .... 
Goethe .... 
• • • f 
Vega . . , . 
Heine .... 
. . . U. 
yEschylus . 
2 B. 
Dibdin . . 
. . S. N. 
2. Ariosto . . 
B. N. 
Dryden , , 
Aristophanes 
. . 
3 S. 
Hook . . . 
. . F. B. N. 
2. Corneille . . 
B. n. 
Milton . . 
Cowper . . 
G. GB. 
Two or three relations {or three or four in family). 
Four or more relations {or five or more in family). 
Coleridge POETS. 
227 
TABLE II.1 
Degrees of Kinship. 
A. 
B. 
D 
c. 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letters. 
£ / Father .... 
4 F. 
4 
20 
IOO 
20 
W j Brother .... 
8 B. 
... 
8 
40 
150 
26 
"2 Son 
9 S. 
9 
45 
IOO 
45 
m /Grandfather . . 
i G. 
og- 
I 
5 
200 
2-5 
H 1 Uncle .... 
b* ( 
.g | Nephew . . . 
i U. 
o u. 
I 
5 
400 
1-25 
9N. 
i n. 
IO 
5° 
400 
I2.S 
« \ Grandson . . . 
i P. 
op. 
I 
5 
200 
2.5 
/ Great-grandfather 
oGF. 
O gF. 
o GF. 
o^-F. 
o 
o 
400 
0 
Jj I Great-uncle . . 
i GB. 
ogB. 
oGB. 
o^-B. 
I 
5 
800 
6 
m/ First-cousin . . 
oUS. 
o uS. 
o US. 
o «S. 
o 
o 
800 
0 
I Great-nephew 
2 NS. 
o nS. 
o NS. 
o «S. 
2 
IO 
800 
I 
\ Great-grandson . 
oPS. 
o pS. 
oPS. 
o 
O 
o 
400 
0 
All more remote . 
I 
1 
5 
The results of Table 11. are surprising. It appears that, 
if we except the kindred of Coleridge and Wordsworth, 
who have shown various kinds of ability, almost all the 
relations are in the first degree. Poets are clearly not 
founders of families. The reason is, I think, simple, and it 
applies to artists generally. To be a great artist, requires 
a rare and, so to speak, unnatural correlation of qualities. 
A poet, besides his genius, must have the severity and 
stedfast earnestness of those whose dispositions afford few 
temptations to pleasure, and he must, at the same time, 
have the utmost delight in the exercise of his senses and 
affections. This is a rare character, only to be formed 
by some happy accident, and is therefore unstable in 
inheritance. Usually, people who have strong sensuous 
tastes go utterly astray and fail in life, and this tendency 
is clearly shown by numerous instances mentioned in the 
following appendix, who have inherited the dangerous 
part of a poet’s character and not his other qualities 
that redeem and control it. 
1 See, for explanation, the foot-note to the similar table on p. 61. 228 
POETS. 
APPENDIX TO POETS. 
I have examined into the relationships of the following 56 poets. Of some 
of them—as of those of Ferdusi, Terence, and Sappho—there seems to exist 
no record at all, and my information is very scanty about many of the others. 
Nevertheless I find that the 20 poets whose names are printed in italics, have 
had eminent kinsfolk, and that some of the remainder afford minor proofs of 
Hereditary ability : thus the father of Burns and the mother of Schiller were 
far from mediocrity ; Southey’s aunt, Miss Tyler, was passionately fond of the 
theatre. We may fairly conclude that at least 40 per cent, of the Poets have 
had eminently gifted relations. 
AEschylus; Alfieri; Anacreon; Ariosto; Aristophanes; Beranger; Bums, 
Byron; Calderon; Campbell; Camoens; Chaucer; Chenier; Coleridge; 
Corneille; Cowper; Dante; Dibdin; Dry den; Euripides; Ferdusi; La Fon- 
taine ; Goethe; Goldoni; Gray; Heme; Hook; Horace; Ben Jonson; 
Juvenal; Keats ; Lucretius ; Metastasio ; Milman ; Milton ; Moliere; Moore ; 
Oehlenschlager; Ovid ; Petrarch ; Plautus ; Pope ; Praed (but see Appendix); 
Racine; Sappho; Schiller; Shakespeare; Shelley; Sophocles; Southey; 
Spenser; Tasso; Terence; Vega; Virgil; Wieland ; Wordsworth. 
List of Poets, 
Aeschylus, great Greek tragedian; also highly renowned as 
a warrior, and all his family were distinguished for 
bravery. He began early to write, but was set. 41 before 
he gained his first prize for a drama. He afterwards 
gained sixteen; d. set. 69. 
B. Cyntegeirus distinguished himself so highly at Marathon, 
together with Hischylus, that their feats were comme- 
morated by a descriptive painting. 
B. Ameinas was noted as having commenced the attack on 
the Persian ships at Salamis. 
[n.] Philocles was victorious over the “King of CEdipus ” by 
Sophocles, but probably with a posthumous tragedy of 
Htschylus. 
[2 S.] Euphorion and Bion were said to have gained four 
victories with posthumous pieces of Htschylus. What 
may have been their share and that of Philocles in the 
completion of these plays is unknown; but at all events, 
from and by means of these persons arose what was POETS. 
229 
called the tragic school of Aeschylus, which continued for 
the space of 125 years. 
Ariosto, Ludovico; author of the epic “ Orlando Furioso,” and 
of many excellent satires. He wrote dramas as a boy, 
and showed an early disposition for poetry, but was 
educated for the law, which he abandoned under an over- 
powering impulse towards literature. Never married ; had 
two illegitimate sons. 
B. Gabriel; a poet of some distinction. He finished the comedy 
of “La Scholastica,” which his brother had left uncom- 
pleted at his death. He wrote several poems, and left 
a MS. volume of Latin verses, which were published 
posthumously. 
N. Orazio was an intimate friend of Tasso. He wrote the 
“ Argomenti,” and other works. 
Aristophanes, Greek comedian of the highest order; author 
of fifty-four comedies, of which only eleven have reached 
us. His genius showed itself so early, that his first play— 
and it won the second prize—was written when he was 
under the age prescribed by law for competitors. It was 
therefore submitted under a borrowed name. 
3 S. His three sons—Philippus, Araros, and Nicostratus—were 
all poets of the middle comedy. 
Byron, Lord. Very ill-educated at home; did not show genius 
when at Harrow; his “ Hours of Idleness ” were pub- 
lished set. 19, and the “ English Bards and Scotch 
Reviewers,” which made him famous, set. 21; d. set 36. 
[G.] Hon. Admiral Byron, circumnavigator; author of the 
“ Narrative.” 
[F.] Captain Byron; imprudent and vicious. 
[/] Was strange, proud, passionate, and half-mad. “If ever 
there were a case in which hereditary influences, arising 
out of impulse, passions, and habits of life, could excuse 
eccentricities of character and extremes pf conduct, this 
excuse must be pleaded for Byron, as having descended 
from a line of ancestry distinguished on both sides by 
everything calculated to destroy all harmony of character, 
all social concord, all individual happiness.” (Mrs. Ellis.) 
x. Ada, Countess of Lovelace ; had remarkable mathematical 
gifts. 230 
POETS. 
Chaucer, Geoffrey; wrote the “Court of Love” set. 18. Ulus- 
trious poet; father of English poetry and, in some sense, 
of the English language also. 
S. Sir Thomas ; was Speaker of the House of Commons and 
ambassador to France. 
Chenier, Andre Marie de; eminent French poet. His mother 
was a Greek, and inspired him with a passionate taste for 
Greek literature. He was guillotined set. 32. It was he 
who touched his forehead on the scaffold, and said 
regretfully, just before his execution, “ Pourtant j’avais 
quelque chose Ik.” 
B. Marie-Joseph; also a poet. He wrote dramas and lyrical 
pieces. Among the latter was the “ Chant du Depart,” 
which nearly rivalled the “ Marseillaise.” He was a 
leading politician under the republic and the empire. 
His first play was acted set. 20, and was hissed. 
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor; poet and metaphysician ; was filled 
with poetry and metaphysics set. 15 ; always slothful and 
imprudent. He had warm friendships, but was singularly 
regardless of duties, and somewhat querulous ; of a pecu- 
liarly hesitating disposition; opium eater. Fully eight 
members of this family—indeed, nearly all of its male 
representatives—have been gifted with rare abilities. 
S. Hartley, poet; a precocious child, who had been a visionary 
boy. His imaginative and colloquial powers were extra- 
ordinary. He was morbidly intemperate. 
s. Sara; had in a remarkable degree the intellectual charac- 
teristics of her father. She was authoress and principal 
editor of her father’s works. She married her cousin, 
H. Nelson Coleridge, and was mother of Herbert. See below. 
S. The Rev. Derwent Coleridge, author, Principal of St. Mark’s 
College, Chelsea; is the remaining child of the poet. 
N. Sir John Taylor Coleridge, judge ; eminent in early life as 
an accomplished scholar and man of letters. 
N. Edward Coleridge, master at Eton, now fellow. 
N. Henry Nelson Coleridge, scholar; a well-known writer of many 
articles in periodicals ; married his cousin Sara. See above. 
P. also BP, Herbert Coleridge, philologist. 
[NS.] Henry, late Fellow of Oriel College; now Roman Catholic. 
NS. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Solicitor-General. POETS. 
231 
Corneille, Pierre ; French dramatist; creator of the dramatic 
art in France; was brought up to the bar, but left it for 
poetry under an overpowering impulse. His first publica- 
tion was a comedy, set. 23 ; d. set. 78. 
B. Thomas, also a poet, who worked with Pierre, his elder and 
only brother. Their dispositions and way of life were in 
singularly close sympathy. Thus their difference of ages 
being nineteen years, they married sisters the difference of 
whose ages was the same. Their respective families lived 
in the same house. They wrote about an equal number 
of plays, and their writings were alike in character. 
Thomas had the greater facility in authorship, but his 
style was inferior in energy to that of his brother. He 
succeeded Pierre at the Academy; d. set. 84. 
n. Fontanelle, son of the only sister; the celebrated Secretary 
of the French Academy for nearly forty years. His real 
name was Bovier. .says, “ Mon pere etait une bete, 
mais ma mere avait de I’esprit; elle etait quietiste.” His 
was a mixed character—partly that of the man of society 
of a frivolous and conventional type, and partly that of 
the original man ot science and free-thinker. The Fonta- 
nelle of the opera and the Fontanelle of the Academy of 
Sciences seemed different people. Some biographers say 
he had more brain than heart; others admire his dispo- 
sition. He almost died from weakness on the day of his 
birth. He was a precocious child. At college the note 
attached to his name was, “ Adolescens omnibus partibus 
absolutus ”—a youth perfectly accomplished in every 
respect. He began public life by writing plays, in order 
to imitate his uncles, but his plays were hissed. Then he 
took to science, and became academician set. 34. He 
lived to extreme old age, becoming deaf and losing much 
of his memory; but he was “aussi spirltuel que jamais” 
to the last; d. one month short of set. 100, See D’Alem- 
bert in “ Science.” 
[-#PjP.] (?) Charlotte Corday, the heroic assassin of Marat; 
born about 150 years, or probably five generations, later 
than the Corneille family; was a direct descendant of the 
mother of Fontanelle. 
Cowper, William; a poet, whose writings have a singularly quiet 232 
POETS. 
charm, and are full of kindly and delicate feeling. He was 
past middle age when he began to write; his first success 
was ast. 54. He had a morbid constitutional timidity in 
youth, and insanity with religious terrors hung over his 
later life. He contended bravely against them, but ulti- 
mately they overpowered him. 
G. The judge, Sir Spencer Cowper. 
GB. The Lord Chancellor, Earl Cowper. 
Dibdin, Charles ; writer of more than 900 naval ballads. He 
was intended for the Church, but a love of music so 
predominated that he connected himself with the stage. 
His first opera was acted at Covent Garden when he was 
set. 16. He afterwards became manager of theatres, but 
was improvident, and consequently much embarrassed in 
later life. 
[F.] Was a considerable merchant. 
[/] Was set. 50 when he was born, and he was her eighteenth 
child. 
S. Thomas ; was apprenticed to an upholsterer, but he joined 
a party of strolling players, and took to the stage. He 
wrote and adapted a vast number of pieces—none of much 
original merit. 
N. Rev. Thomas F. Dibdin, famous bibliographer; founder of 
the Roxburghe Club, for the purpose of reprinting scarce 
books. 
Dryden, John; dramatist, satirist, and critic. He held the highest 
standing among the wits of his day. 17 he wrote 
good verses; he published “Astrsea Redux” set. 29, but 
was not recognised as a writer of the first order till set. 50. 
S. John ; wrote a comedy. 
UP. Jonathan Swift, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick’s, satirist and 
politician. See under Literature. 
Goethe, John Wolfgang; poet and philosopher. One of the 
greatest men of genius the world has produced. His dis- 
position, like that of Lord Bacon, appears to have been 
mainly formed by the simple addition of those of his 
ancestors. He was an exceedingly precocious child, for 
he wrote dialogues and other pieces that were both original 
and good between the ages of 6 and 8. He was an eagei 
student in boyhood and youth, though desultory in his POETS. 
233 
reading. His character then was proud and fantastic. 
Goethe describes his hereditary peculiarities in a pretty 
poem,1 of part of which I give a translation from his “ Life ” 
by Lewes :—“ From my father I inherit my frame and the 
steady guidance of my life; from dear little mother my 
happy disposition and love of story-telling. My ancestor 
was a £ ladies’ man,’ and that haunts me now and then; 
my ancestress loved finery and show, which also runs in 
the blood.” To go more into particulars, I take the sub- 
stance of the two following paragraphs from Lewes’s “ Life 
of Goethe.” 
One of the pleasantest figures in German literature, and one 
standing out with greater vividness than almost any other. 
She was the delight of children, the favourite of poets 
and princes. After a lengthened interview an enthusiastic 
traveller exclaimed, “Now do I understand how Goethe 
has become the man he is.” The Duchess Amalia cor- 
responded with her as an intimate friend; a letter from 
her was a small jubilee at the Weimar court. She was 
married set. 17 to a man for whom she had no love, and 
was only 18 when the poet was born. 
“ Was a cold, stern, formal, somewhat pedantic, but truth- 
loving, upright-minded man.” From him the poet in- 
herited the well-built frame, the erect carriage, and the 
measured movement, which in old age became stiffness, 
and was construed into diplomacy or haughtiness; from 
him also came that orderliness and stoicism which have 
so much distressed those who cannot conceive genius 
1 “ Vom Vater liab’ ich die Statur, 
Des Lebens emstes Fiihren ; 
Von Mutterchen die Frohnatur, 
Und Lust zu fabuliren. 
Urabnherr war der Schonsten hold, 
Das spukt so bin und wieder; 
Urahnfrau liebte Schmuck und Gold, 
Das zuckt wohl durch die Glieder. 
Sind nun die Elemente nicht, 
Aus dem Complex zu trennen 
Was ist den an dem ganzen Wicht 
Original zu nennen.” 234 
POETS; 
otherwise than as vagabond in its habits. The lust for 
knowledge, the delight in communicating it, the almost 
pedantic attention to details, which are noticeable in the 
poet, are all traceable in the father. 
Goethe married unsuitably, and had a son of no note, who 
died before him. 
Heine, Heinrich; German poet, essayist, and satirist of the 
highest order. Was intended for commerce, but took a 
disgust to it, and followed literature, as pupil and friend of 
A. W. Schlegel. He first published set. 25, but his writings 
were little appreciated by the public till set. 28. He became 
partially paralysed set. 47, and d. set. 56. Was of Jewish 
parentage. 
U. Salomon Heine, German philanthropist; who raised him- 
self from poverty to the possession of nearly two mil- 
lions sterling, and who gave immense sums to public 
institutions. 
[US.] The son of Salomon ; succeeded him in the management 
of his affairs. 
Hook, Theodore. Was a remarkably clever boy, who sang well 
and composed songs. ■He had great success set. 17. His 
constitution was naturally excellent, but he ruined it by 
dissipation; d. set. 53 of a broken constitution. Was 
unmarried, but had six illegitimate children. 
F. James Hook, a musical composer of extraordinary fertility 
and of considerable reputation in his day. 
B. Dr. James Hook, Dean of Worcester, accomplished scholar; 
eminent as a political pamphleteer. 
N. Dr. Walter Farquhar Hook, Dean of Chichester, theologian, 
author, and preacher. 
Milman, Henry Hart; Dean of St. Paul’s ; scholar, critic, poet, 
historian, and divine. “Fall of Jerusalem,” “History of 
the Jews,” &c. Very successful at Oxford, Singularly 
handsome. D. set. 77. 
F. Eminent physician, President of the College of Physicians. 
Milton, John; most illustrious English poet, scholar, and repub- 
lican writer. Was handsome and of girlish beauty when 
a youth. Had written “Arcades,” “ Comus,” “ V Allegro,” 
and “II Penseroso” before set. 31. Became blind about 
set. 40. He abandoned poetry for twenty years, during the POETS. 
235 
time he was engaged in political life. “ Paradise Lost ” 
and “Regained” were not written till after that period. 
D. set. 66. “Paradise Lost” did not become famous till 
long after the poet’s death. 
F, A man of considerable musical genius, whose chants are 
still in use. 
B A judge, whose creed, politics, and character were the oppo- 
site of those of the poet’s, and whose abilities were far 
inferior. 
Praed, Mackworth; a man of a thoroughly poetic disposition, 
though of more elegance than force. 
[3 n.] Sir George Young, Bart., and his brothers; an able family 
of scholars. 
Racine, Jean; French dramatist, and author of other writings. 
Orphan set. 4; received set. x 6 into a school attached to 
Port Royal, where he made astonishing progress, but he 
soon broke quite away from the ideas and studies of that 
place, and devoted himself to works of imagination and to 
writing verses; for this he was severely reprimanded. 
S. Louis; was a poet by nature, but never pursued poetry to his 
full desire, on account of remonstrances. He had high 
gifts ; d. set. 70. 
Tasso, Torquato; Italian poet; was exceedingly precocious. 
His father said of him, set. 16, that he showed himself 
worthy of his mother. JEt. 17 he had written “ Rinaldo 
d. set. 51, just after his release from a cruel imprisonment 
for seven years, and on the eve of his intended coronation 
at the Capitol as prince of poets. 
[/] Porzia di Rossi was a gifted woman in every respect. 
F. Bernardo Tasso, poet; author of “ I’Amadiji,” &c.; orator. 
He was left in embarrassed circumstances in his youth, 
and for a long time led a wandering and necessitous life. 
Vega, Lope de; Spanish poet of extraordinary fertility. He 
wrote 497 plays, and much other matter besides. He was 
very precocious. He ran away from home, and afterwards 
entered the army. He made a considerable fortune by his 
pen; d. set. 73. 
S. A natural son by Marcela; set. 14 made some figure as a 
poet, but, entering the navy, lost his life in a battle when 
still quite young. POETS. 
Wordsworth, William; poet. His epitaph by Keble is so 
grand and just, that I reprint an extract from it here:— 
“ A true Philosopher and Poet, who, by the special gift 
and calling of Almighty God, whether he discoursed on 
Man or Nature, failed not to lift up the heart to holy 
things; tired not of maintaining the cause of the poor 
and simple; and so, in perilous times, was raised up to 
be the chief minister, not only of noblest poesy, but of 
high and sacred truth,” 
He does not appear to have been precocious as a boy; 
he was a hot republican in his youth ; did not attain rank 
as a poet till manhood, about set. 40, He was a principal 
member of the “Lake” school of poets; d. set. 82. 
B. Rev. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, master of Trinity College, 
Cambridge; author of “ Ecclesiastical Biography,” &c. He 
had the three following sons, nephews of the poet:— 
N. John; excellent scholar, Cambridge, 1827; d. young. 
N. Rev. Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; senior classic, Cam- 
bridge, 1830; formerly public orator of Cambridge, and 
Head Master of Harrow; voluminous author. 
N. Charles, Bishop of Dunkeld; also an excellent scholar. CHAPTER XIII. 
MUSICIANS. 
THE general remarks I made in the last chapter on artists, 
apply with especial force to Musicians. The irregularity 
of their lives is commonly extreme ; the union of a pains- 
taking disposition with the temperament requisite for a 
good musician is as rare as in poets, and the distractions 
incident to the public life of a great performer are vastly 
greater. Hence, although the fact of the inheritance of 
musical taste is notorious and undeniable, I find it exceed- 
ingly difficult to discuss its distribution among families. 
I also found it impossible to obtain a list of first-class 
musicians that commanded general approval, of a length 
suitable to my purposes. There is excessive jealousy in 
the musical world, fostered no doubt by the dependence 
of musicians upon public caprice for their professional 
advancement. Consequently, each school disparages others ; 
individuals do the same, and most biographers are un- 
usually adulatory of their heroes, and unjust to those 
with whom they compare them. There exists no firmly- 
established public opinion on the merits of musicians, 
similar to that which exists in regard to poets and painters, 
and it is even difficult to find private persons of fair musical 
tastes, who are qualified to give a deliberate and dis- 
passionate selection of the most eminent musicians. As I 
have mentioned at the head of the appendix to this chapter, 238 
MUSICIANS. 
I was indebted to a literary and artistic friend in whose 
judgment I have confidence, for the selection upon which 
I worked. 
The precocity of great musicians is extraordinary. There 
is no career in which eminence is achieved so early in life 
as in that of music. 
I now proceed to give the usual tables. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 26 MUSICIANS GROUPED 
INTO 14 FAMILIES. 
One relation [or two in family). 
2. Gabrielli . . . 
Hiller . . . . 
2. Haydn .... 
. . • B. 
Bononcini . . 
. . B. S. 
Reiser . . . 
Dussek . . . 
Mendelssohn 
. G. F. t>. 
Eichhorn. . . 
Meyerbeer . . 
. . 2B. 
Two or three relations [or three orfour in family). 
2. 
Amati, Andrea . . . . 
9- 
Bach 
. . . G. F. U. GN. 2 GB. 3 S, 
2. 
Benda Giorgio . . . . 
. . . 3 B. 4N. S. 
Mozart 
Palestrina ...... 
, . . . 4s. 
Four or more relatiojts [or five or more in family). 
TABLE 11. 
In first degree 
In second degree 
. . . . 2 G. i U. s N. x P. 
In third degree 
All more remote 
14 FAMILIES. 
The nearness of degree of the eminent kinsmen is just 
as remarkable as it was in the case of the poets, and 
equally so in the absence of eminent relations through 
the female lines. MUSICIANS. 
Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer are the only musicians in 
my list whose eminent kinsmen have achieved their success 
in other careers than that of music. 
APPENDIX TO MUSICIANS. 
I am indebted to a friend, for a list of 120 musicians, who appeared to him 
to be the most original and eminent upon record. They were made for quite 
another object to my own, and I therefore am the more disposed to rely on 
the justice of my friend’s choice. 26 of these, or about 1 in 5, have had 
eminent kinsmen, as is shown in the following catalogue. The illustrious 
musicians are only 7 in number ; namely, Sebastian Bach, Beethoven, Handel, 
Haydn, Mendelssohn, Mozart, and Spohr. The 4 who are italicized are 
instances of hereditary genius. 
Allegri, Gregorio (1580—1652, get. 72); composer of the 
“ Miserere ” sung at the S. Sixtine at Rome in Lent; a 
man of kindly and charitable disposition, who used to. 
visit the prisons daily, and give what he could to the 
prisoners. 
? Exact relation. Correggio Allegri and his family. See Painters. 
Amati; a family of eminent 
makers of violins, who 
lived in Cremona, and 
were the first introducers 
of that instrument into 
Italy. They are six in 
number; indeed, there is 
a seventh—Joseph of Bo- 
Andrew. 
Nicholas. 
Antonio. Jerome. 
Nicholas. 
logna, who was living in 1786, but whose relationship to 
the others is unknown. 
Those of the family that showed the most original power 
are Andrea (B, 2 S, P), and Antonio (F, U, B, N). 
Bach, Sebastian; a transcendent musical genius (1685—1750, 
set. 65). He was very precocious, and arrived at the full 
maturity of his powers set. 22. His home life was simple 
and quiet. He was a good husband, father, friend, and MUSICIANS. 
citizen. lie was very laborious ; and became blind from 
over-study. 
The Bachs were a musical family, comprising a vast number 
of individuals, and extending through eight generations. 
It began in 1550, it culminated in Sebastian (6 in the 
genealogical table) and its last known member was Regina 
Susanna, who was alive in 1800, but in indigent circum- 
stances. There are far more than twenty eminent musicians 
among the Bachs; the biographical collections of musicians 
give the lives of no less than fifty-seven of them (see 
Fetis’ “ Dictionary of Musicians ”). It was the custom of 
the family to meet in yearly reunions, at which the enter- 
tainments were purely musical. In or about a. d. 1750 as 
many as 120 Bachs attended one of these meetings. A 
complete genealogy of the family is to be found in 
Korabinsky’s “ Beschreibung der Koniglichen Ungarischen 
Haupt Frey, und Kronungstadts Presburg,” t. i. p. 3; 
also a genealogical tree in No. 12 of the Leipsic Musical 
Gazette, 1823. I give a modified copy of this, for it is 
otherwise impossible to convey the lines of descent in a 
sufficiently intelligible manner. Every person mentioned 
in the list ranks as a sterling musician, except where the 
contrary is distinctly stated. 
F. J. Ambrose, a distinguished organist. 
U. J. Christopher, a twin child with Ambrose. These two were 
so exceedingly alike in feature, address, and style, that 
they were the wonder of all who saw and heard them. 
It is added that their wives could not distinguish them 
except by their dresses. 
G. Christopher (3). 
2 GB. Henry (2) and John (4). 
[GG.] Weit Bach (1), the founder of the family, was a baker 
at Presburg, who sung to the guitar; was obliged to leave 
his town because he was a Protestant, He settled in 
Saxe Gotha. 
GN. J. Christopher (5), one of the greatest musicians of Ger- 
many ; a laborious student. 
S. Guillaume Frederick (7), called “Bach of Halle;” a man 
of great power and very learned ; died indigent. 
S. C. P. Emmanuel (8), called “ Bach of Berlin;” the founder MUSICIANS. 
241 
— J. Michael. 
'O 
— J. Christopher,5 — 
— J. Frederick. 
§ 
s 
b. 1643, d. 1703. 
— J. Christian. 
H 
CO 
rt 
eq 
— I. Nicholas. 
i-J 
o 
£ 
£ 
•d 
— (L) 
rS 
8 
— J. Michael. — 
Daughter, 
rO 
hfl 
• *\ 
W 
1st wife, 7 children. 
— Guill. Frederick// 
flj 
g 
? if musical. 
called “ Bach of Halid.” 
rQ 
§ 
— J. Gunther. 
— 2 sons, the first of 
<u 
u 
rv. 
11 
— C. P. Emmanuel, 8 _ 
the family not 
PL, 
— J. Christopher, 
called “ Bach of Berlin.” 
musicians by 
•5 
— J. Ambrose, — 
Sebastian, 6 — 
— profession. 
vd 
CO 
(twins.) 
b. 1685, d. 1750. 
— J. Christopher, 9 
Guillaume. — Wilhelm, 
'o 
VO 
M 
<U 
11 
called “ Bach of England.” 
b. 1786; 
M 
•5 
2d wife, 
Organist a 
*<u 
wT 
o' 
to 
13 children. 
— J. Christian. 
Berlin. 
£ 
S 
w 
‘C 
,3 
u 
— 16 others, all musical. 
— George Christopher. — 
3 sons, 
musicians. 
— J. Nicholas. 
rH 
-|- 
— J. Egede. — 
— J. Bernard. — 
J. Ernest. — 
? name. 
Excellent organist. 
— J. Christian, 
— J. Christopher. 
Pedigree of the Bachs. MUSICIANS. 
242 
of our pianoforte music; whom Haydn, and likewise 
Mozart, regard as their direct predecessor and teacher. 
(Lady Wallace, “ Letters of Musicians.”) 
S. J. Christopher (9), called “ Bach of England;” a charming 
composer. 
I have not met with any notice of the Bach musical genius 
being transmitted through a female line. 
Beethoven, Ludwig von. I insert the name of this great 
composer on account of his having formerly been reputed 
the illegitimate son of Frederick the Great of Prussia. 
However, recent biographers consider this allegation to be 
absolutely baseless, and therefore, although I mention the 
report, Ido not accept its truth. His mother’s husband 
was a tenor singer of the Elector’s Chapel at Cologne. 
His two brothers were undistinguished. He had a nephew 
of some talent, who did not turn out well, and was cause 
of great grief to him. 
Beethoven began to publish his own musical compositions 
set. 13. 
Benda, Francesco (1709—1786, set. 77); was the elder member 
of a very remarkable family of violinists. His father was 
a poor weaver, but musical, and taught his sons to play. 
The following table shows how its eight principal members 
were related : 
A poor weaver, of musical tastes. 
Francesco. 
Giovanni. Giuseppi. Giorgio. 
i i Ti 
Frederico Carl Two musical 
Guill. H. Hermann. daughters. 
Ernest, Frederico 
Luigi. 
Francesco was the founder of a school of violinists, and was 
himself the ablest performer on that instrument in his day. 
B. Giovanni, pupil of Francesco; d. set. 38. 
B. Giuseppi; succeeded Francesco as master of the concerts of 
the King of Prussia; d. set. 80. 
B, Giorgio, the most eminent member of this interesting 
family. He had vast musical powers, but was fantastic, 
and wasted his time in reverie. It is said that, after his MUSICIANS. 
243 
wife had died in his arms, he rushed to the piano to express 
his grief; but soon, becoming interested in the airs he 
was originating, he forgot both his grief and the cause of 
it so completely, that, when his servant interrupted him to 
ask about communicating the recent event to the neigh- 
bours, Giorgio jumped up in a puzzle, and went to his 
wife’s room to consult her. 
N Fiederick Luigi (son of Giorgio), musician; husband of 
Madame Benda, director of concerts. 
S. Frederick Guillaume, a worthy pupil of his father, and a 
composer. 
S. Carl Hermann, who nearly approached his father as a 
violinist. 
[2 r.] Two musical daughters. 
N. Ernest Fred., son of Giuseppi; promised to be an artist of 
the first order, but d. of fever set. 31. 
Bononcini, Giovanni Maria (1640—?); composer and writer 
on music. 
[B.] But the relationship is not established. Domenichino, a 
musician at the court of Portugal, who lived to beyond 
85 years of age. 
B. Antonio, composer of Church music. 
S. Giovanni; composed a very successful opera—“Camilla”— 
set. 18. He was a rival in England of Handel, but had 
to yield. 
Dussek, Ladislas (1761—1812, set. 51); played on the piano 
set. 5 ; a very amiable and noble character; exceedingly 
careless about his own money; equally celebrated as a 
performer and as a composer. He greatly advanced the 
power of the piano. Married Miss Corn (? Currie), a 
musician. 
F. Giovanni; excellent organist. 
B. Francesco; very good violinist. 
s. Olivia; inherited the talents of her parents; performer on 
the piano and harp. 
Eichhorn, Jean Paul, 1787, and his two sons. Jean Paul was 
of humble birth. He showed remarkable aptitude for 
music, and without any regular instruction he became a 
good musician. He married twice; his son by the first 
wife was Ernest, and by the second, whom he married 244 
MUSICIANS. 
very shortly after the death of the first in childbirth, was 
Edward. 
2 S. These children were known as “ the Brothers Eichhorn.” 
They both had marvellous musical powers from the 
tenderest years, and played instinctively. Thenceforward 
their father used them cruelly, to make as much money as 
he could, and compelled them to perform continually in 
public. Thus they lost all opportunity for that study and 
leisure which are required for the development of the 
highest artistic powers. 
Gabrielli, Andrea (about 1520—1586, set. about 66); an 
esteemed composer of music. 
Edward was not equal in musical ability to his brother. 
N. Jean Gabrielli, a great and original artist, wholly devoted 
to musical labours; eulogized in the highest terras by his 
contemporaries and scholars. 
Haydn, Francis Joseph. His disposition to music was evident 
from the earliest childhood. He was born in low circum- 
stances, and gradually struggled upwards. His father was 
a village organist and wheelwright. He married, but not 
happily, and was soon separated from his wife, who had 
no children by him. 
B. Jean Michael. Joseph Haydn considered him to be the best 
composer of Church music of his day. He was an excel- 
lent organist. 
Hiller, Jean Adam (or Hiiller), (1728—?); a most eager student 
of music; had a wretched hypochondriacal state of ill- 
health in early manhood, which somewhat disappeared in 
later life. He had a honourable reputation both for his 
musical compositions and writings upon music. 
S. Frederick Adam Hiller (1768—1812, ret. 44); a first-rate vio- 
linist. He died when he was rising to a great reputation. 
Keiser, Reinhard (1673—1739, set. 66); one of the most illus- 
trious of German composers. He showed originality in 
his earliest musical efforts. He was a most fertile writer; 
in forty years he wrote 116 operas, and much else besides; 
but copies were seldom made of his works, and they are 
exceedingly rare. 
F, A distinguished musician and composer of Church music. 
s. His daughter was an excellent singer. MUSICIANS. 
245 
Mendelssohn, Bartholdy; had an early and strong disposition 
towards music; first published set. x 5. 
G. Moses Mendelssohn, a celebrated Jewish philosopher, who 
wrote, among other matters, on the aesthetics of music. 
He was precocious. 
F. Abraham Mendelssohn, a rich banker in Berlin. His son 
says to him, “ I often cannot understand how it is 
possible to have so acute a judgment with regard to 
music without being yourself technically informed.” 
(Letters, ii. 80.) 
[2 U.] His uncles were well-informed men. One was associated 
with Abraham in the bank3 he wrote on Dante3 also on 
the currency. The other was a hard student. 
b. Very musical3 as a pianist she was Mendelssohn’s equal, and 
of high genius. She was also very affectionate. 
Meyerbeer, James (the name is really Beer) 3 was exceedingly 
precocious. He played brilliantly set. 6, and was amongst 
the best pianists of Berlin set. 9. He began to publish 
compositions set. 19, and d. set. 70. 
B. William Meyerbeer, the astronomer—Map of the Moon. 
B. Michael Beer, a poet of high promise, who died young. 
Mozart, J. C. Wolfgang 3 was exceedingly precocious as a child— 
quite a prodigy in music. . He played beautifully set. 4, 
and composed much of real merit between the ages of 
4 and 6. He overworked himself, and d. set. 35. 
F. Leopold Mozart; famous violinist. His method, which he 
published, was considered for fifty years to be the best 
work of its kind. He composed a great deal. 
b. Was a hopeful musician as a child, and excellent pianist, but 
she did not succeed in after-life. 
S. Charles Mozart3 cultivated music as an amateur, and played 
with distinguished talent, but nothing more is recorded 
of him. 
S. Wolfgang Amedee3 born four months after his father’s 
death 3 was a distinguished performer, and has composed 
a good deal, but has not risen to high eminence as a 
composer. 
Palestrina, Jean Pierluigi de (b. ?—died 1594); composer of 
Church music; one of the most illustrious of names in 
the history of music, yet nothing is known of his parent- 246 
MUSICIANS. 
age or family, and even the dates of his birth and death 
are doubtful. He married young. 
4 S. His three eldest sons—Ange, Rodolphe, and Sylla—died 
in their youth. They seem to have had their father’s 
abilities, judging from such of their compositions as are 
preserved among Palestrina’s works. The fourth son—• 
Hygin—edited his father’s musical compositions. CHAPTER XIV. 
PAINTERS. 
Among painters, as among musicians, I think no one 
doubts that artistic talent is, in some degree, hereditary. 
The question is rather, whether its distribution in families, 
together with the adjuncts necessary to form an eminent 
painter, follows much the same law as that which obtains 
in respect to other kinds of ability. It would be easy 
to collect a large number of modern names to show how 
frequently artistic eminence is shared by kinsmen. Thus, 
the present generation of the Landseers consists of two 
Academicians and one Associate of the Royal Academy, 
who were all of them the sons of an associate. The 
Bonheur family consists of four painters, Rosa, Juliette, 
Jules, and Auguste, and they are the children of an artist 
of some merit. Very many more instances could easily be 
quoted. But I wish to adduce evidence of the inter- 
relationship of artists of a yet higher order of merit, and 
I therefore limit my inquiry to the illustrious ancient 
painters, especially of Italy and the Low Countries. These 
are not numerous—only, as well as I can make out, about 
forty-two, whose natural gifts are unquestionably more 
than “ eminent; ” and the fact of about half of them 
possessing eminent relations, and of some of them, as the 
Caracci and the Van Eycks, being actually kinsmen, is 
more important to my argument than pages filled with 248 
PAINTERS. 
the relationships of men of the classes F or E of artistic 
gifts. It would be interesting to know the number of art 
students in Europe during the last three or more centuries, 
from whom the forty-two names I have selected are the 
most illustrious. It is assuredly very great, but it hardly 
deserves much pains in investigation, because it would 
afford a minimum, not a true indication of the artistic 
superiority of the forty-two over the rest of the world : 
the reason being, that the art students are themselves a 
selected class. Lads follow painting as a profession usually 
because they are instinctively drawn to it, and not as a 
career in which they were placed by accidental circum- 
stances. I should estimate the average of the forty-two 
painters to rank far above the average of class F, in the 
natural gifts necessary for high success in art. 
In the following table I have included ten individuals 
that do not find a place in the list of forty-two: namely, 
Isaac Ostade; Jacopo and Gentile Bellini; Badille, Agos- 
tino Caracci, William Mieris; David Teniers; W. Van der 
Velde the elder; and Francesco da Ponte, both the elder 
and the younger. The average rank of these men is far 
above that of a modern Academician, though I have not 
ventured to include them in the most illustrious class. 
I have kept Claude in the latter, notwithstanding recent 
strictures, on account of his previously long-established 
reputation. 
TABLE I. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 26 GREAT PAINTERS 
GROUPED INTO 14 FAMILIES. 
One relation {or two in family). 
Allegri 
. S. 
I 2. Ostade . . . . 
Correggio, see Allegri.) 
1 Potter . . . . PAINTERS. 
249 
Two or three relations (or three or four in family). 
3- 
Bellini F. B. 
Robusti ..... S. 
2. 
Cagliari (and Badille). u. S. 
2. Teniers F. 
3- 
Caracci 2 US. UP. 
(Tintoretto, see Robusti.) 
2 
Eyck . , . . . B. i. 
2. Velde, Van der . . F. 
S'. 
2 
Mieris 2 S. 
Murillo 2 0. uS. 
(Veronese, see Cagliari.) 
Four or more relations {or five or more in family). 
(Bassano, see Ponte.) 
3. Ponte 
. . . S. 4P. 
(Titian, see Vecelli.) 
Vecelii 
TABLE 11. 
In first degree .... 
In second degree . , . 
. . , 3U- 4P- 
In third degree . . . 
. . . 2 US. 1 uS. 
All more remote . . . 
14 FAMILIES. 
The rareness with which artistic eminence passes through 
more than two degrees of kinship, is almost as noticeable 
here as in the cases of musicians and poets. 
APPENDIX TO PAINTERS. 
I have procured a list ot 42 ancient painters ot the Italian, Spanish, and 
Dutch schools, which includes, I believe, all who are ranked by common 
consent as illustrious. 18 of them have eminent relations, and 3 of the 
remainder—namely, Claude, Parmegiano, and Raffaelle—have kinsmen worthy 
of notice : these are printed in italics in the following list, the remainder are 
in ordinary type. 
Italian Schools. Allegri, “Correggio;” (Andrea del Sarto, see Van- 
nucchi); {Bassano, see Ponte); Bellini; Buonarotti, Michael Angelo; Cagliari, 
“Paolo VeroneseCaracci, Annibale; Caracci, Ludovico; Cimabue; {Claude, 
see Gelee) ; {Correggio, see Allegri) ; (Domenichino, see Zampieri) ; (Francia, 
see Raibollini) ; Gelee, Claude “Lorraine^iorgione; Giotto; (Guido, see 
Reni) ; Marratti. Carlo ; Mazzuoli, uParmegiano; ” (Michael Angelo, see 250 
PAINTERS. 
Buonarotti); (Parmegiano, see Mazzuoli); (Perugino, see Vannucci); Piombo, 
Sebastian del; Ponte, “Bassano Poussin; {Raffaelle, see Sanzio); Raibollini, 
Francia; Reni, Guido; Robusti, “Tintorettoßosa, Salvator; Sanzio, 
Raffaelle; {Titian, see Vecelli); Vannucci, Andrea, “del Sarto;” Vannucci, 
Perugino; Vecelli, Titian; {Veronese, see Cagliari); Vinci, Leonardo da. 
Spanish Schools, Murillo; Ribiera, Spagnoletto ; Velasquez. 
Dutch Schools. Dow, Gerard ; Durer, Albert; Eyck, II.; Eyck, J. V.j 
Holbein; Mieris; Ostade; Potter, Paul; Rembrandt; Rubens; Ruysdael; 
Teniers; Vandyck; Velde, Van der. 
Allegri, Antonio da Correggio (1494—1534, set. 40); one of 
those rare examples of a man of innate and daring genius 
who, without a precursor and without a technical education, 
became a great painter. Very little is known of his parentage. 
S. Pomponeo Allegri, only son; his father died when he was 
only 12, but he painted in his father’s style. His fresco in 
Parma Cathedral is full of Correggiesque expression. 
[p.] Antonio Pelegrino, called “ II Pittore.” 
? (I do not know the relation.) Gregorio Allegro, the musi- 
cian. See. 
Bassano. See Ponte. 
Bellini, Giovanni (1422—1512, set. 90); was the first Venetian 
painter in oil, and the instructor of the two greatest 
painters of Venice—Giorgione and Titian. He was him- 
self the first Venetian painter, when in his prime. 
F. Jacopo Bellini, one of the most reputable painters of the 
early period at which he lived. He was eminent for his 
portraits. 
B. Gentile Cav. Bellini, painter of very high reputation. The 
large pictures in the great Council Chamber of Venice 
are by him. The Senate gave him honour, and a stipend 
for life. 
Cagliari, Paolo, called “Paolo Veronese” (1532—1588, set. 56). 
His genius showed itself early. It was said of him that, 
in the spring of life, he bore most excellent fruit. He was 
the most successful among painters of ornament and of 
scenes of sumptuous and magnificent parade. 
[F.] Gabrielle Cagliari, sculptor. 
u. Antonio Badile, the first of the Venetian painters that en- 
tirely emancipated himself from the Gothic style. 
S. Carletto Cagliari; inherited the inventive genius of his PAINTERS. 
father, and gave most flattering promise of future excel- 
lence, but died set. 26. 
[S.] Gabrielle Cagliari, a painter, but not a successful one, 
who afterwards abandoned the profession and followed 
commerce. 
Caracci, Lodovico (1555—1619, set. 64); the principal founder 
of the school that bears the name of his family. His 
genius was slow in declaring itself ; his first master having 
counselled him to abandon art, and his fellow-pupils having 
nicknamed him, from his slowness, “the Ox.” But the 
slowness was more apparent than real; it arose from 
profound reflection, as distinguished from vivacity. His 
powers were extraordinary. 
US. Agostino Caracci (1558—1601, set. 43); an excellent 
painter, but chiefly eminent as an engraver. His powers 
showed themselves in boyhood. He was an accomplished 
man of letters and science, and had the gifts of a poet. 
US. Annibale Caracci (1560—1609, set. 49). This great artist 
was the younger brother of Agostino. He had received 
from nature the gifts of a great painter, and they were 
carefully cultivated by Lodovico. Annibale had more 
energy than Agostino, but a far less cultured mind; he 
was even averse to literature. 
[US.] Francesco Caracci, a third brother of great pretensions as 
a painter, but of disproportionate merit. 
UP. Antonio Caracci, a natural son of Annibale; had much 
of his father’s genius, and became an able designer and 
painter. His constitution was weak, and he died set. 36. 
[B.] Paolo Caracci, a painter, but without original power. 
Claude. See Gel&e. 
Correggio. See Allegri. 
Eyck, John van (1370—1441); the discoverer of oil painting. 
His pictures were held in the highest estimation at the 
time in which he lived. 
B. Hubert van Eyck, equally eminent as a painter. In fact, 
the two brothers worked so much in conjunction that their 
works are inseparable. 
[F.J An obscure painter. 
b. Marguerite. She was passionately devoted to painting. 
Gelee, Claude (called Lorraine), {l6O0—1682, set. 82). This 252 
PAINTERS. 
eminent landscape painter began life as an apprentice to 
a pastrycook, then travelling valet, and afterwards cook to 
an artist. His progress in painting was slow, but he had 
indomitable perseverance; was at the height of his fame 
set. 30. He never married; he was too devoted to his 
profession to do so. 
[B.] A carver in wood. 
Mazzuoli, Francesco, called “II Parmegiano” (1504—1541, 
set. 37). This great colourist and graceful and delicate 
painter made such great progress as a student, though ill- 
taught, that set. 16 his painting was the astonishment of 
contemporary artists. According to Vasari, it was said at 
Rome that “ the soul of Raffaelle had passed into the 
person of Parmegiano.” It is stated that when at the height 
of his fame he became seized with the mania of alchemy, 
and wasted his fortune and health in searching for the 
philosopher’s stone. 
[F. and 2 U.] Filippo Mazzuoli, and Michele and Pier llano, 
were all three of them artists, but obscure. 
(?) US. Girolamo, son of Michele, and scholar of Parmegiano; 
he married a cousin, the daughter of Pier Ilario. He was 
a painter of some success. The ?is appended to his letter 
because it has been said that he was not a relation at all. 
It is singular to note the contradictions about the family 
concerns of the painters. There is less known of their 
domestic history than of any other class of eminent men 
except musicians. 
[uP. (and also ? UP).] Alessandro, son of Girolamo, and his 
scholar. He was but an inferior artist. 
Mieris, Francis (the Elder), (1635—1681, set. 46). “It is too 
much, with all his merits, to say he is superior to, or even 
equal with, Gerard Dow; his admirers should be content 
with placing him at the head of the next rank,” 
S. John Mieris; despaired of equalling his father in minuteness 
and delicacy, so he followed historical painting and por- 
traiture; died aet. 30. 
S. William Mieris; was an able artist set. 18, and was scarcely 
inferior to his father in the exquisite finish of his pictures. 
[P.] Francis Mieris (the Younger), son of William; a painter in 
the same style as his father, but decidedly inferior to him. PAINTERS. 
253 
Murillo, Bartolome Estevan (1613—1685, set. 72), Few have 
a juster claim to originality than this admirable Spanish 
painter. He showed early inclination to the art. He was 
naturally humble-minded and retiring, and remarkably good 
and charitable, even to his own impoverishment. 
u. Juan del Castillo, a painter of considerable merit, and the 
instructor of some of the greatest artists in Spain, namely, 
Murillo, Alonzo Cano, and Pedro de Moya. 
u. Augustin Castillo, a good painter. 
uS. Antonio del Castillo, y Salvedra; eminent painter as regards 
composition and design, but inferior in colouring. He 
sank into a despondency after visiting Seville, where he 
first saw a collection of Murillo’s pictures, so much superior 
to his own, and he died of it. 
Ostade, Adrian van.(l6l0—1685, set. 75); eminent painter of 
Dutch domestic scenes and grotesque subjects. 
B. Isaac van Ostade; began by copying his brother’s style with- 
out much success, but afterwards he adopted a manner of 
his own, and became a well-known painter. He died in 
the prime of life. 
Parmegiano. See Mazzuoli. 
Ponte, Francesco da (the Elder), (1475—IS3°> ®t. 55); the head 
of the family of the Bassanos, and the founder of the 
school distinguished by their name. 
S. Giacomo da Ponte (called II Bassano), (1510—1592, 
set. 82); eminent artist; had extraordinary invention and 
facility of execution. He had four sons, as follow, all 
well-known painters 
P. Francesco da Ponte (the Younger); had eminent talents. He 
had attacks of melancholy, and committed suicide set. 49. 
P. Giovanni Battista da Ponte, noticeable as a most precise 
copyist of the works of his father, Giacomo. 
P. Leandro da Ponte; celebrated portrait painter. 
P. Girolamo da; excellent copyist of his father’s works. 
Potter, Paul; admirable Dutch painter of animals; before he 
was set. 15, his works were held in the highest estimation. 
F. Peter Potter, landscape painter, whose works are now rare, 
but they must have been of considerable merit, judging 
from the prints engraved from them by P. Nolpe. 
Raffaelle. See Sanzio. 254 
PAINTERS. 
Robusti, Giacomo (called II Tintoretto). This distinguished 
Venetian painter showed an artistic bent from infancy, and 
far outstripped his fellow-students. He was a man of 
impetuous genius and prompt execution. 
s Marietta Robusti (Tintoretto); acquired considerable repu- 
tation as a portrait painter, and her celebrity was not 
confined to her native country. 
S. Domenico Robusti (Tintoretto); followed the traces of his 
father, but with unequal strength. He was also a good 
portrait painter, and painted many of the historical per- 
sonages of his time. 
Ruysdael, Jacob (born about 1636); Dutch landscape painter. 
He showed extraordinary artistic ability set. 14, but did 
not at first follow painting as a profession. He began life 
as a surgeon. 
[B.] Solomon Ruysdael, the elder brother, twenty years older 
than Jacob, was a landscape painter of feeble powers. 
Sanzio, .Raffaelle, di Urbino. This illustrious artist has, by 
the general approbation of mankind, been considered as 
the prince of painters. 
[F.] Giovanni Sanzio, a painter whose powers were moderate, 
but certainly above the average. 
[F.] Giovanni Sanzio, a painter whose powers were moderate, 
but certainly above the average. 
Teniers, David (the Younger), (1610—1694, set, 84). This 
celebrated Dutch painter followed the same style and 
adopted the same subjects as his father, such as village 
festivals and the like, but his compositions are by far the 
more varied and ingenious, and the superior in every way. 
F. David Teniers (the Elder), (1582—1649, set, 67). His pic- 
tures were very original in style, and universally admired. 
They would have been considered among the happiest 
efforts in that class of drawings if they had not been 
greatly surpassed by the inimitable productions of his son. 
B. Abraham Teniers. He painted in the same style as his 
brother and father, but though a fair artist he was much 
inferior to both of them. 
Titian. See Vecelli. 
Vandyck, Sir Anthony (1599—1641); admirable portrait painter, 
second only to Titian. 
[F.] A painter on glass; a man of some property. 
[/] His mother was skilful in embroidery, which she wrought PAINTERS. 
255 
with considerable taste, from designs both of landscape 
and figures. 
Vecelli, Tiziano da Cadore (Titian), (1477—1576); the 
great founder of the true principles of colouring. Showed 
considerable ability at the age of 18, and he painted until 
his death, by the plague, set. 99. 
There are eight or nine good painters in this remarkable 
family: Bryan mentions six of them in his Dictionary, but 
it seems that he is not quite accurate as to their relation- 
ships. The annexed genealogical tree is compiled from 
Northcote’s descriptions. All those whose names appear 
in the diagram are painters. The connecting links indi- 
cated by crosses are, singularly enough, every one of them 
lawyers. 
II II 
Francesco. Titian. Fabricio. Cesare, 
Marco. 
Tizianello. Thomaso. 
Pomponio. Horatio. 
B. and 2 S. Titian’s brother, Francesco, and two sons, Pomponio 
and Horatio, had all of them great abilities. The brother 
was chiefly engaged in military duties, and was never able 
to make a profession of painting. The sons wanted the 
stimulus of poverty, but there is no doubt of their large 
natural capacities for art. 
[/] Lucia; was a very able woman. 
UP., 2 UPS. The other relationships, though distant, are in- 
teresting as showing the persistent artistic quality of the 
Vecelli race. 
Velde, William van der (the Younger), (1633—1707). Is ac- 
counted the best marine painter that ever lived. Walpole 
says of him that he is “ the greatest man that has appeared 
in this branch of painting; the palm is not less disputed 256 
PAINTERS. 
with Raphael for history than with Vandervelde for sea- 
pieces.” He was born at Amsterdam. 
F. William van der Velde (the Elder), (1610—1693, set. 83); 
admirable marine painter, born in Leyden. He taught his 
son, by whom he was surpassed. 
S. Also named William, and also a painter of the same subjects 
as his father and grandfather. 
There are three other eminent painters of the same family, 
name, towns, and period; but I find no notice of their 
relationships. Thus the two brothers, Esais and John 
van der Velde, were born in Leyden about 1590 and 1595, 
and Adrian van der Velde was born in Amsterdam in 1639. 
Veronese, Paul. See Cagliari. CHAPTER XV. 
DIVINES. 
1 AM now about to push my statistical survey into regions 
where precise inquiries seldom penetrate, and are not very 
generally welcomed. There is commonly so much vague- 
ness of expression on the part of religious writers, that I 
am unable to determine what they really mean when they 
speak of topics that directly bear on my present inquiry. 
I cannot guess how far their expressions are intended to 
be understood metaphorically, or in some other way to be 
clothed with a different meaning to what is imposed by the 
grammatical rules and plain meaning of language. The 
expressions to which I refer are those which assert the 
fertility of marriages and the establishment of families to 
be largely dependent upon godliness.1 I may even take 
a much wider range, and include those other expressions 
which assert that material well-being generally is influenced 
by the same cause.2 
I do not propose to occupy myself with criticising the 
interpretation of these or similar passages, or by endea- 
vouring to show how they may be made to accord with 
fact; it is the business of theologians to do these things. 
What I undertake is simply to investigate whether or no 
the assertions they contain, according to their primd facie 
interpretation, are or are not in accordance with statistical 
1 For example—as to fertility, Ps. cxxviii. i, 3, 5 i cxiii. 8; and as to found* 
hig families, xxiv. 11, 12. 
2 For example—as to general prosperity, Ps. i. 4; as to longevity, xxxi- 
*2—l4; and as to health, xci. 3, 6, io. 258 
DIVINES 
deductions. If an exceptional providence protects the 
families of godly men, it is a fact that we must take into 
account. Natural gifts would then have to be conceived 
as due, in a high and probably measurable degree, to 
ancestral piety, and, in a much lower degree than I might 
otherwise have been inclined to suppose, to ancestral natural 
peculiarities. 
All of us are familiar with another and an exactly 
opposite opinion. It is popularly said that the children 
of religious parents frequently turn out badly, and 
numerous instances are quoted to support this assertion. 
If a wider induction and a careful analysis should prove 
the correctness of this view, it might appear to strongly 
oppose the theory of heredity. 
On both these accounts, it is absolutely necessary, to 
the just treatment of my subject, to inquire into the 
history of religious people, and learn the extent of their 
hereditary peculiarities, and whether or no their lives are 
attended by an exceptionally good fortune. 
I have taken considerable pains to procure a suitable 
selection of Divines for my inquiries. The Roman Catholic 
Church is rich in ecclesiastical biography, but it affords no 
data for my statistics, for the obvious reason that its holy 
personages, of both sexes, are celibates, and therefore in- 
capable of founding families. A collection of the Bishops 
of our Church would also be unsuitable, because, during 
many generations, they were principally remarkable as 
administrators, scholars, polemical writers, or courtiers; 
whence it would not be right to conclude, from the fact 
of their having been elevated to the Bench, that they 
were men of extraordinary piety. I thought of many 
other selections of Divines, which further consideration 
compelled me to abandon. At length I was fortunately 
directed to one that proved perfectly appropriate to mv 
wants. DIVINES. 
259 
Middleton’s “ Biographia Evangelica,” 4 vols. Bvo. 1786, 
is exactly the kind of work that suits my inquiries. The 
biographies contained in it are not too numerous, for there 
are only 196 of them altogether, extending from the 
Reformation to the date of publication. Speaking more 
precisely, the collection includes the lives of 196 Evan- 
gelical worthies, taken from the whole of Europe, who, 
with the exception of the four first—namely, Wickliffe, 
Huss, Jerome of Prague, and John of Wesalia—died 
between 1527 and 1785. This leaves 192 men during a 
period of 258 years; or 3 men in every 4—a sufficiently 
rigorous, but not too rigorous, selection for my purposes. 
The biographies are written in excellent English, with well- 
weighed epithets; and though the collection is, to some 
extent, a compilation of other men’s writings, it may justly 
be viewed as an integral work, in which a proportionate 
prominence has been given to the lives of the more im- 
portant men, and not as a combination of separate memoirs, 
written without reference to one another. Middleton assures 
the reader, in his preface, that no bigoted partiality to sects 
will be found in his collection; that his whole attention 
has been paid to truly great and gracious characters of all 
those persuasions which hold the distinguishing principles 
of the Gospel. He does not define what, in his opinion, 
those principles are, but it is easy to see that his leaning 
is strongly towards the Calvinists, and he utterly reprobates 
the Papists, 
I should further say, that, after reading his work, I have 
gained a much greater respect for the body of Divines than 
I had before. One is so frequently scandalized by the 
pettiness, acrimony, and fanaticism shown in theological 
disputes, that an inclination to these failings may reason- 
ably be suspected in men of large religious profession. 
But I can assure my readers, that Middleton’s biographies 
appear, to the best of my judgment, to refer, in by the far DIVINES. 
greater part, to exceedingly noble characters. There are 
certainly a few personages of very doubtful reputation, 
especially in the earlier part of the work, which covers the 
turbid period of the Reformation ; such as Cranmer, “ saintly 
in his professions, unscrupulous in his dealings, zealous for 
nothing, bold in speculation, a coward and a time-server 
in action, a placable enemy, and a lukewarm friend.” 
(Macaulay.) Nevertheless, I am sure that Middleton’s 
collection, on the whole, is eminently fair and trustworthy. 
The 196 subjects of Middleton’s biographies may be 
classified as follow:—22 of them were martyrs, mostly 
by fire; the latest of these—Homel, a pastor in the 
Cevennes in the time of Louis XIV.—was executed, 1683, 
under circumstances of such singular atrocity, that, although 
they have nothing to do with my subject, I cannot forbear 
quoting what Middleton says about them. Homel was 
sentenced to the wheel, where “ every limb, member, and 
bone of his body were broken with the iron bar, forty hours 
before the executioner was permitted to strike him upon 
the breast, with a stroke which they call ‘le coup de grace,’ 
the blow of mercy—that death-stroke which put an end 
to all his miseries.” Others of the 196 worthies, including 
many of the martyrs, were active leaders in the Reforma- 
tion, as Wickliffe, Zuinglius, Luther, Ridley, Calvin, Beza; 
others were most eminent administrators, as Archbishops 
Parker, Grindal, and Usher; a few were thorough-going 
Puritans, as Bishop Potter, Knox, Welch, the two Erskines, 
and Dr. J. Edwards; a larger number were men of an 
extreme, but more pleasing form of piety, as Bunyan, 
Baxter, Watts, and George Herbert. The rest, and the 
majority of the whole list, may be described as pious 
scholars. 
As a general rule, the men in Middleton’s collection had 
considerable intellectual capacity and natural eagerness for 
study, both of which qualities were commonly manifest in DIVINES. 
boyhood. Most of them wrote voluminously, and were 
continually engaged in preachings and religious services. 
They had evidently a strong need of utterance. They 
were generally, but by no means universally, of religious 
parentage, judging by the last 100 biographies of Middle- 
ton’s collection, the earlier part of the work giving too 
imperfect notices of their ancestry to make it of use to 
analyse it. It would appear that, out of 100 men, only 
41 had one or more eminently religious parents, nothing 
whatever being said of the parentage of the other 59. 
The 41 eases are divided thus P—ln 17 cases (a) the father 
was a minister; in 16 cases (b), the father not being a 
minister, both parents were religious ; in 5 cases {c) the 
mother only is mentioned as pious ; in 2 cases (d) the 
mother’s near relatives are known to have been religious ; 
in 1 case (e) the father alone is mentioned as pious. 
There is no case in which either or both parents are 
distinctly described as having been sinful, though there 
are two cases (f)2 of meanness, and one (g.)3 of over- 
spending. 
The condition of life of the parents is mentioned in 66 
cases—more than one-third of the whole. They fall into 
the following groups : 
4. Highly connected*—Hamilton ; George, Prince of An- 
halt ; John a Lasco ; Herbert. 
8. Ancient families (not necessarily wealthy).—Jewell, 
Deering, Gilpin, Hildersham, Ames, Bedell, Lewis de Dieu, 
Palmer. 
1 (a) Lewis de Dieu, Alting, Manton, T. Gouge, Owen, Leighton, Claude, 
Hopkins, Fleming, Burkitt, Halyburton, M. Henry, Clarke, Mather, Evans, 
Edwards, Hervey. 
(6) Donne, Downe, Taylor, Whately, W. Gouge, Janeway, Winter, Flavel, 
Spener, Witsius, Shower, Doddridge, G. Jones, Davies, Guyse, Gill. 
(c) G. Herbert, Hall, P. Henry, Baily, Whitefield. 
[d) Wilkins (mother’s father, J. Dod), Toplady (two maternal uncles, 
clergymen). 
W Hale. 
* f. Bullinger, Fulke. 
3 g. Baxter. 262 
DIVINES. 
15. Well connected.—CEcolampadius, Zuinglius, Capito 
Farel, Jones, Bugenhagius, Bullinger, Sandys, Featley, 
Dod, Fulke, Pool, Baxter, Griffith Jones, Davies. 
23. Professional.—Melancthon and Toplady, officers in 
army ; Gataker, Usher, and Saurin, legal; seventeen were 
ministers (see list already given) ; Davenant, merchant. 
6. In Trade.—Two Abbots, weaver; Twisse, clothier; 
Bunyan, tinker; Watts, boarding-school ; Doddridge, 
oilman. 
4. Poor.—Huss, Ball, Grynseus, Fagius, Latimer. 
6. Very poor.—Luther, Pellican, Musculus, Cox, Andreas, 
Prideaux. 
There is, therefore, nothing anomalous in the parentage 
of the Divines ; it is what we should expect to have found 
among secular scholars, born within the same periods of 
our history. 
The Divines are not founders of influential families. 
Poverty was not always the reason of this, because we 
read of many whose means were considerable. W. Gouge 
left a fair fortune to his son T. Gouge, wherewith he sup- 
ported Welsh and other charities. Evans had considerable 
wealth, which he wholly lost by speculations in the South 
Sea Bubble; and others are mentioned who were highly 
connected, and therefore more or less well off. The only 
families that produced men of importance are those of 
Saurin, whose descendant was the famous Attorney-General 
of Ireland ; of Archbishop Sandys, whose descendant after 
several generations became the Ist Lord Sandys ; and of 
Hooker, who is ancestor of the eminent botanists, the late 
and present Directors of the Kew Botanical Gardens. The 
Divines, as a whole, have had hardly any appreciable in 
fluence in founding the governing families of England, or 
in producing our judges, statesmen, commanders, men of 
literature and science, poets or artists. 
The Divines are but moderately prolific. Judging from DIVINES. 
the later biographies, about one-half of them were married, 
and there were about 5, or possibly 6, children to each 
marriage. That is to say, the number actually recorded 
gives at the rate of but in addition to these occurs, 
about once in 6 or 7 cases, the phrase “ many children.” 
The insertion of these occasional unknown, but certainly 
large numbers, would swell the average by a trifling 
amount. Again, it is sometimes not clear whether the 
number of children who survived infancy may not be stated 
by mistake as the number of births, and, owing to this doubt, 
we must further increase the estimated average. Now in 
order that population should not decrease, each set of 4 
adults, 2 males and 2 females, must leave at least 4 chil- 
dren who live to be adults, behind them. In the case of 
the Divines, we have seen that only one-half are married 
men; therefore each married Divine must leave 4 adults 
to succeed him, if his race is not to decrease. This 
implies an average family of more than 6 children, or, 
as a matter of fact, larger families than the Divines appear 
to have had. 
Those who marry, often marry more than once. We 
hear in all of 81 married men; 3 of these, namely, Junius, 
Gataker, and Flavel, had each of them 4 wives; Bucer 
and Mather had 3 ; and 12 others had 2 wives each. The 
frequency with which the Divines became widowers is a 
remarkable fact, especially as they did not usually marry 
when young. I account for the early deaths of their wives, 
on the hypothesis that their constitutions were weak, and 
my reasons for thinking so are twofold. First, a very large 
proportion of them died in childbirth, for seven such deaths 
are mentioned, and there is no reason to suppose that all, 
or nearly all, that occurred have been recorded by Middle- 
ton. Secondly, it appears, that the wives of the Divines 
Were usually women of great piety; now it will be shown 
a little further on, that there is a frequent correlation 264 
DIVINES. 
between an unusually devout disposition and a weak con- 
stitution. 
The Divines seem to have been very happy in their 
domestic life. I know of few exceptions to this rule : the 
wife of T. Cooper was unfaithful, and that of poor Hooker 
was a termagant. Yet in many cases, these simple-hearted 
worthies had made their proposals under advice, and not 
through love. Calvin married on Bucer’s advice; and as 
for Bishop Hall, he may tell his own story, for it is a 
typical one. After he had built his house, he says, in his 
autobiography, “ The uncouth solitariness of my life, and 
the extreme incommodity of my single housekeeping, drew 
my thoughts after two years, to condescend to the necessity 
of a married estate, which God no less strangely provided for 
me, for walking from the church on Monday in the Whitsun 
week with a grave and reverend minister, Mr. Grandidge, 
I saw a comely and modest gentlewoman standing at the 
door of that house where we were invited to a wedding- 
dinner, and inquiring of that worthy friend whether he 
knew her, ‘ Yes,’ quoth he, ‘ I know her well, and have 
bespoken her for your wife.’ When I further demanded 
an account of that answer, he told me she was the daughter 
of a gentleman whom he much respected, Mr, George 
Winniffe, of Bretenham ; that out of an opinion had of 
the fitness of that match for me, he had already treated 
with her father about it, whom he found very apt to enter- 
tain it, advising me not to neglect the opportunity, and not 
concealing the just praises of the modesty, piety, good dis- 
position, and other virtues that were lodged in that seemly 
presence. I listened to the motion as sent from God ; and 
at last, upon due prosecution, happily prevailed, enjoying the 
company of that meet-help for the space of forty-nine years.” 
The mortality of the Divines follows closely the same 
order in those who are mentioned in the earlier, as in 
the later volumes of Middleton’s collection, although the DIVINES. 
265 
conditions of life must have varied in the periods to which 
they refer. Out of the 196, nearly half of them die between 
the ages of 55 and 75 ; one quarter die before 55, and one 
quarter after 75 : 62 or 63 is the average age at death, in 
the sense that as many die before that age as after it. 
This is rather less than I have deduced from the other 
groups of eminent men treated of in this volume. Dod, the 
most aged of all of the Divines, lived till he was 98. Nowell 
and Du Moulin died between 90 and 95 ; and Zanchius, 
Beza, and Conant, between 85 and 90. The diseases 
that killed them are chiefly those due to a sedentary life, 
for, if we exclude the martyrs, one quarter of all the 
recorded cases were from the stone or strangury, between 
which diseases the doctors did not then satisfactorily dis- 
criminate ; indeed, they murdered Bishop Wilkins by 
mistaking the one for the other. There are five cases of 
plague, and the rest consist of the following groups-in 
pretty equal proportions, viz. fever and ague, lung disease, 
brain attacks, and unclassed diseases. 
As regards health, the constitutions of most of the 
divines were remarkably bad. It is, I find, very common 
among scholars to have been infirm in youth, whence, partly 
from inaptitude to join with other boys in their amuse- 
ments, and partly from unhealthy inactivity of the brain, 
they take eagerly to bookish pursuits. Speaking broadly, 
there are three eventualities to these young students. They 
die young; or they strengthen as they grow, retaining their 
tastes and enabled to indulge them with sustained energy; 
or they live on in a sickly way. The Divines are largely 
recruited from the sickly portion of these adults. There is 
an air of invalidism about most religious biographies, that 
also seems to me to pervade, to some degree, the lives in 
Middleton’s collection. 
He especially notices the following fourteen or fifteen 
cases of weak constitution : 266 
DIVINES. 
I. Melancthon, d. aet. 63, whose health required con- 
tinual management. 2. Calvin, d. set. 55, faint, thin, and 
consumptive, but who nevertheless got through an immense 
amount of work. Perhaps we may say 3. Junius, d. set. 47, 
a most infirm and sickly child, never expected to reach 
manhood, but he strengthened as he grew, and though he 
died young, it was the plague that killed him; he more- 
over survived four wives. 4. Downe, d. aet. 61, a Somerset- 
shire vicar, who through all his life, “ in health and strength, 
was a professed pilgrim and sojourner ” in the world. 
5. George Herbert, d. set. 42, consumptive, and subject to 
frequent fevers and other infirmities, seems to have owed 
the bent of his mind very much to his ill-health, for he 
grew more pious as he became more stricken, and we can 
trace that courageous, chivalric character in him which 
developed itself in a more robust way in his ancestors and 
brothers, who were mostly gallant soldiers. One brother 
was a sailor of reputation ; another carried twenty-four 
wounds on his person. 6. Bishop Potter, d. aet. 64, was 
of a weak constitution, melancholic, lean, and puritanical. 
7. Janeway, d. aet. 24, found “hard study and work by far 
an overmatch for him.” 8. Baxter, d. aet. 76, was always 
in wretched health; he was tormented with a stone in the 
kidney (which, by the way, is said to have been preserved 
in the College of Surgeons). 9. Philip Henry, d. aet. 65, 
called the “ heavenly Henry ” when a young clergyman, 
was a weakly child ; he grew stronger as an adult, but 
ruined his improved health by the sedentary ways of a 
student’s life, alternating with excitement in the pulpit, 
where “he sweated profusely as he prayed fervently.” He 
died of apoplexy. 10. Harvey, d. aet. 30, was such a weakly, 
puny object, that his father did not like his becoming a 
minister, “ lest his stature should render him despicable.” 
11. Moth, d. aet. ? seems another instance. Hardly any 
personal anecdote is given of him, except that “ God was DIVINES. 
267 
pleased to try him many ways,” which phrase I interpret to 
include ill-health. 12. Brainerd, d. set, 29, was naturally 
infirm, and died of a complication of obstinate disorders. 
13, Hervey, d. set. 55, though an early riser, was very 
weakly by nature; he was terribly emaciated before his 
death. 14. Guise, d. set. 81, a great age for those times, 
was nevertheless sickly. He was hectic and overworked 
in early life, afterwards ill and lame, and lastly blind. 
15. Toplady, d. set, 38, struggled in vain for health and a 
longer life, by changing his residence at the sacrifice of his 
hopes of fortune. 
In addition to these fifteen cases of constitutions stated 
to have been naturally weak, we should count at least 
twelve of those that broke down under the strain of work. 
Even when the labour that ruined their health was un- 
reasonably severe, the zeal which goaded them to work 
beyond their strength may be considered as being, in some 
degree, the symptom of a faulty constitution. Each case 
ought to be considered on its own merits ; they are as 
follow ;—l. Whitaker, d. set. 48, laid the seeds of death by 
his incredible application. 2. Rollock, d. set. 43, the first 
Principal of the University of Edinburgh, died in conse- 
quence of over-work, though the actual cause of his death 
was the stone. 3. Dr. Rainolds, d. set. 48, called “ the 
treasury of all learning, human and divine,” deliberately 
followed his instinct for over-work to the very grave, saying 
that he would not “ propter vitam vivendi perdere causas,” 
—lose the ends of living for the sake of life. 4. Stock, 
d. aet. ? “ spent himself like a taper, consuming himself for 
the good of others.” 5. Preston, d. set. 41, sacrificed his 
life to excessive zeal; he is quoted as an example of the 
saying, that “ men of great parts have no moderation.” 
He died an “ old ” man at the age of 41. 6. Herbert 
Palmer, d. set. 46, after a short illness; “for, having spent 
much of his natural strength in the service of God, there DIVINES. 
was less work for sickness to do.” 7. Baily, d. set. 54, who 
was so holy and conscientious, “ that if he had been at any 
time but innocently pleasant in the company of his friends, 
it cost him afterwards some sad reflections ” (preserve me 
from the privilege of such companions!); lost his health 
early in life. 8. Clarke, d. set. 62, was too laborious, and 
had in consequence a fever set. 43, which extremely 
weakened his constitution. 9. Ulrich, d. set. 48, had an 
“ ill habit of body, contracted by a sedentary life and the 
overstraining of his voice in preaching.” 10. Isaac Watts, 
d. set. 74, a proficient child, but not strong; fell very ill 
set. 24, and again set, 38, and from this he never recovered, 
but passed the rest of his life in congenial seclusion, an 
inmate of the house of Sir T. Abney, and afterwards of 
his widow. 11, Davies, d. set. 37, a sprightly boy and keen 
rider; grew into a religious man of so sedentary a dis- 
position, that after he was made President of Yale College 
in America, he took hardly any exercise. He was there 
killed by a simple cold, followed by some imprudence in 
sermon-writing, his vital powers being too low to support 
any physical strain. 12, T. Jones, d. set. 32: “ Before the 
Lord was pleased to call him, he was walking in the error 
of his ways; ” then he was afflicted “ with a disorder 
that kept him very low and brought him to death’s door, 
during all which time his growth in grace was great and 
remarkable.” 
This concludes my list of those Divines, 26 in number, 
who were specially noted by Middleton as invalids. It 
will be seen that about one-half of them were infirm from 
the first, and that the other half became broken down early 
in life. It must not be supposed that the remainder of the 
196 were invariably healthy men. These biographies dwell 
little on personal characteristics, and therefore their silence 
on the matter of health must not be interpreted as neces- 
sarily meaning that the health was good. On the contrary, DIVINES, 
269 
as I said before, there is an air as of the sick-room running 
through the collection, but to a much less degree than in 
religious biographies that I have elsewhere read. A 
gently complaining, and fatigued spirit, is that in which 
Evangelical Divines are very apt to pass their days. 
It is curious how large a part of religious biographies is 
commonly given up to the occurrences of the sick-room. 
We can easily understand why considerable space should 
be devoted to such matters, because it is on the death-bed 
that the believer’s sincerity is most surely tested ; but this 
is insufficient to account for all we find in Middleton and 
elsewhere. There is, I think, an actual pleasure shown by 
Evangelical writers in dwelling on occurrences that disgust 
most people. Rivet, a French divine, has strangulation of 
the intestines, which kills him after twelve days’ suffering. 
The remedies attempted, each successive pang, and each 
corresponding religious ejaculation is recorded, and so 
the history of his bowel-attack is protracted through 
forty-five pages, which is as much space as is allotted to 
the entire biographies of four average divines, Mede’s 
death, and its cause, is described with equal minuteness, 
and with still more repulsive details, but in a less dif- 
fused form. 
I have thus far shown that 26 Divines out of the 196, 
or one-eighth part of them, were certainly invalids, and 
I have laid much stress on the hypothesis that silence 
about health does not mean healthiness ; however, I can 
add other reasons to corroborate my very strong im- 
pression that the Divines are, on the whole, an ailing 
body of men. I can show that the number of persons 
mentioned as robust are disproportionately few, and I 
Would claim a comparison between the numbers of the 
notably weak and the notably strong, rather than one 
between the notably weak and the rest of the 196. In 
professions where men are obliged to speak much in public, DIVINES. 
the constitutional vigour of those who succeed is com- 
monly extraordinary. It would be impossible to read a 
collection of lives of eminent orators, lawyers, and the 
like, without being impressed with the largeness of the 
number of those who have constitutions of iron ; but this 
is not at all the case with the Divines, for Middleton 
speaks of only 12, or perhaps 13 men who were remarkable 
for their vigour. 
Two very instructive facts appear in connexion with 
these vigorous Divines : we find, on the one hand, that of 
the 12 or 13 who were decidedly robust, 5» if not 6, were 
irregular and wild in their youth; and, on the other hand, 
that only 3 or 4 Divines are stated to have been irregular 
in their youth, who were not also men of notably robust 
constitutions. We are therefore compelled to conclude that 
robustness of constitution is antagonistic, in a very marked 
degree, to an extremely pious disposition. 
First as to those who were both vigorous in constitution 
and wild in youth ; they are 5 or 6in number. 1. Beza, 
d. set. 86 ; “ was a robust man of very strong constitution, 
and what is very unusual among hard students, never felt 
the headache he yielded as a youth to the allurements 
of pleasure, and wrote poems of a very licentious character. 
2. Welch, d. set. 53 ; was of strong robust constitution and 
underwent a great deal of fatigue ; in youth he was a 
border-thief. 3. Rothwell, d. set. 64 ; was handsome, well 
set, of great strength of body and activity; he hunted, 
bowled, and shot; he also poached a little. Though he 
was a clergyman he did not reform till late, and still the 
“ devil assaulted him ” much and long. He got on parti- 
cularly well with his parishioners in a wild part of the 
north of England. 4- Grimshaw, d. set. 55 ; was only once 
sick for the space of sixteen years, though he “ used his 
body with less consideration than a merciful man would 
use his beast.” He was educated religiously, but broke DIVINES. 
loose, aet. 18, at Cambridge. At the age of 26, being then 
a swearing, drunken parson, he was partly converted, and 
aet. 34 his “preaching began to be profitable then fol- 
lowed twenty-one years of eminent usefulness. 5. White- 
field, d. aet. 56; had extraordinary activity, constantly 
preaching and constantly travelling. He had great con- 
stitutional powers, though, “ from disease,” he grew corpulent 
after aet. 40. He was extremely irregular in early youth, 
drinking and pilfering (Stephen, “ Eccl. Biog.”). [6.] It is 
probable that Trosse ought to be added to this list. He 
will again be spoken of in the next category but one. 
Next, as to those who were vigorous in constitution but 
not irregular in youth; they are 7 in number. 1, Peter 
Martyr, d. aet. 62 ; a large healthy man of grave, sedate, 
and well-composed countenance. His parts and learning 
were very uncommon, 2, Mede, d. aet. 52; was a fine, 
handsome, dignified man. Middleton remarks that his 
vitals were strong, that he did not mind the cold, and that 
he had a sound mind in a sound body. He was a sceptic 
when a student at college, but not wild, 3. Bedell, d. aet. 
72 ; a tall, graceful, dignified man ; a favourite even with 
Italian papists ; suffered no decay of his natural powers 
till near his death. 4. Leighton, d. aet. 70 of a sudden 
attack of pleurisy. He looked so fresh up to that time 
that age seemed to stand still with him. 5. Burkitt, d. 
aet. 5 3 of a malignant fever, but “ his strength was such 
that he might have been expected to live till 80.” He 
was turned to religion when a boy, by an attack of small- 
pox. 6. Alix, d. aet. 76; had an uncommon share of health 
and spirits ; he was a singularly amiable, capable, and 
popular man. 7. Harrison, d. aet. ?; a strong, robust man, 
full of flesh and blood ; humble, devout, and of bright 
natural parts. This concludes the list. I have been sur- 
prised to find none of the type of Cromwell’s “ Ironsides,” 
Lastly, as to those who were irregular in youth but DIVINES. 
who are not mentioned as being vigorous in constitution. 
They are 3 or 4 in number, according as Trosse is omitted 
or included, 1. William Perkyns, d. aet. 43; a “ cheerful, 
pleasant man ; ” was wild and a spendthrift at Cambridge, 
and not converted till set. 24. 2. Bunyan ; vicious in youth, 
was converted in a wild, irregular way, and had many 
backslidings throughout his career, 3. Trosse, d. aet. 82, 
His biography is deficient in particulars about which one 
would like to be informed, but his long life, following a 
bad beginning, appears to be a sign of an unusually strong 
constitution, and to qualify him for insertion in my first 
category. He was sent to France to learn the language, and 
he learnt also every kind of French rascality. The same 
process was repeated in Portugal. The steps by which 
his character became remarkably changed are not recorded, 
neither are his personal characteristics. [4.] T. Jones, d. aet. 
32, has already been included among the invalids, having 
been wild in youth but rendered pious by serious and 
lingering ill-health. 
I now come to the relationships of the Divines. Recol- 
lecting that there are only 196 of them altogether, that 
they are selected from the whole of Protestant Europe at 
the average rate of 2 men in 3 years, the following results 
are quite as remarkable as those met with in the other 
groups. 
17 out of the 196 are interrelated. Thus Simon Grynaeus 
is uncle of Thomas, who is father of John James, and there 
are others of note in this remarkable family of peasant 
origin. Whitaker’s maternal uncle was Dr. Nowell. Robert 
Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, is brother to Archbishop 
Abbot. Downe’s maternal uncle was Bishop Jewell. 
Dod’s grandson (daughter’s son) was Bishop Wilkins. 
William Gouge was father of Thomas Gouge. Philip 
Henry was father to Matthew Henry. Ebenezer Erskine 
was brother to Ralph Erskine. DIVINES. 
There are 8 others who have remarkable relationships, 
mostly with religious people, namely:—Knox’s grandson 
(the son of a daughter who married John Welch) was 
Josiah Welch, “the cock of the conscience” F. Junius 
had a son, also called Francis, a learned Oxonian; by his 
daughter, who married J, G. Vossius, he had for grand- 
children, Dionysius and Isaac Vossius, famous for their 
learning. Donne was descended through his mother from 
Lord Chancellor Sir John More and Judge Rastall. Herbert 
was brother to Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and had other 
eminent and interesting relationships. Usher’s connexions 
are most remarkable, for his father, father’s brother, mother’s 
father, mother’s brother, and his own brother, were all very 
eminent men in their day. The mother’s brother of Lewis 
de Dieu was a professor at Leyden. The father and 
grandfather of Mather were eminent ministers. The father 
and three brothers of Saurin were remarkably eloquent. 
It cannot be doubted from these facts that religious 
gifts are, on the whole, hereditary ; but there are curious 
exceptions to the rule. Middleton’s work must not be 
considered as free from omissions of these exceptional 
cases, for neither he nor any other biographer would 
conceive it to be his duty to write about a class of 
facts, which are important for us to obtain; namely, the 
cases in which the sons of religious parents turned out 
badly. I have only lighted on a single instance of this 
apparent perversion of the laws of heredity in the whole 
of Middleton’s work, namely that of Archbishop Matthew, 
but it is often said that such cases are not uncommon. 
I rely mostly for my belief in their existence, upon 
social experiences of modern date, which could not be 
published without giving pain to innocent individuals 
Those of which I know with certainty are not numerous, 
but are sufficient to convince me of there being a real 
foundation for the popular notion. The notoriety of some DIVINES. 
recent cases will, I trust, satisfy the reader, and absolve me 
from entering any further into details. 
The summary of the results concerning the Divines, to 
which I have thus far arrived, is : That they are not 
founders of families who have exercised a notable influence 
on our history, whether that influence be derived from the 
abilities, wealth, or social position of any of their members. 
That they are a moderately prolific race, rather under, 
than above the average. That their average age at death 
is a trifle less than that of the eminent men comprised 
in my other groups. That they commonly suffer from 
over-work. That they have usually wretched constitutions. 
That those whose constitutions were vigorous, were mostly 
wild in their youth ; and conversely, that most of those 
who had been wild in their youth and did not become 
pious till later in life, were men of vigorous constitutions. 
That a pious disposition is decidedly hereditary. That 
there are also frequent cases of sons of pious parents who 
turned out very badly; but I shall have something to say 
on what appears to me to be the reason for this. 
I therefore see no reason to believe that the Divines 
are an exceptionally favoured race in any respect; but 
rather, that they are less fortunate than other men. 
I now annex my usual tables. 
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 33 OF THE DIVINES OF 
MIDDLETON’S “BIOGRAPHIA EVANGELICA” GROUPED 
INTO 25 FAMILIES. 
TABLE I. 
One relation {or two in family). 
Clarke 
. F. 
Knox 
2. Dod (and Wilkins) . . 
. p. 
Leighton 
. F. 
(Downe, see Jewell.) 
(Nowell, see Whitaker.) 
2. Erskine 
. B. 
Welch 
Guise 
. s. 
Whitaker (and Nowell). 
. u. 
Hildersham .... 
. S. 
(Wilkins, see Dod.) 
Hospinian 
Witsius 
a. Jewell (and Downe). . 
. n. DIVINES. 
275 
7wo or three relations (or three or four in family). 
*. Abbot . 
. 2 B. 
2. Henry, H. (and M.) 
S./ 
Dieu, de . 
. F. u. 
Lasco, A 
B. U. 
Donne . . 
• g- gF- 
Mather 
F. G. g. 
Gilpin . . 
. gB. NP. NPPS. 
Saurin 
SB* 
2. Gouge, W. (andT.) 
. . . / 
2 u. S. 
3- Giyneeus, T. (also S. and J.) . . . . 
. . . U. 
US. 4S. 
Herbert 
. . . F. 
/. g. B. US. 2 UP. 
'Junius 
Usher 
Four or more relations [or five or more in family). 
TABLE II.1 
Degrees of Kinship. 
B. 
A. 
Name of the degree. 
Corresponding letter. 
o ! Father .... 
7F. 
7 
28 
| Brother .... 
9 B. 
9 
36 
"h ' Son 
io S. 
... 
IO 
40 
g Grandfather . . 
i G. 
4 S- 
s 
20 
£ j Uncle .... 
J? j Nephew.... 
3u. 
7 u- 
IO 
4° 
oN. 
i n. 
I 
4 
n I. Grandson . , . 
oP. 
4 P- 
4 
l6 
M Great-grandfather 
o GF. 
i gF. 
o GF. 
o&V 
I 
4 
u i Great-uncle . . 
oGB. 
i gB. 
o GB. 
o^B. 
z 
4 
M / First-cousin . . 
2 US. 
o uS. 
o l/S. 
o «S. 
2 
s 
j Great-nephew . . 
oNS. 
o nS. 
o AS. 
o «S. 
O 
O 
V Great-grandson . 
oPS. 
o pS. 
oPS. 
o /S. 
O 
O 
All more remote . 
... 
4 
l6 
A comparison of the relative influences of the male and 
female lines of descent, is made in the following table : 
In the Second Degree. 
IG.+ 3 U. +o N. +o P, = 4 kinships through males. 
4g-+7u.+x n, + 4 p. =l6 „ „ females. 
In the Third Degree. 
o GF. + o GB. + 2 US. + o NS. + o PS. = 2 kinships through males, 
1 .fT. + i £-B. + o uS. + o «S, + o/S. = 2 „ „ females. 
1 For explanation, see page 61. DIVINES. 
This table shows that the influence of the female line 
has an unusually large effect in qualifying a man to 
become eminent in the religious world. The only other 
group in which the influence of the female line is even 
comparable in its magnitude, is that of scientific men ; and 
I believe the reasons laid down when speaking of them, 
will apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Divines. It requires 
unusual qualifications, and some of them of a feminine 
cast, to become a leading theologian. A man must not 
only have appropriate abilities, and zeal, and power of 
work, but the postulates of the creed that he professes 
must be so firmly ingrained into his mind, as to be the 
equivalents of axioms. The diversities of creeds held by 
earnest, good, and conscientious men, show to a candid 
looker-on, that there can be no certainty as to any point 
on which many of such men think differently. But a 
divine must not accept this view ; he must be convinced 
of the absolute security of the groundwork of his peculiar 
faith,—a blind conviction which can best be obtained 
through maternal teachings in the years of childhood. 
I will now endeavour to account for the fact, which I am 
compelled to acknowledge, that the children of very reli- 
gious parents occasionally turn out extremely badly. It 
is a fact that has all the appearance of being a serious 
violation of the law of heredity, and, as such, has caused 
me more hesitation and difficulty than I have felt about 
any other part of my inquiry. However, lam perfectly 
satisfied that this apparent anomaly is entirely explained 
by what I am about to lay before the reader, premising 
that it obliges me to enter into a more free and thorough 
analysis of the religious character than would otherwise 
have been suitable to these pages. 
The disposition that qualifies a man to attain a place 
in a collection like that of the “ Biographia Evangelica,” 
can best be studied by comparing it with one that, while DIVINES. 
277 
it contrasts with it in essentials, closely resembles it in all 
unimportant respects. Thus, we may exclude from our com- 
parison all except those whose average moral dispositions 
are elevated some grades above those of men generally; 
and we may also exclude all except such as think very 
earnestly, reverently, and conscientiously upon religious 
matters. The remainder range in their views, and, for the 
most part, in the natural disposition that inclines them to 
adopt those views, from the extremest piety to the ex- 
tremest scepticism. The “ Biographia Evangelica ” affords 
many instances that approach to the former ideal, and 
we may easily select from history men who have ap- 
proached to the latter. In order to contrast, and so 
understand the nature of the differences between the two 
ideal extremes, we must lay aside for a while our own 
religious predilections—whatever they may be—and place 
ourselves resolutely on a point equidistant from both, 
whence we can survey them alternately with an equal eye. 
Let us then begin, clearly understanding that we are 
supposing both the sceptic and the religious man to be 
equally earnest, virtuous, temperate, and affectionate— 
both perfectly convinced of the truth of their respective 
tenets, and both finding moral content in such conclusions 
as those tenets imply. 
The religious man affirms, that he is conscious of an in- 
o ' 
dwelling Spirit of grace, that consoles, guides, and dictates, 
and that he could not stand if it were taken away from 
him. It renders easy the trials of his life, and calms the 
dread that would otherwise be occasioned by the prospect 
of death. It gives directions and inspires motives, and 
h speaks through the voice of the conscience, as an oracle, 
upon what is right and what is wrong. He will add, 
that the presence of this Spirit of grace is a matter that 
no argument or theory is capable of explaining away, 
inasmuch as the conviction of its presence is fundamental 278 
DIVINES. 
in his nature, and the signs of its action are as unmistake- 
able as those of any other actions, made known to us 
through the medium of the senses. The religious man 
would further dwell on the moral doctrine of the form of 
creed that he professes; but this we must eliminate from 
the discussion, because the moral doctrines of the different 
forms of creed are exceedingly diverse, some tending to 
self-culture and asceticism, and others to active benevo- 
lence; while we are seeking to find the nature of a religious 
disposition, so far as it is common to all creeds. 
The sceptic takes a position antagonistic to that which 
I have described, as appertaining to the religious man. 
He acknowledges the sense of an indwelling Spirit, which 
possibly he may assert to have himself experienced in its 
full intensity, but he denies its objectivity. He argues that, 
as it is everywhere acknowledged to be a fit question for 
the intellect to decide whether other convictions, however 
fundamental, are really true, or whether the evidences of 
the senses are, in any given case, to be depended on, so 
it is perfectly legitimate to submit religious convictions to 
a similar analysis. He will say that a floating speck in 
the vision, and a ringing in the ears, are capable of being 
discriminated by the intellect from the effects of external 
influences; that in lands where mirage is common, the expe- 
rienced traveller has to decide on the truth of the appear- 
ance of water, by the circumstances of each particular case. 
And as to fundamental convictions, he will add, that it is 
well known the intellect can successfully grapple with them, 
for Kant and his followers have shown reasons—to which 
all metaphysicians ascribe weight—that Time and Space 
are, neither of them, objective realities, but only forms, 
under which our minds, by virtue of their own constitution, 
are compelled to act. The sceptic, therefore, claiming to 
bring the question of the objective existence of the Spirit 
of grace under intellectual examination, has decided— DIVINES. 
279 
whether rightly or not has nothing to do with our in- 
quiries—that it is subjective, not objective. He argues 
that it is not self-consistent in its action, inasmuch as it 
prompts different people in different ways, and the same 
person in different ways at different times; that there is 
no sharp demarcation between the promptings that are 
avowedly natural, and those that are considered super- 
natural ; lastly, that convictions of right and wrong are 
misleading, inasmuch as a person who indulges in them, 
without check from the reason, becomes a blind partisan, 
and partisans on hostile sides feel them in equal strength. 
As to the sense of consolation, derived from the creature 
of a fond imagination, he will point to the experiences of 
the nursery, where the girl tells all its griefs to its doll, 
converses with it, takes counsel with it, and is consoled by 
it, putting unconsciously her own words into the mouth of 
the doll. For these and similar reasons, which it is only 
necessary for me to state and not to weigh, the thorough- 
going ideal sceptic deliberately crushes those very senti- 
ments and convictions which the religious man prizes above 
all things. He pronounces them to be idols created by 
the imagination, and therefore to be equally abhorred with 
idols made by the hands, of grosser material. 
Thus far, we have only pointed out an intellectual 
difference—a matter of no direct service in itself, in solving 
the question on which we are engaged, but of the utmost 
importance when the sceptic and religious man are sup- 
posed to rest contentedly in their separate conclusions. 
In order that a man may be a contented sceptic of the 
most extreme type, he must have confidence in himself, 
that he is qualified to stand absolutely alone in the pre- 
sence of the severest trials of life, and of the terrors of 
mipending death. His nature must have sufficient self- 
assertion and stoicism to make him believe that he can 
act the whole of his part upon earth without assistance 280 
DIVINES. 
This is the ideal form of the most extreme scepticism, to 
which some few may nearly approach, but it is question- 
able if any have ever reached. On the other hand, the 
support of a stronger arm, and of a consoling voice, are 
absolute necessities to a man who has a religious dispo- 
sition. He is conscious of an incongruity in his nature, 
and of an instability in his disposition, and he knows his 
insufficiency to help himself. But all humanity is more 
or less subject to these feelings, especially in sickness, in 
youth, and in old age, and women are more affected by 
them than men. The most vigorous are conscious of 
secret weaknesses and failings, which give them, often in 
direct proportion to their intellectual stoicism, agonies of 
self-distrust. But in the extreme and ideal form Avhich 
we are supposing, the incongruity and instability would 
be extreme; he would not be fit to be a freeman, for 
he could not exist without a confessor and a master. Here, 
then, is a broad distinction between the natural dispo- 
sitions of the two classes of men. The man of religious 
constitution considers the contented sceptic to be fool- 
hardy and sure to fail miserably; the sceptic considers 
the man of an extremely pious disposition to be slavish 
and inclined to superstition. 
It is sometimes said, that a conviction of sin is a 
characteristic of a religious disposition; I think, how- 
ever, the strong sense of sinfulness in a Christian, to be 
partly due to the doctrines of his intellectual creed. The 
sceptic, equally with the religious man, would feel disgust 
and shame at his miserable weakness in having done 
yesterday, in the heat of some impulse, things which 
to-day, in his calm moments, he disapproves. He is 
sensible that if another person had done the same thing, 
he would have shunned him ; so he similarly shuns the 
contemplation of his own self. He feels he has done that 
which makes him unworthy of the society of pure-minded DIVINES. 
281 
men ; that he is a disguised pariah, who would deserve to 
be driven out with indignation, if his recent acts and real 
character were suddenly disclosed. The Christian feels all 
this, and something more. He feels he has committed 
his faults in the full sight of a pure God ; that he acts 
ungratefully and cruelly to a Being full of love and com- 
passion, who died as a sacrifice for sins like those he 
has just committed. These considerations add extreme 
poignancy to the sense of sin, but it must be recollected 
that they depend upon no difference of character. If the 
sceptic held the same intellectual creed, he would feel 
them in precisely the same way as the religious man. It 
is not necessarily dulness of heart that keeps him back. 
It is also sometimes believed that Puritanic ways are 
associated with strong religious professions ; but a Puritan 
tendency is by no means an essential part of a religious 
disposition. The Puritan’s character is joyless and morose ; 
he is most happy, or, to speak less paradoxically, most at 
peace with himself when sad. It is a mental condition 
correlated with the well-known Puritan features, black 
straight hair, hollowed cheeks, and sallow complexion. A 
bright, blue-eyed, rosy-cheeked, curly-headed youth would 
seem an anomaly in a Puritanical assembly. But there 
are many divines mentioned in Middleton, whose character 
was most sunny and joyful, and whose society was dearly 
prized, showing distinctly that the Puritan type is a spe- 
ciality, and by no means an invariable ingredient in the 
constitution of men who are naturally inclined to piety. 
The result of all these considerations is to show that 
the chief peculiarity in the moral nature of the pious 
raan is its conscious instability. He is liable to extremes 
—now swinging forwards into regions of enthusiasm, 
adoration, and self-sacrifice ; now backwards into those of 
sensuality and selfishness. Very devout people are apt to 
style themselves the most miserable of sinners, and I think 282 
DIVINES. 
they may be taken to a considerable extent at their word. 
It would appear that their disposition is to sin more 
frequently and to repent more fervently than those whose 
constitutions are stoical, and therefore of a more symme- 
trical and orderly character. The amplitude of the moral 
oscillations of religious men is greater than that of others 
whose average moral position is the same. 
The table (p. 34) of the distribution of natural gifts is 
necessarily as true of morals as of intellect or of muscle. 
If we class a vast number of men into fourteen classes, 
separated by equal grades of morality as regards their 
natural disposition, the number of men per million in the 
different classes will be as stated in the table, I have no 
doubt that many of Middleton’s divines belong to class G, 
in respect to their active benevolence, unselfishness, and 
other amiable qualities. But men of the lowest grades of 
morals may also have pious aptitudes; thus among pri- 
soners, the best attendants on religious worship are often 
the worst criminals. Ido not, however, think it is always 
an act of conscious hypocrisy in bad men when they make 
pious professions, but rather that they are deeply conscious 
of the instability of their characters, and that they fly to 
devotion as a resource and consolation. 
These views will, I think, explain the apparent anomaly 
tvhy the children of extremely pious parents occasionally 
turn out very badly. The parents are naturally gifted 
with high moral characters combined with instability of 
disposition, but these peculiarities are in no way correlated. 
It must, therefore, often happen that the child will inherit 
the one and not the other. If his heritage consist of the 
moral gifts without great instability, he will not feel the 
need of extreme piety; if he inherits great instability 
without morality, he will be very likely to disgrace his 
name. DIVINES. 
283 
APPENDIX TO DIVINES. 
Selected from the 196 names contained in Middleton’s “ Biographia Evan* 
(BIOGRAPHIA EVANGELICA.) 
gelica.” An * means that the name to which it is attached appears also in the 
alphabetical list; that, in short, it is one of Middleton’s 196 selections. 
Abbot, George, Archbp. of Canterbury (1562—1633, set. 71). 
Educated at Guildford Grammar School, then at Balliol 
College: became a celebrated preacher. JEt. 35 elected 
Master of University College, when the differences first 
began between him and Laud; these subsisted as long as 
they lived, Abbot being Calvinist and Laud High Church. 
Made Bishop of Lichfield set. 45 ; then of London; and, 
set. 49, Archbishop of Canterbury. He had great influence 
in the affairs of the time, but was too unyielding and too 
liberal to succeed as a courtier; besides this, Laud’s in- 
fluence was ever against him. He had great natural parts, 
considerable learning, charity, and public spirit. His 
parents were pious; his father was a weaver. 
B. Robert Abbot,'6 Bishop of Salisbury. See below. 
B. Maurice, Lord Mayor of London and M.P. 
[N.] George, son of Maurice, wrote on the Book of Job. 
Abbot, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury (1560—1617, set. 57). 
His preferment was remarkably owing to his merit, parti- 
cularly in preaching. King James I. highly esteemed him 
for his writings. JEt 49 he was elected Master of Balliol 
College, which throve under his care. Three years after- 
wards he was made Professor of Divinity, and set. 55 
Bishop of Salisbury. Died two years later, through gout 
and stone brought on by his sedentary life. In contrasting 
his character with that of his younger brother, the Arch- 
bishop, it was said, “George was the more plausible 
preacher, Robert the greater scholar: gravity did frown 
in George and smile in Robert.” 
B. George Abbot,* Archbishop of Canterbury. See above. 
B. Maurice, Lord Mayor of London and M.P. 
[N,] George, son of Maurice, wrote on Job. 284 
DIVINES. 
Clarke, Matthew (1664—1726, set. 62); an eminent minister 
among the Dissenters. An exceedingly laborious man, 
who quite overtasked his powers. 
F. Also Matthew Clarke, a man of learning. He spoke Italian 
and French with uncommon perfection. Was ejected from 
the ministry by the Uniformity Act. Dr. Watts wrote the 
epitaph of Matthew Clarke, junior, which begins with 
“ a son bearing the name of his venerable father, nor less 
venerable himself.” 
Dieu, Lewis de (1590—? ). “In practical godliness and the 
knowledge of divinity, science of all kinds, and the 
languages, he was truly a star of the first magnitude.” 
Married, and had eleven children. 
F. Daniel de Dieu, minister of Flushing, a man of great merit. 
He was uncommonly versed in the Oriental languages, 
“and could preach with applause in German, Italian, 
French, and English.” 
u, David Colonius, professor at Leyden. 
Dod, John (1547—1645, set. 98). This justly famous and reve- 
rend man was the youngest of seventeen children. Edu- 
cated at Cambridge. He was a great and continual 
preacher, eminent for the frequency, aptness, freeness, and 
largeness of his godly discourse; very unworldly; given 
to hospitality. He married twice, each time to a pious 
woman. 
p. John Wilkins,* D.D., Bishop of Chester (1614—1672, set. 58), 
a learned and ingenious prelate. Educated at Oxford, 
where he was very successful, and where, set. 34, he was 
made Warden of Wadham College by the Committee of 
Parliament appointed for reforming the University. Married 
Robina, widow of P. French and sister of Oliver Cromwell, 
who made him Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
whence he was ejected by Charles 11. JEt. 54 he was 
made Bishop of Chester. He was indefatigable in study, 
and tolerant of the opinions of others. He was an 
astronomer and experimentalist of considerable merit, 
and took an active part in the foundation of the Royal 
Society. 
I know nothing of his descendants, nor even if he had any. 
The Cromwell blood had less influence than might have DIVINES. 
been expected (see Cromwell). A daughter of Robina 
Cromwell, by her first husband, married Archbishop Tillot- 
son, and left issue, but undistinguished. 
Donne, John, D.D., Dean of St. Paul’s (1573—1631, set. 58). 
“He was rather born wise than made so by study.” He 
is the subject of one of Isaac Walton’s biographies. The 
recreations of his youth were poetry; the latter part of his 
life was a continual study. He early thought out his 
religion for himself, being thoroughly converted from 
Papacy through his own inquiries set. 20. His mind was 
liberal and unwearied in the search of knowledge. His 
life was holy and his death exemplary. 
[gU.]? Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor, from whose 
family he was descended through his mother. Sir Thomas 
being born ninety-three years before him was, I presume, 
his great-grandfather or great-great-uncle. 
g. ? William Rastall, the worthy and laborious judge who 
abridged the statutes of the kingdom, Rastall was a 
generation younger than Sir Thomas More, and was there- 
fore probably a grandfather or great-uncle of Dr. Donne. 
gF. ? John Rastall, father of the judge, printer and author. 
Downe, John, B.D. See under Jewell. 
u. John Jewell,'* Bishop of Salisbury. 
Erskine, Ebenezer (about 1680—1754,30!. 74); originator of 
the Scottish secession. This pious minister preached freely 
against the proceedings of the Synod of Perth, for which 
he was reprimanded, and afterwards, owing to his continued 
contumacy, he was expelled from the Scottish Church. 
Hence the famous Secession. 
B. Ralph Erskine.* See below. 
Erskine, Ralph (1685—1752, set. 67); also became a seceder. 
He did not simply follow his brother, but raised a separate 
religious tempest against himself. He wrote controversial 
tracts, was a strict Calvinist, and published sonnets that 
“ breathe a warm spirit of piety, though they cannot be 
mentioned as finished poetical compositions.” He laboured 
in preaching and writing till almost the time of his death. 
He left a large family (his father was one of thirty-three 
children), of whom three sons were ministers of the Seces- 
sion, but died in the prime of life. 286 
DIVINES. 
Erskine, Ralph, continued— 
B. Ebenezer Erskine.* See above. 
Evans, John, D.D. (1680—1730, set. 50). His vivacity, joined 
with great judgment, made a very uncommon mixture. 
His industry was indefatigable. He was descended from 
a race of ministers for four generations, and, excepting one 
interruption, quite up to the Reformation : say six gene- 
rations in all. 
Gilpin, Bernard (1517—1583, set. 66); the “Apostle of the 
North.” Was one of several children. He showed extra- 
ordinary genius in childhood, and an early disposition to 
seriousness and contemplative life; but as he grew older 
he became practical and energetic, and none the less pious. 
He was greatly beloved. In beginning his career he 
suffered from religious persecution, and if Queen Mary 
had lived a little longer there is little doubt but that he 
would have been martyred. He remained Rector of 
Houghton during the whole of his later life, refusing a 
bishopric. He built a school, and picked up intelligent 
boys and educated them, and became their friend and 
guardian in after-life. He had extraordinary influence 
over the wild border-people of his neighbourhood, going 
fearlessly among them. He was affluent and generous; 
a hater of slander and a composer of differences. He was 
tall and slender, careless of amusement, and rather abste- 
mious. Was unmarried. His relationships are good, but 
distant. 
gB. Bishop Tonstall, one of the most enlightened Churchmen 
of his time. 
NB. Richard Gilpin, D.D., of Greystock, who was ejected 
thence by the Act of Uniformity. 
NPPS. William Gilpin (“Forest Scenery”), an excellent pastor 
and good schoolmaster, was [PS.] to Richard and the 
biographer of Bernard Gilpin. I know nothing about the 
intervening relations; I wish I did, for I should expect to 
find that the Gilpin blood had produced other noteworthy 
results. 
Gouge, Thomas (1605—1681, set. 76); educated at Eton and 
King’s College, Cambridge; minister of St. Sepulchre’s, 
in London, for twenty-four years, He originated the DIVINES. 
287 
scheme, which he carried on for a while with his own 
funds, of finding employment for the poor by flax-spinning, 
instead of giving them alms as beggars : others afterwards 
developed the idea. He had a good fortune of his own, 
and finally applied almost the whole of it to charity in 
Wales, judging there was more occasion for help there 
than elsewhere. He contrived, with the further aid of 
subscriptions, to educate yearly from 800 to 1,000 poor 
Welsh children, and to procure and print a translation of 
the Bible into Welsh. Also, he took great pains writh 
Christ’s Hospital in London, He was humble and meek, 
and free from affected gravity and moroseness. His 
conversation was affable and pleasant; he had wonderful 
serenity of mind and evenness of temper, visible in his 
countenance ; he was hardly ever merry, but never melan- 
choly nor sad. He seemed always the same; ever obliging, 
and ever tolerant of difference of opinion. 
F. William Gouge.'* See below. 
[j>.] Mrs. Meliora Prestley, of Wild Hall, Hertford, whose name 
shows the continuance of a devout disposition in the 
family. She erected a monument to the Gouges in Black 
friars Church after the Fire. 
There has been another eminent minister of the name of 
Gouge among the Dissenters, who died 1700, and on 
whom Dr. Watts wrote a poem. Ido not know whether 
he was a relation. 
Gouge, William, D.D. (1575—:1653, aet. 78); was very religious 
from boyhood, and a laborious student at Eton and at 
Cambridge, sitting up late and rising early. He was 
singularly methodical in his habits; became minister of 
Blackfriars, London. He was continual in preaching and 
praying; very conscionable in laying out his time; tem- 
perate ; of a meek and sweet disposition, and a great 
peacemaker. Devout people of all ranks sought his 
acquaintance. According to his portrait, his head was 
massive and square, his expression firm and benevolent. 
Married; had seven sons and six daughters; six sons lived 
to man’s estate. 
S. Thomas Gouge. * See above. 
[F.] Thomas, a pious gentleman living in London. DIVINES. 
Gouge, William, continued— 
His mother “was the religious daughter” of one Mr. 
Nicholas Culverel, a merchant in London; her brothers 
were as follow : 
2 u. The Revs, Samuel and Ezekiel Culverel, both of them 
famous preachers. 
f 2 u.~\ Her two sisters were married to those famous divines, 
Dr. Chadderton, Master of Emmanuel College, and Dr. 
Whitaker,* the learned and devout Professor of Divinity 
in Cambridge. 
Grynaeus, Simon (1493—1541, set. 48); a most able and learned 
man; was son of a peasant in Suabia of I know not what 
name, that of Grynaeus being of course adopted. He was 
a friend and fellow-student of Melancthon from boyhood; 
became Greek professor at Vienna, and afterwards adopted 
Protestantism. His change of creed led him into trouble, 
and compelled him to leave Vienna ; was invited to and 
accepted the Greek chair in Heidelberg, and afterwards 
that of Basle. JEX. 38 he visited England, chiefly to 
examine the libraries, strongly recommended by Erasmus. 
He was made much of in this country by Lord Chancellor 
Sir Thomas More. Died at Basle of the plague. His 
claim to a place in the “ Biographica Evangelica ” is that 
he was a good man, a lover of the Reformation, and con- 
fidentially employed by the Reformers. 
S. Samuel (1539—1599, ast. 60) inherited his father’s abilities 
and studious tastes, for he was made professor of oratory 
at Basle set. 25, and afterwards of civil law. 
N. Thomas Grynaeus.* See below. 
4N S. Theophilus, Simon, John James,* and Tobias, See for 
all these under Thomas Grynaeus. 
Grynaeus, Thomas (1512—1564, aet, 52). This excellent man 
“ eminently possessed the ornament of a meek and quiet 
spirit.” Educated by his uncle Simon, he became so 
advanced that, while a mere youth, he was a public teacher 
at Berne; whence, wearied with the theological contentions 
of the day, and seeking a studious retirement, he removed 
to Rontela, near Basle, as minister of that place, where he 
performed “ his duty with so much faithfulness, solemnity, 
and kindness of behaviour, that he was exceedingly DIVINES. 
289 
endeared to his flock, and beloved by all those who had 
any concern for truth and knowledge.” He died of the 
plague. It does not appear that he published any writings, 
but he left behind him a noble treasure for the Church in 
his four excellent sons, as follow: 
4 Is. Theophilus, Simon, John James,* and Tobias; all of them 
eminent for their piety and learning; but John James {see 
below) was the most distinguished of the four. “He was 
indeed a burning and a shining light. Such a father and 
such sons are not often met with in the history of the 
world. Blessed be God for them !” 
U. Simon Grynaeus.* See above. 
US. Thomas. See above. 
Grynaeus, John James (1540—1617, aet. 77); succeeded his father 
in the pastoral charge of Rontela, where he changed from 
the Lutherans to the Zuinglians; was invited to Basle as 
Professor of Divinity, where he became happily instrumental 
in healing the differences between the above sects. Many 
noblemen and gentlemen came from other countries and 
boarded with him for the sake of his agreeable and profit- 
able conversation. He was subsequently professor at 
Heidelberg, and thence retired to Basle as pastor. He 
used to be at his study, winter and summer, before sunrise, 
and to spend the day in prayer, writing, reading, and visiting 
the sick. He was remarkably patient under wrongs; was 
ever a most affectionate friend and relation to his family 
and all good men, and of the strictest temperance with 
respect to himself. He had great wit, tempered with 
gravity. His remarkable learning and worth was well 
appreciated by his contemporaries; and travellers from 
all parts, who had any concern for religion and science, 
constantly visited him. He became almost blind. Married, 
and had seven children, all of whom died before him, 
except one daughter. I know no more of this interesting 
family. 
GB. Simon Grynaeus.* 
F. Thomas Grynaeus ;'f f. was also a pious woman. 
3 B. See under Thomas Gryn^us. 
Thus we find three men, descended in as many generations 
from a simple husbandman, who have achieved a place 290 
DIVINES. 
among the 196 worthies selected on their own merits by 
Middleton, as the pick of two centuries and a half; and 
at least three others are mentioned by the same writer in 
terms of very high commendation. 
Suabian peasant. 
Samuel, 
Professor at Basle. 
Simon. 
Thomas.* 
Theophilus. Simon. John James.* Tobias. 
Guyse, John (1680—1761, set. 81); an eminent and excellent 
divine; minister at Hertford. His health was poor, and 
he was overworked and hectic, but his vigour was little 
abated till near his death. It was his constant study to 
make every one about him happy. He was thoroughly 
amiable, and had many excellent ministerial gifts. 
[F. and f~\ Parents very pious and worthy. 
S. Rev. William; of excellent abilities and ministerial talents, 
who was for some time his assistant, but who died two 
years before him. 
Henry, Philip (1631—1696, set. 65); educated at Westminster 
and Oxford. When a young clergyman, he went by the 
name of the “ Heavenly Henry.” He devoted his whole 
powers to the ministry. His constitution was but tender, 
yet by great carefulness in diet and exercise he enjoyed 
a fair amount of health. Married a Welsh lady of some 
fortune, and had one son and four daughters. 
His father was named John Henry, himself the son of Henry 
Williams, the father’s Christian name becoming the son’s 
surname, according to the old Welsh custom. 
/ His mother was a very pious woman, who took great pains 
with him and with her other children. 
S. Matthew Henry.# See helow. 
Henry, Matthew (1662—1714, ast. 52); was a child of extra- 
ordinary pregnancy and forwardness. His father said of 
him, “ Prseterque setatem nil puerile fuit,”—there was 
nothing of the child in him except his years; was but 
weakly when young, but his constitution strengthened DIVINES. 
as he grew. He could read a chapter in the Bible, very 
distinctly, when about three years old, and with some 
observation of what he read. He was very devoutly in- 
clined. His father spared no pains to educate him. His 
labours in the ministry were many and great—first at 
Chester, and then at Hackney. He injured a naturally 
strong constitution by his frequent and fervent preaching, 
and by sitting over-long in his study. Married twice, and 
left many children. The order of his family was exemplary 
while he lived. I know nothing more of them. 
F. Philip Henry.* See above. 
Herbert, Hon. George (1593—1635, set. 42); educated by his 
mother till set. 12, then at Westminster, where he was 
endeared to all; then he went to Cambridge, where he 
highly distinguished himself, and became orator to the Uni- 
versity. He was eminent as a sacred poet; he was also an 
excellent musician, and composed many hymns and anthems. 
He selected a small ministerial charge, where he passed 
the latter years of his life in the utmost sanctity. In 
figure he was tall and very lean, but straight. He had 
the manners and mien of a perfect gentleman. He was 
consumptive, and subject to frequent fevers and illness. 
Married ; no children; his nieces lived with him. 
F, A man of great courage and strength, descended from 
a highly connected and very chivalrous family. He was 
a person of importance in North Wales, and given to wide 
hospitality. 
f. His mother was a lady of extraordinary piety, and of more 
than feminine understanding. 
g. Sir T. Bromley, privy councillor to Henry VIII. 
B. The first Lord Herbert of Cherbury; statesman, orator, 
cavalier, and sceptical philosopher. 
[2 B.] His other two brothers were remarkable men—both had 
great courage; one was a renowned duellist, and the other 
was a naval officer who achieved some reputation, and was 
considered to have deserved more. 
US. Sir Edward Herbert, Lord Keeper under Charles 11. (see 
in Judges). 
1 UP. The two sons of the above were distinguished, one being a 
Chief Justice, and the other the admiral, cr. Lord Torrington. 292 
DIVINES. 
Hildersham, Arthur (1563—1632, set 69); was bred a Papist, 
but abandoned that creed; was fined 2,000/, for schism. 
He sojourned in many families, and always gained their 
esteem and love. He much weakened his constitution by 
his pains in preaching. 
S. Samuel, an excellent man, of whom Mr. Matthew Henry 
makes honourable mention in the Life of his father, Mr, 
Philip Henry. Samuel wrote the Life of Arthur Hildersham. 
He died set. 80, 
Hooper, John, Bishop of Gloucester (1495—1554> martyred 
set. 59); originally a monk; became converted to the 
Reformation when in Germany. He was a great acqui- 
sition to that cause, for his learning, piety, and character 
would have given strength and honour to any profession. 
Was burnt at Gloucester. 
[U.] J. Hooper, Principal of St. Alban Hall. 
Hospinian, Ralph (1547—1626, jet. 79); a learned Swiss writer. 
u, John Wolphius, professor at Zurich. 
Jewell, John, Bishop of Salisbury (1522—1571, set. 49). This 
great man, “ the darling and wonder of his age, the pattern 
for sanctity, piety, and theology,” was one of the younger 
children in a family of ten. He was a lad of pregnant 
parts, and of a sweet and industrious nature and temper; 
was educated at Oxford, where his success was great. On 
Queen Mary’s accession he had to take refuge on the Con- 
tinent, set. 31, escaping narrowly. He did not return till 
after her death, when, set 38, he was made bishop by 
Queen Elizabeth. He was an excellent scholar, and had 
much improved his learning during his exile; was a most 
laborious preacher. As bishop, he was exceedingly liberal 
and hospitable. It was his custom to have half a dozen 
or more intelligent poor lads in his house to educate them, 
and he maintained others at the University at his own 
expense : among these was Richard Hooker, He was 
a pleasant and amusing host; he had naturally a very 
strong memory. In body he was spare and thin, and he 
restlessly wore himself out by reading, writing, preaching, 
and travelling. His writings are famous; his “ Apologia ” 
was translated into English by the mother of Lord Bacon, 
His parents were of ancient descent, but not rich. DIVINES. 
293 
Jewell, John, continued— 
n. John Downe* (1576—1633, set. 57); educated at Emmanuel 
College, Cambridge. He thence took a small college 
living in Devonshire. “ Had his means been answerable* 
to his worth, he had not lain in such obscurity as he did, 
but had doubtless moved and shined in a far higher and 
more extensive sphere. . . . The sharpness of his wit, the 
fastness of his memory” (this seems hereditary, like the 
“ Porson ” memory, which also went through the female 
line), “ and the soundness of his judgment, were in him 
all three so rarely mixed as few men attain them single, in 
that degree he had them all. His skill in languages was 
extraordinary,” He was very temperate and grave, but 
sociable and courteous, and a thoroughly good man and 
divine. His constitution was but crazy. Married happily,- 
and had several children, who did well, judging from the 
phrase, “ His civil wisdom appeared ... in the education 
of his family, ... in his marriage and the marriages of 
his daughters,” 
Junius, Francis (1545—1602, set. 57). This extraordinary man 
was very infirm and weakly when a child, but he strength- 
ened as he grew. Was singularly bashful. He read with 
avidity; went to Switzerland as a student, where he became 
a Reformer, and was persecuted. He was an excellent and 
most able man; the subject of numerous panegyrics. He 
died of the plague. Married four wives, and survived them 
all; had in all two sons and one daughter. 
F, A learned and a kind man. 
S. Francis, a very amiable and learned man, who spent most 
of his days in England, especially at Oxford. 
2 p. Dionysius Vossius, the Orientalist, and Isaac Vossius, the 
learned Canon of Windsor; these were sons of the daughter 
of Junius, who married the learned John Gerard Vossius. 
Knox, John (1505—1572, set. 67); a popular type of Puritanical 
bigotry. In his youth he was a successful student of 
scholastic divinity; was persecuted and exiled in his man- 
hood ; married twice—two sons and three daughters. 
[2 S.] Both his sons were fellows of St. John’s College, Cam- 
bridge ; the younger of them was University preacher, 
p. Josiah Welch, “the Cock of the Conscience.” For him DIVINES. 
and his brothers, see under their father’s name, John 
Welch. 
Lasco, John k (? —1684); the Polish reformer. When the 
religious persecutions of the Continent had driven 380 
exiles to England, they had their own laws, worship, and 
superintendent. The office of superintendent was held by 
A Lasco. 
B. A diplomatist, and a man of considerable abilities. 
U. John k Lasco, Archbishop of Griesa in Poland. It was to 
him that Erasmus dedicated his edition of the works of 
St. Ambrose. 
Leighton, Robert, D.D., Archbishop of Glasgow (1614—1684, 
a;t. 70); was bred up in the greatest aversion to the 
Church of England; became Master of the College at 
Edinburgh, then Archbishop. At set. 70 he looked so 
fresh and well that age seemed to stand still with him; 
his hair was black, and all his motions lively; but he 
caught pleurisy, and died suddenly of it. 
F. Alexander Leighton, a Scotch physician, who wrote religious 
and political tracts, for which he got into trouble with the 
Star Chamber. He had his nose slit, his ears cut off, was 
publicly whipped, and imprisoned for eleven years. Died 
insane. 
Mather, Cotton, D.D. (1663—1727, set. 64); born at Boston, 
in America; was a quick child, and always devoutly in- 
clined; .began to preach set. 18. His application, and the 
labours he went through, are almost incredible; thus, as 
regards literature alone, he wrote 382 separate treatises. 
F. and G. Dr. Increase Mather, his father, and Mr. Richard 
Mather, his grandfather, were eminent ministers. 
g. John Cotton was a man of piety and learning. 
[S.] Samuel; wrote his life. 
Matthew, Tobie, D.D., Archbishop of York (1546—1628, 
set. 82). This truly great man was an honour to his age. 
At Oxford “ he took his degrees so ripe in learning and 
young in years as was half a miracle.” He was “ a most 
excellent divine, in whom piety and learning, art with 
nature strove.” 
[S.] Sir Tobie Matthew “ had all his father’s name, and many of 
his natural parts, but had few of his moral virtues, and DIVINES. 
295 
fewer of his spiritual graces, being an inveterate enemy to 
the Protestant religion.” I presume, from Middleton’s 
taking so much notice of him, that he ought to be ranked 
as a person of importance and character. 
Nowell, Alexander, D.D., Dean of St. Paul’s (1511—1601, set. 
90). Educated at Brasenose College, Oxford, of which 
he became a Fellow, and where he “grew very famous for 
piety and learning, and for his zeal in promoting the 
Reformation,” On Queen Mary’s accession he was marked 
out for Popish persecution, so he fled to Frankfort, whence 
he returned after her death, the first of the English exiles. 
He soon after obtained many and considerable prefer- 
ments, and was made Dean of St. Paul’s set. 49 ; then 
Rector of Hadham in Yorkshire, where he became a fre- 
quent and painful preacher and a zealous writer. JEt. 84 
he was elected Principal of Brasenose College, where, 
having enjoyed for a further term of six years the perfect 
use of his senses and faculties, he died. He was reckoned 
a very learned man and an excellent divine. His charity 
to the poor was great, especially if they had anything of 
the scholar in them ; and his comfort to the afflicted either 
in body or mind was equally extensive. He wrote many 
religious works, especially a Catechism, which was highly 
esteemed, and which he was induced to write, by Cecil 
and other great men of the nation, on purpose to stop 
a clamour raised among the Roman Catholics, that the 
Protestants had no principles. His controversies were 
entirely with the Papists. He was so fond of fishing that 
his picture at Brasenose represents him surrounded with 
tackle. 
C William Whitaker,* D.D. (1547—1595, set. 48). Educated 
by Dr. Nowell until he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, 
where he highly distinguished himself. He was elected 
Professor of Philosophy while quite young, and filled the 
chair with the greatest credit. Then he became a diligent 
student of religious writers, and in a few years went through 
almost all the Fathers of the Church. He laboured with 
incredible application, but overdid his powers and strained 
his constitution. JEt. 31 he had obtained a very high 
reputation for theological knowledge, and shortly after 296 
DIVINES. 
was elected Professor of Divinity and Master of Queen’s 
College. JEt. 38 he entered into controversies with the 
Papists, especially with Bellarmine. “He dealt peaceably, 
modestly, and gently, without taunting, bantering, wrath, 
deceit, or insidious language; so that you might easily see 
him to be no cunning and obstinate partisan, but a most 
studious searcher after divine truth.” He was endowed 
with a most acute genius, happy memory, with as great 
eloquence as was ever in a divine, and with a most learned 
and polished judgment. He was a pious, holy man, of an 
even, grave demeanour, and very remarkable for patient 
bearing of injuries. He was extremely kind and liberal, 
in season and out of season, especially to young students 
who were poor. He was extremely meek, although so 
highly gifted and esteemed. Bishop Hall said, “ Never 
man saw him without reverence, nor heard him without 
wonder,” It was he who, at a conference of Bishops, 
drew up the famous ultra-predestinarian confession of faith, 
called the “ Lambeth Articles.” He married, first, the 
maternal aunt (u.) of William Gouge (see), and second, the 
widow of the learned Dr. Fenner, and by these two wives 
had eight children. It would be exceedingly interesting 
to know more of these children, especially those of the 
first wife, whose hereditary chances were so high. They 
appear to have turned out well, judging from Middleton’s 
phrase that they “ were carefully brought up in the prin- 
ciples of true religion and virtue.” This, unfortunately, is 
all I know about them. 
Saurin, James (1677—1730, aet. 53). Served in the army as 
a cadet, but the profession was distasteful to him, and he 
left it to become a student in philosophy and divinity. 
He lived five years in England. He was an admirable 
scholar and preacher, and led a holy, unblemished life. 
Married, and had one son at least, who survived him. 
[F-] An eminent lawyer of Nismes, who was compelled to leave 
France on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 
3 B. They, as well as James, were trained up in learning by 
their father, and were all so remarkably eloquent “ that 
eloquence was said to be hereditary in the family.” 
The eloquent Attorney-General of Ireland was a descendant DIVINES. 
297 
Usher, James, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh (1580—1656, ast. 
76). As a child he showed a remarkable attachment to 
books, and he became a great student as he grew older. 
He was the subject of universal admiration for his great 
erudition and wise and noble character. He was a first- 
rate man, and played a conspicuous part on many stages. 
His constitution was sound and healthy. 
F. Arnold Usher; was one of the six clerks of the Chancery 
in Ireland, and a man of parts and learning. 
U. Henry Usher, also Archbishop of Armagh, was highly 
celebrated for wisdom and knowledge. 
g. James Stanihurst; was three times Speaker of the House 
of Commons in Ireland, Recorder of Dublin, and Master 
in Chancery. He was highly esteemed for his wisdom 
and abilities. 
u. James Stanihurst; was a philosopher, historian, and poet. 
B. Ambrose Usher, who died in the prime of life, was a 
man of very extraordinary powers; he had attained great 
proficiency in the Oriental tongues. 
[2 U~\ The Archbishop was taught in his childhood by two 
blind aunts, who knew the Bible by heart, and so contrived 
to teach him to read out of it.—lngenious, persevering 
ladies! 
James Usher was, therefore, a remarkable instance of 
hereditary ability associated with constitutional vigour, and 
apparently of a durable type. Unluckily for the world, he 
married an heiress,—an only daughter,—who appears, like 
many other heiresses, to have inherited a deficiency of 
prolific power, for she bore him only one daughter. 
Welch, John (1570—1623, set. 53). He was profligate in his 
youth, and joined the border-thieves, but he repented and 
grew to be extremely Puritanical. The flesh upon his 
knees became “ callous, like horn,” from his frequent 
prayings upon them. He was “grievously tempted’ 
throughout the whole of his life, and prayed and groaned 
at nights. His constitution was robust, and he underwent 
great fatigues. Married the daughter of John Knox* (set 
above), and had three sons by her. The eldest son was 
accidentally shot when a youth. 
[S.] The second son was shipwrecked, and swam to a desert 298 
DIVINES. 
island, where he starved and was afterwards found dead, 
on his knees, stiffened in a praying posture, with his hands 
lifted to heaven. 
S. Josias Welch, the third son, was “a man highly favoured of 
G0d,.... and commonly called ‘ the Cock of the Con- 
science,’ because of his extraordinary talent in awakening 
and arousing the conscience of sinners.” He was ex- 
tremely troubled with doubts about his own salvation 
He was still young when he died. 
Whitaker, William, D.D. See wider Nowell.* 
u. Alexander Nowell,* D.D. 
Wilkins, John, D.D., Bishop of Chester. See under Don.* 
g. John Dod.* 
Witsius, Herman, D.D. (1636—1708, get. 72), Born in Fries- 
land, a premature child. Was always puny in stature, but 
had vast intellectual abilities. Was Theological Professor 
at Utrecht. His fame was European. Till within a little 
before his death he could easily read a Greek Testament 
of the smallest type by moonlight. 
[g.] A most pious minister. 
u. The learned Peter Gerhard. 
[2S., His family consisted of two sons, who died young, and 
of three remarkably pious and accomplished daughters. CHAPTER XVI. 
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
The position of Senior Classic at Cambridge is of the 
same rank in regard to classical achievement as that of 
Senior Wrangler is to achievement in mathematics ; there- 
fore all that I said about the severity of the selection 
implied by the latter degree (see pp. 16-21) is strictly 
applicable to the former. I have chosen the Senior 
Classics for the subject of this chapter rather than the 
Senior Wranglers, for the reasons explained in p. 197. 
The Classical Tripos was established in the year 1824. 
There have, therefore, been forty-six lists between that 
time and the year 1869, both inclusive. In nine cases out 
of these, two or more names were bracketed together at 
the head of the list as equal in merit, leaving thirty-six 
cases of men who were distinctly the first classics of 
their several years. Their names are as follow; 
Malkin, Isaacson, Stratton, Kennedy, Selwyn, Soames, 
Wordsworth, Kennedy, L ushington, Bunbury, Kennedy, 
Goulburn, Osborne, Humphry, Freeman, Cope, Denman, 
Maine, Lushington, Elwyn, Perowne, Lightfoot, Roby, 
Hawkins, Butler, Brown, Clark, Sidgwick, Abbott, Jebb, 
Wilson, Moss, Whitelaw, Smith, Sandys, Kennedy. 
It will be observed that the name of Kennedy occurs no 
less than four times, and that of Lushington twice, in this 
short series. I will give the genealogies of these, and of a SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
few others of which I have particulars, and which I have 
italicized in the above list, begging it at the same time 
to be understood that I do not mean to say that many 
of the remainder may not also be distinguished for the 
eminence of their kinsmen; I have not cared to make 
extensive and minute inquiries, because the following list 
is amply sufficient for my purpose. It is obvious that the 
descending relationships must be generally deficient, since 
the oldest of all the Senior Classics took his degree in 
1834, and would therefore be only about fifty-seven at the 
present time. For the most part the sons have yet to be 
proved and the grandsons to be born. 
There is no case in my list of only a single eminent 
relationship. There are four, namely Denman, Goulburn, 
Selwyn, and Sidgwick, of only two or three; all the others 
have four or upwards. 
APPENDIX TO THE SENIOR CLASSICS OF 
CAMBRIDGE. 
Out of 36 senior classics (all bracketed cases being excluded) since the 
establishment of the Tripos in 1834, 14 find a place in the appendix ; they are 
grouped into 10 families. The Kennedy family has supplied lin 9 out of the 
entire number of the senior classics. 
Bunbury, Edward H.; senior classic, 1833, 
gF. Henry, Ist Lord Holland, Secretary-at-War. 
gB. The Right Hon. Charles James Fox; illustrious statesman. 
gB. The 2d Lord Holland ; statesman and social leader. See 
Fox, in Statesmen, for other relationships, including that 
of the Napier family. 
[F.] General Sir H. E. Bunbury, K.C.8., author. 
Butler, Rev. H, Montagu, D.D. ; senior classic, 1855 ; Head 
Master of Harrow. 
F. Rev. Dr. George Butler ; Dean of Peterborough, previously SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
Head Master of Harrow. He was senior wrangler in 1794, 
at which time there was no University test for classical 
eminence ; however, the office he held is sufficient proof of 
his powers in that respect also. 
[G.] A man of considerable classical powers and literary tastes ; 
was master of a school at Chelsea. 
B. The Rev. George Butler; Head Master of Liverpool 
College; Ist class, Oxford. 
B. Spencer P. Butler; barrister; wrangler and Ist class in 
classics, Cambridge. 
B. The Rev. Arthur Butler; Head Master of Haileybury 
College; Ist class, Oxford. 
Denman, Hon. George, Q.C. M.P.; senior classic, 1842. 
F. Ist Lord Denman; Chief Justice Queen’s Bench. See in 
Judges. 
G Physician ; a celebrated accoucheur. 
GN. Sir Benj. Brodie, Bart; eminent surgeon. See Brodie, 
in Science. 
Goulburn, Henry; senior classic, 1835. It was he who obtained 
the extraordinary distinction described in p. 22 (where I 
also have made a mistake in his pedigree). He died young. 
F. Right Hon. H. Goulburn, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
[B.] Also an able classical scholar. 
U. Edward Goulburn, Serjeant at Law; a man of well-known 
high accomplishments and ability. 
US. Rev. E. M. Goulburn, D.D. Dean of Norwich; formerly 
Head Master of Rugby; eminent preacher. 
Hawkins, F. Vaughan; senior classic, 1854; one of the youngest 
at the time of his examination, yet is reputed to have 
obtained one of the largest number of marks, upon record. 
F Francis Hawkins, M.D., Registrar of the College of 
Physicians. 
U. Edward Hawkins, D.D., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, 
u. Sir Caesar Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to Her Majesty. 
This is the “blue ribbon” of the profession, being the 
highest post attainable by a surgeon. 
GB. Charles Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to George 111. 
GF. Sir Csesar Hawkins, Ist Bart, Sergeant Surgeon to George 111. 
GU. Pennell Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to George 111. 
u. Halford Vaughan, Professor at Oxford. 302 
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
Hawkins, F. Vaughan, continued— 
g. Sir John Vaughan, Judge; Just. C.P. (See in Judges.) 
gB. Rev. Edward Vaughan of Leicester; Calvinist theologian. 
gB. Peter Vaughan, Dean of Chester; Warden of Merton 
College, Oxford. 
gB. Sir Chas. Vaughan, Envoy Extraordinary to the United States. 
gB. Sir Henry Vaughan, assumed the name of Halford, ist 
Bart.; the well-known physician of George 111. 
gN. The Rev. Charles J. Vaughan, D.D. joint senior classic 
of Cambridge, 1B38; eminent scholar; Head Master of 
Harrow; Master of the Temple; has refused two bishop- 
rics. The rigid rule I have prescribed to myself, of 
reckoning only those who were sole senior classics, prevents 
my assigning a separate paragraph to Dr. Vaughan. 
Kennedy, Rev. Benjamin; senior classic, 1827; for many years 
Head Master of Shrewsbury School; professor of Greek 
at Cambridge. Educated at Shrewsbury, of which school 
he was head boy set. 15 ; obtained the Person prize at 
Cambridge ret. 18, before entering the University, and the 
Pitt University Scholarship set. 19. 
B. Charles Rann Kennedy, barrister ; senior classic, 1831. 
B. Rev. George Kennedy, senior classic, 1834; for many years 
one of the ablest of the private tutors at Cambridge. 
B. Rev. William Kennedy, Inspector of Schools; gained the 
Person prize, 1835, but was incapacitated for competition 
in the classical tripos through his not having taken the 
previous, then essential, mathematical degree. 
N. W. R, Kennedy, son of the above; senior classic, 1868; 
was Newcastle scholar at Eton. 
N. J. Kennedy, has not yet (1869) arrived at the period for 
taking his degree. He was Newcastle scholar at Eton, 
and Bell University scholar at Cambridge. 
F, Benjamin Rann Kennedy. It is considered that he would 
have been an excellent scholar if he had had advantages. 
Had considerable poetic talent (poem on death of Princess 
Charlotte, quoted by Washington Irving in his “Sketch- 
book”). Was Master of King Edward’s School, Bir- 
mingham. 
G Her maiden name was Maddox, a lady of considerable 
intellectual and poetic ability. SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
Kennedy, Rev. Benjamin, continued— 
g. Hall, engraver to George III.; his portrait is in the 
Vernon Gallery; was a man of mark in his profession. 
g. Her maiden name was Giles; she was the daughter of 
French emigrants; had excellent abilities, that were shared 
by others of her family, as follow ; 
u. Rev, Dr. Hall, late Master of Pembroke College, Oxford; 
a man of considerable classical attainments. 
«S. James Burchell, Under Sheriff of Middlesex; acting Judge 
of the Sheriffs’ Court for forty-five years; a man of eminent 
business capacity. 
i/S. William Burchell, most successful man of business; founder 
of important companies, as the first Electric Telegraph 
Company and the Metropolitan Railway. 
Lushington, Edmund; senior classic, 1832; Professor at 
Glasgow. 
GF. James Law, Bishop of Carlisle; author. 
GB. The Ist Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice of the King’s 
Bench. (See under Judges.) 
B. Henry Lushington, 4th classic of his year; Government 
Secretary at Malta. 
B. Franklin Lushington, senior classic, 1846. 
B. Charles H. Lushington, Secretary to Government in India. 
The four following are descended from a second marriage; 
U. Stephen Rumbold Lushington, Privy Councillor; Governor 
of Madras; Secretary of the Treasury. 
they have the Lushington, but not the Law, blood. 
[U.] General Sir James Lushington, K.C.B. 
[U.] Charles, Madras Civil Service; Member of Council. 
US. Charles Hugh, Secretary to Government in India. 
The branch of the Lushington family from which Sir Stephen 
Lushington, D.C.L., the eminent ex-Judge of the Admiralty, 
is descended, diverged from the one we are now consider- 
ing, in the fifth ascending generation from the two senior 
classics. This branch also contains a considerable number 
of men of sterling ability, and very few others. There are 
fully eleven distinguished men within three grades of 
relationship to Sir Stephen Lushington. 
Selwyn, Rev. Dr. William; senior classic, 1828; Margaret Pro* 
lessor of Divinity at Cambridge. 304 
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE. 
Selwyn, Rev. Dr. William, continued— 
B. The Bishop of Lichfield, formerly Bishop of New Zealand; 
2d classic in 1831. 
B. Sir Jasper Selwyn, Judge ; Lord Justice. 
b. Miss Selwyn, eminent for philanthropical labours. (Crimean 
War, “ Home ” at Birmingham.) 
Sidgwick, H.; senior classic, 1859. 
B. 2d classic, 1863. 
B. Able scholar; senior Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. 
GhS., £rUPS., and Dr. Benson, Head Master of Wellington 
College, is related, though distantly, through the paternal 
and maternal lines, to Mr. Sidgwick, being both second 
and third cousin by the first and third cousin by the 
second. 
Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln; 
senior classic, 1830. See under Poets for his relations, 
viz. : 
U. The Poet. 
F. The Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
28. Excellent scholars; one, the Bishop of Dunkeld. CHAPTER XVII. 
OARSMEN. 
I PROPOSE to supplement what I have written about brain 
by two short chapters on muscle. No one doubts that 
muscle is hereditary in horses and dogs, but humankind 
are so blind to facts and so governed by preconceptions, 
that I have heard it frequently asserted that muscle is 
not hereditary in men. Oarsmen and wrestlers have 
maintained that their heroes spring up capriciously, so 
I have thought it advisable to make inquiries into the 
matter. The results I have obtained will beat down 
another place of refuge for those who insist that each 
man is an independent creation, and not a mere function, 
physically, morally, and intellectually, of ancestral quali- 
ties and external influences. 
In respect to Oarsmen, let me assure the reader that 
they are no insignificant fraction of the community,—no 
mere waifs and strays from those who follow more civilized 
pursuits. A perfect passion for rowing pervades large 
classes. At Newcastle, when a great race takes place, all 
business is at a standstill, factories are closed, shops are 
shut, and offices deserted. The number of men who fall 
within the attraction of the career is very great; and there 
can be no doubt that a large proportion of those among 
them who are qualified to succeed brilliantly, obey the 
attraction and pursue it. 
For the information in this and the following chapters, 
I am entirely indebted to the kind inquiries made for me 306 
OARSMEN. 
by Mr. Robert Spence Watson of Newcastle, whose local 
knowledge is very considerable, and whose sympathies with 
athletic amusements are strong. Mr, Watson put himself 
into continual communication with one of the highest, 
I believe by far the highest, authority on boating matters, 
a person who had reported nearly every boating race to 
the newspapers for the last quarter of a century. 
The list in the Appendix to this chapter includes the 
names of nearly all the rowing men of note who have 
figured upon the Tyne during the past six-and-twenty 
years. It also includes some of the rowers on the 
Thames, but the information about these is not so certain. 
The names are not picked and chosen, but the best men 
have been taken of whom any certain knowledge could 
be obtained. 
It is not easy to classify the rowers, especially as many 
of the men have rarely, if ever, pulled in skiff matches, but 
formed part of crews in pair-oared, four-oared, or six-oared 
matches. Their performances have, however, been care- 
fully examined and criticised by Mr. Watson and his 
assessor, who have divided them into four classes. 
I have marked the names of the lowest with brackets [ ], 
and have attached to them the phrase “ moderately good.” 
These are men who have either disappointed expectations 
founded on early promise, or have not rowed often enough 
to show of what feats they are really capable. No com- 
plete failure is included. Few amateurs can cope with 
men of this class, notwithstanding the mediocrity of their 
abilities when judged by a professional standard. 
The next ascending grade is also distinguished by 
brackets [], but no qualifying expression is added to their 
names. They consist of the steady reliable men who form 
good racing crews. 
The two superior grades contain the men whose names 
are printed without brackets—whom, in short, I treat as OARSMEN. 
307 
being “eminently gifted.” In order to make a distinction 
between the two grades, I add to the names of the men 
who belong to the higher of them, the phrase “ very 
excellent oarsman.” 
It is not possible to do more than give a rough notion 
of the places into which these four grades would respec- 
tively fall in my table (p. 34) of natural gifts. I have 
only two data to help me. The first is, that I am informed 
that in the early part of 1868, the Tyne Amateur Rowing 
Club, which is the most important institution of that kind 
in the north of England, had been fifteen years in exist- 
ence and had comprised, in all, 377 members; that three 
of these, as judged by amateur standards of comparison, 
had been considered of surpassing excellence as skiff- 
rowers, and that the best of these three was looked upon 
as equal to, or perhaps a trifle better than, the least 
good of the brothers Matfin, who barely ranks as an 
“ excellent ” rower. 
The other datum is the deliberate opinion of the autho- 
rities to whom I am indebted for the materials of this 
chapter, that not I man in 10 will succeed as a rower 
even of the lower of the two grades whose names are 
marked in my Appendix by brackets, and that not 1 in 
100 rowers attains to excellence. Hence the minimum 
qualification for excellence is possessed by only 1 man 
in 1,000. 
There is a rough accordance between these two data. 
A rowing club consists in part of naturally selected men. 
They are not men, all of whom have been taken at hap- 
hazard as regards their powers of rowing. A large part 
are undoubtedly mere conscripts from the race of clubable 
nien, but there must always be a considerable number 
who would not have joined the club save for their con 
sciousness of possessing gifts and tastes that specially 
qualified them for success on the water. To be the best OARSMEN; 
oarsman of the 377 men who are comprised in a crack 
rowing club, means much more than to be the best of 
377 men taken at haphazard. It would be much nearer 
the truth to say, that it means being the best of all who 
might have joined the club, had they been so inclined 
and had appeared desirable members. Upon these 
grounds (see also my remarks in p. 12) it is a very 
moderate estimate to conclude that the qualifications for 
excellence as an oarsman, are only possessed by I man 
in 1,000. 
The “ very excellent ” oarsmen imply, I presume, a 
much more rigorous selection, but I really have no data 
whatever on which to found an estimate. Many men who 
found they could attain no higher rank than “ excellence,” 
would abandon the unprofitable pursuit of match rowing 
for more regular and, as some would say, creditable occu- 
pations. We shall not be more than half a grade wrong 
if we consider the “ excellent ” oarsmen to rank in at least 
class F of natural gifts, with respect to rowing ability, and 
the “ very excellent ” to fall well within it. 
I do not propose to take any pains in analysing these 
relationships, for the data are inadequate. Rowing was 
comparatively little practised in previous generations, so 
we cannot expect to meet with evidence of ancestral 
peculiarities among the oarsmen. Again, the successful 
rowers are mostly single men, and some of the best have 
no children. It is important, in respect to this, to recollect 
the frequent trainings they have gone through. Mr, Watson 
mentions to me one well-known man, who has trained for 
an enormous number of races, and during the time of 
each training was most abstemious and in amazing health ; 
then, after each trial was over, he commonly gave way, and 
without committing any great excess, remained for weeks 
in a state of fuddle. This is too often the history of 
these men. OARSMEN. 
There are in the Appendix only three families, each 
containing more than one excellent oarsman ; they are 
Clasper, Matfin, and Taylor, and the total relationships 
existing towards the ablest member of each family are, 
8 B and I S. 
There appears to be no intermarriage, except in the one 
case that is mentioned, between the families of the rowers; 
indeed there is much jealousy between the rival families. 
APPENDIX TO OARSMEN. 
“ I have not picked and chosen, but have simply taken all the best men 
I could hear anything certainly about.”—Extract from Mr. Watson’s Letter. 
The 18 men whose names are printed in italics are described below as 
examples of hereditary gifts. The remaining 3 are not. 
Candlisk; Chambers ; 5 Clasper; Coombes ; Cooper ; Kelly ; Maddison ; 
2 Matfin; Renforth ; Sadler; 5 Taylor; Winskip. 
Candlish, James ; a Tyne man, married sister of Henry Clasper; 
has no children. 
[B.] Thomas; a good but not a great rower; has always pulled 
as one of a crew. Unmarried. 
[B.] Robert; moderately good ; has not rowed very often. 
Clasper, Henry; very excellent oarsman. Is the most prominent 
member of a large and most remarkable family of oarsmen. 
He -was for many years stroke of a four-oared crew, and 
frequently the whole crew, including the coxswain, were 
members of the Clasper family. For eight years this crew 
won the championship of the Tyne. Six times Henry 
Clasper pulled stroke for the crew winning the champion- 
ship of the Thames, and Coombes declared that he was 
the best stroke that ever pulled. Up to the year 1859, 
when he was 47 years old, he had pulled stroke 78 times 
in pair- or four-oared matches, and his crew had been 54 
times victorious. He had also pulled in 32 skiff matches 
and won 20 of them, and had been champion of Scotland 
upon the only two occasions on which he contested for it. 310 
OARSMEN. 
Nearly all these matches were over a 4 or mile course. 
He invented the light outrigger, and has been a very 
successful builder of racing boats. 
Family of Clasper. 
1 
[Edward Hawks.] 
i 
O = Clasper, = 
| akeelman. 
= O 
Henry.* [Wm.] [Edw.] 
Robert. 
i i 
Richard.* John.* [Th 
os.] 
1 
Drowned. 
1 1 
John Others 
A good 
Young 
Hawks.* (young). 
rower. 
children. 
The names marked with a * are very excellent oarsmen. 
Those in brackets [] are similarly marked in the letterpress. 
S. John Hawks Clasper; very excellent oarsman. Has rowed 
more skiff matches than any man living. When he had 
contested 76 races, he had won 50 of them. He has 
brothers, but they are too young to have shown their powers. 
B. Richard Clasper; very excellent oarsman, known as the 
“Little Wonder,” Was, when 37 years old, only 5 feet 
2 inches high, and weighed 8 stone 6 lbs. In spite of this 
he was bow-oarsman to the brothers’ crew, and a rare good 
one. He has rowed many skiff races with first-class men, 
and has scarcely ever been beaten, but is too light to 
contend for the championship. 
B. John Clasper; very excellent oarsman; was drowned when 
young (aet. 19). He had won several small matches, and 
one important match with a man called Graham, and his 
fine style and excellent performances (considering his age) 
caused him to be looked upon as a rower of extraordinary 
promise. 
B. Robert Clasper; able oarsman. 
[N.] Son of the above; is a good rower. 
[B.] William; never pulled but as one of a crew; he waa 
recently drowned. 
[B.] Edward; has the disadvantage of having lost a leg. 
[B.] (half-brother). Thomas; moderately good. . 
[u.] Edward Hawks ; a fair rower. 
The father of the Clasper family was a keelman. OARSMEN. 
311 
Coombes, Robert; very excellent oarsman, 
[S.] David ; a good match rower. 
[B.] Thomas ; has always pulled as one of a crew. 
Cooper, Robert. 
[S,] He pulls well, but is not old enough for matches. 
Maddison, Antony. 
[B.] James ; a good rower. 
Matfin, Thomas. Unmarried. 
B. William. Unmarried. 
Renforth, James; Champion rower of England. Unmarried. 
[B.] Stephen; a fair rower. Unmarried. 
Sadler, Joseph. Unmarried. 
[B.] William. Unmarried. 
Taylor, James ; very excellent oarsman, the ablest of a remark- 
able family. He has rowed 112 races, alone and in crews ; 
13 of these were skiff matches, and of these he won 10, 
B, Matthew; a good rower. (He has a son who is a clever 
rower, but not old enough for matches.) 
38, Thomas, William, and John; all good rowers; they have 
only pulled in crews. All unmarried. 
Winship, Edward; very eminent oarsman. He is not a skiff 
rower, but always rows in two- or four-oared races. He 
was one of the crew who won the “ Champion Fours ” 
at the Thames National Regatta in 1854, 1859, 1861, and 
1862, and the “ Champion Pairs ” at the same Regatta in 
1855, 1856, iB6O, 1861, and 1862. 
[B.] Thomas ; a good rower, also in crews. CHAPTER XVIII. 
WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY. 
I AM wholly indebted for the information contained in this 
chapter, as I was for that in the last, to Mr. Robert Spence 
Watson. With the assistance of a well-informed champion 
wrestler, that gentleman has examined into the history of 
those of the 172 men of whom anything could be learnt, 
■who were either first or second at Carlisle or Newcastle 
since the establishment of the championship at those 
places ; at the first, in 1809, and at the second, in 1839. 
It is exceedingly difficult to estimate the performances 
of the ancestors of the present generation, because there 
were scarcely any prizes in former days; matches were 
then made simply for honour. We must not expect to 
be able to trace ancestral gifts among the wrestlers to a 
greater degree than among the oarsmen. 
I should add, that I made several attempts to obtain 
information on wrestling families in the Lake districts of 
Westmoreland and Cumberland, but entirely without suc- 
cess ; no records seem to have been kept of the yearly 
meetings at Keswick and Bowness, and the wrestling deeds 
of past years have fallen out of mind. 
There are eighteen families in my Appendix, containing 
between them forty-six wrestlers, and the relationships 
existing towards the ablest wrestler of the family are 
IF, 21 B, 7S, and In. WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY. 
APPENDIX TO WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH 
COUNTRY. 
Blair, Matthew; winner of Decies prize at Newcastle in 1859 
champion of n stone men at Newcastle in 1862. 
B. Robert; winner of Decies prize at Newcastle in 1857. 
B. Joseph; winner of Decies prize in 1861; 2d n stone man 
at Newcastle in 1862, and at Carlisle, 1863. 
Daley, Charles ; champion io| stone, Newcastle, 1839. 
B. John; 2d 10 stone, Newcastle, 1840 and 1842. 
[B.] William ; moderately good. 
Ewbank, Noble; champion of all weights at Newcastle, 1858, 
1859, i860; champion of picked men at Newcastle, 1859; 
champion of all weights, Carlisle, 1858. 
F. Joseph; champion of all weights at Newcastle, 1847. 
[B.] Joseph ; only a second-rate wrestler. 
Glaister, William; champion, Newcastle, 11 stone, 1850; 2d 
all weights, Newcastle, 1851; 2d all weights, Carlisle, 
1856. 
B. George; very good. 
Golightly, Frank; a famous wrestler in the last century. 
B. Tom; champion at Melmerby. 
Gordon, Robert; champion all weights, Carlisle, 1836 and 
1846; 2d, 1837, 1839, 1840, 1845, and 1848; champion 
all weights at Newcastle, 1846, 
B. William; a good wrestler. 
[B.] Thomas ; tolerably good. 
n. Robert Lowthian; champion light weights, Newcastle, 1855 
and iB6O. 
Harrington, Joseph; champion light weights at Newcastle, 
1844, 1853, 1854; champion 11 stone, Newcastle, 1855; 
2d all weights at Newcastle, 1845. 
B. Charles ; champion light weights, Newcastle, 1848 ; 2d, 1849. 
S. James Scott. 
Irving, George ; champion all weights, Carlisle, 1827 and 1828. 
S. George; very good light weight wrestler. 314 
WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY. 
Ivison, Henry; a first-class man, but in old times, when the 
competition was less severe than now. 
S. John; 2d for all weights at Newcastle, in 1842; champion 
of io| stone men at Newcastle, 1844; 2d stone men 
at Newcastle, 1850. 
S. Henry; 2d light weights at Newcastle, 1852; 2d 11 stone 
men, ditto, 1856. 
[S.] James. 
Jamieson, James; champion light weights at Carlisle, 1838; 
twice threw the champion of all weights the same year; 
2d n| stone, Newcastle, 1843; and io| stone, 1845. 
38. Robert, William, and George. All good wrestlers; among 
them they won all the prizes at Brampton, so that the 
wrestling there had to be given up. They challenged any 
four men in England of their weight. 
Little, John; champion all weights, Carlisle. 
B. James; 2d all weights, Carlisle, 1834. 
Long, Rowland; wrestled for 30 years, and won nearly 100 
prizes. 
B. John ; the best champion at Carlisle. 
Lowthian. See Gordon. 
Nichol, John; 2d all weights, Carlisle, 1832 and 1836. 
[B.] James; a good, though not a first-rate wrestler. 
Palmer, John; champion of all weights at Carlisle in 1851, and 
champion of light weights the same year,—a most unusual 
success. 
28. Matthew and Walter; twins, both very good; not cham- 
pions, but often second in great matches. 
Robley, Joseph; a very good wrestler. 
B. John; also a good wrestler. 
S. William; 2d all weights at Newcastle, 1848; champion 
heavy stone men, 1852. 
Robson, Thomas; champion all weights at Newcastle, 1857; 
champion n stone, 1858. 
B. William; equally good. 
Tinian, John; champion at Penrith. As a wrestler, boxer, 
runner, leaper, cudgel and foot-ball player, he never met 
an equal; was the greatest hero in athletic exercises 
England ever produced. “ Wrestliana,” by W. Litt (him- 
self an excellent wrestler), Whitehaven, 1823. WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY. 
315 
Tinian, John, continued— 
B. Job; nearly equal to his brother; he threw William 
Richardson, who afterwards won 240 belts and was 
champion. 
S. John; a remarkably good wrestler. 
S. Joseph; a more powerful man than his father. 
[2 S.] Other sons were good wrestlers, but none remarkably so. 
Tweddell, Joseph; champion 10 stone, Newcastle, 1842; 2d, 
ditto, 1841; champion stone, Newcastle, 1843. 
B. Thomas; champion 10 stone, Newcastle, 1841. 
B. Richard; 2d nj stone, Newcastle, 1841. 
B. William; 2d 10J stone, Newcastle, 1846. 
Wearmouth, Launcelot; champion n stone men at Newcastle, 
iB6O. 
B. Isaac; 2d stone men at Newcastle, 1859. CHAPTER XIX. 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
Let us now bring our scattered results side to side, for 
the purpose of comparison, and judge of the extent 
to which they corroborate one another,—how far they 
confirm the provisional calculations made in the chapter 
on Judges from more scanty data, and where and why 
they contrast. 
The number of cases of hereditary genius analysed in 
the several chapters of my book, amounts to a large total. 
I have dealt with no less than 300 families containing 
between them nearly 1,000 eminent men, of whom 415 
are illustrious, or, at all events, of such note as to deserve 
being printed in black type at the head of a paragraph. 
If there be such a thing as a decided law of distribution 
of genius in families, it is sure to become manifest when 
we deal statistically with so large a body of examples. 
In comparing the results obtained from the different 
groups of eminent men, it will be our most convenient 
course to compare the columns B of the several tables. 
Column B gives the number of kinsmen in various degrees, 
on the supposition that the number of families in the 
group to which it refers is 100. All the entries under 
B have therefore the same common measure, they are all 
percentages, and admit of direct intercomparison. I hope 
I have made myself quite clear: lest there should remain COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
317 
any misapprehension, it is better to give an example. 
Thus, the families of Divines are only 25 in number, and 
in those 25 families there are 7 eminent fathers, 9 brothers, 
and 10 sons; now in order to raise these numbers to per- 
centages, 7, 9, and 10 must be multiplied by the number 
of times that 25 goes into 100, namely by 4. They will 
then become 28, 36, and 40, and will be found entered as 
such, in column B, p. 275 ; the parent numbers 7, 9, 10, 
appearing in the same table in the column A. 
In the following table, the columns B of all the different 
groups are printed side by side; I have, however, thrown 
Painters and Musicians into a single group of Artists, 
because their numbers were too small to make it worth 
1 > 
0 0*100 
02(30 
v> W *1 
/ 
/ s’" 2' 
1 3 s-g 2 
U more remote . 
n> r? 
V P 
crq S 
£ 
Cu o 
§ * 
3‘ff S 
iff 
s" 1 
. . 5* 
pi JS 3 v 
a a a o 
o- fT <» o. 
8 3 • g1 
P . . S' 
o 
f 2 5 
. r? 
3s« 
5 B g 
• S| 
• 5*5 
• £L2> 
• - s 
erg. 
mber of families,N 
eh containing more I 
au ane eminent [ 
an } 
On vj 
H M 
W H M M 
VO NO 00 LA 
OJ W M 
On la on 
w 
Judges p. 6i. 
ON 
(0 
00 
La 
oj 
M 
w 
Statesmen, 
OJ 
OJ 
0 Oi 
H LA 00 
0 00 00 03 
VO vo W 
p. 109. 
H OJ H 
w 
Commanders, 
CO 
0 00 
o co co 
M La 00 ON 
h O vj 
p. 148. 
in 
w 
M 
OJ ON 
w 
Literary, 
H 
OJ 
> 
Cn 
CO On OJ 
vo 
H M 00 
p. 171. 
OJ 
w 
0 
K» 
ON 4- W 
0 VJ ON 
w 
Scientific, 
OJ 
On La 0 
OJ ON -N 
P- I9S- 
CO 
OJ 
2 
Ol 
0 0 
0 La 0 
La 
(n 0 Oi Ui 
La 0 O 
w 
Poets, p. 227. 
La 
V| 
M 
O 
H 
05 U W 
VO 0 M 
w 
Artists, pp. 
M 
CO 
0 0 
M vj o 
CO CO s 
238 and 249. 
VJ 
03 
ON 
0 0 
CO -N 
01 +- "fe 0 
*0 co 
w 
Divines, 
p. 275. 
Ot 
to 
La 
OJ 
M 
M 
H KJ H M 
w 
W 
H 
W Ol w 
to OOS 
CO H H 
3 a 
p 5. s 
CO 00 x 
n 
0 50 
O 2. 5 
VO 
oj 
8 t- 
S O 
a§ 
"* 
8 8 
8 8 8 
8 8 8 8 
8 'S § 
p* 0 
g s g 
8 
i 
M M 
M H M 
S Ca Ot CO 
4 H W 
00 VJ H 
p 
. u § 
* (/) 318 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
while to consider them apart. Annexed to these is a 
column B calculated from the whole of the families put 
together, with the intention of giving a general average; 
and I have further attached to it its appropriate columns 
C and D, not so much for particular use in this chapter as 
for the convenience of the reader who may wish to make 
comparisons with the other tables, from the different 
point of view which D affords. 
The general uniformity in the distribution of ability 
among the kinsmen in the different groups, is strikingly 
manifest. The eminent sons are almost invariably more 
numerous than the eminent brothers, and these are a trifle 
more numerous than the eminent fathers. On proceeding 
further down the table, we come to a sudden dropping off 
of the numbers at the second grade of kinship, namely, 
at the grandfathers, uncles, nephews, and grandsons : this 
diminution is conspicuous in the entries in column D, the 
meaning of which has already been fully described in pp. 
81-83. On reaching the third grade of kinship, another 
abrupt dropping off in numbers is again met with, but the 
first cousins are found to occupy a decidedly better posi- 
tion than other relations within the third grade. 
We further observe, that while the proportionate abun- 
dance of eminent kinsmen in the various grades is closely 
similar in all the groups, the proportions deduced from the 
entire body of illustrious men, 415 in number, coincide 
with peculiar general accuracy with those we obtained 
from the large subdivision of 109 Judges. There cannot, 
therefore, remain a doubt as to the existence of a law 
of distribution of ability in families, or that it is pretty 
accurately expressed by the figures in column B, under 
the heading of “eminent men of all classes.” I do not, 
however, think it worth while to submit a diagram like that 
in p. 83, derived from the column D in the last table, 
because little dependence can be placed on the entries in COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
C by the help of which that column had to be calculated. 
When I began my inquiries, I did indeed try to obtain 
real and not estimated data for C, by inquiring into the 
total numbers of kinsmen in each degree, of every illus- 
trious man, as well as of those who achieved eminence. 
I wearied myself for a long time with searching biographies, 
but finding the results very disproportionate to the labour, 
and continually open to doubt after they had been obtained, 
I gave up the task, and resigned myself to the rough but 
ready method of estimated averages. 
It is earnestly to be desired that breeders of animals 
would furnish tables, like mine, on the distribution of 
different marked physical qualities in families. The results 
would be far more than mere matters of curiosity ; they 
would afford constants for formulae by which, as I shall 
briefly show in a subsequent chapter, the laws of heredity, as 
they are now understood, may admit of being expressed. 
In contrasting the columns B of the different groups, 
the first notable peculiarity that catches the eye is the 
small number of the sons of Commanders ; they being 
31, while the average of all the groups is 48. There 
is nothing anomalous in this irregularity. I have already 
shown, when speaking of the Commanders, that they 
usually begin their active careers in youth, and therefore, 
if married at all, they are mostly away from their wives 
on military service. It is also worth while to point out a 
few particular cases where exceptional circumstances stood 
in the way of the Commanders leaving male issue, because 
the total number of those included in my lists is so 
small, being only 32, as to make them of appreciable 
importance in affecting the results. Thus, Alexander the 
Great was continually engaged in distant wars, and died 
in early manhood ; he had one posthumous son, but that 
son was murdered for political reasons when still a boy. 
Julius Caesar, an exceedingly profligate man, left one ille- COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
gitimate son, by Cleopatra, but that son was also murdered 
for political reasons when still a boy. Nelson married 
a widow who had no children by her former husband, and 
therefore was probably more or less infertile by nature. 
Napoleon I. was entirely separated from Marie Louise 
after she had borne him one son. 
Though the great Commanders have but few immediate 
descendants, yet the number of their eminent grandsons 
is as great as in the other groups. I ascribe this to the 
superiority of their breed, which ensures eminence to an 
unusually large proportion of their kinsmen. 
The next exceptional entry in the table is, the number 
of eminent fathers of the great scientific men as com- 
pared with that of their sons, there being only 26 of the 
former to 60 of the latter, whereas the average of all the 
groups gives 31 and 48. I have already attempted to 
account for this by showing, first, that scientific men owe 
much to the training and to the blood of their mothers ; 
and, secondly, that the first in a family who has scientific 
gifts is not nearly so likely to achieve eminence, as the 
descendant who is taught to follow science as a profession, 
and not to waste his powers on profitless speculations. 
The next peculiarity in the table is, the small number 
of eminent fathers, in the group of Poets. This group is 
too small to make me attach much importance to the 
deviation ; it may be mere accident. 
The Artists are not a much larger group than the Poets, 
consisting as they do of only 28 families, but the number 
of their eminent sons is enormous and quite exceptional. 
It is 89, whereas the average of all the groups is only 48. 
The remarks I made about the descendant of a great 
scientific man prospering in science, more than his ancestor, 
are eminently true as regards Artists, for the fairly-gifted 
son of a great painter or musician is far more likely to 
become a professional celebrity, than another man who has COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
equal natural ability, but is not especially educated for 
professional life. The large number of artists’ sons who 
have become eminent, testifies to the strongly hereditary 
character of their peculiar ability, while, if the reader will 
turn to the account of the Herschel family, pp. 215, 216, 
he will readily understand that many persons may have 
decided artistic gifts who have adopted some other more 
regular, solid, or lucrative occupation. 
I have now done with the exceptional cases; it will be 
observed that they are mere minor variations in the law 
expressed by the general average of all the groups; for, 
if we say that to every 10 illustrious men, who have any 
eminent relations at all, we find 3 or 4 eminent fathers, 
4 or 5 eminent brothers, and 5 or 6 eminent sons, we shall 
be right in 17 instances out of 24; and in the 7 cases 
where we are wrong, the error will consist of less than 
1 unit in 2 cases (the fathers of the commanders and men 
of literature), of 1 unit in 4 cases (the fathers of poets, 
and the sons of judges, commanders, and divines), and of 
more than 1 unit in the sole case of the sons of artists. 
The deviations from the average are naturally greater 
in the second and third grades of kinship, because the 
numbers of instances in the several groups are generally 
small; but as the proportions in the large subdivision 
of the 85 Judges correspond with extreme closeness to 
those of the general average, we are perfectly justified in 
accepting the latter with confidence. 
The final and most important result remains to be 
worked out; it is this: if we know nothing else about 
a person than that he is a father, brother, son, grandson, 
or other relation of an illustrious man, what is the chance 
that he is or will be eminent ? Column Einp, 61 gives 
the reply for Judges ; it remains for us to discover what it 
is for illustrious men generally. In each of the chapters 
I have given such data as I possessed, fit for combining 322 
COMPARISON OP RESULTS. 
with the results in column D, in order to make the 
required calculation. They consist of the proportion of 
men whose relations achieved eminence, compared with 
the total number into whose relationships I inquired 
The general result1 is. that exactly one-half of the illus- 
trious men have one or more eminent relations. Conse- 
quently, if we divide the entries in column D, of “ eminent 
men of all classes,” p. 317, by 2, we shall obtain the 
corresponding column E. 
The reader may, however, suspect the fairness of my 
selection. He may recollect my difficulty, avowed in many 
chapters, of finding suitable selections, and will suspect 
that I have yielded to the temptation of inserting more 
than a due share of favourable cases. And I cannot 
wholly deny the charge, for I can recollect a few names 
that probably occurred to me owing to the double or 
treble weight given to them, by the cumulated perform- 
ances of two or three persons. Therefore I acknowledge 
it to be quite necessary, in the interests of truth, to appeal 
to some wholly independent selection of names; and will 
take for that purpose the saints, or whatever their right 
name may be, of the Comtist Calendar. Many of my 
readers will know to what I am referring; how Auguste 
Comte, desiring to found a “Religion of Humanity,” 
selected a list of names, from those to whom human 
development was most indebted, and assigned the months 
to the most important, the weeks to the next class, and 
the days to the third. I have nothing whatever to do 
with Comtist doctrines in these pages: his disciples dislike 
1 Lord Chancellors, p. 64, 24 in 30; Statesmen of George 111., p. ill, 
33 iQ 53 5 Premiers, p. in, not included in the “ Statesmen,” Bin 16 ; Com- 
manders, p. 150, 32 in 59 ; Literary Men, p. 172, 37 in 56; Scientific Men, 
pp. 194, 199, 65 in 83 ; Poets, p. 228, 40 in 100; Musicians, p. 239, 26 in 
100; Painters, p. 249, 18 in 42 ; Divines, pp. 274, 283, 33 in 196 ; Scholars, 
p. 300, 14 in 36. These proportions reduced to decimals are .8, .6 and .5, 
.5, .7, .8, .4, .3, .4, .2, .4; giving a general average of .5 or one-half. COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
323 
Darwinism, and therefore cannot be expected to be favour- 
able to many of the discussions in this book; so I have the 
more satisfaction in the independence of the testimony 
afforded by his Calendar to the truth of my views. Again, 
no one can doubt that Comte’s selections are entirely 
original; for he was the last man to pin his faith upon 
that popular opinion which he aspired to lead. Every 
name in his Calendar was weighed, we may be sure, with 
scrupulous care, though, I dare say, with a rather crazy 
balance, before it was inserted in the place which he 
assigned for it, in his Calendar. 
The Calendar consists of 13 months, each containing 
4 weeks. The following table gives the representatives 
of the 13 months in capital letters, and those of the 52 
weeks in ordinary type. I have not thought it worth 
while to transcribe the representatives of the several days. 
Those marked with a * are included in my appendices, as 
having eminent relations ; those with a f might have been 
so included. It will be observed that there are from 10 
to 20 persons of whose kinships we know nothing or next 
to nothing, and therefore they should be struck out of the 
list,—such as Numa, Buddha, Homer, Phidias, Thales, 
Pythagoras, Archimedes, Apollonius, Hipparchus, St. Paul. 
Among the remaining 55 or 45 persons, no less than 27, or 
one-half, have eminent relations. 
1. Theocracy, initial . +Moses,—Numa, Buddha, fConfucius, Mahomet. 
2. Ancient poetry . . . Homer,—*VEschylus, Phidias, * Aristophanes, Virgil. 
3- Ancient philosophy . *Aristotle,—Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato. 
4- Ancient science. . . Archimedes,—fHippocrates, Apollonius, Hippar- 
chus, "Pliny the Elder. 
5* Military civilization *C>esar,—Themistocles, "’‘‘Alexander, *Scipio, Trajan. 
6. Catholicism .... St. Paul,—f St. Augustine, Hildebrand, St. Bernard, 
Bossuet. 
7. Feudal civilization , "“'Charlemagne,—Alfred, Godfrey, Innocent 111., 
St. Louis. 
8. Modern epic .... Dante,—■*Ariosto, Raphael, *Tasso, ’’Milton. 
9- Modern industry. , Guttenberg,—Columbus, Vaucanson, *Watt, 
+Montgolfier. 324 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
10. Modern drama. . . Shakespeare, Calderon, *Corneille, Moli&re, 
11. Modern philosophy . Descartes,—*St. Thomas Aquinas, *Lord Bacon, 
*Leibnitz, Hume. 
12. Modern politics. . . Frederick the Great,—Louis XL, *William the 
Mozart, 
13. Modern science. . . Bichat,—*Galilei, *Newton, Lavoisier, Gall, 
Silent, *Cromwell. 
It is singularly interesting to observe how strongly the 
results obtained from Comte’s selection corroborate my 
own. lam sure, then, we shall be within the mark if we 
consider column D in the table, p. 317, to refer to the 
eminent kinsmen, not of the large group of illustrious and 
eminent men, but of the more select portion of illustrious 
men only, and then calculate our column E by dividing 
the entries under D by 2. 
For example, I reckon the chances of kinsmen of illus- 
trious men rising, or having risen, to eminence, to be Is|- 
to 100 in the case of fathers, 13! to 100 in the case of 
brothers, 24 to 100 in the case of sons. Or, putting these 
and the remaining proportions into a more convenient 
form, we obtain the following results. In first grade: the 
chance of the father is Ito 6; of each brother, Ito 7; of 
each son, 1 to 4, In second grade: of each grandfather, 
1 to 25 ; of each uncle, 1 to 40; of each nephew, Ito 40; 
of each grandson, Ito 29. In the third grade, the chance 
of each member is about 1 to 200, excepting in the case 
of first cousins, where it is I to 100. 
The large number of eminent descendants from illus- 
trious men must not be looked upon as expressing the 
results of their marriage with mediocre women, for the 
average ability of the wives of such men is above medio- 
crity. This is my strong conviction, after reading very 
many biographies, although it clashes with a commonly 
expressed opinion that clever men marry silly women. 
It is not easy to prove my point without a considerable 
mass of quotations to show the estimation in which the COMPARISON OP RESULTS. 
325 
wives of a large body of illustrious men were held by 
their intimate friends, but the two following arguments 
are not without weight. First, the lady whom a man 
marries is very commonly one whom he has often met in 
the society of his own friends, and therefore not likely to 
be a silly woman. She is also usually related to some of 
them, and therefore has a probability of being hereditarily 
gifted. Secondly, as a matter of fact, a large number of 
eminent men marry eminent women. If the reader runs 
his eye through my Appendices, he will fmd many such 
instances. Philip 11. of Macedon and Olympias; Caesar’s 
liaison with Cleopatra; Marlborough and his most able 
wife ; Helvetius married a charming lady, whose hand 
was also sought by both Franklin and Turgot; August 
Wilhelm von Schlegel was heart and soul devoted to 
Madame de Stael; Necker’s wife was a blue-stocking of 
the purest hue ; Robert Stephens, the learned printer, had 
Petronella for his wife; the Lord Keeper Sir Nicholas 
Bacon and the great Lord Burleigh married two of the 
highly accomplished daughters of Sir Anthony Cooke. 
Every one of these names, which I have taken from the 
Appendices to my chapters on Commanders, Statesmen, 
and Literary Men, are those of decidedly eminent women. 
They establish the existence of a tendency of “ like to 
like” among intellectual men and women, and make it 
most probable, that the marriages of illustrious men with 
women of classes E and D are very common. On the 
other hand, there is no evidence of a strongly marked 
antagonistic taste—of clever men liking really half-witted 
Women. A man may be conscious of serious defects in his 
character, and select a wife to supplement what he wants, 
3-s a shy man may be attracted by a woman who has no 
other merits than those of a talker and manager. Also, 
a young awkward philosopher may accredit the first girl 
rho cares to show an interest in him, with greater intelli- 326 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
gence than she possesses. But these are exceptional 
instances; the great fact remains that able men take 
pleasure in the society of intelligent women, and, if they 
can find such as would in other respects be suitable, they 
will marry them in preference to mediocrities. 
I think, therefore, that the results given in my tables, 
under the head of “ Sons,” should be ascribed to the 
marriages of men of class F and above, with women 
whose natural gifts are, on the average, not inferior to 
those of class B, and possibly between B and C. 
I will now contrast the power of the male and female 
lines of kinship in the transmission of ability, and for that 
purpose will reduce the actual figures into percentages. 
As an example of the process, we may take the cases of 
the Judges. Here—as will be observed in the foot-note1— 
the actual figures corresponding to the specified varieties 
of kinship are 41, 16, 19, 1, making a total of 77; now 
I raise these to what they would be if this total were 
raised to 100; in short, I multiply them by 100 and divide 
by 77, which converts them into 53, 21, 25, 1; and these 
are the figures inserted in the table. 
1 The actual figures are— 
Total .... 
% <P a o 
• a. 
. + ' + 
+ c + 
O'? _ *—< 
W + C ' 
‘ . 05 + 
+ fc= 
P + PP 
PP P 
P * Pp 
o 
M 
►5 « 4^ 
*H VO OS >H 
Judges. 
U) 
Os 
t/J O 4* 'O 
Statesmen. 
Ui 
12 
5 
6 
2 
Commanders. 
Co 
iS 
7 
9 
o 
Literary. 
-£*> 
Cm 
20 
12 
9 
4 
Scientific. 
OS 
12 
3 
I 
o 
Poets. 
to 
° 
O OJ 4>. U> 
Artists. 
tO 
10 
O O'* to 4. 
Divines. 
to 
Cm 
139 
S3 
73 
IO 
Totals. COM PA RIS ON OF RESULTS 
327 
Male and female . . 
Total by female-, . 
S • 4. 
+ c 
+c& + 
S. td + 
in s 
' + + 
• CAT! 
' + ‘ 
Total by male lines 
O O 
z? + 
5« + CJ 
+ C + 
►ti w 
* 
• + ' 
OOI 
tO 
ON 
to 
Cn 
4> 
to Cn 
HI CO 
Judges. 
OOI 
Co 
ON 
to 
00 00 
On 
4* 
w Cn 
HI OO 
Statesmen. 
OOI 
CO 
to 
00 4* 
On 
00 
(0 ■£>■ 
0 00 
Commanders. 
OOI 
to 
ON 
O ON 
53 
21 
Literary. 
OOI 
to 
VO 
20 
9 
•s £ 
Scientific. 
OOI 
On 
O ON 
VO 
4* 
HI 
VO Cn 
Poets. 
IOO 
Cn 
O <-a 
00 
Cn 
tO ON 
0 Cn 
Artists. 
OOI 
Co 
73 
0 
to 
NC 00 
Divines. 
1 
IOO j 
Co 
O 
CN 
O 
M Cn 
VO HI 
Total. 
It will be observed that the ratio of the total kinships, 
through male and female lines, is almost identical in the 
first five columns, namely, in Judges, Statesmen, Com- 
manders, Men of Literature, and Men of Science, and is 
as 70 to 30, or more than 2 to I. The uniformity of 
this ratio is evidence of the existence of a law, but it is 
difficult to say upon what that law depends, because the 
ratios are different for different varieties of kinship. Thus— 
to confine ourselves to those in the second grade, which 
are sufficiently numerous to give averages on which de- 
pendence may be placed—we find that the sum of the 
ratios of G., U., N., P. to those of g., u., n,, p., is also a 
little more than 2 to I. Now, the actual figures are as 
follow: 
21 G. 23 U. 40 N. 26 P. = no in all. 
21 g. 16 u. 10 n. 6p. = 53 in all. 
The first idea which will occur is, that the relative 
smallness of the numbers in the lower line appears only 
in those kinships which are most difficult to trace through COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
female descent, and that the apparent inferiority is in exact 
proportion to that difficulty. Thus the parentage of a 
man’s mother is invariably stated in his biography ; con- 
sequently, an eminent g, is no less likely to be overlooked 
than a G.; but au. is more likely to be overlooked than 
a U., and an n. and p. much more likely than an N. 
and P. However, the solution suggested by these facts 
is not wholly satisfactory, because the differences appear to 
be as great in the well-known families of the Statesmen 
and Commanders, as in the obscure ones of the Literary 
and Scientific men. It would seem from this and from what 
I shall have to say about the Divines, that I have hunted 
out the eminent kinsmen in these degrees, with pretty 
equal completeness, in both male and female lines. 
The only reasonable solution which I can suggest, 
besides that of inherent incapacity in the female line 
for transmitting the peculiar forms of ability we are now 
discussing, is, that the aunts, sisters, and daughters of 
eminent men do not marry, on the average, so frequently 
as other women. They would be likely not to marry so 
much or so soon as other women, because they would be 
accustomed to a higher form of culture and intellectual and 
moral tone in their family circle, than they could easily find 
elsewhere, especially, if, owing to the narrowness of their 
means, their society were restricted to the persons in their 
immediate neighbourhood. Again, one portion of them 
would certainly be of a dogmatic and self-asserting type, 
and therefore unattractive to men, and others would fail to 
attract, owing to their having shy, odd manners, often met 
with in young persons of genius, which are disadvantageous 
to the matrimonial chances of young women. It will be 
observed, in corroboration of this theory, that it accounts for 
g. being as large as G., because a man must have an equal 
number of g. and G., but he need not have an equal number 
of u., n,, p., and U., N., P. Owing to want of further in- COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
formation, I am compelled to leave this question somewhat 
undecided. If my column Cof the tables had been based 
on facts instead of on estimate, those facts would have 
afforded the information I want. 
In the case of Poets and Artists, the influence of the 
female line is enormously less than the male, and in these 
the solution I have suggested would be even more appro- 
priate than in the previous groups. 
Among the Divines we come to a wholly new order of 
things. Here, the proportions are simply inverted, the 
female influence being to the male as 73 to 27, instead 
of as, in the average of the first five columns, 30 to 70. 
I have already, in the chapter on Divines, spoken at so 
much length about the power of female influence in 
nurturing religious dispositions, that I need not recur to 
that question. As regards the presumed disinclination to 
marriage among the female relatives of eminent men gene- 
rally, an exception must certainly be made in the case 
of those of the Divines. They consider intellectual ability 
and a cultured mind of small importance compared with 
pious professions, and religious society is particularly large, 
owing to habits of association for religious purposes; there- 
fore the necessity of choosing a pious husband is no 
material hindrance to the marriage of a near female rela- 
tion of an eminent divine. 
There is a common opinion that great men have remark- 
able mothers. No doubt they are largely indebted to 
maternal influences, but the popular belief ascribes an 
undue and incredible share to them. I account for the 
belief, by the fact that great men have usually high moral 
natures, and are affectionate and reverential, inasmuch as 
mere brain without heart is insufficient to achieve emi- 
nence. Such men are naturally disposed to show extreme 
filial regard, and to publish the good qualities of their 
mothers, with exaggerated praise. 330 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
I regret I am unable to solve the simple question whether, 
and how far, men and women who are prodigies of genius, 
are infertile. I have, however, shown, that men of eminence, 
such as the Judges, are by no means so, and it will be seen, 
from my point of view of the future of the human race, 
as described in a subsequent chapter, that the fertility 
of eminent men is a more important fact for me to 
establish, than that of prodigies. There are many diffi- 
culties in the way of discovering whether genius is, or is 
not, correlated with infertility. One—and a very serious 
one—is that people will not agree upon the names of those 
who are pre-eminently men of genius, nor even upon the 
definition of the word. Another is, that the men selected 
as examples are usually ancients, or at all events those 
who lived so long ago that it is often impossible, and 
always very difficult, to learn anything about their families. 
Another difficulty lies in the fact, that a man who has no 
children is likely to do more for his profession, and to 
devote himself more thoroughly to the good of the public, 
than if he had them. A very gifted man will almost always 
rise, as I believe, to eminence; but if he is handicapped with 
the weight of a wife and children in the race of life, he 
cannot be expected to keep as much in the front as if he 
were single. He cannot pursue his favourite subject of 
study with the same absorbing passion as if he had no 
other pressing calls on his attention, no domestic sorrows, 
anxieties, and petty cares, no yearly child, no periodical 
infantine epidemics, no constant professional toil for the 
maintenance of a large family. 
There are other obstacles in the way of leaving de- 
scendants in the second generation. The daughters would 
not be so likely as other girls to marry, for the reasons 
stated a few pages back; while the health of the sons is liable 
to be ruined by over-work. The sons of gifted men are 
decidedly more precocious than their parents, as a reference COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
331 
to my Appendices will distinctly show; I do not care to 
quote cases, because it is a normal fact, analogous to what 
is observed in diseases, and in growths of all kinds, as has 
been clearly laid down by Mr. Darwin. The result is, that 
the precocious child is looked upon as a prodigy, abler 
even than his parent, because the parent’s abilities at the 
same age were less, and he is pushed forward in every 
way by home influences, until serious harm is done to his 
constitution. 
So much for the difficulties in the way of arriving at a 
right judgment on the question before us. Most assuredly, 
a surprising number of the ablest men appear to have left 
no descendants; but we are justified, from what I have 
said, in ascribing a very considerable part of the adduced 
instances to other causes than an inherent tendency to 
barrenness in men and women of genius. I believe there 
is a large residuum which must be so ascribed, and I agree 
thus far with the suggestion of Prosper Lucas, that, as 
giants and dwarfs are rarely prolific, so men of prodigiously 
large or small intellectual powers may be expected to be 
deficient in fertility. On the other hand, I utterly dis- 
agree with the assertion of that famous author on heredity, 
that true genius is invariably isolated. 
There is a prevalent belief somewhat in accordance with 
the subject of the last paragraph but one, that men of 
genius are unhealthy, puny beings—all brain and no 
muscle—weak-sighted, and generally of poor constitutions. 
I think most of my readers would be surprised at the 
stature and physical frames of the heroes of history, who 
fill my pages, if they could be assembled together in a 
hall. I would undertake to pick out of any group of 
them, even out of that of the Divines (see pp. 270, 271), 
an “ eleven ” who should compete in any physical feats 
whatever, against similar selections from groups of twice 
or thrice their numbers, taken at hap-hazard from equally 332 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
well-fed classes. In the notes I made, previous to writing 
this book, I had begun to make memoranda of the physical 
gifts of my heroes, and regret now, that I did not continue 
the plan, but there is even almost enough printed in the 
Appendices to warrant my assertion. I do not deny that 
many men of extraordinary mental gifts have had wretched 
constitutions, but deny them to be an essential or even the 
usual accompaniment. University facts are as good as any 
others to serve as examples, so I will mention that both 
high wranglers and high classics have been frequently the 
first oarsmen of their years. The Hon. George Denman, 
who was senior classic in 1842, was the stroke of the Uni- 
versity crew. Sir William Thompson, the second wrangler 
in 1845, won the sculls. In the very first boat-race between 
the two Universities, three men who afterwards became 
bishops rowed in one of the contending boats, and another 
rowed in the other. It is the second and third-rate students 
who are usually weakly. A collection of living magnates 
in various branches of intellectual achievement is always 
a feast to my eyes ; being, as they are, such massive, vigo- 
rous, capable-looking animals. 
I took some pains to investigate the law of mortality in 
the different groups, and drew illustrative curves in order 
to see whether there was anything abnormal in the con- 
stitutions of eminent men, and this result certainly came 
out, which goes far to show that the gifted men consist of 
two categories—the very weak and the very strong. It 
was, that the curve of mortality does not make a single 
bend, but it rises to a minor culminating point, and then, 
descending again, takes a fresh departure for its principal 
arc. There is a want of continuity in the regularity of 
its sweep. I conclude that among the gifted men, there is 
a small class who have weak and excitable constitutions, 
who are destined to early death, but that the remainder 
consists of men likely to enjoy a vigorous old age. COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
333 
This double culmination was strongly marked in the 
group of Artists, and distinctly so in that of the Poets, but 
it came out with most startling definition when I laid out 
the cases, of which I had made notes, 92 in number, of 
men remarkable for their precocity. Their first culmi- 
nation was at the age of 38, then the death-rate sank till 
the age of 42 ; at 52 it had again risen to what it was at 
38, and it attained its maximum at 64. The mortality of 
the men who did not appear to have been eminently pre- 
cocious, 180 cases in all, followed a perfectly normal curve, 
rising steadily to a maximum at 68 years, and then de- 
clining as steadily. The scientific men lived the longest, 
and the number of early deaths among them was decidedly 
less than in any of the other groups. 
The last general remark I have to make is, that features 
and mental abilities do not seem to be correlated. The 
son may resemble his parent in being an able man,- but it 
does not therefore follow that he will also resemble him in 
features. I know of families where the children who had 
not the features of their parents inherited their disposition 
and ability, and the remaining children had just the con- 
verse gifts. In looking at the portraits in the late National 
Exhibitions I was extremely struck with the absence of 
family likeness, in cases where I had expected to find it. 
I cannot prove this point without illustrations; the reader 
must therefore permit me to leave its evidence in an 
avowedly incomplete form. 
In concluding this chapter, I may point out some of 
the groups that I have omitted to discuss. The foremost 
Engineers are a body of men possessed of remarkable 
natural qualities ; they are not only able men, but are 
also possessed of singular powers of physical endurance 
and of boldness, combined with clear views of what can 
and what cannot be effected. I have included Watt and' 
Stephenson among the men of science, but the Brunels, 334 
COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
and the curious family of Mylne, going back for nine, if 
not twelve generations,—all able and many eminent in 
their professions,—and several others, deserve notice. Ido 
not, however, see ray way to making a selection of emi- 
nently gifted engineers, because their success depends, in 
a very great degree, on early opportunities. If a great 
engineering business is once established, with well-selected 
men at the heads of its various departments, it is easy to 
keep up the name and credit for more than one generation, 
after the death of its gifted originator. 
The Actors are very closely connected—so much so as 
to form a caste ; but here, as with the Engineers, we have 
great difficulty in distinguishing the eminently gifted from 
those whose success is largely due to the accident of edu- 
cation. Ido not, however, like to pass them over without 
a notice of the Kemble family, who filled so large a space 
in the eyes of the British world, two generations ago. The 
following is their pedigree : 
Roger Kemble. 
Manager of a theatrical company; 
tall and comely; made an excel- 
lent FalstafF. 
= Sarah Ward ; daughter of a strolling 
manager. She was austere and stately; 
her voice had much of the emphasis 
of her daughter’s; tall and comely. 
\ 
Sar 
(Mrs. S 
Great 
ah John 
iddons). Phillip, 
actress. Tragedian. 
1 
Stephen. 
Come- 
dian. 
Fra 
(Mrs/ 
nces 
Twiss). 
. 1 
Elizabeth 
(Mrs. White- 
lock). 
Actress. 
Charles. 
T rage- 
dian. 
! 
) 
> 
: 
< 
Horace 
Under Se 
Home 
Twiss, 
c. State 
Dept, 
f 
Adelaide 
(Mrs. Sar- 
toris). 
John, 
Anglo- 
Saxon 
scholar. 
1 
Mary Frances Siddons. 
Actress of much promise. 
I was desirous of obtaining facts bearing on heredity 
from China, for there the system of examination is noto- 
riously strict and far-reaching, and boys of promise are COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 
335 
sure to be passed on from step to step, until they have 
reached the highest level of which they are capable. The 
first honour of the year in a population of some 400 
millions—the senior classic and senior wrangler rolled into 
one—is the “ Chuan-Yuan.” Are the Chuan-Yuans ever 
related together ? is a question I have asked, and to which 
a reply was promised me by a friend of high distinction 
in China, but which has not reached me up to the time 
I am writing these lines. However, I put a question on 
the subject into the pages of the Hong-Kong Notes and 
Queries (Aug. 1868), and found at all events one case, of 
a woman who, after bearing a child who afterwards became 
a Chuan-Yuan, was divorced from her husband, but marry- 
ing again, she bore a second child, who also became a 
Chuan-Yuan, to her next husband. I feel the utmost 
confidence that if the question were thoroughly gone 
into by a really competent person, China would afford a 
perfect treasury of facts bearing on heredity. There is, 
however, a considerable difficulty in making these inquiries, 
arising from the paucity of surnames in China, and also 
from the necessity of going back to periods (and there 
are many such) when corruption was far less rife in China 
than it is at present. 
The records of the Olympian Games in the palmy days 
of Greece, which were scrupulously kept by the Eleans, 
would have been an excellent mine to dig into, for facts 
bearing on heredity; but they are not now to be had. 
However, I find one incidental circumstance in their history 
that is worth a few lines of notice. It appears, there was 
a single instance of a married woman having ventured 
to be present, while the games were going on, although 
death was the penalty of the attempt. She was found 
out, but excused, because her father, brothers, and son 
had all been victors. CHAPTER XX. 
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
I. HAVE now completed what I have to say concerning the 
kinships of individuals, and proceed, in this chapter, to 
attempt a wider treatment of my subject, through a con- 
sideration of nations and races. 
Every long-established race has necessarily its peculiar 
fitness for the conditions under which it has lived, owing 
to the sure operation of Darwin’s law of natural selection. 
However, I am not much concerned, for the present, with 
the greater part of those aptitudes, but only with such as 
are available in some form or other of high civilization. We 
may reckon upon the advent of a time, when civilization, 
which is now sparse and feeble and far more superficial than 
it is vaunted to be, shall overspread the globe. Ultimately 
it is sure to do so, because civilization is the necessary fruit 
of high intelligence when found in a social animal, and 
there is no plainer lesson to be read off the face of Nature 
than that the result of the operation of her laws is to 
evoke intelligence in connexion with sociability. Intelli- 
gence is as much an advantage to an animal as physical 
strength or any other natural gift, and therefore, out of two 
varieties of any race of animal who are equally endowed 
in other respects, the most intelligent variety is sure to 
prevail in the battle of life. Similarly, among animals as OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
337 
intelligent as man, the most social race is sure to prevail, 
other qualities being equal. 
Under even a very moderate form of material civilization, 
a vast number of aptitudes acquired through the “ survivor- 
ship of the fittest” and the unsparing destruction of the 
unfit, for hundreds of generations, have become as obsolete 
as the old mail-coach habits and customs, since the establish- 
ment of railroads, and there is not the slightest use in 
attempting to preserve them ; they are hindrances, and not 
gains, to civilization. I shall refer to some of these a little 
further on, but I will first speak of the qualities needed in 
civilized society. They are, speaking generally, such as 
will enable a race to supply a large contingent to the 
various groups of eminent men, of whom I have treated in 
my several chapters. Without going so far as to say that 
this very convenient test is perfectly fair, we are at all 
events justified in making considerable use of it, as I will 
do, in the estimates I am about to give. 
In comparing the worth of different races, I shall make 
frequent use of the law of deviation from an average, to 
which I have already been much beholden; and, to save 
the reader’s time and patience, I propose to act upon an 
assumption that would require a good deal of discussion 
to limit, and to which the reader may at first demur, but 
which cannot lead to any error of importance in a rough 
provisional inquiry, I shall assume that the intervals 
between the grades of ability are the same in all the races 
-—that is, if the ability of class A of one race be equal to 
the ability of class C in another, then the ability of class B 
of the former shall be supposed equal to that of class D 
of the latter, and so on. I know this cannot be strictly 
true, for it would be in defiance of analogy if the variability 
of all races were precisely the same; but, on the other 
hand, there is good reason to expect that the error intro- 
duced by the assumption cannot sensibly affect the off- THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
338 
hand results for which alone I propose to employ it; 
moreover, the rough data I shall adduce, will go far to 
show the justice of this expectation. 
Let us, then, compare the negro race with the Anglo- 
Saxon, with respect to those qualities alone which are 
capable of producing judges, statesmen, commanders, men 
of literature and science, poets, artists, and divines. If 
the negro race in America had been affected by no social 
disabilities, a comparison of their achievements with those 
of the whites in their several branches of intellectual effort, 
having regard to the total number of their respective popu- 
lations, would give the necessary information. As matters 
stand, we must be content with much rougher data. 
First, the negro race has occasionally, but very rarely, 
produced such men as Toussaint I’Ouverture, who are of 
our class F ; that is to say, its X, or its total classes above 
G, appear to correspond with our F, showing a difference 
of not less than two grades between the black and white 
races, and it may be more. 
Secondly, the negro race is by no means wholly deficient 
in men capable of becoming good factors, thriving mer- 
chants, and otherwise considerably raised above the average 
of whites—that is to say, it can not unfrequently supply 
men corresponding to our class C, or even D. It will be 
recollected that C implies a selection of I in 16, or some- 
what more than the natural abilities possessed by average 
foremen of common juries, and that D is as I in 64—a 
degree of ability that is sure to make a man successful in 
life. In short, classes E and Fof the negro may roughly 
be considered as the equivalent of our C and D—a result 
which again points to the conclusion, that the average 
intellectual standard of the negro race is some two grades 
below our own. 
Thirdly, we may compare, but with much caution, the 
relative position of negroes in their native country with OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
339 
that of the travellers who visit them. The latter, no doubt, 
bring with them the knowledge current in civilized lands, 
but that is an advantage of less importance than we are 
apt to suppose. A native chief has as good an education 
in the art of ruling men, as can be desired ; he is con- 
tinually exercised in personal government, and usually 
maintains his place by the ascendency of his character, 
shown every day over his subjects and rivals, A traveller 
in wild countries also fills, to a certain degree, the posi- 
tion of a commander, and has to confront native chiefs 
at every inhabited place. The result is familiar enough— 
the white traveller almost invariably holds his own in 
their presence. It is seldom that we hear of a white 
traveller meeting with a black chief whom he feels to be 
the better man. I have often discussed this subject with 
competent persons, and can only recall a few cases of the 
inferiority of the white man,— certainly not more than 
might be ascribed to an average actual difference of three 
grades, of which one may be due to the relative demerits 
of native education, and the remaining two to a difference 
in natural gifts. 
Fourthly, the number among the negroes of those whom 
we should call half-witted men, is very large. Every book 
alluding to negro servants in America is full of instances. 
I was myself much impressed by this fact during my travels 
in Africa. The mistakes the negroes made in their own 
matters, were so childish, stupid, and simpleton-like, as 
frequently to make me ashamed of my own species. Ido 
not think it any exaggeration to say, that their c is as 
low as our e, which would be a difference of two grades, 
as before. I have no information as to actual idiocy among 
the negroes—l mean, of course, of that class of idiocy 
which is not due to disease. 
The Australian type is at least one grade below the 
African negro. I possess a few serviceable data about the THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
natural capacity of the Australian, but not sufficient to 
induce me to invite the reader to consider them. 
The average standard of the Lowland Scotch and the 
English North-country men is decidedly a fraction of a 
grade superior to that of the ordinary English, because 
the number of the former who attain to eminence is far 
greater than the proportionate number of their race would 
have led us to expect. The same superiority is dis- 
tinctly shown by a comparison of the well-being of the 
masses of the population ; for the Scotch labourer is much 
less of a drudge than the Englishman of the Midland 
counties—he does his work better, and “ lives his life ” 
besides. The peasant women of Northumberland work 
all day in the fields, and are not broken down by the 
work; on the contrary, they take a pride in their effec- 
tive labour as girls, and, when married, they attend well 
to the comfort of their homes. It is perfectly distressing 
to me to witness the draggled, drudged, mean look of 
the mass of individuals, especially of the women, that 
one meets in the streets of London and other purely 
English towns. The conditions of their life seem too 
hard for their constitutions, and to be crushing them 
into degeneracy. 
The ablest race of whom history bears record is un- 
questionably the ancient Greek, partly because their 
master-pieces in the principal departments of intellectual 
activity are still unsurpassed, and in many respects un- 
equalled, and partly because the population that gave birth 
to the creators of those master-pieces was very small. Of 
the various Greek sub-races, that of Attica was the ablest, 
and she was no doubt largely indebted to the following 
cause, for her superiority. Athens opened her arms to 
immigrants, but not indiscriminately, for her social life 
was such that none but very able men could take any 
pleasure in it; on the other hand, she offered attractions OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
such as men of the highest ability and culture could find 
in no other city. Thus, by a system of partly unconscious 
selection, she built up a magnificent breed of human 
animals, which, in the space of one century—viz. between 
530 and 430 B.C.—produced the following illustrious per- 
sons, fourteen in number : 
Statesmen and Commanders.—Themistocles (mother an 
alien), Miltiades, Aristeides, Cimon (son of Miltiades), 
Pericles (son of Xanthippus, the victor at Mycale). 
Literary and Scientific Men. Thucydides, Socrates, 
Xenophon, Plato. 
Poets.—Aischylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes. 
Sadptor.—Phidias. 
We are able to make a closely-approximate estimate, 
of the population that produced these men, because the 
number of the inhabitants of Attica has been a matter of 
frequent inquiry, and critics appear at length to be quite 
agreed in the general results. It seems that the little 
district of Attica contained, during its most flourishing 
period (Smith’s Class. Geog. Diet.), less than 90,000 native 
free-born persons, 40,000 resident aliens, and a labouring 
and artisan population of 400,000 slaves. The first item is 
the only one that concerns us here, namely, the 90,00 c 
free-born persons. Again, the common estimate that popu- 
lation renews itself three times in a century is very close 
to the truth, and may be accepted in the present case. 
Consequently, we have to deal with a total population of 
270,000 free-born persons, or 135,000 males, born in the 
century I have named. Of these, about one-half, or 
67,500, would survive the age of 26, and one-third, or 
45,000, would survive that of 50. As 14 Athenians became 
illustrious, the selection is only as 1 to 4,822 in respect to 
the former limitation, and as Ito 3,214 in respect to the 
latter. Referring to the table in page 34, it will be seen 
that this degree of selection corresponds very fairly to the 342 
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
classes I 1 (i in 4,300) and above, of the Athenian race. 
Again, as G is one-sixteenth or one-seventeenth as nume- 
rous as F, it would be reasonable to expect to find one 
of class G among the fourteen ; we might, however, by 
accident, meet with two, three, or even four of that class—- 
say Pericles, Socrates, Plato, and Phidias. 
Now let us attempt to compare the Athenian standard 
ol ability with that of our own race and time. We have no 
men to put by the side of Socrates and Phidias, because the 
millions of all Europe, breeding as they have done for the 
subsequent 2,000 years, have never produced their equals. 
They are, therefore, two or three grades above our G—they 
might rank as I or J. But, supposing we do not count 
them at all, saying that some freak of nature acting at that 
time, may have produced them, what must we say about 
the rest? Pericles and Plato would rank, I suppose, the 
one among the greatest of philosophical statesmen, and the 
other as at least the equal of Lord Bacon. They would, 
therefore, stand somewhere among our unclassed X, one 
or two grades above G—let us call them between H and 
I. All the remainder—the F of the Athenian race—• 
would rank above our G, and equal to or close upon 
our H. It follows from all this, that the average ability of 
the Athenian race is, on the lowest possible estimate, very 
nearly two grades higher than our own—that is, about as 
much as our race is above that of the African negro. This 
estimate, which may seem prodigious to some, is confirmed 
by the quick intelligence and high culture of the Athenian 
commonalty, before whom literary works were recited, 
and works of art exhibited, of a far more severe character 
than could possibly be appreciated by the average of our 
race, the calibre of whose intellect is easily gauged by a 
glance at the contents of a railway book-stall. 
We know, and may guess something more, of the 
reason why this marvellously-gifted race declined. Social OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
343 
morality grew exceedingly lax ; marriage became unfash- 
ionable, and was avoided ; many of the more ambitious 
and accomplished women were avowed courtesans, and 
consequently infertile, and the mothers of the incoming 
population were of a heterogeneous class. In a small 
sea-bordered country, where emigration and immigration 
are constantly going on, and where the manners are as 
dissolute as were those of Greece in the period of which 
I speak, the purity of a race would necessarily fail. It can 
be, therefore, no surprise to us, though it has been a severe 
misfortune to humanity, that the high Athenian breed 
decayed and disappeared ; for if it had maintained its 
excellence, and had multiplied and spread over large 
countries, displacing inferior populations (which it well 
might have done, for it was exceedingly prolific), it would 
assuredly have accomplished results advantageous to 
human civilization, to a degree that transcends our powers 
of imagination. 
If we could raise the average standard of our race only 
one grade, what vast changes would be produced ! The 
number of men of natural gifts equal to those of the 
eminent men of the present day, would be necessarily 
increased more than tenfold, as will be seen by the fourth 
column of the table p. 34, because there would be 2,423 of 
them in each million instead of only 233 ; but far more 
important to the progress of civilization would be the 
increase in the yet higher orders of intellect. We know 
how intimately the course of events is dependent on the 
thoughts of a few illustrious men. If the first-rate men in 
the different groups had never been born, even if those 
among them who have a place in my appendices on account 
of their hereditary gifts, had never existed, the world would 
be very different to what it is. Now the table shows that 
the numbers in these, the loftiest grades of intellect, would 
be increased in a still higher proportion than that of which 344 
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
I have been speaking; thus the men that now rank under 
class G would be increased seventeenfold, by raising the 
average ability of the whole nation a single grade. We see 
by the table that all England contains (on the average, of 
course, of several years) only six men between the ages of 
thirty and eighty, whose natural gifts exceed class G; but 
in a country of the same population as ours, whose average 
was one grade higher, there would be eighty-two of such 
men ; and in another whose average was two grades higher 
(such as I believe the Athenian to have been, in the interval 
530—430 8.C.) no less than 1,355 of them would be found. 
There is no improbability in so gifted a breed being able 
to maintain itself, as Athenian experience, rightly under- 
stood, has sufficiently proved ; and as has also been proved 
by what I have written about the Judges, whose fertility is 
undoubted, although their average natural ability is F, or 
5 2 degrees above the average of our own, and 31 above 
that of the average Athenians. 
It seems to me most essential to the well-being of future 
generations, that the average standard of ability of the 
present time should be raised. Civilization is a new con- 
dition imposed upon man by the course of events, just as 
in the history of geological changes new conditions have 
continually been imposed on different races of animals. 
They have had the effect either of modifying the nature of 
the races through the process of natural selection, when- 
ever the changes were sufficiently slow and the race suffi- 
ciently pliant, or of destroying them altogether, when the 
changes were too abrupt or the race unyielding. The 
number of the races of mankind that have been entirely 
destroyed under the pressure of the requirements of an 
incoming civilization, reads us a terrible lesson. Probably 
in no former period of the world has the destruction of 
the races of any animal whatever, been effected over such 
wide areas and with such startling rapidity as in the OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
345 
case of savage man. In the North American Continent, 
in the West Indian Islands, in the Cape of Good Hope, 
in Australia, New Zealand, and Van Diemen’s Land, the 
human denizens of vast regions have been entirely swept 
away in the short space of three centuries, less by the 
pressure of a stronger race than through the influence of a 
civilization they were incapable of supporting. And we 
too, the foremost labourers in creating this civilization, are 
beginning to show ourselves incapable of keeping pace 
with our own work. The needs of centralization, communi- 
cation, and culture, call for more brains and mental stamina 
than the average of our race possess. We are in crying 
want for a greater fund of ability in all stations of life ; for 
neither the classes of statesmen, philosophers, artisans, nor 
labourers are up to the modern complexity of their several 
professions. An extended civilization like ours comprises 
more interests than the ordinary statesmen or philosophers 
of our present race are capable of dealing with, and it 
exacts more intelligent work than our ordinary artisans 
and labourers are capable of performing. Our race is over- 
weighted, and appears likely to be drudged into degeneracy 
by demands that exceed its powers. If its average ability 
were raised a grade or two, our new classes F and G 
would conduct the complex affairs of the state at home 
and abroad as easily as our present F and G, when in the 
position of country squires, are able to manage the affairs 
of their establishments and tenantry. All other classes 
of the community would be similarly promoted to the 
level of the work required by the nineteenth century, if 
the average standard of the race were raised. 
When the severity of the struggle for existence is not 
too great for the powers of the race, its action is healthy 
and conservative, otherwise it is deadly, just as we may see 
exemplified in the scanty, wretched vegetation that leads 
a precarious existence near the summer snow line of the 346 
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
Alps, and disappears altogether a little higher up. We 
want as much backbone as we can get, to bear the racket 
to which we are henceforth to be exposed, and as good 
brains as possible to contrive machinery, for modern life to 
work more smoothly than at present. We can, in some 
degree, raise the nature of man to a level with the new 
conditions imposed upon his existence, and we can also, in 
some degree, modify the conditions to suit his nature. It 
is clearly right that both these powers should be exerted, 
with the view of bringing his nature and the conditions of 
his existence into as close harmony as possible. 
In proportion as the world becomes filled with mankind, 
the relations of society necessarily increase in complexity, 
and the nomadic disposition found in most barbarians 
becomes unsuitable to the novel conditions. There is a 
most unusual unanimity in respect to the causes of in- 
capacity of savages for civilization, among writers on those 
hunting and migratory nations who are brought into con- 
tact with advancing colonization, and perish, as they in- 
variably do, by the contact. They tell us that the labour 
of such men is neither constant nor steady ; that the love 
of a wandering, independent life prevents their settling 
anywhere to work, except for a short time, when urged by 
want and encouraged by kind treatment. Meadows says 
that the Chinese call the barbarous races on their borders 
by a phrase which means “hither and thither, not fixed,” 
And any amount of evidence might be adduced to show 
how deeply Bohemian habits of one kind or another, were 
ingrained in the nature of the men who inhabited most 
parts of the earth now overspread by the Anglo-Saxon 
and other civilized races. Luckily there is still room for 
adventure, and a man who feels the cravings of a roving, 
adventurous spirit to be too strong for resistance, may yet 
find a legitimate outlet for it in the colonies, in the army, 
or on board ship. But such a spirit is, on the whole. OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
347 
Eli heirloom that brings more impatient restlessness and 
beating of the wings against cage-bars, than persons of 
more civilized characters can readily comprehend, and it 
is directly at war with the more modern portion of our 
moral natures. If a man be purely a nomad, he has only 
to be nomadic, and his instinct is satisfied ; but no 
Englishmen of the nineteenth century are purely nomadic. 
The most so among them have also inherited many 
civilized cravings that are necessarily starved when they 
become wanderers, in the same way as the wandering in- 
stincts are starved when they are settled at home. Conse- 
quently their nature has opposite wants, which can never be 
satisfied except by chance, through some very exceptional 
turn of circumstances. This is a serious calamity, and as 
the Bohemianism in the nature of our race is destined to 
perish, the sooner it goes, the happier for mankind. The 
social requirements of English life are steadily destroying 
it. No man who only works by fits and starts is able to 
obtain his living nowadays ; for he has not a chance of 
thriving in competition with steady workmen. If his nature 
revolts against the monotony of daily labour, he is tempted 
to the public-house, to intemperance, and, it may be, to 
poaching, and to much more serious crime: otherwise he 
banishes himself from our shores. In the first case, he 
is unlikely to leave as many children as men of more 
domestic and marrying habits, and, in the second case, his 
breed is wholly lost to England. By this steady riddance 
of the Bohemian spirit of our race, the artisan part of our 
population is slowly becoming bred to its duties, and 
the primary qualities of the typical modern British work- 
man are already the very opposite of those of the nomad. 
What they are now, was well described by Mr. Chadwick, 
as consisting of “great bodily strength, applied under 
the command of a steady, persevering will, mental self- 
tentedness, impassibility to external irrelevant impres- 348 
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH 
sions, which carries them through the continued repetition 
of toilsome labour, ‘steady as time.’” 
It is curious to remark how unimportant to modern 
civilization has become the once famous and thorough- 
bred looking Norman. The type of his features, which is, 
probably, in some degree correlated with his peculiar form 
of adventurous disposition, is no longer characteristic of 
our rulers, and is rarely found among celebrities of the 
present day; it is more often met with among the undis- 
tinguished members of highly-born families, and especially 
among the less conspicuous officers of the army. Modern 
leading men in all paths of eminence, as may easily be 
seen in a collection of photographs, are of a coarser and 
more robust breed ; less excitable and dashing, but endowed 
with far more ruggedness and real vigour. Such also is 
the case, as regards the German portion of the Austrian 
nation; they are far more high-caste in appearance than 
the Prussians, who are so plain that it is disagreeable to 
travel northwards from Vienna, and watch the change; 
yet the Prussians appear possessed of the greater moral 
and physical stamina. 
Much more alien to the genius of an enlightened civiliza- 
tion than the nomadic habit, is the impulsive and uncon- 
trolled nature of the savage. A civilized man must bear 
and forbear, he must keep before his mind the claims of 
the morrow as clearly as those of the passing minute; of 
the absent, as well as of the present. This is the most 
trying of the new conditions imposed on man by civili- 
zation, and the one that makes it hopeless for any but 
exceptional natures among savages, to live under them. 
The instinct of a savage is admirably consonant with the 
needs of savage life; every day he is in danger through 
transient causes; he lives from hand to mouth, in the hour 
and for the hour, without care for the past or forethought 
for the future: but such an instinct is utterly at fault in OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
349 
civilized life. The half-reclaimed savage, being unable to 
deal with more subjects of consideration than are directly 
before him, is continually doing acts through mere mal- 
adroitness and incapacity, at which he is afterwards deeply 
grieved and annoyed. The nearer inducements always seem 
to him, through his uncorrected sense of moral perspective, to 
be incomparably larger than others of the same actual size, 
but more remote; consequently, when the temptation of 
the moment has been yielded to and passed away, and its 
bitter result comes in its turn before the man, he is amazed 
and remorseful at his past weakness. It seems incredible 
that he should have done that yesterday which to-day 
seems so silly, so unjust, and so unkindly. The newly- 
reclaimed barbarian, with the impulsive, unstable nature 
of the savage, when he also chances to be gifted with a 
peculiarly generous and affectionate disposition, is of all 
others the man most oppressed with the sense of sin. 
Now it is a just assertion, and a common theme of 
moralists of many creeds, that man, such as we find him, 
is born with an imperfect nature. He has lofty aspirations, 
but there is a weakness in his disposition, which incapaci- 
tates him from carrying his nobler purposes into effect. 
He sees that some particular course of action is his duty, 
and should be his delight; but his inclinations are fickle 
and base, and do not conform to his better judgment. 
The whole moral nature of man is tainted with sin, 
which prevents him from doing the things he knows to 
be right. 
The explanation I offer of this apparent anomaly, seems 
perfectly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. It is 
neither more nor less than that the development of our 
nature, whether under Darwin’s law of natural selection, or 
through the effects of changed ancestral habits, has not yet 
overtaken the development of our moral civilization. Man 
was barbarous but yesterday, and therefore it is not to 350 
COM PARA TIVE WORTH OF DIFFERENT RACES. 
be expected that the natural aptitudes of his race should 
already have become moulded into accordance with his 
very recent advance. We, men of the present centuries, 
are like animals suddenly transplanted among new con- 
ditions of climate and of food: our instincts fail us under 
the altered circumstances. 
My theory is confirmed by the fact that the members 
of old civilizations are far less sensible than recent con- 
verts from barbarism, of their nature being inadequate to 
their moral needs. The conscience of a negro is aghast at 
his own wild, impulsive nature, and is easily stirred by 
a preacher, but it is scarcely possible to ruffle the self- 
complacency of a steady-going Chinaman. 
The sense of original sin would show, according to my 
theory, not that man was fallen from a high estate, but that 
he was rising in moral culture with more rapidity than the 
nature of his race could follow. My view is corroborated 
by the conclusion reached at the end of each of the many 
independent lines of ethnological research—that the human 
race were utter savages in the beginning; and that, after 
myriads of years of barbarism, man has but very recently 
found his way into the paths of morality and civilizatioa CHAPTER XXI. 
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE NATURAL ABILITY O* 
NATIONS. 
BEFORE speaking of the influences which affect the natural 
ability and intelligence of nations and races, I must beg 
the reader to bring distinctly before his mind how reason- 
able it is that such influences should be expected to exist 
How consonant it is to all analogy and experience to 
expect that the control of the nature of future generations 
should be as much within the power of the living, as the 
health and well-being of the individual is in the power of 
the guardians of his youth. 
We are exceedingly ignorant of the reasons why we 
exist, confident only that individual life is a portion of 
some vaster system that struggles arduously onwards, 
towards ends that are dimly seen or wholly unknown to 
us, by means of the various affinities—the sentiments, the 
intelligences, the tastes, the appetites—of innumerable 
personalities who ceaselessly succeed one another on the 
stage of existence. 
There is nothing that appears to assign a more excep- 
tional or sacred character to a race, than to the families or 
individuals that compose it. We know how careless Nature 
is of the lives of individuals ; we have see# how careless 
she is of eminent families—how they are built up, flourish, 
and decay : just the same may be said of races, and of INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE 
the world itself; also, by analogy, of other scenes of ex- 
istence than this particular planet of one of innumerable 
suns. Our world appears hitherto to have developed itself, 
mainly under the influence of unreasoning affinities; but 
of late, Man, slowly growing to be intelligent, humane, and 
capable, has appeared on the scene of life and profoundly 
modified its conditions. He has already become able to 
look after his own interests in an incomparably more 
far-sighted manner, than in the old pre-historic days of 
barbarism and flint knives; he is already able to act on 
the experiences of the past, to combine closely with distant 
allies, and to prepare for future wants, known only through 
the intelligence, long before their pressure has become felt. 
He has introduced a vast deal of civilization and hygiene 
which influence, in an immense degree, his own well-being 
and that of his children; it remains for him to bring 
other policies into action, that shall tell on the natural 
gifts of his race. 
It would be writing to no practically useful purpose, 
were I to discuss the effect that might be produced on 
the population, by such social arrangements as existed 
in Sparta. They are so alien and repulsive to modern 
feelings, that it is useless to say anything about them, 
so I shall wholly confine my remarks to agencies that 
are actually at work, and upon which there can be no 
hesitation in speaking. 
I shall have occasion to show that certain influences 
retard the average age of marriage, while others hasten it; 
and the general character of my argument will be to prove, 
that an enormous effect upon the average natural ability 
of a race may be produced by means of those influences. 
I shall argue that the wisest policy is, that which results 
in retarding the average age of marriage among the weak, 
and in hastening it among the vigorous classes; whereas, 
most unhappily for us, the influence of numerous social NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 
353 
agencies has been strongly and banefully exerted in the 
precisely opposite direction. 
An estimate of the effect of the average age of marriage 
on the growth of any section of a nation, is therefore the 
first subject that requires investigation. Everybody is 
prepared to admit that it is an element, sure to produce 
some sensible effect, but few will anticipate its real magni- 
tude, or will be disposed to believe that its results have 
so vast and irresistible an influence on the natural ability 
of a race, as I shall be able to demonstrate. 
The average age of marriage affects population in a 
threefold manner. Firstly, those who marry when young, 
have the larger families ; secondly, they produce more 
generations within a given period, and therefore the growth 
of a prolific race, progressing as it does, “geometrically,” 
would be vastly increased at the end of a long period, by 
a habit of early marriages; and, thirdly, more generations 
are alive at the same time, among those races who marry 
when they are young. 
In explanation of the aggregate effect of these three 
influences, it will be best to take two examples that are 
widely but not extremely separated. Suppose two men, 
M and N, about 22 years old, each of them having there- 
fore the expectation of living to the age of 55, or 33 years 
longer; and suppose that M marries at once, and that 
his descendants, when they arrive at the same age, do the 
same ; but that N delays until he has laid by money, and 
does not marry before he is 33 years old, that is to say, 11 
years later than M, and his descendants also follow his 
example. Let us further make the two very moderate 
suppositions, that the early marriages of race M result in 
an increase of in the next generation, and also in the 
production of 3f generations in a century, while the late 
marriages of race N result in an increase of only in the 
next generation and in 2\ generations in one century. 354 
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE 
It will be found that an increase of in each genera- 
tion, accumulating on the principle of compound interest 
during 3| generations, becomes rather more than JTB times 
the original amount; while an increase of for 2| gene- 
rations is barely as much as times the original amount. 
Consequently the increase of the race of M at the end of 
a century, will be greater than that of N in the ratio of 
18 to 7 ; that is to say, it will be rather more than 2\ 
times as great. In two centuries the progeny of M will 
be more than 6 times, and in three centuries more than 
15 times, as numerous as those of N. 
The proportion which the progeny of M will bear at 
any time, to the total living population, will be still greater 
than this, owing to the number of generations of M who 
are alive at the same time, being greater than those of N. 
The reader will not find any difficulty in estimating the 
effect of these conditions, if he begins by ignoring children 
and all others below the age of 22, and also by supposing 
the population to be stationary in its number, in con- 
secutive generations. We have agreed in the case of M 
to allow 3f generations to one century, which gives about 
27 years to each generation; then, when one of this race 
is 22 years old, his father will (on the average of many 
cases) be 27 years older, or 49; and as the father lives 
to 55, he will survive the advent of his son to manhood 
for the space of 6 years. Consequently, during the 27 
years intervening between each two generations, there will 
be found one mature life for the whole period and one 
other mature life during a period of 6 years, which gives 
for the total mature life of the race M, a number which 
may be expressed by the fraction or |f. The 
diagram represents the course of three consecutive gene- 
rations of race M : the middle line refers to that of the 
individual about whom I have just been speaking, the 
upper one to that of his father, and the lower to his NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS 
355 
son. The dotted line indicates the period of life before 
the age of 22; the double line, the period between 22 and 
line, the period between 22 and 
the average time at which his son is born : the dark line 
is the remainder of his life. 
A term of 27 years 
between two generations. 
not contribute more than 2\ generations to a century, that 
is to say, 40 years to a single generation, does not attain 
the age of 22 until (on the average of many cases) 7 years 
after his father’s death ; for the father was 40 years old 
when his son was born, and died at the age of 5 5 when the 
son was only 15 years old. In other words, during each 
period of 18 + 15 + 7, or 40 years, men of mature life of 
the race N are alive for only 18+15, or 33 of them; 
hence the total mature life of the race N may be expressed 
by the fraction -f-g-. 
On the other hand, a man of the race N, which does 
A term of 40 years 
between two generations. 
It follows that the relative population due to the races 
of M and N, is as to or as 40 to 27,1 which is very 
nearly as 5 to 3. 
1 A little consideration of the diagram will show that the proportion in 
question, will invariably be in the inverse ratio of the intervals between the 
two generations, which in the present case are 27 and 40 years. 356 
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE 
We have been calculating on the supposition that the 
population remains stationary, because it was more con- 
venient to do so, but the results of our calculation will 
hold nearly true for all cases. Because, if population 
should increase, the larger number of living descendants 
tends to counterbalance the diminished number of living 
ancestry ; and, conversely, if it decreases. 
Combining the above ratio of 5 to 3 with those pre- 
viously obtained, it results that at the end of one century 
from the time when the races M and N started fair, with 
equal numbers, the proportion of mature men of race M 
will be four times as numerous as those of race N; at the 
end of two centuries, they will be ten times as numerous, 
and at the end of three centuries, no less than twenty-six 
times as numerous. 
I trust the reader will realize the heavy doom which 
these figures pronounce against all sub-sections of prolific 
races in which it is the custom to put off the period of 
marriage until middle age. It is a maxim of Malthus 
that the period of marriage ought to be delayed in order 
that the earth may not be overcrowded by a population 
for whom there is no place at the great table of nature. 
If this doctrine influenced all classes alike, I should have 
nothing to say about it here, one way or another, for it 
would hardly affect the discussions in this book ; but, as 
it is put forward as a rule of conduct for the prudent part 
of mankind to follow, whilst the imprudent are necessarily 
left free to disregard it, I have no hesitation in saying that 
it is a most pernicious rule of conduct in its bearing upon 
race. Its effect would be such as to cause the race of 
the prudent to fall, after a few centuries, into an almost 
incredible inferiority of numbers to that of the imprudent, 
and it is therefore calculated to bring utter ruin upon the 
breed of any country where the doctrine prevailed. I 
protest against the abler races being encouraged to with* NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 
357 
draw in this way from the struggle for existence. It may 
seem monstrous that the weak should be crowded out by 
the strong, but it is still more monstrous that the races 
best fitted to play their part on the stage of life, should 
be crowded out by the incompetent, the ailing, and the 
desponding. 
The time may hereafter arrive, in far distant years, when 
the population of the earth shall be kept as strictly within 
the bounds of number and suitability of race, as the sheep 
on a well-ordered moor or the plants in an orchard-house; 
in the meantime, let us do what we can to encourage the 
multiplication of the races best fitted to invent and con- 
form to a high and generous civilization, and not, out of 
a mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent 
the incoming of strong and hearty individuals. 
The long period of the dark ages under which Europe 
has lain is due, I believe in a very considerable degree, 
to the celibacy enjoined by religious orders on their 
votaries. Whenever a man or woman was possessed of 
a gentle nature that fitted him or her to deeds of charity, 
to meditation, to literature, or to art, the social con- 
dition of the time was such that they had no refuge 
elsewhere than in the bosom of the Church. But the 
Church chose to preach and exact celibacy. The con- 
sequence was that these gentle natures had no continu- 
ance, and thus, by a policy so singularly unwise and 
suicidal that I am hardly able to speak of it without 
impatience, the Church brutalized the breed of our fore- 
fathers. She acted precisely as if she had aimed at 
selecting the rudest portion of the community to be, 
alone, the parents of future generations. She practised 
the arts which breeders would use, who aimed at creating 
ferocious, currish and stupid natures. No wonder that club- 
law prevailed for centuries over Europe ; the wonder rather 
is that enough good remained in the veins of Europeans INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE 
to enable their race to rise to its present, very moderate 
level of natural morality. 
A relic of this monastic spirit clings to our Universities, 
who say to eveiy man who shows intellectual powers of the 
kind they delight to honour, “ Here is an income of from 
one to two hundred pounds a year, with free lodging and 
various advantages in the way of board and society; we 
give it you on account of your ability; take it and enjoy 
it all your life if you like: we exact no condition to your 
continuing to hold it but one, namely, that you shall 
not marry.” 
The policy of the religious world in Europe was exerted 
in another direction, with hardly less cruel effect on the 
nature of future generations, by means of persecutions which 
brought thousands of the foremost thinkers and men of 
political aptitudes to the scaffold, or imprisoned them during 
a large part of their manhood, or drove them as emigrants 
into other lands. In every one of these cases, the check 
upon their leaving issue was very considerable. Hence 
the Church, having first captured all the gentle natures 
and condemned them to celibacy, made another sweep of 
her huge nets, this time fishing in stirring waters, to catch 
those who were the most fearless, truth-seeking, and intel- 
ligent in their modes of thought, and therefore the most 
suitable parents of a high civilization, and put a strong 
check, if not a direct stop, to their progeny. Those she 
reserved on these occasions, to breed the generations of 
the future, were the servile, the indifferent, and, again, 
the stupid. Thus, as she—to repeat my expression— 
brutalized human nature by her system of celibacy applied 
to the gentle, she demoralised it by her system of perse- 
cution of the intelligent, the sincere, and the free. It is 
enough to make the blood boil to think of the blind 
folly that has caused the foremost nations of struggling 
humanity to be the heirs of such hateful ancestry, and NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 
359 
that has so bred our instincts as to keep them in an 
unnecessarily long-continued antagonism with the essential 
requirements of a steadily advancing civilization. In con- 
sequence of this inbred imperfection of our natures, in 
respect to the conditions under which we have to live, we 
are, even now, almost as much harassed by the sense of 
moral incapacity and sin, as were the early converts from 
barbarism, and we steep ourselves in half-unconscious self- 
deception and hypocrisy, as a partial refuge from its 
insistance. Our avowed creeds remain at variance with our 
real rules of conduct, and we lead a dual life of barren 
religious sentimentalism and gross materialistic habitudes. 
The extent to which persecution must have affected 
European races is easily measured by a few well-known 
statistical facts. Thus, as regards martyrdom and imprison- 
ment, the Spanish nation was drained of free-thinkers at 
the rate of 1,000 persons annually, for the three centuries 
between 1471 and 1781; an average of 100 persons having 
been executed and 900 imprisoned every year during that 
period. The actual data during those three hundred years 
are 32,000 burnt, 17,000 persons burnt in effigy (I pre- 
sume they mostly died in prison or escaped from Spain), 
and 291,000 condemned to various terms of imprison- 
ment and other penalties. It is impossible that any nation 
could stand a policy like this, without paying a heavy 
penalty in the deterioration of its breed, as has notably 
been the result in the formation of the superstitious, unin- 
telligent Spanish race of the present day. 
Italy was also frightfully persecuted at an earlier date. 
In the diocese of Como, alone, more than 1,000 were tried 
annually by the inquisitors for many years, and 300 were 
burnt in the single year 1416. 
The French persecutions, by which the English have been 
large gainers, through receiving their industrial refugees, 
were on a nearly similar scale. In the seventeenth century 360 
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE 
three or four hundred thousand Protestants perished in 
prison, at the galleys, in their attempts to escape, or on 
the scaffold, and an equal number emigrated. Mr. Smiles, 
in his admirable book on the Huguenots, has traced the 
influence of these and of the Flemish emigrants on 
England, and shows clearly that she owes to them almost 
all her industrial arts and very much of the most valuable 
life-blood of her modern race. There has been another 
emigration from France of not unequal magnitude, but 
followed by very different results, namely that of the 
Revolution in 1789. It is most instructive to contrast the 
effects of the two. The Protestant emigrants were able 
men, and have profoundly influenced for good both our 
breed and our history ; on the other hand, the political 
refugees had but poor average stamina, and have left 
scarcely any traces behind them. 
It is very remarkable how large a proportion of the 
eminent men of all countries bear foreign names, and are 
the children of political refugees,—men well qualified to 
introduce a valuable strain of blood. We cannot fail to 
reflect on the glorious destiny of a country that should 
maintain, during many generations, the policy of attracting 
eminently desirable refugees, but no others, and of en- 
couraging their settlement and the naturalization of their 
children. 
No nation has parted with more emigrants than England, 
but whether she has hitherto been on the whole a gainer or 
a loser by the practice, lam not sure. No doubt she has 
lost a very large number of families of sterling worth, 
especially of labourers and artisans ; but, as a rule, the very 
ablest men are strongly disinclined to emigrate ; they feel 
that their fortune is assured at home, and unless their 
spirit of adventure is overwhelmingly strong, they prefer 
to live in the high intellectual and moral atmosphere of 
the more intelligent circles of English society, to a self- NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 
361 
banishment among people of altogether lower grades of 
mind and interests. England has certainly got rid of a 
great deal of refuse, through means of emigration. She 
has found an outlet for men of adventurous and Bohemian 
natures, who are excellently adapted for colonizing a new 
country, but are not wanted in old civilizations; and she 
has also been disembarrassed of a vast number of turbu- 
lent radicals and the like, men who are decidedly able but 
by no means eminent, and whose zeal, self-confidence, and 
irreverence far outbalance their other qualities. 
The rapid rise of new colonies and the decay of old 
civilizations is, I believe, mainly due to their respective 
social agencies, which in the one case promote, and in the 
other case retard, the marriages of the most suitable breeds. 
In a young colony, a strong arm and an enterprising brain 
are the most appropriate fortune for a marrying man, and 
again, as the women are few, the inferior males are seldom 
likely to marry. In an old civilization, the agencies are 
more complex. Among the active, ambitious classes, none 
but the inheritors of fortune are likely to marry young; 
there is especially a run against men of classes C, D, and 
E—those, I mean, whose future fortune is not assured 
except through a good deal of self-denial and effort. It is 
almost impossible that they should succeed well and rise 
high in society, if they hamper themselves with a wife in 
their early manhood. Men of classes F and G are more 
independent, but they are not nearly so numerous, and 
therefore their breed, though intrinsically of more worth 
than E or D, has much less effect on the standard of the 
nation at large. But even if men of classes F and G marry 
young, and ultimately make fortunes and achieve peerages 
or high social position, they become infected with the 
ambition current in all old civilizations, of founding fami- 
lies. Thence result the evils I have already described, in 
speaking of the marriages of eldest sons with heiresses and 362 
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 
of the suppression of the marriages of the younger sons. 
Again, there is a constant tendency of the best men in the 
country, to settle in the great cities, where marriages are 
less prolific and children are less likely to live. Owing tc 
these several causes, there is a steady check in an old 
civilization upon the fertility of the abler classes; the im- 
provident and unambitious are those who chiefly keep up 
the breed. So the race gradually deteriorates, becoming 
in each successive generation less fitted for a high civi- 
lization, although it retains the external appearances of 
one, until the time comes when the whole political and 
social fabric caves in, and a greater or less relapse to bar- 
barism takes place, during the reign of which the race is 
perhaps able to recover its tone. 
The best form of civilization in respect to the improve- 
ment of the race, would be one in which society was not 
costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from profes- 
sional sources, and not much through inheritance ; where 
every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if 
highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class educa- 
tion and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help 
of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained 
in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high 
honour as in ancient Jewish times ; where the pride of 
race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the 
nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under 
that name); where the weak could find a welcome and 
a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, 
where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other 
lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants 
naturalized. CHAPTER XXII. 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
Il is confidently asserted by all modern physiologists that 
the life of every plant and animal is built up of an enor- 
mous number of subordinate lives; that each organism 
consists of a multitude of elemental parts, which are to a 
great extent independent of each other; that each organ 
has its proper life, or autonomy, and can develop and 
reproduce itself independently of other tissues (see Darwin 
on “ Domestication of Plants and Animals,” ii, 368, 369). 
Thus the word “ Man,” when rightly understood, becomes 
a noun of multitude, because he is composed of millions, 
perhaps billions of cells, each of which possesses in some 
sort an independent life, and is parent of other cells. He is 
a conscious whole, formed by the joint agencies of a host 
of what appear to us to be unconscious or barely conscious 
elements. 
Mr. Darwin, in his remarkable theory of Pangenesis, 
takes two great strides from this starting point. He sup- 
poses, first, that each cell, having of course its individual 
peculiarities, breeds nearly true to its kind, by propagating 
innumerable germs, or to use his expression, geommules,” 
which circulate in the blood and multiply there; remaining 
in that inchoate form until they are able to fix themselves 
upon other more or less perfect tissue, and then they 
become developed into regular cells. Secondly, the germs 
are supposed to be solely governed by their respective 364 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
natural affinities, in selecting their points of attachment; 
and that, consequently, the marvellous structure of the 
living form is built up under the influence of innumerable 
blind affinities, and not under that of a central control- 
ling power. 
This theory, propounded by Mr. Darwin as “provisional,” 
and avowedly based, in some degree, on pure hypothesis 
and very largely on analogy, is—whether it be true or not 
—of enormous service to those who inquire into heredity. 
It gives a key that unlocks every one of the hitherto 
unopened barriers to our comprehension of its nature; it 
binds within the compass of a singularly simple law, the 
multifarious forms of reproduction, witnessed in the wide 
range of organic life, and it brings all these forms of repro- 
duction under the same conditions as govern the ordinary 
growth of each individual. It is, therefore, very advisable 
that we should look at the facts of hereditary genius, from 
the point of view which the theory of Pangenesis affords, 
and to this I will endeavour to guide the reader. 
Every type of character in a living being may be com- 
pared to the typical appearance always found in different 
descriptions of assemblages. It is true that the life of an 
animal is conscious, and that the elements on which it is 
based are apparently unconscious, while exactly the reverse 
is the case in the corporate life of a body of men. Never- 
theless the employment of this analogy will help us consi- 
derably in obtaining a clear understanding of the laws which 
govern heredity, and they will not mislead us, when used 
in the manner I propose. The assemblages of which I 
speak are such as are uncontrolled by any central autho- 
rity, but have assumed their typical appearance through 
the free action of the individuals who compose them, each 
man being bent on his immediate interest, and finding his 
place under the sole influence of an elective affinity to his 
neighbours. A small rising watering-place affords as good GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
365 
an illustration as any of which I can think. It is often 
hardly possible to trace its first beginnings : two or three 
houses were perhaps built for private use, and becoming 
accidentally vacant, were seen and rented by holiday folk, 
who praised the locality, and raised a demand for further 
accommodation; other houses were built to meet the 
requirement; this led to an inn, to the daily visit of the 
baker’s and butcher’s cart, the postman, and so forth. Then 
as the village increased and shops began to be established, 
young artisans, and other floating gemmules of English 
population, in search of a place where they might advan- 
tageously attach themselves, became fixed, and so each new 
opportunity was seized upon and each opening filled up, as 
soon or very soon after it existed. The general result of 
these purely selfish affinities is, that watering-places are 
curiously similar, even before the speculative builder has 
stepped in. We may predict what kind of shops will 
be found and how they will be placed; nay, even what 
kind of goods and placards will be put up in the windows. 
And so, notwithstanding abundant individual peculiarities, 
we find them to have a strong generic identity. 
The type of these watering-places is certainly a durable 
one; the human materials of which they are made remain 
similar, and so are the conditions under which they exist, 
of having to the wants of the average British 
holiday seeker. Therefore the watering-place would always 
breed true to its kind. It would do so by detaching an 
offshoot on the fissiparous principle, or like a polyp, from 
which you may snip off a bit, which thenceforward lives an 
independent life and grows into a complete animal. Or, to 
compare it with a higher order of life, two watering-places 
at some distance apart might between them afford material 
to raise another in an intermediate locality. 
Precisely the same remarks might be made about fishing 
villages, or manufacturing towns, or new settlements in the 366 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
Bush, or an encampment of gold diggers, and each of these 
would breed true to its kind. If we go to more stationary 
forms of society than our own, we shall find numerous 
examples of the purest breed: thus, the Hottentot kraal or 
village of to-day differs in no way from those described by 
the earliest travellers; or, to take an immensely longer 
leap, the information gathered from the most ancient 
paintings in Egypt, accords with our observations of the 
modern life of the descendants of those peoples, whom the 
paintings represent. 
Next, let us consider the nature of hybrids. Suppose a 
town to be formed under the influence of two others that 
differ, the one a watering-place and the other a fishing 
town; what will be the result ? We find that particular 
combination to be usually favourable, because the different 
elements do not interfere with, but rather support one 
another. The fishing interest gives greater solidity to the 
place than the more ephemeral presence of the tourist 
population can furnish; the picturesque seaside life is also 
an attraction to visitors, and the fishermen cater for their 
food. On the other hand, the watering-place gives more 
varied conditions of existence to the fishermen; the visitors 
are very properly mulcted, directly or indirectly, for cha- 
rities, roads, and the like, and they are not unwelcome 
customers in various ways to their fellow-townsmen. 
Let us take another instance of an hybrid; one that 
leads to a different result. Suppose an enterprising manu- 
facturer from a town at no great distance from an incipient 
watering-place, discovers advantages in its minerals, water 
powrer, or means of access, and prepares to set up his 
mill in the place. We may predict what will follow, with 
much certainty. Either the place will be forsaken as a 
watering-place, or the manufacturer wall be in some way 
or other got rid of. The two elements are discordant 
The dirt and noise and rough artisans engaged in the GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
367 
manufactory, are uncongenial to the population of a 
watering-place. 
The moral I have in view will be clear to the reader. I 
wish to show that because a well-conditioned man marries 
a well-conditioned woman, each of pure blood as regards 
any natural gift, it does not in the least follow that the 
hybrid offspring will succeed. 
I will continue to employ the same metaphor, to explain 
the manner in which apparent sports of nature are pro- 
duced, such as the sudden appearance of a man of great 
abilities in undistinguished families, Mr. Darwin maintains, 
in the theory of Pangenesis, that the gemmules of innu- 
merable qualities, derived from ancestral sources, circulate 
in the blood and propagate themselves, generation after 
generation, still in the state of gemmules, but fail in deve- 
loping themselves into cells, because other antagonistic 
gemmules are prepotent and overmaster them, in the 
struggle for points of attachment. Hence there is a vastly 
larger number of capabilities in every living being, than 
ever find expression, and for every patent element there 
are countless latent ones. The character of a man is wholly 
formed through those gemmules that have succeeded in 
attaching themselves; the remainder that have been over- 
powered by their antagonists, count for nothing ; just as the 
policy of a democracy is formed by that of the majority of 
its citizens, or as the parliamentary voice of any place is 
determined by the dominant political views of the electors : 
in both instances, the dissentient minority is powerless. 
Let, however, by the virtue of the more rapid propagation 
of one class of electors, say of an Irish population, the 
numerical strength of the weaker party be supposed to 
gradually increase, until the minority becomes the majority, 
then there will be a sudden reversal or revolution of the 
political equilibrium, and the character of the borough or 
nation, as evidenced by its corporate acts, will be entirely 368 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
changed. This corresponds to a so-called “sport’1 of 
nature. Again, to make the simile still more closely 
appropriate to our wants, suppose that by some alteration 
in the system of representation, two boroughs, each con- 
taining an Irish element in a large minority, the one having 
always returned a Whig and the other a Conservative, to 
be combined into a single borough returning one member. 
It is clear that the Whig and Conservative party will neu- 
tralize one another, and that the union of the two Irish 
minorities will form a strong majority, and that a member 
professing Irish interests is sure to be returned. This 
strictly corresponds to the case where the son has marked 
peculiarities, which neither of his parents possessed in a 
patent form. 
The dominant influence of pure blood over mongrel 
alliances is also easily to be understood by the simile 
of the two boroughs; for if every perfect and inchoate 
voter in one of them—that is to say, every male, man and 
child—be a radical to his backbone, the incoming of such 
a compact mass would overpower the divided politics of 
the inhabitants of the other, with which it was combined. 
These similes, which are perfectly legitimate according 
to the theory of Pangenesis, are well worthy of being 
indulged in, for they give considerable precision to our 
views on heredity, and compel facts that appear anomalous 
at first sight, to fall into intelligible order. 
I will now explain what I presume ought to be under- 
stood, when we speak of the stability of types, and what is 
the nature of the changes through which one type yields 
to another. Stability is a word taken from the language 
of mechanics; it is felt to be an apt word; let us see what 
the conception of types would be, when applied to me- 
chanical conditions. It is shown by Mr. Darwin, in his 
great theory of “ The Origin of Species,” that all forms of 
organic life are in some sense convertible into one another, GENERAL CONSIDERA TIONS. 
for all have, according to his views, sprung from common 
ancestry, and therefore A and B having both descended from 
C, the lines of descent might be remounted from A to C, 
and redescended from Cto B. Yet the changes are not by 
insensible gradations ; there are many, but not an infinite 
number of intermediate links ; how is the law of continuity 
to be satisfied by a series of changes in jerks ? The 
mechanical conception would be that of a rough stone, 
having, in consequence of its roughness, a vast number of 
natural facets, on any one of which it might rest in “ stable ” 
equilibrium. That is to say, when pushed it would some- 
what yield, when pushed much harder it would again yield, 
but in a less degree ; in either case, on the pressure being 
withdrawn, it would fall back into its first position. But, 
if by a powerful effort the stone is compelled to overpass 
the limits of the facet on which it has hitherto found rest, 
it will tumble over into a new position of stability, whence 
just the same proceedings must be gone through as before, 
before it can be dislodged and rolled another step onwards. 
The various positions of stable equilibrium may be looked 
upon as so many typical attitudes of the stone, the type 
being more durable as the limits of its stability are wider. 
We also see clearly that there is no violation of the law of 
continuity in the movements of the stone, though it can 
only repose in certain widely separated positions. 
Now for another metaphor, taken from a more complex 
system of forces. We have all known what it is to be 
jammed in the midst of a great crowd, struggling and 
pushing and swerving to and fro, in its endeavour to make 
a way through some narrow passage. There is a dead lock ; 
each member of the crowd is pushing, the mass is agitated, 
but there is no progress. If, by a great effort, a man drives 
those in front of him but a few inches forwards, a recoil 
is pretty sure to follow, and there is no ultimate advance. 
At length, by some accidental unison of effort, the dead GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
lock yields, a forward movement is made, the elements of 
the crowd fall into slightly varied combinations, but in a 
few seconds there is another dead lock, which is relieved; 
after a while, through just the same processes as before. 
Each of these formations of the crowd, in which they have 
found themselves in a dead lock, is a position of stable 
equilibrium, and represents a typical attitude. 
It is easy to form a general idea of the conditions of 
stable equilibrium in the organic world, where one element 
is so correlated with another that there must be an enor- 
mous number of unstable combinations for each that is 
capable of maintaining itself unchanged, generation after 
generation. 
I will now make a few remarks on the subject of in- 
dividual variation. The gemmules whence every cell of 
every organism is developed, are supposed, in the theory 
of Pangenesis, to be derived from two causes : the one, 
unchanged inheritance; the other, changed inheritance. 
Mr. Darwin, in his latter work, “Variation of Animals 
and Plants under Domestication,” shows very clearly that 
individual variation is a somewhat more important feature 
than we might have expected. It becomes an interesting 
inquiry to determine how much of a person’s constitution 
is due, on an average, to the unchanged gifts of a remote 
ancestry, and how much to the accumulation of individual 
variations. The doctrine of Pangenesis gives excellent 
materials for mathematical formulae, the constants of which 
might be supplied through averages of facts, like those 
contained in my tables, if they were prepared for the 
purpose. My own data are too lax to go upon ; the 
averages ought to refer to some simple physical charac- 
teristic, unmistakeable in its quality, and not subject to the 
doubts which attend the appraisement of ability. Let me 
remark, that there need be no hesitation in accepting 
averages for this purpose; for the meaning and value of GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
371 
an average are perfectly clear. It would represent the 
results, supposing the competing “ gemmules ” to be equally 
fertile, and also supposing the proportion of the gemmules 
affected by individual variation, to be constant in all the 
cases. 
The immediate consequence of the theory of Pangenesis 
is somewhat startling. It appears to show that a man is 
wholly built up of his own and ancestral peculiarities, and 
only in an infinitesimal degree of characteristics handed 
down in an unchanged form, from extremely ancient times. 
It would follow that under a prolonged term of constant 
conditions, it would matter little or nothing what were the 
characteristics of the early progenitors of a race, the type 
being supposed constant, for the progeny would invariably 
be moulded by those of its more recent ancestry. 
The reason for what I have just stated is easily to be 
comprehended if easy though improbable figures be em- 
ployed in illustration. Suppose, for the sake merely of 
a very simple numerical example, that a child acquired 
one-tenth of his nature from individual variation, and 
inherited the remaining nine-tenths from his parents. It 
follows, that his two parents would have handed down 
only nine-tenths of nine-tenths, or from his grand- 
parents, jQOjy from his great-grandparents, and so on ; 
the numerator of the fraction increasing in each successive 
step, less rapidly than the denominator, until we arrive at 
a vanishing value of the fraction.1 
The part inherited by this child in an unchanged form, 
from all his ancestors above the fiftieth degree, would be 
only one five-thousandth of his whole nature. 
I do not see why any serious difficulty should stand 
1 The formula is as follows : 
G = the total number of gemmules; of which those derived unchanged 
through parentage = Gr; the remainder, =G(i r), being changed through 
individual variation. Then— [The 372 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
in the way of mathematicians, in framing a compact for- 
mula, based on the theory of Pangenesis, to express the 
composition of organic beings in terms of their inherited 
and individual peculiarities, and to give us, after certain 
constants had been determined, the means of foretelling 
The gemmules in any individual 
Derived unchanged 
through Parents. 
Modified through 
individual variation. 
consist of 
The part Gr derived through the 
parents is similarly composed 
Gr 
+ 
G(i-r) 
of two parts ; namely . . . 
The part Gr2 derived through 
the grandparents is composed 
Gr2 
+ 
Gr{l—r) = G [r — r2) 
of 
&c. 
That derived from the nth as- 
cending generation is com- 
&c. 
+ 
Gr2 (r — r2) = t7(r2 — r*) 
&c. 
posed of 
Gr” +1 
+ 
Gr {rn~1 — rn) = 
G (rn — rn + 1) 
Hence G consists of Grn + 1 unchanged gemmules derived from generations 
higher than the nth + G multiplied into the sum of the following series, 
every term of which expresses gemmules, modified by individual variation— 
I—r + r —r2 +r2— r3 + and +rn rn+ I=l rn + 1 
as ris a fraction less than 1 (it was in the imaginary case discussed in my 
text, and would generally be very small, but I have no conception what,— 
perhaps as small as or some numbers still nearer unity), the value of 
rn +1 will vanish if nbe taken sufficiently large, in which case the individual 
may be considered as wholly derived from gemmules modified by individual 
variations posterior to the nth generation. 
It must be understood that I am speaking of variations well within the 
limits of stability of the race, and also that I am not speaking of cases where 
the individuals are selected for some peculiarity, generation after generation. 
In this event a new element must be allowed for, inasmuch as the average 
value of r cannot be constant. In proportion as the deviation from the mean 
position of stability is increased, the tendency of individual variation may 
reasonably be expected to lie more strongly towards the mean position than 
away from it. The treatment of all this seems well within the grasp of ana- 
lysis, but we want a collection of facts, such as the breeders of animals could 
well supply, to guide us for a few steps out of the region of pure hypothesis. 
The formula also shows how much of a man’s nature is derived on the 
average from any given ancestor; for if we call the father the Ist generation, 
the grandfather the 2d, and so on, as a man has 2n parents in the nth gene- 
ration, and as the formula shows that he only inherits Grn unchanged gem- 
mules from all of them put together, it follows that the portion derived from 
each person in that generation is, as (£) “. GENERAL CONS IDE RA TIONS. 
373 
the average distribution of characteristics among a large 
multitude of offspring whose parentage was known. The 
problem would have to be attacked on the following 
principle. 
The average proportion of gemmules, modified by indi- 
vidual variation under various conditions preceding birth, 
clearly admits of being determined by observation; and 
the deviations from that average may be determined by 
the same theory in the law of chances, to which I have so 
often referred. Again, the proportion of the other gem- 
mules which are transmitted in an unmodified form, would 
be similarly treated ; for the children would, on the average, 
inherit the gemmules in the same proportions that they 
existed in their parents ; but in each child there would be 
a deviation from that average. The table in page 34 is 
identical with the special case in which only two forms 
of gemmules had to be considered, and in which they 
existed in equal numbers in both parents. 
If the theory of Pangenesis be true, not only might the 
average qualities of the descendants of groups A and B, 
A and C, A and D, and every other combination be pre- 
dicted, but also the numbers of them who deviate in various 
proportions from those averages. Thus, the issue of F and 
A ought to result in so and so, for an average, and in such 
and such numbers, per million, of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, &c., 
classes. The latent gemmules equally admit of being de- 
termined from the patent characteristics of many previous 
generations, and the tendency to reversion into any ancient 
form ought also to admit of being calculated. In short, 
the theory of Pangenesis brings all the influences that bear 
on heredity into a form, that is appropriate for the grasp 
of mathematical analysis. 
I will conclude by saying a few words upon what is to 
be understood by the phrase “ individuality.” The artificial 
breeding of fish has been the subject of so many books. 374 
GENERAL CONSIDERA TIONS. 
shows, and lectures, that every one has become more or less 
familiar with its processes. The milt taken from the male 
is allowed to fall upon the ova that have been deposited by 
the female, which thereupon rapidly change their appear- 
ance, and gradually, without any other agency, an embryo 
fish may be observed to develop itself inside each of them. 
The ova may have been separated for many days from the 
female, the milt for many hours from the male. They are, 
therefore, entirely detached portions of organized matter, 
leading their own separate organic existences; and at the 
instant or very shortly after they touch, the foundations 
are laid of an individual life. But where was that life 
during the long interval of separation of the milt and roe 
from the parent fish ? If these substances were possessed 
of conscious lives in the interim, then two lives will have 
been merged into one “ individuality ”by the process; which 
is a direct contradiction in terms. If neither had conscious 
lives, then consciousness was produced by an operation as 
much under human control as anything can be. It may 
not be said that the ovum was always alive, and the milt 
had merely an accessory influence, because the young fish 
inherits its character from its parents equally, and there is 
an abundance of other physiological data to disprove the 
idea. Therefore so far as fish are concerned, the creation 
of a new life is as unrestrictedly within the compass of 
human power, as the creation of any material product 
whatever, from the combination of given elements. 
Again, suppose the breeder of fish to have two kinds 
of milt, belonging to salmon of different characters, each 
in a separate cup, A and B, and two sorts of ova, each 
also in a separate cup, C and D. Then he can make at 
his option the fish AC and BD, or else the fish AD and 
BC. Therefore not only the creation of the lives of fish, 
in a general sense, but also the specific character of indi- 
vidual lives, within wide limits, is unrestrictedly undei GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
375 
human control. The power of the director of an establish' 
ment for breeding fish is of exactly the same quality as 
that of a cook in her kitchen. Both director and cook 
require certain elements to work upon; but, having got 
them, they can create a fish or a dinner, as the case may 
be, according to a predetermined pattern. 
Now, all generation is physiologically the same,1 and 
therefore the reflections raised by what has been stated of 
fish are equally applicable to the life of man. The entire 
human race, or any one of its varieties, may indefinitely 
increase its numbers by a system of early marriages, or'it 
may wholly annihilate itself by the observance of celibacy; 
it may also introduce new human forms by means of the 
intermarriage of varieties and of a change in the conditions 
of life. It follows that the human race has a large control 
over its future forms of activity,—far more than any indi- 
vidual has over his own, since the freedom of individuals 
is narrowly restricted by the cost, in energy, of exercising 
their wills. Their state may be compared to that of cattle 
in an open pasture, each tethered closely to a peg by an 
elastic cord. These can graze in any direction, for short 
distances, with little effort, because the cord stretches 
easily at first; but the further they range, the more power- 
fully does its elastic force pull backwards against them. 
The extreme limit of their several ranges must lie at that 
distance from the peg where the maximum supply of 
nervous force which the chemical machinery of their bodies 
can evolve, is only just equivalent to the outflow required 
to resist the strain of the cord. Now, the freedom of 
humankind, considered as a whole, is far greater than 
this ; for it can gradually modify its own nature, or, to 
keep to the previous metaphor, it can cause the pegs 
themselves to be continually shifted. It can advance them 
1 The Address of the President of the Royal Society, 1867, in presen ng 
the Copley medal to Von Baer. 376 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
from point to point, towards new and better pastures, over 
wide areas, whose bounds are as yet unknown. 
Nature teems with latent life, which man has large 
powers of evoking under the forms and to the extent 
which he desires. We must not permit ourselves to con- 
sider each human or other personality as something super- 
naturally added to the stock of nature, but rather as a 
segregation of what already existed, under a new shape, 
and as a regular consequence of previous conditions. 
Neither must we be misled by the word “individuality,” 
because it appears from the many facts and arguments in 
this book, that our personalities are not so independent as 
our self-consciousness leads us to believe. We may look 
upon each individual as something not wholly detached 
from its parent source,—as a wave that has been lifted and 
shaped by normal conditions in an unknown, illimitable 
ocean. There is decidedly a solidarity as well as a separate- 
ness in all human, and probably in all lives whatsoever; 
and this consideration goes far, as I think, to establish an 
opinion that the constitution of the living Universe is a 
pure theism, and that its form of activity is what may 
be described as co-operative. It points to the conclusion 
that all life is single in its essence, but various, ever 
varying, and inter-active in its manifestations, and that 
men and all other living animals are active workers and 
sharers in a vastly more extended system of cosmic action 
than any of ourselves, much less of them, can possibly 
comprehend. It also suggests that they may contribute, 
more or less unconsciously, to the manifestation of a far 
higher life than our own, somewhat as—I do not propose 
to push the metaphor too far—the individual cells of one 
of the more complex animals contribute to the manifes- 
tation of its higher order of personality. alphabetical list of the letters and 
[ To face page >/4. 
THE RELATIONSHIPS TO WHICH THEY CORRESPOND 
NS. Great-nephew, viz. Brother’s son’s son. 
nS. Great-nephew, viz. Sister’s son’s son. 
A'S. Great-nephew, viz. Brother’s daughter’s son. 
nS. Great-nephew, viz. Sister’s daughter’s son. 
Nj. Great-niece, viz. Brother’s son’s daughter, 
nr. Great-niece, viz. Sister’s son’s daughter. 
Ns. Great-niece, viz. Brother’s daughter’s daughter, 
m Great-niece, viz. Sister’s daughter’s daughter. 
See also the Chapter on Notation, pp. 50—53. 
B. Brother 
b. Sister. 
F. Father. 
f. Mother. 
G. Grandfather, viz. Father’s father, 
g. Grandfather, viz. Mother’s father. 
G. Grandmother, viz. Father’s mother. 
g. Grandmother, viz. Mother’s mother. 
P. Grandson, viz. Son’s son. 
p. Grandson, viz. Daughter’s son. 
P. Granddaughter, viz. Son’s daughter. 
p. Granddaughter, viz. Daughter’s daughter. 
PS. Great-grandson, viz. Son’s son’s son. 
pS. Great-grandson, viz. Daughter’s son’s son. 
PS. Great-grandson, viz. Son’s daughter's son. 
pS. Great-grandson, viz. Daughter’s daughter’s son 
Pj. Great-granddaughter, viz. Son’s son’s daughter, 
pj. Great-granddaughter, viz. Daughter’s son’s daughter. 
Ps. Great-granddaughter, viz. Son’s daughter’s daughter. 
ps. Great-granddaughter, viz. Daughter’s daughter’s daughter. 
GB. Great-uncle, viz. Father’s father’s brother. 
gB. Great-uncle, viz. Mother’s father’s brother. 
(78. Great-uncle, viz. Father’s mother’s brother. 
Great-uncle, viz. Mother’s mother’s brother. 
Gb. Great-aunt, viz. Father’s father’s sister. 
gb. Great-aunt, viz. Mother’s father’s sister. 
Go. Great-aunt, viz. Father’s mother’s sister. 
gb. Great-aunt, viz. Mother’s mother’s sister. 
PP. Great-great-grandson, 8 forms, see p. 53. 
PP. Great-great-granddaughter, also 8 forms. 
GF. Great-grandfather, viz. Father’s father’s father. 
gF. Great-grandfather, viz. Mother’s father’s father. 
GF. Great-grandfather, viz. Father’s mother’s father. 
gF. Great-grandfather, viz. Mother’s mother’s father, 
Gf. Great-grandmother, viz. Father’s father’s mother. 
gf. Great-grandmother, viz. Mother’s father’s mother. 
Gf. Great-grandmother, viz. Father’s mother’s mother. 
gf. Great-grandmother, viz. Mother’s mother’s mother. 
S. Son. 
s. Daughter. 
U. Uncle, viz. Father’s brother, 
u. Uncle, viz. Mother’s brother. 
U. Aunt, viz. Father’s sister. 
u. Aunt, viz. Mother’s sister. 
GG. Great-great-grandfather, 8 forms, see p. 53. 
GG. Great-great-grandmother, 8 forms, also. 
UP. First cousin once removed descending, male, 8 forms. 
UP. First cousin once removed descending, female, 8 forms 
GN. First cousin once removed ascending, male, 8 forms 
GN First cousin once removed ascending, female, 8 form*. 
US. First cousin, viz. Father’s brother’s son. 
uS. First cousin, viz. Mother’s brother’s son. 
US. First cousin, viz. Father’s sister’s son. 
uS. First cousin, viz. Mother’s sister’s son. 
Uj, First cousin, viz. Father’s brother’s daughter. 
ur. First cousin, viz. Mother’s brother’s daughter. 
Us. First cousin, viz. Father’s sister’s daughter. 
us. First cousin, viz. Mother’s sister’s daughter. 
GU. Great-great-uncle, 8 forms, see p. 53. 
G Cl. Great-great-aunt, also 8 forms. 
N. Nephew, viz. Brother’s son. 
n. Nephew, viz. Sister’s son. 
N. Niece, viz. Brother’s daughter. 
«. Niece, viz. Sister's daughter. APPENDIX, 
APPENDIX 
The deviations fiom an average are given in the following 
table of M. Quetelet as far as 8o grades; they are intended 
to be reckoned on either side of the average, and therefore 
extend over a total range of 160 grades. The eightieth is 
a deviation so extreme, that the chances of its being ex- 
ceeded (upwards or downwards, whichever of the two events 
we please to select) is only s’oooioooo°o~o.o’oo5’000i0o0o°o~o.o’oo9’992 = To7o 00,000’ 
or less than one in a million. That is to say, when firing 
at a target (see Diagram, p. 28) less than one out of a million 
shots, taking the average of many millions, will hit it at a 
greater height than 80 of Quetelet’s grades above the mean 
of all the shots; and an equally small number will hit it 
lower than the 80th grade below the same mean. 
Column M gives the chance of a shot falling into any 
given grade (80 x 2 or) 160 in total number. Column N 
represents the chances from another point of view; it is 
derived directly from M, and shows the probability of a 
shot lying between any specified grade and the mean ; each 
figure in N consisting of the sum of all the figures in M up 
to the grade in question, and inclusive. Thus, as we see 
by Column M, the chance against a shot falling into the Ist 
grade (superior or inferior, whichever we please to select) 
is 025225 to 1, and .025124 to 1 against its falling into 378 
APPENDIX. 
the 2d, and .024924 to I against its falling into the 3d ; 
then the chance against its falling between the mean and 
the third grade, inclusive, is clearly the sum of these 3 
numbers, or .075273, which is the entry in Column N, 
opposite the grade 3. 
TABLE BY QUETELET. 
Grade 
or Rank 
of the 
Group. 
M 
N 
Number 
of the 
Grade. 
M 
N 
Probability 
of Drawing each 
Group. 
Sum of the 
Probabilities, 
commencing at the 
most probable 
Group. 
Probability 
of Drawing each 
Group. 
Sum of the 
Probabilities, 
commencing at the 
most probable 
Group. 
I 
.025225 
.025225 
4i 
.0009458 
•495278 
2 
.025124 
.050349 
42 
.0008024 
.496081 
3 
.024924 
.075273 
43 
.0006781 
.496759 
4 
.O24627 
.099900 
44 
.OOO57O7 
•497329 
S 
.024236 
.124136 
45 
.0004784 
.497808 
6 
.023756 
.I47892 
46 
.0003994 
.498207 
7 
.023193 
.171085 
47 
.0003321 
•498539 
8 
.022552 
.193637 
48 
.0002750 
.498814 
9 
.021842 
.215479 
49 
.0002268 
.499041 
IO 
.021069 
.236548 
5° 
.0001863 
.499227 
II 
.020243 
.256791 
5i 
.0001525 
.499380 
12 
.019372 
.276163 
52 
.0001242 
.499504 
13 
.018464 
.294627 
53 
.0001008 
.499605 
14 
.017528 
•3I2IS5 
54 
.0000815 
.499686 
is 
.016573 
.338728 
55 
.0000656 
■499752 
l6 
.015608 
•344335 
56 
.0000526 
.499804 
17 
.014640 
•358975 
57 
.0000421 
.499847 
18 
.013677 
.372652 
58 
.OOOO334 
.499880 
19 
,012726 
•385378 
59 
.0000265 
.499906 
20 
.011794 
.397172 
60 
.0000209 
.499927 
21 
.010887 
.4080OO 
6l 
.0000164 
.499944 
22 
.010008 
.418070 
62 
.0000128 
■499957 
23 
.009166 
.427236 
63 
.OOOOIOO 
.499967 
24 
.008360 
•435595 
64 
.0000077 
•499974 
25 
.007594 
.443189 
6S 
.0000060 
.499980 
26 
.006871 
.450060 
66 
.OOOOO46 
•499985 
27 
.006191 
.456251 
67 
.0000035 
.499988 
28 
•005557 
.461809 
68 
.0000027 
.4999912 
29 
.004968 
.466776 
69 
.0000021 
•4999933 
3° 
.004423 
•47ii«9 
70 
.0000016 
•4999948 
3i 
.003922 
.475122 
7i 
.0000012 
.4999960 
32 
.003464 
.478586 
72 
.0000009 
■4999969 
33 
.OO3O47 
.481633 
73 
.OOOOOO/ 
.4999976 
34 
.002670 
.484304 
74 
.0000005 
.4999981 
35 
.002330 
.486634 
75 
.OOOOOO4 
.4999984 
S6 
.002025 
.488659 
76 
.0000003 
•4999987 
37 
.001753 
.490412 
77 
.0000002 
•4999989 
.38 
.001512 
.491924 
78 
.00000014 
.4999990 
39 
.001298 
.493222 
79 
.OOOOOOII 
•4999991 
40 
.OOIIIO 
■494332 
80 
.00000004 
•4999992 APPENDIX. 
These columns may be used for two purposes. 
The one is to calculate a table like that in p. 34, where 
I have simply lumped 11 of Quetelet’s grades into I, 
so that my classes A and a correspond to his grade 11 in 
column N, my classes B and b to the difference between 
his grades 22 and 11, my C and cto that between his grades 
33 and 22, and so on. 
The other is as a test, whether or no a group of events 
are due to the same general causes; because, if they are, 
their classification will afford numbers that correspond with 
those in the table ; otherwise, they will not. This test has 
been employed in pp. 30, 31, and 33. The method of 
conducting the comparison is easily to be understood by 
the following example, the figures of which I take from 
Quetelet. It seems that 487 observations of the Right 
Ascension of the Polar Star were made at Greenwich 
between 1836 and 1839, and are recorded in the publica- 
tions of the Observatory, after having been corrected for 
precession, nutation, &c., and subject only to errors of 
observation. If they are grouped into classes separated by 
grades of 0.5 sec. the numbers in each of these classes will 
be as shown in Column 111. page 380. We raise them 
in the proportion of 1,000 to 487 in order to make the 
ratios decimal, and therefore comparable with the figures 
in Quetelet’s table, and then insert them in Column IV. 
These tell us that it has been found by a pretty large 
experience, that the chance of an observation falling within 
the class of 0.5 sec. from the mean, is 150 to 1,000; of 
its falling within the class of 1.0 sec. is 126 to 1,000; 
and so on, for the rest. This information is analogous to 
that given in Column M of Quetelet’s table, and we shall 
now proceed to calculate from IV. the Column V. which is 
analogous to Quetelet’s N, The method of doing so is, 
however, different. N was formed by adding the entries in 
M from the average outwards; we must set to work in the APPENDIX, 
IV. 
X. 
I. 
II. 
III. 
Events 
V. 
VI. 
Events 
PER IOOO BY 
VII. 
VIII. 
IX. 
PER IOOO BV 
Experience. 
Calculation. 
Classes. 
Range included in 
each Class. 
No. of 
Observations 
in each 
Ditto raised 
as 1000 
to 487. 
Probabilities 
derived 
from 
Correspond- 
ing Grade 
in N. 
Differences. 
Revised 
Grades. 
Probabilities 
derived 
from 
Differences 
in 
previous 
Class. 
Experience. 
Calculation. 
Columns. 
sec. 
All grades 
— 3-5 
— 3.25 to — 3-75 
I 
2 
.500 
—3s.c 
4 
— 3.0 
— 2.73 „ —3.25 
6 
12 
.498 
45-5 
10. s 
41-5 
.496 
10 
— 2. 5 
2.25 „ 2.75 
12 
25 
.486 
35° 
7.0 
35-o 
.486 
22 
2.0 
— 1-75 .. —2.25 
JI 
43 
.461 
28.0 
6.0 
28.5 
.464 
46 
— i.S 
— 125 „ —1.7S 
36 
74 
.418 
22.0 
5-4 
20.0 
.418 
81 
— 1.0 
— 0-75 » —1.25 
6l 
126 
•344 
16.6 
7-3 
IS-5 
•34i 
126 
— OS 
— 0.25 „ — 0.73 
73 
150 
.218 
93 
6.7 
9.0 
.215 
152 
Mean. 
( .68 
2.6 
2-5 
.063 t 
+ 0.25 „ —0.25 
C2 
168 
I 
6.6 
163 
V .100 
4.0 
4.0 
.IOO ) 
+ o.S 
+ o.a s „ +0.75 
72 
148 
.248 
10.5 
6-5 
10.5 
.247 
147 
+ 1.0 
+ 0.7s „ +1.25 
63 
I29 
•377 
18.S 
8-5 
X7.0 
•359 
113 
+ 1-5 
+ 1.25 „ + 1.75 
38 
78 
■45S 
27.0 
8.5 
25-5 
•431 
72 
+ 2.0 
+ *-75 >> + 2.23 
l6 
33 
.488 
35- S 
8-5 
30.0 
.471 
40 
+ 2-5 
+ 2.25 „ + 2.75 
5 
IO 
•498 
45-5 
10.0 
36.5 
.490 
19 
+ 3.0 
+ 2.75 „ + 3- 25 
I 
2 
.500 
, f All grades 
10 
IOOO 
] 
+ 35 
+ 3-25 .. +3-75 
O 
487 
O 
IOOO 
'Omitting') 
extremes! 110 j® 
Average diff. 6.6 
(above+3*.o APPENDIX. 
381 
converse way, of working from the outside inwards, because 
the exact mean is not supposed to have been ascertained, 
and also because this method of working would be some- 
what the more convenient, even if we had ascertained the 
mean. Now, wherever the mean may lie, it is certain that 
the chance is 500 to 1,000 against an observation being on 
one specified side of it—say the minus side. Therefore 
Column IV. by showing that no observation lies outside 
the class 3.5 sec. tacitly states that it is 500 to 1,000 
(or .500 to 1.00) against any observation lying between 
3.5 sec, and the mean; *.500 is therefore written in 
Column V. opposite 3.5 sec. Again, as according to IV. 
there are only 2 cases in the class 3.5 sec. it is (500 2=) 
498 to 1,000 that any observation will lie between class 
3.0 sec, and the average, and .498 is written in Column 
V. opposite to 3.0. sec. Similarly (498 —l2 =) .486 is 
written opposite to 2.5 sec. and we proceed in this way 
until we fall within the observations that form part of the 
group of the mean, 168 in number. Our remainder is 68 ; 
it ought, strictly speaking, to be equal to one half of 168, 
or 84; we therefore may conclude that the mean has been 
taken a trifle too high. 
A calculation made in exactly the same way, from 
+ 3.5 sec. inwards to the mean, will take in the other portion 
of the mean group, namely, 100. Now we compare our 
results with Quetelet’s Column N, and see to which of his 
grades the numbers in our Column V. are severally equal; the 
grades in question are written in Column VI. In proportion 
as these observations are strictly accordant with the law of 
deviation from a mean, so the intervals between the grades 
in Column VI. will approach to equality. What they 
actually are, is shown in Column VII. We cannot expect 
the two extreme terms to give results of much value, because 
the numbers of observations are too few; but taking only 
the remainder into consideration, we find that the average 382 
APPENDIX. 
interval of 6.5 is very generally adhered to. Now, then 
let us see what the numbers in the classes would have been 
by theory if, starting either from 2.5 (a little lower than 2.6, 
as we agreed it ought to be) above the average, or from 4, 
below it, we construct a series of classes, according to 
Quetelet’s grades, having a common interval of 6.5. Column 
VIII. shows what these classes would be ; Column IX. shows 
the corresponding figures taken directly from Quetelet’s N, 
and Column X. gives the difference between these figures, 
which are so closely accordant with the entries in Column 
IV., as to place it beyond all doubt that the errors in the 
Greenwich observations are strictly governed by the law of 
a deviation from an average. 
It remains that I should say a very few words on the 
principle of the law of deviation from an average, or, as 
it is commonly called, the law of Errors of Observations, 
due to La Place. Every variable event depends on a 
number of variable causes, and each of these, owing to 
the very fact of its variability, depends upon other varia- 
bles, and so on step after step, till one knows not where 
to stop. Also, by the very fact of each of these causes 
being a variable event, it has a mean value, and, there- 
fore, it is (I am merely altering the phrase), an even 
chance in any case, that the event should be greater 01 
less than the mean. Now, it is asserted to be a matter 
of secondary moment to busy ourselves in respect to these 
minute causes, further than as to the probability of their 
exceeding or falling short of their several mean values, and 
the chance of a larger or smaller number of them doing 
so, in any given case, resembles the chance, well known to 
calculators, of the results that would be met with when 
making a draw out of an urn containing an equal quantity 
of black and white balls in enormous numbers. Each ball 
that is drawn out has an equal chance of being black or 
white, just as each subordinate event has an equal chance APPENDIX. 
383 
of exceeding or falling short of its mean value. I cannot 
enter further here into the philosophy of this view; the 
latest writer upon it is Mr. Crofton, in a Paper read before 
the Royal Society in April 1869. 
A table, made on the above hypothesis, has been con- 
structed by Cournot, and will be found in the Appendix, 
p. 267, of Quetelet’s “ Letters on Probabilities ” (translated 
by Downes; Layton & Co., 1849), but it does not extend 
nearly so far as that of M. Quetelet. The latter is calculated 
on a very simple principle, being the results of drawing 999 
balls out of an urn, containing white and black balls in 
equal quantities and in enormous numbers. His grade 
No. 1 is the case of drawing 499 white and 500 black, his 
2 in 498 white and 501 black, and so on, the 80th being 
420 white and 579 black. It makes no sensible difference 
in the general form of the results, when these large 
numbers are taken, what their actual amount may be. 
The value of a grade will of course be very different, but 
almost exactly the same qicality of curve would be obtained 
if the figures in Quetelet’s or in Cournot’s tables were 
protracted. All this is shown by Quetelet in his com- 
parison of the two tables INDEX 
Abbot, 283. 
Abingdon, 137. 
Abinger, 88. 
Abney, 88. 
Athens, 340, 
Atkyns, 89. 
Attica, 341. 
Augustus, 156. 
Birch, 90. 
Bishops, 258. 
Blackburn, 90. 
Blackstone, 90. 
Actors, 334. 
Adams, 124. 
Addington, 106, 137. 
Addison, 172. 
TEschylus, 228. 
Aikin, 172. 
Aldborough, 13 7. 
Alderson, 22, 88. 
Alexander, 142, 149, 150. 
Alibone, 88. 
Augustus 11., 163. 
Austen, 173. 
Australian negroes, their 
natural ability, 339. 
Austrians, 348. 
Authors, characteristics 
of, 167, 168. 
Aylesford, 92, 93, 
Blair, 313. 
Boat-races, Oxford and 
Cambridge, Ix; Oars- 
men, 305. 
Bohemianism, 346. 
Boileau, 173. 
Bolingbroke, 112. 
Bonaparte, 142, 153, 155. 
Bonheur, R., 247. 
Bononcini, 243. 
Bossuet, 174. 
Bouillon, Due de, 160, 
165. 
Boyle, 203. 
Bradshaw, 97. 
Bramston, 90. 
Brodie, 205, 301. 
Bromley, 291. 
Bronte, 174. 
Brougham, 38, 90. 
Browne, 90. 
Brunei, 333. 
Buckingham, 116. 
Buckland, 205. 
Buffon, 205. 
Buller, 90. 
Bulwer, 168. 
Bunbury, 114, 300. 
Burchell, 303. 
Burleigh, 124. 
Burlington, 204. 
Burke’s “ Peerage, 13$ 
Burnet, 90. 
Burns, 225. 
Bushey Park, 11. 
Bute, 112. 
Butler, 22, 300. 
Byron, 229. 
Alison, 173, 214. 
Allegri, 239, 250. 
Amati, 239. 
Ameinas, 228. 
America, 4, 40. 
Ampere, 22, 199. 
Anderson, 213. 
Animal intelligence com- 
pared with human, 36. 
Annesley, 137. 
Antony, 156. 
Arago, 22, 199. 
Araros, 229. 
Argental, 209. 
Argyll, 122. 
Ariosto, 229. 
Aristocracy, 86; influence 
of peerage on race, 130, 
361. 
Aristophanes, 229 
Aristotle, 199. 
Arnold.. 173. 
Arran, 137, 
Arteveldt, 124. 
Artists, 320. .&? Painters, 
247 ; Musicians, 237 ; 
Actors, 334. 
Ashbumham, 13 7. 
Bach, 239. 
Bache, 212. 
Bacon, 58, 200, 342. 
Badile, 250. 
Badius, 186. 
Baillie, 217. 
Barbauld, 172. 
Barrington, 137, 
Barry, 23. 
Bassano, 250. 
Bathurst, 89. 
Batty, 89. 
Beaufort, 137. 
Beauvale, 117. 
Bedford, 112. 
Bedingfield, 89. 
Beer (Meyerbeer), 245. 
Beethoven, 242. 
Bellini, 250. 
Benda, 242. 
Bentham, 173. 
Eentinck, 105, 112. 
Beranger, 225. 
Bernoulli, 202. 
Berwick, 90, 153. 
Best, 89. 
Bickersteth, 89. 
Bion, 228, INDEX. 
C®SAR, 142, 154. 
Cagliari, 250. 
Calderon, 225. 
Calendar of Comte, 323. 
Cambridge examinations, 
16; Senior Classics, 
299; boat-races, 11. 
Camden, 90,112,134,137. 
Campbell, Lord, 90. 
Campbell, Thomas, 225. 
Candlish, 309. 
Canning, 112, 136. 
Caracci, 251. 
Casaubon, xB6. 
Cassini, 206. 
Castillo, 253. 
Castlereagh, 112. 
Cavendish, 207. 
Cecil, 124. 
Cells of organic bodies, 
363- 
Celsius, 207. 
Chadderton, 288. 
Chadwick, 347. 
Chamberlain, 120. 
Champernoun, 163. 
Champollion, 174. 
Chancellors, Lord, 56. 
Charlemagne, 149, 156. 
Charles Martel, 157. 
Charles XII., 142, 157. 
Chateaubriand, 174. 
Chatham, 118. 
Cleopatra, 152. 
Clive, 91, 157. 
Club law, 357. 
Cockburn, 91, 
Colbert, 125. 
Coleridge, 91, 230. 
Coligny, 157, 160. 
Colonius, 285. 
Colpepper, 132. 
Commanders, 141; ap- 
pendix, 150 ; qualities 
of, 47; they have few 
Darwin, 2, 209, 331, 336, 
363. 367, 368. 
Daughters, not marrying, 
328. 
Davy, 210. 
De Candolle, 210. 
De Grey, Earl, 119. 
De Grey (Lord Walsing- 
ham), 90. 
Demagogues, 48. 
Denison, 92. 
Denman, 92, 204, 301, 
sons, 319. 
Como, 359. 
Comparative worth of 
different nations, 336. 
Comparison of the two 
classifications (viz. natu- 
ral gifts and reputa- 
tions), 37. 
Comparison of results, 
3x6. 
Comte, 322. 
Condorcet, 22, 207. 
Cooke, 124, 201. 
Coombes, 311. 
Cooper (Earl Shaftes- 
bury), 91, 132. 
Cooper, R., 311. 
Copley, 91. 
Corday, 231. 
Cork, 203. 
Corneille, 231, 
Correggio, 251. 
Cottenham, 91. 
Cotton, 294. 
Cournot. See Appendix. 
Cousins, first, 324. 
Cowley, 123. 
Cowper, 91, 117, 133, 
332-, 
Deviation from an ave> 
rage, 26, 377. 
Dibdin, 232. 
Dieu, De, 284. 
Disraeli, 112, 168. 
Divines, 257; appendix, 
283. 
Dod, 284. 
Dolben, 92. 
Donne, 285. 
Doria, 157. 
Dowdeswell, 98. 
Downe, 285, 293. 
Draper, 89. 
Dryden, 187, 232. 
Dudevant, 164. 
Dudley, 187. 
Dufferin, 120. 
Dundas, 113. 
Dussek, 243. 
Dwarfs, infertility of, 331. 
Chaucer, 230. 
Chelmsford, 57j 9°- 
Chenier, 230. 
Chinese, 335, 350. 
Christians, sense of sin, 
280. 
Edgeworth, 175. 
Egmont, 128. 
Eichhorn, 243. 
Eldon, 56, 92, 113. 
Ellenborough, 92, 113, 
Christina, 158. 
Chuan-Yuan, 335. 
Church : celibacy, 357 ; 
persecution, 358. 
Churchill, 90, 161. 
Civilization, 336,344,348; 
cause of its decay, 361; 
best form of, in respect 
to race, 362. 
Clarendon, 90, 133. 
Clarke, Matthew, 284. 
Clarke, Sir C., 90. 
Clasper, 309. 
Classification by natural 
gifts, 14. 
Classification by reputa- 
tion, 6. 
Classics, Senior, of Cam- 
bridge, 299 appendix, 
231. 
Cramond, 90. 
Cranmer, 261. 
Cranworth, 91. 
Cromwell, 98, 125, 157, 
Crowd, typical forms of, 
369- 
Curchod, 184. 
Culture, 40. 
Culverel, 288. 
Cuvier, 208. 
Cymasgcirus, 228. 
303. 
Ellis, 20. 
Eminence, definition of, 6. 
Emigrants, 360. 
Engineers, 333. 
English: North country 
men, their ability, 340. 
Erie, 92. 
Errors of observation, law 
of, 26, 382. 
Erskine, Lord, 56, 92, 
D’Alembert, 22,43,208. 
Daley, 3x3. 
Dampier, 91. 
Dante, 225. 
Ir3- 
Erskine, E. and R., 285- 
Etienne, 175. 
Eugene, 142, 158. 
Euler, 211. 
Euphorion, 228. 
300. 
Claude, 251. 
Dark ages, 357. 
Dartmouth, 93. 
Evans, 286. 
Ewbank, 313. INDEX. 
387 
Eyck, 251, 
Eyre, 92. 
Gramont, 128, 176. 
Grant, 150. 
Grantham, 119. 
Grattan, 114. 
Greeks, 340. 
Gregory, 173, 213, 214. 
Grenville, 114, 136. 
Grey, 116. 
Grotius, 176. 
Grymeus, 288, 289. 
Guilford, 93, 98. 
Guise, 126. 
Gurney, 93. 
Gustavus Adolphus, 142, 
158. 
Guyse, 290. 
Gymnastics, 14, 45. 
Hotham, 94. 
Hottentot kraal, 366, 
Huguenots, 360. 
Humboldt, 216. 
Hunter, 216. 
Hutton, 221. 
Huyghens, 217, 
Hyde, 81, 94, 133. 
Features, not correlated 
with intellectual here- 
dity, 333- 
Female. See Woman. 
Fenelon, 175. 
Fenton, 203. 
Feriol, 209. 
Fertility of judges, 81, 
131; of prodigies, 330. 
Fielden, 91, 175. 
Finch, 74, 92, 93, 133, 
Idiots, 25, 35, 339. 
Illegitimate families ot 
judges, 130. 
Illustrious, definition of, 
137, 215. 
Fish breeding, 373. 
Fishing villages, 336. 
Fitzßoy, 121, 136. 
Floyd, 117. 
Fontanelle, 208, 231. 
Forbes, 21 x. 
Forster, 93. 
Fox, 113, 114, 300. 
Francis, no, 114. 
Franklin, 21 r. 
Imbecile. See Idiots. 
Indian Mutiny, 48. 
Individuality, 351, 373, 
376- 
Individual variation, 370. 
Influences on natural abi- 
Halford, ioi, 302, 
Hall, Bishop, 264. 
Hall, 303. 
Hallam, 176. 
Haller, 213. 
Hamilcar, 159. 
Hamilton, 121. 
Hampden, 12$, 157. 
Hannibal, 142, 159. 
Harcourt, 93, 133. 
Hardinge, 99. 
Hardwicke, 56. 
Harrington, 313. 
Harvey, 212. 
Hasdrubal, 159. 
Hatherley, 102. 
Hatton, 79, 98. 
Haydn, 244. 
Hawkins, 301 
Hawks, 310. 
Heath, 93, 101. 
Heine, 234. 
Heiresses, 132. 
Helvetius, 178. 
Henley, 93, 133. 
Henry, 290. 
Herbert, 93, 291. 
Herschel, 215, 321. 
Hewitt, 93. 
Hildersham, 292. 
Hiller, 244. 
Holland, 113, 116, 137, 
lity of nations, 351. 
Inquisition, 359. 
Intelligence, natural se- 
lection, 336; animal, 
36. 
Irish electors, 367. 
Irving, G., 314. 
Irving, W., 178. 
Italians, 4. 
Ivison, 314. 
Frenchmen, height of, 30; 
emigrants, 359. 
Fronsac, 128. 
Gabrieixi, 244. 
Galilei, 212. 
Gallic, 183. 
Gelee, 248, 251. 
Gemmules, 363-370. 
Generations in a century, 
Jamieson, 314. 
Jeffreys, Lord, 95, 133. 
Jeffreys, Sir John, 97. 
Jenkinson, 116. 
Jervis, 95, 117. 
Jewell, 292. 
Jews, 4. 
Jonson, 225. 
Judges, 55; appendix, 88. 
Junius, 293. 
Jussieu, 217, 
353- 
Genghis Khan, 150. 
Geoffroy, 212. 
Germans, 4, 348. 
Giants, infertile, 331. 
Gibbon, 100. 
Gilbert, 163. 
Gillies, 90. 
Gilpin, 286. 
Glaister, 313. 
Gmelin, 213. 
Goderich, 114. 
Goethe, 232. 
Goldoni, 225. 
Goldsmith, 169. 
Golightly, 313. 
Gordon, Lady Duff, 173. 
Gordon, R., 313. 
Gouge, 286, 287, 
Goulburn, viii., 22, 301. 
Gould, 93. 
Gracchus, 164. 
Grafton, 121, 136. 
Kaye, 22. 
Keating, 95. 
Keats, 225. 
Keiser, 244. 
Kemble, 334. 
Kennedy, 303. 
Kenyon, 133. 
Kimbolton, 80, 97. 
King, 95, 117. 
Knox, 293. 
Koningsmarck, 164. 
300. 
Homel, 260. 
Hook, 234. 
Hooker, 262. 
Hooper, 292. 
Hornby, 121. 
Horner, 116. 
Horse-chestnut trees, 11. 
Hospinian, 292. 
Lamb, Charles, 178. 
Lamb, Visct. Melbourne, 
117. INDEX. 
Landseer, 247 
Langdale, 95. 
Lansdowne, 117. 
Lasco, k, 294. 
Law, 95, 303. 
Lawrence, 96. 
Lechmere, 96. 
Lee, 96. 
Lefevre, 198. 
Legge, 96. 
Leibnitz, 22, 219. 
Leicester, 188. 
Leighton, 294. 
Lessing, 178, 
Lewis, 100. 
Lifford, 96. 
Lindsay, 81. 
Linley, 119. 
Linnaeus, 219. 
Literary Men, 167 ; ap- 
pendix, 172. 
Little, 314. 
Liverpool, 117. 
Locke, 95. 
Londonderry, 117- 
Long, 314. 
L’Ouverture, 338. 
Lovelace, 229. 
Lovell, 96. 
Lowthian, 313, 314. 
Lucan, 183. 
Lucas, Prosper, 331. 
Lunar Society, 193. 
Lushington, 57, 303. 
Lyndhurst, 22, 96. 
Lyttleton, 66, 96. 
Lytton, 168. 
Mathematicians, 197. 
Mather, 294. 
Matthew, 294. 
Maurice of Nassau, 142, 
160. 
Niebulir, 179. 
Nomads, 346. 
Norman type, 348. 
North, 70, 98, 105, 117, 
133. 
Northington, 93, 98, 133, 
Norton, 120. 
Notation of relationships, 
Mazarin, 158. 
Mazzuoli, 252. 
Meadows, 190. 
Mede, 269. 
Medici, 42. 
“Men of the Time,” 7, 
5°- . „ 
“ Notes and Queries, 
Hong Kong, 353. 
Nottingham, 98. Set 
Finch. 
Mendelssohn, 245. 
Metastasio, 226. 
Middleton’s “ Biographia 
Evangelica,” 258, 
Mieris, 252. 
Mill, 179. 
Miller, 191. 
Million, 11. 
Milman, 234. 
Milt of fish, 374. 
Milton, 97, 234. 
Mirabeau, 126. 
Mongrels, 368; human, 
63- 
Monsey, 99. 
Montagu, 70, 80, 97, 122. 
Montmorency, 157. 
Moore, 161, 226. 
More, 127, 285. 
Mornington, 123. 
Mortality, 332; of divines, 
264. 
Mothe, 175. 
Mothers, influence of, 196, 
276 ; of eminent men, 
134, 329. See Women. 
Mozart, 245. 
Muirhead, 223. 
Murillo, 253. 
Musicians, 237; appen- 
dix, 239. 
Mylne, 333. 
Nowell, 295. 
Oarsmen, 305 ; appen- 
dix, 309; in University 
boat-races, 12. 
Oersted, 221. 
Olympias, 151. 
Olympic games, 333. 
Opie, 88. 
Orange, Princes of, 160. 
See Maurice. 
Orford, 117, 137. 
Orrery, 204. 
Ostade, 253. 
Ova of fish, 374. 
Overbury, 96. 
Ovid, 226, 
Painters, 247; appen- 
dix, 249. 
Palestrina, 245, 
Palgrave, 180. 
Palmer, 314. 
Palmerston, 117, 121 
Palmerston, Lady, 117. 
Pangenesis, 363,367,37 a 
Parker, Hyde, 150. 
Parker (Macclesfield), 98, 
Macaulay, 23, 179. 
Macclesfield, 97, 98. 
Mackenzie, 122. 
“Macmillan’s Magazine,” 
viii., 2. 
Maddison, 311. 
Maddox, 302. 
Mago, 159- 
Man, 352, 363. 
Manchester, 97, 98, 189. 
Mancini, 158. 
Manners, 100. 
Manufacturers, 366. 
Marius, 156. 
Marlborough, 142, 161. 
Marley, 114. 
Marriage, age of, 352,360, 
Martineau, 189. 
Martyn, 190. 
Matfin, 311. 
Mathematical honours, 16. 
133* . 
Parmegiano, 253. 
Patteson, 98. 
Peel, 117. 
Peerages, their influence 
on race, 130. See Aris- 
tocracy. 
Pembroke, 187. 
Pengelly, 98. 
Penzance, lox, 
Pepin, 156. 
Pepys (“ Hts Diary”), 9SL 
Pepys, Sir C., 98. 
Perceval, 117. 
Pericles, 342. 
Personality, 376. 
Petronella, 186. 
Napier, 162, 219, 
Napoleon, 142, 153, 155, 
162. 
Nares, 97. 
National portraits, 333. 
Necker, 184. 
Negro, 338, 350. 
Nelson, 99,117, 123, MS. 
162. 
Nepotism, 42. 
Newton, 220. 
Nichol, 314. 
Nicomachus, 300. 
Nicostratus, 229. INDEX. 
Petty, 118. 
Pitt, 106, 118. 
Phidias, 342. 
Philip of Macedon, 151, 
162. 
Philocles, 228. 
Phillimore, 57. 
Phippus (son of Aristo- 
phanes), 229. 
Plato, 342. 
Plessis, 128. 
Pliny, 222. 
Poets, 225 ; appendix, 
228. 
Poisson. See Appendix. 
Polar star observations, 
379- 
Pollock, 98. 
Ponte, 253. 
Pontoise, Abbot of, 97. 
Pope, 226. 
Popes, the, 42. 
Population restricted, 3 5 7. 
Person, 23, 180. 
Porta, 222. 
Portland, 119. 
Potter, 253. 
Powis, 99. 
Praed, 235. 
Pratt, 99, 134, 137. 
Precocity of sons of emi- 
nent men, 330 ; early 
death, 333. 
Premiers, in. See States- 
men. 
Prestley, 287. 
Primogeniture, 85, 361. 
Protestant refugees, 360. 
Ptolemy, 151. 
Puritanic features, 281. 
Pyrrhus, 162. 
Quetelet, 26, and Ap- 
pendix, 377. 
Racine, 235. 
Raffaelle, 253. 
Raleigh, 149, 163. 
Rambutin, 183. 
Rastall, 285. 
Raymond, 99, 134. 
Redesdale, 117. 
Reeve, 173, 190. 
Refugees, 360. 
Reid, 214. 
Relationships: notation, 
50, and the folding 
sheet. 
Renforth, 311. 
Reputation as a test of 
ability, 37. 
Reynolds, 99. 
Richelieu, 128. 
Richmond, 114. 
Ripon, 119. 
Riquetti, 127. 
Rivet, 269. 
Roberts, 177. 
Robertson, 90. 
Robinson, 119. 
Robley, 314. 
Robson, 314. 
Robusti, 254. 
Rockingham, 137. 
Rolfe, 99. 
Romilly, too, 119. 
Roper, 127. 
Roscoe, 181. 
Rossi, 235. 
Rousseau, 168. 
Royal Institution, 21. 
Runjeet Singh, 163. 
Russell, 119, 137, 207. 
Ruysdael, 254. 
Sadler, 311. 
Sage, Le, 181. 
Sailors, 45. 
St. Beuve, 49. 
St. John, 90. 
St. Leonards, 56. 
St. Vincent, 98, 122. 
Salisbury, 125. 
Sandhurst, 32. 
Sandwich, 80. 
Sanzio, 254. 
Saurin, 262, 296. 
Saussure, 185, 222. 
Saxe, 163. 
Scaliger, 44, 181, 182. 
Scarlett, xoo. 
Sceptics, 278, 
Schiller, 226. 
Schlegel, 182. 
Schmuck, 219. 
Schweitzer, 79. 
Scipio, 142, 164. 
Science, Men of, 192; 
appendix, 199; fathers 
of, 320. 
Stt-jld met!, chests of, 29; 
ability ot, 340. 
Scott, 57, 137. 
Seguin, 25. 
Selwyn, 57, 303. 
Seneca, 23, 183. 
Senior Classics of Cam- 
bridge, 299 ; appendix, 
30°. 
Sevigne, 183. 
Sewell, too. 
Shaftesbury, 100. 
Shakespeare, 226. 
Shannon, 204. 
Shelburne, 119. 
Sheridan, 119. 
Sidgwick, 304. 
Sin, 280, 349, 359. 
Singh, Runjeet, 163. 
Sociability, 336, 
Socrates, 342. 
Somers, 100. 
Sophocles, 226. 
Soult, 155. 
Sovereigns, qualities o£ 
47- 
Small, 193. 
Smiles, 360. 
Smith, Archibald, 198. 
Spaniards, 359. 
Sparta, 352. 
Spelman, 100. 
Sports of nature, 368. 
Stability of character, 282; 
of type, 368. 
Stael, 184. 
Stanhope, 115. 
Stanihurst, 297. 
Stanley, 121. 
Statesmen, 46, 104, 345 ; 
appendices, in, 124. 
Stephen, 185. 
Stephens, 185. 
Stephenson, 222. 
Stewart, 121, 136. 
Stowell, 56, 137. 
Strategy, 47. 
Stratford de Redcliffe, 
112. 
Stuart, 136. 
Stuart de Rothesay, 122. 
Sutton, 100. 
Suckling, 162. 
Swift, 186, 232. 
Sydney, 187. 
Tables : 
Chests of Scotchmen, 
3°- 
Classin cation by natu- 
ral gifts, 34. 
Height of Frenchmen, 
31- 
Marks at Sandhurst ex- 
amination, 33. 
Marks in Mathematics 
at Cambridge, 19. 390 
INDEX. 
Tables I., or Summary of 
Relationships of— 
Judges, 59. 
Statesmen, 108. 
Commanders, 107. 
Literary Men, 170. 
Men of Science, 104. 
Poets, 226. 
Musicians, 238. 
Painters, 248. 
Divines, 274. 
Tables II., or Analysis of 
Relationships of— 
Judges, 61. 
Statesmen, 109. 
Commanders, 148. 
Literary Men, 171. 
Men of Science, 194. 
Poets, 227. 
Musicians, 238. 
Painters, 249. 
Divines, 274. 
Comparison of all 
classes, 317. 
Talbot, 100, 134. 
Tasso, 235. 
Taylor, J., 311. 
Taylor of Norwich, 189. 
Taylor of Ongar, 190. 
Temple, 121, 115- 
Tencin, 208. 
Teniers, 254. 
Thesiger, 100. 
Thompson, 198, 332.. 
Thurlow, 100, 122. 
Tickel, 119. 
Timurlane, 150, 
Tinian, 314. 
Tippoo Saib, 160. 
Titian, 254. 
Titus, 165. 
Tonstall, 286. 
Torrington, 94, 291. 
Tracy, 89. 
Treby, IOI. 
Trevelyan, 179. 
Trevor, ioi, 134. 
Trimnell, 90. 
Trollope, 191. 
Tromp, 165. 
Trosse, 272. 
Truro, 56, 101. 
Turenne, 142, 160, 165. 
Turner, 101. 
Wellington, 105,107, (42, 
146, 166. 
Westminster Abbey, 41. 
Whewell, 193. 
Whitaker, 295, 298. 
Wigram, 101. 
Wilberforce, 123. 
Wilde, 101, 102. 
Wilkins, 284, 298. 
Willes, 102. 
William the Silent, 142. 
149, 166. 
William 111., 142, 160. 
Williams, 92. 
Wilmot, 102. 
Winship, 311. 
Witsius, 298. 
Witt, De, 128. 
Wives of able men, 325. 
See Women. 
Tweddell, 315- 
Twisden, 92, xoi. 
Tyne Rowing Club, 307. 
Type, explanation of, 364; 
stability of, 368. 
Usher, 273, 297. 
Vandyck, 254. 
V ariation, individual, 3 70. 
Vasa, 159. 
Vaughan, 101, 301, 302. 
Vecelli, 255. 
Vega, 235. 
Velde, 255. 
Verney, 101. 
Vespasian, 165. 
Veyle, Pont de, 209. 
Vincent, St., 122. 
Volta, 222. 
Wollaston, 224. 
Wolphius, 292. 
Women: why their names 
are omitted here, 3; 
transmission of ability 
through, 63, 327; in- 
fluence of mothers, 196, 
276; mothers of emi- 
nent men, 134, 329 ; 
wives of eminent men, 
325- 
Wood, Anthony, 188. 
Wood (Lord Hatherly), 
102. 
Vossius, 293. 
Waller, 93, 125, 157. 
Walpole, 117, 122, 137. 
Walsingham, ioi. 
Walter, 97. 
Warwick, 188. 
Watering-places, 364. 
Watson, 306, 312. 
Watt, 44, 223. 
Watts, 268. 
Wearmouth, 315. 
Wedderburn, 134. 
Welch, 293, 297. 
Wellesley, 107, 123. 
Wordsworth, 235, 304. 
Wranglers, 1 ; senior, 19. 
See Mathematicians. 
Wrestlers, 312; appen 
dix, 313. 
Wyndham, 102, 
Wynford, 103. 
York, Duchess of, 94. 
Yorke, 103, 134. 
Young, 235. 
THE END. The Works of Th. Ribot. 
Heredity: A Psychological Study of its Phenomena, Laws, Causes, and 
“Heredity is that biological law by -which all beings endowed with life tend 
to repeat themselves in their descendants; it is for the species what personal 
identity is for the individual. The physiological side of this subject has been 
diligently studied, but not so its psychological side. We propose to supply this 
deficiency in the present work.”—l rani the Introduction. 
Consequences. Prom the French. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
English Psychology. From the French. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
CONTENTS.—SamueI Bailey, Alexander Bain, David Hartley, G. H. Lewes, 
James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer. 
Diseases of Memory : An Essay in the Positive Psychology. From 
“Not merely to scientific, but to all thinking men, this volume will prove 
intensely interesting.”—New York Observer. 
“M. Ribot has bestowed the most painstaking attention upon his theme, and 
numerous examples of the conditions considered greatly increase the value and 
interest of the volumcP—Philadelphia North American. 
the French by William Huntington Smith. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50, 
“ ‘ Memory,’ says M. Ribot, ‘is a general function of the nervous system. It is 
based upon the faculty possessed by the nervous elements of conserving a re- 
ceived modification and of forming associations.’ And again: * Memory is a bio- 
logical fact. A rich and extensive memory is not a collection of impressions, 
but an accumulation of dynamical associations, very stable and very responsive 
to proper stimuli. . . . The brain is like a laboratory full of movement where 
thousands of operations arc going on all at once. Unconscious cerebration, not 
being subject to restrictions of time, operating, so to speak, only in space, may 
act in several directions at the same moment. Consciousness is the narrow gate 
through which a very small part of all this work is able to reach us.’ M. Ribot 
thus reduces diseases of memory to law, and his treatise is of extraordinary 
interest.”—Philadelphia Press. 
The Works of Francis Galton, F. R. S. 
Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. 
New and revised edition, with an American Preface. 12mo, Cloth, 
“ The following pages embody the result of the first vigorous and methodical 
effort to treat the question in the true scientific spirit, and place it upon the 
proper inductive basis. Mr. Galton proves, by overwhelming evidence, that 
genius, talent, or whatever we term great mental capacity, follows the law of 
organic transmission—runs in families, and is an affair of blood and breed ; and 
that a sphere of phenomena hitherto deemed capricious and defiant of rule is, 
nevertheless, within the operation of ascertainable law.”—From the American 
Preface. 
$2.00. 
English Men of Science : Their Nature and Nurture. 12mo. Cloth, 
$l.OO. 
For sale by all hooJcsellers ; or sent by m.ail, post-paid, on receipt of price. 
New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. A LIBRARY 
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT 
STANDARD WORKS ON EVOLUTION. 
Origin of Species l)y Means of Natural Selection, or the Prescr- 
ration of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. By Charles Dar- 
win, LL. D., F. R. S. New and revised edition, with Additions, 
12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
“Personally and practically exercised in zoology, in minute anatomy, in 
geology, a student of geographical distribution, not in maps and in mu- 
seums, but by long voyages and laborious collection; having largely ad- 
vanced each of these branches of science, and having spent many years in 
gathering and sifting materials tor his present work, the store of accurately- 
registered facts upon which the author of the ‘ Origin of Species’ is able to 
draw at will is prodigious.”—Professor T. 11. Huxley. 
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. By 
Charles Darwin, LL. D., F. R. S. With Illustrations. Revised edi- 
tion. 2 vols., 12mo. Cloth, $5.00. 
“We shall learn something of the laws of inheritance, of the effects of 
crossing different breeds, and on that sterility which often supervenes when 
organic beings are removed from their natural conditions of life, and like- 
wise when they are too closely interbred.”—From the Introduction. 
Descent of Man, and Selection in Delation to Sex, By Charles 
Darwin, LL. D., F. R. S. With many Illustrations. A new edition. 
12mo. Cloth, $3.00. 
“ In these volumes Mr. Darwin has brought forward all the facts and 
arguments which science has to offer in favor of the doctrine that man has 
arisen by gradual development from the lowest point of animal life. Aside 
from the logical purpose which Mr. Darwin had in view, his work is an 
original and fascinating contribution to the most interesting portion of nat- 
ural history.” 
On the Origin of Species ; or, The Causes of the Phenomena of Or- 
ganic Nature. By Professor T. 11. Huxlby, P. R. S. 12mo. Cloth, $l.OO. 
“ Those who disencumber Darwinism of its difficulties, simplify its state- 
ments, relieve it of technicalities, and bring it so distinctly within the hori- 
zon of ordinary apprehension that persons of common sense may judge for 
themselves, perform an invaluable service. Such is the character of the 
present volume.”—From the Preface to the American edition. 
Darwiniana. Essays and Reviews pertaining to Darwinism. By Asa 
Gray, Fisher Professor of Natural History (Botany) in Harvard Uni- 
versity. 12rao, Cloth, $2.00. 
“ Although Professor Gray is widely known in the world of science for 
his botanical researches, but few are aware that he is a pronounced and un- A STANDARD EVOLUTION LIBRARY. 
flinching Darwinian. His contributions to the discussion are varied and 
valuable, and as collected in the present volume they will be seen to estab- 
lish a claim upon the thinking world, which will be extensively felt and 
cordially acknowledged. These papers not only illustrate the history of 
the controversy, and the progress of the discussion, but they form perhaps 
the fullest and most trustworthy exposition of what is to be properly under- 
stood by 1 Darwinism ’ that is to be found in our language. To all those 
timid souls who are worried about the progress of science, and the danger 
that it will subvert the foundations of their faith, we recommend the dis- 
passionate perusal of this volume.”—The Popular Science Monthly. 
Heredity: A Psychological Study of its Phenomena, Laws, Causes, and 
Consequences. From the French of Th. Ribot. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
“ Heredity is that biological law by which all beings endowed with life 
tend to repeat themselves in their descendants: it is for the species what 
personal identity is for the individual. The physiological side of this subject 
has been diligently studied, but not so its psychological side. We propose 
to supply this deficiency in the present work.”—From the Introduction. 
Hereditary Genius; An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. 
By Francis Galton, F. It. S., etc. New and revised edition, with an 
American Preface. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
“ The following pages embody the result of the first vigorous and me- 
thodical effort to treat the question in the true scientific spirit, and place 
it upon the proper inductive basis. Mr. Galton proves, by overwhelming 
evidence, that genius, talent, or whatever we term great mental capacity, 
follows the law of organic transmission—runs in families, and is an affair of 
blood and breed ; and that a sphere of phenomena hitherto deemed capri- 
cious and defiant of rule is, nevertheless, within the operation of ascertain- 
able law.”—From the American Preface. 
The Evolution of Man. A Popular Exposition of the Principal 
Points of Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny. From the German of 
Ernst Haeckel, Professor in the University of Jena. With numer- 
ous Illustrations. 2 vols., 12mo. Cloth, $5.00. 
“In this excellent translation of Professor Haeckel’s work, the English 
reader has access to the latest doctrines of the Continental school of evolu- 
tion, in its application to the history of man.” 
The History of Creation; or, the Development of the Earth and its 
Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition 
of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goe- 
the, and Lamarck in Particular. By Ernst Haeckel, Professor in 
the University of Jena. The translation revised by Professor E. Ray 
Lankester. Illustrated with Lithographic Plates. 2 vols., 12mo. 
Cloth, $5.00. 
“ The book has been translated into several languages. I hope that it 
may also find sympathy in the fatherland of Darwin, the more so since it 
contains special morphological evidence in favor of many of the most impor- 
tant doctrines with which this greatest naturalist of our century has enriched 
eeience.”—From the Preface. A STANDARD EVOLUTION LIBRARY. 
Religion and Science. A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Rlationc 
of Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths revealed in Nature 
and Scripture. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
Prehistoric Times, as illustrated by Ancient Remains and 
the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. By Sir John 
Lubbock, Bart. Illustrated. Entirely new revised edition. Bvo. 
Cloth, $5.00. 
The hook ranks among the noblest works of the interesting and impor- 
tant class to which it belongs. As a resume of our present knowledge of 
prehistoric man, it leaves nothing to bo desired. It is not only a good book 
of reference, but the best on the subject. 
Winners in Life’s Race ; or, The Great Backboned Family. By Ara- 
bella B. Buckley, author of “ The Fairy-Land of Science ” and 
“ Life and her Children.” With numerous Illustrations, 12mo. 
Cloth, gilt side and back, $1.50. 
Physics and Politics; or, Thoughts on the Application of the Prin- 
ciples of “Natural Selection” and “ Inheritance ” to Political Society. 
By Walter Bagehot. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
The Theory of Descent and Darwinism. By Professor Oscar 
Schmidt. With 26 Woodcuts. 12mo. $1.50. 
“ The facts upon which the Darwinian theory is based are presented in 
an effective manner, conclusions are ably defended, and the question is 
treated in more compact and available style than in any other work on the 
same topic that has yet appeared. It is a valuable addition to the ‘ Interna- 
tional Scientific Series.’ ”—Boston, Post. 
Outline of the Evolution Philosophy. By Dr. M. E. Gazelles. 
Translated from the French, by the Rev. O. B. Frothingham ; with an 
Appendix, by E. L. Youmans, M. D. 12mo. Cloth, $l.OO. 
“ This unpretentious little work will, no doubt, be used by thousands to 
whom the publications of Mr. Herbert Spencer are inaccessible and those of 
Auguste Comte repellent, by reason of their prolixity and vagueness. In a 
short space Dr. Gazelles has managed to compress the whole outline and 
scope of Mr. Spencer’s system, with his views of the doctrine of progress 
and law of evolution, and a clear view of the principles of positivism.”— 
Nature (London). 
Principles Of Geology; or, The Modern Changes of the Earth and 
its Inhabitants, considered as illustrative of Geology. By Sir Charles 
Lyell, Bart. Illustrated with Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. A new 
and entirely revised edition. 2 vols. Royal Bvo. Cloth, $B.OO. 
The “ Principles of Geology ” may be looked upon with pride, not only 
as a representative of English science, but as without a rival of its kind 
anywhere. Growing in fullness and accuracy with the growth of expert- A STANDARD EVOLUTION LIBRARY. 
cnce and observation in every region of the world, the work has incorporated 
with itself each established discovery, and has been modified by every hy- 
pothesis of value which has been brought to bear upon, or been evolved 
from, the most recent body of facts. 
Elements of Geology. A Text-Book for Colleges and for the General 
Reader. By Joseph Lb Conte, LL. D., Professor of Geology and 
Natural History in the University of California. Revised and en- 
larged edition. 12mo. With upward of 900 Illustrations. Cloth, $4.00. 
Animal Life, as affected by the Natural Conditions of Exist- 
ence. By Karl Semper, Professor of the University of Wurzburg. 
With Maps and 100 Woodcuts. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
Crayfish: An Introduction to the Study of Zoology. By Professor T. H. 
Huxley, F. R. S. With 82 Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75. 
Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization. 
By Edward B. Ttlor, F. R. S. With 78 Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, 
$2.00. 
“ The students who read Mr. Tylor’s book may congratulate themselves 
upon having obtained so easy, pleasant, and workman-like an introduction 
to a fascinating and delightful science.”—London Athenaeum. 
First Principles. By Herbert Spencer. Part I. The Unknowable. 
Part 11. The Knowable. 1 vol., 12mo. $2.00. 
The Principles of Biology. By Herbert Spencer. 2 vols., 12mo. 
$4.00. 
The Principles of Psychology. By Herbert Spencer. 2 vols., 
12mo. $4.00. 
The Principles of Sociology. By Herbert Spencer, 12mo. 
2 vols. $4.00. 
The Data of Ethics. By Herbert Spencer. Being Part I, Vol. I, 
of “ The Principles of Morality.” 12mo. Cloth, $1.25. 
Illustrations Of Universal Progress. By Herbert Spencer. 
12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
For sale hy all booksellers ; or, sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price. 
New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. VALUABLE 
Books of Reference. 
Appletons’ American Cyclopaedia. A Popular Dictionary of 
General Knowledge. Edited by George Ripley and Charles A. Dana. 16 
vols. Large Bvo. Per vol., cloth, $5.00; sheep. $6.00; half morocco, $7.00; 
half russia, $8.00; full morocco, or russia, $lO.OO. 
“ The American Cyclopaedia ”is a library in itself; it is well printed and in 
convenient form ; it is trustworthy, impartial, complete, thoroughly American, 
deeply interesting, and instructive. 
Appletons’ American Annual Cyclopaedia, and Register of Im- 
portant Events for the Year. New Series. Yols. Ito VII. for the years 1876 
to 1882, embracing Political, Civil, Military, and Social Affairs ; Public Doc- 
uments, Biography, Statistics, Commerce, Finance, Literature, Science, Ag- 
riculture, and Mechanical Industry. Large Bvo. Per vol., cloth, $5.00; 
sheep, $6.00 ; half morocco, $7.00; half russia, $8.00; full morocco, or rus- 
sia, $lO.OO. 
Maps, Woodcuts, and Steel Engravings illustrate the volumes. The first 15 
volumes, 1861 to 1875, may also be procured, singly or collectively. 
Cooley’s Cyclopaedia of Practical Receipts, and Collateral In- 
formation in the Arts, Manufactures. Professions, and Trades, including 
Medicine, Pharmacy, and Domestic Economy. Designed as a Comprehensive 
Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia, and General Book of Reference for the 
Manufacturer, Tradesman, Amateur, and Heads of Families. Sixth edition. 
Revised and partly rewritten by Richard V. Tuson, Professor of Chemistry 
and Toxicology in the Royal Veterinary College. Complete in two volumes. 
Bvo. 1,796 pages. With illustrations. Price, $9.00. 
“ The great characteristic of this work is its general usefulness. In covering 
such diverse subjects, the very beat and most recent information seems to have 
been sought for, and the work is remarkable for intelligent industry. This very 
complete work can, then, be highly recommended as fulfilling to the letter what 
it purports to be—a cyclopaedia of practical receipts.”—New York Times. 
Smith’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible ; being a Re- 
vised and much Enlarged Edition of “ Smith’s Concise Dictionary of the 
Bible.” Edited by Rev. 8. W. Barnitm. Embellished with many hundred 
Woodcuts, including Maps, Plans of Cities, Illustrations of Manners, Cus- 
toms, etc. Complete in 1 vol. Large Bvo. Cloth, $5.00; sheep, $6.00 ; half 
morocco, $7.50. 
Glossary of Terms and Phrases. Edited by the Rev. 11. Percy 
Smith, M. A., of Balliol College, Oxford. Bvo, cloth, $3.00. 
The object of the work is to bring together such words, expressions, quota- 
tions, etc., English or other, as are among the more uncommon in current litera- 
ture, and require, not for the scientific but for the ordinary reader, explanations, 
for the want of which the meaning of a sentence or a paragraph, even the drift 
of an argument, is often missed; explanations, moreover, not to be obtained 
without reference to, and perhaps tedious search among, a large and varied num- 
ber of books, many of them not easily accessible. 
Landmarks of English Literature. By Henry J. Nxcoll. 12mo, 
vellum cloth, $1.73. 
“We can warmly recommend this excellent manual.”—St. James's Gazette. 
New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.