UC-NRLF $B 113 15b AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS Their Nature and Nurture BY EDWIN LEAVITT CLARKE, M. A. Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology ^ Hamilton College Sometime University Fellow, Columbia University SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE Faculty of Political Science Columbia University V Ob NEW YORK I916 EXCHANGE ^ ^^ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/americanmenofletOOclarrich AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS Their Nature and Nurture BY EDWIN LEAVITT CLARKE, M. A. Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology^ Hamilton College Sometime University FelloWy Columbia University SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE Faculty of Political Science Columbia University NEW YORK 1916 Copyright, 1916 BY EDWIN LEAVITT CLARKE MY FATHER AND MOTHER TO WHOM I OWE THE NATURE AND NURTURE WHICH MADE THIS STUDY POSSIBLE tj33o<^7 PREFACE The plan of this dissertation was conceived in 191 1, as a result of reading the fascinating pages of Professor Lester F. Ward's Applied Sociology. Ward's work was based on an inductive study of the nature and nurture of French men of letters, Alfred Odin's Gen^se des Grands Hommes. Ward had been profoundly impressed by Odin's work. In the Applied Sociology he suggested the desir- ability of making other inductive studies which should be modeled after Odin's, and applied to many nations and fields of activity. When this study was undertaken, the author believed that the opinions advanced in Ward's work were in every way justified by the evidence. Results attained in his own work, however, have convinced him that nurture is not predominant over nature to the extent that Ward sup- posed. Nevertheless he still agrees that Ward's plea for the socialization of opportunity is quite warranted. If this study in any way strengthens the case for the extension of opportunity to any who are at present denied their birth- right, he will feel that the work has served its purpose. In conclusion, acknowledgments are due; first, to the many authors and relatives of authors who courteously an- swered the questionnaire sent to them; second, to teach- ers in Columbia and colleagues in Hamilton College who reviewed the statistical aspects of the work, and finally, to Dr. Alvan A. Tenney of Columbia University, for his con- structive criticism and generous advice. E. L. C. January, 1916. 7] 7 CONTENTS PAGE Preface 7 List of Tables n CHAPTER I Theories of Nature and Nurture The Theory of Galton 13 The Theory of Ward 15 The Theory of the Importance of Both Nature and Nurture ... 17 CHAPTER II Method of Investigation General Statement of Method 20 Odin's Definition of Men of Letters 21 Definition of American Men of Letters 22 Odin's Method of Compiling a Roll of Men of Letters 24 Method of Compiling a Roll of Men of Letters for the Present Study 27 Classification of Men of Letters According to Prominence .... 31 Collection of Data 32 CHAPTER III Analysis and Interpretation of Data Method of Analysis 34 Thesis of the Present Study 35 Influence of the Environment 37 The Rise and Decline of American Letters ^y Social Environment 40 Geographic Environment 49 Local Environment 61 Educational Environment 66 Economic Environment 71 Environment as Indicated by Occupation of Parents of Men of Letters 7^ 9] 9 10 CONTENTS [lO rAGK Environment as Indicated by the Occupation of Men of Letters Themselves 76 Environment as Indicated by Early Religious Training 80 Environment as Indicated by Birth-rank 82 Criticism of the Theory of Galton 84 Criticism of the Theory of Ward go Influence of Heredity 91 CHAPTER IV Summary and Conclusions 95 APPENDIX A Literary Families 103 APPENDIX B Biographical Tables 107 APPENDIX C American Men of Letters, Classified by Conjugal Condition, BY Period of Birth, and by Median Number of Children Born to Them 164 APPENDIX D Alphabetical List of American Men of Letters With Date of Birth 165 LIST OF TABLES I. Number of American Literati Born Prior to 1851, Clas- sified by Period of Birth 38 II. Absolute and Relative Numbers of American Literati of White Race, Born within the Present Territorial Limits of Continental United States Prior to 1851, Classified by Period of Birth .... 39 III. American Literati Classified by Sex and by Rank, by Period of Birth .... 42 IV. American Literati Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Period of Birth 43 V. American Literary Women, Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Period of Birth 45 VI. American Literati Classified as of One, Two, or Three or More Fields of Activity, by Period of Birth. 46 VII. American Literati Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Region of Birth 47 VIII. American Literati Classified by Sex and by Rank, by State or Province of Birth, Together with the Relative Fecundity in Literati of Each State or Province. • . 50 IX. American Literati Classified by Rank, by Region of Birth. 53 X. American Literati Classified as of One, Two, or Three or More Fields of Activity, by Region of Birth 54 XI. American Literati Classified by State of Birth and Period of Birth . 55 XII. Relative Literary Productivity of the Several Groups of States 57 XIII. American Literati Classified by Rank and by Character of Birth-place (State Capital, Chief City of State, County Seat, and Other Places) 60 XIV. Absolute and Relative Numbers of Literary Persons Born in Important Cities 63 XV. Education Received by American Literati, Classified Ac- cording to Field of Chief Activity 67 XVI. Education Received by American Male Literati, Clas- sified by Period of Birth 69 II] II 12 I-IST OF TABLES [^12 PACK XVII. Education Received by American Women of Letters, Classified by Period of Birth 69 XVIII. Education Received by American Literati, Classified by Sex and by One or More than One Field of Activity . 70 XIX. Early Economic Environment of American Literati . . 72 XX. Occupations of the Fathers of American Literati .... 74 XXI. Occupational Distribution of American Male Literati . . 77 XXII. Occupational Distribution of American Male Literati, Classified by Period of Birth 78 XXIII. Occupational Distribution of American Literary Women. 79 XXIV. Early Religious Training of American Literati, Classified by Region of Birth 80 XXV. American Literati Classified According to Size of Family and Birth-rank 82 XX VL A. Per cent Distribution of American Literati Born in the United States, Classified According to the Nation- ality Strain of Their Origin, as Indicated by Surnames. 88 B. Per cent Distribution of the White Population of the United States (1790), Classified According to the Na- tionality Strain of Their Origin, as Indicated by Sur- names 88 XXVII. Literary Relatives of American Literati, Classified Ac- cording to Degree of Relationship » . 93 CHAPTER I Theories of Nature and Nurture This monograph summarizes a study of the nature and nurture of American men of letters. The task attempted was to isolate for investigation the chief factors in each of these influences, to throw some light on the importance of each in the development of men of letters, and to show the bearing of the facts discovered on some of the chief theories of nature and nurture. Sir Francis Galton makes a very satisfactory statement of the meaning of the terms nature and nurture when he says: The phrase "nature and nurture" is a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads the innumer- able elements of which personality is composed. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world ; nurture is every influence from without that affects him after his birth. The distinction is clear: the one produces the infant such as it actually is, including its latent faculties of growth of body and mind; the other affords the environment amidst which the growth takes place, by which natural tendencies may be strengthened or thwarted, or wholly new ones im- planted. Neither of these terms implies any theory; natural gifts may or may not be hereditary ; nurture does not especially consist of food, clothing, education or tradition, but it in- cludes all these and similar influences whether known or unknown.^ * Francis Galton, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nur- ture (London, 1874), p. 12. 13] 13 14 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [14 Throughout this study the terms nature and nurture are used in the sense of Gait on' s definition. There are three important theories of nature and nur- ture on which impinge the facts presented in this study. These theories are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. Galton states clearly the position of those who hold that nature is stronger than nurture. His opinion can be pre- sented fairly by brief quotations from his classic work, Hereditary Geniiis} His first proposition is stated in the opening sentence of the volume, as follows : " 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." In the second place Galton argues for the preponderant in- fluence of nature over nurture, saying: 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, notwithstanding their altered circumstances, have equally risen to eminence.^ A little later Galton says : I have endeavored to show in respect to literary and artistic eminence — 1. The men who are gifted with high abilities . . . 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. * Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius (London, 1869). « Ibid., p. 38. 1 5] THEORIES OF NATURE AND NURTURE 15 3. Men who are largely aided by social advantages, are unable to achieve eminence, unless they are endowed with high natural gifts.^ Finally, Galton seeks to show that the great differences in the achievement of nations are due almost solely to differ- ences in the innate ability of their citizens. Nowhere does he express this idea in a single sentence, but it is discussed at length in a chapter on '' The Comparative Worth of Different Races." ^ There Galton contrasts whites with negroes and ancient Greeks with modern Englishmen, ar- guing in each case that superior achievement is due almost entirely to superior natural ability. These brief quotations and statements serve to present the most important part of Galton's theory, namely, that irrespective of environmental conditions, innate ability ac- counts chiefly for the appearance of leaders in nations and for the superiority of one nation over another. In diametrical opposition to this point of view stands the theory championed by Professor Lester F. Ward. He believes that a favorable environment accounts almost en- tirely for the appearance of genius.^ To use his own words : . . . So far as the native capacity, the potential quality, the " promise and potency " of a higher life are concerned, those swarming spawning millions, the bottom layer of society, the proletariat, the working classes, the " hewers of wood and drawers of water," nay, even the denizens of the slums ... all these are by nature the peers of the boasted " aris- tocracy of brains " that now dominates society and looks ^ Francis Galton, op. cit., pp. 42-43. ' Ibid., ch. XX. 'Lester F. Ward, Applied Sociology (Boston, 1906). l6 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [i6 down upon them, and the equals in all but privilege of the most enlightened teachers of eugenics.^ Again Ward says : The amount of visible genius has never exceeded one-tenth of I per cent, but it is proved that at least two hundred times as much exists and might be brought out. This would raise it to 20 per cent. But when we recognize the many forms that genius takes we cannot escape the conclusion that some measure of genius exists in nearly everyone. All this genius is scattered somewhat uniformly through the whole mass of the population.^ Finally Ward remarks : It turns out, then, that after all the discussion of heredity, and the hopes hung upon the idea of utilizing it in the interest of race improvement, it is a fixed quantity which no human power can change, while the environment, which Galton af- fected to despise, is not only easily modified, but is in reality the only thing that is modified in the process of artificial selection, which is the essential principle of eugenics itself. All the improvement that can be brought about through any of the applications of that art must be the result of nurture, and cannot be due to any change in nature, since nature is incapable of change.^ Ward's theory is thus, apparently, in irreconcilable oppo- sition to that of Galton. Ward seems to hold that im- proved nurture is the only means of improving the race, which is worthy of consideration, while Galton seems to hold that only improvement of the blood of the nation can permanently advance society. *" Eugenics, Euthenics and Eudemics." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. xviii, p. 754. » Ibid., p. 744. » Ibid., pp. 749-750. I^] THEORIES OF NATURE AND NURTURE ly In marked contrast to these two extreme views stands the opinion of more moderate sociologists, who hold a third theory that both nature and nurture are important. As Professor Charles H. Cooley says : Nothing is more futile than general discussions of the relative importance of heredity and environment. It is much like the case of matter versus mind; both are indispensible to every phase of life, and neither can exist apart from the other : they are coordinate in importance and incommensurable in nature. One might as well ask whether the soil or the seed predomin- ates in the formation of a tree, as whether nature does more for us then nurture.^ * Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organisation (New York, 1909), p. 316. Professor Edward L. Thorndike admirably clarifies the whole sub- ject when he says: It is impossible at present to estimate with security the relative shares of original nature, due to sex, race, ancestry and accidental variation, and of the environment, physical and social, in causing the differences found in men. One can only learn the facts, and interpret them with as little bias as possible, and try to secure more facts. . . . Many of the false inferences about nature versus nurture are due to neglect of the obvious facts : that if the environments are alike with respect to a trait, the differences in respect to it are due entirely to original nature; that if the original natures are alike with respect to a trait, the differences are due entirely to differences in training; and that the problem of relative shares, where both are effective, includes all the separate problems of each kind of environment acting with each kind of nature. Any one estimate for all cases would be absurd. Many disagreements spring from a confusion of what may be called absolute achievement with what may be called relative achievement. A man may move a long way from zero, and nevertheless be lower down than before in comparison with other men: absolute gain may be relative loss. One thinker may attribute differences in achievement almost wholly to nurture, while another holds nature to be nearly supreme, though both thinkers possess just the same data, if the former is thinking of absolute and the latter of relative achievement. . . . The influences of environment are differential, the product vary- ing not only in accord with the environmental force itself, but in accord with the original nature upon which it operates. Edward L. Thorn- dike, Educational Psychology, Briefer Course (New York, 1914), PP- 397-398. l8 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [ig Cooley further presents his position in the form of a simile, as follows : Suppose that one were following a river through a valley, and from time to time measuring its breadth, depth and current with a view to finding out how much water passed through its channel. Suppose he found that while in some places the river flowed with a swift and ample current, in others it dwindled to a mere brook and even disappeared altogether, only to break out in full volume further down. Would he not be led to conclude that where little or no water appeared upon the surface the bulk of it must find its way through under- ground channels, or percolate invisibly through thoi sand ? Would not this supposition amount almost to certainty if it could be shown that the nature of the rock was such as to make the existence of underground channels extremely prob- able, and if in some cases they were positively known to exist ? I do not see that the inference is any less inevitable in me case before us. We know that a race has once produced a large amount of natural genius in a short time, just as we know that the river has a large volume in some places. We see, also, that the number of eminent men seems to dwindle and disappear; but we have good reason to think that social conditions can cause genius to remain hidden, just as we have good reason to think that a river may find its way through an underground channel. Must we not conclude, in the one case as in the other, that what is not seen does not cease to be, that genius is present though fame is not ? ^ Of the three theories of nature and nurture outlined in the foregoing pages, the last one is generally accepted by contemporary sociologists. Most of them agree with the eugenist that his theory of racial improvement contains * Charles H. Cooley, " Genius, Fame, and the Comparison of Races," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. ix, pp. 317-358. 19] THEORIES OF NATURE AND NURTURE ig a valuable element of truth. Likewise they agree with the euthenist when he says that it is possible vastly to im- prove a people by ameliorating its environment. Select- ing elements from the theory of each party, they hold that both nature and nurture are important, that neither alone can adequately explain the appearance of genius. It is this theory which the facts presented in Chapter III of this study seem to support, and which will be maintained in the discussion which is to follow. CHAPTER II Method of Investigation In beginning the present investigation, the first step necessary was to frame such a conception of men of letters as to permit somewhat detailed study of the various influ- ences of nature and nurture. By classifying men of letters in groups, formed according to the nature and importance of their work, it became possible to consider the effect of the various influences upon the members of each of these groups. By this method investigation could be made to discover whether supposedly potent influences had the same effect in all groups, or whether the contrary was the case. The supposed effect of the various influences could thus be at least partially verified or disproved. A roll of one thousand men of letters was first obtained by procedure as objective as the nature of the case per- mitted. Concerning each of these men all reasonably ac- cessible facts were collected which it was believed would throw light on the influence of nature and nurture in their lives.^ These facts were classified under appropriate heads and then tabulated in such a way as to show the effect of each influence upon the various classes of men. The tables are presented in Chapter III. Their significance is there discussed, and the way in which the facts presented impinge on the three theories of nature and nurture is indicated. The final chapter presents a summary of the facts thus or- ganized. * All the data on which the study was based are given in Appendix B. 20 [20 21 ] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 21 At the outset of the study the term men of letters had to be clearly defined. All definitions of the term must be more or less arbitrary. It was found, however, that Professor Alfred Odin, who had made a similar study of French lit- erary people, had framed a reasonably adequate definition of the expression.^ The fact that his definition seemed to have proved satisfactory for the purposes of his investiga- tion was also a strong argument for employing the same definition in the present study. Moreover, adoption of Odin's definition would make possible a fair and accurate comparison of his conclusions with those to be obtained in this study. For these reasons, it was decided to adopt Odin's definition. It is as follows : By men of letters we mean authors whose writings are of general interest, and all those, relatively few in number, who, without having written themselves, have none the less con- tributed directly and in an appreciable degree to the develop- ment of literature.^ Odin classified all literati under twelve heads, as follows : 1. pat. (patrons). This group includes patrons, founders and directors of schools, theatres, societies and literary salons, bibliophiles; in a word, all those who, without entering one of the three following groups, have helped in the development of literature by other methods than writing. 2. lib. (librarians). Librarians, printers, calligraphers and all those who have aided in similar fashion in the dissemination of literary works. 3. act. (actors). Dramatic artists of all kinds, including * A. Odin, Genese des Grands Hommes, Gens de Lettres Frangais Modernes (Paris, 1895). The present study is in many ways modeled after that of Odin, and generous acknowledgment must be made of extensive use of his method of procedure. ' Ihid., p. 310. 22 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [22 those singers who have especially distinguished themselves by their acting. 4. or. (orators). 5. pub. (publicists). Authors of polemic or propagandic writings. 6. narr. (narrators). All those who, without marked polemic, artistic or scientific bias, relate facts or describe objects which they have seen close at hand; that is to say, most memoirists, chroniclers, authors of letters or descriptions of voyages, as well as many historians, geographers, econom- ists, etc. 7. erud. (erudite). Authors of scholarly researches based on literary documents, biographers, most historians and philo- logists, a part of the theologians, jurisconsults, etc., as well as authors of translations themselves destined especially for the erudite. 8. pop. (popularizers). All authors who serve as inter- mediaries between specialists and the general public, that is to say, in addition to popularizers in the narrow sense, authors of translations, school manuals, and, in general, of any work of instruction or popular edification. 9. spec, (speculative). Those whose writings possess pri- marily an abstract character ; philosophers in the narrow sense, many moralists, estheticians, educators, sociologists, theo- logians, jurisconsults, etc. 10. pr. (prose writers). All those who write in prose with the chief purpose of entertaining the reader, or to obtain certain artistic effects, such as novelists, feuilletonists, letter writers d la Balzac, a large part of the critics, as well as most of those who are called simply writers or literary people. 11. p. (poets). 12. dram, (dramatists).^ This classification developed a general conception of men of letteis. For the purposes of the present study it next 1 A. Odin, op. cit., pp. 356 et seq. 23] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 23 became necessary to adopt a definition and develop a gen- eral conception applicable to American conditions. The complete definition finally adopted was: American men of letters are men of letters, within the meaning of Odin's terms, both men and women, born and brought up within the present borders of continental United States and Can- ada, in homes and schools where English was spoken, who did their work in the English language/ This defini- tion was still somewhat arbitrary, but a more liberal one would have been subject to the criticism of admitting to the roll literati who were not born and brought up in an essen- tially American environment, a fatal defect in a study of American authors.^ There have been many thousand American men of letters as defined above. Obviously only a portion of them could be studied. The most important were naturally to be pre- ferred, for data concerning them were found to be much more abundant than in the case of minor literati. The compilation of a roll of their names presented a problem 1 To avoid monotony the terms men of letters, literati, literary per- sons, authors, and writers, are hereafter used as synonyms. » A litterateur might of course be foreign born and yet be essen- tially American, because of having lived in an American environment from infancy. Desirable as it vfonXd have been to include such literati in the study, there were counter considerations which made the attempt seem inadvisable. It would have been necessary to decide at what age a person must come to this country in order to be brought up in an American environment. No age could have been chosen which would not be arbitrary. On the other hand, it would have been impossible to decide in the case of each foreign-born litterateur whether he was brought up in an essentially American environment. The remedy for the exclusion of the foreign-born would therefore have been worse than the evil to be cured. The number of writers thus excluded is so small as to be negli- gible. The reader will probably miss only the names of Audubon, Hamilton and Parton. More recent names were automatically ex- cluded by the fact that no authors born after 1850 have been included in this study. 24 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [24 of considerable difficulty. In the interests of equity all writers of the same degree of importance had to be included in the list, all others had to be rejected. No ready-made roll satisfied this condition. Authors of biographical diction- aries do not agree in their lists. They appear to include and reject names of minor importance in the most arbitrary manner. Many mediocre writers are included by some compilers and excluded by others, while various men of obvious merit are by some compilers omitted entirely. This failing in ready-made lists was found to be particu- larly serious, since minor authors who are treated in such an arbitrary manner constitute the vast majority of all men of letters. To avoid this source of weakness, inherent in any ready-made roll, there was but one method of proce- dure ; the investigator had to make a list for himself, using a method as scientific and as little arbitrary as was pos- sible.' In the preparation of a scientific list certain general con- ditions had to be satisfied. 1. The data had to be collected according to an indis- putably objective method, quite independent of the person- ality of the investigator. 2. The relative number of facts collected had to be large enough to be representative. 3. The absolute number had to be large enough to per- mit significant statistical work. 4. The subject under investigation had to be fairly familiar to the investigator. 5. As far as possible, the investigation had to be based on well-known men, so that the material used could be veri- fied by any one who might desire to do so.^ 1 A. Odin, op. cit, pp. 358 et seq. * Ibid., pp. 2gi et seq. 25] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 25 Only the first of these conditions presented a real prob- lem. In its solution the method used by Odin was followed exactly. A statement of this method is therefore necessary at this point. Says Odin : The importance of a book necessarily corresponds ... to the success of the work. Consequently we must include in our list all men of letters whose success with the public is beyond question, and who are assured of not falling into oblivion by this very success. The only question is to know what is the most authentic criterion of success. We possess a criterion for men of letters which is relatively easy to ascertain, and whose value cannot be contested. It is simply the diffusion of their works. ^ This diffusion has two aspects, that of time and that of degree. Some authors enjoy very great popularity for a short period, but soon sink into comparative obscurity. Others enjoy a more modest but lasting popularity. Public esteem may be greater or less in degree. In time it may be more or less enduring. Whatever its extent in either re- spect, the facts are always readily determinable. Hence the appreciation of the relative importance of men of letters usually presents little difBculty. As a result of the method employed the slightest good faith on the part of a student suffices for the attainment of a high degree of objectivity. An investigator almost never has to estimate the success of a work. If his sources are at all abundant, as they have to be in a study of this kind, they answer the question them- selves.^ Odin states in detail the exact standards by which he measured the importance of men of letters as follows : 1 A. Odin, op. cit., p. 362. *Ibid., p. z6z. \^ 26 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [26 The most significant and at the same time the most expHcit are; the number of editions and reprints; the number and success of translations, allowance being made as far as pos- sible for the personality of the translator ; finally, the number of imitations, adaptations, plagiarisms, etc. These are the most certain tests of the success which a work may have had.^ Odin also mentions other less important supplementary tests. For example: Works which perhaps do not appear important in themselves, but which have caused keen argument, or which have become known abroad, cannot be entirely insignificant. Sometimes the very fecundity of certain authors is a proof of their success. This is the case, for instance, when a poor author writes to gain his livelihood.* In addition there are many very subsidiary criteria which Odin used only rarely, such as the frequency of mention or quotation, or the eulogies of well-known critics, supported by reasons. Even when such objective criteria are used, it is obvious that there must often be resort to personal judgment. An example, taken from Odin, of circumstances necessitating personal judgment will suflficiently illustrate this point. Reprints, for instance, are far from always signifying the same thing. They are quite frequently due to fortuitous causes, absolutely independent of the merit of the work and of the interest which it arouses in the public. Now it is a descendant of the author who re-edits his works through filial reverence, . . . now we see some work, disdained by con- temporaries and unknown to posterity, suddenly acquire im- portance in the eyes of certain specialists, for a reason abso- lutely foreign to its literary value. The same is true of the 1 A. Odin, op. cit., p. 364. * Ibid., p. 365. 27] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 27 number of editions, which has only very relative significance. A single new edition of a large and costly work may sometimes signify as much as many editions in other cases. Fortunately it is almost always easy to determine the true significance of the different tests, for the simple reason that they serve as checks to each other. ^ Odin's foregoing criteria apply only in part to the first four categories of men of letters. With respect to patrons, librarians, actors and orators he used other tests. The speeches of orators are indeed frequently printed; but it is well known that the reception which the public reserves for the printed address does not always correspond to the popularity of the orator. . . . For the other three categories even this test is lacking. I have therefore been obliged in all these cases to restrict myself to the tests which were only sub- sidiary for the other groups. As for orators and actors, I have considered first of all the impression which they have produced on contemporaries, as it has been reported by wit- nesses worthy of trust. Here I hardly risk deceiving myself, for it is at least as easy to judge impartially of the success attained by an orator or actor as to appreciate exactly the popularity which a written work has enjoyed. I have had more difficulty in deciding which of the " patrons " and " librarians " had a right to appear on the list. For these two groups information was not always as abundant and explicit as could be desired. Thus it may be that I have erroneously omitted more than one person who was really important. Nevertheless, I have reason to suppose that the number of these omissions cannot be considerable.* Following Odin's method as closely as possible, the in- vestigator began his compilation of a list of American men of letters. Five encyclopedias of biography and literature were carefully studied. These were : 1 A. Odin, op. cit., p. 365. * Ibid., p. 366. 28 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [28 A Critical Dictionary of English Literature and British and American Authors, S. Austin Allibone (Phila- delphia, 1882). Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New York, 1887). A Supplement to Allibone' s Critical Dictionary of English Literature and British and American Authors, John Foster Kirk (Philadelphia, 1891). Lamb's Biographical Dictionary of the United States (Boston, 1900). The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New York, 1898). These five works were selected as constituting the most recent and exhaustive compilations concerning American letters and biography. The volumes of Allibone and Kirk contained practically no biographical notices, but simply the names of authors, titles of books written, and the num- ber of editions and translations of each. These works were especially useful in determining the diffusion of a work in time and space. The other three encyclopedias were typical biographical dictionaries. Their use was essential in determining the importance of literati who did not write, as well as in estimating the popularity of authors who wrote after 1891, when Kirk's volumes appeared. It soon became apparent that the different sources were not equally reliable. The works of Appleton and Lamb seemed satisfactory in every way. Their articles were dig- nified and moderate in tone, and their statements were ap- parently always justified by the sources on which they were based. On the other hand, the National Encyclopedia often seemed extravagant in its praise of an author, devoting more space to writers of doubtful merit than to other men of established reputation. Consequently it was frequently 29] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 29 deemed necessary to discount its assertions to some extent. The volumes by AUibone and Kirk seemed quite reliable as regards statements of the nature and amount of work done by an author. Librarians consider them to be standard works. In all cases of doubt as to whether an author was suffi- ciently important to be admitted to the list, additional works were consulted. The most important of these were : A Dictionary of American Authors, Oscar Fay Adams (Boston and New York, 1905). An American Anthology, Edmund Clarence Stedman (Boston and New York, 1900). Chamber's Cyclopaedia of English Literature (Phila- delphia, 1904). The Cyclopaedia of American Literature, Evert A. and George L. Duyckinck (Philadelphia, 1881). Who's Who in America (Chicago, various dates). In spite of the deficiencies of these sources, it is believed that collectively they furnished an adequate criterion of the importance of American men of letters. The name of each litterateur mentioned in the foregoing volumes, who seemed to have any claim to a place on the roll, was put on a numbered card. On the card was also written the name of the class or classes of literary activity in which the author appeared to have made a significant record. When a man of letters had distinguished himself in several fields he was noted as belonging in all of them, though later in the statistical summaries he was counted only in that one in which he had achieved the greatest dis- tinction. On the card was also recorded a list of important books written, including a statement of reprints, new edi- tions, and translations, as well as any other facts which seemed to warrant the inclusion of the author in the ranks of American literati. 30 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [30 In the consideration of the names of candidates for the roll, the alphabetical order was followed. This method not only expedited the work, but served to prevent the intru- sion of any possible bias in favor of a particular time or place. Dates and places of birth were not noted till the final list had been completed. It seemed best to admit to the roll only persons bom prior to the year 185 1. There were two reasons for this restric- tion. The biographies of writers born after 1850 were found to be few and incomplete. Moreover, it seemed un- fair to pass judgment on an author before it was certain that he had achieved his maximum literary reputation. For most of the younger writers such a decision could not be made. On the other hand, it appeared that few writers who had attained the age of sixty-four ^ would be likely to alter their status in the literary world to any important degree. Hence it seemed quite safe to consider as candi- dates for the Hst all authors born before 1851. None of the chief sources used were published after 1900. Inasmuch, however, as no eligible author who was little known before 1900 subsequently sprang into promi- nence, it seems probable that these sources included the names of all persons who were sufficiently important at the time of the compilation of the roll (1914) to deserve a place on the roll of the thousand foremost American men of letters born prior to 185 1. The first preliminary survey gave a total of nearly thir- teen hundred names. This entire roll was carefully scruti- nized a second time, and the sources again consulted. It was then apparent that some authors had been included * The list was compiled in 1914. Inasmuch as the latest reference works were consulted, including Who's Who in America for 1914-1915, it seems probable that the true rank of each living author was de- termined with adequate accuracy. 3i] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 31 previously who did not fully measure up to the standard required for admission to the list. The names of authors whose importance seemed doubtful were carefully indi- cated. A third revision, not less thorough than the others, determined with a considerable degree of certainty what names were to be included in the final roll. Attention naturally centered on names of doubtful importance. To avoid all possibility of bias, however, every name, whether doubtful or not, was carefully considered a fourth time. The final list was found to contain one thousand and six names. The investigator had made no conscious attempt to ob- tain exactly one thousand names. He had no idea whether he would have nine hundred or eleven hundred names in the final list. Inasmuch, however, as the number obtained was so near one thousand, it seemed desirable to reduce the list to that number to facilitate calculations. The names of five authors of children's stories were finally selected for elimination, because judged to be the least important on the roll. They were found only in Kirk's work, the least im- portant of the sources used. It would have been useless to retain them, for no biographical facts about the authors were available. The other name eliminated was that of a man who never put pen to paper as an author, but who dic- tated an account of King Philip's war, a narrative valued solely for its historical significance. Since this man was the only person on the list who did that kind of literary work, it seemed reasonable that he should be the sixth per- son to be dropped from the roll, particularly as there were apparently no other authors who could be considered less important. The facts noted during the compilation of the list of names facilitated division of the literati, during these sur- veys, into two classes, those of major and those of minor / 32 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [32 importance. This division made it possible to determine whether the more prominent writers were born in circum- stances different in kind or in degree from those in which mediocre authors appeared/ This division was made in accordance with the degree of success which men of letters had achieved, measured, as before, by the diffusion of their works in time and space.^ The more prominent authors formed the smaller of the two groups. For convenience its members are hereafter designated as men of talent. The minor literati who con- stituted the other group are called men of merit.^ Men of talent were classified as follows: (i) authors whose works had been translated into foreign languages ; * (2) those writers whose works were very widely read in other English-speaking countries during their lifetime; (3) writers whose works were read extensively after their 'death ;'^ and (4) those literary patrons, librarians, actors, and orators whose reputation endured after their decease. After the final roll had been determined, the desired facts ^ Cf. Odin, op. cit., pp. 374 et seq. 2 Cf. supra, p. 25. * In making this classification foreign works were consulted, espec- ially Meyers Grosses Conversations-Lexicon (Leipzig and Vienna, 1906), and La Grand Encyclopedie (Paris, no date). This was done in order to discover to what extent the works of the more important American authors were read and esteemed abroad. * Exception was made of authors of works of missionary or tem- perance propaganda, writers of text-books on non-literary subjects, explorers who owed their success as authors chiefly to their sub- jects, authors of works of special interest to a foreign people because dealing with some phase of their national life or history, and authors whose residence abroad apparently caused the translation of their works. 6 From this category were omitted those authors whose works were valued chiefly as historical sources, and authors of posthumous works which enjoyed only ordinary success. 33] METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 33 bearing upon the nature and nurture of each person on the list were collected. A questionnaire sent to living authors and to the immediate relatives of others met with an unex- pectedly cordial reception. One hundred and seventy-five schedules were returned, more than seventy per cent of those sent out. Biographies furnished abundant informa- tion in regard to perhaps fifteen per cent of the thousand literati. Facts about the others were gathered from ency- clopedias, magazine articles, and various scattered sources. Many facts could not be discovered, but those collected were sufficiently numerous to be representative, and to serve as the basis of significant statistical calculations.^ When all available facts concerning each author had been collected and recorded on the individual cards, the process of analyzing the data was begun. It was then a simple matter to isolate for consideration any recorded fact, by means of sorting the cards. The results of this analysis and interpretation constitute the subject-matter of the next chapter. * In the absence of reason for believing that the facts collected are biased, there is no statistical error in proceeding to draw inferences from samples chosen by any unprejudiced method. Cf. A. L. Bowley, An Elementary Manual of Statistics (London, 1910). CHAPTER III Analysis and Interpretation of Data This study, as has been stated in the preface, was origi- nally undertaken with the intention of making an investiga- tion exactly parallel to that of Odin. The plan was to dis- cover, with respect to American men of letters, whether Odin's contention that nature is much more important than nurture was sustained. It was the belief and hope of the author that the data collected would lend themselves to such interpretation, and thereby be in harmony with Professor Ward's argument for the preponderant influence of en- vironment over heredity, as presented in his interesting work, Applied Sociology} As the work progressed, how- ever, and as the tables on heredity were prepared, it became evident that, in order to reveal the whole truth, methods of manipulating the data which were not used by Odin would have to be employed. Hence it became necessary to scruti- nize from as many angles as possible the data which had been collected, instead of simply following the method of analysis which Odin had used.^ Tables were therefore pre- pared to present the data from many points of view. Some- times a table was made simply to present facts in a con- venient summary. More frequently, however, one was pre- 1 Lester F. Ward, Applied Sociology (Boston, 1906). ' As a result of this modification of the plan of study, a few tables are introduced in the following pages which are quite unlike any pre- sented by Odin. In the main, however, his method of analysis was closely followed. 34 [34 35] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 35 pared in the hope that it would throw some light on the particular phase of the subject under investigation. The first table prq>ared, showing the absolute number of literati born in each decade, is an instance of the first type. This summary was naturally followed by a study of the relative number of men of letters born in each decade. As it was found that the number fluctuated, a search was made for an explanation of the variation. Again, it appeared that certain families and environments had produced unusual numbers of authors. This discovery led to the preparation of many additional tables, which, it was thought, might possibly make clear the reason for the facts observed. Some of these tables were later discarded because they appeared to have no particular significance. The others are presented and discussed in the following pages. Those presented were not originally prepared in the order in which they now stand. They are given in this sequence simply because this seems to be the manner of presentation best adapted to bring out the conclusions which resulted from studying the data in as unbiased a manner as possible. The conclusion to which a consideration of the tables seemed to lead is introduced here in the form of a thesis. It is not an arbitrary dogma to be defended at any cost, nor is it the theory which the investigator expected to find the data sustaining when he began his work. Rather is it a gradually developed conclusion which he felt obliged to accept as the result of his study. The arbitrary form of presentation is therefore used simply for the sake of defi- niteness and brevity. This thesis is as follows. In all ranks of American society there have been found men and women of literary ability. Much of this ability has been found in members of the same families, but it has been the monopoly of neither a select group of families nor of a particular nationality strain. This latent ability has 36 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [36 been brought to light by favorable environmental influences, of which there are two distinct kinds. One kind may be called education, or training, and includes those influences of home and school which are particularly potent during childhood and youth. The other kind includes all the re- maining elements of environment, especially the ideals and customs of the group in the midst of which one lives. Pos- session of even the best advantages at home and in school has made possible the development of great authors only when supplemented by this second factor of environment. / In short, men of letters have appeared chiefly when the society of their time has appreciated and demanded litera- ture. Without such incentive to write, persons with natural literary ability and adequate training have tended to turn their efforts in other directions. This thesis can be put in the form of a simile, nature being likened to seed and nurture to ground. A combina- tion of either good ground and poor seed or poor ground and good seed will produce a better crop than when poor seed is sown on poor ground. No good crop is ever pro- duced, however, without the use of both good seed and good ground. In like manner gifted children who lack oppor- ^ tunity, and dull children who possess every opportunity, achieve far more than dull children who lack favorable con- ditions of environment. Genius, however, is usually pro- duced only by a favorable combination of innate ability and the two factors of environment mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This thesis is of course only one form of the statement that both nature and nurture are of importance in the de- velopment of genius. It is in harmony with the opinions of those sociologists of whom Professor Cooley was quoted as representative in Chapter I. Now that the thesis has been stated and the method of 37] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 37 investigation has been made plain, the data on which the study is based can be presented and discussed. The appar- ent influence of various environmental conditions which seem to have affected the authors studied will first be con- sidered. Reason will next be given for a belief that cer- tain phenomena, explained in this study in terms of nurture, cannot possibly be interpreted chiefly in terms of natural ability, as Galton supposed. To this extent it will be shown that the results of the study harmonize with the opinions of Ward. Finally, however, evidence will be submitted for a belief that nurture alone cannot explain the development of American literati, as Ward believed, and an argument will be made so far in support of Galton's contention as to hold that original nature is at least an important factor in the development of genius. Thus it will be shown that appar- ently the theories of both Galton and Ward are partially right and partially wrong, and that a combination of the two theories, as in the thesis stated above, seems best to accord with the facts as observed. There are nine important environmental conditions which will be considered. They are as follows : ( i ) social en- vironment, by which is meant the ideals and customs of a group at any given time and place, (2) geographic environ- ment, (3) local environment, (4) education, (5) economic condition of parents, (6) occupation of father, (7) occu- pation of the literati themselves, (8) early religious train- ing, and (9) birth-rank in the family of brothers and sisters. Before these forces of nurture can be considered, how- ever, it is necessary to present a few facts about the history of American letters to serve as a background for the discus- sion which is to follow. These facts are presented in Tables I and II. It appears in Table I that the number of literati born in- creased very rapidly from the time of the American Revo- 38 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS TABLE I [38 Distribution of 1000 American Literati Born Prior to 185 I, BY Period of Birth ^ Before sis 1 ^ ssk'cg'a 1 0 8 ?• °r r Period 1701 5! = 1 5 ^^ 1 1 1-1 00 00 t t Number. ..... 6 43 7 8 8 18 14 1 34 49 103 122 178 140 169 137 lution till about 1820. After that time the absolute num- ber declined, though not at a uniform rate. The full sig- nificance of the change is brought out in Table II, which shows the relative number of men of letters born in each decade. From Table II it appears that before 1771 there were born on the average in ea,ch decade ten literary people per million of white population. This number gradually- increased until, during the years 1 791 -1800, there were produced twenty-three authors per million. This birth- rate remained practically constant during the two succeed- ing decades. Then there was an abrupt change. In the period 1821-30 the relative number of men of letters bom was less than sixty per cent of what it had been in the previous decade. This decline continued steadily, till in the last decade recorded the relative number of literati born was less than thirty per cent of the number born in the period of maximum fecundity.' » There are two colored literati on the roll. They are included in all studies except those summarized in Tables II, VIII, and XIV, where some ratio of white literati to white population is considered. The fact of this exclusion is in each case plainly indicated in discussion of the table. ' It must be born in mind that, in all probability, the period of maximum literary productivity of an author is normally between forty and sixty years after his birth. Thus the literary birth-rate indicates roughly the amount of literary activity a half-century later. 39] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA TABLE II 39 Absolute and Relative Numbers of American Literati of White Race, Born within the Present Territorial Limits of Conti- nental United States prior to 1851, Classified by Period of Birth ^ Period of birth Before 1771 1771-80.... 1 781 90 ... 1791-1800.. 1801-JO. ... 1811-20.... 1821-30.... 1831-40 ... 1841-50 ... Total. . Absolute number 68 34 49 lOI 118 176 13^ 163 ^33 980 White population ofi Number of literati the period in thousands * 6,735' 2,249 3»i70 4,305 5,861 7,866 10,522 14,191 J9.375 74»274 per million of white population 10 15 15 23 20 22 13 II 7 1 The eighteen Canadian writers can not be considered in this table, as there was no adequate census of Canada before 1850 on which to base comparisons. The two men of African descent are also omitted. ' For the period since 1790 the figures are taken from the decennial census of the United States. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1909. Table 20. For the period prior to 1790 the figures are based on estimates in or derived from A Century of Population Growth in the United States. Bureau of Census (Washington, 1909). The very small population figures for mountain and pacific states are omitted to make this table comparable with Table XXL In estimating the white population for the colonial period it was assumed that, during the entire period prior to the first census, the colored population bore the same relation to the white population in each colony that it did in 1790. This assumption did not entirely accord with the facts, but data on which to base more accurate estimates were not available. As a result of this assumption the period before 1771 was credited with a slightly larger number of literati per million of population than it really deserved. It is extremely unlikely, however, that the error was large enough to change the index figure given for the period even as much as from ten to nine. * It will be noted that, with the exception of the period before 1771, the number of literati born in each decade was compared with the 40 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [40 The statistics in Tables I and II thus show that the Uter- ary activity of the American people has been far from uni- form in amount. This fact requires explanation. It is apparently best explained, in accordance with the thesis maintained in this study, in terms of the social environ- ment, the first of the nine environmental conditions which are to be considered. Authors of the first rank disappeared • after the Civil War because their work seems to have been no longer appreciated.^ In other words, the social environ- ment had become relatively unfavorable to literary activity. The reason for this change seems to be as follows. During the Reconstruction period the temper of the American peo- ple was profoundly altered. It is true that before the War the spirit of commercialism was strong, but many people still had leisure which they devoted to serious reading. Later, when all values seemed to be expressed in terms of money, the nation had less time to devote to a seemingly impractical subject like literature. Professor Cooley ad- mirably summarizes the argument for this theory when he says : "^ The real cause of literary and artistic weakness (in so far as it white population of the United States at the end of that decade. Each white person in the United States was counted in the population of each decade at the end of which he was alive. To obtain comparable results the same procedure was adopted for the period prior to 1771. The population for each decade was estimated, and the number of literati born in the period was recorded. Since these figures were too small to be significant, it seemed best to combine the estimates for the entire colonial period. The number of literati born in the period before 1771 was of course found by adding the numbers born in each decade of the period. Likewise the estimated population for each decade was summed, to give a comparable population figure for the period. Only thus could significant figures be obtained. * The marked fall in the birth rate of literati took place perhaps fifty years before the corresponding decline in literature. It began after 1820, and continued till the close of the period studied. ^l] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION' OF DATA 41 exists) I take to be chiefly the spiritual disorganization incident to a time of rather sudden transition. ... No matter how gifted an individual may be, he is in no way apart from his time, but has to take that and make the best of it he can; the man of genius is in one point of view only a twig upon which a mature tendency bears its perfect fruit. . . . Any ripe de- velopment of productive power in literary or other art implies not merely capable individuals but the perfection of a social group, whose traditions and spirit the individual absorbs, and which floats him up to a point whence he can reach unique achievement. The unity of this group or type is spiritual, not necessarily local or temporal, and so may be difficult to trace, but its reality is as sure as the principle that man is a social being and cannot think sanely and steadfastly except in some sort of sympathy with his fellows. There must be others whom we can conceive as sharing, corroborating and enhancing our ideals, and to no one is such association more necessary than to the man of genius. ... no doubt such questions afford ground for infinite debate, but the under- lying principle that the thought of every man is one with that of a group, visible or invisible, is sure, I think, to prove sound; and if so it is indispensable that a great capacity should find access to a group whose ideals and standards are of a sort to make the most of it.^ Among other significant facts in the history of American letters which seem to be explained in the light of this proposition better than by either the theory of Galton or of Ward there are seven which are particularly worthy of notice. The first appears in Table III. From this table it is evident that from colonial times to the period at which this study ended, there was a fairly steady decline in the pro- portion of literati of superior achievement, called men of talent. It seems probable that the same influences which 1 Cooley, Social Organisation, pp. 162 et seq. 42 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [42 caused fewer potential men of letters to devote themselves to authorship had an especially strong effect on men of ex- ceptional ability. It is apparently reasonable to assume that men of genius are more dependent upon their environment than are others, for, as Cooley remarks : " being thinner- skinned, they are more suggestible, more perturbable, and TABLE III American Literati Classified by Sex and by Rank, by Period of Birth Rank^ Before 1771 eg 1 ■ 0 T 1 0 00 00 H 43 22 3 24 9 I 30 14 3 2 65 31 5 2 '96 7 78 32 II I no 12 '11 12 II 155 23 91 26 20 3 117 23 97 34 31 7 '^8 86 22 26 3 108 29 641 218 Men of talent Women of merit 112 29 Total Men 65 3 33 I 44 5 859 141 Total AVnmpTi ...... .... Women, per cent Total mprit ............ 4 46 22 3 25 9 10 7 70 33 10 89 33 13 139 39 16 III 29 22 128 41 21 112 25 14.1 753 247 Total talent Talent, per cent 32 26 33 32 27 22 21 24 18 24.7 peculiarly in need of the right sort of surroundings to keep their delicate machinery in fruitful action ".* Presumably the best potential American authors, those endowed with the finest sensibilities, were the persons whose sensitive minds were most ready to give up the pursuit of letters when conditions became unfavorable. Thus the fact that the relative number of literati of talent began to decline 1 For method of assignment of an individual to the rank, talent or merit, see p. 31. 'Cooley, op. ciL, p. 165. 43] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 43 while the absolute number of authors was still increasing, is probably to be explained on the ground that the men of superior ability were the first to sense the baneful influence of approaching philistinism. The second of the seven noteworthy facts which seem best explained as due to changes in the social environment is presented in Table IV. This table shows that the decline TABLE IV American Literati Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Period OF BiRTH.l Chief Field of Activity * Patrons Librarians . . . Actors ...... Orators Publicists Narrators.. . . Erudite Popularizers . Speculative . . Prose writers Poets Dramatists . . . Total Before 1771 68 34 §^ 49 2 3 2 9 13 38 8 10 II I 103 2 4 5 8 ID 15 40 6 12 17 3 122 4 6 5 15 16 30 38 10 30 ! 18 3 !••• 00 j 00 3 2 13 I 10 5 32 35 I 38 25 4 Total 178 140 1169 2 6 2 S , 7 I i 16 3 137 10 23 33 24 71 70 '57 249 50 166 132 15 of American letters was not manifest in all kinds of litera- ture. The number of authors diminished in nine of the twelve fields of literary activity under consideration, but the number of^actors> dramatists, and prose writers did not y * In the compilation of this table each author was counted only in that field of activity in which he seemed to have attained the greatest distinction. 2 The exact character of these classes is defined on pages 21-22. 44 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [44 decline during the last few decades studied/ The theory advanced above readily explains this apparent exception to the general tendency. Activity increased in the three kinds of work which were in harmony with the spirit of the time. This activity furnished what the people demanded. The environment being favorable, the number of literati in these three fields naturally tended to increase. The third noteworthy fact, discovered from data not here presented, is that in these three fields in which activity was increasing, apparently because of greater popular in- terest, there was not a growing proportion of literati of talent compared with those of merit. It might seem that, according to the theory that when literature is in popular favor conditions stimulate the production of literary genius, an increase in the number of men of talent in these fields should have been expected. In reality, however, such an increase would not harmonize with that theory, while the decline in the ranks of men of talent observed is quite in accord with it. This paradox is explained as follows. In the first place, it must be remembered that, at the time when the authors born in the latter decades studied were writing, popular taste in fiction and the drama was not at all what it had been several decades previously. Even the attitude of the public toward the players had changed. People did not then have, as formerly, enduring interest in an actor. The desire of the public was for the recent. " Popular " books were lauded, and it was not fashionable to read books * These facts were further verified by the results of another analysis in which the method of procedure served as a check to the one used in compiling Table IV. In this case each litterateur was counted once for every line of activity in which he had achieved distinction. Re- sults differed so little from those noted in Table IV that it seemed needless duplication to print even the summaries. It is quite evident that literary activity declined at approximately the same rate as did the number of literati. 45] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 45 which had been tested by time. Popular taste was also provincial, rather than catholic. It did not care for litera- ture which was universal in its appeal, but preferred that which dealt with matters of local and transient interest. This provincialism may well account for the small number of writers of talent in the later decades of the study. Authors of merit merely produced what the people would read. It was a poor literature which could not command a foreign audience, or even hold the attention of Americans for any length of time. In other words, popular taste had by its very nature made it increasingly difficult for a litterateur to win recognition as a man of talent, though comparatively easy for a man to attain the rank of a man of merit. The fourth significant fact to be noted in connection with the theory under consideration is given in Table V, which contains an analysis of the fields of activity of liter- ary women. The table shows that women did considerable TABLE V American Literary Women Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Period of Birth Chief Field of Activity Before 1771 1 1 1 OS 0 1 8 1 00 f 00 r 1 Total ........ I 1 J ::::::i::::i:::: Actors ..«•«••••••••• ....!.... .... ' i ' a 3 1 3 Puhlirists I 2 T : t 26 N'armtorc ....... .... ' 2 I 4 I 8 7 I 2 6 Erudite I 2 Pnnti1ari7pr^ ••••• •••• I 2 3 2 3 ^n^nilativf* .« ...... Prn*i» writer*; ...... .. 2 T 3 4 10 6 'I 20 2 61 Poets "^ 1 - 1 30 Total 3 I 5! 7 12 23 23 38 29 141 46 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [46 work in popularizing, in poetry and in prose writing. These / were the fields of literary activity which the public seemed to consider most appropriate for women. It is noteworthy that, during the last few decades considered, the number of literary women increased only in the fields of acting and prose writing, two of the three fields in which the number of men also increased. The fifth of the series of facts best understood in the light of the theory of the influence of the social environment is given in Table VI. The authors are here classified, by period TABLE VI American Literati Classified as of One, Two, or Three or More Fields of Activity, by Period of Birth.^ Of one field Of two fields Of three or more fields Period of birth i a 1 Per cent of all literati born in the period 4) li 9 3 12 20 24 36 21 43 17 185 -M 111 13 9 24 19 20 20 15 25 12 18.5 1^ Per cent of all literati born in the period Total abso- lute num- bers Before 1771 1771-80 1781-90 1791-1800 i8oi-io 1811-20 1821-30 1831-40 1841-50 34 79 90 13^ 107 U9 117 758 78 82 69 77 74 74 76 70 85 75.8 6 3 3 4 8 II 12 7 3 9 Q 6 4 I 9 4 2 68 34 49 103 122 178 140 169 '37 Total 57 5-7 1000 of birth, as of one, two, or three or more fields of activity. It appears that in the period 1841-50 there were relatively 1 When the percentage figures in this table are added on horizontal lines the totals will not in every case equal 100 because of cumulative error. The inaccuracy, however, is slight. 47] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 47 far fewer literati of two or more fields than at any previous time in American history. This decline may have been either a temporary fluctuation or a real tendency due to the same influence which caused the decline in the number of men of letters in general. If it was the manifestation of a real tendency, it can perhaps be explained by the supposition that the more versatile potential literati found it easy to adapt themselves to unfavorable conditions, and were there- fore the first to give up the pursuit of letters. The sixth fact of this series is brought out in Table VII, which shows the field of chief activity of authors born in the various groups of states.^ These figures speak for \X' TABLE VII American Literati Classified by Field of Chief Activity and Region OF Birth Field of chief activity * Patrons Librarians . . Actors Orators Publicists . . . . Narrators • . . Erudite Popularizers . Speculative . . Prose writers Poets Dramatists . ■ Total (U "^ :2< 6 H lO 13 1 I 37 .... 25 3 85 6 I 136 2 j 30 I 3 69 I 61 ... I 487 316 J3 -JS C/2 •5 — "3 eS o Js 2 6 13 3 17 ^"^ i 47 80 i 12 54 40 10 ; 10 6 15 II 3 21 17 2 99 lip II 15 I 4 53 Total 10 23 33 24 71 70 157 249 50 166 132 '5 1000 ^ When a man of letters had distinguished himself in several fields he is noted in Appendix B as belonging in all of them. In these tables, however, he is counted only in that one in which he had, achieved the greatest distinction. 2 The exact character of these classes is defined on pages 21-22. 48 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [48 themselves. Calculations not given in the table show further that in all but one subject New England produced more literati, in proportion to population, than did any other group of states. The lead was particularly marked in the classes of patrons, librarians, publicists, and speculative writers. The Middle Atlantic states produced in absolute numbers more dramatists than all the other groups com- bined, and relatively more than any other single group. The absolute number of actors and narrators credited to them was also larger than that of any other group, though relatively New England had the lead. The South Atlantic states showed their greatest relative strength in the class of orators, where they ranked above the Middle Atlantic states, though still far below New England.^ These differences are readily explained by the same prin- ciple which explained the decline, in the country as a whole, of all but three fields of letters.^ No doubt the mark of approbation or ban of disapproval set by a group upon any particular form of literary activity has tremendous influ- ence in stimulating or retarding activity of this sort. This fact may well explain the predominance of New England in the fields of patrons, librarians, publicists and specula- tive writers, fields which seem more characteristic of the Puritan than does the drama, in which the Middle Atlantic states held the lead. Finally, in the seventh place. Table III shows a fact not mentioned when the table was previously discussed, namely, that the number of literary women increased fairly steadily from colonial times to the end of the period studied. Ap- * These facts were still further confirmed by a separate analysis in which each litterateur was counted once for each field in which he had achieved distinction. The general results were so similar to those shown in Table VII that it seemed unnecessary to print them. 2 Cf. supra, p. 40. ^9] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 49 parently the chief explanation for this increase in the liter- ary activity of women is to be found in the gradual removal of the ban so long placed upon feminine activity of any kind not intimately associated with the home, church or school. In other words, a changed social environment seems to have been the thing essential to the development of literary women. It is possible, however, that the diver- sion of masculine effort to non-Hterary fields also affected the situation to some extent. This series of tables has brought forth three conclusions regarding the influence of the social environment. It ap- pears, in the first place, that literati were chiefly developed in groups of states where the kind of literature which they produced was in high popular esteem (Table VII). In the second place, it seems that, in the country as a whole, authors appeared most frequently and showed the greatest skill and versatility when their contemporaries were in sympathy with their work (Tables I to VI). Finally, it seems apparent that a favorable environment was essential to the development of literary women (Table III). Thus all these conclusions seem to furnish substantial reasons for a belief in the great power of group ideals and customs, the social environment, over the development of American men of letters. This ends the discussion of the subdivision, social en- vironment. The next of the nine topics under the general subject, environment, is that of the influence of the geo- graphic environment. Under this topic five tables will be presented. These show that, in proportion to population, different sections of the country varied greatly in the num- ber, rank and versatility of their literary sons and daugh- ters. Reason will be given, however, for believing that geo- graphic environment was not of prime importance in the production of American literati, but was simply correlated with other factors of far greater significance. so AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [50 TABLE VIII American Literati Classified by Sex and by Rank, by State or Prov- ince OF Birth, together with the Relative Fecundity in Literati of each State or Province Men Region of j birth I I ^ Nova Scotia New Brunswick .... Quebec Ontario Maine New Hampshire .... Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland District of Columbia Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia ... Alabama Mississippi Kentucky Tennessee Louisiana Arkansas ! Ohio I Indiana Illinois Michigan I Wisconsin . . . . o . . . j Missouri ; Unknown 5 4 2 3 35 33 148 7 67 141 16 48 2 22 4 20 4 7 9 I Total. 641 2 8 8 17 I 10 Women •c I 8 3 I 23 10 31 Total 218 I112 29 5 4 2 4 43 36 18 171 7 77 172 16 58 3 26 4 22 5 9 II I 2 9 2 2 I 20 8 2 5 3 3 2 2 II 10 10 23 33 10 27 5 2 Total 6 4 2 5 43 41 27 213 13 86 169 26 74 2 27 4 ! I I ' I 9 I 2 21 j 12 I 4 r 3 I 4 ! 2 ! 2 «* (2 6 4 2 61 54! 46 28 246 13 ICG 205 26 85 3 *3i 6 29 5 12 13 I 2 ID 2 3 I 28 13 4 5 3 753 i247 1859 !i4i 1 1000 ::;::i8 2465' 22 1936 24 1682 17 5637 44 873 15 283 1 1 35 [I126 18 2493 10 9218, 9 480' 6 2695' II 146 41 5 I 6 7 I 3 3 I 5 4 5 6 3 8 9 5 5866 3548 1908 1778 1037 615 2923 2614 610 278 5236 2170 1539 652 336 1 104 I •' 73796*13 * No figures can be given for Canada because population estimates are lacking. 2 Includes one man of African descent. ' The population base is derived by summing the figures indicating the white population for each decade from the founding of a state or ^l] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ^i In the first of these tables (Table VIII), the authors are classified by state or province of birth, by sex and by rank. The most significant figures of this table appear under the column headed Index. This column contains for each state a figure indicating the average number of white literati, per million of white population, born in that state or colony prior to 1851. The figure was derived by summing the figures indicating the white population for each decade from the founding of that state or colony up to 1851. By this total, called population base, was divided the number of white literati born in the state or colony during the same period.^ For instance, the sum of the estimated and enum- erated decennial white population figures for Massachusetts, colony up to 1851. In the table the figures of population base are given in thousands (t. e., three naughts [000] are omitted in each case). In estimating the white population for the colonial period it was assumed that, during the entire period prior to the first census, the colored population bore the same relation to the white population that it did in 1790. While the assumption did not exactly accord with the facts, it seemed inadvisable to attempt to obtain greater ac- curacy. Better results would have been attained only at a labor cost out of all proportion to their value. As a result of the method used the states with a large colored population seem to have produced relatively more literati than should really be credited to them. The error, however, cannot be significant, for the total population of the colonial period was relatively small. * This total differs slightly from that of Table II because it excludes the population of several southern states which produced no literati before 185 i. 5 This index (13) is based on a population total of 74,274 which in- cludes the populations of several southern and western states the popu- lations of which were enumerated in 1850 or earlier, but which had produced no literati and which, therefore, were not included in the separate categories of this table. The number of literati included in the calculations for this figure (13) was 980. Eighteen Canadian literati were omitted because of the lack of Canadian population estimates. The two men of African descent were also omitted. The three men of unknown region of birth were, however, included. ^ The population figures are taken from census returns and estimates in or derived from A Century of Population Growth in the United States. 52 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [52 from 1620 to 1850 inclusive, calculated in each decade to the nearest thousand, was 5,637. When by this sum was divided 246, the number of white literati born in that state during the same period, an index number of 44 was ob- tained. This procedure had the following justification. Plainly a figure derived by dividing the population of a state at the end of any decade, by the number of authors born in the state during that decade, would be an index of the relative productivity of literati by that state during the decade. Such figures could have been obtained, but because of the small numbers concerned their significance would have been slight. However, when the numbers of white literati born during each decade are summed, and the figures for the white population living at the end of each decade are also summed and expressed in millions, and when this former sum is divided by the latter, there results a figure which indicates the average productivity of literati by a state in each decade, per million of white population. This index number is chiefly significant as a measure of the relative literary fecun- dity of the different states. The chief points brought out by the index numbers of this table are as follows : (i) With the exception of Vermont and Rhode Island, all the New England states ranked higher than their nearest competitor. New York. (2) Massachusetts and Connecticut stood far above the other New England states, and Massachusetts had a large lead over Connecticut.- (3) The District of Columbia ranked next to Massachu- setts. (4) The relative importance of the southern states was slight. Of all the states south of Mason and Dixon's line, ^3] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 53 TABLE IX American Literati Classified by Rank by Region of Birth Region of birth 1 Canada New England .... Middle Atlantic. .. South Atlantic .. ,. East South Central West South Central East North Central West North Central Unknown Total Rank Total Merit Talent 15 3 18 352 135 487 246 70 316 80 19 99 14 I »5 3 I 4 38 15 S3 3 2 5 2 I 3 753 247 1000 Talent per cent ' 28 22 19 28 24.7 Maryland alone had as high rank as the lowest of the New England and Middle Atlantic states. ( 5 ) The states formed from the Northwest Territory on the whole ranked with the southern states, distinctly lower than those of the east.^ * New England — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. Middle Atlantic — New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. South Atlantic — Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. East South Central — Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. West South Central — Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma. East North Central — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. West North Central — Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. 2 Not given when very few persons are concerned, for the ratio would be spuriously accurate and therefore misleading. ' Care must be used in drawing comparisons among states in cases where the recorded instances are too few to permit accurate statistical deductions. Other investigators have discovered striking differences in the pro- 54 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [54 The second of the five tables considered under the subject of geographic environment (Table IX), shows the region of birth of literati, classified according to rank. It appears that the northern states have produced more persons of talent than have those of the south. The figures also show that both New England and the East North Central states produced unusually large proportions of literati of talent. Standing by themselves, the foregoing figures might seem inconclusive. They are borne out, however, by results pre- TABLE X American Literati Classified as of One, Two, or Three or More Fields of Activity, by Region of Birth One Field Two fields Three fields. Region of birth 1 Per cent of literati of the region ^ 1 S 3 95 16 Per cent of literati of the region* S3 S Per cent of literati of the region 1 Total Canada 18 New England .... '356 Middle Atlantic ... 249 South Atlantic... j 77 East South Central i 14 West South Central | 4 East North Central ; 37 West North Central ! 3 Other ' 3 73 20 18 16 36 10 6 I 7 i 487 316 99 15 4 53 S 3 70 12 2 23 4 8 75.8 185 18.5 57 Total 758 5-7 1000 duction of prominent citizens by different sections of the country. Cf. James McKeen Cattell, American Men of Science (New York, 1910) ; George R. Davies, "A Statistical Study in the Influence of Environ- ment," Quarterly Journal of the University of North Dakota, vol. iv, no. 3 ; and Scott Nearing, " The Geographic Distribution of American Genius," Popular Science Monthly, vol. 85, p. 189. ^ Not given when very few persons are concerned, for the ratio would be spuriously accurate and therefore misleading. The totals in these columns are based on the complete absolute figures. 55] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 55 TABLE XI American Literati Classified by State of Birth and Period of Birth State of birth 1 a 03 O T 1 r ft eg r 00 1 1 7 7 13,13 8; 9 31 49 3 3 6 15 22 49 I: 5 9 II 2 .. 4 3 • ■12 3|4 'li'i 3I 2 : !•; 2; 2 1 1 (2 CttnctAtt . -. ...... j 1 2 ft 2 2 37 I 10 29 2 17 4 I 6 I 4 3 I 6 3 •■ •• 6! 4 7 12 6i 4 3' I 27 17 2; I 10' 9 43 36 4' 4 I9|3 ••I'- ll ' 2 ij 2 2 ' 18 Maine 1 *l * * i * * 54 46 28 New Hampshire 1 •• I •• 2 6 5 s 29 18 18 3 Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey T'pnnsvTvania ...... . . 3 I I I I 3 2 I I 2 ■3 2 2 3 7 4 I 2 5 3 2 • :: •• *' 12 5 I 2 5 2 .. 3 *j .. •* 18 I II 2 2 r 246 i^ 85 3 31 6 1 12 '? 2 3 I 2 10 28 .. .: I; 2 I . . I 2 District of Columbia Vircjinia ...... ... '* •• .. •• North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Arkansas Tennessee Kentucky Ohio •• •• I I 2 .. 2 2 I 2 9 5 I I 3 «7 I 3 I I I 2 I Indiana Illinois • • • • Michigan Wisconsm Missouri Unknown Total ... •• .. '* •• •• ;: •• 1 i i ! " 1 ** 5 3 4 2 > 13 4 5 3 5 3 1000 sented in the third of the tables on geographic environment (Table X). This table shows the region of birth of literati; classified as of one, two and three or more fields of activity. In this table, the New England and East North Central states again appear appreciably in the lead.^ ^ An unpublished classification of literati by sex, according to the group of states in which they were born showed remarkable uniformity 56 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [56 In the fourth place, classification of men of letters by- decade and state of birth (Table XI) shows plainly that the relative importance of the states was not constant. The full extent of the changes in the relative importance of the states in the production of men of talent is not apparent, however, till one considers the results of a further analysis which yielded the fifth and last of the tables on geographic environment, on the literary fecundity of each group of states in proportion to white population (Table XII). The decline in the number of literati made manifest in Table II is here shown (Table XII) to be no local phenomenon. During the latter decades studied there was a marked diminution in the relative number of men of letters born in every group of states which possessed enough authors to make figures significant. Table XII also shows that the center of Ameri- can literary activity was slowly but surely shifting. In the decade 1841-50, New England was still supreme, but its lead had been appreciably reduced. The East North Cen- tral states showed the least relative decline in literary fecun- dity, a fact which may indicate that the future literary leadership of the country is to be theirs. When the history of the nation as a whole is considered, however, it seems that New England's predominance during the period studied was little short of marvelous. The group produced in pro- portion to population more than twice as many literati as did the Middle Atlantic states, and more than six times as many as did the South Atlantic group, or any of the other groups of states. in the proportion credited to each. No group of states appeared to possess conditions particularly favorable to the development of liter- ary talent in one sex, rather than in the other. 57] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA S7 TABLE XII Relative Literati Productivity of the Several Groups of States Abbreviations: Pop., white population of the region at the end of the period, in thousands; Lit., white literati born in the region during the period; Ratio, number of literati born per million of white population living in the region at the end of the period.* Group of States M 1 cq 2,550 43 17 1,747 18 lO 2,421 7 3 17 i t>. 730 20 27 638 8 13 844 6 7 37 00 1 1,214 64 53 1,338 27 .0 1,426 8 6 277 2 0 1 1,451 48 1,933 32 17 1,593 13 563 8 1 00 1,638 94 57 2,610 65 25 1,787 6 902 3 33 14 2,117 19 9 1.304 I 1 00 ....... 2,212 15 2,329 19 8 1.745 3 0 iO 2,704 44 16 5,772 43 7 2,819 11 4 2,241 4 Sum- mation and Total (Pop.. New England -^ Lit. .. I Ratio . (Pop .. Middle Atlantic....^ Lit... ( Ratio . (Pop .. South Atlantic -^ Lit . . . I Ratio . Pop .. East South Central • . \ Lit . . . 991 36 36 908 9 ID I.I78 4 3 93 15,424 487 32 22,837 316 14 16,514 1 7,179 IS 2 . Ratio . ( Pop . . . . . 34 87 "5 235 I 571 2 1,042 4 4 9,933 53 5 1,345 5 4 '7t274 »978 13 West South Central ■ Lit ... • . Ratio . ( Pod . . , , 50 270 786 3 56 1,453 I "5 2,896 16 6 367 3 4,478 26 6 790 2 WsKit NnrtVi Cpntrt*} . J T if I Ratio . ( Pop . . '7 West North Central. \ Lit . . . 1 Ratio . i fPop .. United States -^ Lit . . . ( Ratio . 6,735 ID 2,249 34 15 3,170 49 15 4.305 lOI 23 7,866 175 22 10,522' 138: 13I i 14,191 163 II 19,375 132 7 * The ratio was not calculated in the case of those states where both the population and the ■umber of literati produced was very small, for such a ratio would be inaccurate and misleading. ' The population summation here given differs from that given in Table VIII because this figure includes the population of several southern and western states which produced no literati before 1851 and which, therefore, were not included in the earlier table. ' This figure does not include eighteen Canadians, two white residents of the United States whose exact place of birth was unknown, and the two negroes, for one of whom the place of birth w"^ also unknown. 58 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [58 All five tables which have been presented under the sub- ject of geographic environment thus show this same fact, namely, that there were great differences in the literary pro- ductivity of different sections of the country during the entire period studied. There are, of course, two possible ways in which the dif- fering literary productivity of the several states can be ex- plained, namely, in terms of nature or nurture. If one believes that nature is greatly predominant over nurture he may hold that this difference was due to the fact that the northern states were inhabited by persons of superior stock. If, on the other hand, he thinks that nurture is much more important than nature, he will explain the high literary fecundity of the north in terms of some environmental in- fluence. To prove the first of these theories it is necessary to prove two things, namely, that a great diversity of population elements was found in the several states, and that there also existed considerable differences of innate ability in the different population elements. There is no evidence that either of these conditions existed. In the first place, the relative numbers of persons of different nationalities found in the several states were fairly uniform in 1790, and it was not till after 1840 that large numbers of immigrants began to come to America and congregate in the north. ^ In the second place, it is still unproved, as will presently be shown, that the different nationality strains in the country varied widely in innate ability.^ Hence it appears that some factor of the environment must be sought to explain the differing literary productivity of the different sections of the country. * Cf, A Century of Population Growth. Diagram 11, p. 118. ' Cf, infra, p. 89. 59] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 59 It might possibly be inferred from a certain degree of correlation between different kinds of geographic environ- ment and different types of literary talent, brought out by Table VII, and also by the facts discussed in the last few pages, that geographic environment was causally related to the distribution of men of letters. A little study will show, however, that so far as correlation exists it was due chiefly to other factors. One might infer, perhaps, that the south- em states were handicapped by heat, humidity and dis- ease. This is probably true to a considerable extent. It is evident, however, that climatic conditions cannot be con- sidered the predominant influence, because adjacent states possessing practically identical topographical and meteoro- logical conditions varied widely in literary fecundity. Some other influence must be sought to explain why, for example, Alabama ranked far below Georgia, and Rhode Island below both Massachusetts and Connecticut, while the District of Columbia stood far above either Maryland or Virginia. Thus one is led to conclude that though no doubt geographic environment did play a part in the production of literary talent, it was far less important than other factors.* Density, also, might appear to have had an important in- fluence, since, for example, the relatively crowded New England and Middle Atlantic states were relatively more productive of men of letters. A superficial examination of the census reports, however, shows that there was not a uniform relation between the two conditions. If there had been such a uniform relation, Rhode Island, for instance, would have headed the list of states, instead of ranking* seventh, and Delaware would have been above Maine, New ^ This conclusion is identical with that of Odin. He conceded that geographic environment has some influence in the production of men of letters, but considered that its influence is too small to be measured. Odin, op. cit., pp. 439 et seq. 6o AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [60 TABLE XIII American Literati Classified by Rank and by Character of Birth Place (State Capital, Chief City of State, County Seat, and other Places^) Abbreviations: M., merit; T., talent; To., total. State or Capital Chief City County Seat All others Total Province M. T. To. M. T. To. M. T. 3 M. 2 T. .... To. 2 M. 5 4 2 4 43 18 171 7 77 16 58 3 26 4 22 5 9 II I 2 9 2 2 I 20 8 2 5 3 3 2 753 T. I 2 II 10 10 23 33 10 27 5 2 7 3 2 "s* 5 2 2 I 247 To. Nova Srofia ..... I I I I 2 6 3 .... 3 4 I I 4 3 4 30 I II 29 3 5 I 21 6 3 2 2 I 2 5 4 7 '\ 17 32 5 7 I 2 I 2 32 27 14 92 3 11 12 12 9 3 7 7 34 14 3 I 6 I I 2 35 34 21 126 3 66 80 20 20 I 12 I 20 2 3 7 On tn rill ......... I I .... I 2 I I 5 Maine ...»•••«.• 6 5 7 2 13 7 it 28 New Hampshire . . Massachusetts . . . . | 49 Rhode Island . . . . i 3 Connecticut 1 5 New York i 8 New Jersey ■ i Pennsylvania j i Delaware ' i . . . 20 5 2 1 7 9 I I I I 5 2 ... .... 246 13 100 ^2! 85 3 ^6 9 69 40 15 17 10 84 57 Maryland j i DistrictofColumbia' 4 Virginia | 2 15 16 6 3 I 2 I I 4 7 3 I 4 I I 4 14 2 2 7 29 5 12 13 I South Carolina. ..j i 5 2 7 2 Mimsi^^inni ......'. I 4 2 ..!. I 5 2 I 2 TCpTitiiplfV ..... ...... I .... I 10 Tennessee >.... 2 I 2 I 9 3 2 I 2 3 2 I II 6 4 I 3 I Ohio II 4 3 2 6 2 I I 17 6 3 2 3 ?8 TnfliJiTin ......... I 13 \ 5 3 Illinois »»••••.-• .... I 3 I I 4 Missouri •••••• ...... .... 2 30 112 Total 82 161 47 208 130 53 .83 380 117 497 1000 ' Frequently a city was both the capital and chief city of a state, and both capitals and chief cities were usually county seats. When born in such a community, literati were credited to the capital rather than to the chief city, and to the chief city rather than to the county seat. The location of a few county seats changed during the period studied, but the result of the investigation can be affected only slightly by the fact that these changes were ignored. The list of capitals, chief cities and county seats used is that of 1850. 6i] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 6l Hampshire and Vermont, instead of ranking far below them. * Nevertheless it may still seem as though density were in some way connected with literary fecundity. In order to investigate further the relation of the two phenomena, a separate study of various aspects of the local environment, the third of the nine environmental influences, was made (Tables XIII to XV). Table XIII shows the men of letters classified as born in a state or provincial capital, the chief city of a state or province, a county seat, or elsewhere^ From this table it appears that the capitals produced 11.2 per cent of the literati, the chief cities 20.8 per cent more, and the county seats added another 18.3 per cent. Thus it may be said that half (50.3 per cent) of all American men of letters were born in places which were relatively metro- politan, even though their actual population may not have been large. Further calculations showed that although, during the period studied, the capitals and chief cities of the several states had never contained over nine per cent of the total population of the United States, they had been the birth- place of approximately thirty-two per cent of the men of letters.^ Thus it appears that in proportion to population cities have been very rich in men of letters. ^ Cf. Ward, Applied Sociology, pp. 169 et seq., and Davies, loc. cit., p. 232. 2 County seats were not included because their population figures were not readily available. The population of 1850 for the cities under consideration was found by adding together their respective populations, as given in the Com- pendium of the Seventh Census, pp. 338 et seq. The total population for these cities constituted nine per cent of the total population of the United States. Since the urban population of the nation had increased from the founding of the Republic, this proportion was a maximum for the entire period considered. In this phase of the study the Can- 62 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [62 The results of a more detailed study of the influence of cities is given in Table XIV, which shows the literary fecun- dity of the fifty leading cities of the country in 1850, and of six other cities which produced five or more literati/ In this table the cities are arranged according to the size of their population base, a figure obtained by summing fig- ures for the white population in each census year for the period 1781 to 1850 (Column I). Columns II and III give the number of literati of merit and of talent who were born in each city, and Column IV combines these two classes. Column V gives the number of literati born in each city between 1781 and 1850. This figure had to be used for comparative purposes, for population figures were available for this period only. Column VI, headed Index, contains a figure calculated by dividing the number of literati born in a city between 1781 and 1850 by the population base for that city. It indicates the relative literary fecundity of the city. Figures for cities having a population base of less than fifty [thousand] are not given, as they would be spur- iously accurate and therefore misleading. Enough figures are given, however, to show significant differences among cities. ' adian literati were not considered, because population estimates for Canadian cities were lacking. No correction was made for the influence of the colored population, which was overwhelmingly rural before 1850. If the study had been of white literati and white population only, the relative fecundity of the cities would appear somewhat smaller, but the general conclusion of the study would be the same. ^ Actually only fifty cities appear on the list. Figures for the five which have since been annexed to Philadelphia and for the area which has been annexed to Brooklyn are combined with the figures for the annexing cities. ' It is worthy of note that most of the cities which produced rela- tively large numbers of authors were also relatively t)roductive of men of talent. 63] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA TABLE XIV Absolute and Relative Numbers of Literary Persons Born in Important Cities 63 City New York Philadelphia Baltimore Boston Brooklyn New Orleans Cincinnati Albany Providence St. Louis Pittsburgh Salem Charleston Louisville • . Troy Newark Washington Buffalo Rochester New Haven Portland Richmond Lowell Charlestown Hartford New Bedford Portsmouth Newburyport Roxbury Lynn Utica - Cambridge Reading Worcester Norwich San Francisco Chicago Allegheny Norfolk Detroit Litchfield, Conn .... Syracuse Dorchester Bangor Columbus Popula- tion Base* 1346 1038-^ 421 412 274^ 213' 199 139 117 III 95 91 80 80 74 I 73 I 72 I 71 i 67 1 63 i 60 ! 60 { 60 I 54 I 53 I 53 52 48 46 43 42 40 39 38 36 35 34 34 33 33 29 29 28 28 26 Rank of literati Merit Talent 69 40 15 49 4 I Total 84 57 16 69 5 2 1781- 1850 80 49 16 53 5 2 1 i 2 ! 2 9 ! Index 59 47 38 [29 18 9 ^1 36 132 88 13 27 69 42 30 143 217 33 17 74 132 19 140 1 Cf. supra, p. 51. The figure for the population base was in each case derived by summing figures given for the population of a city, 64 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS TABLE y.lN— Concluded [64 City Popula- tion Base Rank of literati Total 2 2 1 1781- 1850 Index Merit Talent Savannah 25 25 21 21 20 2 I I ' 2 2 I !!*.'.!!.*! IVIilwaiilf pp .... .... Mobile T-TiTicrViJim ..... ..-. 3 2 5 5 by decades, correct to the nearest thousand. Most of these figures were found in the Compendium of the Eleventh Census, Section on Population, Table 4a. The base is given in thousands. Three zeros [000] are omitted in each case. In the cases of Bangor, Portsmouth, Newburyport, Salem, Charles- town, Roxbury, Dorchester, Hingham, Norwich and Litchfield, the population figures were compiled from figures given in the reports of each decennial census. In a few cases the data were incomplete, and population estimates had to be made for Cambridge, 1830; Charles- town, 1790; Litchfield, 1790 and 1830; Norwich, 1790 and 1830; Hart- ford, 1790; New Haven, 1790; and Albany, 1810. It would have been desirable to use figures for the white population only, but the colored population was not reported separately in the earlier censuses. A rough and partial correction was made for the colored population in cities south of Mason and Dixon's Hne and the Ohio River. It was assumed that the colored population had always constituted the same proportion of the population of these cities that it did in 1900. The appropriate figure was then subtracted from the total population in each decade, to obtain the figure given as the population base. Since the proportion of the colored population of these cities has tended to increase, the resulting figure is somewhat smaller than it should be in reality. The figure for the literary productivity of these cities is therefore correspondingly larger. In the case of the northern cities for which no correction for the colored population was made, the figure for the population base is of course somewhat too large, and the index is correspondingly small. 2 In determining the population base of Philadelphia and Brooklsm, figures for areas which have since been annexed to them were included, and literati born in those areas were of course also credited to the annexing cities. ' The population base of New Orleans contains no figures from censuses prior to 1810. * No index is given for cities having a population base of less than fifty, as it would be spuriously accurate and therefore misleading. 65] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 65 It appears from the table that some of the old cities of New England, such as Portland, Portsmouth, Newburyport, Salem, Boston, Cambridge, Hartford and New Haven, ranked very high. Other northern cities, such as Lowell, Lynn, Cincinnati, Newark, Brooklyn and Pittsburgh, ranked relatively low. Most of the southern cities also ranked low ; Charleston seems to have been a notable exception. How are these differences to be explained? Ward and Odin were of the opinion that the superior literary fecun- dity of cities in general is due to their superior educational advantages, and they explained differences among cities in the same way.^ On the other hand, Professor Thorndike points out the danger of assuming that educational opportunities entirely account for the high rank of cities when he says : " That cities give birth to an undue proportion of great men does not in the least prove that city life made them great ; it may prove that cities attract and retain great men, whose sons are thus city born." ^ It seems reasonable to believe that the theory suggested by Thorndike partially explains the differences existing among cities. For instance, the birth- place of those authors who were the sons of Yale and Har- vard professors was obviously determined by the fact that New Haven and Cambridge had attracted their fathers. This theory may also explain the low rank of the industrial cities of the north, which contained little to attract persons of literary taste. Again, this theory seems to explain ade- quately the low rank of most southern cities, when it is remembered that the cities of the south were almost exclu- sively commercial centers, and that the leisure classes of the south were very fond of country life. Finally, the rank of ^ Cf. Applied Sociology, ch. ix, and Odin, op. cit., pp. 511 et seq. ^ Edward L. Thorndike, " A Sociologist's Theory of Education," The Bookman, vol. xxiv, p. 290. 66 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [66 a small town may be profoundly affected by the influence of a single family of great ability, as was the case with Litchfield. It is apparent, on the other hand, that cities which, before 185 1, ranked high in men of letters, did possess superior educational opportunities, as Ward maintained. If not actually the seats of colleges, they were at any rate situated conveniently near them. In addition, they possessed an educational and literary tradition which must have been of no mean importance in stimulating the development of men of letters. Data are not at present available to show which of the two factors mentioned above was of more importance in the development of literati in cities. Facts are available, however, which show the importance of education in the development of men of letters in general. It must be ap- parent to the most casual observer that the states which ranked highest in literary productivity were those which possessed greatest educational opportunities. Their literary fecundity cannot be explained on the theory that they were inhabited by persons of superior stock, for reasons to be noted on a subsequent page.^ Some environmental influence has therefore to be credited with the differences observed, and educational opportunities are the most conspicuous and apparently significant factor in which the north and east dif- fered from the south and west.^ The influence of educa- tion, the fourth of the environmental factors to be consid- ered, will now be indicated in Tables XV to XVIII. ^ Cf. infra, p. 89. 2 This is not the place for a discussion of why certain sections of the country furnished better educational opportunities than did others. Greater economic surplus, the superior energy of the northern people and the momentum of the Puritan educational tradition may, however, be suggested as among the more important reasons why some sections of the country were particularly liberal in their patronage of education. 67^ ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 67 TABLE XV Education Received by American Literati, Classified According to Field of Chief Activity Abbreviations: G. S. P., partial grammar school course, or less; G. S., full grammar school course; H. S. P., partial high school course; H. S., full high school course; A. B. P., partial college course; A. B., full college course. The symbol means either the formal education stated, or its equivalent. Field of chief activity 6 c/5 d CO Ph' PQ < A. B., Per cent Unknown 1 Patrons . Librarians .... Actors Orators Publicists Narrators Erudite Popularizers . . . Speculative .... Prose Poets Dramatists .... I 4 3 I 6 3 3 3 I 4 5 2 36 I i I 4 3 7 7 3 12 2 2 9 '! 3 I I 2 2 6 18 21 2 44 21 3 3 I 2 8 13 II 23 17 4 9 2 15 35 24 104 165 41 52 54 40 39 6 63 50 II 82 •i 2 4 4 ■1 I T9 15 5 10 23 33 24 71 70 157 249 132 15 Total 60 80 133 C7 506 50.6 88 1000 Table XV shows the education received by American Hterati, classified by field of chief activity.^ From this table it appears that, with the exception of the two classes, actors and dramatists, there were more literati in each group who received a full college course than there were literati who received any other amount of education.^ It is obvious that ^ In the following tables on education the equivalent of a given amount of formal training, when received during childhood and youth, is counted the same as that formal training. ' It is true that the facts were not available in the case of every author. The figures for the lower education groups would therefore probably be somewhat increased if the education received by all the literati studied were known. Presumably the majority of those authors whose education could not be learned received relatively little formal instruction, for education received by an individual is more likely to be recorded when ample than when scanty. The possible error can not be serious, however. 58 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [68 an actor's education does not need to be academic. The dramatist is also quite as likely to be well equipped by close relations with the stage as by working with books. The figures indicate that for all other classes of men of letters, however, higher education was a great aid in achieving suc- cess. Even poets, who are reputed to be born and not made, enjoyed at least a partial college course in more than half of the cases recorded. Over fifty per cent of all the literati studied received a full college education. No figures are available for the number of college graduates in that part of the American people which was born before 1851. Certainly they did not number more than a few score thousand.^ Since this com- paratively small number of people produced more literati than the tens of millions of persons without a college de- gree, it is apparent that the man or woman with an academic education was several hundred times as likely to be a per- son who would achieve literary distinction as was the person without that training.^ Tables XVI and XVII show, by decades, the education received by literary men and women. It appears that, in spite of some fluctuation, the degree of education received by literary men remained on the whole constant. By decades, from fifty-three to sixty-nine per cent were college gradu- ates. This relatively small fluctuation was accompanied by no consistent tendency for the proportion to increase or diminish. On the other hand, the degree of education received by women increased remarkably. While very few women born even as late as 1850 enjoyed a college educa- tion, the proportion who graduated from high schools in- 1 In 1850 there were less than twenty-eight thousand students en- rolled in the colleges of the United States. Compendium of the Sev- enth Census, table cxlv. ' Cf. Cattell, Davies, Odin. op. cit. 69] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 69 TABLE XVI Education Received by American Male Literati, Classified by Period OF Birth Period of birth d 2 4 4 8 5 7 2 32 4 CO d CO CO 1 1 Before 1771 ... 1771-80.. 1781-90 1791-1800 1801-10 181 1-20 1821-30 1831-40 1841-50 3 2 6 6 9 6 9 10 3 8 2 3 5 10 1 3 2 5 5 23 18 16 15 3 I 3 10 6 19 10 13 18 29 56 69 70 55 69 11 11 It 53 51 I 4 3 10 7 10 2 8 7 65 33 44 96 no 155 117 108 Total 'a '^ 87 10 83 10 1i 58 's 859 Total percent.. TABLE XVII Education Received by American Women of Letters, Classified by Period of Birth Period of birth P-' CO d .... CO d Oh CO CO P4 < < H. S., A. B. P.&A.B., per cent 0 1 1 Before 1771 ... 1771-80 .... 3 3 *' I I 3 4 8 1 7 1781-90 1791-1800 1 J^i Tn .... .... .... I 2 4 3 2 2 I I 6 4 3 2 3 5 2 7 2 I I 3 4 II 14 12 20 29 25 30 % 59 5 7 12 ^ 181 1-20 1821-30 1831-40 1841-50 3 2 6 2 2 2 3 23 29 Total 27 19 46 33 14 10 7 5 48 37 26 141 Total percent.. creased from zero to about sixty per cent. This latter fact is of great significance. It was noted in the discussion of Table III that in all probability the chief reason for the in- 70 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [70 crease in the number of literary women was the improve- ment of the social environment. This improvement had another aspect besides the disappearance of the ban of dis- approval which used to rest upon women who entered the y field of letters. It included also the decline of the idea that women should not receive higher education. Since women promptly and successfully invaded the field of literature as soon as these two obstacles to their activity were removed, it seems evident that public approbation and education were necessary factors for the creation of American women of letters. The education received by literary men and women of more than one field of activity is shown in Table XVIII. TABLE XVIII Education Received by American Literati, Ciassified by Sex and by One OR More than One field of Activity Men. Women . One field.... Number . . . Per cent . . . One field.... More than Number... one field . . Per cent . . . i Number. . Per cent ... More than Number ... one field . .Per cent ... a P^ (C Pk 1 r/ c« tn ^ PQ PQ d 6 K W < < 5 26 44 35 76 61 362 43 4 7 5 12 9 50 7 6 10 14 16 22 13s 9 1 3 5 7 8 10 64 4 ! 3 6 22 32 10 7 31 3 5 20 29 9 6 28 I 5 14 4 .... 6 ! 3 .... 17 47 13 .... 20 647 212 (M III 30 This table shows that sixty-four per cent of the more ver- satile men were college graduates, as opposed to fifty-six per cent of the men of only one field of activity. The fig- ures for women are still more significant. Sixty per cent of the women prominent in more than one field received at ^ Does not total one hundred because of cumulative error. yi] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 71 least a high school education, and only forty-four per cent of the women of one field only, received that amount of schooling.^ The four tables just discussed indicate that a good edu- cation was almost a prerequisite to literary success, even in fields where its influence has been considered of little ac- count, and that it was also distinctly favorable to the de- velopment of literary skill and versatility.^ After all, as Dr. Davies well says : " In unconventional America, if there were a shorter and easier way to fame than the way of higher education, energetic young men would have foimd it and beaten it into a highway." The fifth of the environmental influences to be considered is that of the economic status of the parents of American literati (Table XIX). This table shows the proportion of men and women of letters born to parents in the various economic classes. Of the parents of writers whose eco- nomic status could be discovered, one hundred and twenty were poor and four hundred and ninety-two were not poor. The fact that many literati came from poor families seems conclusive evidence that poverty of parents is by no means •evidence of lack of ability on the part of their children. Even if for the moment the sometimes untrue assumption is made that the poor are indigent because of lack of energy and ability, it by no means follows that all of their children are deficient in these qualities. Children are often unlike their parents, and sometimes are far superior to them. Since this is the case, and since the analysis of educational environment has shown that factor to be of great import- ance, it is reasonable to suppose that when the children of * Figures derived by combining the percentages in the columns H. S., A. B. P., and A. B. " Thi» conclusion is exactly the same as that of Odin in regard to French men of letters. Odin, op. cit., pp. Si6 et seq. 72 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [72 TABLE XIX Early Economic Environment of American Literati iEconomic Status of Parents Number Poor 1 120 Not poor 1 492 Intermediate ' 415 Wealthy ^ 77 Unknown 388 Total 1000 the poor remain uneducated considerable innate ability may remain undeveloped. Genius may be hidden in the hum- blest environment.^ Another important factor is brought out by this same table (Table XIX). It is well known to the student of his- tory that before 1851 a very large proportion of the popu- lation of the entire country was poor, in the special sense 1 The literati who answered a questionnaire sent out, reported the economic status of parents as poor, intermediate, or wealthy. Of course a personal interpretation of the words determined the answer. It is probable, however, that the persons who repHed had in mind somewhat similar criteria to those used in the more numerous cases when the evidence was drawn from literary sources, for they reported about the same proportion in each economic class as was found in the case of the others who could not testify on their own behalf. In the cases in which data were drawn from literary material, par- ents were called poor when it was obvious that during childhood and youth the future Htterateur was not free from economic anxiety. When it was quite plain that he was free from such anxiety his par- ents were classed as intermediate, in the absence of definite reason for calling them wealthy. The tests of wealth were varied. Usually a definite statement of the wealth of parents was necessary to admit one to the class, though occasionally such facts as the maintenance of many servants or the possession of several estates was considered adequate evidence. Inasmuch as the line of division between the classes intermediate and wealthy was not clearly defined, the two groups were combined for comparative purposes into one class, not poor. «C/. A. C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), ch. iv. 73] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 73 in which the word is used here. Thus it seems evident that, during the period studied, families living in economic secur- ity produced far more than their due proportion of authors. This fact indicates that birth in a family above the poverty line was a great advantage to the candidate for literary honors. Presumably equally able but less fortunate men might have been able to make names for themselves, had their economic and social status enabled them to obtain a higher education. This view is in harmony with Odin's conclusions. The results of his study show that French children brought up in economic security were from forty to fifty times as likely to become men of letters as were those brought up in pov- erty. Odin also found that, with very few exceptions, the authors brought up in poverty had enjoyed good educa- tional advantages. In the few exceptional cases recorded, he showed that they had possessed special advantages which offset the lack of formal education.^ The sixth environmental influence, closely related to edu- cational opportunity, is indicated by the father's occupa- tion.^ The study of this subject was first made by decades, and a separate record was kept of the parentage of men and women. As this analysis gave no significant results, all the facts were combined in Table XX. In this table the largest group of men of letters about whom the facts could be obtained were children of farmers. Four other groups, the clergy, merchants, lawyers and physicians, furnished forty or more literary children. Over thirty were reported as the children of persons engaged in education (professors, teachers and educators). No other occupation produced a score. * Odin, op. cit., pp. 528 et seq. ' In a few cases the occupation of the guardian is substituted, because of the early death of the parents. (See Appendix B.) 74 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [74 TABLE XX Occupations of the Fathers of American Literati ^ Professional Qergyman Lawyer ■ Physician • • . Teacher Judge Banker Professor • Actor Author Educator Journalist Editor Army officer Surveyor Jurist Naval officer Scientist Surgeon Architect Artist Botanist Civil engineer College treasurer. . . Druggist Gymnast Missionary Naturalist Prison warden .... Vocalist Lieut. Governor . . . Postmaster General Scholar * . Commercial Merchant Business . Publisher. 112. 63. 40, 17- 14. 12. 9. I 6. 6, 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 5' ■5 o o ,0 ■5 ■5 ,0 ,0 .0 .0 •5 •5 •5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 [.O [.O [.O [.O [.O •5 •5 •5 71.0 ".5 "•5 328 ^51 Commercial (cont'd) Manufacturer Shipmaster Bookseller Government official... Hotel proprietor Shipping Contractor Dealer in lumber land. Land owner Builder Factory sup't Lumber merchant Bank clerk Cotton factor Real estate Insurance Mine owner Nurseryman Provision dealer Quarry operator Brewer Hatter Mill owner Salesman Agricultural Farmer Planter Mechanical, Clerical and Unskilled Carpenter . Tanner . . . Blacksmith Mechanic . Miller ... 9.5 9.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 3-5 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1-5 1.5 i.o i.o 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 •5 •5 •5 •5 123.5 15-5 6.0 6.0 4.0 3-0 2.5 1 Cf. J. McKeen Cattell, " Families of American Men of Science," Popular Science Monthly, vol. 86, p. 507. 2 When an individual was about equally engaged in two occupations, a half credit is given to each occupation. 75] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA TABLE XK— Concluded 75 Mechanical^ Clerical and b nskilled (cont'd ) Book-binder Brickmaker Leather dresser Wool carder Baker Carter Cooper Engineer Lighthouse keeper. . • Mariner Pencil maker Printer Sail maker Ship builder Ship chandler Shipwright Tailor 1 ;2; 1 2.0 1.5 1.5 ».5 I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O Mechanical, Clerical and Unskilled (cont'd) Watchmaker Weaver Confidential clerk Hat maker M arble cutter Mason Miner Shoemaker Soldier Tallow chandler Telegrapher . . Trunk maker Unknown Grand total I.O I.O •5 •5 •5 •5 .5 •5 .5 •5 •5 '5 334 lOOO From Table XX it is plain that the professional classes produced many times their proportionate number of liter- ary persons. The business classes also produced more than their numbers alone would lead one to expect. On the other hand, the agricultural class furnished somewhat fewer lit- erati than might have been expected from so large a body; while the class of mechanics, clerks, and laborers produced relatively very few men of letters. It is apparent that birth into one of the so-called higher social classes gave the literary aspirant exceptional opportu- nity. In many cases the parents themselves were well edu- cated, and simple association with them was an education in itself. At any rate, such birth secured a relatively easy entrance into educational and educated circles, and must have been of great advantage in beginning a literary career. Odin studied the social position of parents of literati in 76 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [76 four other countries besides France. In every case the re- sults were practically the same. Odin thus summarizes his findings : As regards the social environment, we have seen that certain strata of the population have been much more fruitful than others in remarkable literary men. Confining ourselves to the five social strata — nobility, administration, liberal professions, bourgeoisie, working-men — we have ascertained that the liter- ary fecundity of each of them was in inverse ratio to its numerical importance. What is especially striking is the prodigious superiority of the first three classes over the last two, and especially of the nobility over manual laborers, the first having had at least two hundred times as many chances as the second of producing men of talent.^ Thus even if one grant that both the present study and that of Odin may be erroneous in some details, there is «^ ample evidence for the conclusion that social position is an important factor in the development of literary talent. Consideration of the seventh of the nine environmental conditions to be discussed, the occupations of literati them- selves, affords further evidence of the advantage of educa- tion and social position in the competition for literary honors. Table XXI shows the authors classified by occu- pations. In the compilation of this table the nomenclature of encyclopedias and answers to questionnaires was fol- lowed as closely as possible. When an individual was ap- parently occupied about equally in two professions, each one was given a half credit. In very few cases was an author devoted to so many occupations as to make classification impossible. The table shows that American literati came from nearly one hundred occupations, but the predominance of a very few is striking. Four professions furnished over 1 Odin, op. cit., pp. 546-547- 77] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA yy TABLE XXI Occupational Distribution of American Male Literati Professional Qergyman Author Journalist , Lawyer Professor , Educator Editor Publicist Actor Teacher Librarian Historian Physician Artist Army officer Diplomatist Banker Jurist . . . Naval officer Judge Philanthropist Economist Geologist Lecturer Dramatist Evangelist Mathematician Musician Naturalist Phrenologist Bibliographer Chemist Ethnologist . . . Philologist Surgeon Antiquarian Astronomer Balladist Biologist Botanist Clerk of court Conchologist Consul Dentist Explorer Head of tract society. . . . Humorist m , XI a -rt I 785.5' 188.5 116.5 70.0 61.0 44.0 42.0 1 1 1 1 36.5 1 33.0 1 32.5 26.0 1 13.5 130 «.«» 8.0 1 8.0 1 6.0 5-5 5.0 1 5.0 1 4.5 j 4.0 1 3.5 1 3.5 1 35 30 i 3.0 2.0 ! 2.0 2.0 2.0 1-5 '•5 i.S 1-5 1-5 I.O I.O 1.0 I.O I.O 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I.O 1.0 Professional (cont'd) Landscape architect . Literary critic Naval chaplain j i Paleontologist i i Religious leader Statistician Sunday School worker Temperance worker . . Vocalist Archeologist Geographer Poet , Commercial Publisher Merchant Manufacturer Government official Bank officer Business Printer Bookseller Corporation officer . . Financeer Horticulturist Promoter Shipmaster Theatre manager . . . Type founder Engraver Trader Mechanical, Clerical and Unskilled Engineer Leatherdresser Pioneer Ap-icultural Planter Many or Unknown. Grand total 1.0 o o ,0 ,0 o o ,0 ,0 5 5 20.0 1 0.0 4.5 4.0 3-5 2.5 1-5 I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O I.O .5 •5 2.0 I.O I.O 55-0 4.0 14.0 "859.0 1 When an individual was about equally engaged in two occupations a half credit is given to each occupation. 2 The remaining 141 were women. 78 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [78 half of all American men of letters, and eleven occupations more than three- fourths. It also appears that the groups which furnished large delegations of literary persons were those whose members were on the whole well educated, and of high social rank in the community. A study by decades of the more important occupations- pursued by the literati also gives interesting results (Table XXII). TABLE XXII Occupational Distribution of American Male Literati, Classified BY Period of Birth Occupation Clergyman '25.5 Author 6 Journalist 2 Lawyer 10.5 Professor 5 Educator j I Editor ! Publicist j 6 Actor , .... Teacher I i Publisher j .5 Many or unknown! i Librarian .... Historian Merchant ; 2 Other i 9 Total. 65 a f2.5 5 I 4 1-5 1-5 I 3 3 8.5 24 6 I 4.5 4.5 i 3 I 6.5I 4.5 4-5 ^ ! 33-5 8.5 9.5 7 5-5 7.5 6 2.5 2 4 i •••• 4 i •••• 18 ! 13.5 33 44 i 95 i"o 27 15 10.5 5 7 4 3-5 6.5 2.5; 6 3 I 4.5 3 j 2 ! 22.5 '55 18.5 6.5 10.5 8 7 7.5 1-5 4 4.5 3 5-5 2 I 16 19-5 19 17 7 7 7 6 2 13 1-5 3.5 I 2.5 I 25 t33 ^ II 25-5 14 i1 I 4 5 1-5 4 •5 17 108 859 188.5 1 1 6.5 70 61 44 42 36.S 33 32.5 26 20 14 13-5 13 10 138.5 This table (XXII) shows that the clergy, a group larger than that of the professional authors themselves, and more prominent than any other three groups combined, declined in relative numbers after 1820. Publicists lost in relative 1 In this table whenever a man of letters had two occupations of im- portance, an entry of .5 was made for each occupation. 79] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 79 importance after 1810. The law furnished a diminishing quota of Hterati after 1830. On the other hand, the relative importance of journalists and authors proper increased, though not to any remarkable extent. The number of per- sons engaged in the other two important classes, educators — including professors and teachers — and editors, remained practically constant. It was to be expected that the clergy, lawyers and pub- licists would furnish the largest quotas of literati in the days when education was the privilege of the favored few. It was likewise to be expected that, as these groups lost their virtual monopoly of education, their relative promi- nence in the field of letters would decline proportionately. TABLE XXIII Occupational Distribution of American Literary Women Occupation None specified Author Actor Educator Editor Philanthropist Occupation Numbers j Lecturer Reformer Religious leader. Teacher Total. 141 Since such has been the case, it is apparent that education and social position account in large part for the prominence of these occupation classes in the history of American letters. The occupation of literary women was studied separately (Table XXIII). Perhaps the most significant fact shown in this table is the large proportion of women whose occu- pation could not be determined. They could not be classed as authors, for authorship was not a profession with them, 1 Whenever a woman of letters had two occupations of importance, an entry of .5 was made for each occupation. 8o AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [80 but they were nevertheless of importance in the field of letters. Presumably most of them were housewives, as ninety-five out of the one hundred and forty-one were mar- ried/ and a number of others are known to have been house- keepers for parents and other relatives. TABLE XXIV Early Religious Training of American Literati, Classified by Region of Birth * Early Religious training Congregational Presbyterian Protestant Episcopal Unitarian Protestant, denomination unknown Methodist Episcopal 1 i Baptist I I Friends Roman Catholic Universalist ; . . . Dutch Reformed Lutheran Jewish Disciples Moravian Seventh- Day Baptist Swedenborgian euo 107 14 39 16 Ji 5 1^ S 35 25 8 15 o i; Total 7 I 12 I 13 I II [2*i 6 ! I ! 4 2 I 3 (uL> ♦J 4J 73' 53 49 40 36 3° 20 16 7 63 4 2 2 460 ^ C/. Appendix C. ^ An individual was credited to a denomination when there was in the sources a definite statement that he had been brought up in the faith of that denomination. Frequently it was obvious that a person had been trained as a Protestant, but the denomination could not be ascertained. In such cases he is recorded as Protestant, denomination not specified. It is unfortunate that information was unobtainable in more than half the cases studied. ' Includes one author whose place of birth is unknown. * Includes one Hicksite Friend. 8l] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA gi The eighth of the environmental conditions to be consid- ered is early religious training. The facts on this topic are given in Table XXIV. This table shows that in respect to absolute numbers the Congregational body stood far above its nearest competitor, the closely related Presbyterian church. If relative numbers are considered, however, the Unitarian body apparently had the greatest proportion of literary persons born within its ranks, and the Congrega- tionalists, Friends and Universalists followed in order.^ All four had a relatively large number of men of letters born to their members. On the other hand, Methodist Episcopal, Baptist and Roman Catholic families possessed relatively very few literati. The fact that there were born within the ranks of some denominations relatively more men of letters than in others is of interest, but standing by itself it cannot be considered particularly significant. Odin found that, in proportion to the numbers in each religious division, many more French men of letters had been brought up as Protestants than as Catholics. He thought that there had been a number of rea- sons for this superiority, but believed the most important to be that, on the whole, Protestant children received superior educational opportunities because of the superior wealth of their parents. Possibly both economic and educational factors may serve to explain the differences discovered in America. It is a well known fact that, during the period studied, the Unitarians and Friends, for instance, were on the whole in comfortable circumstances, while the Roman Catholics were relatively poor. The result- ^ It is impossible to make accurate comparisons, because there exists no certain knowledge of the strength of the various denominations during the period studied. Nevertheless it is beyond dispute that the Universahsts, Unitarians, and Friends never rivaled the Congrega- tionalists in numbers, and that the Congregationalists were few as compared with the Baptists and Methodists. 82 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [82 ing differences afford at least partial explanation of their differences in literary productivity. On the other hand it must not be forgotten that Protestants enjoyed greater freedom of thought than Roman Catholics. This factor may be only less important than poverty and lack of ed- ucation. Data are not now available, however, on which to base studies which would indicate the relative impor- tance of these various factors. At present one can TABLE XXV American Literati Classified According to Size of Family and Birth-Rank 2^ S '^'^k^ . Per cent re- 'rt ■«« 1« ^'p'o 'SgS u ported as 4J a> 0 eij i"- •g"§ ^e-g^i B^ «- n a a !2J II 0 ''.S t^fl-S Fill 1 60 40 0 i >- « 3 B 2 15 50 •*•■'* * 3 4 17 IS 25 47 33 41 13 12 20 25 J3'''' 5 31 20 29 13 26 40 32 6 29 17 28 28 17 50 29 7 22 14 18 14 32 |7 36 8 '5 12.5 33 27 7 62.5 33 9 18 II 6 22 II 67 61 10 12 10 8 8 16 70 67 II 12 9 8 8 33 73 50 12-f 19 8 32 .... 16 75+ 53 simply conclude that without question religious training has played some part in the production of American men of letters. The last of the nine environmental conditions to be con- sidered is that of the birth-rank of American literati in the family of brothers and sisters. The study for the 1 The percentages of reported cases when added on horizontal lines do not always total one hundred, because of cumulative error. 83] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 83 purpose of throwing some light on this subject was striking in its results, though the conclusions, based on two hundred and twenty-five cases, were not as certain as might be desired (Table XXV). In this table the men of letters born into families containing a given number of children were classified according to their rank in the group of their brothers and sisters. If their birth-rank were purely a matter of chance, in families of a given size there would be equal numbers of literary children in each rank, from first to last born. Thus, for example, in families of five children the normal probability is that each rank would contain twenty per cent of the total number. Actually it was found that of the literati born in such families nine were first-born, four second-born, four third-born, six fourth-born and eight fifth-born, or twenty-nine, thirteen, nineteen and twenty-six per cent respectively. Such a process of analysis was carried out for eleven sizes of family, from two up to " twelve and over ". In only three of the eleven classes did the num- ber of first-born fall below the number to be expected. In those three cases the number of families concerned was small, and chance fluctuation might well account for the result. Even so, the discrepancy betweeen the act- ual results and the normal probability was not large. Likewise in only three of the eleven classes did the pro- portion of last born fall below the number to be expected. On the other hand, in six of the eleven cases the number of second born fell below the probability ; and, in eight of nine cases considered, the class " third and later born, not including last-born," likewise fell below the normal probability.' * In addition to the literati who could be accurately ranked, there were records of literati in families of unknown size, of whom eight were first-born, seven second-born, and eleven born in all the other ranks combined. In twenty-one cases the author was an only child. 8^ AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [84 These results are based on an insufficient number of cases to be really significant, but it is noteworthy that they agree exactly with results obtained by Havelock Ellis in his study of British genius/ Since the results of these two studies are exactly the same in this respect, there seems to be considerable justification for the con- clusion that the facts observed in these few cases are true in general, even though two mutually sustaining studies based on comparatively few cases cannot be con- sidered positive proof of the relation observed.'' If one assumes that the facts observed are evidence of a universal condition, how is the phenomenon to be ex- plained? It is difficult to imagine any way in which these facts can be explained on physiological grounds. On the other hand, the following hypothesis, based on environmental influence, seems at least reasonable. First-born and last-born children frequently enjoy greater educational opportunity than do their intermediate broth- ers and sisters. First-born often succeed in getting a start before adversity befalls the family, or before the expense of caring for an increasing family of young children becomes so great that it is necessary to curtail the edu- cation of some of the older children. On the other hand, the last born of a poor family may be favored because, as his older brothers and sisters become self-supporting, it becomes relatively easy for his parents to keep him in school. With this topic is concluded the discussion of the nine environmental influences. Certain of Galton's proposi- tions concerning the relation of nature and nurture remain to be considered. 1 Havelock Ellis, A Study of British Genius, ch. iv. ' For an opposing view, cf. Karl Pearson, On the Handicapping of the First Born (London, 1914). 8^] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA g^ Although Galton's first proposition, 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," does not meet with much criticism at the present time, his second proposition, that nature is of much greater influence than nurture, must here be questioned. According to this proposition, able men prove their worth by surmounting all obsta- cles which lie in their path. If the proposition were true, it would follow that American letters declined because the innate literary ability of the American people was diminishing, for if such abihty had been present it would have been bound to make itself manifest. There are two reasons for believing, however, that Galton's proposition is not true. In the first place, it can be questioned simply on the basis of personal experience. To appreciate this fact one need only consider the matter of getting an education. Galton and men of his school argue that persons who obtain a good education do so simply because of unusual innate ability. They as- sert that the individual who is unable to find or make educational opportunity for himself thereby demonstrates his deficiency in natural ability. The weakness of this theory must be obvious to anyone who ever graduated from a public high school, and still more evident to one who has taught in such an institution. Brilliant and earnest students withdraw from school for financial reasons with disheartening frequency, while dull or in- different sons and daughters of the economically secure continue to cumber the class-room. Thus many persons of mediocre ability enjoy the best schooling, while others of high ability never receive more than the rudiments of an education. There is, therefore little relation between intellectual ability and the acquisition of a high school education, to say nothing of an academic degree. Galton 35 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [86 and his followers are obviously in error in asserting that all persons of unusual natural ability succeed in acquir- ing a good education/. In the second place, the facts shown in Table III con- cerning the increased number of literary women are evidence against the Galtonian theory that nature is strongly predominant over nurture. In that table it was shown that during almost the entire period studied the number of literary women increased much more rapidly than did the number of men. During certain decades the number of women increased while the number of men was actually diminishing. This fact cannot well be ex- plained by any theory of the extreme predominance of nature over nurture. Such interpretation would mean that the innate literary ability of women was increasing while that of men was diminishing, a proposition so un- reasonable as to need no refutation. The case in hand seems to be obviously an instance of the power of environ- ment in stimulating the development of literature. Since therefore, nurture could increase the number of literary women many fold, without any apparent change in their innate ability, it seems that nature cannot be predomi- nant over nurture to the extent that Galton supposed. Galton's third proposition, namely, that the people of various nationalities possess highly significant differences in natural ability, must also be questioned. In criticizing this proposition it seemed well to strengthen the argu- ment by meeting Galton on his own ground, that is, by opposing his theory with the results of a study similar to the one on which he bases the foregoing proposition/ ^ On page thirty-nine of Hereditary Genius, Galton admits that only persons of very unusual ability can overcome all obstacles, but since elsewhere he includes in his lists of supposed geniuses persons of very modest attainments, it would seem that the foregoing argument can properly be advanced against his position. '^ Cf. Hereditary Genius, ch. xx. Sy-j ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 87 There was therefore made a study of the Hterary pro- ductivity of the groups of different nationality strains, that is, nationahty of ancestors as indicated by surnames, in the American people.' This method of determining nationality was recently used by the Bureau of the Census in reclassifying the population of the United States for the year 1790. In describing that process, a government statistician points out the limitations of such a study. It takes no account of the length of time which the bearers of the name may have been absent from the mother country. The ances- tors of the bearers of an Irish or Dutch name may have arrived in the first shipload of immigrants who landed on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan or New England, so that the descendant enumerated possessed few or none of the peculiarities of the nationality indicated. On the other hand, the ancestors may have arrived in Amer- ica but a few weeks prior to the birth of the litterateur under consideration. Although, therefore, such an anal- ysis cannot be regarded as possessing the least value from the standpoint of modern classification by place of birth, it possesses great value as an indication of the pro- portions contributed by the various nationalities.'' Table XXVI shows the distribution of American lit- erati born in the United States, classified by nationality of ancestors, as indicated by surnames.^ * The author is of course aware that such a study is of very limiteid value, for the reason that these so-called nationality strains are in reality highly complex groups of many ethnic stocks, and are very far from being true types. Nevertheless the conclusions reached have exactly the same degree of validity as have those of Galton concerning the same kind of blood groups. They may therefore be used to refute Galton's assertions. ' A Century of Population Growth in the United States, p. 116, ^ The chief reference works used in making this classification were 88 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [8S TABLE XXVI A — Percent Distribution of American Literati Born in the United States^ Classified According to the Nationality Strain of their Origin^ as Indicated by Surnames. B — Percent Distribution of the White Population of the United States (1790), Classified According to the Nationality Strain of their Origin, as Indicated by Surnames.^ A Literati B White population (1790) Nationality strain Per cent Nationality strain British Per cent British 93.8 1.8 1.4 ii 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 89.1 5.6 2.5 1.9 06 French Irish Outch German Irish Dutch French All others 0-3 Xotal Jewish Scandinavian 100 0 i Total 1 00.0 For purposes of comparison the table also includes the analysis of nationality of the total white population of the United States in 1790. The estimate for this particular year is given because it is the only estimate of the kind ever made by the Bureau of the Census. It is probable that this distribution by nationality is fairly representative of that of the entire colonial period, and of the first half-century of the republic as well, for not until after 1840 did as many as one hundred thousand immigrants per annum came to our shores, and the aver- The Romance of Names (London, 1914), by Ernest Weekley, and Die deutschen Familien-namen (Halle a. S., 1903), by Albert Heintze. The accuracy of the classification was increased by assistance received from colleagues in the departments of English and German in Ham- ilton College. 1 A Century of Population Grozvth in the United States, table 48. 89] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 89 age number for the entire period considered is well under this figure. It will be noted that the relative literary fecundity of the smaller groups varied considerably from the relative prominence of these groups in the population. Since the figures are so small, however, there is no reason for supposing that this variation was due to more than chance fluctuation. So far as the facts presented in this table are concerned, it may well be believed that nation- ality strains produced literati in proportion to their numbers, since, in the one large group in which the cases observed are sufficiently numerous to serve as the basis of reasonable generalization, namely, the British stock, it will be observed that the proportional contri- butions to the literary class and to the general population were practically the same. Thus it appears that literary persons were not the peculiar possessions of any one nationality strain, but were to be found in all strains, scattered throughout the entire population of the country.' Additional evidence of the truth of the foregoing pro- position is found in Professor Cooley's effective rebuttal of Galton's argument that the ancient Greeks were abler than modern Englishmen, and that Hellenic superiority was due solely to superior stock. Cooley also met Galton on his own ground, showing that during the age of Elizabeth the supposedly inferior English people pro- duced in proportion to the number of educated citizens, quite as many men of genius as did Athens during the age of Pericles.'' * Cf. Cattell, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 86, p. 505. ^ Charles H. Cooley, " Genius, Fame, and the Comparison of Races/* Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. ix, pp. 317-358, especially pp. 338 et seq. go AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [go Again, after careful study of the several ethnic elements of the French population, Odin decided that no one of them possessed more innate literary ability than did any of the others.' Although ethnic stock and nationality strain are two distinct things, they are similar*" in that they both have to do with nature rather than nurture. Thus there is justification for saying that to a certain extent the simi- lar results of these three independent studies are mutu- ally sustaining. They all seem to indicate that ancestry is no test of natural ability, whether considered from the point of view of ethnic stock or nationality strain."* Thus it appears that neither Galton's second nor third proposi- tions are established, and, so far as those propositions are concerned, the argument for the influence of the nine environmental factors considered remains valid. From the foregoing facts and arguments it might possibly be inferred that, besides weakening Galton's position, the data collected concerning American authors are completely in harmony with Ward's theory that na- ture is of relatively slight importance. This inference would be legitimate if it were not that other facts not yet presented militate strongly against the latter's theory. It will be remembered that Ward says : We cannot escape the conclusion that some measure of genius exists in nearly everyone. . . . Even the denizens of the slums . . . are by nature the peers of the boasted " aris- ticracy of brains " that now dominates society and looks down upon them, and the equals in all but privilege of the most * Odin, op. cit., pp. 464 et seq. ^ Cf. Thorndike, Educational Psychology, vol. iii, ch. x, and articles by Boas, Thomas and Dewey in a Source Book for Social Origins, William I. Thomas (Chicago, 1909), pp. 143-186. 91 ] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA gi enlightened teachers of eugenics. . . . All this genius is scat- tered somewhat uniformly through the whole mass of the population.^ There are three reasons why these propositions of Ward do not seem acceptable. In the first place, it does not appear to be proved that a good environment will make a genius of nearly everyone, as would be the case if, as Ward asserts, " some measure of genius exists in nearly everyone." Vast numbers of persons who enjoy every opportunity never rise beyond mediocrity. This fact seems so obvious so to need no futher comment. In the second place, many persons achieve success when every environmental condition seems unfavorable. Apparently this fact indicates that some persons possess greater power of overcoming difficulties than do others. It appears, for instance, that ninety-six men and women, sixty-two of whom were writers, succeeded in achieving a reputation sufficient to gain a place on the roll of a thousand American literati, in spite of the fact that they enjoyed no more than the equivalent of a grammar school education (Tables XVI and XVII). When one remem- bers that a good formal education seems little less than a prerequisite to literary success, the importance of this fact will be realized. No doubt some of these ninety-six literati enjoyed special advantages which compensated for their apparent lack of education. At all events they must have possessed unusual innate ability which enabled them to overcome so great a handicap. In the third place, there seems to be positive evidence, in facts about to be presented, that genius is not *' scat- tered somewhat uniformly through the |whole mass of the population," as Ward believed. The results of a 1 Cf. supra, pp. 15, 16. g2 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [92 Study to determine the number of literary relatives of authors seem to disprove this proposition quoted from Ward. Appendix A contains a list of families furnishing more than one member to the roll of literati, together with the name, degree of relationship, and date of birth of all authors belonging to each family. It is a notable list. Such family names as Adams, Abbot, Beecher, Ed- wards and Everett are conspicuous in the history of American letters. In all, sixty-eight families furnished one hundred and fifty-eight of the thousand men of letters.' There were many other less important members of these families who almost gained a place on the roll, but who did not quite measure up to the standard re- quired. Besides these persons there were no doubt other relatives whose kinship was not discovered, for it must be remembered that the sources did not mention all de- sired facts, and they might well fail to state that a minor author was a nephew or cousin of some other writer of comparatively little importance. It is therefore safe to say that the figure indicating the amount of literary kinship is a minimum.^ The number of authors of each degree of relationship appears in Table XXVII. In each case the relationship given is that of the nearest relative who appears on the * It is of interest to note in passing that exactly half of the related literati did at least a part of their work in the same fields, and half of them did their work in quite different fields. ^ The figure is also much smaller than one which would indicate the total number of men of mark who were related to the thousand literati. It will be obvious to anyone who even casually inspects the roll of American literati (Appendix D), that many authors had relatives who were well known in fields other than Hterature. There is no simple and accurate way of estimating the number of these eminent non-liter- ary relatives, but probably it is quite as large as that of the literary relatives. Cf. Odin, op. cit., pp. 323 and 394- 93] ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA TABLE XXVII 93 Literary Relatives of American Literati, Classified According to Degree of Relationship ^ Degree of relationship j Number Son 35 Brother I i6 Nephew I ii Daughter lo Sister j 7 Grandson j 4 Degree of relationship I Cousin I ! Niece 1 1 Grandnephew !i Great granddaughter , Great grandnephew . Number roll. There were only thirteen literati born per million of the general population, while forty-five literary sons and daughters were born in a group of one thousand men and women of letters. In other words, a popula- tion one thousand times as great as the group of authors considered produced less than a third as many literary children. It is thus obvious that many related people do achieve prominence in the same field. What does the fact prove? Is it an argument for nature or nurture? How is one to know which is responsible for the appearance of a litter- ateur? To consider a concrete case, the reader may well ask, " Am I to conclude that Cotton Mather was a fam- ous author because he inherited the talent of his father. Increase Mather? May not his start in letters have been due to the fact that he was brought up in the family of the foremost scholar of Massachusetts?" It is impossible to deny that the latter circumstance may indeed have been * The total number of relationships recorded is somewhat more than half the total number of related literati, because of several cases in which one family possessed three or more writers. In each family the number of relationships recorded in the table is equal to the total number of relatives, minus one. 94 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [94 crucial. Presumably young Mather's home environment did exercise tremendous influence upon him. By itself, however, the most favorable environment could hardly have produced a Cotton Mather from any child whatso- ever subjected to its influence. No doubt any normal child would have been benefited by being educated by In- crease Mather, but plainly not all children would have been benefited to an equal degree. To say that a good en- vironment will always produce genius is to assert the absurdity that x plus y will always produce 2, no matter how y may vary. It is to shut one's eyes to all educational experience by denying the existence of innate individual differences, an axiom of biology and of psychology.' Since it appears, therefore, that persons with apparently every advantage are often less successful than others who seem to lack the most elementary opportunities, and since it appears that American literati tended to be developed in a few families, rather than somewhat uniformly through the whole mass of the population, it seems clear that one is hardly justified in asserting that environment alone accounted for the appearance of literary ability in all of the persons considered. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, Ward's proposition that the influence of nature is of very little significance does not seem to be valid. All the facts on which this study is based have now been presented and discussed. The final chapter which follows is devoted to a summary of the evidence sub- mitted and a statement of the conclusions which seem justified in the light of that evidence. ^ Cf. Thorndike, Educational Psychology, vol. iii, chs. xiv and xvi. CHAPTER IV Summary and Conclusions This chapter recapitulates the propositions discussed in the foregoing pages, and suggests conclusions which may reasonably be drawn from facts presented in the tables in Chapter III. In Chapter I the saHent points of three important theories of nature and nurture were considered : namely, Galton's theory of the extreme predominance of nature over nurture. Ward's theory of the supremacy of nurture over nature, and the more generally accepted interme- diate theory which holds that both factors are important. Chapter II was devoted to an explanation of the method by which a list of one thousand American men of letters was compiled for the basis of the present study. It contained a detailed description of Odin's method of procedure, and explained to what extent his work has been paralleled in this investigation. In Chapter III data relevant to the problem of de- termining the relative importance of the nature and the nurture of American men of letters were considered. The influence of nine environmental conditions was first discussed. Of these the first was the social environ- ment, that is, the ideals and customs of a group. It appeared that literature had been declining in public esteem during the latter decades studied, and that there- fore potential authors were naturally inclined to turn their attention to other pursuits. Thus the influence of 9Sl 95 0 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [96 the social environment seemed to explain satisfactorily the decline in the absolute and relative numbers of men of letters, noted as beginning about 1820 (Tables I and II). By the same principle was explained the fact that the number of literati of talent, who are " peculiarly in need of the right sort of surroundings to keep their delicate machinery in fruitful action," had also declined at the same time (Table III). It appeared, moreover, that in three of the twelve fields of literature considered the number of authors had not diminished, apparently because these fields seemed to retain their position in public favor (Tables IV and V). Again, the influence of the social environment explained why the number of literati of two or more fields of activity had diminished, on the ground that, being versatile, these authors found it relatively easy to adapt themselves to unfavorable conditions by giving up the pursuit of letters (Table VI). The same principle explained, also, why certain groups of states had been relatively more important than others in the production of certain kinds of litera- ture (Table VII), namely, because these forms of litera- ture had been especially esteemed by the people of those states. A final fact, that the number of literary women had increased rapidly during practically the en- tire period studied, was interpreted in terms of the social environment when it was realized that during this period society had been lifting the ban of disapproval which it had previously laid upon the literary activity of women (Table III). Thus the social environment was seen to have been one of the most potent influences affecting the development of American letters. Geographic environment was the second of the en- vironmental conditions discussed. It appeared from Table VIII that the relative literary productivity of the 97] SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 97 States and provinces had varied widely. Tables IX and X showed that some regions had been particularly rich in literati of talent and of two or more fields of activity. Table XI indicated that the literary productivity of the states had fluctuated considerably from decade to decade. Finally, Table XII showed that the relative literary pro- ductivity of the groups of states, by decades, had been extremely varied. From none of these tables, however, was evidence forthcoming that geographic environment as such had played more than a very minor part in the development of American men of letters. The third environmental condition studied was that of the local environment. It appeared from Table XIII that county seats and the capitals and chief cities of the states and provinces had been the birth-places of rela- tively large numbers of authors. Table XIV showed the number of men of letters born in important cities. It there appeared that the several cities had produced widely differing numbers of literati, in proportion to population. Two possible explanations of these facts were considered, Thorndike's suggestion that cities are inhabited by persons of superior natural ability, and Ward's theory that cities develop literati because of their superior educational opportunities. Reasons were given for a belief that both theories were necessary to explain the phenomenon. Consideration of the education received by American men of letters, the fourth of the environmental conditions studied, revealed the fact that the majority of them had been college trained (Table XV). It also appeared that on the whole women had not been as well educated as men (Tables XVI and XVII), but that the education which they received had steadily improved during the period when they were becoming more prominent in the 98 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [gg world of letters. Table XVIII, also, showed that the authors of more than one field of activity had, in the main, been better educated than less versatile authors. Thus it appeared that education had been a very im- portant factor in the development of American literature. Apparently Odin's belief that the educational opportuni- ties found in cities largely account for the superior literary fecundity of centers of population was borne out by this study. In Table XIX was considered the fifth of the environ- mental influences, that of the early economic condition of the authors. It was there shown that, in proportion to numbers, families in comfortable circumstances had produced more literary children than had families living in poverty. Study of the sixth of the environmental influences, the fathers's occupation (Table XX), showed that birth into one of the so-called higher social classes had given the literary aspirant exceptional opportunity to acquire an education or otherwise equip himself for his career. Consideration of the seventh influence, the occupations of the literati themselves, (Tables XXI and XXIII), showed that while the literary productivity of the differ- ent occupation-groups had varied greatly from decade to decade (Table XXII), a few occupation-groups whose members had possessed education and high social rank had been most productive of men of letters. Early religious training, the eighth environmental influence, was considered in Table XXIV. It appeared that denominations distinguished by habits of indepen- dent thinking and by the wealth of their adherents, had had the largest numbers of authors born in their ranks. The ninth and final environmental influence considered was the rank of literati in order of birth (Table XXV). gg-\ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION gg It appeared that an abnormally large number of authors had been either the first or last-born of their families. The fact was apparently best explained by the theory that the first and last-born enjoyed superior educational opportunities. Facts bearing on Galton's propositions were next con- sidered. It was seen that while Galton's first proposition that nature is important does not meet with much criti- cism at the present time, his second proposition, that nature is much more powerful than nurture, may well be questioned. In the first place, it was noted as a matter of common knowledge, that frequently persons obviously endowed with ability are unable to acquire the education necessary for success as an author. In the second place, it was observed that without a favorable environment much natural ability had remained latent, as was indicated by the sudden increase in the number of literary women when environmental conditions be- came favorable (Table V), an increase which could not possibly be attributed to any sudden change in the innate mental equipment of women. Finally, Galton's third proposition, that differences in the achievement of nations are to be explained chiefly in terms of natural ability, was questioned. It appeared that three independent studies, by the present investigator (Table XXVI), by Cooley, and by Odin, indicated that different nationality strains had developed approximately equal amounts of genius, in proportion to the number of educated persons in each group. For the foregoing reasons it seemed clear that while the influence of heredity is an important factor in the development of genius, it is not of such predominant influence as to make nurture an almost negligible quan- tity, as Galton appears to have supposed. lOO AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [iqo Nevertheless, in spite of all the evidence of the great influence of environment, Ward's attractive theory that nature is a negligible quantity could not be accepted. In the first place, it was argued that not all persons whose environments are good succeed in rising beyond mediocrity. Again, it was noted that many persons do achieve success when environmental conditions are ex- tremely unfavorable. Finally, it was pointed out that a very few families in the American population had pro- duced literati out of all proportion to the number of their members (Table XXVII). It therefore seemed a reason- able deduction that considerable ability must be present in any individual whom the environment is to mould into a person of unusual attainments. The data impinging on the three theories of nature / and nurture have now been summarized. It appears that there have been three especially important factors in the development of American men of letters, a good hered- ity, furnishing stock capable of being developed, an education adequate to develop latent ability, and a social environment furnishing incentive to the naturally en- dowed and amply educated to turn their attention to literature. The other environmental influences discussed have also been important in so far as they facilitate the acquisition of an education and the development of interest in literary subjects. It may seem strange to some readers that such seem- ingly extreme theories as those of Galton and Ward can be held by scientific men. The fact is readily explicable, however. Apparently both men were carried away by their enthusiasm for their theses. Each was desirous of convincing the world that human welfare could be fur- thered by improving the factor which he emphasized. In his eagerness to support his major proposition he as- lOi] SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION iqi serted minor propositions which are untenable, and which were in contradiction to other propositions which he admitted. It can readily be shown that the chief con- tentions of Galton and Ward are reconcilable. Galton certainly considered of prime importance the statement that *' a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance." This, however, is a proposition which Ward himself conceded to be sufficiently proved.' The two men were therefore agreed on this basic proposi- tion. Galton likewise admitted that heredity is not all-power- ful when he said, " It is needless to insist that neither (nature nor nurture) is self-sufficient; the highest natural endowment may be starved by defective nurture."* Moreover Galton admitted the importance of environ- ment to such an extent as to satisfy Ward^ when he said, ** 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 develop- ing the muscles of the blacksmith's arm, and no further."* Thus it appears that the two men were agreed on Ward's fundamental proposition of the influence of environment, as well as upon Galton's basic principle that " a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance." Both men recognized that neither nature nor nurture alone can account for all human achievement. It seems probable, therefore, that both Galton and Ward would agree with the final conclusion drawn from the data of this study, namely, that while without natural * Ward, op. cit., p. 115. ^ Galton, English Men of Science (London, 1874), P- i3. Cf. op. cit., p. ix. ' Ward, op. cit., p. 247. * Galton, Hereditary Genius, p. 14. I02 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [102 ability no person achieves success, lack of opportunity may exercise an absolute veto on the aspirations for advancement of persons possessing such natural ability. There is no rational ground for contention between the biologist and the sociologist. They are co-workers, not opponents. The biologist may well continue his study of heredity. The sociologist eagerly awaits rea- soned conclusions on the subject of racial improvement through eugenics. Meanwhile the sociologist is justified in advocating, with all the force at his command, the extension of those fundamental American privileges, economic and social opportunity and education, by means of which all the innate ability which exists may be given the environment necessary for its maximum development. APPENDIX A LITERARY FAMILIES This appendix consists of a list of families furnishing more than one member to the study ; together with the names, degree of relationship, and date of birth of all literati belonging to each family. In each case the literati are classified under the name of the eldest person bearing the family name, and the degree of kinship is expressed with reference to him. The literary relatives of any person in the study are to be found by looking in Appendix B opposite his name. If no name is found there, he had no relatives on the roll on which this study is based. If a name is found in the appropriate column, the collected family names will usually be found in this appendix under the name of the elder of the two. In case neither name is to be found at the head of a list of names in this appendix, it is because neither person is the earliest literary member of the family. The name of the first family representative is to be found by looking in Appendix B, under that of the elder of the two relatives known, and continuing the process till a name is found which heads a family list in this table. Abbreviations: b., brother; c, cousin; d., daughter; gs., grandson; ggd., great-granddaughter; ggs., great-grandson; n., niece; nep., nephew; s., son; sis., sister. Abbott J. 1803 ; b. Abbot J. S. C. 1805 ; s. Abbott L. 1835. Adams J. 1735; s. Adams J. Q. 1767; gs. Adams C. F. 1807; ggs. Adams C. F. 1835; ggs. Adams H. 1838; ggs. Adams B. 1848. Alcott A. B. 1799; c. Alcott W. A. 1798; d. Alcott L. M. 1832. 103 103 I04 AMERICAN MEN OF LETTERS [104 Alexander A. 1772; s. Alexander J. W. 1804; s. Alexander J. A. 1809. Baird R. 1798; s. Baird C. W. 1828; s. Baird H. M. 1832. Ballou H. 1771 ; s. Ballou M. M. 1820. Bancroft A. 1755 ; s. Bancroft G. 1800. Beecher L. 1775 ; d. Stowe H. B. 181 1 ; s. Beecher H. W. 1813. Gary A. 1820; sis. Gary P. 1824. Ghanning W. E. 1780; nep. Ghanning W. E. 1818. Golton G. 1789; b. Golton W. 1797. Gooke P. P. 1816; b. Gooke J. E. 1830. Gooper J. F. 1789; d. Gooper S. F. 1813. Dana R. H. 1787; s. Dana R. H. Jr. 1815. Davidson L. M. 1808; sis. Davidson M. M. 1823. DeLeon E. 1818; b. DeLeon T. G. 1839. Dix J. A. 1798; s. Dix M. 1827. Donnelly I. 183 1 ; sis. Donnelly E. G. 1838. Drake J. R. 1795 ; gs. DeKay G. 1848. Drake S. G. 1798; s. Drake S. A. 1833. Edwards J. 1703; gs. Dwight T. 1752; gggs. Dwight B. W. 1816; ggd. Lippincott S. J. 1823; ggnep. Woolsey T. D. 1801 ; relatives of Woolsey T. D., nep. Winthrop T. 1828; n. Woolsey S. G. 1845. Egglestpn E. 1837 ; b. Eggleston G. G. 1839. Everett A. H. 1790; b. Everett E. 1794; nep. Frothingham O. B. 1822 ; nep. Hale E. E. 1822. Fowler O. S. 1809; b. Fowler L. N. 1811. Furness W. H. 1802; d. Wister A. L. 1830; s. Furness H. H. 1833. Goodrich Ghas. A. 1790; b. Goodrich S. G. 1793. Hall S. 1761 ; s. Hall J. H. 1793. Hawes J. 1789; n. Holmes M. J. 1834. Harper J. 1795; b. Harper F. 1806. Hawthorne N. 1804; s. Hawthorne J. 1846. Hayne R. Y. 1791 ; nep. Hayne P. H. 1830. Headley J. T. 1813 ; b. Headley P. G. 1819. Hodge G. 1797; s. Hodge A. A. 1823. Holmes A. 1763; s. Holmes O. W. 1809. 105] APPENDIX A 105 Hopkins M. 1802; c. Hopkins S. 1807. Hopkinson F. 1737; s. Hopkinson J. 1770. Howe J. W. 1819; d. Richards L. E. 1850. Irving W. 1783; nep. Irving T. 1809; nep. Irving J. T. 1812. James H. 181 1 ; s. James W. 1842; s. James H. 1843. Jay W. 1789; s. Jay J. 1817. Kip W. I. 181 1 ; b. Kip L. 1826. Kirkland C. M. S. 1801 ; s. Kirkland J. 1830. Longfellow H. W. 1807; b. Longfellow S. 1819. Lowell J. 1769; nep. Lowell J. 1799; gnep. Lowell J. R. 1819. Mather I. 1639; s. Mather C. 1663. Morse J. 1761 ; s. Morse S. E. 1794. Norton A. 1786; s. Norton C. E. 1827. Olney J. 1798; d. Kirk E. W. O. 1842. Payson E. 1783; d. Prentiss E. P. 1818. Pierpont J. 1785 ; gs. Morgan J. P. 1837. Schmucker S. S. 1799; s. Smucker S. M. 1823. Smith R. C. 1797; nep. Smith R. S. 1829. Stevens H. 1819; b. Stevens B. F. 1833. Stockton F. R. 1834; b. Stockton J. D. 1836. Stone W. L. 1792; s. Stone W. L. Jr. 1835. Story J. 1779; s. Story W. W. 1819. Stuart M. 1780; d. Phelps E. S. 1815; gd. Ward E. S. P. 1844. Train G. F. 1829; sis. Whitney A. D. T. 1824. Trumbull J. H. 1821 ; b. Trumbull H. C. 1830. Tuckerman J. 1778; nep. Tuckerman H. T. 1813. Ward C. O. 1831 ; b. Ward L. F. 1841. Ware H. 1764; s. Ware H. Jr. 1794; s. Ware W. 1797. Warner S. 1819; sis. Warner A. B. 1820. Willard E. 1787; sis. Phelps A. H. 1793. Willis N. P. 1806; sis. Parton S. P. W. 181 1. Winslow H. 1799; s. Winslow W. C. 1840. Woods L. 1774; d. Baker H. N. W. 1815. Woodworth S. 1785 ; nep. Woodworth F. C. 1812. APPENDIX B BIOGRAPHICAL TABLES Appendix B contains all the facts on which the study was based, and other facts which were collected because of their interest, though not used in the study. A blank in any column indicates that information was lacking. From left to right the columns contain : the date of birth and of death of each littera- teur; his name; occupation; fields of literary activity; place of birth and of death; degree of kinship to other literati; father's occupation; education; economic condition of parents during childhood and youth; early religious training; number of brothers and sisters in the family, including the litterateur himself; birth-rank among the brothers and sisters; conjugal condition ; number of children. The names are arranged chronologically. The date of birth of any individual can be found in Appendix D, where the names appear in alphabetical order. Names of literati of talent as distinguished from those of merit are indicated by an asterisk (*). The names of literary women are printed in italics. In a few cases a blank in the occupation column means that the man of letters had so many occupations that no one or two could be picked out as of particular importance. There was also considerable difficulty in determining the occupation of literary women. Very few could be classed as authors in the sense that they gained a livelihood by the pen. It is probable that the majority for whom no profession could be determined were housewives. The fields of literary activity are indicated by the abbrevia- tions devised by Odin.^ They are : 1 Cf. supra, p. 21. 107] 107 I08 APPENDIX A [I08 pat., patron erud., erudite lib., librarian pop., popularizer act, actor spec, speculative or., orator pr., prose writer pub., publicist p., poet narr., narrator dram., dramatist When an author is mentioned as having achieved distinction in two or more fields, that field in which he achieved the more more distinction is given first. A dagger (f) opposite a word in the column for the father's occupation indicates that the occupation given is that of a guardian, not a parent. Abbreviations used to indicate the degree of education re- ceived are: G.S.P., partial grammar school course; G.S., full grammar school course; H.S.P., partial high school course; H.S., full high school course; A.B.P., partial college course; A.B., full college course. The abbreviations mean either the formal education indicated, or its equivalent if received during childhood or youth. In the column devoted to the economic status of the parents the meanings of the abbreviations are : P, poor ; I, intermediate ; W, wealthy.* The abbreviations indicating early religious training are : Bapt., Baptist Pres., Presbyterian Cong., Congregational Prot., Protestant, denomination Disc, Disciples unknown D. R., Dutch Reformed R. C, Roman Catholic H. F., Hicksite Friend S. D. B., Seventh Day Baptist Luth., Lutheran Swed., Swedenborgian M. E., Methodist Episcopal Unit., Unitarian Morav., Moravian Univ., Universalist P. E., Protestant Episcopal The figure indicating the number of children in the family includes the litterateur himself. When a number followed by ^ For a definition of these classes, cf. p. 72. I09] APPENDIX B 109 a plus sign appears, it means that the number given is a minimum. Thus 7-j- signifies that there were at least seven brothers and sisters in the family under consideration, A similar plus sign in the column for the birth-rank of the littera- teur means that he was seventh or later born. A plus sign in the appropriate column indicates that the person under consideration was married, a minus sign that he never married. A plus sign after the figure indicating the number of children born to the litterateur means that there was reason for suppos- ing that there were other children, the number of whom could not be ascertained. A few words and figures are marked by interrogation points, to indicate that their accuracy is subject to question. APPENDIX B [no Died 1723 1707 1728 1753 1758 1747 1758 1748 1790 1780 1780 1790 1803 1806 1783 1797 1793 1789 1780 Name Mather I. Willard S. * Mather C. Checkley J. Prince T, * Dickinson J. * Edwards J. Callender J. * Franklin B. dreen J. Hutchinson T. * Bellamy J. 1804 Lennox C. 1772 • Woolman J. * Hopkins S. Backus I. Otis J. Webster P. Smith W. Hutchins T. Carver J. 1808 Dickinson J. 1826 Adams J. Trumbull B. * Henry P. Duch6 J. Hopkinson F. Bartram J. * Jefferson T. 1744 1798 * Belknap J. 1745 1840 Emmons N. 1745 1826 * Murray L. 1747 1788 Filson J. 1749 1815 * Ramsay D. 1749 1831 Thomas I. 1750 1831 * Trumbull J. 1751 1812 • Buckmin»tcr J. 1751 18S6 Madison J. Occupation clergyman clergyman clergyman clergyman clergyman clergyman clergyman clergyman f journalist \ diplomatist merchant publicist clergyman f tailor \ clergyman clergyman clergyman lawyer merchant lawyer army oflScer explorer publicist ( lawyer \ publicist clergyman publicist clergyman lawyer botanist publicist clergyman clergyman author pioneer physician j publisher \ journalist lawyer clergyxQan publicist Literary Fields Place of Birth pop. Dorchester, Mass. pop. Concord, Mass. spec. erud. pop. Boston, Mass. pub. Boston, Mass. erud. Sandwich, Mass. pop. Hatfield, Mass. spec. pub. pop. East Windsor, Oonn. erud. Boston, Mass. pop. narr. spec. Boston, Mass. p. Boston, Mass. erud. Boston, Mass. pop. Cheshire, Conn. pop. New York, N. Y. narr. Northampton, N. J. spec. Waterbury, Conn. erud. Norwich, Conn. or. West Barnstable, Mass. spec. pub. Lebanon, Conn. erud. New York, N. Y. narr. Monmouth, N. J. narr. Canterbury, Conn. ( ?) pub. pub. erud. or. pop. pub. narr. pub.pat.narr.pop. erud. pop. pop. narr. erud. lib. p. pub. pop. pub. Talbot Co., Md. Quincy, Mass. Hebron, Conn. Studley, Va. Philadelphia, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Kirgsessing, Pa. Albemarle Co., Va, Boston, Mass. East Haddam, Oonn. Swatara, Pa. East Fallowfield, Pa. Dunmore, Pa. Boston, Mass. Watertown, Oonn. Rutland, Mass. Port Conway, Va. Ill] APPENDIX B Place of Death Father's Literary Relatives Occupation 0 s 0 1 1 >!$ ^ 1 1 Boston, Mass. Son, C. Mather, 1663 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 6 6 -4- 10 Boston, Mass. lawyer A.B. I Cong. 17 + 20 Boston, Mass. Father, I. Mather, 1639 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 10 1 + 15 Providence, R. I. A.B. W P.E. 2 + + 3 Boston, Mass. merchant A.B. Cong. ^ Elizabethtown, N. J. A.B. Pres. Grandson, Princeton, N. J. T. Dwight, 1752 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 11 5 + 11 Newport, R. I. A.B. I Bapt. 4- 6 Philadelpliia, Pa. r tallow- \ chandler G.S. P Pres. 17 14 + 4 London, England. A.B. Brompton, England. merchant A.B. w + 5 Bethlehem, Conn. mine-owner A.B. w 11 5 + 7 London, England. < army-officer \ lleut.-gov. H.S.P. w + York, England. farmer H.S.P. I Friend + Newport, R. I. farmer A.B. Prot. 4+ + 8 farmer G.S. Cong. H- 2+ + 9 Andover, Mass. lawyer A.B. I 13 1 + 3 Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. Quebec, P. Q. A.B. w Pres. 15 + 10 Pittsburgh, Pa. G.S. London, England. H.S.P. I + 8 Wilmington, Del. r planter \ judge A.B.P. w Friend 4+ 2 + Quincy, Mass. Son, J. Q. Adams, 1767 farmer A.B. I Cong. 13 1 + 4 North Haven, Conn. A.B. -f 7 Bed Hill, Va. surveyor H.S.P. I P.E. 9 2 + 16 Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. I P.E. + 5 Philadelphia, Pa. Son, J. Hopkinson, 1770 lawyer A.B. I + 5 Kingsessing, Pa. botanist H.S.P. I Friend 4 1-1- — Albemarle Co., Va. planter C leather- A.B. w P.E. 10 'i + 6 Boston, Mass. J dresser ( merchant A.B. 4+ 1 + 5 Franklin, Mass. farmer A.B. I Prot. 12 6 + 5 near York, England. miller H.S.P. w Friend 12 1 + 0 .0. farmer H.S.P. I ^+ 2 + 4-f OhflTleston, S. C. farmer A.B. 4 + Worcester, Mass. G.S.P. p 5 5 + 1+ Detroit, Mich. clergyman A.B. I Cong. + 1-f- aeadsboro, Vt. clergyman A.B. I Cong. 9 4 + 12^ Montpelier, Va. planter A.B. I 12 1 + 0 112 APPENDIX B [II2 Born 1751 Died 1797 Home Winchester E. Occupation clergyman Literary Fields spec. pop. Place of Birth Brookline, Mass, 1752 1817 * Dwight T. educator spec. narr. pop. Northampton, Mass. 1752 1752 1752 1754 1755 1832 1818 1718 1812 * Preneau P. Graydon A. Humphreys D. Barlow J. Adams H. author lawyer diplomatist author author p. narr. p. P- erud. New York, N. Y. Bristol, Pa. Derby, Conn. Redding, Conn. Medfleld, Mass. 1755 1839 Bancroft A. clergyman pop. Reading, Mass. 1755 1755 1757 1824 1835 1818 CoxeT. Marshall J. Bingham C. jurist teacher pub. erud. pop. Philadelphia, Pa. Germantown, V«. Salisbury, Conxi. 1757 1826 Tyler R. ( lawyer t judge lawyer author clergyman pr. dram. Boston, Mass. 1758 1758 1758 1808 1843 1837 * Ames F. ♦ Webster N. Worcester N. or. pub. erud. pop. spec. pub. Dedham, Mass. West Hartford, C3onn. Hollis, N. H. 1759 1825 ♦ Weems M. L. ( clergyman \ author author pop. Anne Arundel Co., M4. 1761 1815 Alsop R. p. Middletown, Conn. 1761 1830 Hall S. pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1761 1826 Morse J. clergyman pop. Woodstock, Conn. 1763 1837 Holmes A. clergyman erud. Woodstock, Conn. 1763 1764 1847 1845 * Kent J. WareH. jurist f clergyman \ professor spec, pub. J erud. spec. Fredericksburg, N. Y. Sherborn, Mass. 1766 1839 ♦ Dunlap W. ' artist author dram Perth Amboy, N. J. 1767 1848 • Adams J. Q. ( lawyer \ publicist journalist clergyman pub. 1 or. narr. Quincy, Mass. 1768 1768 1812 1842 Dennie J. Harris T. M. pr. pop. Boston, Mass. Oharlestown, Maes. 1769 1840 Lowell J. lawyer pub. Newbury port^Mass. 1769 1850 Miller S. clergyman erud. Dover, Del. 1770 1842 Hopkinson J. lawyer p. Philadelphia, Pa. 1770 1829 Mason J. M. clergyman pop. New York, N. Y. 1771 1852 * Ballou H. clergyman pub. Richmond, N. H. 1771 1771 1810 1837 * Brown C. B. Fessenden T. author journalist pr. p. Philadelphia, Pa. Walpole, N. H. 1T72 1851 * Alexander A. r clergyman \ teacher pop. Rockbridge Co., Ya. 1772 1856 Dowse T. leather-dresser lib. Oharl«8town, Mass. 113] APPENDIX B 113 6 ^ 1 1 ^ 1 i Father's 1 3 1 I 1 « « s 1 Place of Death Literary Relativea Occupation -s ^ 0 -^ ^ 3 Hartford, Conn. New Haven, Conn. Grandfather, J. Edwards, 1703 merchant A.B. I Cong. + 8 near Freehold, N. J. planter A.B. w Pres. 5 1 4- 4 Philadelphia, Pa. ' merchant H.S. I Prot. 4 1 4- New Haven, Conn. clergyman A.B. Cong. + Yamisica, Poland. farmer A.B. I Cong. 10 10 4- 0 Brookline, Mass. merchant H.S.P. p Cong. 3 0 Worcester, Mass. Son, A. Bancroft, 1800 farmer A.B. I Pres. + 13 Philadelphia, Pa. ( merchant H.S.P. Philadelphia, Pa. planter H.S. I P.E. 15 1 + 1-f Boston, Mass. A.B. Brattlebopo, \ t. A.B. + 1+ Dedham, Mass. physician A.B. p 5 5 -f 7 New Haven, Conn. farmer A.B. I Prot. 5 + 7 Brighton, Mass. clergyman H.S.P. I Cong. 1 + 104. Beaufort, S. C. farmer H.S. 19 15-1- ? + '^+ Flatbush, N. Y. merchant H.S. 8 1 + Philadelphia, Pa. Son, J. Hall, 1793 clergyman H.S.P. I Pres. + 11 New Haven, Conn. Son, S. E. Morse, 1794 farmer A.B. p Cong. 10 8 + 11 Cambridge, Mass. Son, 0. W. Holmes, 1809 puysician A.B. I Prot. + 5 New York, N. Y. lawyer A.B. I + ^+ Cambridge, Mass. Son,H. Ware Jr., 1794 farmer A.B. p 10 9 + 19 New York, N. Y. G.S.P. 1 1 + Washington, D. C. Father J. Adams, 1735 lawyer A.B. I Unit. 4 1 4- 11-f Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. Dorchester, Mass. teacher A.B. p Cong. 3 1 + 8 Boston, Mass. Nephew, J. Lowell, 1799 lawyer A.B. w Princeton, N. J. clergyman A.B. I Pres. 9 8 + »-f Philadelphia, Pa. Father, F. Hopkinson, 1737 lawyer A.B. I + 1+ New York, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I Pres. 9 + 2-1- Somerville, Mass. Son, M. M. Ballou, 1820 clergyman H.S.P. p Bapt. 11 11 + 1+ Philadelphia, Pa. H.S. I Friend 2+ -}- 4 Boston, Mass. clergyman A.B. p Cong. Princeton, N. J. Son, J. A. Alexander, 1804 farmer A.B. w Pres. 9 3 + 7 Cambridgeport, Mass. • leather- dresser G.S. p 8 7 — 114 APPENDIX B [114 Born Died JJame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1772 . . 1834 Porter E. ( clergyman \ educator publicist publicist mathematician publicist author pop. Cornwall, Conn. 1772 1772 1773 1773 1774 1864 1834 1838 1833 1850 Quincy J. Wirt H. Bo wd itch N. Randolph J. Comly J. or. pr. or. erud. erud. or. pop. Boston, Mass. Bladensburg, Md. Salem, Mass. Cawsons, Va. ,Pa. 1774 1854 Woods L. clergyman pub. pop. Princeton, Mass. 1775 1863 Beecher L. clergyman pub. New Haven, Conn. 1775 1777 1777 1777 1830 1852 1839 1846 Hobart J. H. * Clay H. Niles H. Pickering J. clergyman publicist journalist lawyer pop. or. pub. erud. Philadelphia, Pa. Hanover Co., Va. Chester Co., Pa. Salem, Mass. 1777 1778 1778 1850 1862 1866 Rich 0. Bangs N. Jenks W. ' consul bibliographer clergyman clergyman lib. erud. pop. Truro, Mass. Stratford, Conn. Newton, Mass. 1778 1840 Tuckerman J. clergyman pop. Boston, Mass. 1779 1779 1779 1779 1843 1874 1860 1813 Allston W. Benedict D. * Paulding J. K. Pike Z. M. artist clergyman gov't official army-officer P- erud. pr. narr. Brook Green Domain, S.C. Norwalk, Conn. Ureat Nine Partners, N.Y. Lamberton, N. J. 1779 1845 • Story J. jurist spec. erud. Marblehead, Mass. 1779 1779 1864 1860 Town S, Watson J. F. teacher bank cashier pop. erud. Belchertown, Mass. Burlington Co., N. J. 1780 1842 * Channing W. E. clergyman spec. or. pub. pop. Newport, R. I. 1780 1780 1780 1780 1840 1843 1865 1859 Flint T. • Key F. S. Lee H. F. Rush R. clergyman lawyer diplomatist narr, pop. p. pop. narr. Reading, Mass. Frederick Co., Md. Newburyport, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. 1780 1852 ♦ Stuart M. professor pop. pub. erud. Wilton, Conn. 1782 1858 Benton T. H. publicist narr. or. erud. near Hlllesborough, N. C. 1782 1850 * Calhoun J. C. publicist spec. or. pub. Abbeville District, S. C. 1782 1852 * Webster D. publicist or. Salisbury, N. H. 1783 1859 * Irving W. author pr. narr. erud. New York, N. Y. 1783 1838 Knapp S. L. lawyer pop- Newburyport, Mass. 1783 1827 * Payson B. clergyman pop. Rindge, N. H. 1784 1868 Allen W. educator erud. Pittsfield, Mass. 1784 1870 Hazard S. merchant erud. Philadelphia, Pa. 115] APPENDIX B "5 Father's 1 8 1 f ^ 1 1 Place of Death Literary Relatives t Occupation ^ £ 1 Andover, Mass. Judge A.B. I Cong. 7 5 + 24- Quincy, Mass. lawyer A.B. W 1 1 -f ^^+ Washington, D. C. H.S. I Prot. 6 0 4- H- Boston, Mass. cooper G.S.P. P Unit. 7 4 4- e' Philadelphia, Pa. planter A.B.P. w 2 2 Ryberry, Pa. Friend Andover, Mass. Daugliter, H. N. W. Baker, 1815 farmer A.B. p Cong. 2+ + 9+ Brooklyn, N. Y. Daughter, H. B. Stowe, 1811 blacksmith A.B. I Cong. 3 1 + 13 Auburn, N. Y. merchant A.B. I P.E. 9 9 + 34. Washington, D. C. clergyman G.S.P. Bapt. 8 7 + 11^ Wilmington, Del. + 1+ Boston, Mass. publicist A.B. p 5+ + London, England. + 2+ New York, N. Y. blacksmith G.S.P. I P.E. 9 -f- 3+ Boston, Mass. A.B. -f- 1+ Havana, Cuba. Nephew, H. T. Tuckerman, 1813 Insurance A.B. 2-f- -f 1+ Cambridge, Mass. planter A.B. w P.E. 3 2 -f- Pawtucket, R. I. farmer A.B. 4- 12 Hyde Park, N. Y. G.S.P. p 9 8 1 4- 24- York, Ont. Son» W. W. army officer G.S.P. -f 1 ' Cambridge, Mass. Story, 1819 surgeon A.B. Cong. 11 1 + 7 Greencastle, Ind. Germantown, Pa. ship-owner H.S.P. p 2 2 -f 7 Bennington, Vt. Nephew, W. E. Channing, 1815 lawyer A.B. Cong. 10 3 + 4 Salem, Mass. A.B. 4- xl+ Baltimore, Md. planter A.B. w P.E. 2 1 Boston, Mass. physician I 4- Philadelphia, Pa. physician A.B. w -p 14- Andover, Mass. Daughter, B. S. Phelps, 1815 farmer A.B. + 9 Washington, D. C. lawyer A.B.P. w P.E. 8 1 + 6 Washington, D. C. r surveyor \ planter A.B. I Pres. 5 4 + «+ Marshfleld, Mass. farmer A.B. I Prot. 10 9 + 5 Tarrytown, N. Y. Nephew, T. Irving, 1809 merchant H.S.P. w Pres. 11 11 Hopkinton, Mass. A.B. + Portland, Me. Daughter, E. P. Prentiss, 1818 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 5+ + 8 Northampton, Mass. clergyman ' post-master- A.B. Philadelphia, Pa. . general, business I + 9 ii6 APPENDIX B [ii6 Bom Died liwtne Occupation Literary Field* Place of Birth 1784 1784 1784 1785 1785 1873 1859 1865 1849 18^2 Savage J. Walsh R. * Worcester J. E. Appleton D. Cartwright P. banker editor author publisher clei-gyman erud. pub. erud. pop. lib. narr. Boston, Mass. Baltimore, Md. Bedford, N. H. Haverhill, Mass. Amiherst Co., Va. 1785 1866 Plerpont J. clergyman p. pop. Litchfield, Conn. 1785 1785 1873 1848 * Spring G. • Wheaton II. clergyman lawyer pop. erud. Newburyport, Mass. Providence, R. I. 1785 1842 ♦ Woodworth S. journalist p. Scituate, Jkass. 1786 1871 Coggeswell J. G. f teacher \ librarian clergyman lib. Ipswich, Mass. 1786 1851 Jarvis S. F. erud. Middletown, Conn. 1786 1853 Nonon A. f professor \ scholar temperance worker pub. erud. Hingham, Mass. 1786 1807 Sargent L. M. pub. Boston, Mass. 1787 1858 Andrews E. A, j educator \ author pop. New Britain, Conn. 1787 1860 Clark T. pop. erud. Lancaster, Pa. 1787 1879 Dana R. H. lawyer pr. p. Cambridge, Mass. 1787 1787 1787 1787 1853 1866? 1866 1858 F^wards J. Gordon T. F. Hale S. Leslie E. clergyman lawyer clerk of court pub. pop. erud. pop. pr. Westhampton, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Alstead, N. H. Philadelphia, Pa. 1787 1870 * WHlard E. educator pop. Berlin, Conn. 1788 1857 Blake J. L. clergyman author author clergyman pop. erud. Norchwood, N. H. 1788 1788 1879 1864 Hale a. J. Marsh J. pop. p. pop. Newport, N. H. Weathiersifleld, Conn. 1789 1857 Colton C. clergyman pub. Longmeadow, Ma.ss. 1789 1858 * Oomstock J. L. physician pop. Lyme, Conn. 1789 1851 * Cooper J. F. author pr. erud. Burlington, N. J. 1789 1789 1789 18v^8 1869 1865 Farmer J, Felt J. B. Ootvld H. P. historian historian erud. erud. p. Chelmsford, Mass. Salem, Mass. Lancaster, Mass. 1789 1867 Ilawes J. clergyman l>op. Medway, Mass. 1789 1841 HiUhouseJ. A. author p. New Haven, Conn. 1789 1858 Jay W. judge pub. New York, N. Y. 1789 1789 1867 1866 ♦ Sedgwick C. M. ♦ Sparks J. educator clergyman pr. pop, erud. pop. Stockbridge, Mass. Willington, Conn. 1790 1847 * Everett A. H. diplomatist spec. erud. pr. Boston, Mass. 1790 1868 * Force P. historian erud. Passaic Falls, N. J. 117] APPENDIX B 117 Father's 0 s .2» ^ r S Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation "53 0 1 S fe- 0 S 1 Boston, Mass. t judge A.B. I ll 9 4- 4 Paris, France. merchant A.B. R.C. + 1+ Cambridgeport, Mass. A.B. + 0 New York, N. Y. + 4+ nearPIeasantPlains.IlI. farmer H.S.P. P M.E. ^+ + Medford, Mass. Grandson, J. P. Morgan, 1835 A.B. Cong. + 1+ New York, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I Cong. 11 3 Dorchester, Mass. merchanit A.B. W -f 1+ New York, N. Y. Nephew, F. C. Woodworth, 1812 farmer H.S.P. P 4 4 + 1+ Cambridge, Mass. A.B. Middletown, Conn. clergyman A.B. I P.E. ^+ 3+ + 6 Newport, R. I. Son, C. E. Norton, 1827 A.B. I Cong. Youngest + G West Roxbury, Mass. merchant A.B.P. w Cong. 7 7 + 4 New Britain, Conn. farmer A.B. I CV>ng. 3 + 10 Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. R.C. Boston, Mass. Son, R. H. Dana Jr., 1815 lawyer A.B. w Unit. 6 -f 4 Bath Alum Springs, Va. farmer A.B. I Cong. 7 3 + 7+ Beverly, N. J. Somerville, Mass. G.S. 14 3 4- 1+ Gloucester, N. J. watchmaker H.S.P. 5 1 Troy, N. Y. Sister, A. H. Phelps, 1793 farmer H.S.P. I 17 16 4- 2-f Orange, N, J. farmer A.B. Philadelphia, Pa. H.S. 2+ + 5 Brooklyn, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I Cong. Savannah, Ga. Brother, W. Oolton, 1797 weaver A.B. I Cong. 12 Hartford, Conn. G.S. Cooper stown, N. Y. Daughter, S. F. Cooper, 1813 farmer A.B.P. P.E. 12 11 + 7 Concord, N. H. farmer G.S. Prot. 3+ 1 — Salem, Mass. A.B. Newburyport, Mass. 2-f — Gilead, Conn. Niece, M. J. Holmes, 1834 A.B. p + 1-f New Haven, Conn. A.B. I + Bedford, N. Y. Son, J. Jay, 1817 publicist A.B. w P.E. 5 4 + 7 Roxbury, Mass. lawyer H.S.P. w Cong. 7 6 — Cambridge, Mass. farmer A.B. p + 4 Macao, China. Brother, E. Everett, 1794 clergyman G.S. I Cong. 2+ Washington, D. C. G.S. I 4- 24- ii8 APPENDIX B [ii8 Bom Died 2iame Oocupation Uterury Fields Place of Birth 1790 1862 Goodrich Chas. A. clergyman pop. Ridgefield, Conn. 1790 1790 1790 1791 1860 1867 1861 18&7 Goodrich Chaun. A. * Halleck P. G. Turner S. H. * Brown G. professor bank clerk clergyman teacher pop. p. erud. pop. erud. New Haven, Conn. Guilford, Conn. Philadelphia, Pa. Providence, R. I. 1791 1883 ♦ Cooper P, manufacturer pat. New York, N. Y. 1791 1839 Hayne R. Y. publicist or. St Paul's Parish, S. C 1791 1791 1791 1859 1865 1875 Olmsted D. * Sigourneif L. H. Sprague C. professor author bank cashier pop. pop. p. narr. pr. p. East Hartford, Conn. Norwich, Conn. Boston, Mass. 1791 1871 ♦ Ticknor G. f professor \ author erud. Boston, Mass. 1792 1857 Blrney J. G. publicist pub. Danville, Ky. 1792 1875 Finney C. G. clergyman pop. pub. Warren, C5onn. 1792 1792 1792 1868 1852 1868 Mitchell S. A. ♦ Payne J. H. Smith S. teacher dramatist journalist pop. p. dram, pr. Bristol, Conn. New York, N. Y. Buckfield, Me. 1792 1844 Stone W. L. Journalist erud. New Pal/tz, N. Y. 1793 1863 Bailey R. W. ' clergyman teacher clergyman economist pop. North Yarmouth, Me. 1793 1793 183i 1879 Bedell G. T. * Carey H. C. pop. spec. pub. Staten Island, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. 1793 1860 ♦ Goodrich S. G. author pop. pr. Ridgefield, Conn. 1793 18l>8 Hall J. Judge narr. pop. pr. Philadelphia, Pa. 1793 1793 1864 1876 Hitchcock E. Neal J. educator lawyer pop. pr. Deerfleld, Mass. Portland, Me. 1793 1884 Phelps A. H. teachier pop. Berlin, Conn« 1793 1864 * Schoolcraft H. R. erthnologlst narr. Watervliet, N. Y. 1794 1878 ♦ Bryant W. C. f editor \poet clergyman p. Cummlngton, Mass. 1794 1882 Dewey 0. spec. pop. Sheffield, Mass. 1794 1865 ♦ Everett E. publicist or. Dorchester, Mass. 1794 1794 1794 1888 1880 1861 ailman C. H. Hallock W. A. Lewis A. f head of tract \ society teacher narr. pop. p. p. Boston, Mass. Plalnfield, Mass. Lynn, Mass. 1794 1871? Morse S. E. journalist pop. Charlestown, Mass. 1794 1867 Packard l\ A. editor pop. Marlboro, Mass. 119] APPENDIX B 119 Place of Death Hartford, Conn. New Haven, Conn. Guilford, Conn. New York N. Y. Lynn, Mass. New York, N. Y, Asheville, N. C. New Haven, Conn. Hartford, Conn. Boston, Mass. Boston, Mass. Eagleswood, N. J. Oberlin, O. Philadelphia, Pa. Tunis, Africa. Patchogue, N. Y. Saratoga Springs, N. Huntsville, Tex, Baltimore, Md. Philadelphia, Pa. New York, N. Y. near Cincinnati, O. Amherst, Mass. Portland, Me. Baltimore, Md. Washington, D. C. New York, N. Y. Sueffleld, Mass. Boston, Mass. Washington, D. C. New York, N. Y. Lynn, Mass. New York, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. •1 «> « 1 ^ 1 2i Fatlier's s s i 5i 1 :^ 2 Literary Relatives Occupation § f^ 1 g 0 1 Brother, S. G. Goodrich, 1793 A.B. A.B. 2+ + 2+ merchant G.S. I P.E. 2 clergyman A.B. I P.E. 8 8 4- 2 teacher A.B.P. P Friend j brewer 1 hatter G.S.P. I + 6 Nephew, P. H. Hayne, 1830 H.S. I 14 5 + farmer A.B. + 2+ H.S. I Cong. 1 1 + 2 H.S.P. + 1+ educator A.B. W Cong. 1 1 + 4 1 manuf'turer \ banker A.B. W P.E. 2 1 + ^+ } hotel \ proprietor H.S.P. I Cong. 12 + 6 teacher A.B.P. A.B. I Prot. 9 6 + Son, W. L. Stone Jr., 1835 clergyman H.S.P. A.B. P Cong. + 1+ business A.B. P P.E. 4 4 + 2 publisher G.S. I 4- Brother, Chaa. , „„ A. Goodrich, 1790 <^''^^^^^ I Cong. 10 6 + Mother, S. Hall, 1761 fU. S. \ marshall H.S.P. I Pres. 11 + 54- farmer A.B.P. G.S. I Cong. Friend 2+ + 2+ Sister, E. Willard, 1787 farmer f factory \ supt. H.S.P. A.B.P. I I 17 2-f physician A.B.P. I Pres. 7 2 + 2 farmer A.B. I Cong. 2+ + 1-f Brother, A. H. Everett, 1790 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 2+ 2+ + 7 shipwright P.E. 6 + 1 clergyman A.B. H.S. P Cong. + 6 Blather, J. Morse, 1761 clergyman clergyman A.B. A.B. I I Cong. Cong. II 4- 24- 120 APPENDIX B [I20 Born Died 1794 1863 Robinson E. 1794 1849 Tappaa W. B. 1794 1843 • Ware H. Jr. 1795? 1845 • Brooks M. G. 1795 1820 ♦ Drake J. R. 1795 1869 Harper J. 1795 1795 1795 1795 1795 1795 1796 1796 1796 1796 1796 1796 1796 1896 1870 1869 1856 1875 1870 1868 1828 Kennedy J. P. Peabody G. Percival J. G. Spragiie W. B. Stewart C. S. • Tliompson D. P. ♦ Brainard J. G. C. 1796 1867 * Bulfinch T. 1859 1872 1865 1859 1881 1859 1865 Bush G. * Cajtlin G. * Haliburton T. C. ♦ Mann H. ♦ Palfrey J. G. • Prescott ^^ . H. ♦ Wayland F. 1797 1867 Antuon C. 1797 1851 Oolton W. 1797 1878 Hodge C. 1797 1870 Littell E. 1797 1849 Lyon M. 1797 1863 ? Richardson J. 1797 18— Smith R. C. 1797 18v^2 Ware W. 1797 1882 Weed T. 1798 1859 Alcott W. A. 1798 1863 • Baird R. 1798 1885 Barber J. W. 1798 1870 • Barnes A. 1798 1842 Clarke McD. Occupation professor scholar Sunday-school — orker clergyman physician publisher publicist banker geologist clergyman clergyman lawyer editor bank clerk business clergyman artist judge educator ( clergyman \ author historian j clergyman \ educator teacher naval chaplain educator «ditor educator author teacher clergyman journalist author clergyman historian clergy man Literary Fields Place of Birth erud. narr. pop. Southington, Conn. p. Beverly, Mass. pop. Hingham, Mass. p. Medford, Mass. p. New York, N. Y. lib. Newtown, N. Y. pr. Baltimore, Md. pa,t. Dan vers, Mass. p. Berlin, Conn. pop. erud. Andover, Conn. narr. Flemington, N. J. pr. Charlestown, Mass. P- New London, Conn. pop. Boston, Mas«. spec. erud. pop. Norwich, Vt. narr. Wilkesbarre, Pa. pr. Winsor, N. S. pop. pub. Franklin, Mass, erud. Boston, Mass. erud. Salem, Mass. pop. spec. New York, N. Y. pop. New York, N. Y. narr. Rutland, Vt. pop. spec. Philadelphia, Pa. pop. Burlington, N. J. pat. Auckland, Mass. pr. near Niagara Falls, Ont. pop. Franklin, Conn. pr. Hingham, Mass. pub. Cairo, N. Y. pop. Walcott, Conn. erud. pub. Fayette Co., Pa. erud. pop. pop. erud. Rome, N. Y. P- Baih, Me. I2l] APPENDIX B 121 Father's .2 1 t S rig 1 1 3 Place of Death lAterary Relatives Oocupation 1 5 to a? 5 s g New York, N. Y. farmer clergyman A.B. W Cong. 10 6 + 6 West Needham, Mass. P Framingham, Mass. Father, H. Ware, 1764 c clergyman ( professor A.B. I Unit. 19 5 -f ^+ Matanzas, Cuba. Grandson, H.S.P. I + 2 New York, N. Y. C. DeKay, 1848 H.S. P 4 + 1 New York, N. Y. Brother, F. Harper, 1806 j carpenter " farmer G.S. I M.E. 6 1 -r 1+ Newport, R. I. merchant A.B. P Pres. 5 1 _i- 1 London, England. G.S. P 3+ -- Hazel Green, Wis. physician A.B. I Prot. 4 3 — Flushing, N. Y. farmer A.B. Cooperstown, N. Y. A.B. -f 1 + Montpelier, Vt. farmer A.B. P New London, Conn. judge A.B. Boston, Mass. A.B. 2+ Rochester, N. Y. A.B. Jersey City, N. J. farmer G.S. W M.E. 14 + 4 Isleaworth. England. judge A.B. I Prot. 1 1 -\- '+ Yellow Springs, 0. farmer A.B. p Cong. 3+ + 0^ Cambridge, Mass. ( ship- \ chandler A.B. I -1- 3 Boston, Mass. lawyer A.B. W 7 2 -f 4 rrovidence, R. I. clergyman A.B. I Bapt. 6 6 + 4+ New York, N. Y. physician A.B. Philadelphia, Pa. Brother, C. Colton, 178© weaver A.B. I Cong. 12 3 + 1 Princeton, N, J. Father, A. A. Hodge, 1823 physician A.B. I 5 5 -f 8 Brookline, Mass. 3+ + 1-f South Hadley, Mass. farmer A.B.P. I Bapt. 8 6 , U. S. Nephew, R. Smith, 1829 Cambridge, Mass. Father, H. Ware, 1764 f clergyman ' L professor A.B. I Unit. 19 -f 4 New York, N. Y. carter G.S.P. p 5 1 4- 4 Aubumdale, Mass, Cousin, A. B. Alcott, 1799 farmer G.S. 1 Yonkers, N. Y. Son, C. W. Baird, 1828 farmer A.B. p Pres. IS 12 -f 8 New Haven, Conn. Philadelphia, Pa. tanner A.B. p New York, N. Y. 122 APPENDIX B [l22 Bom Died Tiame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1798 1879 Dix J. A. ( army officer \ publicist narr. Boecawen, N. H. 1798 1875 Drake S. G. bookseller erud. Pittsfield, N. H. 1798 1866 Hawks F. L. clergyman erud. pop. Newbeiae, N. C. 1798 1888 Hlckok L. P. f clergyman educator clergyman spec. Danbury, Conn. 1798 1868 Noyes G. R. erud. Newburyport, Mass. 1798 1872 Olney J. author pop. Union, Conn. 1798 1798 1798 1798 1798 1869 1866 18a4 1879 1877 Parker R. G. * Roe A. S. Spencer I. S. Tuthill L. C. Wilkes C. teacher merchant clergyman author naval officer pop. pr. pr. pop. pop. pr. narr. Boston, Mass. New York, N. Y. Rupert, Vt. New Haven, Conn. New York N. Y. 1799 1888 Alcott A. B. teacher spec. Waloott, Conn. 1799 1799 1856 1877 ♦ Choate R. French B. F. lawyer historian or. erud. Ipswich, Mass. Richmond, Va. 1799 1836 Lowell J. merchant pait. Boston, Mass. 1799 1873 * Mac Ilvalne C. P. clergyman pop. Burlington, N. J. 1799 1879 * Malcom H. ( clergymen \ educator lawyer clergyman actor pop. narr. Philadelphia, Pa. 1799 1799 1799 1841 1847 1870 Mellen G. Peabody W. B. O. Placlde H. p. erud. act. BIddeford, Me. Exeter, N. H. Charleston, S. C. 1799 1873 Schmucker S. S. clergyman pop. Hagerstown, Md. 1799 1854 Smith R. P. f journalist \ author, professor dram. Philadelphia, Pa. 1799 1872 Upham T. C. spec. erud. pop. p. Deerfield, N. H. 1799 1875 • Walker A. f merchant ■ j^ manufacturer clergyman spec. North Woodstock, Conn. 1799 1876 Waterbury J. B. pop. New York, N. Y. 1799 1864 * Winslow H. clergyman pop. Wiiliston, Vt. 1800 1891 • Bancroft G. historian erud. Worcester, Mass. 1800 1866 Burton W. philanthropist pop. Wilton, N. H. 1800 1872 Colwell S. f lawyer \ merchant educator spec. Charlestown, Va. 1800 1876 Durbin J. P. narr. Bourbon Co., Ky. 1800 1659 Frost J. r educator \ author actor pop. Kennebunk, Me. 1800 1800 1871 1856 Hackett J. H. Hentz C. L. act. pr. New York, N. Y. Lancaster, Mass. 1800 1880 L»enox J. merchant pat. New York, N. Y. 1800 1889 Mahan A. ■ clergyman educator pop. spec. Vernon, N. Y. 123] APPENDIX B 123 f ^ s ^ 0 e ?* Father's s i :S •^e ? § Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation '55 E5 ^ S l§ 0 1 N€W York, N. Y. Son, M. Dix, 1827 merchant A.B.P. I Cong. 5 4 + 7 Boston, Mass. Son, S. A. Drake, 1833 farmer G.S. -f 2+ New York, N. Y. A.B. I P.E. 9 2 + 8 Amherst, Mass. farmer A.B. I + Cambridge, Mass. A.B. P + 1_|- Stratford, Conn. Daughter, E. W. 0. Kirk, 1842 farmer clergyman A.B. A.B. P I Pres. P.E. 8 4- 8 Windsor, Conn. H.S. Brooklyn, N. Y. farmer A.B. I 11 10 + 4 l-rinceton, N, J. -f 1+ Washington, D. C. H.S.P. Concord, Mass. Daughter, L. M. Aloott, 1832 larmer G.S.P. I P.E. 1-f 1 + 5 Halifax, N. S. farmer A.B. I Pres. 6 4 + 5 New York, N. Y. H.S. Bombay, India. Uncle, J. Lowell, 1769 merchant A.B.P. W 4 1 4- 2 Florence, Italy. lawyer A.B. I + 3+ Philadelphia, Pa. A.B.P. + 1+ New York, N. Y. lawyer A.B. Springfield, Mass. judge A.B, I 2+ -f 5 near Babylon, N. Y. gymnast I 5^ 1 4- 0 Gettysburg, Pa. Son, S. M. Smucker, 1823 clergyman A.B.P. I Luth. + 2+ Palls of Schuylkill, Pa. -f 2+ New York, N. Y. A.B. 4+ North Brookfleld, Mass. blacksmith A.B. P Cong. 3 + 3 Brooklyn, N. Y. A.B. Wllliston, Vt. Son, W. C. Winslow, 1840 A.B. »+ Washington, D. C. Father, A. Bancroft, 1755 clergyman A.B. I Unit. 13 8 + 0 Salem, Mass. farmer A.B. Philadelphia, Pa. farmer A.B. New York, N. Y. farmer A.B. M.E. 5 1 + 5 Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. + Jamaica, N. Y. A.B.P. I Pres. 2 4 Marlenna, Fla. army-officer 3+ New York, N. Y. merchant A.B. W Pres. 1 1 Eastbourne, England A.B. 124 APPENDIX B [124 Bom Died 2fame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1800 1865 Potter A. clergyman pop. La Grange, N. Y. 1800 1873 ♦ Todd J. clergyman pop. Rutland, Vt. 1800 1885 Tyng S. H. clergyman pop. Newburyport, Maas. 1801 1843 Clark J. A. clergyman pop. narr. Pittsfleld, Mass. 1801 1888 Hazard R. G. manufacturer spec. Peacedale, R. I. 1801 1880 Jaunty S. M. clergyman erud. Loudon Co., Va. 1801 1864 Kirkland C. M. 8. author narr. New York, N. Y. 1801 1865 Lynch W. F. naval officer narr. Norfolk, Va. 1801 1882 ♦ Marsh G. P. diplomatist erud. pop. Woodstock, Vt. 1801 1872 Seward W. H. publicist or. Florida, N. Y. 1801 1834 Stone J. A. actor dram. Concord, Mass. 1801 18S9 Woolsey T. D. educator pop. New York, N. Y. 1802 1859 Burnap G. W. clergyman pop. Merrimack, N. H. 1802 1876 ♦ Buahnell H. clergyman spec. pop. Litchfield, Conn. 1802 1880 ♦ Child L. M. pub. pop. pr. Medford, Mass. 1802 1869 Cleveland C. D. professor pop. Salem, Mass. 1802 1891 Conant T. J. professor erud. Brandon, Vt. 1802 1887 Dix D. L. philanthropist pop. H-ampden, Me. 1802 1896 Furness W. H. clergyman pop. pub. Boston, Mass. 1802 1887 Hopkins M. educator p<^. Stocfcbridge, Mass. 1802 1877 Lewis T. educator puto. Northumberland, N. Y, 1802 1867 ♦ Morris G. P. journalist p. Philadelphia, Pa. 1802 1887 BeadH. clergyman pop. Newf ane, Vt. 1802 18T5 Upham C. W. f clergyman \ publicist erud. St. John, N. B. 1803 1879 ♦ Abbott J. f clergyman \ educator physician pop. emd. pr. Hallowell, Me. 1803 1854 Bird R. M. pr. Newcastle, Del. 1803 1876 • Brownson O. A. ' clergyman ■ ^ journalist author spec. pub. Stockbridge, Vt. 1803 1880 Calvert G. H. p. pr. Prince George Co., Md. 1803 1856 • Cushing L. S. lawyer erud. Lunenburg, Mass. 1S03 1882 • Emerson R. W. r clergyman \ author spec. or. pub. p. pop. pr. Boston, Mass. 1803 1885 Lunt G. lawyer p. Newburyport, Mass. 1803 1878 Macintosh M.J. author pr. Sunbury, Ga, 1803 1848 Mackenzie A. S. naval officer narr. erud. New York, N. Y. 1803 1895 Morris J. G. clergyman pop. York, Pa. 1803 1863 Newcomb H, clergyman pop. Thetford, Vt. 1803 1869 Owen J. J. .professor pop. Oolebrook, Conn. 1803 1878 Rupp I. D. teacher erud. Cumberland Co., Pa. 1803 1877 Sabine L. f trader { gov't official erud. New Lisbon, N. H. 125] APPENDIX B 125 Place of Death San Francisco, Cal, Pittsfield, Mass. Irvlngton, N. Y. Pihiladelphla, Pa. Peacedale, R. I. Loudon Co., Va. New York, N. Y. Baltimore, Md. Vallombrosa, Italy. Auburn, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. New Haven, Conn. Baltimore, Md, Hartford, Conn, Wayland, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Brooklyn, N, Y. Trenton, N. J. Philadelphia, Pa. Williamstown, Mass. Schenectady, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Somerville, N. J. Salem, Mass. Parmington, Me. Philadelphia, Pa. Detroit, Mich. Newport, R. I, Boston, Mas!^, Oon«ord, Mass. Boston, Mass. Morristown, N. J. Tarrytown, N. Y. Lutherville, Md. Brooklyn, N, Y. New York, N, Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Boston, Mass. Father'a Literary Relatives Occupation farmer physician manuf turer f farmer i miller Son, J. Kirkland, 1830 Uncle, T. Dwight, 1752 publisher lawyer f merchant \ physician merchant r larmer \ wool-carder baker clergyman manuf turer Son, H. H. Furness, 1833 Cousin, S. Hopkins, 1807 Brother, J. S. ( C. Abbot, 1805 \ o 3 A.B. A.B. A.B, A.B. G.S. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. G.S. A.B. A.B. Friend 7 P Oong. 7 W 11 I Friend 9 + 11 Cong. 6 W Prot. 6 W Pres. 7 I Cong. 6 I 6 I W Bapt. I 3 I Cong. 3 + + 7 Friend 3-|- 1 _[_ 3_|- + 2-1- 2 _|_ 2 4-1-5 1 ± ^+ + 10 A.B. G.S. A.B. S+ + judge A.B. I 4 + 15 dealer in lumber lands J A.B. A.B.P. I Cong. 7 3 -f 5 farmer planter lawyer H.S. A.B. A.B.P. P I Pres. 3+ 3+ + 1+ clergyman A.B. I Cong. 6 2 -f 4 merchant lawyer merchant surgeon farmer farmer A.B. H.S. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. G.S. W I 3+ 2+ -f 2-f clergyman G.S. P M.E. 126 APPENDIX B [126 Born Died Name OooupaUon 1804 1859 Alexander J. W. clergyman 1804 1864 ♦ Hawthorne N. author 1804 1885 Williams W. R. clergyman 1805 1877 * Abbot J. S. C. clergyman 1805 1876 Baker A. R. clergyman 1805 1886 • Bartlett J. R. publicist 1805 1863 Blake W. R. actor 1805 1879 * Garrison W. L. journalist 1805 1895 Gayarreg E. A. f publicist \ author 1805 1866 Gould A. A. conchologist 1805 1890 Hedge F. H. clergyman 1805 1879 Martyn 8. T. 1805 1889 Sanders C. W. lawyer 1805 1844 ♦ Smith J. r religious \ leader 1805 1852 * Stephens J. L. lawyer 1805 1881 Tappan H. P. r clergyman \ educator 1805 1887 ♦ Walker J. B. clergyman 1806 1878 Adams N. clergyman 1806 1863 Emhury E. C. 1806 1872 * Forrest E. actor 1806 1877 Harper F. publisher 1806 1884 Hoffman C. F. editor 1806 1878 Hoyt R. clergyman 1806 lii5S Logan C. A. actor 1806 1899 McLellan I. lawyer 1806 i8ro ♦ Simma W. G. f editor \ author 1806 1893 Smith E. 0. 1806 1867 ♦ WMllis N. P. editor 1807 1886 Adams C. F. f lawyer \ publicist 1807 1885 Alden J. professor 1807 1834 Chandler E. M. author 1807 1890 Oheever G. B. clergyman 1807 1898 Fay T, S. f diplomatist \ author 1807 1862 • Felton C. C. educator 1807 1865 • Hildreth R. journalist 1807 1887 Hopkins S. clergyman Literary Fields Place of Birth pop. Louisa Co., Va. pr. Salem, Mass. pop. New York, N. Y. pop. erud. Brunswick, Me. pop. pop. erud. act. pub. Franklin, Mass. Providence, R. I, Halifax, N. S. Newburyport, Mass. erud. New Orleans, La. pop. New Ipswich, N. H. pop. pr. pop. Cambridge, Mass. Hopkinton, N. H. Newport, N. Y. pub. Sharon, Vt. narr. Shrewsbury, N. J. spec. Rhinebeck, N. Y. spec. pop. pub. P- Philadelphia, Pa. Salem, Mass. New York, N. Y. act. Philadelphia, Pa. lib. Newtown, N. Y. narr. p. p. dram. P- New York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Baltimore, Md. Portland, Me. pr. p. Onarleston, S. C. pr. p. North Yarmouth, Me. narr. pr. p. Portland, Me. erud. Boston, Mass. pop. Cairo, N. Y. p. Centre, Del. pop. Hallowell, Me. pr. New York, N. Y. pop. West Newbury, Mass. erud. pub. Deerfield, Mass. erud. Hadley, Mass. 127] APPENDIX B 127 Father's :2 w 1 f ■i 1 3 1 Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation ^ 6h g Red Sweet Spring, Va. Father, A. Alexander, 1772 clergyman A.B. I Pres. 7 + 6 Plymouth, N. H. Hawt^r'ne." 1846 ^^^P^^^ter A.B. I Cong. 3 2 + 3 New York, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I Bapt. + 2 Fair Haven, Oonn. Brother, J. Abbott, 1803 ( dealer in I lumber lands ^ I Cong. 7 4+ + 10 Dorchester, Maes. farmer A.B. I Cong. 7 + 6 Providence, B. I. G.S. + 7 Boston, Mass. New York, N. Y. shipmaster G.S.P. Bapt. 5 4 + 7 New Orleans, La. A.B. W R.C. Boston, Mass. f farmer \ teacher A.B. I Prot. 8 - 4- 10 Cambridge, Mass. professor A.B. I Unit. 8 + 4 New York, N. Y. clergyman H.S.P. I Pres. + 7 New York, N. Y. blacksmith G.S.P. P Bapt. 11 + 3 Carthage, III. I farmer teacher G.S.P. P Pres. 9 + 6 New York, N. Y. A.B. Vevay, Switzerland. A.B. P + Wheaton, 111. •j- farmer A.B. A.B. P Pres. 2 2 + Brooklyn, N. Y. physician + Philadelphia, Pa. bank clerk G.S.P. P Prot. 7 5 + 0 New York, N. Y. Brother, J. Harper, 1795 f farmer \ carpenter G.S.P. I M.E. 6 6 + 1-f Harrisburg, Pa. judge A.B.P. I 3+ New York, N. Y. H.S. near Wheeling, W. Va. A.B. R.C. + 6 Greenport, N. Y. A.B. Charleston, S. C. merchant G.S. P 2 2 + 14 Hollywood, N. C. H.S. 4- 1+ Oornwall, N. Y. Sister, S. P. W. Parton, 1811 editor A.B. I Cong. 9 2 + 7 Boston, Mass. Father, J. Q. Adams, 1767 r lawyer \ publicist A.B. I Unit. 3+ 3+ + 7 New York, N. Y. A.B. + Tecumseh, Mich. farmer G.S. I Friend 3 3 Bnglewood, N. J. f printer \ publisher A.B. Berlin, Germany, H.S. Chester, Pa. A.B. P 3+ 1 + Florence, Italy. clergyman A.B. I Cong. Northampton, Mass. Cousin, M. tIy^.T^V^no 1 fiAO A.B. 128 APPENDIX B [128 Bom Died 'Name Occu^paUon Litetary Fields Place of Birth 1807 1864 Kendall G. W. journalist narr. Amherst, N. H. 1807 1882 * Longfellow II. W, professor p. pr. Portland, Me. 1807 1847 Neal J. C. journalist pr. Greenland, N. H. 1807 1898 Sawyer L. A. clergyman pop. erud. Pinckney, N. Y. 1807 1892 • Whittier J. G. journalist p. pub. Haverhill, Mass. 1808^ » 1867 * Aldridge I. actor act. , U. S. 1808 1892 Barrett B. F. clergyman pop. Dresden, Me. 1808 1891 Beardsley E. E. clergyman erud. Stepney, Conn. 1808 1880 Boardman H. A. clergyman pop. Troy, N. Y. 1808 1825 Davidson L. M. p. Plattsburg, N. Y. 1808 1890 Day H. N. educator pop. New Preston, Conn. 1808 1894 Gallagher W. D. journalist p. Philadelphia. Pa. 1808 1860 Gray A. professor pop. Townsend. Vt. 1808 1879 Hillard G. S. lawyer narr. pop. Machias, Me. 1808 1887 Palmer R. clergyman p. Little Compton, u, I. 1808 1850 ♦ Prentiss S. S. lawyer or. Portland, Me. 1808 1854 BeedH. professor pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1808 1880 * Ripley G. literary critic pop. Greenfield, Mass. 1808 1895 * Smitn S. F. clergyman p. Boston, Mass. 1809 1860 Alexander J. A. C clergyman \ ppof easor editor erud. pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1809 1885 * Arthur T. S. pop. near Newburgh, N. Y. 1809 1865 Conant H.O.C. pop. Danvers, Mass. 1809 1894 Edwards T. clergyman pop. Hartford, Conn. 1809 1887 Fowler 0. S. phrenologist pop. Oohocton, N. Y. 1809 1894 ♦ Holmes 0. W. f physician \ author educator p. pr. Cambridge, Mass. 1809 1860 • Ingraham J. H. pr. pop. Portland, Me. 1809 1880 Irving T. teacher erud. New York, N. Y. 1809 18d5 * L/incolu A. publicist or. Hardin Co., Ky. 1809 1894 Lord J. author pop. Portsmouth, N. H. 1809 1891 Pike A. army officer p. Boston, Mass. 1809 1849 * Poe E. A. editor pr. p. Boston, Mass. 1809 1877 Semines R. naval officer narr. Charles CV)., Md. 1809 1859 Spooner S. dentist erud. Brandon, Vt. 1809 1852 Welhy A. B. p. St. Michael's, Md. 1809 1894 Winthrop B. C. puibliciftt or. Boston, Mass. 1810 1879 Burritt E. publicist pap. pub. New Britain, Conn. 1810 1873 Clark L. G. editor pr. pop. Otisco, N. Y. 1810 1888 ♦ Clarke J. F. clergyman pop. erud. spec. Hanover, N. II. 1810 185« Conrad R. T. lawyer dram. Philadelphia, Pa. 1810 1889 Gilbert J. G. actor act. Boston, Mass. 1810 1881 Goulding F. R. pr. Midway, Ga. 129] APPENDIX B 129 0 « s $ Father's ;> 1 1 4i 1 1 Place of Death Literary Relativeg Occupation § 1 (^ («, § :S 0 Oak Spring, Tex. Q.S.P. Cambridge, Mass. Brother Longfellow , S. ,1819 lawyer A.B. W Unit. 8 2 + 6 Philadelphia, Pa. clergyman Cong, + 3-f Whitesboro, N. Y. A.B. Hampton Falls, N. H. farmer H.S.P. I Friend 4 2 Lodez, Poland. A.B. + N«w Haven, Oonn. farmer A.B. W Philadelphia, Pa. AB. Plattsburg, N. Y. Sister, M Davidson, . M. 1823 physician H.S.P. I Prot. S 1 — New Haven, Conn. A.B. Louisville, Ky. H.S.P. I Prot. 4 3 4- 9 Brooklyn, N. Y. A.B. Boston, Mass. A.B. Newark, N. J. Judge A.B. I Cong. 7 -f 10 near Natchez, Miss. shipmaster A.B. I Oong. -f 4 At sea lawyer A.B. I 2-f -f New York, N. Y. merchant A.B. I Prot. 10 9 4- 0 Boston, Mass. A.B. 1 -f ^+ Princeton, N. J. Father, Alexander A. 1772 clergyman A.B. I Pres. 7 Philadelphia, Pa. G.S.P. Brooklyn, N. Y. clergyman I Bapt. 4- 2-f Detroit, Mich. Great-grandfather J. Edwards, 1703 larwyer A.B. I Ptm. 1 2+ near Sharon, Conn. Brother, L.N. A.B. Fowler, Isii Boston, Mass. Father, Holmes, A. 1763 clergyman A.B. I Oong. 5 3 + ? BDolly Springs, Miss. A.B. -f 1+ New York, N. Y. Uncle, W. Irving, 1783 Washington, D. C. carpenter G.S.P. p 3 2 -f 4 Stamford, Conn. business A.B. I Cong. -f- 2 Washington, D, C. A.B.P. Baltimore, Md. ■j- merchant A.B.P. w 3 2 -f 0 Mobile, Ala. A.B. 4- Plainfleld, N. J. A.B. Louisville, Ky. mechanic -f Boston, Mass. inerchant AB. w P.E. 14 14 + 6 New Britain, Conn. ( farmer \ shoemaker H.S. I Cong. 10 10 — Plerpont, N. Y. G.S. Jamaica Plain, Maaa. physician A.B. I Cong. 3+ 3 + 2+ Philadelphia, Pa. publisher H.S.P. I Boston, Mass. H.S.P. I Prot. ■f Roswell, Ga. clergyman A.B. I Prea. + I30 APPENDIX B [130 Born Died 'Same 1810 1888 Gray A. 1810 1877 Hart J. S. 1810 1850 Oasoli M. S. F. 1810 1860 • Parker T. 1810 1876 Sears E. H. 1810 1892 Sears R. 1810 1879 Smith M. H. 1810 1872 Spalding M. J. 1810 1864 Ticknor W. D. 1810 1885? Toombs R. 1811 1900 Barnard H. 1811 1890 Bowen F. 1811 1887 Eliot W. G. 1811 1896 Fowler L. N. 1811 1897 Gordon W. R. 1811 1872 ♦ Greeley H. 1811 1883 Greene G. W. 1811 1882 James H. 1811 1877 Jones J. S. 1811 1893 Kip W. I. 1811 1850 Osgood F. S. 1811 1872 Parton 8. P. W. 1811 1893 Peabody A. P. 1811 1891 Pendleton J. M. 1811 1884 * Phillips W. 1811 1892 Porter N. 1811 1896 * 8totce H. B. 1811 1882 Street A. B. 1811 1874 • Sumner C. 1811 1891 Thomas J. 1812 1894 ♦ CurUs G. T. 1812 Ditson G. L. 1812 1880 Fpcxthingham R. 1812 1906 Irring J. T. 1812 1899 Mac Keller T. 1812 1895 Mayo W. S. 1812 1893 Murdoch J. E. 1812 1885 • Prime S. I. 1812 1883 Stephens A. H. 1812 1901 Thompson A. C. Occupdtioti Literary Fields Place of Birth professor pop. Paris, N. Y. professor pop. Stockbridge, Mass. narr. pr. Cambridge, Mass. clergyman pub. or. pop. spec. Lexington, Mass. clergyman p. pop. Sandisfield, Mass. author pop. St. John, N. B. f journalist ( clergyman pub. Portland, Me. clergyman pub. erud. pop. Rolling Fork, Ky. publisher lib. Lebanon, N. H. publicist or. Wilkes Co., Ga. educator pub. Hartford, Conn. professor spec. erud. pop. Charlestown, Mass. ' clergyman educator pop. New Bedford, Mass. phrenologist pop. Cohocton, N. Y. clergyman spec. pub. New York, N. Y. journalist pub. erud. Amherst, N. H. professor erud. Bast Greenwich, R. I. author spec. Albany, N. Y. f actor \ physician dram. , U. S. clergyman pop. New York, N. Y. p. Boston, Ma&s. pr. Portland, Me. clergyman pop. Beverly, Mass. clergyman pub. pop. Spottsylvania Co., Va. philanthropist or. pub. Boston, Mass. f clergyman ( educator pop. spec. Farmington, Conn. author pub. pr. Litchfield, Conn. librarian p. Poughkeepsie, N. Y. publicist or. pub. Boston, Mass. author erud. pop. Cayuga Co., N. Y. lawyer erud. Watertown, Mass. author narr. Westford, Mass. journalist erud. Charlestown, Mass. lawyer narr. New York, N. Y. type-founder p. New York, N. Y. author pr. Ogdensburg, N. Y. actor act. Philadelphia, Pa. editor narr. pop. Ballston, N. Y. publicist pub. or. near Crawfordsville, G clergyman pop. Goshen, Oonn. 131 APPENDIX B 131 Father's 1 1 1 ^ .S4 S f 6 «> Place of Death Literary Relatives Occiipation § ^ 0 0 i Cambridge, Mass. ( farmer ( tanner H.S. I 8 1 + Philadelphia, Pa. farmer A.B. P Pres, 3 + + + + 1 At sea lawyer H.S. I 7 1 1 Florence, Italy. farmer A.B. P Unit. 11 11 0 Weston, Mass. farmer A.B. I Cong. 4 4 Toronto, Ont. G.S. I Cong. Brooklyn, N. Y. + 7 Baltimore, Md. A.B.P. B.C. Philadelphia, Pa. farmer G.S. I Bapt. 6 1 7 Washington, Ga. planiter A.B. I 6 5 3 Hartford, Conn. farmer A.B. W Boston, Mass. A.B. + 3 Pass Christian, Miss. merchant A.B. P Unit. 7 + 14- Brother 0. S. West Orange, N. J. Fowler, 1809 A.B. 2+ -f Manhasset, N. Y. A.B. Pleasantville, N. Y. farmer G.S. P Cong. 7 3 4- 7 Bast Greenwich, R. I. A.B.P. Boston, Mass. Son W. James ', 1842 real estate A.B. W Pres. 12 .+ 5 Boston, Mass. H.S. San Francisco, Cal. Brother, L. Kip, 1826 banker A.B. W 2+ + 2-f Hingham, Mass. Brother, N. P. merchant + 3 Brooklyn, N. Y. Willis, 1806 editor H.S. I Cong. 9 + 3 Boston, Mass. teacher A.B. A.B.P. I Unit. Boston, Mass. Judge A.B. w Cong. 9 8 + 0 New Haven, Conn. clergyman A.B, I Cong. 2+ 2 + 3-f Hartford, Conn. Father Beecher, , L. 1775 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 8 6 + 7 Albany, N. Y. lawyer H.S. I -f Washington, D. C. lawyer engineer A.B. A.B. I I 9 1 + 0 N«w York, N. Y. A.B. H.S. Charlestown, Mass. H.S.P. I Univ. + 5 Uncle, Irving, W. 1783 lawyer A.B. P.E. -f 1+ Philadelphia, Pa. naval oflScer H.S.P. p + 10 New York, N. Y. H.S. -1- Cincinnati, 0. bookbinder Manchester, Vt. physician A.B. I Pres. ^+ + Atlanta, Ga. farmer A.B. A.B.P. w Pres. 8 3 132 APPENDIX B [132 Bon% 1812 1812 1812 1813 1813 1813 1813 Died 1888 1885 ISoO 1900 1887 1683 1891 Tsame Warren W. Wells W. H. Woodworth F. C. Bartol C. A. ♦ Beecher H. W. Brooks C. T. Coles A. 1813 1894 Cooper 8. F. 1813 1813 1813 1813 1813 1813 1892 1895 1889 18«1 1842 18^ Cranch C. P. Dana J. D. Deane C. Douglas S. A. Baton C. H. Giles C. 1813 1897 Headley J. T. 1818 1813 1813 1813 181S 1813 1813 1813 1813 1813 1614 1814 1814 1814 1814 1614 1814 1814 1814 1814 1814 1814 1814 1814 1874 1882 lb53 1901 1891 1880 1886 1871 1880 1905 1873 188U 1900 1877 1894 1888 1877 1856 1886 1877 1872 1890 1882 1863 Hirst H. B. Howe J. B. Judd S. Kellogg E. rx>3«in^ B. J. Sargent E. • Stephens A. 8. • Tuckerman H. T. • Very J. Wlllson M. • Brodhead J. R. Chapin E. H. Codman J. Davenport E. L. Eilis G. E. Gay S. H. Hosmer W. H. C. Hubbell M. 8. Hudson H. N. • Motley J. L. Putnam G. P. Shlllaber B. P. Smith E. P. Yancey W. L. Occupation actor educator f printer ( author clergyman clergyman clergyman physician author artist professor merchant publicist actwr clergyman author lawyer clergyman clergyman « engraver \ author author author author author historian clergyman shipmaster actor clergyman journalist C lawyer ^ gov't official author historian publisher f editor \ author Jurist I journalist \ publicist Literary Fields act. pop. Place of Birth Philadelphia, Pa. Tolland, Conn. pop. Colchester, Conn. pop. Preeport, Me. or. pub. pop. Litchfield, Conn. p. p. Salem, Mass. Scotch Plains, N. J. narr. Scarsdale, N. Y. p. pop. erud. or. act. pop. Alexandria, Va. Utica, N. Y. Biddeford, Me. Brandon, Vt. Boston, Mass. Charlemont, Mass. erud. pop. Walton, N. Y. p. pub. pub. pr. Philadelphia, Pa. Boston, Mass. Westhampton, Mass. Portland, Me. erud. Beekman, N. Y. pop. pr. p. dram. Gloucester, Mass. pr. Derby, Conn. narr. pr. Boston, Mass. p. pop. erud. pop. narr. act. Salem, Mass. West Stockbridge, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Union Village, N. Y. Dorchester, Mass. Boston, Mass. erud. Boston, Mass. erud. HIngham, Mass. P. Avon, N. Y. pr. Oxford, Conn. erud. pop. Cornwall, Vt. erud. Dorchester, Mass. lib. pop. Brunswick, Me. pr. Portsmouth, N. H. spec. New York, N. Y. or. Warren Co., Ga. ^33] APPENDIX B 133 Father's 1 1 1 « « 1 I Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation 1 ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ g Boston, Mass. actor H.S. I 5 6 Chicago, 111. Uncle, S. At sea Woodworth, 1785 Boston, Mass. A.B. Brooklyn, N. Y. Father, L. Beecher, 1775 clergyman A.B. p Pres. 13 9 + 5 Newport, R. I. A.B. I Unit. 5 2 4- H- near Monterey, Cal. journalist H.S. w Bapt. + 2^ Father, J. F. Cooperstown, N. Y, Cooper, 1789 author I P.E. 7 2 — Cambridge, Mass. jurist A.B. I 24- + 14- New Haven, Conn. merchant A.B. I Cong. 11 4- 6^ Camibridge, Mass. physician H.S. I Unit. 2+ 4- 0 Chicago, 111. farmer H.S.P. I 2' 2 4- 2 Pittsburgh, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. A.B.P. 4- Newburgh, N. Y. Brother, P. C. Headley, 1819 clergyman A.B. 4- i'hiladelphia, Pa. merchant I Lima, Ind. clergyman A.B. 2+ 4- Augusta, Me. merchant A.B. A.B. I Cong. e' 2 4- 3 Dover Plains, N. Y. farmer G.S.P. p Friend Boston, Mass. A.B.P. 2-f 4- Newport, R. I. manuf'turer H.S. I 4- 24- New York, N. Y. Uncle, J. Tuckerman, 1778 A.B.P. w Salem, Mass. shipmaster A.B. A.B. p 6 1 — New York, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I D.R. New York, N. Y. artist H.S. I Cong. 3 1 4- H Boston, Mass. clergyman A.B.P. w Cong. Canton, Pa. hotel-keeper H.S. p 4- 7 Boston, Mass. { merchant shipowner A.B. I 11-f New Brighton, N. Y. lawyer A.B.P. I 3+ 2 Avon, N. Y. lawyer A.B. North Stonington.Conn. physician 4- Cambridge, Mass. farmer A.B. Cong. 24- near Dorchester, Bng. merchant A.B. 8 2 4- 4 New York, N. Y. lawyer G.S. I Bapt. 5 4 4- 11 Chelsea, Mass. G.S.P. Rochester, N. Y. A.B. near Montgomery, Ala. lawyer A.B.P. p 2 1 4- 134 APPENDIX B [134 Born Died 2iame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1815 1893 Baker H.N.W. pr. pop. Andover, Mass. 1615 1891 Barrows W. clergyman erud. New Braintree, Mass. 1815 1882 ♦ Dana R. H. Jr. lawyer narr. Cambridge, Mass. 1815 1896 * Doraey A. H. author pr. Georgetown, D. C. 1815 1852 Downing A. J. horticulturist pop. Newburgh, N. Y. 1815 1890 Flagg E. journalist pr. Wiscasset, Me. 1815 1873 Foster J. W. geologist pop. Brimfield, Mass. 1815 1857 • Grlswold R. W. author pop. Benson, Vt. 1815 1891 Kidder D. P. clergyman narr. Darien, N. Y. 1815 1890 Lester C. E. author erud. Qrlswold, Conn. 1815 1887 ♦ Pettlngill J. II. clergyman spec. Manchester, Vt. 1815 1853 * Phelps E. 8. pr. Andover, Mass. 1815 1877 Smith H. B. clergyman spec, pop. Portland, Me. 1815 1807 Stevens A. clergyman erud. Philadelphia, Pa. 181G 1889 ♦ Alllbone S. A. business erud. pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1816 1850 Cooke P. P. [ lawyer '[^ author actress p. Martensburg, Va. 1816 1876 * Cushman C. 8. act. Boston, Mass. 1816 1899 Daly C. P. judge erud. New York, N. Y. 1816 1878 Duycklnk E. A. author erud. New York, N. Y. 1816 1889 Dwlght B. W. educator erud. New Haven, Conn. 1816 1861 Eastman C. G. editor p. Fryeburg, Me. 1816 1881 Fields J. T. publisher narr. p. pr. Portsmouth, N. H. 1816 1904 Godwin P. journalist pop. Paterson, N. J. 1816 1841 Hooper L. p. Newburyport, Mass. 1816 1893 Howe H. historian erud. New Haven, Conn. 1816 1868 .Tewett C. C. librarian lib. Lebanon, Me. 1816 1892 • Kimball R. B. lawyer pr. narr. Plainfleld, N. H. 1816 1886 LIppincott J. B. publisher lib. Juliustown, N. J. 1816 1897 Proctor J. actor act. Marlboro, Mass. 1816 18S7 * Saxe J. G. lawyer p. HIghgate, Vt. 1816 1898 Spencer J. A. f clergyman \ professor pop. Hyde Park, N. Y. 1816 1877 Warfield C. A. pr. Natchez, Miss. 1817 1888 Barnes A. S. publisher lib. New Haven, Conn. 1817 1891 Bigelow J. journalist erud. Maiden, N. Y. 1817 1895 Douglass F. philanthropist pub. narr. Talbot Co., Md. 1817 1894 Jay J. lawyer pub. New York, N. Y. 1817 1854 Judson E. C. author pr. Eaton, N. Y. 1817 1889 Mathews C. author pr. dram. Port Chester, N. Y. 1817 1862 * Thoreau H. D. author narr. p. Concord, Mass. 135] APPENDIX B 135 .2 a ^ e Father's 1 3 ^ 5 3 1 « a 1 Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation 0 to ft4 ^ 1 s g Brooklyn, N. Y. Father, L. Woods, 1774 clergyman A.B.P. A.B. I Cong. 9 + 6 Rome, Italy. Father, R. H. Dana, 1787 lawyer A.B. I Unit. 4 + 6 Washington, D. C. clergyman I Prot. 3+ near Yonkers, N. Y. nurseryman H.S. I 5 5 0 Fairfax Co., Va. A.B. 2 Chicago, III. clergyman A.B. Unit. New York, N. Y. Evanston, 111. A.B. Detroit, Mich. A.B.P. New Haven, Conn. clergyman A.B. M.E. Boston, Mass. Father, M. Stuart, 1780 clergyman Cong. 9 + 3 New York, N. Y. A.B. I 7-i- -f 3-f San Jose, Cal. f merchant \ sup't. A.B. Lucerne, Switzerland. P.E. + 2-f Clark Co. Va. Brother, J. E. Cooke, 18S0 lawyer A.B. I + Boston, Mass. m.wchant G.S. P 5 1 — Sag Harbor, N. Y. carpenter G.S. P R.C. 2 1 New York, N. Y. publisher A.B. I P.E. 2 1 -L 2+ Clinton, N. Y. Grandfather, merchant A.B. I -f T. Dwight, 1752 Montpeller, Vt. clergyman A.B. P M.E. 6 + 2 Boston, Mass. shipmaster H.S. I Unit. 2 + New York, N. Y. A.B. P Pres. 5 + 8 Brooklyn, N. Y. merchant H.S.P. I P.E. 4+ Columbus, 0. r publisher \ book-seller H.S. P Cong. 7 7 + 2+ Braintree, Mass. clergyman A.B. 3-f New York, N. Y. A.B. 4- 5 Phitadelpiiia, Pa. H.S.P. + Boston, Mass. Albany, N. Y. A.B. -h 1+ Passaic, N. J. surveyor A.B. I near Louisville, Ky. A.B.P. 2+ + Brooklyn, N. Y. merchant G.S.P. I Pres 5 - + 10 f farmer \ merchant A.B. I Pres. 5 + 8 Anaoostla, D. C. G.S.P. P M.E. + 5 New York, N. Y. Father, W. Jay, 1789 judge A.B. W P.E. 7 + 6 Hamilton, N. Y. H.S.P. P Bapt. 6 5 + 1 Now York, N. Y. A.B. Concord, Mass. pencil maker A.B. P Cong. 4 3 — 136 APPENDIX B [136 Born Diea liame Occupation 1817 1882 Tomes R. C physician I author 1818 1882 Bennett D. R. M. editor 1818 1907 Burr E, clergyman 1818 1901 Channing W. E. author 1818 1896 Coxe A. C. clergyman 1818 1869 Cozzens F. S. merchant 1818 1891 DeLeon E. diplomatist 1818 1897 Drisler H. professor 1818 1877 Ellet E. F. 1818 1891 Hill T. educator 1818 1888 Jarves J. J. 1818 1852 Jenkins J. S. f editor \ lawyer 1818 1909 Matliews W. author 1818 1881 * Morgan L. H. lawyer 1818 1887 Peterson C. J. publisher 1818 1878 * Prentiss E. P. author 1818 1885 Shaw H. W. author 1819 1884 Abbot E. teacher 1819 1898 Brooks N. C. educator 1819 1897 Dana C. A. journalist 1819 1892 Durrie D. S. librarian 1819 1902 English T. D. journalist 1819 1903 Headley P. C. author 1819 1881 * Holland J. G. journalist 1819 1910 * Howe J. W. 1819 1904 Huntington F. D. clergyman 1819 1895 Lanman C. librarian 1819 1892 * Longfellow S. clergyman 1819 1891 ♦ Ix)well J. R. author 1819 1891 * Melville H. author 1819 1892 Parsons T. W. author 1819 1899 * Bouthxcorth E. D. Q. N. author 1819 1886 * Stevens H. bibliographer 1819 1895 Story W. W. artist 1819 1887 Taylor B. F. jooimalist 1819 1879 Thompson J. P. clergyman 1819 1881 Wallace W. R. lawyer Literary Fields Place of Birth erud. New York, N. Y. pub. pop. Springfield, N. Y. Green's Farms, Conn. P- Boston, Mass. p. pub. pop. pr. Mendham, N. J. New York, N. Y. narr. Colrumbia, S. C. pop. pop. erud. pr. spec. narr. Staten Island, N. Y. Sodus Point, N. Y. New Brunswick, N. J, Boston, Mass. erud. Albany, N. Y. pop. erud. pop. Waterville, Me. Aurora, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. pop. Portland, Me. pr. erud. erud. pub. pop. erud. p. Lanesborough, Mass. Jackson, Me. Cecil Co., Md. Hinsdale, N. H. Albany, N. Y. Philadelphia, I'a. pop. Walton, N. Y. p.pub.erud.pop.pr. Belchertown, Mass. pub. p. New York, N. Y. pop. narr, erud. pr. Hadley, Mass. Monroe, Mich. P- Portland, Me. p. pub. pr. Cambridge, Mass. pr. narr. New York, N. Y. p. Boston, Mass. pr. Washington, D. C. erud. Barnet, Vt. p. narr. Salem, Mass. pr. p. Dowville, N. Y. pop. p. Philadelphia, Pa. Lexington, Ky. 137] APPENDIX B 137 Father's 1 1 1 ^ Place of Death lAierary Relatives Occupation t3 1 £ Brooklyn, N. Y. A.B. New York, N. Y. G.S. A.B. Concord, Mass. Uncle, W. B. Channing, 1780 physician A.B.P. I Clifton Springs, N. Y. clergyman A.B. I P.E. Bi ooklyn, N. Y. Brother, T. C. merchant H.S. I New York, N. Y. De Leon, 1839 physjician A.B. 6 New York, N. Y. A.B. New York, N. Y. physician H.S.P. I Waltham, Mass. tanner A.B. P Unit. 9 Terasp, Switzerland. H.S. W Syracuse, N. Y. / miller \ farmer A.B. A.B. I P.E. 5 Rochester, N. Y. A.B. Philadelphia, Pa. A.B.P. 2+ Dorset, Vt. Father, E. Payson, 1783 clergyman Cong. 8 Monterey, Cal. A.B.P. w Cambridge, Mass. A.B. 1-f Philadelphia, Pa. A.B. near Glen Cove, N. Y. A.B.P. Madison, Wis. Brother, J. T. Headley, 1813 clergyman H.S. H.S. H.S. I New York, N. Y. wool-carder H.S. p Cong. 6 Portsmouth, R. I. Daughter, L. E. Richards, 1850 banker H.S. w P.E. 7 Hadley, Mass. clergyman A.B. I Unit. 11 Washington, D. C. gov't-oflacial H.S. I Portland, Me. Brother, H. W. Longfellow, 1807 lawyer A.B. w Unit. 5 Camhridge, Mass. Uncle, J. Lowell, 1799 clergyman A.B. I Unit. 5 New York, N. Y. merchant w Scituate, Mass. H.S. Washington, D. C. teacher H.S. I South Hampstead, Eng. Brother, B. F. Stevens, 1833 / farmer \ Inn-keeper A.B. I 11 Valomhrosa, italy. Father, J. Story, 1779 jurist A.B. I Unit. 7 Cleveland, O. educator A.B. I Bapt. Berlin, Germany. druggist A.B. I Pres. H- New York, N. Y. A.B. + + + 4- 3 + 1 -f- + « 138 APPENDIX B [138 Bom Died Name Oooupaiion 1819 1885 * Warner S. author 1819 1886 * WTiipple E. P. ( librarian \ author 1819 1892 ♦ Whitman W. C journalist \ author 1820 1898 Allen J. H. clergyman 1820 1895 Ballou M. M. journalist 1820 1905 * Bartlett J. publisher 1820 1891 Botta A. C. L. 1820 1874 Bristed C. A. author 1820 1893 Brocket! L. P. author 1820 1872 Brownell H. 11. teacher 1820 1871 ♦ Carp A. author 1820 1898 Dabney R. L. f clergyman \ teacher 1820 1899 Dawson J. W. geologist 1820 Deems C. F. clergyman 1820 1892 Gayler C. dramatist 1820 18^ Graves I. R. clergyman 1820 Hoppin J. M. J clergyman \ educator 1820 1885 Hough F. B. physician 1820 1903 Hovey A. ■ clergyman ■ educator 1820 1857 Kane E. K. surgeon 1820 1881 Norton J. N. clergyman 1820 1867 O'Hara T. journalist 1820 1890 Phelps A. clergyman 1820 1887 Poore B. P. journalist 1820 1897 Preston M. J. 1820 1869 Raymond H. .T. journalist 1820 1895 Root G. F. musician 1820 1894 ♦ Shedd W. G. T. f clergyman \ professor 1820 1898 * Thayer W. M. f clergyman \ author 1820 1915 Van AlUtyne FJ.C author 1820 1888 Wallack J. J. L. actor 1820 Warner A. B. author 1821 1906 Anderson J. J, teacher 1821 1882 Chester J. L. antiquarian 1821 1895 Copped H. educator 1821 1907 de Peyster J. W. historian 1821 1890 Dexter H. M. f editor ( clergyman Literary Fields Place of Birth pr. pop. New York, N. Y. pr. Gloucester, Mass. p. Huntington, N. Y. pop. erud. Northboro, Mass. pop. narr. Boston, Mass. pop. p. pop. narr. pop. P. Plymouth, Mass. Bennington, Vt. New York, N. Y. Canton, Conn. Providence, R. I. p. pr. near Cincinnati, 0. spec. narr. pop. Louisa Co., Va. pub. pop. dram, pub. Pictou, N. S. Baltimore, Md. New York, N. Y. Chester, Vt. narr. pop. Providence, R. I. erud. Martinsburg, N. Y. spec. pop. Greene, N. Y. narr. pop. erud. p. pop. erud. Philadelphia, Pa. Waterloo, N. Y. Danville, Ky. West Brookfield, Mass. Newburyport, Mass. p. Philadelphia, Pa. pub. p. Lima, N. Y. Sheflaeld, Mass. spec. erud. pop. Acton, Mass. pop. Franklin, Mass. P- dram. act. South Bast, N. Y. New York, N. Y. pop. pr. New York, N. Y. pop. erud. pop. erud. New lork, N. Y. Norwich, Conn. Savannah, Ga. New York, N. Y. ei-Tid. pub. Plympton, Mass. 139] APPENDIX B 139 Place of Death Highland Falls, N. Y. Boston, Mass. Camden, N. J. Cambridge, Mass. Cairo, Egypt. Now York, N. Y. Washington, D. C. Brooklyn, N. Y. Ba«t Hartford, Conn. New York, N. Y. Victoria, Tex. Montreal, P. Q. New York, N. Y. Brooklyn, N. Y. Memphis, Tenn. Lowville, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Louisville, Ky. near Giierryton, Ala. Bar Harbor, Me. Washington, D. C. Baltimore, Md. New York, N. Y. Bailey Island, Me. New York, N. Y. Franklin, Mass. Bridgeport, Conn. Stamford, Conn. London, England. South Bethlehem, Pa. New York, N. Y. New Bedford, Mass. Literary Relatives Sister, A. B. Warner, 1820 Father, H. Ballou, 1771 Sister, P. Cary, 1824 Sister, S. Warner, 1819 Father's Occupation lawyer carpenter clergyman clergyman clergyman physician farmer planter bookdealer clergyman physician farmer lawyer clergyman teacher clergyman f educator \ clergyman farmer tanner farmer lawyer grocer lawyer clergyman H.S. G.S. A.B. H.S. H.S.P. H.S. A.B. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. G.S. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S. A.B. A.B. G.S.P. A.B. A.B. G.S. A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. I Unit. I Univ. I P.E. G.S.P. P Univ. I Pres. Pres. M.E. Pres, B.C. Cong. I Pres. I Pres. P Cong. M.E. I W I Cong. ;3k i i I i n 6 2 1 2+ 7 4 4 2+ + + + 4- 6 + 8 + + 4- + 2-f 0 4 140 APPENDIX B Born Died name Occupation Literary Fi^d* Place of Birth 1821 1&04 Diaz A.M. author pop. Plymouth, Mass. 1821 1898 Eliot S. educator erud. pop. Boston, Mass. 1821 1894 Poole W. F. librarian pop. Salem, Mass. 1821 1871 Scribner C. publisher lib. New York, N. Y. 1821 1888 * Squler E. G. journalist narr. Bethlehem, N. Y. 1821 1902 Taylor W. clergyman narr. Rockbridge Co., Va. 1821 1897 Trumbull J. H. librarian erud. Stonington, Conn. 1821 188T Youmans E. L. j editor lecturer teacher pop. Coeymans, N. Y. 1822 1897 * Adams W. T. pr. Medway, Mass. 1822 1894 Barrow F. E. pr. Charleston, S. C. 1822 1905 Bennett E. author pr. Monson, Mass. 1822 1895 Calkins N. A. educator pop. Gainesville, N. Y. 1822 1899 Cuyler T. L. clergyman pop- Aurora, N. Y. 1822 1888 Darley F. O. C. artist lib. Philadelphia, Pa. 1822 1881 Durant H. F. lawyer pat. Hanover, N. H. 1822 1907 Field H. M. editor narr. Stockbridge, Mass. 1822 1895 Frothingham 0. B. clergyman pub. pop. Boston, Mass. 1822 1889 Gardiner F. clergyman pop. Gardiner, Me. 1822 1903 Gilmore J. R. merchant narr. Boston, Mass. 1822 1885 Grant U. S. army officer ■ publicist narr. Point Pleasant, 0. 1822 1909 ♦ Hale E. E. clergyman pr. narr. pop. Boston, Mass. 1822 Barkness A. professor pop. Blackstone, Mass. 1822 Hill W. H. f clergyman \ educator pop. near Lebanon, Ky. 1822 1898 Johnaton R. M. f educator \ lawyer author pr. Hancock Co., Ga. 1822 1886 Judson E. Z. C. pr. Philadelphia, Pa. 1822 * Mitchell D. G. author pr. narr. Norwich, Conn. 1822 1903 Olmsted F. L. landscape architect narr. Hartford, Conn. 1822 1903 Pope W. B. ' clergyman professor artist spec. pop. Horton, N. S. 1822 1872 ♦ Read T. B. p. Chester Co., Pa. 1822 1894 Strong J. professor erud. New York, N. Y. 1822 1885 • White R. G. J editor ■gov't official editor pop. narr. erud. New York, N. Y. 1823 1909 Angell G. T. pub. Southbridge, Mass. 1823 1890 ♦ Boker G. il. author p. dram. Philadelphia, Pa. 1823 1896 Coffin C. C. journalist author narr. pop. Boscawen, N. H. 1823 1838 Davidson M. M. p. Plattsburg, N. Y. 1823 1884 Duganne A. J. H. author p. Boston, Mass. 1823 1899 Baton D. B. lawyer pub. Hardwick, Vt. 1823 1896 Eddy D. C. clergyman narr. Salem, Mass. 141] APPENDIX B 141 Place of Death Beverly Farms, Mass. Evanston, 111. Lucerne, Switzerland. Brooklyn, N. Y. Palo Alto, Oal. Hartford, Conn. New York, N. Y. Boston, Mass. New York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. CI ay mo nt, Del. Wellesley, Mass. Stockbridge, Mass. Boston, Mass. Middletown, Oonn. Glen Falls, N. Y. near Saratoga, N. Y. Literary Relatives Brother, H. C. Trumbull, 1830 Uncle, A. H. Everett, 1790 Uncle, A. H. Everett, 1790 Father's Occupation tanner merchant clergyman farmer Eq A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. 0.8. A.B. A.B. hotel-keeper U.S. farmer farmer lawyer actor lawyer clergyman clergyman busines.s j farmer \ tanner Journalist farmer H.S.P. H.S. A.B. G.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. P.E. M.E. I Pres. Prot. I Cong. I Unit. W P.E. Bapt. B.C. 3+ 3+ 7 9 6 7 + 24- -f 1+ -h + 4- 4- + 4- 2+ + 2 BaKimore, Md. Stamford, N. Y. Waver ly, Mass. New York, N. Y. Round Lake, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Boston, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Brookllne, Mass. Saratoga, N. Y. N>ew York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Oak Bluffs, Mass. Sister, L. M. Davidson, 1808 planter lawyer clergyman merchant farmer merchant clergyman banker farmer physician A.B. G.S. A.B. A.B.P. A.B. G.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. H.S. A.B. A.B.P. W Bapt. I I I Cong. Prot. Prot. Bapt. Prot. 6 5-1- + 1+ 8 1 _|_ 4 1 1-^0 3_|_ 3-1. _|_ 0 3 3 — 142 APPENDIX B [142 Born 1823 1823 Died 1877 1911 name Fish H. C. * Higginson T. W. Occupation clergyman author Literary Fields pop. pr. pub. pop. narr. Place of Birth Halifax, Vt. Cambridge, Mass. 1823 1886 Hodge A. A. clergyman spec. pop. Princeton, N. J. 1823 1895 Houghton H. 0. publisher lib. Sutton, Vt. 1823 1904 Lippincott 8. J. author pr. narr. Pompey, N. Y. 1823 1893 Neill E. D. ' clergyman educator historian erud. Philadelphia, Pa. 1823 1893 * Parkman F. erud, narr. Boston, Mass. 1823 1904 • Seiss J. A. clergyman pop. spec. Graceham, Md. 1823 1863 Smucker S. M. ' lawyer " ^ author librarian pop. New Market, Va. 1824 1899 Adams F. G. Ub. Rodman, N. Y. 1824 1871 ♦ Cary P. author P- near Cincinnati, 0. 1824 1889 Cox 8. 8. publicist narr. Zanesville, 0. 1824 1892 * Curtis G. W. r editor 1 author pub. narr. pr. Providence, R. I. 1824 1824 1824 1863 1904 1893 King T. S. Kirk J. F. Larcom L. clergyman author teacher or. pop. pr. pop. p. New York, N. Y. Frederickton, N. B. Beverly, Mass. 1824 1903 Lei and C. G. ' journalist author author p. erud. pr. Philadelphia, Pa. 1824 1824 1824 1880 1899 1892 Letcis E. A. B. R. Moore C.J. Shea J. D. G. p. dram, pr. «rud. pop. near Baltimore, Md. Philadelphia, Pa. New York, N. Y. 1824 1906 JVhitney A. D. T. pr. Boston, Mass. 1824 1891 Wlnohell A. r educator " L geologist clergyman lawyer professor pop. North Bast, N. Y. 1825 1825 1825 1883 1902 1896 Baker W. M. Ajutler W. A. Child F. J. pr. P- pop. erud. Washington, D. C. Albany, N. Y. Boston, Mass. 1825 li>13 Dorr J. 8. C. P- Charleston, S. C. 1825 1825 1825 1825 1901 1901 1909 Fletcher J. C. Hall F. * Lea H. C. Pike M. H. G. clergyman philologist publisher narr. erud. erud. pr. Indianapolis, Ind. Troy, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Eastport, Me. 1825 1904 Shields C. W. ' clergyman editor librarian author journalist philanthropist clergyman author spec. New Albany, Ind. 1825 1825 1825 182G 1826 1826 1826 1908 1903 1878 1878 1890 1891 1906 Spofford A. R. • Stoddard R. H. * Taylor B. Bowles S. Brace C. L. Crosby H. De Forest J. W. Ub. p. narr. p. pr. pub. narr. pub. pop. pr. Gilmanton, N. H. Hingham, Mass. Kennett Square, Pa. Springfield, Mass. Litchfield, Conn. New York, N. Y. Seymour, Conn. 143] APPENDIX B 143 Place of Death Newark, N. J. Cambridge, Mass. Princeton, N. J, North Andover, Mass. St. Paul, Minn. Jamaica Plain, Mass. Gettysburg, Pa. Philadelpliia, Pa. Topeka, Kans. Newport, R. I, New York, N. Y. Livingston, N. Y. San Francisco, Cal. Pliiladelplila, Pa. Boston, Mass. Florence, Italy. London, England. London, England. Elizabeth, N. J. Ann Arbor, Mich. South Boston, Mass. Yonkers, N. Y. Boston, Mass. Newport, R. I. Holderness, N. H. New York, N. Y. Berlin, Germany. Springfield, Mass. St. Moritz, Switzerland. New York, N. Y. Literary Relatives Father, C. Hodge, 1797 Great-grandfather, J. Edwards. 1703 Father, S. S. Schmu-cker, 1799 Sister, A. Gary, 1820 Brother, G. F. Train, 182© Father's Occupation clergyman merchant clergyman physician physician clergyman farmer clergyman farmer farmer banker clergyman ship-owner ship-master merchant planter scientist teacher clergyman lawyer sail-maker quarry- operator banker lawyer naturalist clergyman ship-master farmer journalist land-owner § -a A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. G.S.P. A.B. H.S.P. H.S.P. H.S. H.S. A.B. A.B.P. H.S. A.B. ship-owner H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S. H.S. A.B. H.S. G.S. H.S. H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. I I I Bapt. I Unit. I Pres. I I Pres. W Unit. Morav. Luth. Cong. Univ. I Unit, I P.E. R.C. I Pres. W 12 11 5+ Univ. P.E. 6 Cong. 9 2+ 2+ 3+ Friend 10 Unit. 5 Cong, 4 2+ 11 10 2+ 6 2 2+ I I + 4 + 2 + -h + + + 2+ + + + + 34- + 24- + + 1 + 7 144 APPENDIX B [144 Bom Died Tiame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1826 Denison M. A. author pr. Cambridge, Mass. 1826 1864 * Foster S. C. balladist p. Pittsburgh, Pa. 1826 1901 KipL. lawyer pr. New York, N. Y. 1826 1881 Quackenbos G. P. educator pop. New York, N. Y. 1826 1903 Smith C. H. ' lawyer planter professor pr. Lawrenceville, Ga. 1826 1894 • Whitney W. D. erud. pop. Northampton, Mass. 1&27 1905 Atkinson E. corporation officer pub. Brookline, Mass. 1827 Bascom J. professor pop. G«noa, N. Y. 1827 Bates S. P. ' educator author erud. Mendon, Mass. 1827 1879 Beers E. E. p. Goshen, N. Y. 1827 1894 Cooke J. P. chemist pop. Boston, Mass. 1827 1866 ♦ Cummins M. 8. pr. Salem, Mass. 1827 1908 DixM. clergyman pop. New York, N. Y. 1827 1910 • Eddy M. B. O. religioxis leader spec. pub. pop. Bow, N. H. 1827 1909 Fisher G. P. ■ clergyman ' L professor lawyer spec. erud. pop. Wrentham, Mass. 1827 1887 Hope J. B. p. Norfolk, Va. 1827 1908 Norton C. E. professor erud. pop. Cambridge, Mass. 1827 Nott C. C. lawyer narr. Schenectady, N. Y. 1827 Robinson S.T.D. pub. Belchertown, Mass. 1827 1910 ♦ Rolfe W. J. ' teacher author author pop. Newburyport, Mass. 1827 1916 ♦ Trowbridge J. T. pr. p. Ogden, N. Y. 1827 1910 Victor 0. J. f editor \ author pop. Sandusky, 0. 1827 1»05 ♦ Wallace L. lawyer pr. Brookvllle, Ind. 1828 1887 BaJrd C. W. clergyman erud. Princeton, N. J. 1828 1898 Blackburn W. M. ' clergyman educator erud. Carlisle, Pa. 1828 Browne W. H. f author \ teacher editor erud. Baltimore, Md. 1828 1890 Bunce 0. B. pop. pr. New York, N. Y. 1828 1911 Corson H. professor pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1828 1885 Drake F. S. erud. Northwood, N. H. 1828 1909 Finley M. pop. pr. Chillicothe, 0. 1828 1863 Haven A. B. pop. Hudson, N. Y. 1828 1909 McClure A. K. journalist pub. Perry Co., Pa. 1828 Moore F. author pop. Con. 1828 1904 Rankin J. E. clergyman p. Thornton, N. H. 1628 1898 ♦ Wells D. A. economist pop. pub. spec. Springfield, Mass. 145] APPENDIX B 145 Place of Death New York, N. Y. New London, N. H. New Haven, Conn. Boston, Mass. Williamstown, Mass. Meadville, Pa. Orange, N. J. Newport, R. I. Dorchester, Mass. Brookline, Mass. Norfolk, Va. Cambridge, Mass. Oak Bluffs, Mass. Literary Relatives Brother, W. I. Kip, 1811 Father, J, A. Dix, 1798 Father's Occupation merchant banker physician banker clergyman farmer mill-owner lawyer judge publicist farmer land-owner Father, f professor A. Norton, 1786 \ scholar professor lawyer {hatter trunk-maker farmer H.S.P. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S. A.B. H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. n.s. A.B.P. H.S.P. D.R. Cong. Cong. Bapt. Unit. Pres. Cong. Pres. 3+ 2 I Cong. 6 12 3 10 3+ + + 5 + 10 + 6 7 5 4- 7 + + + 1 + 4 + 2+ + 6 + + 4 + 3 Rye, N. Y. Baltimore, Md. New York, N. Y. Ithaca, N. Y. Washington, D. C. Mamaroneck, N. Y. Lynchburg, Va. Norwich, Conn. Father, R. Baird, 1798 Father, S. G. Drake, 1798 lawyer clergyman merchant farmer book-seller physician clergyman farmer A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. H.S. H.S. FI.S. H.S. H.S. G.S. H.S. A.B. A.B. A.B. Pres. I M.E. I Friend Bapt. 2+ 0+ + + + + + + 146 APPENDIX B [146 Born Died Name Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1828 1861 * Winthrop T. lawyer pr. New Haven, Conn. 1829 1894 Childs G. W. / publisher \ journalist lib. Baltimore, Md. 1829 1909 Helper H. R. pub. near Mocksville, N. C. 1829 1905 * Jefferson J. actor act. Philadelphia, Pa. 1829 1893 Lamb M. J. R. N. author erud. Plainfield, Mass. 1829 1899 Miller L. manufacturer pat. Greentown, O. 1829 1914 * Mitchell S. W. physician pr. p. Philadelphia, Pa. 1829 1892 Smith R. publisher lib. Lebanon, Conn. 1829 1867 * Timrod H. author P- Charleston, S. C. 1829 1908 Townsend T. S. business erud. New York, N. Y. 1829 1904 Train G. P. promoter pub. Boston, Mass. 1829 1900 * Warner C. D. ( journalist t editor actress pr, narr. pop. Plainfield, Mass. 1830 1895 Bowers E. C. act. Stamford, Conn. 1830 1903 Brooks N. f Journalist \ author pr. Castlne, Me. 1830 1886 * Cooke J. B. author pr. narr. erud. Winchester, Va. 1830 1886 Dickinson E. E. p. Amherst, Mass. 1830 1901 Egle W. H. ' physician librarian erud. Harrisburg, Pa. 1830 1866 Hayne P. H. author p. Charleston, S. C. 1830 1894 Klrkland J. lawyer pr. Geneva, N. Y. 1830 1905 Perry A. L. tieacher pop. Lyme, N. H. 1830 Terhune M. V. author pr. Amelia Co., Va. 1830 1903 Trumbull H. C. editor pop. Stonington, Conn. 1830 1908 Wister A. L. author pop. Philadelphia, Pa. 1830 1875 Wright C. mathematician spec. Northampton, Mass. 1831 1894 * Austin J. G. pr. Worcester, Mass. 1831 1895 Badeau A. army officer narr. New York, N. Y. 1831 Baxter J. P. r manufacturer ' [ banker author erud. Gorham, Me. 1831 1889 Booth M. L. erud. pop. Yaphank, N. Y. 1831 1912 Brooks E. educator pop. Stony Point, N. Y. 1831 1913? Clark G. W. clergyman pop. South Orange, N. J. 1831 1910 Davis R. B. H. pr. pop. Washington, Pa. 1831 1905 • Dodge M. M. editor pr. New York, N. Y. 1831 1901 * Donnelly I. publicist pub. Philadelphia, Pa. 147] APPENDIX B H7 Place of Death Great Bethel, Va. Philadelphia, Pa. Washington, D. C. New Yorls, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. New Yorlt, N. Y. Columbia, S. C. Hartford Conn. Washington, D. C. near Boyce, Va. Amherst, Miiss. Augusta, Ga. Chicago, 111. WilUamstown, Mass. Cambridge, Mass. Roxbury, Mass. Ridgewood, N. J. New York, N. Y. Literary Relatives Uncle, T. D. Woolsey, 1801 Uncle, R. C. Smith, 1797 Sister, A. D. T. Whitney, 1824 Brother, P. P. Cooke, 1816 Uncle, R. Y, Hayne, 1791 Mother, C. M. S. Kirkland, 1801 Brother, J. H. Trumbull, 1821 Father, W, H. Furness, 1802 Father's Occupation actor builder physician teacher book-binder lawyer farmer clergyman ship-builder lawyer college treasurer Onteora, N. Y. Brother, E. C. Donnelly, 1838 educator clergyman merchant clergyman trader lawyer physician teacher professor scientist physician A.B. G.S. H.S. H.S. H.S. A.B.P. A.B. A.B.P. H.S. ship-owner G.S. A.B. H.S. G.S. A.B. H.S. naval officer A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. H.S.P. A.B. H.S. H.S. H.S. H.S. A.B.P. A.B. H.S. H.S. I P.E. I P I M.E. I P.E. I Cong. I I W I Unit. P Cong. W Pres. I Unit. I Cong. Bapt. I Unit. I R.C. 1+ 1+ 4 4+ 3+ 4 2+ ft^ :g ;? + + 4- + + 4- + + + 10 + 4 + + + 3 + 4 + 7 + 6 + + + 3 + li 148 APPENDIX B Born Died Name Occupation 1831 1891 Florence W. J. actor 1831 1908 Gilman D. C. educator 1831 1912 Goodwin W. W. professor 1831 Hammond E. P. evangelist 1831 1885 * Jackson H. H. 1831 1893 Jones C. C. lawyer 1831 Miller H. M. 1831 Peloubet F. N. clergyman 1831 Rice E. W. j editor \ author 1831 1885 Victor M. V. author 1831 1902 Ward C. 0. gov't, official 1831 1869 Wajtson H. C. journalist 1831 1897 * Winsor J, librarian 1832 1888 * Alcott L. M. author 1832 Allen E. A. 1832 1906 Baird H. M. professor 1832 • Bancroft H. H. r historian 'i publisher 1832 1907 * Conway M. D. clergyman 1832 1896 Perry N. 1832 1898 Perry W. S. clergyman 1832 1902 Talmage T. D. clergyman 1832 1801 Townsend M. A. author 1832 Vincent J. H. clergyman 1832 * White A. D. educator 1832 1884 Work H. C. printer 1833 1893 * Booth E. actor 1833 1879 Clarke J. S. actor 1838 1906 Clarice R. 8. 1833 1896 * Dodge M. A. author 1833 1905 Drake S. A. author 1833 1912 * Furness H. H. r lawyer \ author 1833 1899 * Ingersoll R. G. r lawyer \ lecturer 1833 1888 Locke D. R. journalist 1833 1903 McCrady E. lawyer 1833 1913 Miller E. G. H. editor 1833 Morris C. author 1833 1908 * Stedman E. C. J author \ editor 1833 1902 Stevens B. F. publisher Literary Fields Place of Birth act. Albany, N. Y. pat. erud. Norwich, Conn. pop. Concord, Mass. pop. Ellington, Conn. p. pr. Amherst, Mass. erud. Savannah, Ga. narr. Auburn, N. Y. pop. New York, N. Y. pop. GloversTille, N. Y. pr. pub. Erie, Pa. erud. Joliet, 111. pop. Baltimore, Md. erud. Boston, Mass. pr. Germantown, Pa. p. Strong, Me. erud. Philadelphia, Pa. erud. lib. Granville, 0. pop. erud. Stafford Co., Va. p. Dudley, Mass. erud. Providence, R. I. pop. Bound Brook, N. J. p. Lyons, N. Y. pat. Tuscaloosa, Ala. erud. Flomer, N. Y. P- Middletown, Conn. act. Bel Air, Md. act. Baltimore, Md. pr. Norridgewock, Me. pr. pub. Hamilton, Mass, erud. Boston, Mass. erud. Philadelphia, Pa. pub. or. Dresden, N. Y, pub. pr. Vestal, N. Y. erud. Charleston, S. C. pop. Brooklyn, N. Y. pop. Chester, Pa. p. pop. Hartford, Conn. erud. Barnet, Vt. 149] APPENDIX B 149 Place of Death Father's Literary Relatives Occupation 1 1 .2 Si 1 Philadelpliia, Pa. G.S. P R.C. 7 1 + Norwich, Conn. manuf'turer clergyman A.B. A.B. A.B. Cong. 9 5 + 2 San Francisco, Cal. professor H.S. + 2 near Augusta, G^a. clergyman A.B. Pros. - + banker H.S. Cong. 4 + 4 ( farmer \ manuf'turer A.B. A.B. Prot. 5 -4- 5 Ilohokus, N. J. H.S. 5 .3 -f- Yuma, Ariz. Brother Ward, , L. F. 1841 farmer A.B.P. M.E. 8 -h 3 Sacramento, Cal. Cambridge, Mass. merchant A.B. w Unit. 5 2 + 14- Concord, Mass. Father, Alcott, A. B. 1799 teacher H.S. 5 2 Father, R. Baird, 1798 clergyman A.B. Pres. 8 + farmer H.S. P. + judge A.B. M.:i 3 2 + 4 Dudley, Mass. merchant H.S.P. Dubuque, la. A.B. 4- Washington, D. C. farmer A.B.P. D.R. 12 12 + 3+ Galveston, Tex. + 3' merchant A.B.P. M.E. 9 + 1 banker A.B. P.E. 2 + 6 Hartford, Conn. G.S. New York, N. Y. actor G.S. 10 7 -\- 1 r^ondon, l.'ngland. G.S. — farmer • H.S. Cong. 7 7 Father, DraLe, S. G. 1798 book-seller H.S. ^+ Wallingford, Pa. Father, Furness W. H. ,1802 clergyman A.B. Unit. 4 2 + 4 Dobb's Ferry, N. Y. clergyman H.S.P. Cong. 2+ + 2 Toledo, 0, journalist lawyer physician marble- G.S.P. A.B. A.B. p M.E. 8+ 2 4- -1- 3 4 - cutter G.S.P. M.E. 11 — hotel -keeper New York, N. Y. lawyer A.B. Prot. a + 4 Surbilon, Eng. Brother, H. Stevens, 1819 r farmer ( inn-keeper A.B.P. 11 10 + 150 APPENDIX B [150 Bom Died Name Occupation 1833 1911 Thompson D. actor 1833 ♦ TinckerM.A. author 1833 Ward a. actress 1833 Warren W. F. ■ educator ■ ^ author 1834 1877 Adams E. actor 1834 1899 * Alger H. Jr. clergyman 1834 1865 Arnold G. author 1834 1867 ♦ Browne C. F. humorist 1834 Champlin J. D. ' author ' ^ editor 1834 Clement G. E. 1834 Gibbons J. clergyman 1834 Harris M. C. 1834 1907 Holmes M. J. 1834 Hosmer J. K. ■ professor librarian 1834 1903 Hurst J. F. clergyman 1834 1902 Osmun T. E, author 1834 1902 ♦ Stockton F. R. f editor \ author 1834 Vincent M. R. ' clergyman professor 1835 Abbott L. r clergyman \ editor 1835 1915 Adams C. F. lawyer 1835 1902 * Adams C. K. professor 1835 1893 Brooks P. clergyman 1835 1910 * Clemens S. L. author 1835 1898 Dahlgren M. V. 1835 1896 Knox T. W. journalist 1835 1868 Menken A.I. actress 1835 1908 Moulton L. C. 1835 1909 Newcomb S. astronomer 1835 Piatt J. J. gov't, official 1835 Spofford H. P. author 1835 Stoddard W. 0. r author • \ journalist 1835 1908 Stone W. L. Jr. journalist 1835 1907 Tilton T. journalist 1835 1900 Tyler M. C. professor 1835 WiUon A.J.E, author Literary Fields Place of Birth act. dram. Girard, Pa. pr. Ellsworth, Me. act. New York, N. Y. erud. pub. Willlamsburgh, Mass. act. Medford, Mass. pr. Revere, Mass. P- New York, N. Y. pr. Waterford, Me. pop. Stonington, Conn. erud. pop. St. Louis, Mo. pub. Baltimore, Md. pr. Dosorls, N. Y. pr. Brookfleld, Mass. pop. erud. Northfleld, Mass. erud. pop. Dorchester Co., Md. pop. Montrose, O. pr. pop. pop. erud. erud. pop. or. pop. pr. pr. narr. pr. act. p. pr. pop. p. pr. p. pr. erud. p. pr. erud. pr. Philadelphia, Pa. Poughkeepsie, N, Y, Roxbury, Mass. Boston, Mass. Derby, Vt. Boston, Mass. Florida, Mo. Gallipolis, O. Pembroke, N. H. near New Orleans, La. Pomf ret. Conn, Wallace, N. S. Rising Sun, Ind, Calais, Me. Homer, N. Y. New York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Griswold, Conn. Columbus, Ga. 151] APPENDIX B 151 5 tt « ^ 8 ' ■»* 0 ^ .« 1 «> •^ Father's 9 ^ ^ i SS v> Ok Place of Death Literary Relatives Occupation •«3 ^ 5 ^ i West Swanzey, N. H. carpenter I 4- 24- Boston, Mass. ' prison- warden planter H.S.P. I Cong. 12 1 1 -f ■^4- f builde" " I farmer A.B. I M.E. 6 + 4 Philadelphia, Pa. + Natick, Mass. clergyman A.B. Unit. Strawberry Farms, N. J. G.S.P. Southampton, England. surveyor G.S. P — contractor A.B. H.S.P. A.B. I Cong. B.C. 5 + 1 5 H.S. I P.E. 5 + 3 Uncle. J. Hawes », 1789 G.S. + clergyman A.B. A.B. I Unit. 7 + 7 New York, N. Y. A.B.P. Washington, D. C. Brotuer, Stockton ,J.D. i, 1836 H.S. 34- + clergyman A.B. I M.E. 4 + 4 Father, J. Abbott, 1803 clergyman A.B. I Cong. 5 3 + 6 Father, Adams, C. F. 1807 r lawyer \ publicist A.B. ^+ 2+ + Pasadena, Cal. farmer A.B. P Pres. + 0 Boston, Mass. merchant A.B. I P.E. 6 2 Redding, Conn. merchant G.S. P 6 5 + 34- Washington, D. C. H.S. -f 5^ New York, N. Y. H.S. P Paris, France. Jewish 2+ 4- Boston, Mass. teacher H.S. A.B. 4- farmer A.B. I Pres. 10 4- 8 ' I'umber- . merchant H.S. I Unit. 6 1 4- 1 lawyer r publisher [^ book-seller A.B. I Bapt. 6 4- 6 Father, W. L. Stone, 1792 journalist A.B. I 4- 4 Paris, France. A.B. 4- Ithaca, N. Y. A.B. I Prot. 7 4- 2 Mobile, Ala. cotton- factor H.S.P. I M.E. 8 -4- 0 152 APPENDIX B [152 Born Died :Same Occupation 1836 Alden II. M. editor 1836 1907 * Aldrich T. B. author 1836 Delmar A. economist 1836 1867 Dorgan J. A. lawyer 1836 Gladden W. clergyman 1836 1913 * Lamed J. N. librarian 1836 Lewis A. H. clergyman 1836 1901 Newell R. H. journalist 1836 1887 O'Brien J. actor 1836 Piatt 8. M. B. 1836 1903 Robson S. actoir 1836 1886 Steele J. D. / teacher \ author 1836 1877 Stockton J. D. journalist 1836 1891 • Thaxter G. 1836 Townsend V. F. 1836 Venable W. H. teacher 1836 1900 Whitmore W. H. merchant 1836 Winter W. author 1837 Alden W. L. journalist 1837 1902 Bourinot J. G. journalist 1837 1899 * Brinton D. G. ( ethnologist \ surgeon 1837 • Burroughs J. naturalist 1837 1880 DeMille J. professor 1837 Douglas A. M. 1837 1902 * Eggleston E. f clergyman \ author 1837 1909 Gil man A. educator 1837 1898 Halsey H. P. 1837 1907 Hays W. S. journalist 1837 1900 Hinsdale B. A. educator 1837 • Howells W. D. ( editor \ author 1837 1899 • Moody D. L. evangelist 1837 1913 Morgan J. P. financeer 1837 1911 Pierson A. T. f clergyman \ author 1837 1903 Rand E. A. clergyman 1837 Wahcorth J. R. 1837 1873 Walworth M. T. author 1838 Adams H. r educator [historian Literary Fields Place of Birth pr. Mt. Tabor, Vt. p. pr. Portsmouth, N. H. erud. spec. New York, N. Y. p. Philadelphia, Pa. pop. Pott's Grove, Pa. pop. Chatham, Ont. IHlb. Scott, N. Y. pr. New York, N. Y. act. Buffalo, N. Y. p. near Lexington, Ky. act. Annapolis, Md. pop. dram Lima, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. p. pr. p. erud. pr. narr. p. pr. erud. erud. narr. p. pr. pr. pr. pop. pop. pr. p. erud. pop. pr. narr. p. pub. pop. pat. pop. pr. pr. pr. erud. Portsmouth, N. H. New Haven, Conn. near Waynesvilie, O. Dorchester, Mass. Gloucester, Mass. Williamstown, Mass. Sidney, N, S. Thornbury, Pa. Roxbury, N. Y. St. John, N. B. New York, N. Y. Vevay, Ind. St. Louis, Mo. New York, N. Y. Louisville, Ky. Wadsworth, O. Martin's Ferry, O, Northfield, Mass. Hartford, Conn. New York, N. Y. Portsmouth, N. H. Philadelphia, Pa. Albany, N. Y. Boston, Mass. 153] APPENDIX B 153 Place of Death Boston, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. Westerly, R. i, Brooklyn, N. Y. Evansville, Ind. Elmira, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Isles of STioals, N. H. Boston, Mass. Atlantic City, N. J. Halifax, N. S. Lake George, N. Y. Brooklyn, N. Y. Atlanta, Ga. Northfleld, Mass. Rome, Italy. Brooklyn, N. Y. Watertown, Mass. New York, N. Y, Literary Relatives Brother, ¥. R. Stockton, 1834 Brother, G. C. Eggleston, 1839 Grandfather, J. Pierpont, 1785 Father's Occupation .2 1 A.B. 1 I' si 0 to •s i s 1 ! 1 merchant H.S. I -[- -+ gov't.-official A.B.P. H.S. I H.F. 3 1 -f 7 teacher A.B. U.S. I Prot. 2 + + 4 3 farmer A.B. I S.D.B. 2 + 6 manuf'turer H.S. I + G.S. A.B.P. G.S. 2+ i + \+ clergyman A.B. M.E. Father, C. F. Adams, 1807 ( light-house \ keeper f surveyor \ farmer merchant ship-master professor farmer farmer lawyer business farmer c printer } editor ( brick-^maker \ mason banker {confidential clerk and salesman educator jurist f lawyer \ publicist H.S. H.S.P. A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. G.S.P. A.B. H.S. A.B.P. H.S. A.B. A.B. G.S.P. G.S.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. H.S.P. A.B. A.B. ^4- I Unit. Friend Bapt. M.E. 11 Disc. Swed. Unit. Pres. Unit. 12 4+ 4+ 3+ + 8 + 2 + 1 + 4- 7 34- + 3 + 3 + 3 + 4 ■f 7 + 5 4- + 2+ 154 APPENDIX B [154 Born Died iJame Occupation Literary Fields Place of Birth 1838 1891 * Barrett L. actor act. Paterson, N. J. 1838 1876 * Bliss P. P. vocalist p. Clearfield Co., Pa. 1838 1901 Cook J. lecturer pop. Tioonderoga, N. Y. 1838 1872 Crane A. M. pr. Baltimore, Md. 1838 1899 Daly A. theatre-manager dram. Plymouth, N. C. 1838 1913 ♦ Didier B. L. author erud. Baltimore, Md. 1838 Donnelly E. C. p. Philadelphia, Pa. 1838 Foster T. T. pop. Oneida Castle, N. Y. 1838 1905 Hay J. publicist p. narr. erud. Salem, Ind. 1838 Proctor E. D. p. Henniker, N. H. 1838 1888 * Roe B. P. ( clergyman { author editor pr. New Windsor, N. Y. 1838 1912 Sangster M. E. pop. p. New Rochelle, N. Y. 1838 1902 Scudder H. B. author pop. pr. Boston, Mass. 1838 Smith P. H. engineer pr. narr. Baltimore, Md. 1838 1905 * Tourgee A, W. jurist pub. pr. Williamsfleld, 0. 1838 Townsend L. T. f clergyman [author editoi- pop. Orono, Me. 1839 1905 Butterworth H. narr. pop. pr. Warren, R. I. 1839 Campbell H. S. author pop. narr. pr. Lockport, N. Y. 1839 1914 De Leon T. C. journalist pr. dram. Camden, S. C. 1839 * Denison G. T. lawyer erud. Toronto, Ont. 1839 1911 Bggleston G. C. journalist pr. Vevay, Ind. 1839 1912 Funk I. K. publisher lib. erud. Clifton, 0. 1839 1897 * George H. journalist pub. spec. Philadelphia, Pa. 1839 1902 * Harte F. B. journaiast pr. p. Albany, N. Y. 1839 1901 Heme J. A. actor dram. West Troy, N. Y. 1839 1896 Mayo F. actor act. Boston, Mass. 1839 1908 Randall J. R. journalist p. Baltimore, Md. 1839 1888 Ryan A. J. clergyman p. Norfolk, Va. 1839 1898 Willard F. E. reformer pop. Churchville, N. Y. 1840 1904 Chadwick J. W. clergyman p. pop. Marblehead, Mass. 1840 Cox P. f artist \ author p. pr. Granby, P. Q. 1840 1906 Curtin J. ' philologist " L author actor pop. erud. Milwaukee, Wis. 1840 1898 Eagleson T. R. act. New York, N. Y. 1840 Ellis E. S. author pr. pop. Geneva, O. 1840 Holt H. publisher lib. pop. Baltimore, Md. 1840 Johnson R. editor pop. Rochester, N. Y. 1840 1891 Maeder F. G. actor dram. New York, N. Y. 1840 1914 * Mahan A. T. naval officer erud. West Point, N. Y. 1840 Miller J. R. clergyman pop. Frankfort Springs, Pa. 1840 Morse J. T. lawyer erud. Boston, Mass. I 155] APPENDIX B 155 Place of Death New York, N. Y. near Ashtabula, O. Stuttgart, Germany. Paris, France. Baltimore, Md. Cornwall, N. Y. Cambridge, Mass. Literary Relatives Brother, I. Donnelly, 1831 Mobile, Ala. New York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Camberley, England. near Grand Island, Neb. Augusta, Ga. Louisville, Ky. New York, N. Y. Brooklyn, N. Y. New Brighton, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Waahington, D. C. Philadelphia, Pa. Brother, E. De beon, 1818 Brother, E. Eggleston, 1837 Father's Occupation 1 1 •2 ft? « e S 1 1 0 mechanic G.S.P. P farmer H.S.P. P Prot. 2+ + 5 farmer A.B. H.S.P. H.S.P. 2 1 + physician A.B.P. R.C. 5 + 10 physician A.B.P. R.C. 4 — physician A.B.P. A.B. A.B.P. Prot. + ;+ A.B.P. Pres. 6 5 4- 3+ mrerchant A.B. Cong. 5 + 2+ fanner A.B. 34- mechanic A.B. A.B.P. P M.E. 2 + 3 lawyer A.B.P. P.E. 3 + 1 physician A.B. P.E. 6 3 — lawyer A.B. 2+ 1 lawyer A.B. P M.E. 4 + 4 A.B. Luth. ' + 3 publisher gov't.-officlal H.S.P. P.E. 10 2 + 4 professor Q.S. G.S. G.S. A.B. H.S. R.C. + 4 s farmer A.B. Prot. 5 4 — mariner XM.i.'. + fr»rmer H.S. A.B. P.E. 9 — journalist P 4- 2 briick-maker A.B.P. M.E. 5 + 4 provision- canner A.B. W Pres. 7 + 11 teacher A.B. Pres. 9 + 4 professor H.S.P. professor A.B. P.E. 6 4- 3 farmer A.B. A.B. Pres. 10 + + 3 2 156 APPENDIX B Bom Died l>!ame Occupation Literary Fields Pldce of Birth 1840 1900 * Ridpath J. C. J educator \ author pop. erud. near Fillmore, Ind. 1840 1909 * Sankey I. D. evangelist p. Edinburgh, Pa. 1840 1840 1840 1910 Bmith M. P. W. * Sumner W. G. Walcot C. Ai. Jr. author professor actor pr. erud. act. Attica, N. Y. Paterson, N. J. Boston, Mass. 1840 1897 * Walker F. A. r economist \ educator journalist C archeologist "i clergyman statistician spec. erud. pop. Boston, Mass. 1840 1840 1840 1909 Watterson H. Winslow W. C. Wright C. D. pub. erud. pop. erud. Washington, D. C. Boston, Mass. Dunbarton, N. H. 1840 1903 Wright J. M. author pop. pr. Oswego, N. Y. 1840 1841 1894 Bailey J. M. Baldwin J. journalist r teacher \ editor pr. pop. Albany, N. Y. Westfield, Ind. 1841 Bolton 8. K. f author \ philanthropist pop. Farmington, Conn. 1841 1913 Briggs C. A. ( clergyman \ teacher actor clergyman clergyman journalist clergyman educator editor erud. New York, N. Y. 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1891 1905 1913 1898 1887 Emmet J. K, Glazier W. MacArthur R. S. Martyn W. C. * Miller C. H. Pool M. L. Savage M. J. Sill E. R. Stanwood E. act. narr. pop. erud. p. pr. pr. pop. P- erud. St. Louis, Mo. Fowler, N. Y. Dalesville, P. Q. New York, N. Y. Liberty, Ind. Rockland, Mass. Norridgewock, Me. Windsor, Conn. Augusta, Me. 1841 1893 Towle G. M. \ consul \ journalist pop. Washington, D. C. 1841 1913 • Ward L. F. raleoatologist spec. erud. Joliet, 111. 1842 1842 1842 1911 Abbey H. • Alden I. M. Bateman K. J. banker actress p. pr. act. Rondout, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Baltimore, Md. 1842 1893 Bynner E. L. r lawyer author pr. Brooklyn, N. Y. 1842 1899 Coues E. biologist pop. Portsmouth, N. H. 1842 Dickinson A. E. lecturer or. Philadelphia, Pa. 1842 1909 Dodge T. A. army officer erud. Pittsfield, Mass. 1842 lyOl • Fiske J. autnor spec. erud. pop. Hartford, Conn. 1842 1915 Fosdick C. A. author pr. Randolph, N. Y. 1842 • Habberton J. journalist pr. Brooklyn, N. Y. 1842 1908 * Howaru B. dramatist dram. Detroit, Mich. 157] APPENDIX B 157 Place of Death New York, N. Y. Englewood, N. J. Boston, Mass. Worcester, Mass. Danbury, Conn. Cornwall, N. Y. Oakland, Cal. Rockland, Mass. Cleveland, O. Brookline, Mass. Washington, D. C. Boston, Mass. Baltimore Md. Chateau de Rosiferes, France. Avon-by-the Sea, N. J. Father's Litei'ary Relatives Occupation farmer ( editor \ ba-iker physician actor A.B. •5 .5 M.E. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. I M.E. I Unit. 1 meiuuanc A.B. I Cong. 3 \ manuf tui-er lawyer H.S. I Pres. 1 .wf;sr:i799 ^'«-'^-" A.B. I Cong. 2+ clergyman H.S. r ciTii- \ engineer H.S. I carpenter G.S. farmer H.S.P. I Friend 6 A.B.P. Pres. 3 A.B. Pres. 1+ H.S.P. farmer A.B.P. I Pres. 2-J_ fai-mer A.B. W Bapt. 11^ clergyman A.B.P. I Pres. 7 teacher G.S.P. H.S. P farmer H.S. P Cong. 8 physician A.B. I 2 book-seller A.B. A.B. I Cong. 11 Brother, C. 0. Ward, 1832 farmer actor A.B. H.S. H.S. I M.E. 6 3 \ merchant \ gov't. -official A.B. I 3 merchant H.S. P Friend 5 business A.B. W Prot. 4 editor A.B. I Prot. 1 business H.S. I M.E. 4 merchant H.S. w + + + + + 3 H- 2 + 3 + 1 + 5 + 1 + + + 5 6 + + + 4 3 + 5 + + 6 + 158 APPENDIX B Born Died 2iame Occupation Literary Field* Place of Birth 1842 1910 * James W. t educator \ author spec. pop. N«w York, N. Y. 1842 Kirk E. W. 0. author pr. Southington, Conn. 1842 1842 1842 1842 1842 1881 1894 1883 * Ladd G. T. ♦ Lanier S. Lewis C. B. Mackaye J. S. McCabe J. l.. professor musician author actor author pop. p. pop. pr. dram, erud. narr. Painesville, 0. Macon, Ga. Liverpool, 0. Buffalo, N. Y. Richmond, Va. 1843 Abbott C. C. naturalist pop. narr. Trenton, N. J. 1843 1843 1843 1843 1888 1908 1904 Campbell B. ♦ Griffis W. E. Heath D. C. Hutton L. clergyman publisher author dram. erud. narr. pop. lib. narr. pop. Allegheny City, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Salem, Me. New York, N. Y. 1843 1916 * James H. author pr. narr. N«w York, N. Y. 1843 1843 1843 1844 1844 1898 1909 Scharf J. T. Smyth N. Stoddard C. W. Andrews E. B. Avery E. M. clergyman professor educator f teacher \ author author erud. pop. narr. pop. pop. Baltimore, Md. Brunswick, Me. Rochester, N. Y. Hinsdale, N. H. Erie, Mich. 1844 * Cable G. W. pr. New Orleans, La. 1844 1909 * Gilder R. W. editor P- Bordentown, N. J. 1844 1844 1895 ♦ Holley M. Horton S. D. author lawyer pr. pub. Ellisburg, N. Y. Pomeroy, 0. 1844 King C. army officer pr. Albany, N. Y. 1844 1844 1844 1911 Lothrop H. M. Noble A. L. Russell W. C. author author pr. pr. pr. New Haven, Conn. Albion, N. Y. New York, N. Y. 1844 1901 Thompson (J.) M. engineer pr. Fairfield, Ind. 1844 1911 * Ward E. S. P. author pr. Boston, Mass. 1845 Baylor F. C. author pr. Fayetteville, Ark. 1845 Belles A. S. r editor \ professor erud. Montville, Conn. 1845 1912 Carleton W. ( author \ lecturer actor P- Hudson, Mich. 1845 Crane W. H. act. Leicester, Mass. 1845 ♦ Kennan G. journalist narr. Norwalk, 0. 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1906 Mitchell J. A. Morgan J. A. Porter R. Rohlfs A. K. G. Stephens C. A. editor lawyer author auth'^r author pr. erud. pop. pr, pr. N«w York, N. Y. Portland, Me. New York, N. Y. Brooklyn, N. Y. Norway, Me. 159] APPENDIX B 159 Place of Death Chocorua, N. H. Lynn, N. C. Germantown, Pa. Timpas, Colo. Middletown, N. Y. Princeton, N. J. New York, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Washington, D. C. Cravrfordsville, Ind. Boston, Mass. Father's ^ "S .«> § Literary Relatives Occupation P^ ;^ Patlier. H. James, 1811 author A.B.P. Prot. 5 Patlxer, J. Olney, 1798 author H.S. Unit. 6 business A.B. P Cong. 5 lawyer A.B. Pres. 3 contractor A.B.P. clergyman H.S. Prot. business G.S.P. W Unit. 6 J hank- ie president A.B. Prot. 4 ship-master A.B. A.B. Cong. 7 merchant H.S. Father, H. James, 1811 author A.B.P. Prot. 5 merchant H.S. R.C. professor A.B. Cong. merchant A.B.P. clergyman A.B. Bapt. 11 f farmer \ merchant A.B. Prot. 4 merchant H.S.P. P Pres. 6 ' clergyman ' L teacher H.S.P. G.S. A.B. M.E. 11 7 r soldier \ editor A.B. P P.E. 0 architect H.S. physician H.S. Pres. 5 vocalist G.S. I clergyman \ planter H.S. Bapt. 2_ Mother, E. S. Phelps, 1815 clergyman H.S. Cong. 7 army-officer H.S.P. H.S. P.E. 6 farmer A.B. + 7 — + + H- + 5 4 + 8 + 4 4- + + 3 4 + 3 + 2 + 0 -r 8 + 7 + + 4 + 1 + lawyer telegrapher H.S.P. I Pres. 6 + 1 author A.B.P. I Unit. 3 -f + 0 lawyer A.B. I P.E. 2 2 merchant H.S.P. I lawyer A.B. A.B. I Pres. 4 + 3 i6o APPENDIX B [l6o Born Died :Same Occupatin 184.5 1909 Tahb J. B. clergyman 1845 1905 Woolsey 8. C. author 1846 Anderson R. B. f editor \ author 1846 1902 Brooks E. S. f editor \ author 1846 Harrison C. C. 1846 Hawthorne J. author 1846 Mable II. W. editor 1846 llemsen I. f chemist ( educator 1846 1903 Savage R. H. army officer 1846 Tiernan F. C. 1846 1894 Tuttle FI. f professor \ journalist 1846 1898 Wescott E. N. banker 1847 Beers H. A. teacher 1847 Bishop W. H. f editor \ teacher 1847 1910 Bowne B. P. educator 1847 1868 Bradley W. I. author 1847 1902 Catherioood M. H. 1847 * Clark J. B. professor 1847 Crabtrce C. actress 1847 1904 Fawcett E. author 1847 Hardy A. S. professor 1847 1898 Howard B. W. 1847 learned W. banker 1847 1903 Lloyd H. D. journalist 1847 Morris C. actress 1847 * Strong J. clergyman 1848 * Adams B. f lawyer \ author 1848 1899 Allen G. author 1848 Bowfcer R. R. f editor \ publisher 1848 Cheney J. V. r lawyer \ librarian 1848 Cooke G. W. clergyman 1848 DeKay C. journalist 1848 1908 * Harris J. C. journalist 1848 1911 Harrison J. A. professor 1848 1913 Holland E. M. actor 1848 1912 Kaler J. D. author 1848 Harden 0. S. author Literary Fields Place of Birth p. Amelia Co., Va. pr. Cleveland, O. pop. Albion, Wis. pop. Lowell, Mass. pr. Fairfax Co., Va. pr. narr. Boston, Mass. pr. Cold Spring, N. Y. pop. New York, N. Y. pr. pr. Utica, N. Y. Salisbury, N. C. erud. Bennington, Vt. pr. p. pop. Syracuse, N. Y. Buffalo, N. Y. pr. Hartford, Conn. spec, pr. pr. spec. Leonardsville N. J. Bristol, Conn. Luray, 0. Providence, R. I. act. New York, N. Y. pr. p. pr. pr. p. pub. act. pub. New York, N. Y. Andover, Mass. Bangor, Me, New Ix)ndon, Conn. New York, N. Y. Toronto, Ont. Naperville, Ind. erud. Quincy, Mass. pop. pr. Kingston, Ont pop. Salem, Mass. p. Groveland, N. Y. pop. Comstock, Mich. p. Washington, D. C. pr. pop. act. Baton ton, Ga. Pass Christian, Miss. New Yo.k, N. Y. pr. Winterport, Me. pop. Thornton, N. H. i6i APPENDIX B i6i Place of Death Blllcott CMty. Md. f^ Ithaca, N.Y. Syracuse, N. Y. Bristol, Conn. Chicago, 111. Munich, Germany. Chkago, 111. HaBlcmere, England. Literary Relatives Uncle, T. D. Wool iy, 1801 Father, N. Hawthorne, 1804 Father's Occupation i si t a 1 1 1 1 planter H.S. W Prot. 3-f merchant H.S. I farmer A.B. P Luth. 11 clergyman A.B.P. I Univ. lawyer H.S.P. I author A.B.P. I 3 L* merchant A.B. contractor A.B. A.B. I D.R. 2 A.B. + + + + + Atlanta, Ga. 1+ 2 2 farmer A.B. A.B. I P.E. 2 + 8 la mer A.B. + physician A.B. I Univ. 3 + 2 manui'turer A.B. I Cong. 3 + 4 miner book-merchant I business A.B. A.B. H.S. I 4- + merchant H.S. I Cong. 5 + 1 clergyman A.B. P D.R. 5 1 + 3+ G.S.P. P M.E. 1 1 + 0 farmer A.B. P Cong. 3 + 4 Father, C. F. Adams, 1807 r lawyer \ imblicist clergyman A.B. A.B. I Unit. 4+ 4+ + merchant A.B. I P.E. 2 + 0 farmer A.B.P. P Prot. 9 + 5 Grandfather, li. Drake, 1795 naval officer A.B. 7 4- 6 farmer H.S.P. A.B. P M.E. 4- 9 actor G.S. H.S. A.B. I P 6 o + -4- "' 1 62 APPENDIX B [162 Born Died ^ante Occupation 1848 Merrill F. T. artist 1848 Rexford E. E. author 1848 * Rhodes J. F. f author \ manufacturer 1848 Vincent F. author 1849 Allen J. L. author 1849 Auringer 0. C. clergyman 1849 Buel J. W. author 1849 Crozier J. B. physician 1849 1912 ♦ Oilman in', r. ( clergyman professor 1849 1909 Jewett 8. 0. author 1849 Johnson V. W. 1849 1887 Lazarus E. 1849 1901 Mathews J. H. 1849 Mead E. D. editor 1849 1913 Ober F. A. 1849 Redway J. W. ( , geographer ; author 1850 1901 Adams H. B. professor 1850 Bates A. teacher 1850 1898 ♦ Bellamy E. journalist 1850 Chambers J. journalist 1850 Champney E. W. author 1850 Crafts W. F. clergyman 1830 1911 Curtis W. E. journalist 1850 1895 * Field E. journalist 1850 French A. author 1850 1889 Grady H. W. journalist 1850 • Hill D. J. ( educator \ publicist 1850 Laughlin J. L. proj "ssor 1850 * lyodge H. C. / author \ publicist 1850 Munroe K. author 1850 Murfree M. N. author 1850 1896 Nye E. W. journalist 1850 Richards L. E. author 1850 Sloane W. M. I professor ■ i author 1850 Stoddard J. L. lecturer 1850 Thorpe It. H. author Literary Fields Place of Birth lib. Boston, Mass. P- Johnsburg, N. Y. erud. Cleveland, 0. narr. Brooklyn, N. Y. pr. Lexington, Ky. P- Glen Falls, N. Y. pop. Golconda, 111. spec. Gait, Ont. pub. Quincy, III. pr. South Berwick, Me. pr. Brooklyn, N. Y. p. New York, N. Y. pop. , U. S. pop. Chesterfield, N, H. pr. narr. Beverly, Mass. pop. erud. pr. p. pub. pr. pr. pr. pop. narr. p. pr. pr. or. pop. pub. spec. erud. erud. pr. pr. pr. pr. erud. narr. p. near Murfreesboro, Tenu. Shutesbury, Mass. East Machias, Me. Chicopee Falls, Mass. Bellefontaine, O. Springfield, O. Fryeburg, Me. Akron, O. St. Louis, Mo. Andover, Mass. Athens, Ga. Plainfield, N. J. Deerfield, O. Boston, Mass. near Prairie du Chien, Wis. near Murfreesooro, Tenn. Shirley, Me. Boston, Mass. Richmond, O. BiKiokline, Mass. Mishawaka, Ind. i63] APPENDIX B 163 Place tf Death Literar- Relatives Meauville, Pa. Berwick, Me. New York, N. Y. Summit, N. J. Chlcopee Falls, Mass. Chicago, 111. Atlanta, Ga. near Ashevllle, N. C. Mother, J. W, Howe, 1819 Fat/term's Occupation business farmer H.S.P. A.B. manu'fturer A.B.P. merchant farmer tanner farmer lawyer physician farmer clergyman lumber- merchanJ physician merchant judge clergyman clergyman lawyer manuf'turer business clergyman lawyer merchant missionary f physician \ educator {teacher clergyman tailor A.B.P. A.B. A.B.P. A.B.P. A.B. A.B.P. H.S. A.B.P. A.B. H.S.P. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. A.B.P. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B. A.B.P. H.S. H.S. H.S. H.S. A.B. H.S. to aj Cong. Prot. P.E. Pres. Pres. M.E. Pres. Unit. 1 Cong. Pres. Cong. M.E. Prot. W Jewish O.R. I Prot. 4 I Bapt. 1+ 4 6 8 9 3 W P.E. W I Bapt. P Disc. W Unit. P Pres. I I Unit. 6 I Pres. a I Bapt. 5 § 1 1 1 0 + 4 + 0 + + 2 + 3 1 + + 0 -f 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 4- 0 + 3 + 6 + 2 + + 2 + 3 + 0 + 4 + 7 -f 4 + + 3 APPENDIX C Conjugal condition of men of letters, classified by period of birth, and by median number of children born to them.^ Men Women S 1 1 § <» 1 S "5 « Median nuynber of children Before 1771 56 1 8 65 2 2 1 3 7.25 1771-80 28 2 3 33 7 1 1 1 7.66 1781-90 29 3 12 44 9 2 3 5 6.33 1791-1800 62 4 30 96 6 6 1 7 4.56 1801-10 65 4 41 110 6 8 4 12 33 5.50 1811-20 91 6 58 155 6 17 6 23 26 5.21 1821-30 83 1 33 117 1 17 6 23 26 4.56 1831-40 88 8 3S lai 8 27 11 38 29 4.14 1841-50 82 5. 21 108 6 16 13 29 45 3.40 Total 584 34 241 859 6 96 45 141 32 Appendix C is given as being of interest, though it does not bear directly on the thesis. It is worthy of note that there was apparently an increasing tendency on the part of literary women to remain single, a tendency not manifest on the part of men. The number of children born to literary persons appears to have been declining no faster than the number of children born to persons forming part of the general population, so that there seems to be no reason for believing that the literary stock of the nation has been dying out. 1 The miedilan is the middle number of a series, ranked according to size. It Is used here instead of the average because in some cases the exact number of children could not be ascertained, and exact numbers are necessary for calculating an average. It was known, however, on which siide of the median the number of children in any given family lay, so that that number could be used in determining a median. 2 Of those whose conjugal condition was ascertained. a Not given when, because very few persons are concerned, the ratio would be spuriously accurate and therefore misleading. 164 [164 APPENDIX D ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEN OF LETTERS WITH DATE OF BIRTH Biographical facts in regard to any litterateur may be found in Appendix B, where the literati are classified by year of birth. Abbey H. 1842 Abbot E. 1819 Abbot .L S. C. 1805 Abbott C. C. 1843 Abbott J. 1803 Abbott L. 1835 Adams B. 1848 Adams C. F. 1807 Adams C. P. 1835 Adams C. K. 1835 Adams E. 1834 Adams F. G. 1824 Adams H. 1755 Adams H. 1838 Adams H. B. 1850 Adams J. 1735 Adams J. Q. 1767 Adams N. 1806 Adams W. T. 1822 Alcott A. B. 1799 Alcott L. M. 1832 Alcott W. A. 1798 Alden H. M. 1836 Alden I. M. 1842 Ald€n J. 1807 Alden W. L. 1837 Aldrich T. B. 1836 Aldridge I. 1808 Alexander A. 1772 Alexander J. W. 1804 Alexander J. A. 1809 Alger H. 1834 Allen A. A. 1832 Allen G. 1848 Allen J. H. 1820 Allen J. L. 1849 Allen W. 1784 Alllbone S. A. 1816 AUaton W. 1779 Alsop R. 1761 Ames P. 1758 Anderson J. J. 1821 Anderson R. B. 1846 Andrews E. B. 1844 Andrews E, A. 1787 Angell G. T. 1823 Antbon C. 1797 Appleton D. 1785 Arnold G. 1834 Arthur T. S. 1809 Atkinson E. 1827 Auringer O. C. 1849 Austin J. G. 1831 Avery E. M. 1844 Backus I. 1724 Badeau A. 1831 Bailey J. M. 1841 Bailey R. W. 1793 Baird C. W. 1828 Baird H. M. 1832 Baird R. 1798 Baker A. R. 1805 Baker H. N. W. 1815 Baker W. M. 1825 Baldwin J. 1841 Ballon H. 1771 Ballon M. M. 1820 Bancroft A, 1755 Bancroft G. 1800 Bancroft H. H. 1832 Bangs N. 1778 Barber J, W. 1798 Barlow J. 1754 Barnard H. 1811 Barnes A. 1798 Barnes A. S. 1817 Barmect B. P. 1808 Barrett L. 1838 Barrow P. E. 1822 Barrows W. 1815 Bartlett J. 1820 Bartlett J. R. 1805 Bartram J. 1739 Bartol C. A. 1813 Bascom J. 1827 Bateman K. J. 1842 Bates A. 1850 Bates S. P. 1827 Baxter J. P. 1831 Baylor P. C. 1845 Beardsley E. E. 1808 Bedell G. T. 1793 Beeoher H. W. 1813 Beecher L. 1775 Beers E. E. 1827 Beers H, A. 1847 Belknap J. 1744 Bellamy E. 1850 Bellamy J. 1719 Benedict D. 1779 Bennett D. R. M. 1818 Bennett E. 1822 Benton T. H. 1782 Bigelow J. 1817 Bingham C. 1757 Bird R. M, 1803 Blrney J. G. 1792 Bishop W. H. 1847 Blackburn W. M. 1828 Blake J. L. 1788 Blake W. R. 1805 Bliss P. P. 1838 Boardman H. A. 1808 Boker G. H. 1823 BollesA. S. 1845 Bolton S. K. 1841 Booth E. 1833 165] Booth M. L. 1831 Botta A. C. L. 1820 Bourinot J. G. 1837 Bowditch N. 1773 Bowen P. 1811 Bowers E. C. 1830 Bowker R. R. 1848 Bowles S. 1826 Bowne B. P. 1847 Brace C. L. 1826 Bradley W. I, 1847 Brainard J. G. C. 1796 Briggs C. A. 1841 Brlnton D. G. 1837 Bristed C. A. 1820 BrockettL. P. 1820 Brodhead J. R. j.814 Brooks C. T. 1813 Brooks E. 1831 Brooks E. S. 1846 Brooks M. G. 1705 Brooks N. C. 1819 Brooks N. 1830 Brooks P. 1835 Brown C. B. 1771 Brown G. 1791 Browne C. P. 1834 Browne W. H. 1828 Brownell H. H. 1820 Brownson O. A. 1803 Bryant W. C. 1794 Buckminster J. 1751 Buel J. W. 1849 Bnlflnch T. 1796 Boince O. B. 1828 Burnap G. W. 1802 Burr E. P. 1818 Burritt E. 1810 Burroughs J. 1837 165 1 66 APPENDIX D [i66 Burton W. 1800 Bush G. 1796 Bushn€ll H. 1802 Butler W. A. 1825 Butterworth H. 1837 Bynner B. L. 1842 cable G. W. 1844 Calhoun J. C. 1782 Calkins N. A. 1822 Callender J. 1706 Calvert G. H. 1803 Campbell B. 1843 Campbell H. S. 1839 Carey H. C. 1793 Carleton W. 1845 Cartwright P. 1785 Carver J. 1732 Cary A. 1820 Cary P. 1824 Catherwood M. H. 1847 Catlin G. 1796 Chad wick J. W. 1840 Chambers J. 1850 Champlin J. D. 1834 Champney E. W. 1850 Chandler E. M. 1807 Channing W. E. 1780 Channing W. E. 1818 Chapin E. H. 1814 Checkley J. 1680 Cheever G. B. 1807 Cheney J. V. 1821 Chester J. L. 1821 Child F. J. 1825 Child L. M. 1802 Childs G. W. 1829 Choate R. 1799 Clark G. W. 1831 Clark J. A. 1801 Clark J. B. 1847 ClarkL. G. 1810 Clark T. 1787 Clarke J. F. 1810 Clarke J. S. 1833 Clarke M. 1798 Clarke R. S. 1833 Clay H. 1777 Clemens S. L. 1835 Clement C. E. 1834 Cleveland C. D. 1802 Codman J. 1814 Coffin C. C. 1823 Coggeswell J. G. 1786 Coles A. 1813 Colton C. 1 /89 Colton W. 1797 Colwell S. 1800 Comly J. 1774 Coms'tock J. L. 1789 Conant H. O. C. 1809 Conant T. J. 1802 Conrad R. T. 1810 Conway M. D. 1832 Cook J. 1838 Cooke G. W. 1848 Cooke J. E. 1830 Cooke, J. P. 1827 Cooke P. P. 1816 Cooper J. F. 1789 Cooper P. 1791 Cooper S. F. 1813 Copp6e H. 1821 Corson H. 1828 Coues E. 1842 Cox P. 1840 Cox S. S. 1824 Coxe A. C. 1818 Coxe T. 1755 Cozzens F. S. 1818 Crabtree C. 1847 Crafts W. F. 1850 Cranch C. P. 1813 Crane A. M. 1838 Crane W. H. 1845 Crosby H. 1826 Crozier J. B. 1849 Cummins M. S. 1827 Curtin J. 1840 Curtis G. T. 1812 Curtis G. W. 1824 Curtis W. E. 1850 Gushing L. S. 1803 Cushman C. S. 1816 Cuyler T. L. 1822 Dabney R. L. 1820 Dahlgren M. V. 1835 Daly A. 1838 Daly C. P. 1816 Dana C. A. 1819 Dana J. D. 1813 Dana R. H. 1787 Dana R. H. Jr. 1815 Darley F. O. C. 1822 Davenport E. L. 1814 Davidson L. M. 1808 Davidson M. M. 1823 Davis R. B. H. 1831 Dawson J. W. 1820 Day H. N. 1808 Deane C. 1813 Deems C. F. 1820 De Forest J. W. 1826 De Kay C. 1848 DeLeonE. 1818 De Leon T. C. 1839 Delmar A, 1836 De Mille J. 1837 Denison M. A. 1826 Denison G. T. 1839 Dennie J. 1768 de Peyster J. W. 1821 Dewey O. 1794 Dexter H. M. 1821 Diaz A. M. 1821 Dickinson A. E. 1842 Dickinson E. E. 1830 Dickinson J. 1732 Dickinson J. 1688 Didier E. L. 1838 Ditson G. L. 1812 Dix D. L. 1802 Dix J. A. 1798 Dix M. 1827 Dodge M. A. 1833 Dodge M. M. 1831 Dodge T. A. 1842 Donnelly E. C. 1838 Donnelly I. 1831 Dorgan J. A. 1836 Dorr J. S. C. 1825 Dorsey A. H. 1815 Douglas A. M. 1837 Douglas S. A. 1813 Douglass F. 1817 Downing A. J. 1815 Dowse T. 1772 Drake F. S. 1828 Drake J. R. 1795 Drake S. A. 1833 Drake S. G. 1798 Drisler H. 1818 Duch6 J. 1737 Duganne A. J. H. 1823 Dunlap W. 1766 Durant H. T. 1822 Durbin J. P. 180O Durrie D. S. 1819 Duyckink E. A. 1816 Dwight B. W. 1816 Dwight T. 1752 Eagleson T. R. 1840 Eastman C. G. 1816 Eaton C. H. 1813 Eaton D. B. 1823 Eddy D. C 1823 Eddy M. B. G. 1827 Edwards J. 1703 Edwards J. 1787 Edwards T. 1809 Eggleston E. 1837 Eggleston G. C. 1839 Egle W. H. 1830 Eliot S. 1821 Eliot W. G. 1811 Ellet E. F. 1818 Ellis E. S. 1840 Ellis G. E. 1814 Embury E. C. 1806 Emerson R. W. 1803 Emmet J. K. 1841 Emmons N. 1745 Eng-lish T. D. 1819 Everett A. H. 1790 Everett E. 1794 Farmer J. 1789 Fawcett E. 1847 Fay T. S. 1807 Felt J. B. 1789 Felton C. C. 1807 Fessenden T. G. 1771 Field E. 1850 Field H. M. 1822 Fields J. T. 1816 Filson J. 1747 Finley M. 1828 Finney C. G. 1792 Fish H. C. 1823 Fisher G. P. 1827 FIske J. 1842 Fvagg E. 1815 Flint T. 1780 Florence W. J. 1831 Fletcher J. C. 1825 Force P. 1790 Forrest B. 1806 Fosdick C. A. 1842 Foster J. W. 1815 Foster S.C. 1826 Foster T. T. 1838 Fowler L. N. 1811 Fowler O. S. 1809 Franklin B. 1706 French A. 1850 French B. F. 1799 Freneau P. 175:^ Frost J. 1800 Frothingham O. B. 1822 Frothingham R. 1812 Funk I. K. 1839 Purness H. H. 1833 i67] APPENDIX D 167 Purness W. H. 1802 Gallagher W. D. 1808 Gardiner F. 1822 Garrison W. L. 1805 Gay S. H. 1814 Gayarrg C. E. A. 1805 Gayler C. 1820 George H. 18^9 Gibbons J. 1834 Gilbert J. G. 1810 Gilder R. W. 1844 Giles C. 18ia Gilman A. 1837 Gilman C. H. 1794 Gilman D. C. 1831 Gilman N. P. 1849 Gilmore J. R. 1822 Gladden TV. 1836 Glazier W. 1841 Godwin P. 1816 Groodrich Charles A. 1790 Goodrich Ohauncy A. 1790 Goodrich S. G. 1793 Goodwin W. W. 1831 Gordon T. F. 1787 Gordon W. R. 1811 Go-uld A. A. 1805 Gould H. F. 1789 Goulding F. R. 1810 Grady H. W. 1850 Grant U. S. 1822 Graves J. R. 1820 Gray Alonzo 1808 Gray Asa 1810 Graydon A. 1752 Greeley H. 1811 Green J. 1706 Greene G. W. 1811 Griffis W. E. 1843 Griswold R. W. 1815 Habberton J. 1842 Hackett J. H. 1800 Hale E. E. 1822 Hale S. 1787 Hale S. J. 1788 Haliburton T. C. 1796 Hall F. 1825 Hall J. 1793 Hall S. 1761 Halleck F. G. 1790 Hallock W. A. 1794 Halsey H. P. 1837 Hammond E. P. 1831 Hardy A. S. 1847 Harkness A. 1822 Harper F. 1806 Harper J. 1795 Harris J. C. 1848 Harris M. C. 1834 Harris T. M. 1768 Harrison C. C. 1846 Harrison J. A. 1848 Hart J. S. 1810 Harte F. B. 1839 Haven A. B. 1828 Hawes J. 1789 Haws F. L. 1798 Hawthorne J. 1846 Hawthorne N. 1804 Hay J. 1838 Hayne P. H. 1830 Hayne R. Y. 1791 Hays W. S. 1837 Hazard R. G. 1801 Hazard S. 1784 Headley J. T. 1813 Headley P. C. 1819 Heath D. C. 1843 Hedge F. H. 1805 Helper H. R. 1829 Henry P. 1736 Hentz C. L. 1800 Heme J. A. 1839 Hickok L. P. 1798 Higginson T. W. 1823 Hildreth R. 180V Hill D. J. 1850 Hill T. 1818 Hill W. H. 1822 Hillard G. S. 1808 Hillhouse J. A. 1789 Hinsdale B. A. 1837 Hirst H. B. 1813 Hitchcock E. 1793 Hobart J. H. 1775 Hodge A. A. 1823 Hodge C. 1797 Hoffman C. F. 1806 Holland i.. M. 1848 Holland J. G. 1819 Holley M. 1844 Holmes A. 1763 Holmes M. J. 1834 Holmes O. W. 1809 Holt H. 1840 Hooper L. 1816 Hope J. B. 1827 Hopkins M. 1802 Hopkins S. 1721 Hopkins S. 1807 Hopkinson F. 1737 Hopkinson J. 1770 Hoppin J. M. 1820 Horton S. D. 1844 Hosmer J. K. 1834 Hosmer W. H. C. 1814 Hough F. B. 1820 Houghton H. O. 1823 Hovey A. 1820 Howard B. W. 1847 Howard B. 1842 Howe H. 1816 Howe J. B. 1813 Howe J. W. 1819 Howells W. D. 1837 Hoyt R. 1806 Hubbell M. S. 1814 Hudson H. N. 1814 Humphreys D. 1752 Huntington F. D. 1819 Hurst J. F. 1834 Hutchins T. 1730 Hutchinson T. 1711 Hutton L. 1843 Ingersoll R. G. 1833 Ingraham J. H. 1809 Irving J. T. 1812 Irving T. 1809 Irving W. 1783 Jackson H. H. 1831 James H. 1811 James H. 1843 James W. 1842 Janney S. M. 1801 Jarves J. J. ial8 Jarvis S. F. 1786 Jay J. 1817 Jay W. 1789 Jefferson J. 1829 Jefferson T. 1743 Jenkins J. S. 1818 Jenks W. 1778 Jewett C. C. 1816 Jewett S. O. 1849 Johnson R. 1840 Johnson V. W, 1849 Johnston R. M. 1822 Jones C. C. 1831 Jones J. S. 1811 Judd S. 1813 Judson E. C. 1817 Judson E. Z. C. 1822 Kaler J. O. 1848 Kane E. K. 1820 Kellogg E. 1813 Kendall G. W. 1807 Kennan G. 1845 Kennedy J. P. 1795 Kent J. 1763 Key F. S. 1780 Kidder D. P. 1815 Kimball II. B. 1816 King C. 1844 King T. S. 1824 Kip L. 1826 Kip W. I. 1811 Kirk E. W. O. 1842 Kirk J. F. l824 Kirkland C. M. S. 1801 Kirkland J. 1830 Knapp S. L. 1783 Knox T. W. 1835 Dadd G. T. 1842 Lamb M. J. R. N. 1829 Lanier S. 1842 Lanman C. 1819 Larcom L. 1824 Larned J. N. 1836 Laughlin J. L. 1850 Lazarus E. 1849 lyea H. C. 1825 Learned W. 1847 LeeH. F. 1780 Leiand C. G. 1824 Lennox C. 1720 Lenox J. 1800 Leslie E. 1787 Lester C. E. 1815 Lewis A. 1794 Lewis A. H. 1836 Lewis C. B. 1842 Lewis E. A. B. R. 1824 Lewis T. 1802 Lincoln A. 1809 Lippincott J. B. 1816 Lippincott S. J. 1823 Liiceli E. 1797 Lloyd H. D. 1847 Locke D. R. -833 Lodge H. C. 1850 Logan C. A. 1806 Longfellow H. W. 1807 Longfellow S. 1819 Lord J. 1809 Lossing B. J. 1813 Iy)throp H. M. 1844 Lowell J. R. 1819 Lowell J. 1769 i68 APPENDIX D [i68 Lawell J. 1799 Lunt G. 1803 Lynch W. F. iSOl Lyon M. 1797 Mabie H. W. 1846 Mac Arthur B.S. 1841 McCabe J. D. 1842 McClure A. K. 1828 McCrady E. 1833 MacIIvaine C. P. 1790 Macintosh M. J. 1803 Mackaye J. S. 1842 MacKellar T. 1812 Mackenzie A. S. 1803 McDellan I. 180G Madison J. 1751 Maeder F. G. 1840 Mahan A. H. 1840 MahanA. 1799 Malcom H. 1799 Mann H. 1796 Marden O. S. 1848 Marsh G. P. 1801 Marsh J. 1788 Marshall J. l5 Martyn S. T. 1805 Martyn W. C. 1841 Mason J. M. 1770 Mather C. 1663 Mather I. 1639 Mathews C. 1817 Mathews J. H. 1849 Mathews W. 1818 Mayo F. 1839 Mayo W. S. 1812 Mead E. D. 1849 Mellen G. 1799 Melville H. 1819 Menken A. 1. 1835 Merrill F. T. 1848 Miller C. II. 1841 Miller E. C. H. 1833 Miller H. M. 1831 Miller J. R. 1840 MiMerL. 1829 Miller S. 1769 Mitchell D. G. 1822 Mitchell J. A. 1845 Mitchell a. A. 1792 Mitchell S. W. 1829 Moody D. L. 1837 Moore C. J. 1824 Moore F. 1828 Morgan J. A. 1845 Morgan J. P. 1837 Morgan L. 11. 1818 Morris C. 1833 Morris C. 1847 Morris G. P. 1802 Morris J. G. 1803 Morse J. 1761 Morse J. T. 1840 Morse S. E. 1794 Motley J. L. 1814 Moulton L. C. 1835 Munroe K. 1850 Murdoch J. E. 1812 Murfree M. N. 1850 Murray L. 1745 Neal J. 1793 Neal J. C. 1807 Nelll E. D. 1823 Newcomb 11. 1804i Newcomb S. 1835 Newell R. H. 1836 Niles II. 1777 Noble A. L. 1844 Norton A. 1786 Norton C. E. 1827 Norton J. N. 1820 Nott C. C. 1827 Noyes G. R. 1798 Nye J. W. 1850 Ober V. A. 1849 O'Brien J. 1836 O'Hara T. 1820 Olmsted D. 1791 Olmsted F. L. 1822 Olney J. 1798 Osgood F. S. 1811 Osmun T. E. 1834 OssoliM. S. F. 1830 Otis J. 1725 Owen J. J. 1803 Packard F. A. 1794 Palfrey J. G. 1796 Palmer R. 1808 Parker R. G. 1798 Parker T. 1810 Farkman F. 1823 Parsons T. W. 1819 Par ton S. P. W. 1811 Paulding J. K. 1779 Payne J. H. 1792 Pay son E. 1783 Peabody A. P. 1811 Peabody G. 1795 Peabody W. B. O. 1799 Peloubet F. N. 1831 Pendleton J. M. 1811 Percival J. G. 1795 Perry A. L. 1830 Perry N. 1832 Perry W. S. 1832 Peterson C. J. 1818 Pettlngill J. II. 1815 Phelps A. H. 1793 Phelps A. 1820 Phelps E. S. 1815 Phillips W. 1811 i-iatt J, J. 1835 Piatt S. M. B. 1836 Pickering J. 1777 jr-ierpont J. 1785 Pierson A. T. 1837 Pdke A. 1809 Pike M. H. G. 1825 Pike Z. M. 1779 Placide H. 1799 Poe E. A. 1809 Pollard E. A. 1828 Pool M. L. 1841 Poole W. P. 1821 Poole B. P. 1820 Pope W. B. 1822 Porter E. 1772 Porter N. 1811 Porter R. 1845 Potter A. 1830 Prentiss E. P. 1818 Prentiss S. S. 1808 Prescott W. II. 1796 Preston M. J. 1820 Prime S. I. 1812 Prince T. 1687 Proctor E. D. 1838 Proctor J. 1816 Putnam G. P. 1814 Quackenbos G. P. 1826 Quincy J. 1772 Ramsay D. 1749 R-and E. A. 1837 Randall J. R. 1839 Randolph J. 1773 Rankin J. E. 1828 Raymond H. J. 1820 Read H. 1802 Read T. B. 1822 Redway J. W. 1849 Reed H. 1808 Remsen I. 1846 Rexford E. E. 1848 Rhodes J. F. 1848 Rice E. W. 1831 Rdch O. 1777 Richards L. E. 1850 Richardson J. 1797 Rldpach J. C. 1840 Ripley G. 1808 Robinson E. 1794 Robinson S. T. D. 1827 Robson S. 1836 Roe A. S. 1798 Roe E. P. 1838 Rohlfs A. K. G. 1845 Rolfe W. J. 1827 Root G. F. 1820 Rupp I. D. 1 803 Rush R. 1780 Russell W. C. 1844 Ryan A. J. 1839 Sabine L. 1803 Sanders C. W. 1805 Sangster M. E. 1838 Sankey I. D. 1840 Sargent E. 1813 Sargent L. M. 1786 Savage J. 1784 Savage M. J. 1841 Savage R. H. 1846 Sawyer L. A. 1807 Saxe J. G. 1816 Soharf J. T. 1843 Schmucker S. S. 1799 Schoolcraft H. R. 1793 Scribner C. 1821 Scudder H. E. 1838 Sears E. H, 1810 Sears R. 1810 Sedgwick C. M. 1789 Seiss J. A. 1823 toemmes R. 1809 Seward W. H. 1801 Snaw H. W. 1818 Shea J. D. G. 1824 Shedd W/;G. T. 1820 Shields C. W. 1825 Shlllaber B. P. 1814 Sigourney L. H. 1791 Sill B. R. 1841 SImms W, G. 1806 Sloane W. M. 1850 Smith C. H. 1826 Smith E. O. 1806 Smith E. P. 1814 Smith P. H. 1838 Smith H. B. 1815 Smith J. 1805 Smith M. P. W. 1840 Smith M. H. 1810 i69] APPENDIX D 169 Smith R. P. 1799 Smitn R. 1829 Smith R. C. 1797 Smith S. F. 1808 Smith S. 1792 Smith W. 1728 Smucker S. M. 1823 Smyth N. 1843 Southworth E. D. G. N. 1819 Spalding M. J. 1810 Sparks J. 1789 hpencer I. S. 1798 .>pencer J. A. 1816 Spoflford A. ,R. 1825 Spofford H. P. 1835 Spooner S. 1809 Sprague C. 1791 Sprague W. B. 1795 Spring G. 1785 Squier E. G. 1821 Stanwood E. 1841 Stedman E. C. 1833 Steele J. D. 1836 Stephens A. H. 1812 Stephens A. S. 1813 Stephens C. A. 1845 Stephens J. L. 1805 Stevens A. 1815 Stevens B. P. 1833 Stevens H. 1819 Stewart C. S. 1795 Stockton P. R. 1834 Stockton J. D. 1836 Stoddard C. W. 1843 Stoddard J. L. 1850 Stoddard R. H. 1825 Stoddard W. O. 1835 Stone J. A. 1801 Stone W. L. 1792 Stone W. L. Jr. 1835 Story J. 1779 Story W. W. 1819 Stowe H. B. 1811 Street A. B. 1811 Strong J. 1822 Strong J. 1847 Stuart M. 1780 Sumner C. 1811 Sumner W. G. 1840 Tahb J. b. 1845 Talmage T. D. 1832 Tappan H. P. 1805 Tappan W. B. 1794 Taylor B. 1825 Taylor B. P. 1819 Taylor W. 1821 Terhune M. V. 1830 Tbaxter U. 1836 Thayer W. M. 1820 Thomas I. 1749 Thomas J. 1811 Thompson A. C. 1812 Thompson D. P. 1795 Thompson D, 1833 Thompson (J.) M. 1844 Thompson J. P. 1819 Thoreau H. D. 1817 Thorpe R. H. 1850 Ticknor G. 1791 Tlcknor W. D. 1810 Tier nan F. C. 1846 Tilton T. 1835 TImrod H. 1829 Tincker M. A. 1833 Todd J. 1800 Tomes R. 1817 Toombs R. 1810 Tourgee A. W. 1838 Towle G. M. 1841 Town S. 1779 Townsend L. T. 1838 Townsend M. A. 1832 Townsend T. S. i829 Townsend V. P. 1836 Train G. P. 1829 Trowbridge J. T. 1827 Trumbull B. 1735 Trumbull H. C. 1830 Trumbull J. H. 1821 Trumbull J. 1750 Tuckerman U. T. 1813 Tuckerman J. 1778 Turner S. H. 1790 Tuthill L. C. 1798 Tuttle H. 1846 Tyler M. C. 1835 Tyler R. 1757 Tyng S. H. 1800 Uph.am C. W. 1802 Upham T. C. 1799 Van Ailsityne P. J. C. 1820 Venable W. H. 1836 Very J. 1813 Victor M. V. 1831 Victor O. J. 1827 Vincent P. 1848 Vincent J. H. 1832 Vincent M. R. 1834 Walcot C. M. Jr. 1840 Walker A, 1799 Walker P. A. 1840 Walker J. B. 1805 Wallace L. 1827 Wallace W. R. 1819 Wallack J. L. 1820 Walsh R. 1784 Walworth J. R. H. 1837 Walworth M. T. 1837 Ward C. O. 1831 Ward E. S. P. 1844 Ward G. 1833 Ward L. P. 1841 Ware H. 1764 Ware H. Jr. 1794 Ware W. 1797 Warfleld C. A. 1816 Warner A. B. 1820 Warner C. D. 1829 Warner S. 1819 Warren W. Isl2 Warren W. F. 1833 Waterbury J. B. 1799 Watson H. C. 1831 Watson J. F. 1779 Watterson H. 1840 Wayland P. 1796 Webster D. 1782 Webster N. 1758 Webster P. 1725 Weed T. 1797 Weems M. L. 1759 Welby A. B. 1809 Wells D. A. 1828 Wells W. H. 1812 Wescott C. ^. 1846 Wheaton H. 1785 Whipple E. P. 1819 White A. D. 1832 White R. G. 1822 Whitman W. 1819 Whitmore \V. H. 1836 Whitney A. D. T. 1824 Whitney W. D. 1826 Wihittier J. G. 1809 Wilkes C. 1798 Willard E. 1787 Willard P. E. 1839 Willard S. 1640 Willilams W. R. 1804 Willis N. P. 1806 WJllson M. 1813 Wilson A. J. E. 1835 Winchell A. 1824 Winchester E. 1751 Winslow H. 1799 Winslow W. C. 1840 Winsor J. 1831 Winter W. 1836 Winthrop R. C. 1809 Winthrop T. 1828 Wirt W. 1772 Wister A. L. 1830 Woods L. 1774 Woodworth P. C. 1812 Woodworth S. 178o Woolman J, 1720 Woolsey S. C. 1845 Woolsey T. D. 1801 Worcester J. E. 1784 Worcester N. 1758 Work H. C. 1832 Wright C. D. 1840 Wnight C. 1830 Wright J. M. 1840 Yancey W. L. 1814 Youmans E. L. 1821 VITA The author of this dissertation was born in Westboro, Massachusetts, May 21, 1888. He prepared for college at the Worcester English High School, and received the A. B. degree from Clark College in 1909. After a year spent in teaching he began graduate work at Clark Uni- versity, from which he received the A. M. degree in 191 1. In the autumn of the same year he entered the School of Political Science, Columbia University, where he attended the lectures of Professors Giddings, Chad- dock, Seligman, Robinson, Devine and Lindsay. During the academic year 1913-1914 he was University Fellow in Sociology. In 1914 he become assistant professor of sociology and economics in Hamilton College. 171 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE lAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL PINE~OP 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE To r,^. THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE THE PE^"^ 1 APR 111 1934 YC I 04042 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY X