John Brewer DeMotte
Section
Number.
Library
of the
University of Toronto
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2020 with funding from
University of Toronto
*
https://archive.org/details/hereditarygenius00galt_0
HEREDITARY GENIUS.
HEREDITARY GENIUS
AN INQUIRY INTO
ITS LAWS AND CONSEQUENCES.
BY
' FRANCIS GALTON, F. R. S., Etc.
NEW AND REVISED EDITION, WITH AN
AMERICAN PREFACE.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO., 549 & 551 BROADWAY.
1375.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND AMERICAN EDITION.
The first American edition of this work having been sold,
and a second being called for, the publishers have acceded
to requests made from various quarters that the book
should be made more generally accessible by reissuing
it in a cheaper and more convenient form.
The principle of hereditary descent, by which the char¬
acteristics of races and species are preserved, is a funda¬
mental law of life, and the investigation of its action,
limits, and causes, as displayed in both the vegetable
and animal kingdoms, is the task of biological science.
Coupled with the principle of variation, it is the basis of
the art of breeding and improving stock ; while these two
agencies are held by Mr. Darwin and his school to afford
the true clue to the origin of the numerous forms of life.
To the operation of this principle, man is confessedly
no exception ; those peculiarities, physical, intellectual,
and moral, which distinguish the various races being per-
VI
PREFACE,
petuated by descent through all the generations of history.
Yet there has been much confusion in people’s notions
concerning the descent of mind in families. For, while,
on the one hand, observing persons are constantly re¬
marking the obvious transmission of certain mental traits
from parents to children, on the other hand there has been
a general denial of the inheritance of talent ; in other
words, it is held that, while certain mental characteristics
are transmissible the characteristic of genius is not.
It is clear, therefore, that what the subject required was
a searching and systematic inquiry into the facts, and that
has been now supplied by the present work. The following
pages embody the result of the first vigorous and method¬
ical effort to treat the question in the true scientific spirit,
and place it upon the proper inductive basis. Mr. Galton
maintains that mind offers no exception to the principle
of hereditary descent, and he makes out his case conclu¬
sively. He proves, by overwhelming evidence, that genius,
talent, or whatever we term great mental capacity, follows
the law of organic transmission — runs in families, and is
an affair of blood and breed ; and that a sphere of phe¬
nomena, hitherto deemed capricious and defiant of rule, is
nevertheless within the operation of ascertainable law.
The argument has three stages. In the first there is an
analysis of the elements of human greatness, and of the
conditions that must conspire to its attainment. A' scale
of mental valuations is constructed as a basis for classifica¬
tion, and the method of arriving at generalized results in
social phenomena is elucidated. An ingenious and simple
notation is adopted which the reader will acquire with a
PREFACE.
Vll
little attention, and will find of great service in prosecuting
the discussion.
In the second stage of his work, Mr. Galton enters
upon a pains-taking and exhaustive research of the histo¬
rical data by which his thesis is supported. The question
is here one of difficult detail respecting family affiliations,
and could only be safely pursued in the home district.
The number of great men and women of various types
which England has produced, the intensity of the family
feeling there, and the consequent completeness of the
genealogical records, render that country an especially
favorable field for such an investigation, and Mr. Galton
has accordingly concentrated his labors upon it. The
subjects of his inquiry have been judges, statesmen, com¬
manders, literary men, men of science, poets, musicians,
painters, and divines. The results of this extensive re¬
search are given in alphabetical and tabulated forms, and
they bring the author to the conclusion “that a man’s
natural abilities are derived by inheritance under exactly
the same limitations as are the form and physical features
of the whole organic world.”
In the third part of his work Mr. Galton passes to a
comparison of his. results, and to the general conclusions
which they appear to justify. He here considers the vari¬
ous agencies by which the descent of talent is counteract¬
ed, and is led to a consideration of the comparative worth
of different races, and to the influences which affect the
natural ability of nations. His problem is comprehensive
and profound, involving as it does the causes of human
advancement and degeneracy, and what may be termed
PREFACE .
• • •
vm
the dynamics of civilization. Of the interest of these
topics it is unnecessary to speak ; of the ability with which
they are treated the reader can judge ; the work may be
commended to the students of human nature as an origi¬
nal and valuable contribution to the science of mind in
that larger aspect which it is now assuming as a result of
modern inquiries.
PREFACE.
The idea of investigating the subject of hereditary genius
occurred to me during the course of a purely ethnological
inquiry, into the mental peculiarities of different races ;
when the fact, that characteristics cling to families, was
so frequently forced on my notice as to induce me to pay
especial attention to that branch of the subject. I began
by thinking over the dispositions and achievements of my
contemporaries at school, at college, and in after life,
and was surprised to find how frequently ability seemed
to go by descent. Then I made a cursory examination
into the kindred of about four hundred illustrious men of
all periods of history, and the results were such, in my
own opinion, as completely to establish the theory that
genius was hereditary, under limitations that required to
be investigated. Thereupon I set to work to gather a
large amount of carefully selected biographical data, and
in the meantime wrote two articles on the subject, which
appeared in Macmillan' s Magazine in June and in August,
1865. I also attacked the subject from many different
sides and sometimes with very minute inquiries, because
it was long before the methods I finally adopted were
matured. I mention all this, to show that the foundation
for my theories is broader than appears in the book, and
X
PREFACE .
as a partial justification if I have occasionally been be¬
trayed into speaking somewhat more confidently than the
evidence I have adduced would warrant.
I trust the reader will pardon a small percentage of
error and inaccuracy, if it be so small as not to affect the
general value of my results. No one can hate inaccuracy
more than myself, or can have a higher idea of what an
author owes to his readers, in respect to precision; but, in
a subject like this, it is exceedingly difficult to correct
every mistake, and still more so to avoid omissions. I have
often had to run my eyes over many pages of large biogra¬
phical dictionaries and volumes of memoirs to arrive at
data, destined to be packed into half a dozen lines, in an
appendix to one of my many chapters.
The theory of hereditary genius, though usually scouted,
has been advocated by a few writers in past as well as in
modern times. But I may claim to be the first to treat
the subject in a statistical manner, to arrive at numerical
results, and to introduce the “law of deviation from an
average” into discussions on heredity.
A great many subjects are discussed in the following
pages, which go beyond the primary issue, — whether or
no genius be hereditary. I could not refuse to consider
them, because the bearings of the theory I advocate are
too important to be passed over in silence.
*** I am glad of this opportunity to correct a mistake in an article I pub¬
lished this spring, in Macmillan's Magazine , on the “English Judges.” I gave
in it, provisional results from unrevised data, corresponding to those in column
E in the table p. 61 ; but by a clerical error in the computation, I made the
entry under Sons more nearly equal to those under Fathers and Brothers, than
it should have been.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
Introductory ....... i
CHAPTER II.
Classification of Men according to their Reputation 6
CHAPTER III.
Classification of Men according to their Natural
Gifts ....... 14
CHAPTER IV.
Comparison of the two Classifications . . 37
t
CHAPTER V.
Notation . . . . . . . 50
CHAPTER VI.
The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865 55
CHAPTER VII.
Statesmen . . . . . . .104
CHAPTER VIII.
English Peerages, their Influence upon Race . 130
CHAPTER IX.
Commanders . . . . . . .141
CHAPTER X.
Literary Men
167
Xll
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XI.
Men of Science
CHAPTER XII.
Poets .....
CHAPTER XIII.
Musicians ....
CHAPTER XIV.
Painters .
CHAPTER XV.
Divines .....
CHAPTER XVI.
Senior Classics of Cambridge .
CHAPTER XVII.
PAGE
*
• 192
225
• 237
247
. 257
299
Oarsmen ....... 305
CHAPTER XVIII.
Wrestlers of the North Country .. . . 312
CHAPTER XIX.
Comparison of Results . . . . .316
CHAPTER XX.
The Comparative Worth of Different Races . 336
CHAPTER XXI.
Influences that affect the Natural Ability of
Nations. . . . . . . 351
CHAPTER XXII.
General Considerations .... 363
APPENDIX . 377
... • • • . 385
INDEX
HEREDITARY GENIUS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
I PROPOSE to show in this book that a man’s natural
abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the
same limitations as are the form and physical features of
the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy,
notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful
selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with
peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so
it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted
race of men by judicious marriages during several con¬
secutive generations. I shall show that social agencies of
an ordinary character, whose influences are little suspected,
are at this moment working towards the degradation of
human nature, and that others are working towards its
improvement. I conclude that each generation has enor¬
mous power over the natural gifts of those that follow,
and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to
investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it
in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves,
shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the
earth.
2
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER
I am aware that my views, which were first published
four years ago in Macmillan’ s Magazine (in June and
August 1865), are in contradiction to general opinion ; but
the arguments I then used have been since accepted, to my
great gratification, by many of the highest authorities on
heredity. In reproducing them, as I now do, in a much
more elaborate form, and on a greatly enlarged basis of
induction, I feel assured that, inasmuch as what I then
wrote was sufficient to earn the acceptance of Mr. Darwin
(“Variation under Domestication,” ii. 7), the increased
amount of evidence submitted in the present volume is
not likely to be gainsaid.
The general plan of my argument is to show that high
reputation is a pretty accurate test of high ability ; next
to discuss the relationships of a large body of fairly
eminent men — namely, the Judges of England from 1660
to 1868, the Statesmen of the time of George III., and
the Premiers during the last 100 years — and to obtain
from these a general survey of the laws of heredity in
respect to genius. Then I shall examine, in order, the
kindred of the most illustrious Commanders, men of
Literature and of Science, Poets, Painters, and Musicians,
of whom history speaks. I shall also discuss the kindred
of a certain selection of Divines and of modern Scholars.
Then will follow a short chapter, by way of comparison,
on the hereditary transmission of physical gifts, as deduced
from the relationships of certain classes of Oarsmen and
Wrestlers. Lastly, I shall collate my results, and draw
conclusions.
It will be observed that I deal with more than one
grade of ability. Those upon whom the greater part of
my volume is occupied, and on whose kinships my argu¬
ment is most securely based, have been generally reputed
as endowed by nature with extraordinary genius. There
are so few of these men that, although they are scattered
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
3
throughout the whole historical period of human existence,
their number does not amount to more than 400, and yet
a considerable proportion of them will be found to be
interrelated.
Another grade of ability with which I deal is that which
includes numerous highly eminent, and all the illustrious
‘ names of modern English history, whose immediate de¬
scendants are living among us, whose histories are popularly
known, and whose relationships may readily be traced by
the help of biographical dictionaries, peerages, and similar
books of reference.
A third and lower grade is that of the English Judges,
massed together as a whole, for the purpose of the pre¬
fatory statistical inquiry of which I have already spoken.
No one doubts that many of the ablest intellects of our
race are to be found among the Judges; nevertheless the
average ability of a Judge cannot be rated as equal to that
of the lower of the two grades I have described.
I trust the reader will make allowance for a large and
somewhat important class of omissions I have felt myself
compelled to make when treating of the eminent men
of modern days. I am prevented by a sense of decorum
from quoting names of their relations in contemporary life
who are not recognised as public characters, although their
abilities may be highly appreciated in private life. Still
less consistent with decorum would it have been, to intro¬
duce the names of female relatives that stand in the same
category. My case is so overpoweringly strong, that I am
perfectly able to prove my point without having recourse
to this class of evidence. Nevertheless, the reader should
bear in mind that it exists ; and I beg he will do me
the justice of allowing that I have not overlooked the
whole of the evidence that does not appear in my pages.
I am deeply conscious of the imperfection of my work,
but my sins are those of omission, not of commission,
4
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
Such errors as I may and must have made, which give
a fictitious support to my arguments, are, I am confident,
out of all proportion fewer than such omissions of facts as
would have helped to establish them.
I have taken little notice in this book of modern men
of eminence who are not English, or at least well known
to Englishmen. I feared, if I included large classes of
foreigners, that I should make glaring errors. It requires
a very great deal of labour to hunt out relationships,
even with the facilities afforded to a countryman having
access to persons acquainted with the various families ;
much more would it have been difficult to hunt out the
kindred of foreigners. I should have especially liked to
investigate the biographies of Italians and Jews, both of
whom appear to be rich in families of high intellectual
breeds. Germany and America are also full of interest.
It is a little less so with respect to France, where the
Revolution and the guillotine made sad havoc among the
progeny of her abler races.
There is one advantage to a candid critic in my having
left so large a field untouched ; it enables me to propose
a test that any well-informed reader may easily adopt who
doubts the fairness of my examples. He may most reason¬
ably suspect that I have been unconsciously influenced
by my theories to select men whose kindred were most
favourable to their support. If so, I beg he will test my
impartiality as follows : — Let him take a dozen names of
his own selection, as the most eminent in whatever pro¬
fession and in whatever country he knows most about, and
let him trace out for himself their relations. It is necessary,
as I find by experience, to take some pains to be sure that
none, even of the immediate relatives, on either the male
or female side, have been overlooked. If he does what
I propose, I am confident he will be astonished at the
completeness with which the results will confirm my
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER .
5
theory. I venture to speak with assurance, because it has
often occurred to me to propose this very test to incre¬
dulous friends, and invariably, so far as my memory serves
me, as large a proportion of the men who were named
were discovered to have eminent relations, as the nature
of my views, on heredity would have led me to expect.
CHAPTER II.
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR
REPUTATION.
The arguments by which I endeavour to prove that
genius is hereditary, consist in showing how large is the
number of instances in which men who are more or less
illustrious have eminent kinsfolk. It is necessary to have
clear ideas on the two following matters before my argu¬
ments can be rightly appreciated. The first is the degree
of selection implied by the words “ eminent ” and “ illus¬
trious.” Does “ eminent ” mean the foremost in a hundred,
in a thousand, or in what other number of men ? The
second is the degree to which reputation may be accepted
as a test of ability.
It is essential that I, who write, should have a minimum
qualification distinctly before my eyes whenever I employ
the phrases “eminent” and the like, and that the reader
should understand as clearly as myself the value I attach
to those qualifications. An explanation of these words
will be the subject of the present chapter. A subsequent
chapter will be given to the discussion of how far
“ eminence ” may be accepted as a criterion of natural
gifts. It is almost needless for me to insist that the
subjects of these two chapters' are entirely distinct.
I look upon social and professional life as a continuous
examination. All are candidates for the good opinions of
others, and for success in their several professions, and they
ACCORDING TO THEIR REPUTATION.
7
achieve success in proportion as the general estimate is
large of their aggregate merits. In ordinary scholastic
examinations marks are allotted in stated proportions to
various specified subjects — so many for Latin, so many for
Greek, so many for English history, and the rest The
world, in the same way, but almost unconsciously, allots
marks to men. It gives them for originality of conception,
for enterprise, for activity and energy, for administrative
skill, for various acquirements, for power of literary ex¬
pression, for oratory, and much besides of general value,
as well as for more specially professional merits. It does
not allot these marks according to a proportion that can
easily be stated in words, but there is a rough common-
sense that governs its practice with a fair approximation
to constancy. Those who have gained most of these
tacit marks are ranked, by the common judgment of the
leaders of opinion, as the foremost men of their day.
The metaphor of an examination may be stretched much
further. As there are alternative groups in any one of
which a candidate may obtain honours, so it is with repu¬
tations — they may be made in law, literature, science, art,
and in a host of other pursuits. Again : as the mere
attainment of a general fair level will obtain no honours
in an examination, no more will it do so in the struggle
for eminence. A man must show conspicuous power in at
least one subject in order to achieve a high reputation.
Let us see how the world classifies people, after ex-
'amining each of them, in her patient, persistent manner,
during the years of their manhood. How many men of
“ eminence ” are there, and what proportion do they bear
to the whole community ?
I will begin by analysing a very painstaking biographical
handbook, lately published by Routledge and Co., called
“ Men of the Time.” Its intention, which is very fairly
and honestly carried out, is to include none but those
8
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
whom the world honours for their ability. The catalogue
of names is 2,500, and a full half of it consists of American
and Continental celebrities. It is well I should give in a
foot-note1 an analysis of its contents, in order to show the
exhaustive character of its range. The numbers I have
prefixed to each class are not strictly accurate, for I
measured them off rather than counted them, but they
are quite close enough. The same name often appears
under more than one head.
On looking over the book, I am surprised to find how
large a proportion of the “Men of the Time” are past
middle age. It appears that in the cases of high (but by
no means in that of the highest) merit, a man must outlive
the age of fifty .to be sure of being widely appreciated.
It takes time for an able man, born in the humbler ranks
of life, to emerge from them and to take his natural posi¬
tion. It would not, therefore, be just to compare the
numbers of Englishmen in the book with that of the whole
adult male population of the British isles ; but it is neces¬
sary to confine our examination to those of the celebrities
who are past fifty years of age, and to compare their number
with that of the whole male population who are also above
fifty years. I estimate, from examining a large part of
the book, that there are about 850 of these men, and that
1 Contents of the “ Dictionary of Men of the Time," Ed. 1S65 : — •
62 actors, singers, dancers, &c. ; 7’ agriculturists ; 71 antiquaries, archae¬
ologists, numismatists, &c. ; 20 architects; 120 artists (painters and designers);
950 authors ; 400 divines ; 43 engineers and mechanicians ; 10 engravers ;
140 lawyers, judges, barristers, and legists ; 94 medical practitioners, physi¬
cians, surgeons, and physiologists ; 39 merchants, capitalists, manufacturers,
and traders ; 168 military officers ; 12 miscellaneous ; 7 moral and meta¬
physical philosophers, logicians ; 32 musicians and composers ; 67 naturalists,
botanists, zoologists, &c. ; 36 naval officers ; 40 philologists and ethnologists ;
60 poets (but also included in authors) ; 60 political and social economists and
philanthropists; 154 men of science, astronomers, chemists, geologists, mathe¬
maticians, &c. ; 29 sculptors ; 64 sovereigns, members of royal families, &c. ;
376 statesmen, diplomatists, colonial governors, &c. ; 76 travellers and
geographers.
ACCORDING TO THEIR REPUTATION.
9
500 of them are decidedly well known to persons familiar
with literary and scientific society. Now, there are about
two millions of adult males in the British isles above fifty
years of age ; consequently, the total number of the “ Men
of the Time” are as 425 to a million, and the more select
part of them as 250 to a million.
The qualifications for belonging to what I call the more
select part are, in my mind, that a man should have dis¬
tinguished himself pretty frequently either by purely
original work, or as a leader of opinion. I wholly exclude
notoriety obtained by a single act. This is a fairly well-
defined line, because there is not room for many men to
be eminent. Each interest or idea has its mouthpiece, and
a man who has attained and can maintain his position as
the representative of a party or an idea, naturally becomes
much more conspicuous than his coadjutors who are nearly
equal but inferior in ability. This is eminently the case
in positions where eminence may be won by official acts.
The balance may be turned by a grain that decides whether
A, B, or C shall be promoted to a vacant post. The man
who obtains it has opportunities of distinction denied to
the others. I do not, however, take much note of official
rank. People who have left very great names behind them
have mostly done so through non-professional labours. I
certainly should not include mere officials, except of the
highest ranks, and in open professions, among my select
list of eminent men.
Another estimate of the proportion of eminent men to
the whole population was made on a different basis, and
gave much the same result. I took the obituary of the
year 1868, published in the Times on January 1st, 1869,
and found in it about fifty names of men of the more
select class. This was in one sense a broader, and in
another a more rigorous selection than that which I have
just described. It was broader, because I included the
IO
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
names of many whose abilities were high, but who died
too young to have earned the wide reputation they de¬
served ; and it was more rigorous, because I excluded old
men who had earned distinction in years gone by, but had
not shown themselves capable in later times to come again
to the front. On the first ground, it was necessary to lower
the limit of the age of the population with whom they
should be compared. Forty-five years of age seemed to
me a fair limit, including, as it was supposed to do, a year
or two of broken health preceding decease. Now, 210,000
males die annually in the British isles above the age of
forty-five ; therefore, the ratio of the more select portion of
the “Men of the Time” on these data is as 50 to 210,000,
or as 238 to a million.
Thirdly, I consulted obituaries of many years back,
when the population of these islands was much smaller,
and they appeared to me to lead to similar conclusions,
viz. that 250 to a million is an ample estimate.
There would be no difficulty in making a further selec¬
tion out of these, to any degree of rigour. We could
select the 200, the 100, or the 50 best out of the 250,
without much uncertainty. But I do not see my way to
work downwards. If I were asked to choose the thousand
per million best men, I should feel we had descended to
a level where there existed no sure data for guidance,
where accident and opportunity had undue influence, and
where it was impossible to distinguish general eminence
from local reputation, or from mere notoriety.
These considerations define the sense in which I propose
to employ the word “ eminent.” When I speak of an
eminent man, I mean one who has achieved a position
that is attained by only 250 persons' in each million of
men, or by one person in each 4,000. 4,000 is a very
large number — difficult for persons to realize who are
not accustomed to deal with great assemblages. On the
ACCORDING TO THEIR REPUTATION.
ii
most brilliant of starlight nights there are never so many
as 4,000 stars visible to the naked eye at the same time ;
yet we feel it to be an extraordinary distinction to a star
to be accounted as the brightest in the sky. This, be it
remembered, is my narrowest area of selection. I propose
to introduce no name whatever into my lists of kinsmen
(unless it be marked off from the rest by brackets) that is
less distinguished.
The mass of those with whom I deal are far more
rigidly selected — many are as one in a million, and not
a few as one of many millions. I use the term “ illus¬
trious ” when speaking of these. They are men whom the
whole intelligent part of the nation mourns when they die ;
who have, or deserve to have, a public funeral ; and who
rank in future ages as historical characters.
Permit me to add a word upon the meaning of a million,
being a number so enormous as to be difficult to conceive.
It is well to have a standard by which to realize it. Mine
will be understood by many Londoners ; it is as follows : —
One summer day I passed the afternoon in Bushey Park
to see the magnificent spectacle of its avenue of horse-
chestnut trees, a mile long, in full flower. As the hours
passed by, it occurred to me to try to count the number
of spikes of flowers facing the drive on one side of the
long avenue — I mean all the spikes that were visible in
full sunshine on one side of the road. Accordingly, I fixed
upon a tree of average bulk and flower, and drew ima¬
ginary lines — first halving the tree, then quartering, and
so on, until I arrived at a subdivision that was not too
large to allow of my counting the spikes of flowers it
included. I did this with three different trees, and arrived
at pretty much the same result : as well as I recollect, the
three estimates were as nine, ten, and eleven. Then I
counted the trees in the avenue, and, multiplying all to¬
gether, I found the spikes to be just about 100,000 in
12
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
number. Ever since then, whenever a million is mentioned,
I recall the long perspective of the avenue of Bushey Park,
with its stately chestnuts clothed from top to bottom with
spikes of flowers, bright in the sunshine, and I imagine a
similarly continuous floral band, of ten miles in length.
In illustration of the value of the extreme rigour
implied by a selection of one in a million, I will take
the following instance. The Oxford and Cambridge boat-
race excites almost a national enthusiasm, and the men
who represent their Universities as competing crews have
good reason to be proud of being the selected champions
of such large bodies. The crew of each boat consists of
eight men, selected out of about 800 students ; namely, the
available undergraduates of about two successive years. In
other words, the selection that is popularly felt to be so
strict, is only as one in a hundred. Now, suppose there
had been so vast a number of universities that it would
have been possible to bring together 800 men, each of
whom had pulled in a University crew, and that from this
body the eight best were selected to form a special crew
of comparatively rare merit : the selection of each of these
would be as 1 to 10,000 ordinary men. Let this process
be repeated, and then, and not till then, do you arrive at
a superlative crew, representing selections of one in a
million. This is a perfectly fair deduction, because the
youths at the Universities are a hap-hazard collection
of men, so far as regards their thews and sinews. No
one is sent to a University on account of his powerful
muscle. Or, to put the same facts into another form : —
it would require a period of no less than 200 years, before
either University could furnish eight men, each of whom
would have sufficient boating eminence to rank as one of
the medium crew. Twenty thousand years must elapse
before eight men could be furnished, each of whom would
have the rank of the superlative crew.
ACCORDING TO THEIR RET CITATION.
13
It is, however, quite another matter with respect to brain
power, for, as I shall have occasion to show, the Uni¬
versities attract to themselves a large proportion of the
eminent scholastic talent of all England. There are
nearly a quarter of a million males in Great Britain who
arrive each year at the proper age for going to the Uni¬
versity: therefore, if Cambridge, for example, received
only one in every five of the ablest scholastic intellects,
she would be able, in every period of ten years, to boast
of the fresh arrival of an undergraduate, the rank of whose
scholastic eminence was that of one in a million.
CHAPTER III.
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR
NATURAL GIFTS.
I HAVE no patience with the hypothesis occasionally ex¬
pressed, and often implied, especially in tales written to
teach children to be good, that babies are born pretty
much alike, and that the sole agencies in creating dif¬
ferences between boy and boy, and man and man, are
steady application and moral effort. It is in the most
unqualified manner that I object to pretensions of natural
equality. The experiences of the nursery, the school, the
University, and of professional careers/ are a chain of
prooTs to the contrary. I acknowledge freely the great
power of education and social influences in developing
the active powers of the mind, just as I acknowledge the
effect of use in developing the muscles of a blacksmith’s
arm, and no further. Let the blacksmith labour as he
will, he will find there are certain feats beyond his power
that are well within the strength of a man of herculean
make, even although the latter may have led a sedentary
life. Some years ago, the Plighlanders held a grand
gathering in Holland Park, where they challenged all
England to compete with them in their games of strength.
The challenge was accepted, and the well-trained men of
the hills were beaten in the foot-race by a youth who
was stated to be a pure Cockney, the clerk of a London
banker.
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
15
Everybody who has trained himself to physical exercises
discovers the extent of his muscular powers to a nicety.
When he begins to walk, to row, to use the dumb bells,
or to run, he finds to his great delight that his thews
strengthen, and his endurance of fatigue increases day after
day. So long as he is a novice, he perhaps flatters himself
there is hardly an assignable limit to the education of his
muscles; but the daily gain is soon discovered to diminish,
and at last it vanishes altogether. His maximum per¬
formance becomes a rigidly determinate quantity. He
learns to an inch, how high or how far he can jump, when
he has attained the highest state of training. He learns
to half a pound, the force he can exert on the dyna¬
mometer, by compressing it. He can strike a blow against
the machine used to measure impact, and drive its index
to a certain graduation, but no further. So it is in running,
in rowing, in walking, and in every other form of physical
exertion. There is a definite limit to the muscular powers
of every man, which he cannot by any education or
exertion overpass;
This is precisely analogous to the experience that every
student has had of the working of his mental powers.
The eager boy, when he first goes to school and confronts
intellectual difficulties, is astonished at his progress. He
glories in his newly-developed mental grip and growing
capacity for application, and, it may be, fondly believes
it to be within his reach to become one of the heroes who
have left their mark upon the history of the world. The
years go by ; he competes in the examinations of school
and college, over and over again with his fellows, and soon
finds his place among them. He knows he can beat such
and such of his competitors ; that there are some with
whom he runs on equal terms, and others whose intellectual
feats he cannot even approach. Probably his vanity still
continues to tempt him, by whispering in a new strain. It
i6
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
•
tells him that classics, mathematics, and other subjects
taught in universities, are mere scholastic specialities, and
no test of the more valuable intellectual powers. It
reminds him of numerous instances of persons who had
been unsuccessful in the competitions of youth, but who
had shown powers in after-life that made them the foremost
men of their age. Accordingly, with newly furbished hopes,
and with all the ambition of twenty-two years of age, he
leaves his University and enters a larger field of compe¬
tition. The same kind of experience awaits him here that
he has already gone through. Opportunities occur — they
occur to every man — and he finds himself incapable ol
grasping them. He tries, and is tried in many things. In
a few years more, unless he is incurably blinded .by self-
conceit, he learns precisely of what performances he is
capable, and what other enterprises lie beyond his compass.
When he reaches mature life, he is confident only within
certain limits, and knows, or ought to know, himself just
as he is probably judged of by the world, with all his
unmistakeable weakness and all his undeniable strength.
He is no longer tormented into hopeless efforts by the
fallacious promptings of overweening vanity, but he limits
his undertakings to matters below the level of his reach,
and finds true moral repose in an honest conviction that
he is engaged in as much good work as his nature has
rendered him capable of performing.
There can hardly be a surer evidence of the enormous
difference between the intellectual capacity of men, than
the prodigious differences in the numbers of marks ob¬
tained by those who gain mathematical honours at Cam¬
bridge. I therefore crave permission to speak at some
length upon this subject, although the details are dry and
of little general interest. There are between 400 and 450
students who take their degrees in each year, and of these,
about 100 succeed in gaining honours in mathematics, and
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
17
arc ranged by the examiners in strict order of merit.
About the first forty of those who take mathematical
honours are distinguished by the title of wranglers, and it
is a decidedly creditable thing to be even a low wrangler ;
it will secure a fellowship in a small college. It must be
carefully borne in mind that the distinction of being the
first in this list of honours, or what is called the senior
wrangler of the year, means a vast deal more than being
the foremost mathematician of 400 or 450 men taken at
hap-hazard. No doubt the large bulk of Cambridge men
are taken almost at hap-hazard. A boy is intended by
his parents for some profession ; if that profession be either
the Church or the Bar, it used to be almost requisite, and
it is still important, that he should be sent to Cambridge
or Oxford. These youths may justly be considered as
having been taken at hap-hazard. But there are many
others who have fairly won their way to the Universities,
and are therefore selected from an enormous area. Fully
one-half of the wranglers have been boys of note at their
respective schools, and, conversely, almost all boys of note
at schools find their way to the Universities. Hence it is
that among their comparatively small number of students,
the Universities include the highest youthful scholastic
ability of all England. The senior wrangler, in each suc¬
cessive year, is the chief of these as regards mathematics,
and this, the highest distinction, is, or was, continually
won by youths who had no mathematical training of
importance before they went to Cambridge. All their
instruction had been received during the three years of
their residence at the University. Now, I do not say
anything here about the merits or demerits of Cambridge
mathematical studies having been directed along a too
1
narrow groove, or about the presumed disadvantages of
ranging candidates in strict order of merit, instead of
grouping them, as at Oxford, in classes, where their names
rS
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
appear alphabetically arranged. All I am concerned with
here are the results ; and these are most appropriate to
my argument. The youths start on their three years'
race as fairly as possible. They are then stimulated to
run by the most powerful inducements, namely, those of
competition, of honour, and of future wealth (for a good
fellowship is wealth) ; and at the end of the three years
they are examined most rigorously according to- a system
that they all understand and are equally well prepared
for. The examination lasts five and a half hours a day
for eight days. All the answers are carefully marked by
the examiners, who add up the marks at the end and
range the candidates in strict order of merit. The fair¬
ness and thoroughness of Cambridge examinations have
never had a breath of suspicion cast upon them.
Unfortunately for my purposes, the marks are not
published. They are not even assigned on a uniform
system, since each examiner is permitted to employ his
own scale of marks ; but whatever scale he uses, the
results as to proportional merit are the same. I am
indebted to a Cambridge examiner for a copy of his marks
in respect to two examinations, in which the scales of
marks were so alike as to make it easy, by a slight pro¬
portional adjustment, to compare the two together. This
was, to a certain degree, a confidential communication, so
that it would be improper for me to publish anything
that would identify the years to which these marks refer.
I simply give them as groups of figures, sufficient to show
the enormous differences of merit. The lowest man in
the list of honours gains less than 300 marks ; the lowest
wrangler gains about 1,500 marks; and the senior wrangler,
in one of the lists now before me, gained more than 7,500
marks. Consequently, the lowest wrangler has more than
five times the merit of the lowest junior optime, and less
than one-fifth the merit of the senior wrangler.
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
19
Scale of merit among the men who obtain mathematical honours at
Cambridge .
The results of two years are thrown into a single table.
The total number of marks obtainable in each year was 17,000.
Number of marks obtained by
candidates.
Number of candidates in the two
years, taken together, who obtained
those marks.
Under 500
24 1
500 to 1,000
74
1,000 to 1,500
3«
1,500 to 2,000
21
2,000 to 2,500
1 1
2,500 to 3,000
8
3,000 to 3,500
11
3,500 to 4,000
5
4,000 to 4,500
2
4,500 to 5,000
1
5,000 to 5,500
3
5,500 to 6,000
1
6,000 to 6,500
0
6,500 to 7,000
0
7,000 to 7,500
0
7,500 to 8,000
1
200
The precise number of marks obtained by the senior
wrangler in the more remarkable of these two years was
7,634; by the second wrangler in the same year, 4,123;
and by the lowest man in the list of honours, only 237.
Consequently, the senior wrangler obtained nearly twice
as many marks as the second wrangler, and more than
thirty-two times as many as the lowest man. I have
received from another examiner the marks of a year in
which the senior wrangler was conspicuously eminent.
1 I have included in this table only the first ico men in each year. The
omitted residue is too small to be important. I have omitted it lest, if the
precise numbers of honour men were stated, those numbers would have served
to identify the years. For reasons already given, I desire to afford no data to
serve that purpose.
20
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
He obtained 9,422 marks, whilst the second in the same
year — whose merits were by no means inferior to those
of second wranglers in general — obtained only 5,642. The
man at the bottom of the same honour list had only 309
marks, or one-thirtieth the number of the senior wrangler.
I have some particulars of a fourth very remarkable year,
in which the senior wrangler obtained no less than ten
times as many marks as the second wrangler, in the
“ problem paper.” Now, I have discussed with practised
examiners the question of how far the numbers of marks
may be considered as proportionate to the mathematical
power of the candidate, and am assured they are strictly
proportionate as regards the lower places, but do not afford
full justice to the highest. In other words, the senior
wranglers above mentioned had more than thirty, or thirty-
two times the ability of the lowest men on the lists of
honours. They would be able to grapple with problems
more than thirty-two times as difficult ; or when dealing
with subjects of the same difficulty, but intelligible to
all, would comprehend them more rapidly in perhaps the
square root of that proportion. It is reasonable to expect
that marks would do some injustice to the very best men,
because a very large part of the time of the examination
is taken up by the mechanical labour of writing. When¬
ever the thought of the candidate outruns his pen, he gains
no advantage from his excess of promptitude in conception.
I should, however, mention that some of the ablest men
have shown their superiority by comparatively little writing.
They find their way at once to the root of the difficulty in
the problems that are set, and, with a few clean, apposite,
powerful strokes, succeed in proving they can overthrow it,
and then they go on to another question. Every word
they write tells. Thus, the late Mr. H. Leslie Ellis, who
was a brilliant senior wrangler in 1840, and whose name
is familiar to many generations of Cambridge men as a
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
21
prodigy of universal genius, did not even remain during
the full period in the examination room : his health was
weak, and he had to husband his strength.
The mathematical powers of the last man on the list of
honours, which are so low when compared with those of
a senior wrangler, are mediocre, or even above mediocrity,
when compared with the gifts of Englishmen generally.
Though the examination places ioo honour men above
him, it puts no less than 300 “poll men” below him.
Even if we go so far as to allow that 200 out of the 300
refuse to work hard enough to get honours, there will
remain 100 who, even if they worked hard, could not
get them. Every tutor knows how difficult it is to drive
abstract conceptions, even of the simplest kind, into the
brains of most people — how feeble and hesitating is their
mental grasp — how easily their brains are mazed — how
incapable they are of precision and soundness of know¬
ledge. It often occurs to persons familiar with some
scientific subject to hear men and women of mediocre gifts
relate to one another what they have picked up about it
from some lecture — say at the Royal Institution, where
they have sat for an hour listening with delighted attention
to an admirably lucid account, illustrated by experiments
of the most perfect and beautiful character, in all of which
they expressed themselves intensely gratified and highly
instructed. It is positively painful to hear what they say.
Their recollections seem to be a mere chaos of mist and
misapprehension, to which some sort of shape and organi¬
zation has been given by the action of their own pure
fancy, altogether alien to what the lecturer intended to
convey. The average mental grasp even of what is called
a well-educated audience, will be found to be ludicrously
small when rigorously tested.
In stating the differences between man and man, let it
not be supposed for a moment that mathematicians are
22
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
necessarily one-sided in their natural gifts. There are
numerous instances of the reverse, of whom the following
will be found, as instances of hereditary genius, in the
appendix to my chapter on “ SCIENCE.” I would espe¬
cially name Leibnitz, as being universally gifted ; but
Ampere, Arago, Condorcet, and D’Alembert, were all of
them very far more than mere mathematicians. Nay,
since the range of examination at Cambridge is so ex¬
tended as to include other subjects besides mathematics,
the differences of ability between the highest and lowest
of the successful candidates, is yet more glaring than what
I have already described. We still find, on the one hand,
mediocre men, whose whole energies are absorbed in getting
their 237 marks for mathematics ; and, on the other hand,
some few senior wranglers who are at the same time high
classical scholars and much more besides. Cambridge has
afforded such instances. Its lists of classical honours are
comparatively of recent date, but other evidence is obtain¬
able from earlier times of their occurrence. Thus, Dr.
George Butler, the Head Master of Harrow for very many
years, including the period when Byron was a schoolboy,
(father of the present Head Master, and of other sons, two
of whom are also head masters of great public schools,)
must have obtained that classical office on account of his
eminent classical ability ; but Dr. Butler was also senior
wrangler in 1794, the year when Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst
was second. Both Dr. Kaye, the late Bishop of Lincoln,
and Sir E. Alderson, the late judge, were the senior
wranglers and the first classical prizemen of their respective
years. Since 1824, when the classical tripos was first esta¬
blished, the late Mr. Goulburn (brother of Dr. Goulburn,
Dean of Norwich, and son of the well-known Serjeant
Goulburn 1 ) was second wrangler in 1835, and senior classic
of the same year. But in more recent times, the necessary
labour of preparation, in order to acquire the highest
1 Erroneous ; corrected at p. 301.
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
23
mathematical places, has become so enormous that there
has been a wider differentiation of studies. There is no
longer time for a man to acquire the necessary knowledge to
succeed to the first place in more than one subject. There
are, therefore, no instances of a man being absolutely first
in both examinations, but a few can be found of high
eminence in both classics and mathematics, as a reference
to the lists published in the “ Cambridge Calendar” will
show. The best of these more recent degrees appears to
be that of Dr. Barry, late Principal of Cheltenham, and
now Principal of King’s College, London (the son of the
eminent architect, Sir Charles Barry, and brother of Mr.
Edward Barry, who succeeded his father as architect). He
was fourth wrangler and seventh classic of his year.
In whatever way we may test ability, we arrive at equally
enormous intellectual differences. Lord Macaulay ( see under
“ LITERATURE ” for his 'remarkable kinships) had one of
the most tenacious of memories. He was able to recall
many pages of hundreds of volumes by various authors,
which he had acquired by simply reading them over. An
average man could not certainly carry in his memory one
thirty-second — ay, or one hundredth — part as much as
Lord Macaulay. The father of Seneca had one of the
greatest memories on record in ancient times ( see under
“ Literature” for his kinships). Porson, the Greek
scholar, was remarkable for this gift, and, I may add, the
“Porson memory” was hereditary in that family. In
statesmanship, generalship, literature, science, poetry, art,
just the same enormous differences are found between man
and man ; and numerous instances recorded in this book,
will show in how small degree, eminence, either in these or
any other class of intellectual powers, can be considered
as due to purely special powers. They are rather to be
considered in those instances as the result of concentrated
efforts, made by men who are widely gifted. People lay
24
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
too much stress on apparent specialities, thinking over-
rashly that, because a man is devoted to some particular
pursuit, he could not possibly have succeeded in anything
else. They might just as well say that, because a youth
had fallen desperately in love with a brunette, he could not
possibly have fallen in love with a blonde. He may or
may not have more natural liking for the former type of
beauty than the latter, but it is as probable as not that the
affair was mainly or wholly due to a general amorousness
of disposition. It is just the same with special pursuits.
A gifted man is often capricious and fickle before he selects
his occupation, but when it has been chosen, he devotes
himself to it with a truly passionate ardour. After a man
of genius has selected his hobby, and so adapted himself
to it as to seem unfitted for any other occupation in life,
and to be possessed of but one special aptitude, I often
notice, with admiration, how well he bears himself when
circumstances suddenly thrust him into a strange position.
He will display an insight into new conditions, and a power
of dealing with them, with which even his most intimate
friends were unprepared to accredit him. Many a pre¬
sumptuous fool has mistaken indifference and neglect for
incapacity ; and in trying to throw a man of genius on
ground where he was unprepared for attack, has himself
received a most severe and unexpected fall. I am sure
that no one who has had the privilege of mixing in the
society of the abler .men of any great capital, or who is
acquainted with the biographies of the heroes of history,
can doubt the existence of grand human animals, of natures
pre-eminently noble, of individuals born to be kings of men.
I have been conscious of no slight misgiving that I was
committing a kind of sacrilege whenever, in the preparation
of materials for this book, I had occasion to take the
measurement of modern intellects vastly superior to my
own, or to criticise the genius of the most magnificent
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
25
historical specimens of our race. It was a process that
constantly recalled to me a once familiar sentiment in
bygone days of African travel, when I used to take alti¬
tudes of the huge cliffs that domineered above me as I
travelled along their bases, or to map the mountainous
landmarks of unvisited tribes, that loomed in faint grandeur
beyond my actual horizon.
I have not cared to occupy myself much with people
whose gifts are below the average, but they would be an
interesting study. The number of idiots and imbeciles
among the twenty million inhabitants of England and
Wales is approximately estimated at 50,000, or as 1 in
400. Dr. Seguin, a great French authority on these
matters, states that more than thirty per cent, of idiots
and imbeciles, put under suitable instruction, have been
taught to conform to social and moral law, and rendered
capable of order, of good feeling, and of working like the
third of an average man. He says that more than forty
per cent, have become capable of the ordinary transactions
of life, under friendly control ; of understanding moral and
social abstractions, and of working like two-thirds of a man.
And, lastly, that from twenty-five to thirty per cent, come
nearer and nearer to the standard of manhood, till some
of them will defy the scrutiny of good judges, when com¬
pared with ordinary young men and women. In the order
next above idiots and imbeciles arc a large number of
milder cases scattered among private families and kept out
of sight, the existence of whom is, however, well known
to relatives and friends ; they are too silly to take a part
in general society, but are easily amused with some trivial,
harmless occupation. Then comes a class of whom the
Lord Dundreary of the famous play may be considered
a representative ; and so, proceeding through successive
grades, we gradually ascend to mediocrity. I know two
good instances of hereditary silliness short of imbecility,
26
CLASSIFICA TION OF MEN
and have reason to believe I could easily obtain a large
number of similar facts.
To conclude, the range of mental power between — I will
not say the highest 'Caucasian and the lowest savage — but
between the greatest and least of English intellects, is
enormous. There is a continuity of natural ability reaching
from one knows not what height, and descending to one can
hardly say what depth. I propose in this chapter to range
men according to their natural abilities, putting them into
classes separated by equal degrees of merit, and to show
the relative number of individuals included in the several
classes. Perhaps some persons might be inclined to make
an offhand guess that the number of men included in the
several classes would be pretty equal. If he thinks so, I
can assure him he is most egregiously mistaken.
The method I shall employ for discovering all this, is an
application of the very curious theoretical law of “ deviation
from an average.” First, I will explain the law, and then
I will show that the production of natural intellectual gifts
comes justly within its scope.
The law is an exceedingly general one. M. Quetelet,
the Astronomer -Royal of Belgium, and the greatest
authority on vital and social statistics, has largely used it
in his inquiries. He has also constructed numerical tables,
by which the necessary calculations can be easily made,
whenever it is desired to have recourse to the law. Those
who wish to learn more than I have space to relate, should
consult his work, which is a very readable octavo volume,
and deserves to be far better known to statisticians than it
appears to be. Its title is “ Letters on Probabilities,” trans¬
lated by Downes. Layton and Co. London: 1849.
So much has been published in recent years about
statistical deductions, that I am sure the reader will be
prepared to assent freely to the following hypothetical
case : — Suppose a large island inhabited by a single race,
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
2 7
who intermarried freely, and who had lived for many
generations under constant conditions ; then the average
height of the male adults of that population would un¬
doubtedly be the same year after year. Also — still arguing
from the experience of modern statistics, which are found
to give constant results in far less carefully-guarded
examples — we should undoubtedly find, year after year,
the same proportion maintained between the number of
men of different heights. I mean, if the average stature
was found to be sixty-six inches, and if it was also found
in any one year that ioo per million exceeded seventy-
eight inches, the same proportion of ioo per million would
be closely maintained in all other years. An equal con¬
stancy of proportion would be maintained between any
other limits of height we pleased to specify, as between
seventy-one and seventy-two inches ; between seventy-two
and seventy-three inches ; and so on. Statistical expe¬
riences are so invariably confirmatory of what I have
stated would probably be the case, as to make it unneces¬
sary to describe analogous instances. Now, at this point,
the law of deviation from an average steps in. It shows
that the number per million whose heights range between
seventy-one and seventy-two inches (or between any other
limits we please to name) can be predicted from the previous
datum of the average, and of any one other fact, such as
that of ioo per million exceeding seventy-eight inches.
The diagram on p. 28 will make this more intelligible.
Suppose a million of the men to stand in turns, with their
backs against a vertical board of sufficient height, and
their heights to be dotted off upon it. The board would
then present the appearance shown in the diagram. The
line of average height is that which divides the dots into
two equal parts, and stands, in the case we have assumed,
at the height of sixty-six inches. The dots will be found
to be ranged so symmetrically on either side of the line of
28
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
WO peh million
ABOVE THIS LIME
line or
$c»1b
at
feet>
A wen ACE HEIGHT
TOO PET? MILLION
ME BELOW THIS LIUE
8
average, that the lower half of the diagram will be almost
a precise reflection of the upper. Next, let a hundred dots
be counted from above
downwards, and let a line
be drawn below them. Ac¬
cording to the conditions,
this line will stand at the
height of seventy -eight
inches. Using the data
afforded by these two
lines, it is possible, by the
help of the law of devia¬
tion from an average, to
reproduce, with extraordi¬
nary closeness, the entire
system of dots on the
board.
M. Ouetelet gives tables
in which the uppermost
line, instead of cutting off
ioo in a million, cuts off
only one in a million. He divides the intervals between
that line and the line of average, into eighty equal divi¬
sions, and gives the number of dots that fall within each
of those divisions. It is easy, by the help of his tables,
to calculate what would occur under any other system of
classification we pleased to adopt.
This law of deviation from an average is perfectly general
in its application. Thus, if the marks had been made by
bullets fired at a horizontal line stretched in front of the
target, they would have been distributed according to the
same law. Wherever there is a large number of similar
events, each due to the resultant influences of the same
variable conditions, two effects will follow. First, the
average value of those events will be constant ; and,
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
29
secondly, the deviations of the several events from the
average, will be governed by this law (which is, in prin¬
ciple, the same as that which governs runs of luck at a
gaming-table).
The nature of the conditions affecting the several events
must, I say, be the same. It clearly would not be proper
to combine the heights of men belonging to two dissimilar
races, in the expectation that the compound results would
be governed by the same constants. A union of two dis¬
similar systems of dots would produce the same kind of
confusion as if half the bullets fired at a target had been
directed to one mark, and the other half to another mark.
Nay, an examination of the dots would show to a person,
ignorant of what had occurred, that such had been the
case, and it would be possible, by aid of the law, to dis¬
entangle two or any moderate number of superimposed
series of marks. The law may, therefore, be used as a
most trustworthy criterion, whether or no the events of
which an average has been taken, are due to the same or
to dissimilar classes of conditions.
I selected the hypothetical case of a race of men living
on an island and freely intermarrying, to ensure the con¬
ditions under which they were all supposed to live, being
uniform in character. It will now be my aim to show there
is sufficient uniformity in the inhabitants of the British Isles
to bring them fairly within the grasp of this law.
For this purpose, I first call attention to an example
given in Ouetelet’s book. It is of the measurements of the
circumferences of the chests of a large number of Scotch
soldiers. The Scotch are by no means a strictly uniform
race, nor are they exposed to identical conditions. They
are a mixture of Celts, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, and others,
in various proportions, the Highlanders being almost purely
Celts. O11 the other hand, these races, though diverse in
origin, are not very dissimilar in character. Consequently,
3°
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
it will be found that their deviations from the average,
follow theoretical computations with remarkable accuracy.
The instance is as follows. M. Quetelet obtained his facts
from the thirteenth volume of the Edinburgh Medical
Journal , where the measurements are given in respect to
5,738 soldiers, the results being grouped in order of mag¬
nitude, proceeding by differences of one inch. Professor
Quetelet compares these results with those that his tables
give, and here is the result. The marvellous accordance
between fact and theory must strike the most unpractised
eye. I should say that, for the sake of convenience, both
the measurements and calculations have been reduced to
per thousandths : —
Measures of
the chest in
inches.
Number of
men per 1,000,
by experience.
Number of
men per 1,000,
by calculation.
Measures of
the chest in
inches.
Number of
men per i,ooo,
by experience.
Number of
men per 1,000,
by calculation.
O 'J
0J>
5
7
41
1,628
1,675
34
31
29
42
1,148
1,096
35
141
1 10
43
645
560
36
322
323
44
l6o
221
37
732
732
45
87
69
38
1,305
i,333
46
38
l6
39
1,867
1,838
47
7
3
40
1,882
1,987
4S
2
i
I will now take a case where there is a greater dis¬
similarity in the elements of which the average has been
taken. It is the height of 100,000 French conscripts.
There is fully as much variety in the French as in the
English, for it is not very many generations since France
was divided into completely independent kingdoms.
Among its peculiar races are those of Normandy, Brit¬
tany, Alsatia, Provence, Bearn e, Auvergne — each with
their special characteristics ; yet the following table shows
a most striking agreement between the results of experience
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
3*
compared with those derived by calculation, from a purely
theoretical hypothesis : —
Number
of Men.
Height of Men.
Measured.
Calculated.
Inches.
Under 61 '8
28,620
26,345
61 -8 to 62'9
11,580
13,182
62 ’9 to 63 '9
13.990
14,502
63 -9 to 65 0
14,410
13,982
65 ‘o to 66 ’i
1 1,410
11,803
66u to 67U
8,780
8,725
67 'I to 68-2
5.530
5,527
68 '2 to 69^3
3.190
3,187
Above 69^3
2,490
2,645
The greatest differences are in the lowest ranks. Th-y
include the men who were rejected from being too short
for the army. M. Ouctelet boldly ascribes these differences
to the effect of fraudulent returns. It certainly seems that
men have been improperly taken out of the second rank
and put into the first, in order to exempt them from
service. Be this as it may, the coincidence of fact with
theory is, in this instance also, quite close enough to serve
my purpose.
I argue from the results obtained from Frenchmen and
from Scotchmen, that, if we had measurements of the
adult males in the British Isles, we should find those
measurements to range in close accordance with the law
of deviation from an average, although our population is
as much mingled as I described that of Scotland to have
been, and although Ireland is mainly peopled with Celts.
. Now, if this be the case with stature, then it will be true
as regards every other physical feature — as circumference
of head, size of brain, weight of grey matter, number
32
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
of brain fibres, &c. ; and thence, by a step on which no
physiologist will hesitate, as regards mental capacity.
This is what I am driving at — that analogy clearly shows
there must be a fairly constant average mental capacity in
the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that the deviations
from that average — upwards towards genius, and down¬
wards towards stupidity — must follow the law that governs
deviations from all true averages.
I have, however, done somewhat more than rely on
analogy. I have tried the results of those examinations
in which the candidates had been derived from the same
classes. Most persons have noticed the lists of successful
competitors for various public appointments that are
published from time to time in the newspapers, with the
marks gained by each candidate attached to his name.
These lists contain far too few names to fall into such
beautiful accordance with theory, as was the case with the
Scotch soldiers. There arc rarely more than ioo names
in any one of these examinations, while the chests of
no less than 5,700 Scotchmen were measured. I cannot
justly combine the marks of several independent exami¬
nations into one fagot, for I understand that different
examiners are apt to have different figures of merit ; so
I have analysed each examination separately. I give a
calculation I made on the examination last before me ; it
will do as well as any other. It was for admission into
the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, December 1868.
The marks obtained were clustered most thickly about
3,000, so I take that number as representing the average
ability of the candidates. From this datum, and from the
fact that no candidate obtained more than 6,500 marks,
I computed the column B in the following table, by the
help of Quetelet’s numbers. It will be seen that column B
accords with column A quite as closely as the small number
of persons examined could have led us to expect.
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
33
Number of marks obtained
by the Candidates.
Number of Candidates who obtained
those marks.
A.
According to fact.
B.
According to theory.
6,500 and above
5,800 to 6,500
5.100 to 5,800
4,400 to 5,100
3,700 to 4,400
3,000 to 3,700
2,300 to 3,000
1,600 to 2,300
1.100 to 1,600 (
400 to I, 100 <
below 400 /
O
I
3
6 l 73
1 1
22
22
8 J
Either did not
venture to com¬
pete, or were
plucked.
O "
I
5
8 L 72
13
16
16
*3 „
) 8
f 5
\ 1
The symmetry of the descending branch has been rudely
spoilt by the conditions stated at the foot of column A.
There is, therefore, little room for doubt, if everybody in
England had to work up some subject and then to pass
before examiners who employed similar figures of merit,
that their marks would be found to range, according to the
law of deviation from an average, just -as rigorously as the
heights of French conscripts, or the circumferences of the
chests of Scotch soldiers.
The number of grades into which we may divide ability
is purely a matter of option. We may consult our con¬
venience by sorting Englishmen into a few large classes, or
into many small ones. I will select a system of classifi¬
cation that shall be easily comparable with the numbers
of eminent men, as determined in the previous chapter.
We have seen that 250 men per million become eminent ;
accordingly, I have so contrived the classes in the following
table that the two highest, F and G, together with X (which
includes all cases beyond G, and which are unclassed),
34
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN
shall amount to about that number — namely, to 248 per
million : —
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
Grades of natural
ability, separated by
equal intervals.
Numbers of men comprised in the several grades of natural ability, whether in
respect to their general powers, or to special aptitudes.
Propor¬
tionate,
In each
In total male population of the United Kingdom,
15 millions, of the undermentioned ages : —
viz.
million
Below
Above
viz.
of the
average.
average.
one in
same age.
20 - 30
O
rf
1
O
CO
40—50
0
VO
1
0
10
60 — 70
70 — 80
a
A
4
256,791
651,000
495,000
391,000
268,000
171,000
77,000
b
B
6
162,279
409,000
312,000
246,000
168,000
107,000
48,000
c
C
l6
63.563
161,000
123,000
97,000
66,000
42,000
29,000
d
D
64
15,696
39,800
30,300
23,900
16,400
IO, 4OO
4,700
e
E
4i3
2,423
6,100
4,700
3>7°°
2,520
1,600
729
f
F
4>3°°
233
590
45°
355
243
155
70
s
G
79,000
h
35
27
21
15
9
4
X
X
all grades
all grades
below
above
1,000,000
1
3
2
2
2
—
—
g
G
♦
On either side of average . .
Total, both sides .
500,000
1,000,000
1,268,000
2,536,000
964,000
1,928,000
761,000
1,522,000
521,000
1,042,000
332,000
664,000
149,000
298,0:0
The proportions of men living at different ages are calculated from the pro¬
portions that are true for England and Wales. (Census 1861, Appendix, p. 107.)
Example. — The class F contains I in every 4,300 men. In other words,
there are 233 of that class in each million of men. The same is true of class f.
In the whole United Kingdom there are 590 men of class F (and the same
number of f) between the ages of 20 and 30; 450 between the ages of 30
and 40 ; and so on.
It will, I trust, be clearly understood that the numbers
of men in the several classes in my table depend on no
uncertain hypothesis. They are determined by the assured
law of deviations from an average. It is an absolute fact
that if we pick out of each million the one man who is
naturally the ablest, and also the one man who is the
most stupid, and divide the remaining 999,998 men into
fourteen classes, the average ability in each being separated
ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS.
35
from that of its neighbours by equal grades , then the
numbers in each of those classes will, on the average of
many millions, be as is stated in the table. The table may
be applied to special, just as truly as to general ability.
It would be true for every examination that brought out
natural gifts, whether held in painting, in music, or in
statesmanship. The proportions between the different
classes would be identical in all these cases, although the
classes would be made up of different individuals, according
as the examination differed in its purport.
It will be seen that more than half of each million
is contained in the two mediocre classes a and A ; the
four mediocre classes a, b, A, II, contain more than four-
fifths, and the six mediocre classes more than nineteen-
twentieths of the entire population. Thus, the rarity of
commanding ability, and the vast abundance of mediocrity,
is no accident, but follows of necessity, from the very nature
of these things.
The meaning of the word “ mediocrity ” admits of little
doubt. It defines the standard of intellectual power found
in most provincial gatherings, because the attractions of a
more stirring life in the metropolis and elsewhere, arc apt
to draw away the abler classes of men, and the silly and
the imbecile do not take a part in the gatherings. Hence,
the residuum that forms the bulk of the general society
of small provincial places, is commonly very pure in its
mediocrity.
The class C possesses abilities a trifle higher than those
commonly possessed by the foreman of an ordinary jury.
D includes the mass of men who obtain the ordinary
prizes of life. E is a stage higher. Then wc reach F,
the lowest of those yet superior classes of intellect, with
which this volume is chiefly concerned.
On descending the scale, we find by the time we have
reached f, that we are already among the idiots and im-
*6
CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO GIFTS.
beciles. We have seen in p. 25, that there are 400 idiots
and imbeciles, to every million of persons living in this
country ; but that 30 per cent, of their number, appear to
be light cases, to whom the name of idiot is inappropriate.
There will remain 280 true idiots and imbeciles, to every
million of our population. This ratio coincides very closely
with the requirements of class f. No doubt a certain pro¬
portion of them are idiotic owing to some fortuitous cause,
which may interfere with the working of a naturally good
brain, much as a bit of dirt may cause a first-rate chrono¬
meter to keep worse time than an ordinary watch. But
I presume, from the usual smallness of head and absence
of disease among these persons, that the proportion of
accidental idiots cannot be very large.
Hence we arrive at the undeniable, but unexpected
conclusion, that eminently gifted men are raised as much
above mediocrity as idiots are depressed below it ; a fact
that is calculated to considerably enlarge our ideas of the
enormous differences of intellectual gifts between man
and man.
I presume the class F of dogs, and others of the more
intelligent sort of animals, is nearly commensurate with
the f of the human race, in respect to memory and powers
of reason. Certainly the class G of such animals is far
superior to the g of humankind.
CHAPTER IV.
COMPARISON OF THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS.
Is reputation a fair test of natural ability ? It is the only
one I can employ — am I justified in using it ? How much
of a man’s success is due to his opportunities, how much
to his natural power of intellect ?
This is a very old question, on which a great many
commonplaces have been uttered that need not be repeated
iiere. I will confine myself to a few considerations, such
as seem to me amply adequate to prove, what is wanted
for my argument.
Let it clearly be borne in mind, what I mean by reputa¬
tion and ability. By reputation, I mean the opinion of
contemporaries, revised by posterity — the favourable result
of a critical analysis of each man’s character, by many
biographers. I do not mean high social or official position,
nor such as is implied by being the mere lion of a London
season ; but I speak of the reputation of a leader of
opinion, of an originator, of a man to whom the world
deliberately acknowledges itself largely indebted.
By natural ability, I mean those qualities of intellect
and disposition, which urge and qualify a man to perform
acts that lead to reputation. I do not mean capacity
without zeal, nor zeal without capacity, nor even a com¬
bination of both of them, without an adequate power of
doing a great deal of very laborious work. But I mean
38
COMPARISON OF THE
a nature which, when left to itself, will, urged by an in¬
herent stimulus, climb the path that leads to eminence,
and has strength to reach the summit — one which, if
hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until the hin¬
drance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its
labour-loving instinct. It is almost a contradiction in
terms, to doubt that such men will generally become emi¬
nent. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence in
this volume, to show that few have won high reputations,
without possessing these peculiar gifts. It follows that
the men who achieve eminence, and those who are naturally
capable, are, to a large extent, identical.
The particular meaning in which I employ the word
ability, does not restrict my argument from a wider appli¬
cation ; for, if I succeed in showing — as I undoubtedly shall
do — that the concrete triple event, of ability combined
with zeal and with capacity for hard labour, is inherited,
much more will there be justification for believing that any
one of its three elements, whether it be ability, or zeal, or
capacity for labour, is similarly a gift of inheritance.
I believe, and shall do my best to show, that, if the
“ eminent ” men of any period, had been changelings when
babies, a very fair proportion of those who survived and
retained their health up to fifty 'years of age, would, not¬
withstanding their altered circumstances, have equally risen
to eminence. Thus — to take a strong case — it is incre¬
dible that any combination of circumstances, could have
repressed Lord Brougham to the level of undistinguished
mediocrity.
The arguments on which I rely, are as follow. I will
limit their application for the present, to men of the pen
and to artists. First, it is a fact, that numbers of men rise,
before they are middle-aged, from the humbler ranks of
life to that worldly position, in which it is of no importance
to their future career, how their youth has been passed.
TWO CLASSIFICA TIONS.
39
They have overcome their hindrances, and thus start fair
with others more fortunately reared, in the subsequent race
of life. A boy who is to be carefully educated is sent to
a good school, where he confessedly acquires little useful
information, but where he is taught the art of learning.
The man of whom I have been speaking, has contrived
to acquire the same art in a school of adversity. Both
stand on equal terms, when they have reached mature life.
They compete for the same prizes, measure their strength
by efforts in the same direction, and their relative successes
are thenceforward due to their relative natural gifts. There
are many such men in the “eminent” class, as biographies
abundantly show. Now, if the hindrances to success were
very great, we should expect all who surmounted them, to
be prodigies of genius. The hindrances would form a
system of natural selection, by repressing all whose gifts
were below a certain very high level. But what is the
case ? We find very many who have risen from the ranks,
who are by no means prodigies of genius ; many who have
no claim to “ eminence,” who have risen easily in spite of
all obstacles. The hindrances undoubtedly form a system
of natural selection that represses mediocre men, and even
men of pretty fair powers — in short, the classes below D ;
but many of D succeed, a great many of E, and I believe
a very large majority of those above.
If a man is gifted with vast intellectual ability, eagerness
to work, and power of working, I cannot comprehend how
such a man should be repressed. The world is always
tormented with difficulties waiting to be solved — struggling
with ideas and feelings, to which it can give no adequate
expression. If, then, there exists a man capable of solving
those difficulties, or of giving a voice to those pent-up
feelings, he is sure to be welcomed with universal accla¬
mation. We may almost say that he has only to put his
pen to paper, and the thing is done. I am here speaking
40
COMPARISON OF THE
of the very first-class men — prodigies — one in a million,
or one in ten millions, of whom numbers will be found
described in this volume, as specimens of hereditary
genius.
Another argument to prove, that the hindrances of
English social life, are not effectual in repressing high
ability is, that the number of eminent men in England,
is as great as in other countries where fewer hindrances
exist. Culture is far more widely spread in America, than
with us, and the education of their middle and lower
classes far more advanced ; but, for all that, America most
certainly does not beat us in first-class works of literature,
philosophy, or art. The higher kind of books, even of the
most modern date, read in America, are principally the
work of Englishmen. The Americans have an immense
amount of the newspaper-article-writer, or of the member-
of-congress stamp of ability ; but the number of their
really eminent authors is more limited even than with us.
I argue that, if the hindrances to the rise of genius, were
removed from English society as completely as they have
been removed from that of America, we should not become
materially richer in highly eminent men.
People seem to have the idea that the wray to eminence
is one of great self-denial, from which there are hourly
temptations to diverge : in which a man can be kept in
his boyhood, only by a schoolmaster’s severity or a parent’s
incessant watchfulness, and in after life by the attractions
of fortunate friendships and other favourable circumstances.
This is true enough of the great majority of men, but it
is simply not true of the generality of those who have
gained great reputations. Such men, biographies show to
be haunted and driven by an incessant instinctive craving
for intellectual work. If forcibly withdrawn from the path
that leads towards eminence, they will find their way back
to it, as surely as a lover to his mistress. They do not
TWO CLASSIF/CA TIONS.
4i
work for the sake of eminence, but to satisfy a natural
craving for brain work, just as athletes cannot endure
repose on account of their muscular irritability, which
insists upon exercise. It is very unlikely that any con¬
junction of circumstances, should supply a stimulus to
brain work, commensurate with what these men carry in
their own constitutions. The action of external stimuli
must be uncertain and intermittent, owing to their very
nature ; the disposition abides. It keeps a man ever em¬
ployed — now wrestling with his difficulties, now brooding
over his immature ideas — and renders him a quick and
eager listener to innumerable, almost inaudible teachings,
that others less keenly on the watch, are sure to miss.
These considerations lead to my third argument. I have
shown that social hindrances cannot impede men of high
ability, from becoming eminent. I shall now maintain that
social advantages are incompetent to give that status, to
a man of moderate ability. It would be easy to point
out several men of fair capacity, who have been pushed
forward by all kinds of help, who are ambitious, and exert
themselves to the utmost, but who completely fail in
attaining eminence. If great peers, they may be lord-
lieutenants of counties ; if they belong to great county
families, they may become influential members of parlia¬
ment and local notabilities. When they die, they leave a
blank for awhile in a large circle, but there is no West¬
minster Abbey and no public mourning for them — perhaps
barely a biographical notice in the columns of the daily
papers.
It is difficult to specify two large classes of men, with
equal social advantages, in one of which they have high
hereditary gifts, while in the other they have not. I must
not compare the sons of eminent men with those of non-
eminent, because much which I should ascribe to breed,
others might ascribe to parental encouragement and ex-
42
COMPARISON OF THE
ample. Therefore, I will compare the sons of eminent
men with the adopted sons of Popes and other dignitaries
of the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of nepotism
among ecclesiastics is universal. It consists in their giving
those social helps to a nephew, or other more distant
relative, that ordinary people give to their children.
Now, I shall show abundantly in the course of this book,
that the nephew of an eminent man has far less chance
of becoming eminent than a son, and that a more remote
kinsman has far less chance than a nephew. We may
therefore make a very fair comparison, for the purposes of
my argument, between the success of the sons of eminent
men and that of the nephews or more distant relatives,
who stand in the place of sons to the high unmarried
ecclesiastics of the Romish Church. If social help is really
of the highest importance, the nephews of the Popes will
attain eminence as frequently, or nearly so, as the sons of
other eminent men ; otherwise, they will not.
Are, then, the nephews, & c. of the Popes, on the whole,
as highly distinguished as are the sons of other equally
eminent men ? I answer, decidedly not. There have been
a few Popes who were offshoots of illustrious races, such as
that of the Medici, but in the enormous majority of cases
the Pope is the ablest member of his family. I do not
profess to have worked up the kinships of the Italians
with any especial care, but I have seen amply enough of
them, to justify me in saying that the individuals whose
advancement has been due to nepotism, are curiously un¬
distinguished. The very common combination of an able
son and an eminent parent, is not matched, in the case
of high Romish ecclesiastics, by an eminent nephew and
an eminent uncle. The social helps are the same, but
hereditary gifts are wanting in the latter case.
To recapitulate : I have endeavoured to show in respect
to literary and artistic eminence—
TWO CLASSIFICATIONS.
43
t. That men who are gifted with high abilities — even
men of class E — easily rise through all the obstacles caused
by inferiority of social rank.
2. Countries where there are fewer hindrances than in
England, to a poor man rising in life, produce a much
larger proportion of persons of culture, but not of what
I call eminent men.
3. Men who are largely aided by social advantages, are
unable to achieve eminence, unless they are endowed with
high natural gifts.
It may be well to add a few supplementary remarks on
the small effects of a good education on a mind of the
highest order. A youth of abilities G, and X, is almost
independent of ordinary school education. He docs not
want a master continually at his elbow to explain diffi¬
culties and select suitable lessons. On the contrary, he is
receptive at every pore. He learns from passing hints,
with a quickness and thoroughness that others cannot
comprehend. He is omnivorous of intellectual work,
devouring in a vast deal more than he can utilize, but
extracting a small percentage of nutriment, that makes,
in the aggregate, an enormous supply. The best care
that a master can take of such a boy is to leave him
alone, just directing a little here and there, and checking
desultory tendencies.
It is a mere accident if a man is placed in his youth in
the profession for which he has the most special vocation.
It will consequently be remarked in my short biographical
notices, that the most illustrious men have frequently
broken loose from the life prescribed by their parents, and
followed, careless of cost, the paramount dictation of their
own natures : in short, they educate themselves. D’Alem¬
bert is a striking instance of this kind of self-reliance. He
was a foundling (afterwards shown to be well bred as
respects ability), and put out to nurse as a pauper baby,
44
COMPARISON OF THE
to the wife of a poor glazier. The child’s indomitable
tendency to the higher studies, could not be repressed by
his foster-mothers ridicule and dissuasion, nor by the
taunts of his schoolfellows, nor by the discouragements of
his schoolmaster, who was incapable of appreciating him,
nor even by the reiterated deep disappointment of finding
that his ideas, which he knew to be original, were not
novel, but long previously discovered by others. Of course,
we should expect a boy of this kind, to undergo ten or
more years of apparently hopeless strife, but we should
equally expect him to succeed at last ; and D’Alembert
did succeed in attaining the first rank of celebrity, by the
time he was twenty-four. The reader has only to turn
over the pages of my book, to find abundant instances of
this emergence from obscurity, in spite of the utmost dis¬
couragement in early youth.
A prodigal nature commonly so prolongs the period
when a man’s receptive faculties are at their keenest, that
a faulty education in youth, is readily repaired in after
life. The education of Watt, the great mechanician, was
of a merely elementary character. During his youth and
manhood he was engrossed with mechanical specialities.
It was not till he became advanced in years, that he had
leisure to educate himself, and yet by the time he was an
old man, he had become singularly well-read and widely
and accurately informed. The scholar who, in the eyes of
his contemporaries and immediate successors, made one of
the greatest reputations, as such, that any man has ever
made, was Julius Caesar Scaliger. His youth was, I be¬
lieve, entirely unlettered. He was in the army until he
was twenty-nine, and then he led a vagrant professional
life, trying everything and sticking to nothing. At length
he fixed himself upon Greek. His first publications were
at the age of forty-seven, and between that time and the
period of a somewhat early death, he earned his remark-
TWO CLASSIF1CA TIONS .
45
able reputation, only exceeded by that of his son. Boy¬
hood and youth — the period between fifteen and twenty-
two years of age, which afford to the vast majority of men,
the only period for the acquirement of intellectual facts
and habits — are just seven years — neither more nor less
important than other years— in the lives of men of the
highest order. People are too apt to complain of their
imperfect education, insinuating that they would have done
great things if they had been more fortunately circum¬
stanced in youth. But if their power of learning is
materially diminished by the time they have discovered
their want of knowledge, it is very probable that their
abilities are not of a very high description, and that, how¬
ever well they might have been educated, they would
have succeeded but little better.
Even if a man be long unconscious of his powers, an
opportunity is sure to occur — they occur over and over
again to every man — that will discover them. He will
then soon make up for past arrears, and outstrip com¬
petitors with very many years’ start, in the race of life.
There is an obvious analogy between the man of brains
and the man of muscle, in the unmistakeable way in
which they may discover and assert their claims to supe¬
riority over less gifted, but far better educated, competitors.
An average sailor climbs rigging, and an average Alpine
guide scrambles along cliffs, with a facility that seems like
magic to a man who has been reared away from ships and
mountains. But if he have extraordinary gifts, a very
little trial will reveal them, and he will rapidly make
up for his arrears of education. A bom gymnast would
soon, in his turn, astonish the sailors by his feats. Before
the voyage was half over, he would outrun them like an
escaped monkey. I have witnessed an instance of this
myself. Every summer, it happens that some young
English tourist who had never previously planted his foot
46
COMPARISON OF THE
on crag or ice, succeeds in Alpine work to a marvellous
degree.
Thus far, I have spoken only of literary men and artists,
who, however, form the bulk of the 250 per million, that
attain to eminence. The reasoning that is true for them,
requires large qualifications when applied to statesmen and
commanders. Unquestionably, the most illustrious states¬
men and commanders belong, to say the least, to the classes
F and G of ability ; but it does not at all follow that an
English cabinet minister, if he be a great territorial lord,
should belong to those classes, or even to the two or three
below them. Social advantages have enormous power in
bringing a man into so prominent a position as a statesman,
that it is impossible to refuse him the title of “ eminent,”
though it may be more than probable that if he had been
changed in his cradle, and reared in obscurity, he would
have lived and died without emerging from humble life.
Again, we have seen that a union of three separate quali¬
ties — intellect, zeal, and power of work — are necessary to
raise men from the ranks. Only two of these qualities, in
a remarkable degree, namely intellect and power of work,
are required by a man who is pushed into public life ;
because when he is once there, the interest is so absorbing,
and the competition so keen, as to supply the necessary
stimulus to an ordinary mind. Therefore, many men who
have succeeded as statesmen, would have been nobodies
had they been born in a lower rank of life : they would
have needed zeal to rise. Talleyrand would have passed
his life in the same way as other grand seigneurs, if he
had not been ejected from his birthright, by a family
council, on account of his deformity, and thrown into the
vortex of the French Revolution. The furious excitement
of the game overcame his inveterate indolence, and he
developed into the foremost man of the period, after
Napoleon and Mirabcau. As for sovereigns, they belong
TWO CLASSIFICATIONS.
47
to a peculiar category. The qualities most suitable to the
ruler of a great nation, are not such as lead to eminence
in private life. Devotion to particular studies, obstinate
perseverance, geniality and frankness in social relations, are
important qualities to make a man rise in the world, but
they are unsuitable to a sovereign. He has to view many
interests and opinions with an equal eye ; to know how
to yield his favourite ideas to popular pressure, to be
reserved in his friendships and able to stand alone. On
the other hand, a sovereign docs not greatly need the
intellectual powers that are essential to the rise of a
common man, because the best brains of the country are
at his service. Consequently, I do not busy myself in this
volume with the families of merely able sovereigns ; only
with those few whose military and administrative capacity
is acknowledged to have been of the very highest order.
As regards commanders, the qualities that raise a man
to a peerage, may be of a peculiar kind, such as would not
have raised him to eminence in ordinary times. Strategy
is as much a speciality as chess playing, and large practice
is required to develop it. It is difficult to see how strate¬
gical gifts, combined with a hardy constitution, dashing
courage, and a restless disposition, can achieve eminence in
times of peace. These qualities are more likely to attract
a man to the hunting-field, if he have enough money ; or
if not, to make him an unsuccessful speculator. It con¬
sequently happens that generals of high, but not the very
highest order, such as Napoleon’s marshals and Cromwell’s
generals, are rarely found to have eminent kinsfolk. Very
different is the case, with the most illustrious commanders.
They are far more than strategists and men of restless
dispositions ; they would have distinguished themselves
.under any -circumstances. Their kinships are most re¬
markable, as will be seen in my chapter on commanders,
which includes the names of Alexander, Scipio, Hannibal,
48
COMPARISON OF THE
C?esar, Marlborough, Cromwell, the Princes of Nassau,
Wellington, and Napoleon.
Precisely the same remarks are applicable to demagogues.
Those who rise to the surface and play a prominent part
in the transactions of a troubled period, must have courage
and force of character, but they need not have high in¬
tellectual powers. Nay, it is more appropriate that the
intellects of such men should be narrow and one-sided,
and their dispositions moody and embittered. These are
not qualities that lead to eminence in ordinary times.
Consequently, the families of such men, are mostly un¬
known to fame. But the kinships of popular leaders
of the highest order, as of the two Gracchi, of the two
Arteveldes, and of Mirabeau, are illustrious.
I may mention a class of cases that strikes me forcibly
as a proof, that a sufficient power of command to lead to
eminence in troublous times, is much less unusual than is
commonly supposed, and that it lies neglected in the course
of ordinary life. In beleaguered towns, as for example
during the great Indian mutiny, a certain type of character
very frequently made its appearance. People rose into
notice who had never previously distinguished themselves,
and subsided into their former way of life, after the occa¬
sion for exertion was over ; while during the continuance
of danger and misery, they were the heroes of their situa¬
tion. They were cool in danger, sensible in council, cheerful
under prolonged suffering, humane to the wounded and
sick, encouragers of the faint-hearted. Such people were
formed to shine only under exceptional circumstances.
They had the advantage of possessing too tough a fibre to
be crushed by anxiety and physical misery, and perhaps
in consequence of that very toughness, they required a
stimulus of the sharpest kind, to goad them to all the
exertions of which they were capable.
The result of what I have said, is to show that in
TWO CLASSIFICA T/ONS.
49
statesmen and commanders, mere “eminence” is by no
means a satisfactory criterion of such natural gifts as
would make a man distinguished under whatever circum¬
stances he had been reared. On the other hand, statesmen
of a high order, and commanders of the very highest, who
overthrow all opponents, must be prodigiously gifted.
The reader must judge the cases I quote, in proof of
hereditary gifts, by their several merits. I have endea¬
voured to speak of none but the most illustrious names.
It would have led to false conclusions, had I taken a larger
number, and thus descended to a lower level of merit.
In conclusion, I see no reason to be dissatisfied with the
conditions under which I am bound, of accepting high
reputation as a very fair test of high ability. The nature
of the test would not have been altered, if I had attempted
to readjust each man’s reputation according to his merits,
because this is what every biographer does. If I had
possessed the critical power of a St. Beuve, I should have
merely thrown into literature another of those numerous
expressions of opinion, by the aggregate of which, all
reputations are built. -
To conclude : I feel convinced that no man can achieve
a very high reputation without being gifted with very high
abilities ; and I trust I have shown reason to believe, that
few who possess these very high abilities can fail in
achieving eminence.
CHAPTER V.
NOTATION.
[In connection with this chapter consult folding sheet in the Appendix.]
I ENTREAT my readers not to be frightened at the
first sight of the notation I employ, for it is really very
simple to understand and easy to recollect. It was im¬
possible for me to get on without the help of something
of the sort, as I found our ordinary nomenclature far
too ambiguous as well as cumbrous for employment in
this book.
For example, the terms “ uncle,” “ nephew,” “ grand¬
father,” and “grandson,” have each of them two distinct
meanings. An uncle may be the brother of the father,
or the brother of the mother ; the nephew may be the
son of a brother, or the son of a sister ; and so on.
There are four kinds of first cousins, namely, the sons of
the two descriptions of uncles and those of the two cor¬
responding aunts. There are sixteen kinds of first cousins
u once removed,” for either A. may be the son of any one
of the four descriptions of male or of the four female
cousins of B., or B. may bear any one of those relation¬
ships to A. I need not quote more instances in illustration
of what I have said, that unbounded confusion would have
been introduced had I confined myself in this book, to our
ordinary nomenclature.
The notation I employ gets rid of all this confused
and cumbrous language. It disentangles relationships
NOTATION, ;
5i
in a marvellously complete and satisfactory manner, and
enables us to methodise, compare, and analyse them in any
way we like.
! Speaking generally, and without regarding the type in
which the letters are printed, F. stands for Father; G. for
Grandfather; U. for Uncle; N. for Nephew; B. for
Brother; S. for Son; and P. for Grandson {Pctit-fils in
French).
These letters are printed in capitals when the relation¬
ship to be expressed has passed through the male line,
and in small type when through the female line. There¬
fore U. is the paternal uncle ; G. the paternal grandfather ;
N. is a nephew that is son of a brother ; P. a grandson
that is the child of a son. So again, u. is the maternal
uncle ; g. the maternal grandfather ; n. a nephew that is
son of a sister ; p. a grandson that is the child of a
daughter.
Precisely the same letters, in the form of Italics , are
employed for the female relations. For example, in cor¬
respondence with U. there is U. to express an aunt that
is the sister of a father ; and to u. there is 7t. to express an
aunt that is the sister of a mother.
It is a consequence of this system of notation, that F.
and B. and S. are always printed in capitals, and that
their correlatives for mother, sister, and daughter are
always expressed in small italicised type, as f, b.y and s.
The reader must mentally put the word his before the
letter denoting kinship, and was after it. Thus : —
Adams, John; second President of the United States.
S. John Quincey Adams, sixth President.
P. C. F. Adams, American Minister in England ; author.
would be read —
His (i.e. John Adams’) son was J. Q. Adams.
His „ ,, grandson was C. F. Adams.
52
NOTATION .
The following table comprises the whole of this no¬
tation : —
G. G. g. g.
Grandfather. = Grandmother. Grandfather. = Grandmother.
1
u.
i
u.
i
F.
i
f.
i i
u. u.
Uncle.
Aunt.
Father.
= Mother.
1
Uncle. Aunt.
r
B.
Brother.
1
The Person
described.
i.
Sister.
1
1
N.
1
N.
1
S.
1 1
n. ii.
Nephew.
Niece.
Son.
1
Daughter.
1
Nephew. Niece.
1 1
p. p.
Gr.-son. Gr.-daughter.
1 1
p. p.
Gr.-son. Gr.-daughter.
Two or
more
letters are
employed to
express relation-
ships beyond the compass of this table. Thus the
expression for a first cousin, speaking generally, is US.,
which admits of being specialized in four different forms,
namely, US., US., uS., and 7/S. As a matter of fact,
distant relationships will seldom be found to fall under
our consideration.
The last explanation I have to make, is the meaning
of brackets [ ] when they enclose a letter. It implies
that the person to whose name the letter in brackets is
annexed has not achieved sufficient public reputation to
be ranked, in statistical deductions, on equal terms with
the rest.
For facility of reference I give lists, in alphabetical
order, of all the letters, within the limits of two letters,
that I employ. Thus I always use GF. for great-grand¬
father, and not FG., which means the same thing.
NOT A TION.
53
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE LETTERS, AND THE MALE
RELATIONSHIPS TO WHICH THEY CORRESPOND.1
B. Brother.
F. Father.
G. g. Grandfather.
GB. gB. UB. ^B. Great-uncle.
GF. gF. GY. gY. Great grandfather.
GG. gG. GG. g G. Gg. gg. Gg. ^g. Great-great-grandfather.
GN. gN. UN. ^N. Gn. gn. Un. ^n. First cousin, once removed, ascending.
GU. gU. CU. £'U. Gu. gu. Uu. gn. Great-great-uncle.
N. n. Nephew.
NS. nS. NS. nS. Great-nephew.
P. p. Grandson.
PS. pS. PS. fS. Great-grandson.
PP. pP. PY. pY. Pp. pp. Pp. p p. Great-great-grandson.
S. Son.
U. u. Uncle.
UP. uP. UY. uY. up. Up. up. First cousin, once removed, descending.
US. uS. US. u S. First cousin.
1 When the /a.?/ letter is in Italics, whether small or capital, the corresponding
female relation is indicated ; as N. a niece, Nj. a great-niece.
The double letters are to be mentally read as follow : —
GB. His Grandfather’.? brother was , &c.
UP. His Uncle’.? grandson was, &c.
CHAPTER VI.
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND BETWEEN l66o AND 1 865.
The Judges of England, since the restoration of the
monarchy in 1660, form a group peculiarly well adapted
to afford a general outline of the extent and limitations of
heredity in respect to genius. A judgeship is a guarantee
of its possessor being gifted with exceptional ability ; the
Judges are sufficiently numerous and prolific to form an
adequate basis for statistical inductions, and they are the
subjects of several excellent biographical treatises. It is
therefore well to begin our inquiries with a discussion of
their relationships. We shall quickly arrive at definite
results, which subsequent chapters, treating of more illus¬
trious men, and in other careers, will check and amplify.
It is necessary that I should first say something in
support of my assertion, that the office of a judge is really
a sufficient guarantee that its possessor is exceptionally
gifted. In other countries it may be different to what it
is wtth us, but we all know that in England, the Bench is
never spoken of without reverence for the intellectual
power of its occupiers. A seat on the Bench is a great
prize, to be won by the best men. No doubt there are
hindrances, external to those of nature, against a man
getting on at the Bar and rising to a judgeship. The
attorneys may not give him briefs when he is a young
barrister ; and even if he becomes a successful barrister,
56
THE JUDGES OE ENGLAND
his political party may be out of office for a long period,
at a time when he was otherwise ripe for advancement.
I cannot, however, believe that either of these are serious
obstacles in the long run. Sterling ability is sure to make
itself felt, and to lead to practice ; while as to politics, the
changes of party are sufficiently frequent to give a fair
chance to almost every generation. For every man who
is a judge, there may possibly be two other lawyers of
the same standing, equally fitted for the post, but it is
hard to believe there can be a larger number.
If not always the foremost, the Judges are therefore
among the foremost, of a vast body of legal men. The
Census speaks of upwards of 3,000 barristers, advocates,
and special pleaders ; and it must be recollected that
these do not consist of 3,000 men taken at hap-hazard,
but a large part of them are already selected, and it is
from these, by a second process of selection, that the
judges are mainly derived. When I say that a large part
of the barristers are selected men, I speak of those among
them who are of humble parentage, but have brilliant
natural gifts — who attracted notice as boys, or, it may be,
even as children, and were therefore sent to a good school.
There they won exhibitions and fitted themselves for col¬
lege, where they supported themselves by obtaining scholar¬
ships. Then came fellowships, and so they ultimately
found their way to the Bar. Many of these have risen to
the Bench. The parentage of the Lord Chancellors jus¬
tifies my statement. There have been thirty of fhem
within the period included in my inquiries. Of these,
Lord Hardwicke was the son of a small attorney at Dover,
in narrow circumstances ; Lord Eldon (whose brother was
the great Admiralty Judge, Lord Stowell) was son of a
‘‘coal fitter;” Lord Truro was son of a sheriff’s officer;
and Lord St. Leonards (like Lord Tenterden, the Chief
Justice of Common Fleas) was son of a barber. Others
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
57
were sons of clergymen of scanty means. Others have
begun life in alien professions, yet, notwithstanding their
false start, have easily recovered lost ground in after life.
Lord Erskine was first in the navy and then in the army,
before he became a barrister. Lord Chelmsford was
originally a midshipman. Now a large number of men
with antecedents as unfavourable to success as these, and
yet successful men, are always to be found at the Bar, and
therefore I say the barristers are themselves a selected
body ; and the fact of every judge having been taken
from the foremost rank of 3,000 of them, is proof that his
exceptional ability is of an enormously higher order than
if the 3,000 barristers had been conscripts, drawn by lot
from the general mass of their countrymen. I therefore
need not trouble myself with quoting passages from
biographies, to prove that each of the Judges whose name
I have occasion to mention, is a highly gifted man. It
is precisely in order to avoid the necessity of this tedious
work, that I have selected the Judges for my first chapter.
In speaking of the English Judges, I have adopted the
well-known “ Lives of the Judges,” by Foss, as my guide.
It was published in 1865, so I have adopted that date as
the limit of my inquiries. I have considered those only as
falling under the definition of “judges” whom he includes
as such. They are the Judges of the Courts of Chancery
and Common Law, and the Master of the Rolls, but not
the Judges of the Admiralty nor of the Court of Canter¬
bury. By the latter limitation, 1 lose the advantage of
counting Lord Stowell (brother of the Lord Chancellor
Eldon), the remarkable family of the Lushingtons, that of
Sir R. Phillimore, and some others. Through the limitation
as regards time, I lose, by ending with the year 1865, the
recently-created judges, such as Judge Sclwyn, brother
of the Bishop of Lichfield, and also of the Professor
of Divinity at Cambridge. But I believe, from cursory
58
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
inquiries, that the relations of these latter judges, speaking
generally, have not so large a share of eminence as we
shall find among those of the judges in my list. This
might have been expected, for it is notorious that the
standard of ability in a modern judge is not so high as
it used to be. The number of exceptionally gifted men
being the same, it is impossible to supply the new demand
for heads of great schools and for numerous other careers,
now thrown open to able youths, without seriously limiting
the field whence alone good judges may be selected. By
beginning at the Restoration, which I took for my com¬
mencement, because there was frequent jobbery in earlier
days, I lose a Lord Keeper (of the same rank as a Lord
Chancellor), and his still greater son, also a Lord Chan¬
cellor, namely, the two Bacons. I state these facts to
show that I have not picked out the period in question,
because it seemed most favourable to my argument, but
simply because it appeared the most suitable to bring out
the truth as to hereditary genius, and was, at the same
time, most convenient for me to discuss.
There are 286 judges within the limits of my inquiry;
109 of them have one or more eminent relations, and three
others have relations whom I have noticed, but they are
marked off with brackets, and are therefore not to be
included in the following statistical deductions. As the
readiest method of showing, at a glance, the way in which
these relations are distributed, I give a table below in
which they are all compactly registered. This table is
a condensed summary of the Appendix to the present
chapter, which should be consulted by the reader when¬
ever he desires fuller information.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
59
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 109 JUDGES, GROUPED
INTO 85 FAMILIES.
One relatio7i {or two in family).
Abney .
U.
Keating .
F.
Alibone .
G.
King, Lord .
u.
Bedingfield .
U.
Lawrence .
F.
Best (Lord Wynford) . .
g-
Lee .
B.
Bickersteth (Lord Langdale)
u.
Mansfield, Lord ....
P.
Bramston .
F.
Milton .
B.
Browne .
uS.
Patteson .
S.
Brougham, Lord ....
CB-
2.
Powis, Sir L. and brother .
B.
Campbell, Lord ....
N.
2.
Raymond, Lord, and father
F.
Cooper (Earl Shaftesbury) .
P.
2.
Reynolds, Sir J. and nephew
N.
Copley (Lord Lyndhurst) .
F.
Romilly, Lord 1 .
S.
De Grey (Lord Walsingham) S.
Scott (Earl Eldon) . . .
B.
Erie .
B.
Sewell .
P-
Eyre, Sir R. and father
F.
Thesiger (Lord Chelmsford)
S.
Forster .
F.
Thurlow, Lord ....
B.
Gurney .
S.
Treby .
S.
Harcourt, Lord ....
G.
(Twisden, see Finch).
Heath .
S.
Verney .
g-
Henley (E. of Northington)
F.
Wigram .
B.
Hotham .
B.
Wood (Lord Ilatherley) .
F.
Two and three relations {or three and four in family).
Alderson ....
F. Vs.
Lechmere ....
P. u.
( Bathurst, Earl, j^Buller)
•
Lovell .
pS. p F.
Blackburn ....
B. g.
Nares .
S. B.
Blackstone ....
S. N.
Parker (E. of Maccles-
2.
Buller and Bathurst, Earl
U. u. N.
field) and Sir Thomas
S. UP.
Burnet .
G. F.
Pepys( E. of Cottenham)
G. g. B.
Churchill2 ....
UP. n.
Pollock .
2 B. S.
CltlllvG • • • • •
B. u.
Rolfe (Lord Cranworth)
UN. gF.
2.
Clive, Sir E. and uncle
U. UP.
Scarlett (Lord Abinger)
2 S.
2.
Cowper, Earl, & brother
B. NS.
Spclman .
F. GF.
Dampier .
F. B.
Sutton (Lord Manners)
B. N.
Dolben .
S. B. gB.
Talbot, Lord
F. N.
2.
Erskine, Lord, and son
B. S.
Turner .
2 U.
2.
Gould, Sir H. and
2.
Wilde, Lord Truro, and
grandson ....
P. p.
nephew ....
B. N.
Hewitt (Lord Lifford) .
2 S.
2.
Willes, Sir J. and son .
B. S.
2.
Jeffreys, Lord, and
Willmot .
P. PS.
Trevor .
G. C/S.
2.
Windham, Sir W. and
Jervis . .
F. GN.
brother ....
B.P.UN
Four or more relations {or five and more in family).
4-
Atkyns, Sir R. and three others .
•
. G. F. B. p.
Coleridge 3 . . . .
. S. s. 3N. P. NS.
Denison .
Denman .
1 The kinship is reckoned from Sir Samuel Romilly.
2 Ditto, frpm the Great Duke of Marlborough.
3 Ditto, from Coleridge the Poet.
6o
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
3. Viz. Finch (Earl of Nottingham), Twisden,
and Legge . F. 2 S. US. GN. PS. (?gN.)
2. Herbert, Lord Keeper, and son . . . . 2 S. 2 US.
2. Hyde, Earl Clarendon, and cousin . . . 2 U. 3 US. S.
Law (Lord Ellenborough) . F. 2 S. 2 B.
(Legge, see Finch. )
Lyttleton 1 . B. F. u. g. pS.
3. Viz. 2 Montagu2 and I North (Ld. Guilford) G. B. 2S. 2N. 2P. NS. SA^S.
(North, see Montagu. )
2. Pratt, Earl Camden, and Sir J . F. S. n. nS.
Somers, Earl (but see York e) . 2 TVS. 2ArP.
Trevor, Lord . g. F. S. U. GB.
(Trevor, Master of the Rolls, ^Jeffreys.)
Vaughan . 3 B. 2 N. p.
2. Yorke, Earl Hardwicke and son; also, in
part, Earl Somers . 2 S. 2 P. PS.
Several remarkable features in the contents of this table
will catch the eye at once. I will begin by shortly alluding
to them, and will enter more into details a little further
on. First, it will be observed, that the Judges are so
largely interrelated, that 109 of them are grouped into
only 85 families. There are seventeen doublets, among
the Judges, two triplets, and one quadruplet. In addition
to these, might be counted six other sets, consisting of
those whose ancestors sat on the Bench previously to tne
accession of Charles II., namely, Bedingfield, Forster,
Hyde, Finch, Windham, and Lyttleton. Another fact to
be observed, is the nearness of the relationships in my list.
The single letters are far the most common. Also, though
a man has twice as many grandfathers as fathers, and pro¬
bably more than twice as many grandsons as sons, yet the
Judges are found more frequently to have eminent fathers
than grandfathers, and eminent sons than grandsons. In
the third degree of relationship, the eminent kinsmen are
yet more rare, although the number of individuals in those
degrees is increased in a duplicate proportion. When a
judge has no more than one eminent relation, that relation
1 The kinship is reckoned from the Lord Keeper.
2 Ditto, from Chief Justice the first Earl of Manchester ; the two nephews
are William, Ch. B. E., and the Earl of Sandwich; the two grandsons, the
Earl of Halifax and James, Ch.B. E. The genealogical table in the Appendix to
this chapter, will explain these and the other kinships of the Montagu family.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
61
is nearly always to be found in the first or second degree.
Thus in the first section of the table, which is devoted to
single relationships, though it includes as many as thirty-
nine entries, there are only two among them (viz. Browne
and Lord Brougham) whose kinships extend beyond the
second degree. It is in the last section of the table, which
treats of whole families, largely gifted with ability, that the
distant kinships are chiefly to be found. I annex a table
(Table II.) extracted from the preceding one, which exhibits
these facts with great clearness. Column A contains the
facts just as they were observed, and column D shows the
percentage of individuals, in each degree of kinship to
every 100 judges, who have become eminent.
TABLE II.
Degrees of
Kinship.
A.
B.
C.
D.
•
1
E.
Name of the degree. \ Corresponding letter.
A)
Z
Father ....
22 F.
22
26
IOO
iG'o
9'i
to .
•v
Brother ....
30 B.
• ••
3°
35
150
23 '3
82
H
Son .
31 s.
• ••
3i
36
IOO
36 0
1 2 '6
C/J
, Grandfather . .
7 0.
6 g.
13
*5
200
7'5
2*6
Uncle ....
9U.
6 u.
15
18
400
4 ‘5
i *6
Nephew. . . .
14 N.
2 n.
l6
400
4'75
1 "7
Grandson . . .
11 P.
5 p-
l6
*9
200
9'5
3 '7
/ Great-grandfather
1 GF.
r gF.
0 UF.
O £"F.
2
2
400
°‘5
0*2
V
a
Great-uncle . .
1 GB.
2 gB.
0 GB.
o^-B.
3
4
800
05
0*2
hfj
to
First-cousin . .
5 US.
2 uS.
1 £/S.
1 «S.
9
II
800
1 '4
0*5
! Great-nephew . .
7 NS.
1 nS.
7 NS.
0 «s.
15
u
800
21
07
Great-grandson .
2 PS.
2 pS.
iPS.
0 /S.
5
6
400
i'5
°*5
All more remote .
...
...
...
...
12
?
0*0
00
A. Number of eminent men in each degree of kinship to the most eminent man of the family
^85 families).
B. The preceding column raised in proportion to 100 families.
C. Number of individuals in each degree of kinship to ioo men.
D. Percentage of eminent men in each degree of kinship to the most eminent member of
distinguished families ; it was obtained by dividing B by C and multiplying by ioo.
E. Percentages of the previous column reduced in the proportion of (286 — 24,1 or) 242 to
85, in order to apply to families generally.
1 That is to say, 286 Judges, less 24, who are included as subordinate members of the
•S5 families.
4
62
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Table II. also gives materials for judging of the com¬
parative influence of the male and female lines, in con¬
veying ability. Thanks to my method of notation, it is
perfectly easy to separate the two lines in the way I am
about to explain. I do not attempt to compare relations
in the first degree of kinship — namely, fathers with
mothers, sons with daughters, or brothers with sisters,
because there exists no criterion for a just comparison of
the natural ability of the different sexes. Nay, even if
there were means for testing it, the result would be falla¬
cious. A mother transmits masculine peculiarities to her
male child, which she does not and cannot possess ; and,
similarly, a woman who is endowed with fewer gifts of a
masculine type than her husband, may yet contribute in
a larger degree to the masculine intellectual superiority
of her son. I therefore shift my inquiry from the first, to
the second and third degrees of kinship. As regards the
second degree, I compare the paternal grandfather with
the maternal, the uncle by the father’s side with the uncle
by the mother’s, the nephew by the brother’s side with the
nephew by the sister’s, and the grandson by the son with
the grandson by the daughter. On the same principle
I compare the kinships in the third degree : that is to
say, the father of the father’s father with the father of the
mother’s mother, and so on. The whole of the work is
distinctly exposed to view in the following compact
table : —
In the Second Degree.
7 G. + 9 U. + 14 N. + II P. = 41 kinships through males.
6 g. + 6 u. + 2 n. + 5 p. =19 „ „ females.
In the Third Degree.
1 GF. + 1 GB. + 5 US. + 7 NS. + 2 PS. = 19 kinships through males.
o^F. + o^B. + 1 «S. + o «S. + o/S. = 1 „ „ females.
Total, 60 through males, 20 through females.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
63
The numbers are too small to warrant any very decided
conclusion ; but they go far to prove that the female in¬
fluence is inferior to that of the male in conveying ability.
It must, however, be observed, that the difference between
the totals in the second degree is chiefly due to the
nephews — a relationship difficult to trace on the female
side, because, as a matter of fact, biographers do not speak
so fully of the descendants of the sisters of their hero as
of those of his brothers. As regards the third degree, the
relationships on the female side are much more difficult to
ferret out than those on the male, and I have no doubt
I have omitted many of them. In my earlier attempts,
the balance stood still more heavily against the female
side, and it has been reduced exactly in proportion to the
number of times I have revised my data. Consequently,
though I first suspected a large residuum against the
female line, I think there is reason to believe the influ¬
ence of females but little inferior to that of males, in
transmitting judicial ability.
It is, of course, a grief to me, in writing this book, that
circumstances make it impossible to estimate the influence
of the individual peculiarities of the mother — for good or
for bad — upon her offspring. They appear to me, for the
reasons stated, to be as important elements in the inquiry
as those of the father, and yet I am obliged to completely
ignore them in a large majority of instances, on account of
the lack of reliable information. Nevertheless, I have nume¬
rous arguments left to prove that genius is hereditary.
Before going further, I must entreat my readers to
abandon an objection which very likely may present itself
to their minds, and which I can easily show to be untenable.
People who do not realize the nature of my arguments
have constantly spoken to me to this effect : “ It is of no use
your quoting successes unless you take failures into equal
account. Eminent men may have eminent relations, but
64
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
they also have very many who are oidinary, or even stupid,
and there are not a few who are either eccentric or down¬
right mad.” I perfectly allow all this, but it does not in
the least affect the cogency of my arguments. If a man
breeds from strong, well-shaped dogs, but of mixed pedigree,
the puppies will be sometimes, but rarely, the equals of
their parents. They will commonly be of a mongrel,
nondescript type, because ancestral peculiarities are apt to
crop out in the offspring. Yet notwithstanding all this, it is
easy to develop the desirable characteristics of individual
dogs into the assured heirloom of a new breed. The
breeder selects the puppies that most nearly approach the
wished-for type, generation after generation, until they
have no ancestor, within many degrees, that has objection- »
able peculiarities. So it is with men and women. Because
one or both of a child’s parents are able, it does not in the
least follow as a matter of necessity, but only as one of
moderately unfavourable odds, that the child will be able
also. He inherits an extraordinary mixture of qualities-
displayed in his grandparents, great-grandparents, and
more remote ancestors, as well as from those of his father
and mother. The most illustrious and so-called “ well-
bred ” families of the human race, are utter mongrels as
regards their natural gifts of intellect and disposition.
/
What I profess to prove is this : that if two children are
taken, of whom one has a parent exceptionally gifted in
a high degree — say as one in 4,000, or as one in a million —
and the other has not, the former child has an enormously
greater chance of turning out to be gifted in a high degree,
than the other. Also, I argue that, as a new race can be
obtained in animals and plants, and can be raised to so
great a degree of purity that it will maintain itself, with
moderate care in preventing the more faulty members of
the flock from breeding, so a race of gifted men might be
obtained, under exactly similar conditions.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
C5
I must apologize for anticipating, in this off-hand and
very imperfect manner, the subject of a future chapter by
these few remarks ; but I am really obliged to do so,
knowing from experience how pertinaciously strangers to
the reasoning by which the laws of heredity are established,
are inclined to prejudge my conclusions, by blindly in¬
sisting that the objection to which I have referred has
overbearing weight.
I will now proceed with an examination of what may be
learnt from the relationships of the Judges. First, I would
ask, are the abler judges more rich in eminent relations
than those who are less able ? There are two ways of
answering this question : the one is to examine into the
relationships of the law lords as compared with that of
the puisne judges, or of the chancellors compared with
that of the judges generally ; and the other is to determine
whether or no the persons whose names are entered in the
third column of Table I. are above the average of judges
'in respect to ability. Here are a few of the Lord Chan¬
cellors. There are only 30 of those high legal officers
within the limits of my inquiry, yet 24 of these have
eminent relations ; whereas out of the (286 — 30 or) 256
other judges, only (114 — 24 or) 90 have eminent relations.
There are therefore 80 per cent, of the chancellors, as
compared to 36 per cent, of the rest of the judges, that
have eminent relations. The proportion would have been
greater if I had compared the chancellors, or the chan¬
cellors and the other law lords, with the puisne judges.
The other test I proposed, is equally satisfactory. There
can be no doubt of the exceptionally eminent ability of
the men whose names appear in the third column. To
those who object to my conclusion because Lord Chan¬
cellors have more opportunities of thrusting relatives, by
jobbery, into eminence than are possessed by the other
judges, I can do no more than refer them to what I have
66
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
already said about reputation being a test of ability, and
by giving a short list of the more remarkable cases of
relations to the Lord Chancellors, which I think will
adequately meet their objection. They are —
I. Earl Bathurst and his daughter’s son, the famous
judge, Sir F. Buller. 2. Earl Camden and his father,
Chief Justice Pratt. 3. Earl Clarendon and the remark¬
able family of Hyde, in which were two uncles and one
cousin, all English judges, besides one Welsh judge, and
many other men of distinction. 4. Earl Cowper, his
brother the judge, and his great-nephew the poet. 5. Earl
Eldon and his brother Lord Stowell. 6. Lord Erskine, his
eminent legal brother the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and
his son the judge. 7. Earl Nottingham and the most re¬
markable family of Finch. 8, 9, 10. Earl Hardwicke and
his son, also a Lord Chancellor, who died suddenly, and
that son’s great-uncle, Lord Somers, also a Lord Chancellor.
11. Lord Herbert, his son a judge, his cousins Lord Herbert
of Cherbury and George the poet and divine. 12. Lord
King and his uncle, John Locke the philosopher. 13. The
infamous but most able Lord Jeffreys had a cousin just
like him, namely, Sir J. Trevor, Master of the Rolls.
14. Lord Guilford is member of a family to which I simply
despair of doing justice, for it is linked with connexions
of such marvellous ability, judicial and statesmanlike, as
to deserve a small volume to describe it. It contains thirty
first-class men in near kinship, including Montagus, Sydneys,
Herberts, Dudleys, and others. 15. Lord Truro had two
able legal brothers, one of whom was Chief Justice at the
Cape of Good Hope ; and his nephew is an English judge,
recently created Lord Penzance. I will here mention Lord
Lyttleton, Lord Keeper of Charles I., although many
members of his most remarkable family do not fall within
my limits. His father, the Chief Justice of North Wales,
married a lady, the daughter of Sir J. Walter, the Chief
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
67
Justice of South Wales, and also sister of an English
judge. She bore him Lord Keeper Lyttleton, also Sir
Timothy, a judge. Lord Lyttleton’s daughter’s son (she
married a cousin) was Sir T. Lyttleton, the Speaker of the
House of Commons.
There is, therefore, abundant reason to conclude that the
kinsmen of Lord Chancellors are far richer in natural gifts
than those of the other judges.
I will now take another test of the existence of here¬
ditary ability. It is a comparison of the number of entries
in the columns of Table I. Supposing that natural gifts
were due to mere accident, unconnected with parentage,
then the entries would be distributed in accordance with
the law that governs the distribution of accidents. If it
be a hundred to one against some member of any family,
within given limits of kinship, drawing a lottery prize, it
would be a million to one against three members of the
same family doing so (nearly, but not exactly, because the
size of the family is limited), and a million millions to one
against six members doing so. Therefore, if natural gifts
were due to mere accident, the first column of Table I.
would have been enormously longer than the second column,
and the second column enormously longer than the third ;
but they are not so. There are nearly as many cases of
two or three eminent relations as of one eminent relation ;
and as a set off against the thirty-nine cases that appear in
the first column, there are no less than fifteen cases in
the third.
It is therefore clear that ability is not distributed at hap¬
hazard, but that it clings to certain families.
We will proceed to a third test.
If genius be hereditary, as I assert it to be, the charac¬
teristics that mark a judge ought to be frequently trans¬
mitted to his descendants. The majority of judges belong
to a strongly-marked type. They are not men who are
68
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
carried away by sentiment, who love seclusion and dreams,
but they are prominent members of a very different class,
one that Englishmen are especially prone to honour for at
least the six lawful days of the week. I mean that they
are vigorous, shrewd, practical, helpful men ; glorying in
the rough-and-tumble of public life, tough in constitution
and strong in digestion, valuing what money brings,
aiming at position and influence, and desiring to found
families. The vigour of a judge is testified by the fact
that the average age of their appointment in the last
three reigns has been fifty-seven. The labour and respon¬
sibility of the office seem enormous to lookers-on, yet
these elderly men continue working with ease for many
more years ; their average age of death is seventy-five,
and they commonly die in harness. Now are these
remarkable gifts and peculiarities inherited by their sons ?
Do the judges often have sons who succeed in the same
career, where success would have been impossible if they
had not been gifted with the special qualities of their
fathers ? The best answer is a list of names. They will
be of much interest to legal readers ; others can glance
them over, and go on to the results.
JUDGES OF ENGLAND, AND OTHER HIGH LEGAL OFFICERS
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865, WHO WERE, OR ARE, RELATED.
I mark those cases with an asterisk (*) where both relations are English Judges.
FATHERS.
"Atkyns, Sir Edward, B.E. (Chas. II.)
Atkyns, Sir Richard, Chief Just. N. Wales.
"Bramston, Sir Francis, Chief K.B. (Chas. I.)1
Coleridge, Sir John, Just. Q.B. (Viet.)
Dolben, Sir Wm, Just. K.B. (Will. III.)
"Erskine, T. ; cr. Lord Erskine ; Lord Chan.
"Eyre, Sir Samuel, Just. K.B. (Will. III.)
SONS.
Sir Robert, Chief Just. C.P.
Sir Edward, B.E. (Jas. II.)
Sir Edward, B.E. (Chas. II.)
Sir Francis, B.E. (Chas. II.)
Sir John Duke, Solic.-Gen.
Sir Gilbert, Just. C.P. Ireland; cr. Bart.
Hon. Sir Thomas, Just. C.P. (Viet.)
Sir Robert, Chief Just. C.P. (Geo. II.)
1 I count the fathers of the judges of Charles II. because the judges <?f
the present reign are too young to have judges for sons.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865
69
FATHERS.
Finch, Heneage, L.Ch.; cr. E. of Nottingham.
Finch, Sir Heneage, Recorder of London.
•Forster, Sir James, Just. C. P. (Chas. I.)
Gurney, Sir John, B.E. (Viet.)
•Herbert, Sir Edw., Lord Keeper. (Chas. II.)
Hewitt, James; cr. Ld. Lifford ; Just. K.B.
Jervis, - , Chief Just, of Chester.
Law, Edw. ; cr. Ld. Ellenborough ; Ch. K. B.
•Pratt, Sir John, Chief Just. K.B. (Geo. II.)
•Raymond, Sir Thomas, Just. C.B.
Romilly, Sir Samuel, Solic.-Gen.
•Willes, Sir John, Chief Just. C.P. (Geo. III.)
*Yorke, Philip, Ld. Chanc.; cr. E. Hardwicke.
SONS.
Heneage, Solic.-Gen.; cr. Earl Aylesford.
Heneage, Ld. Chan.; cr. E. of Nottingham.
Sir Robert, Chief Just. K.B. (Chas. II.)
Rt. Hon. Russell Gurney, Recorder of London.
Sir Edward, Chief Just. K.B. (Jas. II.)
Joseph, Just. K.B. Ireland.
Sir John, Chief Just. C.P. (Viet.)
Chas. Ewan, M.P., Recorder of London.
Earl Camden, Lord Chanc. (Geo. III.)
Robert; cr. Ld. Raymond ; Ch.K.E. (Geo. II.
Cr. Lord Romilly, Master of Rolls. (Viet.)
Sir Edward, Just. K.B. (Geo. III.)
Hon. Charles, Lord Chanc. (Geo. III.)
BROTHERS.
•Atkyns, Sir Robert, Chief C.P. (Will. III.)
•Cowper, Wm. ; cr. Earl Cowper ; Ld. Chanc.
Erskine, T. ; cr. Lord Erskine ; Lord Chanc.
Hyde, Sir Robert, Chief K.B. (Chas. II.)
Lee, Sir William, Chief K.B. (Geo. II.)
•Lyttleton, Lord, Lord Keeper. (Chas. I.)
North, F. ; cr. Earl of Guilford ; Lord Chanc.
Pollock, Sir F. Chief B.E. (Viet.)
•Powis, Sir Lyttleton, Just. K.B. (Geo. I.)
Scarlett, Sir J. ; cr. Ld. Abinger ; Ch. B. E.
Scott, John ; cr. Earl of Eldon ; Lord Chanc.
Wilde, T. ; cr. Lord Truro ; Lord Chanc.
•Wynham, Sir Hugh, B.E. (Chas. II.)
GRANDFATHERS.
•Atkyns, SirRobt. Chief C.P. (Will. III.)
Burnet, - , Scotch Judge ; Lord Cramond.
•Gould, Sir Henry, Just. Q.B. (Anne.)
‘Jeffreys, - , Judge in N. Wales.
Finch, H. Solic. -Gen. ; cr. E. Aylesford.
Walter, Sir E. Chief Just. S. Wales.
•Heath, Sir R. Chief K.B. (Chas. I.)
Sir Edward, B.E. (Jas. II.)
Sir Spencer, Just. C. P. (Geo. II.)
Henry, twice Lord Advocate, Scotland.
Sir Frederick, a Judge in S. Wales.
Judge of Admiralty.
George, Dean of Arches, &c.
Sir Timothy, B.E. (Chas. II.)
Roger, Attorney-Gen. to Queen.
Sir David, Chief Just. Bombay.
Sir Thomas, Just. K.B. (Geo. I.)
Sir Wm. Ch. Just. Jamaica.
William ; cr. Lord Stowell ; Judge Adm.
Sir - , Ch. Just. Cape of Good Hope.
Sir Wadham, B.E. (Chas. II.)
GRANDSONS.
Sir J. Tracy (assumed name of Atkyns),
CursitorB.E. (Geo. III.)
Sir Thomas Burnet, Just. C.P.
Sir Henry Gould, Just. C.P. (Geo. III.)
Jeffreys, Lord, Lord Chanc. (Jas. II.)
Hon. II. Legge, B.E. (Geo. II.)
Lyttleton, Sir T. B.E. (Chas. II.)
Vemey, Hon. Sir J. Master of Rolls.
Out of the 286 Judges, more than one in every nine of
them have been either father, son, or brother to another
judge, and the other high legal relationships have been
even more numerous. There cannot, then, remain a doubt
but that the peculiar type of ability that is necessary to
a judge is often transmitted by descent.
The reader must guard himself against the supposition,
that because the Judges have so many legal relations,
therefore they have few other relations of eminence in
other walks of life. A long list might be made out of
7o
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
those who had bishops and archbishops for kinsmen. No
less than ten judges — of whom one, Sir Robert Hyde,
appeared in the previous list — have a bishop or an arch¬
bishop for a brother. Of these, Sir William Dolben was
brother to one Archbishop of York and son of the sister
of another, namely of John Williams, who was also the
Lord Keeper to James I. There are cases of Poet-relations,
as Cowper, Coleridge, Milton, Sir Thomas Overbury, and
Waller. There are numerous relatives who are novelists,
physicians, admirals, and generals. My lists of kinsmen
at the end of this chapter are very briefly treated, but
they include the names of many great men, whose deeds
have filled large volumes. It is one of my most serious
drawbacks in writing this book, to feel that names, which
never now present themselves to my eye without asso¬
ciations of respect and reverence, for the great qualities
of those who bore them, are likely to be insignificant and
meaningless to the eyes of most of my readers — indeed
to all of those who have never had occasion to busy them- .
selves with their history. I know how great was my own
ignorance of the character of the great men of previous
generations, before I occupied myself with biographies, and
I therefore reasonably suspect that many of my readers
will be no better informed about them than I was myself.
A collection of men that I have learned to look upon as
an august Valhalla, is likely to be regarded, by those who
are strangers to the facts of biographical history, as an
assemblage of mere respectabilities.
The names of North and Montagu, among the Judges,
introduce us to a remarkable breed of eminent men, set
forth at length in the genealogical tree of the Montagus,
and again in that of the Sydneys (see the chapter on
“ LITERARY Men ”), to whose natural history — if the ex¬
pression be permitted — a few pages may be profitably
assigned. There is hardly a name in those pedigrees
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
7i
which is not more than ordinarily eminent: many are
illustrious. They are closely tied together in their kin¬
ship, and they extend through ten generations. The
main roots of this diffused ability lie in the families of
Sydney and Montagu, and, in a lesser degree, in that
of North.
The Sydney blood — I mean that of the descendants
of Sir William Sydney and his wife — had extraordinary
influence in two different combinations. First with the
Dudleys, producing in the first generation, Sir Philip
Sydney and his eminent brother and sister ; in the second
generation, at least one eminent man ; and in the third
generation, Algernon Sydney, with his able brother and
much be-praised sister. The second combination of the
Sydney blood was with the Harringtons, producing in the
first generation a literary peer, and Elizabeth the mother
of the large and most remarkable family that forms the
chief feature in my genealogical table.
The Montagu blood, as represented by Sir Edward, who
died in the Tower, 1644, is derived from three distinct
sources. His great-grandfather (gF.) was Sir John Fin-
nieux, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench ; his grandfather
(g.) was John Roper, Attorney-General to Henry VIII. ;
and his father — by far the most eminent of the three —
was Sir Edward Montagu, Chief Justice of the King’s
Bench. Sir Edward Montagu, son of the Chief Justice,
married Elizabeth Harrington, of whom I have just
spoken, and had a large family, who in themselves and
in their descendants became most remarkable. To men¬
tion only the titles they won : in the first generation they
obtained two peerages, the earldom of Manchester and
the barony of Montagu ; in the second they obtained two
more, the earldom of Sandwich and the barony of Capel ;
in the third five more, the dukedom of Montagu, earl¬
doms of Halifax and of Essex, the barony of Guilford,
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
7 2
and a new barony of Capel (second creation) ; in the
fourth one more, the dukedom of Manchester (the Premier
in 1701) ; in the fifth one more, the earldom of Guilford.
The second Earl of Guilford, the Premier of George III.
(best known as Lord North), was in the sixth generation.
It is wholly impossible for me to describe the charac¬
teristics of all the individuals who are jotted down in
my genealogical tree. I could not do it without giving a
vast deal more room than I can spare. But this much
I can do, and ought to do ; namely, to take those who
are most closely linked with the Judges, and to show that
they possessed sterling ability, and did not hold their
high positions by mere jobbery, nor obtain their reputa¬
tions through the accident of birth or circumstances. I
will gladly undertake to show this, although it happens
in the present instance to put my cause in a peculiarly
disadvantageous light, because Francis North, the Lord
Keeper, the first Baron Guilford, is the man of all others,
in that high position (identical, or nearly so, with that
of a Lord Chancellor), whom modern authorities vie in
disparaging and condemning. Those who oppose my
theories might say, the case of North being Lord Keeper
shows it is impossible to trust official rank as a criterion
of ability ; he was . promoted by jobbery, and jobbed
when he was promoted ; he inherited family influence,
not natural intellectual gifts : and the same may be said
of all the members of this or of any other pedigree. As
I implied before, there is enough truth in this objection
to make it impossible to meet it by a flat contradiction,
based on a plain and simple .statement. It is necessary
to analyse characters, and to go a little into detail. I
will do this, and when it is concluded I believe many of
my readers will better appreciate than they did before,
how largely natural intellectual gifts £re the birthright of
some families.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
73
Francis North, the Lord Keeper, was one of a family of
five brothers and one sister. The lives of three of the
brothers are familiarly known to us through the charming
biographies written by another brother, Roger North. Their
position in the Montagu family is easily discovered by
means of the genealogical tree. They fall in the third of
those generations I have just described — the one in which
the family gained one dukedom, two earldoms, and ^wo
baronies. Their father was of a literary stock, continued
backwards in one line during no less than five generations.
The first Lord North was an eminent lawyer in the time
of Oueen Elizabeth, and his son — an able man and an
ambassador — married the daughter of Lord Chancellor
Rich. His son again — who did not live to enjoy the
peerage — married the daughter of a Master of the Court
of Requests, and his great-great-grandsons — the inter¬
mediate links being more or less distinguished, but of
whose marriages I know little — were the brothers North,
of whom I am about to speak.
The father of these brothers was the fourth Baron North.
He was a literary man, and, among other matters, wrote
the life of the founder of his family. He was an “ eco¬
nomical ” man, and “ exquisitely virtuous and sober in
his person.” The style of his writings was not so bright
as that of his father, the second baron, who was described
as full of spirit and flame, and who was an author both
in prose and verse ; his poems were praised by Walpole.
The mother of the brothers, namely, Anne Montagu, is
described by her son as a compendium of charity and
wisdom. I suspect it was from the fourth Baron North that
the disagreeable qualities in three of the brothers North
were derived — such as the priggishness of the Lord Keeper,
and that curious saving, mercantile spirit that appeared
under different forms in the Lord Keeper, the Finan¬
cier, and the Master of Trinity College. I cannot avoid
74
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
alluding to these qualities, for they are prominent features
in their characters, and find a large place in their bio¬
graphies.
In speaking of the Lord Keeper, I think I had better
begin with the evil part of his character. When that has
been admitted and done with, the rest of my task will be
pleasant and interesting. In short, the Lord Keeper is
mercilessly handled in respect to his public character.
Lord Campbell calls him the most odious man that ever
held the Great Seal, and says that throughout his whole life
he sought and obtained advancement by the meanest arts.
Bishop Burnet calls him crafty and designing. Lord
Macaulay accuses him of selfishness, cowardice, and mean¬
ness. I have heard of no writer who commends his public
character except his brother, who was tenderly attached to
him. I should say, that even Lord Campbell acknowledges
the Lord Keeper to have been extremely amiable in all his
domestic relations, and that nothing can be more touching
than the account we have of the warm and steady affec¬
tion between him and his brother, who survived to be his
biographer. I am, however, no further concerned with
the Lord Keeper’s public character than to show that,
notwithstanding his most unworthy acts to obtain advance¬
ment, and notwithstanding he had relatives in high offices
to help him, his own ability and that of his brothers were
truly remarkable.
Bishop Burnet says of him that he had not the virtues
of his predecessor (Lord Nottingham), but he had parts
far beyond him. However, Lord Campbell dissents from
this, and remarks that “ a Nottingham does not arise above
once in a century.” (I will here beg the reader not to
be unmindful of the marvellous hereditary gifts of the
Nottingham or Finch family.) Macaulay says his in¬
tellect was clear, his industry great, his proficiency in
letters and science respectable, and his legal learning more
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. *
75
than respectable. His brother Roger writes thus of the
Lord Keeper’s youth : —
“ It was singular and remarkable in him that, together
with the study of the law, which is thought ordinarily to
devour the whole studious time of a young gentleman, he
continued to pursue his inquiries into all ingenious arts,
history, humanity, and languages ; whereby he became not
only a good lawyer, but a good historian, politician, mathe¬
matician, natural philosopher, and, I must add, musician
in perfection.”
The Hon. Sir Dudley North, his younger brother, was
a man of exceedingly high abilities and vigour. He went
as a youth to Smyrna, where his good works are not
yet forgotten, and where he made a large fortune ; then,
returning to England, he became at once a man of the
highest note in Parliament as a financier. There was
an unpleasant side to his character when young, but he
overmastered and outgrew it. Namely, he first showed a
strange bent to traffic when at school ; afterwards he
cheated sadly, and got into debts ; then he cheated his
parents to pay the debts. At last he made a vigorous
effort, and wholly reformed himself, so that his brother
concludes his biography in this way : —
“ If I may be so free as to give my thoughts of his
morals, I must allow that, as to all the mercantile arts and
stratagems of trade which could be used to get money
from those he dealt with, I believe he was no niggard ; but
as for falsities ... he was as clear as any man living.”
It seems, from the same authority, that he was a very
forward, lively, and beautiful child. At school he did not
get on so well with his books, as he had an excessive desire
for action ; still, his ability was such that a little application
went a long way with him, and in the end he came out
a moderate scholar. He was a great swimmer, and could
live in the water for a whole afternoon. (I mention this,
76
THE JUDGES . OF ENGLAND
because I shall hereafter have occasion to speak of physical
gifts not unfrequently accompanying intellectual ones.) He
sometimes left his clothes in charge of a porter below
London Bridge, then ran naked upon the mud-shore of the
Thames up almost as high as Chelsea, for the pleasure of
swimming down to his clothes with the tide, and he loved
to end by shooting the cascade beneath old London Bridge.
I often marvel at his feat, when I happen to be on the
river in a steamer.
I will now quote Macaulay’s description of his first
appearance, in his after life, on the stage of English
politics. Speaking, in his “ History of England,” of the
period immediately following the accession of James II.,
Macaulay says —
“ The person on whom devolved the task of devising
ways and means was Sir Dudley North, younger brother
of the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the ablest
men of his time. He had early in life been sent to the
Levant, where he had long been engaged in mercantile
pursuits. Most men would, in such a situation, have
allowed their faculties to rust ; for at Smyrna and Con¬
stantinople there were few books and few intelligent
companions. But the young factor had one of those
vigorous understandings which are independent of external
aids. In his solitude he meditated deeply on the philo¬
sophy of trade, and thought out, by degrees, a complete
and admirable theory — substantially the same with that
which a hundred years later was expounded by Adam
Smith.” North was brought into Parliament for Banbury ;
and, though a new member, was the person on whom the
Lord Treasurer chiefly relied for the conduct of financial
business in the Lower House. 11 North’s ready wit and
perfect knowledge of trade prevailed, both in the Treasury
and the Parliament, against all opposition. The old members
were amazed at seeing a man who had not been a fortnight
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865. *
77
in the House, and whose life had been chiefly passed in
foreign countries, assume with confidence, and discharge
with ability, all the functions of a Chancellor of the Ex¬
chequer.” He was forty-four years old at the time.
Roger North describes the financial theories of his
brother, thus : “ One is, that trade is not distributed, as
government, by nations and kingdoms, but is one through¬
out the whole world ; as the main sea, which cannot be
emptied or replenished in one part, but the whole more or
less will be affected.” Another was “ concerning money ;
that no nation could want money (specie), and they would
not abound in it. . . . For if a people want money, they
will give a price for it ; and then merchants, for gain,
bring it and lay it down before them.”
Roger North, speaking of Sir Dudley and of the Lord
Keeper, says : “ These brothers lived with extreme satis¬
faction in each other’s society ; for both had the skill and
knowledge of the world, as to all affairs relating to their
several professions, in perfection, and each was an Indies
to the other, producing always the richest novelties, of
which the best understandings are greedy.”
The Hon. Dr. John North, Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, differed in some respects from his brothers,
and resembled them in others : —
“ When he was very young, and also as he grew up, he
was of a nice and tender constitution — not so vigorous and
athletic as most of his brothers were.” “ His temper was
always reserved and studious. ... If anything so early
seemed amiss in him, it was a non-natural gravity, which
in youths is seldom a good sign, for it argues imbecility
of body and mind, or both ; but his lay wholly in the
former, for his mental capacity was vigorous, as none
more.”
Thus he became devoted to study, and the whole of his
expenditure went to books ; in other respects he was penu-
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
;8
rious and hoarding. Consequently, as his brother says,
“ he was over-much addicted to thinking, or else he per¬
formed it with more labour and intenseness than other men
ordinarily do. ... He was, in a word, the most intense and
passionate thinker that ever lived, and was in his right
mind.” This ruined his health. “ His flesh was strangely
flaccid and soft; his goingweak and shuffling, often crossing
his legs as if he were tipsy; his sleep seldom or never easy,
but interrupted with unquiet and painful dreams — the re¬
poses he had were short and by snatches ; his active spirit
had rarely any settlement or rest.”
It is evident that he played foolish tricks with his brain,
and the result was that he had a stroke, and utterly broke
up, decaying more and more in mind and body until death
relieved him, set. 38.
There is no doubt that Dr. John North deserved more
reputation than he has obtained, partly owing to his early
death, and partly to his exceeding sensitiveness in respect
to posthumous criticism. He left peremptory orders that
all his MSS. should be burnt. He appears to have been
especially skilled in Greek and Hebrew scholarship.
The Lord Keeper and the Master of Trinity resembled
each other in their painfully shy dispositions and studious
tastes. The curious money -saving propensities were
common to all three brothers. The indolent habits of the
Master of Trinity were shared by Sir Dudley after his
return from England, who would take no exercise what¬
ever, but sat all day either at home, or else steering a little
sailing-vessel on the Thames. The Lord Keeper was
always fanciful about his health.
The Hon. Mary North, afterwards Lady Spring, was the
sister of these brothers, and no less gifted than they.
Roger North says —
• “ Besides the advantage of her person, she had a superior
wit, prodigious memory, and was most agreeable in con-
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
79
versation.” She used to rehearse “ by heart prolix romances,
with the substance of speeches and letters, as well as pas¬
sages; and this with little or no hesitation, but in a continual
series of discourse — the very memory of which is to me at
this day very wonderful.”
She died not long after the birth of her first child, and
the child died not long after her.
Roger North, the biographer of his brothers, from whom
I have quoted so much, was the author of other works, and
among them is a memoir on Music, showing that he shared
the musical faculty that was strongly developed in the
Lord Keeper. Little is known of his private life. He was
Attorney-General to the consort of James II. There can
be no doubt as to his abilities. The “Lives of the Norths”
is a work of no ordinary writer. It is full of touches of
genius and shrewd perception of character. Roger North
seems to have been a most loving and loveable man.
Charles, the fifth Lord North, was the eldest of the
family, and succeeded to the title ; but he did not, so far
as I am aware, show signs of genius. However, he had
a daughter whose literary tastes were curiously similar to
those of her uncle, Dr. John. She was Dudleya North,
who, in the words of Roger, “ emaciated herself with study,
whereby she had made familiar to her not only the Greek
and Latin, but the Oriental languages.” She died early,
having collected a choice library of Oriental works.
I will conclude this description of the family with a
characteristically quaint piece of their biographer’s preface:
“ Really, the case is memorable for the happy circumstance
of a flock so numerous and diffused as this of the last
Dudley Lord North’s was, and no one scabby sheep in it.”
The nearest collateral relation of the North family by
the Montagu side is Charles Hatton, their first cousin.
He is alluded to three times in Roger North’s “ Lives,”
and each time with the same epithet — “ the incomparable
8o
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Charles Hatton.” Why he was so distinguished there is
no information, but it is reasonable to accept Roger North’s
estimate of his merits, so far as to classify him among the
gifted members of the Montagu family.
I will mention only four more of the kinsmen ©f the
Norths. The first is their great-uncle, Sir Henry Montagu,
Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and created Earl of
Manchester, who was grandfather to James Montagu, Ch.
B. E. (Geo. III.), and uncle of William, Ch. B. E. (Jas. II.),
both of whom are included in my list. Lord Clarendon
says of Sir Henry, that he was “a man of great industry
and sagacity in business, which he delighted in exceedingly;
and preserved so great a vigour of mind, even to his death,
that some who had known him in his younger years
did believe him to have much quicker parts in his age
than before.”
The second Earl of Manchester, gN. to the Norths, was
the Baron Kimbolton, of Marston Moor, and, as Lord
Campbell says, “ one of the most distinguished men who
appeared in the most interesting period of our history ;
having, as Lord Kimbolton, vindicated the liberties of his
country in the Senate, as Earl of Manchester in the field,
and having afterwards mainly contributed to the sup¬
pression of anarchy by the restoration of the royal line.”
The first Earl of Sandwich, also gN. to the Norths, was
the gallant High Admiral of England in the time of
Charles II. He began life as a soldier, when only eighteen
years of age, with a Parliamentary regiment that he himself
had raised ; and he ended it in a naval battle against the
Dutch in Soutlnvold Bay. He also translated a Spanish
work on Metallurgy. I do not know that the book is of
any value, but the fact is worthy of notice as showing that
he was more than a mere soldier or sailor.
The last of the eminent relations of the Norths of whom
I shall speak at length, was the great-grandson of the
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
81
eldest brother, who became the famous Premier — the Lord
North — of the time of the American was. Lord Brougham
says that all contemporaries agree in representing his talents
as having shone with a great and steady lustre during that
singularly trying period. He speaks of a wit that never
failed him, and a suavity of temper that could never be
ruffled, as peculiar qualities in which he, and indeed all his
family (his immediate family), excelled most other men.
The admirable description of Lord North by his daughter,
Lady Charlotte Lindsay, that is appended to his bio¬
graphy by Lord Brougham, is sufficient proof of that lady’s
high ability.
There is yet another great legal family, related to the
Norths, whose place in the pedigree I do not know : it is
that of the Hydes, and includes the illustrious first Earl
of Clarendon. It appears that the Lord Chief Justice
Hyde used to take kindly notice of the Lord Keeper,
Francis North, when a young rising barrister, and allude
to his kinship, and call him “ cousin.”
It is want of space, not want of material, that compels
me to conclude the description of the able relatives of the
Norths and Montagus. But I am sure I have said enough
to prove the assertion with which I prefaced it, that natural
gifts of an exceedingly high order were inherited by a
very large number of the members of the family, and that
these owed their reputations to their abilities, and not to
family support.
Another test of the truth of the hereditary character of
ability is to see whether the near relations of very eminent
men are more frequently eminent than those who are
more remote. Table II. (p. 61) answers this question with
great distinctness in the way I have already explained.
It shows that the near relations of the Judges are far
richer in ability than the more remote — so much so, that
the fact of being born in the fourth degree of relationship
82
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
is of no sensible benefit at all. The data from which
I obtained column C of that table are as follow: — I find
that 23 of the Judges are reported to have had “large
families,” say consisting of four adult sons in each ; 1 1
are simply described as having “ issue,” say at the rate of
1^ sons each ; and that the number of the sons of others
are specified as amounting between them to 186; forming
thus far a total of 294. In addition to these, there are
9 reported marriages of judges in which no allusion is
made to children, and there are 31 judges in respect to
whom nothing is said about marriage at all. I think we
are fairly justified, from these data, in concluding that
each judge is father, on an average, to not less than one
son who lives to an age at which he might have distin¬
guished himself, if he had the ability to do so. I also
find the (adult) families to consist on an average of not
less than 2\ sons and 2|- daughters each, consequently
each judge has an average of ij brothers and 2J sisters.
From these data it is perfectly easy to reckon the
number of kinsmen in each order. Thus the nephews
consist of the brothers’ sons and the sisters’ sons : now
100 judges are supposed to have 150 brothers and 250
sisters, and each brother and each sister to have, on the
average, only one son; consequently the 100 judges will
have (150 -f 250, or) 400 nephews.
I need not trouble the reader with more figures ; suffice
it to say, I have divided the total numbers of eminent
kinsmen to 100 judges by the number of kinsmen in each
degree, and from that division I obtained the column D
in Table II., which I now project into a genealogical tree
in Table III.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
83
TABLE III.
Percentage of Eminent Men in each Degree of Kinship to the
most gifted Member of distinguished Families.
4 Great-grandfathers.
74 Grandfathers.
4 Great-uncles.
26 FATHERS.
The most eminent members of
IOO distinguished families.
- 1
23 BROTHERS.
36 SONS.
94 Grandsons.
4! Nephews.
2 Great-nephews.
14 Great-grandsons.
44 Uncles.
1 4 First cousins.
It will be observed that Table III. refers only to distin¬
guished families. If we modified it to correspond with
column E of Table II., in which all the Judges, whether
they have distinguished relations or no, are considered,
the proportion between the eminent kinsmen in each
different degree would be unchanged, though their abso¬
lute numbers would be reduced to about one-third of
their value.
Table III. shows in the most unmistakeable manner
the enormous odds that a near kinsman has over one that
is remote, in the chance of inheriting ability. Speaking
roughly, the percentages are quartered at each successive
remove, whether by descent or collaterally. Thus in the
first degree of kinship the percentage is about 28 ; in the
second, about 7 ; and in the third, ij.
The table also testifies to another fact, in which people
do not commonly believe. It shows that when we regard
the averages of many instances, the frequent sports of
nature in producing prodigies must be regarded as appa¬
rent, and not as real. Ability, in the long run, does not
84
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
suddenly start into existence and disappear with equal
abruptness, but rather, it rises in a gradual and regular
curve out of the ordinary level of family life. The statistics
show that there is a regular average increase of ability
in the generations that precede 'its culmination, and as
regular a decrease in those that succeed it. In the first
case the marriages have been consentient to its production,
in the latter they have been incapable of preserving it.
After three successive dilutions of the blood, the descen¬
dants of the Judges appear incapable of rising to eminence.
These results are not surprising even when compared with
the far greater length of kinship through which features
or diseases may be transmitted. Ability must be based
on a triple footing, every leg of which has to be firmly
planted. In order that a man should inherit ability in
the concrete, he must inherit three qualities that are
separate and independent of one another : he must in¬
herit capacity, zeal, and vigour ; for unless these three,
or, at the very least, two of them, are combined, he
cannot hope to make a figure in the world. The proba¬
bility against inheriting a combination of three qualities
not correlated together, is necessarily in a triplicate pro¬
portion greater than it is against inheriting any one
of them.
There *s a marked difference between the percentage of
ability in the grandsons of the judge when his sons (the
fathers of those grandsons) have been eminent than when
they have not. Let us suppose that the son of a judge
wishes to marry: what expectation has he that his own
sons will become eminent men, supporters of his family,
and not a burden to it, in their after life ?
In the case where the son of the judge is himself emi¬
nent, I find, out of the 226 judges previous to the present
reign, 22 whose sons have been distinguished men. I do
not count instances in the present reign, because the
BETWEEN 1 660 AND 1865.
85
grandsons of these judges are for the most part too young
to have achieved distinction. 22 out of 226 gives 10 in
100 as the percentage of the judges that have had distin¬
guished sons. (The reader will remark how near this
result is to the 9J as entered in my table, showing the
general truth of both estimates.) Of these 22 I count the
following triplets. The Atkyns family as two. It is true
that the grandfather was only Chief Justice of North
Wales, and not an English judge, but the vigour of the
blood is proved by the line of not only his son and two
grandsons being English judges, but also by the grandson
of one of them, through the female line, being an English
judge also. Another line is that of the Pratts, viz. the
Chief Justice and his son, the Lord Chancellor, Earl
Camden, and his grandson, the son of the Earl, created
the Marquis Camden ; the latter was Chancellor of the
University of Cambridge, and a man of note in many
ways. Another case is in the Yorke line, for the son of
the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Hardwicke, was Charles
Yorke, himself a Lord Chancellor. His sons were able
men : one became First Lord of the Admiralty, another
was Bishop of Ely, a third was a military officer of dis¬
tinction and created Baron Dover, a fourth was an admiral
of distinction. I will not count all these, but will reckon
them as three favourable instances. The total, thus far, is '
six ; to which might be added in fairness something from
that most remarkable Montagu family and its connexions,
of which several judges, both before and after the acces¬
sion of Charles I., were members. However, I wish to be
well within bounds, and therefore will claim only six
successes out of the 22 cases (I allow one son to each
judge, as before), or 1 in 4. Even under these limita¬
tions it is only 4 to 1, on the average, against each
child of an eminent son of a judge becoming a distin¬
guished man.
5
86
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Now for the second category, where the son is not emi-
nent, but the grandson is. There are only seven of these
cases to the (226 — 22 or) 204 judges that remain, and
one or two of them are not a very high order. They
are the third Earl Shaftesbury, author of the “ Charac¬
teristics Cowper, the poet ; Lord Lechmere, the Attor¬
ney-General ; Sir Wm. Mansfield, Commander-in-Chief in
India ; Sir Eardley Willmot, who filled various offices with
credit and was created a baronet ; and Lord Wyndham,
Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Fielding, the novelist, was
grandson of Judge Gould, by the female line. Hence it
is 204 to 7, or 30 to 1, against the non-eminent son of
a judge having an eminei>t child.
The figures in these two categories are clearly too few
to justify us in relying on them, except so far as to show
that the probability of a judge having an eminent grand¬
son is largely increased if his sons are also eminent. It
follows that the sons or daughters of distinguished men
who are themselves gifted with decidedly high ability, as
tested at the University or elsewhere, cannot do better
than marry early in life. If they have a large family, the
odds are in their favour that one at least of their children
will be eminently successful in life, and will be a subject of
pride to them and a help to the rest.
Let us for a moment consider the bearing of the facts
just obtained, on the theory of an aristocracy where able
men earn titles, and transmit them by descent through the
line of their eldest male representatives. The practice
may be justified on two distinct grounds. On the one
hand, the future peer is reared in a home full of family
traditions, that form his disposition. On the other hand,
he is presumed to inherit the ability of the founder of the
family. The former is a real justification for the law of
primogeniture, as applied to titles and possessions ; the
latter, as we see from the table, is not. A man who has
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
87
no able ancestor nearer in blood to him than a great-
grandparent, is inappreciably better off in the chance of
being himself gifted with ability, than if he had been taken
out of the general mass of men. An old peerage is a
valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as it may
have been furbished up by a succession of wise inter¬
marriages. When, however, as is often the case, the direct
line has become extinct and the title has passed to a
distant relative, who had not been reared in the family
traditions, the sentiment that is attached to its possession
is utterly unreasonable. I cannot think of any claim to
respect, put forward in modern days, that is so entirely
an imposture, as that made by a peer on the ground of
descent, who has neither been nobly educated, nor has any
eminent kinsman, within three degrees.
I will conclude this chapter with a few facts I have
derived from my various jottings, concerning the “ natural
history” of Judges. It appears that the parentage of the
Judges in the last six reigns, viz. since the accession of
George I., is as follows, reckoning in percentages : noble,
honourable, or baronet (but not judges), 9 ; landed gen¬
tlemen, 35 ; judge, barrister, or attorney, 15 ; bishop or
clergyman, 8 ; medical, 7 ; merchants and various, un¬
classed, 10 ; tradesmen, 7 ; unknown, 9. There is, there¬
fore, no very marked class peculiarity in the origin of the
Judges. They seem to be derived from much the same
sources as the scholars of our Universities, with a decided
but not excessive preponderance in favour of legal parents.
I also thought it worth while to note the order in which
the Judges stood in their several families, to see whether
ability affected the eldest more than the youngest, or if
any important fact of the kind might appear. I find in
my notes that I have recorded the order of the birth of
72 judges. The result of the percentages is, that the judge
was an only son in n cases ; eldest in 17; second in 38 ;
88
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
third in 22 ; fourth in 9 ; fifth in 1 ; and of a yet later
birth in 2 instances. It is clear that the eldest sons do
not succeed as judges half as well as the cadets. I suppose
that social influences are, on the whole, against their
entering, or against their succeeding at the law.
APPENDIX TO JUDGES.
There have been 286 Judges, according to the “ Lives of the Judges,” by
Foss, between the accession of Charles II. and the year 1864. No less than
1 12 of them find a place in the following list. Among the Judges are included
the Lord Chancellors, 30 in number, and of these eminent officers no less
than 24, or 80 per cent, of the whole, will be found to have eminent relations.
Contractions employed in the List.
The name of a Sovereign in parentheses, as (Charles II.), shows the latest
reign in which each judge held office.
Ch. K. B. (or Q. B.)
Just. K. B. (or Q. B.)
Ch. B. E.
B. E.
Curs. B. E.
Ch. C. P.
Just. C. P.
M. R.
Chief Justice of the King’s (or Queen’s) Bench.
Justice of the King’s (or Queen’s) Bench.
Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
Baron of the Exchequer.
Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer.
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
Justice of the Common Pleas.
Master of the Rolls.
Abinger, Lord. See Scarlett.
Abney, Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.)
U. Sir Thomas Abney, a famous Lord Mayor of London ;
one of the promoters of the Bank of England ; protector
of- Dr. Isaac Watts. See Watts’ Elegy on him.
[F.J Sir Edward Abney, LL.D. and M.P., a man of importance
in his day.
Alderson, Sir Edward Llall ; B. E. (Viet.)
F. Recorder of Norwich, Ipswich, and Yarmouth.
Uj\ Mrs. Opie, the novelist.
Alibone, Sir Richard ; Just. K. B. (James II.)
G. Eminent Protestant divine. (F. turned Papist.)
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
89
Atkyns, Sir Edward ; B. E. (Charles II.)
[G.] Thomas, twice Reader in Lincoln’s Inn.
F. Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales.
S. Sir Robert, Ch. Just. C. P. (Will. III.)
S. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.)
DS. Sir John Tracy, who assumed his mother’s name of Atkyns,
.Curs.B. E. (Geo. III.)
Thomas, Reader in Lincoln’s Inn.
I
Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales.
Sir Edward, B. E. (Chas. II.)
I
, 1
Sir Robert, Ch. Just. C. P. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.)
Daughter.
Sir J. Tracy (Atkyns), Curs. B. E.
Atkyns, Sir Robert ; Ch. C. P. (Will. III.)
G. Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales.
F. Sir Edward, B. E. (Charles II.)
B. Sir Edward, B. E. (James II.)
p. Sir John Tracy, who assumed the name of Atkyns, Curs.B.E.
Atkyns, Sir Edward ; B. E. (James II.)
G. Sir Richard, Ch. Just. N. Wales.
F. Sir Edward, B. E. (Charles II.)
B. Sir Robert, Ch. C. P.
Bp. Sir J. Tracy, assumed name of Atkyns, Curs. B. E.
Atkyns, Sir John Tracy (his mother was named Atkyns, and he
adopted her name) ; Curs. B. E. (Geo. III.)
g. Sir Robert Atkyns, Ch. C. P.
gB. Sir Edward Atkyns, B. E. (James II.)
gF. Sir Edward Atkyns, B. E. (Charles II.)
Bathurst, Henry; 2d Earl of Bathurst; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.)
F. The first Earl, an accomplished wit.
n. Sir Francis Buller, Just. K. B., the famous judge. (Geo. III.)
Bedingfield, Sir Henry; Ch. C. P. (James II.)
U. Sir Thomas Bedingfield, Just. C. P. (Charles I.)
Best, Wm. Draper ; created Ld. Wynford ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. IV.)
g. General Sir William Draper, the well-known antagonist- of
“Junius.”
Bickersteth, Henry; created Lord Langdale ; M. R. (Viet.)
u. Dr. Batty, the famous physician.
90
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Birch, Sir John ; Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.)
[U.] Colonel Thomas Birch, well known under the Common-
wealth.
Blackburn, Sir Colin ; Just. Q. B. (Viet.)
B. Professor of Mathematics at Glasgow.
g. Rev. John Gillies, LL.D., historian, and successor to Dri
Robertson (the gr. uncle of Lord Brougham) as historio¬
grapher of Scotland.
Blackstone, Sir William ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
S. His second son held all his University preferments.
N. Henry, wrote “ Reports ” that were even more popular than
his own.
Bramston, Sir Francis; B. E. (Charles II.)
F. Sir John Bramston, Ch. K. B. under Charles I.*
Browne, Samuel; Just. C. P. (Charles II.)
uS. Oliver St. John, Ch. Just. C. P. under the Protectorate.
Brougham, Sir Henry; cr. Ld. Brougham ; Ld. Chan. (Will. IV.)
gB. Robertson, the historian.
Buller, Sir Francis; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
U. William Buller, Bishop of Exeter.
u. Earl of Bathurst, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. III.)
N. Rt. Hon. Charles Buller, statesman.
Burnet, Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.)
G. Eminent Scotch lawyer, titled Lord Cram on d.
F. The celebrated Whig bishop, Bishop Burnet. *
Camden, Earl. See Pratt.
Campbell, Lord ; Lord Chancellor. (Viet.)
[G.] Eminently successful- scholar at St. Andrew’s.
[F.] Had distinguished literary attainments ; was pious and
eloquent.
N. George Campbell, member of Supreme Court of Calcutta;
writer on Indian politics.
Chelmsford, Lord. See Thesiger.
Churchill, Sir John; M. R. (James II.)
GN. John Churchill, the great Duke of Marlborough.
GiVS. Duke of Berwick, great general.
Clarendon, Earl. See Hyde.
Clarke, Sir Charles ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.)
B. Dean of Chester.
u. Charles Trimnell, Bishop of Winchester.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
91
Clive, Sir Edward ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
U. Sir George Clive, Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.)
UP. The great Lord Clive, Governor-General of India.
Clive, Sir George ; Curs. B. E. (Geo. II.)
N. Sir Edward Clive, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
NS. The son of another nephew was the great Lord Clive.
Cockburn, Sir Alexander James; Ch. Q. B. (Viet.)
[F.] Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary to Columbia.
Coleridge, Sir John Taylor ; Just. Q. B. (Viet.)
U. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet and metaphysician. See under
Poets. (He was father of Hartley, Derwent, and Sara.
US. Hartley Coleridge, poet.
US. Edward, Master at Eton.
US. Derwent Coleridge, Principal of St. Mark’s College, Chelsea.
UN. Sara Coleridge, authoress. (Married her cousin, Henry
Nelson Coleridge.)
US. Henry Nelson Coleridge (son of Col. Coleridge, brother of
Samuel Taylor C.), author.
S. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Solicitor-General.
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley ; created Earl of Shaftesbury ; Lord
Chancellor. (Charles II.)
P. The 3d Earl, author of the “ Characteristics.”
Copley, Sir John Singleton; cr. Ld. Lyndhurst; Ld.Chanc. (Viet.)
F. A painter, and an eminent one, judging from the prices that
his pictures now fetch.
Cottenham, Lord. See Pepys.
Cowper, Sir Wm. ; created Earl Cowper ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.)
B. Sir Spencer Cowper, Just. C. P. (Geo. II.)
NS. The grandson of Sir Spencer was Cowper the poet. See
Poets.
Cowper, Sir Spencer ; Just. C. P. (Geo. II.)
B. 1 st Earl Cowper, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. I.)
1 P. William Cowper, the poet.
Cran worth, Lord. See Rolfe.
Dampier, Sir Henry; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.)
F. Dean of Durham.
B. Bishop of Ely.
De Grey, Sir Wm. ; cr. Lord Walsingham ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.,
S. Thomas, 2d Baron ; for twenty years Chairman of Com¬
mittees in House of Lords.
92
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Denison,, Sir Thomas ; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.)
4 NS. and [2 NS.] His brother was grandfather to a remarkable
family of six brothers, namely, the present Speaker of the
House of Commons, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Arch*
deacon of Taunton, the ex-Governor of South Australia,
and two others, both of whom are scholars.
Denman, Sir Thomas ; created Lord Denman ; Ch. Q. B. (Viet.)
F. Physician, a celebrated accoucheur.
S. Hon. George Denman, Q.C., M.P., and the first classic of
• his year, 1842, at Cambridge.
uS. Sir Benjamin Brodie, 1st Bart., the late eminent surgeon.
uP. The present Sir Benjamin Brodie, 2d Bart., Professor of
Chemistry at Oxford.
Dolben, Sir William ; Just. K. B. (Will. III.)
S. Sir Gilbert Dolben, Just. C. P. in Ireland, created a Bart.
•B. John Dolben, Archbishop of York.
gB. Archbishop John Williams, the Lord Keeper to James I.
Eldon, Lord. See Scott.
Ellenborough, Lord. See Law.
Erie, Sir William ; Ch. C. P. (Viet.)
B. Peter Erie, Commissioner of Charities.
Erskine, Sir Thomas; cr. Ld. Erskine ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.)
B. Henry Erskine, twice Lord Advocate of Scotland.
S. Hon. Sir Thomas Erskine, Just. C. P. (Viet.)
Erskine, Hon. Sir Thomas ; Just. C. P. (Viet.)
F. Lord Erskine, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. III.)
U. Henry Erskine, twice Lord Advocate of Scotland.
Eyre, Sir Robert; Ch. C. P. (Geo. II.)
F. Sir Samuel Eyre, Just. K. B. (Will. III.)
Eyre, Sir Samuel ; Just. K. B. (Will. III.)
S. Sir Robert Eyre, Ch. C. B. (Geo. II.)
[Sir Giles Eyre, Just.K. B. (Will. III.), was only his 2d cousin.]
Finch, Sir Heneage; cr. E. of Nottingham; Ld. Chanc. (Chas. II.)
F. Sir Heneage Finch, Recorder of London, Speaker of the
House of Commons.
S. Daniel, 2d Earl, and Principal Sec. of State to Will. III.
S. Heneage Finch, Solicitor-General, and M.P. for University
of Cambridge ; created Earl Aylesford.
US. Thomas Twisden, Just. K. B. (Charles II.)
GN. Lord Finch, Ch. C. P. and Lord Keeper. (Charles I.)
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
93
Finch, Sir Heneage, continued —
gN.(?) Dr. William Harvey (see in “Science”), discoverer of the
circulation of the blood.
PS. Hon. Heneage Legge, B. E. See.
Harvey.
Family of Finch.
X
X
Dr. William Harvey. O = Sir Heneage,
O
(Circulation of blood. )
Speaker H. C.
X
Lord Finch,
Lord Keeper.
Heneage, T. Twisden,
istE. Nottingham, Ld. Chan. Just. K. B.
Daniel,
2d Earl; Prin. Sec. State.
Heneage,
Sol. -Gen. ; 1st E. Aylesford.
O = William Legge,
1st Earl Dartmouth.
Heneage Legge,
B. E. (Geo. II.)
Forster, Sir Robert ; Ch. K. B. (Charles II.)
F. Sir James Forster, Just. C. P. (Charles I.)
Gould, Sir Henry; Just. Q. B. (Anne.)
P. Sir Henry Gould, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
p. Henry Fielding, the novelist. (“ Tom Jones.”)
Gould, Sir Henry; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
G. Sir Henry Gould, Just. Q. B. (Anne.)
VS. Henry Fielding, the novelist.
Guilford, Lord. See North.
Gurney, Sir John ; B. E. (Viet.)
S. Rt. Hon. Russell Gurney, M.P., Recorder of London.
Harcourt, Sir Simon; cr. Lord Harcourt; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.)
G. Waller, the first Parliamentary general (and himself a relative
of Waller the poet).
Hardwicke, Earl of. See Yorke.
Heath, Sir John; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
S. Dr. Benjamin Heath, Head Master of Eton.
Henley, Sir Robert; cr. E. of Northington ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.)
F. One of the most accomplished men of his day. M.P. for
Weymouth.
94
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Herbert, Sir Edward ; Lord Keeper. (Charles II.)
S. Arthur, an admiral, created Lord Torrington.
S. Sir Edward Herbert, Ch. K. B. and C. P. (James II.)
US. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, statesman and philosopher.
US. George Herbert, poet and divine.
Herbert, Sir Edward ; Ch. K. B. and Ch. C. P. (James II.)
F. Sir Edward, Lord Keeper. (Charles II.)
B. Arthur, an admiral, created Lord Torrington.
Hewitt, Sir James ; created Lord Lifford ; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.)
S. Joseph Hewitt, Just. K. B. in Ireland.
S. Dean of Cloyne. *
Hotham, Sir Beaumont ; B. E. (Geo. III.)
B. An admiral, created Lord Hotham for naval achievements.
Hyde, Sir Edward ; cr. Earl Clarendon ; Ld. Chanc. (Chas. II.)
The Hydes were a very able family both in law and state
for many generations ; but emerging, as they did, out of
the regions of competition into that of favouritism, I
cannot rightly appraise their merits. Moreover, the male
line became extinct. The following are the near relations
of the Lord Chancellor : —
U. Sir Nicholas Hyde, Ch. K. B. (Charles I.)
U. Sir Lawrence Hyde, a great lawyer and Attorney-General
to Consort of James I., who had eleven sons, most of
whom distinguished themselves in their several vocations.
Of these are :
US. Sir Robert Hyde, Ch. K. B. (Charles II.)
US. Sir Frederick Hyde, a judge in S. Wales.
US. Alexander, Bishop of Salisbury.
[US.] Fellow of New College, and Judge of the Admiralty.
[USf] Dean of Windsor.
[US.] James, Principal of Magdalen Hall.
S. Henry, 2d Earl, Lord Privy Seal.
S. Lawrence, cr. Earl of Rochester, Lord Lieut, of Ireland,
a person of great natural parts and honesty.
[N.] Anne, married to the Duke of York, afterwards James II.
A woman of strong character, who insisted, in spite of
menace, that publicity should be given to the marriage,
let the consequences be what they might.
(See pedigree of the Hyde family on the next page.)
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
95
Family of Hyde.
Sir Lawrence, Sir Nicholas,
Attorney- Gen. to Consort of James I. Ch. K. 13.
I
X
1 - r - i - m
Robert, Frederick, Alexander, 3 others, all
Ch. K. B. Judge, Wales. Bishop. distinguished.
1st Earl of
darendon,
Ld. Chanc. & historian.
Henry, Lawrence, Anne,
2d Earl. cr. E. Rochester. marr. Jas. II.
Duchess of Queensberry,
patroness of Gray, the poet.
Hyde, Sir Robert ; Ch. K. B. (Charles II.)
F. , 2 B., [3 B.], U., and US. See above.
Jeffreys, Geo.: cr.Ld. Jeffreys of Wera: Ch.K.B.,Ld.Chan. (Jas.II.)
G. A judge in N. Wales.
US. Sir John Trevor, M. R. (Geo. I.)
Jervis, Sir John ; Ch. C. P. (Viet.)
F. Ch. Justice of Chester.
GN. J. Jervis, Admiral, 1st Earl St. Vincent. See Parker.
Farker.
1 t
_ X Earl Macclesfield,
JERVIS- | Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.)
I - 1 . I - 1
X X = Sister. Sir Thos. Parker,
| | Ch. B.E. (Geo. III.)
X Admiral,
| 1st Earl St. Vincent.
Sir John Jervis,
Ch. C. P. (Viet.)
Keating, Sir Henry Singer ; Just. C. P. (Viet.)
F. Sir Henry Keating, K.C.B., distinguished in India, &c.
King, Sir Peter; created Lord King; Ld. Chancellor. (Geo. II.)
u. John Locke, the philosopher.
Langdale, Lord. See Bickersteth.
Law, Sir Edward ; cr. Ld. Ellenborough ; Ch. K.B. (Geo. III.)
F. E. Law, Bishop of Carlisle, author.
S. Edward, Governor-General of India, cr. Earl Ellenborough.
S. C. Ewan, Recorder of London and M.P. for Camb. University.
B. G. H., Bishop of Bath and Wells.
B. John, Bishop of Elphin, in Ireland.
There are many other men of ability in this family.
96
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Lawrence, Sir Soulden ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
F. President of the College of Physicians.
Lechmere, Sir Nicholas ; B. E. (Will. III.)
P. Nicholas Lechmere, Attornev-Gen., created Baron Lechmere.
u. Sir Thomas Overbury, poet (poisoned).
Lee, Sir William ; Ch. K. B. (Geo. II.)
B. George, Dean of the Arches and Judge of the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury. Thus the two brothers were simul¬
taneously, the one at the head of the highest court of
Common Law, and the other of the highest court of Civil
Law ; a similar case to that of Lords Eldon and Stowell.
Legge, Hon. Heneage ; B. E. (Geo. II.)
F. William, ist Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State, &c.
G. George, ist Baron Dartmouth, Master of the Ordnance and
Admiral of the Fleet.
g. ist Lord Aylesford, Attorney-General and eminent lawyer.
gF. (Father of Lord Aylesford) was the ist Earl of Nottingham,
Lord Chancellor (see Finch).
Lifford, Lord. See Hewitt.
Lovell, Sir Salathiel ; B. E. (Anne.)
pS. Was Richard Lovell Edgeworth, author,
p P. Maria Edgeworth, novelist.
Lyndhurst, Lord. See Copley.
Lyttleton, Sir Timothy (see next page) —
Sir Thos. Lyttleton, the eminent judge.
I ~T 1
X Richard, X
eminent lawyer.
X
Sir Edmund Walter,
Ch. Just. S. Wales.
r~
•x
Sir Edward, = O
Judge, N. Wales.
Sir J. Walter.
Ch. B. E.
X Edward, Timothy,
I
X O
Lord Keeper. B. E. Sergeant-at-law.
X = O
Sir Thos. Lyttleton, Speaker H. Commons.
MONTAGU AND NORTH.
{Set r also under " Literature " yfcr Sydney.
Lord Chancellor.
Daughter. = John Rotor,
Attorney-General,
Henry VIII.
Sir John Jeffreys,
Daughter. = Roger, ad Baron ;
Daughter. = Sir John North.
Sir John Harrington,
Treasurer of Army at
Boulogne to Henry VIII.
= Lucy Sidney,
I sister of Sir
Henry Sidney.
Eliz. = Sir Edward,
I Montagu.
Sir Henry,
Ch. Just. K. B.
ist Earl Manchester.
Sir Edward Montagu. = Elizabeth Harrington.
Joint, created Baron ^Harrington
daughter of James I.
3. Baron North,
' Full' ofspirit
Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Sir Sydney, =Paulina Brother. Brother.
Master of
Court ol
Requests.
: Edward, William,
ad Baron Ch. B.
Montagu. Exch.
1
3d Baron ;
Ambassador :
Duke of Montagu.
'I'
Charles, James,
ist Earl of Ch. B.
Halifax ; Exch.
Statesman.
John, Roger,
D.D. the
Master biographer.
ofTrin. I
Coll. V
Daughter. Lord Sir Edward,
Hatton. ist Earl of
Sandwich ;
Lord High
Admiral!
Charles
Hatton.
"Thclncom-
Arthur Capel, ist Baron
Capel of Hadham. Be¬
headed, 1648, as a Royalist
Arthur,
ist Earl of
Essex;
Viceroy of
D. in Tower.
sToute'c?'
William, Dudleya, Francis,
6th Baron. Scholar, ad Baron
Served Orientalist Guilford.
LI
Baron Capel
of Tewkes¬
bury ; Lord
LieuL of Ire
land.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
97
Lyttleton, Sir Timothy ; B. E. (Charles II.)
GG. Sir Thomas Lyttleton, the eminent judge under Edward IV.
g. Sir E. Walter, Ch. Justice of S. Wales,
u. Sir John Walter, Ch. B. E. (Charles I.)
F. Sir Edward Lyttleton, Ch. Justice of N. Wales.
B. Edward, Lord Lyttleton, Lord Keeper. (Charles I.)
NS. Sir Thomas Lyttleton, Speaker of the House of Commons,
1698. (His mother was daughter of the Lord Keeper.)
(See pedigree on preceding page.)
Macclesfield, Lord. See Parker.
Manners, Lord. See Sutton.
Mansfield, Sir James ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.)
P. General Sir William Mansfield, K.C.B., Commander-in-chief
in India.
[There are other gifted brothers.]
Milton, Sir Christopher ; Just. C. P. (James II.)
B. Milton the poet. See under Poets.
[Milton’s mother was a kinswoman (1 what) of Lord President
Bradshaw, the regicide.]
Montagu, Sir William ; Ch. B. E. (James II.)
F. Created Baron Montagu.
FB. Sir Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, Ch. K. B.
(James I.)
N. Created Duke of Montagu ; statesman,
g. Sir John Jeffreys, Ch. B. E.
GF. Sir Edward Montagu, Ch. K. B. (Henry VIII.)
(See pedigree opposite.)
Montagu, Sir J. ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. I.)
G. Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, Ch. K. B.
U. Walter, Abbot of Pontoise ; poet, courtier, councillor to
Marie de Medicis.
U. Edward, 2d Earl of Manchester, the successful Parliamen¬
tary General, Baron Kimbolton of Marston Moor.
GB. 1st Baron Montagu.
UP. (Grandson of Baron Kimbolton.) The 4th Earl of Man¬
chester, Principal Secretary of State, 1701, created 1st
Duke of Manchester.
Nares, Sir George ; Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
S. Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford.
B. Dr. James Nares, musician.
98
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
North, Francis; created Ld. Guilford ; Ld. Chanc. (James II.)
B. Dudley North, Levantine merchant, eminent English financier.
B. Rev. John North, D.D., scholar, Master of Trin. Coll. Camb.
B. Roger North, the biographer; Attorney-General to the Queen.
b. Mary, had a prodigious memory.
uS. Charles Hatton, “ the incomparable.” ( See “ Lives of the
Norths.”)
gB. Sir Henry Montagu, ist Earl of Manchester. See Mon¬
tagu, Sir J.
gN. Edward, 2d Earl of Manchester, the Baron Kimbolton of
Marston Moor.
gN. George Montagu, Abbot of Pontoise, courtier and minister
of Catherine de Medicis.
gN. Sir Edward Montagu, ist Earl of Sandwich. (His uncle [u.]
was Pepvs, “his Diary.”)
[A7".] Dudleya North, Oriental scholar.
PS. Frederick, 2d Earl Guilford, Premier. (The “Lord North”
of George III.’s reign.)
Northington, Lord. See Henley.
Nottingham, Earl of. See Finch.
Parker, Sir Thomas; cr. E. of Macclesfield; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. I.)
S. 2d Earl, President of the Royal Society, mathematician and
astronomer.
UP. Sir Thomas Parker, Ch. B. E.
Parker, Sir Thomas ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. III.)
n. John Jervis, admiral, ist Earl St. Vincent. See Jervis.
GN. Sir T. Parker, ist Earl of Macclesfield, Lord Chancellor.
Patteson, Sir John ; Just. K. B. (Viet.)
S. Missionary Bishop to Pacific Islands.
Pengelly, Sir Thomas ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.)
[G.] (Reputed, but questionable.) Oliver Cromwell. (Foss’s
“Judges.”)
Pepys,SirChas.Christopher; cr.E.of Cottenham; Ld.Chan. (Viet.)
[F.] A Master in Chancery.
G. Sir L. Pepys, physician to George III.
g. Rt Hon. W. Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
B. Bishop of Worcester.
Pollock, Sir Frederick ; Ch. B. E. (Viet.)
B. Sir David, Ch. Justice of Bombay.
B. Sir George, general in Affghanistan.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
99
Pollock, Sir Frederick, continued- —
S. Frederick, Master in Chancery; translator of Dante.
[P.] Frederick (also [p.] to the Right Hon. C. Herries, Chan¬
cellor of the Exchequer) ; second classic of his year, 1867,
at Cambridge.
Powis, Sir Lyttleton ; Just. K. B. (Geo. I.)
B. Sir Thomas Powis, Just. K. B. (Geo. I.)
Powis, Sir Thomas; Just. K. B. (Geo. I.)
B. Sir Lyttleton Powis, Just. K. B. (Geo. I.)
Pratt, Sir John ; Ch. K. B. (Geo. I.)
S. Sir Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, Ld Chanc. (Geo. III.)
P. J. J. Pratt, 2d Earl and created 1st Marquis Camden, Lord
Lieut, of Ireland, Chancellor of University of Cambridge.
p. George Hardinge. ( See next paragraph.)
ps. Field Marshal 1st Visct. Hardinge, Governor-Gen. of India.
[ps.] (See next paragraph.)
Pratt, Sir Charles; cr. Earl Camden; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.)
F. Sir John Pratt, Ch. K. B. (Geo. I.)
S. J. J. Pratt, 2d Earl and created Marquis of Camden, Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, and Chancellor of the University
of Cambridge.
n. George Hardinge, Attorney-General to the Queen, Chief
Justice of the Brecon Circuit.
nS. Field Marshal 1st Viscount Hardinge, Governor-General
of India. (His father was a literary man.)
[nS.] A naval Captain, to whom a monument in St. Paul’s was
voted by the nation.
Raymond, Sir Edward ; cr. Ld. Raymond; Ch.K. B. (Geo. II.)
F. Sir Thomas Raymond, a Judge in each of the three Courts.
(Charles II.)
Raymond, Sir Thomas ; Just. K. B. & c. (Charles II.)
S. Robert, Lord Raymond, Ch. K. B. (Geo. II.)
Reynolds, Sir James (1) ; Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.)
N. Sir James Reynolds (2), B. E. (Geo. II.)
Reynolds, Sir James (2) ; B. E. (Geo. II.)
U. Sir James Reynolds (1), Ch. B. E. (Geo. II.)
Rolfe, Sir Robt. Monsey ; cr. Ld. Cranworth ; Ld. Chan. (Viet.)
UN. Admiral Lord Nelson.
gF. Dr. Monsey, the celebrated and eccentric physician to
Chelsea Hospital.
loo
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Romilly, Sir John; created Lord Romilly ; M. R. (Viet.)
F. Sir Samuel Romilly, Solicitor-General and eminent jurist.
Scarlett, Sir James ; created Lord Abinger ; Ch. B. E. (Viet.)
[B.] Sir William Scarlett, Ch. Justice of Jamaica.
S. Gen. Sir James Scarlett, chief in command of the cavalry
in the Crimea; then Adjutant-General.
S. Sir Peter Campbell Scarlett, diplomatist.
Scott, Sir John; created Earl of Eldon ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. IV.)
B. Sir William Scott, created Lord Stowell, Judge of the High
Court of Admiralty. (See remarks under Ch. Just. Sir
W. Lee.)
Sewell, Sir Thomas ; M. R. (Geo. III.)
p. Matthew G. Lewis, novelist, commonly called “ Monk” Lewis.
Shaftesbury, Earl of. See Cooper.
Somers, Sir J. ; created Earl Somers ; Lord Chanc. (Will. III.)
NS. Charles Yorke, Ld. Chan. (Geo. III.)
NS. and 2 AT. See Yorke.
gNP. Richard Gibbon, the historian.
Spelman, Sir Clement ; Curs. B. E. (Charles II.)
GF. Just. K. B. (Henry VIII.)
F. Sir Henry, antiquarian author of celebrity.
[B.] Sir John Spelman, also an antiquary. ‘‘Alfred the Great.”
Sutton, Sir Thomas Manners; B. E.; subsequently Lord Chan¬
cellor of Ireland, and created Lord Manners. (Geo. III.)
B. Charles Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury.
N. (Son of the Archbishop.) Charles Manners-Sutton, Speaker
of the House of Commons, created Viscount Canterbury.
Talbot, Hon. Chas. ; cr. Lord Talbot; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. II.)
F. Bishop successively of three sees.
N. Rev. William Talbot, an early and eminent advocate ot
Evangelism. (See Venn’s Life, Preface, p. xii.)
Thesiger, Sir Frederick; cr. Ld. Chelmsford; Ld. Chan. (Viet.)
S. Adjutant-General of India.
[G., F., U.] All noteworthy, but hardly of sufficient eminence
to be particularly described in this meagre outline of re¬
lationships.
Thurlow, Edward; cr. Lord Thurlow ; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. III.)
B. Bishop of Durham.
[S.] (Illegitimate.) Died at Cambridge, where, as is said, he
was expected to attain the highest honours.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
101
Treby, Sir George ; Ch. C. P. (Will. III.)
S. Rt. Hon. Robert Treby, Secretary at War
Trevor, Sir Thomas ; created Lord Trevor; Ch. C. P. (Geo. I.)
g. J. Hampden, the patriot.
F. Sir John Trevor, Secretary of State.
S. Bishop of Durham.
U. Sir John Trevor, Ch. B. E. (Charles I.)
GB. Sir Thomas Trevor, B. E. (Charles I.)
Trevor, Sir John; M. R. (Geo. I.)
uS. Lord Jeffreys, Lord Chancellor. (James II.)
Truro, Lord. See Wilde.
Turner, Sir George James; Lord Justice. (Viet.)
U. Dawson Turner, botanist and antiquary.
U. Dean of Norwich and Mast, of Pembroke Coll., Cambridge.
[S.] Bishop of Grafton and Armidale, in Australia.
(There are numerous other distinguished members of this
family, including Dr. Hooker, the botanist, Gifford Palgrave,
the Arabian traveller, and Francis Palgrave, author.)
Twisden, Sir Thomas ; Just. K. B. (Charles II.)
uS. Earl of Nottingham (Finch), Lord Chancellor. (Chas. II.)
[B.] Roger, antiquary and historian.
Vaughan, Sir John ; Just. C. P. (Viet.)
B. Henry Vaughan, assumed name of Halford and became the
celebrated physician, Sir Henry Halford, 1st Bart.
B. Rev. Edward (of Leicester), Calvinist theologian.
B. Sir Charles R., Envoy Extraordinary to the United States.
[B.] Peter, Dean of Chester.
N. Rev. Charles Vaughan, D.D., joint first classic of his year,
1838, at Cambridge; Head Master of Harrow; refused
two bishoprics.
N. Professor Halford Vaughan, of Oxford,
p. Vaughan Hawkins, first classic of his year, 1854, at Cambridge.
Verney, Hon. Sir John; M. R. (Geo. II.)
g. Sir R. Heath, Ch. K. B. (Charles I.)
Walsingham, Lord. See De Grey.
Wigram, Sir James ; V. C. (Viet.)
B. Bishop of Rochester.
Wilde, Sir Thomas; created Lord Truro; Ld. Chanc. (Viet.)
B. Ch. Justice, Cape of Good Hope.
N. Sir James Wilde, B. E. (Viet.) ; now Lord Penzance.
102
THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
Wilde, Sir James Plasted; B. E. (Viet.) ; since cr. Ld. Penzance.
U. Lord Truro, Lord Chancellor. (Viet.)
U. Ch. Justice, Cape of Good Hope.
Willes, Sir John ; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.)
B. Bishop of Bath and Wells.
S. Sir Edward Willes, Just. K. B. (Geo. III.)
Willes, Sir Edward; Just. K. B. (Geo. III.)
F. Sir John Willes, Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.)
U. Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Wilmot, Sir John Eardley; Ch. C. P. (Geo. III.)
P. F.R.S. and F.A.S., Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, and
i st Baronet.
PS. Recorder of Warwickshire and Judge of the County Court
of Bristol.
Wood, Sir William Page; V. C. (Viet.) (Since created Lord
Hatherly, Lord Chancellor, 1868.)
F. Sir Matthew, M.P. for London for twenty-eight years and
twice Lord Mayor.
[U.] Benjamin Wood, M.P. for Southwark.
[B.] Western Wood, M.P. for London.
Wyndham, Sir Hugh ; B. E., C. P. (Charles II.)
B. Sir William Wyndham, Just. K. B. (Charles II.)
GN. Sir Francis Wyndham, Just. C. P. (Eliz.)
NS. Thomas Wyndham, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Geo. I.),
created Baron Wyndham.
Wyndham, Sir Wadham ; Just. K. B. (Charles II.)
B. Sir Hugh Wyndham, B. E., Just. C. P. (Charles II.)
P. Thomas Wyndham, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Geo. I.),
created Baron Wyndham.
GN. Sir Francis Wyndham, Just. C. P. (Eliz.)
Wyndham Family.
X
X
X
Francis, just. C. P.
X
X Hugh, Just. C. P. Wadham, Just. K. B.
■, Sergeant-
at-law.
X
'l'
Rt. lion. Wm. Wyndham.
Thomas, Ld. Chan. Ireland,
created Baron Wyndham.
BETWEEN 1660 AND 1865.
103
Wynford, Lord. See Best.
Yorke, Philip; cr. Earl of Hardwicke; Ld. Chanc. (Geo. II.)
S. Hon. Charles (by niece of Lord Chancellor Somers), Lord
Chancellor. (Geo. III.)
S. Hon. James, Bishop of Ely.
P. Philip, 3d Earl, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
P. Rt. Hon. Charles Philip, F.R.S., First Lord of the Admiralty.
BS. Lord Goderich and Earl of Ripon, Premier.
O = Philip Yorke, 1st E.
Ilardwicke, Ld.(Jhan.
1
X Charles, James,
Ld. Chan. Bishop of Ely
b Hiilip, 3d Earl, Chas. Philip,
Lord Lieut. Ireland. 1st Lord Adm.
F. J. Robinson,
1st Earl Ripon, Premier.
Yorke, Hon. Charles; Lord Chancellor. (Geo. III.)
F. 1 st Earl of Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor. (Geo. II.)
S. Philip, 3d Earl, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.
S. Rt. Hon. Charles Philip, F.R.S., First Lord of the Admiralty
B. Hon. James, Bishop of Ely.
gb. 1st Earl Somers, Lord Chancellor. (Will. III.)
N S.- Lord Goderich and Earl of Ripon, Premier.
X
X
X
I
X
I
o = x
John Somers,
1st Earl Somers, Ld. Chanc.
R. Gibbon,
the historian.
CHAPTER VII.
STATESMEN.
I PROPOSE in this chapter to discuss the relationships of
modern English Statesmen. It is my earnest desire,
throughout this book, to steer safely between two dangers :
on the one hand, of accepting mere official position or
notoriety, as identical with a more discriminative reputa¬
tion, and on the other, of an unconscious bias towards
facts most favourable to my argument. In order to guard
against the latter danger, I employ groups of names
selected by others ; and, to guard against the former,
I adopt selections that command general confidence. It
is especially important in dealing with statesmen, whose
eminence, as such, is largely affected by the accident of
social position, to be cautious in both these respects. It
would not be a judicious plan to take for our select list the
names of privy councillors, or even of Cabinet ministers ;
for though some of them are illustriously gifted, and many
are eminently so, yet others belong to a decidedly lower
natural grade. For instance, it seemed in late years to
have become a mere incident to the position of a great
territorial duke to have a seat in the Cabinet, as a minister
of the Crown. No doubt some few of the dukes are highly
gifted, but it may be affirmed, with equal assurance, that
the abilities of the large majority are very far indeed from
justifying such an appointment.
STATESMEN.
105
Again, the exceptional position of a Cabinet minister
cannot possibly be a just criterion of a correspondingly
exceptional share of natural gifts, because statesmanship
is not an open profession. It was much more so in the
days of pocket boroughs, when young men of really high
promise were eagerly looked for by territorial magnates,
and brought into Parliament, and kept there to do gladia¬
torial battle for one or other of the great contending parties
of the State. With those exceptions, parliamentary life
was not, even then, an open career, for only favoured
youths were admitted to compete. But, as is the case in
every other profession, none, except those who are extra¬
ordinarily and peculiarly gifted, are likely to succeed in
parliamentary life, unless engaged in it from their early
manhood onwards. Dudley North, of whom I spoke in
the chapter on Judges, was certainly a great success ; so,
in recent times, was Lord George Bentinck ; so, in one
way or another, was the Duke of Wellington ; and other
cases could easily be quoted of .men beginning their active
parliamentary life in advanced manhood and nevertheless
achieving success ; but, as a rule, to which there are very
few exceptions, statesmen consist of men who had ob¬
tained — it little matters how — the privilege of entering
Parliament in early life, and of being kept there. Every
Cabinet is necessarily selected from a limited field. No
doubt it always contains some few persons of very high
natural gifts, who would have found their way to the
front under any reasonably fair political regime, but it also
invariably contains others who would have fallen far behind
in the struggle for place and influence, if all England
had been admitted on equal terms to the struggle.
Two selections of men occurred to me as being, on the
whole, well worthy of confidence. One, that of the Premiers,
begun, for convenience’ sake, with the reign of George IIP;
their number is 25, and the proportion of them who cannot
ro6
STATESMEN.
claim to be much more than “ eminently ” gifted, such as
Addington, —
“ Pitt is to Addington as London to Paddington,” —
is very small. The other selection is Lord Brougham’s
“ Statesmen of the Reign of George III.” It consists of
no more than 53 men, selected as the foremost states¬
men in that long reign. Now of these, 11 are judges
and, I may add, 7 of those judges were described in the
appendix to the last chapter, viz. Lords Camden, Eldon,
Erskine, Ellenborough, King, Mansfield, and Thurlow.
The remaining 4 are Chief Justices Burke and Gibbs, Sir
William Grant, and Lord Loughborough. Lord Brougham’s
list also contains the name of Lord Nelson, which will be
more properly included among the Commanders ; and that
of Earl St. Vincent, which may remain in this chapter, for
he was a very able administrator in peace as well as a
naval commander. In addition to these, are the names of
9 Premiers, of whom one is. the Duke of Wellington, whom
I count here, and again among the Commanders, leaving
a net balance, in the selection made by Lord Brougham,
of 31 new names to discuss. The total of the two
selections, omitting the judges, is 57.
The average natural ability of these men may very
justly be stated as superior to class F. Canning, Fox,
the two Pitts, Romilly, Sir Robert Walpole (whom
Lord Brougham imports into his list), the Marquess of
Wellesley, and the Duke of Wellington, probably exceed
G. It will be seen how extraordinary are the relationships
of these families. The kinship of the two Pitts, father and
son, is often spoken of as a rare, if not a sole, instance
of high genius being hereditary ; but the remarkable
kinships of William Pitt were yet more widely diffused.
He was not only son of a premier, but nephew of
another, George Grenville, and cousin of a third, Lord
STATESMEN.
107
\
Grenville. Besides this, he had the Temple blood. His
pedigree, which is given in the appendix to this chapter,
does scant justice to his breed. The Fox pedigree is also
very remarkable in its connexion with the Lords Holland
and the Napier family. But one of the most conspicuous
is that of the Marquess of Wellesley, a most illustrious
statesman, both in India and at home, and his younger
brother, the great Duke of Wellington. It is also curious,
from the fact of the Marquess possessing very remarkable
gifts as a scholar and critic. They distinguished him in
early life and descended to his son, the late Principal of
New Inn Hall, at Oxford, but they were not shared by his
brother. Yet, although the great Duke had nothing of the
scholar or art-critic in him, he had qualities akin to both.
His writings are terse and nervous, and eminently effective.
His furniture, equipages, and the like were characterised
b} unostentatious completeness and efficiency under a
pleasing form.
I do not intend to go seriatim through the many names
mentioned in my appendix. The reader must do that for
himself, and he will find it well worth his while to do
so ; but I shall content myself here with throwing results
into the same convenient statistical form that I have
already employed for the Judges, and arguing on the
sa me bases that the relationships of the Statesmen abun¬
dantly prove the hereditary character of their genius.
In addition to the English statesmen of whom I have
have been speaking, I thought it well to swell their scanty
numbers by adding a small supplementary list, taken from
various periods and other countries. I cannot precisely
say how large was the area of selection from which this
list was taken. I can only assure the reader that it contains
a considerable proportion of the names, that seemed to me
the most conspicuous among those that I found described
at length, in ordinary small biographical dictionaries.
STATESMEN.
10B
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 35 ENGLISH STATESMEN
GROUPED INTO 30 FAMILIES.
One relation [or two in the family).
Bolingbroke (Visct. St. John) g.
Disraeli . F.
Francis, Sir P . F.
Grattan . g.
II orner . B.
Perceval . n.
Romilly, Sir S . S.
Scott (Lord Stowell) . . . B.
Wilberforce . S.
Two or three relations [or three or four in the family).
2.
Bedford, Duke of, and gr.-gr. -grandson, Earl Russell
Bentinck (Duke of Portland) .
Canning .
Jenkinson (Earl of Liverpool) .
Jervis (Earl St. Vincent) .
Lamb (Viscount Melbourne) .
Petty (Marquess of Lansdowne) . .
Russell [see Bedford).
Stanley (Earl of Derby) .
Stewart (Marquess of Londonderry) .
GF. G f PP.
S. P.
US. S.
F. U. US.
u. UP. UPS.
2 B. b. p.
GY. S.
F. uS. S.
F. uS. B.
Four or more relations [or foicr or more in the family).
2.
3-
2
2.
Dundas (Viscount Melville) .
Fox and Lord Holland .
Grenville, Lord ; his father, George Gren¬
ville ; also his cousin, William Pitt . .
Grey, Earl .
Holland, Lord [see Fox).
Peel .
Pitt, viz. Earl Chatham and his son, Wm.
Pitt (also, see Grenville) .
Robinson (Earl Ripon) .
Sheridan .
Temple (Viscount Palmerston) . . . .
Stuart (Marquess of Bute) .
Walpole (Earl of Orford) .
Wellesley, viz. the Marquess and his
brother, the Duke of Wellington .
G. F. B. N. S. P.
G. u. F. B. N. /VS. 2«S
B. F. g. «S. U.
F. B. 2 S.
F. g. 2 B. 3 S.
F. N. u. uS. 11.
G. F. gB. gF. S.
F. f g. G. S. P. PS.
B. GGB. GG. GGF.
GF. G. GU. GB. u. B. 2S
G. B. 2 S. nG.
B. N. S. gCF.
STA TESME1E
109
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST of 13 GREAT STATESMEN of VARIOUS
PERIODS and COUNTRIES GROUPED into 9 FAMILIES.
2.
3-
Arteveldt, James, and son John . S.
Mirabeau . F.
More, Sir Thomas . . . . F.
De Witt, John, and brother Cornelius . . . . B.
Adams . S. P.
Cecil, Robt. ; father, Lord Burleigh ; and cousin,
Lord Bacon . F. «S.
Colbert . . . . . . . . U. B. 2 S.
Guise, Due de . . . . . B. 2 S. P.
Richelieu . . F. B. BP,
2 N.
PS.
BPS. nS.
TABLE II.1
Degrees of
Kinship.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Name of the degree.
Corresponding letters.
Father .
13 F.
•••
...
*3
33
IOO
33-o
Brother ....
15 B.
• ••
• ••
• ••
IS
39
*50
26.0
Son .
19 S.
• ».
*9
49
IOO
49.0
Grandfather . . .
6 G.
5 g ■
• ••
...
II
28
200
14. O
Uncle . . . ; .
3U.
4 u.
...
• ••
7
18
400
4-5
Nephew ....
6 N.
i n.
...
• ••
7
18
400
4-5
Grandson. . . .
4P-
op.
...
...
4
IO
200
5-o
Great-grandfather .
1 GF.
1 gF.
1 GF.
og-F.
3
8
400
2.0
Great-uncle . . .
1 GB.
1 gB.
0 GB.
ogB.
2
5
800
0.6
First cousin . . .
2 US.
3 uS.
0 £/S.
3 «S.
8
21
800
2.6
Great-nephew . .
0 NS.
1 nS.
1 NS.
0 #S.
2
5
800
0.6
Great-grandson . .
oPS.
0 pS.
0 PS.
0 /S.
0
O
400
0.0
All more remote .
• ••
•••
• ••
14
37
...
•••
First, have the ablest statesmen the largest number of
able relatives ? Table I. answers this in the affirmative.
There can be no doubt, that its third section contains more
illustrious names than the first; and the more the reader
will take the pains of analysing and “ weighing ” the
relationships, the more, I am sure, will he find this truth
to become apparent. Again, the Statesmen, as a whole,
1 For explanation refer to the similar table in p. 6 1.
6
I IO
ST A TESMEN.
are far more eminently gifted than the Judges; accordingly
it will be seen in Table II., by a comparison of its column
B with the corresponding column in p. 6 1, that their rela¬
tions are more rich in ability.
To proceed to the next test ; we see, that the third
section is actually longer than either the first or the second,
showing that ability is not distributed at haphazard, but
that it affects certain families.
Thirdly, the statesman’s type of ability is largely trans¬
mitted or inherited. It would be tedious to count the
instances in favour. Those to the contrary are Disraeli,
Sir P. Francis (who was hardly a statesman, but rather
a bitter controversialist), and Horner. In all the other
35 or 36 cases in my appendix, one or more statesmen
will be found among their eminent relations. In other
words, the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in
dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and
ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary.
Table II. proves, just as distinctly as it did in the case
of the Judges, that the nearer kinsmen of the eminent
Statesmen are far more rich in ability than the more
remote. It will be seen, that the law of distribution, ^ as
gathered from these instances, is very similar to what we
had previously found it to be. I shall not stop here to
compare that lawr, in respect to the Statesmen and the
Judges, for I propose to treat all the groups of eminent
men, who form the subjects of my several chapters, in a
precisely similar manner, and to collate the results, once
for all, at the end of the book.
STATESMEN.
ill
APPENDIX TO STATESMEN.
STATESMEN OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
AS SELECTED BY LORD BROUGHAM IN HIS WELL-KNOWN
WORK BEARING THAT TITLE.
The list consists of the following 53 persons, of whom 33, whose names are
printed in italics , find a place in my dictionary of kinships. It often happens
in this list that the same person is noticed under his title, as well as surname ;
as, “Dundas (Viscount Melville) — “Melville, Lord (Dundas).”
Allen. * Bedford, 4th Duke. Bolingbroke. Bushe, Ld. Ch. J ust. Camden,
Earl (Pratt). * Canning. Carroll. Castlereagh, Lord (Londonderry) ; see
Stewart. * Chatham, Lord (Pitt). Curran. Dundas (Visct. Melville). Eldon,
Lord (Scott). Erskine, Lord. Ellenborough , Lord (Law). Fox. Francis, Sir
Philip. Gibbs, Ld. Ch. Just. Grant, Sir Wm. Grattan. * Grenville, George.
* Grenville, Lord. Holland, Lord. Horner. Jeffersoji. *yenkinson (Earl
Liverpool), yervis (Earl St. Vincent). King, Lord. Law (Lord Ellenborough).
Lawrence, Dr. * Liverpool, Earl (yenkviso7i). Loughborough, Lord (Wed-
derburn). Londonderry, Lord (Castlereagh : see Stewart). Mansfield, Lord
(Murray). Melville, Lord (Dundas). Murray (Lord Mansfield). Nelson, Lord.
* North, Lord. *Perceval. *Pitt (Earl of Chatham). * Pitt , William. Pratt
(Earl Camden). Ricardo. Romilly. St. Vincent, Earl (Jervis). Scott (Lord
Eldon). Scott (Lord Slowell). Stowell, Lord (Scott). Stewart (Lord Castle¬
reagh, Marquess of Londonderry). Thurlow, Lord. Tierney. Tooke, Horne.
Walpole. Wedderburn (Lord Loughborough). Wellesley, Marquess. Wilber-
force. Wilkes, John. Windham.
PREMIERS SINCE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III.
There have been 25 Premiers during this period, as shown in the following
list, of whom 1 7, whose names are printed in italics, find a place in my dic¬
tionary of kinships.
Nine of these have already appeared under the title of “Statesmen of
George III.” They are distinguished by a +.
It occasionally happens that the same individual is noticed under his surname
as well as his title; as “ Chatham, Earl (Pitt) ; ” — “ Pitt (Earl Chatham).”
Aberdeen, Earl. Addington (Sidmouth). + Bedford, 4 th Duke. Bute, Mar¬
quess. t Canning. + Chatham, Earl (Pitt). Derby, Earl. Disraeli. Glad¬
stone. Goderich. Grafton, Duke. Grenville, George. + Grenville , Lord.
Grey, Earl. Lansdowne (Shelburne). + Liverpool ', Earl. Melbourne, Visct.
Newcastle, Duke. \ North, Lord. Palmerston, Lord. Peel, Sir Robert.
+ Perceval . Pitt (Earl Chatham). fPitt, William. Rockingham, Marquess.
Russell, Earl. Shelburne, Earl (Lansdowne). Sidmouth, Lord (Addington).
Wellington.
* Premier.
+ Included also in Brougham’s list of Statesmen of Geo. III.
1 12
STATESMEN.
Bedford, John, 4th Duke.
GF. William, Lord Russell ; patriot; executed 1683.
G F. Lady Rachel W. Russell, her husband’s secretary. ‘‘Letters.”
PP. 1 st Earl Russell ; Reform leader as Lord John Russell, and
three times Premier.
Bentinck, William H. Cavendish; 3d Duke of Portland; Pre¬
mier, 1783-4 and 1807-10.
S. Lord Wm. Henry Bentinck ; Governor-General of India, who
abolished Suttee, and established the liberty of the Indian
press.
P. Lord George Bentinck, M.P. ; became an eminent financier
and a leading statesman in middle age, after a life previously
devoted to racing interests.
Bolingbroke, Henry; created Viscount St. John; the cele¬
brated Secretary of State to Queen Anne. (His name is
appended to Brougham’s list of Statesmen of Geo. III.)
g. Sir Oliver St. John, Ch. Just. C. P. under the Protectorate
(and who himself was cousin to another judge, S. Brown
(see), under Charles II.).
Bute, Earl. See Stuart.
Camden, Earl; Lord Chancellor. See under Judges.
F. and S.
Canning, George; created Lord Canning; Premier, 1827.
Not precocious as a child, but remarkable as a schoolboy.
(“Microcosm,” ret. 15, and “ Anti-Jacobin.”) Scholar,
orator, and most able statesman. The Canning family had
sensitive and irritable temperaments.
[F.] A man of considerable literary acquirements.
f / j Had great beauty and accomplishments. She took to the
stage after her husband’s death without much success ;
they had both been separated from the rest of the Can¬
ning family.
US. Stratford Canning ; created Lord Stratford de Redcliffe ;
ambassador at the Porte ; the “ great Elchi.”
[US.] George Canning, F.R.S., F.S.A., created Lord Garvagh.
S. Charles ; created Earl Canning; was Governor-General oi
India during the continuance and suppression of the
Indian Mutiny.
Castlereagh. See Stewart.
Disraeli, Rt. Hon. Benjamin; Premier, 1S68. Precocious;
STATESMEN.
ii3
began life in an attorney’s office ; became, when quite
young, a novel-writer of repute, and, after one noted
failure, an eminent parliamentary debater and orator.
F. Isaac Disraeli ; author of “ Curiosities of Literature.”
Dundas, Henry; created Viscount Melville; friend and coad¬
jutor of Wm. Pitt, and a leading member of his adminis¬
tration in various capacities.
F. Robert Dundas, of Arniston ; Lord President of the Court
of Session in Scotland.
G. Robert Dundas; Lord Arniston, eminent lawyer; Judge
of Court of Session.
[GF.] Sir James Dundas, M.P. for Edinburgh, Senator of the
College of Justice.
B. (A half-brother.) Robert Dundas ; Lord President of the
Court of Session, as his father had been before him.
N. (A half-nephew.) Robert Dundas (son of above) ; Lord
Chief Baron to the Court of Exchequer in Scotland.
S. Robert; 2d Viscount; Lord Privy Seal in Scotland.
P. Richard Saunders Dundas ; twice Secretary to the Admiralty;
succeeded Sir C. Napier in chief command of the Baltic
fleet in the Russian War, 1S55, and captured Sweaborg.
{Mem. He was no relation to Sir James W. D. Dundas,
who was in chief command of the Black Sea fleet during
the same war.)
Eldon, Earl of ; Lord Chancellor. See in Judges, under Scott.
Ellenborough, Lord; Chief Justice King’s Bench. See in
Judges.
Erskine, Lord; Lord Chancellor. See in Judges.
Fox, Rt. Hon. Charles James ; statesman and orator; the great
rival of Pitt. At Eton he was left much to himself, and
was studious, but at the same time a dissipated dandy.
He was there considered of extraordinary promise. JEt. 25,
he had become a man of mark in the House of Commons,
and also a prodigious gambler.
G. Sir Stephen Fox; statesman; Paymaster of the Forces.
Chelsea Hospital is mainly due to him ; he projected it,
and contributed ^13,000 towards it.
u. Charles ; 3d Duke of Richmond ; principal Secretary of
State in 17 66.
F. Henry; created Lord Holland; Secretary at War.
n 4
ST A TESMEN.
Fox, Rt. Hon. Charles James, continued —
B. Stephen ; 2d Lord Holland ; statesman and social leader.
N. . Henry R. ; 3d Lord Holland; F.R.S., F.S.A., Recorder of
Nottingham. ( See Lord Brougham’s panegyric of these
men in his “Statesmen of George III.”)
His aunt, Lady Sarah, sister of the Duke of Richmond,
married Colonel Napier, and was mother of the famous
Napier family. Colonel Napier was himself cast in the
true heroic mould. He had uncommon powers, mental
and bodily ; he had also scientific tastes. He was Super¬
intendent of Woolwich Laboratory, and Comptroller of
Army Accounts.
?/S. General Sir Charles James Napier, G.C.B. ; Commander-
in-Chief in India ; Conqueror of Scinde.
7/S. General Sir William Napier ; historian of the Peninsular
War.
[3 7/S.] There were three other Napiers, brothers, who were con¬
sidered remarkable men, namely, General Sir George,
Governor of the Cape ; Richard, Q.C. ; and Henry, Cap¬
tain, and author of “ History of Florence.”
TVS. H. Bunbury, senior classic of his year (1833) at Cam¬
bridge.
Francis, Sir Philip; reputed author of “Junius;” violent
antagonist of Blastings in India.
F. Rev. Philip ; poet and dramatic writer; translator of “ Horace ”
and other classics. Had a school where Gibbon was a
pupil. Lie was also a political controversialist.
Goderich, Viscount. See Robinson.
Grattan, Henry ; orator and statesman.
[GB.] Sir Richard Grattan, Lord Mayor of Dublin.
g. Thomas Marley, Chief Justice of Ireland.
[F.] James Grattan, Recorder of, and M.P. for, Dublin.
[S.] Right Honourable James Grattan.
Grenville, George, Premier, 1763.
The very remarkable relationships of the Grenville family, and
the results of the mixture of the Temple race with that
of the 1 st Earl of Chatham on the one hand, and of the
Wyndham on the other, is best understood by the annexed
table : —
STATESMEN.
IIS
in
W
<
pH
M
Q
£
><
£
a
<
Eh"
H
rH
Ph
•\
w
h)
■J
HH
>
z,
w
Pi
o
of
pi
CH
N-H
w
H
w
K
H
pH
o
c«
W
o
<
»— I
ft!
Pi
<!
*-<
Pi
w
H
*-> u
£j 4)
C3 r-j
Wtj
„ c «j
a a 33
$3 ..2
C3 >_ ^
-s * w
33 >■
S3 i> 0)
.j 33
> rt ~ '
b o
- s
<u °
r u u
!>cc S3
C3
Ph ^rH
CO U
,2 33
a >
> o
S3 33
4) S3
0<
. I*
nd o
£ •
rS3 rv
.a •
4)
lf>
S3
O
s
2
o
CJ
^'o
2 2
t-" 3H
■-d 1—1
>3 V
rt 33 -
33 *->
.2 t*H
* °
pH
Ph <u
“1
0>
2
fcO
.2
‘•3
ci
4>
r— H
ctf
^ Qh
o g
3
2H
<L> c/)
C/3
0)
— H
<u
o>
ffi
U
4)
IS, £
2 rt
<X) <zj
33 U
pH
ci d
33 §
-.2 §
c2 o
M <n
<U
33
“ ci
.£3
W
<u
S3 •
£ fc
0*2-
<u JJ
&&
o
4)
o
4)
d
ci
33
b
<v
W
u
O
rt
C/3
C/3
CJ
rO
£
<'
ci
2 W
m r3
<D
•C
* U
ci
<D
<u
a,
o
G
ci
-4-J
C/}
1)
I — «
• H
>
S3
4)
•_
-O,
2 • )_j 33
a to
O 4) -c
33 ^ pp
H
o 2
-*-» rH
2 b§
0^3!
II Pi W-H
S 33
41
2^
'd gF2
g^g > £
-?jsTA S
H^U iu
C n: u,
• rH rH tT
^1/0
33 !- J
>o
-r-d
j . iS
Cu
■ w
'd
S3
o
4)
2
ci
4)
S>
S3
4>
•—
-o
4>
a,
2
V
E-
t/3
3
33
O
3
PQ
bw
r/.
<D
> Ph
a
o
4)
o
• 4>
cr o
rt !>
Jh
<N <3
4)
4)
w 'S
►H S
4J
33
3
Q
4-*
C
a/
c/)
u
Ph
£
rt
rH
To
c
• rH
3i
4>
3
P5
j2 jr-i*
x as;
2 2'-°
>>
O^.g-
? 2 Ph
pH C3
2 W-d
P2
ex
(D
C/3
1)
P >H
C
cj
-3« 2
£Ph 2^
Ph
. Ph
>% (U
M hH
•S >
CO
'rs
fc g
£ 2
2 'd
q
ci
rv rH
T d
v-< 3 .
Cu H 4l
P r*
5 3
.5 0 4)
33 s-i
33 T! Ph
> <3
!> W
2 •
Pi 3
O cj
^:3
rt 3
-*-J 3
CO ^
5- <u
rt 3
w -
4) -
P- ci
o-C
2 co
CQ
H-H rH
CO -Pi
4) ^
*' r»
T‘ o
<D • rH
Ph
ffi
3
ci ^
^ t'
X-
P*-H
O pH •
^ r* 1)
>-■ n i 1 — i
4> 33 33
3S >
f/3 3 S
4/
SOh
o
33 _j
is
CO o
H— »
T .2
3 ri
w
33
H-»
PO
o
STATESMEN.
n6
Grenville, George, continued —
g. Sir Richard Temple; a leading member of the House of
Commons.
u. General Sir Richard Temple ; created Viscount Cobnam,
served under Marlborough.
B. Richard, succeeded his mother the Countess, as ist Earl
Temple; statesman; Lord Privy Seal.
S. William Wyndham Grenville ; created Lord Grenville ; Pre¬
mier, 1806.
S. George, 2d Earl Temple; created Marquis Buckingham;
twice Viceroy of Ireland.
S. Thomas, who bequeathed his library to the British Museum.
Grenville, William Wyndham; created Lord Grenville; Pre¬
mier, 1806; Chancellor of Oxford University.
B. Marquess Buckingham, twice Viceroy of Ireland.
F. George Grenville, Premier, 1763.
g. Sir William Wyndham, Bart., Secretary at War and Chan¬
cellor of the Exchequer.
7/S. William Pitt, Premier.
U. Richard Grenville, created Earl Temple ; statesman.
Grey, Charles, 2d Earl; Premier, 1830-1834.
F. General in America, and early part of French War; created
Earl Grey for his services.
B. Edward, Bishop of Hertford.
S. Henry G , 3d Earl ; statesman ; writer on Colonial govern¬
ment, and on Reform.
S. Sir Charles Grey, Private Secretary to the Queen.
Holland, Lord. See Fox.
Horner, Francis ; statesman, financier. One of the founders
of the Edinburgh Review ; afterwards he rapidly rose to
great note in Parliament. His career was ended by early
death, cet. 39.
B. Leonard Horner, geologist, for very many years a venerated
member of the scientific world.
Jenkinson, Robert Banks; 2d Earl of Liverpool; Premier,
1812-27.
F. Right Hon. Charles Jenkinson, created Earl Liverpool ;
Sec. of State ; a confidential friend and adviser of Geo. Ill.
[U.] John Jenkinson, colonel ; Joint Secretary for Ireland.
[US.] John Banks Jenkinson, D.D., Bishop of St. David’s.
ST A TESMEN.
1 17
Jervis, John, admiral; created Earl St. Vincent ; 1st Lord of the
Admiralty.
u. Right Hon. Sir Thomas Parker ; Ch. B. E.
UP. Thomas Jervis, M.P., Ch. Justice of Chester.
UPS. Sir John Jervis, M.P., Attorney-General; Ch. C. P. (Viet.)
King, Lord. See Judges.
Lamb, William, 2d Visct. Melbourne ; Premier, 1834 and 1835-41.
B. Frederick, diplomatist, ambassador to Vienna; created Lord
Beauvale.
B. George, M.P., Under-Sec. of State for Home Department
b. Lady Palmerston.
p. Rt. Hon. Wm. F. Cowper, President of the Board of Works, &c.
Lansdowne, Marquis. See Petty.
Liverpool, Lord. A^Jenkinson.
Londonderry. See Stewart.
Nelson, Admiral; created Earl Nelson. See Commanders.
North, Lord; created Earl Guilford; Premier, 1770-82.
[G.F.] Francis, 1st Baron Guilford. Lord Keeper. (James II.)
Whose three brothers and other eminent relations are
described in Judges. ( See also Genealogical Table.)
Palmerston. See Temple.
Peel, Sir Robert; Premier, 1834-5, 1841-5, 1845-6.
F. Sir Robert Peel, M.P. ; created a Bart. A very wealthy
cotton manufacturer and of great mercantile ability, who
founded the fortunes of the family. He was Vice-Pre¬
sident of the Literary Society.
g. Sir John Floyd, General, created a Bart, for service in India.
B. Right Hon. General Peel, Secretary of State for War.
B. Right Hon. Lawrence Peel, Chief Justice of Supreme Court
of Calcutta.
There were also other brothers of more than average ability.
S. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert, 2d Bart.; Chief Secretary for Ireland.
S. Right Hon. Frederick, Under Secretary of State for War.
S. Captain Sir William Peel, R.N., distinguished at Sebastopol
and in India.
Perceval, Spencer; Premier, 1810-12.
n. 2d Lord Redesdale, Chairman of Committees of House of
Lords. (He was son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
n. Right Hon. Spencer Walpole, Secretary of State for Home
Department.
STATESMEN.
n 8
Petty, William Petty; 2d Earl Shelburne; created Marquia
Lansdowne; Premier, 1782-3. An ardent supporter of the
Earl of Chatham ; in early life he distinguished himself in
the army, at Minden.
6T. Sir William Petty, physician, politician, and author; Sur¬
veyor-General of Ireland ; a man of singular versatility,
and successful in everything, including money-making.
S. 3d Marquis Lansdowne, statesman and man of letters. In
youth, as Lord Henry Petty, he was one of the set who
founded the Edinburgh Review. He then became promi¬
nent as a Whig, in Parliament, and was Secretary of State
more than once. Was Chancellor of the Exchequer, set. 26.
Pitt, William; created Earl of Chatham; Premier, 1766. Origi¬
nally in the army, which he left ret. 28 ; then the vigorous
opponent of Walpole in Parliament, “ the terrible cornet
of Dragoons ;” afterwards, ret. 49, he became one of the
ablest of statesmen, most brilliant of orators, and the prime
mover of the policy of England. Married a Grenville.
(See Grenville for genealogical tree.)
[G.] Thomas Pitt, Governor of Fort George, who somehow or
other amassed a large fortune in India.
S. William Pitt, Premier.
/. Lady Hester Stanhope.
Pitt, William ; 2d son of the 1st Earl of Chatham. Illustrious
statesman; Premier, 1783-1801; and 1804-6. Preco¬
cious, and of eminent talent ; frequent ill-health in boy¬
hood ; cet. 14 an excellent scholar. Never boyish in his
ways; became a healthy youth ret. 18. He was Chan¬
cellor of the Exchequer ret. 24, and Prime Minister ret. 25;
which latter office he held for seventeen years consecutively.
Plis constitution was early broken by gout ; died ret. 47.
F. Earl of Chatham, Premier.
N. Lady Hester Stanhope.
u. George Grenville, Premier.
uS. Lord Grenville, Premier.
n. Lady Hester Stanhope, who did the honours of his house,
and occasionally acted as his secretary ; she was highly
accomplished, but most eccentric and more than half mad.
After Pitt’s death, she lived in Syria, dressed as a male
native, and professed supernatural powers.
STATESMEN.
119
Portland, Duke of. See Bentinck.
Ripon, Earl of. See Robinson.
Robinson, Frederick John ; 1st Viscount Goderich and Earl of
Ripon; Premier, 1827-8.
G. Thomas Robinson, created Baron Grantham, diplomatist ;
afterwards Secretary of State.
F. Thomas Robinson, 2d Baron, also diplomatist, and after¬
wards Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
gB. Charles Yorke, Lord Chancellor. See Judges.
gF. Philip Yorke, 1st Lord Hardwicke, Ld. Chan. See Judges.
S. George F. (inherited) Earl de Grey and Ripon, Secretary
of State for War.
Romilly, Sir Samuel; eminent lawyer and statesman. His
parents were French refugees. He was of a serious dispo¬
sition in youth, and almost educated and supported him¬
self. Entered the bar, and attracted notice by a pamphlet.
He rose rapidly in his profession, and became Solicitor-
General and M.P. Eminent reformer of criminal laws ;
committed suicide set. 61.
S. Right Hon. Sir John Romilly, created Lord Romilly; Attorney-
General and Master of the Rolls, Judges.
Russell, istEarl; Premier. See Bedford.
Scott, William; cr. Lord Stowell, Judge of the Admiralty Court.
B. Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor. See Judges.
Lord Stowell and Eldon were each of them twins, each
having been born with a sister.
Shelburne, Earl of. See Petty.
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley ; orator, extraordinary wit, and
dramatist. Was stupid as a boy of 7. When set. 1 1 was
idle and careless, but engaging, and showed gleams of
superior intellect, as testified by Dr. Parr. On leaving
school he wrote what he afterwards developed into the
“ Critic.” Wrote the “ Rivals” set. 24. Died worn out in
body and spirits set. 65.
He eloped in youth with Miss Linley, a popular singer of
great personal charms and exquisite musical talents. Tom
Sheridan was the son of that marriage. Miss Linley’s
father was a musical composer and manager of Drury Lane
Theatre. The Linley family was “ a nest of nightingales : ”
all had genius, beauty, and voice. Mrs. Tickel was one of
120
STATESMEN.
them. The name of Sheridan is peculiarly associated with a
clearly marked order of brilliant and engaging but “ ne’er-
do-weel” qualities. Richard Brinsley’s genius worked in
flashes, and left results that were disproportionate to its
remarkable power. His oratorical power and winning
address made him a brilliant speaker and a star in society;
but he was neither a sterling statesman nor a true friend.
He was an excellent boon companion, but unhappy in his
domestic relations. Reckless prodigality, gambling, and
wild living, brought on debts and duns and a premature
break of his constitution. These qualities are found in a
greater or less degree among numerous members of the
Sheridan family, as well as in those whose biographies
have been published. It is exceedingly instructive to
observe how strongly hereditary they have proved to be.
F. Thomas Sheridan, author of the Dictionary. Taught oratory,
\
connected himself with theatres, became, ret. 25, manager
of Drury Lane. He was a whimsical but not an opinion
ated man.
f. Frances Chamberlain, most accomplished and amiable. Her
father would not allow her to learn writing ; her brothers
taught her secretly : ast. 15, her talent for literary composi
tion showed itself. She wrote some comedies, one of
which was as highly eulogized by Garrick, as her novel
“Sydney Biddulph” was panegyrized by Fox and Lord
North.
g. Rev. Dr. Philip Chamberlain, an admired preacher, but a
humorist and full of crotchets. (I know nothing of the
character of his wife Miss Lydia Whyte.)
G. Rev. Dr. Thomas Sheridan, friend and correspondent of
Dean Swift. A social, punning, fiddling man, careless and
indolent ; high animal spirits. “ His pen and his fiddle¬
stick were in continual motion.”
S. Tom Sheridan ; a thorough scapegrace, and a Sheridan all
over. (He had the Linley blood in him — see above) ;
married and died young, leaving a large family, of whom
one is —
P. Caroline, Mrs. Norton ; poetess and novelist.
PS. Lord Dufierin, late Secretary for Ireland, is the son of
another daughter.
STA TESMEN.
121
Stanley, Edward Geoffrey; 14th Earl of Derby; Premier, 1852,
1858-9, 1866-8; scholar; translator of “Homer” into
English verse, as well as orator and statesman.
F. Naturalist; President of Linnaean and Zoological Societies,
known by his endeavours to acclimatize animals.
uS. Rev. J. J. Hornby, Head Master of Eton ; scholar and
athlete.
S. Edward, Lord Stanley, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Stewart, Robert; the famous Viscount Castlereagh, and 2d
Marquess Londonderry. Great hopes were entertained of
him when he entered Parliament, barely of age, but he
disappointed them at first, for he was a very unequal
speaker. However, he became leader of the House of
Commons set. 29. Committed suicide.
F. Was M.P. for county Down, and raised through successive
peerages to the Marquisate.
uS. Sir George Hamilton, G.C.B. ; diplomatist, especially in
Russia and Austria.
B. (Half brother, grandson of Lord Chancellor Camden.)
Charles William ; created Earl Vane ; Adjutant-General
under Wellington in Spain cet 30.
[p.] (And P. to Duke of Grafton, Premier 1767.) Admiral
Fitzroy; eminent navigator (“Voyage of the JBcagle").
Superintendent of the Meteorological Department of the
Board of Trade.
Stuart, John ; 3d Earl of Bute; Premier, 1762-3.
u. 2d Duke of Argyll ; created Duke of Greenwich ; states¬
man and general. In command at Sheriffmuir : —
“ Argyll, the State’s whole thunder born to wield,
And shake alike the senate and the field.” — Pope.
GF. Sir George Mackenzie, Lord Advocate ; eminent lawyer.
G. Sir James Stuart, 1st Earl of Bute; Privy Councillor to
Queen Anne.
GU. Robert Stuart, 1st Baronet; a Lord of Session, as Lord
Tift icoultry.
GB. Dugald Stuart, also a Lord of Session.
B. Right Hon. James Stuart, who assumed the additional
name of Mackenzie ; Keeper of Privy Seal of Scotland.
S. General Sir Charles Stuart ; reduced Minorca.
S. William, D.D. ; Archbishop of Armagh.
122
STA TESMEN.
Stuart, John, continued —
P. Charles; ambassador to France; created Baron Stuart de
Rothesay. His great grandmother ( GJ '.) was Lady Mary
^Vortley Montagu ; charming letter-writer ; introducer of
inoculation from the East.
Temple, Henry J. ; Lord Palmerston ; octogenarian Premier,
1855-8, 1859-65. Was singularly slow in showing his
great powers, though he was always considered an able
man, and was generally successful in his undertakings.
He had an excellent constitution, and high animal spirits,
but was not ambitious in the ordinary sense of the word,
and did not care to go out of his way to do work. He
was fully 45 years old before his statesmanlike powers
were clearly displayed.
His father is described as a model of conjugal affection; he
wrote a most pathetic and natural epitaph on his wife.
He was fond of literature and of pictures.
B. Sir William Temple ; Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court
of Naples; founder of the “ Temple Collection ” of Italian
antiquities, and works of art in the British Museum.
GGB. Sir William Temple, Swift’s patron.
GG. Sir John Temple, Attorney-General, and Speaker of the
House of Commons in Ireland.
GGF. Sir John Temple, Master of the Rolls in Ireland ; even
he was not the first of this family that showed ability.
Thurlow, Lord; Lord Chancellor. See under Judges.
St. Vincent, Earl. See Jervis.
Walpole, Sir Robert; created Earl of Orford ; Premier, 1721-
42 (under Geo. I. and II., but included in Brougham’s
volumes of the Statesmen of Geo. III.).
In private life hearty, good-natured, and social. Had a
happy art of making friends. Great powers of persuasion.
For business of all kinds he had an extraordinary capa¬
city, and did his work with the greatest ease and tran¬
quillity.
G. Sir Edward Walpole, M.P. ; distinguished member of the
Parliament that restored Charles II.
B. Horatio ; diplomatist of a high order ; created Baron
Walpole.
S. Sir Edward ; Chief Secretary for Ireland.
STATESMEN, .
123
Walpole, Sir Robert, continued- —
S. Horace; famous in literature and art. Strawberry Hill.
Excellent letter-writer : Byron speaks of his letters as
incomparable. Gouty. Died set. 80.
np. Admiral Lord Nelson.
A grandson [G.] of Horatio was minister at Munich, and
another was minister in Portugal. One of the sons of the
former is Rt. Hon. Spencer Walpole, Secretary of State.
N. Mrs. Darner, sculptor, daughter of Field-Marshal Conway,
cousin to Horace Walpole.
Wellesley, Richard; created Marquess of Wellesley; Gover¬
nor-General of India ; most eminent statesman and scholar.
B. Arthur; the great Duke of Wellington.
[B.] 1 st Baron Cowley, diplomatist.
[F.] 1st Earl of Mornington; eminent musical tastes. He in¬
herited the estates and the name, but not the blood, of the
Wesleys, whose descendants were the famous Dissenters,
his father, Richard Colley, having obtained them from his
aunt’s husband , who was a Wesley.
gCF. The infamous judge, Sir John Trevor, M.R., the cousin
and the rival of the abler, but hardly more infamous,
Judge Jeffreys.
N. Henry Wellesley ; created Earl Cowley ; diplomatist ; am¬
bassador to France.
S. (Illegitimate.) Rev. Henry Wellesley, D.D. ; Principal of
New Inn Hall, Oxford ; a scholar and man of extensive
literary acquirements and remarkable taste in art.
Wellesley, Arthur; created Duke of Wellington ; Premier. See
Commanders.
B. Marquess Wellesley
F. Earl Mornington
N. Earl Cowley
N. Rev. Henry Wellesley
Wilberforce, William ; philanthropist and statesman; of very
weak constitution in infancy. Even set. 7 showed a
remarkable talent for elocution ; had a singularly melo¬
dious voice, which has proved hereditary ; sang well ; was
very quick ; desultory at college. Entered Parliament
set. 21, and before set. 25 had gained high reputation.
S. . Samuel, Bishop of Oxford ; prelate, orator, and administrator.
as above.
124
ST A TESMEN.
Wilberforce, William, continued —
[S.] Robert, Archdeacon ; Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford ; sub¬
sequently became Roman Catholic.
[S.] Henry William; scholar, Oxford, 1830. Subsequently be¬
came Roman Catholic.
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF GREAT STATESMEN
OF VARIOUS PERIODS AND COUNTRIES.
Adams, John (1735-1826), the second President of the United
States. Educated for the law, where he soon gained great
reputation and practice ; was an active politician ast. 30 ;
took a prominent part in effecting the independence of
his country.
S. John Quincey Adams, sixth President of the United States;
previously minister in Berlin, Russia, and Vienna.
P. Charles Francis Adams, the recent and well-known American
minister in London ; author of “ Life of John Adams.”
Arteveldt, James Van (1345?); brewer of Ghent; popular
leader in the revolt of Flanders ; exercised sovereign
power for nine years.
S. Philip Van Arteveldt. See below.
Arteveldt, Philip Van (1382 ?) ; leader of the popular party,
long subsequently to his father’s death. He was well
educated and wealthy, and had kept aloof from politics
till cet. 42, when he was dragged into them by the popular
party, and hailed their captain by acclamation. He led
the Flemish bravely against the French, but was finally
defeated and slain.
F. James Van Arteveldt. See above.
Burleigh, Earl. See Cecil.
Cecil, William; created Lord Burleigh; statesman (Elizabeth);
Lord Treasurer. “ The ablest minister of an able reign.”
Was Secretary, or chief Minister, during almost the whole
of Queen Elizabeth’s long reign of forty-five years. He
was distinguished at Cambridge for his power of work
and for his very regular habits. Married for his second
wife the daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, director of the
studies of Edward VI., and sister of Lady Bacon, the
mother of the great Lord Bacon, and had by her —
ST A TESMEN.
125
Cecil, William, continued — -
S. Robert Cecil, who was created Earl of Salisbury the same
day that his elder brother was created Earl of Exeter.
He was of weakly constitution and deformed. Succeeded
his father as Prime Minister under Elizabeth, and after¬
wards under James I. ; was unquestionably the ablest
minister of Iris time, but cold-hearted and selfish. Lord
Bacon was uS. to him.
[B.] 1st Earl of Exeter.
[F.] Master of the Robes to Henry VIII.
Colbert, Jean Baptiste ; French statesman and financier (Louis
XIV.); eminent for the encouragement he gave to public
works and institutions, to commerce and manufactures.
He was fully appreciated in his early life by Mazarin, who
recommended him as his successor. He became minister
set. 49, and used to work for sixteen hours a day. His
family gave many distinguished servants to France.
U. Odart ; a merchant who became a considerable financier.
B. Charles ; statesman and diplomatist.
S. Jean Baptiste ; statesman; intelligent and firm of purpose;
commanded, when still a mere youth, the expedition
against Genoa in 1684.
S. Jacques Nicholas, archbishop ; member of the Academy.
N. Jean Baptiste (son of Charles); diplomatist.
N. Charles Joachim ; prelate.
The family continued to show ability in the succeeding
generation.
Cromwell, Oliver; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth.
U S. Hampden the patriot, whom Lord Clarendon speaks of
as having “ a head to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and
a heart to execute any mischief;” — this word “mischief”
meaning, of course, antagonism to the King.
Up. Edmund Waller, the poet, a man of very considerable abili¬
ties both in parliamentary eloquence and in poetry, but he
was not over-stedfast in principle. He was n. to Hampden.
S. Henry ; behaved with gallantry in the army, and acted
with much distinction in Ireland as Lord Deputy.
He had one other son and four daughters, who married
able men, but their descendants were not remarkable.
The Cromwell breed has been of much less importance
ST A TESMEN.
126
than might have been expected from his own genius and
that of his collaterals, Hampden and Waller. Besides
his son Henry, there is no important name in the
numerous descendants of Oliver Cromwell. Henry’s sons
were insignificant people, so were those of Richard, and
so also were those of Cromwell’s daughters, notwith¬
standing their marriage with such eminent men as Ireton
and Fleetwood. One of Oliver’s sisters married Arch¬
bishop Tillotson, and had issue by him, but they proved
nobodies.
Guise, Francis Balafre', Duke of. The most illustrious among
the generals and great political leaders of this powerful
French family. He had high military talent. He greatly
distinguished himself as a general set. 34, and was then
elevated to the dignity of Lieutenant-General of the
kingdom.
B. Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine.
S. Henry (Duke of Guise, also called Balafre). He was less
magnanimous and more factious than his father ; was the
adviser of the massacre of St. Bartholomew; and he caused
Coligny to be murdered ; was himself murdered by order
of Henri III., set. 38.
S. Cardinal, arrested and murdered in prison, on the same
day as his brother.
[S.] Due de Mayenne.
P. Charles, who, together with his uncle, the Due de Mayenne,
was leader of the league against Henri IV.
PS. Henry, conspired against Cardinal Richelieu.
Thus there were four generations of notable men in the
Guise family.
Mirabeau, H. G. Riquetti, Comte de ; French statesman,
“ The Alcibiades of the French Revolution.” A man of
violent passions, ardent imagination, and great abilities.
He had prodigious mental activity, and hungered for every
kind of knowledge.
F. Marquis de Mirabeau ; author of “ L’Ami des Homines,” a
leader of the school of the Economists ; a philanthropist
by profession, and a harsh despot in his own family.
[B and A] There were remarkable characters among the
brothers and sisters of Mirabeau, but I am unable
ST A TESMEN.
12 7
to state facts by which their merits may be distinctly
appraised.
It is said that among many generations of the Mirabeaus —
or more properly speaking, of the Riquettis, for Mirabeau
was an assumed name — were to be found men of great
mental vigour and character. Thus St. Beuve says — and
I give the extract in full and without apology on account
of the interest ever attaching itself to Mirabeau’s charac¬
teristics —
“ Les Correspondances du pere et de l’oncle du grand tribun,
la Notice sur son grand-pere, et en gdne'ral toutes les
pieces qui font le tissu de ces huit volumes, ont revele une
race h part des caracteres d’une originality grandiose et
haute, d’ou notre Mirabeau n’a en qu’a descendre pour se
repandre cnsuite, pour se precipiter comme il l’a fait et se
distribuer h. tous, tellement qu’on peut dire qu’il n’a
que l’enfant perdu, l’enfant prodigue et sublime de sa race.”
He combined his paternal qualities with those of his
mother : —
“ Ce n’etait suivant la definition de son pere qu’un male
monstreux au physique et au moral.
“ II tenait de sa m£re la largeur du visage, les instincts, les
appetits prodigues et sensuels, mais probablement aussi ce
certain fond gaillard et gaulois, cette faculte de se fami-
liariser et de s’humaniser qui les Riquetti n’avaient pas, et
qui deviendra un des moyens de sa puissance.
“Une nature riche, ample, copieuse, genereuse, souvent
grossiere et vicee, souvent fine aussi, noble, meme (Ele¬
gante, et, en somme, pas du tout monstreuse, mais des
plus humaines.”
More, Sir Thomas; Lord Chancellor (Henry VIII.) ; eminent
statesman and writer; singularly amiable, unaffectedly
pious, and resolute to death. When ?et. 13, the Dean of
St. Paul’s used to say of him, “ There was but one wit in
England, and that was young More.”
F. Sir John More, Just. K. B.
[S. and 3 s .] Besides his three accomplished daughters, Margaret
Roper, Elizabeth Dauncy, and Cecilia Heron, Sir Thomas
More had one son called John. Too much has been said
of the want of capacity of this son. His father com-
128
ST A TESMEN.
mended the purity of his Latin more than that of his
daughters, and Grynaeus (see under Divines) dedicated to
him an edition of Plato, while Erasmus inscribed to him
the works of Aristotle. He had enough strength of
character to deny the king’s supremacy* and on that
account he lay for some time in the Tower under sentence
of death. (“ Life of More,” by Rev. Joseph Hunter, 1828,
Preface, p. xxxvi.)
Richelieu, Armand J. du Plessis, Cardinal Due de. The
great minister of France under Louis XIV. He was
educated for arms, but devoted himself to study, and
entered the Church at a very early age — earlier than was
legal — and became Doctor. JEt. 39 he was chief minister,
and thenceforward he absolutely reigned for eighteen
years. He was not a loveable man. He pursued but
one end — the establishment of a strong despotism. Died
set. 57.
F. Frangois du Plessis, seigneur de Richelieu ; signalized
himself as a soldier and a diplomatist. Was promoted to
be “ grand prevot de France,” and was highly rewarded
by Henri IV.
[B.] Henri ; became “ marechal de camp,” and was killed in a
duel just when he was about to be promoted to the
government of Angers.
B. Alphonse L. ; Cardinal of Lyons. Became a monk of
the Chartreuse, and practised great austerity. He behaved
nobly in Lyons at the time of the plague.
BP. (Grandson of Henri.) Louis F. Armand, Due de Riche¬
lieu. He was Marshal of France, and personified the
eighteenth century ; being frivolous, fond of intrigue,
immoral, without remorse, imperturbably good-humoured,
and courageous. He was a seven months’ child, and lived
to tet. 92. His children were —
BPS. The “ trop celebre” Due de Fronsac.
BP A. The witty and beautiful Countess of Egmont.
BPP. (Son of the Due de Fronsac.) Armand E., Due de Riche¬
lieu ; Prime Minister of France under Louis XVIII. Died
in 1822.
nS. Comte de Cramont, wit and courtier. See under Literary
Men.
ST A TESMEN .
129
Witt, De, John. The younger brother of two of the ablest and
more honourable of Dutch statesmen. They were in¬
separable in their careers, but different in character ; each,
however, being among the finest specimens of his peculiar
type. John played the more prominent part, on account
of his genial, versatile, and aspiring character. He rose
through various offices, until, set. 27, he became Grand
Pensionary, virtually the chief magistrate, of Holland. He
was savagely murdered, set. 47.
B. Cornelius De Witt. See below.
[F,] A party leader of some importance.
Witt, De, Cornelius; had more solid, though less showy parts,
than his brother, but was in reality the most efficient sup¬
porter of that power which his brother John exercised.
He, also, was savagely murdered, aet. 49.
B. John De Witt. See above.
[*•] See above.
CHAPTER VIII.
ENGLISH PEERAGES, THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE.
It is frequently, and justly, remarked, that the families of
great men are apt to die out ; and it is argued from that
fact, that men of ability are unprolific. If this were the
case, every attempt to produce a highly-gifted race of men
would eventually be defeated. Gifted individuals might
be reared, but they would be unable to maintain their
breed. I propose in a future chapter, after I have dis¬
cussed the several groups of eminent men, to examine the
degree in which transcendent genius may be correlated
with sterility, but it will be convenient that I should now
say something about the causes of failure of issue of
Judges and Statesmen, and come to some conclusion
whether or no a breed of men gifted with the average
ability of those eminent men, could or could not maintain
itself during an indefinite number of consecutive genera¬
tions. I will even go a little further a-field, and treat
of the extinct peerages generally.
First, as to the Judges: there is a peculiarity in their
domestic relations that interferes with a large average of
legitimate families. Lord Campbell states in a foot-note
to his life of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, in his “Lives of
the Chancellors,” that when he (Lord Campbell) was first
acquainted with the English Bar, one half of the judges
had married their mistresses. He says it was then the
THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE.
131
understanding that when a barrister was elevated to the
Bench, he should either marry his mistress, or put her
away.
According to this extraordinary statement, it would
appear that much more than one half of the judges that
sat on the Bench in the beginning of this century, had no
legitimate offspring before the advanced period of their
lives at which they were appointed judges. One half of
them could not, because it was at that stage in their career
that they married their mistresses ; and there were others
who, having then put away their mistresses, were, for the
first time, able to marry. Nevertheless, I have shown that
the number of the legitimate children of the Judges is
considerable, and that even under that limitation, they are,
on the whole, by no means an unfertile race. Bearing in
mind what I have just stated, it must follow that they are
extremely prolific. Nay, there are occasional instances of
enormous families, in all periods of their history. But do
not the families die out ? I will examine into the de¬
scendants of those judges whose names are to be found
in the appendix to the chapter upon them, who gained
peerages, and who last sat on the Bench previous to the
close of the reign of George IV. There are thirty-one of
them ; nineteen of the peerages remain and twelve are
extinct. Under what conditions did these twelve become
extinct ? Were any of those conditions peculiar to the
twelve, and not shared by the remaining nineteen ?
In order to obtain an answer to these inquiries, I
examined into the number of children and grandchildren
of all the thirty-one peers, and into the particulars of their
alliances, and tabulated them ; when, to my astonishment,
I found a very simple, adequate, and novel explanation,
of the common cause of extinction of peerages, stare me
in the face. It appeared, in the first instance, that a con¬
siderable proportion of the new peers and of their sons
132
ENGLISH PEERAGES ,
married heiresses. Their motives for doing so are in¬
telligible enough, and not to be condemned. They have
a title, and perhaps a sufficient fortune, to transmit to their
eldest son, but they want an increase of possessions for the
endowment of their younger sons and their daughters. On
the other hand, an heiress has a fortune, but wants a title.
Thus the peer and heiress are urged to the same issue of
marriage by different impulses. But my statistical lists
showed, with unmistakeable emphasis, that these marriages
are peculiarly unprolific. We might, indeed, have expected
that an heiress, who is the sole issue of a marriage, would
not be so fertile as a woman who has many brothers and
sisters. Comparative infertility must be hereditary in the
same way as other physical attributes, and I am assured it
is so in the case of the domestic animals. Consequently,
the issue of a peer’s marriage with an heiress frequently
fails, and his title is brought to an end. I will give the
following list of every case in the first or second generation
of the Law Lords, taken from the English Judges within
the limits I have already specified, where there has been
a marriage with an heiress or a co-heiress, and I will
describe the result in each instance. Then I will sum¬
marize the facts.
Influence of Heiress-marriages on the Families of those English
fudges who obtained Peerages , and who last sat on the Bench
between the beginning of the reign of Charles II. and the end
of the reign of George IV
(The figures within parentheses give the date of their peerages.)
Colpepper, ist Lord (1664). Married twice, and had issue by both
marriages ; in all, five sons and four daughters. The eldest son
married an heiress, and died without issue. The second son
married a co-heiress, and had only one daughter. The third
married, but had no children, and the other two never married
at all, so the title became extinct.
Cooper, 1 st Earl of Shaftesbury (1672). His mother was a sole
THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE.
1 33
heiress. He married three times, and had only one son. How¬
ever, the son was prolific, and the direct male line continues.
Cowper, i st Earl (1718). First wife was an heiress; he had no
surviving issue by her. His second wife had two sons and two
daughters. His eldest son married a co-heiress for his first wife,
and had only one son and one daughter. The direct male line
continues.
Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham (1681). Had fourteen children.
The eldest married a co-heiress for his first wife, and had only
one daughter by her.
Harcourt, 1st Lord (1712). Had three sons and two daughters.
Two of the sons died young. The eldest married an heiress,
whose mother was an heiress also. He had by her two sons
and one daughter. Both of the sons married, and both died
issueless, so the title became extinct.
Henley, 1st Earl of Northington (1764). His mother was a co¬
heiress. He married, and had one son and five daughters.
The son died unmarried, and so the title became extinct.
Hyde, 1st Earl Clarendon (1661). Married a lady who was
eventually sole heiress, and had four sons and two daughters by
her. The third son died unmarried, and the fourth was drowned
at sea, consequently there remained only two available sons to
carry on the family. Of these, the eldest, who became the
2d Earl, married a lady who died, leaving an only son. He then
married for his second wife, an heiress, who had no issue at all.
This only son had but one male child, who died in youth, and
was succeeded in the title by the descendants of the 1st Earl’s
second son. He (the son of an heiress) had only one son' and
four daughters, and this son, who was 4th Earl of Clarendon,
had only one son and two daughters. The son died young, so
the title became extinct.
Jeffreys, 1st Lord (of Wem — 1685). Had one son and two
daughters. The son married an heiress, and had only one
daughter, so the title became extinct.
Kenyon, 1st Lord (1788). Had three sons. Although one of
them married a co-heiress, there were numerous descendants in
the next generation.
North, 1st Lord Guilford (1683). Married a co-heiress. He had
only one grandson, who, however, lived and had children.
Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield (1721). This family has
7
134
ENGLISH PEEL AGES,
narrowly escaped extinction, threatened continually by its
numerous errors of alliance. The ist Earl married a co-heiress,
and had only one son and one daughter. The son married a
co-heiress, and had two sons ; of these, the second married a
co-heiress, and had no issue at all. The eldest son (grandson of
the i st Earl) was therefore the only male that remained in the
race. He had two sons and one daughter. Now of these two,
the only male heirs in the third generation, one married a
co-heiress, and had only one daughter. The remaining one
fortunately married twice, for by the first marriage he had only
daughters. A son by the second marriage is the present peer,
and is the father, by two marriages — in neither case with an
heiress — of eleven sons and four daughters.
Pratt, ist Earl of Camden (1786). This family affords a similar
instance to the last one, of impending destruction to the race.
The ist Earl married an heiress, and had only one son and four
daughters. The son married an heiress, and had only one son
and three daughters. This son married a co-heiress, but fortu¬
nately had three sons and eight daughters.
Raymond, ist Lord (1731). He had one son, who married a
co-heiress, and left no issue at all, so the title became extinct.
Scott, Lord Stowell. See further on, under my list of Statesmen.
Talbot, ist Lord (1733). This family narrowly escaped extinction.
The ist Lord married an heiress, and had three sons. The
eldest son married an heiress, and had only one daughter. The
second son married a co-heiress, and had no issue by her.
However, she died, and he married again, and left four sons.
The third son of the first Earl had male issue.
Trevor, ist Lord (1711). Married first a co-heiress, and had two
sons and three daughters. Both of the sons married, but they
had only one daughter each. Lord Trevor married again, and
had three sons, of whom one died young, and the other two,
though they married, left no issue at all.
Wedderburn, ist Lord Loughborough and Earl of Rosslyn (1801).
Married an heiress for his first wife, and had no issue at all.
He married again, somewhat late in life, and had no issue. So
the direct male line is extinct.
Yorke, ist Earl of Hardwicke (1754). Is numerously represented,
though two of his lines of descent have failed, in one of which
there was a marriage with a co-heiress.
THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE.
135
The result of all these facts is exceedingly striking.
It is : —
1st. That out of the thirty-one peerages, there were no
less than seventeen in which the hereditary influence of an
heiress dr co-heiress affected the first or second generation.
That this influence was sensibly an agent in producing
sterility in sixteen out of these seventeen peerages, and
the influence was sometimes shown in two, three, or more
cases in one peerage.
2d. That the direct male line of no less than eight
peerages, viz. Colpepper, Harcourt, Northington, Claren¬
don, Jeffreys, Raymond, Trevor, and Rosslyn, were actually
extinguished through the influence of the heiresses, and
that six others, viz. Shaftesbury, Cowper, Guilford, Parker,
Camden, and Talbot, had very narrow escapes from ex¬
tinction, owing to the same cause. I literally have only
one case, that of Lord Kenyon, where the race-destroying
influence of heiress-blood was not felt.
3d. Out of the twelve peerages that have failed in the
direct male line, no less than eight failures are accounted
for by heiress-marriages.
Now, what of the four that remain ? Lords Somers and
Thurlow both died unmarried. Lord Alvanley had only
two sons, of whom one died unmarried. There is only his
case and that of the Earl of Mansfield, out of the ten
who married and whose titles have since become extinct,
where the extinction may not be accounted for by heiress-
marriages. No one can therefore maintain, with any show
of reason, that there are grounds for imputing exceptional
sterility to the race of judges The facts, when carefully
analysed, point very strongly in the opposite direction.
I will now treat the Statesmen of George III. and the
Premiers since the accession of George III. down to recent
times, in the same way as I have treated the Judges; in¬
cluding, however, only those whose pedigrees I can easily
13^
ENGLISH PEERAGES ,
find, namely, such as were peers or nearly related to peers.
There are twenty-two of these names. I find that fourteen
have left no male descendants, and that seven of those
fourteen peers or their sons have married heiresses — namely,
Canning-, Castlereagh, Lord Grenville, George Grenville,
Lord Holland, Lord Stowell, and Walpole (the first Earl
of Orford). On the other hand, I find only three cases of
peers marrying heiresses without failure of issue, — namely,
Addington (Lord Sidmouth), the Marquis of Bute, and the
Duke of Grafton.
The seven whose male line became extinct from other
causes are Bolingbroke, Earl Chatham, Lord Liverpool,
Earl St. Vincent, Earl Nelson, William Pitt (unmarried),
and the Marquess of Wellesley (who left illegitimate issue).
The remaining five required to complete the twenty-two
cases are the Duke of Bedford, Dundas (Viscount Melville),
Perceval, Romilly, and Wilberforce. None of these were
allied or descended from heiress-blood, and they have all
left descendants.
I append to this summary the history of the heiress-
marriages, to correspond with what has already been given
in respect to the Judges.
Bute, Marquess of. Married a co-heiress, but had a large family.
Canning, George. Married an heiress, and had three sons and
one daughter. The eldest died young; the second was drowned
in youth; and the third, who was the late Earl Canning, married
a co-heiress, and had no issue : so the line is extinct.
Castlereagh, Viscount. Married a co-heiress, and had neither son
nor daughter ; so the line became extinct.
Grafton, Duke of. Married an heiress, and had two sons and
one daughter. By a second wife he had a larger family.
Grenville, Lord. Had three sons and four daughters. The eldest
son married an heiress, and had no male grandchildren ; the
second was apparently unmarried ; the third was George Gren¬
ville (Premier) : he married, but was issueless ; so the line is
extinct.
THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE .
1 37
Holland, Lord. Had one son and one daughter. The son married
an heiress, and had only one son and one daughter. That son
died issueless ; so the male line is extinct.
Rockingham, 2d Marquis. Married an heiress, and had no issue ;
so the title became extinct.
Sidmouth, Viscount (Addington). Was son of an heiress, and he
had only one son and four daughters. The son had numerous
descendants.
Stowell, Lord. Married a co-heiress. He had only one son, who
died unmarried, and one daughter ; so the male line is extinct.
Walpole, 1 st Earl of Orford. Had three sons and two daughters.
The eldest son married an heiress, and had only one son, who
died unmarried. The second and third sons died unmarried ;
so the male line is extinct.
The important result disclosed by these facts, that 'inter¬
marriage with heiresses is a notable agent in the extinction
of families, is confirmed by more extended inquiries. I
devoted some days to ransacking Burke’s volumes on the
extant and on the extinct peerages. I first tried the
marriages made by the second peers of each extant title.
It seemed reasonable to expect that the eldest son of the
first peer, the founder of the title, would marry heiresses
pretty frequently ; and so they do, and with terrible destruc¬
tion to their race. I examined one-seventh part of the
peerage. Leaving out co-heiresses — for I shall weary the
reader if I refine overmuch — the following were the results :
No. of cases.
1 Abingdon, 2d Earl; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue.
2 Aldborough, 2d Earl; married two heiresses. No issue.
1 Annesley, 2d Earl ; wife and mother both heiresses. 3 sons and 2 daughters.
1 Arran, 2d Earl ; wife and mother both heiresses. 4 sons and 3 daughters.
I (His son, the 3d Earl, married an heiress, and had no issue.)
1 Ashburnham, 2d Baron; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue.
1 (His brother succeeded as 3d Earl, and married an heiress ; by her no issue.)
1 Aylesford, 2d Earl ; wife heiress, mother co-heiress. 1 son and 3 daughters.
1 Barrington, 2d Viscount; wife and mother both heiresses. No issue.
2 Beaufort, 2d Duke ; marr. two heiresses. By one no issue ; by the other 2 sons.
1 Bedford, 2d Duke ; married heiress. 2 sons and 2 daughters.
1 Camden, 2d Earl ; wife and mother both heiresses. I son and 3 daughters.
14
1 38
ENGLISH PEERAGES,
Making a grand total of fourteen cases out of seventy
peers, resulting in eight instances of absolute sterility, and
in two instances of only one son.
I tried the question from another side, by taking the
marriages of the last peers and comparing the numbers
of the children when the mother was an heiress with those
when she was not. I took precautions to exclude from
the* latter all cases where the mother was a co-heiress, or
the father an only son. Also, since heiresses are not so
very common, I sometimes went back two or three gene¬
rations for an instance of an heiress-marriage. In this
way I took fifty cases of each. I give them below, having
first doubled the actual results, in order to turn them into
percentages : —
Number of sons
to each marriage.
100 Marriages of
EACH DESCRIPTION.
Number of cases in
which the mother
was an heiress.
Number of cases in
which the mother
was not an heiress.
O
22
^ 2 1
I
l6
IO
2
22
14
3
22
34
4
10
20
5
6
8
6
2
8
7
O
4
above
O
0
IOO
IOO
I find that among the wives of peers —
IOO who are heiresses have 208 sons and 206 daughters,
100 who are not heiresses have 336 sons and 284 daughters.
1 I fear I must have overlooked one or two sterile marriages ; otherwise
I cannot account for the smallness of this number.
THEIR INFLUENCE UPON RACE.
139
The table shows how exceedingly precarious must be
the line of a descent from an heiress, especially when
younger sons are not apt to marry. One-fifth of the
heiresses have no male children at all ; a full third have
not more than one child ; three-fifths have not more than
two. It has been the salvation of many families that the
husband outlived the heiress whom he first married, and
was able to leave issue by a second wife.
Every advancement in dignity is a fresh inducement to
the introduction of another heiress into the family. Con¬
sequently, dukes have a greater impregnation of heiress-
blood than earls, and dukedoms might be expected to be
more frequently extinguished than earldoms, and earldoms
to be more apt to go than baronies. Experience shows
this to be most decidedly the case. Sir Bernard Burke,
in his preface to the “ Extinct Peerages,” states that all
the English dukedoms created from the commencement
of the order down to the commencement of the reign of
Charles II. are gone, excepting three that are merged in
royalty, and that only eleven earldoms remain out of the
many created by the Normans, Plantagenets, and Tudors.
This concludes my statistics about the heiresses. I do
not care to go farther, because one ought to know some¬
thing more about their several histories before attempting
to arrive at very precise results in respect to their fertility.
An heiress is not always the sole child of a marriage con¬
tracted early in life and enduring for many years. She
may be the surviving child of a larger family, or the child
of a late marriage, or the parents may have early left her
an orphan. We ought also to consider the family of the
husband, whether he be a sole child, or one of a large
family. These matters would afford a very instructive field
of inquiry to those who cared to labour in it, but it falls
outside my line of work. The reason I have gone so far
is simply to show that, although many men of eminent
14-0
ENGLISH PEERAGES .
ability (I do not speak of illustrious or prodigious genius)
have not left descendants behind them, it is not because
they are sterile, but because they are apt to marry sterile
women, in order to obtain wealth to support the peerages
with which their merits have been rewarded. I look
upon the peerage as a disastrous institution, owing to its
destructive effects on our valuable races. The most
highly-gifted men are ennobled ; their elder sons are
tempted to marry heiresses, and their younger ones not
to marry at all, for these have not enough fortune to
support both a family and an aristocratical position. So
the side-shoots of the genealogical tree are hacked off,
and the leading shoot is blighted, and the breed is lost
for ever.
It is with much satisfaction that I have traced and, I
hope, finally disposed of the cause why families are apt
to become extinct in proportion to their dignity — chiefly
so, on account of my desire to show that able races are
not necessarily sterile, and secondarily because it may put
an end to the wild and ludicrous hypotheses that are
frequently started to account for their extinction.
CHAPTER IX.
COMMANDERS.
In times of prolonged war, when the reputation of a great
commander can alone be obtained, the profession of arms
affords a career that offers its full share of opportunities
to men of military genius. Promotion is quick, the demand
for able men is continuous, and very young officers have
frequent opportunities of showing their powers. Hence it
follows that the list of great commanders, notwithstanding
it is short, contains several of the most gifted men recorded
in history. They showed enormous superiority over their
contemporaries by excelling in many particulars. They
were foremost in their day, among statesmen and generals,
and their energy was prodigious. Many, when they were
mere striplings, were distinguished for political capacity.
In their early manhood, they bore the whole weight and
responsibility of government ; they animated armies and
nations with their spirit ; they became the champions of
great coalitions, and coerced millions of other men. by the
superior power of their own intellect and will.
I will run through a few of these names in the order in
which they will appear in the appendix to this chapter, to
show what giants in ability their acts prove them to have
been, and how great and original was the position they
occupied at ages when most youths are kept in the back¬
ground of general society, and hardly suffered to express
142
COMMANDERS.
opinions, much less to act, contrary to the prevailing
sentiments of the day.
Alexander the Great began his career of conquest at the
age of twenty, having previously spent four years at home
in the exercise of more or less sovereign power, with a
real statesmanlike capacity. His life’s work was over
set. 32. Bonaparte, the Emperor Napoleon I., was general
of the Italian army set. 26, and thenceforward carried
everything before him, whether in the field or in the State,
in rapid succession. He was made emperor set. 35, and
had lost Waterloo set. 46. Csesar, though he was prevented
by political hindrances from obtaining high office and from
commanding in the field till set. 42, was a man of the
greatest political promise as a youth ; nay, even as a boy.
Charlemagne began his wars set. 30. Charles XII. of
Sweden began his, set. 18; and the ability showed by him
at that early period of life was of the highest order.
Prince Eugene commanded the imperial army in Austria
set. 25. Gustavus Adolphus was as precocious in Avar and
statesmanship as his descendant Charles XII. Hannibal
and his family were remarkable for their youthful supe¬
riority. Many of them had obtained the highest commands,
and had become the terror of the Romans, before they
were what we call “of age.” The Nassau family are
equally noteworthy. When William the Silent was a mere
boy, he was the trusted confidant, even adviser, of tli£
Emperor Charles V. PI is son, the great general Maurice
of Nassau, was only eighteen when in chief command of
the Low Countries, then risen in arms against the Spaniards.
His grandson, Turenne, the gifted French general, and
his great-grandson, our William HI., were both of them
illustrious in early life. Marlborough was from 46 to 50
years of age during the period of his greatest success, but he
was treated much earlier as a man of high mark. Scipio
Africanus Major was only 24 when in chief command
COMMANDERS.
H3
in Spain against the Carthaginians. Wellington broke the
Mahratta power set. 35, and had won Waterloo aet. 46.
But though the profession of arms in time of prolonged
war affords ample opportunities to men of high military-
genius, it is otherwise in peace, or in short wars. The
army, in every country, is more directly under the influ¬
ence of the sovereign than any other institution. Guided
by the instinct of self-preservation, the patronage of the
army is always the last privilege that sovereigns are
disposed to yield to democratic demands. Hence it is,
that armies invariably suffer from those evils that are
inseparable from courtly patronage. Rank and political
services are apt to be weighed against military ability,
and incapable officers to occupy high places during periods
of peace. They may even be able to continue to fiil
their posts during short wars without creating a public
scandal ; nay, sometimes to carry away honours that
ought in justice to have been bestowed on their more
capable subordinates in rank.
It is therefore very necessary, in accepting the reputation
of a commander as a test of his gifts, to confine ourselves,
as I propose to do, to those commanders only whose
reputation has been tested by prolonged wars, or whose
ascendency over other men has been freely acknowledged.
There is a singular and curious condition of success in
the army and navy, quite independent of ability, that
deserves a few words. In order that a young man may
fight his way to the top of his profession, he must survive
many battles. But it so happens that men of equal
ability are not equally likely to escape shot free. Before
explaining why, let me remark that the danger of being
shot in battle is considerable. No less than seven of the
thirty-two commanders mentioned in my appendix, or
between one-quarter and one-fifth of them, perished in
that way ; they are Charles XII., Gustavus Adolphus, Sir
144
COMMANDERS .
Henry Lawrence, Sir John Moore, Nelson, Tromp, and
Turenne. (I may add, while talking of these things, though
it does not bear on my argument, that four others were
murdered, viz. Caesar, Coligny, Philip II. of Macedon, and
William the Silent ; and that two committed suicide, viz.
Lord Clive and Hannibal. In short, 40 per cent, of the
whole number died by violent deaths.)
There is a principle of natural selection in an enemy’s
bullets which bears more heavily against large than against
small men. Large men are more likely to be hit. I cal¬
culate that the chance of a man being accidentally shot is
as the square root of the product of his height multiplied
into his weight that where a man of 16 stone in weight,
and 6 feet 2\ inches high, will escape from chance shots for
two years, a man of 8 stone in weight and 5 feet 6 inches
high, would escape for three. But the total proportion of
the risk run by the large man, is, I believe, considerably
greater. He is conspicuous from his size, and is therefore
more likely to be recognised and made the object of a
special aim. It is also in human nature, that the shooter
should pick out the largest man, just as he would pick out
the largest bird in a covey, or antelope in a herd. Again,
of two men who are aimed at, the bigger is the more likely
to be hit, as affording a larger target. This chance is a
trifle less than the ratio of his increased sectional area, for
it is subject to the law discussed in p. 28, though we are
unable to calculate the decrease, from our ignorance of
1 The chance of a man being struck by accidental shots is in proportion to
his sectional area — that is, to his shadow on a neighbouring wall cast by a
distant light ; or to his height multiplied into his average breadth. However, •
it is equally easy and more convenient to calculate from the better known data
of his height and weight. One man differs from another in being more or less
tall, and more or less thick-set. It is unnecessary to consider depth (of chest,
for example) as well as width, for the two go together. Let h — a man’s
height, w = his weight, b = his average breadth taken in any direction we
please, but it must be in the same direction for all. Then his weight, w, varies
as hlr, and his sectional area varies as kb, or as \!7i x hb 2, or as \0i w.
COMMANDERS .
M5
the average distance of the enemy and the closeness of
his fire. At long distances, and when the shooting was
wild, the decrease would be insensible ; at comparatively
clcse ranges it would be unimportant, for even the sums of
A and B, p. 34, are only about one-fifth more than 2 A.
(In the last column of the table 77 + 48 = 125 is only 21,
or about one-fifth more than 2 x 48 = 96.) As a matter
of fact, commanders are very frequently the objects of
special aim. I ( remember, when Soult visited England,
that a story appeared in the newspapers, of some English
veteran having declared that the hero must have lived
a charmed life, for he had “ covered ” him with his rifle
(I think my memory does not deceive me) upwards of
thirty times, and yet had never the fortune to hit him.
Nelson was killed by one of many shots aimed directly
at him, by a rifleman in the maintop of the French vessel
with which his own was closely engaged.
The total relative chances against being shot in battle,
of two men of the respective heights and weights I have
described, are as 3 to 2 in favour of the smaller man in
respect to accidental shots, and in a decidedly more
favourable proportion in respect to direct aim ; the latter
chance being compounded of the two following, — first, a
better hope of not being aimed at, and secondly, a hope
very little less than 3 to 2, of not being hit when made
the object of an aim.
This is really an important consideration. Had Nelson
been a large man, instead of a mere feather-weight, the
probability is that he would not have survived so long.
Let us for a moment consider the extraordinary dangers
he survived. Leaving out of consideration the early part
of his active service, which was only occasionally hazardous,
as also the long interval of peace that followed it, we find
him, set. 35, engaged in active warfare with the French,
when, through his energy at Bastia and Calvi, his name
146
COMMANDERS.
became dreaded throughout the Mediterranean. Alt. 37,
he obtained great renown from his share in the battle of
St. Vincent. He was afterwards under severe fire at Cadiz,
also at Teneriffe where he lost an arm by a cannon-shot.
He then received a pension of ^1,000 a year. The memo¬
rial which he was required to present on this occasion,
stated that he had been in action one hundred and twenty
times, and speaks of other severe wounds besides the loss
of his arm and eye. Alt. 40, he gained the victory of the
Nile, where the contest was most bloody. He thereupon
was created Baron Nelson with a pension of ^3,000 a year,
and received the thanks of Parliament ; he was also made
Duke of Bronte by the King of Naples, and he became
idolized in England. Alt. 43, he was engaged in the severe
battle of Copenhagen, and aet. 47 was shot at Trafalgar.
Thus his active career extended through twelve years,
during the earlier part of which he was much more fre¬
quently under fire than afterwards. Had he only lived
through two-thirds, or even three-fourths, of his battles, he
could not have commanded at the Nile, Copenhagen, or
Trafalgar. Elis reputation under those circumstances would
have been limited to that of a dashing captain or a young
and promising admiral. Wellington was a small man ; if
he had been shot in the Peninsula, his reputation, though
it would have undoubtedly been very great, would have
lost the lustre of Waterloo. In short, to have survived
is an essential condition to becoming a famed commander ;
yet persons equally endowed with military gifts — such as
the requisite form of high intellectual and moral ability
and of constitutional vigour — are by no means equally
qualified to escape shot free. The enemy’s bullets are
least dangerous to the smallest men, and therefore small
men are more likely to achieve high fame as commanders
than their equally gifted contemporaries whose physical
frames are larger.
COMMANDERS .
147
I now give tables on precisely the same principle as
those in previous chapters.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 32 COMMANDERS,
GROUPED INTO 27 (or P241) FAMILIES.
One relation ( or two in family).
Berwick, Duke (see Marlborough).
Doria . N. &c.
Ilyder Ali . S.
Lawrence, Sir H. . . . B.
Pyrrhus ( see Alexander).
Titus .
Tromp .
F,
S.
7 wo or three relations (or three or four in family).
Charlemagne & Chas.
G. GF.
Eugene .
gB. g N.
Martel ....
F.
2. Marlborough and
•
Charles Martel (see
Duke of Berwick
n. UP.
Charlemagne).
Moore, Sir John . .
F. B.
Clive .
GB. GN.
Nelson .
«P. £U.
Coligny (but see
Runjeet Singh . .
G. F.
Maurice) . . .
F.
u. pP.
Saxe, Marshal . .
F. u. px.
Cromwell ....
S.
uS. «P.
Wellington . . .
B. 2 N.
Four or more relations (or five or more in family).
3. Alexander, Philip, and Pyrrhus . . .
Bonaparte .
Csesar .
Charles XII. (see Gustavus Adolphus).
2. Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII. .
Hannibal .
(? 4). Maurice of Nassau, William the Silent,
Coligny, and Turenne . . . . .
Napier .
Napoleon (see Bonaparte).
Philip and Pyrrhus (see Alexander).
Raleigh .
Scipio ...........
Turenne (but see Maurice) .
William I. (but see Maurice) . . . .
F. / B. N. gBP.
f. B. b. S. 2 N.
s. f. n. ;;S.
j. GF. G b. NP.
F. 3B.
F. g. n. NS.
GGF. F. uS. 2 B. n. US. &c.
3 B. 2 uS.
F. G. 2 S. 2 P. GN.
F. &c.
2 S. P. PS.
1 Coligny, Maurice, Turenne, and William I. are impossible either to separate
or to reckon as one family. If they were considered as only one family, the
number of groups would be reduced from 27 to 24.
148
COMMANDERS.
TABLE II.1
Degrees of Kinship.
A.
B.
c.
D.
N ame of the degree.
Corresponding letters.
Father ....
12 F.
• ••
• ••
• ••
12
47
100
47.0
Brother ....
13 B.
...
• ••
• ••
13
50
150
33-3
Son .
8 S.
• ••
• ••
• ••
8
3i
100
32.0
Grandfather . . .
sG.
1 g-
• ••
• ••
4
l6
200
8.0
Uncle .
oU.
2 U.
• ••
• ••
2
8
400
2.0
Nephew ....
6 N.
3 n.
...
...
9
35
400
9.0
Grandson ....
3P.
op.
...
...
3
12
200
6.0
Great-grandfather .
2 GF.
0 gF.
0 GF.
o^F.
2
8
400
2.0
Great-uncle . . .
1 GB.
1 gB.
0 GB.
o^B.
2
8
800
1.0
First-cousin . . .
1 us.
2 uS.
1 US.
1 x*S.
5
20
800
2.5
Great-nephew . .
1 NS.
0 nS.
oNS.
x «S.
2
8
800
1.0
Great-grandson . .
0 PS.
0 pS.
0 PS.
0 / >S .
O
O
400
0.0
All more remote .
II
•••
• ••
...
...
44
...
...
Precisely similar conclusions are to be drawn from these
tables, as from those I have already given ; but they make
my case much stronger than before.
I argue that the more able the man, the more numerous
ought his able kinsmen to be. That, in short, the names in
the third section of Table I. should, on the whole, be those
of men *of greater weight, than are included in the first
section. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is the
fact. But the table shows more. Its third section is pro¬
portionally longer than it was in the Statesmen, and it was
longer in these than in the Judges. Now, the average
natural gifts of the different groups are apportioned in
precisely the same order. The Commanders are more
able than the Statesmen, and the Statesmen more able
than the Judges. Consequently, comparing the three
groups together, we find the abler men to have, on the
average, the larger number of able kinsmen. Similarly,
the proportion borne by those Commanders who have
1 For explanation, see similar table, p. 61.
COMMANDERS.
149
any eminent relations at all, to those who have not, is
much greater than it is in Statesmen ; and in these, much
greater than in the Judges.
Their peculiar type of ability is largely transmitted.
My limited list of Commanders contains several notable
families of generals. That of William the Silent is a most
illustrious family, and I must say, that in at least two out
of his four wives — namely, the daughter of the Elector of
Saxony and that of the great Coligny — he could not
have married more discreetly. To have had Maurice of
Nassau for a son, Turenne for a grandson, and our
William III. for a great-grandson, is a marvellous instance
of hereditary gifts. Another most illustrious family is
that of Charlemagne. First, Pepin de Heristhal, virtual
sovereign of France; then his son, Charles Martel, who
drove back the Saracenic invasion that had overspread
the half of France ; then his grandson, Pepin le Bref, the
founder of the Carlovingian dynasty ; and lastly, his great-
grandson, Charlemagne, founder of the Germanic Empire.
The three that come last, if not the whole of the four,
were of the very highest rank as leaders of men.
Another yet more illustrious family is that of Alexander,
including Philip of Macedon, the Ptolemys, and his second
cousin, Pyrrhus. I acknowledge the latter to be a far-off
relation, but Pyrrhus so nearly resembled Alexander in
character, that I am entitled to claim his gifts as hereditary.
Another family is that of Hannibal, his father and his
brothers ; again, there is that of the Scipios ; also the in¬
teresting near relationship between Marlborough and the
Duke of Berwick. Raleigh’s kinships are exceedingly
appropriate to my argument, as affording excellent in¬
stances of hereditary special aptitudes. I have spoken in
the last chapter about Wellington and the Marquess of
Wellesley, so I need not repeat myself here. Of Com¬
manders of high but not equally illustrious stamp, I should
150
COMMANDERS.
mention the family of Napier, of Lawrence, and the
singular naval race of Hyde Parker. There were five
brothers Grant, all highly distinguished in Wellington’s
campaigns. I may as well mention, that though I know
too little about the great Asiatic warriors, Genghis Khan
and Timurlane, to insert them in my appendix, yet they
are doubly though very distantly interrelated.
The distribution of ability among the different degrees
of kinship, will be seen to follow much the same order that
it did in the Statesmen and in the Judges
APPENDIX TO COMMANDERS.
List of Commanders that have been examined.
Those printed in Italics are included in my Dictionary of Kinships. They are
32 in number ; the remaining 27 are by no means wholly destitute of gifted
relations.
Alexander. Baber. Belisarius. Berivick, Duke of. Blake. Blucher.
Bonaparte. Cccsar. Charlemagne. Charles Martel. Charles XII. Clive.
Coligny. Conde. Cromwell. Cyrus the elder. Dandolo. Doria. Dun-
donald, Lord. Eugene , Prince. Frederick the Great. Genghis Khan.
Gustavus Adolphus. Hannibal. Henri IV. Ilyder Ali. Lawrence , Sir II.
Mahomet Ali. Marius. Massena. Maurice of Nassau. Marlborough.
Miltiades. Moore, Sir f. Moreau. Napier, Sir Charles. {Napoleon, see
Bonaparte .) Nelson. Peter the Great. Pericles. Philip of Macedon.
Pompey. PyrrJms. Raleigh. Runjeet Singh. Saladin. Saxe, Marshal.
Schomberg. Scipio Africanus. Soult. Themistocles. Timurlane. Titus.
Trajan. Tromp Marten. Turenne. Wallenstein. Wellington. William I
of Orange. Wolfe.
Alexander the Great. Is commonly reputed to be the com¬
mander of the greatest genius that the world has produced.
When only tet. 16 he showed extraordinary judgment in
public affairs, having governed Macedonia during the
absence of his father. He succeeded to the throne, and
began his great career of conquest cet. 20, and died cet. 32.
Living as he did in a time when the marriage tie was
loose, there necessarily exists some doubt as to his re-
COMMANDERS.
IS*
lationships. However, his reputed relationships are of a
very high order. He inherited much of the natural dispo¬
sition of both of his parents ; the cool forethought and
practical wisdom of his father, and the ardent enthusiasm
and ungovernable passions of his mother.
He had four wives, but only one son, a posthumous child,
who was murdered set. 12.
F. Philip II. of Macedonia, an illustrious general and states¬
man, who created and organized an army that was held
together by a system of discipline previously unknown,
and kept the whole of Greece in check. JEt. 24 he had
shown his cool forethought and practical skill in delivering
himself from embarrassing political difficulties. He had
a robust frame, a noble and commanding presence, a ready
eloquence, and dexterity in the management of men and
things. Cicero praises him for having been “always great.”
He keenly enjoyed the animal pleasures of life. He was
murdered set. 47.
f Olympias, ardent in her enthusiasms, ungovernable in her
passions, ever scheming and intriguing. She suffered death
like a heroine.
B. (Half-brother.) Ptolemy Soter I. He became the first king
of Egypt after Alexander’s death, and was the son of
Philip II. by Arsinoe. Alexander rated him very highly.
He was very brave, and had all the qualities of an able
and judicious general. He was also given to literature,
and he patronised learned men. He had twelve descend¬
ants, who became kings of Egypt, who were all called
Ptolemy, and who nearly all resembled one another in
features, in statesmanlike ability, in love of letters, and
in their voluptuous dispositions. This race of Ptolemys
is at first sight exceedingly interesting, on account of the
extraordinary number of their close intermarriages. They
• were matched in and in like prize cattle ; but these near
marriages were unprolific — the inheritance mostly passed
through other wives. Indicating the Ptolemys by numbers,
according to the order of their succession, II. married his
niece, and afterwards his sister ; IV. his sister ; VI. and
VII. were brothers, and they both consecutively married
the same sister — VII. also subsequently married his niece ;
/ 52
COMMANDERS.
VIII. married two of bis own sisters consecutively ; XII.
and XIII. were brothers, and both consecutively married
their sister, the famous Cleopatra.
Thus there are no less than nine cases of close intermarriages
distributed among the thirteen Ptolemys. However, when
we put them, as below, into the form of a genealogical
tree, we shall clearly see that the main line of descent was
untouched by these intermarriages, except in the two cases
of III. and of VIII. The personal beauty and vigour of
Cleopatra, the last of the race, cannot therefore be justly
quoted in disproof of the evil effects of close breeding.
On the contrary, the result of Ptolemaic experience was
distinctly to show that intermarriages are followed by
sterility.
Genealogical Tree of the Ptolemys.
I.
I
Niece. = II. = Sister.
I 1
III. 6
i
IV.
I
V.
I
VI. = Sister. = VII. = To his niece (doubly).
Dan. marr. I son. VIII. = Also to his 2 sisters,
to her uncle,
and mother of VIII. XI. °
XII. = Cleopatra. = XIII. (a mere boy).
i i
Surnames of the Ptolemys.
I. Soter.
II. Philadelphus.
III. Euergetes.
IV. Philopator.
V. Epiphanes.
VI. Philometor.
VII. Euergetes II. (Physon.)
VIII. Soter II.
IX. Alexander.
X. Alexander II.
XI. Auletes.
XII. Dionysus.
XIII. Murdered when a boy.
N. (Half-nephew.) Ptolemy Philadelphus, a man of feeble and
sickly constitution, but of great ability and energy. He
. cleared Egypt of marauding bands. He was the first to
COMMANDERS.
153
tame African elephants, the elephants previously used in
Egypt having been invariably imported from India. He
founded the city Ptolemais, on the borders of Ethiopia,
expressly to receive the captured African elephants, for
the purpose of training them. He recommenced the old
Egyptian enterprise of the Isthmus of Suez canal, sent
voyages of discovery down the Red Sea, founded the
Alexandrian library and caused the Septuagint translation
of the Bible to be made. With all this intelligence and
energy, he had, as we have before said, a feeble and
sickly constitution, and the life he led was that of a refined
voluptuary.
[NS.] Ptolemy Euergetes. Was by no means his father’s equal
in virtue and ability ; but he was scarcely less celebrated
for his patronage of literature and science.
gBP. Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, the famous general. (I am not
sure of the second of these letters, whether B or b.) He
was one of the greatest commanders that ever lived, and
might have become the most powerful monarch of his day
if he had had perseverance. The links that connected
him in blood with Alexander appear to have mostly been
of a remarkable character, but hardly deserving of special
record here. The character of Pyrrhus resembled that of
Alexander, whom he also took as his model from an early
age, being fired with the ambition of imitating his exploits.
Berwick, James Fitzjames, Duke of. One of the most distin¬
guished commanders of the reign of Louis XIV. He was
the illegitimate son of James II. by Arabella Churchill,
and became commander-in-chief of his father’s Irish army.
He accompanied James II. into exile, and entered the
French service, where he obtained great distinction, espe¬
cially in the war of the Spanish succession. He was then
made lieutenant-general of the French armies, and created
a Spanish grandee.
u. John Churchill, the great Duke of Marlborough. See.
Bonaparte, Napoleon I. His extraordinary powers did not
show themselves in boyhood. He was a taciturn lad. The
annual report of the Inspector-General of Schools, made
when Bonaparte was aet. 15, describes him as “Distin¬
guished in mathematical studies, tolerably versed in history
154
COMMANDERS.
and geography, much behind in his Latin and belles-
lettres and other accomplishments, of regular habits,
studious and well-behaved, and enjoying excellent health”
(Bourienne). He first distinguished himself, set. 24, at the
siege of Toulon. Became general of the army of Italy,
when it was in a disorganized condition, set. 26 ; and
thenceforward began his almost uninterrupted career of
victory. He was emperor, set. 35 ; was vanquished at
Waterloo, set. 46 ; and died at St. Helena six years after.
Among the more remarkable qualities of this extraordinary
man were a prodigious memory and intellectual restless¬
ness. His vigour was enormous.
There are so many considerable persons in the Bonaparte
family, while at the same time some of these have been so
helped and others so restrained by political circumstances,
that it is very difficult to indicate which should be and
which should not be selected as instances of hereditary
genius. I will give a genealogical tree of the family
(p. 155), and shall assume the ratio of hereditary influence
to be —
/, B., R, S., and 2 N.
Lucien, Eliza, and Louis were very gifted persons, and others
of the brothers and sisters of Napoleon I. were certainly
above the average. There are members of the family yet
alive, including the Cardinal at Rome, who may have high
political parts to play.
Caesar, Julius ; Dictator of Rome. Was not only a general of
the highest order and a statesman, but also an orator and
man of letters. He gave the greatest promise, even when
a boy, and was remarkable in his youth for his judgment,
literary ability, and oratorical powers. Owing to the dis¬
turbed state of Roman politics, he did not become consul
till aet. 41, nor begin his military career till aet. 42.
Thenceforward he had unbroken success for fourteen years.
He was assassinated aet. 56. He must be considered as
a peculiarly profligate man, even when his character is
measured by the low standard of the time in which he
lived. He had no brothers, only two sisters. He was married
four times, and had one illegitimate son, by Cleopatra,
called Caesarion, whom Augustus caused to be executed
COMMANDERS.
155
GENEALOGY OF THE BONAPARTE FAMILY.
Carlo Bonaparte,
a Corsican judge.
Letitia Namolini,
known as “ Madame
la Mere.” Was a
heroine by nature, and
one of the most beau¬
tiful young women of
her day. She followed
her husband in all his
journeys through the
then dangerously dis¬
turbed island. She
was firm and un¬
daunted. Afterwards
she became “ a pale
but earnest woman,
who, after speaking
of anything that inte¬
rested her deeply, sat
with compressed lips
and wide-open eyes,
an image of firmness
of purpose combined
with depth of feeling ”
( Duchesse d’Abrantes).
Napoleon esteemed
her highly.
I. Joseph, King of Na¬
ples and then of
Spain ;
m. Julia Clary.
Daughters.
1. King of Rome, but
now styled Napoleon
II. ; a consumptive
youth, d. set. 20.
2. Count Walewski (ille¬
gitimate) ; eminent
diplomatist; French
ambassador in Eng¬
land.
2. Napoleon I. ;
m. twice.
1
3. Lucien, Prince de Ca- 1. Charles Lucien.
nino ; v 2. Prince Louis ; philo-
m. twice. J logist.
4. Eliza, Princess Piom-
bino and Lucca ;
“ the Italian Se- Napoleon Eliza,
miramis
m. Baciocchi.
5. Louis, King of Hol¬
land ;
m. Hortense Beau-
harnais.
1. Napoleon Ch.
2. Charles Napoleon.
3. Louis, Napoleon III.
6. Marie Pauline ; >
m. 1. Genl. Leclerc.
2. Prince Camillo (
Borgliese. J
7. Jerome, King of West- >
phalia ; President
of State Council
under Napoleon
III. ;
in. Princess of Wur-
temburg. '
No children.
1. Princess Mathilde ;
in. Prince Demidoff.
2. Prince Napoleon ;
m. Clothilde, dau. of
King of Italy.
8. Caroline ;
m. Murat, King of
Naples.
Lucien Napoleon Murat.
COMMANDERS.
156
while still a boy, for political reasons ; also one daughter,
as follows —
r. Julia, married to Pompey, and greatly beloved by him
(though the marriage was merely made up for political
reasons) and by the whole nation. She was singularly
endowed with ability, virtue, and beauty. Died prema¬
turely, four years after her marriage, from the shock of
a serious alarm, when she was advanced in pregnancy.
/. Aurelia : Seems to have been no ordinary woman ; she care¬
fully watched over the education of her children, and Caesar
always treated her with the greatest affection and respect.
n. Atia, the mother of Augustus, who carefully tended his edu¬
cation, and who is classed along with Cornelia, the mother
of the Gracchi, and Aurelia, the mother of Caesar.
7/S. Augustus Caesar, 1st Emperor of Rome. The public opinion
of his own time considered him to be an excellent prince
and statesman. Pie was adopted by Caesar, who rated
him very highly, and devoted much time out of his busy
life to his education. He had great caution and modera¬
tion. Was very successful as a general in early life, after
the death of Julius Caesar. Married three wives, but left
only one daughter.
U. Sex. Julius Caesar; Consul, b.c. 91.
?. Mark Antony. His mother belonged to the family of Julius
Caesar, but in what degree she was connected with it is
unknown.
(Caius Marius, the general, married the aunt (//.) of Julius
Caesar, but had no children by her : Marius the younger,
who had much of the character and ability of Caius, being
only an adopted son.)
Charlemagne, founder of the Germanic Empire and a great
general. Began his wars aet. 30; died aet. 72. Was an
eminent legislator and great patron of learning. Had very
many children, including Louis le Debonnaire, both legi¬
timate and illegitimate.
GF. Pepin le Gros (de Heristhal), general of distinction. He
’ put an end to the Merovingian dynasty, and was virtual
sovereign of France.
G. Charles Martel. See below.
F. Pepin le Bref, the first of the Carlovingian kings of France.
COMMANDERS.
157
Charles Martel. Ancestor of the Carlovingian race of kings
of France. Victor over the Saracens in the great and
decisive battle between Tours and Poictiers.
F. Pepin le Gros. See paragraph above.
S. Pepin, the first of the Carlovingian kings of France.
P. Charlemagne. See above.
Charles XII. of Sweden. See under Gustavus Adolphus.
Clive, 1st Lord; Governor-General of India. “A heaven-born
general, who, without experience, surpassed all the officers
of his time” (Lord Chatham). Victorious at Plassy set. 32.
Committed suicide set. 49.
GB. Sir G. Clive, Judge, Curs. B. Exch. (Geo. II.)
GN. Sir E. Clive, Judge, Just. C. P. (Geo. III.)
Coligny, Gaspard de ; French admiral, general, and statesman.
Famous Huguenot leader. Perished at the Massacre of
St. Bartholomew.
F. Gaspard de Coligny, Marshal of France ; distinguished in
the Italian wars of Charles VIII., Louis XL, and Francis I.
u. Due de Montmorency, Marshal and Constable of France.
The most illustrious member of a great French family.
He was illiterate, but, owing to his natural ability and large
experience, became a most able counsellor and statesman.
pP. William III. of England. See pedigree under Maurice.
Cromwell, Oliver; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth.
£7S. Hampden the patriot, whom Lord Clarendon speaks of
as having “ a head to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and
a heart to execute any mischief ;” — this word “mischief”
meaning, of course, antagonism to the King.
Up. Edmund Waller, the poet, a man of very considerable
abilities both in parliamentary eloquence and in poetry,
but he was not over-steadfast in principle. He was n. to
Hampden.
S. Henry ; behaved with gallantry in the army, and acted
with much distinction in Ireland as Lord Deputy.
He had one other son, and four daughters, who married
able men, but their descendants were not remarkable.
Doria, Andrea ; naval commander and illustrious statesman.
He drove the French from Genoa, and was entitled by
the Genoese Senate “The father and saviour of their
country.” Famous for his victories ever the corsairs of
8
158
COMMANDERS.
N.
the Mediterranean. He was set. 85 at his last battle. He
was of a younger branch of the great Doria family, very
many of whom are highly distinguished in Italian history.
He had no children. Died aet. 94.
Fillipino Doria, who succeeded him as admiral, and obtained
an important victory over the French.
Eugene, Prince; Austrian general and statesman. Colleague of
Marlborough ; victor over the Turks. He was intended
for the Church, but showed a decided preference for arms.
He had eminent bravery and ability, and great physical
strength. His qualities and birth ensured him such rapid
promotion that he commanded the Austrian imperial army
in Piedmont set. 25. Napoleon ranked him in generalship
along with Turenne and Frederick the Great.
gB. Cardinal Mazarin, the great minister during the minority of
Louis XIV.
g N. Hortense Mancini, the accomplished and beautiful Duchess
of Mazarin, and married to the Duke de la Meilleraie.
She was greatly admired in England, where she died 1699.
Gustavus Adolphus. Not only a very eminent general and-
statesman, but also a patron of science and literature. He
succeeded to the throne set. 17, and immediately afterwards
distinguished himself in war. He became the head of the
German Protestant cause. He was shot in battle, at
Lutzen, set. 38.
s. Christina, Queen of Sweden ; his only child. She was a
woman of high ability, but of masculine habits, and very
eccentric. She was a great admirer of Alexander the
Great. She attracted to her court many eminent European
philosophers and scholars, including Grotius, Descartes,
and Vossius. She became
Roman Catholic, and abdi¬
cated the crown in a fit of
caprice, but endeavoured, un¬
successfully, after some years,
to resume it.
There was much ability and . .
„ , Christina. X
eccentricity in the Swedish
royal family, scattered over *
several generations. Thus Charles XII
Gustavus Vasa.
I -
X
Cecilia.
Gustavus Adolphus.
X
COMMANDERS.
iS9
Gustavus Vasa, his daughter Cecilia, and, in a much lower
generation, Charles XII., were all of them very remarkable
and, in many respects, very similar characters. The con¬
nexion between them is easily seen in the table above.
I will now describe them in order.
GF. Gustavus Vasa, though proscribed and an outcast, yet, aet.
31, succeeded in uniting the Swedes to expel the Danes,
and became the founder of the Swedish dynasty.
G b. Cecilia his daughter, who was “a very prototype of the
wayward and eccentric Christina ; had an intense longing
to travel, and imitate the far-famed example of the Queen
of Sheba.” She went to England with her husband, where
she got frightfully into debt. She died aet. 87, after leading
a rambling and dissolute life. (Introduction to “ England
as seen by Foreigners,” by W. B. Rye, 1865.)
NP. Charles XII. Showed great self-will and remarkable fond¬
ness for military exercises from his earliest youth. He
had a great desire to emulate Alexander. Succeeded to
the throne aet. 15 ; begun his wars, aet. 18, with Russia,
Denmark, and Poland, defeating them all in turn. He
had great courage and constitutional power ; was obstinate,
rash, and cruel (his father, Charles XI., was also obstinate,
harsh, and despotic). He was killed in battle act. 37.
Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general. He was entrusted
with high command aet. 18, and had become illustrious
aet. 26. He led his Carthaginian army, with its troops
of elephants, from Spain across France and the Alps.
Descending into Italy, he forced his way against the Roman
power, and at that immense distance from his base of
operations utterly defeated them at Cannae. He was after¬
wards defeated by them under Scipio in Africa. He
poisoned himself to avoid Roman vengeance, cet. 64.
F. Hamilcar Barca, “the Great;” commanded in Spain while
still a mere youth. Nothing is known of his ancestry.
B. Hasdrubal, a worthy rival of the fame of his father and
brother. He crossed the Alps subsequently to Hannibal,
and was at last defeated by the Romans and killed.
B. Mago, a good general, who co-operated with his brothers.
B. (Half-brother, son of Hannibal’s mother.) Hasdrubal, general
in Spain.
i6o
COMMANDERS .
Hyder Ali. The ablest and most formidable enemy of the
British power in India. He began life as a soldier of
fortune ; he rose to be prime minister, and then Sultan
of Mysore, set. 44.
S. Tippoo Saib. Less able than his father, but more ferocious,
and an equally determined enemy of England ; killed in
battle at Seringapatam.
Lawrence, Sir Henry; Governor of Oude ; a man of high
military and administrative genius ; the principal support
of the British rule at the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny ;
he defended Lucknow, and was killed there. He was
greatly beloved and eminently esteemed.
[F.] An officer of some distinction in India.
B. John, created Lord Lawrence, Governor-General of India;
excellent administrator ; was one of the principal saviours
of the British rule at the time of the Indian Mutiny.
Maurice of Nassau. One of the greatest captains of his age;
governed the Low Countries, set. 18, after his father’s
*
death, with great courage and talent ; defeated and drove
away the Spaniards in 1597, set. 30.
Montmorency, Due de,
Marshal of France;
great soldier and statesman.
1
O
Maurice,
Elector of Saxony ;
great general.
Coligny,G.de,
Marshal of
France.
William I.
of Nassau ;
illustrious states¬
man and general.
= 2d wife. = 3d wife.
Coligny, G. de,
admiral ; great soldier
and Huguenot leader.
I
= 4th wife.
Maurice,
greatest captain
of his age ;
Stadtholder.
dau. = Due de Bouillon,
able general
and Huguenot
leader.
Turenne,
ablest of French
pre-Napoleonic generals.
Fred. William,
Stadtholder.
X
William III. of England,
ablest of our kings.
F.
William the 1st of Nassau, “the Silent.” “ The guiding-star
of a great nation” (Motley). When ret. 15 he was the
intimate and almost confidential friend of Charles V. He
COMMANDERS .
161
became the fierce antagonist of Philip in defence of Pro¬
testantism, and finally, after vanquishing the Spaniards,
created the Union of Utrecht, the basis of the- Dutch
Republic. He was assassinated set. 51. He married four
times; was father of Maurice of Nassau, grandfather of
Turenne, and great-grandfather of our William III.
g. Maurice, Elector of Saxony ; great military genius,
n. (half-brother’s son.) Turenne, the great French general. See.
NS. William III., Stadtholder, and King of England. He was
an able general in Holland set. 22, and then, partly by
virtue of his marriage, became King of England, and was
the ablest monarch we ever possessed. He was cold and
taciturn, but singularly clear-sighted, steadfast, and coura¬
geous. He was a seven months’ child. Died cet. 52, from
an accident when riding.
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of. The ablest general
and most consummate statesman of his time. He in¬
variably distinguished himself in his early campaigns.
He attracted the notice of Turenne set. 22, who prophe¬
sied that his “ handsome Englishman ” would one day
prove himself a master of the art of war. He was
singularly cool in danger, and had more head than heart,
for he was selfish and calculating. He had one son, who
died very young, and four daughters,
a. James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick. See Berwick. “ A com¬
mander of renown, only less illustrious than his maternal
uncle.”
UP. Sir J. Churchill, Judge, M. R. (James II.)
Moore, Sir John. One of the most distinguished British officers
of modern times ; commanded the reserve of the British
army in Egypt, set. 40 ; was killed in battle at Corunna,
mt. 48. He was a man of chivalrous courage.
F. Dr. John Moore, a well-known miscellaneous writer, “Zeluco,”
&c. A man of high morals, shrewd in his remarks, and
of a caustic humour.
B. Admiral Sir Graham Moore, G.C.B., &c.
[S.] Captain John Moore, R.N. ; distinguished himself in com¬
mand of the Highflyer in the Crimean War, and was private
secretary to the Duke of Somerset when First Lord of the
Admiralty.
162
COMMANDERS .
Napier, Sir Charles; general; conqueror of Scinde. The most
eminent member of a very eminent military family.
GGF. Napier of Merchistoun, inventor of logarithms.
F. Colonel Napier; was himself cast in the true heroic
mould. He had uncommon powers of mind and body ;
had scientific tastes and ability ; was Superintendent of
Woolwich Laboratory and Comptroller of Army Accounts.
zzS. Right Hon. Charles James Fox, statesman and orator. See
Fox for his numerous gifted relatives.
B. General Sir William Napier, historian of the Peninsular War.
B. General Sir George Napier, Governor of the Cape; was
offered in 1849 the command of the Piedmontese army,
which he declined.
[2B.] There were two other brothers, Richard, Q.C., and Henry,
Captain, R.N., who might fairly be also adduced, as ex¬
amples of inherited genius.
UA. Admiral Sir Charles Napier; distinguished for gallantry in
his youth in the French War, afterwards in Portugal, then
at the Siege of Acre. When broken in health, he was
made Commander-in-Chief of the Baltic Fleet in the
Russian War.
Lord Napier, the diplomatist, is another able relative.
Mem. Lord Napier of Magdala is not a relative of this family.
Napoleon I. See Bonaparte.
Nelson, Lord ; admiral. The greatest naval hero of England.
He had neither a strong frame nor a hardy constitution
when a boy. He had won all his victories, and was
killed, jet. 47. His remarkable relationships are distant,
but worthy of record ; they are —
[g.] Maurice Suckling, D.D., Prebendary of Westminster.
z/P. Lord Cranworth, Lord Chancellor.
t§u. (Mother’s mother’s uncle.) Sir Robert Walpole. See.
Philip of Macedonia. See under Alexander.
S. Alexander the Great.
S. Ptolemy I. of Egypt. f See under Alexander.
P. Ptolemy Philadelphus. J
Pyrrhus.
GBp. Alexander the Great was his second cousin through
Alexander’s mother, but I am not informed of the
other links. See under Alexander.
COMMANDERS.
163
Raleigh, Sir Walter ; adventurous explorer and colonizer, also
statesman, courtier, and writer, as well as an eminent
commander by land and by sea.
B. (half-brother.) Sir Humphrey Gilbert, renowned navigator ;
proposer of the North-west passage to China. It was he
who took possession of Newfoundland. He was lost at sea.
2 B. John and Adrian Gilbert. “Sir Humphrey’s fame has
eclipsed that of his brothers John and Adrian, but all three
helped notably to make England what it is, and all were
fellow-workers in the colonization of North America ”
(Edwards’ “ Life of Raleigh ”).
uS. Henry Champernoun, leader of the band of English volun¬
teers to the Huguenot camp.
uS. Gawen Champernoun, engaged with Raleigh in later service
in the civil wars of France.
Runjeet Singh, founder of the Sikh empire. His father died
when he was still a boy ; and his mother, who was young
and handsome, did all she could to corrupt him, that he
might be unfit to rule when he grew to manhood : never¬
theless he entered, xt. 17, on a career of ambition, and
by set. 29 he had acquired large dominion. This energetic
man ruled for forty years in undisputed mastery over
numerous turbulent provinces, although his health was so
broken by excesses and low indulgence, act. 50, that he
could not stand without support. He retained authority
till his death in 1839, aet. 59.
G. Churruth Singh, from a low condition and a vagrant life,
became master of Sookur Chukea, in the Punjaub.
F. Maha Singh extended his father’s rule, and though he died
aet. 30, had carried on war with his neighbours for four¬
teen years, and, it is said, had commanded at one time
60,000 horsemen.
Saxe, Marshal; famous general under Louis XV. He was of
large size and extraordinary physical strength ; was distin¬
guished in bodily exercises from childhood. JE t. 12 he
ran away to join the army. In character he was exceed¬
ingly Don Juanesque. He was a well-practised commander,
who loved his profession, but his abilities were not of the
very highest order.
F. Augustus II., King of Poland (the Marshal being one of his
164 COMMANDERS.
numerous progeny of illegitimate sons). Augustus was
elected king out of many competitors, and though beaten
by Charles XII. was, nevertheless, a man of mark. He
was luxurious and licentious.
u. Count Koningsmarck was brother to Marshal Saxe’s beau¬
tiful but frail mother. He intrigued with the wife of
George I. of England, and was assassinated. Was a hand¬
some dashing man, always in gay adventures.
py. Madame Dudevant (Georges Sand), the French novelist.
Her grandmother was a natural daughter of Marshal Saxe.
Scipio, P. Cornelius; Africanus Major; conqueror of Hannibal,
and scholar. The greatest man of his age ; perhaps the
greatest of Rome, with the exception of Julius Caesar.
He was only 24 years old when appointed to the supreme
command of the Roman armies in Spain.
The Scipio family produced many great men, and to that
family Rome was largely indebted for obtaining the empire
of the world.
F. P. Cornelius Scipio ; a great general, but defeated by
Hannibal, and finally defeated and killed by the Cartha¬
ginian forces under Hasdrubal and Mago.
G. L. Cornelius Scipio ; drove the Carthaginians out of Cor¬
sica and Sardinia.
S. P. Corn. Sc. Africanus ; prevented by weak health from
taking part in public affairs, but Cicero remarks that with
the greatness of his fathers mind he possessed a larger
amount of learning.
His brother, L. Corn. S. Afr., is called “ a degenerate son
of his illustrious sire.”
S. Cornelia, who married Tiber. Sempr. Gracchus, was almost
idolized by the people. She inherited from her father
a love of literature, and united in her person the severe
virtues of the old Roman matron with the superior know¬
ledge, refinement, and civilization which then began to
prevail in the higher classes of Rome. Her letters were
extant in the time of Cicero, and were considered models
of composition.
2 P. Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, bold defenders of popular
rights ; famous for their eloquence and their virtues. Both
were assassinated.
COMMANDERS.
its
Scipio, P. Cornelius, continued —
GN. Scipio Nasica, the jurist.
Mem. P. Corn. Sc. HCmilianus, Africanus Minor, was not
of Scipio blood, but was cousin by the mother’s side
of P. Corn. Sc. Africanus (see above), who adopted him
as his son. He was a most accomplished scholar and
distinguished orator.
Titus, Flav. Vesp. ; Emperor of Rome. Able and virtuous ;
distinguished in war.; exceedingly beloved. In his youth
he was somewhat dissipated, but after he became emperor
he showed himself eminently moderate and just.
F. Vespasian. Rose through successive ranks to be Emperor of
Rome, entirely through his own great merits as a general
and as a statesman.
Tromp, Marten ; famous Dutch admiral, who rose through his
own merits to the supreme command at a momentous
epoch. Though he was captured in youth, and his profes¬
sional advancement thereby checked for some years, he
had become a noted admiral and a dreaded opponent of
the English set. 40. Killed in battle set. 56.
S. Cornelius van Tromp, celebrated Dutch admiral, who obtained
that rank, on active service, set. 33. His professional
eminence was beyond all question, though scarcely equal
to that of his father.
Tu renne, Henri, Viscount de ; the greatest of French generals
before the time of Napoleon. All his acts bear the impress
of a truly great mind. He was clear and comprehensive in
his views, energetic in action, and above the narrow feelings
of a mere religious partisan. He was eminently pure in
domestic life. He had weak health till set. it. As a boy
he was fond of books, and pored over the lives of eminent
warriors. He learned slowly and with difficulty, rebelled
against restraint, and showed dogged perseverance. He
was very fond of athletic exercises, and improved his
health by practising them. His first opportunity of dis¬
tinction was set. 23, on which occasion he was made
“ marechal du camp,” then the next step in rank to mare-
chal de France. He was killed by a cannon-shot aet. 64.
F. Henri, Due de Bouillon, one of the ablest soldiers bred in
the school of Henry IV. His high rank, love of letters,
COMMANDERS.
1 66
attachment to the Calvinistic faith, and abilities as a states¬
man raised him to the leadership of the Huguenot party
after the death of that prince.
g. William I. of Orange, “ the Silent.” See under Maurice.
u. (mother’s half-brother.) Maurice of Nassau. See.
uP. William III. of England.
Wellington, the Duke of; greatest of modern English generals,
a firm statesman, and a terse writer. He broke the
Mahratta power in India set. 35; then became Secretary
for Ireland. JE t. 39 was appointed to command the British
army in Spain, and he had won Waterloo and completed
his military career set. 46.
B. Marquess of Wellesley ( see under Statesmen), Governor
General of India, statesman and scholar.
[B.] Baron Cowley, diplomatist.
[F.] Earl of Mornington, of musical ability.
N. Earl Cowley, diplomatist, English ambassador to France.
N. Rev. Henry Wellesley, D.D., scholar and man of remark¬
able taste, Principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford.
William I. of Orange, “the Silent.” See under Maurice.
S. Maurice of Nassau. See.
S. Frederick William, Stadtholder in the most flourishing days
of the Republic.
p. Turenne (see), the great French general.
SP. William III. of England.
CHAPTER X.
LITERARY MEN.
Those who are familiar with the appearance of great
libraries, and have endeavoured to calculate the number
of famed authors, whose works they include, cannot fail to
be astonished at their multitude. The years go by : in
every year, every nation produces literary works of sterling
value, and stores of books have accumulated for centuries.
Among the authors, who arc the most eminent ? This is
a question I feel incompetent to answer. It would not be
difficult to obtain lists of the most notable literary cha¬
racters of particular periods, but I have found none that
afford a compact and trustworthy selection of the great
writers of all times. Mere popular fame in after ages is
an exceedingly uncertain test of merit, because authors
become obsolete. Their contributions to thought and
language are copied and re-copied by others, and at length
they become so incorporated into the current literature and
expressions of the day, that nobody cares to trace them
back to their original sources, any more than they interest
themselves in tracing the gold converted into sovereigns,
to the nuggets from which it was derived or to the gold-
diggers who discovered the nuggets.
Again : a man of fair ability who employs himself in
literature turns out a great deal of good work. There is
always a chance that some of it may attain a reputation
LITERARY MEN.
1 68
very far superior to its real merits, because the author may
have something to narrate which the world wants to hear ;
or he may have had particular experiences which qualify
him to write works of fiction, or otherwise to throw out
views, singularly apposite to the wants of the time but of
no importance in after years. Here, also, fame misleads.
Under these circumstances, I thought it best not to
occupy myself over-much with older times ; otherwise, I
should have been obliged to quote largely in justification
of my lists of literary worthies : but rather to select authors
of modern date, or those whose reputation has been freshly
preserved in England. I have therefore simply gone through
dictionaries, extracted the names of literary men whom I
found the most prominent, and have described those who
had decidedly eminent relations in my appendix. I have,
therefore, left out several, whom others might with reason
judge worthy to have appeared. My list is a very incon¬
gruous collection ; for it includes novelists, historians,
scholars, and philosophers. There are only two pecu¬
liarities common to all these men ; the one is a desire
of expressing themselves, and the other a love of ideas,
rather than of material possessions. Mr. Disraeli, who is
himself a good instance of hereditary literary power, in
a speech at the anniversary of the Royal Literary Fund,
May 6, 1868, described the nature of authors. His phrase
epitomizes what has been graphically delineated in his own
novels, and, I may add, in those of Sir Edward Bulwer
Lytton, now Lord Lytton (who, with his brother Sir Henry
Bulwer, and in his son “ Owen Meredith,” is a still more
remarkable example of hereditary literary gifts than Mr.
Disraeli). He said : “ The author is, as we must ever
remember, a peculiar organization. He is a being with
a predisposition which with him is irresistible — a bent
which he cannot in any way avoid ; whether it drags him
to the abstruse researches of erudition, or induces him
LITERARY MEN.
169
to mount into the fervid and turbulent atmosphere of
imagination.” The majority of the men described in the
appendix to this chapter justify the description by Mr.
Disraeli. Again, that the powers of many of them were
of the highest order, no one can doubt. Several were
prodigies in boyhood, as Grotius, Lessing, and Niebuhr ;
many others were distinguished in youth ; Charlotte Bronte
published “Jane Eyre” set. 22 ; Chateaubriand was of note
at an equally early age ; Fenelon made an impression
when only 15 ; Sir Philip Sydney was of high mark before
he was 21, and had acquired his great fame, and won
the heart of the nation in a few more years, for he was
killed in battle when only 32. I may add, that there are
occasional cases of great literary men having been the
reverse of gifted in youth. Boileau is the only instance
in my appendix. He was a dunce at school, and dull till
he was 30. But, among other literary men of whom I have
notes, Goldsmith was accounted a dull child, and he was
anything but distinguished at Dublin University. He
began to write well aet. 32. Rousseau was thought a dunce
at school, whence he ran away set. 16.
It is a striking confirmation of what I endeavoured to
prove in an early chapter — that the highest order of
reputation is independent of external aids — to note how
irregularly many of the men and women have been edu¬
cated whose names appear in my appendix — such* as
Boileau, the Bronte family, Chateaubriand, Fielding, the
two Gramonts, Irving, Carsten Niebuhr, Porson (in one
sense), Roscoe, Le Sage, J. C. Scaliger, Sevigne, and Swift.
I now give my usual table, but I do not specify with
confidence the numbers of eminent literary people con¬
tained in the thirty-three families it includes. They
have many literary relations of considerable merit, but
I feel myself- unable, for the reasons stated at the begin¬
ning of this chapter, to sort out those that are “eminent”
170
LITERARY MEN.
from among them. The families of Taylor, both those of
Norwich and those of Ongar, have been inserted as being
of great hereditary interest, but only a few of their
members (see Austen) are not summed up in the follow¬
ing table.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 52 LITERARY PERSONS,
GROUPED INTO 33 FAMILIES.
One relation (or two in the family).
Addison . . .
. . . F.
Edgeworth ....
. F.
Aikin ....
... b.
Lamb . .
. b.
2.
Arnold . .
. . . S.
2.
Mill .
. S.
2.
Bossuet . . .
. . . N.
2.
Niebuhr .
. F.
2.
Champollion . .
. . . B.
Roscoe .
. S.
Chateaubriand .
• • • & •
2.
Scaliger .
. F.
Two or three relations (or three or four in the family).
Austen, Mrs. .
.r. N.
Lessing .
. . 2 B. N.
Bentham
B. N.
2.
Palgrave
. . 2 S.
Boileau . . .
2 S.
Sage, Le
. . 2S.
Bronte . .
B. 2 b.
3-
Seneca .
. . F. B. N.
3. Fenelon . . .
N. 2 NS.
Sevigne .
. . S. 2 US.
2. Gramont
gB. B. P.
2.
Swift . .
. . UN. UP. UPS
Ilelvetius .
F. G.
Trollope .
. . 2 s.
Four or more relations (or five or niore in the family).
Alison . B. F. u. g. gB. gF. gG.
Fielding . g. 11S. B. b.
2. Grotius . G. F. U. B. S.
Hallam . F. f 2 S. s.
Macaulay . G. F. 2 U. US. n.
Porson . Y.f B. b.
2. Sclilegel . F. 2 U. B.
2. Stael . G. F. U. f. US. UP.
2. Stephen . F. B. 2 S.
4. Stephens . F. g. f. B. U.r. p.
Sidney . . . . F. g. u. uY. A n. P. TS. &c.
[Taylors of Norwich.]
[Taylors of Ongar.]
LITERARY MEN.
171
TABLE II.1
Degrees of
Kinship.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Name of the degree.
t
Corresponding letters.
Father .
16 F.
• ••
• ••
• ••
16
48
IOO
48
Brother .
14 B.
• ••
• ••
14
42
150
28
Son .
17 s.
•••
• ••
• ••
U
5i
IOO
Grandfather . . .
4 G.
4 g-
• ••
8
24
200
12
Uncle .
6 U.
2 u.
• ••
• ••
8
24
400
6
Nephew ....
6 N.
2 n.
• ••
...
8
24
400
6
Grandson ....
2 P.
1 p.
• ••
...
3
9
200
4-5
Great-grandfather .
oGF.
1 gF.
0 GF.
ogF.
I
3
400
I
Great-uncle . . .
oGB.
2 gB.
0 GB.
ogB.
2
6
800
I
First-cousin . . .
4 us.
2 uS.
0 L/S.
0 «S.
6
18
800
2*5
Great-nephew . .
2 NS.
0 nS.
oNS.
0 «S.
2
6
800
I
Great-grandson . .
1 PS.
0 pS.
oPS.
0 /S.
I
3
400
1
All more remote . .
5
• ••
• ••
• ••
5
15
• ••
O
It would be both a tedious and an unnecessary task, if
I applied the same tests to this table with the same minute¬
ness that they were applied to those inserted in previous
chapters. Its contents are closely similar in their general
character, and therefore all that can be derived from an
analysis of the others may, with equal justice, be derived
from this. The proportion of eminent grandsons is small,
but the total number is insufficient to enable us to draw
conclusions from that fact, especially as the number of
eminent sons is not small in the same ratio. There are
other minor peculiarities which will appear more distinctly
when all the corresponding tables are collated and dis¬
cussed towards the end of the book. In the meantime,
we may rest satisfied that an analysis of kinsfolk shows
literary genius to be fully as hereditary as any other kind
of ability we have hitherto discussed.
1 See p. 61 for explanation.
17 2
IJTERAR Y MEN
APPENDIX TO LITERARY MEN.
The merits of literary men are so differently rated by their contemporaries
and by posterity, that I gave up in despair the project of selecting a small list
of first-class authors. I have, therefore, confined myself to the names of able
writers that came most prominently in my way, and have occasionally inserted
men who wTere not quite of the first class, but who were interesting in other
respects. It is remarkable to find how little is known of the near kinsmen
of many of the greatest literary men, especially of those who lived in ancient
times ; and I have reason to think that our ignorance is in many cases due to
mere historical neglect rather than to the fact of their abilities or achievements
being unworthy of record. The general result of my inquiries is such as to
convince me, that more than one-half of the great literary men have had
kinsmen of high ability.
The total number of names included in my list of kinships is thirty-seven.
I will here add the names of those into whose lives I inquired, who do not
appear to have had “ eminent ” relations ; they are nineteen in number, as
follow : —
Cervantes; De Foe (his son wrote, but was ridiculed by Pope); Fichte;
La Fontaine; Genlis, Mine. ; Gibbon (however, see Lord Chancellor Hard-
wicke for a distant kinship); Goldsmith; Jeffrey; Samuel Johnson (but his
father was not an ordinary man) ; Montaigne ; Montesquieu ; Rabelais ;
Richardson, the novelist ; Rousseau ; Scott, Sir W. ; Sydney Smith ; Smollett ;
Sterne ; and Voltaire.
Addison, Joseph; author of the Spectator , &c. He was well
known to the great patrons of literature, set. 25. Was a
most elegant writer. Secretary of State under George I.
F. Launcelot Addison ; a divine of considerable learning and
observation ; Dean of Lichfield ; author.
Aikin, John, M.D. ; eminent physician and popular author of
the last century. (“ Evenings at Home.”)
b. Mrs. Barbauld, charming writer of children’s tales.
[S.] Arthur Aikin, inherited much of his father’s literary talent,
but was chiefly interested in science. Editor of the
“Annual Review.”
[s.] Lucy Aikin, also authoress.
LITERARY MEN.
>73
Alison, Sir Archibald; author of “ History of Europe created
a Baronet for his literary merits.
B. Dr. William Pulteney Alison, Professor of Medicine in
Edinburgh, and first Physician to the Queen in Scotland.
F. Rev. Archibald, author of “ Essays on the Nature and
Principles of Taste.”
u. Dr. James Gregor)’-, Professor of Medicine in Edinburgh.
g. Dr. John Gregory, Professor of Philosophy and of Medicine
in Aberdeen, afterwards of Medicine in Edinburgh.
gB. and gF., also Professors of Medicine.
gG. James Gregory, inventor of the reflecting telescope. See
Gregory, under Science.
Arnold, Thomas, D.D.; Head Master of Rugby; scholar, historian,
divine, and administrator ; founder of the modern system of
public school education. Was stiff and formal as a child ;
hated early rising ; became highly distinguished at Oxford,
and was singularly beloved by those who knew him.
S. Matthew Arnold, poet, and Professor of Poetry at Oxford.
[Also other sons of more than average ability.]
Austen, Sarah; author and translator.
s. Lady Duff Gordon, author of “ Letters from Egypt,” &c.
[5 B.] See Taylors of Norwich.
N. Henry Reeve, editor of the “Edinburgh Review,” translator
of De Tocqueville.
Bentham, Jeremy; political and juridical writer; founder of a
school of philosophy.
B. General Sir Samuel Bentham, an officer of distinction in the
Russian service, who had a remarkable mechanical genius.
N. George, eminent modern botanist. President of the Linnsean
Society.
Boileau, Nicholas (surnamed Despreaux); French poet, satirist,
and critic. Was educated for the law, which he hated ;
showed no early signs of ability, but was dull until set. 30.
As a boy he was thought a confirmed dunce.
S. Gilles, an eminent literary man, writer of satires of great
merit; had a lively wit. His health was bad; d. young, set. 38.
S. Jacques, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, of great learning and
ability. Author of various publications, all on singular
subjects.
<74
LITERARY MEN. .
Bossuet, Jacques Be'nigne; one of the most famous of Papal
controversialists against Protestantism ; was a laborious
student He was a priest, and therefore had no family.
N. Bishop of Troyes ; editor of his uncle’s works.
Bronte, Charlotte (her nom dc plume was Currer Bell); novelist
She was the most conspicuous member of a family re¬
markable for their intellectual gifts, restless mental activity,
and wretched constitutions. Charlotte Bronte and her
five brothers and sisters were all consumptive, and died
young. “ Jane Eyre ” was published when Charlotte was
set. 22.
[F.] Rev. Patrick Bronte. Had been precocious and was am¬
bitious, though a clergyman of scanty means, in a rude,
out-of-the-way village.
[U. and U several.] Rev. Patrick Bronte had nine brothers and
sisters, all remarkable for their strength and beauty.
[/] Was refined, pious, pure, and modest.
[//.] Was precise, old-looking, and dressed utterly out of fashion.
B. Patrick, who went altogether astray, and became a grief to
the family, was perhaps the greatest natural genius among
them all.
b. Emily Jane (Ellis Bell), “Wuthering Heights” and “Agnes
Grey.”
b. Anne (Acton Bell), “ Tenant of Wildfield Hall.”
[2/).] Maria and Jane ; were almost as highly endowed with intel¬
lectual gifts as their sisters.
Champollion, Jean Francois; interpreter of hieroglyphic
writing, and author on Egyptian antiquities. He was one
of the party of savans in Napoleon’s expedition.
B. Jean Jacques, historian and antiquary. Author of several
works. Librarian to the present Emperor of the French.
Chateaubriand, Fr. Aug. Vicomte de ; a distinguished French
writer and a politician, but half mad ; his education was
desultory, for he was first intended for the Navy, then for
the Church, and then for the Army. He wholly abandoned
himself to study and retirement, set. 20 ; afterwards he
sought adventures in the unsettled parts of America. Pie
served in several ministerial posts under Louis XVIII.
He sank into despondency in advanced life. Most of his
ten brothers and sisters died in youth ; several of them
LITERARY MEN.
175
resembled him in genius and disposition; one of them,
viz. —
b . Lucile, had the genius, the constitution, and the eccentricity
of J. J. Rousseau.
Edgeworth, Maria; a favourite authoress and moralist, whose
writings exhibit “a singular union of sober sense and inex¬
haustible invention.” She was set. 3 1 when she began to
write ; d. set. 83.
Y. Richard Lovell Edgeworth (see Lovell the Judge), writer on
various subjects, in much of which he was aided by his
daughter ; a wonderfully active man in body and mind ;
interested in everything, and irrepressible. Married four
wives. There was forty years’ difference of age between
the eldest and youngest of his numerous children. Maria
was daughter of the first wife.
Etienne. See Stephens.
Fenelon, Francois; Archbishop of Cambrai, in France; author
of “ Te'ldmaque ;” remarkable for his graceful, simple, and
charming style of composition ; a man of singular serenity
and Christian morality. He was very eloquent in the
pulpit. He preached his first sermon set. 15, which had
a great success. (Being a priest, he had no family.)
?. Bertrand de Salagnac, Marquis de la Mothe, diplomatist,
Ambassador to England in the time of Elizabeth, and a
distinguished officer, was his ancestor (but qucci'e in what
degree : he died seventy years before Francois was born).
N. Gabriel Jacques Fe'nelon, Marquis de la Mothe, Ambassador
of France to Holland ; wrote “ Memoires Diplomatiques.”
NS. Frangois Louis, litterateur.
NS. Abbe de Fendlon, head of a charitable establishment for
Savoyards in Paris ; greatly beloved. Was guillotined in
the French Revolution.
Fielding, -Henry; novelist, author of “Tom Jones.” Byron
calls him the “ prose Homer of human nature.” His
education was desultory, owing to the narrow means of his
father, then a Lieutenant, but afterwards General. Began
play-writing set. 21, was very dissipated, and reckless in
money matters. Entered the Temple and studied law with
ardour ; wrote two valuable pamphlets on crime and
pauperism, and was made a Middlesex Justice.
176
LITERARY MEN.
Fielding, Henry, continued —
g. Sir Henry Gould, Justice Queen’s Bench. (Q. Anne.)
uS. Sir Henry Gould, Justice Common Pleas. (Geo. III.)
[G.] John Fielding, Chaplain to William III.
B. (Half brother.) Sir John Fielden, excellent magistrate, though
blind. He wrote on police administration.
b. Sarah, a woman of considerable learning, and an authoress.
Gramont, Anthony, Duke of; marshal of France; soldier and
diplomatist ; author of famous “ Memoirs,” but not quite
so charming to read as those of his brother.
,gB. Cardinal Richelieu. See.
B. Gramont, Philibert, Comte de ; wit and courtier ; d. set. 86.
His memoirs, written by a friend, containing all his youthful
escapades, were commenced for his amusement when he
was set. 80.
[S.] Armand, French general.
P. Due de Gramont and Due de Guiche, marshal of France.
Grotius, Hugo (de Groot) ; an illustrious and profound Dutch
writer, statesman, and authority on international law ;
showed extraordinary abilities as a child; was educated
carefully, and at set. 14 his learning attracted considerable
notice. He was a man of great mark, and lived an eventful
life ; was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment for his
Armenian religious opinions, but escaped, first to France,
then to Sweden. He became ambassador from Sweden to
France, in which capacity he did his duties in a trying time,
with great credit. Ultimately he was received with high
honours in Holland. He belonged to an eminently
gifted and learned family. He married a woman of
rare merit.
G. Hugues de Groot, great scholar.
F. John, Curator of the University of Leyden; a learned man.
U. Corneille, professor both of philosophy and of law.
B. William, who collected and edited Hugo’s Poems ; was him¬
self a learned man and an author.
S. Peter, able diplomatist and scholar.
Hallam, Henry; one of the most distinguished of modem
writers, and most just of critics; author of the “ Consti¬
tutional History of England ” and of the “ Literature of
Europe ; ” was one of the earliest contributors to the
LITERARY MEN.
177
Edinburgh Review. The epitaph on his own tomb is so
condensed and just, and those written by himself on his
children who died before him are so accurate as well
as touching, that I insert them here. His own epitaph in
St. Paul’s Cathedral is as follows : —
“ Henry Hallam, the historian of the Middle Ages, of the
Constitution of his country, and of the Literature of Europe.
This monument is raised by many friends, who, regarding
the soundness of his learning, the simple eloquence of his
style, his manly and capacious intellect, the fearless honesty
of his judgments, and the moral dignity of his life, desire
to perpetuate his memory within these sacred walls, as of
one who has best illustrated the English language, the
English character, and the English name.”
He had a vigorous constitution ; his massive head was well
carried by a robust frame ; he was precocious as a child ;
could read well at 4 years old, and wrote sonnets at 9 or
10 ; d. set. 82. Married a sister of Sir Charles Elton, Bart.;
he was author of poems and translations.
P John Hallam, D.D., Dean of Bristol, Canon of Windsor;
declined the Bishopric of Chester ; educated at Eton ; the
son and the only child that lived beyond childhood, of
John Hallam, surgeon, twice Mayor of Boston.
f. Daughter of Richard Roberts, M.D. ; was a very superior
person, somewhat over-anxious ; she resembled her son
in features ; had only two children that lived,
u. Dr. Roberts, Provost of Eton.
[A] Elizabeth ; had great intellectual taste.
S. Arthur Henry, d. jet. 23 ; the subject of Tennyson’s “ In
Memoriam.” His epitaph at Clevedon is as follows : —
“ And now, in this obscure and solitary church, repose the
mortal remains of one too early lost for public fame, but
already distinguished among his contemporaries for the
brightness of his genius, the depth of his understanding,
the nobleness of his disposition, the fervour of his piety,
and the purity of his life. Vale dulcissime, desideratissime.
Requiescas in pace usque ad tubam.”
t. Eleanor Hallam, d. set. 21. “ Her afflicted parents, bending
under this second bereavement, record here that loveliness
of temper and that heavenly-minded piety which are lost
i78
LITERARY MEN.
to them, but are gone to their own reward.” She had
great abilities.
S. Henry Fitzmaurice Hallam, d. aet. 26. “ In whose clear
and vivid understanding, sweetness of disposition, and
purity of life, an image of his elder brother was before
the eyes of those who had most loved him. Distinguished,
like him, by early reputation, and by the affection of many
friends, he was, like him also, cut off by a short illness in
a foreign land.”
Helvetius, Claude Adrian (Schweitzer) (1 71 5-1 771). The
celebrated and persecuted author of a materialistic philo¬
sophy. He was universally accomplished ; handsome,
graceful, robust, and full of genius. By aet. 23 he had
obtained a farmer-generalship in France. Became a refugee
in England and elsewhere. He married a charming lady —
Mdlle. de Ligueville, whom, it is said, both Franklin and
Turgot desired to marry in her widowhood. He had two
daughters.
F. John Claude Adrian, physician of great eminence in Paris ;
Inspector-General of Hospitals; was liberal and benevolent
G. Jean Adrian, Dutch physician, who died in Paris; was
Inspector-General of Hospitals. It was he who first
showed the importance of ipecacuanha as a medicine.
Irving, Washington; American author, novelist, and historian;
was minister to Spain ; had weak health ; was educated by
his elder brothers ; had desultory habits ; his means were
ample.
[2B.] His brothers were men of considerable literary attainments;
one of them conducted the New York Chronicle.
Lamb, Charles (“ Essays of Elia”); a quaint and genial humorist;
dearly beloved.
b. A sister, who, in a fit of insanity, murdered her mother, and
whom Charles Lamb watched with the utmost solicitude.
She ultimately recovered her reason, and was then described
by those who knew her, as of a strong intellect and of a
heart the counterpart of her brother’s in humanity. She
was authoress of many pieces that are published in her
brother’s works.
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim ; a universal writer, who added
immensely to the stores of German literature. He was
LITERARY MEN, \
179
a devourer of books from his earliest childhood. His
health broke rapidly set. 50.
B. Karl Gotthelf, 'v
B. Johann Gottlieb, were all distinguished as literary men.
N. Karl Friedrich, J
Macaulay, Thomas Babington ; created Lord Macaulay ; his¬
torian, poet, essayist, and conversationalist ; a man of
transcendent power of memory.
G. Rev. John Macaulay, Scotch minister at Inverary; most
eloquent preacher; mentioned in Dr. Johnson’s Tour.
F. Zachary, slave abolitionist ; very able ; a lucid and rapid
writer, but singularly wanting in facility of oratorical ex¬
pression.
U. Colin Macaulay, general. Was the right-hand man of the
Duke of Wellington, in his Indian campaigns. He governed
for many years a large part of the Madras Presidency, and,
in spite of his active life, was a first-rate scholar both in
ancient and modem literature. He was constantly men¬
tioned in contemporary literature as a wonder for his
erudition and abilities.
U. Aulay Macaulay, brilliant conversationalist ; wrote much
of value, that remains unfinished and unprinted ; tutor to
Caroline of Brunswick ; d. in prime of life.
[US.] (Son of Aulay.) John Heyrick, Plead Master of Repton,
a good scholar.
US. Kenneth Macaulay, M.P. for Cambridge, was the son of
the above. There were also other brothers who had ability.
n. George Trevelyan, M.P., Junior Lord of the Treasury (son
of Sir Charles Trevelyan, statesman), was second classic of
his year (1861) at Cambridge; author of “ Cawnpore,” &c.
Mill, James; historian of British India.
S. John Stuart Mill, the eminent modern philosopher and poli¬
tical writer.
Niebuhr, Barthold George; historical critic (“Roman His¬
tory ”) ; afterwards a financial statesman. All his time was
devoted to study. He had a fair education. ZEt. 7 he
was considered a prodigy of application ; but his consti¬
tution was weak and nervous, and further injured by a
marsh fever. Macaulay (Preface, “ Lays of Ancient
Rome ”) says, Niebuhr would have been the first writer of
iSo
LITERARY MEN .
his age if his talent in communicating truths had been
more in proportion to his talent in discovering them. He
was Prussian Ambassador at Rome.
F. Carsten Niebuhr, a celebrated traveller and writer on
Arabia. His father had been a farmer. Both parents
died when he was a child, and he had to work as a
labourer, and was almost uneducated, till aet. 2 1. Thence¬
forward he zealously educated himself. Died aet. 82.
[S.] Marcus, a high official in the Prussian civil service.
Palgrave, Sir Francis; historian and antiquary, especially of
the Anglo-Saxon period. Married a Dawson-Turner (see
Hooker in “ Science ”).
S. Francis ; literature and art (“ Golden Treasury ”).
S. Giffard ; orientalist and traveller in Arabia.
Person, Richard; eminent Greek scholar and critic. From
childhood, his mother used to say, whatever Richard did,
was done in a superior manner. He spun better yarn
than his brothers or sisters, and yet he had always a book
lying open before him while he was spinning. Before he
could write, he had taught himself, from an old book, as
far as the cube root in arithmetic. As he grew up his
memory became stupendous. He had unwearied appli¬
cation, great acuteness, strong sound sense, a lively
perception both of the beautiful and the ludicrous, and
a most pure and inflexible sense of truth. He had
great bodily strength; was often known to walk from
Cambridge to London, a distance of fifty-two miles, to
attend his club in the evening, not being able to afford
the coach fare. Got drunk occasionally, as was not an
infrequent custom in his day, but he ended by doing so
habitually.
F. A weaver and parish clerk, a man of excellent sense and
great natural powers of arithmetic.
f A housemaid at the clergyman’s, who read his books on
the sly. He found her one day at Shakespeare, and dis¬
covered, to his amazement, that she had a sound know¬
ledge of the book, and of very much else, so he helped
her as he best could. She had a remarkable memory.
B. Thomas. In the opinion of Dr. Davy, the then Master of
Caius College, Cambridge, who was intimately acquainted
LITERARY MEN.
1 8 1
with both brothers, he was fully the equal of Richard in
scholastic ability. He kept a classical school, but died
set. 24.
b. Had the wonderful Porson memory. She married and had
children, but they were of no mark whatever.
[B.] Henry ; a good arithmetician, who had no inclination for
literature. Died set. 33.
Roscoe, William; historian and poet (“Life of Lorenzo de
Medici ”) ; son of a market gardener, educated at a
common school; placed with a bookseller, then at an
attorney’s office, where he taught himself. Began to be
known set. 30. Became a banker ; founded the Royal
Institution at Liverpool; was M.P. for that place. Died
set. 78.
S. Henry ; wrote his father’s life. “ Lives of Eminent Lawyers.”
[S.] Robert; was a lawyer; wrote the epic “Alfred.”
[S.] Thomas; wrote several poems and tales, and illustrated
works of travel.
Le Sage ; novelist (“ Gil Bias ”) ; was an only son, and early an
orphan. He became a handsome and engaging youth ;
he married at 26, and worked hard. His first success was
the “ Diable Boiteux,” aet. 39. He was 67 when the last
volume of “ Gil Bias ” appeared. He began to be deaf at
40, and at last his deafness became complete. He had
three sons, as follow : —
S. Rene-Andre (Montmenil) was an abbt^, but broke away
from the Church and joined the stage, to his father’s great
grief. He was an excellent comedian. The father saw
him act, and forgave him. He died young and suddenly.
S. A canon. He was a jolly fellow, with whom Le Sage spent
his last days. He enjoyed life, and loved theatricals, and
would have made an excellent comedian.
[S.] Became a bad actor, and died in obscurity.
Scaliger, Julius Caesar; scholar and natural philosopher (1484
-1558, aet. 64); was of doubtful parentage. He served
in the army till aet. 29, then studied theology, which he
abandoned for medicine, and then began to learn Greek.
He commenced his studies so late in life, that none of his
works were published till aet. 47. He was one of the
most extraordinary men of his age. He had a most tena-
9
LITERARY MEN.
182
cious memory and sound understanding, but was exces¬
sively irritable and vain, and made enemies. Scholars of
subsequent ages have vied in panegyrising him, but his
fame as a scholar and critic, though very great in his own
days, was far eclipsed by that of his son Joseph.
S. Joseph Justus Scaliger. See below.
Scaliger, Joseph Justus; scholar and critic (1540-1609, set. 69).
Was well educated, and he read intensely on his own
account. He was one of that constellation of great
scholars who ornamented the University of Leyden at
the end of the sixteenth century. He was wholly
absorbed in study. He never married. Was irritable
and vain, like his father. As a critic he is considered
to have been pre-eminent, and there are very few
scholars who can be compared with him.
F. Julius Csesar Scaliger. See above.
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von ; celebrated German scholar,
critic, and poet ; a translator of Shakespeare, and of
Indian literature. At an early age he showed remarkable
aptitude for languages. His fault, if any, was that of
aiming too much at universality. He attached himself to
Madame de Stael, and entirely abandoned himself to her
intellectual influence. Died set. 78. He and his brother
have been called the “ literary Dioscures” of their day.
His grandfather was Councillor of the Court of Appeal
of Meissen. He educated his children — the father and
the uncles — carefully.
F. Jean Adolphe ; preacher of repute, also writer of poems.
U. Jean Elie; poet, dramatist, and critic. “He is without
exception the best dramatic author that Germany produced
during the first half of the eighteenth century.” Died
set. 31, overworked.
U. Jean Henri; Danish Historiographer Royal. Resided in
Copenhagen.
B. Friedrich Carl Wilhelm von Schlegel. See below.
Schlegel, Friedrich Carl Wilhelm von ; historian, philosopher,
and philologist. Was not precocious as a child, but
became strongly drawn to literature when a youth. He
lectured on the philosophy of history and language, edited,
wrote poems, and at last became a diplomatic official
LITERARY MEN. 183
under Metternich, who was his constant patron. Died
»t. 57.
F. U. U. As above.
B. August Wilhelm von Schlegel. See above.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus ; Roman philosopher ; educated for
rhetoric, but his taste rebelled against it, and he devoted
himself to philosophy. His noble sentiments and grand
stoicism have greatly influenced even the Christian world,
for Seneca was formerly much read and admired. He
amassed an immense fortune, no one knows how, but it is
suspected by equivocal means. He was the tutor of Nero,
and naturally has not acquired much credit by his pupil,
who put him to death set. 63.
F. Marcus Annceus Seneca; rhetorician and author. He was
a man of prodigious memory; he could repeat two thousand
words in the order he heard them. Married a Spanish
lady.
B. Marcus Novatus, who took the name Junius Gallio, and
became proconsul of Achaia. It was before his tribunal
that St. Paul was brought, on the accusation of introducing
innovations in religious matters. Eusebius describes him
as a distinguished rhetorician, and his brother calls him
the most tolerant of men.
N. Lucanus Marcus Annaeus (Lucan), the poet. His “ Phar-
salia” is the only one of his works that has reached us.
His father, the brother of Seneca, married the daughter of
Lucanus, an eminent orator, from whom the son took
his name.
Sevigne, Marquise de (born Marie de Rabutin Chantal) ;
authoress of charming letters. She was unsurpassed, per¬
haps unequalled, as a letter-writer. Her father was killed
in battle when she was an infant, her mother died when
she was set. 6. She was an only child. Married, not
happily, to a profligate man, who was killed in a duel on
account of another lady. She wrote well before her
widowhood, but not much ; then she retired from the
world to educate her children, and reappeared set. 27,
when she shone in society. Society improved, and did
not spoil her. Her daughter married the Lieutenant-
Governor of Provence, and it was to her that the famous
LITERARY MEN.
184
letters were written. She had a joyous nature,, beauty,
grace, and wit ; nothing concealed ; all open as day.
Even while living, her letters were celebrated in the Court
and in society; they were handed about and read with
infinite pleasure.
S. Marquis de Sevigne ; a man of much ability and courage,
who ended a restless and somewhat dissipated life in the
practice of devotion, under the direction of ecclesiastics.
He had not sufficient perseverance to succeed in anything.
US. Bussy-Rambutin ; a very excellent soldier, adventurous,
rash, and somewhat dissipated. Would certainly have
been made Marshal of France but for his ill-natured,
caustic personalities, which led to his exile, and loss of all
hope of advancement. He was an excellent letter-writer.
He was really a man of great literary power, who improved
the French language.
There was a great deal more of sporadic talent in the family
of Madame de Sevigne, but it never elsewhere achieved a
full success.
Stael, Anne Germaine de; one of the most distinguished writers
of her age. She was an only child. When quite young,
she interested herself vastly in the philosophy and politics
talked at her father’s table. Then she overworked herself,
set. 15, partly urged on in her studies by her mother.
After a serious illness she became quite altered, and was
no longer a pedantic child, but full of abandon and charm.
She married twice, and had three children.
G. Charles Frederick Necker, a German legal and political N
writer, who settled in Geneva, where a chair of law was
instituted for him.
F. Jacques Necker, the celebrated French statesman and finance
minister of Louis NVI. Had a strong natural bias for
literature; set. 18, showed remarkable aptitude for busi¬
ness ; was intensely fond of his daughter, and she of him.
U. Louis Necker, Professor of Mathematics at Geneva. He
began by banking in Paris, and had much success in his
speculations, both there and afterwards at Marseilles, but
the troubled state of France determined him to return
to Geneva.
f. Susanna Curchod ; Gibbon had wished to marry her. She
LITERARY MEN.
185
was a precocious child; singularly well read, a distinguished
wit, but pedantic. She was a vigorous Calvinist. It is
a wonder she did not stifle her daughter’s wit.
US. Jacques Necker, son of Louis, Professor of Botany at
Geneva ; married a daughter of De Saussure the geologist.
UP. Louis Albert, son of Jacques and grandson of De Saussure,
Professor of Geology and Mineralogy in Geneva. (See a
long memoir of him, by Dr. James David Forbes, in an
Address to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1863.)
Stephen, Right Hon. Sir James; historian (“Essays in Eccle¬
siastical Biography ”) ; Under Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
F. John Stephen, Master in Chancery; a leading slave abo¬
litionist.
B. Henry John Stephen, eminent legal writer (“Stephen on
Pleading ”).
[B.] Sir George, barrister, successful novelist (“ Adventures of
an Attorney in search of Practice ”).
S. Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C., author of “ Criminal Law;” large
contributor to periodical literature.
S. Rev. Leslie Stephen, also a well-known contributor to perio¬
dical literature ; mountaineer, president of the Alpine Club.
Stephens, Robert (or Etienne), was the first eminent member
of a family of the most illustrious scholars and printers that
has ever appeared. It must be recollected that in the
early days of printing, all printers were scholars. Robert
was an extraordinary scholar, exceedingly precocious,
considered by his contemporaries greater than any other
scholar. Fie printed the Bible in many forms, was perse¬
cuted, and driven to Geneva. Married Petronella {see below).
B. Charles, a sound classic, but chiefly attached to physical
science, medicine, and natural history.
S. Henry. See below.
S. Robert (2) ; was worthy of his father in his activity and in
the accuracy of his editions.
N. Nicole, no less celebrated for her beauty than for her talents
and accomplishments.
Stephens, Henry (or Etienne), the greatest of the whole
family. He was exceedingly precocious. He invested a
large part of his fortune in costly preparations for his
LITERARY MEN.
1 86
Greek Lexicon, which one of his employes , Scapula,
pirated from him in the form of an abridgment. Through
this piece of roguery Stephens became greatly embarrassed,
and died poor, but Scapula made a fortune.
F. Robert. See above.
g. Jodocus Badius, celebrated scholar and printer.
f Petronella, a woman of great talents and literary accom¬
plishments.
B. Robert (2). See above.
Uk. Nicole. See above.
Henry, b. about 1470,
a printer in Paris.
Francis. Robert. = Petronella, dau. of Jodocus Charles.
Badius, scholar and printer.
Francis. Henry, ruined Robert.
by Scapula, d. poor.
I
Paul,
printed with zeal
and energy, but
did not succeed.
- 1 I -
Florence. = Isaac Robert,
Casaubon printer.
(see descrip-
tion belaid).
Anthony,
Royal printer,
died in Hotel Dieu.
Meric Casaubon,
and numerous other
children.
Henry,
died in father’s life.
Nicole.
Henry,
Treasurer of
the Royal
palace.
Henry,
some reputa¬
tion as a poet.'
Isaac Casaubon, whose name appears in the above list, was
a learned Swiss divine and critic ; professor of Greek at
Geneva set. 23, and subsequently at Paris. He passed
the last years of his life in England, where he was highly
esteemed, and was made Prebend of Westminster and was
highly pensioned by James I.
p. Meric Casaubon, his son, was equally eminent, but seems
to have shrunk from public service. He was in vain
solicited by Cromwell to write the history of the war,
and by Christina, Queen of Sweden, to superintend the
universities in her kingdom.
Swift, Jonathan, D.D. ; Dean of St. Patrick’s ; satirist, politician.
Was tall, muscular, and well-made ; had attacks of giddi-
mess all his life. Educated by help of his uncles, at Trinity
LITERARY MEN.
187
College, Dublin, where he was idle. Then he became
secretary to Sir Wm. Temple, who had married a relation
of his mother, and began to work seriously set. 21. Lost
his mind aet. 69, d. set. 78 of water on the brain.
Several of the Swift family, in some distant degrees, have
had abilities. Thus —
GN. Dryden the poet.
UP. Deane Swift, biographer of Dean Swift.
UPS. Theophilus Swift, son of above ; political writer.
Sydney, Sir Philip; scholar, soldier; and courtier. “A gentle¬
man finished and complete, in whom mildness was asso¬
ciated with courage, erudition modified by refinement, and
courtliness dignified by truth.” Was grave as a boy. He
left Cambridge set. 18 with a high reputation, and at once
became a courtier, and a veiy successful one, owing to his
accomplishments and figure. His “Arcadia” is a work
of rare genius, though cast in an unfortunate mould. It
had an immense reputation in its day. He was killed in
battle set. 32, and was mourned in England by a general
mourning, — the first, it is believed, of the kind in this
country. (See also the genealogical tree under Montagu,
in “ Judges,” p. 97.)
Sir William Sydney,
Soldier and knight
of renown.
John Dudley, Earl of Wanvick
and Duke of Northumberland : Earl
Marshal. “ The minion of his time.”
! I
Lucy, marr. Sir Henry Sydney, = Mary
Sir James three times Lord
Harrington. Deputy of Ireland.
Dudley.
Sir Robt. Dudley,
the great Earl of
Leicester.
William Herbert,
1st E. Pembroke,
Statesman and
soldier.
Sir Philip Sydney,
Scholar, soldier,
courtier.
Sir Robert,
1st Earl Leicester,
Soldier & courtier.
1
Mary. = 2d Earl Pembroke.
Epitaph by
Benjonson.
Sir Robert, 2d Earl.
Learning, observation,
and veracity.”
3d Earl Pembroke,
Patron of letters.
Philip Sydney,
3d Earl,
one of Cromwell’s
Council.
Algernon Sydney,
Patriot.
Beheaded, 1683.
Dorothy,
Waller’s
“Saccharissa.”
1 88
LITERARY MEN.
Sydney, Sir Philip, continued —
F. Sir Henry Sydney, a man of great parts, much considered
by both Mary and Elizabeth ; was three times Lord
Deputy of Ireland, and governed wisely.
[G ] Sir William Sydney, a soldier and knight of some renown
in the time of Henry VIII.
g. John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumber¬
land, “the minion of his time Earl-Marshal of England,
and the most powerful of subjects; attainted and be¬
headed 1553.
u. Sir Robert Dudley, the great Earl of Leicester, the favourite
of Queen Elizabeth.
uS. Sir Robert (son of the great Earl of Leicester, but not
enjoying the title), was “a complete gentleman in all
suitable employments, an exact seaman, an excellent
architect, mathematician, physician, chemist, and what not.
... A handsome personable man, . . . noted for . . . tilting,
and for his being the first of all that taught a dog to sit,
in order to catch partridges." (Anthony Wood, as quoted
in Burke’s “ Extinct Peerages.’’)
b. Mary, Countess of Pembroke ; was of congenial tastes and
qualities with her brother, who dedicated his “Arcadia"
to her. Was the subject of Ben Jonson’s well-known
epitaph :
“ Underneath this sable hearse
Lies the subject of all verse,
Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother.
Death, ere thou hast slain another
Wise and fair and good as she.
Time shall throw a dart at thee.”
n. 3d Earl of Pembroke, Chancellor of Oxford ; a scholar,
poet, and patron of learned men.
[B.] Sir Robert Sydney, created Earl of Leicester. (There
almost seems a fatality attached to this title, judging from
the number of times it has been re-created ; no less than
six different families have held it and become extinct.)
Pie was a soldier of some renown.
P. Sir Robert Sydney, 2d Earl of Leicester ; a man of great
learning, observation, and veracity.
PS. Algernon Sydney, the patriot, beheaded 1683. He had
great natural ability, but was too rough and boisterous to
LITERARY MEN.
189
bear contradiction. He studied the history of government
in all its branches, and had an intimate knowledge of men
and their tempers. Was of extraordinary courage and
obstinacy.
[Py.] Dorothy, Waller’s “ Saccharissa.”
Up. Sir Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, Ch. Just. King’s
Bench. See Montagu (in Judges) for this most remark¬
able family, whose high qualities appear to have been
mainly derived through an infusion of the Sydney blood,
inasmuch as of the vast number of the other descendants
of the first Ch. Just. Montagu in Henry VIII. ’s reign, no
line was distinguished except this that had mixed its
blood with that of the Sydneys.
3 t/pS. Baron Kimbolton ; Walter Montagu, Abbot of Pontoise ;
and the 1st Earl Sandwich, the great admiral.
8 £/pP. 1st Duke of Montagu ; William Montagu, Ch. Baron
Exchequer; Charles Montagu, 1st E. of Halifax; Francis
North, 1 st Lord Guilford, Lord Chancellor; and his three
brothers ; Charles Hatton, “ the incomparable.”
Still more could be said, but I refer the reader to the
Montagu genealogy.
Taylors of Norwich. This family — Mrs. Austen being the most
eminent among its deceased members — contains a large
number of well-known names. The Martineau section
also includes a large amount of diffused ability, much more
than would be supposed from the scanty records in the
annexed diagram. Mafiy of its members have attained
distinction in the law, in the arts, and in the army. The
Nonconformist element runs strong, in the blood of the
Martineaus and Taylors.
(1) (See pedigree on next page.) The five sons were —
John and Philip Taylor, both of them men of science.
Richard, editor of the “Diversions of Purley ” and of the
Philosophical Magazine.
Edward, Gresham Professor of Music.
Arthur, F.S.A., author of “The Glory of Regality.”
( 2) The three grandsons are —
Edgar Taylor, an accomplished writer on legal subjects, and
translator of Grimm’s “ Popular Tales.”
Emily, a pleasing poetess.
LITERARY MEN.
190
Taylors of Norwich, continued —
Richard, geologist, author of “ Statistics of Coal.”
(3) Colonel Meadows Taylor, writer on Indian affairs.
I " ~ I
X Sir Philip Meadows,
one of the Latin Secretaries'
under the Commonwealth.
Dr. John Taylor, X
author of “ Hebrew
Concordance,” L&c.
I I
X = Dau. Dau. = David Martineau,
X
1
Gr. -son.
(3)
X
1
Gr. -sons.
(2)
X
Philip M. X
Distinguished
surgeon.
1 i , 7 I
5 sons. Dau. = Dr. Reeve. Sarah, Harriet M. Rev. James M.
(1) author 'and trans. Theology and Unitarian writer
mar. J. Austen, philosophy. and preacher.
Henry Reeve,
Editor of
Edinb. Review.
Lady Duff Gordon.
“ Letters from
Egypt,” &c.
Taylors of Ongar. This family is remarkable from the univer¬
sality with which its members have been pervaded with
Isaac Taylor,
came to London with an artist’s ambition,
and became a reputable engraver.
Charles Taylor,
a learned recluse,
editor of
Calmet’s Bible.
Rev. Isaac Taylor,
author of “Scenes in
Europe,” &c. ; educated
as an engraver, and far
surpassed his father in
ability.
= Ann Martyn,
author of
‘The Family
Mansion.”
Josiah Taylor,
eminent publisher
of architectural
works, and made
a large fortune.
Ann and Jane Taylor, Isaac Taylor,
joint authors of author of
“ Original Poems.” “ Natural History
Ann war. Rev. Joseph of Enthusiasm.”
Gilbert.
Martyn Taylor. Jeffreys Taylor,
author of “ Ralph
Richards,” “Young
Islanders,” &c.
Josiah Gilbert,
author of
“The Dolomite
Mountains.”
Rev. Isaac Taylor,
author of “ Words
and Places,” and of
“The Family Pen.”
Helen Taylor,
author of
“ Sabbath
Bells.”
LITERARY MEN.
191
a restless literary talent, evangelical disposition, and an
artistic taste. The type seems to be a very decided one,
and to be accompanied with constitutional vigour; thus
Mrs. Gilbert died a short time since at the advanced age
of 84. None of its members have attained the highest
rank among authors, but several are considerably above
the average. The accompanying genealogical tree, taken
from “ The Family Pen,” by the Rev. I. Taylor, explains
their relationships.
I should add that Mr. Tom Taylor, dramatic author, &c., is
not a relation of either of these families.
Trollope, Mrs. Frances; novelist of considerable power.
[F •] Rev. — Miller, an able man.
S. Anthony Trollope, eminent novelist.
S. Thomas Adolphus Trollope, miscellaneous writer.
ADDENDA TO PAGE 173.
Austen, Jane; ‘‘Pride and Prejudice,” “Sense and Sensibility,”
&c. An abundance of sterling ability exists among her
relations.
gB. Dr. Theophilus Leigh, master of Baliol for nearly half a
century ; overflowing with puns, witticisms, and sharp
retorts.
[F.] A good scholar.
[/.] had strong common sense and a lively imagination.
[B.] Henry, had great conversational powers.
B. Francis, G. C. B., senior admiral of the fleet.
[B.] Charles, also an admiral; dearly beloved by those whom he
commanded.
[5 NS.] 5 brothers, sons of the Rev. J. E. Austen Leigh, the
biographer of his aunt. They have all been fellows of
their respective colleges, at Oxford or Cambridge ; four
of them were university prizemen, and two were Newcastle
medallists at Eton.
CHAPTER XI.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
My choice of Men of Science, like that of the men of
literature, may seem capricious. They were both governed
to some extent by similar considerations, and therefore the
preface to my last chapter is in a great degree applicable
to this. There is yet another special difficulty in the
selection of a satisfactory first-class of scientific men.
The fact of a person’s name being associated with some
one striking scientific discovery helps enormously, but
often unduly, to prolong his reputation to after ages. It is
notorious that the same discovery is frequently made simul¬
taneously and quite independently, by different persons.
Thus, to speak of only a few cases in late years, the dis¬
coveries of photography, of electric telegraphy, and of the
planet Neptune through theoretical calculations, have all
their rival claimants. It would seem, that discoveries are
usually made when the time is ripe for them — that is to
say, when the ideas from which they naturally flow are
fermenting in the minds of many men. When apples are
ripe, a trifling event suffices to decide, which of them shall
first drop off its stalk ; so a small accident will often
determine the scientific man who shall first make and
publish a new discovery. There are many persons who
have contributed vast numbers of original memoirs, all of
them of some, many of great, but none of extraordinary
importance. These men have the capacity of making a
MEN OF SCIENCE.
193
striking discovery, though they had not the luck to do so.
Their work is valuable, and remains, but the worker is
forgotten. Nay, some eminently scientific men have shown
their original powers by little more than a continuous flow
of helpful suggestions and criticisms, which were individually
of too little importance to be remembered in the history
of Science, but which, in their aggregate, formed a notable
aid towards its progress. In the scanty history of the once
well-known “ Lunar Society” of the Midland Counties — of
which Watt, Boulton, and Darwin were the chief nota¬
bilities — there is frequent allusion to a man of whom
nothing more than the name now remains, but who had
apparently very great influence on the thoughts of his
contemporaries — I mean Dr. Small. Or, to take a more
recent case, I suppose that Dr. Whewell would be generally
ranked in the class G of natural ability. His intellectual
energy was prodigious, his writing unceasing, and his
conversational powers extraordinary. Also, few will doubt
that, although the range of his labours was exceedingly
wide and scattered, Science in one form or another was
his chief pursuit. His influence on the progress of Science
during the earlier years of his life was, I believe, consider¬
able, but it is impossible to specify the particulars of that
influence, or so to justify our opinion that posterity will be
likely to pay regard to it. Biographers will seek in vain for
important discoveries in Science, with which Dr. Whcwell’s
name may hereafter be identified.
Owing to these considerations, the area of my choice is
greatly narrowed. I can only include those scientific men
who have achieved an enduring reputation, or who are
otherwise well known to the present generation. I have
proceeded in my selection just as I did in the case of the
literary men — namely, I have taken the most prominent
names from ordinary biographical dictionaries.
I now annex my usual tables.
194
MEN OF SCIENCE.
4
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 65 SCIENTIFIC MEN,
GROUPED INTO 43 FAMILIES.
One relation (or
Ampere . S.
Buckland . S.
Cavendish . gB.
2. Cuvier . B.
Davy . B.
Galilei . I. F.
Ilarvey . Up.
two in family).
2. Hooker . S.
Humboldt . B.
Linnaeus ...... S.
Pliny . n.
Porta . B.
2. Stephenson . S.
Watt . S.
Two or three relations (or three or four in family).
Aristotle . .
. . F. P. UP.
Haller .
g. S.
Buffon . . .
. . / S.
2.
Herschel ....
b. S.
2.
Celsius . . .
. . S. P.
2.
Idunter .
Condorcet . .
. . U. 2?
Huyghens ....
F. B.
2.
Darwin . . .
. . 2 S. P.
Leibnitz ....
g. F. u.
2.
De Candolle .
. . F. S.
Napier .
F. S.
Euler . . .
• • 3S.
3-
Newton and Huttons
2 7/Pp.
Forbes . . .
. . / B.
Oersted .
B. N.
Franklin . .
. . 2 PS.
2.
Saussure ....
F. S.
Geoffroy . .
. . B. S.
Four or more relations (or five or more in family).
Arago
Bacon
4. Bernoulli
Boyle . .
2. Brodie
3. Cassini .
D’Alembert
4. Gmelin .
Gregory .
3. Jussieu .
3 B. 2 S.
F. f g. 7/S. 2 B. N.
B. 3 N. 3 NS. 2 ?
F. f g. 2 US. UP. 4 B. 2 NS. 2 NP.
7/S. 7/P. S.
G. F. S. P.
f IT. 2 7/S.
F. U. US. S.
g. f gB. B. 3 N. NS. ArS. S. 2 P. PS. 2 Pp.
3U. S.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
I9S
TABLE II.1
Degrees of Kinship.
A.
B.
c.
D
Name of the degree.
Corresponding letter.
V
<u
. Father ....
ix F.
• ••
II
26
100
26
to
V
Brother ....
20 B.
• ••
20
47
150
31
'O
H
1 Son .
26 s.
• ••
26
60
100
60
s
’ Grandfather . .
1 G.
5 S ■
6
14
200
7
a
bJC '
Uncle ....
su.
2 U.
7
l6
400
4
<D \
Nephew. . . .
8 N.
2 n.
IO
23
400
6
, Grandson . . .
6 P.
0 p.
6
14
200
7
c/>
' Great-grandfather
0 GF.
ogF.
0 GF.
0£-F.
O
O
^OO
O
8
Great-uncle . .
oGB.
2 gB.
0 GB.
o^B-
2
S
800
0.6
fiJ
First-cousin . .
3 US.
0 uS.
0 GS.
4 uS.
7
l6
800
2.0
■8
CO
Great-nephew . .
6 NS.
0 nS.
1 NS.
0 «S.
7
l6
800
2.0
1 Great-grandson .
3 PS.
0 pS.
0 PS.
0 /S.
3
7
400
2.7
All more remote .
...
...
...
...
IO
23
...
0.0
Table I. confirms all that has been already deduced from
the corresponding tables in other groups, but the figures
in Table II. are exceptional. We find a remarkable dimi¬
nution in the numbers of F. and G., while S. and P. hold
their own. We also find that, although the female in¬
fluence, on the whole, is but little different from previous
groups, inasmuch as in the first degree —
i G. + 5 U. + 8 N. + 6 P. = 20 kinsmen through males,
5 g. + 2u. + 2 n. + op. = 9 „ females;
and in the second degree —
oGF. + oGB. + 3 US. + 6 NS. + 3 PS. = 12 kinsmen through males,
oj^F. + o^-B. + 4 tiS. + o«S. + o/S. = 4 „ females;
Totals, 32 through males; 13 through females ;
yet, when we examine the lists of kinsmen more closely,
we shall arrive at different conclusions, and we shall find
the maternal influence to be unusually strong. There are
5 g. to 1 G. ; and in fully eight cases out of the forty-three,
1 See, for explanation, the foot-notes to the similar table, p. 61.
196
MEN OF SCIENCE.
the mother was the abler of the two parents. These are
the mothers of Bacon (remember also his four maternal
aunts), of Buffon, Condorcet, Cuvier, D’Alembert, Forbes,
Gregory, and Watt. Both Brodie and Jussieu had remark¬
able grandmothers. The eminent relations of Newton were
connected with him by female links.
It therefore appears to be very important to success in
science, that a man should have an able mother. I believe
the reason to be, that a child so circumstanced has the good
fortune to be delivered from the ordinary narrowing, partisan
influences of home education. Our race is essentially slavish;
it is the nature of all of us to believe blindly in what we
love, rather than in that which we think most wise. We
are inclined to look upon an honest, unshrinking pursuit of
truth as something irreverent. We are indignant when
others pry into our idols, and criticise them with impunity,
just as a savage flies to arms when a missionary picks his
fetish to pieces. Women are far more strongly influenced
by these feelings than men ; they are blinder partisans and
more servile followers of custom. Happy are they whose
mothers did not intensify their naturally slavish dispositions
in childhood, by the frequent use of phrases such as, “ Do
not ask questions about this or that, for it is wrong to
doubt;” but who showed them, by practice and teaching,
that inquiry may be absolutely free without being irre¬
verent, that reverence for truth is the parent of free
inquiry, and that indifference or insincerity in the search
after truth is one of the most degrading of sins. It is
clear that a child brought up under the influences I have
described is far more likely to succeed as a scientific man
than one who was reared under the curb of dogmatic
authority. Of two men with equal abilities, the one who
had 3 truth-loving mother would be the more likely to
follow the career of science ; while the other, if bred up
under extremely narrowing circumstances, would become
MEN OF SCIENCE.
197
as the gifted children in China, nothing better than a
student and professor of some dead literature.
It is, I believe, owing to the favourable conditions of
their early training, that an unusually large proportion of
the sons of the most gifted men of science become dis¬
tinguished in the same career. They have been nurtured
in an atmosphere of free inquiry, and observing as they
grow older that myriads of problems lie on every side of
them, simply waiting for some moderately capable person
to take the trouble of engaging in their solution, they
throw themselves with ardour into a field of labour so pecu¬
liarly tempting. It is and has been, in truth, strangely
neglected. There are hundreds of students of books for
one student of nature ; hundreds of commentators for one
original inquirer. The field of real science is in sore want
of labourers. The mass of mankind plods on, with eyes
fixed on the footsteps of the generations that went before,
too indifferent or too fearful to raise their glances to judge
for themselves whether the path on which they are travel¬
ling is the best, or to learn the conditions by which they
are surrounded and affected. Hence, as regards the emi¬
nent sons of the scientific men — twenty-six in number —
there are only four whose eminence was not achieved in
science. These are the two political sons of Arago (himself
a politician), the son of Haller, and the son of Napier.
As I said before, the fathers of the ablest men in science
have frequently been unscientific. Those of Cassini and
Gmelin were scientific men ; so, in a lesser degree, were
those of Huyghens, Napier, and De Saussure ; but the
remainder — namely, those of Bacon, Boyle, De Candolle,
Galilei, and Leibnitz — were either statesmen or lite¬
rary men.
As regards mathematicians, when we consider how many
among them have been possessed of enormous natural gifts,
it might have been expected that the lists of their eminent
198
MEN OF SCIENCE .
kinsmen would have been yet richer than they are. There
are several mathematicians in my appendix, especially the
Bernoulli family ; but the names of Pascal, Laplace, Gauss,
and others of class G or even X, are absent. We might
similarly have expected that the senior wranglers of Cam¬
bridge would afford many noteworthy instances of hereditary
ability shown in various careers, but, speaking generally,
this does not seem to be the case. I know of several
instances where the senior wrangler, being eminently a
man of mathematical genius, as Sir William Thompson and
Mr. Archibald Smith, is related to other mathematicians
or men of science, but I know of few senior wranglers
whose kinsmen have been eminent in other ways. Among
these exceptions are Sir John Lefevre, whose brother is
the ex-Speaker, Viscount Eversley, and whose son is the
present Vice-President of the Board of Trade; and Sir
F. Pollock, the ex-Chief Baron, whose kinships are
described in “JUDGES.” I account for the rarity of such
relationships in the following manner. A man given to
abstract ideas is not likely to succeed in the world, unless
he be particularly eminent in his peculiar line of intellectual
effort. If the more moderately gifted relative of a great
mathematician can discover laws, well and good ; but if
he spends his days in puzzling over problems too insig¬
nificant to be of practical or theoretical import, or else
too hard for him to solve, or if he simply reads what other
people have written, he makes no way at all, and leaves
no name behind him. There are far fewer of the numerous
intermediate stages between eminence and mediocrity
adapted for the occupation of men who are devoted to
pure abstractions, than for those whose interests are of
a social kind.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
199
APPENDIX TO MEN OF SCIENCE.
Here, as in the previous chapter, I have confined myself to the names that
are most prominent in biographical collections, or that otherwise came most
readily in my way. I add the names of those into whose lives I also inquired,
who seem to have had no kinsmen of marked ability. They are eighteen in
number, and as follow : —
Bacon, Roger; Berzelius; Blumenbach ; Brahe, Tycho; Bramah; Brewster;
Brown, Robert; Copernicus; Galen; Galvani; Guericke; Hooke; Kepler,
rriestley; Reaumur; Count Rumford ; Whewell ; Dr. Young.
Ampere, Andre Marie (1775-1836, ret. 61); eminent man of
science — mathematician, electrician, and philologist. He
was entirely selfitaught, for his parents were in humble cir¬
cumstances. Even in early boyhood, he read voraciously
and showed a most tenacious memory. He was endowed
with a vast vigour of brain, accompanied by a very shy
and sensitive organization. Thus, though his genius was
universal, he became in after life a great oddity, and his
pupils made fun of him. Pie wanted perseverance in any
one direction ; he was always flying off to new subjects.
Arago thought that the discipline of a public school would
have had a most salutary influence on his character.
S. Jean Jacques Antoine, historian and literary man of con¬
siderable eminence and originality. Educated by his
father, who left him free to follow the bent of his genius.
He travelled much, and always with literary and scientific
results. Was Professor of Modern French History in the
College of France.
Arago, Dominique Francois ; mathematician and astronomer.
Writer on many scientific subjects ; also a politician and
strong republican. As a boy, he made great and almost
unassisted progress in mathematics. Became Academician
set. 23. He had a good deal of brusqueness of manner
and of self-assertion. His three brothers were distinguished
in their different professions, as follow : —
B. Jean, driven from France by an unjust accusation ; became
200
MEN OF SCIENCE.
a noted General in the Mexican Service, and rendered
great service in their War of Independence.
B. Jacques ; traveller, artist, and author. He led a restless,
wandering life, and was a man of great energy and literary
power and productiveness.
B. Etienne ; dramatic author of considerable repute, and a most
prolific writer; was a hot republican. He held office
under the provisional government of 1848; was exiled,
under Napoleon III.
S. Emmanuel, barrister, elected, at the early age of thirty-four,
“ membre du conseil de l’ordre,” politician and hot repub¬
lican. He took a prominent part in the Revolution of
1848, but was silenced after the coup d'etat.
S. Alfred, a painter, Inspecteur-General des Beaux Arts.
Aristotle. Founder of the Peripatetic School, one of the ablest
of men in science and philosophy, teacher of Alexander.
He joined Plato’s academy, who called him, ret. 17, “the
intellect of his school.” He had weak health, but mar¬
vellous industry. Was restless; taught as he walked — hence
the name of the Peripatetic School. Was very particular
about his dress. Was wealthy ; lost his parents early in life.
F. Nicomachus, friend and physician to Amyntas II., King of
Macedonia; author of works, now lost, on medicine and
science.
P. Nicomachus. According to Cicero, he was considered by
some to have been the author of the “ Nicomachean
Ethics,” generally attributed to Aristotle.
Up. (? about the form of the U). Callisthenes, the philosopher
who accompanied Alexander the Great to the East, an
imprudent man, wanting in tact, but otherwise able. His
mother, Hero, was Aristotle’s cousin.
Bacon, Francis; created Lord Bacon, Lord Chancellor. “The
wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind ” is an over-hard
sentence on this most illustrious philosopher and states¬
man. His natural gifts were formed by the simple addition
of those of his mother to those of his father. It is
doubtful whether or no he was very precocious, but Queen
Elizabeth certainly took delight in his boyish wit, gravity,
and judgment.
F. Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. He
MEN OF SCIENCE.
201
was the first Lord Keeper who ranked as a Lord Chancellor.
He was a grave stately man, fond of science, gardening,
s and house-building. In all this, his son was just like him.
Married twice.
f. Anne Cooke, a member of a most gifted family, and herself
a scholar of no mean order. Eminent for piety, virtue,
and learning. Exquisitely skilled in Latin and Greek.
[4 #.] The four sisters of his mother are all spoken of in terms
of the highest praise.
g. Sir Anthony Cooke is described by Camden as “vir antiqua
serenitate.” Lloyd (State Worthies) says, “ Contemplation
was his soul, privacy his life, and discourse his element.”
Lord Seymour standing by when he chid his son, remarked,
“ Some men govern families with more skill than others
do kingdoms,” and thereupon recommended him to the
government of his young nephew Edward VI. “ Such the
majesty of his looks and gait, that awe governed, — such
the reason and sweetness, that love obliged all his family :
a family equally afraid to displease so good a head, and
to offend so great.” He taught his daughters all the
learning of the day. I greatly regret I have been unable
to obtain any information about Sir Anthony’s ancestry or
collateral relations.
u S. Cecil, 1 st E. of Salisbury, eminent minister under Elizabeth
and James I. His father was the great Lord Burleigh.
B. Anthony; had weak health, but a considerable share of the
intellectual power which distinguished this remarkable
family.
B. (but by a different mother). Sir Nathaniel, Bart., a man of
rare parts and generous disposition. He was a very good
painter. Walpole considered him to have “really attained
the perfection of a master.” Peacham in his “Graphicce”
says, “None in my opinion deserveth more respect and
admiration for his skill and practice in painting, than
Master Nathaniel Bacon of Brome, in Suffolk, not inferior,
in my judgment, to our skilfullest masters.”
B. (by the same parents as the above). Sir Nathaniel of Stivekey.
His father remarks of him, aet. 22 (when Lord Bacon was
set. 7), “Indeed of all my children he is of best hope in
learning.”
2C2
MEN OF SCIENCE.
Bacon, Francis, continued —
N. (son of another brother). Nathaniel, antiquarian writer,
Recorder of Bury, and Admiralty Judge. He was M.P.
for Cambridge, and a sturdy republican.
Bernoulli, Jacques. The first that rose to fame in a Swiss
family that afterwards comprised an extraordinary number
of eminent mathematicians and men of science. They
were mostly quarrelsome and unamiable. Many were
long-lived ; three of them exceeded eighty years of age.
Jacques was destined for the Church, but early devoted
himself to mathematics, in which he had accidentally
become initiated. He had a bilious, melancholic tempera¬
ment. Was sure but slow. He taught his brother Jean,
but adopted, too long, a tone of superiority towards him ;
hence quarrels and rivalry. Jacques was a mathematician
of the highest order in originality and power. Member of
French Academy.
Jacques. Jean. X
Nicholas. Daniel. Jean. Nicholas.
Jean. Jacques.
B. Jean, destined for commerce, but left it for science and
chemistry. Member of French Academy. (“Eloge” by
D’Alembert.) He was the ancestor of the five following :
N. Nicholas, d. ret. 31. He was also a great mathematical
genius. Died at St. Petersburg, where he was one of the
principal ornaments of the then young Academy.
N. Daniel, physician, botanist, and anatomist, writer on hydro¬
dynamics ; very precocious. Obtained ten prizes, for one
of which his father had competed ; who never forgave him
for his success. Member of the French Academy. (Con-
dorcet’s “ Eloge.”)
N. Jean, jurisconsult, mathematician and physicist. Obtained
three prizes of the Academy, of which he was a member.
Professor of eloquence and an orator. Would have been
a great mathematician if he had not loved oratory more.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
203
He was destined for commerce, but hated it. (D’Alem¬
bert’s “ Eloge.”)
NS. Jean, astronomer, mathematician, and philosopher. Wrote
many works and some travels.
NS. Jacques, physician and mathematician. Drowned when
bathing, set. 30.
NS. Nicholas (son of a third brother), mathematician, member
of the French Academy.
There were yet two others, descendants of the same family,
but I do not know the precise degree of their kinship.
(?) Christophe (17S2-1863), Professor of Natural History at
the University of Basle, author of many works on science
and on statistics.
(?) Jerome (1745-1829), chemist and pharmacist by trade,
but he had a passion for natural history, and by set. 20
had made a considerable collection of mineralogy, which
he afterwards improved until it became one of the most
complete in Switzerland.
Boyle, Hon. Robert. “The Christian philosopher.” Eminent
in natural science, especially in chemistry; a scholar and
a theologian. He also takes rank as a religious statesman,
from his efforts in causing Christianity to be propagated
among the natives of India and North America. He was
seventh son and fourteenth child. Was shy and diffident,
and stedfastly refused the numerous offers of preferment
that were pressed upon him. He was a member of a very
remarkable family, of whom I give a genealogical tree
{see next page).
F. Richard, 1st Earl of Cork, commonly called the Great Earl,
Lord High Treasurer of Ireland ; distinguished in the
Great Rebellion by his energy and military skill. He
made a large fortune by improving his Irish estates.
f. Catherine. “ The crown of all my ” (the Earl’s) “ happiness.
. . . Religious, virtuous, loving ; the happy mother of all
my hopeful children.”
g. Sir Geoffrey Fenton, Principal Sec. of State for Ireland.
US. Michael Boyle, Bishop of Waterford.
US. Richard Boyle, Archbishop of Tuam.
UP. Michael Boyle, Archbishop of Armagh, and Lord Chan¬
cellor of Ireland.
Family ; Earls of Cork, Orrery, Burlington, and Shannon, and other acquired Titl&*.
204
MEN OF SCIENCE .
tx o
d
W
1-)
I*
o
pq
w
W
H
w
n
p*
o
pq
-ij-
w
<$
K
o
„ a,
Q o
Pd rG
to d
a
•V ^
fVt ^
U ^ ^
o .
}h
o
eu,
o
rd
d
'a; ■
'Sj
-5
<u
c3
- <L>
Jh TT
o pq
d
o
-*->
txj
a
• pH
to
in
<v ,
c'-K 'd
M O J-i
w _ .O
< fr'B
<U
Sj °
gpq^
,q
o
<
H3
d
d
a
o
CO
d.
to
T3
to d
W „
e ts-g
P"1 D S-I
O s-i O
HOU
-^oH
£
o
H
£
W
Ph
w
C4
Cn
o
w
O
y £W
>>_4
S-. T3
d d
4-J pH
a; p2
j- <u
o £
O I— <
'd ^
P <u
a ^
pH •+-»
•c co
P4
o
w
£
t— t
. (d
«
a
H
u
P-.
r< xn
C4
- W
J s
04
£ o
<0
rn ^
a5 a
£ a<
CO
d
d
r o
0
o-2
S5 >
t5
d
o
d
d ■
d
I ^ ltd
^ d^
0)
H
U
1 o
LI
PX
' to
'd
d
d
». !h
Pi d
W W
- ° ^
^ d
<u
OQ
d
<u
>s‘5 L_i
U pH
to
d ■
d
>*
Z
w
u-s
x
id
'a
w
W
• £
C c3
c3 Vi
u
<u
r*
c3 ■ — 1 ^
<1)UH
Cl
CO cy -5
d
o
d
d
d .
CO
Ti
CJ
w
<D
<D
t - «
•r^
"T'?, pq
w
P-1
<l)
4-*
c3
•pH
u
o
o
w
"O '
O
rS.
GU
in
t5
Jh g
o) 5
t; g
°n
w cq ^ s
►j w
-d d o ST'
<; o w u
uh|o d
«|.JS
OJ
^ o ^d
SU ^
t; U-, co
•O 0 ^
^ iE t: 0
- a o a rd
ftnW g
^ 10 d
•g -d
t^> d ^
id
. w
0
a'd 2
0 w
q"°
CO
CO
*3
■a
o
>— I
o
rH
Jh
d
w
Tj
il)
d
o
4-»
fcJ3
d -
d
o
P4 w
T3
s I
H
O
Jh
of r9 ' wi
W L ) d _
^ oW
t; 'S ^a
a d n ^
UW^f§
^ O V
^ Mg-
^ o .s fg
pgtL d "o
■ < o cq
5-3 -si
■ to
L 7: K _J
d O <l, Tl
n3
CO
d
HH C3 v
p4 w t:
tSw 2
^ -
CO
MEN OF SCIENCE.
205
Boyle, Hon. Robert, continued —
4B. All did well, all prosperously married. One inherited the
title, and the others were created peers. The most
eminent of these is Roger, 1st Earl of Orrery, Military
Commander under Cromwell in Ireland, afterwards en¬
gaged in the restoration of Charles II., who ennobled him.
Was offered, but refused, the Chancellorship.
[?<£.] Also seven sisters married peers, and from the general
accounts of the family I conclude, in the absence of
knowledge of details, that some at least of them must
have had considerable merits.
NS. Chas. Boyle, 4th E. Orrery ; scholar (“ Epistles of Phalaris”
controversy) ; diplomatist. The astronomical instrument
the “ Orrery” was named after him by its grateful inventor.
NS. Henry Boyle, 1st Earl of Shannon; Speaker of House of
Commons in Ireland, and Chanc. of the Exchequer there.
NP. Richard Boyle, 4th Earl of Cork, encourager of the fine
arts, the friend of Pope.
NP. (But descended from another brother of the philosopher.)
John Boyle, 5th Earl of Cork, the friend of Swift.
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, Bart. ; eminent surgeon ; President of
the Royal Society. The following relationships are taken
from his Autobiography : —
[£.] “ Had the reputation of being a person of very considerable
abilities ; and I have formerly seen some of her MSS,,
which seemed to prove that this really was the case.”
[F.] “ Was altogether remarkable for his talents and acquirements.
He was well acquainted with general literature, and was an
excellent Greek and Latin scholar. . . . He was endowed
with a large share of energy and activity, but .... I
cannot doubt he was a disappointed person ” (owing to
politics). He attended to local business, and acquired a
considerable local influence.
[B.] “ My elder brother became a lawyer, and has since obtained
the highest place in his profession as a conveyancing
barrister.”
uS. Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice (see hi “Judges”).
(His father was an eminent London physician.)
z/P. George Denman, Q.C., M.P. ; the senior classic of his year
(1842) in Cambridge.
10
206
MEN OF SCIENCE.
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, Bart., continued.
S. Sir Benjamin Brodie, second Bart. ; Professor of Chemistry
at Oxford.
Buckland, William, D.D., Dean of Westminster; eminent
geologist.
S, Frank Buckland; naturalist; well-known popular writer on
natural history, especially on pisciculture.
Buffion, G. L., Comte de ; naturalist. “ Maj estate natures par
ingenium.” Nature gave him every advantage in figure,
bearing, features, strength, and general energy. Voltaire
said he had “ le corps d’un athlete et fame d’un sage.”
He was educated for the law, but had an irresistible bias
to science — at first to physics and mathematics, and finally
to zoology.
f. From her he said that he derived his qualities. He always
spoke with great affection of his mother.
S. His abilities were considerable, and his attachment to his
father was extreme. He was guillotined as an aristocrat.
Cassini, Jean Dominique (1625-1712, set. 87); celebrated
Italian astronomer, whose name is chiefly connected with
the discovery of the satellites of Saturn, with the rotations
of the planets on their axes, and with the zodiacal light.
He had an immense reputation in his day. Colbert in¬
duced him, by the offer of a pension, to settle in France,
and to be naturalized as a Frenchman. He founded the
Observatory of Paris. Fie was of a strong constitution,
calm temper, and religious mind ; was the first of a family
of a remarkable series of long-lived astronomers.
S. Jacques Cassini (1677-1756, ret. 79); author of “Theories
on the Figure of the Earth ; ” succeeded his father in the
French Academy.
P. Caesar F. Cassini de Thury.
Flis descendants.
Cassini, de Thury, Caesar Francois (171 4—1 7 S4, ret. 70); showed
early abilities in astronomy; was received into the Academy
ret. 22 ; was author of the governmental survey of France;
published many scientific memoirs.
G. Jean Dominique Cassini. J
F. Jacques Cassini.
See above.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
20 7
Cassini, de Thury, Csesar Frangois, continued —
S. Jacques Dominique (1747-1845, aet. 98); succeeded his father
as director of the Observatory, and finished the “ Carte
Topographique de la France.”
P. Alex. Henri Gabriel (1781-1832, aet. 51); passionately fond
of natural history; no taste for astronomy; wrote “ Opus¬
cules Philologiques ; ” was member of the Academy. He
was a lawyer; President of the Cour Royale at Paris; and
peer of France ; d. prematurely of cholera.
Cavendish, Hon. Henry (1731-1810, se t. 79); celebrated
chemist ; founder of pneumatic chemistry.
gB. William, Lord Russell; patriot; executed 1683. See.
Celsius, Olaus ; a Swedish botanist, theologian, and orientalist.
He is regarded as the founder of the study of natural
history in Sweden, and was the master and patron of
Linmeus. He wrote on the plants mentioned in Scripture;
was professor of theology and of the Eastern languages
at Upsala ; d. set. 86.
S. Magnus Nicholas Celsius, mathematician and botanist ; pro¬
fessor at Upsala.
P. Andrew Celsius, astronomer. It was he who first employed
the centigrade scale of the thermometer ; professor at
Upsala ; d. aet. 43.
Condorcet, Jean Caritat, Marquis de ; secretary of the French
Academy ; also a writer on morals and politics. He was
precocious in mathematical study, and had an insatiable
and universal curiosity ; was very receptive of ideas, but
not equally original ; had no outward show of being vain,
simply because he had a superb confidence in his own
opinions. He was deficient in brilliancy. His principal
faculty was in combining and organizing. Different people
estimate his character very differently. St. Beuve shows
him to have been malign and bitter, with a provoking
exterior of benignity. Fie poisoned himself set. 51, to
avoid the guillotine.
[/] His mother \\%s very devout. She devoted him to the
Virgin, when a child, to dress in white for eight years,
like a young girl.
FT. A distinguished bishop. (Arago’s “ Eloge.”)
(2 ?) He was also nearly connected with both the Archbishop of
208
MEN OF SCIENCE.
Vienne and with the Cardinal de Bernis, but I do not
know in what degree.
Cuvier, George, Baron de ; one of the most illustrious of
naturalists. He became well known set. 26 ; d. set. 63.
He had delicate health as a boy.
[/] His mother was an accomplished woman, who took especia.
care in his early education.
B. Frederick, who early devoted himself to natural history,
and wras little inferior in research to George, though he
never accomplished anything comparable in scientific value
to his brother’s works, except his “ Teeth of Animals.”
D’Alembert, Jean le Rond; mathematician and philosopher of
the highest order. He was illegitimate; his mother aban¬
doned him, and left him exposed in a public market, near
the church of Jean le Rond, whence his Christian name;
the origin of his surname is unknown. He showed, as
a child, extraordinary eagerness to learn, but was dis¬
couraged at every step. The glazier’s wife, in whose
charge he had been placed by the authorities as a found¬
ling, ridiculed his pursuits ; at school he was dissuaded
from his favourite mathematics ; whenever he persuaded
himself that he had done something original, he invariably
found that others had found out the same thing before
him. But his passion for science urged him on. He
became member of the Academy ret. 24, and thence¬
forward his career was one of honour. He was totally
free from envy, and very charitable. Never married, but
had curious Platonic relations with Mdlle. de Espinasse.
His father was said to be M. Destouches, a commissary of
artillery.
f. Mdlle. de Tencin, novelist of high ability ; originally a nun,
but she renounced her vows. She and both her sisters
were adventuresses of note. She allied herself closely
to her brother, the Cardinal de Tencin ; loved him pas¬
sionately, and devoted herself to his advancement. She
managed his house, which became* a noted centre for
eminent men. She was anything but virtuous. Fontanelle,
the Secretary of the French Academy (see in “Poets”
under Corneille), was one of her admirers, previous to
the birth of D’Alembert. JEt. 34 she threw herself intc
MEN OF SCIENCE
209
political intrigue. After D’Alembert had attained fame, it
is stated that she for the first time introduced herself to
him as his mother; to whom he replied, “You are only
my step-mother ; the glazier’s wife is my mother.”
The maternal relatives of D’Alembert formed a curious group.
They were —
[z/.] Madame Feriol, mother of Pont de Veyle and of D’Ar-
gental ; and
[//.] Countess of Grolee ; and the following brothers —
u. Cardinal de Tencin, minister of state and nearly premier.
zzS. Pont de Veyle, song-writer and dramatist; full of spirit, but
a selfish man. He was brought up by a pedant, who
roused in him a hatred of study.
zzS. Argental, Charles Aug. Feriol, Comte de; the confidant and
great admirer of Voltaire, who made him the depositary of
his writings. He was a polished literary critic.
Darwin, Dr. Erasmus, physician, physiologist, and poet. His
“ Botanic Garden ” had an immense reputation at the time
it was written ; for, besides its intrinsic merits, it chimed
in with the sentiments and mode of expression of his day.
The ingenuity of Dr. Darwin’s numerous writings and
theories are truly remarkable. Fie was a man of great
vigour, humour, and geniality.
[F.] It is said that Dr. Darwin “ sprang from a lettered and
intellectual race, as his father was one amongst the earliest
members of the Spalding Club.”
S. Charles, student in medicine, died young and full of
promise, from the effect of a wound when dissecting. He
obtained the gold medal of Edinburgh University for
a medical essay.
S. Dr. Robert Darwin, of Shrewsbury, was a physician* of
very large practice, and of great consideration in other
respects.
P. Charles Darwin, the illustrious modern naturalist ; author
of the “ Theory of Natural Selection.”
2 PS.] One of the sons of the above was second wrangler at
Cambridge, 1868, and another was second in the Woolwich
examination of the same year.
The number of individuals in the Darwin family who have
followed some branch of natural history, is very remark-
210
MEN OF SCIENCE.
able — the more so because it so happens that the taste*
appear (I speak from private sources of knowledge) to
have been more personal than traditional. There is a
strong element of individuality in the different members
of the race which is adverse to traditional influence.
Thus —
[S.] Sir Francis Darwin, a physician ; was singularly fond of
animals. His place in Derbyshire was full of animal
oddities — half-wild pigs ran about the woods, and the like.
[P.] One of his sons is a well-known writer — though under a
no?n de plume — on natural history subjects, and on sporting
matters.
I could add the names of others of the family who, in a
lesser but yet decided degree, have shown a taste for
subjects of natural history.
Davy, Sir Humphry; chemist and philosopher. He was not
precocious as a child, but distinguished himself as a youth.
He published his first essays set. 21. Was Professor of
Chemistry at the Royal Institution set. 23.
B. Dr. John Davy, author of many memoirs on physiology.
Inspector-General of Army Hospitals.
De Candolle, Augustin Pyrame; eminent Swiss botanist. His
infancy resembled that of Cuvier ; both had mothers who
were intelligent and affectionate ; both were of delicate
health, and also of a most happy disposition. He had
hydrocephalus, and nearly died of it set. 7. Being unable
to share the pursuits of other boys, he became studious,
very fond of verse-making and of literature, but was not
interested in science. He collected plants merely as sub¬
jects to draw from, but before long he became deeply
interested in them. When set. 15, his weakness of health
ceased. His is almost a solitary instance of complete
recovery from hydrocephalus. He then became very
vigorous. He wrote a memoir set. 20, that gained him
some reputation. His essay, set. 26, on being admitted
Doctor of Medicine, was a very masterly one. Died
set. 63.
F. Premier Syndic of Geneva on two occasions.
S. Alphonse ; also a Swiss botanist ; Professor and Director of
the Botanical Garden in Geneva.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
211
Euler, Leonard ; Swiss mathematician. His father taught him
mathematics, but destined him for the Church ; however,
the younger Bernoulli discovered his talents, and there¬
upon his father left him free to follow his bent, tie wrote
an important essay cet. 20. Lost one eye aet. 28, and
became quite blind aet. 63. Died aet. 76. Was of a
happy and pious disposition. Had three sons. Twenty-
six grandchildren survived him.
[F.] Paul ; a Calvinist clergyman of good mathematical abilities.
S. Jean Albert; aet. 20, was Director of Observatory at Berlin.
S. Charles ; physician and mathematician.
S. Christopher ; astronomer. He served in Russia.
Forbes, Edward; naturalist of high achievement, and of yet
higher promise ; Professor of Natural History at Edin¬
burgh, but died young, aet. 39, of kidney disease. He was
a true genius and a man of rare social and conversational
powers. In early childhood he showed that he had re¬
markable moral and intellectual gifts. While still a young
student in Edinburgh, he travelled and wrote on the
natural history of Norway. He was constantly on the
move, sea-dredging and the like. Married, but had no
children. The following is taken from Geikie’s Life of
him : “ His immediate paternal ancestors were most of
them characterised by great activity and energy. The
men were fond of travel, fond of society and social
pleasures, free-handed, and better at spending than saving
money.”
f Gentle and pious, passionately fond of flowers — a taste
that she transmitted to her son, the future Professor of
Botany.
[3 u.] One died in Demerara, one in Surinam, and one was lost
in Africa.
[2 B.] One died by drowning in Australia, and another was
accidentally killed in America.
B. The other brother, an excellent mineralogist, was formerly
engaged in the mines of South America.
A love of roving certainly runs in the blood of the Forbes
family, and in none of them was it stronger than in that
of the great naturalist.
Franklin, Benjamin; philosophical, political, and miscellaneous
212
MEN OF SCIENCE.
writer, and a man of great force and originality of character,
American patriot and statesman.
pS. Alexander Dallas Bache, superintendent of the United Coast
Survey ; was professor of natural philosophy, also oi
chemistry and mathematics.
pS. Franklin Bache, M.D., author of many medical works; pro¬
fessor of chemistry.
[P.] W. T. Franklin, editor of his grandfather’s works.
Galilei, Galileo; illustrious physicist. Used, when a child, to
construct mechanical toys. He discovered that the beats
of the pendulum were isochronous, when a boy, before
he knew any mathematics. He was intended for the
profession of medicine, but he broke loose and took to
mathematics. Became blind. Died set. 82.
F. Yicenzo was a man of considerable talent and learning.
He wrote on the theory of music.
[B.] A brother seems to have attended to natural history.
[S.] His son, Vicenzo Galilei, was the first who applied to
clockwork his father’s invention of the pendulum.
Geoffroy, St. Hilaire (Etienne) ; celebrated French naturalist.
He was one of the savant that accompanied Napoleon to
Egypt.
B. Chateau ; a distinguished officer of engineers, much appre¬
ciated by Napoleon. Died, after Austerlitz, of the fatigues
of campaigning. Napoleon adopted his two sons, both of
whom were authors, but of no particular importance.
S. Auguste ; zoologist.
Gmelin, John Frederick; eminent German chemist, naturalist,
and physician. He is the most prominent member of a
family that has given at least five names to science : —
r
1
1
John Conrad.
John George.
Philip Frederick.
1
Samuel Gottlieb.
John Frederick.
1
1
Leopold.
F. Philip Frederick ; botanist and physician, who made scien¬
tific journeys in Europe, and wrote numerous monographs.
U. John George ; botanist and physician, member of the St.
Petersburg Academy, Siberian traveller, author of “ Flora
Siberica.”
MEN OF SCIENCE.
213
Gmelin, John Frederick, continued —
[U.] John Conrad; a physician of repute.
US. Samuel Gottlieb; scientific traveller in Astrakan and by
the Caspian, where he was seized by Tartars, and died in
confinement, aet. 29.
S. Leopold; chemist.
Gregory, James; mathematician; inventor of the reflecting
telescope ; a man of very acute and penetrating genius.
He was the most important member of a very important
scientific family, partly eminent as mathematicians, and
largely so as physicians. The annexed pedigree (p. 214) is
necessary to explain their relationships, but I should add
that I know it does not do full justice to the family. The
talent came from the Andersons, of whom I wish I knew
more. We may accept, at least, the following letters for
the subject of this notice : f, g., gB., B., 3 N., NS., AT>.,
S., 2 P., PS., and 2 Pp.
Haller, Albert von (1708-1777, set. 69); a Swiss physician,
considered as the father of modern physiology. He was
exceedingly precocious ; the accounts of his early genius
are as astonishing as any upon record. He was rickety,
feeble, and delicate as a child. Was exceedingly labo¬
rious, having written above 200 treatises, including some
good poetry. He suffered from gout, and took opium
immoderately.
[F.] His father belonged to an hereditarily pious family, and
had the reputation of being an able lawyer.
g. One of the members of the Supreme Council of Switzer¬
land.
S. Gottlieb Emmanuel ; wrote various works on the history
and literature of Switzerland.
Harvey, William, M.D. ; eminent physician; discoverer of the
circulation of the blood ; a good scholar. He was a little
man with a round face, olive complexion, and small black
eyes full of spirit. He became gouty, and acquired fanciful
habits. He lay in bed thinking overmuch at night time,
and slept ill. He and all his brothers were very choleric.
Married, no children. His relationships show sterling
ability.
[5 B.] Five of his brothers were merchants of weight and sub-
Pedigree of the Family of Gregory. — Anderson (?liis profession).
Mathematical genius was said to
be hereditary in his family.
214
MEN OF SCIENCE .
o>
d .
' d
£
eS
2d
d
VrH
A
O V*
P-i d
*
<u
•d
c
c 1
X
<u
T) £
-S2-S
d d
D d
c
d
<
1)
s
- d
£
D d .
■4-» £ t/)
#2 C cj
•SqS
s
_ d <u
C v- _£j
d d dd
*C 2
■ <U J- g
-*-< TO ”
rr*
o 3 X
</? So ^
rd
<u to
rd d .
*• Oj 71
rrj ^ C
U ^ 2
D
Ih
Q.
cs ^
tT^
• r-H
>
t/>
CJ
*3
ci
d
d
»-r* <->
<v
v
Hi?*
•r-< • pH CJ
■os;
^ u
^ CD 2
£rd £
^ . <L)
22 ^ ^
b/> ° rt
s.gi
fig
tuO
• »v
10 :?•£
ro <U
VO P» 2
-1 3 £
d t/3 8
Sort
^ t))H
t/) jr
QJ S
|'o
d <d
D
u
6 <D
£ g
..a a
<u o
vo *d "P
J- ^ s.
. G-< JD
-v U
ITi O •*-»
d ^ rt
g</i
<D
crt Ci
,a8S
O PM d3
O ri 23
■ s
1/3 <U ^
-*-*
t/i dP cS
2 <£ •
S
rt .2 «
. 'd 22
vd v- g
o <U .3
s-, 22 Td
W
• -*->
rh-d rt
« «-d
. •d S
■° g*g
^ o
II-
o
M
<U
Sh
O
d
2d
o
>
<U
Ph
>, <u
rd ,H
£ £
<d d
CATS «
C fcrt
O rt rd
WH U
d <h
d
w .
kfl-d
(L)
2d
o
£
Jd . d
, — ( >-• -*-»
d J!h
^ « %
£ cddd
tA •rd
d d
CJ
<%
s~
<U
U)
d
<ri
Q
o dd cj
t— >dd 2
cJ
w i! s
^ g.2
o
^ C/5 *H
d ^
Vd 22
2 .5
*.s
c^
a V
C CL>
c3
<D
O
o
D
O
£ p4
Lh -LJ
Ph C/3
- WT fH
0 ’ — 1
f— -t ■
U
t/5
>
D
. ^ 1
Cj £
| j
! ^ <J
rj
D
D
D
D
CJ
- d
in
rtf c*4 ^
^ 2 ^
ofL 2
8
CJ w H
~ d ^
w 2 j
• z* r-*
J. S— ( J-i
^ Cj
<D
• S-i
£ 3
2 «
^ d «
2d ° g
8
IT O
> W
4) ^
p/ .
<*d 03
O
v.
Pm
C/3
Cl
Cl
d
22
,.rd
0) >
d ^
D ,
"d
w
d
D
Ad o
. D wi
^3 X
2 ^O'
o <u
H 71 w
22 ci
J d .
02 vd
VO o
vO'd! 2
M g Pi
rd . J-
„d2 .2
•d .S nd
■> •d ^
Sir Archibald Alison, Wm. Pulteney Alison, Prof,
created Bart., Author of Med. Edinb. and 1st Phys.
“ History of Europe.” to Queen in Scotland.
MEN OF SCIENCE.
215
stance, chiefly trading in the Levant, and most of them
made large fortunes. “ The Merchants’ Map of Com¬
merce ” is dedicated to all the brothers, who were remark¬
ably attached to each other throughout their lives. They
were also fondly attached to their mother, as shown by
the very touching epitaph on her tombstone.
[N. ? how many.] His nephews were prosperous merchants, and
several made fortunes and achieved titles (?). {Man. This
is the statement in the biography prefaced to his works,
published by the Sydenham Society.)
Up. (I believe.) Heneage Finch, created 1st Earl of Nottingham,
Lord Chancellor. Llis father was also eminent {see Finch,
in Judges). William Harvey calls Heneage Finch “ his
loving cousin ” in his will, and leaves him a legacy for his
assistance in making it. I do not know the exact relation¬
ship. Earl Nottingham’s mother was daughter of a William
Harvey, and she was not a sister of the physician. There
were forty-three years’ difference of age between the physi¬
cian and the Earl. It is probable that the Earl was first
cousin once removed to Harvey, viz. the son of his father’s
brother’s daughter.
Herschel, Sir William; eminent astronomer; President of the
Royal Society. Educated as a musician ; came to England
with the band of the Hanoverian Guards, then was organist
at Bath. By set. 41 he had acquired some knowledge of
mathematics. Made his own telescopes, and became a
renowned astronomer set. 43. Died set. 83.
[F.] Isaac ; son of a land-agent, but was so fond of music that
he joined the military band of the Hanoverian Foot
Guards : it was a band of select performers. Fie became
a musician of some note, chiefly as a performer on the
violin and oboe.
[B.] Alexander; good performer on the violoncello; had also
a strong turn for mechanics.
b. Miss Caroline Herschel co-operated in the most helpful
manner, with her brother, in all his astronomical work.
She received the gold medal of the Royal Society. Died
set. 98.
S. Sir John Herschel, also famous as an astronomer, and
one of the foremost philosophers of the day.
2l6
MEN OF SCIENCE .
Herschel, Sir William, continued —
[3 P.] Two of his grandsons have already made a name in the
scientific world — Professor Alexander Plerschel as a writer
on meteorites, and Lieut. John Herschel, the first of his
year at Addiscombe, who took charge of the expedition
organized in 1868 by the Royal Society, to observe the
total eclipse in India. The other son, William, a Bengal
civilian, was first of his year at Haileybury.
Musical gifts are strongly hereditary in the Herschel family.
Hooker, Sir William ; botanist ; late Director and the promoter
of the Royal Gardens at Kew ; author of numerous works
on systematic botany.
S. Dr. Joseph Dalton Hooker, botanist and physicist, Director
of the Royal Gardens at Kew ; formerly naturalist to Sir
J. Ross’s Antarctic expedition, and afterwards traveller in
the Sikkim Himalayas. His mother’s father, g., was
Dawson Turner, the botanist; and his cousins are, 2 ?/S.,
Giffard Palgrave, Arabian explorer and author of a work
on Arabia, and Francis Palgrave, a well-known writer on
literature, poetry, and art.
Humboldt, Alexander, Baron von ; scientific traveller and philo¬
sopher, and a man of enormous scientific attainments.
He had an exceedingly vigorous constitution, and required
very little sleep. His first work on natural history was
published set. 21 ; d. set. 90, working almost to the last.
He concluded his “ Kosmos” set. 82.
B. Wilhelm von Humboldt, philologist of the highest order,
classical critic, and diplomatist. The different tastes of
the two brothers were conspicuous at the university where
they studied together — Alexander for science, Wilhelm for
philology.
Hunter, John; the most eminent of English anatomists ; Sur¬
geon-General of the Army, Surgeon Extraordinary to the
King. His education was almost wholly neglected in his
youth. Pie was a cabinet-maker between set. 17 and 20;
then he offered himself as assistant in the dissecting-room
to his elder brother William (see below). He rapidly dis¬
tinguished himself, and ultimately formed the famous
Hunterian Museum.
B. William Hunter, President of the College of Physicians and
MEN OF SCIENCE .
217
Physician Extraordinary to the Queen ; whose reputation
as an anatomist and surgeon, especially in midwifery, was
of the highest order. Pie was of a sedate and studious
disposition from youth ; was first intended for the Church,
but he took to medicine instead. He formed a splendid
anatomical museum. He never married,
n. Matthew Baillie, M.D., an eminent physician, anatomist, and
pathologist.
11. Joanna Baillie, authoress, dramatist; d. set. 89.
Huyghens, Christian; Dutch astronomer and physicist ; one of
the eminent foreigners whom Colbert invited to Paris and
pensioned there. He was very precocious ; made great
progress in mathematics as a boy ; published a mathema¬
tical treatise aet. 22 ; d. aet. 68 of overwork. Never married.
F. Constantine, a mathematician and a scholar; author of
“Monumenta Desultoria;” Secretary of three Princes of
Orange in succession, and though a politician, he bravely
avowed himself the friend of Descartes.
B. Constantine, succeeded his father in his royal secretaryship,
and accompanied William III. to England.
Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de; one of the greatest of botanists,
author of the “ Natural System,” and the most eminent
member of a very eminent family of botanists. Became
Professor in the Royal Garden aet. 22, and therefore chief
to his uncle Bernard (see below), then 7 1 years old, who
had refused the post, believing himself happier and more
free where he was. There is some doubt how far he was
the interpreter of Bernard’s ideas and how far he was
original. Became academician aet. 25. Had a strong
constitution ; was tall ; had the appearance of a man of
thought, always master of himself. Became blind : all the
botanists of his family were very short-sighted. He was
simple in his tastes, and had a long and healthy old
* age : d. aet. 88. He was descended from a family that
had been notaries generation after generation. His grand¬
father broke through the tradition, and became a chemist
at Lyons.
[GQ His grandmother had great influence over her numerous
children for their good, in keeping them united and
mutually helpful.
218
MEN OF SCIENCE.
Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de, continued —
His father was one of a family of sixteen children, and the
only one of them that married.
U. Antoine Jussieu. Had a love of observing plants even
when a child ; it became a passion when he was a youth,
and drove him in a contrary direction to the path of life
intended for him by his father. He became a student at
Montpellier, had a rapid success, and set. 23 succeeded
Tournefort as Professor of Botany at Paris.
U. Bernard Jussieu, a great botanical genius, some say the
greatest in this family. He, at first, had no taste for
botany, not even when he was a youth, and had shared in
a botanizing excursion. Then he performed the duty of
assistant demonstrator of botany to his brother Antoine,
who persuaded him to follow that science as a profession,
and he kept throughout life to the same subordinate post,
for he preferred it. He was exceedingly attached to
his brother. He became a most patient observer. He
was a calm, composed man ; very orderly; very temperate
and simple in his habits. He was a virtuous, able, and
kindly man. He had strong health, but he became blind,
just as his nephew did after him : d. cet. 78.
U. Joseph Jussieu. Was deficient in the steadiness of his
eminent brothers, but had plenty of ability. He was suc¬
cessively, or rather simultaneously, botanist, engineer,
physician, and traveller. Pie was botanist to the expe¬
dition sent to Peru under Condamine, whence he returned
to Europe with a broken constitution : however, he lived
to set. 75.
S. Adrien Jussieu, the only male heir of the family, succeeded
his father as Professor of Botany. Married ; had only two
daughters; d. cet. 56, in 1853.
X Bernard. Antoine. Joseph.
Antoine Laurent.
I
Adrien.
Jussieu, Bernard. See above.
2 B., N., NS.
MEN OF SCIENCE .
2ig
Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm ; profound mathematician and
metaphysician. He was very precocious, and read every¬
thing he could get. Was an excellent scholar, and became
eminently proficient in law, philosophy, history, politics,
and mathematics before tet. 22. He had a great taste for
poetry, knew a vast deal by heart; even in his old age he
could repeat all Virgil. He was strong, and seldom ailed,
except in later life ; had a great appetite, but drank little ;
was of prodigious activity — everything interested him
equally; was a little subject to giddiness and to gout; d.
set. 68 of gout. Is said to have been vain and avaricious.
Was never married.
g.] Guillaume Schmuck, Professor of Jurisprudence at Leipsic.
F. Professor of Morale (? Casuistry) at Leipsic.
u. A renowned jurisconsult.
Linnaeus (Von Linne), Carl ; the great Swedish botanist, founder
of the Linnsean system of classification of plants. Was
ill taught. He had the strongest predilection for botany,
but his intellectual development in boyhood was slow. He
began to be of high repute mt. 24. He had a curious
want of power of learning languages ; he could not speak
French, and therefore always corresponded with foreigners
in Latin. He was a man of impetuous character ; had
strong health, except some gout ; slept but little. Was
a poet by nature, though he never versified. He married ;
but “ his domestic life does not bear examination, for it is
well known that he joined his wife, a profligate woman, in
a cruel persecution of his eldest son, an amiable young
man, who afterwards succeeded to his botanical chair.”
(Engl. Cycl.)
S. Charles, a botanist of distinction, though far from equalling
his father.
Napier, John; Baron of Merchiston ; inventor of logarithms.
F. Master of the Mint of Scotland. He was only 16 years old
when his son was born.
S. Archibald, Privy Councillor to James VI., created Lord
Napier.
This is an exceedingly able family. It includes the generals
and admiral of the last generation (see “ Commanders ”),
and in this generation, Capt. Moncrieff (Moncrieff s bat-
220
MEN OF SCIENCE.
tery), and Mr. Clerk Maxwell, second wrangler in 185^
and eminent in natural philosophy.
Newton, Sir Isaac; the most illustrious of English mathema*
ticians and philosophers. Was exceedingly puny as a
child ; his life was then despaired of, but he grew to
be strong and healthy. “ The three grand discoveries
which form the glory of his life, were conceived in his
mind before the completion of his twenty-fourth year”
(Libr. Univ. Knowl.) : that is to say, the theories of
gravitation, fluxions, and light. D. set. 84.
Newton’s ancestry appear to have been in no way remarkable
for intellectual ability, and there is nothing of note that
I can find out among his descendants, except what may be
inferred from the fact that the two Huttons were connected
with him in some unknown way, through the maternal line.
The following paragraph is printed in the Catalogue of
Portraits belonging to the Royal Society ; it will be found
under the description of a portrait of Sir Isaac Newton,
which was presented by Mr. Charles Vignolles, the eminent
engineer : — “ The mother of James Hutton and the mother
of Dr. Charles Hutton were sisters; and his grandmother
and the mother of Sir Isaac Newton were also sisters.”
Mr. Vignolles, who is grandson of Dr. Charles Hutton,
has kindly given me the history of the paragraph. It
appears it was written on one of the few scraps of paper
that he inherited from Dr. C. Hutton ; it was in the hand¬
writing of his aunt Miss Isabella Hutton, and appears to
have been dictated by her father, Dr. C. Hutton. There
is absolutely no other information obtainable. Now the
word “his ” in the paragraph is not grammatical ; its inter¬
pretation is therefore ambiguous. It might be supposed
to be intended to apply to Dr. C. Hutton, but a compari¬
son of dates makes me doubt this. Sir Isaac was born
in -1642, and Dr. C. Hutton in 1737, leaving a difference
of 95 years to be bridged over by' only one intervening
generation. This is not absolutely impossible, but it is
exceedingly incredible. It could have come to pass on
some such extravagant hypothesis as the following, viz.
that Newton’s mother may have been only 20 when her
son was born ; also — which is just possible — that her sister
MEN OF SCIENCE.
221
may have been 35 years her junior. Also, that this sister
may have been as much as 40 years old when her daughter
was born, and that that daughter may also have been 40
years old when she gave birth to Dr. C. Hutton. As
40 + 40 + 35 — 20 = 95, this hypothesis would satisfy
the dates. However, I strongly suspect that Miss Hutton,
writing from her father’s not very clear dictation, in his
old age (he d. set. 83), had omitted a phrase which I will
supplement in brackets, and had thereby unintentionally
struck out one or even two intervening generations. Thus,
“The mother of Dr. James Hutton and the mother of
Dr. Charles Hutton were sisters ; [they were children (or
? grandchildren) of Mr. — Hutton ;] and his grandmother
and the mother of Sir Isaac Newton were also sisters.”
This reading would satisfy the possessive pronoun “ his,”
it would satisfy the dates, and it would also account for
the exact nature of the relationship not having been a
matter of distinct family tradition. If, on the other pre¬
sumption, the mothers of the Huttons had been first
cousins to Sir Isaac, the Huttons would assuredly have
often alluded to the fact ; it is a simple form of kinship,
easy to remember, and would have become well known to
their contemporaries, especially to those who were Fellows
•
of the Royal Society, of which Dr. Charles Hutton was
the secretary ; and it would never have been overlooked
by the biographers, either of Sir Isaac or of the Huttons.
In the biographies of the Huttons, Newton is simply spoken
of as having been their ancestor by the maternal line.
uPp. Charles Hutton, LL.D., was the well-known mathematician,
Secretary to the Royal Society, and Professor at Woolwich.
uPp. James Hutton was the geologist and chemist, and founder of
modern geology ; a man whose reputation was very great in
his day, and whose writings some of our modern leading geo¬
logists consider as extraordinarily good and far from obsolete,
[n.] John Conduit; succeeded Sir Isaac as Master of the Mint. '
Oersted, Hans Christian ; Danish physicist and chemist, dis¬
coverer of electro-magnetism; d. set. 74.
13. Anders Sandoe Oersted, Premier of Denmark and author ;
d. aet. 82.
N. Anders Sandoe (also) ; S. American traveller and naturalist.
222
MEN OF SCIENCE.
Pliny the Elder, naturalist. A most industrious compiler and
a student of extraordinary devotion, but curiously devoid at
critical ability. He was parsimonious of his time ; slept
little; was grave and noble. Lost his life in visiting
Vesuvius during an eruption.
n. Pliny the Younger (he took the name of his mother’s family),
author of the “Epistles.” Very precocious; a man of
great accomplishments, a great orator, a patron of men of
learning, and an able statesman.
Porta, Giovanni Baptista ; an Italian philosopher of high emi¬
nence in his day, 1550 — 1615. Inventor of the camera
obscura. He -was a youthful prodigy, and became univer¬
sally accomplished. He wrote well on many subjects
besides science. He founded societies, and gave a notable
impulse to the study of natural science. Unmarried.
B. A younger brother shared his ardour for study.
Saussure, H. B. de ; Swiss geologist and physicist. Carefully
educated ; was appointed Professor at Geneva aet. 22.
His constitution became injured by the effects of Alpine
exploration, also by anxiety on money matters. Died
set. 59.
F. Agriculturist and author of works on agriculture and
statistics.
S. Nicholas Theodore; naturalist and chemist. Died aet. 78.
He was first associated with his father in his pursuits, but
afterwards followed an independent line of inquiry.
Stephenson, George ; eminent engineer. The father of rail¬
ways. A big, raw-boned youth, who educated himself. By
steady but slow advances, he became engineer to a colliery
at a year, aet. 41. His first steam-engine was made
aet. 43. He gained the prize for the best design for a
locomotive aet. 49, and thenceforward his way to fortune
was short. He invented the whole system of railway
labour, its signals, “navvies,” rails, stations, and locomo¬
tives ; and his success was gained in the teeth of all kinds
of opposition and absurd objections.
S. Robert ; precocious and industrious. Became the foremost
engineer of his day.
Volta, Alexandre; an Italian physicist of the highest order, best
known by his electrical (Voltaic) researches. Napoleon
MEN OF SCIENCE.
223
desired to make him the representative of Italian science,
and pushed him forward in many ways, but Volta had no
ambition of that kind. He was a man of noble presence,
strong and rapid intelligence, large and just ideas, affec¬
tionate and sincere character. His scholars idolized him.
He distinguished himself early at college. Began to write
on electricity set. 24. During the last six years of his life,
he lived only for his family. Died set. 82.
[S.] One of his two sons died set. 18, full of promise.
Watt, James; inventor of* the steam-engine and of much else.
He had a share in the discovery of the composition of
water. Was very delicate as a child ; was precocious, fond
of experiment ; read with avidity and indiscriminately.
JEt. 21, he had attracted the notice of the authorities of
the University of Glasgow, as being an ingenious and
philosophical workman. His progress to fortune was slow
and mainly due to his fortunate association with Boulton,
who supplied energy, concentration of purpose, daring,
administrative skill and capital. Watt ailed continually,
and he was very irresolute until he approached old age,
when his vigour became more and more remarkable. Few
men had read so much as Watt, or remembered what they
had read with such accuracy. He had a prodigious and
orderly memory, and singular clearness in explaining. As
an inventive genius he has never been surpassed.
[G.] A humble teacher of mathematics, and something of an
oddity. Mr. Muirhead says of him, in his Life of Watt,
“ It is curious to observe how decidedly a turn for scientific,
pursuits seems, in some measure at least, to have been
common to every male of that family, so as to have
become almost the birthright of both the grandsons of
Thomas Watt, ‘ the old mathematician.’ And it may be
added, that the same inclination still continued to ‘ run in
their veins’ till the line of direct male descent itself
became extinct by the death, without issue, of both the
sons of the illustrious improver of the steam-engine.”
(Page 17.)
[F.] A man of zeal and intelligence, for twenty years town
councillor, treasurer, and baillie of Glasgow.
[/] Agnes Muirhead was a superior woman, of good under-
224
MEN OF SCIENCE .
standing, fine womanly presence, orderly, and ladylike.
An old woman described her from recollection, as “ a braw
braw woman, none now to be seen like her.”
[u.] John Muirhead seems to have been of kindred disposition
to Watt’s father; the two were closely united in many
adventures.
[B.] Died at sea, set. 21. (See above, the allusion to the two
grandsons.)
S. Gregory died set. 27. Was of great promise as a man of
science, and intimately attached to Sir Humphry Davy. Is
well known to geologists by his experiment of fusing stones
and making artificial basalt.
[S.] James died unmarried, set. 79. Had great natural abilities,
but he was a recluse, and somewhat peculiar in his habits.
Wollaston, William Hyde, M.D. ; a very ingenious natural
philosopher and experimentalist, known chiefly by his
invention of the goniometer, which gave an accurate basis
to the science of crystallography, and by that of the
camera lucida. Also by his discovery of the metal pal¬
ladium.
“ A peculiar taste for intellectual pursuits of the more exact
kind appears to have been hereditary in the family.”
CHAPTER XII.
POETS.
The Poets and Artists generally are men of high aspi¬
rations, but, for all that, they are a sensuous, erotic race,
exceedingly irregular in their way of life. Even the stern
and virtue-preaching Dante is spoken of by Boccaccio in
most severe terms.1 Their talents are usually displayed
early in youth, when they are first shaken by the tem¬
pestuous passion of love. Of all who have a place in the
appendix to this chapter, Cowper is the only one who
began to write in mature life ; and none of the others
who are named in the heading to my appendix, except
possibly Camoens and Spenser, delayed authorship till
after thirty. It may be interesting, and it is instructive,
to state a few facts in evidence of their early powers.
Beranger, a printer’s compositor, taught himself and
began to publish at 1 6. Burns was a village celebrity at
1 6, and soon after began to write : Calderon at 14. Camp¬
bell’s “ Pleasures of Hope ” was published when he was 20.
Goldoni produced a comedy in manuscript that amazed all
who saw it, at 8. Ben Jonson, a bricklayer’s lad, fairly
worked his way upwards through Westminster and Cam¬
bridge, and became famous by his “ Every Man in his
Humour,” at 24. Keats, a surgeon’s apprentice, first pub¬
lished at 21 and died at 25. Metastasio improvised in
1 See Preface to the Translation of the “ Inferno/’ by Rossetti, p. xix.
226
POETS.
public when a child, and wrote at 15. Tom Moore pub¬
lished under the name of Thomas Little, and was famous
at 23. Ovid wrote verses from boyhood. Pope published
his “ Pastorals ” set. 16, and translated the “ Iliad ” between
25 and 30. Shakespeare must have begun very early, for he
had written almost all his historical plays by the time he
was 34. Schiller, a boy of promise, became famous through
his “ Brigands ” at 23. Sophocles, at the age of 27, beat
yEschylus in the public games.
I now annex the usual tables.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 24 POETS GROUPED INTO
20 FAMILIES.
One relation (or two in family').
Byron . s.
Chaucer . S.
2. Chenier . B.
Goethe . f.
Heine ....... U
Milman ...... F,
Racine . S.
2. Tasso . F,
Vega . S.
Two or three relations (or three or four in family').
yEschylus .... 2 B.
2. Ariosto . B. N.
Aristophanes . . . 3 S.
2. Corneille . B. n.
Cowper . G. GB.
Dibdin . S. N.
Dry den . S. UY.
Hook . F. B. N
Milton . F. B.
Four or more relations (or five or more in family).
Coleridge . S. s. 3N. P. 2 NS.
Wordsworth . B. 3N.
POETS.
227
TABLE II.1
Degrees of Kinship.
A.
B.
c.
D.
Name of the degree.
Corresponding letters.
v
Father ....
4f.
• ••
• ••
• ••
4
20
100
20
bo|
Brother ....
8 B.
• ••
• ••
• ••
8
40
150
26
H
Son .
9 s.
• ••
• ••
...
9
45
100
45
V)
' Grandfather . .
1 G.
og-
• ••
• ••
I
s
200
2-5
8
Uncle ....
x U.
0 u.
...
• ••
I
5
400
125
Nephew . . .
9 N.
i n.
...
• ••
IO
50
400
12-5
01
[ Grandson . . .
x P.
op.
...
• ••
I
5
200
2-5
1 Great-grandfather
oGF.
0 gF.
oCF.
oj-F.
O
O
400
0
Great-uncle . .
1 GB.
ogB.
0 GB.
oirB.
z
5
800
6
fcfl
First-cousin . . .
oUS.
0 uS.
0 AS.
0 »S.
0
0
800
O
-0
I Great-nephew
2 NS.
0 nS.
0 AS.
0 «S.
2
IO
800
I
l Great-grandson .
oPS.
0 pS.
0 PS.
0 / s.
O
O
400
O
All more remote .
1
...
...
• ••
I
s
•••
...
The results of Table II. are surprising. It appears that,
if we except the kindred of Coleridge and Wordsworth,
who have shown various kinds of ability, almost all the
relations are in the first degree. Poets are clearly not
founders of families. The reason is, I think, simple, and it
applies to artists generally. To be a great artist, requires
a rare and, so to speak, unnatural correlation of qualities.
A poet, besides his genius, must have the severity and
stedfast earnestness of those whose dispositions afford few
temptations to pleasure, and he must, at the same time,
have the utmost delight in the exercise of his senses and
affections. This is a rare character, only to be formed
by some happy accident, and is therefore unstable in
inheritance. Usually, people who have strong sensuous
tastes go utterly astray and fail in life, and this tendency
is clearly shown by numerous instances mentioned in the
following appendix, who have inherited the dangerous
part of a poet’s character and not his other qualities
that redeem and control it.
1 See, for explanation, the foot-note to the similar table on p. 61.
228
POETS.
APPENDIX TO POETS.
I have examined into the relationships of the following 56 poets. Of some
of them — as of those of Ferdusi, Terence, and Sappho — there seems to exist
no record at all, and my information is very scanty about many of the others.
Nevertheless I find that the 20 poets whose names are printed in italics , have
had eminent kinsfolk, and that some of the remainder afford minor proofs of
nereditary ability : thus the father of Bums and the mother of Schiller were
far from mediocrity ; Southey’s aunt, Miss Tyler, wras passionately fond of the
theatre. We may fairly conclude that at least 40 per cent, of the Poets have
had eminently gifted relations.
List of Poets.
AEschylus ; Alfieri; Anacreon; Ariosto ; Aristophanes ; Beranger ; Bums;
Byron; Calderon; Campbell; Camoens ; Chaucer; Chenier; Coleridge;
Corneille; Cowper ; Dante; Dibdin ; Dryden ; Euripides; Ferdusi; La Fon¬
taine ; Goethe; Goldoni; Gray; Heine; Hook; Horace; Ben Jonson;
Juvenal ; Keats ; Lucretius ; Metastasio ; Mil man ; Milton ; Moliere ; Moore ;
Oehlenschlager ; Ovid ; Petrarch ; Plautus ; Pope ; Praed (but see Appendix) ;
Racine; Sappho; Schiller; Shakespeare; Shelley; Sophocles; Southey;
Spenser; Tasso; Terence; Vega; Virgil; Wieland ; Wordsworth.
,/Eschylus, great Greek tragedian ; also highly renowned as
a warrior, and all his family were distinguished for
bravery. He began early to write, but was set. 41 before
he gained his first prize for a drama. He afterwards
gained sixteen ; d. ait. 69.
B. Cynasgeirus distinguished himself so highly at Marathon,
together with AEschylus, that their feats were comme¬
morated by a descriptive painting.
B. Ameinas was noted as having commenced the attack on
the Persian ships at Salamis.
[n.] Philocles was victorious over the “ King of GMipus ” by
Sophocles, but probably with a posthumous tragedy of
Aeschylus.
[2 S.] Euphorion and Bion were said to have gained four
victories with posthumous pieces of SEschylus. What
may have been their share and that of Philocles in the
completion of these plays is unknown ; but at all events,
from and by means of these persons arose what was
POETS.
229
called the tragic school of ^Eschylus, which continued for
the space of 125 years.
Ariosto, Ludovico; author of the epic “Orlando Furioso,” and
of many excellent satires. He wrote dramas as a boy,
and showed an early disposition for poetry, but was
educated for the law, which he abandoned under an over¬
powering impulse towards literature. Never married ; had
two illegitimate sons.
B. Gabriel; a poet of some distinction. He finished the comedy
of “ La Scholastica,” which his brother had left uncom¬
pleted at his death. He wrote several poems, and left
a MS. volume of Latin verses, which were published
posthumously.
N. Orazio was an intimate friend of Tasso. He wrrote the
“ Argomenti,” and other wrorks.
Aristophanes, Greek comedian of the highest order ; author
of fifty-four comedies, of which only eleven have reached
us. His genius showed itself so early, that his first play —
and it won the second prize — was written v’hen he was
under the age prescribed by law for competitors. It was
therefore submitted under a borrowed name.
3 S. His three sons — Philippus, Araros, and Nioostratus — were
all poets of the middle comedy.
Byron, Lord. Very ill-educated at home; did not show genius
when at Harrow; his “Hours of Idleness” wrere pub¬
lished set. 19, and the “ English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers,” which made him famous, aet. 21 ; d. set 36.
[G.] Hon. Admiral Byron, circumnavigator; author of the
“ Narrative.”
[F.] Captain Byron ; imprudent and vicious.
[/.] Was strange, proud, passionate, and half-mad. “If ever
there were a case in which hereditary influences, arising
out of impulse, passions, and habits of life, could excuse
eccentricities of character and extremes of conduct, this
excuse must be pleaded for Byron, as having descended
from a line of ancestry distinguished on both sides by
everything calculated to destroy all harmony of character,
all social concord, all individual happiness.” (Mrs. Ellis.)
s. Ada, Countess of Lovelace ; had remarkable mathematical
gifts.
II
230
POETS.
Chaucer, Geoffrey; wrote the “Court of Love” set. 18. Illus¬
trious poet ; father of English poetry and, in some sense,
of the English language also.
S. Sir Thomas ; was Speaker of the House of Commons and
ambassador to France.
Chenier, Andre Marie de ; eminent French poet. His mothei
was a Greek, and inspired him with a passionate taste foi
Greek literature. He was guillotined set. 32. It was he
who touched his forehead on the scaffold, and said
regretfully, just before his execution, “ Pourtant j’avais
quelque chose la.”
B. Marie-Joseph ; also a poet. He wrote dramas and lyrical
pieces. Among the latter was the “ Chant du Depart,”
which nearly rivalled the “ Marseillaise.” He was a
leading politician under the republic and the empire.
His first play was acted set. 20, and was hissed.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor ; poet and metaphysician ; was filled
with poetry and metaphysics set. 15 ; always slothful and
imprudent. He had warm friendships, but was singularly
regardless of duties, and somewhat querulous ; of a pecu¬
liarly hesitating disposition ; opium eater. Fully eight
members of this family — indeed, nearly all of its male
representatives — have been gifted with rare abilities.
S. Hartley, poet ; a precocious child, who had been a visionary
boy. Flis imaginative and colloquial powers were extra¬
ordinary. He was morbidly intemperate.
s. Sara; had in a remarkable degree the intellectual charac¬
teristics of her father. She was authoress and principal
editor of her father’s works. She married her cousin,
H. Nelson Coleridge, and was mother of Herbert. See below.
S. The Rev. Derwent Coleridge, author, Principal of St. Mark’s
College, Chelsea ; is the remaining child of the poet.
N. Sir John Taylor Coleridge, judge ; eminent in early life as
an accomplished scholar and man of letters.
N. Edward Coleridge, master at Eton, now fellow.
N. Henry Nelson Coleridge, scholar; a well-known writer of many
articles in periodicals ; married his cousin Sara. See above.
P. also BP. Herbert Coleridge, philologist.
[NS.] Henry, late Fellow of Oriel College; now Roman Catholic,
NS. Sir John Duke Coleridge, Solicitor-General.
POETS.
231
Corneille, Pierre ; French dramatist ; creator of the dramatic
art in France ; was brought up to the bar, but left it for
poetry under an overpowering impulse. His first publica¬
tion was a comedy, set. 23 ; d. set. 78.
B. Thomas, also a poet, who worked with Pierre, his elder and
only brother. Their dispositions and way of life were in
singularly close sympathy. Thus their difference of ages
being nineteen years, they married sisters the difference of
whose ages was the same. Their respective families lived
in the same house. They wrote about an equal number
of plays, and their writings were alike in character.
Thomas had the greater facility in authorship, but his
style was inferior in energy to that of his brother. He
succeeded Pierre at the Academy ; d. set. 84.
n. Fontanelle, son of the only sister ; the celebrated Secretary
of the French Academy for nearly forty years. His real
name was Bovier. He says, “ Mon pere etait une bete,
mais ma mhre avait de l’esprit ; elle etait quietiste.” His
was a mixed character — partly that of the man of society
of a frivolous and conventional type, and partly that of
the original man ot science and free-thinker. The Fonta¬
nelle of the opera and the' Fontanelle of the Academy of
Sciences seemed different people. Some biographers say
he had more brain than heart ; others admire his dispo¬
sition. He almost died from weakness on the day of his
birth. He was a precocious child. At college the note
attached to his name was, “ Adolescens omnibus partibus
absolutus” — a youth perfectly accomplished in every
respect. He began public life by writing plays, in order
to imitate his uncles, but his plays were hissed. Then he
took to science, and became academician set. 34. He
lived to extreme old age, becoming deaf and losing much
of his memory; but he was “ aussi spirituel que jamais”
to the last ; d. one month short of set. 100. See D’Alem¬
bert in “ Science.”
[B¥P.\ (?) Charlotte Corday, the heroic assassin of Marat ;
born about 150 years, or probably five generations, later
than the Corneille family ; was a direct descendant of the
mother of Fontanelle.
Cowper, William; a poet, whose writings have a singularly quiet
232
POETS.
charm, and are full of kindly and delicate feeling. He was
past middle age when he began to write ; his first success
was ?et. 54. He had a morbid constitutional timidity in
youth, and insanity with religious terrors hung over his
later life. He contended bravely against them, but ulti¬
mately they overpowered him.
G. The judge, Sir Spencer Cowper.
GB. The Lord Chancellor, Earl Cowper.
Dibdin, Charles ; writer of more than 900 naval ballads. He
was intended for the Church, but a love of music so
predominated that he connected himself with the stage.
His first opera was acted at Covent Garden when he was
set. 16. He afterwards became manager of theatres, but
was improvident, and consequently much embarrassed in
later life.
[F.] Was a considerable merchant.
[/] Was set. 50 when he was born, and he was her eighteenth
child.
S. Thomas ; was apprenticed to an upholsterer, but he joined
a party of strolling players, and took to the stage. He
wrote and adapted a vast number of pieces — none of much
original merit.
N. Rev. Thomas F. Dibdin, famous bibliographer; founder of
the Roxburghe Club, for the purpose of reprinting scarce
books.
Dry den, John ; dramatist, satirist, and critic. He held the highest
standing among the wits of his day. JEt. 17 he wrote
good verses; he published “Astrsea Redux” set. 29, but
was not recognised as a writer of the first order till set. 50.
S. J ohn ; wrote a comedy.
6T. Jonathan Swift, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick’s, satirist and
politician. See wider Literature.
Goethe, John Wolfgang; poet and philosopher. One of the
greatest men of genius the world has produced. His dis¬
position, like that of Lord Bacon, appears to have been
mainly formed by the simple addition of those of his
ancestors. He was an exceedingly precocious child, for
he wrote dialogues and other pieces that were both original
and good between the ages of 6 and 8. Lie was an eager
student in boyhood and youth, though desultory in his
POETS.
233
reading. His character then was proud and fantastic.
Goethe describes his hereditary peculiarities in a pretty
poem,1 of part of which I give a translation from his “ Life ”
by Lewes : — “ From my father I inherit my frame and the
steady guidance of my life ; from dear little mother my
happy disposition and love of story-telling. My ancestor
was a ‘ladies’ man,’ and that haunts me now and then;
my ancestress loved finery and show, which also runs in
the blood.” To go more into particulars, I take the sub¬
stance of the two following paragraphs from Lewes’s “ Life
of Goethe.”
f. One of the pleasantest figures in German literature, and one
standing out with greater vividness than almost any other.
She was the delight of children, the favourite of poets
and princes. After a lengthened interview an enthusiastic
traveller exclaimed, “ Now do I understand how Goethe
has become the man he is.” The Duchess Amalia cor¬
responded with her as an intimate friend; a letter from
her was a small jubilee at the Weimar court. She was
married set. 17 to a man for whom she had no love, and
was only 18 when the poet was born.
[F.] “ Was a cold, stern, formal, somewhat pedantic, but truth-
loving, upright-minded man.” From him the poet in¬
herited the well-built frame, the erect carriage, and the
measured movement, which in old age became stiffness,
and was construed into diplomacy or haughtiness ; from
him also came that orderliness and stoicism which have
so much distressed those who cannot conceive genius
1 “ Vom Vater half ich die Statur,
Des Lebens ernstes Fiihren ;
Von Miitterchen die Frohnatur,
Und Lust zu fabuliren.
Urahnherr war der Schonsten hold,
Das spukt so hin und wieder ;
Urahnfrau liebte Schmuck und Gold,
Das zuckt wohl durch die Glieder.
Sind nun die Elemcnte nicht,
Aus dem Complex zu trennen
Was ist den an dem ganzen Wicht
Original zu nennen.”
234
POETS.
otherwise than as vagabond in its habits. The lust for
knowledge, the delight in communicating it, the almost
pedantic attention to details, which are noticeable in the
poet, are all traceable in the father.
Goethe married unsuitably, and had a son of no note, who
died before him.
Heine, Heinrich; German poet, essayist, and satirist of the
highest order. Was intended for commerce, but took a
disgust to it, and followed literature, as pupil and friend of
A. W. Schlegel. He first published set. 25, but his writings
were little appreciated by the public till set. 28. He became
partially paralysed set. 47, and d. set. 56. Was of Jewish
parentage.
U. Salomon Heine, German philanthropist ; who raised him¬
self from poverty to the possession of nearly two mil¬
lions sterling, and who gave immense sums to public
institutions.
[US.] The son of Salomon ; succeeded him in the management
of his affairs.
Hook, Theodore. Was a remarkably clever boy, who sang well
and composed songs. He had great success set. 1 7. His
constitution was naturally excellent, but he ruined it by
dissipation ; d. set. 53 of a broken constitution. Was
unmarried, but had six illegitimate children.
F. James Hook, a musical composer of extraordinary fertility
and of considerable reputation in his day.
B. Dr. James Hook, Dean of Worcester, accomplished scholar ;
eminent as a political pamphleteer.
N. Dr. Walter Farquhar Hook, Dean of Chichester, theologian,
author, and preacher.
Milman, Henry Hart; Dean of St. Paul’s ; scholar, critic, poet,
historian, and divine. “Fall of Jerusalem,” “History of
the Jews,” &c. Very successful at Oxford. Singularly
handsome. D. ret. 77.
F. Eminent physician, President of the College of Physicians.
Milton, John ; most illustrious English poet, scholar, and repub¬
lican writer. Was handsome and of girlish beauty when
a youth. Had written “Arcades,” “ Comus,” “ L’ Allegro,”
and “ 11 Penseroso ” before ret. 3 1. Became blind about
ret. 40. He abandoned poetry for twenty years, during the
POETS.
235
time he was engaged in political life. “ Paradise Lost ”
and “ Regained” were not written till after that period.
D. set. 66. “Paradise Lost” did not become famous till
long after the poet’s death.
F. A man of considerable musical genius, whose chants are
still in use.
B. A judge, whose creed, politics, and character were the oppo¬
site of those of the poet’s, and whose abilities were far
inferior.
Praed, Mackworth ; a man of a thoroughly poetic disposition,
though of more elegance than force.
[3 n.] Sir George Young, Bart., and his brothers; an able family
of scholars.
Racine, Jean; French dramatist, and author of other writings.
Orphan set. 4; received set. 16 into a school attached to
Port Royal, where he made astonishing progress, but he
soon broke quite away from the ideas and studies of that
place, and devoted himself to works of imagination and to
writing verses ; for this he was severely reprimanded.
S. Louis ; was a poet by nature, but never pursued poetry to his
full desire, on account of remonstrances. lie had high
gifts ; d. set. 70.
Tasso, Torquato; Italian poet; was exceedingly precocious.
His father said of him, set. 16, that he showed himself
worthy of his mother. JEt. 17 he had written “ Rinaldo ;”
d. set. 51, just after his release from a cruel imprisonment
for seven years, and on the eve of his intended coronation
at the Capitol as prince of poets.
[/] Porzia di Rossi was a gifted woman in every respect.
F. Bernardo Tasso, poet; author of “ l’Amadiji,” &c. ; orator.
He was left in embarrassed circumstances in his youth,
and for a long time led a wandering and necessitous life.
Vega, Lope de; Spanish poet of extraordinary fertility. He
wrote 497 plays, and much other matter besides. He was
very precocious. Lie ran away from home, and afterwards
entered the army. He made a considerable fortune by his
pen ; d. aet. 73.
S. A natural son by Marcela ; cet. 14 made some figure as a
poet, but, entering the navy, lost his life in a battle when
still quite young.
236 POETS.
Wordsworth, William; poet. His epitaph by Keble is so
grand and just, that I reprint an extract from it here
“A true Philosopher and Poet, who, by the special gift
and calling of Almighty God, whether he discoursed on
Man or Nature, failed not to lift up the heart to holy
things ; tired not of maintaining the cause of the poor
and simple ; and so, in perilous times, was raised up to
be the chief minister, not only of noblest poesy, but of
high and sacred truth.”
He does not appear to have been precocious as a boy ;
he was a hot republican in his youth ; did not attain rank
as a poet till manhood, about set. 40. He was a principal
member of the “ Lake” school of poets; d. aet. 82.
R Rev. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, master of Trinity College,
Cambridge; author of “ Ecclesiastical Biography,” &c. He
had the three following sons, nephews of the poet : —
N. John; excellent scholar, Cambridge, 1827; d. young.
N. Rev. Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; senior classic, Cam¬
bridge, 1830; formerly public orator of Cambridge, and
Head Master of Harrow ; voluminous author.
N. Charles, Bishop of Dunkeld ; also an excellent scholar.
CHAPTER XIII.
MUSICIANS.
The general remarks I made in the last chapter on artists,
apply with especial force to Musicians. The irregularity
of their lives is commonly extreme ; the union of a pains¬
taking disposition with the temperament requisite for a
good musician is as rare as in poets, and the distractions
incident to the public life of a great performer are vastly
greater. Hence, although the fact of the inheritance of
musical taste is notorious and undeniable, I find it exceed¬
ingly difficult to* discuss its distribution among families.
I also found it impossible to obtain a list of first-class
musicians that commanded general approval, of a length
suitable to my purposes. There is excessive jealousy in
the musical world, fostered no doubt by the dependence
of musicians upon public caprice for their professional
advancement. Consequently, each school disparages others ;
individuals do the same, and most biographers are un¬
usually adulatory of their heroes, and unjust to those
with whom they compare them. There exists no firmly-
established public opinion on the merits of musicians,
similar to that which exists in regard to poets and painters,
and it is even difficult to find private persons of fair musical
tastes, who are qualified to give a deliberate and dis¬
passionate selection of the most eminent musicians. As I
have mentioned at the head of the appendix to this chapter,
238
MUSICIANS.
I was indebted to a literary and artistic friend in whose
judgment I have confidence, for the selection upon which
I worked.
The precocity of great musicians is extraordinary. There
is no career in which eminence is achieved so early in life
as in that of music.
I now proceed to give the usual tables.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 26 MUSICIANS GROUPED
INTO 14 FAMILIES.
2. Gabrielli
2. Haydn .
One relation [or fcuo in family).
N,
B.
Hiller
S,
Two or three relations (or three or four in family).
Bononcini . . . . B. S.
Dussek . F. B. s,
Eichhorn . 2 S.
Reiser . F . s.
Mendelssohn . . . G. F. t>.
Meyerbeer .... 2 B.
Four or ?nore relations (or five or more in family).
2. Amati, Andrea . 2 S. B. P.
9. Bach . G. F. U. GN. 2 GB. 3 S.
2. Benda Giorgio . 3 B. 4 N. S.
Mozart . F. b. 2 S.
Palestrina . 4 S.
TABLE II.
14 FAMILIES.
In first degree . 5 F. 9B. 16 S.
In second degree . 2 G. I U. 5 N. 1
In third degree . 2 GB.
All more remote . 1.
The nearness of degree of the eminent kinsmen is just
as remarkable as it was in the case of the poets, and
equally so in the absence of eminent relations through
the female lines.
MUSICIANS.
-39
Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer are the only musicians in
my list whose eminent kinsmen have achieved their success
in other careers than that of music.
APPENDIX TO MUSICIANS.
I am indebted to a friend, for a list of 120 musicians, who appeared to him
to be the most original and eminent upon record. They were made for quite
another object to my own, and I therefore am the more disposed to rely on
the justice of my friend’s choice. 26 of these, or about 1 in 5, have had
eminent kinsmen, as is shown in the following catalogue. The illustrious
musicians are only 7 in number ; namely, Sebastian Bach , Beethoven, Handel,
Haydn , Mendelssohn , Mozart , and Spohr. The 4 who are italicized are
instances of hereditary genius.
Andrew.
Nicholas.
Allegri, Gregorio (1580 — 1652, mt. 72); composer of the
“ Miserere ” sung at the S. Sixtine at^ Rome in Lent ; a
man of kindly and charitable disposition, who used to
visit the prisons daily, and give what he could to the
prisoners.
? Exact relation. Correggio Allegri and his family. See Painters.
Amati ; a family of eminent
makers of violins, who _
lived in Cremona, and
were the first introducers
of that instrument into
Italy. They are six in
number; indeed, there is
a seventh — Joseph of Bo¬
logna, who was living in 1786, but whose relationship to.
the others is unknown.
Those of the family that showed the most original power
are Andrea (B, 2 S, P), and Antonio (F, U, B, N).
Bach, Sebastian; a transcendent musical genius (1685 — 1750,
ast. 65). He was very precocious, and arrived at the full
maturity of his powers set. 22. His home life was simple
and quiet. He was a good husband, father, friend, and
Antonio.
Jerome.
. I
Nicholas.
240
MUSICIANS.
citizen. He was very laborious ; and became blind from
over-study.
The Bachs were a musical family, comprising a vast number
of individuals, and extending through eight generations.
It began in 1550, it culminated in Sebastian (6 in the
genealogical table) and its last known member was Regina
Susanna, who was alive in 1800, but in indigent circum¬
stances. There are far more than twenty eminent musicians
among the Bachs; the biographical collections of musicians
give the lives of no less than fifty-seven of them (see
Feds’ “ Dictionary of Musicians”). It was the custom of
the family to meet in yearly reunions, at which the enter¬
tainments were purely musical. In or about a.d. 1750 as
many as 120 Bachs attended one of these meetings. A
complete genealogy of the family is to be found in
Korabinsky’s “ Beschreibung der Koniglichen Ungarischen
Haupt Frey, und Kronungstadts Presburg,” t. i. p. 3 ;
also a genealogical tree in No. 12 of the Leipsic Musical
Gazette, 1823. I give a modified copy of this, for it is
otherwise impossible to convey the lines of descent in a
sufficiently intelligible manner. Every person mentioned
in the list ranks as a sterling musician, except where the
contrary is distinctly stated.
F. J. Ambrose, a distinguished organist.
U. J. Christopher, a twin child with Ambrose. These two were
so exceedingly alike in feature, address, and style, that
they were the wonder of all who saw and heard them.
It is added that their wives could not distinguish them
except by their dresses.
G. Christopher (3).
2 GB. Henry (2) and John (4).
[GG.] Weit Bach (1), the founder of the family, was a baker
at Presburg, who sung to the guitar ; was obliged to leave
his town because he was a Protestant. He settled in
Saxe Gotha.
GN. J. Christopher (5), one of the greatest musicians of Ger¬
many ; a laborious student.
S. Guillaume Frederick (7), called “Bach of Halle;” a man
of great power and very learned ; died indigent.
S. C. P. Emmanuel (8), called “ Bach of Berlin;” the founder
MUSICIANS.
Weit Bach, the Fresburg baker. 1
Hans, d. 1626. ? name ; he was musical
I
John. 4
Christopher. 3
I
Henry. 2
I I I
O
3
p
3
w
crq
o
cl,
o
3
•
O
3-
O
»— *
P
CO
o
o
o
cr3
o
a
cn
r-f“
o
3
3
o
►t
_ • o
“P > 3*
<, 3 n.
«-> w)
333
« n O
O *3
jo o
a
3
3
r-r-
P"
a>
o
P
0
-P Ef
Oj -*
rr m •
~ to
r-T-
o
33
•-> 3
•^1 o
O 3
V Cn
D
3*
>1
CO
c-t-
o
33
3*
o
W
rt
p
H
CL.
3 w
(/)
0 2
e pi
3
n
OJ
_ M
2- cl.
' CO
►- a*
_cr c/5
•-t
CD J* ^
S3
^ 05
II I I
~u £
-• -■ H
K)
O p
3 3
3^
£2.0 2T
o 30
P 3^
3 a.
h
o
3
2
•
o
p
co
O 3J o
3
3.
CO
r-t-
►— < •
P
P
a>
a.
a>
►t
■ •
o
o
p*
p
(T>
M
3
<d
CO
I I
On
O
f*-
P"
a>
»-t
CO
p 2
3
p
CO
§■
n
3
n
>—• •
co
P
O
o'
3.
Wo
o 5f
3- 3.
^ CO
rs rt*
S»o
>-* CD
c£ ^
p ^
3
Cu
I I
f
o
p
?T O
P- •
o
p
> — '
t-L. r-
s *Tj :3
. 1 — *
p M
p- 3
o I
3
W S
o CL
>-! -3
jif- 00
w
P 31
£L -«
H-> O
Og*
^ 2.
EF*'
3-<3
o^
W
x
o
o.
o
o
eg
§
>\)
3
P
3
O
o
3
P
3
3
o
^ i
O £2
to
3 g
5!
CD *—• P t-H
to p 2. X
W H
o' </> v< 35
P 0-3 3
tdf^s
o P M {— *
►N 3 ^4 3^
3 £• no o
3 tn Cl. 1
p rt- ON B
p -• vT
241
Pedigree of the Bachs.
242
MUSICIANS.
of our pianoforte music; whom Haydn, and likewise
Mozart, regard as their direct predecessor and teacher.
(Lady Wallace, “ Letters of Musicians.”)
S. J. Christopher (9), called “Bach of England;” a charming
composer.
I have not met with any notice of the Bach musical genius
being transmitted through a female line.
Beethoven, Ludwig von. I insert the name of this great
composer on account of his having formerly been reputed
the illegitimate son of Frederick the Great of Prussia.
However, recent biographers consider this allegation to be
absolutely baseless, and therefore, although I mention the
report, I do not accept its truth. His mother’s husband
was a tenor singer of the Elector’s Chapel at Cologne.
His two brothers were undistinguished. He had a nephew
of some talent, who did not turn out well, and was cause
of great grief to him.
Beethoven began to publish his own musical compositions
ret. 13.
Benda, Francesco (1709 — 1786, ret. 77) ; was the elder member
of a very remarkable family of violinists. His father was
a poor weaver, but musical, and taught his sons to play.
The following table shows how its eight principal members
were related : —
A poor weaver, of musical tastes.
Giovanni. Giuseppi. Giorgio.
Francesco.
Frederico Carl Two musical
Guill. II. Hermann. daughters.
Ernest. ' Frederico
Luigi.
Francesco was the founder of a school of violinists, and was
himself the ablest performer on that instrument in his day.
B. Giovanni, pupil of Francesco; d. set. 38. .
B. Giuseppi ; succeeded Francesco as master of the concerts of
the King of Prussia ; d. set. 80.
B. Giorgio, the most eminent member of this interesting
family. He had vast musical powers, but was fantastic,
and wasted his time in reverie. It is said that, after his
MUSICIANS.
243
wife had died in his arms, he rushed to the piano to express
his grief; but soon, becoming interested in the airs he
was originating, he forgot both his grief and the cause of
it so completely, that, when his servant interrupted him to
ask about communicating the recent event to the neigh¬
bours, Giorgio jumped up in a puzzle, and went to his
wife’s room to consult her.
N. Frederick Luigi (son of Giorgio), musician; husband of
Madame Benda, director of concerts.
S. Frederick Guillaume, a worthy pupil of his father, and a
composer.
S. Carl Hermann, who nearly approached his father as a
violinist.
[2 j.] Two musical daughters.
N. Ernest Fred., son of Giuseppi ; promised to be an artist of
the first order, but d. of fever set. 31.
Bononcini, Giovanni Maria (1640 — ?); composer and writer
on music.
[B.] But the relationship is not established. Domenichino, a
musician at the court of Portugal, who lived to beyond
85 years of age.
B. Antonio, composer of Church music.
S. Giovanni ; composed a very successful opera — “ Camilla” —
set. 18. He was a rival in England of Handel, but had
to yield.
Dussek, Ladislas (1761 — 1812, set. 51); played on the piano
set ^ ; a very amiable and noble character ; exceedingly
careless about his own money ; equally celebrated as a
performer and as a composer. He greatly advanced the
power of the piano. Married Miss Corri (? Currie), a
musician.
F. Giovanni ; excellent organist.
B. Francesco ; very good violinist.
s. Olivia ; inherited the talents of her parents ; performer on
the piano and harp.
Eichhorn, Jean Paul, 1787, and his two sons. Jean Paul was
of humble birth. He showed remarkable aptitude for
music, and without any regular instruction he became a
good musician. He married twice; his son by the first
wife was Ernest, and by the second, whom he married
244
MUSICIANS .
very shortly after the death of the first in childbirth, was
Edward.
2 S. These children were known as “ the Brothers Eichhom.”
They both had marvellous musical powers from the
tenderest years, and played instinctively. Thenceforward
their father used them crueliy, to make as much money as
he could, and compelled them to perform continually in
public. Thus they lost all opportunity for that study and
leisure which are required for the development of the
highest artistic powers.
Edward was not equal in musical ability to his brother.
Gabrielli, Andrea (about 1520 — 1586, set. about 66); an
esteemed composer of music.
N. Jean Gabrielli, a great and original artist, wholly devoted
to musical labours ; eulogized in the highest terms by his
contemporaries and scholars.
Haydn, Francis Joseph. His disposition to music was evident
from the earliest childhood. He was born in low circum¬
stances, and gradually struggled upwards. His father was
a village organist and wheelwright. He married, but not
happily, and was soon separated from his wife, who had
no children by him.
B. Jean Michael. Joseph Haydn considered him to be the best
composer of Church music of his day. He was an excel¬
lent organist.
Hiller, Jean Adam (or Hiiller), (1728 — ?) ; a most eager student
of music ; had a wretched hypochondriacal state of ill-
health in early manhood, which somewhat disappeared in
later life. He had a honourable reputation both for his
musical compositions and writings upon music.
S. Frederick Adam Hiller (1768 — 1812, set. 44) ; a first-rate vio¬
linist. He died when he was rising to a great reputation.
Keiser, Bernhard (1673 — 1739, ast. 66); one of the most illus¬
trious of German composers. He showed originality in
his earliest musical efforts. He was a most fertile writer ;
in forty years he wrote 116 operas, and much else besides;
but copies were seldom made of his works, and they are
exceedingly rare.
F. A distinguished musician and composer of Church music.
s. His daughter was an excellent singer.
MUSICIANS.
245
Mendelssohn, Bartholdy; had an early and strong disposition
towards music; first published set. 15.
G. Moses Mendelssohn, a celebrated Jewish philosopher, who
wrote, among other matters, on the sesthetics of music.
He was precocious.
F. Abraham Mendelssohn, a rich banker in Berlin. His son
says to him, “ I often cannot understand how it is
possible to have so acute a judgment with regard to
music without being yourself technically informed.”
(Letters, ii. 80.)
[2U.] His uncles were well-informed men. One was associated
with Abraham in the bank ; he wrote on Dante ; also on
the currency. The other was a hard student.
b. Very musical; as a pianist she was Mendelssohn’s equal, and
of high genius. She was also very affectionate.
Meyerbeer, James (the name is really Beer) ; was exceedingly
precocious. He played brilliantly cet. 6, and was amongst
the best pianists of Berlin set. 9. He began to publish
compositions set. 19, and d. set. 70.
B. William Meyerbeer, the astronomer — Map of the Moon.
B. Michael Beer, a poet of high promise, who died young.
Mozart, J. C. Wolfgang; was exceedingly precocious as a child —
quite a prodigy in music. He played beautifully set. 4,
and composed much of real merit between the ages of
4 and 6. He overworked himself, and d. set. 35.
F. Leopold Mozart; famous violinist. His method, which he
published, was considered for fifty years to be the best
work of its kind. He composed a great deal.
b. Was a hopeful musician as a child, and excellent pianist, but
she did not succeed in after-life.
S. Charles Mozart ; cultivated music as an amateur, and played
with distinguished talent, but nothing more is recorded
of him.
S. Wolfgang Amede'e ; born four months after his father’s
death ; was a distinguished performer, and has composed
a good deal, but has not risen to high eminence as a
composer.
Palestrina, Jean Pierluigi de (b. ? — died 1594); composer of
Church music ; one of the most illustrious of names in
the history of music, yet nothing is known of his parent-
246
MUSICIANS.
age or family, and even the dates of his birth and death
are doubtful. He married young.
4 S. His three eldest sons — Ange, Rodolphe, and Sylla — died
in their youth. They seem to have had their father’s
abilities, judging from such of their compositions as are
preserved among Palestrina’s works. The fourth son —
Hygin — edited his father’s musical compositions.
CHAPTER XIV.
PAINTERS.
AMONG painters, as among musicians, I think no one
doubts that artistic talent is, in some degree, hereditary.
The question is rather, whether its distribution in families,
together with the adjuncts necessary to form an eminent
painter, follows much the same law as that which obtains
in respect to other kinds of ability. It would be easy
to collect a large number of modern names to show how
frequently artistic eminence is shared by kinsmen. Thus,
the present generation of the Landseers consists of two
Academicians and one Associate of the Royal Academy,
who were all of them the sons of an associate. The
Bonheur family consists of four painters, Rosa, Juliette,
Jules, and Auguste, and they are the children of an artist
of some merit. Very many more instances could easily be
quoted. But I wish to adduce evidence of the inter¬
relationship of artists of a yet higher order of merit, and
I therefore limit my inquiry to the illustrious ancient
painters, especially of Italy and the Low Countries. These
are not numerous — only, as well as I can make out, about
forty-two, whose natural gifts are unquestionably more
than “ eminent ; ” and the fact of about half of them
possessing eminent relations, and of some of them, as the
Caracci and the Van Eycks, being actually kinsmen, is
more important to my argument than pages filled with
248
PAINTERS .
the relationships of men of the classes F or E of artistic
gifts. It would be interesting to know the number of art
students in Europe during the last three or more centuries,
from whom the forty-two names I have selected are the
most illustrious. It is assuredly very great, but it hardly
deserves much pains in investigation, because it would
afford a minimum, not a true indication of the artistic
superiority of the forty-two over the rest of the world :
the reason being, that the art students are themselves a
selected class. Lads follow painting as a profession usually
because they are instinctively drawn to it, and not as a
career in which they were placed by accidental circum¬
stances. I should estimate the average of the forty-two
painters to rank far above the average of class F, in the
natural gifts necessary for high success in art.
In the following table I have included ten individuals
that do not find a place in the list of forty-two : namely,
Isaac Ostade; Jacopo and Gentile Bellini; Badille, Agos-
tino Caracci, William Mieris; David Teniers; W. Van der
Velde the elder ; and Francesco da Ponte, both the elder
and the younger. The average rank of these men is far
above that of a modern Academician, though I have not
ventured to include them in the most illustrious class.
I have kept Claude in the latter, notwithstanding recent
strictures, on account of his previously long-established
reputation.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 26 GREAT TAINTERS
GROUPED INTO 14 FAMILIES.
One relation (or two in family).
Allegri . S
Correggio, see Allegri.)
2. Ostade
Totter
B,
F.
PAINTERS .
249
Two or three relations (or three or four in family).
3. Bellini .
2. Cagliari (and Badille).
3. Caracci .
2. Eyck . . . . .
2. Mieris .
Murillo .
F. B.
u. S.
2 US. UP.
B. b.
2 s.
2 U. uS.
Robusti . S. s.
2. Teniers . F. B.
(Tintoretto, see Robusti.)
2. Velde, Van der . . F. S.
(Veronese, see Cagliari.)
Four or more relations (or five or more in family').
(Bassano, see Ponte.)
3. Ponte . S. 4P.
(Titian, see Vecelli.)
Vecelli . . . B. 2 S. UP. 2UPil
TABLE II.
14 FAMILIES.
4 F. 5 B. 9 S.
3 u. 4 P.
2 US. 1 uS.
4-
In first degree . .
In second degree . .
In third degree .
All more remote .
The rareness with which artistic eminence passes through
more than two degrees of kinship, is almost as noticeable
here as in the cases of musicians and poets.
APPENDIX TO PAINTERS.
I have procured a list ot 42 ancient painters ot the Italian, Spanish, and
Dutch schools, which includes, I believe, all who are ranked by common
consent as illustrious. 1 8 of them have eminent relations, and 3 of the
remainder — namely, Claude, Parmegiano, and Raffaelle— have kinsmen worthy
of notice : these are printed in italics in the following list, the remainder are
in ordinary type.
Italian Schools. Allegri , “ Correggio;" (Andrea del Sarto, see Van-
nucchi) ; (Bassano, see Ponte) ; Bellini; Buonarotti, Michael Angelo ; Cagliari ,
“ Paolo Veronese Caracci , Annibale ; Caracci , Ludovico ; Cimabue ; ( Claude ,
see Gelee) ; ( Correggio , see Allegri ) ; (Domenichino, see Zampieri) ; (Francia,
see Raibolliui) ; Gelee , Claude “Lorraine Giorgione ; Giotto; (Guido, see
Reni) ; Marratti, Carlo; Mazzuoli, “ Parmegiano (Michael Angelo, see
250
PAINTERS.
Buonarotti) ; (Parmegiano, see Mazzuolt) ; (Perugino, see Vannucci) ; Piornbo,
Sebastian del ; Ponte, “Bassano Poussin; (Raffaelle, see Sanzio) ; Raibollini,
Francia ; Reni, Guido; Robusti, “ Tintoretto Rosa, Salvator; Sanzio,
Raffaelle ; ( Titian , see Vecelli) ; Vannucci, Andrea, “ del Sarto ;” Vannucci,
Perugino ; Vecelli , Titian ; ( Veronese, see Cagliari) ; Vinci, Leonardo da.
Spanish Schools. Murillo ; Ribiera, Spagnoletto ; Velasquez.
Dutch Schools. Dow, Gerard ; Durer, Albert ; Eyck, H.; Eyck, J. V;
Holbein; Mieris ; Ostade; Potter, Paul ; Rembrandt; Rubens; Ruysdacl ;
Teniers ; Vandyck ; Velde, Van der.
Allegri, Antonio da Correggio (1494 — 1534, aet. 40); one of
those rare examples of a man of innate and daring genius
who, without a precursor and without a technical education,
became a great painter. Very little is known of his parentage.
S. Pomponeo Allegri, only son ; his father died when he was
only 1 2, but he painted in his father’s style. His fresco in
Parma Cathedral is full of Correggiesque expression.
[p.] Antonio Pelegrino, called “ II Pittore.”
? (I do not know the relation.) Gregorio Allegro, the musi¬
cian. See.
Bassano. See Ponte.
Bellini, Giovanni (1422 — 1512, aet. 90); was the first Venetian
painter in oil, and the instructor of the two greatest
painters of Venice — Giorgione and Titian. He was him¬
self the first Venetian painter, when in his prime.
F. Jacopo Bellini, one of the most reputable painters of the
early period at which he lived. He wras eminent for his
portraits.
B. Gentile Cav. Bellini, painter of very high reputation. The
large pictures in the great Council Chamber of Venice
are by him. The Senate gave him honour, and a stipend
for life.
Cagliari, Paolo, called “Paolo Veronese” (1532 — 1588, tet. 56).
His genius showed itself early. It was said of him that,
in the spring of life, he bore most excellent fruit. He was
the most successful among painters of ornament and of
scenes of sumptuous and magnificent parade.
[F.] Gabrielle Cagliari, sculptor.
u. Antonio Badile, the first of the Venetian painters that en¬
tirely emancipated himself from the Gothic style.
S. Carletto Cagliari ; inherited the inventive genius of his
PAINTERS.
251
father, and gave most flattering promise of future excel¬
lence, but died set. 26.
[S.] Gabrielle Cagliari, a painter, but not a successful one,
who afterwards abandoned the profession and followed
commerce.
Caracci, Lodovico (1555 — 1619, set. 64); the principal founder
of the school that bears the name of his family. His
genius was slow in declaring itself ; his first master having
counselled him to abandon art, and his fellow-pupils having
nicknamed him, from his slowness, “ the Ox.” But the
slowness was more apparent than real; it arose from
profound reflection, as distinguished from vivacity. His
powers vrere extraordinary.
US. Agostino Caracci (1558 — 1601, set. 43); an excellent
painter, but chiefly eminent as an engraver. His powers
showed themselves in boyhood. He was an accomplished
man of letters and science, and had the gifts of a poet.
US. Annibale Caracci (1560 — 1609, set. 49). This great artist
was the younger brother of Agostino. He had received
from nature the gifts of a great painter, and they wrere
carefully cultivated by Lodovico. Annibale had more
energy than Agostino, but a far less cultured mind ; he
vras even averse to literature.
[US.] Francesco Caracci, a third brother of great pretensions as
a painter, but of disproportionate merit.
UP. Antonio Caracci, a natural son of Annibale ; had much
of his father’s genius, and became an able designer and
painter. His constitution wras weak, and he died set. 36.
[B.] Paolo Caracci, a painter, but without original powder.
Claude. See Gelise.
Correggio. See Allegri.
Eyck, John van (1370 — 1441); the discoverer of oil painting.
His pictures were held in the highest estimation at the
time in which he lived.
B. Hubert van Eyck, equally eminent as a painter. In fact,
the two brothers worked so much in conjunction that their
works are inseparable.
[F.] An obscure painter.
b. Marguerite. She was passionately devoted to painting.
Gelee, Claude (called Lorraine), (1600—1682, set. 82). This
252
PAINTERS.
eminent landscape painter began life as an apprentice to
a pastrycook, then travelling valet, and afterwards cook to
an artist. His progress in painting was slow, but he had
indomitable perseverance; was at the height of his fame
aet. 30. He never married ; he was too devoted to his
profession to do so.
[B.] A carver in wood.
Mazzuoli, Francesco, called “II Parmegiano” (1504 — 1541,
ost. 37). This great colourist and graceful and delicate
painter made such great progress as a student, though ill-
taught, that set. 16 his painting was the astonishment of
contemporary artists. According to Vasari, it was said at
Rome that “ the soul of Raffaelle had passed into the
person of Parmegiano.” It is stated that when at the height
of his fame he became seized with the mania of alchemy,
and wasted his fortune and health in searching for the
philosopher’s stone.
[F. and 2 U.] Filippo Mazzuoli,. and Michele and Pier Ilario,
were all three of them artists, but obscure.
(?) US. Girolamo, son of Michele, and scholar of Parmegiano;
he married a cousin, the daughter of Pier Ilario. He was
a painter of some success. The ? is appended to his letter
because it has been said that he was not a relation at all.
It is singular to note the contradictions about the family
concerns of the painters. There is less known of their
domestic history than of any other class of eminent men
except musicians.
[uP. (and also ? UP).] Alessandro, son of Girolamo, and his
scholar. He was but an inferior artist.
Mieris, Francis (the Elder), (1635 — 1681, mt. 46). “It is too
much, with all his merits, to say he is superior to, or even
equal with, Gerard Dow; his admirers should be content
with placing him at the head of the next rank.”
S. John Mieris ; despaired of equalling his father in minuteness
and delicacy, so he followed historical painting and por¬
traiture; died aet. 30.
S. William Mieris; was an able artist cet. 18, and was scarcely
inferior to his father in the exquisite finish of his pictures.
[P.] Francis Mieris (the Younger), son of William; a painter in
the same style as his father, but decidedly inferior to him.
PAINTERS.
253
Murillo, Bartolome Estevan (1613 — 1685, set. 72). Few have
a juster claim to originality than this admirable Spanish
painter. He showed early inclination to the art. He was
naturally humble-minded and retiring, and remarkably good
and. charitable, even to his own impoverishment.
u. Juan del Castillo, a painter of considerable merit, and the
instructor of some of the greatest artists in Spain, namely,
Murillo, Alonzo Cano, and Pedro de Moya.
u. Augustin Castillo, a good painter.
uS. Antonio del Castillo, y Salvedra ; eminent painter as regards
composition and design, but inferior in colouring. He
sank into a despondency after visiting Seville, where he
first saw a collection of Murillo’s pictures, so much superior
to his own, and he died of it.
Ostade, Adrian van (1610 — 1685, ret. 75); eminent painter of
Dutch domestic scenes and grotesque subjects.
B. Isaac van Ostade; began by copying his brother’s style with¬
out much success, but afterwards he adopted a manner of
his own, and became a well-known painter He died in
the prime of life.
Parmegiano. See Mazzuoli.
Ponte, Francesco da (the Elder), (1475 — x53°> set. 55) ; the head
of the family of the Bassanos, and the founder of the
school distinguished by their name.
S. Giacomo da Ponte (called II Bassano), (1510 — 1592,
set. 82); eminent artist; had extraordinary invention and
facility of execution. He had four sons, as follow, all
well-known painters : —
P. Francesco da Ponte (the Younger) ; had eminent talents. He
had attacks of melancholy, and committed suicide set. 49.
P. Giovanni Battista da Ponte, noticeable as a most precise
copyist of the works of his father, Giacomo.
P. Leandro da Ponte ; celebrated portrait painter.
P. Girolamo da ; excellent copyist of his father’s works.
Potter, Paul ; admirable Dutch painter of animals ; before he
was set. 15, his works were held in the highest estimation.
F. Peter Potter, landscape painter, whose works are nOw rare,
but they must have been of considerable merit, judging
from the prints engraved from them by P. Nolpe.
Raffaelie. See Sanzio.
12
254
PAINTERS.
Robusti, Giacomo (called II Tintoretto). This distinguished
Venetian painter showed an artistic bent from infancy, and
far outstripped his fellow-students. He was a man of
impetuous genius and prompt execution.
s. Marietta Robusti (Tintoretto) ; acquired considerable repu¬
tation as a portrait painter, and her celebrity was not
confined to her native country.
S. Domenico Robusti (Tintoretto) ; followed the traces of his
father, but with unequal strength. He was also a good
portrait painter, and painted many of the historical per¬
sonages of his time.
Ruysdael, Jacob (born about 1636); Dutch landscape painter.
He showed extraordinary artistic ability set. 14, but did
not at first follow painting as a profession. He began life
as a surgeon.
[B.] Solomon Ruysdael, the elder brother, twenty years older
than Jacob, was a landscape painter of feeble powers.
Sanzio, Raffaelle, di Urbino. This illustrious artist has, by
the general approbation of mankind, been considered as
the prince of painters.
[F.] Giovanni Sanzio, a painter whose powers were moderate,
but certainly above the average.
Teniers, David (the Younger), (1610 — 1694, set. 84). This
celebrated Dutch painter followed the same style and
adopted the same subjects as his father, such as village
festivals and the like, but his compositions are by far the
more varied and ingenious, and the superior in every way.
F. David Teniers (the Elder), (1582 — 1649, at. 67). His pic¬
tures were very original in style, and universally admired.
They would have been considered among the happiest
efforts in that class of drawings if they had not been
greatly surpassed by the inimitable productions of his son.
B. Abraham Teniers. He painted in the same style as his
brother and father, but though a fair artist he was much
inferior to both of them.
Titian. See Vecelli.
Vandyck, Sir Anthony (1599 — 1641) ; admirable portrait painter,
second only to Titian.
[F-] A painter on glass ; a man of some property.
[/] His mother was skilful in embroidery, which she wrought
PAINTERS.
255
with considerable taste, from designs both of landscape
and figures.
Vecelli, Tiziano da Cadore (Titian), (1477—1576); the
great founder of the true principles of colouring. Showed
considerable ability at the age of 18, and he painted until
his death, by the plague, ret. 99.
There are eight or nine good painters in this remarkable
family : Bryan mentions six of them in his Dictionary, but
it seems that he is not quite accurate as to their relation¬
ships. The annexed genealogical tree is compiled from
Northcote’s descriptions. All those whose names appear
in the diagram are painters. The connecting links indi¬
cated by crosses are, singularly enough, every one of them
lawyers.
X
I
l - 1
X X
r 1 1
X Francesco. Titian. Fabricio. Cesare.
. I
I I I - 1
Marco. X Pomponio. Horatio.
! I
Tizianello. Thomaso.
B. and 2 S. Titian’s brother, Francesco, and two sons, Pomponio
and Horatio, had all of them great abilities. The brother
was chiefly engaged in military duties, and was never able
to make a profession of painting. The sons wanted the
stimulus of poverty, but there is no doubt of their large
natural capacities for art.
[/] Lucia; was a very able woman.
UP., 2 UPS. The other relationships, though distant, are in¬
teresting as showing the persistent artistic quality of the
Vecelli race.
Velde, William van der (the Younger), (1633 — 1707). Is ac¬
counted the best marine painter that ever lived. Walpole
says of him that he is “ the greatest man that has appeared
in this branch of painting : the palm is not less disputed
256
PAINTERS.
with Raphael for history than with Vandervelde for sea*
pieces.” He was bom at Amsterdam.
F. William van der Velde (the Elder), (1610 — 1693, aet. 83);
admirable marine painter, born in Leyden. He taught his
son, by whom he was surpassed.
S. Also named William, and also a painter of the same subjects
as his father and grandfather.
There are three other eminent painters of the same family,
name, towns, and period ; but I find no notice of their
relationships. Thus the two brothers, Esais and John
van der Velde, were born in Leyden about 1590 and 1595,
and Adrian van der Velde was born in Amsterdam in 1639.
Veronese, Paul. See Cagliari.
CHAPTER XV.
DIVINES.
I AM now about to push my statistical survey into regions
where precise inquiries seldom penetrate, and are not very
generally welcomed. There is commonly so much vague¬
ness of expression on the part of religious writers, that I
am unable to determine what they really cnean when they
speak of topics that directly bear on my present inquiry.
I cannot guess how far their expressions are intended to
be understood metaphorically, or in some other way to be
clothed with a different meaning to what is imposed by the
grammatical rules and plain meaning of language. The
expressions to which I refer are those which assert the
fertility of marriages and the establishment of families to
be largely dependent upon godliness.1 I may even take
a much wider range, and include those other expressions
which assert that material well-being generally is influenced
by the same cause.2
I do not propose to occupy myself with criticising the
interpretation of these or similar passages, or by endea¬
vouring to show how they may be made to accord with
fact ; it is the business of theologians to do these things.
What I undertake is simply to investigate whether or no
the assertions they contain, according to their primci facie
interpretation, are or are not in accordance with statistical
1 For example — as to fertility, Ps. cxxviii. r, 3, 5 ; cxiii. 8; and as to found¬
ing families, xxiv. II, 12.
2 For example — as to general prosperity, Ps. i. 4 ; as to longevity, xxxir
12 — 14; and as to health, xci. 3, 6, 10.
25 6
DIVINES
deductions. If an exceptional providence protects the
families of godly men, it is a fact that we must take into
account. Natural gifts would then have to be conceived
as due, in a high and probably measurable degree, to
ancestral piety, and, in a much lower degree than I might
otherwise have been inclined to suppose, to ancestral natural
peculiarities.
All of us are familiar with another and an exactly
opposite opinion. It is popularly said that the children
of religious parents frequently turn out badly, and
numerous instances are quoted to support this assertion.
If a wider induction and a careful analysis should prove
the correctness of this view, it might appear to strongly
%
oppose the theory of heredity.
On both these accounts, it is absolutely necessary, to
the just treatment of my subject, to inquire into the
history of religious people, and learn the extent of their
hereditary peculiarities, and whether or no their lives are
attended by an exceptionally good fortune.
I have taken considerable pains to procure a suitable
selection of Divines for my inquiries. The Roman Catholic
Church is rich in ecclesiastical biography, but it affords no
data for my statistics, for the obvious reason that its holy
personages, of both sexes, are celibates, and therefore in¬
capable of founding families. A collection of the Bishops
of our Church would also be unsuitable, because, during
many generations, they were principally remarkable as
administrators, scholars, polemical writers, or courtiers ;
whence it would not be right to conclude, from the fact
of their having been elevated to the Bench, that they
were men of extraordinary piety. I thought of many
other selections of Divines, which further consideration
compelled me to abandon. At length I was fortunately
directed to one that proved perfectly appropriate to mv
wants.
DIVINES.
259
Middleton’s u Biographia Evangelica,” 4 vols. 8vo. 1786,
is exactly the kind of work that suits my inquiries. The
biographies contained in it are not too numerous, for there
are only 196 of them altogether, extending from the
Reformation to the date of publication. Speaking more
precisely, the collection includes the lives of 196 Evan¬
gelical worthies, taken from the whole of Europe, who,
with the exception of the four first — namely, Wickliffe,
Huss, Jerome of Prague, and John of Wcsalia — died
between 1527 and 1785. This leaves 192 men during a
period of 258 years; or 3 men in every 4 — a sufficiently
rigorous, but not too rigorous, selection for my purposes.
The biographies are written in excellent English, with well-
weighed epithets ; and though the collection is, to some
extent, a compilation of other men’s writings, it may justly
be viewed as an integral work, in which a proportionate
prominence has been given to the lives of the more im¬
portant men, and not as a combination of separate memoirs,
written without reference to one another. Middleton assures
the reader, in his preface, that no bigoted partiality to sects
will be found in his collection ; that his whole attention
has been paid to truly great and gracious characters of all
those persuasions which hold the distinguishing principles
of the Gospel. He does not define what, in his opinion,
those principles are, but it is easy to see that his leaning
is strongly towards the Calvinists, and he utterly reprobates
the Papists.
I should further say, that, after reading his work, I have
gained a much greater respect for the body of Divines than
I had before. One is so frequently scandalized by the
pettiness, acrimony, and fanaticism shown in theological
disputes, that an inclination to these failings may reason¬
ably be suspected in men of large religious profession.
But I can assure my readers, that Middleton’s biographies
appear, to the best of my judgment, to refer, in by the far
200
DIVINES.
greater part, to exceedingly noble characters. There are
certainly a few personages of very doubtful reputation,
especially in the earlier part of the work, which covers the
turbid period of the Reformation ; such as Cranmer, “ saintly
in his professions, unscrupulous in his dealings, zealous for
nothing, bold in speculation, a coward and a time-server
in action, a placable enemy, and a lukewarm friend.”
(Macaulay.) Nevertheless, I am sure that Middleton’s
collection, on the whole, is eminently fair and trustworthy.
The 196 subjects of Middleton’s biographies may be
classified as follow : — 22 of them were martyrs, mostly
by fire; the latest of these — Homel, a pastor in the
Cevennes in the time of Louis XIV. — was executed, 1683,
under circumstances of such singular atrocity, that, although
they have nothing to do with my subject, I cannot forbear
quoting what Middleton says about them. Homel was
sentenced to the wheel, where “every limb, member, and
bone of his body were broken with the iron bar, forty hours
before the executioner was permitted to strike him upon
the breast, with a stroke which they call 1 le coup de grace,
the blow of mercy — that death-stroke which put an end
to all his miseries.” Others of the 196 worthies, including
many of the martyrs, were active leaders in the Reforma¬
tion, as Wickliffe, Zuinglius, Luther, Ridley, Calvin, Beza ;
others were most eminent administrators, as Archbishops
Parker, Grindal, and Usher; a few were thorough-going
Puritans, as Bishop Potter, Knox, Welch, the two Erskines,
and Dr. J. Edwards ; a larger number were men of an
extreme, but more pleasing form of piety, as Bunyan,
Baxter, Watts, and George Herbert. The rest, and the
majority of the whole list, may be described as pious
scholars.
As a general rule, the men in Middleton’s collection had
considerable intellectual capacity and natural eagerness for
study, both of which qualities were commonly manifest in
DIVINES.
26i
boyhood. Most of them wrote voluminously, and were
continually engaged in preachings and religious services.
They had evidently a strong need of utterance. They
were generally, but by no means universally, of religious
parentage, judging by the last ioo biographies of Middle¬
ton’s collection, the earlier part of the work giving too
imperfect notices of their ancestry to make it of use to
analyse it. It would appear that, out of ioo men, only
41 had one or more eminently religious parents, nothing
whatever being said of the parentage of the other 59.
The 41 cases are divided thus :l — In 17 cases (a) the father
was a minister; in 16 cases (< b ), the father not being a
minister, both parents were religious ; in 5 cases (e) the
mother only is mentioned as pious ; in 2 cases (d) the
mother’s near relatives are known to have been religious ;
in 1 case (e) the father alone is mentioned as pious.
There is no case in which either or both parents are
distinctly described as having been sinful, though there
are two cases ( f. )2 of meanness, and one (g.)3 of over¬
spending.
The condition of life of the parents is mentioned in 66
cases — more than one-third of the whole. They fall into
the following groups : —
4. Highly connected, — Hamilton ; George, Prince of An¬
halt ; John a Lasco ; Herbert.
8. Ancient families (not necessarily wealthy). — Jewell,
Deering, Gilpin, Hildersham, Ames, Bedell, Lewis de Dieu,
Palmer.
1 (a) Lewis de Dieu, Alting, Mar.ton, T. Conge, Owen, Leighton, Claude,
Hopkins, Fleming, Burkitt, llalyburton, M. Henry, Clarke, Mather, Evans,
Edwards, Hervey.
(l>) Donne, Downe, Taylor, Whately, W. Gouge, Janeway, Winter, Flavel,
Spener, Witsius, Shower, Doddridge, G. Jones, Davies, Guyse, Gill.
(r) G. Herbert, Hall, P. Henry, Baily, Whitefield.
(d) Wilkins (mother’s father, J. Dod), Toplady (two maternal uncles,
clergymen).
(e) Hale.
2 f. Bullinger, Fulke.
3 g. Baxter.
262
DIVINES.
15. Well connected. — CEcolampadius, Zuinglius, Capito,
Farel, Jones, Bugenhagius, Bullinger, Sandys, Featley,
Dod, Fulke, Pool, Baxter, Griffith Jones, Davies.
23. Professional. — Melancthon and Toplady, officers in
army ; Gataker, Usher, and Saurin, legal ; seventeen were
ministers (see list already given) ; Davenant, merchant.
6. In Trade. — Two Abbots, weaver ; Twisse, clothier ;
Bunyan, tinker ; Watts, boarding-school ; Doddridge,
oilman.
4. Poor. — Huss, Bail, Grynaeus, Fagius, Latimer.
6. Very poor. — Luther, Pellican, Musculus, Cox, Andreas,
Prideaux..
There is, therefore, nothing anomalous in the parentage
of the Divines ; it is what we should expect to have found
among secular scholars, born within the same periods of
our history.
The Divines are not founders of influential families.
Poverty was not always the reason of this, because we
read of many whose means were considerable. W. Gouge
left a fair fortune to his son T. Gouge, wherewith he sup¬
ported Welsh and other charities. Evans had considerable
wealth, which he wholly lost by speculations in the South
Sea Bubble ; and others are mentioned who were highly
connected, and therefore more or less well off. The only
families that produced men of importance are those of
Saurin, whose descendant was the famous Attorney-General
of Ireland ; of Archbishop Sandys, whose descendant after
several generations became the 1st Lord Sandys ; and of
Hooker, who is ancestor of the eminent botanists, the late
and present Directors of the Kew Botanical Gardens. The
Divines, as a whole, have had hardly any appreciable in¬
fluence in founding the governing families of England, or
in producing our judges, statesmen, commanders, men of
literature and science, poets or artists.
The Divines are but moderately prolific. Judging from
DIVINES.
26
the later biographies, about one-half of them were married,
and there were about 5, or possibly 6, children to each
marriage. That is to say, the number actually recorded
gives at the rate of 4J, but in addition to these occurs,
about once in 6 or 7 cases, the phrase “ many children.”
The insertion of these occasional unknown, but certainly
large numbers, would swell the average by a trifling
amount. Again, it is sometimes not clear whether the
number of children who survived infancy may not be stated
by mistake as the number of births, and, owing to this doubt,
we must further increase the estimated average. . Now in
order that population should not decrease, each set of 4
adults, 2 males and 2 females, must leave at least 4 chil¬
dren who live to be adults, behind them. In the case of
the Divines, we have seen that only one-half are married
men ; therefore each married Divine must leave 4 adults
to succeed him, if his race is not to decrease. This
implies an average family of more than 6 children, or,
as a matter of fact, larger families than the Divines appear
to have had.
Those who marry, often marry more than once. We
hear in all of 81 married men; 3 of these, namely, Junius,
Gataker, and Flavel, had each of them 4 wives ; Bucer
and Mather had 3 ; and 12 others had 2 wives each. The
frequency with which the Divines became widowers is a
remarkable fact, especially as they did not usually marry
when young. I account for the early deaths of their wives,
on the hypothesis that their constitutions were weak, and
my reasons for thinking so are twofold. First, a very large
proportion of them died in childbirth, for seven such deaths
are mentioned, and there is no reason to suppose that all,
or nearly all, that occurred have been recorded by Middle-
ton. Secondly, it appears, that the wives of the Divines
were usually women of great piety ; now it will be shown
a little further on, that there is a frequent correlation
264
D/V/NES.
between an unusually devout disposition and a weak con¬
stitution.
The Divines seem to have been very happy in their
domestic life. I know of few exceptions to this rule : the
wife of T. Cooper was unfaithful, and that of poor Hooker
was a termagant. Yet in many cases, these simple-hearted
worthies had made their proposals under advice, and not
through love. Calvin married on Bucer’s advice ; and as
for Bishop Hall, he may tell his own story, for it is a
typical one. After he had built his house, he says, in his
autobiography, “ The uncouth solitariness of my life, and
the extreme incommodity of my single housekeeping, drew
my thoughts after two years, to condescend to the necessity
of a married estate, which God no less strangely provided for
me, for walking from the church on Monday in the Whitsun
week with a grave and reverend minister, Mr. Grandidge,
I saw a comely and modest gentlewoman standing at the
door of that house where we were invited to a wedding-
dinner, and inquiring of that worthy friend whether he
knew her, ‘Yes,’ quoth he, * I know her well, and have
bespoken her for your wife.’ When I further demanded
an account of that answer, he told me she was the daughter
of a gentleman whom he much respected, Mr. George
Winniffe, of Bretenham ; that out of an opinion had of
the fitness of that match for me, he had already treated
with her father about it, whom he found very apt to enter¬
tain it, advising me not to neglect the opportunity, and not
concealing the just praises of the modesty, piety, good dis¬
position, and other virtues that were lodged in that seemly
presence. I listened to the motion as sent from God ; and
at last, upon due prosecution, happily prevailed, enjoying the
company of that meet-help for the space of forty-nine years.”
The mortality of the Divines follows closely the same
order in those who are mentioned in the earlier, as in
the later volumes of Middleton’s collection, although the
DIVINES.
265
conditions of life must have varied in the periods to which
they refer. Out of the 196, nearly half of them die between
the ages of 55 and 75 ; one quarter die before 55, and one
quarter after 75 : 62 or 63 is the average age at death, in
the sense that as many die before that age as after it.
This is rather less than I have deduced from the other
groups of eminent men treated of in this volume. Dod, the
most aged of all of the Divines, lived till he wras 98. Nowell
and Du Moulin died between 90 and 95 ; and Zanchius,
Beza, and Conant, . between 85 and 90. The diseases
that killed them are chiefly those due to a sedentary life,
for, if we exclude the martyrs, one quarter of all the
recorded cases were from the stone or strangury, between
which diseases the doctors did not then satisfactorily dis¬
criminate ; indeed, they murdered Bishop Wilkins by
mistaking the one for the other. There are five gases of
plague, and the rest consist of the following groups- in
pretty equal proportions, viz. fever and ague, lung disease,
brain attacks, and unclassed diseases.
As regards health, the constitutions of most of the
divines were remarkably bad. It is, I find, very common
among scholars to have been infirm in youth, whence, partly
from inaptitude to join with other boys in their amuse¬
ments, and partly from unhealthy inactivity of the brain,
they take eagerly to bookish pursuits. Speaking broadly,
there are three eventualities to these young students. They
die young; or they strengthen as they grow, retaining their
tastes and enabled to indulge them with sustained energy ;
or they live on in a sickly way. The Divines are largely
recruited from the sickly portion of these adults. There is
an air of invalidism about most religious biographies, that
also seems to me to pervade, to some degree, the lives in
Middleton’s collection.
He especially notices the following fourteen or fifteen
cases of weak constitution : —
266
DIVINES.
i. Melancthon, d. act. 63, whose health required con¬
tinual management. 2. Calvin, d. set. 55, faint, thin, and
consumptive, but who nevertheless got through an immense
amount of work. Perhaps we may say 3. Junius, d. set. 47,
a most infirm and sickly child, never expected to reach
manhood, but he strengthened as he grew, and though he
died young, it was the plague that killed him ; he more¬
over survived four wives. 4. Downe, d. set. 61, a Somerset¬
shire vicar, who through all his life, “ in health and strength,
was a professed pilgrim and sojourner ” in the world.
5. George Herbert, d. set. 42, consumptive, and subject to
frequent fevers and other infirmities, seems to have owed
the bent of his mind very much to his ill-health, for he
grew more pious as he became more stricken, and we can
trace that courageous, chivalric character in him which
developed itself in a more robust way in his ancestors and
brothers, who were mostly gallant soldiers. One brother
was a sailor of reputation ; another carried twenty-four
wounds on his person. 6. Bishop Potter, d. set. 64, was
of a weak constitution, melancholic, lean, and puritanical.
7. Janeway, d. set. 24, found “hard study and work by far
an overmatch for him.” 8. Baxter, d. act. 76, was always
in wretched health ; he was tormented with a stone in the
kidney (which, by the way, is said to have been preserved
in the College of Surgeons). 9. Philip Plenry, d. aet. 65,
called the “ heavenly Plenry ” when a young clergyman,
was a weakly child ; he grew stronger as an adult, but
ruined his improved health by the sedentary ways of a
student’s life, alternating with excitement in the pulpit,
where “he sweated profusely as he prayed fervently.” He
died of apoplexy. 10. Harvey, d. act. 30, was such a weakly,
puny object, that his father did not like his becoming a
minister, “ lest his stature should render him despicable.”
11. Moth, d. aet. ? seems another instance. Hardly any
personal anecdote is given of him, except that “ God was
DIVINES.
267
pleased to try him many ways,” which phrase I interpret to
include ill-health. 12. Brainerd, d. set. 29, was naturally
infirm, and died of a complication of obstinate disorders.
13. Hervey, d. set. 55, though an early riser, was very
weakly by nature ; he was terribly emaciated before his
death. 14. Guise, d. set. 81, a great age for those times,
was nevertheless sickly. lie was hectic and overworked
in early life, afterwards ill and lame, and lastly blind.
15. Toplady, d. set. 38, struggled in vain for health and a
longer life, by changing his residence at the sacrifice of his
hopes of fortune.
In addition to these fifteen cases of constitutions stated
to have been naturally weak, we should count at least
twelve of those that broke down under the strain of work.
Even when the labour that ruined their health was un¬
reasonably severe, the zeal which goaded them to work
beyond their strength may be considered as being, in some
degree, the symptom of a faulty constitution. Each case
ought to be considered on its own merits ; they are as
follow : — 1. Whitaker, d. act. 48, laid the seeds of death by
his incredible application. 2. Rollock, d. act. 43, the first
Principal of the University of Edinburgh, died in conse¬
quence of over-work, though the actual cause of his death
was the stone. 3. Dr. Rainolds, d. act. 48, called “ the
treasury of all learning, human and divine,” deliberately
followed his instinct for over-work to the very grave, saying
that he would not “ propter vitam vivendi perdere causas,”
— lose the ends of living for the sake of life. 4. Stock,
d. aet. ? “ spent himself like a taper, consuming himself for
the good of others.” 5. Preston, d. aet. 41, sacrificed his
life to excessive zeal ; he is quoted as an example of the
saying, that “ men of great parts have no moderation.”
He died an “old” man at the age of 41. 6. Herbert
Palmer, d. aet. 46, after a short illness ; “ for, having spent
much of his natural strength in the service of God, there
268
DIVINES.
was less work for sickness to do.” 7. Baily, d. set. 54, who
was so holy and conscientious, “ that if he had been at any
time but innocently pleasant in the company of his friends,
it cost him afterwards some sad reflections ” (preserve me
from the privilege of such companions !) ; lost his health
early in life. 8. Clarke, d. set. 62, was too laborious, and
had in consequence a fever set. 43, which extremely
weakened his constitution. 9. Ulrich, d. set. 48, had an
“ ill habit of body, contracted by a sedentary life and the
overstraining of his voice in preaching.” 10. Isaac Watts,
d. set. 74, a proficient child, but not strong ; fell very ill
set. 24, and again set. 38, and from this he never recovered,
but passed the rest of his life in congenial seclusion, an
inmate of the house of Sir T. Abney, and afterwards of
his widow. 1 1. Davies, d. set. 37, a sprightly boy and keen
rider ; grew into a religious man of so sedentary a dis¬
position, that after he was made Presiden^/of Yale College^
in America, he took hardly any exercise. He was there
killed by a simple cold, followed by some imprudence in
sermon-writing, his vital powers being too low to support
any physical strain. 12. T. Jones, d. set. 32 : “ Before the
Lord was pleased to call him, he was walking in the error
of his ways ; ” then he was afflicted “ with a disorder
that kept him very low and brought him to death’s door,
during all which time his growth in grace was great and
remarkable.”
This concludes my list of those Divines, 26 in number,
who were specially noted by Middleton as invalids. It
will be seen that about one-half of them were infirm from
the first, and that the other half became broken down early
in life. It must not be supposed that the remainder of the
196 were invariably healthy men. These biographies dwell
little on personal characteristics, and therefore their silence
on the matter of health must not be interpreted as neces¬
sarily meaning that the health was good. On the contrary,
DIVINES.
269
as I said before, there is an air as of the sick-room running
through the collection, but to a much less degree than in
religious biographies that I have elsewhere read. A
gently complaining, and fatigued spirit, is that in which
Evangelical Divines are very apt to pass their days.
It is curious how large a part of religious biographies is
commonly given up to the occurrences of the sick-room.
We can easily understand why considerable space should
be devoted to such matters, because it is on the death-bed
that the believer s sincerity is most surely tested ; but this
is insufficient to account for all we find in Middleton and
elsewhere. There is, I think, an actual pleasure shown by
Evangelical writers in dwelling on occurrences that disgust
most people. Rivet, a French divine, has strangulation of
the intestines, which kills him after twelve days’ suffering.
The remedies attempted, each successive pang, and each
corresponding religious ejaculation is recorded, and so
the history of his bowel-attack is protracted through
forty-five pages, which is as much space as is allotted to
the entire biographies of four average divines. Mede’s
death, and its cause, is described with equal minuteness,
and with still more repulsive details, but in a less dif¬
fused form.
I have thus far shown that 26 Divines out of the 196,
or one-eighth part of them, were certainly invalids, and
I have laid much stress on the hypothesis that silence
about health does not mean healthiness ; however, I can
add other reasons to corroborate my very strong im¬
pression that the Divines are, on the whole, an ailing
body of men. I can show that the number of persons
mentioned as robust are disproportionately few, and I
would claim a comparison between the numbers of the
notably weak and the notably strong, rather than one
between the notably weak and the rest of the 196. In
professions where men are obliged to speak much in public,
DIVINES.
170
the constitutional vigour of those who succeed is com¬
monly extraordinary. It would be impossible to read a
collection of lives of eminent orators, lawyers, and the
like, without being impressed with the largeness of the
number of those who have constitutions of iron ; but this
is not at all the case with the Divines, for Middleton
speaks of only 12, or perhaps 13 men who were remarkable
for their vigour.
Two very instructive facts appear in connexion with
these vigorous Divines : we find, on the one hand, that of
the 12 or 13 who were decidedly robust, 5, if not 6, were
irregular and wild in their youth ; and, on the other hand,
that only 3 or 4 Divines are stated to have been irregular
in their youth, who were not also men of notably robust
constitutions. We are therefore compelled to conclude that
robustness of constitution is antagonistic, in a very marked
degree, to an extremely pious disposition.
First as to those who were both vigorous in constitution
and wild in youth ; they are 5 or 6 in number. 1. Beza,
d. set. 86 ; “ was a robust man of very strong constitution,
and what is very unusual among hard students, never felt
the headache he yielded as a youth to the allurements
of pleasure, and wrote poems of a very licentious character.
2. Welch, d. set. 53 ; was of strong robust constitution and
underwent a great deal of fatigue ; in youth he was a
border-thief. 3. Rothwell, d. aet. 64 ; was handsome, well
set, of great strength of body and activity ; he hunted,
bowled, and shot ; he also poached a little. Though he
was a clergyman he did not reform till late, and still the
“devil assaulted him” much and long. He got on parti¬
cularly well with his parishioners in a wild part of the
north of England. 4. Grimshaw, d. aet. 55 ; was only once
sick for the space of sixteen years, though he “ used his
body with less consideration than a merciful man would
use his beast.” He was educated religiously, but broke
DIVINES.
271
loose, aet. 18, at Cambridge. At the age of 26, being then
a swearing, drunken parson, he was partly converted, and
set. 34 his “preaching began to be profitable;” then fol¬
lowed twenty-one years of eminent usefulness. 5. White-
field, d. aet. 56 ; had extraordinary activity, constantly
preaching and constantly travelling. He had great con¬
stitutional powers, though, “ from disease,” he grew corpulent
after act. 40. He was extremely irregular in early youth,
drinking and pilfering (Stephen, “ Eccl. Biog.”). [6.] It is
probable that Trosse ought to be added to this list. He
will again be spoken of in the next category but one.
Next, as to those who were vigorous in constitution but
not irregular in youth; they are 7 in number. 1. Peter
Martyr, d. aet. 62 ; a large healthy man of grave, sedate,
and well-composed countenance. PI is parts and learning
were very uncommon. 2. Mede, d. aet. 52; was a fine,
handsome, dignified man. Middleton remarks that his
vitals were strong, that he did not mind the cold, and that
he had a sound mind in a sound body. He was a sceptic
when a student at college, but not wild. 3. Bedell, d. aet.
72 ; a tall, graceful, dignified man ; a favourite even with
Italian papists ; suffered no decay of his natural powers
till near his death. 4. Leighton, d. aet. 70 of a sudden
attack of pleurisy. He looked so fresh up to that time
that age seemed to stand still with him. 5. Burkitt, d.
aet. 53 of a malignant fever, but “his strength was such
that he might have been expected to live till 80.” He
was turned to religion when a boy, by an attack of small¬
pox. 6. Alix, d. aet. 76 ; had an uncommon share of health
and spirits ; he was a singularly amiable, capable, and
popular man. 7. Harrison, d. aet. ? ; a strong, robust man,
full of flesh and blood ; humble, devout, and of bright
natural parts. This concludes the list. I have been sur¬
prised to find none of the type of Cromwell’s “ Ironsides.”
Lastly, as to those who were irregular in youth but
272
DIVINES.
who are not mentioned as being vigorous in constitution.
They are 3 or 4 in number, according as Trosse is omitted
or included. 1. William Perkyns, d. set. 43; a “cheerful,
pleasant man ; ” was wild and a spendthrift at Cambridge,
and not converted till set. 24. 2. Bunyan ; vicious in youth,
was converted in a wild, irregular way, and had many
backslidings throughout his career. 3. Trosse, d. set. 82.
His biography is deficient in particulars about which one
would like to be informed, but his long life, following a
bad beginning, appears to be a sign of an unusually strong
constitution, and to qualify him for insertion in my first
category. He was sent to France to learn the language, and
he learnt also every kind of French rascality. The same
process was repeated in Portugal. The steps by which
his character became remarkably changed are not recorded,
neither are his personal characteristics. [4.] T. Jones, d. aet.
32, has already been included among the invalids, having
been wild in youth but rendered pious by serious and
lingering ill-health.
I now come to the relationships of the Divines. Recol¬
lecting that there are only 196 of them altogether, that
they are selected from the whole of Protestant Europe at
the average rate of 2 men in 3 years, the following results
are quite as remarkable as those met with in the other
groups.
17 out of the 196 are interrelated. Thus Simon Grynseus
is uncle of Thomas, who is father of John James, and there
are others of note in this remarkable family of peasant
origin. Whitaker’s maternal uncle was Dr. Nowell. Robert
Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, is brother to Archbishop
Abbot. Downe’s maternal uncle was Bishop Jewell.
Dod’s grandson (daughter’s son) was Bishop Wilkins.
William Gouge was father of Thomas Gouge. Philip
Henry was father to Matthew Henry. Ebenezer Erskine
was brother to Ralph Erskine.
DIVINES.
273
There are 8 others who have remarkable relationships,
mostly with religious people, namely : — Knox’s grandson
(the son of a daughter who married John Welch) was
Josiah Welch, “the cock of the conscience.” F. Junius
had a son, also called Francis, a learned Oxonian ; by his
daughter, who married J. G. Vossius, he had for grand¬
children, Dionysius and Isaac Vossius, famous for their
learning. Donne was descended through his mother from
Lord Chancellor Sir John More and Judge Rastall. Herbert
was brother to Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and had other
eminent and interesting relationships. Usher’s connexions
are most remarkable, for his father, father’s brother, mother’s
father, mother’s brother, and his own brother, were all very
eminent men in their day. The mother’s brother of Lewis
de Dieu was a professor at Leyden. The father and
grandfather of Mather were eminent ministers. The father
and three brothers of Saurin were remarkably eloquent.
It cannot be doubted from these facts that religious
gifts are, on the whole, hereditary ; but there are curious
exceptions to the rule. Middleton’s work must not be
considered as free from omissions of these exceptional
cases, for neither he nor any other biographer would
conceive it to be his duty to write about a class of
facts, which are important for us to obtain ; namely, the
cases in which the sons of religious parents turned out
badly. I have only lighted on a single instance of this
apparent perversion of the law's of heredity in the whole
of Middleton’s work, namely that of Archbishop Matthew,
but it is often said that such cases are not uncommon.
I rely mostly for my belief in their existence, upon
social experiences of modern date, which could not be
published without giving pain to innocent individuals.
Those of which I know with certainty are not numerous,
but are sufficient to convince me of there being a real
foundation for the popular notion. The notoriety of some
274
DIVINES.
recent cases will, I trust, satisfy the reader, and absolve me
from entering any further into details.
The summary of the results concerning the Divines, to
which I have thus far arrived, is : That they are not
founders of families who have exercised a notable influence
on our history, whether that influence be derived from the
abilities, wealth, or social position of any of their members.
That they are a moderately prolific race, rather under,
than above the average. That their average age at death
is a trifle less than that of the eminent men comprised
in my other groups. That they commonly suffer from
over-work. That they have usually wretched constitutions.
That those whose constitutions were vigorous, were mostly
wild in their youth ; and conversely, that most of those
who had been wild in their youth and did not become
pious till later in life, were men of vigorous constitutions.
That a pious disposition is decidedly hereditary. That
there are also frequent cases of sons of pious parents who
turned out very badly ; but I shall have something to say
on what appears to me to be the reason for this.
I therefore see no reason to believe that the Divines
are an exceptionally favoured race in any respect ; but
rather, that they are less fortunate than other men.
I now annex my usual tables.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS OF 33 OF THE DIVINES OF
MIDDLETON’S “BIOGRAPPIIA EVANGELICA” GROUPED
INTO 25 FAMILIES.
One relation {or hvo in family).
Clarke . F.
2. Dod (and Wilkins) . . . p.
JDowne, see Jewell.)
!2. Erskine . B.
'■Guise . S.
Tlildersham . S.
Ilospinian . u.
2. Jewell (and Downe) . . . n.
Knox . p.
Leighton . F.
(Nowell, see Whitaker. )
Welch . S.
Whitaker (and Nowell). . u.
(Wilkins, see Dod.)
Witsius . u.
DIVINES.
275
t. Abbot .
Dieu, de
Donne .
Gilpin .
Two or three relations {or three or four in family).
. . 2 B.
. . F. u.
• • g- gF-
. . gB. NP. NPPS.
2. Henry, H. (and M.)
Lasco, A. . .
Mather ....
Saurin ....
B. U.
F. G. g.
3B.
Four or more relations {or five or more in family).
2. Gouge, W. (and T. ) .
. . . /
2 u. S.
3. Grynseus, T. (also S. and J.) ....
. . . U.
US. 4S.
Herbert .
. . . F.
/. g. B. US. 2 UP.
[Junius .
U sher .
TABLE II.1
Degrees of Kinship.
A.
B.
Name of the degree.
Corresponding letter.
4)
a
r Father . . . .
7f.
7
. 28
bti
V
Brother ....
9 B.
• ••
9
36
M
' Son .
10 S.
• ••
10
40
</)
^ Grandfather . .
i G.
4 S-
5
20
£1
Uncle ....
su.
7 u-
10
40
be
3 )
Nephew. . . .
0 N.
i n.
I
4
^ Grandson . . .
0 P.
4 p-
4
16
Great-grandfather
0 GF.
1 gF.
0 UF.
0£-F
I-
4
D
v
Great-uncle . .
0 GB.
1 gB.
oCB.
°xrB.
I
4
tT)
First-cousin . .
2 US.
0 uS.
0 US.
0 «S.
2
8
'O
1 Great-nephew . .
0 NS.
0 nS.
oNS.
0 wS.
O
O
V Great-grandson .
0 PS.
0 pS.
0 PS.
0 /S.
O
O
All more remote .
...
...
...
...
4
l6
A comparison of the relative influences of the male and
female lines of descent, is made in the following table : —
In the Second Degree.
1 G. + 3 U. + o N. + o P. = 4 kinships through males.
4 S- + 7 u* + 1 n* + 4 P* = 16 „ „ females.
In the Third Degree. .
o GF. + o GB. + 2 US. + oNS. + 0 PS. = 2 kinships through males.
1 ^F. + 1 ^B. + o uS. + o nS. + o /S. = 2 „ „ females.
1 For explanation, see page 6 1.
276
DIVINES.
This table shows that the influence of the female line
has an unusually large effect in qualifying a man to
become eminent in the religious world. The only other
group in which the influence of the female line is even
comparable in its magnitude, is that of scientific men ; and
I believe the reasons laid down when speaking of them,
will apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Divines. It requires
unusual qualifications, and some of them of a feminine
cast, to become a leading theologian. A man must not
only have appropriate abilities, and zeal, and power of
work, but the postulates of the creed that he professes
must be so firmly ingrained into his mind, as to be the
equivalents of axioms. The diversities of creeds held by
earnest, good, and conscientious men, show to a candid
looker-on, that there can be no certainty as to any point
on which many of such men think differently. But a
divine must not accept this view ; he must be convinced
of the absolute security of the groundwork of his peculiar
faith,— a blind conviction which can best be obtained
through maternal teachings in the years of childhood.
I will now endeavour to account for the fact, which I am
compelled to acknowledge, that the children of very reli¬
gious parents occasionally turn out extremely badly. It
is a fact that has all the appearance of being a serious
violation of the law of heredity, and, as such, has caused
me more hesitation and difficulty than I have felt about
any other part of my inquiry. However, I am perfectly
satisfied that this apparent anomaly is entirely explaine.d
by what I am about to lay before the reader, premising
that it obliges me to enter into a more free and thorough
analysis of the religious character than would otherwise
have been suitable to these pages.*
The disposition that qualifies a man to attain a place
in a collection like that of the “ Biographia Evangelica,”
can best be studied by comparing it with one that, while
DIVINES.
2 77
it contrasts with it in essentials, closely resembles it in all
unimportant respects. Thus, we may exclude from our com¬
parison all except those whose average moral dispositions
are elevated some grades above those of men generally;
and we may also exclude all except such as think very
earnestly, reverently, and conscientiously upon religious
matters. The remainder range in their views, and, for the
most part, in the natural disposition that inclines them to
adopt those views, from the extremest piety to the ex-
tremest scepticism. The “ Biographia Evangelica ” affords
many instances that approach to the former ideal, and
we may easily select from history men who have ap¬
proached to the latter. In order to contrast, and so
understand the nature of the differences between the two
ideal extremes, we must lay aside for a while our own
religious predilections — whatever they may be — and place
ourselves resolutely on a point equidistant from both,
whence we can survey them alternately with an equal eye.
Let us then begin, clearly understanding that we are
supposing both the sceptic and the religious man to be
equally earnest, virtuous, temperate, and affectionate —
both perfectly convinced of the truth of their respective
tenets, and both finding moral content in such conclusions
as those tenets imply.
The religious man affirms, that he is conscious of an in¬
dwelling Spirit of grace, that consoles, guides, and dictates,
and that he could not stand if it were taken away from
him. It renders easy the trials of his life, and calms the
dread that would otherwise be occasioned by the prospect
of death. It gives directions and inspires motives, and
it speaks through the voice of the conscience, as an oracle,
upon what is right and what is wrong. He will add,
that the presence of this Spirit of grace is a matter that
no argument or theory is capable of explaining away,
inasmuch as the conviction of its presence is fundamental
13
278
DIVINES.
in his nature, and the signs of its action are as unmistake-
able as those of any other actions, made known to us
through the medium of the senses. The religious man
would further dwell on the moral doctrine of the form of
creed that he professes ; but this we must eliminate from
the discussion, because the moral doctrines of the different
forms of creed are exceedingly diverse, some tending to
self-culture and asceticism, and others to active benevo¬
lence; while we are seeking to find the nature of a religious
disposition, so far as it is common to all creeds.
The sceptic takes a position antagonistic to that which
I have described, as appertaining to the religious man.
He acknowledges the sense of an indwelling Spirit, which
possibly he may assert to have himself experienced in its
full intensity, but he denies its objectivity. He argues that,
as it is everywhere acknowledged to be a fit question for
the intellect to decide whether other convictions, however
fundamental, are really true, or whether the evidences of
the senses are, in any given case, to be depended on, so
it is perfectly legitimate to submit religious convictions to
a similar analysis. He will say that a floating speck in
the vision, and a ringing in the ears, are capable of being
discriminated by the intellect from the effects of external
influences ; that in lands where mirage is common, the expe¬
rienced traveller has to decide on the truth of the appear¬
ance of water, by the circumstances of each particular case.
And as to fundamental convictions, he will add, that it is
well known the intellect can successfully grapple with them,
for Kant and his followers have shown reasons — to which
all metaphysicians ascribe weight — that Time and Space
are, neither of them, objective realities, but only forms,
under which our minds, by virtue of their own constitution,
are compelled to act. The sceptic, therefore, claiming to
bring the question of the objective existence of the Spirit
of grace under intellectual examination, has decided — ■
DIVINES.
279
whether rightly or not has nothing to do with our in¬
quiries — that it is subjective, not objective. He argues
that it is not self-consistent in its action, inasmuch as it
prompts different people in different ways, and the same
person in different ways at different times ; that there is
no sharp demarcation between the promptings that are
avowedly natural, and those that are considered super¬
natural ; lastly, that convictions of right and wrong are
misleading, inasmuch as a person who indulges in them,
without check from the reason, becomes a blind partisan,
and partisans on hostile sides feel them in equal strength.
As to the sense of consolation, derived from the creature
of a fond imagination, he will point to the experiences of
the nursery, where the girl tells all its griefs to its doll,
converses with it, takes counsel with it, and is consoled by
it, putting unconsciously her own words into the mouth of
the doll. For these and similar reasons, which it is only
necessary for me to state and not to weigh, the thorough¬
going ideal sceptic deliberately crushes those very senti¬
ments and convictions which the religious man prizes above
all things. He pronounces them to be idols created by
the imagination, and therefore to be equally abhorred with
idols made by the hands, of grosser material.
Thus far, we have only pointed out an intellectual
difference — a matter of no direct service in itself, in solving
the question on which we are engaged, but of the utmost
importance when the sceptic and religious man are sup¬
posed to rest contentedly in their separate conclusions.
In order that a man may be a contented sceptic of the
% ■
most extreme type, he must have confidence in himself,
that he is qualified to stand absolutely alone in the pre¬
sence of the severest trials of life, and of the terrors of
impending death. His nature must have sufficient self-
assertion and stoicism to make him believe that he can
act the whole of his part upon earth without assistance.
28o
• D/VINES.
This is the ideal form of the most extreme scepticism, to
which some few may nearly approach, but it is question¬
able if any have ever reached. On the other hand, the
support of a stronger arm, and of a consoling voice, are
absolute necessities to a man who has a religious dispo¬
sition. He is conscious of an incongruity in his nature,
and of an instability in his disposition, and he knows his
insufficiency to help himself. But all humanity is more
or less subject to these feelings, especially in sickness, in
youth, and in old age, and women are more affected by
them than men. The most vigorous are conscious of
secret weaknesses and failings, which give them, often in
direct proportion to their intellectual stoicism, agonies of
self-distrust. But in the extreme and ideal form which
we are supposing, the incongruity and instability would
be extreme ; he would not be fit to be a freeman, for
he could not exist without a confessor and a master. Here,
then, is a broad distinction between the natural dispo¬
sitions of the two classes of men. The man of religious
constitution considers the contented sceptic to be fool¬
hardy and sure to fail miserably; the sceptic considers
the man of an extremely pious disposition to be slavish
and inclined to superstition.
It is sometimes said, that a conviction of sin is a
characteristic of a religious disposition ; I think, how¬
ever, the strong sense of sinfulness in a Christian, to be
partly due to the doctrines of his intellectual creed. The
sceptic, equally with the religious man, would feel disgust
and shame at his miserable weakness in having done
yesterday, in the heat of some impulse, things which
to-day, in his calm moments, he disapproves. He is
sensible that if another person had done the same thing,
he would have shunned him ; so he similarly shuns the
contemplation of his own self. He feels he has done that
which makes him unworthy of the society of pure-minded
DIVINES.
281
men ; that he is a disguised pariah, who would deserve to
be driven out with indignation, if his recent acts and real
character were suddenly disclosed. The Christian feels all
this, and something more. He feels he has committed
his faults in the full sight of a pure God ; that he acts
ungratefully and cruelly to a Being full of love and com¬
passion, who died as a sacrifice for sins like those he
has just committed. These considerations add extreme
poignancy to the sense of sin, but it must be recollected
that they depend upon no difference of character. If the
sceptic held the same intellectual creed, he would feel
them in precisely the same way as the religious man. It
is not necessarily dulness of heart that keeps him back.
It is also sometimes believed that Puritanic ways arc
associated with strong religious professions ; but a Puritan
tendency is by no means an essential part of a religious
disposition. The Puritan’s character is joyless and morose ;
he is most happy, or, to speak less paradoxically, most at
peace with himself when sad. It is a mental condition
correlated with the well-known Puritan features, black
straight hair, hollowed cheeks, and sallow complexion. A
bright, blue-eyed, rosy-cheeked, curly-headed youth would
seem an anomaly in a Puritanical assembly. But there
are many divines mentioned in Middleton, whose character
was most sunny and joyful, and whose society was dearly
prized, showing distinctly that the Puritan type is a spe¬
ciality, and by no means an invariable ingredient in the
constitution of men who are naturally inclined to piety.
The result of all these considerations is to show that
the chief peculiarity in the moral nature of the pious
man is its conscious instability. He is liable to extremes
— now swinging forwards into regions of enthusiasm,
adoration, and self-sacrifice ; now backwards into those of
sensuality and selfishness. Very devout people are apt to
style themselves the most miserable of sinners, and I think
282
DIVINES.
they may be taken to a considerable extent at their word.
It would appear that their disposition is to sin more
frequently and to repent more fervently than those whose
constitutions are stoical, and therefore of a more symme¬
trical and orderly character. The amplitude of the moral
oscillations of religious men is greater than that of others
whose average moral position is the same.
The table (p. 34) of the distribution of natural gifts is
necessarily as true of morals as of intellect or of muscle.
If we class a vast number of men into fourteen classes,
separated by equal grades of morality as regards their
natural disposition, the number of men per million in the
different classes will be as stated in the table. I have no
doubt that many of Middleton’s divines belong to class G,
in respect to their active benevolence, unselfishness, and
other amiable qualities. But men of the lowest grades of
morals may also have pious aptitudes ; thus among pri¬
soners, the best attendants on religious worship are often
the worst criminals. I do not, however, think it is always
an act of conscious hypocrisy in bad men when they make
pious professions, but rather that they are deeply conscious
of the instability of their characters, and that they fly to
devotion as a resource and consolation.
These views will, I think, explain the apparent anomaly
tvhy the children of extremely pious parents occasionally
turn out very badly. The parents are naturally gifted
with high moral characters combined with instability of
disposition, but these peculiarities are in no way correlated.
It must, therefore, often happen that the child will inherit
the one and not the other. If his heritage consist of the
moral gifts without great instability, he will not feel the
need of extreme piety ; if he inherits great instability
without morality, he will be very likely to disgrace his
name.
DIVINES .
283
APPENDIX TO DIVINES.
(BIOGRAPHIA EVANGELIC A.)
Selected from the 196 names contained in Middleton’s “ Biographia Evan*
gelica.” An * means that the name to which it is attached appears also in the
alphabetical list ; that, in short, it is one of Middleton’s 196 selections.
Abbot, George, Archbp. of Canterbury (1562 — 1633, aet. 71).
Educated at Guildford Grammar School, then at Balliol
College: became a celebrated preacher. JEt. 35 elected
Master of University College, when the differences first
began between him and Laud; these subsisted as long as
they lived, Abbot being Calvinist and Laud High Church.
Made Bishop of Lichfield a3t. 45 ; then of London ; and,
ret. 49, Archbishop of Canterbury. He had great influence
in the affairs of the time, but was too unyielding and too
liberal to succeed as a courtier; besides this, Laud’s in¬
fluence was ever against him. He had great natural parts,
considerable learning, charity, and public spirit. His
parents were pious ; his father was a weaver.
B. Robert Abbot,* Bishop of Salisbury. See below.
B. Maurice, Lord Mayor of London and M.P.
[N.] George, son of Maurice, wrote on the Book of Job.
Abbot, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury (1560 — 1617, set. 57).
His preferment was remarkably owing to his merit, parti¬
cularly in preaching. King James I. highly esteemed him
for his writings. IE t. 49 he was elected Master of Balliol
College, which throve under his care. Three years after¬
wards he was made Professor of Divinity, and set. 55
Bishop of Salisbury. Died two years later, through gout
and stone brought on by his sedentary life. In contrasting
his character with that of his younger brother, the Arch¬
bishop, it was said, “ George was the more plausible
preacher, Robert the greater scholar : gravity did frown
in George and smile in Robert.”
B. George Abbot," Archbishop of Canterbury. See above.
B. Maurice, Lord Mayor of London and M.P.
[N.] George, son of Maurice, wrote on Job.
z 84
DIVINES.
Clarke, Matthew (1664 — 1726, aet. 62); an eminent minister
among the Dissenters. An exceedingly laborious man,
who quite overtasked his powers.
F. Also Matthew Clarke, a man of learning. He spoke Italian
and French with uncommon perfection. Was ejected from
the ministry by the Uniformity Act. Dr. Watts wrote the
epitaph of Matthew Clarke, junior, which begins with
“ a son bearing the name of his venerable father, nor less
venerable himself.”
Dieu, I ,ewis de (1590 — ? ). “In practical godliness and the
knowledge of divinity, science of all kinds, and the
languages, he was truly a star of the first magnitude.”
Married, and had eleven children.
F. Daniel de Dieu, minister of Flushing, a man of great merit.
He was uncommonly versed in the Oriental languages,
“ and could preach with applause in German, Italian,
French, and English.”
u. David Colonius, professor at Leyden.
Dod, John (1547 — 1645, set. 98). This justly famous and reve¬
rend man was the youngest of seventeen children. Edu¬
cated at Cambridge. He was a great and continual
preacher, eminent for the frequency, aptness, freeness, and
largeness of his godly discourse; very unworldly; given
to hospitality. He married twice, each time to a pious
woman.
p. John Wilkins,* D.D., Bishop of Chester (1614 — 1672, set. 58),
a learned and ingenious prelate. Educated at Oxford,
where he was very successful, and where, ret. 34, he was
made Warden of Wadham College by the Committee of
Parliament appointed for reforming the University. Married
Robina, widow of P. French and sister of Oliver Cromwell,
who made him Master of Trinity College, Cambridge,
whence he was ejected by Charles II. ALt. 54 he was
made Bishop of Chester. He was indefatigable in study,
and tolerant of the opinions of others. He was an
astronomer and experimentalist of considerable merit,
and took an active part in the foundation of the Royal
Society.
I know nothing of his descendants, nor even if he had any.
The Cromwell blood had less influence than might have
DIVINES.
285
been expected (see Cromwell). A daughter of Robina
Cromwell, by her first husband, married Archbishop Tillot-
son, and left issue, but undistinguished.
Donne, John, D.D., Dean of St. Paul’s (1573 — 1631, set. 58).
“ He was rather born wise than made so by study.” He
is the subject of one of Isaac Walton’s biographies. The
recreations of his youth were poetry ; the latter part of his
life was a continual study. He early thought out his
religion for himself, being thoroughly converted from
Papacy through his o.wn inquiries ?et. 20. His mind was
liberal and unwearied in the search of knowledge. Plis
life was holy and his death exemplary.
[gU.] ? Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor, from whose
family he was descended through his mother. Sir Thomas
being born ninety-three years before him was, I presume,
his great-grandfather or great-great-uncle,
g. ? William Rastall, the worthy and laborious judge who
abridged the statutes of the kingdom. Rastall was a
generation younger than Sir Thomas More,* and was there¬
fore probably a grandfather or great-uncle of Dr. Donne.
gF. ? John Rastall, father of the judge, printer and author.
Downe, John, B.D. See under Jewell.
u. John Jewell,* Bishop of Salisbury.
Erskine, Ebenezer (about 1680 — 1754, set. 74) 3 originator of
the Scottish secession. This pious minister preached freely
against the proceedings of the Synod of Perth, for which
he was reprimanded, and afterwards, owing to his continued
contumacy, he was expelled from the Scottish Church.
Hence the famous Secession.
B. Ralph Erskine.* Sec below.
Erskine, Ralph (1685 — 1752, jet. 67); also became a seceder.
He did not simply follow his brother, but raised a separate
religious tempest against himself. He wrote controversial
tracts, was a strict Calvinist, and published sonnets that
“ breathe a warm spirit of piety, though they cannot be
mentioned as finished poetical compositions.” He laboured
in preaching and writing till almost the time of his death.
He left a large family (his father was one of thirty-three
children), of whom three sons were ministers of the Seces¬
sion, but died in the prime of life.
286
DIVINES.
Erskine, Ralph, continued —
B. Ebenezer Erskine.* See above.
Evans, John, D.D. (1680 — 1730, set. 50). His vivacity, joined
with great judgment, made a very uncommon mixture.
His industry was indefatigable. He was descended from
a race of ministers for four generations, and, excepting one
interruption, quite up to the Reformation : say six gene¬
rations in all.
Gilpin, Bernard (1517 — 1583, set. 66) ; the “Apostle of the
North.” Was one of several children. He showed extra¬
ordinary genius in childhood, and an early disposition to
seriousness and contemplative life ; but as he grew older
he became practical and energetic, and none the less pious.
He was greatly beloved. In beginning his career he
suffered from religious persecution, and if Queen Mary
had lived a little longer there is little doubt but that he
would have been martyred. He remained Rector of
Houghton during the whole of his later life, refusing a
bishopric. He built a school, and picked up intelligent
boys and educated them, and became their friend and
guardian in after-life. He had extraordinary influence
over the wild border-people of his neighbourhood, going
fearlessly among them. He was affluent and generous ;
a hater of slander and a composer of differences. He was
tall and slender, careless of amusement, and rather abste¬
mious. Was unmarried. Elis relationships are good, but
distant.
gB. Bishop Tonstall, one of the most enlightened Churchmen
of his time.
NP. Richard Gilpin, D.D., of Greystock, who was ejected
thence by the Act of Uniformity.
NPPS. William Gilpin (“Forest Scenery”), an excellent pastor
and good schoolmaster, was [PS.] to Richard and the
biographer of Bernard Gilpin. I know nothing about the
intervening relations ; I wish I did, for I should expect to
find that the Gilpin blood had produced other noteworthy
results.
Gouge, Thomas (1605 — 1681, ?et. 76); educated at Eton and
King’s College, Cambridge ; minister of St. Sepulchre’s,
in London, for twenty-four years. He originated the
DIVINES.
287
scheme, which he carried on for a while with his own
funds, of finding employment for the poor by flax-spinning,
instead of giving them alms as beggars : others afterwards
developed the idea. He had a good fortune of his own,
and finally applied almost the whole of it to charity in
Wales, judging there was more occasion for help there
than elsewhere. He contrived, with the further aid of
subscriptions, to educate yearly from 800 to 1,000 poor
Welsh children, and to procure and print a translation of
the Bible into Welsh. Also, he took great pains with
Christ’s Hospital in London. He was humble and meek,
and free from affected gravity and moroseness. His
conversation wras affable and pleasant ; he had wonderful
serenity of mind and evenness of temper, visible in his
countenance ; he was hardly ever merry, but never melan¬
choly nor sad. He seemed always the same ; ever obliging,
and ever tolerant of difference of opinion.
F. William Gouge.'* See below.
[/.] Mrs. Meliora Prestley, of Wild Hall, Hertford, whose name
shows the continuance of a devout disposition in the
family. She erected a monument to the Gouges in Black
friars Church after the Fire.
There" has been. another eminent minister of the name of
Gouge among the Dissenters, who died 1700, and on
whom Dr. Watts wrote a poem. 1 do not know whether
he was a relation.
Gouge, William, D.D. (1575 — 1653, oet. 78); was very religious
from boyhood, and a laborious student at Eton and at
Cambridge, sitting up late and rising early. Pie was
singularly methodical in his habits ; became minister of
Blackfriars, London. He was continual in preaching and
praying ; very conscionable in laying out his time ; tem¬
perate ; of a meek and sweet disposition, and a great
peacemaker. Devout people of all ranks sought his
acquaintance. According to his portrait, his head was
massive and square, his expression firm and benevolent.
Married ; had seven sons and six daughters ; six sons lived
to man’s estate.
S. . Thomas Gouge A' See above.
[F.] Thomas, a pious gentleman living in London.
288
DIVINES.
Gouge, William, continued —
f. His mother “ was the religious daughter ” of one Mr.
Nicholas Culverel, a merchant in London; her brothers
were as follow : —
2 u. The Revs. Samuel and Ezekiel Culverel, both of them
famous preachers.
f 2 //.] Her two sisters were married to those famous divines,
Dr. Chadderton, Master of Emmanuel College, and Dr.
Whitaker,* the learned and devout Professor of Divinity
in Cambridge'.
Grynseus, Simon (1493 — 1541, set. 48) ; a most able and learned
man ; was son of a peasant in Suabia of I know not what
name, that of Grynseus being of course adopted. He was
a friend and fellow-student of Melancthon from boyhood ;
became Greek professor at Vienna, and afterwards adopted
Protestantism. His change of creed led him into trouble,
and compelled him to leave Vienna ; was invited to and
accepted the Greek chair in Heidelberg, and afterwards
that of Basle. JEt. 38 he visited England, chiefly to
examine the libraries, strongly recommended by Erasmus.
He was made much of in this country by Lord Chancellor
Sir Thomas More. Died at Basle of the plague. His
claim to a place in the “Biographic^ Evangelica” is that
he was a good man, a lover of the Reformation, and con¬
fidentially employed by the Reformers.
S. Samuel (1539 — 1599, set. 60) inherited his father’s abilities
and studious tastes, for he was made professor of oratory
at Basle set. 25, and afterwards of civil law.
N. Thomas Grynseus.* See below.
4 N S. Theophilus, $imon, John James,* and Tobias. See for
all these under Thomas Grynzeus.
Grynseus, Thomas (1512 — 1564, set. 52). This excellent man
“ eminently possessed the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit.” Educated by his uncle Simon, he became so
advanced that, while a mere youth, he was a public teacher
at Berne ; whence, wearied with the theological contentions
of the day, and seeking a studious retirement, he removed
to Rontela, near Basle, as minister of that place, where he
performed “ his duty with so much faithfulness, solemnity,
and kindness of behaviour, that he was exceedingly
DIVINES.
289
endeared to his flock, and beloved by all those who had
any concern for truth and knowledge.” He died of the
plague. It does not appear that he published any writings,
but he left behind him a noble treasure for the Church in
his four excellent sons, as follow : —
4 S. Theophilus, Simon, John James,* and Tobias ; all of them
eminent for their piety and learning; but John James ( see
bclo7v) was the most distinguished of the four. “ He was
indeed a burning and a shining light. Such a father and
such sons are not often met with in the history of the
world. Blessed be God for them !”
U. Simon Grynaeus.* See above.
US. Thomas. See above.
Grynaeus, John James (1540 — 1617, aet. 77); succeeded his father
in the pastoral charge of Rontela, where he changed from
the Lutherans to the Zuinglians ; was invited to Basle as
Professor of Divinity, where he became happily instrumental
in healing the differences between the above sects. Many
noblemen and gentlemen came from other countries and
boarded with him for the sake of his agreeable and profit¬
able conversation. He was subsequently professor at
Heidelberg, and thence retired to Basle as pastor. He
used to be at his study, winter and summer, before sunrise,
and to spend the day in prayer, writing, reading, and visiting
the sick. He was remarkably patient under wrongs ; was
ever a most affectionate friend and relation to his family
and all good men, and of the strictest temperance with
respect to himself. He had great wit, tempered with
gravity. His remarkable learning and worth was well
appreciated by his contemporaries ; and travellers from
all parts, who had any concern for religion and science,
constantly visited him. He became almost blind. Married,
and had seven children, all of whom died before him,
except one daughter. I know no more of this interesting
family.
GB. Simon Grynaeus.*
F. Thomas Grynaeus;* f. was also a pious woman.
3 B. See under Thomas Grynaeus.
Thus we find three men, descended in as many generations
from a simple husbandman, who have achieved a place
290
DIVINES .
among the 196 worthies selected on their own merits by
Middleton, as the pick of two centuries and a half ; and
at least three others are mentioned by the same writer in
terms of very high commendation.
Suabian peasant.
Simon.
Samuel,
Professor at Basle.
Thomas. *
Theophilus. Simon. John James.* Tobias.
Guyse, John (1680 — 1761, ret. 81); an eminent and excellent
divine ; minister at Hertford. His health was poor, and
he was overworked and hectic, but his vigour was little
abated till near his death. It was his constant study to
make every one about him happy. He was thoroughly
amiable, and had many excellent ministerial gifts.
[F. and /.] Parents very pious and worthy.
S. Rev. William ; of excellent abilities and ministerial talents,
who was for some time his assistant, but who died two
years before him.
Henry, Philip (1631 — 1696, ret. 65); educated at Westminster
and Oxford. When a young clergyman, he went by the
name of the “ Heavenly Henry.” Pie devoted his whole
powers to the ministry. Plis constitution was but tender,
yet by great carefulness in diet and exercise he enjoyed
a fair amount of health. Married a Welsh lady of some
fortune, and had one son and four daughters.
His father was named John Henry, himself the son of Henry
Williams, the father’s Christian name becoming the son’s
surname, according to the old Welsh custom.
f His mother was a very pious woman, who took great pains
with him and with her other children.
S. Matthew Henry.* Sec below.
Henry, Matthew (1662 — 1714, aet. 52); was a child of extra¬
ordinary pregnancy and forwardness. His father said of
him, “ Praeterque aetatem nil puerile fuit,” — there was
nothing of the child in him except his years ; was but
weakly when young, but his constitution strengthened
DIVINES.
291
as he grew. He could read a chapter in the Bible, very
distinctly, when about three years old, and with some
observation of what he read. He was very devoutly in¬
clined. His father spared no pains to educate him. His
labours in the ministry were many and great — first at
Chester, and then at Hackney. He injured a naturally
strong constitution by his frequent and fervent preaching,
and by sitting over-long in his study. Married twice, and
left many children. The order of his family was exemplary
while he lived. I know nothing more of them.
F. Philip Henry.* See above.
Herbert, Hon. George (1593 — 1635, cet. 42); educated by his
mother till set. 12, then at Westminster, where he was
endeared to all; then he went to Cambridge, where he
highly distinguished himself, and became orator to the Uni¬
versity. He was eminent as a sacred poet ; he was also an
excellent musician, and composed many hymns and anthems.
He selected a small ministerial charge, where he passed
the latter years of his life in the utmost sanctity. In
figure he was tall and very lean, but straight. He had
the manners and mien of a perfect gentleman. Pie was
consumptive, and subject to frequent fevers and illness.
Married ; no children ; his nieces lived with him.
F. A man of great courage and strength, descended from
a highly connected and very chivalrous family. He was
a person of importance in North Wales, and given to wide
hospitality.
f. His mother was a lady of extraordinary piety, and of more
than feminine understanding.
g. Sir T. Bromley, privy councillor to Plenry VIII.
B. The first Lord Herbert of Cherbury; statesman, orator,
cavalier, and sceptical philosopher.
[2 B.] His other two brothers were remarkable men — both had
great courage ; one was a renowned duellist, and the other
was a naval officer who achieved some reputation, and was
considered to have deserved more.
US. Sir Edward Herbert, Lord Keeper under Charles II. (see
in Judges).
2 UP. The two sons of the above were distinguished, one being a
Chief Justice, and the other the admiral, cr. Lord Torrington.
292
DIVINES.
Hildersham, Arthur (1563 — 1632, set 69); was bred a Papist,
but abandoned that creed ; was fined 2,000/. for schism.
He sojourned in many families, and always gained their
esteem and love. He much weakened his constitution by
his pains in preaching.
S. Samuel, an excellent man, of whom Mr. Matthew Henry
makes honourable mention in the Life of his father, Mr.
Philip Henry. Samuel wrote the Life of Arthur Hildersham.
He died set, 80.
Hooper, John, Bishop of Gloucester (1495 — 1554, martyred
set. 59); originally a monk; became converted to the
Reformation when in Germany. He was a great acqui¬
sition to that cause, for his learning, piety, and character
would have given strength and honour to any profession.
Was burnt at Gloucester.
[U.] J. Hooper, Principal of St. Alban Hall.
Hospinian, Ralph (1547 — 1626, set. 79); a learned Swiss writer.
u. John Wolphius, professor at Zurich.
Jewell, John, Bishop of Salisbury (1522 — 1571, set. 49). This
great man, “ the darling and wonder of his age, the pattern
for sanctity, piety, and theology,” was one of the younger
children in a family of ten. He was a lad of pregnant
parts, and of a sweet and industrious nature and temper ;
was educated at Oxford, where his success was great. On
Queen Mary’s accession he had to tak'e refuge on the Con¬
tinent, cet. 31, escaping narrowly. He did not return till
after her death, when, set. 38, he was made bishop by
Queen Elizabeth. He was an excellent scholar, and had
much improved his learning during his exile ; was a most
laborious preacher. As bishop, he was exceedingly liberal
and hospitable. It was his custom to have half a dozen
or more intelligent poor lads in his house to educate them,
and he maintained others at the University at his own
expense : among these was Richard Hooker. He was
a pleasant and amusing host ; he had naturally a very
strong memory. In body he was spare and thin, and he
restlessly wore himself out by reading, writing, preaching,
and travelling. His writings are famous; his “Apologia”
was translated into English by the mother of Lord Bacon.
Elis parents were of ancient descent, but not rich.
DIVINES .
293
Jewell, John, continued- —
n. John Downe* (1576 — 1633, aet. 57); educated at Emmanuel
College, Cambridge. He thence took a small college
living in Devonshire. “ Had his means been answerable
to his worth, he had not lain in such obscurity as he did,
but had doubtless moved and shined in a far higher and
more extensive sphere. . . . The sharpness of his wit, the
fastness of his memory” (this seems hereditary, like the
“Porson” memory, which also went through the female
line), “ and the soundness of his judgment, were in him
all three so rarely mixed as few men attain them single, in
that degree he had them all. His skill in languages was
extraordinary.” He was very temperate and grave, but
sociable and courteous, and a thoroughly good man and
divine. His constitution was but crazy. Married happily,
and had several children, who did well, judging from the
phrase, “ His civil wisdom appeared ... in the education
of his family, ... in his marriage and the marriages of
his daughters.”
Junius, Francis (1545 — 1602, ast. 57). This extraordinary man
was very infirm and weakly when a child, but he strength¬
ened as he grew. Was singularly bashful. He read with
avidity; went to Switzerland as a student, where he became
a Reformer, and was persecuted. He was an excellent and
most able man; the subject of numerous panegyrics. He
died of the plague. Married four wives, and survived them
all ; had in all two sons and one daughter.
F. A learned and a kind man.
S. Francis, a very amiable and learned man, who spent most
of his days in England, especially at Oxford.
2 p. Dionysius Vossius, the Orientalist, and Isaac Vossius, the
learned Canon of Windsor; these were sons of the daughter
of Junius, who married the learned John Gerard Vossius.
Knox, John (1505 — 1572, set. 67) ; a popular type of Puritanical
bigotry. In his youth he was a successful student of
scholastic divinity ; was persecuted and exiled in his man¬
hood ; married twice — two sons and three daughters.
[2 S.] Both his sons were fellows of St. John’s College, Cam¬
bridge; the younger of them was University preacher.
p. Josiah Welch, “the Cock of the Conscience.” For him
294
DIVINES.
and his brothers, see under their father’s name, John
Welch.
Lasco, John A (? — 1684); the Polish reformer. When the
religious persecutions of the Continent had driven 380
exiles to England, they had their own laws, worship, and
superintendent. The office of superintendent was held by
A Lasco.
B. A diplomatist, and a man of considerable abilities.
U. John a Lasco, Archbishop of Griesa in Poland. It was to
him that Erasmus dedicated his edition of the works of
St. Ambrose.
Leighton, Robert, D.D., Archbishop of Glasgow (1614 — 1684,
set. 70) ; was bred up in the greatest aversion to the
Church of England ; became Master of the College at
Edinburgh, then Archbishop. At set. 70 he looked so
fresh and well that age seemed to stand still with him ;
his hair was black, and all his motions lively; but he
caught pleurisy, and died suddenly of it.
F. Alexander Leighton, a Scotch physician, who wrote religious
and political tracts, for which he got into trouble with the
Star Chamber. He had his nose slit, his ears cut off, was
publicly whipped, and imprisoned for eleven years. Died
insane.
Mather, Cotton, D.D. (1663 — 1727, set. 64); born at Boston,
in America ; was a quick child, and always devoutly in¬
clined; .began to preach set. 18. His application, and the -
labours he went through, ‘are almost incredible; thus, as
regards literature alone, he wrote 382 separate treatises.
F. and G. Dr. Increase Mather, his father, and Air. Richard
Alather, his grandfather, were eminent ministers.
g. John Cotton was a man of piety and learning.
[S.] Samuel; wrote his life.
Matthew, Tobie, D.D., Archbishop of York (1546 — 1628,
set. 82). This truly great man was an honour to his age.
At Oxford “ he took his degrees so ripe in learning and
young in years as was half a miracle.” He was “a most
excellent divine, in whom piety and learning, art with
nature strove.”
[S.] Sir Tobie Matthew “ had all his father’s name, and many of
his natural parts, but had few of his moral virtues, and
DIVINES.
295
fewer of his spiritual graces, being an inveterate enemy to
the Protestant religion.” I presume, from Middleton’s
taking so much notice of him, that he ought to be ranked
as a person of importance and character.
Nowell, Alexander, D.D., Dean of St. Paul’s (15 n — 1601, ?et.
90). Educated at Brasenose College, Oxford, of which
he became a Fellow, and where he “grew very famous for
* piety and learning, and for his zeal in promoting the
Reformation.” On Queen Mary’s accession he was marked
out for Popish persecution, so he fled to Frankfort, whence
he returned after her death, the first of the English exiles.
He soon after obtained many and considerable prefer¬
ments, and was made Dean of St. Paul’s set. 49 ; then
Rector of Hadham in Yorkshire, where he became a fre¬
quent and painful preacher and a zealous writer. JEt. 84
he was elected Principal of Brasenose College, where,
having enjoyed for a further term of six years the perfect
use of his senses and faculties, he died. He was reckoned
a very learned man and an excellent divine. His charity
to the poor was great, especially if they had anything of
the scholar in them ; and his comfort to the afflicted either
in body or mind was equally extensive. He wrote many
religious works, especially a Catechism, which was highly
esteemed, and which he was induced to write, by Cecil
and other great men of the nation, on purpose to stop
a clamour raised among the Roman Catholics, that the
Protestants had no principles. His controversies were
entirely with the Papists. He was so fond of fishing that
his picture at Brasenose represents him surrounded with
tackle.
n William Whitaker,* D.D. (1547 — 1595, ret. 48). Educated
by Dr. Nowell until he went to Trinity College, Cambridge,
where he highly distinguished himself. He was elected
Professor of Philosophy while quite young, and filled the
chair with the greatest credit. Then he became a diligent
student of religious writers, and in a few years went through
almost all the Fathers of the Church. Fie laboured with
incredible application, but overdid his powers and strained
his constitution. JEt. 31 he had obtained a very high
reputation for theological knowledge, and shortly after
296
DIVINES.
was elected Professor of Divinity and Master of Queen’s
College. AEt. 38 he entered into controversies with the
Papists, especially with Bellarmine. “ He dealt peaceably,
modestly, and gently, without taunting, bantering, wrath,
deceit, or insidious language ; so that you might easily see
him to be no cunning and obstinate partisan, but a most
studious searcher after divine truth.” He was endowed
with a most acute genius, happy memory, with as great
eloquence as was ever in a divine, and with a most learned
and polished judgment. He was a pious, holy man, of an
even, grave demeanour, and very remarkable for patient
bearing of injuries. He was extremely kind and liberal,
in season and out of season, especially to young students
who were poor. He was extremely meek, although so
highly gifted and esteemed. Bishop Hall said, “Never
man saw him without reverence, nor heard him without
wonder.” It was he who, at a conference of Bishops,
drew up the famous ultra-predestinarian confession of faith,
called the “ Lambeth Articles.” He married, first, the
maternal aunt (u.) of William Gouge {see), and second, the
widow of the learned Dr. Fenner, and by these two wives
had eight children. It would be exceedingly interesting
to know more of these children, especially those of the
first wife, whose hereditary chances were so high. They
appear to have turned out well, judging from Middleton’s
phrase that they “ were carefully brought up in the prin¬
ciples of true religion and virtue.” This, unfortunately, is
all I know about them.
Saurin, James (1677 — 1730, ret. 53). Served in the army as
a cadet, but the profession was distasteful to him, and he
left it to become a student in philosophy and divinity.
He lived five years in England. He was an admirable
scholar and preacher, and led a holy, unblemished life.
Married, and had one son at least, who survived him.
[F.] An eminent lawyer of Nismes, who was compelled to leave
France on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
3 B. They, as well as James, were trained up in learning by
their father, and were all so remarkably eloquent “ that
eloquence was said to be hereditary in the family.”
The eloquent Attorney-General of Ireland was a descendant.
DIVINES.
297
Usher, James, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh (1580 — 1656, set.
76). As a child he showed a remarkable attachment to
books, and he became a great student as he grew older.
He was the subject of universal admiration for his great
erudition and wise and noble character. He was a first-
rate man, and played a conspicuous part on many stages.
His constitution was sound and healthy.
F. Arnold Usher; was one of the six clerks of the Chancery
in Ireland, and a man of parts and learning.
U. Henry Usher, also Archbishop of Armagh, was highly
celebrated for wisdom and knowledge.
g. James Stanihurst; was three times Speaker of the House
of Commons in Ireland, Recorder of Dublin, and Master
in Chancery. He was highly esteemed for his wisdom
and abilities.
u. James Stanihurst; was a philosopher, historian, and poet.
B. Ambrose Usher, who died in the prime of life, was a
man of very extraordinary powers ; he had attained great
proficiency in the Oriental tongues.
[2 U] The Archbishop was taught in his childhood by two
blind aunts, who knew the Bible by heart, and so contrived
to teach him to read out of it. — Ingenious, persevering
ladies !
James Usher was, therefore, a remarkable instance of
hereditary ability associated with constitutional vigour, and
apparently of a durable type. Unluckily for the world, he
married an heiress, — an only daughter, — who appears, like
many other heiresses, to have inherited a deficiency of
prolific power, for she bore him only one daughter.
Welch, John (1570 — 1623, set. 53). He was profligate in his
youth, and joined the border-thieves, but he repented and
grew to be extremely Puritanical. The flesh upon his
knees became “ callous, like horn,” from his frequent
prayings upon them. He was “grievously tempted”
throughout the whole of his life, and prayed and groaned
at nights. His constitution was robust, and he underwent
great fatigues. Married the daughter of John Knox* (see
above), and had three sons by her. The eldest son was
accidentally shot when a youth.
[S.] The second son was shipwrecked, and swam to a desert
298
DIVINES.
island, where he starved and was afterwards found dead,
on his knees, stiffened in a praying posture, with his hands
lifted to heaven.
S. Josias Welch, the third son, was “a man highly favoured of
God, .... and commonly called ‘ the Cock of the Con¬
science,’ because of his extraordinary talent in awakening
and arousing the conscience of sinners.” He was ex¬
tremely troubled with doubts about his own salvation.
He was still young when he died.
Whitaker, William, D.D. See under Nowell.*
u. Alexander Nowell,* D.D.
Wilkins, John, D.D., Bishop of Chester. See wider Dod.*
g. John Dod.*
Witsius, Herman, D.D. (1636 — 1708, oet. 72). Bom in Fries¬
land, a premature child. Was always puny in stature, but
had vast intellectual abilities. Was Theological Professor
at Utrecht. His fame was European. Till within a little
before his death he could easily read a Greek Testament
of the smallest type by moonlight.
. [g.] A most pious minister,
u. The learned Peter Gerhard.
[2S., 3^.] His family consisted of two sons, who died young, and
of three remarkably pious and accomplished daughters.
CHAPTER XVI.
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE.
Tiie position of Senior Classic at Cambridge is of the
same rank in regard to classical achievement as that of
Senior Wrangler is to achievement in mathematics ; there¬
fore all that I said about the severity of the selection
implied by the latter degree (see pp. 16-21) is strictly
applicable to the former. I have chosen the Senior
Classics for the subject of this chapter rather than the
Senior Wranglers, for the reasons explained in p. 197.
The Classical Tripos was established in the year 1824.
There have, therefore, been forty-six lists between that
time and the year 1869, both inclusive. In nine cases out
of these, two or more names were bracketed together at
the head of the list as equal in merit, leaving thirty-six
cases of men who were distinctly the first classics of
their several years. Their names are .as follow : —
Malkin, Isaacson, Stratton, Kennedy , Selwyn, Soames,
Wordsworth , Kennedy , L us king ton, B unbury , Kennedy ,
Goulburn , Osborne, Humphry, Freeman, Cope, Denman ,
Maine, Lushington , Elwyn, Perowne, Lightfoot, Roby,
Hawkins , But dr, Brown, Clark, Sidgwick , Abbott, Jebb,
Wilson, Moss, Whitelaw, Smith, Sandys, Kennedy.
It will be observed that the name of Kennedy occurs no
less than four times, and that of Lushington twice, in this
short series. I will give the genealogies of these, and of a
3°o
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE.
few others of which I have particulars, and which 1 have
italicized in the above list, begging it at the same time
to be understood that I do not mean to say that many
of the remainder may not also be distinguished for the
eminence of their kinsmen ; I have not cared to make
extensive and minute inquiries, because the following list
is amply sufficient for my purpose. It is obvious that the
descending relationships must be generally deficient, since
the oldest of all the Senior Classics took his degree in
1834, and would therefore be only about fifty-seven at the
present time. For the most part the sons have yet to be
proved and the grandsons to be born.
There is no case in my list of only a single eminent
relationship. There are four, namely Denman, Goulburn,
Selwyn, and Sidgwick, of only two or three ; all the others
have four or upwards.
APPENDIX TO THE SENIOR CLASSICS OF
CAMBRIDGE.
Out of 36 senior classics (all bracketed cases being excluded) since the
establishment of the Tripos in 1834, 14 find a place in the appendix ; they are
grouped into 10 families. The Kennedy family has supplied I in 9 out of the
entire number of the senior classics.
Bunbury, Edward H.; senior classic, 1833.
gF. Henry, 1st Lord Holland, Secretary-at-War.
gB. The Right Hon. -Charles James Fox ; illustrious statesman.
gB. The 2d Lord Holland ; statesman and social leader. See
Fox, in Statesmen, for other relationships, including that
of the Napier family.
[F.] General Sir H. E. Bunbury, K.C.B., author.
Butler, Rev. H. Montagu, D.D. ; senior classic, 1855 ; Head
Master of Harrow.
F. Rev. Dr. George Butler ; Dean of Peterborough, previously
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE .
301
Head Master of Harrow. He was senior wrangler in 1794,
at which time there was no University test for classical
eminence ; however, the office he held is sufficient proof of
his powers in that respect also.
[G.] A man of considerable classical powers and literary tastes ;
was master of a school at Chelsea.
B. The Rev. George Butler ; Head Master of Liverpool
College; 1st class, Oxford.
B. Spencer P. Butler; barrister; wrangler and 1st class in
classics, Cambridge.
B. The Rev. Arthur Butler; Head Master of Haileybury
College ; 1st class, Oxford.
Denman, Hon. George, Q.C. M.P. ; senior classic, 1842.
F. 1 st Lord Denman; Chief Justice Queen’s Bench. See in
Judges.
G. Physician ; a celebrated accoucheur.
G’N. Sir Benj. Brodie, Bart. ; eminent surgeon. See Brodie,
in Science.
Goulburn, Henry; senior classic, 1835. It was he who obtained
the extraordinary distinction described in p. 22 (where I
also have made a mistake in his pedigree); He died young.
F. Right Hon. H. Goulburn, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[B.] Also an able classical scholar.
U. Edward Goulburn, Serjeant at Law; a man of well-known
high accomplishments and ability.
#■
US. Rev. E. M. Goulburn, D.D. Dean of Norwich; formerly
Head Master of Rugby ; eminent preacher.
Hawkins, F. Vaughan; senior classic, 1854; one of the youngest
. at the time of his examination, yet is reputed to have
obtained one of the largest number of marks, upon record.
F Francis Hawkins, M.D., Registrar of the College of
Physicians.
U. Edward Hawkins, D.D., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
11. Sir Caesar Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to Her Majesty.
This is the “blue ribbon” of the profession, being the
highest post attainable by a surgeon.
GB. Charles Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to George III.
GF. Sir Caesar Hawkins, 1st Bart., Sergeant Surgeon to George III.
GU. Pennell Hawkins, Sergeant Surgeon to George III.
u. Halford Vaughan, Professor at Oxford.
14
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE.
302
Hawkins, F. Vaughan, continued —
g. Sir John Vaughan, Judge ; Just. C.P. [See in Judges.)
gB. Rev. Edward Vaughan of Leicester; Calvinist theologian.
gB. Peter Vaughan, Dean of Chester; Warden of Merton
College, Oxford.
gB. Sir Chas. Vaughan, Envoy Extraordinary to the United States.
gB. Sir Henry Vaughan, assumed the name of Halford, 1st
Bart. ; the well-known physician of George III.
gN. The Rev. Charles J. Vaughan, D.D. joint senior classic
of Cambridge, 1838; eminent scholar; Head Master of
Harrow; Master of the Temple; has refused two bishop¬
rics. The rigid rule I have prescribed to myself, of
reckoning only those who were sole senior classics, prevents
my assigning a separate paragraph to Dr. Vaughan.
Kennedy, Rev. Benjamin; senior classic, 1827; for many years
Head Master of Shrewsbury School ; professor of Greek
at Cambridge. Educated at Shrewsbury, of which school
he was head boy set. 15 ; obtained the Porson prize at
Cambridge set. 18, before entering the University, and the
Pitt University Scholarship aet. 19.
B. Charles Rann Kennedy, barrister ; senior classic, 1831.
B. Rev. George Kennedy, senior classic, 1834 ; for many years
one of the ablest of the private tutors at Cambridge.
B. Rev. William Kennedy, Inspector of Schools ; gained the
Porson prize, 1835, but was incapacitated for competition
in the classical tripos through his not having taken the
previous, then essential, mathematical degree.
N. W. R. Kennedy, son of the above; senior classic, 1868;
was Newcastle scholar at Eton.
N. J. Kennedy, has not yet (1S69) arrived at the period for
taking his degree. He was Newcastle scholar at Eton,
and Bell University scholar at Cambridge.
F. Benjamin Rann Kennedy. It is considered that he would
have been an excellent scholar if he had had advantages.
Had considerable poetic talent (poem on death of Princess
Charlotte, quoted by Washington Irving in his “Sketch¬
book”). Was Master of King Edward’s School, Bir¬
mingham.
G. Her maiden name was Maddox, a lady of considerable
intellectual and poetic ability.
SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE.
3°3
Kennedy, Rev. Benjamin,, continued —
g. — Hall, engraver to George III. ; his portrait is in the
Vernon Gallery ; was a man of mark in his profession.
g. Her maiden name was Giles; she was the daughter of
French emigrants ; had excellent abilities, that were shared
by others of her family, as follow : —
u. Rev. Dr. Hall, late Master of Pembroke College, Oxford ;
a man of considerable classical attainments.
z/S. James Burchell, Under Sheriff of Middlesex; acting Judge
of the Sheriffs’ Court for forty-five years ; a man of eminent
business capacity.
7/S. William Burchell, most successful man of business ; founder
of important companies, as the first Electric Telegraph
Company and the Metropolitan Railway.
Lushington, Edmund; senior classic, 1832; Professor at
Glasgow.
UF. James Law, Bishop of Carlisle; author.
GB. The 1 st Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice of the King’s
Bench. (See under Judges.)
B. Henry Lushington, 4th classic of his year ; Government
Secretary at Malta.
B. Franklin Lushington, senior classic, 1846.
B. Charles H. Lushington, Secretary to Government in India.
The four following are descended from a second marriage;
they have the Lushington, but not the Law, blood.
U. Stephen Rumbold Lushington, Privy Councillor ; Governor
of Madras ; Secretary of the Treasury.
[U.] General Sir James Lushington, K.C.B.
[U.] Charles,' Madras Civil Service; Member of Council.
US. Charles Hugh, Secretary to Government in India.
The branch of the Lushington family from which Sir Stephen
Lushington, D.C.L., the eminent ex-Judge of the Admiralty,
is descended, diverged from the one we are now consider¬
ing, in the fifth ascending generation from the two senior
classics. This branch also contains a considerable number
of men of sterling ability, and very few others. There are
fully eleven distinguished men within three grades of
relationship to Sir Stephen Lushington.
Selwyn, Rev. Dr. William; senior classic, 1828; Margaret Pro¬
fessor of Divinity at Cambridge.
304 SENIOR CLASSICS OF CAMBRIDGE.
Selwyn, Rev. Dr. William, continued- —
B. The Bishop of Lichfield, formerly Bishop of New Zealand ;
2d classic in 1831.
B. Sir Jasper Selwyn, Judge ; Lord Justice.
b . Miss Selwyn, eminent for philanthropical labours. (Crimean
War, “ Home ” at Birmingham.)
Sidgwick, H. ; senior classic, 1859.
B. 2d classic, 1863.
B. Able scholar; senior Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.
CiiS., (9UPS., and £7/PS. Dr. Benson, Head Master of Wellington
College, is related, though distantly, through the paternal
and maternal lines, to Mr. Sidgwick, being both second
and third cousin by the first and third cousin by the
second.
Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln;
senior classic, 1830. See under Poecs for his relations,
viz. : —
U. The Poet.
F. The Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
2 B. Excellent scholars ; one, the Bishop of Dunkeld.
CHAPTER XVII.
OARSMEN.
I PROPOSE to supplement what I have written about brain
by two short chapters on muscle. No one doubts that
muscle is hereditary in horses and dogs, but humankind
are so blind to facts and so governed by preconceptions,
that I have heard it frequently asserted that muscle is
not hereditary in men. Oarsmen and wrestlers have
maintained that their heroes spring up capriciously, so
I have thought it advisable to make inquiries into the
matter. The results I have obtained will beat down
another place of refuge for those who insist that each
man is an independent creation, and not a mere function,
physically, morally, and intellectually, of ancestral quali¬
ties and external influences.
In respect to Oarsmen, let me assure the reader that
they are no insignificant fraction of the community, — no
mere waifs and strays from those who follow more civilized
pursuits. A perfect passion for rowing pervades large
classes. At Newcastle, when a great race takes place, all
business is at a standstill, factories are closed, shops are
shut, and offices deserted. The number of men who fall
within the attraction of the career is very great ; and there
can be no doubt that a large proportion of those among
them who are qualified to succeed brilliantly, obey the
attraction and pursue it.
For the information in this and the following chapters,
I am entirely indebted to the kind inquiries made for me
3°6
OARSMEN.
by Mr. Robert Spence Watson of Newcastle, whose local
knowledge is very considerable, and whose sympathies with
athletic amusements are strong. Mr. Watson put himself
into continual communication with one of the highest,
I believe by far the highest, authority on boating matters, •
a person who had reported nearly every boating race to
the newspapers for the last quarter of a century.
The list in the Appendix to this chapter includes the
names of nearly all the rowing men of note who have
figured upon the Tyne during the past six-and-twenty
years. It also includes some of the rowers on the
Thames, but the information about these is not so certain.
The names are not picked and chosen, but the best men
have been taken of whom any certain knowledge could
be obtained.
It is not easy to classify the rowers, especially as many
of the men have rarely, if ever, pulled in skiff matches, but
formed part of crews in pair-oared, four-oared, or six-oared
matches. Their performances have, however, been care¬
fully examined and criticised by Mr. Watson and his
assessor, who have divided them into four classes.
I have marked the names of the lowest with brackets [],
and have attached to them the phrase “ moderately good.”
These are men who have either disappointed expectations
founded on early promise, or have not rowed often enough
to show of what feats they are really capable. No com¬
plete failure is included. Few amateurs can cope with
men of this class, notwithstanding the mediocrity of their
abilities when judged by a professional standard.
The next ascending grade is also distinguished by
brackets [], but no qualifying expression is added to their
names. Tiiey consist of the steady reliable men who form
good racing crews.
The two superior grades contain the men whose names
are printed without brackets — whom, in short, I treat as
OARSMEN.
307
being “eminently gifted.” In order to make a distinction
between the two grades, I add to the names of the men
who belong to the higher of them, the phrase “ very
excellent oarsman.”
It is not possible to do more than give a rough notion
of the places into which these four grades would respec¬
tively fall in my table (p. 34) of natural gifts. I have
only two data to help me. The first is, that I am informed
that in the early part of 1868, the Tyne Amateur Rowing
Club, which is the most important institution of that kind
in the north of England, had been fifteen years in exist¬
ence and had comprised, in all, 377 members ; that three
of these, as judged by amateur standards of comparison,
had been considered of surpassing excellence as skiff-
rowers, and that the best of these three was looked upon
as equal to, or perhaps a trifle better than, the least
good of the brothers Matfin, who barely ranks as an
“ excellent ” rower.
The other datum is the deliberate opinion of the autho¬
rities to whom I am indebted for the materials of this
chapter, that not 1 man in 10 will succeed as a rower
even of the lower of the two grades whose names are
marked in my Appendix by brackets, and that not 1 in
100 rowers attains to excellence. Hence the minimum
qualification for excellence is possessed by only 1 man
in 1,000.
There is a rough accordance between these two data.
A rowing club consists in part of naturally selected men.
They are not men, all of whom have been taken at hap¬
hazard as regards their powers of rowing. A large part
are undoubtedly mere conscripts from the race of clubable
men, but there must always be a considerable number
who would not have joined the club save for their con¬
sciousness of possessing gifts and tastes that specially
qualified them for success on the water. To be the best
OARSMEN.
308
oarsman of the 377 men who are comprised in a crack
rowing club, means much more than to be the best of
377 men taken at haphazard. It would be much nearer
the truth to say, that it means being the best of all who
might have joined the club, had they been so inclined
and had appeared desirable members. Upon these
grounds (see also my remarks in p. 12) it is a very
moderate estimate to conclude that the qualifications for
excellence as an oarsman, are only possessed by 1 man
in 1,000.
The “very excellent” oarsmen imply, I presume, a
much more rigorous selection, but I really have no data
whatever on which to found an estimate. Many men who
found they could attain no higher rank than “ excellence,”
would abandon the unprofitable pursuit of match rowing
for more regular and, as some would say, creditable occu¬
pations. We shall not be more than half a grade wrong
if we consider the “ excellent ” oarsmen to rank in at least
class F of natural gifts, with respect to rowing ability, and
the “very excellent” to fall well within it.
I do not propose to take any pains in analysing these
relationships, for the data are inadequate. Rowing was
comparatively little practised in previous generations, so
we cannot expect to meet with evidence of ancestral
peculiarities among the oarsmen. Again, the successful
rowers are mostly single men, and some of the best have
no children. It is important, in respect to this, to recollect
the frequent trainings they have gone through. Mr. Watson
mentions to me one well-known man, who has trained for
an enormous number of races, and during the time of
each training was most abstemious and in amazing health ;
then, after each trial was over, he commonly gave way, and
without committing any great excess, remained for weeks
in a state of fuddle. This is too often the history of
»
these men.
OARSMEN.
3°9
There are in the Appendix only three families, each
containing more than one excellent oarsman ; they are
Clasper, Matfin, and Taylor, and the total relationships
existing towards the ablest member of each family are,
8 B and 1 S.
There appears to be no intermarriage, except in the one
case that is mentioned, between the families of the rowers ;
indeed there is much jealousy between the rival families.
APPENDIX TO OARSMEN.
“ I have not picked and chosen, but have simply taken all the best men
1 could hear anything certainly about.” — Extract from Mr. Watson’s Letter.
The 18 men whose names are printed in italics are described below as
examples of hereditary gifts. The remaining 3 are not. *
Candlish ; Chambers; 5 Clasper; Coombes ; Cooper; Kelly; Maddison ;
2 Matfin ; Renforth ; Sadler; 5 Taylor; Winship.
%
Candlish, James ; a Tyne man, married sister of Henry Clasper;
has no children.
[B.] Thomas ; a good but not a great rower ; has always pulled
as one of a crew. Unmarried.
[B.] Robert ; moderately good ; has not rowed very often.
Clasper, Henry; very excellent oarsman. Is the most prominent
member of a large and most remarkable family of oarsmen.
He was for many years stroke of a four-oared crew, and
frequently the whole crew, including the coxswain, were
members of the Clasper family. For eight years this crew
won the championship of the Tyne. Six times Henry
Clasper pulled stroke for the crew winning the champion¬
ship of the Thames, and Coombes declared that he was
the best stroke that ever pulled. Up to the year 1859,
when he was 47 years old, he had pulled stroke 78 times
in pair- or four-oared matches, and his crew had been 54
times victorious. He had also pulled in 32 skiff matches
and won 20 of them, and had been champion of Scotland
upon the only two occasions on which he contested for it.
3IQ
OARSMEN.
Nearly all these matches were over a 4 or 4J mile course.
He invented the light outrigger, and has been a very
successful builder of racing boats.
Family of Clasper.
[Edward Hawks.] O = Clasper, = O
a keelman.
Henry.* [Wm,] [Edw.] Robert. Richard.* John.* [Thos.]
Drowned.
John Others A good Young
Hawks.* (young). rower. children.
The names marked with a * are very excellent oarsmen.
Those in brackets [ ] are similarly marked in the letterpress.
S. John Hawks Clasper; very excellent oarsman. Has rowed
more skiff matches than any man living. When he had
contested 76 races, he had won 50 of them. He has
brothers, but they are too young to have shown their powers.
B Richard Clasper ; very excellent oarsman, known as the
“Little Wonder.” Was, when 37 years old, only 5 feet
2 inches high, and weighed 8 stone 6 lbs. In spite of this
he was bow-oarsman to the brothers’ crew, and a rare good
one. He has rowed many skiff races with first-class men,
and has scarcely ever been beaten, but is too light to
contend for the championship.
B. J ohn Clasper ; very excellent oarsman ; was drowned when
young (cet. 19). He had won several small matches, and
one important match with a man called Graham, and his
fine style and excellent performances (considering his age)
caused him to be looked upon as a rower of extraordinary
promise.
B. Robert Clasper; able oarsman.
[N.] Son of the above ; is a good rower.
[B.] William ; never pulled but as one of a crew ; he was
recently drowned.
[B.] Edward ; has the disadvantage of having lost a leg.
[B.] (half-brother). Thomas ; moderately good.
[u.] Edward Hawks ; a fair rower.
The father of the Clasper family was a keelman.
OARSMEN.
311
Coombes, Robert; very excellent oarsman.
[S.] David ; a good match rower.
[B.] Thomas ; has always pulled as one of a crew.
Cooper, Robert.
[S.] He pulls well, but is not old enough for matches.
Maddison, Antony.
[B.] James ; a good rower.
Matfin, Thomas. Unmarried.
B. William. Unmarried.
Renforth, James; Champion rower of England. Unmarried.
[B.] Stephen ; a fair rower. Unmarried.
Sadler, Joseph. Unmarried.
[B.] William. Unmarried.
Taylor, James ; very excellent oarsman, the ablest of a remark¬
able family. He has rowed 1 1 2 races, alone and in crews ;
13 of these were skiff matches, and of these he won 10.
B. Matthew; a good rower. (He has a son who is a clever
rower, but not old enough for matches.)
3 B. Thomas, William, and John; all good rowers; they have
only pulled in crews. All unmarried.
Winship, Edward ; very eminent oarsman. He is not a skiff
rower, but always rows in two- or four-oared races. He
was one of the crew who won the “ Champion Fours ”
at the Thames National Regatta in 1854, 1859, 1861, and
1862, and the “ Champion Pairs ” at the same Regatta in
1855, 1856, i860, 1861, and 1862.
[B.] Thomas ; a good rower, also in crews.
CHAPTER XVIII.
WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY.
I AM wholly indebted for the information contained in this
chapter, as I was for that in the last, to Mr. Robert Spence
Watson. With the assistance of a well-informed champion
wrestler, that gentleman has examined into the history of
those of the 172 men of whom anything could be learnt,
who were either first or second at Carlisle or Newcastle
since the establishment of the championship at those
places; at the first, in 1809, and at the second, in 1839.
It is exceedingly difficult to estimate the performances
of the ancestors of the present generation, because there
were scarcely any prizes in former days ; matches were
then made simply for honour. We must not expect to
be able to trace ancestral gifts among the wrestlers to a
greater degree than among the oarsmen.
I should add, that I made several attempts to obtain
information on wrestling families in the Lake districts of
Westmoreland and Cumberland, but entirely without suc¬
cess ; no records seem to have been kept of the yearly
meetings at Keswick and Bowness, and the wrestling deeds
of past years have fallen out of mind.
There are eighteen families in my Appendix, containing
between them forty-six wrestlers, and the relationships
existing towards the ablest wrestler of the family are
1 F, 21 B, 7 S, and 1 n.
WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY.
3i3
APPENDIX TO WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH
COUNTRY.
Blair, Matthew; winner of Decies prize at Newcastle in 1859
champion of 11 stone men at Newcastle in 1862.
B. Robert; winner of Decies prize at Newcastle in 1857.
B. Joseph; winner of Decies prize in 1861 ; 2d 11 stone man
at Newcastle in 1862, and at Carlisle, 1863.
Daley, Charles; champion io| stone, Newcastle, 1839.
B. John; 2d 10 stone, Newcastle, 1840 and 1842.
[B.] William ; moderately good.
Ewbank, Noble; champion of all weights at Newcastle, 1858,
1859, i860; champion of picked men at Newcastle, 1859;
champion of all weights, Carlisle, 1858.
F. Joseph; champion of all weights at Newcastle, 1847.
[B.] Joseph ; only a second-rate wrestler.
Glaister, William; champion, Newcastle, 11 stone, 1850; 2d
all weights, Newcastle, 1851; 2d all weights, Carlisle,
1856.
B. George ; very good.
Golightly, Frank ; a famous wrestler in the last century.
B. Tom ; champion at Melmerby.
Gordon, Robert; champion all weights, Carlisle, 1836 and
1846; 2d, 1837, 1839, 1840, 1845, and 1848; champion
all weights at Newcastle, 1846.
B. William ; a good wrestler.
[B.] Thomas ; tolerably good.
n. Robert Lowthian ; champion light weights, Newcastle, 1855
and i860.
Harrington, Joseph; champion light weights at Newcastle,
1844, 1853, 1854; champion 11 stone, Newcastle, 1855;
2d all weights at Newcastle, 1845.
B. Charles ; champion light weights, Newcastle, 1848 ; 2d, 1849.
S. James Scott.
Irving, George; champion all weights, Carlisle, 1827 and 1828.
S. George ; very good light weight wrestler.
314 WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY.
Ivison, Henry ; a first-class man, but in old times, when the
competition was less severe than now.
S. John; 2d for all weights at Newcastle, in 1842; champion
of io| stone men at Newcastle, 1844; 2d 9^ stone men
at Newcastle, 1850.
S. Henry; 2d light weights at Newcastle, 1852; 2d n stone
men, ditto, 1856.
[S.] James.
Jamieson, James; champion light weights at Carlisle, 1838;
twice threw the champion of all weights the same year;
2d nj stone, Newcastle, 1843; and io| stone, 1845.
3 B. Robert, William, and George. All good wrestlers ; among
them they won all the prizes at Brampton, so that the
wrestling there had to be given up. They challenged any
four men in England of their weight.
Little, John ; champion all weights, Carlisle.
B. James; 2d all weights, Carlisle, 1834.
Long, Rowland; wrestled for 30 years, and won nearly 100
prizes.
B. John; the best champion at Carlisle.
Lowthian. See Gordon.
Nichol, John; 2d all weights, Carlisle, 1832 and 1836.
[B.] James; a good, though not a first-rate wrestler.
Palmer, John; champion of all weights at Carlisle in 1851, and
champion of light weights the same year, — a most unusual
success.
2 B. Matthew and Walter ; twins, both very good ; not cham¬
pions, but often second in great matches.
Robley, Joseph; a very good wrestler.
B. John ; also a good wrestler.
S. William; 2d all weights at Newcastle, 1848; champion
heavy stone men, 1852.
Robson, Thomas; champion all weights at Newcastle, 1857;
champion 11 stone, 1858.
B. William ; equally good.
Tinian, John; champion at Penrith. As a wrestler, boxer,
runner, leaper, cudgel and foot-ball player, he never met
an equal; was the greatest hero in athletic exercises
England ever produced. “ Wrestliana,” by W. Litt (him¬
self an excellent wrestler), Whitehaven, 1823.
WRESTLERS OF THE NORTH COUNTRY. 315
Tinian, John, continued —
B. Job; nearly equal to his brother; he threw William
Richardson, who afterwards won 240 belts and was
champion.
S. John ; a remarkably good wrestler.
S. Joseph ; a more powerful man than his father.
[2 S.] Other sons were good wrestlers, but none remarkably so.
Tweddell, Joseph; champion 10 stone, Newcastle, 1842; 2d,
ditto, 1841 ; champion nj stone, Newcastle, 1843.
B. Thomas; champion 10 stone, Newcastle, 1841.
B. Richard; 2d nj stone, Newcastle, 1841.
B. William; 2d 10^ stone, Newcastle, 1846.
Wearmouth, Launcelot; champion n stone men at Newcastle,
i860.
B. Isaac; 2d 9J stone men at Newcastle, 1859.
CHAPTER XIX.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
Let us now bring our scattered results side to side, for
the purpose of comparison, and judge of the extent
to which they corroborate one another, — how far they
confirm the provisional calculations made in the chapter
on JUDGES from more scanty data, and where and why
they contrast.
The number of cases of hereditary genius analysed in
the several chapters of my book, amounts to a large total.
I have dealt with no less than 300 families containing
between them nearly 1,000 eminent men, of whom 415
are illustrious, or, at all events, of such note as to deserve
being printed in black type at the head of a paragraph.
If there be such a thing as a decided law of distribution
of genius in families, it is sure to become manifest when
we deal statistically with so large a body of examples.
In comparing the results obtained from the different
groups of eminent men, it will be our most convenient
course to compare the columns B of the several tables.
Column B gives the number of kinsmen in various degrees,
on the supposition that the number of families in the
group to which it refers is 100. All the entries under
B have therefore the same common measure, they are all
percentages , and admit of direct intercomparison. I hope
I have made myself quite clear: lest there should remain
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
317
any misapprehension, it is better to give an example.
Thus, the families of Divines are only 25 in number, and
in those 25 families there are 7 eminent fathers, 9 brothers,
and 10 sons ; now in order to raise these numbers to per¬
centages, 7, 9, and 10 must be multiplied by the number
of times that 25 goes into 100, namely by 4. They will
then become 28, 36, and 40, and will be found entered as
such, in column B, p. 275 ; the parent numbers 7, 9, 10,
appearing in the same table in the column A.
In the following table, the columns B of all the different
groups are printed side by side ; I have, however, thrown
Painters and Musicians into a single group of Artists,
because their numbers were too small to make it worth
Separate Groups.
All Groups
TOGETHER.
Number of families, 'j
each containing more (
than one eminent (
8S
39
27
33
43
20
28
25
300
man . )
Total number of emi-'j
nent men in all the >
families . )
262
130
89
119
148
57
97
75
977
M
in
C?N
ci
V
bJD
cT
I £
m M
V .
15
ommande:
p. 148.
b m
rt
*-• M
V
~ cL
O
10
5 H
M
in
4-»
<u
• 'l
P. N
<2 rt
.^2 00
r-i
v to
.5 0
•- d.
Illustrious and
Eminent Men of
all Classes.
1 — >
(J
i h P
Ph
< W
Q
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
B.
C.
D.
Father .
26
33
47
48
26
20
32
28
3i
IOO
31
Brother ....
35
39
50
42
47
40
50
3<>
4i
150
27
Son .
36
49
3i
51
60
45
89
40
48
IOO
48
Grandfather . . .
15
28
l6
24
14
5
7
20
17
200
8
Uncle .
18
18
8
24
l6
5
14
40
18
400
5
Nephew ....
*9
18
35
24
23
50
18
4
22
400
5
Grandson .
*9
IO
12
9
14
5
18
l6
14
200
7
Great-grandfather .
2
8
8
3
O
O
O
4
3
400
I
Great-uncle . . .
4
5
8
6
5
5
7
4
5
800
I
First cousin . . .
II
21
20
18
l6
O
I
8
13
800
2
Great-nephew . .
17
5
8
6
l6
IO
O
O
IO
800
I
Great-grandson. .
6
O
O
3
7
O
O
O
3
400
I
All more remote .
14
37
44
15
23
5
18
l6
31
?
3iS
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
while to consider them apart. Annexed to these is a
column B calculated from the whole of the families put
together, with the intention of giving a general average ;
and I have further attached to it its appropriate columns
C and D, not so much for particular use in this chapter as
for the convenience of the reader who may wish to make
comparisons with the other tables, from the different
point of view which D affords.
The general uniformity in the distribution of ability
among the kinsmen in the different groups, is strikingly
manifest. The eminent sons are almost invariably more
numerous than the eminent brothers, and these are a trifle
more numerous than the eminent fathers. On proceeding
further down the table, we come to a sudden dropping off
of the numbers at the second grade of kinship, namely,
at the grandfathers, uncles, nephews, and grandsons : this
diminution is conspicuous in the entries in column D, the
meaning of which has already been fully described in pp.
81-83. On reaching the third grade of kinship, another
abrupt dropping off in numbers is again met with, but the
first cousins are found to occupy a decidedly better posi¬
tion than other relations within the third grade.
We further observe, that while the proportionate abun¬
dance of eminent kinsmen in the various grades is closely
similar in all the groups, the proportions deduced from the
entire body of illustrious men, 415 in number, coincide
with peculiar general accuracy with those we obtained
from the large subdivision of 109 Judges. There cannot,
therefore, remain a doubt as to the existence of a law
of distribution of ability in families, or that it is pretty
accurately expressed by the figures in column B, under
the heading of “eminent men of all classes.” I do not,
however, think it worth while to submit a diagram like that
in p. 83, derived from the column D in the last table,
because little dependence can be placed on the entries in
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
319
C by the help of which that column had to be calculated.
When I began my inquiries, I did indeed try to obtain
real and not estimated data for C, by inquiring into the
total numbers of kinsmen in each degree, of every illus¬
trious man, as well as of those who achieved eminence.
I wearied myself for a long time with searching biographies,
but finding the results very disproportionate to the labour,
and continually open to doubt after they had been obtained,
I gave up the task, and resigned myself to the rough but
ready method of estimated averages.
It is earnestly to be desired that breeders of animals
would furnish tables, like mine, on the distribution of
different marked physical qualities in families. The results
would be far more than mere matters of curiosity ; they
would afford constants for formulae by which, as I shall
briefly show in a subsequent chapter, the laws of heredity, as
they are now understood, may admit of being expressed.
In contrasting the columns B of the different groups,
the first notable peculiarity that catches the eye is the
small number of the sons of Commanders ; they being
31, while • the average of all the groups is 48. There
is nothing anomalous in this irregularity. I have already
shown, when speaking of the Commanders, that they
usually begin their active careers in youth, and therefore,
if married at all, they are mostly away from their wives
on military service. It is also worth while to point out a
few particular cases where exceptional circumstances stood
in the way of the Commanders leaving male issue, because
the total number of those included in my lists is so
small, being only 32, as to make them of appreciable
importance in affecting the results. Thus, Alexander the
Great was continually engaged in distant wars, and died
in early manhood : he had one posthumous son, but that
son was murdered for political reasons when still a boy.
Julius Caesar, an exceedingly profligate man, left one ille-
$20
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
gitimate son, by Cleopatra, but that son was also murdered
for political reasons when still a boy. Nelson married
a widow who had no children by her former husband, and
therefore was probably more or less infertile by nature.
Napoleon I. was entirely separated from Marie Louise
after she had borne him one son.
*
Though the great Commanders have but few immediate
descendants, yet the number of their eminent grandsons
is as great as in the other groups. I ascribe this to the
superiority of their breed, which ensures eminence to an
unusually large proportion of their kinsmen.
The next exceptional entry in the table is, the number
of eminent fathers of the great scientific men as com¬
pared with that of their sons, there being only 26 of the
former to 60 of the latter, whereas the average of all the
groups gives 31 and 48. I have already attempted to
account for this by showing, first, that scientific men owe
much to the training and to the blood of their mothers ;
and, secondly, that the first in a family who has scientific
gifts is not nearly so likely to achieve eminence, as the
descendant who is taught to follow science as a profession,
and not to waste his powers on profitless speculations.
The next peculiarity in the table is, the small number
of eminent fathers, in the group of Poets. This group is
too small to make me attach much importance to the
deviation ; it may be mere accident.
The Artists are not a much larger group than the Poets,
consisting as they do of only 28 families, but the number
of their eminent sons is enormous and quite exceptional.
It is 89, whereas the average of all the groups is only 48.
The remarks I made about the descendant of a great
scientific man prospering in science, more than his ancestor,
are eminently true as regards Artists, for the fairly-gifted
son of a great painter or musician is far more likely to
become a professional celebrity, than another man who has
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
321
equal natural ability, but is not especially educated for
professional life. The large number of artists’ sons who
have become eminent, testifies to the strongly hereditary
character of their peculiar ability, while, if the reader will
turn to the account of the Herschel family, pp. 215, 216,
he will readily understand that many persons may have
decided artistic gifts who have adopted some other more
regular, solid, or lucrative occupation.
I have now done with the exceptional cases ; it will be
observed that they are mere minor variations in the law
expressed by the general average of all the groups ; for,
if we say that to every 10 illustrious men, who have a?iy
eminent relations at all , we find 3 or 4 eminent fathers,
4 or 5 eminent brothers, and 5 or 6 eminent sons, we shall
be right in 17 instances out of 24; and in the 7 cases
where we are wrong, the error will consist of less than
1 unit in 2 cases (the fathers of the commanders and men
of literature), of 1 unit in 4 cases (the fathers of poets,
and the sons of judges, commanders, and divines), and of
more than 1 unit in the sole case of the sons of artists.
The deviations from the average are naturally greater
in the second and third grades of kinship, because the
numbers of instances in the several groups are generally
small ; but as the proportions in the large subdivision
of the 85 Judges correspond with extreme closeness to
those of the general average, we are perfectly justified in
accepting the latter with confidence.
The final and most important result remains to be
worked out ; it is this : if we know' nothing else about
a person than that he is a father, brother, son, grandson,
or other relation of an illustrious man, what is the chance
that he is or will be eminent ? Column E in p. 61 gives
the reply for Judges ; it remains for us to discover what it
is for illustrious men generally. In each of the chapters
I have given such data as I possessed, fit for combining
J22
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
with the results in column D, in order to make the
required calculation. They consist of the proportion of
men whose relations achieved eminence, compared with
the total number into whose relationships I inquired.
The general result1 is. that exactly one-half of the illus¬
trious men have one or more eminent relations. Conse¬
quently, if we divide the entries in column D, of “eminent
men of all classes,” p. 317, by 2, we shall obtain the
corresponding column E.
The reader may, however, suspect the fairness of my
selection. He may recollect my difficulty, avowed in many
chapters, of finding suitable selections, and will suspect
that I have yielded to the temptation of inserting more
than a due share of favourable cases. And I cannot
wholly deny the charge, for I can recollect a few names
that probably occurred to me owing to the double or
treble weight given to them, by the cumulated perform¬
ances of two or three persons. Therefore I acknowledge
it to be quite necessary, in the interests of truth, to appeal
to some wholly independent selection of names ; and will
take for that purpose the saints, or whatever their right
name may be, of the Comtist Calendar. Many of my
readers will know to what I am referring ; how Auguste
Comte, desiring to found a “Religion of Humanity,”
selected a list ' of names, from those to whom human
development was most indebted, and assigned the months
to the most important, the weeks to the next class, and
the days to the third. I have nothing whatever to do
with Comtist doctrines in these pages : his disciples dislike
1 Lord Chancellors, p. 64, 24 in 30; Statesmen of George III., p. ill,
33 in 53 > Premiers, p. in, not included in the “ Statesmen,” 8 in 16 ; Com¬
manders, p. 150, 32 in 59 ; Literary Men, p. 172, 37 in 56 ; Scientific Men,
pp. 194, 199, 65 in 83 ; Poets, p. 228, 40 in 100 ; Musicians, p. 239, 26 in
100 ; Painters, p. 249, 18 in 42 ; Divines, pp. 274, 283, 33 in 196 ; Scholars,
p. 300, 14 in 36. These proportions reduced to decimals are .8, .6 and .5,
.5, .7, .8, .4, .3, .4, .2, .4 ; giving a general average of .5 or one-half.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
323
Darwinism, and therefore cannot be expected to be favour¬
able to many of the discussions in this book ; so I have the
more satisfaction in the independence of the testimony
afforded by his Calendar to the truth of my views. Again,
no one can doubt that Comte’s selections are entirely
original ; for he was the last man to pin his faith upon
that popular opinion which he aspired to lead. Every
name in his Calendar was weighed, we may be sure, with
scrupulous care, though, I dare say, with a rather crazy
balance, before it was inserted in the place which he
assigned for it, in his Calendar.
The Calendar consists of 13 months, each containing
4 weeks. The following table gives the representatives
of the 13 months in capital letters, and those of the 52
weeks in ordinary type. I have not thought it worth
while to transcribe the representatives of the several days.
Those marked with a * are included in my appendices, as
having eminent relations ; those with a f might have been
so included. It will be observed that there are from 10
to 20 persons of whose kinships we know nothing or next
to nothing, and therefore they should be struck out of the
list, — such as Numa, Buddha, Ilomer, Phidias, Thales,
Pythagoras, Archimedes, Apollonius, Hipparchus, St. Paul.
Among the remaining 55 or 45 persons, no less than 27, or
one-half, have eminent relations.
1. Theocracy , initial . +Moses, — Numa, Buddha, +Confucius, Mahomet.
2. Ancient poetry . . . IIomer, — LEschylus, Phidias, ^Aristophanes, Virgil.
3. Ancient philosophy . *Aristotle, — Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato.
4. Ancient science . . . Archimedes, — ^Hippocrates, Apollonius, Hippar¬
chus, *Pliny the Elder.
5. Military civilization *C/ESAR, — Themistocles, ^Alexander, *Scipio, Trajan.
6. Catholicism .... St. Paul, — +St. Augustine, Hildebrand, St. Bernard,
Bossuet.
7. Feudal civilization . ^'Charlemagne, — Alfred, Godfrey, Innocent III.,
St. Louis.
8. Modern epic .... Dante, — *Ariosto, Raphael, *Tasso, *Milton.
9. Alodcrn industry . . Guttenberg, — Columbus, Vaucanson, *Watt,
^Montgolfier.
324
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
1 6. Modern drama . . . Shakespeare, — Calderon, ^Corneille, , Moliere,
*Mozart.
11. Modern philosophy . Descartes, — *St. Thomas Aquinas, *Lord Bacon,
*Leibnitz, Hume.
12. Modern poliiics. . . Frederick the Great, — Louis XI., *William the
Silent, ^Richelieu, *Cromwell.
13. Modern science . . . Bichat, — *Galilei, *Newton, Lavoisier, Gall.
It is singularly interesting to observe how strongly the
results obtained from Comte’s selection corroborate my
own. I am sure, then, we shall be within the mark if we
consider column D in the table, p. 317, to refer to the
eminent kinsmen, not of the large group of illustrious and
eminent men, but of the more select portion of illustrious
men only, and then calculate our column E by dividing
the entries under D by 2.
For example, I reckon the chances of kinsmen of illus¬
trious men rising, or having risen, to eminence, to be 15 J
to 100 in the case of fathers, 13! to 100 in the case of
brothers, 24 to 100 in the case of sons. Or, putting these
and the remaining proportions into a more convenient
form, we obtain the following results. In first grade : the
chance of the father is 1 to 6 ; of each brother, 1 to 7 ; of
each son, 1 to 4. In second grade: of each grandfather,
1 to 25 ; of each uncle, 1 to 40 ; of each nephew, 1 to 40 ;
of each grandson, 1 to 29. In the third grade, the chance
of each member is about 1 to 200, excepting in the case
of first cousins, where it is 1 to 100.
The large number of eminent descendants from illus¬
trious men must not be looked upon as expressing the
results of their marriage with mediocre women, for the
average ability of the wives of such men is above medio¬
crity. This is my strong conviction, after reading very
many biographies, although it clashes with a commonly
expressed opinion that clever men marry silly women.
It is not easy to prove my point without a considerable
mass of quotations to show the estimation in which the
COMPARISON Oh RESULTS. 325
wives of a large body of illustrious men were held- by
their intimate friends, but the two following arguments
are not without weight. First, the lady whom a man
marries is very commonly one whom he has often met in
the society of his own friends, and therefore not likely to
be a silly woman. She is also usually related to some of
them, and therefore has a probability of being hereditarily
gifted. Secondly, as a matter of fact, a large number of
eminent men marry eminent women. If the reader runs
his eye through my Appendices, he will find many such
instances. Philip II. of Macedon and Olympias; Caesar’s
liaison with Cleopatra ; Marlborough and his most able
wife ; Helvetius married a charming lady, whose hand
was also sought by both Franklin and Turgot ; August
Wilhelm von Schlegel was heart and soul devoted to
Madame de Stael ; Necker’s wife was a blue-stocking of
the purest hue ; Robert Stephens, the learned printer, had
Petronella for his wife ; the Lord Keeper Sir Nicholas
Bacon and the great Lord Burleigh married two of the
highly accomplished daughters of Sir Anthony Cooke.
Every one of these names, which I have taken from the
Appendices to my chapters on Commanders, Statesmen,
and Literary Men, are those of decidedly eminent women.
They establish the existence of a tendency of “ like to
like” among intellectual men and women, and make it
most probable, that the marriages of illustrious men with
women of classes E and D are very common. On the
other hand, there is no evidence of a strongly marked
antagonistic taste — of clever men liking really half-witted
women. A man may be conscious of serious defects in his
character, and select a wife to supplement what he wants,
as a shy man may be attracted by a woman who has no
other merits than those of a talker and manager. Also,
a young awkward philosopher may accredit the first girl
who cares to show an interest in him, with greater intelli-
15
326
COMPARISON OF RESULTS .
gence than she possesses. But these are exceptional
instances ; the great fact remains that able men take
pleasure in the society of intelligent women, and, if they
can find such as would in other respects be suitable, they
will marry them in preference to mediocrities.
I think, therefore, that the results given in my tables,
under the head of “ Sons,” should be ascribed to the
marriages of men of class F and above, with women
whose natural gifts afe, on the average, not inferior to
those of class B, and possibly between B and C.
I will now contrast the power of the male and female
lines of kinship in the transmission of ability, and for that
purpose will reduce the actual figures into percentages.
As an example of the process, we may take the cases of
the Judges. Here — as will be observed in the foot-note1 —
the actual figures corresponding to the specified varieties
of kinship are 41, 16, 19, 1, making a total of 77; now
I raise these to what they would be if this total were
raised to 100 ; in short, I multiply them by 100 and divide
by 77, which converts them into 53, 21, 25, 1 ; and these
are the figures inserted in the table.
1 The actual figures are —
Judges.
Statesmen.
Commanders.
Literary.
Scientific.
t r.
V
0
Ph
Artists.
Divines.
Totals.
G + U. + &C. . •
41
19
12
iS
20
12
13
4
139
GF. + GB. + &c.
16
4
5
7
12
3
4
2
53
g. + u. + &c. . . .
19
10
6
9
9
I
3
16
73
^F. + ^B. + &c. . .
I
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
10
Total ....
77
36
25
34
45
16
20
22
. 275
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
3 27
— 1 - - . -
Judges.
Statesmen.
Commanders.
Literary.
Scientific.
Poets.
Artists.
Divines.
cz
*-*
0
H
G. + U. + N. + P. . .
GF. + GB. + US. + l
NS. + PS. . . j
53
21
53
11
00 O
n
53
21
44
27
75
19
65
20
18
9
51
19
Total by male lines
74
64
68
74
7i
94
00
Ln
27
70
g. + u. + n. + p. . .
gF. + £-B. + uS. + )
nS. + /S. . . |
25
1
28
8
24
8
26
0
20
9
6
0
G
0
73
0
26
4
Total by female, . .
26
36
32
26
29
6
15
73
30
Male and female . .
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100 |
100
It will be observed that the ratio of the total kinships,
through male and female lines, is almost identical in the
first five columns, namely, in Judges, Statesmen, Com¬
manders, Men of Literature, and Men of Science, and is
as 70 to 30, or more than 2 to 1. The uniformity of
this ratio is evidence of the existence of a law, but it is
difficult to say upon what that law depends, because the
ratios are different for different varieties of kinship. Thus — ■
to confine ourselves to those in the second grade, which
are sufficiently numerous to give averages on which de¬
pendence may be placed — we find that the sum of the
ratios of G., U., N., P. to those of g., u., n., p., is also a
little more than 2 to 1. Now, the actual figures are as
follow : —
21 G. 23 V- 40 N. 26 P. = no in all.
21 g. 16 u. 10 n. 6 p. = 53 in all.
The first idea which will occur is, that the relative
smallness of the numbers in the lower line appears only
in those kinships which are most difficult to trace through
328
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
female descent, and that the apparent inferiority is in exact
proportion to that difficulty. Thus the parentage of a
man’s mother is invariably stated in his biography ; con¬
sequently, an eminent g. is no less likely to be overlooked
than a G. ; but a u. more likely to be overlooked than
a U., and an n. and p. much more likely than an N.
and P. Plowever, the solution suggested by these facts
is not wholly satisfactory, because the differences appear to
be as great in the well-known families of the Statesmen
and Commanders, as in the obscure ones of the Literary
and Scientific men. It would seem from this and from what
I shall have to say about the Divines, that I have hunted
out the eminent kinsmen in these degrees, with pretty
equal completeness, in both male and female lines.
The only reasonable solution which I can suggest,
besides that of inherent incapacity in the female line
for transmitting the peculiar forms of ability we are now
discussing, is, that the aunts, sisters, and daughters of
eminent men do not marry, on the average, so frequently
as other women. They would be likely not to marry so
much or so soon as other women, because they would be
accustomed to a higher form of culture and intellectual and
moral tone in their family circle, than they could easily find
elsewhere, especially, if, owing to the narrowness of their
means, their society were restricted to the persons in their
immediate neighbourhood. Again, one portion of them
would certainly be of a dogmatic and self-asserting type,
and therefore unattractive to men, and others would fail to
attract, owing to their having shy, odd manners, often met
with in young persons of genius, which are disadvantageous
to the matrimonial chances of young women. It will be
observed, in corroboration of this theory, that it accounts for
g. being as large as G., because a man must have an equal
number of g. and G., but he need not have an equal number
of u.? n., p., and U., N., P. Owing to want of further in-
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
329
formation, I am compelled to leave this question somewhat
undecided. If my column C of the tables had been based
on facts instead of on estimate, those facts would have
afforded the information I want.
In the case of Poets and Artists, the influence of the
female line is enormously less than the male, and in these
the solution I have suggested would be even more appro¬
priate than in the previous groups.
Among the Divines we come to a wholly new order of
things. Here, the proportions are simply inverted, the
female influence being to the male as 73 to 27, instead
of as, in the average of the first five columns, 30 to 70.
I have already, in the chapter on Divines, spoken at so
much length about the power of female influence in
nurturing religious dispositions, that I need not recur to
that question. As regards the presumed disinclination to
marriage among the female relatives of eminent men gene¬
rally, an exception must certainly be made in the case
of those of the Divines. They consider intellectual ability
and a cultured mind of small importance compared with
pious professions, and religious society is particularly large,
owing to habits of association for religious purposes ; there¬
fore the necessity of choosing a pious husband is no
material hindrance to the marriage of a near female rela¬
tion of an eminent divine.
There is a common opinion that great men have remark¬
able mothers. No doubt they are largely indebted to
maternal influences, but the popular belief ascribes an
undue and incredible share to them. I account for the
belief, by the fact that great men have usually high moral
natures, and are affectionate and reverential, inasmuch as
mere brain without heart is insufficient to achieve emi¬
nence. Such men are naturally disposed to show extreme
filial regard, and to publish the good qualities of their
mothers, with exaggerated praise.
330
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
I regret I am unable to solve the simple question whether,
and how far, men and women who are prodigies of genius,
are infertile. I have, however, shown, that men of eminence,
such as the Judges, are by no means so, and it will be seen,
from my point of view of the future of the human race,
as described in a subsequent chapter, that the fertility
of eminent men is a more important fact for me to
establish, than that of prodigies. There are many diffi¬
culties in the way of discovering whether genius is, or is
not, correlated with infertility. One — and a very serious
one — is. that people will not agree upon the names of those
who are pre-eminently men of genius, nor even upon the
definition of the word. Another is, that the men selected
as examples are usually ancients, or at all events those
who lived so long ago that it is often impossible, and
always very difficult, to learn anything about their families.
Another difficulty lies in the fact, that a man who has no
children is likely to do more for his profession, and to
devote himself more thoroughly to the good of the public,
than if he had them. A very gifted man will almost always
rise, as I believe, to eminence; but if he is handicapped with
the weight of a wife and children in the race of life, he
cannot be expected to keep as much in the front as if he
were single. He cannot pursue his favourite subject of
study with the same absorbing passion as if he had no
other pressing calls on his attention, no domestic sorrows,
anxieties, and petty cares, no yearly child, no periodical
infantine epidemics, no constant professional toil for the
maintenance of a large family.
There are other obstacles in the way of leaving de¬
scendants in the second generation. The daughters would
not be so likely as other girls to marry, for the reasons
stated a few pages back; while the health of the sons is liable
to be ruined by over-work. The sons of gifted men are
decidedly more precocious than their parents, as a reference
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
33 <
to my Appendices will distinctly show ; I do not care to
quote cases, because it is a normal fact, analogous to what
is observed in diseases, and in growths of all kinds, as has
been clearly laid down by Mr. Darwin. The result is, that
the precocious child is looked upon as a prodigy, abler
even than his parent, because the parent’s abilities at the
same age were less, and he is pushed forward in every
way by home influences, until serious harm is done to his
constitution.
So much for the difficulties in the way of arriving at a
right judgment on the question before us. Most assuredly,
a surprising number of the ablest men appear to have left
no descendants; but we are justified, from what I have
said, in ascribing a very considerable part of the adduced
instances to other causes than an inherent tendency to
barrenness in men and women of genius. I believe there
is a large residuum which must be so ascribed, and I agree
thus far with the suggestion of Prosper Lucas, that, as
giants and dwarfs are rarely prolific, so men of prodigiously
large or small intellectual powers may be expected to be
deficient in fertility. On the other hand, I utterly dis¬
agree with the assertion of that famous author on heredity,
that true genius is invariably isolated.
There is a prevalent belief somewhat in accordance with
the subject of the last paragraph but one, that men of
genius are unhealthy, puny beings — all brain and no
muscle — weak-sighted, and generally of poor constitutions.
I think most of my readers would be surprised at the
stature and physical frames of the heroes of history, who
fill my pages, if they could be assembled together in a
hall. I would undertake to pick out of any group of
them, even out of that of the Divines (see pp. 270, 271),
an “eleven” who should compete in any physical feats
whatever, against similar selections from groups of twice
or thrice their numbers, taken at hap-hazard from equally
332
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
well-fed classes. In the notes I made, previous to writing
this book, I had begun to make memoranda of the physical
gifts of my heroes, and regret now, that I did not continue
the plan, but there is even almost enough printed in the
Appendices to warrant my assertion. I do not deny that
many men of extraordinary mental gifts have had wretched
constitutions, but deny them to be an essential or even the
usual accompaniment. University facts are as good as any
others to serve as examples, so I will mention that both
high wranglers and high classics have been frequently the
first oarsmen of their years. The Hon. George Denman,
who was senior classic in 1842, was the stroke of the Uni¬
versity crew. Sir William Thompson, the second wrangler
in 1845, won the sculls. In the very first boat-race between
the two Universities, three men who afterwards became
bishops rowed in one of the contending boats, and another
rowed in the other. It is the second and third-rate students
who are usually weakly. A collection of living magnates
in various branches of intellectual achievement is always
a feast to my eyes ; being, as they are, such massive, vigo¬
rous, capable-looking animals.
I took some pains to investigate the law of mortality in
the different groups, and drew illustrative curves in order
to see whether there was anything abnormal in the con¬
stitutions of eminent men, and this result certainly came
out, which goes far to show that the gifted men consist of
two categories — the very weak and the very strong. It
was, that the curve of mortality does not make a single
bend, but it rises to a minor culminating point, and then,
descending again, takes a fresh departure for its principal
arc. There is a want of continuity in the regularity of
its sweep. I conclude that among the gifted men, there is
a small class who have weak and excitable constitutions,
who are destined to early death, but that the remainder
consists of men likely to enjoy a vigorous old age.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
3 33
This double culmination was strongly marked in the
group of Artists, and distinctly so in that of the Poets, but
•
it came out with most startling definition when I laid out
the cases, of which I had made notes, 92 in number, of
men remarkable for their precocity. Their first culmi¬
nation was at the age of 38, then the death-rate sank till
the age of 42 ; at 52 it had again risen to what it was at
38, and it attained its maximum at 64. The mortality of
the men who did not appear to have been eminently pre¬
cocious, 180 cases in all, followed a perfectly normal curve,
rising steadily to a maximum at 68 years, and then de¬
clining as steadily. The scientific men lived the longest,
and the number of early deaths among them was decidedly
less than in any of the other groups.
The last general remark I have to make is, that features
and mental abilities do not seem to be correlated. The
son may resemble his parent in being an able man, but it
does not therefore follow that he will also resemble him in
features. I know of families where the children who had
not the features of their parents inherited their disposition
and ability, and the remaining children had just the con¬
verse gifts. In looking at the portraits in the late National
Exhibitions I was extremely struck with the absence of
family likeness, in cases where I had expected to find it.
I cannot prove this point without illustrations ; the reader
must therefore permit me to leave its evidence in an
avowedly incomplete form.
In concluding this chapter, I may point out some of
the groups that I have omitted to discuss. The foremost
Engineers are a body of men possessed of remarkable
natural qualities ; they are not only able men, but are
also possessed of singular powers of physical endurance
and of boldness, combined with clear views of what can
and what cannot be effected. I have included Watt and
Stephenson among the men of science, but the Brunels,
334
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
and the curious family of Mylne, going back for nine, if
not twelve generations, — all able and many eminent in
their professions, — and several others, deserve notice. I do
not, however, see my way to making a selection of emi¬
nently gifted engineers, because their success depends, in
a very great degree, on early opportunities. If a great
engineering business is once established, with well-selected
men at the heads of its various departments, it is easy to
keep up the name and credit for more than one generation,
after the death of its gifted originator.
The Actors are very closely connected — so much so as
to form a caste ; but here, as with the Engineers, we have
great difficulty in distinguishing the eminently gifted from
those whose success is largely due to the accident of edu¬
cation. I do not, however, like to pass them over without
a notice of the Kemble family, who filled so large a space
in the eyes of the British world, two generations ago. The
following is their pedigree : —
Roger Kemble.
Manager of a theatrical company ;
tall and comely ; made an excel¬
lent Falstaff.
Sarah John Stephen,
(Mrs. Siddons). Phillip. Come-
Great actress. Tragedian. dian.
X
Sarah Ward ; daughter of a strolling
manager. She was austere and stately;
her voice had much of the emphasis
of her daughter’s ; tall and comely.
Frances Elizabeth Charles.
(Mrs.Twiss). (Mrs. White- Trage-
lock). dian.
Actress.
Horace Twiss, Adelaide John,
Under Sec. State (Mrs. Sar- Anglo-
Home Dept. toris). Saxon
scholar.
X
I
Mary Frances Siddons.
Actress of much promise.
I was desirous of obtaining facts bearing on heredity
from China, for there the system of examination is noto¬
riously strict and far-reaching, and boys of promise are
COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
335
sure to be passed on from step to step, until they have
reached the highest level of which they are capable. The
first honour of the year in a population of some 400
millions — the senior classic and senior wrangler rolled into
one — is the “ Chuan-Yuan.” Are the Chuan-Yuans ever
related together ? is a question I have asked, and to which
a reply was promised me by a friend of high distinction
in China, but which has not reached me up to the time
I am writing these lines. However, I put a question on
the subject into the pages of the Hong-Kong Notes and
Queries (Aug. 1868), and found at all events one case, of
a woman who, after bearing a child who afterwards became
a Chuan-Yuan, was divorced from her husband, but marry¬
ing again, she bore a second child, who also became a
Chuan-Yuan, to her next husband. f feel the utmost
confidence that if the question were thoroughly gone
into by a really competent person, China would afford a
perfect treasury of facts bearing on heredity. There is,
however, a considerable difficulty in making these inquiries,
arising from the paucity of surnames in China, and also
from the necessity of going back to periods (and there
are many such) when corruption was far less rife in China
than it is at present.
The records of the Olympian Games in the palmy days
of Greece, which were scrupulously kept by the Eleans,
would have been an excellent mine to dig into, for facts
bearing on heredity ; but they are not now to be had.
However, I find one incidental circumstance in their history
that is worth a few lines of notice. It appears, there was
a single instance of a married woman having ventured
to be present, while the games were going on, although
death was the penalty of the attempt. She was found
out, but excused, because her father, brothers, and son^
had all been victors.
CHAPTER XX.
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH OF DIFFERENT RACES,
I HAVE now completed what I have to say concerning the
kinships of individuals, and proceed, in this chapter, to
attempt a wider treatment of my subject, through a con¬
sideration of nations and races.
Every long-established race has necessarily its peculiar
fitness for the conditions under which it has lived, owing
to the sure operation of Darwin’s law of natural selection.
However, I am not much concerned, for the present, with
the greater part of those aptitudes, but only with such as
are available in some form or other of high civilization. We
may reckon upon the advent of a time, when civilization,
which is now sparse and feeble and far more superficial than
it is vaunted to be, shall overspread the globe. Ultimately
it is sure to do so, because civilization is the necessary fruit
of high intelligence when found in a social animal, and
there is no plainer lesson to be read off the face of Nature
than that the result of the operation of her laws is to
evoke intelligence in connexion with sociability. Intelli¬
gence is as much an advantage to an animal as physical
strength or any other natural gift, and therefore, out of two
varieties of any race of animal who are equally endowed
in other respects, the most intelligent variety is sure to
prevail in the battle of life. Similarly, among animals as
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
337
intelligent as man, the most social race is sure to prevail,
other qualities being equal.
Under even a very moderate form of material civilization,
a vast number of aptitudes acquired through the “survivor¬
ship of the fittest” and the unsparing destructfon of the
unfit, for hundreds of generations, have become as obsolete
as the old mail-coach habits and customs, since the establish¬
ment of railroads, and there is not the slightest use in
attempting to preserve them ; they arc hindrances, and not
gains, to civilization. I shall refer to some of these a little
further on, but I will first speak of the qualities needed in
civilized society. They are, speaking generally, such as
will enable a race to supply a large contingent to the
various groups of eminent men, of whom I have treated in
my several chapters. Without going so far as to say that
this very convenient test is perfectly fair, we are at all
events justified in making considerable use of it, as I will
do, in the estimates I am about to give.
In comparing the worth of different races, I shall make
frequent use of the law of deviation from an average, to
which I have already been much beholden ; and, to save
the reader’s time and patience, I propose to act upon an
assumption that would require a good deal of discussion
to limit, and to which the reader may at first demur, but
which cannot lead to any error of importance in a rough
provisional inquiry. I shall assume that the intervals
between the grades of ability are the same in all the races
— that is, if the ability of class A of one race be equal to
the ability of class C in another, then the ability of class B
of the former shall be supposed equal to that of class D
of the latter, and so on. I know this cannot be strictly
true, for it would be in defiance of analogy if the variability
of all races were precisely the same ; but, on the other
hand, there is good reason to expect that the error intro¬
duced by the assumption cannot sensibly affect the off-
33^
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
hand results for which alone I propose to employ it ;
moreover, the rough data I shall adduce, will go far to
show the justice of this expectation.
Let us, then, compare the negro race with the Anglo-
Saxon, with respect to those qualities alone which are
capable of producing judges, statesmen, commanders, men
of literature and science, poets, artists, and divines. If
the negro race in America had been affected by no social
disabilities, a comparison of their achievements with those
of the whites in their several branches of intellectual effort,
having regard to the total number of their respective popu¬
lations, would give the necessary information. As matters
stand, we must be content with much rougher data.
First, the negro race has occasionally, but very rarely,
produced such men as Toussaint l’Ouverture, who are of
our class F ; that is to say, its X, or its total classes above
G, appear to correspond with our F, showing a difference
of not less than two grades between the black and white
races, and it may be more.
Secondly, the negro race is by no means wholly deficient
in men capable of becoming good factors, thriving mer-'
chants, and otherwise considerably raised above the average
of whites — that is to say, it can not unfrequently supply
men corresponding to our class C, or even D. It will be
recollected that C implies a selection of I in 1 6, or some¬
what more than the natural abilities possessed by average
foremen of common juries, and that D is as I in 64 — a
degree of ability that is sure to make a man successful in
life. In short, classes E and F of the negro may roughly
be considered as the equivalent of our C and D — a result
which again points to the conclusion, that the average
intellectual standard of the negro race is some two grades
below our own.
Thirdly, we may compare, but with much caution, the
relative position of negroes in their native country with
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
339
that of the travellers who visit them. The latter, no doubt,
bring with them the knowledge current in civilized lands,
but that is an advantage of less importance than we are
apt to suppose. A native chief has as good an education
in the art of ruling men, as can be desired ; he is con¬
tinually exercised in personal government, and usually
maintains his place by the ascendency of his character,
shown every day over his subjects and rivals. A traveller
in wild countries also fills, to a certain degree, the posi¬
tion of a commander, and has to confront native chiefs
at every inhabited place. The result is familiar enough —
the white traveller almost invariably holds his own in
their presence. It is seldom that we hear of a white
traveller meeting with a black chief whom he feels to be
the better man. I have often discussed this subject with
competent persons, and can only recall a few cases of the
inferiority of the white man, — certainly not more than
might be ascribed to an average actual difference of three
grades, of which one may be due to the relative demerits
of native education, and the remaining two to a difference
in natural gifts.
Fourthly, the number among the negroes of those whom
we should call half-witted men, is very large. Every book
alluding to negro servants in America is full of instances.
I was myself much impressed by this fact during my travels
in Africa. The mistakes the negroes made in their own
matters, were so childish, stupid, and simpleton-like, as
frequently to make me ashamed of my own species. I do
not think it any exaggeration to say, that their c is as
low as our e, which would be a difference of two grades,
as before. I have.no information as to actual idiocy among
the negroes — I mean, of course, of that class of idiocy
which is not due to disease.
The Australian type is at least one grade below the
African negro. I possess a few serviceable data about the
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
340
natural capacity of the Australian, but not sufficient to
induce me to invite the reader to consider them.
The average standard of the Lowland Scotch and the
English North-country men is decidedly a fraction of a
grade superior to that of the ordinary English, because
the number of the former who attain to eminence is far
greater than the proportionate number of their race would
have led us to expect. The same superiority is dis¬
tinctly shown by a comparison of the well-being of the
masses of the population ; for the Scotch labourer is much
less of a drudge than the Englishman of the Midland
counties — he does his work better, and “ lives his life ”
besides. The peasant women of Northumberland work
all day in the fields, and are not broken down by the
work ; on the contrary, they take a pride in their effec¬
tive labour as girls, and, when married, they attend well
to the comfort of their homes. It is perfectly distressing
to me to witness the draggled, drudged, mean look of
the mass of individuals, especially of the women, that
one meets in the streets of London and other purely
English towns. The conditions of their life seem too
hard for their constitutions, and to be crushing them
into degeneracy.
The ablest race of whom history bears record is un¬
questionably the ancient Greek, partly because their
master-pieces in the principal departments of intellectual
activity are still unsurpassed, and in many respects un¬
equalled, and partly because the population that gave birth
to the creators of those master-pieces was very small. Of
the various Greek sub-races, that of Attica was the ablest,
and she was no doubt largely indebted to the following
cause, for her superiority. Athens opened her arms to
immigrants, but not indiscriminately, for her social life
was such that none but very able men could take any
pleasure in it ; on the other hand, she offered attractions
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
34i
such as men of the highest ability and culture could find
in no other city. Thus, by a system of partly unconscious
selection* she built up a magnificent breed of human
animals, which, in the space of one century — viz. between
530 and 430 B.C. — produced the following illustrious per¬
sons, fourteen in number : —
Statesmen and Commanders. — Themistocles (mother an
alien), Miltiades, Aristeides, Cimon (son of Miltiades),
Pericles (son of Xanthippus, the victor at Mycale).
Literary and Scientific Men. — Thucydides, Socrates,
Xenophon, Plato.
Poets. — ^Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes.
Sculptor. — Phidias.
We are able to make a closely-approximate estimate
of the population that produced these men, because the
number of the inhabitants of Attica has been a matter of
frequent inquiry, and critics appear at length to be quite
agreed in the general results. It seems that the little
district of Attica contained, during its most flourishing
period (Smith’s Class. Geog. Diet.), less than 90,000 native
free-born persons, 40,000 resident aliens, and a labouring
and artisan population of 400,000 slaves. The first item is
the only one that concerns us here, namely, the 90,000
free-born persons. Again, the common estimate that popu¬
lation renews itself three times in a century is very close
to the truth, and may be accepted in the present case.
Consequently, we have to deal with a total population of
270,000 free-born persons, or 135,000 males, born in the
century I have named. Of these, about one-half, or
67,500, would survive the age of 26, and one-third, or
45,000, would survive that of 50. As 14 Athenians became
illustrious, the selection is only as 1 to 4,822 in respect to
the former limitation, and as 1 to 3,214 in respect to the
latter. Referring to the table in page 34, it will be seen
that this degree of selection corresponds very fairly to the
342
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
classes F (i in 4,300) and above, of the Athenian race.
Again, as G is one-sixteenth or one-seventeenth as nume¬
rous as F, it would be reasonable to expect to find one
of class G among the fourteen ; we might, however, by
accident, meet with two, three, or even four of that class-
say Pericles, Socrates, Plato, and Phidias.
Now let us attempt to compare the Athenian standard
of ability with that of our own race and time. We have no
men to put by the side of Socrates and Phidias, because the
millions of all Europe, breeding as they have done for the
subsequent 2,000 years, have never produced their equals.
They are, therefore, two or three grades above our G — they
might rank as I or J. But, supposing we do not count
them at all, saying that some freak of nature acting at that
time, may have produced them, what must we say about
the rest? Pericles and Plato would rank, I. suppose, the
one among the greatest of philosophical statesmen, and the
other as at least the equal of Lord Bacon. They would,
therefore, stand somewhere among our unclassed X, one
or two grades above G — let us call them between H and
I. All the remainder — the F of the Athenian race — •
would rank above our G, and equal to or close upon
our IP. It follows from all this, that the average ability of
F the Athenian race is, on the lowest possible estimate, very
nearly two grades higher than our own — that is, about as
much as our race is above that of the African negro. This
estimate, which may seem prodigious to some, is confirmed
f
by the quick intelligence and high culture of the Athenian
commonalty, before whom literary works were recited,
and works of art exhibited, of a far more severe character
than could possibly be appreciated by the average of our
race, the calibre of whose intellect is easily gauged by a
glance at the contents of a railway book-stall.
We know, and may guess something more, of the
reason why this marvellously-gifted race declined. Social
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
343
morality grew exceedingly lax ; marriage became unfash¬
ionable, and was avoided ; many of the more ambitious
and accomplished women were avowed courtesans, and
consequently infertile, and the mothers of the incoming •
population were of a heterogeneous class. In a small
sea-bordered country, where emigration and immigration
are constantly going on, and where the manners are as
dissolute as were those of Greece in the period of which
I speak, the purity of a race would necessarily fail. It can
be, therefore, no surprise to us, though it has been a severe
misfortune to humanity, that the high Athenian breed
decayed and disappeared ; for if it had maintained its
excellence, and had multiplied and spread over large
countries, displacing inferior populations (which it well
might have done, for it was exceedingly prolific), it would
assuredly have accomplished results advantageous to
human civilization, to a degree that transcends our powers
of imagination.
If we could raise the average standard of our race only
one grade, what vast changes would be produced ! The
number of men of natural gifts equal to those of the
eminent men of the present day, would be necessarily
increased more than tenfold, as will be seen by the fourth
column of the table p. 34, because there would be 2,423 of
them in each million instead of only 233 ; but far more
important to the progress of civilization would be the
increase in the yet higher orders of intellect. We know
how intimately the course of events is dependent on the
thoughts of a few illustrious men. If the first-rate men in
the different groups had never been born, even if those
among them who have a place in my appendices on account
of their hereditary gifts, had never existed, the world would
be very different to what it is. Now the table shows that
the numbers in these, the loftiest grades of intellect, would
be increased in a still higher proportion than that of which
344
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
I have been speaking ; thus the men that now rank under
class G would be increased seventeenfold, by raising the
average ability of the whole nation a single grade. We see
by the table that all England contains (on the average, of
course, of several years) only six men between the ages of
thirty and eighty, whose natural gifts exceed class G ; but
in a country of the same population as ours, whose average
was one grade higher, there would be eighty-two of such
men ; and in another whose average was two grades higher
(such as I believe the Athenian to have been, in the interval
530 — 430 B.C.) no less than 1,355 of them would be found.
There is no improbability in so gifted a breed being able
to maintain itself, as Athenian experience, rightly under¬
stood, has sufficiently proved ; and as has also been proved
by what I have written about the Judges, whose fertility is
undoubted, although their average natural ability is F, or
5 \ degrees above the average of our own, and 3J above
that of the average Athenians.
It seems to me most essential to the well-being of future
generations, that the average standard of ability of the
present time should be raised. Civilization is a new con¬
dition imposed upon man by the course of events,, just as
in the history of geological changes new conditions have
continually been imposed on different races of animals.
They have had the effect either of modifying the nature of
the races through the process of natural selection, when¬
ever the changes were sufficiently slow and the race suffi¬
ciently pliant, or of destroying them altogether, when the
changes were too abrupt or the race unyielding. The
number of the races of mankind that have been entirely
destroyed under the pressure of the requirements of an
incoming civilization, reads us a terrible lesson. Probably
in no former period of the world has the destruction of
the races of any animal whatever, been effected over such
wide areas and with such startling rapidity as in the
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
345
case of savage man. In the North American Continent,
in the West Indian Islands, in the Cape of Good Hope,
in Australia, New Zealand, and Van Diemen’s Land, the
human denizens of vast regions have been entirely swept
away in the short space of three centuries, less by the
pressure of a stronger race than through the influence of a
civilization they were incapable of supporting. And we
too, the foremost labourers in creating this civilization, are
beginning to show ourselves incapable of keeping pace
with our own work. The needs of centralization, communi¬
cation, and culture, call for more brains and mental stamina
than the average of our race possess. We are in crying
want for a greater fund of ability in all stations of life ; for
neither the classes of statesmen, philosophers, artisans, nor
labourers are up to the modem complexity of their several
professions. An extended civilization like ours comprises
more interests than the ordinary statesmen or philosophers
of our present race are capable of dealing with, and it
exacts more intelligent work than our ordinary artisans
and labourers are capable of performing. Our race is over¬
weighted, and appears likely to be drudged into degeneracy
by demands that exceed its powers. If its average ability
were raised a grade or two, our new classes F and G
would conduct the complex affairs of the state at home
and abroad as easily as our present F and G, when in the
position of country squires, are able to manage the affairs
of their establishments and tenantry. All other classes
of the community would be similarly promoted to the
level of the work required by the nineteenth century, if
the average standard of the race were raisdd.
When the severity of the struggle for existence is not
too great for the powers of the race, its action is healthy
and conservative, otherwise it is deadly, just as we may see
exemplified in the scanty, wretched vegetation that leads
a precarious existence near the summer snow line of the
346
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
Alps, and disappears altogether a little higher up. We
want as much backbone as we can get, to bear the racket
to which we are henceforth to be exposed, and as good
brains as possible to contrive machinery, for modern life to
work more smoothly than at present. We can, in some
degree, raise the nature of man to a level with the new
conditions imposed upon his existence, and we can also, in
some degree, modify the conditions to suit his nature. It
is clearly right that both these powers should be exerted,
with the view of bringing his nature and the conditions of
his existence into as close harmony as possible.
In proportion as the world becomes filled with mankind,
the relations of society necessarily increase in complexity,
and the nomadic disposition found in most barbarians
becomes unsuitable to the novel conditions. There is a
most unusual unanimity in respect to the causes of in¬
capacity of savages for civilization, among writers on those
hunting and migratory nations who are brought into con¬
tact with advancing colonization, and perish, as they in¬
variably do, by the contact. They tell us that the labour
of such men is neither constant nor steady ; that the love
of a wandering, independent life prevents their settling
anywhere to work, except for a short time, when urged by
want and encouraged by kind treatment. Meadows says
that the Chinese call the barbarous races on their borders
by a phrase which means “hither and thither, not fixed.”
And any amount of evidence might be adduced to show
how deeply Bohemian habits of one kind or another, were
ingrained in the nature of the men who inhabited most
parts of the earth now overspread by the Anglo-Saxon
and other civilized races. Luckily there is still room for
adventure, and a man who feels the cravings of a roving,
adventurous spirit to be too strong for resistance, may yet
find a legitimate outlet for it in the colonies, in the army,
or on board ship. But such a spirit is, on the whole.
OF DIFFERENT RACES .
347
an heirloom that brings more impatient restlessness and
beating of the wings against cage-bars, than persons of
more civilized characters can readily comprehend, and it
is directly at war with the more modern portion of our
* moral natures. If a man be purely a nomad, he has only
to be nomadic, and his instinct is satisfied ; but no
Englishmen of the nineteenth century are purely nomadic.
The most so among them have also inherited many
civilized cravings that are necessarily starved when they
become wanderers, in the same way as the wandering in¬
stincts are starved when they are settled at home. Conse¬
quently their nature has opposite wants, which can never be
satisfied except by chance, through some very exceptional
turn of circumstances. This is a serious calamity, and as
the Bohemianism in the nature of our race is destined to
perish, the sooner it goes, the happier for mankind. The
social requirements of English life are steadily destroying
it. No man who only works by fits and starts is able to
obtain his living nowadays ; for he has not a chance of
thriving in competition with steady workmen. If his nature
revolts against the monotony of daily labour, he is tempted
to the public-house, to intemperance, and, it may be, to
poaching, and to much more serious crime : otherwise he
banishes himself from our shores. In the first case, he
is unlikely to leave as many children as men of more
domestic and marrying habits, and, in the second case, his
breed is wholly lost to England. By this steady riddance
of the Bohemian spirit of our race, the artisan part of our
population is slowly becoming bred to its duties, and
the primary qualities of the typical modern British work¬
man are already the very opposite of those of the nomad.
What they are now, was well described by Mr. Chadwick,
as consisting of “great bodily strength, applied under
the command of a steady, persevering will, mental self¬
contentedness, impassibility to external irrelevant impres-
34-8
THE COMPARATIVE WORTH
sions, which carries them through the continued repetition
of toilsome labour, ‘steady as time.’”
• It is curious to remark how unimportant to modern
civilization has become the once famous and thorough¬
bred looking Norman. The type of his features, which is,
probably, in some degree correlated with his peculiar form
of adventurous disposition, is no longer characteristic of
our rulers, and is rarely found among celebrities of the
present day ; it is more often met with among the undis¬
tinguished members of highly-born families, and especially
among the less conspicuous officers of the army. Modern
leading men in all paths of eminence, as may easily be
seen in a collection of photographs, are of a coarser and
more robust breed ; less excitable and dashing, but endowed
with far more ruggedness and real vigour. Such also is
the case, as regards the German portion of the Austrian
nation ; they are far more high-caste in appearance than
the Prussians, who are so plain that it is disagreeable to
travel northwards from Vienna, and watch the change ;
yet the Prussians appear possessed of the greater moral
and physical stamina.
Much more alien to the genius of an enlightened civiliza¬
tion than the nomadic habit, is the impulsive and uncon¬
trolled nature of the savage. A civilized man must bear
and forbear, he must keep before his mind the claims of
the morrow as clearly as those of the passing minute ; of
the absent, as well as of the present. This is the most
trying of the new conditions imposed on man by civili¬
zation, and the one that makes it hopeless for any but
exceptional natures among savages, to live under them.
The instinct of a savage is admirably consonant with the
needs of savage life ; every day he is in danger through
transient causes ; he lives from hand to mouth, in the hour
and for the hour, without care for the past or forethought
for the future : but such an instinct is utterly at fault in
OF DIFFERENT RACES.
349
civilized life. The half-reclaimed savage, being unable to
deal with more subjects of consideration than are directly
before him, is continually doing acts through mere mal¬
adroitness and incapacity, at which he is afterwards deeply
grieved and annoyed. The nearer inducements always seem
to him, through his uncorrected sense of moral perspective, to
be incomparably larger than others of the same actual size,
but more remote ; consequently, when the temptation of
the moment has been yielded to and passed away, and its
bitter result comes in its turn before the man, he is amazed
and remorseful at his past weakness. It seems incredible
that he should have done that yesterday which to-day
seems so silly, so unjust, and so unkindly. The newly-
reclaimed barbarian, with the impulsive, unstable nature
of the savage, when he also chances to be gifted with a
peculiarly generous and affectionate disposition, is of all
others the man most oppressed with the sense of sin.
Now it is a just assertion, and a common theme of
moralists of many creeds, that man, such as we find him,
is born with an imperfect nature. He has lofty aspirations,
but there is a weakness in his disposition, which incapaci¬
tates him from carrying his nobler purposes into effect.
He sees that some particular course of action is his duty,
and should be his delight ; but his inclinations are fickle
and base, and do not conform to his better judgment.
The whole moral nature of man is tainted with sin,
which prevents him from doing the things he knows to
be right.
The explanation I offer of this apparent anomaly, seems
perfectly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. It is
neither more nor less than that the development of our
nature, whether under Darwin’s law of natural selection, or
through the effects of changed ancestral habits, has not yet
overtaken the development of our moral civilization. Man
was barbarous but yesterday, and therefore it is not to
10
35o COM PARA TIVE WORTH OF DIFFERENT RACES.
be expected that the natural aptitudes of his race should
already have become moulded into accordance with his
very recent advance. We, men of the present centuries,
are like animals suddenly transplanted among new con¬
ditions of climate and of food : our instincts fail us under
the altered circumstances.
My theory is confirmed by the fact that the members
of old civilizations are far less sensible than recent con¬
verts from barbarism, of their nature being inadequate to
their moral needs. The conscience of a negro is aghast at
his own wild, impulsive nature, and is easily stirred by
a preacher, but it is scarcely possible to ruffle the self-
complacency of a steady-going Chinaman.
The sense of original sin would show, according to my
theory, not that man was fallen from a high estate, but that
he was rising in moral culture with more rapidity than the
nature of his race could follow. My view is corroborated
. by the conclusion reached at the end of each of the many
independent lines of ethnological research — that the human
race were utter savages in the beginning ; and that, after
myriads of years of barbarism, man has but very recently
found his way into the paths of morality and civilization.
CHAPTER XXL
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE NATURAL ABILITY OF
NATIONS.
BEFORE speaking of the influences which affect the natural
ability and intelligence of nations and races, I must beg
the reader to bring distinctly before his mind how reason¬
able it is that such influences should be expected to exist.
How consonant it is to all analogy and experience to
expect that the control of the nature of future generations
should be as much within the power of the living, as the
health and well-being of the individual is in the power of
the guardians of his youth.
We are exceedingly ignorant of the reasons why we
exist, confident only that individual life is a portion of
some vaster system that struggles arduously onwards,
towards ends that are dimly seen or wholly unknown to
us, by means of the various affinities — the sentiments, the
intelligences, the tastes, the appetites — of innumerable
personalities who ceaselessly succeed one another on the
stage of existence.
There is nothing that appears to assign a more excep¬
tional or sacred character to a race, than to the families or
individuals that compose it. We know how careless Nature
is of the lives of individuals ; we have seen how careless
she is of eminent families — how they are built up, flourish,
and decay : just the same may be said of races, and of
352
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE
the world itself ; also, by analogy, of other scenes of ex¬
istence than this particular planet of one of innumerable
suns. Our world appears hitherto to have developed itself,
mainly under the influence of unreasoning affinities ; but
of late, Man, slowly growing to be intelligent, humane, and
capable, has appeared on the scene of life and profoundly
modified its conditions. He has already become able to
look after his own interests in an incomparably more
far-sighted manner, than in the old pre-historic days of
barbarism and flint knives ; he is already able to act on
the experiences of the past, to combine closely with distant
allies, and to prepare for future wants, known only through
the intelligence, long before their pressure has become felt.
He has introduced a vast deal of civilization and hygiene
which influence, in an immense degree, his own well-being
and that of his children ; it remains for him to bring
other policies into action, that shall tell on the natural
gifts of his race.
It would be writing to no practically useful purpose,
were I to discuss the effect that might be, produced on
the population, by such social arrangements as existed
in Sparta. They are so alien and repulsive to modern
feelings, that it is useless to say anything about them,
so I shall wholly confine my remarks to agencies that
are actually at work, and upon which there can be no
hesitation in speaking.
I shall have occasion to show that certain influences
retard the average age of marriage, while others hasten it ;
and the general character of my argument will be to prove,
that an enormous effect upon the average natural ability
of a race may be produced by means of those influences.
I shall argue that the wisest policy is, that which results
in retarding the average age of marriage among the weak,
and in hastening it among the vigorous classes ; whereas,
most unhappily for us, the influence of numerous social
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS.
353
agencies has been strongly and banefully exerted in the
precisely opposite direction.
An estimate of the effect of the average age of marriage
on the growth of any section of a nation, is therefore the
first subject that requires investigation. Everybody is
prepared to admit that it is an element, sure to produce
some sensible effect, but few will anticipate its real magni¬
tude, or will be disposed to believe that its results have
so vast and irresistible an influence on the natural ability
of a race, as I shall be able to demonstrate.
The average age of marriage affects population in a
threefold manner. Firstly, those who marry when young,
have the larger families ; secondly, they produce more
generations within a given period, and therefore the growth
of a prolific race, progressing as it does, “ geometrically,”
would be vastly increased at the end of a long period, by
a habit of early marriages ; and, thirdly, more generations
are alive at the same time, among those races who marry
when they are young.
In explanation of the aggregate effect of these three
influences, it will be best to take two examples that are
widely but not extremely separated. Suppose two men,
M and N, about 22 years old, each of them having there¬
fore the expectation of living to the age of 55, or 33 years
longer ; and suppose that M marries at once, and that
his descendants, when they arrive at the same age, do the
same ; but that N delays until he has laid by money, and
does not marry before he is 33 years old, that is to say, 1 1
years later than M, and his descendants also follow his
example. Let us further make the two very moderate
suppositions, that the early marriages of race M result in
an increase of ij in the next generation, and also in the
production of 3J generations in a century, while the late
marriages of race N result in an increase of only i| in the
next generation and in 2\ generations in one century.
354
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE
It will be found that an increase of I J in each genera¬
tion, accumulating on the principle of compound interest
during 3f generations, becomes rather more than JT8 times
the original amount ; while an increase of ij for 2\ gene¬
rations is barely as much -as {■ times the original amount.
Consequently the increase of the race of M at the end of
a century, will be greater than that of N in the ratio of
1 8 t© 7 ; that is to say, it will be rather more than 2\
times as great. In two centuries the progeny of M will
be more than 6 times, and in three centuries more than
15 times, as numerous as those of N.
The proportion which the progeny of M will bear at
any time, to the total living population, will be still greater
than this, owing to the number of generations of M who
are alive at the same time, being greater than those of N.
The reader will not find any difficulty in estimating the
effect of these conditions, if he begins by ignoring children
and all others below the age of 22, and also by supposing
the population to be stationary in its number, in con¬
secutive generations. We have agreed in the case of M
to allow 3! generations to one century, which gives about
27 years to each generation ; then, when one of this race
is 22 years old, his father will (on the average of many
cases) be 27 years older, or 49 ; and as the father lives
to 55, he will survive the advent of his son to manhood
for the space of 6 years. Consequently, during the 27
years intervening between each two generations, there will
be found one mature life for the whole period and one
other mature life during a period of 6 years, which gives
for the total mature life of the race M, a number which
may be expressed by the fraction 6-jT2jr, or ff. The
diagram represents the course of three consecutive gene¬
rations of race M : the -middle line refers to that of the
individual about whom I have just been speaking, the
upper one to that of his father, and the lower to his
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS
355
son. The dotted line indicates the period of life before
the age of 22 ; the double line, the period between 22 and
the average time at which his son is born : the dark line
is the remainder of his life.
22 5 22
A term of 27 years
between two generations.
6
6
22
5 22
22
5 28
-
On the other hand, a man of the race N, which does
not contribute more than 2\ generations to a century, that
is to say, 40 years to a single generation, docs not attain
the age of 22 until (on the average of many cases) 7 years
after his father’s death ; for the father was 40 years old
when his son was born, and died at the age of 55 when the
son was only 15 years old. In- other words, during each
period of 18 + 15 + 7, or 40 years, men of mature life of
the race N are alive for only 18 + 15, or 33 of them;
hence the total mature life of the race N may be expressed
by the fraction -f-g-.
l
18
15
7
A term of 40 years
between two generations.
22
18 15
15 1 7
It follows that the relative population due to the races
of M and N, is as to or as 40 to 27, 1 which is very
nearly as 5 to 3.
1 A little consideration of the diagram will show that the proportion in
question, will invariably be in the inverse ratio of the intervals between the
two generations, which in the present case are 27 and 40 years.
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE
356
We have been calculating on the supposition that the
population remains stationary, because it was more con¬
venient to do so, but the results of our calculation will
hold nearly true for all cases. Because, if population
should increase, the larger number of living descendants
tends to counterbalance the diminished number of living
ancestry ; and, conversely, if it decreases.
Combining the above ratio of 5 to 3 with those pre¬
viously obtained, it results that at the end of one century
from the time when the races M and N started fair, with
equal numbers, the proportion of mature men of race M
will be four times as numerous as those of race N ; at the
end of two centuries, they will be ten times as numerous,
and at the end of three centuries, no less than twenty-six
times as numerous.
I trust the reader will realize the heavy doom which
these figures pronounce against all sub-sections of prolific
races in which it is the custom to put off the period of
marriage until middle age. It is a maxim of Malthus
that the period of marriage ought to be delayed in order
that the earth may not be overcrowded by a population
for whom there is no place at the great table of nature.
If this doctrine influenced all classes alike, I should have
nothing to say about it here, one way or another, for it
would hardly affect the discussions in this book ; but, as
it is put forward as a rule of conduct for the prudent part
of mankind to follow, whilst the imprudent are necessarily
left free to disregard it, I have no hesitation in saying that
it is a most pernicious rule of conduct in its bearing upon
race. Its effect would be such as to cause the race of
the prudent to fall, after a few centuries, into an almost
incredible inferiority of numbers to that of the imprudent,
and it is therefore calculated to bring utter ruin upon the
breed of any country where the doctrine prevailed. I
protest against the abler races being encouraged to with-
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS.
357
draw in this way from the struggle for existence. It may
seem monstrous that the weak should be crowded out by
the strong, but it is still more monstrous that the races
best fitted to play their part on the stage of life, should
be crowded out by the incompetent, the ailing, and the
desponding.
The time may hereafter arrive, in far distant years, when
/
the population of the earth shall be kept as strictly within
the bounds of number and suitability of race, as the sheep
on a well-ordered moor or the plants in an orchard-house ;
in the meantime, let us do what we can to encourage the
multiplication of the races best fitted to invent and con¬
form to a high and generous civilization, and not, out of
a mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent
the incoming of strong and hearty individuals.
The long period of the dark ages under which Europe
has lain is due, I believe in a very considerable degree,
to the celibacy enjoined by religious orders on their
votaries. Whenever a man or woman was possessed of
a gentle nature that fitted him or her to deeds of charity,
to meditation, to literature, or to art, the social con¬
dition of the time was such that they had no refuge
elsewhere than in the bosom of the Church. But the
Church chose to preach and exact celibacy. The con¬
sequence was that these gentle natures had no continu¬
ance, and thus, by a policy so singularly unwise and
suicidal that I am hardly able to speak of it without
impatience, the Church brutalized the breed of our fore¬
fathers. She acted precisely as if she had aimed at
selecting the rudes.t portion of the community to be,
alone, the parents of future generations. She practised
the arts which breeders would use, who aimed at creating
ferocious, currish and stupid natures. No wonder that club-
law prevailed for centuries over Europe ; the wonder rather
is that enough good remained in the veins of Europeans
358
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE
to enable their race to rise to its present, very moderate
level of natural morality.
A relic of this monastic spirit clings to our Universities,
who say to every man who shows intellectual powers of the
kind they delight to honour, “ Here is an income of from
one to two hundred pounds a year, with free lodging and
various advantages in the way of board and society ; we
give it you on account of your ability ; take it and enjoy
it all your life if you like : we exact no condition to your
continuing to hold it but one, namely, that you shall
not marry.”
The policy of the religious world in Europe was exerted
in another direction, with hardly less cruel effect on the
nature of future generations, by means of persecutions which
brought thousands of the foremost thinkers and men of
political aptitudes to the scaffold, or imprisoned them during
a large part of their manhood, or drove them as emigrants
into other lands. In every one of these cases, the check
upon their leaving issue was very considerable. Hence
the Church, having first captured all the gentle natures
and condemned them to celibacy, made another sweep of
her huge nets, this time fishing in stirring waters, to catch
those who were the most fearless, truth-seeking, and intel¬
ligent in their modes of thought, and therefore the most
suitable parents of a high civilization, and put a strong
check, if not a direct stop, to their progeny. Those she
reserved on these occasions, to breed the generations of
the future, were the servile, the indifferent, and, again,
the stupid. Thus, as she — to repeat my expression —
brutalized human nature by her system of celibacy applied
to the gentle, she demoralised it by her system of perse¬
cution of the intelligent, the sincere, and the free. It is
enough to make the blood boil to think of the blind
folly that has caused the foremost nations of struggling
humanity to be the heirs of such hateful ancestry, and
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS.
359
that has so bred our instincts as to keep them in an
unnecessarily long-continued antagonism with the essential
requirements of a steadily advancing civilization. In con¬
sequence of this inbred imperfection of our natures, in
respect to the conditions under which we have to live, we
are, even now, almost as much harassed by the sense of
moral incapacity and sin, as were the early converts from
barbarism, and we steep ourselves in half-unconscious self-
deception and hypocrisy, as a partial refuge from its
insistance. Our avowed creeds remain at variance with our
real rules of conduct, and we lead a dual life of barren
religious sentimentalism and gross materialistic habitudes.
The extent to which persecution must have affected
European races is easily measured by a few well-known
statistical facts. Thus, as regards martyrdom and imprison¬
ment, the Spanish nation was drained of free-thinkers at
the rate of 1,000 persons annually, for the three centuries
between 1471 and 1781; an average of 100 persons having
been executed and 900 imprisoned every year during that
period. The actual data during those three hundred years
are 32,000 burnt, 17,000 persons burnt in effigy (I pre¬
sume they mostly died in prison or escaped from Spain),
and 291,000 condemned to various terms of imprison¬
ment and other penalties. It is impossible that any nation
could stand a policy like this, without paying a heavy
penalty in the deterioration of its breed, as has notably
been the result in the formation of the superstitious, unin¬
telligent Spanish race of the present day.
Italy was also frightfully persecuted at an earlier date.
In the diocese of Como, alone, more than 1,000 were tried
annually by the inquisitors for many years, and 300 were
burnt in the single year 1416.
The French persecutions, by which the English have been
large gainers, through receiving their industrial refugees,
were on a nearly similar scale. * In the seventeenth century
360
INFLUENCES THAT AFFECT THE
three or four hundred thousand Protestants perished in
prison, at the galleys, in their attempts to escape, or on
the scaffold, and an equal number emfgrated. Mr. Smiles,
in his admirable book on the Huguenots, has traced the
influence of these and of the Flemish emigrants on
England, and shows clearly that she owes to them almost
all her industrial arts and very much of the most valuable
life-blood of her modern race. There has been another
emigration from France of not unequal magnitude, but
followed by very different results, namely that of the
Revolution in 1789. It is most instructive to contrast the
effects of the two. The Protestant emigrants were able
men, and have profoundly influenced for good both our
breed and our history ; on the other hand, the political
refugees had but poor average stamina, and have left
scarcely any traces behind them.
It is very remarkable how large a proportion of the
eminent men of all countries bear foreign names, and are
the children of political refugees, — men well qualified to
introduce a valuable strain of blood. We cannot fail to
reflect on the glorious destiny of a country that should
maintain, during many generations, the policy of attracting
eminently desirable refugees, but no others, and of en¬
couraging their settlement and the naturalization of their
children.
No nation has parted with more emigrants than England,
but whether she has hitherto been on the whole a gainer or
a loser by the practice, I am not sure. No doubt she has
lost a very large number of families of sterling worth,
especially of labourers and artisans ; but, as a rule, the very
ablest men are strongly disinclined to emigrate ; they feel
that their fortune is assured at home, and unless their
spirit of adventure is overwhelmingly strong, they prefer
to live in the high intellectual and moral atmosphere of
the more intelligent circles of English society, to a self-
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS. 361
banishment among people of altogether lower grades of
mind and interests. England has certainly got rid of a
great deal of refuse, through means of emigration. She
has found an outlet for men of adventurous and Bohemian
natures, who are excellently adapted for colonizing a new
country, but are not wanted in old civilizations ; and she
has also been disembarrassed of a vast number of turbu¬
lent radicals and the like, men who are decidedly able but
by no means eminent, and whose zeal, self-confidence, and
irreverence far outbalance their other qualities.
The rapid rise of new colonies and the decay of old
civilizations is, I believe, mainly due to their respective
social agencies, which in the one case promote, and in the
other case retard, the marriages of the most suitable breeds.
In a young colony, a strong arm and an enterprising brain
are the most appropriate fortune for a marrying man, and
again, as the women are few, the inferior males are seldom
likely to marry. In an old civilization, the agencies are
more complex. Among the active, ambitious classes, none
but the inheritors of fortune are likely to marry young ;
there is especially a run against men of classes C, D, and
E — those, I mean, whose future fortune is not assured
except through a good deal of self-denial and effort. It is
almost impossible that they should succeed well and rise
high in society, if they hamper themselves with a wife in
their early manhood. Men of classes F and G are more
independent, but they are not nearly so numerous, and
therefore their breed, though intrinsically of more worth
than E or D, has much less effect on the standard of the
nation at large. But even if men of classes F and G marry
young, and ultimately make fortunes and achieve peerages
or high social position, they become infected with the
ambition current in all old civilizations, of founding fami¬
lies. Thence result the evils I have already described, in
speaking of the marriages of eldest sons with heiresses and
362
NATURAL ABILITY OF NATIONS.
of the suppression of the marriages of the younger sons.
Again, there is a constant tendency of the best men in the
country, to settle in the great cities, where marriages are
less prolific and children are less likely to live. Owing tc
these several causes, there is a steady check in an old
civilization upon the fertility of the abler classes ; the im¬
provident and unambitious are those who chiefly keep up
the breed. So the race gradually deteriorates, becoming
in each successive generation less fitted for a high civi¬
lization, although it retains the external appearances of
one, until the time comes when the whole political and
social fabric caves in, and a greater or less relapse to bar¬
barism takes place, during the reign of which the race is
perhaps able to recover its tone.
The best form of civilization in respect to the improve¬
ment of the race, would be one in which society was not
costly ; where incomes were chiefly derived from profes¬
sional sources, and not much through inheritance ; where
every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if
highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class educa¬
tion and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help
of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained
in his early youth ; where marriage was held in as high
honour as in ancient Jewish times ; where the pride of
race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the
nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under
that name) ; where the weak could find a welcome and
a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly,
where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other
lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants
naturalized.
CHAPTER XXII.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
It is confidently asserted by all modern physiologists that
the life of every plant and animal is built up of an enor¬
mous number of subordinate lives ; that each organism
consists of a multitude of elemental parts, which are to a
great extent independent of each other; that each organ
has its proper life, or autonomy, and can develop and
reproduce itself independently of other tissues (see Darwin
on “ Domestication of Plants and Animals,” ii. 368, 369).
Thus the word “ Man,” when rightly understood, becomes
a noun of multitude, because he is composed of millions,
perhaps billions of cells, each of which possesses in some
sort an independent life, and is parent of other cells. He is
a conscious whole, formed by the joint agencies of a host
of what appear to us to be unconscious or barely conscious
elements.
Mr. Darwin, in his remarkable theory of Pangenesis,
takes two great strides from this starting point. He sup¬
poses, first, that each cell, having of course its individual
peculiarities, breeds nearly true to its kind, by propagating
innumerable germs, or to use his expression, geommules,”
which circulate in the blood and multiply there ; remaining
in that inchoate form until they are able to fix themselves
upon other more or less perfect tissue, and then they
become developed into regular cells. Secondly, the germs
are supposed to be solely governed by their respective
3^4
GENERAL CONSIDERA LIONS.
natural affinities, in selecting their points of attachment ;
and that, consequently, the marvellous structure of the
living form is built up under the influence of innumerable
blind affinities, and not under that of a central control¬
ling power.
This theory, propounded by Mr. Darwin as “provisional,”
and avowedly based, in some degree, on pure hypothesis
and very largely on analogy, is — whether it be true or not
— of enormous service to those who inquire into heredity.
It gives a key that unlocks every one of the hitherto
unopened barriers to our comprehension of its nature ; it
binds within the compass of a singularly simple law, the
multifarious forms of reproduction, witnessed in the wide
range of organic life, and it brings all these forms of repro¬
duction under the same conditions as govern the ordinary
growth of each individual. It is, therefore, very advisable
that we should look at the facts of hereditary genius, from
the point of view which the theory of Pangenesis affords,
and to this I will endeavour to guide the reader.
Every type of character in a living being may be com¬
pared to the typical appearance always found in different
descriptions of assemblages. It is true that the life of an
animal is conscious, and that the elements on which it is
based are apparently unconscious, while exactly the reverse
is the case in the corporate life of a body of men. Never¬
theless the employment of this analogy will help us consi¬
derably in obtaining a clear understanding of the laws which
govern heredity, and they will not mislead us, when used
in the manner I propose. The assemblages of which I
speak are such as are uncontrolled by any central autho¬
rity, but have assumed their typical appearance through
the free action of the individuals who compose them, each
man being bent on his immediate interest, and finding his
place under the sole influence of an elective affinity to his
neighbours. A small rising watering-place affords as good
GENERAL COASIDERA TIONS.
3 65
an illustration as any of which I can think. It is often
hardly possible to trace its first beginnings : two or three
houses were perhaps built for private use, and becoming
accidentally vacant, were seen and rented by holiday folk,
who praised the locality, and raised a demand for further
accommodation ; other houses were built to meet the
requirement ; this led to an inn, to the daily visit of the
bakers and butchers cart, the postman, and so forth. Then
as the village increased and shops began to be established,
young artisans, and other floating gemmules of English
population, in search of a place where they might advan¬
tageously attach themselves, became fixed, and so each new
opportunity was seized upon and each opening filled up, as
soon or very soon after it existed. The general result of
these purely selfish affinities is, that watering-places are
curiously similar, even before the speculative builderjias
stepped in. We may predict what kind of shops will
be found and how they will be placed ; nay, even what
kind of goods and placards will be put up in the windows.
And so, notwithstanding abundant individual peculiarities,
we find them to have a strong generic identity.
The type of these watering-places is certainly a durable
one ; the human materials of which they are made remain
similar, and so are the conditions under which they exist,
of having to supply the wants of the average British
holiday seeker. Therefore the watering-place would always
breed true to its kind. It would do so by detaching an
offshoot on the fissiparous principle, or like a polyp, from
which you may snip off a bit, which thenceforward lives an
independent life and grows into a complete animal. Or, to
compare it with a higher order of life, two watering-places
at some distance apart might between them afford material
to raise another in an intermediate locality.
Precisely the same remarks might be made about fishing
villages, or manufacturing towns, or new settlements in the
366
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Bush, or an encampment of gold diggers, and each of these
would breed true to its kind. If we go to more stationary
forms of society than our own, we shall find numerous
examples of the purest breed : thus, the Hottentot kraal or
village of to-day differs in no way from those described by
the earliest travellers ; or, to take an immensely longer
leap, the information gathered from the most ancient
paintings in Egypt, accords with our observations of the
modern life of the descendants of 'those peoples, whom the
paintings represent.
Next, let us consider the nature of hybrids. Suppose a
town to be formed under the influence of two others that
differ, the one a watering-place and the other a fishing
town ; what will be the result ? We find that particular
combination to be usually favourable, because the different
elements do not interfere with, but rather support one
another. The fishing interest gives greater solidity to the
place than the more ephemeral presence of the tourist
population can furnish ; the picturesque seaside life is also
an attraction to visitors, and the fishermen cater for their
food. On the other hand, the watering-place gives more
varied conditions of existence to the fishermen ; the visitors
are very properly mulcted, directly or indirectly, for cha¬
rities, roads, and the like, and they are not unwelcome
customers in various ways to their fellow-townsmen.
Let us take another instance of an hybrid ; one that
leads to a different result. Suppose an enterprising manu¬
facturer from a town at no great distance from an incipient
watering-place, discovers advantages in its minerals, water
power, or means of access, and prepares to set up his
mill in the place. We may predict what will follow, with
much certainty. Either the place will be forsaken as a
watering-place, or the manufacturer will be in some way
or other got rid of. The two elements are discordant.
The dirt and noise and rough artisans engaged in the
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS . 367
manufactory, are uncongenial to the population of a
watering-place.
The moral I have in view will be clear to the reader. I
wish to show that because a well-conditioned man marries
a well-conditioned woman, each of pure blood as regards
any natural gift, it does not in the least follow that the
hybrid offspring will succeed. '
I will continue to employ the same metaphor, to explain
the manner in which apparent sports of nature are pro¬
duced, such as the sudden appearance of a man of great
abilities in undistinguished families. Mr. Darwin maintains,
in the theory of Pangenesis, that the gemmules of innu¬
merable qualities, derived from ancestral sources, circulate
in the blood and propagate themselves, generation after
generation, still in the state of gemmules, but fail in deve¬
loping themselves into cells, because other antagonistic
gemmules are prepotent and overmaster them, in the
struggle for points of attachment. Hence there is a vastly
larger number of capabilities in every living being, than
ever find expression, and for every patent element there
are countless latent ones. The character of a man is wholly
formed through those gemmules that have succeeded in
attaching themselves ; the remainder that have been over¬
powered by their antagonists, count for nothing ; just as the
policy of a democracy is formed by that of the majority of
its citizens, or as the parliamentary voice of any place is
determined by the dominant political views of the electors :
in both instances, the dissentient minority is powerless.
Let, however, by the virtue of the more rapid propagation
of' one class of electors, say of an Irish population, the
numerical strength of the weaker party be supposed to
gradually increase, until the minority becomes the majority,
then there will be a sudden reversal or revolution of the
political equilibrium, and the character of the borough or
nation, as evidenced by its corporate acts, will be entirely
363
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
changed. This corresponds to a so-called “ sport” of
nature. Again, to make the simile still more closely
appropriate to our wants, suppose that by some alteration
in the system of representation, two boroughs, each con¬
taining an Irish element in a large minority, the one having
always returned a Whig and the other a Conservative, to
be combined into a single borough returning one member.
It is clear that the Whig and Conservative party will neu¬
tralize one another, and that the union of the two Irish
minorities will form a strong majority, and that a member
professing Irish interests is sure to be returned. This
strictly corresponds to the case where the son has marked
peculiarities, which neither of his parents possessed in a
patent form.
The dominant influence of pure blood over mongrel
alliances is also easily to be understood by the simile
of the two boroughs ; for if every perfect and inchoate
voter in one of them — that is to say, every male, man and
child — be a radical to his backbone, the incoming of such
a compact mass would overpower the divided politics of
the inhabitants of the other, with which it was combined.
These similes, which are perfectly legitimate according
to the theory of Pangenesis, are well worthy of being
indulged in, for they give considerable precision to our
views on heredity, and compel facts that appear anomalous
at first sight, to fall into intelligible order.
I will now explain what I presume ought to be under¬
stood, when we speak of the stability of types, and what is
the nature of the chariges through which one type yields
to another. Stability is a word taken from the language
of mechanics ; it is felt to be an apt word ; let us see what
the conception of types would be, when applied to me¬
chanical conditions. It is shown by Mr. Darwin, in his
great theory of “ The Origin of Species,” that all forms of
organic life are in some sense convertible into one another,
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
369
for all have, according to his views, sprung from common
ancestry, and therefore A and B having both descended from
C, the lines of descent might be remounted from A to C,
and redescended from C to B. Yet the changes arc not by
insensible gradations ; there are many, but not an infinite
number of intermediate links ; how is the law of continuity
to be satisfied by a series of changes in jerks ? The
mechanical conception would be that of a rough stone,
having, in consequence of its roughness, a vast number of
natural facets, on any one of which it might rest in “ stable ”
equilibrium. That is to say, when pushed it would some¬
what yield, when pushed much harder it would again yield,
but in a less degree ; in either case, on the pressure being
withdrawn, it would fall back into its first position. But,
if by a powerful effort the stone is compelled to overpass
the limits of the facet on which it has hitherto found rest,
it will tumble over into a new position of stability, whence
just the same proceedings must be gone through as before,
before it can be dislodged and rolled another step onwards.
The various positions of stable equilibrium may be looked
upon as so many typical attitudes of the stone, the type
being more durable as the limits of its stability are wider.
We also see clearly that there is no violation of the law of
continuity in the movements of the stone, though it can
only repose in certain widely separated positions.
Now for another metaphor, taken from a more complex
system of forces. We have all known what it is to be
jammed in the midst of a great crowd, struggling and
pushing and swerving to and fro, in its endeavour to make
a way through some narrow passage. There is a dead lock ;
each member of the crowd is pushing, the mass is agitated,
but there is no progress. If, by a great effort, a man drives
those in front of him but a few inches forwards, a recoil
is pretty sure to follow, and there is no ultimate advance.
At length, by some accidental unison of effort, the dead
37o
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
lock yields, a forward movement is made, the elements of
the crowd fall into slightly varied combinations, but in a
few seconds there is another dead lock, which is relieved,
after a while, through just the same processes as before.
Each of these formations of the crowd, in which they have
found themselves in a dead lock, is a position of stable
equilibrium, and represents a typical attitude.
It is easy to form a general idea of the conditions ol
stable equilibrium in the organic world, where one element
is so correlated with another that there must be an enor¬
mous number of unstable combinations for each that is
capable of maintaining itself unchanged, generation after
generation.
I will now make a few remarks on the subject of in¬
dividual variation. The gemmules whence every cell of
every organism is developed, are supposed, in the theory
of Pangenesis, to be derived from two causes : the one,
unchanged inheritance ; the other, changed inheritance.
Mr. Darwin, in his latter work, “Variation of Animals
and Plants under Domestication,” shows very clearly that
individual variation is a somewhat more important feature
than we might have expected. It becomes an interesting
inquiry to determine how much of a person’s constitution
is due, on an average, to the unchanged gifts of a remote
ancestry, and how much to the accumulation of individual
variations. The doctrine of Pangenesis gives excellent
materials for mathematical formulae, the constants of which
might be supplied through averages of facts, like those
contained in my tables, if they were prepared for the
purpose. My own data are too lax to go upon ; the
average? ought to refer to some simple physical charac¬
teristic, unmistakeable in its quality, and not subject to the
doubts which attend the appraisement of ability. Let me
remark, that there need be no hesitation in accepting
averages for this purpose ; for the meaning and value of
GENERAL CONSIDER A TIONS.
371
an average are perfectly clear. It would represent the
results, supposing the competing “gemmules ” to be equally
fertile, and also supposing the proportion of the gemmules
affected by individual variation, to be constant in all the
cases.
The immediate consequence of the theory of Pangenesis
is somewhat startling. It appears to show that a man is
wholly built up of his own and ancestral peculiarities , and
only in an infinitesimal degree of characteristics handed
down in an unchanged form, from extremely ancient times.
It would follow that under a prolonged term of constant
conditions, it would matter little or nothing what were the
characteristics of the early progenitors of a race, the type
being supposed constant, for the progeny would invariably
be moulded by those of its more recent ancestry.
.The reason for what I have just stated is easily to be
comprehended if easy though improbable figures be em¬
ployed in illustration. Suppose, for the sake merely of
a very simple numerical example, that a child acquired
one-tenth of his nature from individual variati-on, and
inherited the remaining nine-tenths from his parents. It
follows, that his two parents would have handed down
only nine-tenths of nine-tenths, or j8^ from his grand¬
parents, xoxnr from his great-grandparents, and so on ;
the numerator of the fraction increasing in each successive
step, less rapidly than the denominator, until we arrive at
a vanishing value of the fraction.1
The part inherited by this child in an unchanged form,
from all his ancestors above the fiftieth degree, would be
only one five-thousandth of his whole nature.
I do not see why any serious difficulty should stand
1 The formula is as follows : —
G = the total number of gemmules ; of which those derived unchanged
through parentage = Gr ; the remainder, = G (1 — r), being changed through
individual variation. Then — [The
372
GENERAL CONSIDERA LIONS.
in the way of mathematicians, in framing a compact for¬
mula, based on the theory of Pangenesis, to express the
composition of organic beings in terms of their inherited
and individual peculiarities, and to give us, after certain
constants had been determined, the means of foretelling
Derived unchanged
Modified through
through Parents.
individual variation.
The gemmules in any individual
consist of .
The part Gr derived through the
Gr
+
G(i-r)
parents is similarly composed
of’ two parts ; namely . . .
Gr 2
+
Gr(i — r) = G [) —
The part Gr 2 derived through
the grandparents is composed
of .
Gr3
+
Cr 2 (r — r 2) = C (r - — ;
&c.
Sec.
Sec.
That derived from the nth as-
cending generation is com¬
posed of .
Grn + i
+
Gr (rn~1 — rn) =
G (rn — rn + 1)
Hence G consists of Crn + 1 unchanged gemmules derived from generations
higher than the nth + G multiplied into the sum of the following series,
every term of which expresses gemmules, modified by individual variation — -
i — r + r — r2 + r2 — A + and + rn — rn+ 1 = I — r n + 1
as r is a fraction less than I (it was ^ in the imaginary case discussed in my
text, and would generally be very small, but I have no conception what, —
perhaps as small as or some numbers still nearer unity), the value of
rn + i will vanish if n be taken sufficiently large, in which, case the individual
may be considered as wholly derived from gemmules modified by individual
variations posterior to the nth generation.
It must be understood that I am speaking of variations well within the
limits of stability of the race, and also that I am not speaking of cases where
the individuals are selected for some peculiarity, generation after generation.
In this event a new element must be allowed for, inasmuch as the average
value of r cannot be constant. In proportion as the deviation from the mean
position of stability is increased, the tendency of individual variation may
reasonably be expected to lie more strongly towards the mean position than
away from it. The treatment of all this seems well within the grasp of ana¬
lysis, but we want a collection of facts, such as the breeders of animals could
well supply, to guide us for a few steps out of the region of pure hypothesis.
The formula also shows how much of a man’s nature is derived on the
average from any given ancestor ; for if we call the father the 1st generation,
the grandfather the 2d, and so on, as a man has 2n parents in the nth gene¬
ration, and as the formula shows that he only inherits Grn unchanged gem¬
mules from all of them put together, it follows that the portion derived from
each person in that generation is, as (£)w .
GENERAL CONSIDER A IVONS.
37 3
the average distribution of characteristics among a large
multitude of offspring whose parentage was known. The
problem would have to be attacked on the following
principle.
The average proportion of gemmules, modified by indi¬
vidual variation under various conditions preceding birth,
clearly admits of being determined by observation ; and
the deviations from that average may be determined by
the same theory in the law of chances, to which I have so
often referred. Again, the proportion of the other gem-
mules which are transmitted in an unmodified form, would
be similarly treated ; for the children would, on the average ,
inherit the gemmules in the same proportions that they
existed in their parents ; but in each child there would be
a deviation from that average. The table in page 34 is
identical with the special case in which only two forms
of gemmules had to be considered, and in which they
existed in equal numbers in both parents.
If the theory of Pangenesis be true, not only might the
average qualities of the descendants of groups A and B,
A and C, A and D, and every other combination be pre¬
dicted, but also the numbers of them who deviate in various
proportions from those averages. Thus, the issue of F and
A ought to result in so and so, for an average, and in such
and such numbers, per million, of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, &c.,
classes. The latent gemmules equally admit of being de¬
termined from the patent characteristics of many previous
generations, and the tendency to reversion into any ancient
form ought also to admit of being calculated. In short,
the theory of Pangenesis brings all the influences that bear
on heredity into a form, that is appropriate for the grasp
of mathematical analysis.
I will conclude by saying a few words upon what is to
be understood by the phrase “ individuality.” The artificial
breeding of fish has been the subject of so many books,
17
374
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
shows, and lectures, that every one has become more or less
familiar with its processes. The milt taken from the male
is allowed to fall upon the ova that have been deposited by
the female, which thereupon rapidly change their appear¬
ance, and gradually, without any other agency, an embryo
fish may be observed to develop itself inside each of them.
The ova may have been separated for many days from tlie
female, the milt for many hours from the male. They are,
therefore, entirely detached portions of organized matter,
leading their own separate organic existences ; and at the
instant or very shortly after they touch, the foundations
are laid of an individual life. But where was that life
during the long interval of separation of the milt and roe
from the parent fish ? If these substances were possessed
of conscious lives in the interim, then two lives will have
been merged into one “ individuality ” by the process ; which
is a direct contradiction in terms. If neither had conscious
lives, then consciousness was produced by an operation as
much under human control as anything can be. It may
not be said that the ovum was always alive, and the milt
had merely an accessory influence, because the young fish
inherits its character from its parents equally, and there is
an abundance of other physiological data to disprove the
idea. Therefore so far as fish are concerned, the creation
of a new life is as unrestrictedly within the compass of
human power, as the creation of any material product
whatever, from the combination of given elements.
Again, suppose the breeder of fish to have two kinds
of milt, belonging to salmon of different characters, each
in a separate cup, A and B, and two sorts of ova, each
also in a separate cup, C and D. Then he can make at
his option the fish AC and BD, or else the fish AD and
BC. Therefore not only the creation of the lives of fish,
in a general sense, but also the specific character of indi¬
vidual lives, within wide limits, is unrestrictedly under
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
375
human control. The power of the director of an establish¬
ment for breeding fish is of exactly the same quality as
that of a cook in her kitchen. Both director and cook
require certain elements to work upon ; but, having got
them, they can create a fish or a dinner, as the case may
be, according to a predetermined pattern.
Now, all generation is physiologically the same,1 and
therefore the reflections raised by what has been stated of
fish are equally applicable to the life of man. The entire
human race, or any one of its varieties, may indefinitely
increase its numbers by a system of early marriages, or 'it
may wholly annihilate itself by the observance of celibacy ;
it may also introduce new human forms by means of the
intermarriage of varieties and of a change in the conditions
of life. It follows that the human race has a large control
over its future forms of activity, — far more than any indi¬
vidual has over his own, since the freedom of individuals
is narrowly restricted by the cost, in energy, of exercising
their wills. Their state may be compared to that of cattle
in an open pasture, each tethered closely to a peg by an
elastic cord. These can graze in any direction, for short
distances, with little effort, because the cord stretches
easily at first ; but the further they range, the more power¬
fully does its elastic force pull backwards against them.
The extreme limit of their several ranges must lie at that
distance from the peg where the maximum supply of
nervous force which the chemical machinery of their bodies
can evolve, is only just equivalent to the outflow required
to resist the strain of the cord. Now, the freedom of
humankind, considered as a whole, is far greater than
this ; for it can gradually modify its own nature, or, to
keep to the previous metaphor, it can cause the pegs
themselves to be continually shifted. It can advance them
1 The Address of the President of the Royal Society, 1S67, in presen 'ng
the Copley medal to Von Baer.
376
GENERAL CONSIDER A LIONS
from point to point, towards new and better pastures, over
wide areas, whose bounds are as yet unknown.
Nature teems with latent life, which man has large
powers of evoking under the forms and to the extent
which he desires. We must not permit ourselves to con¬
sider each human or other personality as something super-
naturally added to the stock of nature, but rather as a
segregation of what already existed, under a new shape,
and as a regular consequence of previous conditions.
Neither must we be misled by the word “individuality,”
because it appears from the many facts and arguments in
this book, that our personalities are not so independent as
our self-consciousness leads us to believe. We may look
upon each individual as something not wholly detached
from its parent source, — as a wave that has been lifted and
shaped by normal conditions in an unknown, illimitable
ocean. There is decidedly a solidarity as well as a separate¬
ness in all human, and probably in all lives whatsoever ;
and this consideration goes far, as I think, to establish an
opinion that the constitution of the living Universe is a
pure theism, and that its form of activity is what may
be described as co-operative. It points to the conclusion
that all life is single in its essence, but various, ever
varying, and inter-active in its manifestations, and that
men and all other living animals are active workers and
sharers in a vastly more extended system of cosmic action
than any of ourselves, much less of them, can possibly
comprehend. It also suggests that they may contribute,
more or less unconsciously, to the manifestation of a far
higher life than our own, somewhat as — I do not propose
to push the metaphor too far — the individual cells of one
of the more complex animals contribute to the manifes¬
tation of its higher order of personality.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE LETTERS AND
THE RELATIONSHIPS TO WHICH THEY CORRESPOND.
See also the Chapter on Notation, pp. 50 — 53.
B. Brother
b. Sister.
F. Father.
f. Mother.
G. Grandfather, viz. Father’s father.
g. Grandfather, viz. Mother's father.
G. Grandmother, viz. Father's mother.
g. Grandmother, viz. Mother's mother.
Great-uncle, v
Great-uncle, v
Great-uncle, v
Great-uncle, v
Great-auht, v
Great-aunt, v
Great-aunt, vi
Great-aunt, v;
z. Father’s father’s brother,
z. Mother’s father’s brother.
z. Father’s mother’s brother.
!. Mother’s mother's brother.
e. Father’s father’s sister.
e. Mother’s father’s sister.
. Father’s mother’s sister.
e. Mother's mother's sister.
Great-grandfather, \
Great-grandfather, >
Great-grandfather, v
Great-grandfather, v
Great-grandmother, v
Great-grandmother, v
Great-grandmother, v
Great-grandmother, vi
u Father’s
1. Mother’
. Father's
. Mother';
. Father’s
. Mother':
. Father’s
. Mother';
father's father,
s father’s father,
mother’s father.
; mother's father,
father's mother.
; father’s mother,
mother’s mother.
, mother’s mother.
GN.
G N.
Great-great-grandfather, S forms, see p. 53.
Great-great-grandmother, S forms, also.
First cousin once removed ascending, male, 8 forms.
First cousin once removed ascending, female, 8 form*.
GU. Great-great-uncle, 8 forms, see p. S3-
G U. Grent-great-aunt, also 8 forms.
N. Nephew, viz. Brother's son.
n. Nephew, viz. Sister’s son.
N. Niece, viz. Brother's daughter.
n. Niece, viz. Sister's daughter.
{Tofaefoi:, 37S-
NS.
nS.
NS.
t/S.
Ns.
Ns
P.
P-
P.
P-
PS.
pS.
PS.
ps.
P s.
p/.
Ps.
ps.
pp.
pp.
s.
U.
u.
UP.
UP.
US.
uS.
US.
uS.
Vs.
Us.
Great-nephew, viz.
Great-nephew, viz.
Great-nephew, viz.
Great-nephew, viz.
Great-niece, viz.
Great-niece, viz.
Great-niece, viz.
Great-niece, viz.
Brother’s son's son.
Sister’s son’s son.
Brother’s daughter’s son.
Sister’s daughter’s son.
Brother's son's daughter.
Sister’s son’s daughter.
Brother's daughter’s daughter.
Sister’s daughter’s daughter.
Grandson, viz. Son’s son.
Grandson, viz. Daughter’s son.
Granddaughter, viz. Son's daughter.
Granddaughter, viz. Daughter's daughter.
Great-grandson, viz. Son's son's son.
Great-grandson, viz. Daughter’s son's son.
Great-grandson, viz. Son's daughter’s son.
Great-grandson, viz, Daughter’s daughter's son.
Great-granddaughter, viz. Son’s son's daughter.
Great-grauddaughter, viz. Daughter's son’s daughter.
Great-granddaughter, viz. Son’s daughter’s daughter.
Great-granddaughter, viz. Daughter’s daughter's daughter.
Great-great-grandson, 8 forms, see p. 53.
Great-great-granddaughter, also 8 forms.
Daughter.
Unde, viz. Father's brother.
Unde, viz. Mother's brother.
Aunt, viz. Father’s sister.
Aunt, viz. Mother’s sister.
First cousin once removed descending, male, S forms.
First cousin once removed descending, female, S forms.
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
First cousin
viz. Father’s brother’s son.
viz. Mother’s brother's son.
viz. Father’s sister’s son.
viz. Mother’s sister's son.
viz. Father’s brother’s daughter,
viz. Mother’s brother's daughter,
viz. Father’s sister's daughter,
viz. Mother's sister’s daughter.
APPENDIX.
377
APPENDIX
The deviations ftom an average are given in the following
table of M. Ouetelet as far as 80 grades ; they are intended
to be reckoned on either side of the average, and therefore
extend over a total range of 160 grades. The eightieth is
a deviation so extreme, that the chances of its being ex¬
ceeded (upwards or downwards, whichever of the two events
we please to select) is only c-000l0o0oVo,4ooo<',°'>;i = io.ooo.ooo'
or less than one in a million. That is to say, when firing
at a target (see Diagram, p. 28) less than one out of a million
shots, taking the average of many millions, will hit it at a
greater height than 80 of Quetelet’s grades above the mean
of all the shots; and an equally small number will hit it
lower than the 80th grade below the same mean.
Column M gives the chance of a shot falling into any
given grade (80 x 2 or) 160 in total number. Column N
represents the chances from another point of view ; it is
derived directly from M, and shows the probability of a
shot lying between any specified grade and the mean ; each
figure in N consisting of the sum of all the figures in M up
to the grade in question, and inclusive. Thus, as we see
by Column M, the chance against a shot falling into the 1st
grade (superior or inferior, whichever we please to select)
is .025225 to 1, and .025124 to I against its falling into
378
APPENDIX.
the 2d, and .024924 to 1 against its falling into the 3d ;
then the chance against its falling between the mean and
the third grade, inclusive, is clearly the sum of these 3
numbers, or .075273, which is the entry in Column N,
opposite the grade 3.
TABLE BY QUETELET.
Grade
or Rank
of the
Group.
M
N
Number
of the
Grade.
M
N
Probability
of Drawing each
Group.
Sum of the
Probabilities,
commencing at the
most probable
Group.
Probability
of Drawing each
Group.
Sum of the
Probabilities,
commencing at the
most probable
Group.
I
.025225
.025225
4i
.0009458
•495278
2
.025124
.050349
42
.0008024
.496081
3
.024924
.075273
43
.0006781
.496759
4
.024627
.099900
44
.0005707
.497329
5
.024236
.124136
45
.0004784
.497808
6
.023756
.147892
46
.0003994
.498207
7
.023193
.171085
47
.0003321
•498539
8
.022552
•193637
48
.0002750
.498814
9
.021842
.215479
49
.0002268
.499041
IO
.021069
.236548
50
.0001863
.499227
II
.020243
.256791
5i
.0001525
.499380
12
.019372
.276163
52
.0001242
.499504
13
.018464
. 294627
53
.000100S
.499605
14
.017528
•312155
54
.0000815
.499686
15
•016573
•338728
55
.0000656
•499752
l6
.015608
•344335
56
.0000526
.499804
17
.014640
•358975
57
.0000421
.499847
18
.013677
.372652
58
.0000334
.499880
19
.012726
•335373
59
.0000265
.499906
20
.011794
.397172
60
.0000209
.499927
21
.010887
. 408060
6l
.0000164
•499944
22
.010008
.418070
62
.0000128
•499957
23
.009166
.427236
63
.OOOOIOO
.499967
24
.008360
•435595
64
.OOOOO77
•499974
25
.007594
.443189
65
.0000060
.499980
26
.006871
.450060
66
.0000046
.499985
| 27
.006191
.456251
67
.0000035
.499988
, 28
•005557
.461809
68
.0000027
•49999 12
1 29
.004968
.466776
69
.0000021
•4999933
1 30
•004423
•47l(l«9
70
.0000016
•4999948
1 31
.003922
•475122
7i
.0000012
.4999960
1 32
.003464
.478586
72
.OOOOOOQ
.4999969
33
.003047
.481633
73
.OOOOOO7
•4999976
34
.002670
.484304
74
.0000005
.4999981
35
.002330
.486634
75
.0000004
.4999984
36
.002025
.488659
76
.OOOOOO3
.4999987
37
•001753
.490412
77
.0000002
.4999989
.38
.001512
•49I924
78
.00000014
.4999990
39
.001298
.493222
79
.OOOOOOII
.4999991
40
.OOIIIO
•494332
80
. OOOOOOO4
•4999992
APPENDIX.
379
These columns may be used for two purposes.
The one is to calculate a table like that in p. 34, where
I have simply lumped 11 of Ouetclet’s grades into 1,
so that my classes A and a correspond to his grade 1 1 in
column N, my classes B and b to the difference between
his grades 22 and 1 1, my C and c to that between his grades
33 and 22, and so on.
The other is as a test, whether or no a group of events
are due to the same general causes ; because, if they are,
their classification will afford numbers that correspond with
those in the table ; otherwise, they will not. This test has
been employed in pp. 30, 31, and 33. The method of
conducting the comparison is easily to be understood by
the following example, the figures of which I take from
Quetelet. It seems that 487 observations of the Right
Ascension of the Polar Star were made at Greenwich
between 1836 and 1839, and are recorded in the publica¬
tions of the Observatory, after having been corrected for
precession, nutation, &c., and subject only to errors of
observation. If they are grouped into classes separated by
grades of 0.5 sec. the numbers in each of these classes will
be as shown in Column III. page 380. We raise them
in the proportion of 1,000 to 487 in order to make the
ratios decimal, and therefore comparable with the figures
in Ouetelet’s table, and then insert them in Column IV.
These tell us that it has been found by a pretty large
experience, that the chance of an observation falling within
the class of — 0.5 sec. from the mean, is 150 to 1,000; of
its falling within the class of — 1.0 sec. is 126 to 1,000;
and so on, for the rest. This information is analogous to
that given in Column M of Quetelet’s table, and we shall
now proceed to calculate from IV. the Column V. which is
analogous to Quetelet’s N. The method of doing so is,
however, different. N was formed by adding the entries in
M from the average outwards ; we must set to work in the
3«o
APPENDIX.
>
a
tn
x I i
** w
jl
(A
o a «
c § g
4) e.~ S
U .5 > 3
la £ o
s
0 cm VO m VO
M CM tJ- 00 CM
CM
tO
ro
VO
N Cl O On
V M N t H
tn
<D
,+j t3
G
O
§ e a
_ S* 3
OT3 -3
u
,Q
rt
.O
O
li
Ph
« " >
i
CS I
u
M 'S
— O
8 %
VO '1-
CO VO
^ ^
\T) ro
M vo
cm 0
O' M
in ro
co
M 9
<U «8
•o
2 +
be u
g: o
<-§
a 8
^ tO
*d •
s «
■> rt
<L» J-.
«o
to o to o m 0 m
m \n co o »n 6 ci
t m « o h
to 0 in 0 in
6 s <n o vd
m m cm co ro
in
0)
u
G
<D
Ui
£
mo o 't m s
o vd »o ts vo
vo
vo*
to to lO to
vo 00 CO CO*
s
_S a>
ti s
’e ^
C x
CL- 0)
vq
vd
}g
,p5
o
bjo
rt
c
o
>
<
c *>
c -o
g.2fc
oO ~
t bfl—
O G
u-~
to o o o vq
to to co ci vd
”<f* CO CM CM M
co VO
d> cm
to to
C oo
O »o to
n in in
Cl co ^
c n
v
*5 ^
LG <u
13.5
Jg 53'
o”0
h
Ph
<y
L>
« G
: a)
5 ‘G
: £
CL
X
W
8 CO VO M 00 00 CO
O' CO VO M 'T M vo
in ’t ^ Tf ro N
800 n in oo oo O
tt n m co O 0
m ci co ■t Tf in
> u
01
H
Z
w
>
W «
n u
z
w
K
W
a.
M X
CL W
73
is w o
*-» q ■**
CM cm in ro VD O
m cm ^ c% cm to
CO
vo
00 G\ 00 co O CM
^ CM CO M
.2j- .
o
« y m
o
i
D CU
i/5 ,i3
rO
O
H vo CM
M vo M CO
CM ro VO
CM
00
CM CO 00 vo to H 0
vo co m
00
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to to to to to
N
CM
CM
CM
N
CM
N
CM
N N N PI N
CO
co
oi
CM
M
H
O
o
o
M
»s CM CM CO CO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+ + + + + + -f
Q
■*-»
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to to to to to
CM
CM
CM
f*.
CM
CM
CM
CM CM l>» CM
CO
CM
CM
H
H
0
0*
o
o
o
M M CM CM CO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+
+ + + •♦■ + + +
to
O
to
0
to
0
to
to
o
to O to O to
CO
cd
CM
CM
M
M
o
d
o
M
W CM CM CO cd
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
IrH
+++++++
73 .
<L> m
•a <$
33 Cy
oy
• S J3
v y
q
Pi
u
APPENDIX.
381
converse way, of working from the outside inwards, because
the exact mean is not supposed to have been ascertained,
and also because this method of working would be some¬
what the more convenient, even if we had ascertained the
mean. Now, wherever the mean may lie, it is certain that
the chance is 500 to 1,000 against an observation being on
one specified side of it — say the minus side. Therefore
Column IV. by showing that no observation lies outside
the class — 3.5 sec. tacitly states that it is 500 to 1.000
(or .500 to 1. 00) against any observation lying between
— 3.5 sec. and the mean ; j.500 is therefore written in
Column V. opposite — 3.5 sec. Again, as according to IV.
there are only 2 cases in the class — 3.5 sec. it is (500 — 2=)
498 to 1,000 that any observation will lie between class
— 3.0 sec. and the average, and .498 is written in Column
V. opposite to — 3.0. sec. Similarly (498 — 12 =) .486 is
written opposite to — 2.5 sec. and we proceed in this way
until we fall within the observations that form part of the
group of the mean, 168 in number. Our remainder is 68 ;
it ought, strictly speaking, to be equal to one half of 168,
or 84 ; we therefore may conclude that the mean has been
taken a trifle too high.
A calculation made in exactly the same way, from
+ 3.5 sec. inwards to the mean, will take in the other portion
of the mean group, namely, 100. Now we compare our
results with Ouetelet’s Column N, and see to which of his
grades the numbers in our Column V. are severally equal ; the
grades in question are written in Column VI. In proportion
as these observations are strictly accordant with the law ol
deviation from a mean, so the intervals between the grades
in Column VI. will approach to equality. What they
actually are, is sho'wn in Column VII. We cannot expect
the two extreme terms to give results of much value, because
the numbers of observations are too few ; but taking only
the remainder into consideration, we find that the average
382
APPENDIX.
interval of 6.5 is very generally adhered to. Now, then,
let us see what the numbers in the classes would have been
by theory if, starting either from 2.5 (a little lower than 2.6,
as we agreed it ought to be) above the average, or from 4,
below it, we construct a series of classes, according to
Ouetelet’s grades, having a common interval of 6.5. Column
VIII. shows what these classes would be ; Column IX. shows
the corresponding figures taken directly from Ouetelet’s N,
and Column X. gives the difference between these figures,
which are so closely accordant with the entries in Column
IV., as to place it beyond all doubt that the errors in the
Greenwich observations are strictly governed by the law of
a deviation from an average.
It remains that I should say a very few words on the
principle of the law of deviation from an average, or, as
it is commonly called, the law of Errors of Observations,
due to La Place. Every variable event depends on a
number of variable causes, and each of these, owing to
the very fact of its variability, depends upon other varia¬
bles, and so on step after step, till one knows not where
to stop. Also, by the very fact of each of these causes
being a variable event, it has a mean value, and, there¬
fore, it is (I am merely altering the phrase), an even
chance in any case, that the event should be greater or
less than the mean. Now, it is asserted to be a matter
of secondary moment to busy ourselves in respect to these
minute causes, further than as to the probability of their
exceeding or falling short of their several mean values, and
the chance of a larger or smaller number of them doing
so, in any given case, resembles the chance, well known to
calculators, of the results that would be met with when
making a draw out of an urn containing an equal quantity
of black and white balls in enormous numbers. Each ball
that is drawn out has an equal chance of being black or
white, just as each subordinate event has an equal chance
APPENDIX.
333
of exceeding or falling short of its mean value. I cannot
enter further here into the philosophy of this view ; the
latest writer upon it is Mr. Crofton, in a Paper read before
the Royal Society in April 1869.
A table, made on the above hypothesis, has been con¬
structed by Cournot, and will be found in the Appendix,
p. 267, of Ouetelet’s “ Letters on Probabilities ” (translated
by Downes; Layton & Co., 1849), but it does not extend
nearly so far as that of M. Quetelet. The latter is calculated
on a very simple principle, being the results of drawing 999
balls out of an urn, containing white and black balls in
equal quantities and in enormous numbers. His grade
No. 1 is the case of drawing 499 white and 500 black, his
2 in 498 white and 501 black, and so on, the 80th being
420 white and 579 black. It makes no sensible difference
in the general form of the results, when these large
numbers are taken, what their actual amount may be.
The value of a grade will of course be very different, but
almost exactly the same quality of curve would be obtained
if the figures in Quetelet’s or in Cournot’s tables were
protracted. All this is shown by Quetelet in his com¬
parison of the two tables,
INDEX
Abrot, 283.
Abingdon, 137.
Abinger, 88.
Abney, 88.
Actors, 334.
Adams, 124.
Addington, 106, 1 37.
Addison, 172.
AEschylus, 228.
Aik in, 172.
A Id borough, 1 3 7.
Alderson, 22, 88.
Alexander, 142, 140, KO.
Alibone, 88.
Alison, 173, 214.
Allegri, 239, 250.
Amati, 239.
Ameinas, 228.
America, 4, 40.
Ampere, 22, 199.
Anderson, 213.
Animal intelligence com¬
pared with human, 36.
Annesley, 137.
Antony, 156.
Arago, 22, 199.
Araros, 229.
Argental, 209.
Argyll, 122.
Ariosto, 229.
Aristocracy, 86 ; influence
of peerage on race, 130,
361.
Aristophanes, 229
Aristotle, 199.
Arnold, 173.
Arran, 137.
Arteveldt, 124.
Artists, 320. See Painters,
247 ; Musicians, 237 ;
Actors, 334.
Ashburnham, 137.
Athens, 340.
Atkyns, 89.
Attica, 341.
Augustus, 156.
Augustus II., 163.
Austen, 173.
Australian negroes, their
natural ability, 339.
Austrians, 348.
Authors, characteristics
of, 167, 168.
Aylesford, 92, 93.
Bach, 239.
Bache, 212.
Bacon, 58, 200, 342.
Badile, 250.
Badius, 186.
Baillie, 217.
Barbauld, 172.
Barrington, 137.
Barry, 23.
Bassano, 250.
Bathurst, 89.
Batty, 89.
Beaufort, 137.
Beauvale, 1 1 7.
Bedford, 112.
Bedingfield, 89.
Beer (Meyerbeer), 245.
Beethoven, 242.
Bellini, 250.
Benda, 242.
Bentham, 173.
Bentinck, 105, 112.
Beranger, 225.
Bernoulli, 202.
Berwick, 90, 153.
Best, 89.
Bickersteth, 89.
Bion, 228.
Birch, 90.
Bishops, 258.
Blackburn, 90.
Blackstone, 90.
Blair, 313.
Boat-races, Oxford and
Cambridge, 1 1 ; Oars¬
men, 305.
Bohemianism, 346.
Boileau, 173.
Bolingbroke, 112.
Bonaparte, 142, 153, 155.
Bonheur, R., 247.
Bononcini, 243.
Bossuet, 174.
Bouillon, Due de, 160,
165.
Boyle, 203.
Bradshaw, 97.
Bramston, 90.
Brodie, 205, 301.
Bromley, 291.
Bronte, 174.
Brougham, 3S, 90.
Browne, 90.
Brunei, 333.
Buckingham, 1 j 6.
Buckland, 205.
Buffon, 205.
Buller, 90.
Bulwer, 168.
B unbury, 1 14, 300.
Burchell, 303.
Burleigh, 124.
Burlington, 204.
Burke’s “ Peerage, 1 39.
Burnet, 90.
Burns, 225.
Bushey Park, II.
Bute, 1 1 2.
Butler, 22, 300.
Byron, 229.
C C
3^6
INDEX.
Cesar, 142, 154.
Cagliari, 250.
Calderon, 225.
Calendar of Comte, 323.
Cambridge examinations,
16; Senior Classics,
299; boat-races, 11.
Camden, 90, 1 12, 134, 137.
* Campbell, Lord, 90.
Campbell, Thomas, 225.
Candlish, 309.
Canning, 112, 136.
Caracci, 251.
Casaubon, 186.
Cassini, 206.
Castillo, 253.
Castlereagh, 1 1 2.
Cavendish, 207.
Cecil, 124.
Cells of organic bodies,
Celsius, 207.
Chadderton, 288.
Chadwick, 347.
Chamberlain, 120.
Champernoun, 163.
Champollion, 174.
Chancellors, Lord, 56.
Charlemagne, 149, 156.
Charles Martel, 157.
Charles XII., 142, 157.
Chateaubriand, 174.
Chatham, 118.
Chaucer, 230.
Chelmsford, 57> 90.
Chenier, 230.
Chinese, 335, 350.
Christians, sense of sin,
280.
Christina, 158.
Chuan-Yuan, 335.
Church : celibacy, 357 ;
persecution, 358.
Churchill, 90, 1 6 1 .
Civilization, 336,344,348;
cause of its decay, 361 ;
best form of, in respect
to race, 362.
Clarendon, 90, 133.
Clarke, Matthew, 284.
Clarke, Sir C., 90.
Clasper, 309.
Classification by natural
gifts, 14.
Classification by reputa¬
tion, 6.
Classics, Senior, of Cam¬
bridge, 299 appendix,
300.
Claude, 251.
Cleopatra, 152.
Clive, 91, 157.
Club law, 357.
Cockburn, 91.
Colbert, 125.
Coleridge, 91, 230.
Coligny, 157, 160.
Colonius, 285.
Colpepper, 132.
Commanders, 141 ; ap¬
pendix, 150 ; qualities
of, 47 ; they have few
sons, 319.
Como, 359.
Comparative worth of
different nations, 336.
Comparison of the two
classifications (viz. natu¬
ral gifts and reputa¬
tions), 37.
Comparison of results,
3l6-
Comte, 322.
Condorcet, 22, 207.
Cooke, 124, 201.
Coombes, 31 1.
Cooper (Earl Shaftes¬
bury), 91, 132.
Cooper, R., 31 1.
Copley, 91.
Corday, 231.
Cork, 203.
Corneille, 23 1.
Correggio, 251.
Cottenham, 91.
Cotton, 294.
Cournot. See Appendix.
Cousins, first, 324.
Cowley, 123.
Cowper, 91, 1 1 7, 133,
^ 231.
Cramond, 90.
Cranmer, 261.
Cranworth, 91.
Cromwell, 98, 125, 157.
Crowd, typical forms of,
369-
Curchod, 184.
Culture, 40.
Culverel, 2S8.
Cuvier, 208.
Cymoegeirus, 228.
D’Alembert, 22,43,208.
Daley, 313.
Dampier, 91.
Dante, 225.
Dark ages, 357.
Dartmouth, 93.
Darwin, 2, 209, 33 1, 336,
363> 367, 368.
Daughters, not marrying,
328.
Davy, 210.
De Candolle, 210.
De Grey, Earl, 119.
De Grey (Lord Walsing-
ham), 90.
Demagogues, 4S.
Denison, 92.
Denman, 92, 204, 301,
Deviation from an ave¬
rage, 26, 377.
Dibdin, 232.
Dieu, De, 284.
Disraeli, 112, 168.
Divines, 257 ; appendix,
283.
Dod, 2S4.
Dolben, 92.
Donne, 285.
Doria, 157.
Dowdeswell, 98.
Downe, 285, 293.
Draper, 89.
Dryden, 187, 232.
Dudevant, 164.
Dudley, 187.
Dufferin, 120.
Dundas, 113.
Dussek, 243.
Dwarfs, infertility of, 331.
Edgeworth, 175.
Egmont, 128.
Eichhorn, 243.
Eldon, 56, 92, 1 1 3.
Ellenborough, 92, 113,
Eminence, definition of, 6.
Emigrants, 360.
Engineers, 333.
English : North country
men, their ability, 340.
Erie, 92.
Errors of observation, law
of, 26, 3S2.
Erskine, Lord, 56, 92,
1 13-
Erskine, E. and R., 2S5.
Etienne, 175.
Eugene, 142, 158.
Euler, 21 1.
Euphorion, 228.
Evans, 286.
Ewbank, 313.
INDEX.
387
Eyck, 251.
Eyre, 92.
Features. not correlated
with intellectual here¬
dity, 333.
Female. See Woman.
Fenelon, 175.
Fenton, 203.
Feriol, 209.
Fertility of judges, 8r,
13 1 ; of prodigies, 330.
Fielden, 91, 175.
Finch, 74, 92, 93, 133,
137, 215.
Fish breeding, 373.
Fishing villages, 336.
FitzRoy, 121, 136.
Floyd, 1 1 7.
Fontanelle, 208, 231.
Forbes, 21 1.
Forster, 93.
Fox, 1 13, 1 14, 300.
Francis, 1 10, 1 14.
Franklin, 21 1.
Frenchmen, height of, 30;
emigrants, 359.
Fronsac, 128.
Gabrielli, 244.
Galilei, 212.
Gallio, 183.
Gelee, 248, 251.
Gemmules, 363-37°*
Generations in a century,
n r
Genghis Khan, 150.
Geoffroy, 212.
Germans, 4, 348.
Giants, infertile, 331.
Gibbon, 100.
Gilbert, 163.
Gillies, 90.
Gilpin, 286.
Glaister, 313.
Gmelin, 213.
Goderich, 114.
Goethe, 232.
Goldoni, 225.
Goldsmith, 169.
Golightly, 313.
Gordon, Lady Duff, 1 73-
Gordon, R., 313.
Gouge, 286, 287.
Goulburn, viii., 22, 301.
Gould, 93.
Gracchus, 164.
Grafton, 12 1, 136.
Gramont, 128, 176.
Grant, 150.
Grantham, 119.
Grattan, 114.
Greeks, 340.
Gregory, 173, 213, 214.*
Grenville, 114, 136.
Grey, 116.
Grotius, 176.
Grynoeus, 28S, 2S9.
Guilford, 93, 98.
Guise, 126.
Gurney, 93.
Gustavus Adolphus, 142,
158. .
Guyse, 290.
Gymnastics, 14, 45.
Halford, ioi, 302.
Hall, Bishop, 264.
Hall, 303.
Ilallam, 176.
Haller, 213.
Ilamilcar, 159.
Hamilton, 121.
Hampden, 125, 157.
Hannibal, 142, 159.
Ilarcourt, 93, 133.
Hardinge, 99.
Hardwicke, 56.
Harrington, 313.
Harvey, 212.
Hasdrubal, 159.
Hatherley, 102.
Hatton, 79, 98.
Haydn, 244.
Hawkins, 301
Hawks, 310.
Heath, 93, 101.
Heine, 234.
Heiresses, 132.
Helvetius, 17S.
Henley, 93, 133.
Henry, 290.
Herbert, 93, 291.
Herschel, 215, 321.
Hewitt, 93.
Iiildersham, 292.
Hiller, 244.
Holland, 113, 11 6, 137,
300.
Homel, 260.
Hook, 234.
Hooker, 262.
Hooper, 292.
Hornby, 121.
Horner, 116.
Horse-chestnut trees, n.
Hospinian, 292.
Hotham, 94.
Hottentot kraal, 366.
Huguenots, 360.
Humboldt, 216.
Hunter, 216.
Hutton, 221.
Huyghens, 217.
Hyde, 81, 94, 133.
Idiots, 25, 35, 339.
Illegitimate families of
judges, 130.
Illustrious, definition of,
1 1.
Imbecile. See Idiots.
Indian Mutiny, 48.
Individuality,' 351, 373,
376*
Individual variation, 370.
Influences on natural abi¬
lity of nations, 351.
Inquisition, 359.
Intelligence, natural se¬
lection, 336 ; animal,
3°*
Irish electors, 367.
Irving, G., 314.
Irving, W., 178.
Italians, 4.
Ivison, 314.
Jamieson, 314.
Jeffreys, Lord, 95, 133.
Jeffreys, Sir John, 97.
Jenkinson, 116.
Jervis, 95, 117.
Jewell, 292.
Jews, 4.
Jonson, 225.
Judges, 55; appendix, SS.
Junius, 293.
Jussieu, 217.
Kaye, 22.
Keating, 95.
Keats, 225.
Keiser, 244.
Kemble, 334.
Kennedy, 303.
Kenyon, 133.
Kimbolton, 80, 97.
King, 95, 1 1 7.
Knox, 293.
Ivoningsmarck, 164.
Lamb, Charles, 178.
Lamb, Visct. Melbourne,
1 1 7-
338
Landseer, 247
Langdale, 95.
Lansdowne, 1 1 7.
Lasco, k, 294.
Law, 95, 303.
Lawrence, 96.
Lechmere, 96.
Lee, 96.
Lefevre, 198.
Legge, 96.
Leibnitz, 22, 2 19.
Leicester, 188.
Leighton, 294.
Lessing, 178.
Lewis, 100.
Lifford, 96.
Lindsay, 81.
Linley, 1 19.
Linnaeus, 219.
Literary Men, 167 > ap¬
pendix, 172.
Little, 314.
Liverpool, 1 1 7.
Locke, 95.
Londonderry, 117.
Long, 314.
L’Ouverture, 338.
Lovelace, 229.
Lovell, 96.
Lowthian, 313, 314.
Lucan, 183.
Lucas, Prosper, 331.
Lunar Society, 193.
Lushington, 57, 303.
Lyndhurst, 22, 96.
Lyttleton, 66, 96.
Lytton, 168.
Macaulay, 23, 179.
Macclesfield, 97, 98.
Mackenzie, 122.
“ Macmillan’s Magazine,”
viii., 2.
Maddison, 31 1.
Maddox, 302.
Mago, 159.
Man, 352, 363.
Manchester, 97, 9S, 1S9.
Mancini, 158.
Manners, 100.
Manufacturers, 366.
Marius, 156.
Marlborough, 142, 1 61.
Marley, 114.
Marriage, age of, 352,360.
Martineau, 189.
Martyn, 190.
Matfin, 31 1.
Mathematical honours, 16.
INDEX .
Mathematicians, 197.
Mather, 294.
Matthew, 294.
Maurice of Nassau, 142,
160.
Mazarin, 158.
Mazzuoli, 252.
Meadows, 190.
Mede, 269.
Medici, 42.
“Men of the Time,” 7,
10.
Mendelssohn, 245.
Metastasio, 226.
Middleton’s “ Biqgraphia
Evangelica,” 258.
Mieris, 252.
Mill, 179.
Miller, 191.
Million, ir.
Milman, 234.
Milt of fish, 374.
Milton, 97, 234.
Mirabeau, 126.
Mongrels, 368 ; human,
63-
Monsey, 99.
Montagu, 70, 80, 97, 122.
Montmorency, 157.
Moore, 1 6 1 , 226.
More, 127, 2 85.
Mornington, 123.
Mortality, 332; of divines,
264.
Mothe, 175.
Mothers, influence of, 196,
276 ; of eminent men,
134, 329. See Women.
Mozart, 245.
Muirhead, 223.
Murillo, 253.
Musicians, 237 ; appen¬
dix, 239.
Mylne, 333.
Napier, 162, 219.
Napoleon, 142, 15 3, 1 5 5.
162.
Nares, 97.
National portraits, 333.
Necker, 184.
Negro, 338, 350.
Nelson, 99,117, 123, 145,
162.
Nepotism, 42.
Newton, 220.
Nichol, 314.
Nicomachus, 300.
Nicostratus, 229.
Niebuhr, 1 79,
Nomads, 346.
Norman type, 348.
North, 70, 98, 105, 1 1 7,
133.
Northington, 93, 98, 133.
Norton, 120.
Notation of relationships,
5°-
“Notes and Queries.”
Hong Kong, 353.
Nottingham, 98. See
Finch.
Nowell, 295.
Oarsmen, 305 ; appen¬
dix, 309; in University
boat-races, 12.
Oersted, 221.
Olympias, 1 5 1.
Olympic games, 333.
Opie, 88.
Orange, Princes of, 160.
See Maurice.
Orford, 1 1 7, 137.
Orrery, 204.
Ostade, 253.
Ova of fish, 374.
Overbury, 96.
Ovid, 226.
Painters, 247 ; appen-
dix, 249.
Palestrina, 245.
Palgrave, 180.
Palmer, 314.
Palmerston, 117, 121
Palmerston, Lady, 117.
Pangenesis, 363, 367, 370.
Parker, Hyde, 150.
Parker (Macclesfield), 98,
133- .
Parmegiano, 253.
Patteson, 98.
Peel, 1 1 7.
Peerages, their influence
on race, 130. ^Aris¬
tocracy.
Pembroke, 1S7.
Pengelly, 98.
Penzance, 101.
Pepin, 156.
Pepys (“ Hts Diary”), 98,
Pepys, Sir C., 98.
Perceval, 1 1 7.
Pericles, 342.
Personality, 376.
Petronella, 186.
INDEX.
389
Petty, 1 1 8.
Pitt, 106, 1 18.
Phidias, 342.
Philip of Macedon, 15 1,
162.
Philocles, 228.
Phillimore, 57.
Phippus (son of Aristo¬
phanes), 229.
Plato, 342.
Plessis, 128.
Pliny, 222.
Poets, 225 ; appendix,
228.
Poisson. See Appendix.
Polar star observations,
379-
Pollock, 98.
Ponte, 253.
Pontoise, Abbot of, 97.
Pope, 226.
Popes, the, 42.
Population restricted, 35 7.
Porson, 23, 180.
Porta, 222.
Portland, 119.
Potter, 253.
Povvis, 99.
Praed, 235.
Pratt, 99, 134, 137-
Precocity of sons of emi¬
nent men, 330 ; early
death, 333.
Premiers, ill. See States¬
men.
Frestley, 287.
Primogeniture, 85, 361.
Protestant refugees, 360.
Ptolemy, 15 1.
Puritanic features, 281.
Pyrrhus, 162.
Quetelet, 26, and Ap¬
pendix, 377.
Racine, 235.
Raffaelle, 253.
Raleigh, 149, 163.
Rambutin, 183.
Rastall, 285.
Raymond, 99, 134.
Redesdale, 1 1 7.
Reeve, 173, 190.
Refugees, 360.
Reid, 214.
Relationships : notation,
50, and the folding
sheet.
Renforth, 31 1.
Reputation as a test of
ability, 37.
Reynolds, 99.
Richelieu, 128.
Richmond, 114.
Ripon, 1 19.
Riquetti, 127.
Rivet, 269.
Roberts, 177.
Robertson, 9a
Robinson, 119.
Robley, 314.
Robson, 314.
Robusti, 254.
Rockingham, 137.
Rolfe, 99.
Romilly, 100, 1 19.
Roper, 127.
Roscoe, 1 81.
Rossi, 235.
Rousseau, 168.
Royal Institution, 21.
Runjeet Singh, 163.
Russell, 1 19, 137, 207.
Ruysdael, 254.
Sadler, 31 i.
Sage, Le, 181.
Sailors, 45.
St. Beuve, 49.
St. John, 90.
St. Leonards, 56.
St. Vincent, 98, 122.
Salisbury, 125.
Sandhurst, 32.
Sandwich, 80.
Sanzio, 254.
Saurin, 262, 296.
Saussure, 185, 222.
Saxe, 163.
Scaliger, 44, 181, 182.
Scarlett, 100.
Sceptics, 278.
Schiller, 226.
Schlegel, 182.
Schmuck, 219.
Schweitzer, 79.
Scipio, 142, 164.
Science, Men of, 192 ;
appendix, 199; fathers
of, 320.
Scotchmen, chests of, 29 ;
ability of, 340.
Scott, 57, 137.
Seguin, 25.
Selwyn, 57, 303.
Seneca, 23, 183.
Senior Classics of Cam¬
bridge, 299 ; appendix,
3°°.
Sevigne, 183.
Sewell, 100.
Shaftesbury, 100.
Shakespeare, 226.
Shannon, 204.
Shelburne, 119.
Sheridan, 119.
Sidgwick, 304.
Sin, 280, 349, 359.
Singh, Runjeet, 163.
Sociability, 336.
Socrates, 342.
Somers, 100.
Sophocles, 226.
Soult, 155.
Sovereigns, qualities of,
47-
Small, 193.
Smiles, 360.
Smith, Archibald, 198.
Spaniards, 359.
Sparta, 352.
Spelman, 100.
Sports of nature, 368.
Stability of character, 2S2 ;
of type, 368.
Stael, 184.
Stanhope, 1 1 5.
Stanihurst, 297.
Stanley, 12 1.
Statesmen, 46, 104, 345 ;
appendices, ill, 124.
Stephen, 185.
Stephens, 185.
Stephenson, 222.
Stewart, 12 1, 136.
Stowell, 56, 137.
Strategy, 47.
Stratford de Redcliffe,
1 12.
Stuart, 136.
Stuart de Rothesay, 122.
Sutton, 100.
Suckling, 162.
Swift, 186, 232.
Sydney, 187.
Tables : —
Chests of Scotchmen,
30.
Classification by natu¬
ral gifts, 34.
Height of Frenchmen,
31-
Marks at Sandhurst ex¬
amination, 33.
Marks in Mathematics
at Cambridge, 19.
39o
Tables L, or Summary of
Relationships of —
Judges, 59.
Statesmen, 108.
Commanders, 107.
Literary Men, 170.
Men of Science, 104.
Poets, 226.
Musicians, 238.
Painters, 248.
Divines, 274.
Tables II., or Analysis of
Relationships of —
Judges, 61.
Statesmen, 109.
Commanders, 148.
Literary Men, 171.
Men of Science, 194.
Poets, 227.
Musicians, 238.
Painters, 249.
Divines, 274.
Comparison of all
classes, 317.
Talbot, 100, 134.
Tasso, 235.
Taylor, J., 31 1.
Taylor of Norwich, 189.
Taylor of Ongar, 190.
Temple, 12 1, 115.
Tencin, 208.
Teniers, 254.
Thesiger, 100.
Thompson, 198, 332.
Thurlow, 100, 122.
Tick el, 1 19.
Timurlane, 150.
Tinian, 314.
Tippoo Saib, 1 60.
Titian, 254.
Titus, 165.
Tonstall, 2S6.
Torrington, 94, 291.
Tracy, 89.
Treby, 101.
Trevelyan, 179.
INDEX.
Trevor, 101, 134.
Trimnell, 90.
Trollope, 191.
Tromp, 165.
Trosse, 272.
Truro, 56, 101.
Turenne, 142, 160, 165.
Turner, 10 1.
Tweddell, 315*
Twisden, 92, 101.
Tyne Rowing Club, 307.
Type, explanation of, 364;
stability of, 368.
Usher, 273, 297.
Vandyck, 254.
V ariation, individual, 3 70.
Vasa, 159.
Vaughan, 101, 301, 302.
Vecelli, 233.
Vega, 235.
Velde, 255.
Verney, 101.
Vespasian, 165.
Veyle, Pont de, 209.
Vincent, St., 122.
Volta, 222.
Vossius, 293.
Waller, 93, 125, 157.
Walpole, 1 1 7, 122, 137.
Walsingham, 101.
Walter, 97.
Warwick, 188.
Watering-places, 364.
Watson, 306, 312.
Watt, 44, 223.
Watts, 268.
Wearmouth, 315.
Wedderburn, 134.
Welch, 293, 297.
Wellesley, 107, 123.
Wellington, 105,107,142,
146, 166.
Westminster Abbey, 41.
Whewell, 193.
Whitaker, 295, 298.
Wigram, 101.
Wilberforce, 123.
Wilde, 101, 102.
Wilkins, 284, 298.
Willes, 102.
William the Silent, 142.
149, 166.
William III., 142, 160.
Williams, 92.
Wilmot, 102.
Winship, 31 1.
Witsius, 298.
Witt, De, 128.
Wives of able men, 325.
See Women.
Wollaston, 224.
Wolphius, 292.
Women : why their names
are omitted here, 3 ;
transmission of ability
through, 63, 327; in¬
fluence of mothers, 196,
276 ; mothers of emi¬
nent men, 134, 329 ;
wives of eminent men,
325-
Wood, Anthony, 188.
Wood (Lord Hatherly),
102.
Wordsworth, 235, 304.
Wranglers, 17 ; senior, 19.
See Mathematicians.
Wrestlers, 312; appen*
dix, 313.
Wyndham, 102.
Wynford, 103.
York, Duchess of, 94.
Yorke, 103, 134.
Young, 235.
THE END.
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SERIES.
NOW READY.
No. 1. FORMS OF WATER, in Clouds, Rain, Rivers, Ice, and Glaciers. By
Prof. John Tyndall, LL. D., F. R. S. i vol. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 2. PHYSICS AND POLITICS; or, Thoughts on the Application of the
Principles of “ Natural Selection ” and “ Inheritance ” to Political Society.
By Walter Bagehot, Esq., author of “The English Constitution.” 1
vol. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 3. FOODS. By Edward Smith, M. D., LL. B., F. R. S. i vol. Cloth
Price, $1.75.
No. 4. MIND AND BODY. The Theories of their Relation. By Alex.
Bain, LL. D., Piofessor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. 1 vol.,
12010. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 5. THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY. By Herbert Spencer. Price,
$1.50.
No. 6. THE NEW CHEMISTRY. By Prof. Josiah P. Cooke, Jr., of liar-
vard University. 1 vol., i2mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00.
No. 7. THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. By Prof. Balfour
Stewart, LL. D., F. R. S. 1 vol., i2mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 8. ANIMAL LOCOMOTION; or, Walking, Swimming, and Flying,
with a Dissertation on Aeronautics. By J. Bell Pettigrew, M. D.,
F. R. S., F. R. S. E., F. R. C. P. E. i vol., i2mo. Fully illustrated.
Price, $1.75.
No. 9. RESPONSIBILITY IN MENTAL DISEASE. By Henry
Maudslfy, M. D. 1 vol., i2mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 10. THE SCIENCE OF LAW. By Prof. Sheldon Amos, i vol., i2mo.
Cloth. Price, $1.75.
No. 11. ANIMAL MECHANISM. A Treatise on Terrestrial and Aerial
Locomotion. By E. J. Marey. With 117 Illustrations. Price, $1.75.
No. 12. THE HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RE¬
LIGION AND SCIENCE. By John Wm. Draper, M. D., author
of “The Intellectual Development of Europe.” Price, $1.75.
No. 13. THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT AND DARWINISM.
By Prof. Oscar Schmidt, Strasburg University. Price, $1.50.
No. 14. THE CHEMISTRY OF LIGHT AND PHOTOGRAPHY.
In its Application to Art, Science, and Industry. By Dr. Hermann Vo¬
gel. 100 Illustrations. Price, $2.00.
No. 15. FUNGI; their Nature, Influence, and Uses. By M C. Cooke, M. A.,
LL. D. Edited by Rev. M. J. Berkeley, M. A., F. L. S. With 109
Illustrations. Price, $1.50.
No. 16. THE LIFE AND GROWTH OF LANGUAGE. By Prof.
W. D. Whitney, of Yale College. Price, $1.50.
No. 17. THE NATURE OF LIGHT, with a General Account of Physical
Optics. By Dr. Eugene Lommel, Professor of Physics in the University
of Erlangen. With 188 Illustrations and a Plate of Spectra in Chromo-
lithography. (In press .)
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 549 & 551 Broadway, N. Y.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
THE NATIVE RACES OF THE PACIFIC STATES.
By Herbert H. Bancroft. To be completed in 5 vols. Vol. I. no\*
ready. Containing Wild Tribes : their Manners and Customs.
1 vol., 8vo. Cloth, $6 ; sheep, $7.
“We can only say that if the remaining volumes are executed in the same spirit of
candid and careful investigation, the same untiring industry, and intelligent good sense,
which mark the volume before us, Mr. Bancroft’s ‘ Native Races of the Pacific States
will form, as regards aboriginal America, an encyclopedia of knowledge not only un
equaled but unapproached. A literary enterprise more deserving of a generous sym
pathy and support has never been undertaken on this side of the Atlantic.” — Francis
Parkman, in the North American Review.
“ The industry, sound judgment, and the excellent literary style displayed in this
work, cannot be too highly praised.” — Boston Rost.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF CULTURE.
By John S. Hittell. i vol., i2mo. Price, $1.50.
“ He writes in a popular style for popular use. He takes ground which has never
been fully occupied before, although the general subject has been treated more or less
distinctly by several writers. . . . Mr. Hittell’s method is compact, embracing a wide
field in a few words, often presenting a mere hint, when a fuller treatment is craved by
the reader; but, although his book cannot be commended as a model of literary art, it
may be consulted to great ads'antage by every lover of free thought and novel sugges¬
tions.’ — N. Y. Tribune.
THE HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RE¬
LIGION AND SCIENCE.
By John W. Draper, M. D., author of “The Intellectual Develop¬
ment of Europe.” 1 vol., 121110. Cloth. Price, $1.75.
“ The conflict of which he treats has been a mighty tragedy of humanity that ha*
dragged nations into its vortex and involved the fate of empires. The work, though
small, is full of instruction regarding the rise of the great ideas of science and philos¬
ophy ; and he describes in an impressive manner and with dramatic effect the way re¬
ligious authority has employed the secular power to obstruct the progress of knowledge
and crush out the spirit of investigation. While there is not in his book a word of dis¬
respect for things sacred, he writes with a directness of speech, and a vividness of char¬
acterization and an unflinching fidelity to the facts, which show him to be in thorough
earnest with his work. The ‘ History of the Conflict between Religion and Science'
is a fitting sequel to the ‘ History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,’ and will
add to its author’s already high reputation as a philosophic historian.” — N. Y. Tribune.
THEOLOGY IN THE ENGLISH POETS.
COWPER, COLERIDGE, WORDSWORTH, and BURNS. By
Rev. Stopford Brooke, i vol., 121110. Price, $2.
“Apart from its literary merits, the book maybe said to possess an independent
value, as tending to familiarize a certain section of the English public with more en¬
lightened views of theology.” — London A thenceu/n.
BLOOMER’S COMMERCIAL CRYPTOGRAPH.
A Telegraph Code and Double Index — Holocryptic Cipher. By J. G.
Bloomer, i vol., 8vo. Price, $5.
By the use of this work, business communications of whatever nature may be tel*
graphed with secrecy and economy.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, New York.
Recent Publications.— scientific.
THE PRINCIPLES OF MENTAL PHYSIOLOGY. With their Ap¬
plications to the Training and Discipline of the Mind, and the Study of its
Morbid Conditions. By W. B. Carpenter, F. R. S., etc. Illustrated. i2mo.
737 pages. Price, $3.00.
“ The work is probably the ablest exposition of the subject which has been given to the world, nnd goes
fir to establish a new system of Mental Philosophy, upon a much broader and more substantial basis than
it has heretofore stood.’’ — St. Louis Democrat ■
“ Let us add that nothing we have said, or in any limited space could say, would give an adequate con¬
ception of the valuable and curious collection of facts bearing on morbid mental conditions, the learned
physiological exposition, and the treasure-house of useful hints for mental training, which make this large
and yet very amusing, as well as instructive book, an encyclopaedia of well-clussified and often very
startling psychological experiences.” — London Spectator.
THE EXPANSE OF HEAVEN. A Series of Essays on the Wonders of
the Firmament. By R. A. Proctor, B. A.
“ A very charming work ; cannot fail to lift the reader’s mind up ‘ through Nature’s work to Nature’s
God.’ ” — London Standard.
“ Prof. R. A. Proctor is one of the very few rhetorical scientists who have the art of making science
popular without making it or themselves contemptible. It will be hard to find anywhere else so much
skill in effective expression, combined with so much genuine astronomical learning, as is to be seen in his
new volume.” — Christian Union.
PHYSIOLOGY FOR PRACTICAL USE. By various Writent. Edited
by James Hinton. With 50 Illustrations. 1 vol., umo. Price, $2.25.
“This book is one of rare value, and will prove useful to a large class in the community. Its chief
recommendation is in its applying the laws of the science of physiology to cases of the deranged or diseased
operations of the organs or processes of the human system. It is as thoroughly practical as is a book of
formulas of medicine( and the style in which the information is given is so entirely devoid of the mystification
of technical or scientific term3 that the most simple can easily comprehend it.”— Boston Gazette.
“ Of all the works upon health of a popular character which we have met with for some time, and we
are glad to think that this most important branch of knowledge is becoming more enlarged every day,
the work before us appears to be the simplest, the soundest, and the best” — Chicago Inter-Ocean.
THE GREAT ICE AGE, and its Relations to the Antiquity of
Man. By James Geikie, F. R. S. E. With Maps, Charts, and numerous Illus¬
trations. 1 vol., thick i2ino. Price, $2.50.
“ ‘ The Great Ice Age ’ is a work of extraordinary interest and value. The subject is peculiarly
attractive in the immensity of its scope, and exercises a fascination over the imagination so absorbing that
it can scarcely find expression in words. It has all the charms of wonder-tales, and excites scientific and
unscientific minds alike.” — Boston Gazette.
“ Every step in the process is traced with admirable perspicuity and fullness by Mr. Geikie.” — Lon¬
don Saturday Review.
“ ‘ The Great Ice Age,’ by James Geikie, is a book that unites the popular and abstruse elements of
scientific research to a remarkable degree. The author recounts a story that is more romantic than nine
novels out of ten, and we have read the book from first to last with unflagging interest.” — Boston Commer¬
cial Bulletin.
ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE BRITISH ASSOCIA¬
TION, assembled at Belfast. By Johm Tyndall, F. R. S., President. Re¬
vised, with additions, by the author, since the delivery. iamo. 120 pages.
Paper. Price, 50 cents.
This edition of this now famous address is the only one authorized by the author, and contains addi¬
tions and corrections not in the newspaper reports.
THE PHYSIOLOGY OF MAN. Designed to represent the Existing State
of Physiological Science as applied to the Functions of the Human Body. By
Austin Flint, Jr., M. D. Complete in Five Volumes, octavo, of about 500
pages each, with 105 Illustrations. Cloth, $22.00; sheep, $27.00. Each vol¬
ume sold separately. Price, cloth, $4.50; sheep, $5.50. The fifth and last
volume has just been issued.
The above is by far the most complete work on human physiology in the English language. It treais
of the functions of the human body from a practical point of view, and is enriched by many original ex¬
periments and observations by the author. Considerable space is given to physiological anatomy, pur¬
lieu lari y the structure of glandular organs, the digestive system, nervous system, blood-vessels, organs of
special sense, and organs of generation. It not only considers the various functions of the body, from an
experimental stand-point, but is peculiarly rich in citations of the literature of physiology. It is therefore
invaluable as a work of reference for those who wish to study the subject of physiology exhaustively. As
a complete treatise on a subject of such interest, it should be in the libraries of literary and scientific men,
as well as in the hands of practitioners and students of medicine. Illustrations are introduced wherever
they are necessary for the elucidation of the text.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 549 & 551 Broadway, N. Y.
DESCRIPTIVE SOCIOLOGY
♦♦♦
Mr. Herbert Spencer has been for several years engaged, with the aid of
ihrec educated gentlemen in his employ, in collecting and organizing the facts
concerning all orders of human societies, which must constitute the data of a true
Social Science. He tabulates these facts so as conveniently to admit of ex¬
tensive comparison, and gives the authorities separately. He divides the races
of mankind into three great groups : the savage races, the existing civilizations,
and the extinct civilizations, and to each he devotes a series of works. The
first installment,
THE SOCIOLOGICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
in seven continuous tables, folio, with seventy pages of verifying text, is now
ready. This work will be a perfect Cyclopaedia of the facts of Social Science,
independent of all theories, and will be invaluable to all interested in social
problems. Price, five dollars. This great work is spoken of as follows :
From the Bntish Quarterly Review.
“No words are needed to indicate the immense labor here bestowed, or the great
sociological benefit which such a mass of tabulated matter done under such competent
direction will confer. The work will constitute an epoch in the science of comparative
sociology.1’
From the Saturday Review.
“ The plan of the 4 Descriptive Sociology 1 is new, and the task is one eminently fitted
to be dealt with by Mr. Herbert Spencer’s faculty of scientific organizing. His object is
to examine the natural laws which govern the development of societies, as he has ex¬
amined in formei parts of his system those which govern the development of individual
life. Now, it is obvious that the development of societies can be studied only in their
history, and that general conclusions which shall hold good beyond the limits of particu¬
lar societies cannot be safi ly drawn except from a very wide range of facts. Mr. Spen¬
cer lias therefore conceived the plan of making a preliminary collection, or perhaps we
Bbould rather say abstract, of materials which when complete will be a classified epi¬
tome of unive. sal history.”
From the London Examiner.
* Of the treatment, in the main, we cannot speak too highly; and wo must accept
It &s a wonderfully successful first attempt to furnish the student of social science with
data standing toward his conclusions in a relation like that in which accounts c* the
structures and functions of different types of animals stand to the conclusions of
biologist.”
Works of Charles Darwin.
JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES into the Natural History and Ge¬
ology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of II. M. S. Beagle round the
World, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, R. N. i vol., ismo. 579 pages.
Cloth. Price, $2.00.
“ Darwin was nearly five years on board the Beagle. A keen observer, and a genu¬
ine philosopher, he has brought back to us a precious freight of facts and truths. The
work has been for some time before the public, and has won a high place among
readers of every class. It is not so scientific as to be above the comprehension of in¬
telligent readers who are not scientific. Some facts and species, new even to the sci¬
entific, are brought to light. Darwin’s transparent, eloquent style richly illuminates
his observations. The weightier matters to which he alludes are interspersed among
more familiar observations, such as would naturally be made by a traveler passing
through new and wonderful scenes. It is an instructive and interesting book." —
Northwestern Christian Advocate.
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. New and revised edi¬
tion, with Additions. With copious Index. 1 vol., i2ino. Cloth. Price, $2.00.
4 ’ Personally and practically exercised in zoology, in minute anatomy, in geology,
a student of geographical distribution, not in maps and in museums, but by long voy¬
ages and laborious collection ; having largely advanced each of these branches of sci¬
ence, and having spent many years in gathering and sifting materials for his present
work, the store of accurately-registered facts upon which the author of the ‘Origin of
Species’ is able to d:aw at will, is prodigious.” — Prof. T. II. Huxley.
THE DESCENT OF MAN, and Selection in Relation to Sex.
With Illustrations. New edition, revised and augmented. Complete in one vol¬
ume. 688 pages. Price, $3.00.
“This theory is now indorsed by many eminent scientists, who at first combated
it, including Sir Charles Lyell, probably the most learned of geologists, and even by
a class of Christian divines like Dr. McCosh, who think that certain theories of cos¬
mogony, like the nebular hypothesis and the law of evolution, may be accepted with¬
out doing violence to faith.” — Evening Bulletin.
THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS IN MAN AND
the Lower Animals. With Photographic and other Illustrations. 1 vol., thick
i2mo. Cloth. Price, $3.50.
“Whatever one thinks of Mr. Darwin’s theory, it must be admitted that his great
powers of observation are as conspicuous as ever in this inquiry. During a space of
more than thirty years, he has, with exemplary patience, been accumulating informa¬
tion from all available sources. The result of all this is undoubtedly the collection of a
mass of minute and trustworthy information which must possess the highest value,
whatever may be the conclusions ultimately deduced from it.” — London Times.
INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. With Illustrations. 1 vol., i2mo.
Cloth. Price, $ 2.00.
“In conclusion, we lay this book down with increased admiration for Mr. Darwin
as a discoverer and expositor of facts, and with great satisfaction at the increase to our
knowledge of plant physiology given us, as well as the ample promise of further addi¬
tions as the direct consequence of the present publication.” — London Athenceum.
“In this work Mr. Darwin’s patient and painstaking methods of investigation ap¬
pear to the best possible advantage. It is impossible to read it without enthusiastic
admiration for the ingenuity which he displays in devising tests to determine the char¬
acteristics of the plants, the peculiarities of which he is studying, and, as is always
the case with him, he presents the conclusions arrived at in language so lucid that he
who reads simply for information is sure to be attracted and charmed quite as much as
the professional student.” — N. Y. Times.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, 549 & 551 Broadway, N. Y.
A New Magazine for Students and Cultivated Headers.
THE
POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY,
. CONDUCTED BY
Professor E. L. YOUMANS.
The growing importance of scientific knowledge to all classes of the
community calls for more efficient means of .diffusing it. The Popular
Science Monthly has been started to promote this object, and supplies a
want met by no other periodical in the United States.
It contains instructive and attractive articles, and abstract? of articles,
original, selected, and illustrated, from the leading scientific men of differ¬
ent countries, giving the latest interpretations of natural phenomena, ex¬
plaining the applications of science to the practical arts, and to the opera¬
tions of domestic life.
It is designed to give especial prominence to those branches of science
which help to a better understanding of the nature of man ; to present the
claims of scientific education ; and the bearings of science upon questions
of society and government. How the various subjects of current opinion
are affected by the advance of scientific inquiry will also be considered.
In its literary character, this periodical aims to be popular, without be¬
ing superficial, and appeals to the intelligent reading-classes of the commu¬
nity. It seeks to procure authentic statements from men who know their
subjects, and who will address the non-scientific public for purposes of ex¬
position and explanation.
It will have contributions from Herbert Spencer, Professor Huxley,
Professor Tyndall, Mr. Darwin, and other writers identified with specu¬
lative thought and scientific investigation.
THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY is published in a large
octavo , handsomely printed on clear type. Terms t Five Dollars per annum,
or Fifty Cents per copy.
OPINION-6 OF THE PRESf~.
“Just the publication needed at the present day.” — Montreal Gazette.
“ It is, beyond comparison, the best attempt at journalism of the kind ever made iu thia
Country.” — Home Journal.
“ The initial number is admirably constituted.” — Evening Mail. _
“In our opinion, the right idea has been happily hit in the plan of this gew monthly.’*
—Buffalo Courier.
“ A journal which promises to be of eminent value to the cause of popular education in
this country.” — N. Y. Tribune .
IMPORTANT TO CLUBS.
The Popular Science Monthly will be supplied at reduced rates with any periodi¬
cal published in this country.
Any person remitting Twenty Dollars for four yearly subscriptions will receive an ex¬
tra copy gratis, or five yearly subscriptions for $20.
The Popular Science Monthly and Appletons’ Journal (weekly), per annum, $8.oc
([ Tp3 Payment, in all cases, must be in advance.
Remittances should be made by postal money-order or check to the Publishers,
D. APPLETON Ss CO., 549 & 551 Broadway, New York.
\ .
✓
.cr
:vv K
■■
’ v- ' 4" V
*Tt 1V*V-
\ i-Viv ’ /TV ■ . v .V .. v:.- ye f %
mm
A ’>•
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11