 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
82
Hereditary Genius
is of no sensible benefit at all. The data from which I obtained column C of
that table are as follow:—I find that 23 of the Judges are reported to have
had “large families,” say consisting of four adult sons in each; 11 are simply
described as having “issue,” say at the rate of 1.5 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 distinguished himself, if he had the ability to do so. I
also find the (adult) families to consist on an average of not less than 2.5
sons and 2.5 daughters each, consequently each judge has an average of
1.5 brothers and 2.5 sisters.
From these data it is perfectly easy to reckon the number of kinsmen in
each order. Thus the nephews consist of the brothers' sons and the sisters'
sons: now 100 judges are supposed to have 150 brothers and 250 sisters,
and each brother and each sister to have, on the average, only one son;
consequently the 100 judges will have (150+ 250, or) 400 nephews.
I need not trouble the reader with more figures; suffice it to say, I have
divided the total numbers of eminent kinsmen to loo 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.
 |
|
 |
|