GENEALOGY. Biblical.—The word "genealogy" (_____), which occurs twice in the New Testament (1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. iii. 9; compare also Heb. vii. 3, 6) in the ordinary concrete sense of "pedigree" or "list of ancestors," is of somewhat frequent occurrence in the authorized version of the Old Testament scriptures, but on1y in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, where the words _____ and _____, which are peculiar to that work, are invariably rendered "genealogy" and "to reckon by genealogy." This translation, however, is of somewhat doubtful accuracy; for, whatever the original meaning of the root _____ may have been,1 there seems to be no room for doubt that the noun and the verb connected with it were used in later Hebrew simply to denote respectively the roll and the act of registration ; and that the "book" alluded to in Neh. vii. 5 (in A. V. "register of the genealogy") was genealogical only in so far as the individuals registered in it were classified according to their "houses," "families," and "tribes." While a catalogue of this sort was admirably fitted to be a per-manent record of tribal relations in Israel, as these subsisted at the time of its compilation, there is not any reason to suppose that it made any attempt to trace them through previous generations.2 The scripture genealogies, properly



FOOTNOTES (page 142)

(1) According to Ewald (Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 261, cf. Alt. 363), it meant properly "to count." In the LXX. the Hithpael is rendered differently in each passage where it occurs; _____ is only once given. In Ezra ii. 62 the translation is _____ (Vulg., scripturam genealogioe suae); in Neh. vii. 64 it is _____ (scripturam suam in censu). It may be added that the habit of taking a written census of sections of the population, or even of the entire nation, was obviously not unfamiliar to the Jews. This appears from numerous indications in the earlier historical books, e.g., Num. i. 18, where the word (used here only) is GREEK as well as in Chronicles-Ezra~Nehemiah. Compare also Ezek. xiii. 9 and Ps. lxxxvii. 6.

(2) When, for example, we read in 1 Chr. vii. 6, 7 that Benjamin had three sons (Bela, Becher, and Jediael); in viii. 1, 2 that he had five (Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha); in Numb. xxvi. 38 again that he had five, but that their names were Belah, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shu-pham, and Hupham; and, finally, in Gen. xlvi. 21 that they numbered ten "souls" (Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Happim, and Ard); or when the descendants of Bela are variously given, in 1 Chr. vii. 7 as Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth, and Iri; in I Chr. viii. 3-5, as Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abisbua, Naaman, Ahoah, Gera, Shephuphan, and Hurani; and in Numb. xxvi. 40 as Ard and Naaman, the simple explanation (after all due allowance for corruptions in the text has been made) seems to be, that in the course of a long history the Benjamite tiibe included a varying number of families or clans with varying names. Similar instances might be indefinitely multiplied. It ought to be added, however, that criticism has not yte by any means completed its task on the book of Chronicles in its genealogical bearings. See Wellhausen, Geschichte 1srael,s, i. 230 sq, 1878.



so called, are rather to be sought for in these _____ (A. V. "generations;" Gen. ii. 4; v. I ; vi. 9; x. 1, &c. ; Ex. vi. 16, 19, &c. ; Num. iii. 1) so frequently met with in some other canonical books, and so specially characteristic of the first book of the Pentateuch as apparently to have suggested to the Alexandrian translators its distinctive name of _____. These begin with the antediluvian period, and indeed with" the generations (or genealogy) of the heavens and of the earth," The descendants of Adam are traced through the lines of Cain and of Seth respectively to the seventh and to the ninth generation. In the two lists the frequent similarity of the names has not escaped observa-tion; nor has the symmetry of the numbers (in one case; a series of seven, the seventh branching into three; in the other a series of ten, in which the seventh is peculiarly prominent, while the tenth branches into three). The very ancient tradition which they embody is not at present so generally believed to convey actual personal history as once it was, but by those who view them as more or less ideal in their character their significance has been very variously estimated,—some seeing in them the survival of ancient myths, perhaps solar in their character; others interpreting them as representing successive dynasties, or immigrations, or stages of culture within a given area in prehistoric times; while such interpreters as Philo allegorize them in a purely spiritual sense. The same differences of view find expres-sion when the genealogies.of the immediately post-diluvian period come to be considered. In Gen. xi. a series of nine generations (or, according to the LXX., ten) from Shem to Abraham is given; the symmetrical number again attracts notice, and in the list some names at least can be identified as having belonged to special nationalities; Arphaxad, for example, is probably equivalent to the Arrhapachitis of Ptolemy (vi. 1). That this "genealogy" was in intention ethnographical rather than personal finds confirmation from the expansion which it receives in the very interesting sketch of a genealogia universalis in Gen. x., where the sons of Shem, besides Arphaxad, are said to have been Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram, while from Aram were descended Uz, Hal, Gether, and Mash or Meshech (compare 1 Chron. i. 17) ; and again, among the sons of Joktan, the (younger) brother of Peleg, are found Hazarmaveth, Sheba, Ophir, and Havilah. Throughout Gen. x., indeed, a thorough consciousuess of a purely ethnographical purpose is manifest, and in many instances the device of using personal names to convey ethnological statements is entirely dropped (Gen. x. 13, 14, 16-18). Historians and critics are not yet entirely at one as to the view which ought to be taken of the genealogies which begin with Abraham. As is well known, these follow the line of Isaac, but give also the collateral lines of Ishmael and of the children of Keturab, and again trace the descendants not only of Jacob but also of Esau; and so much at least is unanimously held that, even if strictly historical so far as the children of Israel are concerned, they cannot be supposed to be complete for the centuries of the sojourn in Egypt. There seems no reason to doubt, however, that the distribution into tribes _____ families _____ and houses _____ lay at the basis of the organization of the Israelites from the earliest period of their independent national life, so that at any given time each man would be able to tell what house he belonged to, what other houses belonged to the same family, and what other families belonged to the same tribe with himself. There are indications of repeated censuses, in which the people were systematically enrolled for fiscal and military purposes ; but, on the other hand, it must be said that there seems to be no adequate evidence that the _____, or "officers," so frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch, had functions at all corresponding to those of a heralds’ college, if indeed it can be regarded as made out that they were scribes at all. The statements which are continually made as to the unbroken continuity and exhaus tive fulness of the genealogical records of the twelve tribes of Israel are not borne out by any sober reading of the facts of history, as these have come down to us: and, even in the case of the Aaronic and Davidic families, there are some circumstances that warn against too absolute confidence in the strict literality of the lists which have reached our hands. It is certain, indeed, that from the beginning the post-exile period (Ezr. ii. 62, Neb. vii. 64) great im-portance was attached to purity of lineal descent in the case of priests; and even in the time of Josephus (Cont. Ap., i. 7) members of the priestly caste were in the habit of proving their legitimacy by means of public documents, which he refers to as _____. But a comparison of the pedigree (whetlier official or personal) of Jehosadak (1 Chr. vi. 3-15 ; cf. Ezra vii.- 1) with the enumeration of Aaron’s successors in the high priesthood, as given by Josephus and repeated in the Seder Olam, suggests that, for the period preceding the captivity at least, the materials for a com-plete list must have been somewhat defective. That in the case of the house of David, in like manner, some real uncertainty existed would seem to be a legitimate inference, not only from the Chronicler’s obscurity, but also from the not easily reconcilable discrepancy between the genealogies given in Mat. i. and in Luke iii. And this is not inconsistent with the fact, of which there are many indications in the New Testament (and even, though more faintly, in the Mishna), that among the Jews the consciousness of tribal distinctions disappeared very slowly. When Anna is repre-sented as belonging to the tribe of Asher and Elizabeth as a daughter of Aaron, Paul as a Benjamite and Barnabas as a Levite; or when, as is vouched for by a not very late tradition, the "desposyni" in the time of Domitian claimed to have the royal blood of David in their veins, it would ob-viously be just as rash to infer (as Jerome seems to have done) that every successive link in the long series of their genealogies was accurately known to the persons themselves, or recognized by their contemporaries, as it would be unscientific altogether to ignore the presumption arising out of the very fact that tribal distinctions were asserted. With reference even to the most undisputed of the Biblical genealogies, it is important to remember, in the first place, that in them phrases implying sonship are not to, be in terpreted so strictly as they would be with us ; and, secondly, that, in order to aid the memory by means of successions of symmetrical numbers, it was quite usual to manipulate a long list by dropping or even by introducing names at discretion.

Classical.—A passing reference only is needed to the intricate genealogies of gods and sons of gods which form so conspicuous a feature in classical literature. In every one of the numerous states into which ancient Greece was divided there were aristocratic families who were accustomed to claim descent, through eponymous heroes, from the primitive deities. Many of these families were, as families, undoubtedly of great antiquity even at the beginning of the historical period ; and in several instances they con-tinued to maintain a conspicuous and separate existence for centuries. The element of family pride is prominent in the poetry of the Megarian Theognis; and in an in-scription belonging to the 2d century B.C. We find a member of the Spartan family of Gytheates represented as the thirty-ninth in direct descent from the Dioscuri and the forty-first from Hercules. Even in Athens, long after the constitution had become thoroughly democratic, some of the clans continued to be known as _____ : and Alcibiades, for example, as a member of the phratria of the Eurysacidae, traced his origin through many generations to Eurysaces, who was represented as having been the first of the Aeacidae to settle in Attica. It is very doubtful, however, whether such pedigrees as this were very seriously put forward by those who claimed them ; and it is certain that, almost along the whole line, they were unsupported by evidence. We have the authority of Pollux (viii. 111) for stating that the Athenian _____, of which there were thirty in each _____, were organized without any exclusive regard being had to blood-relationship; they were constantly receiving accessions from without ; and the public written registers of births, adoptions, and the like do not appear to have been preserved with such care as would have made it possible to verify a pedigree for any considerable portion even of the strictly historical period (see Schoemann, Griechische Alterthümer, i. 137, 338).1

The great antiquity of the early Roman (patrician) gentes is indisputable; and the rigid exclusiveness with which each preserved its hereditates gentilitiae or sacra gentilitia is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that towards the close of the republic there were not more than fifty patrician families (Dionys., i. 85). Yet even in these it is obvious that, owing to the frequency of resort to the well-recognized practice of adoption, while there was every guarantee for the historical identity of the family, there was none (documents apart) for the personal genealogy of the individual. There is no evidence that sufficient records of pedigree were kept during the earlier centuries of the Roman commonwealth. In later times, it is true, even plebeian families began to establish a prescriptive right (known as the jus imaginum) to preserve in their halls the busts of those of their members who had attained to curule office, and to exhibit these in public on appropriate occasions. Under these imagines majorum2 it became usual to inscribe on the wall their respective tituli, the relationship of each to each being indicated by means of connecting lines ; and thus arose the stemmata gentilitia, which at a later time began to be copied into family records. In the case of plebeian families (whose stemmata in no case went farther back than 366 B.C.), these written genealogies were probably trustworthy enough ; but in the case of patricians who went back to Aeneas,3 so much cannot, it is obvious, be said; and from a comparatively early period it was clearly recognized that such records lent themselves too readily to the devices of the falsifier and the forger to deserve much confidence or reverence (Pliny, H. N., xxxv. 2 ; Juv. viii. 1). The many and great social changes which marked the closing centuries of the Western empire almost invariably militated with great strength against the maintenance of an aristocracy of birth ; and from the time of Constantine the dignity of patrician ceased to be hereditary.4





Modern.—The passion for genealogizing, which has been and is a marked characteristic of all the aristocracies of modern Europe, can be directly traced to the influence of feudalism and the principles of hereditary privilege which that system, in its later phases at least, so peculiarly encouraged. Along with the sharp separation of those families which alone were regarded as capable of holding real property or filling the higher offices of state, or indeed of engaging in any of what were reckoned as the more ennobling pursuits of life, arose the necessity for being able to determane with accuracy who were and who were not the persons entitled by birth to take a place within the privileged caste. When. for example, the practice arose of holding tournaments, in which no one was allowed to take part who could not give evidence of gentle descent, the necessity for the professional genealogist became at once apparent. It was not, however, until about the end of the 15th century that the vanguard of the great army of writers upon this fertile subject began to appear. It was perhaps natural that, finding as they did the gulf of separation between noble and base to be so great as it was, they should have leapt to the conclusion that it had existed from the first ; at all events their knowledge and their ignorance combined to support them in their conjecture. As they forced their way up the stream of time, indeed, they were met at a comparatively early stage by a great barrier—consisting less in the paucity and inaccessibility of authentic documents than in what one might almost call the fatal fact of the absence of family names. Prior to the middle of the 11th century these were entirely unknown; the documents speak merely of Eberhardus, Fridericus, Ernestus, and the like, with at most the addition of the title. About 1050 began the custom of using surnames, but it made way so very slowly that, even at the close of the 12th century, it had not diffused itself beyond the ranks of the higher nobility, and throughout the 13th the old habit of self-designation by the Christian name merely was still exemplified in a vast number of instances.5 The difficulty, however, in an age when the laws of evidence were so imperfectly understood, did not count for much with the courtly genealogists of the 15th and following centuries. The insuperable obstacle which barred their advance along the path of sober research only furnished them with a pretext for all the sooner making their escape into the region of imagination and conjecture, where no impediments occurred in tracing the ascending series until the name of the first created person was reached. The appended bibliography will help to make clear the degrees by which genealogists have gradually been brought to confine themselves to the limits of the verifiable. At present, if we understand by a genealogy a tabulated and, as far as possible, an exhaustive statement of all the ramifications of a series of human generations, and by genealogical science that branch of history which aims at securing fulness and accuracy in the accounts men give of the antecedents of families which have attained to distinction, the modern genealogist cannot but be conscious that he occupies a comparatively narrow field, and one from which the larger interests of mankind are daily further receding. In the more ancient meaning of the word genealogy indeed, when it is used to denote that grander task of the historian which consists in tracing the origin, not of privileged families or castes merely, but of races and groups of races, and even of the species itself, the subject is one that has an ever widening and deepening significance ; but in this sense it does not call for treatment apart from the biological sciences.

Among the earliest of the genealogists of modern times rnay be mentioned Benvenuto de San Georgio (Montisferrati Marchionum et Principum regiae propaginis successionumque series, 1515), Phili-



FOOTNOTES (page 144)

(1) All the earlier Greek historians appear to have constructed their narratives on assumed genealogical bases. The four books of Hecataeus of Miletus dealt respectively with the traditions about Deucalion, about Hercules and the Heraclidae about the early settlements in Peloponnesus, and about those in Asia Minor. The works of Hellanicus of Lesbos bore titles (_____ and the like) which sufficiently explain their nature; his disciple, Damastes of Sigeum, was the author of genealogical histories of Trojan heroes; Apollodorus Atheniensis made use of three books _____ by Acusilans of Argos; Pherecydes of Leros also wrote _____. See Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, i. 254 sq. ; Schubart, Quaestt. geneal. historicae, 1832; Marckscheffel, De Genealogica Graecorum poesi, 1840.

(2) The chief authority on this subject is Polybius (vi. 53).

(3) At the funeral of Drusus the images of Aeneas, of the Alban kings, of Romulus, of the Sabine nobles, of Attus Clansus, and of "the rest of the Claudians" were exbibited.—Tac., Ann. iv. 9.

(4) The Roman stemmata had, as will be seen afterwards, great interest for the older modern genealogists. Reference may be made to Glaudorp’s Descriptio Gentis Antoniae (1559) ; to the Descriptio Gentis Juliae (1576) of the same author; and to Hübner’s Tabellen. See also Ruperti’s Tabulae Genealogicae sivc stemmata nobiliss. gent. Rom. (1794, 1811); Drumann’s Geschichte Roms (1834); and Becker’s Handbuch d. röm. Alterthümer, vol. ii.

(5) Gatterer, Abriss der Genealogie, see. 41 (1788). According to this author, there is only one class of cases in which it is possible to trace a pedigree beyond the 11th century,—those cases, namely, where a family happens to have established a fund for the deliverance of the souls of certain ancestors (Christian names specified) from purgatory.



bert Pingonius (Arbor gentilitia Sabaudice Saxonioeque Domus, 1521), Gebwiler (Epitome regii ac vetustissimi ortus Caroli V. et Ferdinandi I. omniumque Archiducum Austriae et Comitum Habsburgensium, 1527), Meyer (Flandricarum rerum tomi X. de origine, antiquitate, nobilitate, ac genealogia Comitum Flandricae, 1531), and Du Boulay (Généalogies des tres illustres et tres puissants Princes les Ducs de Lorraine, 1547). Georg Rüxner’s Anfang, Ursprung, und Herkommen des Thurniers in Teutscher Nation (1532) was also genealogical in its character. Later in the same century several works of a much wider scope than any of the preceding appeared, the list being headed by Reineccius or Reineck of Helmstadt, whose voluminous compilations include a Syntagma de familiis quae in monarchiis tribus prioribus rerum potitae sunt (4 vols. fol., 1574-80), and an Historia Julia, seu Syntagma heroicum (3 vols. fol., 1594-97); this writer was followed by Henninges (Genealogiae Saxonicoe, 1587, and Theatrum genealogicum ostentans omnes omnium aetatum familias Monarcharum. Regum, Ducum, Marchionum, Principum, Comilum, atque illustrium Heroum et Heroinarum; item Philosophorum, Oratorum, Historicorum quotquot a condito mundo usque ad haec nostra tempora vixerunt, 1598), Reusner (Opus genealogicum catholicum de praecipuis familiis Imperatorum., Regum, Principum, Comilum, &c., 1589-92, and Stemma Wittichindeum, 1592), Eytzing or Aitsingerus (Paralipomena quibus Bavarica, Turcica, Anglica, Belgica, et Bohemica imperatorum, regum, ducum, marchionum, comitum, aliorumque Europce procerum atque heroum stemmata continentur, 1592), and others. In 1580 François de Rosières published at Paris the Stemmata Lotharingiae ac Barri ducum, in which he professed to have proved the direct descent of the princes of Lorraine from Charlemagne; for having in this instance indulged in inconvenient as well as unscrupulous falsehood, he was arrested by the parliament of Paris, and thrown into the Bastille, from which he was not released till 1683, the book meanwhile having been suppressed. The 17th century was extraordinarily prolific in genealogical literature; in England it produced, amongst many similar works, Milles’s Catalogue of Honor (1610) and Dugdale’s Baronage (1675-76); of Continental writers the following are pro-bably the most worthy of notice:—Emmius (Genealogia Universalis, 1620), Andrè Duchesne (whose writings include an Histoire Gènèa'logique de la Maison de Montmorency et de Laval, 1624, and an Histoire Gènèalogique de la Maison do Vergi, 1625), Pierre d’ Hozier (Gènèalogie de la Maison de la Rochefoucauld, 1654), Rittershusius (Genealogiae Imperatorum, Regum, Dacum, Comitum, alior-umque Procerum ab anno MCCCC, 1658, and Brevis Exegesis Historica genealogiarum praecipuorum orbis Christiani procerum, 1674, continued by Imhoff in the Spicilegium Ritterskusianum, 1683), Spener (Theatrum nobilitatis Europaeae, 1668, and Insignium Theoria, 1690), Lohmeier (Historische Stammtafeln der kaiser-lichen, königlichen, und fürstlichen Geschlechten, 1690), Anselme de Sainte Marie (Histoire Généalogique de la Maison de France, 1694); but these, along with those of Bucelin, Dangeau, François Duchesne, Le Laboureur, Menestrier, Morgan, are only a few of the names which during the 17th century became associated more or less worthily with this branch of research. The pedigree of the Urquharts of Cromartie given by Sir T. Urquhart in his Promp-tuary of Time (1652) may perhaps be called an extreme specimen of the uncritical methods that characterized too much of the work of the genealogists of the period. Full bibliographies down to this date are given by J. F. Reimmann, Historia litteraria de fatis studii genealogici apud Hebraeos, Graecos, Romanos, et Germanos, in qua scriptores harum gentium potissimi enumerantur et totus Genea-logiae cursus ab orbe condito ad nostra usque tempera deducitur (1702), and Historiae litterariae exotericae et acroamaticae particula, s. de libris genealogicis vulgatioribus et rarioribus commentatio; accedit disquisitio historica de necessitate Scepticism in studio genealogico (1710); also by Joh. Hübner, Bibliotheca. genealogica; ein Verzeichniss aller alten u. neuen genealogischen Bücher von allen Nationen in der Welt (1729). To the 18th century belong the Peerage (1709) and Baronetage (1720) of Collins, the Genealogische Tabellen (1725-1733) of Hübuer, which in part were further eluci-dated by Lenzen (Historisch-genealogische Untersuchungen und Erläuterungen der ersten 34 Hübnerischen Tabellen, 1756), the works of J. L. L. Gebhardi, especially his continuation of Lohmeier and Der Mohammedanischen und Heidnischen hohen Häuser historische und genealogische Erläuterung (1731), and those of Gatterer (Hand-buch der Genealogie und Heraldik, 1761, and Abriss der Genealogie, 1788), the latter being the first and still a useful manual upon the theory of genealogy. Of works belonging to the present century, one of the earliest was the Atlas historique, génélogique, chrono-logique, et géographique (1803-4) of Le Sage; and one of the greatest, bearing upon the general subject was the famous Benedictine L’Art de vérifier les dates (1820-39). During recent years the stricter principles of criticism which have become characteristics of all modern historical investigation have made themselves felt in a very marked manner in the field of genealogical research. A wise scepticism has been increasingly shown with regard to all assertions which had not the support of adequate "diplomatic" evidence; and with the increased desire have come enlarged facilities for consulting ancient documents, either directly or by means of authentic reprints. So far as England is concerned, the improved arrange-ments with regard to the public records, and the various publica-tions of the record commissioners, have brought the materials for a successful prosecution of this and cognate branches of antiquarian science within the reach of every zealous student; and although, in current Peerages, assertions which probably had no origin but in vanity, and certainly have no evidence except that of long unques-tioued tradition, are still perpetuated, such statements can mislead none except the very unsophisticated, The principal and almost the only sources from which authentic family history can be drawn are such documents as the Domesday books; the chartularles, leiger books, registers, necrologies, calendars and chronicles of the varions monasteries, records which convey both directly and indirectly a vast amount of information as to the pedigrees of founders and patrons; also the tournament and crusade rolls some-times found in these establishments ; the various sorts of Chartae Antiquae, such as title deeds and eurolments in Chancery and other courts of justice; the books and rolls which record the returns to the successive inquisitions made into the state of the "Knights’ Fees" which were granted at the time of the Norman Conquest; the Placita, in which are recorded decisions of parliament and other courts; the Rotuli, including charter rolls, patent rolls, pipe, rolls, and many others; the Inquisitiones post mortem, sometimes inaccurately termed escheats; the records of heralds’ visitations; monumental inscriptions, coats of arms, seals, &c. These sources are indicated with considerable fulness and discrimination in Grimaldi’s Origines Genealogicae, or the Sources where English Genealogies may be traced from the Conquest to the Present Time (1828), and, after him, by Sims in the Manual for the Genealogist, Topographer, Antiquary, and Legal Professor, 1856.1

The earliest printed "British Peerage" was that of Milles, en-titled Catalogue of Honor, published in folio in 1610; but Camden’s Britannia (1586) also contained many genealogies. Among recent works the best known are those of J. and J. B. Burke (A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the, United Kingdom, 1822; 40th ed., 1877), of Lodge (The Genealogy of the Existing British Peerage, 1832-33; 48th ed., 1879), of Dod, and of Debrett; but the number of publications (inclusive of those of the London Genealogical and Historical Society) which have been, and continue to be, issued on this attractive subject is very great. For a bibliography approaching to completeness reference may be made to the privately printed Catalogue of Works on the Peerage and Baronetage of England, Scotland, and Ireland, prepared by Sir C. G. Young (1827), to Moule’s Bibliotheca, Heraldica (1822), or to Sims’s Manual for Genealogists. In any list, however brief, the names of Dugdale (The Baronage of England, 1675-76) and of Collins (A Peerage of England, 1709; The English Baronage, of which only the first volume was ever completed, 1727) deserve a special place. The works of Sir R. Douglas on The Peerage of Scotland and The Baronage of Scotland appeared respectively in 17644 and 1796; that of John Lodge, on The Peerage of Ireland, in 1764. On the knightage of Great Britain and Ireland the most accessible writers are again Burke and Dod; but the work of Sir N. H. Nicolas (A History of the Orders of Knighthood of the British Empire, 4 vols. fol., 1842) is of more importance. As being some-what of an innovation in genealogical literature, Burke’s work on the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland may be mentioned here (A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland enjoying territorial possessions or high special rank but uninvested with heritable honours, 1833-38).

For the purposes of genealogical research in the United States of America one society at least has been formed, "The New England Historical and Genealogical Society," under the auspices of which an annual Register is published. Among numerous other publica-tions bearing upon this subject may be mentioned J. F. Holgate’s American Genealogy (1851), Whitmore’s American Genealogy (1868), Webster’s Genealogy (1877), and Thomas’s Genealogical Notes (1878). (J. S. BL.)