GENEALOGY, a pedigree or list of ancestors, or the study of family history (from the Gr. yivos, family, and Aoyos, theory).
Every case has to be judged upon its own merits, and allowance made both for the ambition of the weaker to claim or to strengthen an alliance with the stronger, and for the desire of clans or indi viduals to magnify the greatness of their ancestry. The first step must always be the careful comparison of related lists in order to test the consistency of the tradition. Next, these must be critically studied in the light of all available historical material, though indeed such evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Finally, (a) literary criticism must be employed to determine if possible the dates of such lists, since obviously a contemporary register is more trustworthy than one which is centuries later ; (b) a critical esti mate of the character of the names and of their use in various peri ods of Old Testament history is of importance in estimating the antiquity of the list—for example, many of the names in Chron icles attributed to the time of David are indubitably exilic or post exilic ; and (c) principles of ordinary historical probability are as necessary here as in dealing with the genealogies of other ancient peoples, and attention must be paid to such features as fluctuation in the number of links, representation of theories inconsistent with the growth of national life, schemes of relationship not in accord ance with sociological conditions, etc. G. B. Gray's Hebrew Proper Names (1896), with his article in the Expositor (Sept. pp. should be consulted for the application and range of Hebrew names in O.T. genealogies and lists.
The Biblical genealogies commence with "the generations of the heaven and earth," and by a process of elimination pass from Adam and Eve by successive steps to Jacob and to his sons (the tribes), and finally to the subdivisions of each tribe. According to this theory every Israelite could trace back his descent to Jacob, the common father of the whole nation. Such a scheme, however, is full of manifest improbabilities. It demands that every tribe and every clan should have been a homogeneous group which had preserved its unity from the earliest times, that family records extending back for several centuries were in existence, and that such a tribe as Simeon was able to maintain its independence in spite of the tradition that it lost its autonomy in very early times (Gen. xlix. 7) . The whole conception of the unity of the tribes cannot be referred to a date previous to the time of David, and in the older writings a David or a Jeroboam was sufficiently de scribed as the son of Jesse or of Nebat. The genealogical zeal as represented in the Old Testament is chiefly of later growth, and the exceptions are due to interpolation (Josh. vii. i 18, contrast v. 24), or to the desire to modify or qualify an older notice. This, in the case of Saul (I Sam. ix. 1), has led to textual corruption; a list of such a length as his should have reached back to one of the "sons" of Benjamin (cf. e.g. Gen. xlvi. 21), else it were purpose less. The genealogies, too, are often inconsistent amongst them selves and in contradiction to their object. They show, for exam ple, that the population of southern Judah, so far from being "Israelite" was half-Edomite (see JUDAH), and several of the clans in this district bear names which indicate their original affin ity with Midian or Edom. Moreover, there was a free intermix ture of races, and many cities had a Canaanite (i.e. pre-Israelite) population which must have been gradually absorbed by the Isra elites (cf. Judg. i.) . That spirit of religious exclusiveness which marked later Judaism did not become prominent before the Deu teronomic reformation and it is under its influence that the writ ings begin to emphasize the importance of maintaining the purity of Israelite blood, although by this time the fusion was complete (see Judg. iii. 6) and for practical purposes a distinction between Canaanites and Israelites within the borders of Palestine could scarcely be discerned.
Many of the genealogical data are intricate. Thus, the interpre tation of Gen. xxxiv. is particularly obscure (see LEVITES ad fin.; SIMEON) . As regards the sons of Jacob, it is difficult to explain their division among the four wives of Jacob; viz. (a) the sons of Leah are Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah (S. Palestine), Issa char and Zebulun (in the north), and Dinah (associated with Shechem) ; (b) of Leah's maid Zilpah, Gad and Asher (E. and N. Palestine) ; (c) of Rachel, Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim, i.e., central Palestine) and Benjamin ; (d) of Rachel's maid Bilhah, Dan and Naphtali (N. Palestine). It has been urged that (b) and (d) stood upon a lower footing than the rest, or were of later origin; or that Bilhah points to an old clan associated with Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) or Edom (Bilhan, Gen. xxxvi. 27), whilst Zilpah represents an Aramaean strain. Tradition may have combined dis tinct schemes, and the belief that the wives were Aramaean at least coincides with the circumstance that Aramaean elements pre dominated in certain of the twelve tribes. The number "twelve" is artificial and can be obtained only by counting Manasseh and Ephraim as one or by omitting Levi, and a careful study of Old Testament history makes it extremely difficult to recover the tribes as historical units. See, on these points, the articles on the several tribes, B. Luther, Zeit. d. alttest. Wissens. (i9oi), pp. i sqq.; G. B. Gray, Expositor (March 1902), pp. 225-240, and in Ency. Bib., art. "Tribes" ; and H. W. Hogg's thorough treatment of the tribes in the last-mentioned work.
The ideal of purity of descent shows itself conspicuously in por tions of Deuteronomic law (Deut. vii. 1-3, xxiii. 2-8), and in the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra. The desire to prove the continuity of the race, enforced by the experience of the exile, gave the impetus to genealogical zeal, and many of the extant lists proceed from this age when the true historical succession of names was a memory of the past. This applies with special force to the lists in Chronicles which present finished schemes of the Levitical divi sions by the side of earlier attempts, with consequent confusion and contradiction. Thus the immediate ancestors of Ethan appear in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. 12) , but he with Asaiah and Heman are contemporaries of David, and their genealogies from Levi downwards contain a very unequal number of links (I Chron. vi.). By another application of genealogical method the account of the institution of priests and Levites by David ( I Chron. xxiv.) presents many names which belong solely to post exilic days, thus suggesting that the scribes desired to show that the honourable families of their time were not unknown centuries previously. Everywhere we find the results of much skill and labour, often in accordance with definite theories, but a thorough investigation reveals their weakness and often quite incidentally furnishes valuable evidence of another nature.
The intricate Levitical genealogies betray the result of succes sive genealogists who sought to give effect to the development of the hierarchal system. The climax is reached when all Levites are traced back to Gershon, Kehath and Merari, to which are ascribed respectively Asaph, Heman and Ethan (or Jeduthun). The last two were not originally Levites in the later accepted sense of the term (see i Kings iv. 31) . To Kehath is reckoned an important subdivision descended from Korah, but in 2 Chron. xx. 19 the two are distinct groups, and Korah's name is that of an Edomite clan (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, i 8) related to Caleb, and thus included among the descendants of Judah (I Chron. ii. 43). Cases of adjustment, redistribution and "Levitizing" of individuals are frequent. There are traces of varying divisions both of the singers (Neh. xi. 17 ) and of the Levites (Num. xxvi. 58; Ezr. ii. 4o, iii. 9; i Chron. xv. 5-10, xxiii.), and it is noteworthy that in the case of the latter we have mention of such families as Hebroni (Hebronite), Libni (from Libnah)—ethnics of south Judaean towns. In fact, a sig nificant number of Levitical names find their analogy in the lists of names belonging to Judah, Simeon and even Edom, or are closely connected with the family of Moses; e.g. Mushi (i.e., Mosaite), Gershon and Eleazar (cf. Gershom and Eliezer, sons of Moses). The Levites bear a class-name, and the genealogies show that many of them were connected with the minor clans and fam ilies of South Palestine which included among them Moses and his kin. Hence, it is not unnatural that Obed-edom, for example, obvi ously a southerner, should have been reckoned later as a Levite, and the work ascribed by the chronicler's history to the closing years of David's life may be influenced by the tradition that it was through him these mixed populations first attained importance.
In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent, and perhaps from the time of Ezra downwards lists were carefully kept. But when Anna is called an Asherite (Luke ii. 36), or Paul a Benjamite (Rom. xi. I), family tradition was probably the sole support to the claim, although the tribal feeling had not become entirely extinct. The genealogies of Jesus prefixed to two of the gospels are intended to prove that He was a son of David. But not that alone, for in Matt. i. He is traced back to Abraham the father of the Jews, whilst in Luke iii. He, as the second Adam, is traced back to the first man. The two lists are hopelessly inconsistent ; not because one of them follows the line of Mary, but because they represent independent attempts. That in Matthew is characteristically arranged in three series of f our teen generations each through the kings of Judah, whilst Luke's passes through an almost unknown son of David ; in spite of this, however, both converge in the person of Zerubbabel.
See further, A. C. Hervey, Genealogies of Our Lord; H. von Soden, Ency. Bib. ii. col. i666 sqq.; B. W. Bacon, Hastings' Dict. Bib., ii. pp. 138 seq. On the subject generally see J. F. M'Lennan's Studies (2nd ser., ch. ix., "fabricated genealogies") ; S. A. Cook, Ency. Bib. ii. col. sqq. (with references) ; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage (2nd ed., especially ch. i.). (S. A. C.) Modern.—Two forces have combined to give genealogy its importance during the period of modern history : the laws of inheritance, particularly those which govern the descent of real estate, and the desire to assert the privileges of a hereditary aris tocracy. But it is long before genealogies are found in the posses sion of private families. The succession of kings and princes is in the chronicle book; the line of the founders and patrons of abbeys is recorded by the monks with curious embellishment of legend. But the famous suit of Scrope against Grosvenor will illus trate the late appearance of private genealogies in England. In 1385 Sir Richard Scrope, lord of Bolton, displaying his banner in the host that invaded Scotland, found that his arms of a golden bend in a blue field were borne by a knight of the Chester palatin ate, one Sir Robert Grosvenor. He carried the dispute to a court of chivalry, whose decision in his favour was confirmed on appeal to the king. Grosvenor asserted that he derived his right from an ancestor, Sir Gilbert Grosvenor, who had come over with the Con queror, while an intervening claimant, a Cornish squire named Thomas Carminowe, boasted that his own ancestors had borne the like arms since the days of King Arthur's Round Table. It is remarkable that in support of the false statements made by the claimants no written genealogy is produced. The evidence of tombs and monuments and the reports of ancient men are ad vanced, but no pedigree is exhibited in a case which hangs upon genealogy. It is possible that the art of pedigree-making had its first impulse in England from the many genealogies constructed to make men familiar with the claims of Edward III. to the crown of France, a second crop of such royal pedigrees being raised in later generations during the contests of York and Lancaster. But it is not until after the close of the middle ages that genealogies multiply in men's houses and are collected into volumes. The mediaeval baron, knight or squire, although proud of the nobility of his race, was content to let it rest upon legend handed down the generations. The exact line of his descent was sought only when it was demanded for a plea in the king's courts to support his title to his lands.
From the first the work of the genealogist in England had that taint of inaccuracy tempered with forgery from which it has not yet been cleansed. The mediaeval kings, like the Welsh gentry of later ages, traced their lines to the household of Eden garden, while lesser men, even as early as the 14th century, eagerly asserted their descent from a companion of the Conqueror. Yet beside these false imaginations we find the law courts, whose business was often a clash of pedigrees, dealing with genealogies centuries long which, constructed as it would seem from worthy evidences, will often bear the test of modern criticism.
Genealogies in great plenty are found in manuscripts and printed volumes from the 16th century onward. Remarkable among these are the descents recorded in the Visitation Books of the heralds, who, armed with commissions from the crown, the first of which was issued in 20 Hen. VIII., perambulated the English counties, viewing arms and registering pedigrees. The notes in their register books range from the simple registration of a man's name and arms to entries of pedigrees many generations long. To the heralds these visitations were rare opportunities of obtaining fees from the visited, and the value of the pedigrees registered is notably unequal. Although it has always been the boast of the College of Arms that Visitation records may be produced as evi dence in the law courts, few of these officially recorded genealo gies are wholly trustworthy. Many of the officers of arms who recorded them were, even by the testimony of their comrades, of indifferent character, and even when the visiting herald was an hon ourable and industrious man he had little time to spare for the investigation of any single genealogy. Deeds and evidences in pri vate hands may have been hastily examined in some instances— indeed, a herald's summons invites their production—and monu ments were often viewed in the churches, but for the most part men's memories and the hearsay of the country-side made the backbone of the pedigree. The further the pedigree is carried beyond the memory of living men the less trustworthy does it become. The principal visitations took place in the reigns of Eliza beth, James I., Charles I. and Charles II. No commission has been issued since the accession of William and Mary, but from that time onwards large numbers of genealogies have been recorded in the registers of the College of Arms, the modern ones being com piled with a care which contrasts remarkably with the unsupported statements of the Tudor heralds.
Outside the doors of the College of Arms genealogy has now been for some centuries a favourite study of antiquaries, whose researches have been of the utmost value to the historian, the topographer and the biographer. County histories, following the example of Dugdale's Warwickshire folios, have given much space to the elucidation of genealogies and to the amassing of material from which they may be constructed. Dugdale's great work on the English baronage heads another host of works occupied with the genealogy of English noble families, and the second edition of "G.E.C.'s" Complete Peerage shows the mighty advance of the modern critical spirit. Nevertheless, the zoth century has not yet seen the abandoning of all the genealogical fables nourished by the Elizabethan pedigree-mongers, and the ancestry of many noble houses as recorded in popular works of reference is still derived from mythical forefathers. Thus the dukes of Norfolk, who, by their office of earl marshal are patrons of the heralds, are provided with a loth century Hereward for an ancestor; the dukes of Bed f ord, descendants of a 15th century burgess of Weymouth, are traced to the knightly house of Russell of Kingston Russell, and the dukes of Westminster to the mythical Gilbert le Grosvenor who "came over in the train of the Conqueror." Genealogical research has, however, made great advance during the last generation. The critical spirit shown in such works as Round's Studies in Peerage and Family History (1901) has assailed with effective ridicule the methods of dishonest pedigree makers. Much raw material of genealogy has been made available for all by the publication of parish registers, marriage-licence allegations, monumental inscriptions and the like, and above all by the mass of evidences contained in the volumes issued by the Public Record Office.
Within a small space it is impossible to set forth in detail the methods by which an English genealogy may be traced. But those who are setting out upon the task may be warned at the outset to avoid guesswork based upon the possession of a surname which may be shared by a dozen families between whom is no tie of kin ship. A man whose family name is Howard may be presumed to descend from an ancestor for whom Howard was a personal name : it may not be presumed that this ancestor was he in whom the dukes of Norfolk have their origin. A genealogy should not be allowed to stray from facts which can be supported by evidence. A man may know that his grandfather was John Stiles who died in 185o at the age of fifty-five. It does not follow that this John is identical with the John Stiles who is found as baptized in 1795 at Blackacre, the son of William Stiles. But if John the grandfather names in his letters a sister named Isabel Nokes, while the will of William Stiles gives legacies to his son and daughter John Stiles and Isabel Nokes, we may agree that reasonable proof has been given of the added generation. A new pedigree should begin with the carefully tested statements of living members of a family. The next step should be to collate such family records as Bible entries, letters and diaries, and inscriptions on mourning rings, with monu mental inscriptions of acknowledged members of the family. From such beginnings the genealogist will continue his search through the registers of parishes with which the family has been connected; wills and administrations registered in the various probate courts form, with parish registers, the backbone of most middle-class family histories. Court rolls of manors in which members of the family were tenants give, when existing and accessible, proofs which may carry back a line, however obscure, through many descents. When these have been exhausted the records of legal proceedings, and notably those of the court of chancery, may be searched. Few English households have been able in the past to avoid an appeal to the chancery court, and the bill and answer of a chancery plaintiff and defendant will often tell the story of a fam ily quarrel in which a score of kinsfolk are involved ; the plead ings may contain the material for a family tree of many branching generations. Coram Rege and De Banco rolls may even, in the course of a dispute over a knight's fee or a manor carry a pedigree to the Conquest of England, although such good fortune can hardly be expected by the searcher out of an undistinguished line. In proving a genealogy it must be remembered that in the descent of an estate in land must be sought the best evidence for a pedigree.
At the present time the study of genealogy grows rapidly in English estimation. It is no less popular in America, where socie ties and private persons have of late years published a vast num ber of genealogies, many of which combine the results of laborious research in American records with extravagant and unfounded claims concerning the European origin of the families dealt with. A family with the surname of Cuthbert has been known to hail St. Cuthbert of Lindisfarne as its progenitor, and one surnamed Eber hardt has incorporated in its pedigree such German princes of old times as were found to have Eberhardt for a Christian name.
Genealogy in modern France has, with a few honourable excep tions, fallen into the hands of the popular pedigree-makers, whose concern is to gratify the vanity of their employers. Italy likewise has not yet shaken off the influence of those venal genealogists who, three hundred years ago, sold pedigrees cheaply to all corn ers. But much laborious genealogical inquiry had been made in Germany since the days of Hubner, and even in Russia there was some attempt to apply modern standards of criticism to the chron icles of the swarming descendants of the blood of Rurik.
In no way is the gap made by the dark ages between ancient and modern history more marked than by the fact that no European family makes a serious claim to bridge it with its genealogy. The unsupported claim of the Roman house of Massimo to a descent from Fabius Maximus is respectable beside such legends as that which made Levis-Mirepoix head of the priestly tribe of Levi, but even the boast of such remote ancestry has now become rare. The ancient sovereign houses of Europe are, for the most part, content to attach themselves to some ancestor who, when the mist that followed the fall of the Western empire begins to lift, is seen rally ing with his sword some group of spearmen.