Jukes-Edwards: A Study in Education and Heredity — A Closer Reading

(0 User reviews)   70
In Category - Educational Theory
Winship, Albert E. (Albert Edward), 1845-1933 Project Gutenberg 2005 Not confirmed
Heredity; Juke family; Edwards family Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 22,093
Reading time 97 min
Text sections 3

Before opening Jukes-Edwards: A Study in Education and Heredity — A Closer Reading, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 22,093 words, 1 hr 37 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 19.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Heredity,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

This editorial note examines how Albert E. Winship's 1900 study contrasts the Jukes and Edwards families to argue for heredity and education's roles, focusing on the gap between catalog subjects and the text's actual arguments.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Max was a jolly good fellow and not very bad. He was popular and he could tell a good story that made everybody laugh. Of course he was vulgar, such jolly good fellows are usually vulgar. He would not go to school, because he did not like it. He would not stay in evenings, for he did not like that. He did not enjoy being talked to, but always wanted to talk himself, and to talk to boys who would laugh at his yarns. He would not work for he did not like it. He wanted to go fishing, hunting, and trapping; so he left home early and took to the woods.

Max liked nature. He thought he was lots better than town people because he knew more about nature. He found a lovely spot on the border of a beautiful lake in New York State, where the rocks are grand, the waters lovely, the forest glorious. There was never a more charming place in which to be good and to love God than this place where Max built his shanty about 1750. But he did not go there to worship or to be good. He went simply to get away from good people, to get where he would not have to work, and where he would not be preached to, and this beautiful spot became a notorious cradle of crime. Nature is lovely, but it makes all the difference in the world how we know nature and why we love it.

In 1874 Richard L. Dugdale was employed by the New York Prison Commission to visit the prisons of the state. In this visit he was surprised to find criminals in six different prisons whose relatives were mostly criminals or paupers, and the more surprised to discover that these six criminals, under four different names, were all descended from the same family. This led Mr. Dugdale to study their relatives, living and dead. He gave himself up to this work with great zeal, studying the court and prison records, reports of town poorhouses, and the testimony of old neighbors and employers. He learned the details of 540 descendants of Max in five generations. He learned the exact facts about 169 who married into the family. It is customary to count as of a family the men who marry into it. He traced in part others, which carried the number up to 1,200 persons of the family of the Jukes.

The Jukes rarely married foreign-born men or women, so that it may be styled a distinctively American family. The almost universal traits of the family were idleness, ignorance, and vulgarity. They would not work, they could not be made to study, and they loved vulgarity. These characteristics led to disease and disgrace, to pauperism and crime. They were a disgustingly diseased family as a whole. There were many imbeciles and many insane. Those of "the Jukes" who tended to pauperism were rarely criminal, and those who were criminal were rarely paupers. The sick, the weak, and goody-goody ones were almost all paupers; the healthy, strong ones were criminals.

It is a well-known fact in sociology that criminals are of three classes: First, those who direct crime, the capitalists in crime, who are rarely arrested, who seldom commit any crime, but inspire men to crime in various ways. These are intelligent and have to be educated to some extent. They profit by crime and take slight risks.

Second, those who commit heroic crimes and find some satisfaction in the skill and daring required. Safe-breaking, train robbery, and some types of burglary require men of ability and pluck, and those who do these things have a species of pride in it.

Third, those who commit weak and imbecile crimes, which mark the doer as a sneak and a coward. These men rob hen roosts, waylay helpless women and old men, steal clothing in hallways, and burn buildings. They are always cowardly about everything they do, and never have the pluck to steal chickens even until they are half drunk. They often commit murder, but only when they are detected in some sneaking crime and shoot because they are too cowardly to face their discoverer.

Now the Jukes were almost never of the first or second class. They could not be criminals that required capital, brains, education or nerve. Even the kind of pauperism and crime in which they indulged was particularly disgraceful. This is inevitably true of all classes of people who combine idleness, ignorance, and vulgarity. They are not even respectable among criminals and paupers.

Albert E. Winship's Jukes-Edwards: A Study in Education and Heredity (1900) opens with a preface that frames the book as a contribution to solving the problem of making "regenerates out of degenerates." The catalog subjects list heredity, the Juke family, and the Edwards family, but the excerpts reveal a work that is as much about moral reform and social anxiety as about genetics. Winship explicitly dedicates the study to William R. George, founder of the George Junior Republic, an institution for wayward youth, signaling that the book is intended to support practical philanthropy rather than dispassionate science.

Heredity as Moral Argument

The catalog subject "Heredity" suggests a scientific treatise, but Winship's language is consistently moralistic. He describes the Jukes as having "mingled blood of their own quality" and the Edwards family as having "chosen blood of the same general tone and force." This is not Mendelian genetics but a rhetoric of blood purity and moral contagion. Winship asserts that "a mighty intellectual and moral force does plough the channel of its thought and character through many generations," a claim that blends heredity with character formation. The excerpts offer no evidence of engagement with contemporary biological theories; instead, Winship draws analogies to animal breeding, noting that "the highest record ever made for milk and butter was by an animal of no family," which he dismisses as a "high-toned freak." This analogy reveals his underlying assumption that lineage determines quality, a position that aligns with eugenic thinking of the era.

The Jukes as a Negative Example

Despite the catalog listing the Juke family as a subject, the excerpts provide almost no specific information about them. The table of contents includes a chapter titled "The Jukes," but the only concrete detail in the excerpts is that "none of the Jukes had the equivalent of a common school education." Winship uses the Jukes as a foil, repeatedly contrasting their supposed lawlessness and lack of education with the Edwards family's achievements. He claims that "the Jukes always mingled blood of their own quality" and that they "never did mingle first-class blood with their own." These statements are presented as fact without citation or evidence. The reader must infer that the Jukes are a known sociological case study from Richard Dugdale's 1877 work, but Winship does not reference Dugdale in the excerpts. The Jukes function primarily as a rhetorical device to highlight the Edwards family's virtues.

Edwards Family as Exemplars of Education

The Edwards family, by contrast, is presented through a litany of accomplishments. Winship lists "more than 100 lawyers, thirty judges, and the most eminent law professor probably in the country," Theodore William Dwight. He also mentions Ex-Governor Hoadley of Ohio as "the head of perhaps the leading law firm of New York City." These claims are specific but unsourced in the excerpts. Winship's method is to aggregate achievements to argue for the power of heredity combined with education. He states that "the Edwards family has never neglected" education, training, and environment, implying that the Jukes' failures stem from neglecting these advantages. The narrative of Aaron Burr, described as "the one illustrious exception among the 1,400," is used to show that even in a superior lineage, individual circumstances can produce a flawed outcome. Burr's story—enlisting despite illness and defying his uncle—is offered as an explanation for his later political reverses.

Readers should approach Jukes-Edwards as a period piece in the history of educational and eugenic thought, not as a scientific study. Winship's evidence is anecdotal and his arguments are driven by a reformist agenda. The book's value lies in what it reveals about early twentieth-century anxieties over urbanization, immigration, and moral decay. The contrast between the catalog subjects and the text's actual content underscores the need to read such works critically, attending to the assumptions and rhetorical strategies that shape their claims.

Reading how Winship quietly sorted the Jukes from the Edwards, I remembered my grandmother’s shelf, where dusty volumes argued about worth and upbringing. It felt like that old ache again—the same one I found in The school and society — Story, Setting & Ideas, where children’s hands and chalk dust seemed so fragile against grand theories. Both left me staring out the window, wondering what my own two families taught me.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

How will you remember this book?

Save your reaction, strongest insight, and memorable passage.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Where are you in your reading?

2

Did this book hold your interest?

3

Would you pass this book on to a friend?

4

What was the reading difficulty like?

Related eBooks