far from indifferent to their responsibility.

It must be understood that the "family of Jonathan Edwards" includes not
only his descendants, but the men who married into the family and whose
children became descendants of Mr. Edwards. At first this may not seem
the proper interpretation, but there is no other that is legitimate. In
the case of the "Jukes" Mr. Dugdale includes in the family both the men
and the women who married into the family, but in the case of Mr.
Edwards there is no call to include the women who thus came into the
family, and it would have magnified the study needlessly.

Until quite recently there has been no way to discover the standing of
married women in American life except as we know the social, scholastic,
and professional position of their husbands. In most families a
son-in-law becomes a representative factor of a family. Therefore,
whenever the "Edwards family" is spoken of it includes the sons-in-law,
but it does not include the daughters-in-law, nor does it go beyond
Jonathan Edwards to include his brothers and sisters or their
descendants.

The "Jukes" had no inherited capacity or training upon which they could
safely presume. Their only chance lay in nursing every germ of hope by
means of industry and education, through the discipline of the shop,
the training of the schools, and the inspiration of the church. Did
they appreciate this? Far from it. Instead of developing capacity by
training, not one of the 1,200 secured even a moderate education, and
only twenty of them ever had a trade, and ten of these learned it in the
state prison.

On the other hand, although the Edwards family inherited abundant