374 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



'Dictionary' a second time, therefore, 1 modified my list in accordance 

 with a new rule, to the effect that biographies occupying less than 

 three pages might he included if the writers seemed to consider that 

 their subjects had shown intellectual ability of a high order, and that 

 those occupying more space might be excluded if the writers considered 

 that their subjects displayed no high intellectual ability. At the same 

 time, I eliminated those persons who rank chiefly as villains (like 

 Titus Oates), and have little claim to the possession of any eminent 

 degree of intellectual ability. I have also felt compelled to exclude 

 women (like Lady Hamilton) whose fame is not due to intellectual 

 ability, but to beauty and to connection with eminent persons. 



So far as possible, it will be seen, I have sought to subordinate 

 my own private judgment in making the selection. It has been my 

 object to place the list, so far as possible, on an objective basis. At 

 the same time, it is evident that, while I only reserved to myself a 

 casting vote on doubtful points, there is necessarily a certain proportion 

 of cases where this personal vote had to be given. A purely mechanical 

 method of making selections would necessarily lead to various absurd- 

 ities, and all that I can claim is that the principles of selection I have 

 adopted have involved a minimum of interference on my part. It is 

 certainly true that, even after much consideration and repeated 

 revision, I remain myself still in doubt regarding a certain proportion 

 of people included in my list and a certain proportion omitted. How- 

 ever often I went through the 'Dictionary/ I know that I should each 

 time make a few trifling readjustments, and any one else who took 

 the trouble to go over the ground I have traversed would likewise 

 wish to make readjustments. But I am convinced that if my principles 

 of selection are accepted, the margin for such readjustment is narrow. 



I must here remark that a slightly lower standard of ability has 

 been demanded from the women selected than from the men. It was not 

 my desire that this should be so, and in the first list the same standard 

 was demanded from women as from men. But it soon became clear 

 that this was not practicable. On account of the greater rarity of 

 intellectual ability in women, they have often played a large part in 

 the world on the strength of achievements which would not have 

 allowed a man to play a similarly large part. It seemed, again, impos- 

 sible to exclude various women of powerful and influential personality, 

 though their achievements were not always considerable; I allude to 

 such persons as Hannah More and Mrs. Montague. Even Mrs. Somer- 

 ville, the only feminine representative of science in my list, could 

 scarcely be included were she not a woman, for she was little more 

 than the accomplished popularizer of scientific results. In one depart- 

 ment, and one only, the women seem to be little, if at all, inferior to 

 the men in ability; that is in acting. 



