3 1 ] ME THOD OF IN VES TIG A TION 3 ! 



previously who did not fully measure up to the standard 

 required for admission to the list. The names of authors 

 whose importance seemed doubtful were carefully indi- 

 cated. A third revision, not less thorough than the others, 

 determined with a considerable degree of certainty what 

 names were to be included in the final roll. Attention 

 naturally centered on names of doubtful importance. To 

 avoid all possibility of bias, however, every name, whether 

 doubtful or not, was carefully considered a fourth time. 

 The final list was found to contain one thousand and six 

 names. 



The investigator had made no conscious attempt to ob- 

 tain exactly one thousand names. He had no idea whether 

 he would have nine hundred or eleven hundred names in 

 the final list. Inasmuch, however, as the number obtained 

 was so near one thousand, it seemed desirable to reduce the 

 list to that number to facilitate calculations. The names of 

 five authors of children's stories were finally selected for 

 elimination, because judged to be the least important on the 

 roll. They were found only in Kirk's work, the least im- 

 portant of the sources used. It would have been useless to 

 retain them, for no biographical facts about the authors 

 were available. The other name eliminated was that of a 

 man who never put pen to paper as an author, but who dic- 

 tated an account of King Philip's war, a narrative valued 

 solely for its historical significance. Since this man was 

 the only person on the list who did that kind of literary 

 work, it seemed reasonable that he should be the sixth per- 

 son to be dropped from the roll, particularly as there were 

 apparently no other authors who could be considered less 

 important. 



The facts noted during the compilation of the list of 

 names facilitated division of the literati, during these sur- 

 veys, into two classes, those of major and those of minor 



