JULT 29, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



157 



present work is a suggested metliod for incor- 

 porating, with due weight, observations addi- 

 tional to those upon which the catalogue re- 

 sults are based, thus, for a time at least, keep- 

 ing it abreast of ever accruing observation. 

 In contrast with this laudable innovation is the 

 author's marked conservatism at other points, 

 e. g., in adhering to the system of star magni- 

 tudes established by Argelander in preference 

 to the results of more modern photometric re- 

 search, and in refusing to credit, even when 

 extraneously confirmed, the result of his own 

 investigation, that the fainter component of 

 a binary star may be more massive than its 

 brighter companion. 



But criticism of the volume must be of 

 very minor character and extent. In plan 

 and execution the work must long stand as a 

 monument to its distinguished author and a 

 worthy first fruit of the Department of Meri- 

 dian Astrometry of the Carnegie Institution 

 of Washington, destined to stand as the court 

 of first instance for the determination of dis- 

 puted matters of stellar motion, such as the 

 excessive average motion of stars remote from 

 the galaxy; the two group theory of the stellar 

 system, etc. While in the volume itself, a 

 prudent reticence is maintained with respect 

 to such applications, there is extraneous sug- 

 gestion of discord to come. 



George C. Comstock 



Uls'IVEBSITT OF WISCONSIN 



SPECIAL ARTICLES 

 A STUDY OF THE METHODS OP DETERMmHSTG FAME 



Some time ago I became interested in the 

 study of historiometry (quantitative history). 

 In this connection I undertook some research 

 work in the family records of celebrated 

 Americans along lines laid down by Dr. F. A. 

 Woods in his " Heredity in Royalty " (New 

 York, 1906). 



The question at once arose, which are the 

 hundred, the seventy-five, or the fifty leading 

 American names? In short, which families 

 should be studied? The object in seeking the 

 leading names, of course, was not the list per 

 se but to secure a basis for further study. 

 This study will include the traits and char- 



acteristics of ancestors and descendants, their 

 birthplaces, education, achievements, etc. The 

 material lies for the most part in histories and 

 biographies. These " measurements in his- 

 tory " statistically and objectively treated, and 

 followed by scientific analysis of causes, con- 

 stitute " historiometry." (Woods.)' 



The Hall of Fame movement, so far as it 

 goes, would seem on account of the remarkable 

 personnel of the electors, their geographical 

 distribution and other considerations, to af- 

 ford an easy way out of the difiiculty. Un- 

 doubtedly the electors have done a great work 

 which in general the thinking public must 

 accept. Certain peculiarities disclosed in the 

 Hall of Fame reports, however, together with 

 the fact that the Hall of Fame selections in- 

 clude only a very limited number of names, 

 led to a search for some other methods of 

 rating fame. Several objective methods have 

 been proposed. A desire to learn how some 

 of these methods compare, led myself and 

 others to undertake a test by means of tabular 

 comparison. 



We thought it would be instructive to com- 

 pare the Hall of Fame electoral votes with two 

 objective methods. The first method taken 

 was a so-called adjective method and the sec- 

 ond was the space method. The " adjective 

 method " of determining fame, as we applied 

 it, consists in simply counting the descriptive 

 adjectives of praise applied to the name in a 

 given work or number of works. The adjec- 

 tive method in another form has been suc- 

 cessfully employed by Woods. The space 

 method consists in counting the lines of space 

 devoted to this name in a given work or group 

 of works. This method has been successfully 

 employed by Cattell and Ellis. 



Upon referring to the totals of the votes 

 cast by the electors we find that 50 American- 

 born men have received more than 30 votes 

 (in case a name has been voted on twice, the 

 second total only is considered here). The 

 four reference titles chosen as being fairly 

 representative were Lippincott's " Pronounc- 

 ing Biographical Dictionary" (Thomas), 

 Jameson's " Dictionary of U. S. History," 



^ See Science, November 19, 1909. 



