Apeil 14, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



573 



made and then Euripides suif ers ; for instance, 

 as when Gilbert Murray says : 



No wonder Sophocles won four times as many 

 prizes as Euripedes. . . . Sophocles shows at times 

 one high power which but few of the world's 

 poets share with him. ... in the second CEdipus 

 there is a certain depth of calm feeling unfet- 

 tered by any movement of mere intellect, which 

 at times makes the subtlest and boldest work oi 

 Euripides seem "young man's poetry" by com- 

 parison. 



It ean be easily seen that this general im- 

 pression can be checked up and is unfailingly 

 expressed by each ratio of the adjectives of 

 praise (pro) against those of dispraise (con). 

 For every single authority consulted the 

 answer is the same, — the proportionate ratio 

 favors Sophocles.* 



The " space method " fails here to give a 

 verdict agreeing with modern and ancient 

 opinion probably for special reasons peculiar 

 to the case. 'More plays of Euripides are ex- 

 tant and there is more to be said in the way of 

 adverse or qualifying criticism. It is not to 

 be denied that the interest in Euripides is, 

 and always has been, intense, perhaps greater 

 than in Sophocles, but the position of the lat- 

 ter is more majestic and more sublime. The 

 lexicons alone would have given this conclu- 

 sion in a few minutes reading. All these facts, 

 in connection with those taken from Lippin- 

 cott's dictionary, indicate that the " adjective 

 method " is a very delicate way of measuring 

 small differences if for any reason it is desir- 

 able to do so. 



The questions here touched upon concern 

 only the individuals, but I know from mate- 

 rial as yet unpublished that the quantitative 

 objective method can be applied to events as 

 well as to persons. If its validity for the 

 study of individuals can be securely grounded, 

 then its application to events will naturally 

 follow and will be thereby the more easily and 

 surely established. 



Space has permitted only a brief abstract, 

 but I think that enough has been given to 

 prove that researches of this nature furnish 



*Iu this part of the work I have had the assist- 

 ance of Mr. A. A. Jenkins, of the Harvard Law 

 School. 



harmony and order, intertwine and mutually 

 support each other, form an organic structure, 

 and are entitled to recognition among the 

 exact sciences. It must be remembered that 

 exactitude in science is a relative term. Ab- 

 stract mathematics may be exact, but no sci- 

 ence of physical measurement is really exact. 

 Astronomy, which is usually thought of in this 

 way, only gives an approach towards an ever- 

 expanding ideal. No two observers have ever 

 quite agreed upon the latitude of the Green- 

 wich observatory and the last transit of Venus 

 was, if I remember rightly, in comparison 

 with the computed prediction, some eleven 

 seconds off. All we ask is that the exactitude 

 shall be sufficient for the practical needs of the 

 problem in hand. 



I think it must be agreed that this first 

 synthesis and coordination of isolated re- . 

 searches presents a very encouraging picture. 

 It indeed gives proof that a workable in- 

 strument has been obtained capable not only 

 of dealing with questions as intricate as human 

 nature and its attributes, but actually at the 

 same time demonstrating the essential validity 

 of the historical data on which are based the 

 percentile grades, ratios, correlations or other 

 super-structure. This latter conception is to 

 me the most interesting side of the whole mat- 

 ter. It has usually been impossible to scien- 

 tifically refute those critics who claim that the 

 so-called facts of history are so uncertain and 

 subject to so great an error and prejudice that 

 it is unsafe to build conclusions upon them by 

 statistical methods. They have not of course 

 ever known that such was the ease nor have 

 they ever had any way of estimating how far 

 the records of history, as they exist in standard 

 works, encyclopedias and biographical diction- 

 aries, actually deviate from the absolute truth. 

 It has been assumed, on the other hand, by 

 those who have been engaged in grading his- 

 torical characters, that the records represent a 

 fair approximation towards the ideal truth. 

 The human record which we call history 

 stands somewhere between two extremes, some- 

 where between the quagmire of complete false- 

 hood and heights of perfect truth. It is possi- 

 ble as we go on to appreciate, with closer and 



