Apeil 10, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



569 



strong, the phlegmatic man is slow and 

 strong, the sanguine man is quick and 

 weak, the melancholic or sentimental man 

 is slow and weak. But any one of these 

 types may be broad or narrow, and this 

 seems to be as characteristic a distinction 

 as quickness or intensity. Further, these 

 characteristics may vary in different de- 

 grees ; the men called phlegmatic are slow, 

 but not to the same extent ; they vary more 

 in strength and still more in breadth. 



The descriptive terms that follow have 

 been selected from a large collection that 

 I haVe made and are intended to cover 

 the ground as completely as may be with 

 a limited number. The whole plan is as 

 yet tentative and is doubtless open to im- 

 provement toward Avhich I shall welcome 

 any suggestions. 



It is my intention to grade and to ask 

 others to grade scientific men for these 

 various qualities. It is not necessary to 

 enter here into details of method. I sub- 

 mit, however, on the table the grades that 

 have been given to five of those entitled 

 to be present at this dinner. The grades 

 were assigned independently by twelve ob- 

 servers acquainted with the men, and have 

 been adjusted and distributed on the sup- 

 position that the group of individuals and 

 the distribution of the traits represented 

 average values. The grades are ai'ranged 

 on a scale of one hundred and probable 

 errors are attached. The probable errors, 

 though assigned by the usual formula, are, 

 I think, too small; but they are correct 

 relatively and show which traits are judged 

 with greatest unanimity. We have seen 

 that there are about 4,000 scientific men 

 in the United States. A grade of 100 for 

 efficiency means that the man is thought 

 to stand among the forty most efficient 

 scientific men of the country. A grade 

 of 26 for integrity does not mean that a 

 man is not honest, but that this trait is 



less marked in him than in three fourths 

 of scientific men. 



It may seem unkind, even inhuman, to 

 grade men as though they were prize cattle 

 at a county fair. It is sometimes said 

 that modern science has banished mystery, 

 romance and beauty from the world. But 

 this is not true. The physician smokes too 

 much, the obstetrician falls in love, and 

 even the psychologist makes a fool of him- 

 self much as any other man. The rain- 

 bow is not less beautiful because Iris has 

 been pierced by the refracted rays from 

 the sun, nor is the universe less grand be- 

 cause Phoebus and his horses have fallen 

 before the law of gravitation and the con- 

 cept of order. We can not now design 

 cathedrals, but we can build steamships 

 and bridges that are beautiful. 



It is our business to make both a science 

 and an art of human nature. As in the 

 physical world we select first the material 

 suited to our purpose, then turn the iron 

 into steel and temper the steel for the 

 knife, so in the world of human action we 

 must learn to select the right man, to 

 educate him and to fit him for his exact 

 task. This indeed we try to do in all our, 

 social institutions, religions, commerce, sys- 

 tems of education and government. But 

 we work by the rule of thumb— blind, deaf 

 and wasteful. The nineteenth century- 

 witnessed an extraordinary increase in our 

 knowledge of the material world and in 

 our power to make it subservient to our 

 ends; the twentieth century will probably 

 witness a corresponding increase in our 

 knowledge of human nature and in our 

 power to use it for our welfare. 



Lest, in spite of sporadic efforts to the 

 contrary, this address makes the impression 

 of a scientific paper rather than of an after 

 dinner speech, I shall conclude with cer- 

 tain speculations which may or may not be 

 upheld by an inductive study. It seems to 

 me that scientific men suffer in character 



