well worth while to compare with the variability of many individuals the variability of a single individual from the average of his own judgments. This was done by Cattell for a considerable number of psychologists. We should then have a measure of constancy in judgment that would have a not uninteresting psychological bearing. A single judgment is subject not only to error from the average judgment of other individuals, but from the average judgment of the individual himself. Large and small m.v.'s may be the product of variations along either of these lines. We are all probably very much surer of our relative preferences for lobster Newberg and fried oysters than of our preferences for Emerson and Hawthorne; yet these very differences in taste might produce as large an m.v. in one case as in the other. For some purposes of analysis the median has seemed a better measure than the average. It was somewhat discredited in the results of Cattell, but is of more value here on account of the larger number of measures. The average is here also relatively less valid because the number of possible positions is limited to ten, whereas it was there in the negative direction practically unlimited. In the present results there is almost no distribution in which the author does not receive a grade in either first or last place, and when the grades are banked up against first or last place, the average is obviously too low or too high, probably more so than the median. However, it is of no particular consequence which we use so far as order is concerned, for the two orders are almost identical, the divergences that occur being well within the limits of chance variation. The accompanying tables give the main results of the experiment in the median and average order and position of the authors in general merit and the qualities. In general merit the writers fall into three groups, separated by considerable distances, three at the top, three in the middle, and four at the bottom. Between the three at the top there is little difference to speak of, between I and II practically none at all. The median of II is considerably higher than that of I, and it is very possible that his true position is higher than I. Such constant error as might result from prejudice would perhaps operate more against II. Each has six grades in first place, and none in last. It is quite anomalous that the differences should be greater in the middle group than at the ends; although the p.e.'s are not of the smallest they fail to overlap at all; the chances are over 16-1 that the order given is correct. The narrow mathematical limits of variability might account in a measure for the small p.e.'s at the ends, and perhaps also for the small differences in position, which are equally striking; but only in a small measure, for this condition does not obtain in the quality grades, nor in Hawthorne I. Poe II. 56 Emerson III. Lowell IV. Longfellow V. Irving 2. I Bryant Thoreau 8. Holmes 8. 2.5 2.2 5. 3. 1.5 4.5 2. I.2 2.7 2.7 3.7 6.9 2.9 2. I 1.3 5.1 6.1 Medians 5.5 4.7 5.5 5. 5.8 5.16. 5.9 5.5 5.2 4.8 5.3 MEDIAN ORDERS. POSITIONS DISPLACED FROM AVERage Order are GIVEN IN ITALICS. other relative position work that has been done with even smaller series than 10. Between the positions of VI and VII is another long step, 1.4 between positions, .8 between limits of p.e.'s, and VII again fails to overlap the p.e. of VIII. From here until X's position at 8.4 the steps are about equal. It is thus seen that we have no man who is so distinctly at the head of American writers as one is found among contemporary Astronomers, Psychologists and Pathologists. It is perhaps a fair inference that enlargement of a group may decrease differences at the top by bringing more of the leaders into conflict. There is no doubt that a certain department of American letters could have been found in which III would have reigned supreme, and the differences between and II could have been much increased, in either direction, by narrowing the field of literary work to be considered. It is beyond dispute that there would be more disagreement about the order and less about the identity of the five greatest poets of the world than the five greatest poets of France. Such a condition is probably to be expected in all walks of life. There is a limit to the realization of human powers fixed by opportunity and other environmental factors. "Es wird dafür gesorgt," says the German proverb, "dass die Bäume nicht in den Himmel wachsen." If we artificially limited to 140 ft. the height of a tree ordinarily growing to 150 ft., we should find more trees at 140 than at 135. It acts in the same way as any other limitation of a normal distribution, crowding the extreme cases together. This is probably a reasonable alternative to the supposition of genius as a separate group. Though the peculiar conditions noted above do not generally obtain in the qualities, these present certain other points of interest. In Charm there is a group slightly above the middle position, the increases and decreases from which show nothing anomalous. The author in first place, VI, is ordinarily noted for his Charm, and the fact that he is so hard pressed by I may mean that he is so noted more than he deserves. He is graded rather for its prominence relative to his own other qualities. Clearness again gives us two positions at the top, VI and V, and widely separated from the next five, who form the largest single group in the results. The p.e.'s are unusually large. It is also peculiar that the lowest individual in the quality III, has also the largest p.e. in it, the only case among the qualities where the last p. e. is not smaller than the average. Euphony has one of the widest ranges and is among the smallest p.e.'s. The leader, II, and the last, X, are a long distance from any of their fellows, while the remainder fall into two groups, the upper of five and the lower of three, separated by an interval of nearly a place. The distribution in Finish is a composite of those in Clearness and Euphony, there being two leaders, I and II, and a distinct last place, X, as in Clearness, without the closely packed group of that quality. Force again has a distinct leader, III, but the remainder trail behind with no characteristic variations in successive distance. The same is true of Imagination except that there are two leaders, II and I, though the difference between them is itself not inconsiderable. There is a marked group as in Clearness, but here centered at a position lower than the average. In Originality the first four positions, II, I, III, and VIII, are established well beyond the limits of p.e. Then comes a closely packed group of four, and separated from these by an interval of about a place are the two lowest positions. The distribution is quite similar to that of Imagination. Proportion resembles so closely the distribution of Charm that the same may be said of them in essential, save that in Proportion there is not so distinct a grouping. In Sympathy, whose range is also of the smallest, the p.e.'s all overlap save for the considerable break between 6th and 7th positions. In Wholesomeness the first nine are distributed over a very small range, and the tenth-II in general meritbrings up the rear with the largest difference and one of the smallest p.e.'s of the results. The final figure gives the average position and average p.e. of each place in the above qualities, irrespective of the author holding it. The first and second positions are, as a rule, determined with some certainty, as is also the last. In all the remainder the p.e.'s show a slight and very constant overlapping. The p.e.'s have been calculated by the simple formula advocated .845 A. D. vn-1 in Cattell's Statistics of American Psychologists, i. e., p.e. = They are, as has been noted, probably smaller than is representative of the actual reliability of the determinations. It will be noted, however, that they are quite consistently larger in the qualities than for |