Age and Achievement 9781400886753

Citation preview

Age and Achievement

MEMOIRS OF THE AMERICAN PIDLOSOPIDCAL SOCIETY HELD AT PHIT.ADELPIllA FOR PROMOTING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE VOLUME

33

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

BY HARVEY C. LEHMAN

PUBLISHED FOR THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

1953

Copyright, 1953, by the American Philosophical Society London: Geoffrey Cumbeilege, Oxford University Press L. C. Card 52-13159

Princeton Legacy Library edition 2017 Paperback ISBN: 978-0-691-62712-0 Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-691-62879-0

Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

^ Foreword IN MY JUDGMENT Lehman's work deserves to be ranked among the most

important contributions that have thus far been made to the literature of genius. The author has confined himself almost exclusively to a single aspect of the genius problem, the quality and quantity of creative out­ put in relation to age, and in twenty years of meticulous research he has explored this with a thoroughness never before attempted. Xt is difficult to see how more valid basic data could have been obtained or how the statistical treatment could have been materially improved. Lehman has established with reasonable finality, and for many fields of endeavor, the age levels at which man's most creative work has been done. The facts set forth are so challenging, in both their scientific and practical implications, that their publication can be expected to stimulate further research on some of the problems the author has raised. As ex­ amples of the many types of investigations that suggest themselves I venture to list the following as among the most promising: 1. Psychological studies of the reasons for differences in average age at which peak performance is reached in various fields. Why, for example, the early peak in mathematics and chemistry and the much later peak in geology, biology, and the social sciences? Why the difference in age peaks for the several kinds of literary production? Surely there are other approaches to these problems than armchair speculation. 2. Investigation of the extent to which the interests, preoccupations, and tested abilities of the teen-age period are predictive of adult capacity for creative achievement in particular fields. It is hardly to be doubted that better methods of early identification of the highly gifted could re­ duce substantially the present wastage of superior talent. 3. Research on methods of speeding up the training of gifted youths so as to prepare them earlier for creative work and thereby lengthen their total span of productive years. At present many students of science are not made ready for independent research until several of their potentially best years have been passed. 4. Clinical studies—preferably by teams composed of psychologists, psychiatrists, and geriatric medical specialists—of contrasting groups of creative persons, including (a) individuals whose productivity declined early and rapidly, and (b) others who have remained productive to a much later age. Such contrasting groups can be found in the faculty of any large university. An important feature of the clinical approach would be the study of motivations in the individual and how these are affected both by specific influences of the immediate environment and by the larger social and cultural trends characteristic of the given time or place. ν

FOREWORD

5. Psychometric studies to supplement and parallel the clinical ap­ proach. Although it is true, as Lehman has stated in his final chapter, that mental tests have not thrown much Hght on reasons for the decline of productivity in the later years, it does not follow that the psychometric approach to the problem should be abandoned. Perhaps, instead, it should be more extensively cultivated, especially along the lines of Thurstone's factorial methods. 6. As a final example of the kinds of research that Lehman's work should stimulate, I wish to suggest the desirability of cooperative studies —by teams of social scientists—of the social effects likely to result from the increasing age at which positions of leadership are now attained as compared with a hundred or two hundred years ago. There is reason to suspect that a continuation of the present trend could profoundly affect the direction as well as the speed of our social, political, and industrial progress. There is little that is novel in the above list of suggestions. Awareness of most of the problems has been exhibited by writers in many fields, in­ cluding psychologists, gerontologists, sociologists, and historians. Un­ fortunately, with the exception of problems 2 and 5, scientific investiga­ tions are almost entirely lacking. It is to be hoped that the publication of Lehman's studies will inspire new and concerted research that in time will add materially to our knowledge of man's creativity and how to make the most of it LEWIS M. TERMAN

^ Preface IN THIS BOOK I have attempted to do just one thing, namely, to set forth

the relationship between chronological age and outstanding performances. It would have been gratifying indeed had I been able also to reveal the relationship between achievement and various other kinds of aging: bio­ logical, anatomical, physiological, pathological, and psychological. Need­ less to say, the information at hand has not warranted any such attempt. The subject of age in relation to notable achievement is one in which I have been interested for many years. What follows is limited to this topic and is not primarily concerned with: (1) the rate at which ability per se decays with age, (2) pointing out the values of the young man to business firms or other organizations, (3) urging young meη to achieve before they have passed their prime, (4) advocating an accel­ erated school program for gifted pupils, (5) ascertaining the factors that have influenced some individuals to be highly creative once or twice only and others to be highly creative throughout their entire lives, (6) describing the complexity of the conditions that give rise to creativeness, (7) determining the extent to which the structure of our western civiliza­ tion produces the age-curves as we find them, (8) discussing the employability of elderly persons or their morbidity and mortality rates, or (9) the possibility that the data included herein could be used as propa­ ganda by those who espouse either larger pensions or lower age limits for old-age pensioners. In limiting myself to a single topic, I do not mean to imply that the other topics mentioned above are not worthy of serious and prolonged study. The restricted nature of what follows is due solely to the fact that I do not possess the kind of factual information that would justify me in attempting to deal with these several related subjects. This being the case, in the pages that follow factual data are set forth regarding age and notable achievement without exploring causes and without trying to discuss the innumerable possible implications. Creativity as a function of anything is certainly a psychological prob­ lem. It is also a field of sociology, since social factors are surely involved. As a function of chronological age creativeness is also related to biology, since maturation is basically a biological phenomenon. At the present time we simply do not know enough about the human organism to be able to give a complete or even a tentative explanation of our findings. When we know the last word about creativeness, we may possibly find that subtle biochemical changes are a factor of crucial importance in deter­ mining the shapes of our age-curves. In the preparation of this book I have had the assistance of a majority

PREFACE

of the most distinguished thinkers of Christendom, for it was the creative achievements of these intellectual giants that provided the data here used for the construction of numerous age-curves. Most immediate has been the unwitting collaboration of the numerous mature and expert scholars who compiled chronologies. These compilers represent many different backgrounds of experience, points of view, geographical Iocalities3 and institutions. And always their chronologies were compiled for some other purpose than that for which they have been used in this book. For the names of those who achieved so greatly within their own spe­ cial fields, for the dates of their specific achievements, and for their birth and death dates, I am indebted to more individuals than I can possibly enumerate. One reason for this is that the compiler of a specialized chro­ nology has often obtained the help of his professional colleagues to such an extent that the resultant chronology is the work of a host of individuals, many of whom have received no formal mention or acknowledgment in the published chronology. In general, the effort herein has been to assemble the very best basic data on the topic of age and achievement that it has been possible to collect at the present time. In reporting the findings, effort has been made to be as objective as possible and to make the report reasonably complete. On the whole, the findings seem to be consistent. With so many different samples, criteria, purposes, and individual judgments, such consistency could hardly have been anticipated. Despite the widely varying types of data-gathering devices employed by my numerous unwitting collaborators, the findings presented herein supplement and validate one another sur­ prisingly well. Whatever else this book may reveal, it suggests that out­ standing intellectual achievement depends far less upon mere length of life, or upon the number of years a particular individual has been work­ ing within a particular field, than might have been supposed. While both lifelong longitudinal and also cross-sectional data are in­ cluded in this volume, I have used data obtained by use of the longitudinal method whenever it was possible to do so. And, although many of the chronologies of individual achievement employed herein were published by individual experts, a consensus of expert opinion was em­ ployed whenever possible. Not least among those responsible for the preparation of this book is the individual, known to me only by the pseudonym, Helen Nelson, whose inadequate and somewhat emotional discussion of man's creative years (134)1 evoked the series of studies that have culminated in the present volume. There is also the indirect aid of many colleagues and 1 Quotations and references throughout this book are accompanied by numbers which identify complete references found in the bibliography of references on pp

333-341.

PREFACE

other contemporaries who, either by written communication or by word of mouth, have broadened and deepened my perspective. Indeed, so great has been the help of others that I can scarcely exaggerate it. Although the chronologies of mighty thinkers and their outstanding achievements to which I had access often provided the birth and the death dates of many of the notable contributors, this information needed to be supplemented in many instances. Thus, for the birth and death dates of numerous chemists the writer is indebted to Miss Eva V. Arm­ strong, curator of the Edgar F. Smith Memorial Collection in the History of Chemistry of the University of Pennsylvania. In obtaining the birth and death dates of medical contributors I received valuable help from Professor John F. Fulton of the School of Medicine of Yale University, and for biographical information regarding outstanding contributors to mathe­ matics help was received from Dr. Eric T. Bell of the California Institute of Technology. Among others I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Thomas P. Martin, former assistant archivist of the Library of Congress, and to Mr. David C. Mearns, former director of the Reading Rooms of the Library of Congress, for their cordial hospitality and competent aid on the several occasions when I visited the Library for research in connection with this project. Although the collaboration of several faculty colleagues is acknowledged in the body of this book, in order to give adequate credit for help received from my faculty colleagues the names of half of the faculty of Ohio University would need to be listed. For supplying information regarding champion golfers I am grateful to Mr. R. E. Treacy, former secretary of the Professional Golfers' Asso­ ciation of America, to Commander R. C. T. Roe, secretary of the Profes­ sional Golfers' Association of England, and to Mr. Robert E. Harlow, editor of the Golf World. Information regarding automobile champions was supplied by Mr. Τ. E. Allen, secretary of the Contest Board of the American Automobile Association, and by Mr. Τ. E. Myers and Mr. E. S. Dallenbach of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation. The official positions of the following individuals will reveal the kinds of information supplied by them: Mr. Eli Whitney and Mr. Ε. H. Baumgarten of the American Bowling Congress; Mr. George L. Isemann, for­ mer secretary of the National Duck Pin Bowling Congress; Mr. Chas. C. Peterson of the National Billiard Association of America; Mr. Ε. V. Moss, executive secretary of the United States Lawn Tennis Association; Mr. Fred A. Martin, secretary-treasurer of the Roller Skating Rink Operators Association of America; Mr. Terry Ramsaye, editor of the Motion Picture Herald; Colonel M. E. Reckord, former executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association; and Mr. Joseph T. Labrum, assistant to the commissioner of the National Football League.

PREFACE

I am indebted also to Mr. Henr)7 Clanahan, general counsel of the Edison Company, for assembling and forwarding information supple­ menting the information included in Edison's official biography. Data for champion corn huskers were supplied by the following editors of the farm publications which sponsored the corn husking contests held in the several cornbelt states: Mr. Berry H. Akers, editor of The Farmer, St. Paul, Minn.; Mr. E. H. McMunn, associate editor of The Ohio Farmer; Mr, Ray Bates and Mr. M. C. Gregory, editors of The Prairie Farmer1 Chicago; Mr. Tom Leadley and Mr. Henry W. Biedermann, editor and associate editor, re­ spectively, of The Nebraska Farmer; and Mr. Tudor Charles, associate editor of The Kansas Farmer. Among my former students who helped to assemble data, special mention should be made of Miss Dorothy Hilty, Miss Mary Blaschak, Miss Olga Yaroshuk, Mrs. Ruth Burt Korb, Mr. David W. Cassat, Mr, Ian Gill, and others. In preparing this book, I have drawn heavily upon the work of my col­ leagues and predecessors. To Professors Walter R. Miles, Sidney L. Pressey, Herbert Sorenson, Edward L. Thorndike, Harold E. Jones, Herbert S. Con­ rad, Raymond G. Kuhlen, George Lawton, and many others, I am grateful for the contributions they have made to a better understanding of age dif­ ferences during maturity. To Professors William Fielding Ogburn, Robert S. Woodworth, and the late James McKeen Cattell, acknowledgment is made for their continued interest and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Professor Lewis M. Terman who read the entire manuscript several times prior to its publication and who not only encouraged me to write this book but also made invaluable suggestions with reference to organization, inclusions, and deletions. For permission to reprint, in whole or in part, previously published material, acknowledgment is made to the following journals: The Scientific Monthly, Science, The Psychological Review, Social Forces, The Journal of Applied Psychology, The American Journal of Psychology, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, The Journal of Social Psychology, The English Journal, The American Journal of Sociology, and The Research Quarterly. Gratitude is expressed also to the authors whose work is cited and to the editors and publishers who granted permission to use the quotations. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the federal National Youth Ad­ ministration of almost twenty years ago, for without NYA student help this series of studies would never have been undertaken. The finan­ cial assistance of the Grants-in-Aid Committee of the Social Science Research Council is also gratefully acknowledged. Last, but not least, I wish to express my thanks to President John C. Baker of Ohio University for his interest and encouragement, and to the Research Committee of χ

PREFACE

Ohio University for providing a grant from the Ohio University Fund to pay for the inking of the graphs and for the final typing of the manu­ script. To Professor Edwin G. Boring I wish to express my gratitude for what he did in bringing my manuscript to the attention of the Committee on Publications of the American Philosophical Society, and for his sug­ gestion that the summary chapter be written. When I was writing the final chapter and particularly when I was try­ ing to list the possible causes for the early maxima in creativity and the causes for the older ages of leaders, Boring, Terman and I had what was to me a delightful and profitable three-way correspondence. In men­ tioning this I am not trying to evade my responsibility for what is said in chapter 20 but am merely trying to express my genuine appreciation for some much-needed assistance that I received from two able and generous men. I am happy to express here also my sincere gratitude to my wife, Lydia C. Lehman, who cared for innumerable details during the preparation of the manuscript and who provided much encouragement as well. HABVEY C. LEHMAN

Athens, Ohio January 21, 1953

Contents Foreword

v

Préfacé

vii

I, AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

1. In Science

3

2. In Medieine, Surgery, and Related Fields

22

3. In Philosophy

3g

4. In Music

54

5. In Art

70

6. In Literature

86

IL QUALITY VERSUS Q U A N T I T Y

7. Of Literary Output

103

8. "Best Books"

121

9. In Other Fields

134

III. T H E RANGE OF T H E CREATIVE YEARS

10. Age and Maximum Income

147

11. Age and Leadership

162

12. Early Achievement and Total Output

179

13. Young Thinkers and Great Achievements

198

14. Older Thinkers and Great Achievements

220

15. Achievement by Decades

241

16. Peak Performance of Athlete and Thinker

253

IV. PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ACHIEVEMENT

17. Attainment of Leadership: Then and Now

269

18. Mans Most Creative Years: Then and Now

289

19. Increasing Longevity and Future Achievement

308

V. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

20. Summary and Interprétation.

324

Bibliography of Référencés

333

Index

343

Age and Achievement

1. In Science* WHAT AEE MAN S MOST CREATIVE YEARS? At what ages are men likely

to do their most outstanding work? In 1921 Professor Robert S. Woodworth, of Columbia University, published this statement in his book, Psychology: A Study of Mental Life: "Seldom does a very old person get outside the limits of his previous habits. Few great inventions, artistic or practical, have emanated from really old persons, and com­ paratively few even from the middle-aged. . . . The period from twenty years up to forty seems to be the most favorable for inventiveness." (200, p. 519) Writing under the fictitious name, Helen Nelson, an author whose article appears in the American Journal of Psychology, takes vigorous exception to Woodworth's foregoing assertion. After arguing at length against it, Miss Nelson lists a number of individuals who did notable work after they had reached the age of forty. Presumably upon the basis of her citations, Miss Nelson concludes that "in the case of these great names at least, invention of the highest order, far from being in decay at forty, seems to be at very prime or just ready to begin." (134, p. 304) Assuming that the method by which one arrives at a conclusion is no less important than is the conclusion itself, let us see what is found when the inductive method is employed in the study of man's most creative years. Let us first examine the field of creative chemistry and attempt to answer the question whether chemists display more creative thinking at some chronological age levels than at others. In his book, A Concise History of Chemistry (88), Professor T. P. Hilditch, of the University of Liverpool, presents the names of several hundred noted chemists and the dates on which these chemists made their outstanding contributions to the science of chemistry. Subsequent personal correspondence with Professor Hilditch elicited the following statement regarding the dates of achievement: ". . . the dates given in my history as those in which contributions were made are simply the dates of first publication of the results in a scientific journal or similar medium. In general I would say that these dates would be within a year of the time when the discovery, etc., was actually made. The interval might be less than this, but would rarely be more." Professor Hilditch's book was chosen for study for several reasons. In the first place, Hilditch is an able worker in the field of chemistry and his institutional connection is above suspicion. It obviously would have ® This chapter is based upon an article which was published in The Scientific Monthly, August 1936, 43, 151-162.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

been an absurd and a wholly indefensible procedure for me to have at­ tempted to identify and to evaluate the work of noted chemists. But the mere fact that Hilditch is an able chemist was not deemed suf­ ficient; his judgment might be after all "only one man's opinion." As a check on this, his book was submitted to four different university teachers of chemistry for appraisal. These were unanimous in their judgment that the contributions listed by Hilditch form an essential part of the chemistry panorama. On the basis of the collective judgments of these four advisers, I concluded that Hilditch's list is probably a fair and adequate sampling of outstanding achievements in the field of creative chemistry. There is a second reason for utilizing the list of achievements set forth by Hilditch. When he was selecting important contributions in the field of chemistry, Professor Hilditch obviously was not studying age dif­ ferences in creativity, and presumably was not even thinking of age differences. This fact is of considerable importance insofar as the present study is concerned. Certainly, when studying the creativeness of persons of different chronological ages, an investigator should divest himself of all bias for or against any particular age group, and this impartial attitude is most likely to be attained when the compiler of a list of outstanding achievements is thinking solely of outstanding achievement. If each age group is to be judged fairly it is necessary to take account of a number of other things. For example, one must consider the number of individuals alive at each successive age level. If more men are alive at the younger than at the older age levels, the younger age groups might achieve more merely because of their greater numerical strength. Ade­ quate allowance for the unequal numbers of individuals alive at suc­ cessive age levels was therefore made in a manner that will be described below. One final word with reference to the problem of technique. It obviously is not possible to study the entire life work of individuals who are still living and achieving. In the first place, it is almost impossible to judge the actual significance of quite recent work. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what the living chemist will accomplish during his later years. This book includes, therefore, data for deceased chemists only. For these the record is reasonably complete and future events will probably change it only slightly if at all. When the birth dates of the chemists listed by Hilditch were ascer­ tained, insofar as data were available, it was possible to determine the ages at which the world's most renowned chemists made their most significant contributions, both theoretical and experimental, to the science of chemistry. A sample of the findings is set forth graphically in figure 1. Figure 1 presents, by five-year intervals, the chronological ages at which 244 chemists (now deceased) made 993 significant contributions to the

JN SCIENCE

science of chemistry. In studying figure 1 it should be borne in mind that it sets forth the average number of chemical contributions per five-year interval. Full and adequate allowance is thus made for the larger number of youthful workers. Unless otherwise specified, this statement applies to all of the graphs appearing in this book.

•100% -80

-60

-40 •20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG . 1. Average number of contributions by chemists during each five-year in­ terval of their lives. Based on 993 significant contributions by 244 chemists now deceased.

For example, it was found that for the five-year interval from 30 to 34 inclusive, the chemists made 201 contributions. This was slightly more than an annual average of .165 of a contribution per individual. The chemists that remained alive at 40 to 44 made only 137 contributions, which was slightly more than .115 of a contribution per living chemist. In figure 1 the curve is so drawn as to be only .115/.165 as high at 40 to 44 as at 30 to 34. The curve is drawn in this manner in order to show graphically that the average number of chemical contributions per living individual was only .115/.165 as large at 40 to 44 as it was at 30 to 34. If, regardless of the number of workers that remained alive, the 40to 44-year-old chemists had contributed at the same average rate as did the 30- to 34-year-old chemists, the curve in figure 1 would remain as high at the 40- to 44-year-old age level as it is at the 30- to 34-year-old level. Actually, it exhibits a very noticeable descent at the uppermost age levels. Why does this marked descent occur? A copy of figure 1 was mailed to Professor Hilditch. In commenting upon it, Professor Hilditch wrote as follows: "Frankly, I am surprised that your analysis of the data leads so clearly to the age range of about 30 to 35 being the most productive for chemists. One cannot, of course, dispute the accuracy of a mathematical analysis of this kind, and yet the results are contrary to what one would have anticipated.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

"I am not surprised that the maximum productivity should appear by about the age of 30, but I would have expected this maximum to be more or less sustained over the succeeding 20 or 25 years. I think it would be generally agreed amongst chemists that the productive type as a rule continues to develop and mature until well on into what is generally called the prime of life." The reader should understand clearly the very small margin by which the age group 30-34 exceeded the 35-39 group in rate of output. If the chemists' death rate had remained unchanged, and if the entire group of 244 chemists had made only 7 more of their 993 contributions at 35-39 and 7 fewer at 30-34, this very slight difference would have caused the peak of figure 1 to shift from 30-34 to 35-39. Since 7 contributions com­ prise less than 1% of the grand total of 993 chemistry contributions used for constructing figure 1, this recalculation signifies that postponement from 30-34 to 35-39 of less than 1% of the chemists' total life output would have caused the peak of figure 1 to occur 5 years later than it actually occurred. The above hypothetical finding arises from the two following facts:(1) The modal value of figure 1 includes not 100 per cent but only about 20 per cent of the total number of 993 chemistry contributions, and (2) near the peak of figure 1 both the rise and the decline in production rate are so gradual that in order to find any modal value at all it was necessary to group the data by five-year intervals. Even when such grouping was done the foregoing computation reveals that it would have required only a very slight shift in production rate during the thirties to have changed the modal age. Additional computation reveals similarly that if the 244 chemists had pro­ duced only 5 per cent more of their total output at ages 40-44, and 5 per cent less at ages 30-34 (all other five-year-interval production rates remaining unchanged) the resultant modal value would have occurred at 40-44 instead of at 30-34. These computations reveal that in contemplating figure 1 it is naive to suppose that the chemists' production rate ended suddenly. The decline is gradual at all the older ages—much more gradual than its onset. Indeed, the decrement is so gradual that one cannot place the maxi­ mum rate of production for chemists at any one specific year with as­ surance. In reading what follows the reader is asked to keep this caution in mind constantly, for it would be awkward to try to incorporate this qualification into each of the numerous descriptive statements that will be made in this book about age-curves. I requested several friends to explain why the curve in figure 1 rises so much more rapidly than it descends, and why it starts to descend so quickly after reaching its maximum. One of them suggested that the older chemists may have become more discriminating during their later years

IN SCIENCE

and may therefore have disdained to publish findings which they re­ garded as of minor importance. If this explanation were valid the con­ tributions of the older men should be superior in quality to the contribu­ tions of the young chemists. As a means of ascertaining the facts, three of my colleagues0 in the chemistry department of Ohio University were asked to select the 100 most important or most significant chemistry contributions listed in Hilditch's book. The three collaborators were asked to make their selections without consulting one another and to make them from the point of view of the chemist rather than that of the layman.

00% -80

-60 -40 -20

20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

FIG. 2. Age versus production in chemistry. Solid line, 52 of the greatest chemical discoveries, by 46 men now deceased. Broken line, 993 contributions of lesser average merit by 244 chemists now deceased.

The solid line of figure 2 presents the findings obtained by the foregoing procedure, i.e., for 52 contributions selected by two out of the three university chemistry teachers as among the 100 greatest contributions to chemistry of all time. The broken line of figure 2 is a reproduction of figure 1 and is placed in figure 2 for purposes of comparison. It will be noted in figure 2 that the peak of the curve for very superior chemistry contributions occurs at a slightly younger age than does the peak for the bulk of the chemistiy contributions. Clearly, the alleged superior discriminative ability of the older men does not explain why maximum productivity occurs at such a relatively early age in figure 1. Apparently, the most significant contributions to the science of chemistry have been made most frequently by individuals who were from 25 to 30, A chemist of more than national reputation was asked to explain why " Professors Donald R. Clippinger, Frank B. Gulluxn, and J. R. Morton gave their cheerful and wholehearted cooperation to this phase of the study.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

maximum productivity, as revealed in figure 1, is not sustained over a longer period of time. This chemist expressed the opinion that the early descent of the curve in figure 1 is due to the fact that the young chemist who displays marked ability by the publication of important research findings is likely, sooner or later, to be advanced to an administrative position. That is to say, the more gifted voung chemist is often made head of his department or placed in some other administrative post which ab­ sorbs his time and energy and precludes further research. The chemist added that it was his belief that the total amount of chemistry research might be greatly increased if the foregoing practice were to be aban­ doned.

- 100% -80 -60

- 40 -20

•15

20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

80

fig. 3. Age versus production in mathematics. Solid line, 453 contributions by 163 mathematicians. Broken line, 938 contributions by 328 mathematicians.

The data presented graphically by the broken line in figure 3 were obtained from Cajori's A History of Mathematics (25) in the following manner. I checked through Cajori's history and noted each mathematical contribution that could be dated. After duplicates and contributions by living individuals were deleted, a total of 938 contributions by 328 de­ ceased mathematicians remained. The broken line of figure 3 was con­ structed by use of these 938 contributions. Professor R. H. Marquis of the department of mathematics of Ohio University was asked to check from the list of 938 contributions those which might well be regarded as the most significant. After this had been done, 453 contributions by 163 individuals remained. The solid line of figure 3 was obtained by use of these 453 contributions. It will be noted that the two curves of figure 3 differ only slightly in shape. The data employed for constructing figure 4 were obtained from Wil­ liam Francis Magie's A Source Book in Physics (117). This source book, first published in 1935, contains extracts from what Magie evidently re-

IN SCIENCE

gards as the most important contributions made to the science of physics during the past three centuries. It will be seen at a glance that figure 4 bears much similarity to the figures that have preceded it. Like the other

- 100%

- 30 -60

- 4Q> - 20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 4. Average number of contributions by physicists during each five-year in­ terval of their lives. Based on 141 contributions by 90 physicists now deceased.

curves this one rises much more rapidly than it descends and the period of maximum productivity occurs not later than 30 to 34. The rise of this curve at the extreme right is due to the fact that a single book, namely, Galileo's Dialoghi delle nuove scienza, was published when its author was past 70. -(See page 226f for further comment with reference to this notable book.)

-100% -80 -60

-40

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 5. Average number of contributions by astronomers during each five-year interval of their lives. Based on 83 contributions by 63 astronomers now deceased.

The data employed for constructing figure 5 were obtained from A Source Book in Astronomy by Shapley and Howarth (170). Figure 5 differs from the preceding figures in that the peak of productivity occurs

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

somewhat later, namely, between 40 and 44. A part (and possibly all) of this age difference may be due to a difference in the amount of time lag between dates of accomplishing and dates of first publication. It is a well-known fact that the astronomer often has to spend many years making lengthy computations. If proper allowance could be made for this fact, it is quite possible that this group of astronomers would be found to have formulated their plans most frequently while still in their thirties rather than in their forties. For 75 of the 83 astronomical contributions (90 per cent), only dates of first publication were available. Obviously these dates of first publication do not tell the chronological ages at which the contributions were planned. We know only that for the 83 astro­ nomical contributions the peak of productivity occurred not later than 40 to 44.°

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20,

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG. 6. Average number of practical inventions during each five-year interval of the inventors' lives. Based on 554 inventions by 402 inventors now deceased.

Figure 6 presents the ages at which 554 notable inventions were made by 402 well-known inventors. The names of the inventors and their in­ ventions were procured from sources some of which are listed in the bibliography (89a, 93, 109, 163). When figure 6 was displayed to in­ terested friends and colleagues, several persons immediately said, "What " While the manuscript of this book was being set in type I used the two following publications for constructing two additional age-curves for contributions to astronomy: Doig, Peter, A Concise History of Astronomy (London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd. 1950), pp. xi-320, and Waterfield, Reginald L., A Hundred Years of Astronomy (London: Duckworth. 1938), pp. 526. Each of these latter two books yielded an age-curve having a very definite and unambiguous peak at ages 35 to 39 and they were almost identical in appearance. It seems highly probable, therefore, that the relatively late peak found in figure 5 is due to the fact that 90 per cent of the ages used for constructing that particular curve are ages at time of first publication rather than ages at time of making con­ tributions to astronomy.

IN SCIENCE

about Edison?" It is, of course, well-known that Thomas A. Edison was very active as an inventor throughout his entire life. Figure 7 reveals, however, that 35 was Mr. Edison's most productive age. Moreover, during

00% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40

45 50 55 60 65 70 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

75

80

85

FIG. 7. Age versus inventions patented in the U.S.A. by Thomas A. Edison. Based on a total of 1,036 patents.

the four-year interval from 33 to 36, Edison took out a total of 312 United States patents. This was more than a fourth (28 per cent) of all the United States patents taken out by him during an inventive career that lasted for more than 60 years (55). The four curves in figure 8 set forth by ten-year intervals age data for contributions to entomology (62), to genetics {37), to agricultural chem-

- 100% -80 -60

-40 -20

15

20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

80

85

FIG. 8. Age versus production in entomology, genetics, agricultural chemistry, and psychology. Solid line, 86 contributions to entomology by 86 men born from 1803 to 1850. Broken line, 147 contributions to genetics by 94 men born from 1676 to 1850. Dash line, 143 contributions to agTicuItural chemistry by 36 men born from 1635 to 1850. Dotted line, 65 contributions to psychology by 50 in­ dividuals from the time of Aristotle to the present.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

istry (20), and to psychology (44). Comments already made with ref­ erence to the other age-curves should enable readers to interpret figure 8 without further aid. It may interest readers to know that, in making up his chronology of genetics, Dr. Cook consulted more than 50 of the most able men in his field. While school texts usually picture the renowned scientist as a man of ' rather advanced years, the present findings strongly suggest that at the time of doing his greatest work the typical creative scientist is an in­ dividual in his late twenties or in his thirties. The discrepancy between the scientist as he actually is when doing his work and the stereotyped concept of him, is probably due in part to the fact that personal fame spreads rather slowly. In order that a man may become permanently famous because of his creative work it is first necessary that he become known and appreciated by those few of his peers and colleagues who are especially interested in his work and able to judge its worth. Much later, the reputation that the creative worker has acquired among his peers may penetrate all strata of society. Hence, the scientist's greatest fame is likely to appear long after he has done his greatest work. Often his greatest fame is posthumous. By the time the scientist has become an old man his fame is likely to be far greater than it was at any earlier age, and his photograph is more likely to be taken at older age levels by persons who wish to preserve it for posterity. Under such circumstances the photograph is likely to give rise to an entirely erroneous impression, Subsequent to the preparation of this chapter I discovered that Woodworth in his Dynamic Psychology (199, p. 131) had arrived at this same conclusion in 1918, and that G. M. Beard (4) also had done so fully 75 years ago. If one wishes to study the relative creativeness of men of different chronological ages, the age-curves presented herein are more revealing than are arithmetic averages. A simple hypothetical illustration will dem­ onstrate why this is true. Let us suppose, for example, that 9 scientists have each made one contribution to their science. Let us assume also that one of the 9 made his single contribution at 80, that 2 of the others each made their contributions at 50, and that the remaining 6 scientists each made contributions at 30. In this hypothetical situation, the average of the contributors' ages at time of contributing is 360/9 or 40. However, in spite of the fact that the average age of the 9 contributors is 40, six of the 9 contributions (two-thirds of them) were made prior to 40, namely, at 30. The situation is similar for the 993 chemistry contributions pictured in figure 1. For the 244 chemists, the average age at time of making a con­ tribution is 38.08. But the five-year interval of their maximum produc­ tivity is 28 to 32. This latter fact would not be realized if only the simple

IN SCIENCE

arithmetic average were available. Nor would the arithmetic average reveal the fact that the curve of creativity rises so much more rapidly than it descends. If, in figure 1 the two sides of the curve were perfectly sym­ metrical, one-half the contributions would have been made at ages younger than the average age, and one-half would have been made at ages older than the average age. But figure 1 is not symmetrical, and for this reason the mean fails to provide an adequate picture of the facts. When drawing inferences one must always be on guard against going beyond the factual data. For example, some readers might infer that figure 1 reveals the rise and the fall (by chronological ages) of the chemist's total social and scientific usefulness. Such an inference would be wholly indefensible. These readers are to be reminded that, during their more mature years, the chemists included in this study may have been doing highly useful things other than chemistry research. Thus, some of the older men may have been engaged in administrative and supervisory work, editing, consulting, teaching, and a host of other things. And, even though this may not have been the only reason for the diminution of their creativeness in chemistry, the administrative and other work was very probably necessary and socially useful. Others of the older chemists may have been directing laboratories and teaching younger men the techniques of chemistry research. It would of course be absurd to assert that the athlete could achieve equally good results without the counsel and advice of experienced athletic coaches. The situation is probably analogous for young chemists. Some of the older chemists may therefore have been making their y/ later contributions through their students. To some extent this hypothesis is undoubtedly valid. There probably is such a thing as "creative teach­ ing." And, although its results do not show up in figure 1, it may be fully as important to society as is that which is customarily referred to as scientific productivity. However, our data for inventors, poets, chess play­ ers, and certain other groups of workers should suffice to convince the impartial reader that the foregoing hypothetical "reasons" do not fully explain why the curve in figure 1 wanes so noticeably beyond 39. One can hardly refrain from further speculation on these findings. In the past, certain writers have assumed that the genius is one who is ex­ tremely capable, and some have assumed also that "genius will out." Shall it be assumed that the world's most renowned chemists have possessed more genius at 28 to 32 than was possessed by them at older age levels? Others have insisted that a scientific discovery is often very much like a five-dollar gold piece lying at the noon hour on the sidewalk at a busy street corner. Some one is bound to spy such a coin. In others words, it is asserted that for years before it is seen, the discovery is "just waiting to be picked up." If this hypothesis is a valid one, why is it that the

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

younger scientists find so many more of the "gold pieces" than do the older ones? Assume for the moment that the alleged genius is merely the product of his environment, the instrument through which an idea or a creation receives expression. Why, then, are the 30- and the 35-year-old chemists, rather than the 50- and the 60-year-old chemists, so much more frequently the instruments through which the creation receives expression? Here certainly is a conundrum for the student of human behavior. I am not so rash as to pretend that I have entirely satisfactory answers to such queries as these. In considering the results that have been set forth here, the reader should not overlook the fact that large individual differences exist. It is certainly true that some individuals do their very best work when they are relatively old, and some do little that is really worthwhile until they are relatively aged. Therefore, if an individual has failed to make a chem­ istry contribution by the time he has reached 35 or 40, it would be quite hazardous to assume that he will never make a contribution. For the purpose of studying this problem I isolated data for 100 chemists, each of whom had made only one contribution that was dated by Hilditch. The data for these 100 chemists reveal that 34 per cent of them made their first and only important contribution after they had passed 40; 19 per cent made their single contribution after they had passed 50; and 5 per cent did their first important research after they had passed 55. One individual made his single noteworthy contribution at 69. These individual differences suggest that it would be futile to attempt to ascertain the one chronological age level at which the chemist's social and scientific usefulness is at an end. Indeed, there probably is no such age level. In figure 9 the solid line presents, by five-year intervals, the total num­ ber of contributions for the entire group of 244 chemists. This solid line makes no allowance at all for the fact that more of the chemists were alive at some age levels than at others; it merely tells us the total num­ ber of contributions made at each chronological age level. The dotted line in the same figure shows the percentages of the original number of chem­ ists who remained alive at successive age levels. This dotted line is so drawn as to provide an interesting comparison with the solid line in the following way. Had the living chemists contributed during their later years at the same rate as they were contributing from 30 to 34, the solid line, which represents actual contributions, would have coincided with the dotted line which represents the percentages of the original number of chemists that remained alive at successive age levels. The serious student of human behavior is, of course, not greatly inter­ ested in what might have happened under hypothetical conditions which

IN SCIENCE

did not actually exist; he is vastly more interested in factual data. Never­ theless, as a means of focusing attention upon the recorded facts, it may be worthwhile to speculate for a moment on what might have been. It should be remembered, however, that this speculation is merely a device that is employed here for the purpose of presenting the true story of

what really happened.

• 100% - 80 -60

•40 - 20

20

25

30

35

40 '45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 9. Solid line, 993 significant contributions by 244 chemists. Broken line, hypothetical output if each chemist had lived to 80. Doited line, percentage of the original number of chemists still alive at successive age intervals.

The dash line in figure 9 is based upon the assumption that had they lived the deceased chemists of a given chronological age level would have contributed at about the same rate as did the group of living chemists of the same chronological age level. For example, at 65 to 69, the deceased group was about 70 per cent as large as the living group. It is here assumed that if this group of deceased chemists had lived they would have increased the contribution of the living group by about 70 per cent. Since, however, the contribution of the living group from 65 to 69 was actually rather small, being only 10 contributions, a 70 per cent increase would have raised the total by only 7 contributions—hardly as much as might have been anticipated. If the foregoing assumption (that had they remained alive the de­ ceased chemists of a given age level would have performed comparably to the living chemists of corresponding age) is a valid one, the narrow band of space between the solid line and the dash line in figure 9 rep­ resents that fractional decrement in scientific productivity which was due to the death of some of the chemists. Figure 9 thus enables us to make a rough hypothetical estimate of two things, namely, (1) the decrement in productivity which was due to death, and (2) the decrement which was due to factors other than death.

AGE AND ACHlEVE MEX T It will be noted at once that that decrement which was due to death is relatively slight as compared with that much larger decrement which was due to factors other than death. If all the 244 noted chemists had lived until they were SO they probably would have made 57 more con­ tributions than actually were made bv them. This hypothetical increase amounts to slightly less than 6 per cent of the actual total of 993 con­ tributions. However, if those chemists who actually did live to a ripe old age had continued during their later years to contribute at the same rate as they were contributing from 30 to 34, the total number of their con­ tributions would have been 1,782 instead of 993. This would have amount­ ed to an increase of 80 per cent over and above the actual total of 993 contributions. This estimate of loss from decreased productivity should not be taken too literally. Apart from the fact that society obviously cannot lose that which it has never possessed, the computation of loss is based upon sev­ eral unproven and unprovable assumptions. For example, the computa­ tion assumes that the number of possible chemistry contributions is practically unlimited; and that a given contribution does not depend upon antecedent contributions and cumulative social gains. Granted that the figure, 80 per cent, represents no actual loss, the fact remains that our hypothetical computation does demonstrate an actual and a very large decrement. When some of the data included in this chapter were published in a magazine article, letters of inquiry were received from several professional colleagues and others. Thus Τ. H. wrote as follows: "I have been follow­ ing your work on age and productivity with considerable interest for some time. It occurs to me that we need one more curve to superimpose on the others, that is, a curve showing the life span of all the famous individuals included in your studies. "Won't we find that the median age at time of death for all of these eminent individuals will fall just a little beyond the median age at time of peak performance? If the results turn out this way, wouldn't they help to explain the median age at time of peak performance tending so often to fall in the late thirties?" Figure 10 answers the foregoing query. In figure 10 the solid line is a reproduction of figure 1. It presents, by five-year intervals, the ages at which the deceased 244 chemists made 993 significant contributions to the science of chemistry. The broken line of figure 10 reveals the number of chemists who died at successive age levels. This broken line discloses that, although a vexy few of the 244 chemists died prior to 40, maximum mortality among the chemists did not occur until 70 to 75. One of the 244 noted chemists, Chevreul (born 1786, died 1889) lived to the ripe old age of 103. But, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (59, Vol. 5,

IN SCIENCE

p. 443d) Chevreul's name is best remembered, not for what lie accom­ plished during the last 66 years of his long life, but for the classical re­ searches he carried out on animal fats, published by him in 1823 at the age of 37,

- 100% •80

-60 -40 •20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

Fic. 10. Solid Iine y 993 significant contributions by 2 44 noted chemists. Broken line, percentage of the 244 chemists who died during each five-year interval.

The superimposed curves in figure 10 evidence the fact that the brevity of the chemists' lives can hardly account for the decrement discussed here­ in. The median age of the 244 chemists at the time of making their impor­ tant contributions was 35.93 years, whereas, their median age at death was 70.25 years. The difference between their median age at time of contributing and their median age at death was thus 34.32 years. Surely it would be unsound to conclude that after making their notable con­ tributions these chemists had not enough remaining years in which to make additional contributions of high merit. As a result of his researches into the relationship of age to productivity, G. M. Beard remarked many years ago: "On the average the last twentv years in the lives of original geniuses are unproductive." (4, p. 8) This statement is much more careless than Beard's usually careful writ­ ing, and certainly is not valid. It will be shown throughout this book that the typical creative thinker is not wholly unproductive during his later years. On the contrary, he continues to produce quantitatively during most of his life. But his later published work is likely to be much less epoch-making than are the works produced by him from 25 to 45. Curves for two quite different kinds of accomplishment are superim­ posed in figure 11. Here the broken line shows the ages at which 62 men born from 1845 to 1875, made 170 important contributions to electrical development (34). Data for only the more recent contributions to electri­ cal development are included in this broken line for two reasons: (1) with the passage of time, discoverers and inventors in the field of electric-

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

ity have been starting their careers at somewhat younger age levels, and (2} the mean age of the contributors to electrical development at time of achieving has also been decreasing during the past centuries.

.100% .80 -60

-40 -20

,

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG. 11. Age versus contributions to electrical development and proficiency in chess. Solid line, 236 winnings by 57 players of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd places at inter­ national chess tournaments. Broken line, 170 important contributions to electrical development by 62 men.

The solid line of figure 11 reveals the ages at which 57 deceased master I chess players won either first, second, or third places in International Chess / Tournaments held from 1851 to 1922. Master chess players seem to have exhibited their top performances most often from, 30_.to 34. The names of the chess champions were obtained from various editions of the En­ cyclopaedia Britannica (57, 58, 59). Their birth and death rates were ob­ tained from several different sources but mostly from Buttenwieser (24). Although it is usually assumed that chess play is a field in which the masters represent the older age groups, the solid line of figure 11 sug­ gests that this belief is probably fallacious. The records of chess champions provide an almost unique opportunity for study of the influence of the age factor. The tournament records of chess players are direct, objective, and unequivocal (24). The showing of a player is determined solely by his level of skill and by the kind of com­ petition that he encounters. Since the same individuals are likely to con­ tinue to participate in chess tournaments as long as they are able to win, less frequent success at the older age levels can hardly be attributed to lack of practice on the part of the older men. Later chapters of this book will explore the ages of outstanding achieve­ ment in a number of other fields, the general purpose being to extend quantitative methods into a region that has hitherto been somewhat out­ side the range thereof. The improvement of the conditions under which

8 8 8 8

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

* The peak of each statistical distribution is italicized.

.001 .015 .033 .001 .030 .058 .046 .133 .028 .047

SO39

2029

1019

Entomology (solid line) Genetics (broken line) ... Agricultural Chemistry (dash line) Psychology (dotted line) . .

.165 .052 .090 .102 .070 .039 .054 204 201 .250 .152

.138 .065 .081 .079 .047 .010 .043 98 169 .179 .113

.005 .052 .009 .001 .011 .041 .009 .028 .020 .003 .003 .006 .031 25 6 63 .060 .003 .039

3034

1 Chemistry 2 Greatest chemistry contributions 3 Mathematics (solid line) .... 3 Mathematics (broken line) . . 4 Physics ... 5 Astronomy 6 Practical inventions . 7 Inventions of Thomas A. Edison 9 Total chemistry contributions 11 Chess championships .. 11 Contributions to elec. devel. . .

2529

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2024

Data xised in:

1519

1014

.023 .051 .100 .029

.019 .032 .086 .022

.012 .017 .048 .009

8089

6569

7074

9099

.043 .035 .020 .020 .010 96 22 .007 .004

7579

.004

SO84

8589

.034 .030 .014 .031 .032 .026 .013 .021 .005 .006 .048 .016 .003 .003 .003 6 35 25 28 1 — 1 10

.026 .014 .002

6064

.005 .002 .005 .041 .006 .005

7079

Age Interval 40- 50- 6049 59 69

.044 .016 .045 .049 .020 .023 .009 108 42 .015 .023

Age interval 45- 50- 5549 54 59 .063 .005 .065 .060 .021 .033 .017 64 66 .038 .036

.115 .026 .054 .076 .046 .061 .036 161 137 .111 .071

4044 .078 .009 .045 .049 .047 .045 .021 13 89 .055 .024

.154 .048 .096 .100 .043 .036 .052 223 186 .139 .095

3539

Table 1. Average number of contributions to science per age interval*

41.66 39.10 70.25 33.43 33.85

3.97 1.30 4.14 2.74

36 50 244 57 62

143 65

236 170

Fig. 11 Chess championships Fig. 11 Contributions to elec. devel. . .

.

. .

Fig. 8 Agricultural chemistry Fig. 8 Psychology Figs. 9 and 10 Mortality rate of 244 Chemists

.

63 402 1 K6 94

Astronomy Practical inventions . . Inventions of Thomas A. Edison Entomology . Genetics .... 1.00 1.56

1.32 1.38

44.20 35.27 39.76 42.00 40.58

35.95 34.00 37.88 38.65 38.00

83 554 1,086 86 147

S 6 7 8 8

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.07 1.13 2.78 2.86 1.57

163 328 90

.

244 46

Chemistry Chemistry (solid line) Mathematics (solid line) Mathematics (broken line) Physics ....

Median age

993 52 453 938 141

1 2 3 3 4

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

Data used in:

Ave. per man

No. of men

No. of works

28-32 26-30 34-38 36-40 30-34 43-47 31-35 33-56 30-39 30-39 30-39 30-3 y (Sec first row above) 30-34 30-34

10.45 8.52 14.10 13.07 11.05 12.00 11.10 13.»» 12.95 12.03 12.93 11.50 12.63

38.08 35.29 41.12 39.22 39.34 45.09 36.71 44.31 43.00 41.67

34.72 35.65

44.04 40.27 69.24

7.80 8.46

Tears of maxim um productivity

Mean age

S.D. of dist.

Table 2. Summary of findings with reference to man's creative years in science

IN S C I E N C E

all kinds of creative thinking is done is of such vast importance for society that even the most modest attempt to introduce more exact methods into the study of those conditions should have value. To paraphrase a remark made in 1906 by the pioneer psychologist, J. McKeen CatteIl: We have in a large measure explored the material world and subdued it to our uses; it is now our business to secure an equal in­ crease in our knowledge of human nature and to apply it for our welfare. If he is a benefactor to mankind who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before, his services would be immeasurably greater who could enable two creative thinkers to flourish where there had been but one.

2. In Medicine, Surger)", and Related Fields* STUDY OF AGE DIFFERENCES, in baseball proficiency for example, would be

a relatively simple task if all of the performers started to play in the major leagues very young and if all of them continued to play until they were quite old. If this were the case it would be easy to make a simple, direct comparison of the batting average of each successive age group. But because selective factors operate so constantly and so relentlessly, the problem is not that simple. Indeed, careful analysis of the available data reveals that the average proficiency of the successive age groups that participate in major league baseball varies only slightly. Of course this finding does not prove age differences in baseball skill to be either nonexistent or unimportant. It merely reflects the well-known fact that a ball player is not employed by the major league manager until he has attained a high level of skill, and the fact that as soon as he falls below a very high standard of excellence, he is released. For this reason both the correlation technique and the use of average age differences obtained by use of the cross-sectional method are almost totally useless for the study of the actual age differences in baseball skill. A similar situation probably exists when efforts are made to study the industrial or business efficiency of the successive age groups. The older workers who are not able to keep the pace of the most proficient ones are likely to be dismissed and their performance is thus not likely to be re­ flected at all in the data which show average output of the several age groups. On the other hand, some of the most efficient older employees may be advanced to executive or supervisory positions so that their superior performance is not reflected in the data for the successive age groups. Therefore, when comparisons of older versus younger workers are made with reference to average output, accident rate, absenteeism, etc., it should always be borne in mind that such data are difficult to interpret. Since the findings may merely reflect the unwillingness of industry to employ the less competent older workers, they are likely to leave much room for conjecture. In studying the relative productivity of the various age groups, good workmanship demands, among other things: (1) isolation of the most important contributions, (2) identification of the contributors, (3) knowl­ edge of when the contributions were made, and (4) knowledge of the exact birth and death dates of the contributors. The problem of evaluation presents a real hazard. How are the fruits β Adapted from an article first published in The Scientific Monthly, May 1941, 52, 450-461.

0-9

IN MEDICINE

of genius to be evaluated? Fortunately, in many instances, the task of evaluation has already been performed by unintentional collaboratorsspecialists in the various highly technical fields of endeavor. In one sense the present study is therefore merely a by-product of previous studies that have been made by others. For example, in a book entitled The Fundamentals of Bacteriology (131), Professor C. B. Morrey presents a chronology of the contributions which he regards as the foundation stones of the science of bacteriology. Morrey lists not only the contributions but also the names of the con­ tributors and the years during which each of the advances was either made or first published. With this essential information at hand, I undertook the task of finding the birth and the death dates of the various contributors. The fact that some of the birth and death dates are not recorded suggests that a man's brilliant achievements are not always recognized by his contemporaries. If the noteworthy contributions had been appraised immediately at their true worth, surely the birth and the death dates of the contributors would have been recorded.

-100% -80 -60

•40 •20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

Fic. 12. Age versus contributions to bacteriology. Data for 41 individuals who made 50 contributions.

Figure 12 presents the results obtained by study of Morrey s chronology, namely, the ages at which 50 outstanding discoveries were made by 41 pioneers in bacteriology. Figure 12 can be interpreted in light of what has been said earlier. Let us see what has occurred in fields other than bacteriology. Figure 13 shows the ages at which 60 important works were first published by 55 noted physiologists. Data for the construction of this figure were obtained from Professor J. F. Fulton's Selected Readings in the History of Physiology (69). Fulton gives not only the names of the contributors and the titles of their contributions, but also the birth and the death dates of the con-

AGE A N D A C H I E V E M E N T

tributors, and the years during which each of the several contributions was first published. Computation of average productivity at each chron­ ological age interval was therefore a relatively simple task. It is evident

- 100% -80 -60

•40

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

FIG . 13. Age versus contributions to physiology. Data for 55 individuals who made 60 contributions.

at once that figure 13 bears much resemblance to figure 12 and to other figures in the preceding chapter. A goiter chronology was found in Professor Robinson's Syllabus of Medical History (162). In this chronology Robinson endeavored to list fundamental contributions which have to do with either knowledge of, or the treatment of, goiter. Figure 14 is based upon 52 such contributions made by 40 different individuals. In figure 14 it was necessary to include the works of both living and deceased contributors in order to obtain

00% -80 -60

-40

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

FIG . 14. Age versus contributions to a goiter chronology. Data for 40 individuals who made 52 contributions.

IN MEDICINE

sufficient data to yield an age-curve. Despite this fact, the peak of the curve is attained at 35 to 39. Figure 15 reports data for 216 contributions to the science of pathology

-100% •80 -60

•40 -20.

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

F t c . IS. Age versus contributions to pathology (Krumbhaar). Data for 170 in­ dividuals who made 216 contributions.

made by 170 individuals. The list of pathological milestones was assembled and published by Professor E. B. Krumbhaar (102). In figure 15 the peak which appears at 35 to 39 is even narrower than are the peaks in the three preceding figures. Figure 16 gives additional data from the field of pathology. The data were obtained from a book by Professor E. R. Long entitled SelectedReadings in the History of Pathology (111). Although figure 16 presents data for only 30 contributions by 27 deceased individuals, it is of interest that this very select group of cases yields a curve in which the peak occurs

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES ftc. 16. Age versus contributions to pathology (Long). Data for 27 individuals who made 30 contributions.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

once again at 35 to 39. It should perhaps be stated that figure 16 was smoothed from 40 to 80 inclusive by taking ten years, instead of five, as the unit. This procedure increases the number of cases in each age group. Irregularities are thus eliminated, and the general trend of the age dif­ ferences is brought out more clearly.

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 17. Age versus contributions to anatomy. Data for 70 individuals who made 89 contributions.

Figure 17 presents age data for 89 advances in the science of anatomy which were made by 70 individuals. The contributions used in the con­ struction of figure 17 were listed in F. H. Garrison's An Introduction to the History of Medicine (70). This latter book contains an extensive chronology of medicine, broadly defined, and public hygiene. It will be noted again that figure 17 does not differ very greatly in general outline from the figures which have preceded it.° Figure 18 is based upon 188 medical discoveries and inventions that were made by 159 individuals. The data for this figure were found in B. J. Stern's Social Factors in Medical Progress (174). Stern presents a long list of multiple but independent discoveries and inventions in the field of medicine. Stern assembled his list in an attempt to discover whether inventions and discoveries in medicine would not have been made irrespective of the individuals who are now heralded as great in­ novators. On the basis of his extensive researches Stern asserts boldly that discoveries and inventions depend largely upon antecedent con­ tributions and cumulative social gains. He believes that the alleged genius is largely the product of his environment, the instrument through which β By identifying in Garrison's chronology those contributions which have been of primary importance to the science of anatomy, Dr. Rush Elliott, of Ohio University, gave me expert assistance in this phase of the present study. Thanks axe expressed herewith.

IN MEDICINE

an idea or a creation receives expression. Stern therefore insists that practically the same progress would have been made in medicine if none of the popularly recognized research heroes had lived. Whether the validity of this contention be granted or denied, figure 18 and the

-100% -80 -60

-40

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

F I G . 18. Age versus medical discoveries and inventions. Data for 159 individuals who made 188 medical discoveries and inventions.

other graphs presented herein certainly suggest that chronological age is a highly important factor in medical progress. Figure 19 is based upon 97 contributions to surgery made by 73 in­ dividuals. 9 It should perhaps be mentioned at this point that the present discussion deals not at all with the individual surgeon's technical or

-100%

-80 -60

-40 -20

CHRONOLOGiCAL AGES

FTC. 19. Age versus advances made 97 contributions.

in

surgical technique. Data

for

73 individuals who

" Dr. D. H. Biddle, a practicing physician of Athens, Ohio, identified in Garrison's chronology those contributions which have to do primarily with surgery. I am grateful for Dr. Biddle's able cooperation.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

diagnostic skill but with recognized advances in the field of surgical knowledge and practice. It is quite possible that a surgeon's personal skill may reach its peak later in life, but it appears that his important con­ tributions to his profession are more likely to occur as indicated in figure 19. The data for figure 19 were obtained from F. H. Garrison's An Intro­ duction to the History of Medicine (70). Although the peak of figure 19 occurs at 35 to 39, it is worthy of mention that the decrement from 37 to 57 is less marked than are the decrements found at corresponding age levels in the curves which have preceded it. This more gradual decline may possibly be due in part to greater delay in the announcement of surgical advances. Or it may be that, with advance in chronological age, contributions to surgery fall off more slowly than do contributions to the other fields discussed herein.

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20-

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

F I G . 20. Age versus classical descriptions of disease. Data for 102 authors who made 147 contributions.

Figure 20 presents data for 147 classical descriptions of disease which were written by 102 authors. These descriptions appeared in Dr. Ralph Major's book, Classical Descriptiom of Disease (118). Dr. Major gives the following explanation of how he selected His anthology: "The selec­ tions are chosen because of their interest in being either the first known, one of the earliest, or one of the most interesting accounts of the disease in question. Some sections of the book are so sparsely represented that they seem inadequate while others seem so fully represented as to be al­ most overdone. This is inevitable, however, since some diseases have more interesting and more extended histories than others and also because of personal taste, or bias, if you will, in the selection of authors." (118, p. viii) For the benefit of any who may wish to repeat the present study the following comments regarding the method of tabulating the data are

IN MEDICINE

made. The dates of the classical descriptions of disease were utilized only when dates of first publication were available. Posthumous publications were ignored whenever it was impossible to ascertain when such publica­ tions had been written. The posthumous publications were few in num­ ber, and discarding them has probably not affected the shapes of the age-curve appreciably. If Professor Major quoted from a translation or from some edition other than the first one, the excerpt was counted only when the date of first publication was also available. If excerpts from a given source study appeared under more than one disease-category in Major's compilation, the source was counted as many times as excerpts therefrom were repro­ duced in Major's book. For example, age group 30 to 34 received three credits merely because at 30 James Hope published a book which is quoted by Dr. Major at three different places in his book. Comparison of figure 20 presented herein, with the corresponding figure that appeared in The Scientific Monthly for May 1941, page 455, will reveal that these two figures are not quite identical. The difference be­ tween them arises from the fact that subsequent to 1941 I learned that, although Morgagni published his famous work entitled De sedibus et causis morboriim at 80, he wrote it between 59 and 79. Since I was not aware of that fact in 1941, the graph constructed for The Scientific Monthly at that time includes five credits for the age group 80 to 84 solely because at age 80 Morgagni published his great work, quoted at five different places in Major's Classical Descriptions of Disease. In the graph included in this chapter those five credits are spread e\ t nly over the age interval 59 to 79 inclusive. The account given in the 1946 edition of the Encyclopseclia Britannica (59) leads one to suspect that when he wrote his De sedibus Morgagni was merely setting down on paper what he had learned years earlier. Since authors rarely tell us when they have conceived great ideas, we are able to picture in most cases only dates when writing was first done or when it was first published. In general, it will be noted that figures 19 and 20 resemble each other closely. Both of these curves attain their peaks at 35 to 39, Both sustain themselves fairly well until 55 to 59, and both exhibit a decided decre­ ment beyond 60. It is possible that the curve in figure 20 sustains itself so well at the upper age levels because of the time-lag that may have sometimes occurred between the data of writing a classical description and the data of first publishing it. This certainly accounts for some of the cases in which our age-curves show a marked rise at the uppermost age levels. On the other hand, the relatively slow falling off of the curve in figure 20 at 37 to 57 may be due in part to the fact that in many instances

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

the classical description of a disease must be based upon prolonged ex­ perience with the disease in question. Figure 21 provides information regarding the discovery and introduc­ tion of 73 drugs and other remedial agents employed in medicine. The

•100% •80 -60

•40 •20

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES f i g . 21. Age versus the discovery and introduction of drugs and remedial agents. Data for 44 individuals who made 73 contributions.

73 contributions were made by 44 persons. The chronology was obtained from Power and Thompson's Chrcmologia Medica (152). Figure 21 at­ tains its peak at 30 to 34, thus providing the only instance in this chapter in which an age-curve fails to attain its peak at 35 to 39.

-100% -80 •60

-40 -20

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

FIG . 22. Age versus contributions to psychology. Data for 50 individuals who made 85 contributions to psychology.

In his book, A Hundred Years of Psychology (66), J. C. Fliigel has published a chronological table of what he describes as "some major events in the history of modern psychology." It was possible to obtain birth

IN MEDICINE

and death dates for 50 deceased individuals who made 85 contributions. Figure 22 reveals the resultant curve. The peak again occurs at 35 to 39. Figure 23 reports 801 miscellaneous advances in medicine and in public hygiene made by 537 persons all of whom are now deceased. The data were obtained from F. H. Garrison's book An Introduction to the History of Medicine (70). Garrison's extensive list includes some of the con­ tributions that were listed also in the other chronologies employed in this chapter. Therefore, some of the advances used in the construction of figure

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 23. Age versus advances in medicine and public hygiene. Data for 537 in­ dividuals who made 801 contributions.

23 were utilized previously in the construction of the other graphs pre­ sented herein. Many of the 801 contributions, however, have not been previously employed for making the graphs of this chapter. It will be noted that the curve in figure 23 has a smoother appearance than have most of the curves which precede it. This finding is probably due in part to the fact that figure 23 is based upon such a large number of cases. Like ten of the eleven figures which precede it in this chapter, figure 23 shows a peak at 35 to 39. On the whole, the assembled data strongly suggest that, in proportion to their numbers, men have made important contributions to medicine most frequently while they were still in their thirties. In 11 of the 12 age-curves shown in this chapter the peak of productivity occurs at 35 to 39. In the one remaining curve the peak occurs at 30 to 34. Because of the time-lag that must often have occurred between the date of a discovery and the date of its publication, it seems evident that, at the upper-age levels, the accompanying age-curves tend to be too high rather than too low. As for the general shape of the curves, and par­ ticularly the age intervals at which the peaks are found, it is my belief that these curves provide as accurate a picture of the rela-

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

tive productivity of the various age groups as can be obtained from the data at present available. As stated previously, generalizations with reference to man's intellectual productivity at successive age levels are sometimes based upon one or a very few exceptional cases. Impressionistic judgments based upon socalled "illustrative cases" are frequently fallacious. History provides some conspicuous instances in which impressionistic judgments have been mis­ leading. That oft-misquoted remark made by Sir William Osier in 1905 will doubtless be recalled by many who read this chapter. Dr. Osier had served as professor of clinical medicine at the Johns Hopkins Universit)' School of Medicine from 1889 to 1905. At the latter date he was appointed regius professor of medicine at Oxford University. At a banquet held in his honor Dr. Osier gave a farewell address. Because so many persons had expressed their dismay over his departure, Dr. Osier, with becoming modesty and in a spirit of levity, assured those present that his departure was inconsequential. In making this remark, Osier, who at that time was 56 years of age, meant to imply that his most important work had already been done. In the farewell address which followed Osier stated in some­ what greater detail his thesis that the effective, vitalizing, moving work of the world is likely to be done by men who are between the ages of 25 and 40. The following quotation is taken from a book by Lambert and Goodwin: "One of Osier's addresses brought him unmerited notoriety. The oc­ casion was his farewell address at Johns Hopkins. In it he said: "I have two fixed ideas well known to my friends, harmless obsessions with which I sometimes bore them, but which have a direct bearing on this important problem. The first is the comparative uselessness of men over forty years of age. This may seem shocking and yet, read aright, the world's history bears out the statement. Take the sum of human achievement in action, in science, in art, in literature—subtract the work of the men above forty, and while we should miss great treasures, even priceless treasures, we would practically be where we are today. . . . Mv second fixed idea is the uselessness of men above sixty years of age, and the incalculable benefit it would be in commercial, political, and in professional life if, as a mat­ ter of course, men stopped work at this age.' He then went on in a semihumorous vein to refer to a novel of Anthony Trollope's describing a college which men entered at sixty for a year's period of contemplation before their peaceful departure by chloroform. 'Whether Anthony Trol­ lope's suggestion of a college and chloroform should be carried out or not,' he said, Ί have become a little dubious, as my own time is getting so short.' Unfortunately, the press during a time of lull in actual news scented a sensation in his remarks and soon headlines appeared saying that 'Dr. Osier Recommends Chloroform for Men of Sixty.' This precipi-

IN MEDICINE

tated a widespread discussion often heated and even bitter by those of whom many had never read what he had actually said. A new phrase—to oslerize—was added to the language indicating the extinction of men of sixty. Osier recognized that he was the victim of misguided reportorial zeal, that explanations under the circumstances were useless, and let the storm blow itself out." (106, p. 326f.) The comments and criticisms elicited by the distorted form in which these remarks received worldwide attention would make a long bibliog­ raphy. Curiously enough, fate seems to have decreed that Osier will be remembered longest for a remark which he did not make. In the quotation given above Dr. Osier speaks facetiously of "the com­ parative uselessness of men over forty years of age" and of "the uselessness of men over sixty years of age." (The italics are my own.) Although the age-curves that accompany this discussion attain their peaks in the thirties, and thus support Osier's facetious contention to some extent, analysis of the data reveals no specific age level at which men cease to make useful creative contributions. On the contrary, these data suggest that it is possible for some individuals to think creatively and to make valuable contributions at practically every chronological age level beyond early youth. De R£aumur, for example, was 69 when he carried out his memorable observations upon the digestive juices of his pet kite. And, of the 87 works included in his Selected Readings in the History of Physi­ ology (69), Fulton reports that 42 of them were written when their authors were past 40. However, to cite such isolated facts without surveying all of the perti­ nent data may be misleading. What is found when such a survey is made? In table 4 the sixth column gives the median ages of the contributors whose works have been used in constructing the 12 graphs of this chapter. It will be noted that 5 of the 12 medians fall between 30 and 40, and that 7 of them fall beyond 40. The fact that the mid-point of the 12 medians lies at age 41.25 implies that, although the rate of output was greatest prior to 40, only about half of the sum total of these brilliant medical con­ tributions were made or first published before that age. This situation will be readily understood if it is noted that all of the age-curves fall more slowly than they rise. It seems obvious that, in medicine as in other fields, creative thinking does not cease at 40 or even at 60. Let us examine table 3 which lists the average number of contributions per five-year interval. Forty-nine of the averages shown in this table are based upon the works of individuals who were less than 40, but 87 of the averages are based upon the contributions of persons who weie past 40 at the time of announcing their discoveries. A total of 1,88S medical con­ tributions was utilized in the preparation of table 4. This total was ob­ tained by counting each contribution as many times as it was listed in the

B. Morrey F. Fulton S. Robinson B. Krumbhaar . . R. Long H. Garrison J. Stem H. Garrison H. Major Power and C. J. S. Thompson C. Fliig\*l H. Garrison

C. J. V. E. E. F. B. F. R. D. J. F.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Source of data

Data used in: 2024

.001 .011

.003 .022 .009 .003 .009 .046

.005 .010 .007 .010 .006

1519 .030 .018 .030 .024 .022 .031 .027 .016 .016 .054 .028 .026

2529 .040 .033 .060 .031 .038 .044 .036 .044 .033 .074 .032 .045

3034 .050 .049 .065 .055 .046 .053 .054 .052 .053 .047 .080 .056

3539

4549 .035 .016 .021 .02 C .032 .034 .036 .037 .034 .040 .058 .042

4044 .025 .030 .030 .033 .015 .036 .033 .041 .038 .034 .056 .045 .011 .029 .006 .01 y .024 .005 .01 1 .032 .032 .031 .030 .030

.022 .028 .029 .034 .008 .028 .015 .032 .033 .006 .024 .029

6569

7074

7579

8084

8589

9094

.006 .026 .010 .021 .003 .014 .007 .008 .014 .029 .018 .009 .011 .012 .001 .010 .010 .017 .00(i .023 .012 .041 „—. .024 .032 .013 .020 .018 .011 .011 .009 .009 .007 .019

.023 .005 .009 .021 .026 .009 .014 .008 .017

Age interval 50- 556054 59 64

Table 3. Average number of contributions to medicine per five-year interval

IN MEDICINE

various chronologies. Some of the contributions were therefore counted more than once. The difference that would have resulted at any one age level in table 4 had such duplication been avoided is probably slight. Tabulation of the ages of those who were responsible for these 1,888 medi­ cal contributions reveals that 906 of them (48 per cent) were announced Table 4. Summary of findings with reference to contributors to medicine

Data used in:

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

Source of data

12 C. B. Morrey . . 13 J. F. Fulton 14 V. S. Robinson 15 E. B. Krambhaar 16 E. R. Long . . 17 F. H. Garrison . 18 B. J. Stern 19 F. H. Garrison 20 R. H. Major . 21 D. Power and C. J. S. Thompson Fig. 22 J. C. Fliigel Fig. 23 F. H. Garrison .

No. No. of of works men

Ave. cont. per Median Mean age age ind.

Tears of maximum S.D. of producdist. tivity

50 60 52 216 30 89 188 97 147

41 55 40* 170 27 70 159 73 102

1.22 1.09 1.30 1.27 1.11 1.27 1.18 1.33 1.44

38.80 41.33 37.33 42.50 43.00 36.38 39.50 42.30 43.79

41.20 43.50 40.10 44.76 45.67 38.85 41.82 43.89 46.61

12.05 12.30 11.60 13.10 14.00 11.70 12.15 10.45 13.80

35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39

73 85 801

44. 50 537

1.66 1.70 1.49

34.70 42.58 41.18

37.02 44.50 43.17

11.25 11.30 12.45

30-34 35-39 35-39

Data for some living contributors are included in Fig. 14.

by individuals when they were less than 40, whereas 982 of them (52 per cent) were either made or first published at ages beyond 40. These figures again emphasize the fact that a distinction needs to be made between rate of contributing and the total sum of very superior contributions. Table 5, which is based upon data taken from Garrison (70), brings out the individual differences in the ages of the contributors even more clearly. Thus, it reveals that 18 per cent of the 801 contributions listed by Garri­ son were either made or first announced by persons of 35 to 39, that 4 per cent of them were first published by persons of 60 to 64, that 10 per cent of them were first published subsequent to 60, and so forth. In spite of all that may be said by way of explanation, the accompany­ ing curves will probably mislead some readers. For example, one in­ dividual who was shown these curves prior to their publication remarked that in his opinion the curves rise and fall "much too rapidly." Further conversation revealed that this individual was laboring under the misap­ prehension that our curves are intended to picture the growth and decline of individual ability to do creative thinking. The foregoing belief is utterly wrong. Our curves do not picture ability in the abstract nor are they applicable to single individuals. They picture

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT

Table 5. (A) Number of miscellaneous advances in medicine and in public hygiene made during each five-year interval of their lives by 537 individuals, now deceased, (B) Per cent of the total of 801 contribu­ tions made during each five-year interval, and (C) Per cent made subse­ quent to the beginning of each five-year interval. Data from F. H. Garrison.

Age group

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40^£4 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94

No. of cont.

3 29 69 121 148 116 104 70 63 35 17 13 7 4 1 1 801

Per cent of total

0.5 4 9 15 18 14 13 9 S 4 2 2 1 0.5

Per cent made subsequent to various ages Per cent Age

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

100 99.5 96 87 72 54 40 26.5 18 10 5.5 3 2 1

100

only group performance, not individual behavior. Prediction in an in­ dividual case is quite different from the analysis of general trends. In order to picture individual growth and decline in creative ability it would first be necessary to measure the creative ability of the same in­ dividuals at successive age levels and over a long period of time. Although I have not assembled such data, and do not know how it could be done, it seems probable that, if such curves could be obtained, they would probably rise and fall much more gradually than do the agecurves included in this book. But how could curves which picture in­ dividual ability to think creatively at successive age levels be obtained? Those who undertake such a task should remember that it will be neces­ sary to keep constant such variables as motivational factors, opportunity to achieve, and also the quality of the creative thinking at successive age levels. It may well be that future generations will not take seriously manv of the present-day attempts to measure the "intelligence" of adults of widely varying ages. Can adult intelligence be disentangled from such other factors as: (1) motivation to do or to learn; (2) pressure to utilize

IN

MEDICINE

fully what has already been learned; (3) relatively fixed unalterable at­ titudes; (4) level of functioning; (5) physical stamina; (6) environ­ mental opportunity, and the like? Is it possible to motivate the older individual to the same extent the youth can be motivated, if the oldster already has attained many of his life goals, and if the youth has reached few of his? Is it valid to assume that in our rapidly changing civilization the older adult has had the same intellectual diet (opportunity to learn) as has the younger adult? Kuhlen has reported a variety of data showing social changes that may have enabled the more recently born to experi­ ence greater intellectual stimulation than their elders (104). Kuhlen's data strongly suggest that to date it has not been possible for psycholo­ gists to apply the law of the single variable when making their studies (178) of "adult intelligence." The fact that our age-curves picture group performance, instead of in­ dividual performance, is not the only reason why they fall so rapidly. A second factor is the very superior quality of the performances studied. It is easy to demonstrate that the shape of a performance age-curve varies both with the type of function measured and also with the excellence of the performance. For many kinds of creative thinking, the more note­ worthy the performance the more rapidly an age-curve descends after attaining its peak. It therefore seems safe to conclude that the high merit of the performances dealt with in this chapter is one reason why the accompanying age-curves fall so rapidly. Just why brilliant attainment in these diverse fields of endeavor should cease at earlier age levels than does more mediocre performance I do not pretend to know. It is easy to speculate with reference to the cause-and-effect relationships; it is much more difficult to validate one's speculations. The rapid descent of the curves included herein might conceivably be due to: (1) the inevitable organic changes that take place within the individual with advancing age (the reverse of maturation), (2) environmental factors, or (3) a combination of organic and of environ­ mental factors. It is also quite possible that no general rule is applicable, i.e., some individuals may exhibit an early decrement in the quality of their performance because of organic changes; others may exhibit a similar decrement because of environmental factors or because of the combined result of organic and environmental factors. If the early de­ crease in brilliant performance is due solely to biological factors, it may not be possible to do anything to prevent or even to reduce in amount this early decline in the curves. If, however, environmental factors are chiefly responsible for the early descent of the curves, then it is quite conceivable that the causative factors may some day be subject to a measure of control.

^ 3. In Philosophyt Tms CHAPTER sets forth the chronological ages at which really dis­ tinguished and representative philosophers have made their most notable or significant philosophical contributions. The most important philoso­ phers were identified by canvassing more than 50 standard books which deal with the history of philosophy. The foregoing procedure assumes that a philosopher whose writings are mentioned and discussed in numerous histories of philosophy is likely to be more important as a philosopher than is another whose philosophical writings are mentioned and discussed in only a few such histories. Table 6. Outstanding philosophers from various countries, ranked sepa­ rately* by use of three different criteria, as follows: (A) Rank accord­ ing to the number of times that the individual's "best" work was men­ tioned and discussed in the 50 histories of philosophy, (B) Rank according to the number of times that the individual's entire output of philosophical works was mentioned and discussed in the 50 histories of philosophy, and (C) Rank according to the number of critical works devoted to each man or to his writings as found in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology ( 3 ) .* *

English John Locke Thomas Hobbes David Hume Herbert Spencer Francis Bacon John Stuart Mill George Berkeley . Adam Smith . . . . nan Immaxiuel Kant A. Schopenhauer G. W. F. Hegel J. G. Fichte . G. W. Leibnitz . . Ε. τοη Hartmann . R. H. Lotze Baron von Holbach

(A) (A)Rank

(B) (B)Rank

(C) (C)Rank

44 40 38 33 29 27 24 26

1 2 3½ 3½ 5 6 8 7

117 142 180 70 88 147 112 48

4 3 1 7 6 2 5 8

9.0 6.25 8.0 8.75 6.0 6.0 4.25 1.0

41 27 24 21 20 17 17 16

1 2 3 4 5 6½ 6½ 8

297 86 123 166 137 70 88 32

1 6 4 2 3 7 5 8

61.75 14.75 10.5 7.5 11.75 11.50 3.66 0.5

1 4 3 2 5½ 5½ 7 8

1 2 5 6 3 4 7 8

t First \\-ritten in modified form in collaboration with Dr. W, S. Gamertsfelder, Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University, and published in the Psychological R e v i e w July 1942, 49, 319-343.

IN PHILOSOPHY (A) (A)Rank

(B) (B)Rank

(C) (C)Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

142 74 39 101 45 59 68 44

1 3 8 2 6 5 4 7

11.0 4.0 0.75 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.33

1 3 7 2 5½ 5½ 4 8

33 24

1 2

97 32

1 2

16.5 0.67

1 2

10 14

2 1

75 25

1 2

5.0 2.5

1 2

15 12

1 2

89 67

1 2

* *• *•

* * *

* **

* * *

French Rene Descartes . . . Augnste Comte Helvetiua ... J. J. Rousseau . Montesquieu E. B. de Condillac Nic. Malebranche . de Lamettrie . . .

35 30 25 24 23 22 18 17

Dutch Baruch Spinoza Hugo Grotius . . . Italian Giordano Bruno N. Maehiavelli American William James Josiah Royce

.

—

—

* The representatives of the several national groups are listed separately because, for reasons stated in the body of this article, the data for the men of different nationalities are not directly comparable. ** The numerals in Column (C) denote the columns of space that were re­ quired to list the names of works devoted to each man and his writings. *** William James and Josiah Royce were not found in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and. Psychology because the latter work included the names of deceased men only and James and Royce were both living at the time of its publi­ cation.

Column ι of table 6 presents the names (obtained by the foregoing procedure) of the outstanding philosophers of the past 500 years, listed by nationality and ranked according to three different criteria. The rep­ resentatives of the several national groups are listed separately because the data for the men from different countries are not directly comparable. This is due to the fact that more of the 50 histories of philosophy were written by English and American than by French or German historians. Therefore, in some instances perhaps, the works of a given English phi­ losopher may have been mentioned and discussed more frequently than the works of a French or of an Italian philosopher largely because of the greater familiarity of the writer with these works. Table 7 gives the titles of certain philosophical writings mentioned and discussed in numerous histories of philosophy. The table reveals that only three philosophical treatises appeared in as many as 40 of the 50 standard histories of philosophy. This apparent lack of unanimity on the part of the historians is partly due to the fact that some of the histories studied dealt only with the history of philosophy in some one country.

AGE AXD ACHIEVEilEXT

Table 7. Outstanding philosophical writings by philosophers from various countries

Title

Xumber of books discussing it

Age of author

44 40 38 33 29 27

38-58 52-63 21-25 40-76 46-59 42-57

41 27 24 21

46-57 31 42-46 32

20

58

17 17

39-47 25

35 30 24 25 23 22 18

45 32-44 50 43 39-59 39 36

33 24

23-i3 42

14 10

44 36

15 12

55 45-46

English

John Locke: "An Essay Concerning* Human Understanding" Thomas Hobbes: "Leviathan" David Hume: "A Treatise of Human Nature" Herbert Spencer: "System of Synthetic Philosophy" Francis Bacon: "Novum Organum" John Stuart Mill: "Utilitarianism" ... German Immanuel Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason" . Arthur Schopenhauer: "The World as WUl and Idea" G. W. F, Hegel: "Science of Logic" . . J. G. Fichte: "Basis of the Entire Science of Knowledge" G. W. von Leibnitz: "Nouveaux essais sur 1'entendement humain" R. H. Lotze: "Microcosmus: Ideas for a History of Nature and a History of Humanity" Eduard von Hartmann: "Philosophy of the Unconscious" . French

Reng Descartes: "Meditationes de prima philosophia, etc." Auguste Comte: "Cours de philosophie positive" J. J. Rousseau: "Contrat Social" . . Helvetius: "De Tesprit" C. de S. de Montesquieu: "De l'esprit des Lois" E. B. de Condillac: "Traite des sensations" N. Malebranche: "De la Recherche de la Vente" Dutch B. Spinoza: "Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata" Hugo Grotius: "De Jure Belli et Pads" Italian

N. Machiavelli: "II Principe" Giordano Bruno: "Delia Causa, Principio e Mondi" American

William James: "The Will to Believe, and other Essays in Popular Philosophy" Josiah Royce: "The World and the Individual"

Accordingly, no one treatise could possibly have been cited and discussed in all of the 50 histories. The data presented in table 7 are merely a sam­ ple of what was found in our composite list based upon study of the 50 histories. This composite list included more than 200 pages of type­ written material. For each philosopher who wrote at least one book which appeared as many as 12 times in the composite list, i.e., was discussed in as many as 12 different histories of philosophy, the philosopher's one best treatise was ascertained. In selecting the one best work it was assumed that the treatise by a given philosopher which was cited and discussed in the

IN PHILOSOPHY

largest number of histories was his best. In this manner the 52 best books of 52 deceased major philosophers were identified. Figure 24 reveals the average number of these best philosophical works either written or first published during each five-year interval of the authors' lives. In constructing the solid line of figure 24, each of the 52 best books was counted once only; in constructing the broken line of this figure each of

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

F I G . 24. Age versus production of the one book (by each of 52 deceased philoso­ phers) most frequently mentioned and discussed in 12 or more of 50 histories of philosophy. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

the 52 books was tallied as often as it was mentioned. The words "as often as it was mentioned" has reference to the number of different his­ tories in which a given philosophical work was mentioned and discussed. No count was made of the number of different times a particular work was mentioned and discussed between the covers of any one history. If a particular philosophical work was cited and discussed in 12 of the histories, that particular work was counted 12 times in the construction of the broken line of figure 24. This procedure is based upon the assump­ tion that those books which were cited and discussed by more historians probably possess greater merit than do those which were mentioned and discussed by fewer histories. Although this measure of merit is a crude one, there is no valid reason for supposing it prejudicial to any one par­ ticular age group. The solid line of figure 24 reveals that the highest mean output of these important philosophical books occurred at 35 to 39. This statement is supported by the fact that the solid line of the figure attains its apogee at 35 to 39. Figure 24 reveals further that when each of the 52 books was tallied as many times as it was listed in the 50 histories, thus giving greater weight to those books which probably deserve greater weight, the re­ sultant curve still has its peak at 35 to 39. If one can accept the consensus

AGE AND ACHIEYEilENT

o£ experts, it seems apparent that the greatest philosophers of the past 500 years have most often attained their largest average output of superior philosophical works not later than 35 to 39. For 120 minor philosophers, none of whom wrote a book that appeared in as many as 12 different histories of philosophy, the philosopher's one best book was identified in the manner just described. Each of these 120 minor philosophers wrote at least one book which was mentioned and discussed in not less than 5 nor more than 11 of the 50 histories. Figure

-100% -80

-60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 25. Age versus production of the one book (by each of 120 other deceased philosophers) most frequently cited and discussed in from 5 to 11 of the 50 his­ tories of philosophy. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

25, which presents the findings for the 120 minor philosophers corrobo­ rates the findings in figure 24 in almost every respect. For both major and minor philosophers the one best philosophical treatise seems most often to have been either written or first published when the author was from 35 to 39. This finding is all the more impressive when it is borne in mind that figures 24 and 25 disclose information regarding two entirely dif­ ferent groups of men. Figure 26 gives similar information for still another group of 241 de­ ceased philosophers, each of whom wrote only one book which was mentioned and discussed in from 1 to 4 of the 50 histories. In the con­ struction of figure 26 and in the present discussion thereof, it is assumed that if a particular individual wrote only one book that received mention in the 50 histories, that particular book must have been his best, or almost his best, philosophical work. Figure 26 has been smoothed from 40 to 49, by taking ten years, in­ stead of the usual five, as the unit of classification. This procedure elimi­ nates slight irregularities and brings out more clearly the general trend of the age differences.

IN PHILOSOPHY

It seems obvious that figures 24 and 25 are based upon philosophical works that possess greater average merit than do the books employed for the construction of figure 26. Nevertheless, figure 26 reveals once again that the philosopher's one best philosophical treatise is more likely to be either written or first published at 35 to 39 than at any other five-year in-

-!00% -80 -60

-40 -20

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG. 26. Age versus production of the one book (by each of 241 other deceased philosophers) most frequently mentioned and discussed in from 1 to 4 of the 50 histories of philosophy. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

terval. In this respect figure 26 supports the findings in both figures 24 and 25. The two following characteristics of figure 26 should also be noted: (1) The broken line, in the construction of which an attempt is made to give extra credit to works of superior quality, rises somewhat more slowly and, after attaining its peak, falls off somewhat more rapidly than does the solid line. If, in figure 26, the works credited to the youngest and to the oldest age groups possessed as great merit, as measured by consensus, and hence had received as much credit as did the works published at 35 to 39, the broken line would have coincided with the solid line of this figure. But the curve which presumably gives greater credit where greater credit is due, i.e., the broken line, rises more slowly and falls off more rapidly than does the solid line. (2) In figure 26 both curves start their rise at a younger age level, namely, 15 to 19, instead of 20 to 24, and both sustain themselves better at the uppermost age levels than do any of the four curves shown in figures 24 and 25. This finding suggests that, although a philosophical treatise that is either written or first published prior to 20 or subsequent to 80 may be a particular individual's best philosophical work, such a treatise is not likely to be mentioned and discussed in many standard histories of philosophy.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

The characteristics of all these curves seem to reveal a very general principle, namely, that man's best creative thinking is likely to be ex­ pressed on the average during a relatively narrow age-range, and the more noteworthy the performance, the more rapidly does the resultant age-curve descend after it has attained its peak. In addition to the procedure described in the foregoing paragraphs, the philosophers' principal writings were identified by noting the fre­ quency and the unanimity with which the historians characterized a par­ ticular book as the author's "chief work," "principal work," "most im-

-100%

-30 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

ι iG. 27. Age versus production of 128 philosophical works each of which was alleged by one or more of the 50 historians to be author's "chief work." Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

portant work," and the like. Figure 27 is based upon data thus obtained for 128 works by 128 deceased men. The two curves set forth in this figure were constructed in the same manner as were the curves in figures 24, 25, and 26. It will be noted that, although the solid line of figure 27 attains its peak at 35 to 39, it does not start its decline as early as did the solid lines of figures 24, 25, and 26. Moreover, the broken line of figure 27 attains its apogee at an older age level than do the broken lines of figures 24, 25, and 26. These two characteristics of figure 27 may be due in part to the fact that about 10 per cent of the books employed in the construction of this figure were used for this purpose merely because some single historian asserted that these were the authors' most important works. Inclusion of books upon this latter basis probably gives too much weight to eccentric individual appraisals. Figures 24 to 27 inclusive are based upon one book only per author. Figure 2S, on the other hand, presents data for all of the 122 philosophical treatises mentioned and discussed in as many as 12 of the 50 histories. The 122 philosophical works employed for the construction of figure 28 were

IN PHILOSOPHY

the work of 52 deceased philosophers. It is of interest that few great philosophical treatises have been the work of collaborators. It is also of interest that most of the philosophers whose works are discussed herein were men. Insofar as I am aware, we have had few outstanding female philosophers (168).

-100% -80 -60

-40 *20,

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 28. Age versus production of 122 books (by 52 deceased philosophers) each of which was mentioned and discussed in 12 or more of the 50 histories of philosophy. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

Following are the names of the female philosophers that turned up in my composite list: Mary Whiton Calkins (1863-1930) Frances Power Cobbe (1822-1904) Catherine Cockburn (nee Trotter) (1679-1749) Christine Ladd-Franldin (1847-1930) Harriet Martineau (1802-1876) Madame de Roberty Edith Simcox (1844-1901) Madame de Stael (1766-1817) Marchioness Marianne Florenzi Waddington (1802-1870) It will be noted that the solid line and the broken line of figure 28 almost coincide. Figure 28 reveals that, although a particular individual may write more than one great philosophical work, the more important treatises are more likely to be produced at 30 to 39 than at any other tenyear interval. In preparing a bibliography of philosophical writings, Professor Benja­ min Rand has listed in Part i, Volume 3 of Baldwin's Dictionary of Philoso­ phy and Psyciiology practically everything that certain philosophers have published (3). Figure 29 shows the average number of philosophical writ-

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

ings (first editions only) either written or first published per five-year interval of the authors' lives, the data having been obtained from Rand's fairly complete bibliography. The solid line of the figure was obtained by using data from the first half of Rand's bibliography, namely, 1,449 works by 162 philosophers, an average of 8.92 works per individual. And

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20

25

30

35

40

45 50 55 60 65 70 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

75

80

85

90

fig. 29. Age versus production of almost the entire output of the authors' philo­ sophical writing's. First editions only. Solid line, 1,449 books by 162 individuals. Broken line, 1,459 books by 178 other individuals.

the broken line was constructed by using data obtained from the last half of this list, namely, 1,459 writings by 178 other philosophers, an average of 8.20 works per individual. The data were thus partitioned and the two curves were drawn to ascertain whether curves thus obtained would exhibit much similarity. Study of figure 29 reveals that the two curves are very similar in shape. Figure 29 reveals also that when a curve is drawn by use of data obtained from a bibliography that lists more than an average of 8 philosophical works per author, the resultant curve exhibits no very definite peak. On the contrary, both curves of figure 29 are relatively flat from 32 to 72. In figure 30 the solid line discloses the ages at which 182 deceased men either wrote or first published their one best philosophical treatise, i.e., the one treatise most frequently cited and discussed in the 50 histories. The broken line presents, by way of contrast, the ages at which these same 182 philosophers either wrote or first published an aggregate of 1,593 philosophical works, the average number of these other works per author being 8.75. These 1,593 other philosophical works were compiled by Benjamin Rand and published in Part i, Volume 3, of Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (3). To repeat, in figure 30 the solid line reveals the ages at which works of highest quality were most often pro­ duced; the broken line reveals, on the other hand, quantity of output at successive age intervals.

JN PHILOSOPHY

It will be noted in figure 30 that the curve based upon the works of superior quality is highest at 35 to 39, but that the average output of the superior philosophical writings is almost as great at 30 to 34 as it is at 35 to 39. In this figure the broken line, which sets forth quantity of out­ put, attains its apogee at 40 to 44.

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20

25

30

35

40

45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

85

90

FIG . 30. Quantity versus Quality of philosophical output. Solid line, the one best treatise (as determined by consensus) by each of 182 deceased philosophers. Broken line, the ages at which these same 182 men first published 1,593 other books, an average of 8.75 books per man.

Figure 30 reveals one other interesting characteristic. The curve that sets forth data for the less select philosophical works (the broken line) starts its rise somewhat earlier than does the curve for works of highest merit, and the broken line does not completely disappear until after 90. In other words, the age range for quantity of production is wider than that for quality. This phenomenon suggests that the philosopher is likely to need a brief practice period. During this practice period he may be publishing, but the consensus of posterity seems not to regard these earliest productions as really great treatises. It seems apparent also that, although the 182 philosophers continued to publish during their later years, their later works are less likely to be mentioned and discussed in his­ tories of philosophy than are works published by them at 30 to 39. The fact that some of these 182 men continued to write and to publish during their very advanced years implies that they had not lost all desire to write. On the other hand, one cannot be sure that they were maximally motivated during their later years. Study of the 7 graphs presented thus far in this chapter seems to justify the following generalizations: (1) the peak of an age-curve which pre­ sents data for philosophical works of highest merit is likely to be some­ what narrow or pointed, and to occur at not later than 35 to 39; (2) the

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

quality of a philosopher's output tends to fall off at an earlier age level than does the quantity of his output. An effort was made to ascertain the ages at which various types of select philosophical works have most frequently been produced. The philo­ sophical treatises were classified according to type by Professor W. S. Gamertsfelder, who also provided the following explanatory account of how the typing was done: "In the process of classification I have tried to detect whether the title suggested definitely a work in logic, ethics, esthetics, social philosophy, or metaphysics, and, if it did not, the work was classified under the term 'general.' Under social philosophy were classified all titles which sug­ gested such fields as philosophy of the state, philosophy of history, phi­ losophy of law, philosophy of education, philosophy of religion, and works on anthropology. In a word, social philosophy was regarded as an attempt to discuss institutional values. Thus, a philosophy of economic institu­ tions was classified as social philosophy. Under metaphysics were classi­ fied titles which suggested cosmology, ontology, and in many cases axiology, especially if the title could not be classified under ethics or social philosophy. Tides which seemed to deal with some phase of theory of knowledge were classified as logic, or metaphysics, or general as the wording of the title seemed to suggest, or in accordance with the classifier's personal knowledge of the work."

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 31. The ages at which 126 books on logic were produced by 90 different autliors. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

Figure 31 reveals the ages at which 90 logicians either wrote or first published 126 outstanding works in the field of logic. In preparing the curves of figure 31, and the following curves, no book was included un­ less cited and discussed in two or more of the 50 histories of philosophy. In drawing figure 31, books cited in only one of the 50 histories of phi-

IN PHILOSOPHY

losophy were omitted in order to eliminate eccentric individual judg­ ments. The technique used for constructing the broken and the solid lines of figure 31 has been previously described. In general, the two curves of figure 31 do not differ significantly. Both curves attain their peaks at 35 to 39. The final rise of these two curves at 75 to 79 is due chiefly to the fact that Thomas Reid published his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man when past 75. Today it is known, how­ ever, that these essays contain merely the substance of college lectures delivered by Reid many years earlier. It is therefore probably not en­ tirely valid to credit those essays to the age group that receives credit for them in figure 31, namely, 75 to 79, but I knew of no satisfactory alterna­ tive procedure.

-100% -80

-60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

FIG . 32. The one best book (as determined by consensus) by each of 95 philoso­ phers who wrote books in the field of ethics. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

Figure 32 sets forth the ages at which 95 deceased philosophers either wrote or first published their one best book on ethics as determined by the consensus of experts. Each of the 95 books was cited and discussed i n t w o o r m o r e o f t h e 5 0 h i s t o r i e s . J a m e s M a r t i n e a u ' s b o o k , T y p e s of Ethical Theory, published by Martineau at 80, is responsible for the final rise of both curves of figure 32 at 80 to 84. With reference to Martineau's philosophical publications Rudolf Metz has written that: "those works upon which Martineau's philosophical reputation almost exclusively rests are the works of a very old man, and there can surely be no other case of a man's highest creative productivity falling between the eighth and ninth decades of his life." (123, p. 208) Other historians, however, deny the truth of Metz's contention. For example, on the same page of the book in which tire above statement appears, J. H. Muirhead makes the following editorial comment with ref-

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

erence to Metz's assertion that Martineau's contributions are wholly the works of a very old man. "This is not quite true. His chief philosophical works were not published till after he resigned the Principalship of the College, but for many years before their contents had formed the ma­ terial of his lectures." (123, p. 208)

-100% -80 -60

-40

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 33. The ages at which 91 books on aesthetics were produced by 72 different authors. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

In the 50 histories of philosophy 38 books only were found which dealt with aesthetics. In order to obtain a trustworthy curve for the production of really superior works in aesthetics, 12 additional books which dealt either entirely or in part with the history of aesthetics were examined. This supplementary study yielded a grand total of 91 books on aesthetics each of which was mentioned and discussed by two or more historians. Figure 33 shows the resultant curves, each of which attains its apogee at 35 to 39.

-100% -80 -60

-40

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG . 34. The one best book (as determined by consensus) by each of 177 social philosophers. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

IN PHILOSOPHY

The one most frequently cited and discussed book on social philosophy by each of 177 deceased individuals was identified in a manner previously described. Each book was discussed two or more times. Figure 34 gives the findings. For reasons earlier stated both curves of figure 34 were drawn by taking ten years, instead of the usual five, as the unit of classifi­ cation. Both curves attain their peaks between 35 and 44.

00% -80 -60

-20

25

30

35

45

40

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 35. The one best book (as determined by consensus) by each of 131 meta­ physicians. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

Figure 35 presents data for the one best treatise on metaphysics by 131 writers. No book is here included unless cited and discussed by three or more of the 50 historians. It will be noted that in this figure, as in the preceding, ten-year intervals have been employed. The peaks of both curves of figure 35 occur between 40 and 49. Figure 36 sets forth data for works classified by Dr. Gamertsfelder as

-100%

~

-80

//

-60

f

-40

Vs.

/

/

-20 •

I

l

l

l

20

25

30

35

l

40

l

45

I

I

I

.

ι

I

I

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG . 36. The ages at which 301 books in general philosophy were produced by 170 authors. Solid line, number of books. Broken line, number of tallies.

Fig. Fig. Fig Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig Fig Fig Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig Fig.

24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 36 36 .

. ,

..

4549

Age interval 50- 55- 6054 59 64

.010 .100 .014 .110 .009 .011 .008 .044 .032 .059 .162 .167 .011 .164. .020 .085 .012 .083 .156 .030 .015 .061

6569

.086 .006 .022 .142

.031 .025 .008 .062 .018 .028 .006 .031 .016 .025 .208 .252 .008 .230 .006 .016

7074

.136 .009 .020 .020 .136 .008

.013 .031 .048 .125 .184 .007 .154 .018 .120

.024 .019 .012 .092 .014 .010 .016 .020 .011 .044

7579

8589

—

9094

.141 .115 .080 .099 .132 .091 .008 .120 .122 .083

SO84

4044

.011 .202 .019 .120 .025 .036 .008 .075 .04.0 .075 .219 .230 .010 .224 .017 .049 .018 .153 .056 .015 .034 .170

3539

.023 .303 .023 .140 .018 .030 .025 .171 .048 1.04 .195 .189 .017 .192 .030 .121 .031 .191 .129 .025 .031 .187

3034

2529

.024 .354 .035 ,253 .028 .048 .035 .250 .056 1.04 .197 .200 .028 .198 .039 .189 .027 .140 .133 .028 .040 .327

2024

1519

.036 .518 .026 .196 .022 .038 .033 .286 .059 1.15 .214 .239 .032 .226 .031 .192 .031 .197 .206 .038 .049 .277

.018 .253 .007 .051 .017 .026 .016 .095 .040 .082 .176 .193 .023 .184 .028 .116 .009 .073 .046 .009 .043 .233

.008 .115 -003 .020 .002 .007 002 .007 .002 .030 .005 — .132 .040 003 .04.2 .004 .001 .041 .004 .013 .003 .025 .028 .009 .003 .005 .014 .044

7584

2534

6574

1524

3039

.013 .024 .041 .018 .016 .008 .009 .105 .209 .256 .144 .159 .066 .053

.001 .021 .033 .026 .018 .013 .011 .003 .132 .193 .176 .105 .063 .038 Age interval 40- 50- 60- 70- 8049 59 69 79 89 2029

.028 .035 .047 .362 .473 .647 .019 .025 .042 .143 .191 .303 .016 .023 .039 .031 .034 .082 .019 .030 .037 .134 .198 .257 .027 .064 .069 .539 1.15 1.23 .127 .236 .201 .143 .238 .238 .016 .037 .037 .135 .237 .218 .024 .053 .055 .131 .220 .258 .013 .038 .039 .051 .214 .241 .206 .237 .264 .034 .040 .048 .039 .049 .065 .249 .243 .452 Age interval 35- 45- 5544 54 64

Table 8. Average number of contributions to philosophy per age interval

solid line .. broken line solid line broken line solid line . . broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line broken line solid line . . broken line .

Fig. 34 solid line Fig. 34 broken line

Fig 35 solid line Fig. 35 broken line

IN PHILOSOPHY

"general" philosophy, As here used the term "general" includes all phil­ osophical works not classified as works on logic, ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, or metaphysics. No book was included in this figure unless mentioned and discussed by three or more historians. Note that both curves of figure 36 attain their peaks at 35 to 39. On the whole, this seems to be the most favorable five-year interval for superior creative thinking in the field of philosophy. Table 9. Summary of findings with reference to contributors to philosophy

Data used in: Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. FigFig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36

(52 books) . . . (764 tallies) . . . (120 books) ... (863 tallies) . . (241 books) .. , (404 tallies) . . (128 books) .. (919 tallies) . . . (122 books) . . (2,330 tallies) (1,449 books) (1,459 books) (182 books) (1,593 books) (126 books) (583 tallies) . . (95 books) . (587 tallies) . . . (91 books) .,.. (496 tallies) .. (177 books) .,. (1,070 tallies) (131 books) ... (1,001 tallies) (301 books) (1,838 tallies)

No. of Ave. per Median men indiv. age 52 52 120 120 241 241 128 128 52 52 162 178 182 182 90 90 95 95 72 72 177 177 131 131 170 170

1.00 14.69 1.00 7.19 1.00 1.68 1.00 7.18 2.35 44.81 8.94 8.20 1.00 8.75 1.40 6.48 1.00 6.18 1.26 6.89 1.00 6.05 1.06 7.64 1.77 10.81

39.63 39.91 42.13 41.70 43.50 41.98 41.91 41.81 43.37 43.26 45.27 45.29 41.04 46.48 40.40 40.68 41.51 42.53 39.78 39.40 43.76 41.28 43.82 43.42 41.94 41.68

Mean age 41.54 41.65 43.94 43.69 45.70 44.99 43.08 42.53 44.59 44.64 47.52 47.16 43.05 48.18 43.36 43.02 43.48 44.67 42.34 42.66 . 45.63 45.50 45.00 44.88 44.27 43.79

Ύears of maxi­ mum S.D. of produc­ tivity dist. 10.55 10.35 12.10 12.15 14.20 13.50 11.00 10.63 12.08 11.95 14.75 14.50 11.75 14.75 12.20 11.95 11.43 11.95 12.80 13.55 12.50 11.60 12.85 13.40 13.20 12.80

35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 70-74 35-39 30-34 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-44 35-44 40-49 40-49 35-39 35-39

4. In Music* SCHUBEST DIED AT 31, Mozart at 35, Mendelssohn at 38, and Chopin at

39. On the other hand, Bach reached 65; Handel 74; Haydn 77; SaintSaens 86; and Verdi 87. These striking differences raise some pertinent questions. Is there any one period in life at which the impulse to create music reaches a peak among composers generally? Perusal of the literature discloses almost every conceivable answer to the foregoing question. For example, Phelps states that musical compo­ sition appears at early ages (146, p. 79); Dorland believes, on the other hand, that the best music is composed late in life (51). Still another writer asserts that there are two types of genius, one of which matures early, the other late (83). And Pitkin assures his readers that "musical genius, high and low alike, flowers early and continues to bloom through­ out life" (148). From these mutually contradictory statements what is one to conclude? What are the facts? On the basis of data obtained by the procedure described in chapter 1, information regarding the produc­ tion of grand opera will be submitted first. Grand Opera. In The New Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians (153), Pratt presents dates on which more than 2,500 grand operas by more than 600 individuals were either first produced or first published. With the foregoing information, together with the birth and the death dates of the composers, it has been possible to find the average number of operas produced at each successive age level.

-80

V:

-60

•40 •20

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG. 37. Age versus production of grand opera. Solid line, 650 operas by 134 Italians. Broken line, 569 operas by 108 Frenchmen. Dash line, 458 operas by 142 Germans. Doited line, 690 operas by 214 nationals of other countries. " The material used in this chapter was assembled by the author in collaboration with Professor D. W, Ingerham of the School of Music of Ohio University, and first published in The Scientific Monthly, Mav 1939, 48, 431-443.

IN MUSIC

In figure 37 the solid line shows the mean output per five-year interval for 134 Italian composers, and the three remaining curves present data for French, German, and "other" nationals. Additional explanation of graphs and tables is made here because of the fact that a university teacher untrained in reading graphs remarked that he was much impressed to find that all 4 curves of figure 37 attain exactly the same maximum height. He had interpreted the equal heights of the curves as revealing identical maximum outputs for each of the 4 national groups. The 4 curves are, of course, of the same maximum heights merely because the modal value of each statistical distribution was assigned a value of 100 per cent, regardless of its absolute numerical value, and the other averages within the same statistical distribution were then assigned proportionate percentage values. For example, the highest average output per five-year interval for the Italians (.165) occurred at 35 to 39. This value (.165) was assigned a percentage value of 100, and the remaining frequencies (shown in the first row of table 10) were then computed for the Italian composers and plotted as percentages of .165. Data for the French composers were treated similarly, the modal value for the French composers (shown in the second row of table 10) being .180. For the German composers the modal value (.125) is revealed in the third row of the table, and for the "other" nationals the modal value (,111) is set forth in the fourth row. In our tables the modal values are always italicized. Though differing in absolute numerical size, each of the modal values of table 10 was taken as 100 per cent. The foregoing explanation should reveal why the absolute numerical values cannot be ascertained even approximately by study of the curves, and why cross-comparisons between the various curves in figure 37 should not be attempted at any particular age level. Obviously, our tables reveal certain facts not revealed at all by the graphs, and the graphs reveal certain other facts not easy to perceive by mere inspection of the tables. This is why both graphs and tables are included. A second reason for including the tables is the likelihood that certain critical students may be able to discover important relationships that have escaped my notice. If we bear in mind the method used for constructing figure 37, it is apparent that significant and consistent changes occur with age regardless of nationality: (1) all 4 curves rise somewhat more rapidly than they descend, (2) each curve remains at nearly its maximum height for a period of ten to fifteen years, and (3) the Italians appear to compose more operas at 18 to 30 than do the composers from other countries. The method of plotting the curves might conceivably have given rise to an erroneous conclusion at this point, but table 11 reveals clearly that, prior to 30, the average number of operas per composer is definitely greater for the Italians than for any of the three other groups. This latter finding

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

37 Grand opera (Itali an) 37 Grand opera (French) 37 Grand opera (German) 37 Grand opera (others) 38 Victor Book of the Opera 39 Light opera and musical comedy 40 Orchestral music (solid line) 40 Orchestral music (broken line) 41 Orchestral music (Olin Downes) 41 Orchestral music (Contemporary) 42 Cantatas (more select) .. 42 Cantatas (less select) 43 Symphonies (more select) 43 Symphonies (less select) 44 Chamber music 45 Vocal solos 4.6 Instrumental music 47 Misc. contemporary music

Data used in:

19

15-

.006

.101 .041 .031 .038

24

20-

.164 .117 .087 .085 .016

2529 3539

.153 .165 .180 .177 .125 .118 .111 .100 .063 .123

34

30-

.141 .167 .080 .091 .072

44 .091 .139 .069 .085 .049

4549

.083 .108 .083 .072 .040

54

50-

Age interval 40-

.061 .078 .031 .065 .077

59

55-

.04.7 .064 .043 .044 .041

64

60-

.035 .081 .020 .038 .041

6569

.002 .050 .026 .037 .043 .008 .025 .041 .068 .013 .036 .138 .241 .265 .323 .012 .108

.129 .032 .078 .033 .089 .048 .455 .382 .329

.197 .066 . 120 . Ill .136 .092 .511 .317 .503

.220 .074 .135 .084 .120 .117 .256 .255 .492

.203 .113 .079 .070 .124 .113 .174 .156 .486

.22 1 .065 .072 .041 .073 .083 .176 .111 .538

.240 .023 .081 .046 .097 .047 .082 .162 .601 .505

.278 .038 .113 .087 .082 .OBI .098 .232

.190 .058 .098 .045 .067 .042 .103 .078 .429

84

80-

89

85-

.009 .037 .102 .020 .021 .096 .100 .180 .474 .200

.027 .010 .060

.O,j.2

.008 .020 .068 .016 .087 .013 .024067

79

74 .018 .087 .015 .017 .046

75-

70-

.222 .200

.011 .032 .152 .174 .074 .039 .095 .031 .017 .028

.029 .048 .157 .275 .405 .261 .134 .25 9 .092 .073 .073

.022 .044 .104 .217 .263 .175 .096 .176 .062 .057 .04.3

.007 .007 .015 .04-9 .100 .117 .102 .044 .04.2 .034.

.025 .006 .003 .006 .002 .005

1014

.001 .007 .028 .018 .135 .001 .001

9

5-

Table 10. Average number of musical compositions per five-year interval

134 108 142 214 38 61 39 22 21 43 11 34 54 23 20 36 11 24 12 19 124 65 38 59 24 283 29 34 131

Fig. 37 Grand opera (Italian) Pratt 650 Grandopera(French) Pratt . 569 Grandopera(German) Pratt 458 Grand opera (others) Pratt .... 690 Fig. 38 Grand opera (best-liked) Victor Book of the Opera . 82 Grand opera (best-liked) Kobbe 144 Grand opera (best-liked) McSpadden 114 Grandopera (best-liked) Upton 62 Grand opera (best-liked) England 47 Grand opera (best-liked) Reclams 92 Grand opera (best-liked) Newman 29 Grand opera (best-liked) Victrola Book of the Opera 89 Fig. 39 Light opera and musical comedy McSpadden 121 Fig. 40 Orchestral music (best-liked) Burk 93 Orchestralmusic (best-liked) , . O'Connell ... . 69 Orchestralmusic (best-liked) Upton & Borowski . 154 Orchestralmusic (best-liked) . . Gilman 38 Orchestral music (best-liked) . . Upton 56 Orchestral music (best-liked) . . Goepp .. 33 Fig. 41 Orchestral music (best-liked) Downes 53 Fig. 41 Contemporary orchestral music . Reis 510 Fig. 42 Cantatas (the aggregate) . . Upton . . 247 Cantatas (superior) 73 Upton Fig. 43 Symphonies (the aggregate) . . Upton 231 Symphonies (superior) Upton 56 Cobbett . . 970 Fig. 44 Chamber music Fig. 45 Vocal solos Grove's Diet. . 301 Fig. 46 Instrumental selections Grove's Diet. 387 Fig. 47 Misc. contemporary music Reis . 1,286

* Insufficient data for determining the peak of production.

Sourceofdata

No. of men

Typeofmusic

No. of -works 4.85 5.26 3.23 3.22 2.16 2.36 2.92 2.82 2.24 2.14 2.64 2.62 2.24 4.04 3.45 4.28 3.45 2.33 2.75 2.79 4.11 3.80 1.92 3.91 2.33 3.43 10.38 11.38 9.82 36.36 40.31 38.80 39.28 41.25 42.64 42.92 40.50 40.50 40.70 41.00 42.00 42.17 38.38 36.69 37.36 39.00 38.50 36.50 37.83 36.31 39.23 40.00 37.80 39.17 41.11 31.47 30.28 36.30

Ave. per Median indiv. age 37.92 42.37 39.87 40.96 45.12 44.44 45.40 43.47 43.14 43.48 45.78 44.07 42.71 40.01 38.15 40.10 38.70 40.71 39.62 40.14 38.60 43.07 40.03 38.95 40.71 42.54 33.63 33.00 38.02

Mean age

Table 11. Summary of findings with reference to musical compositions

12.05 14.85 10.65 12.25 11.88 11.45 11.55 11.10 10.65 11.80 12.73 12.20 9.60 10.65 8.50 10.75 11.95 11.25 10.10 9.58 10.10 12.95 9.80 12.30 11.25 13.90 11.45 14.15 9.75

S.D. of dist.

35-39 50-54 35-39 40-44 30-34 30-34 35-39 30-34 25-29 50-54

*

30-34

*

35-39 30-34 30-34 30-34 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 35-39 40^.4 35-39 35-39 35-39

Years of maxi­ mum productivity

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT

will perhaps not be surprising to those who have traveled in Italy and heard even small boys on the streets whistling the airs of well-known operas. Evidence will appear later which suggests that the peculiar bulge be­ yond 65 in the curve for the French composers is probably due in part to the fact that the average output is larger for the French than for any other national group. A larger average output per individual seems often to be indicative of lesser average merit as regards individual accomplish­ ment, and it seems to be a general rule that our performance age-curves sustain themselves betteT at the uppermost age levels when average pro­ duction is larger and average merit is less. Figure 37 is based on data available in The New Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians (15S). Since the figure presents data for more than 2,000 operas, it does not yield definite information as to when the best-loved operas were produced. The production of favorite grand operas is re­ vealed in figure 38. The data used for the construction of this figure were

-] 00¾ -80 -60

-40 -20,

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES F I G . 38. Age versus production of best-loved grand operas. Based on 82 operas by 38 composers.

obtained from the ninth edition of The Victor Book of the Opera (186). This volume is the result of an attempt to select only those grand operas which possess lasting value and which opera-goers are most likely to hear. In the preface the editors make the following explanatory statement: "It has been our aim to make the present edition of The Victor Booh of the Opera as representative as possible by including all the standard operas regularly played in the repertoire and the newer operas that seem to be of permanent interest." If it be granted that the above-mentioned purpose has been attained by the compilers of The Victor Book of the Opera, it seems evident that

IN MUSIC

the grand operas that are most preferred by opera-goers have been com­ posed most frequently by men of 35 to 39. In the construction of figure 38 data for a very few living composers were included. However, their inclusion did not influence appreciably the shape of the age-curve. Perhaps it should be mentioned also that, although a few comic operas are listed in The Victor Book of the Opera, the comic operas were not used for the construction of figure 38. Critical readers may wonder whether the shape of the curve in figure 38 is not perhaps due to the particular book employed for obtaining the data. Might not other books that list the noteworthy grand operas yield curves of quite different shape? The author sought an answer to the foregoing question by separate study of seven additional opera guides (eight books in all) which purport to list the best-liked operas (60, 99, 116, 135, 155, 183, 187). The eight age-curves based on these guides were found to differ in no essential respect from the curve in figure 38. Each of the eight attained its maximum height and each exhibited a rather narrow peak at the age interval 35 to 39. A single curve was constructed by use of all the grand operas found in Pratt's Cyclopedia (153). Comparison of this latter curve with figure 38 reveals that the curve for best-loved operas rises about ten years later and has a much sharper peak than does the curve which pictures the more mediocre operas. Throughout this entire series of studies it has been found to be a general rule that superior production occurs during a nar­ rower age-range than does production of lesser merit. Light Operas and Musical Comedies. Figure 39 presents data for 121 light operas and musical comedies written by 54 individuals from six different countries (115). Among the 54 composers are Germans, French­ men, Englishmen, Americans, Italians, and one Russian. Perusal of the

-100% -80

-00 •40 -20

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG. 39. Age versus production of light operas and musical comedies. Based oil 121 compositions by 54 individuals.

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT

121 titles will serve to convince any impartial reader that, collectively, these are very superior works of their particular kind. For these light operas and musical comedies the peak of the age-curve occurs at 40 to 44, which is five years later than the peak for the production of favorite grand operas. In figure 39 notice the rather narrow age-range during which the majority of the light operas were produced. As will appear later, for most types of musical composition that I have studied, the most preferred works seem to have been composed during a somewhat narrower agerange than was the aggregate of the same type of composition. Although one might infer at first glance that Hght operas and musical comedies are produced at an older age level than are the more pre­ tentious, and presumably more mature, grand operas, this inference may not be valid. We have already noted that no very accurate comparison of the ages of greatest creative efficiency can be made unless the con­ tributions to the several fields being compared are first equated upon the basis of their quality or merit. Ideally, in order to draw a trustworthv conclusion regarding the age intervals at which maximum rate of output of grand operas versus light operas and musical comedies occur, we should compare samples of these two types of composition that are of equal merit.

•60

•40 •20

20

25

30 35 40 45 50 55 CHRONOLOGICAL Λ GES

60

65

FIG . 40. Age versus production of orchestral music of highest merit. Solid line, data obtained from six source books. Broken line, data obtained from three books.

Orchestral Music. Whereas figures 37 to 39 inclusive are based upon the chronological ages of the composers at the time of first performance or first publication, figure 40 on the other hand reveals the ages of the composers of orchestral music at the time of composition. Thus, figure 40 presents composite age-curves constructed by the use of data obtained from: (1) three source books which list orchestral selections of lasting

IN MUSIC

popularity (21, 138, 185), and (2) six source books, which number in­ cludes also the three source books (72, 73, 184). In constructing the composite curves in figure 40, each orchestral selection was counted as often as it was listed. Thus, when the three source books were being examined, a selection listed in each of the three books was tallied three times, a selection listed in only two of the three books was given two credits, and a selection mentioned in only one book was counted only once. This procedure is based upon the assumption that the selections which are listed by a larger number of compilers have greater merit than the selections which are listed less frequently. The two curves in figure 40 reveal that only a slightly different curve is obtained when six books instead of only three books are utilized for obtaining data. Note that both of the curves in figure 40 exhibit rather narrow peaks, a characteristic which has received earlier comment. It seems apparent that the orchestral selections which are most popular with music lovers, and which have withstood the test of time, have been composed most frequently by men of 35 to 39. This was not necessarily the most prolific period of the composers of these works, but it was the most productive of works considered superior by posterity.

. 1 A A OL

_J 20

—J 25

I 30

1

1

1

1

1

35 40 45 50 55 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

1——J 60

65

L 70

Jί ο . 4.1. Age versus production of orchestral works. Solid line, 53 very superior orchestral works which have survived the test of time. Broken line, 510 contem­ porary orchestral works written by Americans between the years 1912 and 1932.

Contemporary versus Established Music. In figure 41 the data for the solid line were obtained from still another, a seventh, book of orchestral selections, namely, Olin Downes' Symphonic Masterpieces (54). This solid line, which presents data for 53 superior orchestral selections by 19 composers now deceased, corroborates the findings set forth in figure 40. This curve reveals once again that the best-loved orchestral selections

AGE AND ACHIEVEyfEXT

have been composed most frequently by individuals who were from 35 to •39 at the time of composition. The broken line in figure 41 presents data for contemporary American composers whose works have been listed by Clair Reis (159). In the foreword of her compilation Reis makes the following explanatory state­ ment: "In order to present a complete picture of the outstanding works writ­ ten during the past twenty years . . . this second edition of American Composers has been compiled. . . . Although it may seem arbitrary to include only works written between 1912 and 1932, yet a score of years is a fair exposition of contemporary music. It is the purpose of the editor . . . to present this material with less emphasis on the complete historical survey than on the original work which has come out of this country in the last twenty years." In Reis's volume data are presented separately for different types of music. It was possible, therefore, to tabulate separately the data for or­ chestral works by living American composers. It should perhaps be mentioned that many of the modern orchestral selections listed by Reis are still in manuscript form, not having as yet been published. Since some of this contemporary music was written in 1912 and was still unpublished in 1932, one can hardly avoid the suspicion that some of it is destined to remain forever unpublished. And it is questionable that many of these American composers have contributed greatly to the world's treasure of notable music. Be that as it may, figure 41 reveals that whereas the orchestral selec­ tions which today are most preferred by music lovers have been composed most often by men of 35 to 39, contemporary American composers, on the other hand, have produced their greatest volume between 50 and 54. Note the marked difference in the shapes of the two curves of figure 41. The age-curve for the contemporary American composers sustains itself well until beyond 70, whereas the age-curve which sets forth the most esteemed works of the deceased composers descends sharply after 37 is attained. Throughout this book it will be shown repeatedly that quantity of out­ put tends to sustain itself at the upper age levels much better than does quality of output. For this reason a performance age-curve that bears nothing more than such a label as "Age versus Production in Astronomy" does not mean very much. Such a curve can be made meaningful only if accompanied by a detailed description of how the curve was obtained. It can be made even more meaningful if accompanied (as in this book) by a large number of other graphs obtained by divergent procedures and compared in divers ways. Cantatas. Figure 42 shows dates of composition for cantatas. In his book, The Standard Cantatas (182), George P. Upton gives short sketches

IN MUSIC

of 73 cantatas. In the appendix of his book Upton presents a somewhat more exhaustive catalogue of 247 cantatas. The list given in the appendix includes also the cantatas that appear in the table of contents. It seems obvious that Upton has placed in his table of contents, and discussed in

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

_i 20 CHRONOLOGICAL

AGES

FIG . 42. Age versus production of cantatas of varying merit. Solid line, 73 cantatas of very superior merit. Broken line, 247 cantatas of lesser average merit.

the body of his book, only those cantatas which he regards as having greatest merit. The 247 cantatas listed in the appendix were probably re­ garded by Upton as of lesser average importance than those which were given space in the body of his book. For the more select list which appears in the table of contents, the mean number of cantatas per composer is 1.92; for the more inclusive list which appears in the appendix the average is 3.80. In figure 42 the solid line shows the ages of the composers at the time of composing the more select list of cantatas; the broken line presents anal­ ogous information for the cantatas listed in the appendix. It appears that, as compared with the larger aggregate, the more important cantatas (those best-liked) are more often composed during a somewhat narrower age-range. The more select list reveals a rather rapid rise and decline, whereas, the curve for the more inclusive list of cantatas exhibits a wider spread. Symphonies. Figure 43 sets forth, for symphonies, age-curves analogous to those presented in figure 42 for cantatas. In figure 43 both age-curves are again based upon dates of composition. The data for both curves of figure 43 were obtained from another of Upton's books, The Standard Symphonies (184). In figure 43 the solid line discloses the ages of the composers at time of composing the 56 symphonies which Upton lists in his table of contents and which he evidently regards as very choice works, and the broken line presents data for the 231 symphonies listed in the

AGE AKD ACHIEVEMENT

appendix of his book. For the more select list of symphonies the mean number of compositions per composer is 2.33; for the less select list the mean is 3.91. Figure 43 implies that the best-loved symphonies, like the

-80 -60

•40 -20

20

25

30 35 40 C H P. O N O L O

45 50 55 CAL ages

60

65

FIG . 43. Age versus production of symphonies of varying merit. Solid line, 56 symphonies of very superior merit. Broken line, 231 symphonies of lesser average merit.

best-loved cantatas, are composed during a somewhat briefer span of years than are symphonies of lesser merit. Chamber Music. Figure 44, which gives dates of first publication for 970 selections of chamber music composed by 283 individuals (35), at­ tains its peak at 35 to 39. However, when dates of composition (available for 179 selections by 37 composers) were plotted separately, the peak of production was found to occur at 30 to 34. In this figure a very striking rise in the age-curve may be observed at 70 to 74. Two composers are chiefly responsible for this phenomenon,

-10090 -80

-60

-40 -20

15

20

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 chronological ages

65

70

75

80

fig. 44. Age versus production of chamber music, Based on 970 selections by 283 composers.

IN MUSIC

namely, Max Bruch (1838-1920), who published 9 chamber music selec­ tions at age 72, and J. D. Artot (1803-1887), who published 12 selections at this same advanced age. It seems unlikely that these 21 selections were all composed at so late an age. It seems much more probable that the unusual rise at the right end of figure 44 is due to exceptional time-lag rather than to exceptionally late composition.

•100% •80 -60

/

-40 -20

/ / — I 10 15

I 20

1 1 I l l I 25 30 35 40 45 50 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

l 55

l 60

l 65

fig. 4 5 . Ag-e versus production of vocal solos. Based on 301 vocal solos by 29 composers.

Other Types of Music. Figure 45 reveals the ages at which 301 vocal solos were either composed or first published by 29 noted composers. The foregoing statement refers to the music, not the words, of the vocal selec­ tions. Although for some of these vocal solos only the dates of first publication were available, for most of them dates of composition were obtained. Some of the data for constructing figure 45 were obtained from the biographies of composers (11, 16, 95, 137, 165), but most of the data were procured from the 1927 edition of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (36). It goes without saying that not all of the 301 solos pic­ tured in figure 45 are really noteworthy vocal selections. However, in obtaining the data for this figure, selections were utilized only when mentioned specifically by name or by opus number, and when either the date of composition or the date of first publication was available. For example, in SchaufBer's biography of Beethoven it is recorded that during one year Beethoven arranged the accompaniments to 25 Scottish songs. It seems likely that the latter figure may perhaps be a mere estimate. In any event, probably not all of the 25 accompaniments were of great importance. It is here assumed that if both the name of the composition and its date have come down to us, tabulation thereof will provide a fair sampling of the composers' better vocal selections. However, since the songs of many of the greatest composers are to be found in their

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT operas, only a sampling of their vocal selections could be obtained by this procedure. Figure 46 presents information regarding 387 instrumental selections, mostly pianoforte and violin pieces, by 34 noted composers. Most of the comments that appear in the preceding paragraph are applicable also to figure 46. Instrumental selections were tabulated only when mentioned

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 46. Age versus production of instrumental music. Based on 387 instrumental selections by 34 composers.

specifically by name or opus number, and when either the date of compo­ sition or the date of first publication was available. Both biographies and Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (36) were employed as sources of information. In figures 45 and 46 the age differences in creativeness are clearly apparent. In each instance the peak of the age-curve appears prior to 35. Further comment regarding figures 45 and 46 is perhaps unnecessary. Contemporary Music. Figure 47 sets forth data for 1,286 miscellaneous musical compositions by 131 contemporary Americans. The data for this graph were obtained from Reis s American Composers (159). It will per­ haps be recalled that Reis presents what she describes as "the outstand­ ing works" written by American composers between the years 1912 and 1932, and that many of the 1,286 compositions have not yet been pub­ lished. Note that the age-curve in figure 47 attains its peak at 50 to 54, and that this curve sustains itself rather well from 30 to 70. The 1,286 musical selections listed by Reis were classified by her ac­ cording to type of composition. For four of the five types of music for which Reis presents data, the apogee of production occurred beyond 45. Considered in the light of the other data included herein, it is likely that output of music of highest quality declines at earlier age levels than does quantity of output.

IN MUSIC

It is of interest that no composition by a female composer now deceased is listed by the critics and historians whose works were employed in the present investigation. It seems apparent that modern critics do not esteem very highly the musical selections that have been written by women. Since a considerable number of women composers are listed in Reis's American Composers (159) one is led to wonder how many of their

100%

20

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 chronological ages

60

65

70

fic. 47. Age versus production of miscellaneous contemporary American music. Based on 1,286 musical selections written by 131 contemporary American com­ posers between 1912 and 1932.

works will meet with the approval of future critics. And why have there been no (or only a very few) outstanding women composers heretofore? Quality versus Quantity. Return for a moment to figure 43. As previ­ ously noted, some of the composers listed in the appendix of Upton's book, The Standard Symphonies (184), are not listed in his table of con­ tents. Therefore, since the two age-curves of figure 43 are not based upon compositions by the same individuals, the difference in the shapes of the curves of figure 43 might conceivably be due in part to the fact that the works of different composers were utilized for constructing the two curves. To check this possibility I isolated data for 19 composers whose works were listed both in the table of contents and also in the ap­ pendix of Upton's book. Age-curves were then constructed, separately for those symphonies that were listed only in the table of contents and fox those listed both in the table of contents and in the appendix. For the 19 composers the average number of their works listed in the table of contents was 2.53; the average number listed in the appendix was 7.68. For the more select list the peak of production occurred at 30 to 34; for the less select list it occurred at 55 to 59. In similar manner 36 composers were isolated whose names were found both in the table of contents and also in the appendix of Upton's book,

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

The Standard Cantatas (182). The 36 composers had written 68 cantatas listed in the table of contents and 151 cantatas listed in the appendix. For the more select list of cantatas the peak of production occurred at 40 to 44; for the larger aggregate the peak occurred at 55 to 59. Grand opera was studied in like manner. Twenty-five composers were found who had contributed 75 grand operas which were included in the eighth edition of The Victrola Book of the Opera (187). For the same 25 composers 398 of their works are listed in Pratt's The New Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians (153). For the more select list of grand operas the apogee of production was found to occur at 35 to 39; for the larger number of the composers' less select works the peak occurred at 50 to 54. Although analogous data have not been assembled for all types of music, the foregoing findings are highly suggestive. It seems likely that both today and in former days the peak for quality of musical composition appears at earlier age levels than does the peak for quantity of compo­ sition. Since quality of composition and quantity of output are not per­ fectly correlated, there is no valid reason for supposing that the con­ temporary Americans have written their best music at 50 to 54, their most prolific period. Concluding Remarks. If the sources from which the above data have been obtained are trustworthy, one must conclude that, although men attempt to write music during most of their mature years, for at least several types of composition, the best-loved works are more commonly produced during a shorter span of years than are works of lesser merit. In weighing this latter assertion it should be borne in mind that it applies to groups of composers and that any extension of group description to the individual will always be open to question. Writers sometimes point to the fact that Mozart wrote four sonatas for the violin and piano at 8, as well as his first symphony. One might point also to the fact that Mendelssohn composed his best-known work, A Mid­ summer Night's Dream, at 17. Those who are content to rely upon a few exceptional instances, selected to validate some preconception can find numerous other examples of early creativity in the field of music. Although such isolated instances are interesting, they are of minor importance for the determination of age differences in creativity. For this purpose it is equally irrelevant that Cesar Franck wrote his D minor symphony at 66, that Handel's marvelously beautiful Messiah was composed at 56, and that Verdi wrote Falstaff, regarded by many as his masterpiece, when he was almost 80. When the foregoing material was published in the Scientific Monthly, passages therefrom were quoted by Mr. Olin Downes in an article pre­ pared by him for the music section of the New York Times (53). When writing his article Mr. Downes seems to have been torn between two con-

IN MUSIC

flicting impulses, namely, the impulse to accept our statistical findings and the impulse to deny their validity, At one point in his discussion, Mr. Downes asks: "Can a question of this kind be answered by the law of averages? Creative art, in the first place, is not a matter of averages but a very individual affair." Granted that creative art is a very individual affair, so also is human death. But this latter fact does not prevent the preparation and the use of mortality tables which reveal the probability of human death at succes­ sive age levels. Our graphs are analogous to the mortality tables of the life insurance companies, in that they reveal the likelihood that the musical genius will do his composing at one age level rather than at some other. Mr. Downes later asks: "If we are to judge art by individual values, as we must, what then becomes of the statistics? . . . Shall numbers only count in the calculation?" The statistics are used for the purpose described in the immediately preceding paragraph. In my calculations I have used numbers, and numbers only, but I have tried to obtain my numbers from authoritative sources. It bears repeating that the solid line of figure 41 of this chap­ ter is based upon a book prepared by Mr. Downes himself (54). It was assumed that in preparing this book Mr. Downes tried to include only symphonies of greatest merit, and that he judged the works chosen by him upon the basis of their individual values. The solid line of figure 41 thus includes numbers that represent individual values. It is often unsound to employ statistics for a purpose other than that for which they were assembled. In the present study, however, one could hardly find better statistics for the purpose at hand than those assembled by such expert judges as Mr. Downes for a quite different purpose than that for which they are here used. If my assumptions be valid, and if my logic be sound, the solid line of figure 41 provides an almost perfect answer to Mr. Downes' query, "What then becomes of the statistics?"

^ 5. In Art* THE SHAPE OF A PERFORMANCE AGE-CUEVE varies with a number of things:

(1) the type of performance, (2) the excellence of the performance, and (3) the kind of measurement employed. This last fact can perhaps best be illustrated by use of an analogy, Thus, one might construct an agecurve setting forth the average ability of individuals within each of the several age-groups to do the ordinary high jump. At almost every age level some persons would be found who are more or less able to perform this feat. One might, therefore, test out large numbers at each age level and with the resultant data it would be quite possible to construct agecurves disclosing the average height that could be attained by the mem­ bers of each age group. But there are several other possible procedures which might be em­ ployed for comparing the several age groups. Thus, within each of the age groups, one might ascertain the per cent of individuals able to high-jump six feet, the per cent able to high-jump five feet, etc. With the obtained data it would then be possible to construct one curve that would show for each age group the per cent of individuals able to do six feet, another curve showing the per cent able to do five feet, and so on. If a number of these curves were to be constructed, it seems obvious that that curve which set forth age differences in the ability to do six feet would start its rise later and would fall off both earlier and much more rapidly than would another curve showing age differences in the ability to do, say, two feet. It is evident that very superior high jumping is likely to occur during a narrower age-range than would be found for a much lower degree of ability. If we think in terms of actual performance, the foregoing situation seems to exist in such diverse fields of endeavor as athletics, mathematics, invention, science, chess, the composition of enduring music, and the writing of great books. For each of these types of behavior, very superior achievement seems most likely to occur during a relatively narrow agerange, and the more noteworthy the performance, the more rapidly does the resultant age-curve descend after it has attained its peak. The findings in the present chapter with reference to sculptured works, oil paintings, and etchings suggest similarly that there is an optimal chronological age level for superlatively great success within these particular fields also. The work of the genius in his old age may still be far superior to the best work that the average man is able to do in his prime. Therefore, for the study of age differences in creativity, it is not valid merely to compare ° This chapter was first published in modified form in the Psychological Review, January 1942, 49, 19-42.

IN ART

the achievements of the aged genius with the more youthful accomplish­ ments of the average person. If one wishes to ascertain when men of genius have done their very best work, it is necessary to compare the earlier works of men of genius with their own later works. In the present chapter this has been done only for sculptors, oil painters, and etchers. The data for architects do not permit such a longitudinal comparison be­ cause most of the architects whose works were studied are still living. Hence, it is entirely conceivable that these living architects may do even better architectual work in the future than they have done in the past. Before accepting this speculation, however, the reader should ponder the following facts with reference to sculptured works, oil paintings, and etchings.

-80 -60

-40 -20

20 FIG .

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

48. Age versus famous sculpture. Based on 262 works by 63 sculptors.

Sculpture. Effort was made to ascertain the ages at which the most noted sculptors of early Greece executed their most famous works, but this information could not be obtained. Data for figure 48 were found in Lorado Taft's The History of American Sculpture (175), which attempts to list the best works of the most famous American sculptors. It seems safe to assume that Taft's list contains no age bias. From his book the dates of execution were found for 262 sculptured works by 63 sculptors now deceased. For these 262 works figure 48 sets forth the average num­ ber executed during each five-year interval of the artists' lives. In figure 48 it will be noted that the curve exhibits a slight rise at the extreme right, i.e., at 75 to 79. This rise is due solely to the fact that J. Q. A. Ward (1830-1910) completed contracts for three statues at this advanced age. Taft remarks in his book, however, that most of the work was done by youthful assistants. Architectual Works. An attempt was likewise made to ascertain the chronological ages at which famous architects constructed the chief

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

buildings of the Italian Renaissance. However, because it was impossible to obtain dependable data for the works of these or of any other early group of architects, it was necessary to confine this part of the present study to contemporary works. Data for the construction of figure 49 were

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

fig. 49. Age versus outstanding examples of recent architecture. Based on 293 edifices by 134 architects, many of whom are still living.

obtained from Die Baukiinst der Neuesten Zeit by Platz (149). Since only 13 of the 134 architects had died prior to the publication of Platz's book, there were not enough deceased individuals to justify the construc­ tion of a separate age-curve for the works of deceased architects only, Figure 49 presents, therefore, information regarding only 293 examples of recent notable architectural works by 134 individuals, 121 of whom are still living. The curve suggests that these architects designed their notable edifices most often when they were from 40 to 44. Etchings. Figure 50 provides information regarding modern etchings in

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20 FIG.

25

30 35 40 45 50 55 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

60

50. Age versus choice etchings. Based upon 162 dated etchings by 27 artists.

72

IN ART

the National Art Library of the Victoria and Albert Museum" in London, in the year 1903 (28). It includes data for 162 dated etchings by 27 de­ ceased artists. In constructing figure 50 the etchings of foreign schools only were employed, on the assumption that the works of the foreign artists were likely to be very select specimens. The peak of the curve suggests that very select etchings have been executed most often by artists of 30 to 34.

-100% -80 -60

-40

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES fig . 51. Age versus important pictures in the Louvre. Based on 53 paintings by 32 artists.

The Important Pictures of the Louvre. Two books, each of which at­ tempts to list the more important paintings of the Louvre, were con­ sulted (87,151). Adequate data were obtained for 53 pictures which were the work of 32 deceased artists. In constructing figure 51 each painting was counted as often as it was listed in the two books studied. Thus, if a given painting was listed in only one of the two books, that particular painting was counted only once, but if listed in both books it was counted twice. The foregoing procedure is based upon the assumption that those paintings listed by each of two authors probably possess greater artistic merit than do those listed by only one of them. Figure 51 is similar to figure 48 in that it attains its peak at 35 to 39. Figure 51 also reveals a secondary peak at the extreme right. The rise at the older age levels is probably due to the fact that the number of individuals alive at this advanced age interval was extremely small. When an average is based upon a very small number of cases it is not highly significant. It will be shown later that when the number of artists at the older age levels is reasonably large the curve for creativity in paint­ ing exhibits no marked tendency to rise at any of the uppermost age levels. 0

Formerly called the South Kensington Museum.

6064

Painting's Tallies Paintings Tallies . Paintings Tallies Paintings Tallies

Sculptures Arch, works Etchings Paintings Paintings Solid line Broken line Dotted line Paintings . .

...

.007 .014 .003 .033 .004 .052

1721 .018 .149 .012 .014 .005 .066 .026 .333

2226 .024 .201 .035 .063 .028 .133 .030 .353

2731

.003 .048 .003 .022 .067 .013 .004 .116

3741 .018 .133 .015 .025 .020 .094 .020 .199

3236 .053 .517 .057 .121 .057 .213 .087 1.18

.107 .017 .059 .022 .279

.022 .229 .020 .030 .008 .039 .044 .579

.024 .241 .030 .057 .012 .048 .047 .604

.019 .181 .015 .032 .020 .111 .032 .379

Age interval 42- 47- 5246 51 56

.029 .267 .010 .020 .010 .056 .039 .4-89

5761

.011 .109 .012 .029 .016 .077 .025 .303

6266

.016 .115 .015 .030 .013 .048 .008 .106

6771

53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56

Age interval 45- 50- 5549 54 59

Fig. Fig. Fig·. Fig. Fig. Fig:. Fig. Fig.

4044

.160 .174 .122 .077 .096 .060 .019 .064 .126 .148 .118 .084 .076 .018 .432 .250 .157 .153 .114 .034 .015 .043 .073 .063 .053 .032 .028 ,035 .332 .392 .289 .295 .263 .247 .197 Same as for Fig. 55 under Painting .005 .021 .068 .101 .142 .151 .069 .073 .039 .033 002 .009 .067 .149 .220 .234 .221 .202 .189 .157 .165 .003 .015 .051 ,064 .112 .050 .070 .012 .029

3539

48 49 50 51 52 57 57 57 58

3034

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2529

Data used in:

2024

1014

1519

7074

7579

8084

8589

7781

.004 .035 .009 .133

.010 .090 .013 .187

.005 .024 .073 .222

7276

.049 .033 .018 .010 .019 .160 .104 .184 .161 .321 .023 .035

.020 .028 .069 .078 .096 .072 .063 .020

.031 .009 .048 .077

6569

Table 12. Average number of contributions to art per five-year interval

IN ART

A Composite List of Master Paintings. A number of age-curves were drawn, each of which was based upon data obtained from a single book of best paintings." Some of these curves attained their peaks at one age level, others at younger or at older age levels. Under such circumstances how is one to determine which of the several curves is the most valid? Probably most readers will agree that in the field of art no single authority is an absolutely safe guide; that no one judge is able to make a wholly trustworthy decision as to which are the world's greatest oil paintings. Therefore, in addition to studying various separate lists of best paintings, I made a composite study of 60 different books which contain lists of so-called "master paintings."* This procedure utilizes the col­ lective judgments of 60 art critics and historians who have published their evaluations under their own signatures and who must, therefore, have tried conscientiously to make sound evaluations. In what follows, it is assumed: (1) that no single authority is an abso­ lutely safe guide, (2) that the collective judgment of 60 art historians who succeed in having their compilations published is preferable to the judgment of any single individual, (3) that among this large number of judges, personal prejudice, hero worship and the like, would tend to cancel each other out rather than to be cumulative, (4) that the frequency with which a given artist's oil paintings are listed provides a rough indica­ tion of the greatness of that artist, and (5) that the one painting by a given artist which was cited most frequently in the books prepared by the 60 art historians is probably that particular artist's one best painting. The foregoing procedure is not an attempt to pass absolute judgment on works of art or final judgment on the relative merits of any man's work. It is merely an effort to obtain the best consensus possible to obtain at the present time. No arbitrary standards were set up to determine which art books should be included in making the survey, but all of the available art histories in the Ohio University library were studied. The composite list obtained by the procedure outlined above included a total of 1,684 paintings by 305 artists now deceased. When each of the 1,684 paintings was tallied once only, regardless of how many times it had been mentioned in the 60 lists of master paintings, the resultant agecurve exhibited a very marked rise at 90 to 99. When each was tallied as many times as it was listed in the 60 books, the resultant curve still re­ vealed a marked rise at 90 to 99, but this rise now was much less marked than had been the case when each painting was tallied once only. 4 The 60 lists were compiled by both European and by American critics. The dates of publication for the lists range from 1890 to 1939. When arranged alpha­ betically the list starts with Abbott, E. R.: The Great Painters in Relation to the European Tradition, New York; Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1927, and ends with Witt, R. C.: One Hundred Masterpieces of Painting, New York: Frederick A, Stokes Co., 1937.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

48 49 50 51 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 57 58

'

63 Sculptures . . ... . . .... . . .... . .. . 293 Arch. works 162 Etchings 53 Tallies , .. . .. , . .. . , .... 1,891 Tallies . , . .. 67 Paintings . .. ... . 628 Tallies Paintings , . . . ... .. . . 86 Tallies 163 .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 61 Paintings .. . .. . . ...... 275 Tallies . . .. . . .. Paintings . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. 40 Tallies 511 Solid line .. . . ..... Broken line 506 Dotted line 1,080 Paintings .... . .. . .. .. ... , 84

Data used in:

No. of artists

Ave. works per artist

Median age

Mean age

262 4 .16 38.29 39.67 134 2.19 40.79 41.81 27 35.67 6.00 37.38 32 1.66 4.1.83 4.4·.06 168 1.13 40.25 42.47 67 1.00 40.67 43.07 67 41.18 43.42 86 1.00 36.43 40.02 36.47 40.57 86 1.00 36.67 44.86 61 41.04 61 47.34 1,4,8 4.1.94. 27 36.33 4.1.90 27 .'37.00 Same as for Fig. 55 for Paintings 3_33 152 40.31 41.82 135 42.87 4.5.40 8.00 1.27 66 40.42 41.20

No. of works or tallies

Table 13. Summary of findings with reference to oil paintings, etchings, etc.

32_% 32-36 32-36 32·36 32-36 32-36 32-36 40-44. 35-39 4·0-4.4 11.80 14.70 9.50

:12. :11,

;15 ·;l D

:15-:19

12.\)0

35-39 40-4.4. 30-34 12.70 12.60 13,4,5 12.50 12.30 14.95 15.85 12.50 12.50

11.51 8.05 8.70

fJr oduClit.if ll di.~t.

'Years of 111 (1.\' i 111 11m

S.D. of

IN ART

Figure 52 was constructed by omitting aH paintings listed by only one of the 60 compilers, and by crediting or tallying each of the remaining 650 as many times as it was listed in the 60 books of master paintings. Those listed once only in the 60 compilations were omitted on the theory that this procedure would tend to eliminate eccentric individual judg­ ments. In the construction of figure 52 it was assumed also that those paint-

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

80

85

fig. 52. Age versus paintings which appeared two or more times in a composite list.

ings listed by a larger number of compilers would probably possess greater artistic merit than would other paintings listed by fewer compilers. Figure 52 thus presents data for 650 paintings each of which was listed by two or more of the compilers of the 60 lists of master paintings. The 650, which collectively were listed a total of 1,891 times, were the work of 168 artists now deceased. It will be noted that figure 52 exhibits a definite peak at 35 to 39, and that in this curve no secondary peak occurs at the older age levels. It seems evident that when a rise occurs at the uppermost age levels in such curves as are presented herein, that rise is likely to be due either to the small number of cases or to the bizarre judgment of some individual compiler. The consensus of experts suggests that the best oil paintings have been executed most frequently by artists from 35 to 39. An Artist's One Best Painting. For each artist who painted at least one picture which appeared as many as 5 or more times in the composite list of 1,684 paintings, the artist's one best painting was ascertained in a man­ ner previously described. Thus, the 67 best paintings of 67 deceased major artists were identified. In constructing the solid line of figure 53 each of the 67 paintings was tallied once only regardless of how many times it had appeared in the 60 lists. In constructing the broken line, on the other hand, each of the 67 paintings was counted as many times as it had ap­ peared in the 60 lists. It will be noted that both curves attain their peaks

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT

at 32 to 36, and that these two curves are quite similar in even· other respect. The reader may have noticed that in figure 53 the age intervals differ frcrm those employed in figures 48 to 52, where age intervals 20-24, 25-29, etc. were used. Examination of the statistical distributions employed for constructing figure 53 revealed rather conclusively that actually the

-100% -80 -60

-40. -20

27

32

37

42

47

52

57

62

67

72

77

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 53. The one best painting by each of 67 major artists. Solid line, each paint­ ing counted once only. Broken line, each painting counted as many times as it ap­ peared in a composite list.

great oil paintings were executed most frequently at 32 to 36. In order to bring out this fact clearly, the usual age intervals were abandoned at this point and the intervals 17-21, 22-26, and so forth were employed in the construction not only of figure 53 but also of figures 54 to 56. For 86 minor artists, none of whom had a painting that appeared as

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

22

27

32

37

42

47

52

57

62

67

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 54. The one best painting by each of 86 minor artists. Solid line, each paint­ ing- counted once only. Broken line, each painting counted as many times as it appeared in a composite list.

IN ART

often as 5 times in the composite list of 1,684 paintings, the artist's one best picture was identified in the manner described in the preceding para­ graphs. Figure 54 presents the findings for these 86 minor artists. In figure 54, as in figure 53, the solid line was drawn by tallying each painting once only, and the broken line by counting each painting as many times as it appeared in the 60 books. Figure 54 corroborates the findings set forth in figure 53 in almost every respect. For both the major and the minor artists the one best painting seems to have been executed most frequently when the artists were from 32 to 36. This finding is all the more impressive when it is remembered that figures 53 and 54 present data for two entirely different groups of individuals. Each of the 4 curves of these two figures attains its apogee at 32 to 36. And in both graphs the peak of the curve is slightly narrower and the decrement is slightly more abrupt when an attempt is made to give greater weight to the paintings which are probably of superior quality. It may be supposed by some persons that the very marked decrements at the older age levels in these two figures are due largely to the fact that many of the world's most famous artists died at relatively early ages. How­ ever, it was (and still is) my belief that the computation of average pro­ ductivity at each successive age interval makes adequate allowance for the fact that some artists have died at relatively youthful ages. Data were, nevertheless, obtained for a group of 61 artists all of whom had lived to a ripe old age. For these 61 artists, each of whom had lived to be 70

-100% -80

-60

-40 -20.

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES f i g . 55. The one best painting by 61 artists each of whom lived to be 70 or more. Solid line, each painting counted once only. Broken line, each painting counted as many times as it appeared in a composite list.

or more, the artist's one best painting was ascertained in the usual manner. Figure 55 presents the findings for this group of 61 long-lived artists. It will be noted at once that this figure does not difEer greatly from figures 53 and 54. It reveals that the long-lived artists also have executed

AGE A N D A C H I E V E M E N T

their one best painting most frequently at 32 to 36. Figure 55 thus forces the conclusion that in figures 53 and 54 the very marked decre­ ments at the uppermost age levels are not due to the fact that some of the world's foremost painters have died at or before their prime. The Worlds Forty "Best" Oil Paintings. Figure 56 presents data for 40 oil paintings each of which appeared 10 or more times in the composite list of 1,684 oil paintings. The 40 paintings were the work of 27 artists now

-100%

22

27

32

37 42 47 52 57 62 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

67

72

77

FIG . 56. Age versus oil paintings which appeared 10 or more times in a com­ posite list. Solid line, each painting counted once only. Broken line, each paint­ ing counted as many times as it appeared in a composite list.

deceased. The names of the 27 artists, and the titles of the 40 pictures are given in table 14. Four of the 44 pictures which appear in table 14 could not be used in constructing figure 56 because dates of their execution are unknown. The four pictures for which dates of execution could not be ascertained are indicated in table 14 by means of asterisks. Collectively, the 44 paintings listed in this table are possibly the world's greatest. Table 14. Oil paintings which appeared 10 or more times in the composite list Artist

Leonardo da Vinci Jean-Francois Millet Leonardo da Vinci

Name of painting

Mona Lisa The Gleaners . The Last Supper

Jan and Hubert *The Ghent Altar-piece Van Eyck Thomas Gainsborough Mrs. Siddons Meindert Hobbema Raphael

No. of citations

Location*

22 Louvre, Paris 20 Louvre, Paris 18 Santa Maria Delle Grazie, Milan 17 Cathedral, Ghent 17 Tate Gallery

The Avenue, Middleharnais, 17 National Gallery, London Holland 17 Royal Gallery, Dresden The Sistine Madonna

I N ART Correggio Rembrandt John Constable

.

Giovanni Bellini . Anthony Van Dyck Raphael Titian Botticelli Botticelli .... Raphael J. M. W. Turner . J. M. W. Turner Corot Watteau John Constable Jan Van Eyck William Hogarth Masaccio Michelangelo B. E. Murillo Raphael Titian VelSsquez

.

The Marriage of St. Catherine Sortie of the Civic Guard TheHayWain PortraitofDogeLeonardo Leordano . Charles I of England The Gran' Duca Madonna Sacred and Profane Love Primavera

. . .The Birth of Venus Madonna of the Chair . The Fighting Temaire Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus Dance of the Nymphs L'Embarquement pour la Cythere . .The Cornfield or Country Lane Jan Arnolfini and his Wife *The Shrimp Girl * The Tribute Money TheLastJudgment The Immaculate Conception La Belle Jardiniere The Man With the Glove LasMenias

17 Louvre, Paris 16 Ryks Museum 15 NationalGalleryjLondon 14 National Gallery, London 14 14 14 13

Louvre, Paris Pitti Palace, Florence Borghese Gallery, Rome Academy, Florence

13 13 13 13

Uffizi Gallery, Florence Pitti Palace, Florence National Gallery, London National Gallery, London

12 Louvre, Paris 12 Louvre, Paris 11 NationalGalleryjLondon 11 National Gallery, London 11 National Gallery, London 11 Francacci Chapel, Florence 11 11 11 11 11

SistineChapel1Rome Louvre, Paris Louvre, Paris Louvre, Paris PradojMadrid

Andrea del Sarto Madonna of the Harpies 10 Uffizi Gallery, Florence Botticelli Coronation of the Virgin 10 Uffizi Gallery, Florence Thomas Gainsborough. The Honorable Mrs. Graham 10 National Gallery, Edinburgh Franz Hals The Laughing Cavalier 10 Wallace Collection, London Hans Holbein the George Gieze 10 Kaiser Friedrich Younger Museum, Berlin Pieter de Hooch A Dutch Interior Leonardo da Vinci . . *The Virgin of the Rocks Paul Potter The Young Bull Rembrandt Christ at Emmaus Sir Joshua Reynolds .The Age of Innocence

10 10 10 10 10

Titian Titian

10 National Gallery, London 10 State Picture Gallery, Dresden 10 Prado, Madrid 10 Louvre, Paris

VelSsquez Veronese

...

.Bacchus and Ariadne . .The Tribute Money Surrender of Breda Marriage at Cana

National Gallery, London National Gallery, London Gallery of the Hague Louvre, Paris National Gallery, London

* Dates of execution unknown. ** The locations are given to help identify the paintings. Some of the artists painted numerous paintings which bear the same name.

AGE AXD ACHIEVEMENT

In figure 56, as in figures 53 to 55 inclusive, the solid line was drawn by tallying each of the 40 oil paintings once only, and the broken line by tallying each of the 40 as many times as it had appeared in the 60 lists. Note that each of the curves in figure 56 attains its summit at 32 to 36, and that the peaks of both curves are quite narrow or pointed. It is perhaps no accident that the curve in figure 56 which gives greater weight to the very best paintings, namely, the broken line, exhibits a peak even more narrow and pointed than the peak formed by the solid line. This latter finding reveals a general principle which will receive further con­ sideration in what follows. Quality versus Quantity of Production. In preparing their lists of oil paintings some compilers enumerate all or nearly all of a given artist's known works. For example, the compilers of the well-known Klasstker der Kunst (98) series present an average of several hundred pictures for each of a number of artists. For many paintings in the Klassiker der Kunst series, the dates of execution are unknown. However, for 30 of the artists whose works are presented in this series, I was able to obtain dates of execution for a total of 7,600 pictures, an average of more than 250 paint­ ings per artist. A curve was drawn based upon these data. The peak of this curve occurred at a relatively late age interval, namely, at 50 to 54, and this curve tended to sustain itself well at the uppermost age levels. Other age-curves were then constructed to bring out more precisely the relationship between quality and quantity of output. Study of many such curves leads to the conclusion that the peak of an age-curve which pre­ sents data for paintings of the highest quality is likely to be narrow and to occur prior to 40. Age-curves which present data for paintings of lesser merit are likely, on the other hand, to reveal somewhat different char­ acteristics. This fact is well illustrated in figure 57, which presents data for lists of paintings which vary widely in the degree to which they are selective. For example, in this figure the dash line sets forth data for the least select of three sets of data, namely, the ages at which 7,032 oil paint­ ings were executed by 135 artists now deceased, an average of 52 works per artist (7, 8, 9, 10) ;e the broken line sets forth data for 506 pictures by 152 artists now deceased, an average of 3.33 works per artist (29); and the solid line is based on the one best painting by each of the 61 long-lived artists for whom data are presented in figure 55. It will be noted in figure 57 that the curve for the most select list of paintings (the solid line) is relatively narrow; it attains its peak at 32 to 36, and it descends rather abruptly after it has attained its peak. In figure ° Dates of execution could be found for only 1,080 of the 7,032 paintings, an average of 8 paintings per author. But the inclusiveness or the exclusiveness of a given list of paintings is to be gauged by the number of paintings per author in the entire list—not by the number of paintings per author for which dates of execution are available.

IN ART

57 the curve drawn for a somewhat less select list of paintings (the broken line) attains its summit in the forties and the most marked decrement in this curve occurs at 42 to 47. Finally, the curve for the least select of the three lists of paintings (the dash line) reveals an early rise; it exhibits almost a plateau at 32 to 45, and then falls off very gradually but rises

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

15

20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

80

85

FIG. 57. Age versus oil paintings which vary widely in merit. Solid line, the one

best painting by each of 61 artists. Broken line, 506 paintings by 135 artists, an average of 3.33 paintings per artist. Dash line, 1,080 paintings by 135 artists, an average of 8.00 paintings per artist.

again at the uppermost age levels. In a preceding paragraph it was stated that when an age-curve was drawn by using almost the entire output of a group of artists, e.g., by employing the data obtained from the Klassiker der Kunst series, the peak of the curve occurred at 50 to 54. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that in the field of painting, as in other fields, quality of output falls off at an earlier age than quantity. It is easy to understand why an age-curve for almost the entire output of a given group of artists rises at a relatively early age level and falls off very slowly. To execute a very large number of paintings, an artist must maintain a fairly large output over a period of many years. But why do the curves for the most select lists of oil paintings exhibit their rela­ tively narrow peaks at 32 to 36? It is impressive that more than 25 per cent of the very excellent paintings used in the construction of each of figures 53 to 56 were executed during a single five-year interval, namely, from 32 to 36. Figure 58 is based upon 84 modern American paintings by 66 artists, most of whom are still living (14). Like figure 49, which sets forth data for architectural works, figure 58 reveals a very definite peak at 40 to 44. If the data presented in this figure for oil paintings were the only available data for studying the ages at which superior oil paintings are executed, it would probably be inferred that oil painters are most likely to execute

AQE AND ACHIEVEMENT

their best paintings at 40 to 44. But the collective evidence presented here­ in precludes such an inference. As is shown in figures 53-56 inclusive, the best oil paintings of bygone days were executed from 32 to 36. How is one to account for the fact that in figure 5S the peak of the curve occurs at 40 to 44, whereas, in figures 53-56, the peaks occur at 32

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40 45 50 55 60 65 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

70

75

FIG .

58. Age versus modern American paintings. This graph is based on 84 paintings by 66 contemporary American artists.

to 36? This difference may be due to any one or more of the following factors. (1) Figure 58 is based upon one book only. As was stated earlier, in the field of pictorial art no one book can be expected to yield wholly trustworthy results. Other books which attempt to present the finest and most significant paintings by living American artists might perhaps yield curves whose peaks would occur at earlier or at later age levels. (2) Al­ though we may assume that many (or most) contemporary judges would agree with Peyton Boswell's evaluations (see figure 58), it is nevertheless possible that posterity may not value the 84 modern American paintings as highly as do contemporary critics. Tastes in art change with time,'and there is at present no sure method available for determining in advance what future generations of art lovers will approve and applaud. (3) As mentioned previously, the shape of a performance age-curve varies both with the type of performance and also with its excellence. Therefore, the very superior merit of the oil paintings for which data are to be found in figures 53-56 might also account for the fact that in those figures the peaks occur at 32 to 36, whereas, in figure 58 the lesser merit of the 84 modern American paintings may perhaps account for the finding that the peak of figure 58 occurs at 40 to 44. What then should be concluded with reference to figure 49, which seems to reveal that certain noted architects, most of them still living, have de­ signed their greatest edifices most often from 40 to 44? Obviously, the

IN ART

findings shown in figure 49 with reference to architectural works should be accepted only tentatively. It may well be that, if more complete data were available for the best works of a larger number of deceased archi­ tects, such data would reveal that, like the deceased oil painters, the de­ ceased architects have achieved their most notable architectural works at even younger age levels than are indicated in figure 49. Certainly, there is at present no wholly valid reason for concluding that the contempo­ rary architects whose works are pictured in figure 49 will do much better architectural designing in the future than they have done in the past. They, of course, may possibly do their best designing at older age levels, but we cannot be sure of this until more data are at hand. It may well be that figures 53-56 are analogous to age-curves which set forth, for each group, the per cent of individuals able to jump six feet or more; figure 58, on the other hand, may be analogous to a curve which discloses the per cent able to jump only three, four, or possibly five feet. Time alone will tell.

6. In Literature* THIS CHAPTER, as its title implies, reveals the ages at which various types

of literature are produced. In his book, Chronological Outlines of Eng­ lish Literature (164), Frederick Ryland presents dates of first publica­ tion for more than 2,000 literan' selections written by 543 well-known English authors. Similarly, B. M. Fullerton (68) gives data for 330 lead­ ing American writers, G. M. Priest (154) for 152 German authors, and K. T. Butler (23) for 149 French writers. In 1936 the foregoing and several additional authoritative compilations were chosen by Heidler and me for detailed analysis and study. This chapter presents a brief resume of those early findings but with a radically different interpretation from that made in 1936. This newer interpretation is a result of the fact that a large amount of data with reference to age and achievement has been assembled since the year 1936.

-J00% -80 -60

-40

20

25

30

35

40

45 50 55 60 65 chronological ages

70

75

80

85

90

fig . 59. Age versus production of miscellaneous literary works. Solid line, 843 works by 330 American authors. Broken line, 461 works by 152 German authors. Dash line, 376 works by 149 French authors. Dotted line, 2,250 works by 543 British authors.

Miscellaneous Literary Works. In figure 59 the dotted line presents the ages at which Ryland's English authors first published 2,250 miscellaneous literary works. The dotted line in this figure sets forth data for British authors only. The three remaining curves in figure 59 give data for French, for German, and for American writers. Collectively, these four curves reveal striking similarity among the four national groups. This simi­ larity is probably due to the fact that both the type and the quality of β This chapter is based upon data that I assembled in collaboration with Dr. Joseph B. Heidler and published in The English Journal (College Edition), 1937, 26, 294-304.

IN LITERATURE

literary selections chosen by the four compilers are roughly comparable. The Most Influential Books Since 1885. Separate lists of what they believe to be the 25 most influential books published since 1885 have been prepared by E. A. Weeks, John Dewey, and Charles A. Beard (191, p. 28). When each book thus selected is counted as many times as it was en­ dorsed by the three judges, thus giving greater credit to those books chosen by more than one judge, figure 60 is obtained. Again the peak occurs at 35 to 39.

•100% •80 •60

•40 •20,

30 FIG.

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

60. Age versus the production of 71 most influential books by 46 authors.

Long-term Best Sellers. Although best sellers are not necessarily books of highest literary merit, the ones that maintain their popularity over a long period of time are books that make a strong appeal to humanity. What are the chronological ages at which authors have most often pro­ duced long-term best sellers? In The Publishers Weekly for April 21, 1934, Mr. E. A. Weeks lists 65 books, each of which had sales of more than 500,000 copies since 1875. The method used by Mr. Weeks for selecting his list of best sellers is described by him as follows: 'Tou have to make up your own rules in a game of this kind. I made two. Only those new books which were pub­ lished in the United States in or after the year 1875 were eligible; that was rule No. 1. Rule No. 2 disqualified textbooks, manuals, and pam­ phlets. . .. After all, the purpose of this list was to show the current of our popular texts in literature. Books which were consulted mainly for the instruction they contained were not on the same footing with those read purely for pleasure." (192) In line with the foregoing rules, Weeks omitted from his list of best sellers the Bible, the Boy Scout Manual, cook books, books of etiquette, books on the care and feeding of children, Roget's Thesaurus, textbooks, and the like. Some of the books included in the Weeks' list have achieved

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

scores of editions; some of them have been printed and sold by the million. Figure 61 sets forth the ages at which 47 authors first published 60 of the 65 best sellers listed by Weeks. For the remaining 5 books on the Weeks list, dates of first publication could not be found. Note that the peak of

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG .

61. Age versus production of 60 best sellers by 47 authors.

figure 61 occurs at 40 to 44, and note also the phenomenal descent of this curve thereafter. Children's Literature. Figure 62 shows the ages at which classics in the field of children's literature have been produced, according to data assembled by Elva S. Smith (173, pp. 205-214). It is odd that this curve with its peak at 30 to 34 is so similar to many of our age-curves for scientific output. One wonders what elements these apparently dissimilar fields have in common. Or do my curves reflect something that charac­ terizes all groups of creative workers regardless of the field in which they happen to be working?

/N.

-100% -80

/

•60

\

/

'40

/

•20-—

1. . . ι

ι

ι

25

35

40

30

.1

45

I

50

I

55

i

60

1. ,

65

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG .

62. Age versus production of 151 children's books by 82 authors.

IN LITERATURE

It is of further interest that children's literature is the one field to which women have contributed about as much as have men. Of the 96 authors listed in Smith's chronology, 47 per cent were women, and these contributed slightly more than half (51 per cent) of the works cited by Smith. In order to check on this finding two other chronologies of chil­ dren s literature were examined. In each of the latter it was found that 46 per cent of the children's works were by women. In order to ascertain such sex differences in achievement as are to be found in various other fields of endeavor, I inspected more than IOO chronologies. The following tabulation reveals some of the findings. Partic­ ularly noteworthy is the fact that women have accomplished most in fields that demand verbal skill. Table 15. Sex differences in creative achievement

Field of endeavor or kind of worker*

Per cent of -workers who were women

Source of information

47 39 46 37.5 32

Smith (173) Huber (90) Washburne and Vogel (189) Ramsaye (154a) Manley and Rickert (119) Unstarred names only

31 30 28 23 22

Diet, of Amer. Biog. Diet, of Amer. Biog. Diet, of Amer. Biog. Fullerton (68) Taft (175) Index to chapter

Poetry (American) Short stories Hymn words Short stories .... Authors (all countries) .

20 19 17 16 16

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Composite list (The writer's) Morgan (130) Jessup (94) Kunitz (105) Deceased authors only

Historical novels Contemporary British authors ... Authors (American) Writers (American) . Artists (American)

16

..

15 15 14 14

Nield (136) Deceased authors only Manley and Rickert (120) Unstarred names only Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol.

Philanthropists (American) American literature ... Abolitionists (American) American sculpture Oil paintings (American)

13 12 12 11 9

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Whitcomb (193) Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Taft (175) Boswell (14)

Educators (American) ... Teachers (American) ... French literature

7 7 7

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Butler (23)

Children's literature Children's literature . . . Children's literature Movie acting American literature , . . Acting (American) Reformers (American) Novels (American) American literature American sculpture

.,

(46) Index Vol. (46) Index Vol. (46) Index Vol. supplementary

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

Field of endeavor or kind of worker*

Per cent of workers who were women

Source of information

Poetry American sculpture

7 6

Page (143,144)

LyTics and ballads Symphonies (composition) . Best books (all countries) . Contemp. Amer. music (comp.) Educators (all countries) .

5 5 5

Vos and Barba (188) Upton (184) Dickinson (45)

5 4

Reis (159) Composite List (The writer's)

Astronomy Missionaries (American) Oil paintings (American) Most influential books Hymn tunes (composition)

4 4 3 3 3

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol.

Weeks (191) Morgan (130)

Genetics Chamber music Psychology . . . Psychology Oil paintings

2 2 2 2 2

Cook (37) Cobbett (35) Dennis (44) Fliigel (66) Champlin (32)

Grand opera (composition) Political poetry Botany Physics Mathematics . . ...

2 2 1 1 1

Pratt (153) Arnold (2) Reed (156) Magie (117) BeU (5)

Intro, drugs & remedial agents . . . Cantatas (composition) . . Anatomy . .. ... German literature Geology

1 1 1 1 1

Power and Thompson (152) Upton (182) Garrison (70) Priest (154) Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol.

Mathematics Chemistry Philosophy Physics . Mathematics

1 0.83 0.5 0.5 0.5

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol. Hilditch (88) Composite list (The writer's) Scheel (167) Cajori (25)

Medicine and public hygiene Economics and pol. science Pathology .. . Practical inventions Medicine ...

0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25

Garrison (70) Composite list (The writer's) Krumbhaar (102) Composite list (The writer's) Castiglioni (27)

Light operas and mus. comedv Grand opera (composition) Grand opera (composition) Chess championships Surgery ...

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Classic descr. of disease Med. discov. and inventions

0.00 0.00

. ..

Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46) Index Vol.

McSpadden (115) Victrola Book of the Opera (187) The Victor Book of the Opera (186)

Buttenwieser (24) Garrison (70) Major (118) Stern (174)

IN LITERATURE

Field, of endeavor or kind of worker*

Per cent of workers ~who were women

Source of information

Goitertreatment ... Economics (dissenters) . Mathematics

0.00 0.00 0.00

Robinson (162) Haney (79) and Scott (166) Smith (172)

Grand opera (composition) Electrical development . . . Geology Bacteriology . . Astronomy

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Composite list (The writer's) Chronological History (34) MatherandMason (121) Morrey (131) Shapley and Howarth (170)

* In this table the kind of worker, i.e., reformer, abolitionist, missionary, etc., is sometimes listed because these are the categories used by the Diet, of Amer. Biog. (46). In other instances, the field of endeavor, for example, political poetry, electrical development, goiter treatment, is given because it, would have been difficult to reduce all items in this table to the same category. The repetition of certain items, for example, children's literature, has seemed desirable because this repetition reveals how closely the findings from the different sources agree.

In his book, Women and Men, Amram Scheinfeld has written "it is a strange fact that all our recorded geniuses have been men. No woman is among those whom history names as having risen to the ultimate heights in any field of work, thought, action, or cultural creation." (168, p. 316) Granted that men have done most of the creative thinking of the kinds that result in widespread recognition, the foregoing statement by Scheinfeld is, none the less, an exaggeration. Among the women now deceased who attained outstanding success in their chosen fields, the following are worthy of mention: Louisa M. Alcott (Literature) Jane Austen (Literature) Harriet Beecher Stowe (Literature) Rosa Bonheur (Oil Paintings) Anne Bronte (Literature) Charlotte Bronte (Literature) Emily Bronte (Literature) Elizabeth Browning (Literature) Mary Whiton Calkins (Psychology and Philosophy) Irene Curie (Physics) "Mme. Marie Curie (Radium) MariaEdgeworth (Literature) George Eliot (Literature) Elizabeth Gaskell (Literature) Sophie Geiiman (Mathematics) ο The only person to date (1953) who has twice shared the Nobel Prize awards.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

Sophie Kowalewski (Mathematics) Christine Ladd-Franklin (Physics and Psychology) Harriet Martineau (Philosophy) Christina Rossetti (Literature) Margaret Floy Washburn (Psychology) Surely, Scheirifeld will have to admit that some at least of the abovementioned women have achieved very notably in their respective fields. And again it is of interest that in this short list of 20 women, more than half attained their renown in some field of literature. Lyrics and Ballads. Figures 59 to 62 show for most of the literary selections included therein the ages of the authors at time of first pub­ lication. Obviously, there is no indication how old the authors were at the time they were composing these literary selections. Figure 63, which

100%

20s

20

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

FIG . 63. Age versus the composition of 148 German lyrics and ballads by 36 au­ thors.

reveals the ages of authors at time of composing 148 German lyrics and ballads (188), is introduced at this point to demonstrate the fact that, with sufficient time and energy and labor available, it is quite possible to plot separately not only the ages at time of publication but perhaps also the ages at time of composition for different types of writing. Because of the prodigious labor such a task would entail, and because the results would hardly justify the labor involved, I have not obtained for each type of literature the average number of compositions per age level. It would be possible, however, to obtain exact data of even so detailed a type by the slow process of checking definitive editions of at least the well-known poets and, perhaps, the famous prose writers. Difficulties in Studying Types of Literature. Figure 64 sets forth the ages at which 244 authors produced 687 political poems (2), and figure 65 reveals the ages at which 100 different individuals first published 247

IN LITERATURE

religious prose writings (164). When figures 64 and 65 were first con­ structed in 1936, I believed that they revealed age in relation to the production of type of literature per se, i.e., that type of literature could be isolated as a single variable. At that time 1 did not fully realize

- 100% -80

-60 40 -20

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

CHRONOLOGiCAU AGE5

FIG .

64. Age versus production of 687 political poems by 244 poets.

that the quality of a particular kind of writing may have even more to do with the shape of a performance age-curve than does the type of writing. Thus it was that in 1936 I believed figure 64 revealed rate of output of political poetry as a type of literature, rather than rate of output of political poetry of a certain quality. For those who find it hard to grasp the fact that quality of performance profoundly influences the shape of an age-curve, figure 64 will perhaps seem to reveal that political poetry continues to be produced at much older age levels than do certain other kinds of poetry. And figure 65 will seem

100%

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG.

65. Age versus production of 247 religious prose selections by 100 authors.

AGE AND ACHIEVEMENT

similarly to imply that religious prose continues to appear at almost the same average rate from 35 to 75, As far back as 1936 several college teachers of English remarked that both political poems and religious prose selections rarely possess great literary merit. One caustic individual even went so far as to remark that most of the religious prose selections listed in Ryland's book were merely warmed-over sermons and that few if any of them possessed great literary merit. Because at that time such a comment could not be supported by statis­ tical evidence, this appraisal did not seem worth publishing in the HeidlerLehman article of 1937 (85). However, abundant evidence in support of the foregoing appraisal was obtained in 1947-1948 by making a com­ posite study of 50 histories of English literature and noting the fre­ quency with which the 50 literary historians mentioned and discussed various types of writing. This latter composite study, which will be de­ scribed in more detail in a later chapter, revealed that if one adheres to even a moderately high criterion for choosing one's selections, religious prose writings and political poems of superior quality are mentioned so infrequently in critical histories of English literature that one cannot ob­ tain enough cases of either of these two types of writing to construct agecurves. Therefore, in interpreting figures 64 and 65, it should be realized: (1) that no very valid comparison can be made of the ages at which various types of literature are produced unless the contributions under considera­ tion are first equated upon the basis of their quality or merit, and (2) that figures 64 and 65 merely indicate rate of output for political poetry and religious prose of rather feeble literary merit.

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

22

27

32

37

42

47

52

57

62

67

72

77

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

66. Age versus production of short stories varying widely in merit. Solid line, 66 superior short stories by 37 authors. Broken line, 1,396 short stories of lesser merit by 220 authors.

FIG.

IN LITERATURE

That the quality of a particular kind of writing is likely to influence the shape of an age-curve is illustrated by figure 66, which presents data for the production of short stories of varying degrees of merit. For example, the broken line of figure 66 shows the average number of short stories per chronological age level for 1,396 productions by 220 authors. The data were obtained from Jessup's Representative Modern Short Stories (94). In describing how he selects short stories for his various compila­ tions, Jessup says; "The best and most representative short-story work of each author is listed; and, in the case of the more important writers, the most representative work in all stages of their literary careers. I have felt that this would be more useful than listing all their short stories. Not only short stories as works of literature in the larger sense but also fairy tales and short stories for children have in some cases been listed, when these seemed to possess sufficient literary merit to be representative of their authors' work." (93a, p. 45) The solid line near the center of figure 66 presents age data for the production of 66 "best" short stories, written by 37 different authors. The "best" short stories were identified by examining books and lists that contained what were alleged by the various compilers to be the authors' "best." Those stories which appeared most often in such lists were accepted as "the best." It will be noted that the peaks of both curves in figure 66 occur at 32 to 36. Notice in figure 66 that the age intervals which appear along the base line of the graph are not the conventional ones. When 5-year age in­ tervals are employed, it is customary to employ age intervals 10-14; 1519; etc. However, study of the tabulated data for short stoiy production revealed clearly that the most productive 5-year period was that from 32 to 36. In order to set forth this finding most vividly and accurately, the conventional age intervals were therefore abandoned in the con­ struction of figure 66 and those intervals which best fitted the assembled data were used. The curves in this figure show that, as compared with the aggregate, the best short stories were written over a much narrower age range. These two curves of this figure thus illustrate what seems to be a very general principle. Miscellaneous Poetry. For 644 miscellaneous poems written by 45 dif­ ferent poets, both the ages at time of composition and the ages at time of first publication were available (143,144,198). Figure 67 reveals the ages of the authors both at time of composing and at time of first publishing these 644 poems. The mean time-lag between date of composition and date of first publication was 2.65 years. The median lag was 1.44 years. When the influence of time-lag is such as is revealed in figure 67 it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain a mathematical formula that would enable one to make adequate allowance therefor. Figure 67 is useful,

3236

.004 .015 .202 .040 .010 .423 .286 2731

.028 .002 .006 .004 .080 .018 2226

3741

.092 .124 .123 .072 .044 .034 .087 .094 .088 .052 .498 .498

3034

5761

Age interval 42- 47- 5246 51 56

6266

.045 .053 .069 .027 .006 .019 .024 .017 .058 .067 .282 .239

Age interval 45- 50- 554 9 54 59 .055 .035 .087 .054 .045 .011 .027 .016 .063 .061 .265 .374

.089 .113 .137 .093 .068 .081 .060 .110 .071 .058 .159 .170

4044 .081 .056 .111 .066 .047 .055 .064 .065 .064 .059 .238 .196

.097 .110 .128 .090 .072 .040 .078 .093 .090 .075 .240 .451

3539

6771

.018 .033 .068 .037 .040 .024 .011 .031 .037 .053 .176 .176

6064

7276

.011 .024 .054 .031 .027 .015 .009 .023 .043 .054 .254 .305

6569

7781

.016 .038 .058 .202 .303

.010 .011 .037 .032

7074

Fig. 66 Short stories (solid line) . .016 .060 .141 .060 .068 .037 .017 Fig. 66 Short stories (broken line) .008 .105 .211 .271 .230 .187 .157 .111 .111 .090 .077 .056 .052

1721

.060 .081 .106 .055 .004 .021 .020 .247 .068 .030 .636 .538

.023 .025 .050 .016

(solid line) .. (broken line) . , (dotted line) .. (dash line) Most influential books Best sellers Children's literature Lyrics and ballads . Political poetry Religious prose Composition of poetry Publication of poetry .

.001 .003 .007 .003

59 59 59 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 67

2529

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2024

Data used in:

1519

1014

.031 .036 .042 .141 .172

.007 .035 .047 .012

7579

8084

8589

9094

.050 .038 .042 .268 .063 .341 .063

.009 .016 .019 .033 .050 .015

Table 16. Average number of contributions per age interval to various types of literature

IN LITERATURE

however, since it enables us to see rather clearly the amount of error that would occur in this particular instance if only dates of first publica­ tion were available. Concluding Remarks. In literary expositions one finds many curious impressionistic judgments as to what constitutes an exceptional age. For example, in his book entitled, And Gladly Teach, Professor Bliss Perry

.100% .80

.60 .40

.20/

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

CHRONOLOGICAL. AGES FIG. 67. Ages of 45 authors both at time of composing and also at time of pub­

lishing 644 poems. Solid line, ages at time of composition. Broken line, ages at time of first publication.

makes the following remark regarding the work of his Dutch teacher at Strassburg: "He was of Dutch origin, and although only in his forties had written a brilliant History of Early English Literature and was unques­ tionably the foremost Chaucerian upon the continent." (145, p. 102) Similarly, Geraldine Hodgson (89) remarks of Fenelon's treatise, Con­ cerning Girls' Education, that the author was "only 36 when he wrote it." The foregoing quotations suggest that Perry and Hodgson both had quaint ideas regarding intellectual precocity. In preparing this book effort was made to prepare a separate chapter setting forth the creative years of women only. But the attempt to find sufficient data for the construction of separate age-curves in specific fields of endeavor, especially in scientific fields, was rather unrewarding. Table 15 reveals a part of the difficulty, namely, the fact that so few women have contributed greatly to the several sciences. There was also the fact (not shown in table 15) that a surprisingly large percentage of the women whose names are listed in biographical dictionaries have failed to reveal their birth dates. Even after death a great many women seem to succeed in concealing their birth dates. If one adds to this difficulty the problem of pseudonyms which some­ times hide the sex of the creative worker (especially the sex of the creative writer) one has the makings of a researcher's headache.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig;. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. fig-. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

59 59 59 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 66 67 67

(solid line) , (broken line) ., (dotted line) (dash line) .. Most influential books Best sellers Children's literature . Lyrics and ballads Political poetry . . . . Religious prose Short stories (solid line) . Short stories (broken line) Composition of poetry Publication of poetry . . . .

Data used in:

843 461 2,250 376 71 60 151 148 687 247 66 1,396 644 64-4

No. of works

330 152 543 149 46 47 82 36 244 100 37 220 45 45

No. of indiv.

2.55 3.03 4.14 2.52 1.54 1.28 1.84 4.11 2.82 2.4.7 1.78 6.35 14.31 14.31

Ave. per indiv.

39.39 38.90 41.47 41.19 44.00 42.20 39.20 29.42 39.91 46.87 35.67 38.17 33.48 37.01

Median age

40.63 40.31 42.03 42.66 4.4.4.() 42.25 40.43 33.15 42.60 4.8.07 37.23 40.75 39.50 42.24

Mean age

Table 17. Summary of findings with reference to various types of literature

11.00 11.73 13.20 12.30 U. 6 5 9.60 9.53 14.HO 14.40 14.30 7.03 11.90 16.45 16.40

S.D. of dist.

35-39 30-34 40-4.4 40-44 35-39 40-44 30-34 22-2(i 35-39 35-39 32-36 33-37 25-29 25-29

Tears of maximum productivity

IN LITERATURE

Eventually, by selecting from each of a number of different scientific fields the names of the few creative women for whom birth and death dates were available, it was possible to construct a curve revealing women's most creative years in science. This latter curve (not pub­ lished herein) exhibited a very definite peak at ages 35 to 39. On the whole, it seems reasonable to conclude that the creative years of women do not differ greatly from the creative years of men. (See figures 79, 84, 100, 102, and 103).

Quality versus Quantity

^ 7. Of Literary Output* IN COLLABORATION WITH DR. JOSEPH B. HEIDLER, I attempted in 1936, as

was stated in chapter 6, to ascertain the ages at which various types of literature are most likely to be produced. Since this chapter deals with the same problem, it seems desirable to state precisely how it differs from the earlier study (85). For English literature, the earlier study was based upon Frederick Ryland's book, Chronological Outlines of English Literature (164). That is to say, the 1936 investigation was based solely upon the judgment of a single literary historian. The findings that follow were obtained by mak­ ing a composite study of 50 well-known histories of English literature. Prior to undertaking the present investigation, several college teachers of English were asked what they believed would be found if such a com­ posite study were to be made. To this query the usual reply was that, in making selections for inclusion in their histories of literature, English literary historians tend to follow one another in their appraisals like elephants in a parade, each with its trunk gripped firmly around the tail of its immediate predecessor. Therefore, it was argued, study of any one history of English literature would probably reveal about as much as would study of 50 such histories. In making this prediction the college English professors were partly right and partly wrong. They were suf­ ficiently wrong to justify the statement that what follows calls for a reinterpretation of some of the Heidler-Lehman conclusions of 1937. Detailed study reveals some striking examples of how "authorities" sometimes differ when making their appraisals of literary merit. For ex­ ample, the first of the two following quotations is taken from the Encyclo­ pedia Britannica for 1946, and the second is taken from the Encyclopedia Americana for 1945. Landor, Walter Savage (1775-1864). In 1847 [age 72] he published his most important Latin work, Poemata et Inscriptianes, comprising, with large additions, the main contents of two former volumes of idyllic, satiric, elegiac, and lyric verse; and in the same golden year of his poetic life [age 72] appeared the very crown and flower of its manifold labours, The Hellenics of Walter Savage Landor, enlarged and completed. "In 1853 [age 78] he put forth The Last Fruit off an Old Tree, con­ taining fresh conversations, critical and controversial essays, miscellaneous epigrams, lyrics and occasional poems of various kind and merit, closing with Five Scenes on the martyrdom of Beatrice Cenci, unsurpassed even ® Written in somewhat modified form in collaboration with Dr. Joseph B. Heidler, Professor of English and former Chairman of the Department of English of Ohio Uni­ versity. This material was first published in the American Journal of Psychology, January 1949, 62, 75-89.

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

by their author himself for noble and heroic pathos, for subtle and genial, tragic and profound, ardent and compassionate insight into character, with consummate mastery of dramatic and spiritual truth. In 1856 [age 81] he published Antony and Octavius—Scenes for the Study, twelve con­ secutive poems in dialogue which alone would suffice to place him high among the few great masters of historic drama." (59, Vol. 13, p. 655) Landor, Walter Saoage (1775-1864). "Landor's work after 1837 [age 62] is comparatively unimportant, and except for some articles to Leigh Hunt's Monthly Repository, a satire, and some 'Hellenic,' supplies Htfle new in type. . . . Criticism is in substantial agreement that Landor oc­ cupies a high but not a preeminent place in 19th century letters." (56, Vol. 16, p. 704) In view of the fact that opinions as divergent as the foregoing exist, it seems likely that the collective judgments of 50 literary historians and critics are more dependable than is the opinion of any one of them." Hence, the justification for the study now to be described. Poetry Composition. With age data obtained from the 50 histories of English literature a number of curves were constructed for the writing of various kinds of poetry. (See figures 68-74.) For some kinds of poetry the number of selections was sufficiently large to permit partitioning of the data in various ways. For example, the solid line in figure 74 gives age data for the production of 61 narrative poems by 27 different poets, no poem being used for the drawing of this solid line unless it was cited in 13 or more of the 50 histories. The broken line of this figure sets forth similarly age data for the production of 72 nar­ rative poems by 36 deceased poets, no poem having been used in con­ structing the broken line unless it was cited and discussed in from 5 to 12 of the 50 histories. ° When these differences of opinion were first published, the following comment was received from Professor Garrett Hardin, Acting Chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences, Santa Barbara College, Santa Barbara, California. This comment is published here with Professor Hardin's consent. "The statement taken from the 14th edition of the Encychpssdia Britannica, was not as you imply, written recently, but rather dates back to at least 1909. The same passage can be found in the Ilth edition of the Britannica where it is credited to the poet Swinburne, who died in 1909. . . . Swinburne had, according to his biographer, S. C. Chew, an exaggerated opinion of the merits of Landor's work, dating Dack to Swinburne's first meeting with Landor in the year of the letter's death. The story has it that Swinburne literally threw himself at Landor's feet and, apparently, figura­ tively continued this practice for another 50 years. It is unfortunate that the 14th edition of the Encyclopxdui Britannica continues to reprint Swinburne's evaluation of Landox, all the more so since they do so anonymously thus giving a greater appearance of objectivity." Although I do not question the validity of Hardin's statement, the fact remains that opinion differs with reference to the importance of Landor's work and that Swinburne's appraisal of Landor was published in the more recent edition of the Britannica. It is, of course, possible that the Britannica is less authoritative than its editors claim it to be.

OF LITERARY OUTPUT

-100% -80 -60

-40 -20

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG . 68. Age versus the production of 40 superior elegies by 25 poets.

-100%

.

-80

/ \

-60 -40

/

\

/

\

-20 ... ι 20

ι 25

ι 30

ι 35

ι — I 40 45

l 50

l 55

J 60

l 65

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

FIG . 69. Age versus the production of 50 superior odes by 19 poets.

- 100% • 80

- 60

- 40 • 20

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG.

70. Age versus the production of 22 superior pastoral poems by 18 poets.

QUAL1TY

VERSUS

ÇUANTITY

FIG. 71. A g e versus the production of 2 9 superior sonnets by 19 poets.

Fie. 72. Age versus the production of 113 superior lyric poems by 4 1 poets.

FIG. 73. A g e versus the production of 8 0 superior satiric poems by 4 0 poets.

106

OF LITERARY OUTPUT

Although all of the narrative poems used for the construction of the two curves in figure 74 are poems of superior merit, it seems obvious that those cited in 13 or more books possess greater merit than those men­ tioned in only 5 to 12 books. The two curves of the figure again illustrate the fact that poetic composition of the very highest quality is likely to

100%

60 40 20/

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG.

74. Age versus the production of narrative poems of varying degrees of merit. Solid line, 61 superior narrative poems by 27 poets. Broken line, 72 narrative poems of lesser merit by 24. poets.

occur over a somewhat narrower age range than is poetic composition of slightly lesser merit. Figures 68 to 74 (as well as other unpublished data that I possess) reveal that poems of greatest merit are most likely to be written from 23 to 29. Some exceptions to this generalization occur. For example, figure 73 reveals that good satiric poetiy is written most often from 30 to 35. Novels. Figure 75 presents data for the writing of novels, i.e., (1) the ages at which 47 authors wrote 161 novels, each of them being mentioned by 10 or more of the 50 literary historians; and (2) the ages at which 128 authors wrote 400 novels none of which was cited by as many as 5 of the 50 literary historians. Figure 75 suggests that novels of the very highest merit are most likely to be produced from 40 to 44, whereas, novels of distinctly lesser merit are likely to be written with about the same fre­ quency over a wider age range. Because of individual differences in the ability to write novels, the third or the fourth best novel of author "A" may be superior to the one best novel of author "B." Such individual differences may account in part for what follows. When the criterion for selecting novels was lowered so as to include those cited in only three or more, instead of in 10 or more, of the 50 literary histories, and study was made of the ages at which each of 87 novelists

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

either wrote or first published his one best novel, it was found that the group of 87 authors had produced their one best novel most frequently at 35 to 39. It thus seems that, although an authors one best novel is most likely to be written at 35 to 39, if we confine our study to a group of the best Enghsh novels, instead of to the one best novel by each of a

00%

- 60

- 40 - 20

15

20

25

30

35 40 45 50 55 60 CHRONOLOGICAL AGES

65

70

75

80

FIG. 75. Age versus the production of novels of varying degrees of merit. Solid line, 161 superior novels by 47 authors. Broken line, 400 novels of lesser merit by 128 authors.

group of authors, the peaks of the resultant age-curves will not neces­ sarily coincide. The 161 novels by 47 authors pictured by the solid line in figure 75 are superior in quality to the 87 one best novels by each of 87 authors. This statement is supported by the fact that for the 87 one best novels the mean number of citations in the 50 literary histories was 13.74, whereas, for the 161 novels pictured by the solid line the mean number of citations was considerably larger, i.e., 18.40. When study was made of the ages at which each of the 47 authors, whose novels were used for constructing the solid line in figure 75 had produced his one best novel, it was found that this group of 47 authors had produced 10 of their one best novels at 30 to 34 and 9¾ of them at 40 to 44. Since fewer of these 47 novelists were alive at 40 to 44 than at 30 to 34, their rate of output was slightly greater at 40 to 44 than at 30 to 34. However, because of the small number of cases involved, this dif­ ferential finding seemed to be of questionable significance. Data were next isolated for a group of 25 authors who, collectively, had written 64 novels, each of which was cited in 20 or more of the 50 his­ tories of literature. The resultant age-curve revealed a very definite peak at 40 to 44. On the whole, it seems fair to conclude that although an author's one best novel is most likely to be written from 35 to 39, the

OF L I T E R A R Y O U T P U T

greatest English novels have been produced most often at a slightly older age level, namely, from 40 to 44. In 1924 Professor William Lyon Phelps published the following asser­ tion: "Music and poetry come early; but not so with novels. In the whole range of English fiction, Dickens is the only one who produced master­ pieces before he was 30." (146, p. 79) One wonders how Phelps arrived at this conclusion. The following tabulation reveals the names of more than 25 novelists other than Charles Dickens who produced not less than 40 great novels prior to 30. Of course, it must be granted that Professor Phelps does have a partial reason for making the foregoing remark. It is true that the best work of novelists is likely to be done beyond 30. On the other hand, there is no justification for going so far beyond the facts as Phelps did. Table 18. Authors who produced great novels prior to 30

Author

Outstanding fiction

Age at time of composition

Jane Austen .... James Barrie .... James Barrie .. William Beckford Alphra Behn . . .

Pride and Prejudice Auld Licht Idylls A Window in Thrums Vathek . . . Oroonoko ...

20-21

Anne Bronte Emily Bronte Frances Burney . . Thomas Carlyle Benjamin Disraeli

Agnes Grey Wuthering Heights Evelina . . Translation of Wilhelm Meister Vivian Grey

28 29 26 29 22-23

Henry Fielding . . George Gissing Robert Greene , Robert Greene .

The Tragedy of Tragedies: or the Life of Tom Thumb the Great Demos Pandosto Menaphon

24 29 28 29

Charles Kingsley Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling Rudyard Kipling

Yeast Plain Tales from the Hills . Soldiers Three Under the Deodars Wee Willie Winkie The Light That Failed Many Inventions . . The Jungle Books

29 23 23 23 23 25 28 29

Charles Lamb . . Matthew Lewis . John Lyly John Lyly Edward Bulwer-Lytton Edward Bulwer-Lytton Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Rosamund Gray The Monk Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit Euphues and his England PeIham . . . Clifford , . Eugene Aram

23 20 25 27 25 27 29

28 29 24 28

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

Author

Age at time of composition

Outstanding fiction

Henry Mackenzie - - . , .... The Man of Feeling George Meredith The Shaving of Shagpat Jane Porter Thaddeus of Warsaw ... Ann RadclifFe The Romance of the Forest .... Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Frankenstein

26 28 27 27 18

Percy Bysshe Shelley Sir Philip Sidney Tobias Smollett . H. G. Wells Israel Zangvill

16 26 27 27 28

.. ... . ..

Zastrozzi The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia . The Adventures of Roderick Random. The Time Machine Children of the Ghetto

Comedies and Tragedies. Figure 76 presents age data for: (1) 118 su­ perior comedies by 37 English authors, and (2) 95 superior tragedies by 45 English authors. No work was employed in the construction of either of the curves unless it was cited and discussed in 5 or more of the 50

-100%

-- 6 6 00

/

-40

/

\

\ \ \

• 220/ 0 I

I

I

I

20

25

30

35

I

40

1

I

!

I

I

1

L

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES f i g . 76. Age versus the production of superior tragedies and comedies. Solid line, 95 tragedies by 45 authors. Broken line, 118 comedies by 37 authors.

histories of literature. The differences in the shapes of the two curves are slight and probably of no statistical or practical significance. When the two sets of data shown in figure 76 are combined, the peak of the resultant age-curve occurs at S3 to 37. Analysis revealed that the one best comedy is most often produced at 35 to 39, and that the one best tragedy is most frequently written at 25 to 29. Because this finding is based upon study of only 51 comedies and 52 tragedies, it seems best to conclude merely that both superior come­ dies and superior tragedies are most Iikely to be produced prior to age 40. Other Prose. Since curves for various types of superior prose selections

OF LITERARY OUTPUT

(other than comedies and tragedies) were found to follow a quite similar pattern, a composite curve was constructed for 11 different kinds of prose composition, i.e., for 274 prose compositions by 102 English authors. (See figure 77.) The 274 prose selections include the following types: scientific; critical, legal, biographical, autobiographical, philosophical, travel, religious, his­ torical, essays, and miscellaneous prose. Figure 77 excludes data for the writing of comedies, tragedies and novels, inasmuch as curves for the

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG . 77. Age versus the production of 274 superior prose selections by 102 au­ thors.

composition of each of these three types of writing are set forth separately. No prose selection is included in figure 77 unless it appeared in 5 or more of the 50 histories of English literature. It will be noted in figure 77 that a clear-cut peak occurs at 40 to 44. An age-curve similar to figure 77 was constructed by use of the one best prose writing by each of 100 authors, the criterion of selection being lowered so as to include prose writings cited in only 3 or more of the 50 histories of English literature. This latter curve exhibited a definite peak at 35 to 39. However, the average merit of the 274 prose writings pictured in figure 77 is superior to the average merit of the 100 one best prose writings by each of the 100 authors. It therefore seems clear that the age interval during which an author's one best prose writing is most likely to be written may not be the same as the age interval during which a group of the best English prose writings have been written. The reason for this finding has already been pointed out. Religions Poetry (Hymns). It is reliably estimated that some 400,000 church hymns have been published (130, p. iii). How can one identify the best or almost the best productions from among this large number? Religious poems were cited so rarely in the 50 histories of literature that

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

it was not possible to find an adequate sample of the poems that were cited 5 or more times. It was therefore necessary to study the composition of religious poetry by some other method. Fortunately, the editor of the Inter-Church Hymnal has assembled the best-liked hymns by a method described as follows: ". . . a large union church [in Chicago] was visited, to determine from the weekly bulletins the hymns sung and repeated often enough to prove their merit. Thirty leading churches in the Chicago area, among nine denominations, were visited for the same purpose. They had sung and repeated 240 different hymns and had sung, without repeating, more than 1500 others. "A printed list of the repeated hymns was then sent to the pastors of 500 other churches from coast to coast, with a letter explaining the object in view, and asking for titles of additional hymns, also favorite tunes. This brought the first 100 reports. When carefully examined, they clearly justified a national survey. Other lists were printed from time to time as new hymns and old-time favorites were brought to light, until eight in all were issued and mailed to more than 10,000 pastors in eveiy state in the Union, the churches selected being those most likely to have weekly bul­ letins from which to glean reports." (130, p. iii) As a result of this national survey a new church hymnal was published, in which the first 325 hymns appear in the order of frequency with which they were found to be sung by the greatest number of church congrega­ tions. Figure 78 presents data obtained by D. W. Cassat, one of my students, from the foregoing hymnal, namely, the ages at which 163 authors of hymn words wrote 290 hymns which appeared among the first 325 of the Inter-Church Hymnal. It will be noted in figure 78 that the most popular religious poems, i.e.,

• 80 -60

•40 •20

17

22

27

32

37

42

47

52

57

62

67

72

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG. 78. Age versus the production of 290 superior hymns by 163 authors.

112

OF L I T E R A R Y O U T P U T

words sung to church tunes, have been written most frequently by in­ dividuals of 32 to 36. Figure 78 is not directly comparable with the graphs which precede it, since it is based upon popularity with the general pub­ lic, whereas the other graphs presented thus far in this chapter are based upon the judgments of 50 literary historians. It, nevertheless, is interesting to speculate with reference to the foregoing data. Do hymns of the highest quality really come at older age levels than do the lcinds of poetry set forth in figures 68 to 74, or should one conclude that even the best hymns are inferior to the kinds of poetry presented in figures 68 to 74. Although it is true that John Henry Newman's "Lead, Kindly Light" is mentioned favorably by virtually all the histories, however brief, and that Martin Luther's "Ein Feste Burg ist unser Gott" is frequently listed in histories of German literature, relatively few hymns are mentioned as possessing literary merit. For example, Charles Wesley's numerous hymns receive virtually no recognition today by literary critics, and William Cowper's hymns are accorded the briefest possible mention.

.100% .80

40 = 20

CHRONOLOGICAL AGES FIG. 79. Age versus the production of hymns of varying degrees of merit. Solid

line, 26 best-liked hymns by 26 women authors. Broken line, 49 hymns of lesser average merit by the same 26 authors. Dotted line, 170 still less select hymns by 100 women authors.

Religious Poetry by Women Poets. Figure 79 presents data for: (1) the one best-liked hymn (religious poem) by each of 26 women authors whose compositions are included among the first 325 hymns of the Inter-Church Hymnal; (2) all hymns, by these same 26 authors, which appeared in that Hymnal; and (3) 170 less select hymns by 100 women authors as found by Korb (100) in 20 different church hymnals. Figure 79 evidences the fact that the curve for the production of church hymns of greatest merit falls off most rapidly, and that the curve for hymns of least merit falls off most slowly. Such findings as are set forth in figures 74, 76, and 79, suggest that it is futile to attempt a very precise

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

comparison of the ages at which various kinds of creative output occur unless we are first able to equate them for quality or merit. Just why do the peaks of the various age-curves occur at such different age levels? Are these differences due to the differing quality of the various kinds of writing, to differing interest and effort on the part of the authors at successive age levels, or to differing abilities tending to characterize successive age groups? Psychologists often speak of the differential decline of human abilities, meaning thereby that some abilities decline earlier than do other abilities. This differential decline can be established for hearing, vision, etc., but how can we know that this is true for literary output? Is it possible, as in the present study for example, to distinguish be­ tween the various abilities and the interests that predominate at successive age levels? Surely, it is not justifiable to speak of the differential decline of ability to produce great literature unless it can be shown that interest and intensity of effort remain constant or nearly constant at successive age levels. It is common knowledge that older children often cease to do things which they did at younger ages, but this obviously is due to the waning of interest rather than to inability to function. The following sentences are taken from a letter of inquiry with refer­ ence to magazine articles I have published: "Most of your graphs deal with many authors, but the really great authors in any literature can be counted on the fingers of the hands. Have you ever considered the pos­ sibility that there might be a difference between 'superior' and 'superla­ tive' authors in the curve of their production? For example, in English Chaucer wrote his best work after 40, Shakespeare after 37, Milton after 52, Pope (except for The Rape of the Lock, his one single best poem) after 40, and Browning after 38, to consider poets only. In the light of the development of a few men of no great caliber, would it not be hazardous to say that 'the best creative' thinking in Enghsh poetry has been done in youth?" The procedure of citing a few cases to prove a preconceived point often leads to a fallacious generalization. In contrast to the foregoing illustra­ tions of relatively late poetic composition, one might cite the following outstanding examples of youthful poetic work: AGE AT TIME OF POET

William Blake Robert Browning Robert Burns Lord Byron Samuel Coleridge George Crabbe

POEM

Songs of Innocence Pippa Passes The Cotter's Saturday Night Childe Harold The Ancient Mariner The Village

COMPOSITION

11-19 29 26 24-30 26 29

OF LITERARY O U T P U T

Thomas Gray

Elegy in a Country Churchyard John Keats Endymion William Morris The Defence of Guinevere Dante Gabriel Rossetti The Blessed Damozel James Thomson The Seasons

26-34 22 24 19 26-30

Although this list of youthful poets may be impressive to some persons, it proves nothing. In order to test out the above-mentioned correspondent's hypothesis, one should consider all relevant data. Therefore, to ascertain whether there might be a difference between "superior" and "superlative" authors in regard to their ages at time of composing, I constructed an age-curve by use of the 6 or 8 greatest works in approximately a dozen different fields. This was accomplished by noting for each author who had at least one work cited by as many as 20 of the 50 literary his­ torians, that work most frequently cited. By this procedure 78 best literary works by each of 78 noted authors were identified. The curve constructed by use of these data exhibited two peaks, one at 25 to 29 and the other at 40 to 44. The peak occurring at 25 to 29 reflected the fact that great poetry is most likely to be produced at that age interval, and the peak at 40 to 44 was probably due to the fact that great novels and various other kinds of great prose writings are most often produced at the latter age interval. On the whole, this lastmentioned age-curve (not here shown) evidences the fact that one's best literary output may occur at any time from before 20 to beyond 75, but that the best is most likely to appear from 25 to 45. Examination of the data failed to reveal that it is necessary or desirable to make a distinction between "superior" and "superlative" authors as regards the ages at which they have produced their greatest literary work. The following inquiry came from a resident of a remote valley in Costa Rica: "After reading your article in the November issue of Tlie Scientific Monthly I turned again to L's article on 'Mental Decline and its Re­ tardation' in the April issue. L's quotation from Dorland on page 314 indicates that man reaches the height of his creative power at an age much later than that which your studies seem to demonstrate. I wonder whether any attempt to reconcile these so divergent conclusions will be forthcoming?" It is easy to explain these divergent conclusions. As has been shown throughout this volume, quality of output tends to fall off somewhat earlier than does quantity of output. Hence, there is nothing fixed or ultimate as regards an average age of achievement. Such an average de­ pends so greatly upon the quality of the sample under consideration that the difference between Dorland's findings and my own could be due to

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

differences in the quality of the creative works studied by Dorland and by me. it should also be remembered that the performance age-curves pre­ sented herein are usually not symmetrical. They usually rise much more rapidly than they descend. As a result of this fact the average age at time of accomplishment tends to be greater than the median age, and the median age tends to be greater than the modal age. (See table 20.) In presenting his findings Dorland has usually emphasized the average age of achievement, whereas the appended age-curves tend to highlight the modal ages. These two measures of central tendency are obviously two very different things. Textbooks which treat statistics often discuss the circumstances under which the mean is a more useful measure of central tendency than the median, and vice versa. Such texts rarely mention any unique circum­ stances that call for the use of the mode as the most desirable measure of central tendency. Although I have usually obtained all three measures of central tendency, it seems obvious that for such statistical distribu­ tions as are shown in figures 68 to 74, the mode offers certain advantages that neither the mean nor the median is able to supply. But there are other very good reasons why my findings differ from those of Dorland (51). Dorland lists "what the world would have missed" if certain eminent individuals had died at 50. He also lists "what the world would have missed" if these same men had died at 60, at 70, etc. The length of Dorland's lists of creative achievements made at the uppermost age levels is quite impressive to the uninitiated, but about 90 per cent of what he lists is not output of highest quality. In preparing chapter 14 of this book, an effort was made to use the creative achieve­ ments cited by Dorland but it was soon found that most of his citations do not appear in select chronologies. Some of Dorland's data and remarks are incredibly naive (52). For example, as evidence of the excellent work done by elderly men, Dorland cites the fact that Noah built the ark when he was a very old man, that Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt when he was from 80 to 120 years old, and that Andrew Mellon canceled the huge European War debts (of World War I) to the U.S.A. amounting to some $11,000,000,000 when he was quite old. Regarding this accomplishment of Andrew Mel­ lon, Dorland seems to assume that the larger the war debt, the greater the intellectual feat of the functionary who happened to hold office at the time of the cancellation. Oddly enough, Dorland has been widely quoted in present-day psy­ chology texts. To me this suggests that textbook writers and others often fail to read some of the books they quote. Concluding Remarks. At a meeting of the British Branch of the Club

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 74. 75 75 76 76 77

Fig. 79 Relig. poetry (solid line) Fig. 79 Relig. poetry (broken line) Fig. 79 Relig. poetry (dotted line)

.

.

..

.

..

. . . . . .

Elegies Odes Pastoral poetry Sonnets .... ... Lyric poetry .... Satiric poetry Narrative poetry (solid line) Narrative poetry (broken line) . . . Novels (solid line) Novels (broken line) . .. Tragedies (solid line) Comedies (broken line) Misc. prose

Fig. 78 Religious poetry

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2024

1822

2327

.108 .228 .111 .113 .186 .055 .ISO .089 .060 .063 .075 .105 .033

2529

2832

.037 .035 .023 .067 .141 .147 .077 .151 .107 .095 .091 .135 .055

3034

3337

.052 .048 .024 .073 .070 .017 .068 .039 .106 .105 .098 .133 .081

3539

6064

6569

.025 .020 .027 .011 .075 .067 .016 .018 .045 5357

Age intei-val 38- 43- 4842 47 52

.029 .026 .052 .017 .040 .122 .097 .044 .098 .090 5862

.025 .018 .009 .020 .088 .045 .064 .010 .011 .067

2029

3039

Age ;Interval 40- 50- 6049 59 69

7079

8089

.003 .023 .050 .019 .010 .004 .031 .081 .052 .035 .006 .003 .038 .058 .041 .039 .012 .003 .018

1019

8084

.042 .091

7579

.006 .006 .015 .023

.040 .071

.017

7074

8589

6367

6572

7377

.038 .008 .017 .009 .002

.024 .020 .005 .050 .018 .040 .012

.019 .040 .021 .039 .031 .018 .021 .023

.Age interval 45- 50- 5554 59 49

.017 .015 .061 .035 .065 .088 .077 .021 .039 .067

.027 .075 .026 .032 .023 .055 .040 .110 .156 .092 .087 .101 .106

4044

.001 .006 .020 .044 .087 .058 .059 .043 .040 .015 .010 .002 .003

1317

.008 .040 .084 .011 .044 .021 .012 .059 .030 .033 .002 .078 .001 .002 .002 .018 .009 .030 .078 .002 .010

1519

Table 19. Average number of contributions to literature per age interval

26 26

100

26 49

170

'

Fig. 79 Religious poetry by women (solid line) Fig. 79 Religious poetry by women (broken line) Fig. 79 Religious poetry by women (dotted line)

.

25 19 18 19 41 40 27 24 47 128 45 37 102 163

40 50 22 29 113 80 61 72 161 400 95 118 274 290

Elegies Odes Pastoral poetry Sonnets Lyric poetry . . . . . . . Satiric poetry Narrative poetry (solid line) Narrative poetry (broken line) Novels (solid line) Novels (broken line) Tragedies (solid line) Comedies (broken line) ....... Miscellaneous prose . ...... . Religious poetry

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 78

authors

works

No. of

nata llsed in:

No. of

LOO L88 1.70

1.60 2 .63 1.22 1.53 2.76 2.00 2.26 3.00 3.4.3 3.13 2.11 3.19 2.69 1.78

indiv.

A1Je. per

36.20 37.58 38.00

4·0.27

4.4.. 90

31.50 28.50 29.00 32.50 31.20 34.83 31.:'13 33.83 4·1.8H 43.00 36.30 35.50

age

Median

35.58 39.:34 4.0.31

34.06 33.90 31.36 34.408 33.89 4.3.53 !1-1.. !>1 39.0.1 4.2.13 4·3.22 37.13 36.06 4.6.74 4.0.SS

Mean age

12A.K

9.57

8,4,5

10.-1.0 1