THE American daily press has recently had a good deal to say concerning the twenty greatest men who have "made the world what it is." Following the first announced list have appeared revised lists made by prominent people who dissent more or less from the views expressed by the compiler of the initial score. Perhaps the most striking thing that characterizes all of these lists is that the compiler of each reveals more or less of that bias due to his own line of work, his nationality, or his point of view, which is wont to minimize the greatness of one man while magnifying that of another. For instance, a noted inventor included in his choice men who for the most part are inventors. He omits authors, poets, discoverers, statesmen, and others who do not come within the range of his personal vision. A second compiler includes several noted physicians, all of whom a third compiler omits. Every list is faulty from some standpoint, because each man chooses from a different basis of judgment. Candidates with the clamorous claims oftheir sponsors are thrust upon us until we are almost led to believe that greatness is a relative or uncertain attribute dependent upon the measure which the estimator employs.
Yet another striking feature about these lists is this, namely, that while no one name appears upon every list, yet certain names are common to many of them. Moses, Mahomet, Confucius, Columbus, Michael Angelo, Luther, Gutenberg, Newton, Franklin, Watt, and Lincoln are included by compilers whose points of view differ very radically from the selections of others. These facts lead to the conclusion that the only safe way to compile a list of the greatest would be to secure a composite vote by choosing those names which alone are included in a large number of lists by compilers whose walks of life differ more or less widely from each other. In this way we would be able to learn approximately whom the world considers entitled to the rank of greatness.
To determine who is thought to be the greatest, who is worthy to be included in such a final list, is after all an unimportant consideration. What is of far more importance is the recognition of what constitutes greatness, what is its basis and explanation. Such a discovery would be of service to the unnumbered thousands who today are yearning to be great, and we do well therefore to make a deliberate and searching scrutiny into the lives and works of noted men for this purpose. Here is a philosopher, why is he great? What makes this discoverer great? Why is this inventor, financier, diplomat, author, statesman, or any other man entitled to a place on the list—if he really is so entitled?
