ingly followed the scientific ideals he had set before him. Carried away by such zeal, he has ofttimes made facts fit his theories with an ingeniousness as remarkable as it is de ceptive. Men like him have their great usefulness in scientific progress; they bring out the popular side of otherwise recondite and ab struse questions; they arouse public interest in otherwise dry and uninteresting topics, and thereby win the sympathy and support of the reading public not only in their work but in the work of more serious investi gators. Allowing for differences in time and pop ular knowledge, Lombroso may in certain respects be compared with Mesmer or Cagliostro. Both the latter stood for a certain amount of scientific truth; it is true they prostituted it for unworthy, purposes. Lom broso cannot be charged with this, but there is reason to believe that in his efforts to popularize the scientific truths for which he stands he has weakened his prestige among men of science. The danger of popularizing scientific data and problems is that by the use of striking similes, catch-eye compari sons and a loose and inexact vocabulary, the door is opened to error, misunderstanding and misconceptions. Lombroso has a facile style and an im aginative pen; he can "draw a crowd" and hold it spell-bound. This, however, is not necessarily a test of scientific truth. In the end this popular thirst for the striking and marvelous reacts on the exhibitor himself. He feels that he must keep up this interest at any cost; he may honestly convince him self that a little sensationalism is honorable and justifiable as a means to a good end; they do not want that dry precision which is the basis of scientific exposition, and a little stretch of the imagination will not break the principle itself. I venture to say Lombroso has reached this stage. I pass over his numberless con
tributions to second-rate papers and yellow journals wherein he builds up fanciful induc tions upon the data furnished by rough and indistinct press cuts or second-hand infor mation. I pass over his sweeping generali zations which from time to time appear in 'American periodicals, based upon facts of which he has read, but with which he has never been in touch. I pass over his recent contribution going to show that bicycling tends to the increase of the crimes of robbery and murder, which called forth this welldeserved English criticism, "Lombroso is an amusing person, viewed as an uncon scious humorist, but it is a waste of time to read him as a scientific person.'" I pass over all these to consider one of his more recent articles which seems typical of that mixture of fact and fancy, faults and virtues so noticeable in his latest contribu tions. It appeared in the "Rivista d'ltalia," one of the most serious and ably edited monthlies of Italy. It is entitled "An Epi demic of Kisses," and is given as a serious, scientific investigation into the causes which led to Lieutenant Hobson's popularity with the ladies. He starts out by gravely telling us that the Hobson epidemic had its origin at Yassar College, which he describes as "an institu tion for women conducted on what might be called, from a continental standpoint, con ventual lines. Despite such restrictions, Hobson's lecture (Lombroso makes him lec ture at Vassar) results in an enthusiastic oscillatory applause participated in by old and young women, students and hearers. He estimates that in the course of his lecture tour Hobson received some 10.000 kisses. What appears to us as absurd appeals to him as a subject for scientific investigation. How can you account for such conduct, he asks, considering the reserve, modesty and undemonstrativeness of Anglo-Saxons? The question right away assumes large propor tions.
