As always, when something new puts in an appearance, the "logarithmic table" of comparative fame in the last issue of "Vanity Fair" arouses the wonder why no one had ever thought of such a table before. Eight well-known critics of the arts were asked to assign to each of a list of two hundred famous men values from plus 25 to minus 25, or 0 when they could give no opinion. The average for each entry was then computed and tabulated. So now the art of individual appreciation of literature has succumbed to the onslaught of statistical analysis and scientific method.

Shakspere, with a rating of 22.4, heads the list, while Billy Sunday with --21.8 ends it, Classical writers placed very high with three among the first fifteen. But were the zeros of "un-classicized critics discounted they would place still higher; Aeschylus, for example, now nineteenth would then stand fourth. The cases of tied popularity are enlightening. Dr. Johnson broke the tape with Krazy Kat; St. Augustine, Lenin, and Douglas Fairbanks were triple-tied: Flo Ziegfeld and Frederic the Great matched; and Geraldine Farrar and Henry Ford mated.

But the effect of this remarkable "transvaluation of values" will be revolutionary. When critics have graded all literature and drama in a similar fashion, the boast that "A" has a rating of 15.392 will be his publisher's best selling argument. Writers may be expected to append their ratings to their names, such as William Shakespeare 22.4. Critics will debate whether one-tenth of one percent would be intoxicating for a budding novelist; and flappers will have only to consult their "Table of Critical Values" to develop the correct line for an intellectual visitor.