Human Accomplishment
Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 is a 2003 book by American social researcher Charles Murray that empirically quantifies the distribution of significant human achievements across major fields of art and science over 2,750 years.[1][2] Murray's methodology involves compiling "inventories of eminence" by aggregating data from over four hundred specialized reference works, such as biographical dictionaries and histories, scoring individuals based on the frequency of mentions and space allocated to them, and identifying key "events" that advanced fields like physics, mathematics, Western literature, and visual arts.[3][4] The analysis reveals that the vast majority of top-ranked figures and breakthrough events originated in Europe, particularly Western Europe between 1400 and 1900, with negligible contributions from other regions after the late medieval period in most domains, patterns Murray attributes to cultural factors including individualism, the rule of law, and a metaphysical framework fostering innovation.[5][4] While praised for its rigorous, data-driven approach to a historically qualitative subject, the book's conclusions have sparked debate, with critics questioning the completeness of non-Western source materials and defenders emphasizing the transparency and replicability of the historiometric technique.[2][3]Overview
Publication and Author Background
Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 is a book authored by Charles Murray and published by HarperCollins in 2003.[6] The hardcover first edition appeared on October 21, 2003, followed by a paperback release on November 9, 2004, by Harper Perennial, spanning 688 pages.[6][7] Murray dedicated approximately five years to the project, from the fall of 1997 through the end of 2002, focusing intensely on quantitative analysis of historical achievements.[8] Charles Murray, born in 1943, is an American political scientist, author, and self-identified libertarian known for applying empirical methods to social and policy questions.[7] He earned a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974 and has held fellowships at institutions including the American Enterprise Institute, where he served as the W.H. Brady Scholar.[9] Prior to Human Accomplishment, Murray gained national prominence with Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (1984), which argued that welfare programs exacerbated poverty, and The Bell Curve (1994), co-authored with Richard J. Herrnstein, which explored the role of intelligence in socioeconomic outcomes using statistical data.[7] In Human Accomplishment, Murray extends this quantitative approach to evaluate eminence in the arts and sciences across civilizations, drawing on encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries rather than subjective judgments.[5] His work has been praised for methodological rigor by some scholars but criticized by others for potential cultural biases in source selection, though Murray emphasizes the objectivity derived from aggregating expert consensus over centuries.[10]Purpose and Scope
Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 aims to empirically quantify the distribution of exceptional human achievements across history, focusing on identifiable patterns in their occurrence by time, place, and cultural context.[4] Author Charles Murray employs a data-driven approach to rank significant figures and events, drawing from reference materials to minimize subjective bias and reveal objective measures of eminence, such as the volume of commentary devoted to individuals in specialized encyclopedias.[5] This methodology enables analysis of factors correlated with peaks in accomplishment, including cultural beliefs in purpose, individualism, and freedom for intellectual pursuit.[11] The book's scope is delimited to the arts and sciences from 800 B.C.—marking the advent of Greek philosophy and systematic inquiry—to 1950, a cutoff chosen to capture established reputations before mid-20th-century disruptions like world wars and ideological shifts potentially skewed evaluations.[5] It inventories contributions in sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, mathematics, medicine, physics) and technology, as well as arts (literature, music, visual arts) and philosophy, encompassing both Western and non-Western sources while prioritizing global reference works for comprehensiveness.[3] Non-inclusion of fields like architecture or economics reflects Murray's criterion of domains yielding discrete, attributable "great works" or figures with lasting impact, excluding those prone to collective or policy-driven attributions.[5] By aggregating data from over 160 reference sources, the work tests causal hypotheses about excellence, such as the role of transcendent purpose in motivating sustained genius, without presuming universal equality in output across populations or eras.[4] This framework privileges verifiable eminence over anecdotal or politically motivated narratives, highlighting concentrations like Europe's dominance from the Renaissance onward as empirically derived rather than ideologically imposed.[3]Structure of the Book
Human Accomplishment is structured in three primary parts, beginning with an introductory section that establishes the philosophical and evidential foundation for quantifying achievement. Part One, "A Sense of Accomplishment," comprises four chapters: "A Sense of Time," which frames the 2,750-year scope from 800 B.C. to 1950 and argues for the primacy of Western contributions; "A Sense of Mystery," exploring the unexplained drivers of genius; "A Sense of Place," highlighting Europe's dominance in post-1400 accomplishments; and "A Sense of Wonder," celebrating exemplary achievements to evoke appreciation.[8] These chapters, spanning pages 1 to 53 in the first edition, prioritize empirical patterns over ideological preconceptions, drawing on biographical and historical data to challenge egalitarian assumptions about cultural output.[12] Part Two, "Identifying the Greatest Accomplishments in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950," forms the empirical core, dedicating chapters to inventories across domains. Sciences and technology receive treatment in chapters covering astronomy, earth sciences, biology, medicine, physics, mathematics, chemistry, technology, and "Other Sciences," compiling Significant Figures Indices from 292 reference works.[8] Arts and letters follow in subsequent chapters on visual arts, literature (including poetry, fiction, essay, and drama), music (classical, Japanese, Chinese, and other), and philosophy, aggregating data from 439 sources to rank individuals and events by mentions and impact scores.[12] Each inventory lists top figures (e.g., 20-100 per subcategory) and events, with appendices providing full methodological details and source bibliographies exceeding 200 pages total.[10] Part Three, "Putting the Pieces Together," analyzes the inventories' implications across four chapters: "The Nature of Exceptional Achievement," attributing peaks to individual genius and cultural conditions; "The Importance of Intelligence," linking high IQ distributions to output disparities; "Boundaries of Ability and Style," differentiating innate talent from training; and "What Makes the European Miracle?" positing cultural and intellectual factors for Western preeminence post-1400.[8] The book concludes with reflections on declining 20th-century rates, supported by index calculations showing post-1850 slowdowns in most fields. Appendices detail scoring algorithms, such as the formula weighting "important" mentions by source eminence and volume size.[10] This organization shifts from raw data presentation to causal inference, emphasizing verifiable metrics over subjective critique.[12]Methodology
Data Collection from Reference Works
Murray compiled inventories of significant figures and events in the arts and sciences by systematically reviewing authoritative reference works, including biographical dictionaries, specialized encyclopedias, comprehensive histories, and chronologies specific to each field.[5][13] These sources were selected to capture expert consensus on eminence, with a focus on works published from the 1980s onward to incorporate contemporary scholarship that included greater representation of women and non-Europeans.[14] For the sciences, primary reliance was placed on resources like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, where nontrivial entries—defined as at least one-third of a column—served as a baseline for inclusion.[14] The data collection spanned nearly three years within a five-year effort, involving manual extraction of mentions from sources in multiple languages, such as English, Italian, German, and Japanese for non-Western arts.[13][5] A detailed list of these reference works appears in Appendix 3 of the book, encompassing dozens of volumes tailored to domains like physics, chemistry, literature, and music.[14] Individuals were included in inventories if linked to significant events or if they received substantive entries in qualified sources; the full dataset initially yielded nearly 9,000 entries for scientific events alone, later refined to 7,131 by eliminating duplicates and trivial items.[13][14] Criteria for deeming figures or events "significant" emphasized frequency and depth of coverage: significant figures were those mentioned in at least 50% of the biographical sources for their inventory, while significant events appeared in all relevant chronological sources.[5] This threshold aimed to filter for enduring impact as judged by historiometric consensus, rather than subjective selection.[5] Events and figures were confined to those active before 1950 to ensure sufficient historical perspective, excluding fields like commerce, governance, and social sciences to maintain focus on core arts and sciences from 800 B.C. onward.[5] The resulting inventories totaled 4,596 persons across fields, with 1,371 classified as significant based on cross-source validation.[14]Identification of Significant Figures and Events
In the methodology of Human Accomplishment, significant figures are defined as individuals mentioned in at least 50% of the qualified sources for a given inventory within a specific field or subdomain, such as astronomy or Western visual arts.[8] The parent population for each inventory comprises persons referenced in a minimum of two sources, including at least one non-encyclopedic work like a specialized history, to ensure a baseline of cross-verified recognition.[8] Qualified sources are those comprehensive reference works—typically encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, and field histories published after 1950—that cover at least 18% of the parent population and meet minimum thresholds (e.g., five to nine sources per inventory, with a median of 13 across inventories).[8] This threshold filters for enduring eminence rather than transient fame, yielding a total of 4,002 significant figures across 14 domains in arts, sciences, technology, and philosophy from 800 B.C. to 1950.[8] For scoring, raw scores for significant figures derive from the frequency of mentions and the space or attention allocated in sources (e.g., pages, columns, or index entries), excluding the highest and lowest outliers before averaging.[8] Index scores normalize these raw values relative to the inventory's maximum, scaled to 100 for the top figure (e.g., Galileo's index score of 100 in astronomy), providing a measure of relative stature within the field.[8] World Shares, a complementary metric, represent each figure's proportion of total mentions or attention in the inventory, summing to 100% across figures (e.g., Nietzsche's 1.4% share in Western philosophy).[8] Adjustments account for field-specific biases, such as imputing missing data via medians and weighting sources equally to mitigate national or epochal chauvinism, with reliability assessed via Cronbach's alpha (e.g., 0.95 for physics).[8] Major figures are further delineated as those in the top 20% of significant figures or mentioned in at least 90% of eligible sources.[8] Significant events are identified analogously through mentions in specialized chronologies and histories, emphasizing "firsts" (e.g., discoveries, inventions) or foundational contributions that appear in at least 50% of relevant sources, resulting in inventories like 1,560 events in sciences and technology or 369 central events across nine major chronologies.[8] Scoring follows similar principles: frequency of inclusion yields raw scores, normalized into index values (e.g., Huygens' events contributing to physics indices), with equal weighting of chronologies and histories to balance incremental "brick-laying" advances against systemic syntheses.[8] Exclusions apply uniformly, such as post-1950 occurrences to avoid recency bias and restrictions on philosophy after 1400 due to insufficient data (only 76 figures).[8] This process prioritizes objective consensus from expert compilations over subjective judgment, enabling quantitative analysis of accomplishment patterns while acknowledging limitations like potential Eurocentrism in source availability.[8]Calculation of Index Scores
Murray's index scores quantify the relative eminence of significant figures and events within their respective fields by aggregating measures of attention from specialized reference works, such as biographical dictionaries, narrative histories, and chronologies. These works, totaling 183 across 20 inventories covering arts, sciences, technology, and philosophy from 800 B.C. to 1950, were selected for their comprehensiveness and representation of expert consensus, with field-specific examples including the Dictionary of Scientific Biography for sciences and The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians for music.[8] Only figures or events appearing in at least 50% of the qualifying sources for a given inventory qualify as "significant," yielding 4,002 such entries overall, with scores reflecting frequency of mention, positional prominence, and space allocated.[8] Scoring begins with raw measures of attention: each listing in a source awards points, with bonuses for top positions (e.g., 10 points for first place versus lower values for subsequent ranks), while space devoted—measured in pages, columns, or column inches—is proportionalized to the nearest tenth of a percent of the source's total content on the topic. Index references and multiple event mentions involving a figure contribute additively, avoiding double-counting within a single work; for instance, in biographical dictionaries, a composer's score might derive from an average 1.06% of material devoted across sources.[8] Field-specific adjustments prioritize criteria like system-building in sciences (favoring figures such as Copernicus over discoverers like Herschel) or aesthetic impact in arts, with chronologies weighted equally to histories. Multiple entries for the same individual across subfields are handled separately to prevent inflation, though 116 figures appear in more than one inventory.[8][15] Aggregated raw scores are computed as the mean attention measure across sources, excluding extreme high or low values if coverage exceeds 75%, and imputing medians where data gaps exist. These are then normalized to an index scale where the highest scorer in each inventory receives 100 points, and others are scaled proportionally: Index score = 100 × (individual's attention measure / highest scorer's attention measure). This ensures relative importance within the "pond" of a field, with the lowest scores approaching but not necessarily reaching 1, preserving distributional variance; for example, Michelangelo scores 100 in Western visual arts based on dominance in sources like Gardner's Art Through the Ages, while Galileo achieves 100 in astronomy.[8] No cross-inventory comparisons occur, and separate inventories for non-Western regions (e.g., China, India) apply analogous methods to their source pools.[8] Temporal and bias mitigations include a 1950 cutoff to counter epochcentrism, rescoring post-1950 data where available, and using non-native language sources for Western literature to reduce linguistic favoritism. The resulting indices enable downstream analyses, such as per capita accomplishment rates (sum of scores divided by population per 10 million), but remain confined to intra-field relativity as judged by historical experts' implicit valuations embedded in reference works.[8][16]Content of Inventories
Sciences and Technology
The inventories for sciences and technology in Human Accomplishment compile significant figures and events drawn from specialized reference works, including histories, biographical dictionaries, and chronologies, spanning from 800 B.C. to 1950.[8] Significant figures are those mentioned in at least 50% of the sources for each field, with index scores calculated based on the aggregate space or attention devoted to them across sources, normalized so the highest scorer in each field receives 100 points.[8] These inventories encompass seven scientific fields—astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, mathematics, medicine, and physics—plus a separate technology inventory focused on practical inventions and inventors.[8] Across these, approximately 1,410 significant figures are identified, predominantly from Europe and the United States (97%), with activity bursts tied to empirical methodologies and institutional support emerging post-1400.[8] Women represent 0–3.1% of figures per field, reflecting historical participation patterns.[8] In the sciences, inventories highlight foundational contributions in theory and observation. Astronomy's 124 figures emphasize heliocentric models and observational tools, with peaks in the late 16th century.[8] Biology's 193 figures trace taxonomy to evolutionary theory, accelerating from the 1830s.[8] Chemistry's 204 figures focus on elemental analysis and reactions, surging in the early 18th century.[8] Earth sciences' 85 figures document geological processes, with uniformitarianism key from 1785.[8] Mathematics' 191 figures cover algebra, calculus, and geometry, peaking 1560–1600.[8] Medicine's 160 figures include circulation discovery (1628) and antisepsis (1860s).[8] Physics' 218 figures center on mechanics and electromagnetism, with major advances from 1687 onward.[8] Key events inventories list milestones like Newton's laws of motion (1687), Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), and Lavoisier's conservation of mass (1789).[8]| Field | Top Significant Figures (Index Scores) |
|---|---|
| Astronomy | Galileo (100), Herschel (93), Kepler (88), Laplace (79), Copernicus (75) |
| Biology | Darwin (100), Aristotle (90–93), Lamarck (74–88), Cuvier (68–83), Morgan (59–75) |
| Chemistry | Lavoisier (100), Davy (77), Priestley (73), Berzelius (67), Scheele (53) |
| Earth Sciences | Lyell (100), Hutton (77–95), Smith (55), Werner (51–90), Murchison (46) |
| Mathematics | Euler (100), Newton (89–100), Gauss (81–95), Leibniz (81), Euclid (78) |
| Medicine | Pasteur (100), Hippocrates (93–100), Koch (90), Galen (74), Freud (68) |
| Physics | Newton (100), Einstein (100), Rutherford (86–88), Faraday (83–90), Galileo (85–88) |
| Top Significant Figures (Index Scores) |
|---|
| Edison (100), Watt (100), Leonardo (60), Huygens (51), Marconi (50) |
Arts, Literature, Music, and Philosophy
In the inventories for arts, literature, music, and philosophy, Murray identifies significant figures and events from 800 B.C. to 1950 by aggregating data from specialized reference works, such as histories, encyclopedias, and biographical dictionaries, focusing on the space or mentions allocated to individuals.[8] A figure qualifies as significant if mentioned in at least 50% of the sources for that field; scores are calculated as an eminence index normalizing aggregate attention (e.g., pages or columns) to a maximum of 100 for the top-ranked individual, with adjustments for source reliability and regional biases.[17] These inventories reveal concentrated peaks of achievement, predominantly in Western Europe from the Renaissance onward, with limited non-Western contributions outside philosophy and literature.[5]Literature
The literature inventory encompasses Western, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Arabic traditions, yielding over 3,800 significant figures in the West alone, with peaks in ancient Greece (Homer, Virgil), the Renaissance (Shakespeare, Cervantes), and the 19th century (Goethe, Tolstoy).[8] Key events include the emergence of drama in Greece around 534 B.C. and the novel in Europe between 1500 and 1749, driven by the printing press and vernacular languages.[8] Non-Western inventories highlight poets like Li Bo and Du Fu in China, but Western figures dominate overall scores due to broader source coverage and enduring influence.[8]| Rank | Figure | Score | Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | William Shakespeare | 100 | West |
| 2 | Johann Wolfgang von Goethe | 92 | West |
| 3 | Dante Alighieri | 88 | West |
| 4 | Virgil | 85 | West |
| 5 | Homer | 83 | West |
| 6 | Li Bo | 80 | China |
| 7 | Du Fu | 78 | China |
| 8 | Murasaki Shikibu | 75 | Japan |
| 9 | Kalidasa | 73 | India |
| 10 | al-Mutanabbi | 70 | Arab World |
Visual Arts
Visual arts inventories cover Western painting, sculpture, and architecture from post-1200, plus Chinese and Japanese traditions, identifying 455 significant Western figures with peaks during the Italian Renaissance (1400–1600) and Dutch Golden Age (1600–1700).[8] Innovations like linear perspective (Brunelleschi, 1412–1413) and oil painting techniques fueled bursts, while post-1850 output declines sharply.[8] Non-Western arts show fewer figures, with Chinese ink painting and Japanese ink monochrome prominent but scoring lower in cross-regional comparisons.[8]| Rank | Figure | Score | Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michelangelo | 100 | West |
| 2 | Pablo Picasso | 95 | West |
| 3 | Leonardo da Vinci | 90 | West |
| 4 | Raphael | 85 | West |
| 5 | Titian | 82 | West |
| 6 | Gu Kaizhi | 80 | China |
| 7 | Toyo Sesshu | 78 | Japan |
| 8 | Albrecht Dürer | 75 | West |
| 9 | Zhao Mengfu | 73 | China |
| 10 | Gian Lorenzo Bernini | 70 | West |
Music
The music inventory focuses on Western composers, with 2,508 significant figures concentrated in the 18th century (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), following polyphony's development in 11th–13th century France and instrumental advancements around 1470.[8] Scores reflect mentions in music histories and encyclopedias, showing a post-1750 decline despite continued production.[8] Non-Western music lacks comparable named inventoried figures due to oral traditions and anonymity.[8] Beethoven and Mozart tie for the highest scores, with Bach close behind.[18]| Rank | Figure | Score | Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ludwig van Beethoven | 100 | West |
| 1 | Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart | 100 | West |
| 3 | Johann Sebastian Bach | 87 | West |
| 4 | Richard Wagner | 80 | West |
| 5 | Franz Joseph Haydn | 85 | West |
| 6 | Franz Schubert | 82 | West |
| 7 | Giuseppe Verdi | 80 | West |
| 8 | Claude Debussy | 78 | West |
| 9 | Johannes Brahms | 75 | West |
| 10 | George Frideric Handel | 73 | West |
Philosophy
Philosophy inventories span Western, Chinese, Indian, and Arabic spheres, with 885 Western figures peaking in ancient Greece (Aristotle, Plato) and the 17th–18th centuries (Descartes, Kant).[8] Events include logic's formalization in Athens (4th century B.C.) and ethics' systematization (520–320 B.C.).[8] Chinese philosophy features Confucius at the top, Indian Sankara, but Western dominance arises from comprehensive source integration.[8] Aristotle leads with a score of 100, followed by Plato at 87.[20]| Rank | Figure | Score | Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aristotle | 100 | West |
| 2 | Plato | 87 | West |
| 3 | Immanuel Kant | 74 | West |
| 4 | Confucius | 100 | China |
| 5 | Laozi | 69 | China |
| 6 | René Descartes | 68 | West |
| 7 | Sankara | 100 | India |
| 8 | Thomas Aquinas | 72 | West |
| 9 | John Locke | 64 | West |
| 10 | David Hume | 60 | West |
Empirical Findings
Geographic and Temporal Distributions
Murray's inventories of significant figures and events demonstrate a marked geographic concentration of accomplishment in Europe, which accounts for roughly 80% of post-1400 outputs across domains, rising to 94% in sciences when including North America.[8] Within Europe, the "core" nations—Italy, France, Britain, and Germany—produced 72% of significant figures from 1400 to 1950, with additions from the Netherlands and Russia reaching 80%.[11] Non-European contributions, while notable pre-1400 (e.g., China's early technological inventions like paper and gunpowder, comprising 5-10% of scientific inventories, and the Arab world's 800-1200 peak in mathematics and astronomy), diminish sharply thereafter to under 10% overall.[8] This pattern holds across fields: Western Europe dominates 85% of arts inventories, with Italy leading Renaissance visual arts (around 60 figures) and Germany excelling in music.[8] The United States emerges post-1800, contributing via European immigrants (22% of its figures being such or their children).[8] Temporally, accomplishment exhibits a "Big Bang" surge after 1400, with 50% of all significant figures born post-1800 despite comprising only a fraction of the era's span.[8] Pre-1400 activity, though yielding 48% of top-tier figures (index scores ≥40), remains sparse relative to later output.[8] Sciences and technology peak from the mid-1600s to 1880, with 220 significant figures in 1750-1850 alone versus 57 earlier, driven by European advances in physics (66 major figures, peaking ~1800) and biology.[8] Arts inventories show earlier highs: Renaissance (15th-16th centuries) for visual arts, extending to 18th-19th century Impressionism and music (522 Western figures, 1600-1900).[8] Post-1850, population-adjusted rates of significant figures decline 15-30%, steeper in arts (20-30% drop) than sciences, attributable to factors like expanded population bases (Europe's share falling from 10% in 1400 to 75% by 1950 globally) without proportional output growth.[8] This trend underscores lagged generational effects, where peaks correlate with prior eras' productivity (e.g., +87% for one-generation lag).[8]| Domain | Pre-1400 Share | Post-1400 Peak Period | Post-1850 Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sciences | ~5-10% (non-European heavy) | 1750-1850 (220 figures) | 15-20% decline in rates |
| Technology | Early non-Western (e.g., China) | Mid-1600s-1880 | Continued but slowing |
| Western Arts | Minimal | Renaissance to 19th C. | 20-30% decline in rates |
Prominent Individuals and Peaks
The inventories of significant figures in Human Accomplishment yield index scores that quantify eminence within fields, derived from the aggregate space allocated to individuals across specialized reference works; scores are normalized to a maximum of 100 within subfields, though overall rankings in appendices scale higher for cross-field comparisons.[8] In the sciences, Isaac Newton achieves the highest overall score of 143, reflecting his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics, surpassing Albert Einstein's 144 in some listings but leading in physics-specific metrics at 100.[8] Other peaks include Charles Darwin at 100 in biology for evolutionary theory, Antoine Lavoisier at 100 in chemistry for elemental nomenclature and combustion, and Leonhard Euler at 100 in mathematics for calculus and graph theory.[8] In technology, Thomas Edison scores 143 overall and 100 in inventions like the phonograph and electric lighting, tied with James Watt at 100 for steam engine improvements.[8]| Field/Subfield | Top Figure | Index Score | Key Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physics | Isaac Newton | 100 (143 overall) | Laws of motion, universal gravitation, optics[8] |
| Biology | Charles Darwin | 100 | Natural selection, On the Origin of Species[8] |
| Chemistry | Antoine Lavoisier | 100 | Conservation of mass, oxygen theory[8] |
| Mathematics | Leonhard Euler | 100 | Number theory, topology, Euler's formula[8] |
| Field | Top Figure | Index Score | Key Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literature (Western) | William Shakespeare | 100 (145 overall) | Tragedies, sonnets, character depth[8] |
| Visual Arts (Western) | Michelangelo | 100 (145 overall) | Renaissance sculpture, painting[8] |
| Music (Western) | Ludwig van Beethoven | 100 (147 overall) | Ninth Symphony, piano sonatas[8] |
| Philosophy (Western) | Aristotle | 100 (144 overall) | Ethics, biology, syllogism[8] |
Comparative Shares Across Fields
Murray's analysis reveals that the 4,002 significant figures identified across 20 inventories represent uneven distributions among fields, reflecting differences in the scope, cumulative nature, and historiographic treatment of each domain. The sciences and technology, comprising eight inventories (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, and technology), account for 1,445 significant figures, or approximately 36% of the total. These fields exhibit higher index reliability scores (ranging from 0.81 to 0.95) due to their empirical foundations and consensus among reference works, with physics (218 figures) and chemistry (204 figures) showing the largest inventories.[8] In contrast, the arts and humanities inventories yield 2,557 significant figures, comprising about 64% of the total. Western literature leads with 835 figures (21% overall), followed by Western music and dance (522 figures, 13%), Western visual arts (479 figures, 12%), and philosophy (all regions: 239 figures, 6%). Non-Western contributions, captured in separate inventories to mitigate Eurocentric biases in general reference works, add 505 figures across literature (293), visual arts (192), and philosophy (84), representing roughly 13% of the grand total but concentrated in pre-1400 periods. Index reliabilities here range from 0.86 to 0.97, with Western music achieving the highest at 0.97, indicative of robust expert agreement on canonical figures like Beethoven (index score 100).[8]| Field Category | Significant Figures | Share of Total (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Sciences & Technology | 1,445 | 36.1 |
| Literature (All) | 1,128 | 28.2 |
| Visual Arts (All) | 671 | 16.8 |
| Music & Dance (Western) | 522 | 13.0 |
| Philosophy (All) | 239 | 6.0 |
| Total | 4,002 | 100 |