conditions of their realms are likewise classified in three ways as exhibiting a state of prosperity, a state of decline, or no clear indication of either. These, too, are designated respectively by the signs of “+,” “−,” “＝.”
Characterizations of the ruler which determine the group in which he is classified are derived from a comprehensive survey of “standard” historical accounts, encyclopedias, and other reference works independently of the point of view from which they have been written. It is in terms predominantly of intellectual traits, not moral ones, that the classifications into superior inferior or mediocre are made. Wood finds an impressive unanimity in the judgments of historians of varying schools concerning a monarch’s “brilliance,” “dullness,” “intelligence,” “stupidity,” “military and political capacity” in contradistinction to their judgments of the monarch’s “goodness” or “wickedness,” or whether he was a boon or a curse to mankind.
The condition of a country is judged only in relation to its material history, consisting almost entirely of “political and economic affairs.” More specifically, the classification of material conditions as progressive, declining, or as neither one nor the other is made on the basis of historians’ statements on the following topics: “finances, army, navy, commerce, agriculture, manufacture, public building, territorial changes, condition of law and order, general condition of the people as a whole, growth and decline of political liberty, and the diplomatic position of the nation, or its prestige when viewed internationally. No attempt is made to include literary, educational, scientific, or artistic activities.”[1] Presumably this last is omitted because relativity of estimates in authoritative histories, but Wood offers no evidence than the relativity of judgment is greater here than it is about material affairs.
The conclusion Wood reaches at the end of this patient procedure is very striking. Comparing the tables of monarchs and the tables of the conditions of their realms, he asserts that their coefficient of correlation is “about .60 to .70 with a probable error of about .05.” His most conservative estimate, generously counting all borderline cases against his own hypothesis, is .60 for the value of the correlation coefficient. In terms of percentages, he states his conclusion as follows: “Strong, mediocre, and weak monarchs are associated with strong, mediocre, and
- ↑ The Influence of Monarchs, p. 10.
