were we to reject his list and his conclusion about the role of monarchs, this would not be a sufficient reply to the more broadly conceived heroic theory which counts its heroes in what ever social strata it finds them. It is difficult to understand, except in terms of his obsession with gametic predetermination, why Wood did not extend his investigations in order to determine the correlation between the characteristics of all individuals in decisive positions of power for whom data is available and the state of their country.
This gametic interpretation leads him to a blanket disregard of environmental factors and an almost exclusive stress on alleged facts of heredity. According to Wood, “mental qualities are inherited in the same way and to the same degree as physical,” and among the mental qualities are all the characteristics, like intelligence, military valour, ambition, whose presence or absence signify the strong or weak monarch. “While the separation into cruel or non-cruel types, licentious and chaste, ambitious and indolent, etc., is not clearly and absolutely defined, the tendency to segregation which is observed is to be expected tom the usual workings of heredity.”[1] Wood consequently affirms that “modern royalty (from a. d. 1000 onwards) as a whole has been decidedly superior to the average European in capacity; and we may say without danger of refutation, that the royal breed, considered as a unit, is superior to any other one family; be it that of noble or commoner.”[2]
Concerning Wood’s gametic interpretation of history, it is not too harsh to say that his biological theory is at fault, the reasoning from it crude and a priori, and the concrete evidence cited inadequate. Whatever reasons there are for believing in the hereditary transmission of mental traits, they certainly do not include the traits which Wood enumerates in classifying his monarchs. Opening his summary tables at random, note his characterization of Joseph II. of Austria: “Restless, brave, ambitious, mentally alert, and well informed… impractical visionary, incompetent general… benevolent, generous, anxious to bring about reforms. Austere but amiable. Praised for his domestic virtues. His chief vice was duplicity.” Or this of the Russian Demetrius: “Ambitious, courageous, accomplished, versatile, but imprudent. Good-natured, affable, well-meaning. Magnificent.” Or this of King John of England: “Not lacking in cleverness or spasmodic energy but devoid of
