explained as consequences of the action of monarchs. For according to Wood the hereditary factors were relatively constant.
Concluding our study of Wood’s evidence for the historic period to which he restricts it, we are compelled to judge his gallant and interesting effort in behalf of royalty as a failure. His position might have been sounder, though it could not have been so extreme, had he made extended case studies of a score of his outstanding figures in order to trace specifically what they contributed to determining the course of empire and the direction of the historical stream. Whatever weight his findings have can be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that since he was studying the era of absolute monarchy, sovereigns would naturally have more power for good or evil than in subsequent periods. But if it is the nature of the historical era which delimits the sphere of monarchial infulence, what determines the transition from one era to another?
We must now turn to the counterclaims of the social determinists who are confident that they know the answer and have solved the problem.
