William Stubbs

William Stubbs HonFRSE (21 June 1825 – 22 April 1901) was an English historian and Anglican bishop. He was Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford between 1866 and 1884. He was Bishop of Chester from 1884 to 1889 and Bishop of Oxford from 1889 to 1901.

William Stubbs in 1885

Quotes

• Froude informs the Scottish youth
  That parsons do not care for truth.
  The Reverend Canon Kingsley cries
  History is a pack of lies.
  What cause for judgements so malign?
  A brief reflexion solves the mystery –
  Froude believes Kingsley a divine,
  And Kingsley goes to Froude for History.
  • Letter to John Richard Green (17 December 1871), quoted in Letters of William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford, 1825–1901, ed. William Holden Hutton (1904), p. 162

• Almost any student who has read the usual books, if he were asked to mark what was the foremost idea of the three centuries that intervene between the year 1500 and the year 1800, would reply that it was the idea of the balance of power. The balance of power, however it be defined, i.e. whatever the powers were between which it was necessary to maintain such equilibrium, that the weaker should not be crushed by the union of the stronger, is the principle which gives unity to the political plot of modern European history.
  • Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History and Kindred Subjects (1886), p. 225

Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History From the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First (1870)

• The study of Constitutional History is essentially a tracing of causes and consequences, the examination of a distinct growth from a well-defined germ to full maturity: a growth, the particular direction and shaping of which are due to a diversity of causes, but whose life and developing power lies deep in the very nature of the people. It is not then the collection of a multitude of facts and views, but the piecing of the links of a perfect chain.
  • p. xv

• It is of the greatest importance that this study should become a recognized part of a regular English education. No knowledge of English history can be really sound without it: it is not creditable to us as an educated people that while our students are well acquainted with the state machinery of Athens and Rome, they should be ignorant of the corresponding institutions of our own forefathers: institutions that possess a living interest for every nation that realizes its identity, and have exercised on the wellbeing of the civilized world an influence not inferior certainly to that of the Classical nations.
  • p. xv

• The English nation is of distinctly Teutonic or German origin. The Angles, Jutes, and Saxons, who, according to Bede, furnished the mass of immigrants in the fifth century, were amongst those tribes of Lower Germany which had been the least affected by Roman influences... This new race was the main stock of our forefathers: sharing the primeval German pride of purity of extraction, still regarding the family tie as the basis of social organization; migrating in groups of allied and kindred character, and commemorating the tribal identity in the names they gave to their new settlements, honouring the women of their nation, and strictly careful of the distinction between themselves and the tolerated remnant of their predecessor.
  • pp. 1-2

• It is unnecessary to suppose that any general intermixture either of Roman or of British blood has affected this national identity. Doubtless there were early intermarriages between the invaders and the natives, and probably in the west of England a large and continuous infusion of Celtic blood. But though it may have been locally or relatively great, it could only be in very small proportion to the whole. The language, the personal and local names, the character of the customs and common law of the English, are persistent during historic times. Every infusion of new blood since the first migration has been Teutonic; the Dane, the Norseman, and even the French-speaking Norman of the Conquest, serve to add intensity to the distinctness of the national identity.
  • p. 2

The Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development, Vol. I (1874)

• The History of Institutions cannot be mastered,—can scarcely be approached,—without an effort. It affords little of the romantic incident or of the picturesque grouping which constitute the charm of History in general, and holds out small temptation to the mind that requires to be tempted to the study of Truth. But it has a deep value and an abiding interest to those who have courage to work upon it. It presents, in every branch, a regularly developed series of causes and consequences, and abounds in examples of that continuity of life, the realisation of which is necessary to give the reader a personal hold on the past and a right judgment of the present. For the roots of the present lie deep in the past, and nothing in the past is dead to the man who would learn how the present comes to be what it is.
  • p. iii

• Without some knowledge of Constitutional History it is absolutely impossible to do justice to the characters and positions of the actors in the great drama; absolutely impossible to understand the origin of parties, the development of principles, the growth of nations in spite of parties and in defiance of principles. It alone can teach why it is that in politics good men do not always think alike, that the worst cause has often been illustrated with the most heroic virtue, and that the world owes some of its greatest debts to men from whose very memory it recoils.
  • pp. iii-iv

• England, although less homogeneous in blood and character, is more so in uniform and progressive growth. The very diversity of the elements which are united within the isle of Britain serves to illustrate the strength and vitality of that one which for thirteen hundred years has maintained its position either unrivalled or in victorious supremacy. If its history is not the perfectly pure development of Germanic principles, it is the nearest existing approach to such a development. England gained its sense of unity centuries before Germany: it developed its genius for government under influences more purely indigenous: spared from the curse of the imperial system and the Mezentian union with Italy, and escaping thus the practical abeyance of legislation and judicature, it developed its own common law free from the absolutist tendencies of Roman jurisprudence; and it grew equably, harmoniously, not merely by virtue of local effort and personal privilege.
  • p. 6

• The result of this comparison is to suggest the probability that the polity developed by the German races on British soil is the purest product of their primitive instinct. With the exception of the Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, the Anglo-Saxon remains are the earliest specimens of Germanic language as well as literature, and the development of modern English from the Anglo-Saxon is a fact of science as well as of history. The institutions of the Saxons of Germany long after the conquest of Britain were the most perfect exponent of the system which Tacitus saw and described in the Germania; and the polity of their kinsmen in England, though it may be not older in its monuments than the Lex Salica, is more entirely free from Roman influences. In England the common germs were developed and ripened with the smallest intermixture of foreign elements. Not only were all the successive invasions of Britain, which from the eighth to the eleventh century diversify the history of the island, conducted by nations of common extraction, but, with the exception of ecclesiastical influence, no foreign interference that was not German in origin was admitted at all. Language, law, custom and religion preserve their original conformation and colouring. The German element is the paternal element in our system, natural and political.
  • pp. 10-11

• Among the first truths which the historical student, or indeed any scientific scholar, learns to recognise, this is perhaps the most important, that no theory or principle works in isolation.
  • p. 32

• But although English society was divided by sharp lines, and broad intervals, it was not a system of caste either in the stricter or in the looser sense. It had much elasticity in practice, and the boundaries between the ranks were passable.
  • pp. 161-162

• There are no constitutional revolutions, no violent reversals of legislation; custom is far more potent than law, and custom is modified infinitesimally every day. An alteration of law is often the mere registration of a custom, when men have recognised its altered character. The names of offices and assemblies are permanent, whilst their character has imperceptibly undergone essential change.
  • p. 166

• The general tendency of the process may be described as a movement from the personal to the territorial organisation; from a state of things in which personal freedom and political right were the leading ideas, to one in which personal freedom and political right had become so much bound up with the relations created by the possession of land, as to be actually subservient to it: the Angel-cynn of Alfred becomes the Engla-lande of Canute.
  • p. 166

• In a further stage the land becomes the sacramental tie of all public relations; the poor man depends on the rich, not as his chosen patron, but as the owner of the land that he cultivates, the lord of the court to which he does suit and service, the leader whom he is bound to follow to the host: the administration of law depends on the peace of the land rather than that of the people; the great landowner has his own peace and administers his own justice. The king still calls himself the king of the nation, but he has added to his old title new and cumbersome obligations towards all classes of his subjects, as lord and patron, supreme landowner, the representative of all original, and the fountain of all derived, political right.
  • p. 167

• No legislation turned the free owner into the feudal tenant: whatever changes in that direction took place were the result of individual acts, or of very gradual changes of custom arising indirectly from the fact that other relations were assuming a territorial character.
  • p. 188

• In the preservation of the old forms,—the compurgation by the kindred of the accused, the responsibility for the wergild, the representation of the township in the court of the hundred, and that of the hundred in the court of the shire; the choice of witnesses; the delegation to chosen committees of the common judicial rights of the suitors of the folkmoot; the need of witness for the transfer of chattels, and the evidence of the hundred or shire to the title to lands; the report of the hundred and shire as to criminals and the duty of enforcing their production and punishment, and the countless diversity of customs in which the several communities went to work to fulfil the general injunctions of the law,—in these remained the seeds of future liberties; themselves perhaps the mere shakings of the olive tree, the scattered grains that royal and noble gleaners had scorned to gather, but destined for a new life after many days of burial. They were the humble discipline by which a downtrodden people were schooled to act together in small things, until the time came when they could act together for great ones.
  • p. 210

• The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it has realised its own identity: the consummation of the work for which unconsciously kings, prelates, and lawyers have been labouring for a century. There is not a word in it that recalls the distinctions of race and blood, or that maintains the differences of English and Norman law. It is in one view the summing up of a period of national life, in another the starting-point of a new, not less eventful, period than that which it closes.
  • p. 532

• [T]he whole of the constitutional history of England is little more than a commentary on Magna Carta.
  • p. 532

The Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development, Vol. II (1875)

• The design, as interpreted by the result, was the creation of a national parliament, composed of the three estates, organised on the principle of concentrating local agency and machinery in such a manner as to produce unity of national action, and thus to strengthen the hand of the king, who personified the nation.
  This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the result of compulsion, but the consummation of a growing policy. Edward did not call his parliament, as Philip the Fair called the States General, on the spur of a momentary necessity, or as a new machinery invented for the occasion and to be thrown aside when the occasion was over, but as a perfected organisation, the growth of which he had for twenty years been doing his best to guide. Granted that he had in view the strengthening of the royal power, it was the royal power in and through the united nation, not as against it, that he designed to strengthen.
  • p. 291

• And a people, to be united, must possess a balanced constitution, in which no class possesses absolute and independent power, none is powerful enough to oppress without remedy. The necessary check on an aspiring priesthood and an aggressive baronage, the hope and support of a rising people, must be in a king too powerful to yield to any one class, not powerful enough to act in despite of all, and fully powerful only in the combined support of all. Up to the year 1295 Edward had these ends steadily in view; his laws were directed to the limitation of baronial pretensions, to the definition of ecclesiastical claims, to the remedy of popular wrongs and sufferings. The peculiar line of his reforms, the ever perceptible intention of placing each member of the body politic in direct and immediate relation with the royal power, in justice, in war, and in taxation, seems to reach its fulfilment in the creation of the parliament of 1295, containing clergy and people by symmetrical representation, and a baronage limited and defined on a distinct system of summons.
  • p. 292

• The nation, on whom and by whom he [Edward I] was working, had now become a consolidated people, aroused by the lessons of his father's reign to the intelligent appreciation of their own condition, and attached to their own laws and customs with a steady though not unreasoning affection, jealous of their privileges, their charters, their local customs, unwilling that the laws of England should be changed. The reign of Henry III, and the first twenty years of Edward, prove the increasing capacity for self-government, as well as the increased desire and understanding of the idea of self-government.
  • pp. 292-293

Lectures on Early English History (1906)

Edited by Arthur Hassall.

• The knowledge of our own history is our memory, and so the recorded history of a nation is the memory of the nation: woe to the country and people that forget it; an infant people has no history, as a child has a short and transient memory: the strong man and the strong nation feel the pulsation of the past in the life of the present: their memory is vital, long and strong. Neglect of historical study and knowledge is to a nation what the loss of memory is to a man—a sign of old age and decrepitude, or the effect of some terrible disease in an individual; it is in a nation a sign of lost independence in manners and ways of thought—a moral decrepitude waxed old and ready to vanish away; or perhaps in this case also the result of some terrible convulsion—a wave of revolution rolling over the land, overthrowing laws and institutions, and washing away old landmarks, as you may see in the France of this day.
  • 'The Anglo-Saxon Constitution', p. 1

• We hear of the dead past and the living present: we are bid (and we do well to remember that it is an American poet who so adapts the words) to let the dead past bury its dead. But surely the past lives in the present, the process by which we became what we are is a part of our living being; if we are cut off from what we were, we only half live.
  • 'The Anglo-Saxon Constitution', p. 2

• The old map of France is full of memories—recollections of Gaul and Rome, the empire of the Cæsars, Burgundians and Aquitanians, Franks and Armoricans—Clovis, Charles the Great, and St. Louis—knights, troubadours, saints, and heroes. The history of the land was written on its face. The map of modern France is a catalogue of hills and rivers, a record of centralisation, codification, universal suffrage, government by policemen. Probably the work of simplification will never be carried so far in England, but there is a tendency towards it, which is a sign of the decline of independent thought and character.
  • 'The Anglo-Saxon Constitution', p. 2

• It is that the essence of the historical study is in the working out the continuity of the subject, while the essence of the legal study is in the reducing of it all to certain theoretic principles.
  • 'The Laws and Legislation of the Norman Kings', p. 37

• National character may be regarded as the result of national history, or national history as the development of national character; either way we cannot fail to recognise the closest connection between the two. Now, of all the evidence that can be taken, and that we shall attempt to take in this course, of the actual origin of each nation and of the persistence of the original character, by far the most clear and decisive are the customs of common law. These customs spring out of the first movements of the race towards social and civilised life; although not recorded in books, they are the most ancient portion of its lore, but they are not the earliest monuments of its literature.
  • 'The Comparative Constitutional History of Mediæval Europe', p. 202

• Nor shall I be going so far as to anticipate what I shall have to lay before you by and by if I say now that I do trace in the old Teutonic system more germs of real liberty than I can in the Celtic system, so far as we know it, or in the Sclavonic, or in the Roman itself, with respect, be it said, to all those who find nothing in civilisation that is not Roman. I do think that in the free tenure of land, the fixed obligations of allodialism, the relation of the freeman to history as the impersonation of the race, the combination of the frankpledge, nay, I will add the compurgation and the ordeal and the wergild, is to be found a more likely basis of freedom than in the community of land, the close tie of patriarchal or family unity, the enormous and disproportionate estimate of blood nobility, and the clannish spirit that one finds in the Highland Scot and Irishman, or in the Pole or Hungarian.
  • 'The Comparative Constitutional History of Mediæval Europe', pp. 203-204

• England alone has a history in which ancient freedom has made its way through, and utilised all that is good in feudalism, widening from precedent to precedent into perfect political liberty.
  • 'Systems of Landholding in Mediæval Europe', p. 265

• It is far from easy to determine the mutual relations of the courts of the hundred and shire, and those of the manor and honour, or the co-ordinate departments of the bench, the pleas, and the exchequer, or the rival merits of the chancery, the house of lords, and the judicial committee of privy council. But that very complexity is a sign of growth; simplicity of detail signifies historically the extinction of earlier framework. That which springs up, as our whole system has done, on the principle of adapting present means to present ends, may be complex and inconvenient and empiric, but it is natural, spontaneous, and a crucial test of substantial freedom.
  • 'Early Judicial Systems', p. 326

• A national polity is not the creation of a single brain or of a royal commission of brains, but grows with the growth and strengthens with the strength of the nation; cannot be changed without changing much of the spirit of the people, and is strong in proportion to the distinctness of its continuity.
  • 'Early Judicial Systems', p. 332

Quotes about Stubbs

• More satisfying because more decisive has been the critical treatment of the medieval writers, parallel with the new editions, on which incredible labour has been lavished, and of which we have no better examples than the prefaces of Bishop Stubbs.
  • Lord Acton, A Lecture on the Study of History (1895), p. 43

• Stubbs is more compelling than his evidence demands and more fascinating than his subject would predict... Even at his weakest and dullest Stubbs is interesting; at his strongest and most flamboyant, as in his Benedict of Peterborough and Walter of Coventry introductions in the Rolls Series and in parts of his Constitutional History, he is dazzling. The problem is not overcoming Stubbs's dullness but explaining his brilliance.
  • Robert Brentano, 'The Sound of Stubbs', Journal of British Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May 1967), p. 1

• It is generally agreed that no one has ever edited medieval texts more beautifully or gracefully; no one has more unblinkingly adhered to the knowable "fact." This success in Stubbs was not due merely to careful and hard work. Effort does not in itself produce editions like Stubbs's. A specific sort of talent, evidently very rare, and a specific taste are necessary... It is reflected in his rather intricate view of interrelated forces, a view that is tolerant of and even finds pleasure in an almost infinite elaboration of carefully disposed contingencies.
  • Robert Brentano, 'The Sound of Stubbs', Journal of British Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May 1967), pp. 1-2

• In sound Stubbs was a gaudier Macaulay, a subtler Carlyle. His was not (nor, of course, was Ranke's) the "naked truth with-out embellishment" that he pretended at a time when naked truth seemed more attainable and embellishment less desirable than they have come to seem. Stubbs is magnificently persuasive not because he is all owl, but because he is a great deal more peacock, or perhaps nightingale, than he would admit. And it is the pea-cock, Maitland's "bright star" rather than his "good bishop," who is constantly interesting.
  • Robert Brentano, 'The Sound of Stubbs', Journal of British Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May 1967), p. 14

• Stubbs' history is the most fully realised embodiment of English, Burkean political ideas.
  • J. W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (1981), p. 131

• It is our considered view that no student of the early history of our constitution can dispense with reading it [The Constitutional History of England] ... I would say at once, with all the force at my disposal, that there is no nineteenth-century historian towards whom it is less possible to be condescending without condemning oneself as unfit to study history.
  • Helen Cam, 'Stubbs Seventy Years After', The Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1948), p. 129

• [H]e was able to undertake and fully complete an original work of historical synthesis which remains one of the most astonishing achievements of the Victorian mind. On many particular points in his History, scholars would now say Stubbs has been superseded as more subtle and complex explanations have come into fashion, but on no point can it be said that Stubbs' judgment was completely without merit or that the thesis he propounded did not have a plausible basis in the contemporary documentation. And as a general interpretation of the significant trends in the history of medieval English government, the Constitutional History remains the holistic work to which all subsequent research has had to be related.
  • Norman Cantor, 'Introduction', in Norman Cantor (ed.), William Stubbs on the English Constitution (1966), p. 7

• What first struck the readers was its [The Constitutional History of England] massive and organized learning. The book overflowed with indications that its author had an unusual familiarity, not only with existing secondary works, but also—and more particularly—with the relevant original authorities that were then in print. Throughout the book it was to these original authorities that the main attention was steadily directed.
  • Goronwy Edwards, William Stubbs (1952), p. 6

• The work of...Stubbs claims a still higher rank. It shows what can be made of documents, when historic powers of the highest order are brought to bear upon them. We have seldom seen a single volume which was, so thoroughly and almost without a figure of speech, a library in itself. It is hardly too much to say that Mr. Stubbs has here got together all that any one can want to know on his subject, unless he is going to write a book about it, and that, if a man is going to write a book about it, he will find in Mr. Stubbs' volume the best possible guide to his materials.
  • Edward Augustus Freeman, 'The Use of Historical Documents', The Fortnightly Review, No. LVII. New Series (1 September 1871), in The Fortnightly Review, Vol. X. New Series. July 1 to December 1, 1871, ed. John Morley (1871), p. 331

• [I]t was Stubbs who did the most to consolidate the new idea of the historical enterprise... The latter [Select Charters of English Constitutional History] was to help apprentice historians to learn to deal with original documents, so that they might try to emulate works like Stubbs's own Constitutional History, which remained the standard work and the exemplar of institutional history until well into the twentieth century. As a model, the Constitutional History taught that history should be rooted in original sources, balanced and temperate in judgements, highly detailed and analytical, and severe and austere in tone.
  • Thomas William Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England (1982), pp. 144-145

• Stubbs was primarily a master of all the literary sources of English history between, say, 950 and 1400. In this field he has never been surpassed. How often even now, after searching in vain for a decisive contemporary witness for this or that fact or judgment, do we find that the Bishop, seventy years ago, put it for us in a footnote or an obiter dictum! Few historians would be the worse for reading Stubbs's Introductions and vol. II of the Constitutional History once every four or five years. This intimate knowledge of the period gave Stubbs a background of flesh and blood and mind in all his work. It also made him the master of all those who later broke new ground, and he became as it were father and grandfather of his pupils and pupils' pupils who developed new trends.
  • M. D. Knowles, 'Some Trends in Scholarship, 1868–1968, in the Field of Medieval History', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 19 (1969), p. 144

• No other Englishman has so completely displayed to the world the whole business of the historian from the winning of the raw material to the narrating and generalising. We are taken behind the scenes and shown the ropes and pulleys; we are taken into the laboratory and shown the unanalysed stuff, the retorts and test tubes; or rather we are allowed to see the organic growth of history in an historian's mind and are encouraged to use the microscope. This "practical demonstration," if we may so call it, of the historian's art and science from the preliminary hunt for manuscripts, through the work of collation and filiation and minute criticism, onward to the perfected tale, the eloquence and the reflexions, has been of incalculable benefit to the cause of history in England and far more effective than any abstract discourse on methodology could be.
  • Frederic William Maitland, 'William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford', The English Historical Review (July 1901), quoted in The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, Downing Professor of the Law of England, Volume III, ed. H. A. L. Fisher (1911), p. 498

• He was, so it seems to me, a narrator of first-rate power: a man who could tell stories, and who did tell many stories, in sober, dignified, and unadorned but stirring and eloquent words. If an anthology were to be made of tales well told by historians, and the principle of selection paid no heed to the truthfulness of the passages, but weighed only their verisimilitude and what may be called their aesthetic or artistic merits, Dr Stubbs would have a strong right, and hardly any among the great historians of his day would have a stronger, to be well represented.
  • Frederic William Maitland, 'William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford', The English Historical Review (July 1901), quoted in The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, Downing Professor of the Law of England, Volume III, ed. H. A. L. Fisher (1911), p. 502

• What are we to say of the Constitutional History? Perhaps I have just one advantage over most of its readers. I did not read it because I was set to read it, or because I was to be examined in it, or because I had to teach history or law. I found it in a London club, and read it because it was interesting. On the other hand it was so interesting, and I was so little prepared to criticise or discriminate, that perhaps I fell more completely under its domination than those who have passed through schools of history are likely to fall. Still, making an effort towards objectivity, must we not admire in the first instance the immense scope of the book—a history of institutions which begins with the Germans of Caesar and Tacitus and does not end until a Tudor is on the throne? Then the enormous mass of material that is being used, and the ease with which this immense weight is moved and controlled... While the institutions grow and decay under our eyes we are never allowed to forget that this process of evolution and dissolution consists of the acts of human beings, and that acts done by nameable men, by kings and statesmen and reformers, memorable acts done at assignable points In time and space, are the concrete forms in which the invisible forces and tendencies are displayed. When compared with other books bearing a like title Stubbs's Constitutional History is marvellously concrete.
  • Frederic William Maitland, 'William Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford', The English Historical Review (July 1901), quoted in The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, Downing Professor of the Law of England, Volume III, ed. H. A. L. Fisher (1911), pp. 503-504

• Of all the men whose names I have heard mentioned in connection with the Modern History Chair I should consider Stubbs decidedly the most eligible. He is, I believe, a moderate Conservative—at all events a good Churchman and one whose teaching on religious questions would be thoroughly trustworthy. He is also one whose ability and knowledge would make the appointment unobjectionable. I do not know him personally, but from all I hear of him I should think he is the nearest approach to a Conservative of all the candidates of whom I have heard.
  • Henry Longueville Mansel to Lord Carnarvon (15 July 1866), quoted in N. J. Williams, 'Stubbs's Appointment as Regius Professor, 1866', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Vol. XXXIII, No. 87 (May 1960), p. 123

• Stubbs is a name always to be mentioned with veneration in the Oxford History School. He is without doubt the greatest of Oxford historians, as Maitland is equally preeminent among Cambridge men. They have no peers. During the seventeen years in which he was Regius Professor, from 1867 to 1884, the History School changed from being "an easy School for rich men" into an academic discipline of a serious kind.
  • R. W. Southern, 'The Shape and Substance of Academic History', Inaugural Lecture as Chichele Professor of Modern History, Oxford (1961), in History and Historians: Selected Papers of R. W. Southern, ed. R. J. Bartlett (2004), p. 93

• Maitland was the antithesis of Stubbs: Maitland is the historian of situations, Stubbs of development. It is fashionable now to depreciate Stubbs and to praise Maitland, and it is easy to see why this has happened. Maitland's precise concepts and lucid exposition are attuned to modern scientific requirements; Stubbs's muddy generalizations and anachronistic concepts are correspondingly irritating. But it should be remembered that Maitland left out those things which elude definition: human character and deep-seated change. There are no portraits in Maitland's history and little sense of social development. All things considered, I believe that Stubbs was the greater historian, but Maitland has more to teach us now.
  • R. W. Southern, review of The Letters of Frederic William Maitland in History and Theory, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1967), p. 111

• From the teacher's point of view it is a notable fact that of late years English constitutional history has become at once more interesting and of higher educational value. If recollections of the undergraduate's standpoint as it was twenty years ago are to be trusted, the earlier part of the subject was deposited in three sacred volumes, which were approached by the devout disciple in much the same spirit as that in which the youthful Brahmin draws near to the Vedas. To read the first volume of Stubbs was necessary to salvation; to read the second was greatly to be desired; the third was reserved for the ambitious student who sought to accumulate merit by unnatural austerities—but between them they covered the whole ground. The lecturer lectured on Stubbs; the commentator elucidated him; the crammer boiled him down. Within those covers was to be found the final word on every controversy, and in this faith the student moved serene.
  • Joseph Robson Tanner, 'The Teaching of Constitutional History', in F. W. Maitland, H. M. Gwatkin, R. L. Poole, W. E. Heitland, W. Cunningham, J. R. Tanner, W. H. Woodward, C. H. K. Marten and W. J. Ashley, Essays on the Teaching of History (1901), p. 54

• The mental food of which I was most in need at that time was a strict regimen of the modern type of scientific history at its best, to supplement the sweet cake of Gibbon, Macaulay, Carlyle, etc., on which I was gorging myself. Warner gave me that in the form of Stubbs' Constitutional History, without discouraging my love-reading of brighter authors. Stubbs, moreover, was an invaluable introduction to the Middle Ages, hitherto almost a blank spot in my knowledge. I wrote out a full analysis of the three volumes in three massive notebooks.
  • G. M. Trevelyan, An Autobiography & Other Essays (1949), p. 12