The scholar who began his academic career by stating the truism that there are few questions on which as much may not be said on the one side as on the other,' seemed particularly fit to understand and to expound the history of these struggles and compromises.

Stubbs was wont to steady himself in his course, and to illustrate his meaning, by comparisons between England and its neighbours, France, Germany, Spain-comparisons which brought into relief the special features of each case, but never savoured of an invidious or self-complacent disposition. We may take example from the Bishop and place for a moment by his side one or two of his compeers in historical learning in order to make out more clearly his stature and complexion. He reminds one forcibly of Waitz, the great student of German Verfassungsgeschichte'; and on the shelves of all historical libraries, by the side of his volumes, may be seen the books of another eminent German-Gneist. It may be a matter of dispute which of the three is more conspicuous for vast knowledge and working strength. But it may fairly be asserted that Stubbs is superior to Waitz in the clearness and firmness of his exposition, and superior to Gneist in scholarly, single-minded treatment of historical facts. Waitz's descriptions resemble sometimes a vast canvas filled with blurred outlines and contradictory shades, in which it is difficult to make out either figures or groups. Gneist knew too much beforehand what he was going to find in English history. He was trying to teach his countrymen reverence for monarchy and the self-government of the gentry; and he would never have written the words-which may stand as a brief summary of the Bishop of Oxford's 'Constitutional History':

'The idea of a constitution in which each class of society should, so soon as it was fitted for the trust, be admitted to a share of power and control, and in which national action should be determined by the balance maintained between the forces thus combined, never perhaps presented itself to the mind of any medieval politician. . . . Yet, in the long run, this has been the ideal towards which the healthy development of national life in Europe has constantly tended, only the steps towards it have not been taken to suit a preconceived theory' (Const. Hist,' ii, 158.)

III.

It is natural to compare the 'Lectures on European History,' published only last year, with the series on Medieval and Modern History collected in 1886. In both the constitutional element is almost entirely absent, while in both Dr Stubbs has a free field for his vivid realisation of character-a quality which is prominent in his Introductions to the Rolls Series.' Nevertheless the differences between the two volumes are strongly marked. The several lectures on Medieval and Modern History were given at considerable intervals, on subjects more or less self-contained, but generally in close relation to his special studies. They were probably intended for publication, and were duly corrected for the press. The European series covers a period very long, wide, and complex; there is a common plot round which the lectures are constructed; there is an express disclaimer of research; the lecturer's learning reveals itself rather in the ripeness of conclusions than in the novelty of facts. There is no sign of preparation for publication; it is possible to discover pardonable slips, pleasing indiscretions, tantalising inconsistencies. They are in fact Oxford terminal lectures at their best, aiming rather at utility than elegance, didactic rather than literary. They were helped then, as they still are for those who knew the lecturer, by the sympathy of the voice and the laughter in the eyes. It is not print itself, but the preparation for print that dims the speaker's eye and silences his voice. It is certain that a book should never be delivered as lectures, but not so clear that lectures should never be printed as a book. The spontaneity of informal lectures, as of impromptu letters, makes them easier reading. Byron is less exhausting than Horace Walpole. It may even be regretted that the editor excised the lecturer's colloquialisms, a euphemism at times for curses hurled at objectionable historical characters.

In Dr Stubbs there was a compound of criticism and kindliness, impulse and caution. On the whole the impulse and criticism were the more closely mingled, and, though no more real than the other qualities, lay nearer to the surface of his character, and hence are more apparent in

an uncorrected work. Had he printed these lectures, the strong expressions of prejudice might have been softened down; and he might have suppressed the sting-tailed witticisms which are not epigrams, nor exactly oğúuwpa, but rather ἀπροσδόκητα, such as,

Alva was too able a minister to let well alone.' 'Alençon was a prince of no principle, bad temper, and small capacity except for giving trouble.' 'Scarcely any age has seen three such (great men) as Oxenstiern, Richelieu and Wallenstein, alive at the same time: altogether the mischief they worked in Europe has never been exceeded until the advent of Napoleon.'

He would certainly have deleted the not too cautious prophecies of the future of Germany and Italy, for in his published Essays Dr Stubbs deprecated the use of prophecy; and, indeed, though historians provide the materials for prophecy, their own place is not among the prophets.

When these lectures were delivered, England and Oxford were flooded by a wave of Liberalism. The lecturer's criticism was therefore all the more Conservative. He rarely took the accepted view or followed the popular historian. It is fair to remember that views which have now become commonplaces, were at that time, in the eyes of the average half-educated Liberal, heresies. It was then usual to believe that Charles V aimed at universal domination; that Maurice of Saxony was the hero, Philip of Hesse the martyr, of the Reformation, and William of Orange both; and that the cause of Liberalism had always found its champion in the Hohenzollern as against the Habsburg. For the reign of Charles V English readers still pinned their faith on Robertson; and Robertson's 'characteristic unfairness' was due to his exclusive reliance on French sources and on such old German Protestants as wrotel in Latin. In Netherland history Motley held the field; and for the American historian every republican Protestant was saint or hero.

The worship of Robertson and Motley was for Dr Stubbs idolatry; and he set himself to destroy it. In his more elaborate criticism of Robertson he acknowledges his great qualities and services, but in his running comments he is unsparing. When blaming Motley's conception of Charles V, he apparently includes him among

6

'unintelligent and incompetent critics'; while later he describes him as being as inferior to Prescott in fairness, as in the language in which he records his impressions'a courageous utterance for those days, though it might pass unchallenged now. His fiercest denunciation is, however, launched against the pro-Prussian historians who set themselves to prove that, while the Hohenzollerns were insignificant, the other governing powers were determinately in the wrong, and Prussia, as soon as she existed, invariably in the right; who blackened every Habsburg as a tyrant, strong or petty, shameless or subtle; who, beginning with an imaginary Charles V, and an imaginary policy of universal empire and unflinching repression, represented the whole existence of the dynasty as a sin against society. Intentionally, as he confesses, he takes a lenient view of Habsburg policy, for historical fairness compels us to lean to the Austrian side in spite of its faults.

In his impulses Dr Stubbs was sturdily Teutonic. He had little sympathy for the Latin nations. For Spain he had no hope, owing to the incurable wrong-headedness of her politicians.' He almost despaired of the revival of Italy, because she lacked the gift of governance. The development of republics and despotisms presented to him no interesting problems in the morphology of states: 'their internal struggles (he says) are little more worthy of examination than the vagaries of a parish vestry.' He even justifies Austrian rule, for Italy richly deserved what she got; and, so far, it was for the good of the world. She exchanged the shadow of liberty for the substance of peace.' Throughout the volume there is scarcely a good word for France. Germany, whether represented by a Habsburg or not, by Catholic or Protestant, is hailed as England's natural and immemorial ally against France. Dr Stubbs saw in the France of his own day the heiress of monarchical vices in a degraded form. Henry IV is described as a Frenchman of the old régime, without the debasement and ensavagement that successive struggles of blood and glory have produced in the Frenchman of the ordinary type of to-day.' That king's murder is a subject for congratulation, for his intended humiliation of Austria would have been a misfortune, since French ambition has brought infinitely

more misery upon Europe than all the repressive policy of Austria in all the years of her influence.' Through Henry IV, Richelieu, and Mazarin is traced with an unsparing hand 'the traditionary policy of France, as strong in the present day as it was then, but modified by the character of the administrator. . . in itself a thoroughly selfish and ungenerous one.' It is fair to add that the strictures on North German intrigues against the Habsburgs are almost equally severe.

In reviewing the religious aspects of his subject, Dr Stubbs is Anglican, as in surveying the international he is Teutonic. He thought it easy for an Englishman to be fair, as far removed from the persecuting repressive instincts of seventeenth-century Jesuitism as from the hypocritical and rapacious intolerance of seventeenthcentury Protestantism. But in his balance the weights of the latter sink. Not infrequent are such alliterations as Protestantism and plunder, pirate and Puritan interests. For the Thirty Years' War he holds the Protestant powers the more responsible. He exults over the break-up of the Evangelical Union, for it had done no work except to originate a war in which on every occasion it shirked fighting. So, too, he ascribes the Great Rebellion to the warlike enthusiasm of the English Puritans for the worthless Elector Palatine, which was exhausted before war began and quite quenched by its ill-success. The Puritans forced the war, stopped the supplies necessary to its maintenance, drove the king into unconstitutional proceedings, and then made these the pretext for overthrowing the monarchy.

His predilections for periods are as outspoken as those for countries and parties. The sixteenth century is placed far below the thirteenth, as a century of ideas, real, grand, and numerous.

'Compare the one set of men with the other as men, and the ideas as ideas; and the advantage is wonderfully in favour of the semi-barbarous age, above that of the Renaissance and the Reformation.'

The period of his lectures he divides into three Acts-the age of Charles V, the French Wars of Religion with the war of Netherland Liberation, and the Thirty Years' War. Of these he prefers the third to the first, and the first to