The name of William Stubbs will forever be associated with the birth of modern scholarship on the late medieval English parliament. At the core of his Constitutional History, a three‐volume work published in the 1870s, is a brilliant synthesis of the development of the early parliament. Since its publication, however, Stubbs's work has generated varied reactions, as scholars have positioned themselves at different points on a sliding scale of praise through to criticism; that is, between praising the Constitutional History for its depth of scholarship and pioneering methodologies, on the one hand, to criticising the work for its present‐minded approach and whiggish agenda, on the other. The aim of this discussion is to strike a balance between these two extremes. While it acknowledges the undoubted flaws of Stubbs's narrative, it also argues for a more nuanced and holistic approach to his work. It suggests that the taint of whiggism has for too long acted as a barrier to a true appreciation of the scholarly merit of the work, merit that extends beyond simply acknowledging its ambition, originality and legacy. The discussion considers some key areas of parliamentary development between c.1290 and c.1406 and notes the continued synergies that exist between what Stubbs wrote 140 years ago and current interpretations and understandings.

中文翻译：

---

威廉·斯塔布斯（William Stubbs），议会和中世纪英国宪法

威廉·斯塔布斯（William Stubbs）的名字将永远与中世纪晚期英国议会中现代奖学金的诞生有关。在他的《宪法史》的核心中，1870年代出版的三卷本著作是对早期议会制发展的出色总结。然而自出版以来，斯塔布斯的作品就产生了各种各样的反应，因为学者们将自己定位在不同点上，从赞美到批评。也就是说，在赞美宪法史之间一方面，由于其学术研究的深度和开创性的方法，另一方面，由于批评其目前的方法和不合理的议程而对工作进行了批评。讨论的目的是在这两个极端之间取得平衡。尽管它承认了斯塔布斯的叙事无疑存在缺陷，但它也主张对他的作品采取更加细微和整体的方法。它表明，长期以来，鞭gg的污点一直是妨碍人们真正欣赏作品的学术价值的障碍，而不仅仅是超越承认其雄心，原创性和传统的价值。讨论考虑了c.1290和c.1406之间议会发展的一些关键领域，并指出了斯塔布斯（Stubbs）140年前的著作与当前的解释和理解之间存在的持续协同作用。