+ + – Am. Hist. R. 11: 382. Ja. ’06. 1390w. (Review of v. 10.)
“Misprints are uncommon. It must be confessed that the whole book is without literary grace or adornment, but serious and even pedestrian as the style is, it is neither dry nor repellant. His book is informed with a large-minded, conscientious desire to see the past as it actually was and to represent it truthfully to men of his own day.” Gaillard Thomas Lapsley.
+ + – Am. Hist. R. 11: 639. Ap. ’06. 1730w. (Review of v. 2.)
“On the institutional side Dr. Hodgkin’s work shows very little independent research.” Laurence M. Larson.
+ + – Am. Hist. R. 12: 114. O. ’06. 1430w. (Review of v. 1.)
“It covers the field thoroughly, its writer’s views of controverted questions are unusually sound, his judgment is excellent, his temper almost ideal.” Ralph C. H. Catterall.
+ + – Am. Hist. R. 12:139. O. ’06. 1500w. (Review of v. 11.)
“It is scholarly, clear and interesting. It is rather a sense of regret that such an inadequate plan has been adopted for this important series, and that so little that is new, stimulating or broad is disclosed in this, the earliest volume to appear.” E. P. Cheyney.
+ – Ann. Am. Acad. 27: 179. Mr. ’06. 900w. (Review of v. 10.)
“It [the whole series] is certainly not an epoch-making work, it is certainly not a pioneer into new paths, it gives no new outlook into English history or new synthesis of its elements; but it is full, clear, scholarly, moderate, and useful.” Edward P. Cheyney.