This essay was Wilfred Heeleyâs last submission to The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine; though he was one of the original members of the Brotherhood, he
married and left for India in September (Mackail 90). The essay is listed
under âNotices of Booksâ in the December table of contents, but
has more in common with the other critical essays in the Magazine than with
the other reviews. The majority of the essay relates the story of Henry VIII
and the break from the Catholic church, as told by Froude. This kind of
summary is typical of several essays in the Magazine, but not of the reviews
of contemporary works.
This essay is also more than twice as long as any other review. The longest
of the others is John Nicholâs
in the December issue, and he
reviews two works: Sydney Dobellâs âEngland in the Time of Warâ and George
MacDonaldâs âWithin and
Withoutâ. It is possible that this essay on Froude was put
under reviews by accident, mistaken for Heeleyâs essay on Macaulay. That essay, though it
reviews an earlier work, would fit better into the ânotices of
booksâ category than the essay on Froude.
Heeley opens this essay by discussing the use of historical writing, and how
modern readers relate historical events to their own lives and times. He
commends Froude for his accurate depiction of the Renaissance, and meeting
his goal âto chastise and refute a false belief about a whole
period, a gratuitous and ungenerous assumption that we are better and better
off than theyâ (369).
Heeley draws no explicit comparisons between Froude and Macaulay, but since
he reviewed works of the same title by these men, published within a year of
each other, he must have had some comparison in mind. He criticizes Macaulay
for his lack of sympathy with some of his subjects, but praises Froude for
âthe loving human way in which he looks on every one whom he
deals withâ (374).
This collection contains 1 text or image, including:
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine text
Scholarly Commentary
Guest Editor: PC Fleming
IntroductionÂ
This essay was Wilfred Heeleyâs last submission to The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine; though he was one of the original members of the Brotherhood, he married and left for India in September (Mackail 90). The essay is listed under âNotices of Booksâ in the December table of contents, but has more in common with the other critical essays in the Magazine than with the other reviews. The majority of the essay relates the story of Henry VIII and the break from the Catholic church, as told by Froude. This kind of summary is typical of several essays in the Magazine, but not of the reviews of contemporary works.
This essay is also more than twice as long as any other review. The longest of the others is John Nicholâs in the December issue, and he reviews two works: Sydney Dobellâs âEngland in the Time of Warâ and George MacDonaldâs âWithin and Withoutâ. It is possible that this essay on Froude was put under reviews by accident, mistaken for Heeleyâs essay on Macaulay. That essay, though it reviews an earlier work, would fit better into the ânotices of booksâ category than the essay on Froude.
Heeley opens this essay by discussing the use of historical writing, and how modern readers relate historical events to their own lives and times. He commends Froude for his accurate depiction of the Renaissance, and meeting his goal âto chastise and refute a false belief about a whole period, a gratuitous and ungenerous assumption that we are better and better off than theyâ (369).
Heeley draws no explicit comparisons between Froude and Macaulay, but since he reviewed works of the same title by these men, published within a year of each other, he must have had some comparison in mind. He criticizes Macaulay for his lack of sympathy with some of his subjects, but praises Froude for âthe loving human way in which he looks on every one whom he deals withâ (374).
Printing HistoryÂ
First printed in The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine , June, 1856.