[Letters and Correspondence—1838]REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel College: January 17, 1838. Anxious I have been, and am, about several things. Froude's volumes will open upon me a flood of criticisms, and from all quarters. It is just a case when no two persons have the same judgment about particulars, and I am fully conscious that even those who know one will say, 'What could he mean by putting this in? What is the use of that? How silly this! How trifling that! What is it to the world if so and so? How injudicious? He is cutting his own throat.' But on the whole I trust it will present, as far as it goes, a picture of a mind; and that being gained as the scope, the details may be left to take their chance. Then about my own work [on Justification] I am a good deal fussed. It is the first voyage I have yet made proprio marte, with sun, stars, compass, and a sounding line, but with very insufficient charts. It is a terra incognita in our Church, and I am so afraid, not of saying things wrong so much as queer and crotchety, and of misunderstanding other writers. For really the Lutherans, &c., as divines, are so shallow and inconsequent, that I can hardly believe my own impressions about them. {223} We have three volumes of the 'Library of the Fathers' in the press. This again is a very anxious business. Maitland has taken the 'British Critic,' with a promise of our assistance; when I know more you shall hear more. Nothing could be better unless he were under Rose's eyes, for he is going to live in town; but we must be quite decided, and if he will not put in our strong articles we must retire. Your offering towards the young monks [Note 1] was just like yourself, and I cannot pay it a better compliment. I will be most welcome. As you may suppose, we have nothing settled, but are feeling our way. We should begin next term; but since, however secret one may wish to keep it, things get out, we do not yet wish to commit young men to anything which may hurt their chance of success at any college, in standing for a fellowship. After Easter will be a better time so far as this, that there may be some eligible men among those who stood for our fellowships unsuccessfully. I trust the plan will answer when begun, but do not know how to start, and fear wasting money through clumsiness. During the next term with Manuel Johnson's help I hope to concoct something. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. JOHN MOZLEY January 29, 1838. I am quite sick at the thoughts of having the 'British Critic,' but there was no one else, and I did not like so important a work to get into hands I could not trust. I do not begin with it till the July number. My book on Justification has taken incredible time. I am quite worn out with correcting. I do really think that every correction I make is for the better, and that I am not wasting time in an over-fastidious way, or even making it worse than it was; but I can only say this—openings for correction are inexhaustible. I write, I write again: I write a third time in the course of six months. Then I take the third: I literally fill the paper with corrections, so that another person could not read it. I {224} then write it out fair for the printer. I put it by; I take it up; I begin to correct again: it will not do. Alterations multiply, pages are re-written, little lines sneak in and crawl about. The whole page is disfigured; I write again; I cannot count how many times this process is repeated. To his sister Harriett, writing March 28, he gives the motive for all this care. 'The great difficulty was to avoid being difficult, which on the subject of Justification is not a slight one. It is so entangled and mystified by irrelevant and refined questions.' REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. R. F. WILSON February 4. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE February 28, 1838. The previous letter, January 17, speaks of Mr. Maitland having taken the 'British Critic,' but his official relation to the Archbishop made a difficulty, and he resigned. It practically passed into Mr. Newman's hands, as he had with him the most important contributors, and in July 1838 he became formally the Editor [Note 2]. {225} REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. March 19, 1838. In reviewing the British Association, do not forget the first Report. There is a splendid oration there in praise of Priestley, with choice bits about his theological opinions. I have not seen Williams's 'Cathedral,' but I fear it will be obscure. However, everyone has his line. To be sure, what a mass of Catholic literature is now being poured upon the public! Have you seen Palmer's book? [on the Church]. It is quite overcoming—his reading—and makes one feel quite ashamed. It will do a great deal of good, for just at this moment we need ballast. Then again, Froude's in an opposite direction, as if marking out the broad limits of Anglicanism and the differences of opinion which are allowable in it. Then Woodgate's Sermons [Bamptons], which began yesterday with a bold, uncompromising statement of the Doctrine of Tradition, and of the difference between the Catholic and Rationalistic spirit, which comes from a certain pamphlet. I hope to do something with my forthcoming Lectures [on Justification], and there are to come Keble's Papers on Mysticism (read at the Theological) in the next (5th) volume, viz. No. 89 of the Tracts. (By-the-bye, have you seen Williams's most valuable Tract 80?) (on Reserve). Then your 'Hildebrand'; then Froude's 'Becket,' &c., which is now ready; and besides all this, the 'British Critic.' But one must not exult too much. What I fear is the now rising generation at Oxford, Arnold's youths. Much depends on how they turn out. {226} REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE March 29, 1838. Yesterday morning I had the following pleasant announcement from William Froude. 'My father is much pleased with Hurrell's book. He had been rather alarmed by some comments made upon it in a letter from Sir John Coleridge, but the book itself has quite reassured him. The preface says exactly what one wished to have said.' The following letter is on the death of a Littlemore parishioner well known to his sister: REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MRS. JOHN MOZLEY April 6, 1838. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel College, Easter Day: April 15. I have had very pleasant and kind letters from Mr. Hornby {227} and Mr. Faber on the subject of my lectures, which I sent to both. I wish some of you in London would set up a series of light works, such as you speak of. Had not the 'British Critic' come in the way, I had proposed to do so. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO MISS M. R. GIBERNE Oriel College: Easter Tuesday, 1838. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. May 22, 1838. I fear I shall be hard pressed for articles for the 'British Critic.' The following comment is attached to this letter: [N.B.—Just at this time, June 1838, was the zenith of the Tract movement. It was at this Commemoration my answer to Faussett came out. The next letter is the beginning of a change of fortune.—J. H. N.] {228} The 'next letter' here indicated is one addressed to Mr. Bowden, August 17, 1838, beginning, 'I delayed writing in order to give you an account of our Bishop's Charge.' REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. B. MOZLEY Oriel College: August 2, 1838. You see Lord Morpeth has been upon me in the House, as editor of the 'Remains.' Gladstone has defended me, Sir R. Inglis the University; O'Connell has patronised the Tracts. The Bishop of Oxford is delivering a Charge in our favour, Archdeacon Browne, of Ely, against us. The Bishop of Exeter has been making a remarkable speech in the House, saying that though their Lordships, &c., passed a certain Bill, he would not obey it, and they might eject him first. The Archbishop very much excited on the other side. I heartily wish Tom may make a book of his sermon. Encourage him to it—I will when I write. Mr. Le Bas has been paying me a visit—he went today. Marriott is negotiating with a view to going to Chichester. Faussett's and my pamphlets have come to a second edition. I have sold at the same time 750 to his 500. Who would have thought persons would buy an answer without a question? He is very angry in the Preface to his second edition—talks of my flippant suggestions, &c. I have answered his Preface in a few notes. Rogers reports an amusing saying of a lady whom he knows about my letter. 'Now Dr. Faussett will be quite pleased and convinced by this, and obliged to Mr. Newman if he is a nice kind of man.' As to your preaching distinctly, the art consists in not dropping your words, which is very difficult. I have not attained to it from want of strength. You must not glibly run over bits of sentences, but enunciate and enucleate every word. The want of this is what the Provost found fault with [Note 4]. {229} Vaughan Thomas is very angry with Faussett. I have not time to read this over. Mr. Newman had tender consideration for his friends under circumstances to make them feel solitary. His letters throughout show a strong sense of what solitude is, whether as a trial or an experience. He was eminently social, and could sympathise with a young member of his own following, spending a month or more by himself at his brother's country living. In a week's time he writes again: Oriel: August 10, 1838. I have looked into Tyler; don't tell, but it is Tylerissimus. If you could combine it with Sir F. Palgrave [Note 5] I should be glad. You would have much to say in its praise, 'research, &c.' and one or two good bits might be taken. Let me know how Sir F. P. gets on. In what you write do not be too essayish: i.e. do not begin, 'Of all the virtues which adorn the human breast'—be somewhat conversational, and take a jump into your subject. But on the other hand avoid abruptness, or pertness. Be easy and take the mean—and now you have full directions how to write. A ragged paper came to me this morning, with great portions cut out—parts, however, remained, else it could not have come. I will extract for your edification a sentence or two. 'The Debate was rendered remarkable for bringing before the notice of the country, through Lord Morpeth, a sect of damnable and detestable heretics of late sprung up in Oxford; a sect which evidently affects Popery, and merits the heartiest condemnation of all true Christians. We have paid a good deal of attention to these gentry, and by the grace of God we shall show them up, and demonstrate that they are a people to be abhorred of all faithful men. We do not hesitate to say that they are criminally heterodox,' &c. {230} That they are what? Do you know that Lord Morpeth went out of his way to mention my name? The paper in question is the 'Dublin Record.' Bliss, in the 'Oxford Herald,' has called us all, Froude inclusive, 'amiable and fanciful men.' The Bishop delivers his Charge next Tuesday. 'Frazer's Magazine,' I am told, has opened on us. We must expect a volley from the whole Conservative press. I can fancy the Old Duke sending down to ask the Heads of Houses whether we cannot be silenced. Rivington declines printing any more of the 'Remains,' saying that they do not sell well enough. Keble advises the publication at once, and I am writing to Mr. Froude on the subject; so you must prepare to come up here for the rest of the vacation and superintend the business [arranging the 'Becket' papers]. I have sent my Sermons on Antichrist to the press as a Tract, to commence Vol. 5 with. I have finished my lectures in Adam de Brome's Chapel, and am looking out Sermons for my new volume. Jacobson's volumes are come out. I am most happily quite solus; you cannot think what a relief it is. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE August 14, 1838. He said he must allude to a remarkable development, both in matters of discipline and of doctrine, in one part of his Diocese; that he had had many anonymous letters, charging us with Romanism; that he had made inquiries; that, as far as discipline went, he found nothing to find fault with—one addition of a clerical vestment there had been, but that had been discontinued (alluding to Seager); but this he would say, that, in the choice of alternatives, he had rather go back to what is obsolete, in order to enforce the Rubric, than break it in order to follow the motley fashions now prevailing. Next, as to doctrine, he had found many most excellent things in the 'Tracts for the Times' (this was the only book he referred to), and most opportune and serviceable; but for some words and expressions he was sorry, as likely to lead others into error; he feared more for the disciples than for the masters, and he conjured those who were concerned in them to beware lest, &c. {231} Now does it not seem rather hard that he should publicly attack things in the Tracts without speaking to me about them privately? Again, what good does it do to fling an indefinite suspicion over them, when in the main they are orthodox? Then again, it seems hard that those who work, and who while working necessarily commit mistakes, instead of being thanked for that work, which others do not do, are blamed. It is very comfortable to do nothing and to criticise. [Second letter on same day.] August 14, 1838. It seems to me that my course is to send the Archdeacon [Clarke] a short note to the following effect: that I was glad to find the Bishop approved of some things in the Tracts; that I am sorry to hear for the first time that he thinks some parts of them of unsafe tendency; that I do not ask what parts he means, because in his Charge he pointedly declined anything like controversy, to which such a question might lead; that he gave his opinion as a judgment, and that as such I take it; that, under such circumstances, it would be very inconsistent in me to continue the publication of these volumes with this general suspicion thrown upon them by my Bishop. Accordingly I now write to say that, if he would specify any Tract which he wished drawn from publication, nay, if he said all of them, I would do so forthwith; that I should not like to suppress parts of Tracts, which might be unfair to the writer. However, that I must except Nos. 67 and following, and No. 82 (they are Pusey's), over which I have no control, and a few others, which were not my property, but which should not any more appear among the Tracts, and as belonging to them. By doing this I think I set myself right with him. I really cannot go on publishing with this censure upon the Tracts. And, if he ordered some to be suppressed, the example and precedent I am sure would be worth ten times the value of the Tracts suppressed. Unless you think this quixotic, I am disposed very much to do it. P.S.—Since writing this, the idea so grows on me of the absolute impossibility of going on (consistently) with the {232} Tracts, with the Bishop saying that parts are dangerous, that if I do not write as above to him, I certainly must cease them. The following letter to Mr. Bowden is that transcribed by Mr. Newman, with the notice that it marked the date of a 'change of fortune': REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel: August 17, 1838. This is too strong a way of putting it, but my impression of it is this: it has acted towards our objects and at the same time has given us a slap; which, by-the-bye, is what I have always predicted would be our fate. What he said was very slight indeed, but a Bishop's lightest word, ex cathedra, is heavy. The whole effect, too, was cold towards us, in this way: that he had had anonymous letters saying we were going into Romanism, that he had made inquiries of our way of conducting the service, &c. and found nothing. Thus it was negation: there was no praise. Then, as to the Tracts, he said that we were sincere, and that certain objects recommended in them, such as keeping Fast and Festival, were highly desirable; but that there were expressions in them which might be injurious to particular minds, and he conjured us not to go too far, &c. Now here, as far as the Cause goes, is abundant gain. He spoke strongly in favour of observing the Rubric, of recurring to Antiquity, of Saints'-days; and by implication he allowed of turning to the East, the [prothesis], &c.: but what has he done to us? Why we stand thus. How many times in a century is a book, and that principally the writing of a person in a Bishop's diocese, noticed in a Bishop's Charge? it is not usual. Next it is said by him to contain exceptional expressions. Is it possible that any work in the world, of four thick volumes, should not? Certainly not. The truth, then, of the remark is not enough to account for what a Bishop says, unless it is important to say it. Nothing but important truths will enter into a Bishop's Charge; and since he has not said what {233} the exceptional things are, he has thrown a general suspicion ever all the volumes. Under these circumstances I felt that it was impossible for me to continue the Tracts, and wrote to Keble on the subject. He, without knowing my opinion, quite took the same view, stating it very strongly: and I feel, whatever difference of opinion there may be about it, I cannot do otherwise. It would be against my feelings. Pusey is at Weymouth, and knows nothing yet of what has happened; nor does anyone else; so do not talk of it to anyone. Accordingly I have written to the Archdeacon, not as archdeacon, but as a friend, to say that I propose to stop the Tracts and withdraw the existing ones from circulation; that this is very unpleasant to me; that the only way I can see to hinder it is, if I could learn privately from the Bishop any particular Tract he disapproves, which I would at once suppress ... Well, my dear Bowden, has not this come suddenly and taken away your breath? It nearly has mine. But I do not think I can be wrong, and I think good may come of it. It will be a considerable loss of money, I fear; and the fifth volume is nearly ready for publication, but I think the precedent will be very good; and it will make people see we are sincere and not ambitious. … It is an exceedingly strong and bold Charge; and if I suffered, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the commission did not suffer less. The Rector of Exeter [Jones] is dead, and we are very anxious about his successor. The election is September 1. I fear I shall in consequence, anyhow, lose Sewell's article. I have not yet a single article for the 'British Critic,' nor yet had any time to write one. I am sure I ought not to be sorry if the Bishop lessens my work. Shuttleworth has published a little book against tradition; very superficial, retailing old objections, but specious and perhaps mischievous. C. Marriott is going to Chichester. Le Bas has been paying me a visit; he has just lost a daughter. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE August 22, 1838. The Archdeacon answered me that he had not seen the Charge before he heard it, that the Bishop had not consulted him, and he thought I had better think nothing of himself, and address the Bishop (this made me suppose that Spry is at the bottom of the Charge, which the Bishop's letter somewhat confirms). I then wrote to the Bishop (who had received from the Archdeacon my letter to him), merely asking whether I should call or write to him. I received his answer yesterday morning. He begins by saying that he had been pained ever since he received my letter, not with me, because I had perfectly satisfied him in my own demeanour, &c., but at the idea of having pained me: that I must have misunderstood him; and he entreated me to wait at least till the Charge was printed; that to withdraw the Tracts, at least at once, would be unfair to him, as making him seem to say more than he meant; that he had been forced {235} to give judgment on account of anonymous letters and of other Bishops having spoken; that he had in his Charge approved very much of what we had done, censured nothing, only warned; that he considered that the opposite party had rather cause to complain he had gone so far; that my impression was not the general one; that he assured me that persons who thought the Tracts were doing good, and had a great respect for me, yet lamented expressions, &c., in them, and that he would call on me when he next came into Oxford, and hoped to meet me on the same terms as ever; and that he wished to know my impression of what he had said. Nothing could be kinder or more sympathetic than his letter. It seems to me plain from it that he thought a great deal in the Tracts very good, but would not commit himself in any way to them. Accordingly (as far as I remember) there is not a word of praise bestowed on them, but, on the other hand, to balance his own adoption of what they recommended, a slight discredit cast about them; that he has not read them; that he goes by what he hears said, has seen extravagant persons, &c., and (not thinking of our feelings at all, any more than if we were the very paper Tracts themselves) he propitiates the popular cry against us with a vague disapprobation, just as men revile Popery in order to say strong Catholic things. Of course this is entre nous, and I have expressed myself much more strongly than would be right, were I not putting you in possession of my thoughts with reference to forming a judgment. Also, I am not sure if he was not rather annoyed with me when he delivered his Charge, whether on account of the 'Remains' or for other reason. I think he has not considered that a Bishop's word is an act, that I am under his jurisdiction, that he cannot criticise, but commands only. I answered him last night that I would certainly wait till his Charge came out, that I had ever studied to please him in word and deed, and that no two persons agree on minor matters, in expediency, in opinion, or in expressions; that his ordinary silence as regards his clergy had been interpreted by me to mean that in such matters, whichever way his own judgment lay, he allowed such differences, but that I had ever felt that he could withdraw his permission, and that, when he spoke, his word was my rule; and that, as to the Tracts, they were a large work, and but a human production, and doubtless full of imperfections. I knew this anyhow, but his formal {236} noticing the faults made them important, and for this reason, and to obey him, and lest the world and my opponents should find me in the false position of being in opposition to him, and in order that the doctrine of the Tracts might not be inconsistent with my conduct respecting them, I had felt that to withdraw them in whole or in part was my only course and I entreated him to believe that I should find real pleasure in submitting myself to his expressed judgment. Then I told him what my impression was of what he had said. He would get this letter this morning. [N.B.—I believe that, after the Bishop's death, my autograph letters were in the hands of his widow.—J. H. N. July 9, 1885.] Now Q. 1. Am I driving him into committing himself to name certain expressions, &c.? You see I have distinctly waived all wish to know them. Q. 2. In my first letter I professed a wish to go by what he really wished, if I privately learnt what Tracts he disapproved. Now suppose he tells me in speech or conversation, 'Go on with the Tracts,' and yet prints the Charge as he read it (I think he will), with a critique on them, what am I to do? Am I to appear undutiful when I am not? I have no view, but I will do what you advise. I wish to be prepared with a view. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO R. W. CHURCH, ESQ. St. Bartholomew, 1838. Harrison is appointed Archbishop's Chaplain in the place of Ogilvie. Palmer of Worcester is going to be married. Dr. Kidd tells me Richards is to be Head of Exeter, if he will consent. Thus I have given you these ecclesiastical promotions. I am grieved to hear a very bad account of Greswell. It is very doubtful if he can return to Oxford. If so, I suppose tutors must be sought among the juniors. {237} REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE August 28, 1838. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. September 4, 1838. … Two of our Translations of the Fathers will greet you on your return to the South. I think they will do us harm {238} at first. We shall see choice bits of bigotry, fancifulness, superstition, &c., strung together in the 'Record,' &c. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. September 21, 1838. The Archbishop [Whately] of Dublin is here, and is just what he was in manner, &c. At first I was afraid to call, knowing how annoyed he had been; but I got him sounded, and found he was pretty tame, and called in consequence. He is so good-hearted a man that it passed off well. I set him upon Political Economy and the Irish Poor Law, listened for half an hour and came away. So far as the following letters to Mr. Keble are contributions to the history of the Movement they are in place here, and as illustrating the character of their writer under the extreme tension of the moment, are not less so. The reader will find a comment on the confidence of his tone from the pen of 'J. H. N.' as he transcribes his letters after an interval of forty-seven years. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE November 6, 1838. The sooner I have your answer the better. They go printing on, but this at present will involve very little cancelling. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE November 21, 1838. Some months since J. F. Christie wrote me word that your brother was one of the persons included in my remark in my letter to Faussett, as holding at once the Apostolical Succession, and that the Pope was Antichrist ... I had already modified the passage in the second edition somewhat, from a hint that Williams had given me, and on receipt of this letter (Christie's) I wrote to your brother to express my sorrow for what was quite unintentional, and to say that in truth I still did not think that he held the Pope to be the Antichrist. He answered that he did not wish to argue the matter, that he heartily wished I would go out of Oxford somewhere or other for a time and forget Faussett, &c., and that he was sorry to hear I was proposing hastily to give up the Tracts. The tone of this letter, of which I forgot the rest, hurt me a good deal, the more as being quite unexpected. However, I said nothing, except conveying a message through you to the effect that I could not construe parts of it. I then sent to ask him if I might make a collection for the poor of Bisley on our anniversary at Littlemore, which in consequence of his assent I did, and sent it to him. About the same time he sent me his Tract, as I certainly I thought for publication. Accordingly I had it printed and {240} sent him the proof. He in answer professed himself perplexed at my having acted so hastily. About the same time Pusey wrote to Jeffries to know if he would take part in the scheme of a college of priests for a large town. Jeffries, scarcely giving a direct answer to the question asked him, went into a long argument against the idea itself to Pusey, his senior, who had not asked his advice, proposing instead a mode which he preferred, and suggesting how I could give advice to Christie in furtherance of it. Then lately came Prevost's letter about the 'Breviary,' which, in telling me for the first time of his objection to the plan, said that he, Jeffries, and your brother were much distressed at it, spoke of those who 'used' to sympathise with us, offered to pay expenses if they were stopped at once, and begged an immediate answer. Now I write this for two purposes. First, I put myself entirely into your hands. I will do whatever you suggest. I really do hope I have no wish but that of peace with all parties, and of satisfying you. If you tell me to make any submission to anyone, I will do it. Indeed, I am determined, if I can, that no charge should lie against me beyond that of being myself—that is, of having certain opinions and a certain way of expressing them. And next about the opinions and their expression: there too I give myself up to your judgment. If you will tell me what not to do, I will not do it. I wish parties would seriously ask themselves what they desire of me. Is it to stop writing? I will stop anything you advise. Is it to show what I write to others before publishing? It is my rule already. Pusey saw my letter to Faussett. Williams and others heard and recommended the publishing of my lectures. Is it to stop my weekly parties, or anything else? I will gladly do so. Now this being understood, may I not fairly ask for some little confidence in me as to what, under these voluntary restrictions, I do? People really should put themselves into my place, and consider how the appearance of suspicion, jealousy, and discontent is likely to affect one who is most conscious that everything he does is imperfect, and therefore soon begins so to suspect everything he does as to have no heart and little power to do anything at all. Anyone can fancy the effect which the presence of ill-disposed spectators would have on some artist or operator engaged in a delicate experiment. Is such conduct kind towards me? is it feeling? {241} If I ought to stop I am ready to stop, but do not in the same breath chide me (for instance) for thinking of stopping the Tracts, and then be severe on the Tracts which are actually published. If I am to proceed I must be taken for what I am—not agreeing perhaps altogether with those who criticise me; but still (I suppose) on the whole subserving rather than not what they consider right ends. This I feel, that if I am met with loud remonstrances before gentle hints are tried, and if suspicions go before proofs, I shall very soon be silenced whether persons wish it or no. To the 'Library of the Fathers' I am pledged, to the 'British Critic' only to the end of this year, and to nothing else besides the 'Remains.' If such a result takes place, if persons force me by their criticisms into that state of disgust which the steady contemplation of his own doings is sure to create in any serious man, they will have done a work which may cause them some sorrow, perhaps some self-reproach. [This was the last occasion on which I could prefer a claim for confidence. The very next autumn (1839) my misgivings began, which led me in 1840 to write a very different letter to Keble.—J. H. N. July 10, 1885.] REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE November 1838. As to the Decemvirate of Revision, I have no objection to it; but the question will arise, who are they to be? Will your brother allow more than one or two out of all our friends? and again, how is time to be found for it? It is difficult to get one reviser. Are all the articles in the 'British Critic' to have a second reviser after myself? I repeat I have no objection, except what seems to me its impracticability. It is virtually enjoining silence, which if it is to be done had better be done openly. These three letters to Mr. Keble, so keenly sensitive in their tone, have been lately read by Mr. Newman's pupil and {242} friend (F. R), to whom so many of the letters brought before the reader are addressed—letters showing a remarkable warmth of trust and affection. It has been permitted to the Editor to give a place here to the recollections which these letters to Keble, and the occasion which caused them, awoke. The tender humour with which this conflict between a strong will and a warm heart is recorded gives such naturalness to the situation that the Editor was tempted to ask leave of the writer to give his words a place in these pages. LORD BLACHFORD TO THE EDITOR March 5, 1886. In giving permission for the publication of the above letter, Lord Blachford writes to the Editor: December 9, 1888. At the end of 1838 Mr. Bowden was about to publish his 'Life of Hildebrand,' and sent his introduction to Mr. Newman for his opinion. The letter in reply, after some literary criticisms, continues: REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO J. W. BOWDEN, ESQ. Oriel: November 21, 1838. P.S.—Should not Dr. Adams know, if he does not, that the present Bishop [Law] of Bath and Wells in his funeral sermon for the Princess Charlotte prayed for her soul? REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE November 28, 1838. (2) Then comes the question, ought one to speak, though one may be making way here, if it is at the expense of the country clergy? And this is the point on which I spoke before, and perhaps not clearly enough. I have no call; I am not in station; is it not natural that the question should rise in my mind, 'What business is it of yours: and are you doing it in the best way?' When a man like your brother does object, he has my own latent witness on his side, and he goes just the way, whether he wishes it or not, to reduce me to silence. (3) But though silent, it would never enter into my head that I need or ought to be doing nothing. It is still a great question with me whether I should be doing better by reading and preparing for future writing on the Fathers than by offhand works; and with this view by giving up the Tracts, the 'British Critic,' and St. Mary's. At the same time, did I do so, many things would occur which one should wish otherwise, and which would pain me, and I should be blamed by those who now, without knowing it, are certainly going the way to bring it about. The tone towards the country clergy, not intentional, but due to the line of argument, seems to have jarred upon Mr. Keble, as is to be gathered from the following acknowledgment of Mr. Keble's answer to the above letter. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE December 5, 1838. I do not think I have the fidget you speak of (as far as I can make out) for seeing things clearly, and not getting others to see them too; but when others protest (I do not mean Low Church, but men like your brother), I feel a sort of bad conscience and disgust with what I have done, and this I tried to say in my first letter. And yet, if I am to speak, I cannot speak otherwise than I do. I can be silent, but I cannot speak as Harrison, &c. My constant feeling when I write is that I do not realise things, but am merely drawing out intellectual conclusions, which I need not say is very uncomfortable. [Vide a passage in my account of my Sicilian illness.] [Note 7] REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. J. KEBLE December 23, 1838. Nothing you said from London annoyed me in the least. You have a way of saying things which does not annoy. REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO F. ROGERS, ESQ. Oriel: In festo SS. Innoc., 1838. It is well, perhaps, after having just given the letters to Mr. Keble on certain objections raised by the country party, to extract from the 'Apologia' Mr. Newman's lasting impression of his position in 1839. In the spring of 1839 my position in the Anglican Church was at its height. I had supreme confidence in my controversial status, and I had a great and still growing success in recommending it to others. I had in the foregoing autumn been somewhat sore at the Bishop's Charge, but I have a letter which shows that all annoyance had passed from my mind. In January, if I recollect aright, in order to meet the popular clamour against myself and others, and to satisfy the Bishop, I had collected into one all the strong things which they, and especially I, had said against the Church of Rome, in order to their insertion among the Advertisements appended to our publications. Conscious as I was that my opinions in religion were not gained, as the world said, from Roman sources, but were, on the contrary, the birth of my own mind and of the circumstances in which I had been placed, I had a scorn of the imputations which were heaped upon me. It was true that I held a large bold system of religion, very unlike the {247} Protestantism of the day; but it was the concentration and adjustment of the statements of great Anglican authorities, and I had as much right to hold it as the Evangelical, and more right than the Liberal party could show, for asserting their own respective doctrines [Note 9]. Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Notes1. Referring to a projected 'Hall,' a temporary
residence in Oxford for young men, after taking their degree. 2.
In Dr. Mozley's letters at this date there is the following mention of
the British Critic:— 3.
It should be explained that the parish of St. Mary's at the time of this
letter (probably does still) consisted almost entirely of shops, the
dwelling part of the houses being let in lodgings to University men. The
parish was once densely populous, but in 1749 the executors of Dr.
Radcliffe, having cleared the whole area on which the poor population
lived, built the Radcliffe and made it over to the University, since
which time there have been no poor in the parish except so far as they
have been represented by the servants of well-to-do houses. It was said
that many of the shopkeepers were Dissenters, which may account for
their cold reception of a rich gift. 4. These rules for clearness and management of voice seem to explain the peculiarity described by Professor Shairp of Mr. Newman's delivery. 'The delivery had a peculiarity which it took a new
hearer some time to get over. Each separate sentence, or at least each
short paragraph, was spoken rapidly, but with great clearness of
intonation; and then at its close there was a pause, then another
rapidly but clearly spoken sentence, followed by another pause.' 5.
An article J. B. M. was engaged upon—his first—for the British
Critic. 6.
e.g., Hos. i. 2. Ezek. iv. 5, xxiv. 7.
See Vol. i. p. 366. 8.
'Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo 'Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento: 9.
Apologia, p. 93. Top | Contents | Biographies | Home Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |