|Buckton, Oliver S. “'An Unnatural State’: Gender
‘Perversion,' and Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua,” Victorian
Studies Vol. 35, No. 4 (Summer 1992): 359-383.
Buckton contends that Kingsley’s profound antipathy to Newman stemmed
from more than his belief in Newman’s dishonesty. Kingsley also disliked
Newman's embracing of Romanism and what he felt to be Newman's sexual ambiguity.
Moreover, Kingsley’s attitude, argues Buckton, represented opinions widespread
in Victorian society. “One is . . . justified in taking Kingsley’s
views on religious faith, sexual behavior, and gender roles (such as 'manliness')
as more broadly representative of mainstream British society, at
the time of their conflict, than were Newman’s” (379).
Chadwick, Owen. The Victorian Church.
Part 2. 2nd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972; first published
Chadwick discusses the Kingsley-Newman controversy, stressing that
Kingsley was heavily outmatched by his opponent. In response to certain
critics who felt that Kingsley had been excessively treated in the Apologia,
Newman made changes in subsequent editions and the title became History
of my religious opinions???????. “By these alterations and change
of title he aimed to leave Kingsley behind, to remove the occasion of writing
and lift the book above the controversy which produced it” (415).
Dorman, Susann. “Hypatia and Callista:
The Initial Skirmish between Kingsley and Newman,” Nineteenth-Century
Fiction Vol. 34, No. 2 (September 1979): 173-193.
Dorman argues that the battle lines of the 1864 Kingsley-Newman controversy
were drawn a decade earlier in the two ideologically opposite novels, Kingsley’s
and Newman’s Callista. “. . . it is clear that the seed of
the 1864 conflict which culminated in Newman’s personally triumphant
Pro Vita Sua is deeply rooted in the philosophical antithesis between
the novels Hypatia and Callista” (193). Dorman also
suggests that the criticism Kingsley received from Pusey for his novel’s
alleged immorality, and his subsequent humiliation, strengthened his resolve
not to be humiliated afresh years later but to make a strong attack on
Newman in his 1864 pamphlet.
FitzPatrick, P. J. “Newman and Kingsley,” in David
Nicholls and Fergus Kerr, OP (eds.) John Henry Newman: Reason, Rhetoric
and Romanticism (UK: The Bristol Press, 1991): 88-108.
FitzPatrick discusses Kingsley's charges against Newman and the latter's
replies to them. He considers that the charges were more substantial
than generally believed and that Newman's responses revealed "an uneasiness
over evidence" and a certain looseness with veracity.
FitzPatrick, P. J. “Newman’s Apologia:
Was Kingsley Right?,” in T. R. Wright, John Henry Newman: A Man for
Our Time? (Newcastle: Grevatt and Grevatt, 1983): 28-36.
FitzPatrick analyzes the Kingsley-Newman controversy and particularly
the charges laid by Kingsley against Newman’s veracity and Newman’s responses
to them. He contends that while Kingsley was unsubtle and perhaps
unbalanced, his charges were substantive and ones Newman found difficult
to answer. “. . . time and again, Newman’s replies are inadequate;
and [Kingsley] did point, however imperfectly, to deficiencies in Newman’s
ways of thinking” (28).
Griffin, John R. “Kingsley’s Attack on Newman:
An Essay in Social History,” Faith & Reason Vol. 4 (1978): 17-27.
Griffin dismisses two common interpretations for Kingsley’s attack
on Newman, first, that he was a bluff, enthusiastic, John Bull type of
Protestant, totally lacking in malice, and two, that he did not believe
that Newman was a liar but, rather, that he was guilty of unnatural attitudes
towards marriage and sex. On the contrary, Kingsley was indeed motivated
by a belief that Newman lied. Moreover, Griffin points to evidence
from newspapers, journals, and books and from views of individuals in Kingsley’s
own circle, for example Maurice and Froude, that this was a common long-standing
belief in England. Participating in this belief, “Kingsley’s failing
was neither intellectual nor sexual: it was moral, the fault of judging
Haley, Bruce. The Healthy Body and Victorian
Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).
Haley in discussing Kingsley's confrontation with Newman focuses on
his complex relationship with the notion of muscular Christianity.
Kingsley disliked the term and found offensive such critics as T. C. Sanders
and Fitzjames Stephen who stressed the "muscular" aspect of his Christianity.
Still, Kingsley strongly believed that the spiritual life was very compatible
with both a sexual and a vigorous, active, sporting life. Haley declares
that he found philosophical justification for this attitude in three of
Carlyle's theories: "the body is an expression of spirit, and therefore
the obedience to healthy impulse is a sign of constitutional harmony; the
state of health is a knowledge of the laws of nature and a compliance with
these laws; and heroism is a life of action made possible by observing
the laws of health" (111-112).
Hertz, Alan. “The Broad Church Militant and Newman's
Humiliation of Charles Kingsley,” Victorian Periodicals Review Vol.
XIX, No. 4 (Winter 1986): 141-9.
Hertz considers the role of the editors of Macmillan’s Magazine
in permitting the inclusion of Kingsley’s slander of Newman. He argues
that David Masson, the editor, and Alexander Macmillan himself failed to
protect Kingsley, and themselves, from his bigotry and from Newman’s consummate
skill. He shows that “What, Then, Does Dr. Newman Mean?” was essentially
a group effort where Kingsley was aided by experienced controversialists
who did not succeed in assessing his chances of success adequately.
Hertz also discusses the contemptuous review of the Apologia by
Froude in Fraser’s Magazine which caused Froude and Kingsley to
be bound more closely together than ever before. Overall, the outcome,
declares Hertz, was pejorative: “The failure of Macmillan and Masson
to save Kingsley from his own prejudice and impetuosity led to the weakening
of progressive journalism and the impoverishment of Liberal intellectual
Magazine; Newman Controversy;
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Victorian Minds (New
York: Knopf, 1968).
Himmelfarb mentions Kingsley several times in her work. For example,
she discusses Froude’s views on the Newman affair, declaring that Froude
thought it understandable that Kingsley found it difficult to comprehend
Newman’s truth since the latter’s notion of what constituted truth was
complicated and was different to that of normal men.
Houghton, Walter E. “The Issue Between Kingsley
and Newman,” Theology Today Vol. IV (April 1947): 81-101.
Houghton argues that the fundamental disagreement between Kingsley
and Newman was the fundamental dichotomy between Protestant Liberalism
and Christian Orthodoxy. Though in many respects Kingsley was a conservative
and a public enemy of those espousing the liberal cause, in religion he
followed the liberalism of the likes of Maurice and Carlyle. While
we read such thinkers to understand liberal ideology, argues Houghton,
we study Kingsley to comprehend Protestant Liberalism in its actual practice.
Controversy; Newman, John Henry; Religion;
Lankewish, Vincent A. “Love Among the Ruins:
The Catacombs, the Closet, and the Victorian ‘Early Christian’ Novel,”
Literature and Culture Vol. 28, No. 2 (Sept 2000): 239-273.
Lankewish considers the Newman-Kingsley debate in the context of Kingsley's
antipathy to what he perceived as Catholics' unnatural attitude toward
sex, especially the Tractarian and Catholic depiction of Christ as spouse,
and their embrace of celibacy which Kingsley frequently regarded as effeminacy.
Kingsley, declares Lankewish, believed that it was only through such relations
as marriage, parenthood, and family that God could be truly known.
Lankewish also discusses Newman's possible homosexuality and Kingsley's
attitude to it. He argues that a consideration of the sexual context
of the Newman-Kingsley dispute provides a useful background to the study
of the Victorian Early Christian novel. He contends, in particular, "that
the Hypatia/Callista conflict not only anticipated the theological
debate that erupted between Kingsley and Newman in 1864, but foreshadowed
the gender and sexual tensions inherent within that debate as well.
Through the representation of the spiritual marriages between Christians
and Christ that Kingsley found so deplorable, Early Christian novels by
Wiseman, Newman, and Pater coopt the genre and transform it into a charged
site for the articulation of sexual difference and, most specifically in
Pater's case, of male-male desire" (252).
Loesberg, Jonathan. Fictions of Consciousness:
Mill, Newman, and the Reading of Victorian Prose (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1986).
Loesberg discusses the origin and development of the Kingsley-Newman
controversy. He contends that Newman essentially “slyly” baited Kingsley
into making the precise criticism that was the most appropriate for Newman
to reply to. It was not a simple matter of an innocent Newman replying
to a strong bigoted attack. “Still, he did no more than put Kingsley in
a position in which Kingsley already felt comfortable. Newman’s effort
was not really to occupy the firmest ground he could, but simply the most
pertinent. Kingsley’s original accusation was the most easily refutable
but also the least resonant. To make his defense polemical, his autobiography
an expression of his philosophy, Newman needed to confront the issues of
consistency and honesty. To bring the issues to the forefront, he
did no more than nudge Kingsley in the direction of making clear what he
had already implied in the original libel” (131).
Pett, Douglas E., Rev. “The Newman-Kingsley Dispute
Continues,” Times Literary Supplement Vol. 3077 (17 February 1961):
From an analysis of Newman's diaries Pett opposes the conventional
opinion that Newman totally overcame Kingsley in their confrontation.
He declares that the evidence of the diaries and Newman's faulty logic
cast doubt on his victory and reveal that he had insufficient reason to
adopt his superior tone. However, Pett argues that it would be hasty
and superficial to accuse the complex Newman of deliberate dishonesty regarding
his unsatisfactory treatment of evidence in the latter part of the Apologia.
Roberts, R. Ellis. “Charles Kingsley (1819-1875),”
56 (June 1919): 97-102.
Roberts provides an overview of Kingsley’s life and works. He
considers Westward Ho! to be Kingsley’s most satisfactory novel
and The Water-Babies his “best book” praising in particular the
latter’s story and songs. Roberts also briefly discusses the Newman
controversy, declaring that Kingsley’s inability to understand Newman was
due to more than his distaste for the Roman Church. Rather, Kingsley
“had long ago closed his mind to the idea that truth was not the possession
of the English nation as expressed by the English Church. He had
never pursued truth wherever it led as had Newman” (97).
Kingsley’s character; Newman controversy;
Robertson, Thomas L., Jr. "The Kingsley-Newman
Controversy and the Apologia,” Modern Language Notes Vol.
LXIX (December 1954): 564-9.
Robertson attempts to ascertain the possible reasons why Newman published
the Kingsley-Newman correspondence. “If he was a man of little emotion
and scheming tendencies, it would be likely that he published the correspondence
only to rouse Kingsley’s wrath, in order, eventually, to vindicate himself.
If he was a man of quick emotions and intense convictions – as seems more
likely, from a reading of the Apologia – he probably published the
correspondence only because he saw no other way to put his case before
the public, and because he saw, as Kingsley did not, that the case had
gone beyond considerations of gentlemanliness” (569).
Svaglic, Martin J. “Why Newman Wrote the Apologia,”
in Vincent Ferrer Blehl, S.J. and Francis X. Connolly (eds.) Newman's
‘Apologia’: A Classic Reconsidered (New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, 1964): 1-25.
Svaglic reviews the background to the Kingsley-Newman controversy and,
more specifically, the circumstances behind the actual composition by Newman
of the Apologia. He is not sympathetic to Kingsley’s role,
writing of his reply to Newman that anyone reading it for the first time
today “will be startled by the passionate intensity and bitterness of Kingsley’s
attack on Newman” (7). Svaglic discusses the reactions from a number
of contemporary reviews and periodicals.
Trevor, Meriol. Newman: Light in Winter
(London: Macmillan, 1962).
Trevor examines the Kingsley-Newman controversy paying particular attention
to Kingsley’s motives in instigating his attack. He considers that
Kingsley’s dislike of Newman stemmed from the early attraction Newman had
for his wife Fanny who intended to join Pusey’s sisterhood. Kingsley
had to win back his wife and depose Newman’s “authoritative image” (327).
Newman was quite unaware that to Kingsley there was a particularly personal
reason for linking virility with truth and cunning with virginity.
For Newman signified to Kingsley, who abhorred Catholic celibacy and the
notion of women choosing virginity, “a powerful father-figure withholding
desirable brides from ardent lovers by the mental bondage of the ideal
of celibacy”. This sexual connotation, according to Trevor, “explains
the passionate hatred evident on every page of the pamphlet in which he
set out to settle the score of twenty years” (328). Trevor also discusses
the reaction of the reviews and the periodicals to the controversy.
of Kingsley's Works.
Vance, Norman. The Sinews of the Spirit: The
Ideal of Christian Manliness in Victorian Literature and Religious Thought
Cambridge University Press, 1985).
Vance devotes two chapters to Kingsley's life, thought, and literary
works paying particular attention to themes of the relationship of manliness
to religion in his novels. "Christian manliness was not just an ideal
in Kingsley's fiction, it was the basis of his practical work as pastor,
teacher and reformer and the essence of his life and experience" (107).
Ho!; Two Years Ago; Hereward
the Wake; Muscular Christianity;
Wright, Cuthbert. “Newman and Kingsley,” Harvard
Graduates’ Magazine Vol. 40 (December 1931): 127-134.
This is a cursory account in rather flowery language of the Newman-Kingsley
controversy. The primary focus of the article is on the life and
career of Newman.
Young, G. M. “Sophist and Swashbuckler,” in Daylight
and Champaign: Essays (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1948; first published
Young discusses Kingsley’s controversy with Newman. Agreeing
that Kingsley was no match for the brilliance of Newman and that he was
totally out-manoeuvered, Young nevertheless contends that Kingsley in an
admittedly “clumsy way” had a certain right. “But if the public,
or the modern reader, said ‘Never mind all that: what we want to know is,
when Dr. Newman or one of his pupils tells us a thing, can we believe it
as we should believe it if the old-fashioned parson said it?’ I am afraid
the upshot of the Apologia and its appendices is No” (103).