Newman Controversy
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).

Newman Controversy; Sexuality; Catholicism.
 

Chadwick, Owen.  The Victorian Church. Part 2.  2nd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972; first published 1970).
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).

Newman controversy; Apologia.
 

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 Hypatia and Newman’s Callista.  “. . . it is clear that the seed of the 1864 conflict which culminated in Newman’s personally triumphant Apologia 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.

Newman Controversy; Hypatia.
 

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.
 

Newman Controversy;Catholicism.
 

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).

Newman Controversy; Catholicism.
 

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 others” (24).

Newman Controversy; Catholicism.
 

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).

Newman Controversy; Muscular Christianity; Sexuality; Health; Carlyle.
 

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 discourse” (148).

Macmillan’s Magazine; Newman Controversy; Froude; Maurice.
 

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.

Newman Controversy; Froude.
 

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.

Catholicism; Newman Controversy; Newman, John Henry; Religion; Protestant Liberalism.
 

Lankewish, Vincent A.  “Love Among the Ruins: The Catacombs, the Closet, and the Victorian ‘Early Christian’ Novel,” Victorian 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).

Newman Controversy; Hypatia; Sexuality; Celibacy; Religion.
 

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).

Newman Controversy; Catholicism.
 

Pett, Douglas E., Rev.  “The Newman-Kingsley Dispute Continues,” Times Literary Supplement Vol. 3077 (17 February 1961): 16.
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.

Newman Controversy.
 

Roberts, R. Ellis.  “Charles Kingsley (1819-1875),” Bookman Vol. 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).

Overview; Kingsley’s character; Newman controversy; Westward Ho!.
 

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).

Newman Controversy.
 

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.

Newman Controversy.
 

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.

Newman Controversy; Catholicism; Sexuality; Celibacy; Reception of Kingsley's Works.
 

Vance, Norman.  The Sinews of the Spirit: The Ideal of Christian Manliness in Victorian Literature and Religious Thought (Cambridge: 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).

Overview; Yeast; Alton Locke; Hypatia; Westward Ho!; Two Years Ago; Hereward the Wake; Muscular Christianity; Manliness; Newman Controversy.
 

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.

Newman Controversy.
 

Young, G. M.  “Sophist and Swashbuckler,” in Daylight and Champaign: Essays (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1948; first published 1937): 96-104.
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).

Newman Controversy; Catholicism.

 

Return to Top