Literature by John Henry Newman - Notes

LITERATURE BY JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

1.     In this lecture in the School of Philosophy and Letters, John Henry Newman attempts to make his audience understand what ‘literature’ actually means. He starts by presenting the wrong notions which even the excellent persons seem to have about literature. According to them,

a.      Literature is fine writing involving ideas and choice of words to lay them out. Classics are the example.

b.     Literature, like the Classics, cannot include translations to be another literature.

c.      Literature, like the Holy Scriptures, can include translations to be another beautiful literature.

2.     Then he presents a writer’s remarks on these points. There are two types of ‘fine writing’:

a.      One with poor matter but great choice of words.

b.     The other with great matter but simple words.

The first type is appreciated by low profile critics. There are great geniuses who have written literatures of great matter with great words. The second type is exemplified by the Holy Scriptures which are appreciated by all.

As far as translations are concerned, the Classics lose most of their literary value when translated. For example: translation of Homer’s works from Greek to Latin, even common interpretations of works of Virgil from Latin to Latin. The Holy Scriptures or sacred writings do not lose their literary value when translated. For example: translation of Bible: the glorious description of the creation of the Heavens and the earth by Moses was taken up by Longinus in his writings beautifully.

3.     Newman then presents his views. The word literature implies writing. But it is only when a thought needs to be conveyed across places and across times, it is written down. So the primary goal of literature is to convey thoughts. And it conveys thoughts which are subjective. Because it is subjective, it differs from person to person. Having said that literature is subjective, it is not objective. Since it is personal, it is not impersonal. That which is objective and impersonal is Science. Science is universal and talks about things while literature is personal and talks about thoughts. This is the difference between literature and science. Both use language. As far as themes are concerned, Science presents universal facts while literature expresses personal ideas, thoughts, feelings, imaginations, aspirations, abstractions, juxtapositions, comparisons, discriminations, conceptions, judgements upon life, manners and history, exercises of wit, humour and intellectual compositions. As far as techniques are concerned, Science uses words as just symbols while literature uses language to its fullest including phraseology, idiom, style, composition, rhythm, eloquence and other properties. Not only the thoughts but also the way of using language differ from person to person.

4.     ‘Thought and speech are inseparable from each other.’ Newman proves this with the availability of a single Greek word, ‘Logos,’ which means both reason and speech. Some critics falsely believe that ‘fine writing’ can be made just by the use of ornamental language. But it is such that fine language is the offspring of the thought or emotion of the inspired poet/author.

5.     As mentioned earlier, not only the thoughts but the way of using language also differ from person to person. The magnificence of language, its diction, the choice of words, collocation of words, all come from each one’s intellect differently. For example: Aristotle describes the magnanimous man by saying that his voice is deep, his motions slow and his stature commanding.

Shakespeare says in Macbeth:

“Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,

Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,

Raze out the written troubles of the brain,

And, with some sweet oblivious antidote,

Cleanse the foul bosom of that perilous stuff,

Which weighs upon the heart?”

In Hamlet he says:

“Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,

Nor customary suits of solemn black,

Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,

No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,

Nor the dejected haviour of the visage,

Together with all forms, modes, shows of grief,

That can denote me truly.

Likewise, Cicero also uses language in his own style.

6.     Cicero’s language is difficult and Shakespeare’s language is easy. Both are literatures. According to Newman’s principles, language in literature need not necessarily be difficult. Nevertheless, Classics whose ways of using language are difficult, are not dismissed by him. But such Classics which are difficult to understand include the writings of authors who have sourced from great thoughts or feelings and also of those who have focused more on just words. Isocrates and some sophists are examples of the latter type. Dr. Johnson’s works were in simple language but the attribute of genius was absent. A genius is a person who not only perceives great thoughts or feelings but also works hard to put them in sufficing appropriate language. Just as a painter or a sculptor may make multiple trials or attempts to obtain a perfect artistic work according to his idea in mind, a genius writer also makes rough copies, practices, fails, pauses, writes, erases, rewrites, amends and completes so as to be appropriate to his or her thought or feeling. Demosthenes, Herodotus, historian Gibbon and Addison are instances.

7.     Newman explains the second point of the author he took as instance initially. The author states that fine literature cannot bear translations. But Newman says that whether a literature is able to be translated or not, this ability does not define its finery. The author’s statement might be on the assumption that how a painting cannot be transformed to a sculpture or vice versa, literature also cannot be translated from one language to another. Newman’s argument is that even if Shakespeare’s works are translatable into German or not translatable into French, Shakespeare, nevertheless, remains a genius and his works, fine literature.

8.     Newman explains the author’s third point. The author states that Holy Scriptures are easy to translate. Newman argues that translation of Holy Scriptures is not easy. That is why there have been only few good translators. Translations are inferior to the original. That is why revised versions keep on coming. Not only the matter is difficult, the diction is also not simple. The quality of diction is no less than any perfect Greek Tragedy or the like. When comparing literature and Holy Scriptures, literature, as said earlier, is subjective and personal while Holy Scriptures are objective and universal. Science is also objective and universal. Therefore, Holy Scriptures are Science-science of the unseen.

9.     Newman concludes his speech. Literature is meant the expression of thought in language (where thought means ideas, feelings, views, reasoning and other operations of the human mind). Art of Letters is the method by which a writer or speaker brings them out in words. A great author is one who has something to say and knows how to say it: He is the master of the two-fold ‘Logos.’ He uses the right word for the right ideas and the write up may be brief or lengthy appropriately. Rich fragments of a language such as proverbs, idioms and phrases originate from such people.

10.  If power of speech is one of the greatest gifts, if origin of language is Divine, if words are vehicles of mind, heart and soul, if great authors who unite people are the spokesmen of human family, ‘study of literature cannot be neglected.’

If we master a language with its spirit, we can share benefits among us and enhance our social life.