Letter from John Henry Newman (Oriel College) to Dr. Richard Whately, commenting on and enclosing notes on a review on 'Dr. Whateley's Logic', in the Edinburgh Review of April 1833 . ✔

ReadAboutContentsHelp
Letter from John Henry Newman (Oriel College) to Dr. Richard Whately, commenting on and enclosing notes on a review on "Dr. Whateley's Logic", in the Edinburgh Review of April 1833. The review, "Recent Publications on Logical Science," commences on p. 194; digital facsimile in Hathi Trust . Written 24 March 1834 at Oriel College, Oxford, England. A digital facsimile of Richard Whately's Elements of Logic (1836) is available in the Internet Archive .

Pages

p. 1
Indexed

p. 1

Notes on a Review inf the Edinb. Rev. for April 1833 on Dr Whatley's Logic.

{rule}

This is one instance out of many which occur, of critics blundering in their judgment on a work, from not having taken the trouble to consider its real object. An author writes with a certain drift, to illustrate certain doctrines, etc., he is reviewed on an arbitrary hypothesis of the Critic's. Dr. W. sees a science neglected, he wishes to recomment? it, he writes professedly a popular treatise, a treatise which would not attain its object if it was other than popular. The Reviewer find fault with him it is not more rigidly scientific, and because it is not more completely identified with the actual Logic of the Ancients, because i.e. it is not that which it never pretended to be. Vainly has Aristotle warned us that accuracy is to be sought only ἐφ᾽ ὅσον οἰκεῖον τῇ μεθόδῳ. καὶ γὰρ τέκτων καὶ γεωμέτρης διαφερόντως ἐπιζητοῦσι τὴν ὀρθήν etc. Eth. i,7. Thus the Reviewer accuses Dr W. of a want of erudition "Not one seems to have studied the logical treatises of Aristotle; all are unread in the Greek Commentators on the Organon, in the Scholastic, Ramist, etc. - p. 200. Dr W. all along professes to be analytical. Let the Reviewer attack this principle of teachin[g] if he will - but let him not pass over the question, & urge? at one as a fault that Dr W. does not set the student at once to learn by rote a string of tech nical terms. The very object of the Treatise is to soften technicalities (which themselves may be very useful to the advanced student.) to secure substantial accuracy, and to fix the sciences in the mind on a common sense founda tion. The Treatise is professedly upon "The Elements of Logic." - Look at p. 42 and you find is said in the note. "The learner may perhaps be startled &c" - Strange to say, the Review admits that such is the nature of the work. When he talks of "a new life" being "suddenly communicated to the aspiring study etc.

The Reviewer attacks Dr W.'s division of Logic into Science and Art. He quotes Dr W. as sating "that Logic has been in general regarded merely as an art" etc. Now surely this has been the popular notion of it; and if so, what is the use of going on to speak of Plato, the Arabian Schoolmen, Thomists etc. p. 203.

The distinction made p. 206 not between Logica docens & L. untens is a remar kable instance of πϵριϵργϵια.

Last edit about 7 years ago by John B Howard
p. 2
Indexed

p. 2

The Reviewer attacks what appears to him the twofold and contradictory definition of the object matter of Logic (p. 208). The case simply stands thus. Dr. W. in his definition of Logic leaves a void, which in another part of the work he supplies, giving it to be understood, distinctly enough at the time that he sup plies it, that the supplement is to be borne in mind & added to the Definition, when the Definition occurs. The Reviewer himself quotes the following passage. "In introducing the mention of language previously to the Definition of Logic, I "have departed from established practice in order that it may be clearly un derstood that Logic is entirely conversant about Language." - The words previously to the Definition," and the allusion to "established practice" surely point out sufficiently clearly {caret: "that"} his Definition, when it comes, will require the addition of the part about Language. The Reviewer, by attending only to the latter part of the explanation manages ingeniously enough to make out a seem ing case of contradiction; - by putting 'language' for the object matter itself, instead of considering it (which from the context is evidently the meaning of the [p]assage.) the mode in which the object-matter is to be viewed. Logic take cog nisance of the process of reasoning, not as it is in itself, but as we perceive it; & Language is the symbol of what goes on in the mind. So, as a matter of fact, Logic is concerned with reasoning only as it comes out in Language.

As to the Sketch of the History of Logic, why should it not be confessed to be reason?- The history of Logic is not the subject of the work. We finished things up according to their importance - the πὰρϵρ γα need not be elaborate. The work is intended to bring out one or two ideas strongly & everything else is subordi nate consideration. [I think it is very probably I took part of what I put down from Aldrich.]

Last edit about 7 years ago by John B Howard
p. 3
Indexed

p. 3

Oriel College. March 24. 1834

My dear Lord,

The Reviewer's remarks are so learned and so ir relevant that it is very difficult to answer them. His objects seems to have bee, to display his own knowledge - at least there is so very much appearance of this, that it is scarcely uncharitable to say so. - As far as 'The Elements of Logic' are concerned, he is answered in one word, viz that he is irrelevant but when one leaves the high & uncon{caret: "tro"}vertible ground & descends into the arena, doubtless it is difficult for such as me to engage him.

I am sorry this letter has been so long delayed - it is now so little worth your Grace's reading. I really have not the learning to say more.

I am, my dear Lord,

Yours very sincerely,

John H Newman

Last edit about 7 years ago by John B Howard
p. 4
Indexed

p. 4

Newman On Sir W. Hamilton review of Whatley's Logic

{written parallel to the edge:}

The Archbishop of Dublin Dublin

Last edit about 7 years ago by John B Howard
Displaying all 4 pages