Literal (pronounced lit-er-uhl)
(1) In accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.
(2) Following the words of the original exactly.
(3) True to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual; being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy.
(4) Of, persons, tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.
(5) Of or relating to the letters of the alphabet (obsolete except for historic, technical or academic use); of or pertaining to the nature of letters.
(6) In language translation, as "literal translation", the precise meaning of a word or phrase as opposed to the actual meaning conveyed when used in another language.
(7) A typographical error, especially involving a single letter (in technical use only).
(8) In English (and other common law jurisdictions) law, one of the rules of statutory construction and interpretation (also called the plain meaning rule).
(9) In computer science, a notation for representing a fixed value in source code.
(10) In mathematics, containing or using coefficients and constants represented by letters.
1350-1400: From the Middle English from the Late Latin literalis & litteralis (of or belonging to letters or writing) from the Classical Latin litera & littera (letter, alphabetic sign; literature, books). The meaning "taking words in their natural meaning" (originally in reference to Scripture and opposed to mystical or allegorical), is from the Old French literal (again borrowed from the Latin literalis & litteralis). In English, the original late fourteenth meaning was "taking words in their natural meaning" and was used in reference to the understanding of text in Scripture, distinguishing certain passages from those held to be mystical or allegorical. The meaning "of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet " emerged in English only in the late fifteenth century although that was the meaning of the root from antiquity, a fork of that sense being " verbally exact, according to the letter of verbal expression, attested from the 1590s and it evolved in conjunction with “the primary sense of a word or passage”. The phrase “literal-minded” which can be loaded with negative, neutral or positive connotations, is noted from 1791. Literal is a noun & adjective, literalize is a verb, literalistic is an adjective, literalist, literalization & literalism are nouns and literally is an adverb; the noun plural is literals.
The meaning "concerned with letters
and learning, learned, scholarly" was known since the mid-fifteenth
century but survives now only literary criticism and the small number of
universities still using “letters” in the description of degree
programmes. The Bachelor of Letters
(BLitt or LittB) was derived from the Latin Baccalaureus
Litterarum or Litterarum Baccalaureus
and historically was a second undergraduate degree (as opposed to a Masters or
other post-graduate course) which students pursued to study a specialized field
or some aspect of something of particular interest. Once common, these degrees are now rare in
the English-speaking world. It was between 1895-1977 offered by the University of Oxford and was undertaken by many Rhodes Scholars,
sometimes as an adjunct course, but has now been replaced by the MLitt (Master of
Letters) which has a minimal coursework component. When the BLitt was still on the books, Oxford
would sometimes confer it as a sort of consolation prize, offering DPhil candidates whose
submission had proved inadequate the option of taking a BLitt if the prospect
of re-writing their thesis held no appeal.
Among the dons supervising the candidates, the verb "to BLitt"
emerged, the classic form being: “he was
BLitt-ed you know".
Oxford BLitt in light-blue hood, circa
1907, prior to the reallocation of the shades of blue during the 1920s.
Oxford's
colorful academic gowns are a footnote in the history of fashion although
influences either way are difficult to detect.
The regulations of 1895 required the new BLitt and the BSc (Bachelor of
Science) were to wear the same dress as the existing B.C.L (Bachelor of Civil
Law) and the BM (Bachelor of Medicine) and if there was a difference between
the blues used for the BCL and the BM in 1895, the implicit
"respectively" (actually then its Latin equivalent) would seem to
suggest the BLitt was to use the same color hood as the BCL and the BSc to use
the shade of the BM and that's certainly how it appears on many contemporary
depictions. Although in the surviving
record the hues of blue would in the following decades vary somewhat (and the colors
were formerly re-allocated during the 1920s, the BLitt moving to a more vivid
rendition of light-blue), the BLitt, BSc and BCL hoods tended always to be
brighter and the BM darker. Whether it
was artistic license or an aesthetic nudge, one painter in 1927 mixed something
much lighter for the BLitt, a shade more neutral and hinting at a French grey
but no other artist seems to have followed.
By 1957, the BLitt and BSc gowns had returned to the colors of the 1895
decree while the BCL and BM were now in mid-blue and that remained unchanged
until 1977 when the BLitt and BSc were superseded by masters’ degrees, the new
MSc and MLitt given a blue hood lined with the grey of the DLitt & DSc.
Oxford BM in mid-blue hood, circa 1905.
Quite
how much the work of the artist can be regarding as an accurate record of a
color as it appeared is of course dubious, influenced as it is the painter’s
eye, ambient light and the angle at which it was observed. Even the descriptions used by the artists in
their notes suggest there was either some variation over the years (and that
would not be unexpected given the differences in the dying processes between
manufacturers) or the terms for colors meant different things to different painters:
The Oxford BMus hood was noted as blue (1882 & 1934), mauve (1920), lilac
(1923, 1924, 1927, 1935 & 1957), dark lilac (1948) and dark purple (1926). With improvements in photographic reproduction
and the greater standardization in the industrial processes used in dying, the
post-war photographic record is more reliable and lilac seems a good description for the BM
and “light blue” for the BLitt.
In modern (social media) use, "literal" often is used as term of emphasis meaning something like "an exemplar of". Although the purists will never approve, in that context, it may come to be regarded as a genuine additional meaning, although unlike a word like decimate, it wont be a meaning shift replacing the original.
In March 2023, after the announcement of her daughter's pregnancy, Lindsay Lohan's mother (Dina Lohan (b 1962)) was quoted as saying: “I’m literally over the moon. I’m so happy, I can’t stop smiling”. The proneness to exaggeration seems to be a family trait because Lindsay Lohan did once admit some of her youthful antics made her mother “hit the roof” which, hopefully, she didn't mean to be taken literally (although, who knows?). The now seemingly endemic misuse of literal
is not new, Henry Watson Fowler (1858–1933) in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) noting errors in general use from as early as the 1820s and the Oxford
English Dictionary (OED) has cited literary examples from the seventeenth
century. Interestingly, it appears
objections emerged at scale only in the early twentieth century which does suggest an
additional meaning may have existed or at least been evolving before the
grammar Nazis imposed their censorious ways. So endemic in English has the (mis)use become and genuine confusion so rare the pedants really should give up their carping; after all, some illustrious names have sinned:
Scrooge McDuck, literally "rolling in wealth" in his famous money bin.
“…literally
rolling in wealth…”: (Mark Twain (1835-1910), The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876)). In fairness to Twain, it can be done. While Donald Trump (as far as is known) does it only figuratively, Walt Disney (1901–1966) had Scrooge McDuck (created 1947) literally roll-around in the huge volumes of cash he stashed in his "money bin" (a reputed 3 cubic acres (257,440 m³; 772.321 megalitres)) but that wouldn't have been what Twain had in mind.
“The land literally flowed with milk and honey.”: (Louisa May Alcott (1832–1888), Little Women (1868-1869)). That one may be at least a gray area because milk and honey do literally "flow" (though their varies viscosities mean the flow-rates do differ) and "the land" can be used in the sense of the country and its people rather than "the soil".
“…Gatsby literally glowed” [after reuniting with Daisy at his house]: (F Scott Fitzgerald (1896–1940), The Great Gatsby (1925)). Women (when pregnant or as new mothers) often are said "to be glowing" in the sense of their happiness being such it seems "to radiate" from them and this may be what Fitzgerald wished to suggest but even then it was untypical to apply the phrase to men. However, at
least debatably, some time ago, popular use reached the threshold where to
describe a new mother as “glowing” could be regarded as literal because
the word has become so vested with that sense.
Indeed, in January 2026, when announcing her long-standing feud with
Lindsay Lohan had moved from a state of détente to a kind of entente cordiale, Paris
Hilton (b 1981) told her audience: “We plan on getting the kids together. I'm so happy for her. She is glowing. We love being moms.” So, that literalism of “glowing” has her imprimatur
and, as is well-known, where Paris Hilton goes, the English language follows.
The literal rule in statutory
interpretation in the UK & Commonwealth
Statute law is that set in place by a body
vested with appropriate authority (typically a legislature) and maintained in
written form. In providing rulings
involving these laws, courts in the common-law world (although in the US the
evolution has been a little different) have developed a number of principles of
statutory interpretation, the most fundamental of which is “the literal rule”
(sometimes called the “plain meaning rule”).
It’s the basis of all court decisions involving statues, the judge looking
just to the words written down, relying on their literal meaning without any
attempt to impute or interpret meaning. The
process should ensure laws are made exclusively by legislators alone; those
elected for the purpose, the basis of the constitutional theory being that it’s
this which grants laws their legitimacy and thus the consent of those upon
they’re imposed. However, an application
of the literal rule can result in consequences which are nonsensical, immoral
or unjust but the theory is that will induce the legislature to correct
whatever error in drafting was the cause; it not being the task of the court to
alter a duly passed law; the judiciary must interpret and not attempt to remedy
the law.
A judge in 1980 observed the British
constitution “…is firmly based upon the
separation of powers; parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them. When Parliament legislates to remedy what the
majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect… the role of the
judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that parliament has
approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving
effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous
it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing
to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the
consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.” So a judge should not depart from the literal
meaning of words even if the outcome is unjust. If they do, the will of parliament is
contradicted.
However, some things were so absurd even
the most black-letter-law judges (of which there were not a few) could see the
problem. What emerged was “the golden
rule”, the operation of which a judge in 1857 explained by saying the “…grammatical and ordinary sense of the words
is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance
or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical
and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity
and inconsistency, but no farther.”
The golden rule thus operates to avoid an absurdity which an application
of the literal rule might produce.
The golden rule was though deliberately
limited in scope, able to be used only in examples of absurdity so extreme it
would be a greater absurdity not to rectify.
Thus “the mischief rule” which with judges exercised rather more
discretion within four principles, first mentioned in 1584 at a time when much
new legislation was beginning to emerge to supersede the old common law which had
evolved over centuries of customary practice.
Given the novelty of codified national law replacing what previously
been administered with differences between regions, the need for some debugging
was not unexpected, hence the four principles of the mischief rule: (1) What
was the common law before this law?, (2) What was the mischief and defect for
which the common law did not provide and thus necessitate this law?, (3) What
remedy for the mischief and defect is in this law”, & (4) The role of the judge is to make such construction as
shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The rule was intended to determine what mischief
a statute was intended to correct and interpret the statute justly to avoid any
mischief.
The mischief rule closes loopholes in the
law while allowing them to evolve in what may be a changing environment but
does permit an element of the retrospective and depends on the opinion and
prejudices of the judge: an obvious infringement on the separation of powers
protected by the strict application of literal rule. So it is a trade-off, the literal rule the
basic tool of statutory interpretation which should be deviated from only in
those exceptional cases where its application would create an absurdity or
something manifestly unjust. This the
golden rule allows while the mischief rule extends judicial discretion,
dangerously some have said, permitting the refinement of law at the cost of
increasing the role of the judges, a group where views and prejudices do vary. From all this has evolved the debate about
judicial activism.
Colonel Theodore
Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; VPOTUS 1901, POTUS 1901-1909) with the 1st
US Volunteer Cavalry and troopers of the 10th Cavalry after the capture of
Kettle Hill during the Battle of San Juan Hill, July 1898.
Fought between
April-August 1898, the Spanish–American War followed the warship USS Maine (an
“armoured cruiser” best thought of as one of the smaller “pre-Dreadnought”
battleships) in February blowing up and sinking while anchored in Cuba’s Havana Harbor; 261
of the ship’s complement of 355 were killed.
Based on the early reports and available evidence, the US Navy’s explosives
experts suggested the blast appeared to have been caused by a spontaneous coal
bunker fire but Roosevelt, then serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, pushed
back, labelling that conclusion “premature” and insisted sabotage was possible,
telling colleagues: “the Maine was sunk by an act of dirty treachery on the
part of the Spaniards.” That might have
sounded strange to those who have read the press reports of courteous Spaniards having
welcomed her arrival in Havana with the presentation to the captain of a case of Jerez sherry and William McKinley
(1843–1901; US president 1897-1901) the next evening, hosting his first diplomatic
dinner in the White House, having the Spanish minister sit next to him, despite almost
a dozen other envoys enjoying precedence. Roosevelt however had his war-paint on and he
had the enthusiastic support of William Randolph Hearst’s (1863–1951) New York
newspaper the Journal, something of the FoxNews of its day and an early example
of “yellow journalism”.
Unconvinced
after having learned the Maine had been “a floating bomb, its forecastle packed
with gunpowder and its magazines laced with shortable wires”, McKinley ordered
an investigation, saying: “I don’t propose to be swept off my feet by the
catastrophe. I have been through one war [the US Civil War 1861-1865] and I
have seen the dead piled up, and I do not want to see another.” He
called for an investigation, which dragged on for months. While McKinley’s enquiry percolated, Hearst had
the Journal print fanciful diagrams showing how the Spanish “Infernal Machine” had hit
the hull while Roosevelt, taking advantage of the temporary absence of the
Secretary of the Navy, ordered the Pacific squadron to sea, put the European
and South Atlantic stations on alert, demanded of Congress the immediate authorization
of the unlimited
recruitment of seamen and ordered large quantities of guns and ammunition. By the time McKinley's investigation reported the cause of the
sinking as an “external explosion”, Roosevelt and Hearst had honed public
opinion and, the die cast, a reluctant McKinley took his country to war.
A stylized image of the explosion which sank the USS Maine, published in 1898 by Kurz and Allison (a Chicago-based publisher of chromolithographs),
Nautical History Gallery and Museum.
In a move
that would wholly be unfamiliar to bloodthirsty, non-combatant modern
politicians who prefer to sit at a safe distance to watch other people’s
children fight their wars, Roosevelt’s view was: “I have done all I could to
bring on the war, because it is a just war, and the sooner we meet it the
better. Now that it has come, I have no
business to ask others to do the fighting and stay home myself.” He resigned from the administration and headed
for Cuba with his “Rough Riders” (a collection of “cowboys, idealists. Veteran
soldiers, Native Americans and adventurers”), assembled as the 1st
US Volunteer Cavalry, a formation John Hay (1838-1905; US Secretary of State
1898-1905) thought “ideally suited” to what be labelled a “splendid little
war.” Although brief, the conflict was
of great significance because it was at this point the US became an imperial power,
its defeat of Spain resulting in the acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Philippines, while Cuba would until 1902 remain a US protectorate. By the late twentieth century a consensus had emerged that the explosion was most likely caused by an "internal event" and not a Spanish mine but much had since happened and "what's done is done and can't be undone".
The Rough
Riders were one of several units formed ad hoc which were dissolved with the
end of the war and while the notion of what were quasi-private militias
operating in concert with regular forces may seem curious, before World War I
(1914-1918) changed the public perception of war, for some men, the lure of
combat still had a romantic aura. While
the contribution of the Rough Riders strategically was slight, it was real and
it was the action of 1 July which became the war’s most famous engagement. On that day, in a combined assault with
regular army troops, Roosevelt on horseback led the Rough Riders in charges up Kettle
Hill and San Juan Hill; there over a thousand casualties with some 200
killed. He returned to the US as a
national hero and in November 1898 was elected governor of New York before
being "persuaded" to run as McKinley’s running mate on the Republican ticket for
the 1900 presidential election. Roosevelt
would have been familiar with the nineteenth century there was a joke about two
brothers: “One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were
ever heard of again” and may have anticipated the view of John Nance Garner III
(1868–1967, VPOTUS 1933-1941 so thus a reasonable judge of these things), that being
VPOTUS was “...not worth a bucket of warm piss” (which is polite company usually
is sanitized as “...bucket of warm spit”).
Accordingly, he was diffident about seeking the nomination which in his
day was not thought a stepping stone to higher things. That’s changed and a number of VPOTUSs have
become POTUS; on a few occasions that has worked well but of late the record
has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973;
VPOTUS 1961-1963, POTUS 1963-1968), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961,
POTUS 1969-1974), George H. W. Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; VPOTUS 1981-1989,
POTUS 1989-1993) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025)
1963-1968, all ending badly, in despair, disgrace, defeat and decrepitude
respectively. Roosevelt in 1900 told
friends he’d rather “…be anything else, say, a professor of history” but
finally decided he could make it a solid platform for a run for the presidency
in 1904.
His path to
the nomination for VPOTUS was made somewhat smoother by the party bosses in New
York wanting him out because although popular with the voters, for the machine
men used to running things, he was a loose cannon and one they’d sooner have
sitting in an inconsequential office in Washington DC than making trouble in
New York where he exercised real power.
Mark Hanna (1837-1904), the great Republican boss, called him “that
damned cowboy” (which, in many ways, could be read literally) and Mark Twain disapproved, saying he was “clearly
insane… and insanest upon war and its supreme glories.” Hanna was of course aware of the danger for
a VPOTUS is first in the line of succession and he’d tried to stop the
nomination, imploring the delegates to “see reason”, telling them: “Don’t any
of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the presidency?” It was to no avail and in
1900 the McKinley/Roosevelt ticket prevailed, prompting Hanna to tell McKinley: “Your
sacred duty for the next four years is to stay alive” and the president did his best but, through no fault of his own, was within months cut down by the gunfire of
an anarchist and “that damned cowboy” was sworn in as Chief Magistrate of the United States. In what must now seem an extraordinary
example of judicial alacrity, within six weeks of McKinley’s death, the
anarchist assassin had been tried, convicted and executed in New York’s Auburn
Prison, dispatched by the New York State Electrician.
A full-page
advertisement taken out by Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the New York Daily News (1 May 1989). When he said "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY", he meant it literally.
“New York State
Electrician” really was the title of the state’s chief executioner and the
title was derived from the use of the electric chair. The first appointment was made in 1890 and
despite New York staging its last execution in 1963, the position was not
disestablished until the Nixon-era decision by the USSC (US Supreme Court) in Furman
v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), which had the effect of imposing a national
moratorium on the use of the death penalty until 1976 when it was held certain
states successfully had re-written their statutes in conformity with the US
constitution. Intriguingly, between
1890-1963 the fee received by the State Electrician was never changed from the
original US$150 (with a bonus US$50 paid for additional executions performed on
the same day). That was despite
substantial inflation (and the related decrease in the purchasing power of the
US$): By 1963, the equivalent value of 1890’s US$150 was calculated at
US$504.40 and by 2026 the number was US$5,342.67. Mr Trump ran his advertisement in four New York City newspapers at a total cost of US$85,000 so, had the New York State Electrician still be plying his specialized trade, what was paid to the papers would have covered some 567 executions but if the fee had been adjusted in line with inflation (the value of 1990’s US$150 by 1989 having risen to US$2,043.96), it would have paid for fewer than 42 to “get the chair”.
Movements in the value of the US$ (inflation & purchasing power), 1890-2026.
Roosevelt’s
military exploits in what came to be called the Battle of San Juan Heights made
him a national celebrity, a role he was well-equipped to exploit and when late in 1898 he's returned to the US, his mind turned to politics and his goal was the White House; for that he needed a stepping stone. New York’s Republican Party establishment preferred
to endorse candidates who were (1) sane and (2) dependent on the machine and
thus compliant so were thus not enamoured with the leader of the Rough Riders
but above all they needed someone likely to win an election, a quality
Roosevelt appeared to possess, unlike the alternatives. So, reluctantly, the New York Republicans adopted them as their candidate in the 1898 gubernatorial election and Roosevelt stormed
into the campaign with the same enthusiasm he'd a few months earlier displayed on horseback while leading charges against the Spanish. With a
sense for publicity which never deserted him, he had Sergeant Buck Taylor
(who’d charged with him in Cuba) speak at an election rally where he told the assembled
crowd: “…and when it came to the great day he led us up San Juan Hill like
sheep to the slaughter and so he will lead you.” Roosevelt won the election, winning the popular
vote 49.02% to 47.70% so clearly not too many New Yorkers took Sergeant Taylor’s
words literally.
