![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I ( Camembert) have moved the below from the bottom of the article: —Statement and content added 7 March 2003.
(public domain—Section heading added by
Buckleycloud, 18 July 2006. Unsectioned as misleading, by
Moonraker12 (
talk)
17:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) .)
All of his work is in the public domain, so if we can find good sources we can add the verse here too.
(End of moved text)—Statement added later by Camembert, on 3 October 2005.
Is there room for critical analysis or sheer praise for individual poems here,or is that too subjective for an encyclopedia?.The list of famous poems feels a bit naked,in my view?andycjp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycjp ( talk • contribs) 27 March 2004
Hopkins' work is not yet all in the public domain - only his works published in 1918 by Robert Bridges are in the public domain (in the UK at least). Many of his poems are still in copyright for instance 'Let Me Be To Thee As The Circling Bird', 'The Alchemist In The City', 'On A Piece Of Music' and 'Margaret Clitheroe'. Work comes into the public domain 75 years after it was first published, but only in the counties in which it was published. This makes it complicated to work out which works are still subject to copyright and in which countries. I agree the list of famous poems seems somewhat naked. iuliac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.216.252 ( talk • contribs) 15 August 2005
I have restored "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J. (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet and Jesuit priest" to its earlier form (without the "Fr." or the "S.J"). This recent change is redundant for those "in the know" and obscure for those not "in the know". It literally means: "[The priest] Gerard Manley Hopkins, [of the Jesuits] (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet and Jesuit priest". Another alternative is for the sentence to read "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J. (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet", though this would probably be less agreeable to those wishing to accentuate his role as a Roman Catholic clergyman, since it suggests that his only memorable role is as a poet, which I would certainly suggest is more accurate ... No one would be making a Wikipedia entry for "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J." were he not "Gerard Manley Hopkins, poet" (he is certainly not his friend Cardinal Newman!). (Welland_R) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Welland R ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Did Hopkins ever do any translations? I wondering in particular if he did a translation of François Mauriac's Therese (a translation from french). Johnny Panic 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The predominently homoerotic nature of Hopkins's desires is substantiated by enough critical scholarship to make the claim that "Noting it is vandalism" seem little more than homophobia or puritanical whitewashing. Perhaps the comment should be phrased in a more tentative form, and I have altered it in this regard. -- Welland R 10:53, 18 January 2006
I consider LauraMercy's phrasing (17:14, 18 January 2007) to be quite judicious: "Some of his poems have been described as embodying homoerotic themes, and he has been associated recently with the Uranian poets". I suggest that this phrasing be kept. -- Welland R 17:40, 18 January 2006
I am quite bewildered by this reply. Mr. JockeSnygg asked for examples from Hopkins's poems; none were provided. Mr. JockeSyngg asked if anyone agreed with Mr. Kaylor about Hopkins; the reply says that D'Arch Smith supports Mr. Kaylor on Dowling. That is not what Mr. JockeSyngg was asking. Surely it would be appropriate to respond to Mr. JockneSnygg's points? This reply does not refute Mr. JockeSyngg at all, and his suggestion still seems valid. Thank you for your time. LauraMercy 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Kaylor's evidence is rather astounding in what it reveals about Hopkins, but also what it reveals about Hopkins scholars. It becomes very clear that they have been suppressing details and ways of reading all along. Kaylor quotes Wendell Stacy Johnson, ‘Sexuality and Inscape’ (1976), on p. 161: "A celibate whose Ruskinian interest in natural beauty focussed upon the landscape and the innocent child or youth, Hopkins has not often been written of in sexual language or been critically analyzed for sexual themes and attitudes. Perhaps we should be glad". That was thirty years ago! Anyone in the know knew, hiding details like the following, handwritten by Hopkins into his journals (I just pulled them from Dr. Kaylor's book , p. 153):
Parker’s boy at Merton: evil thoughts. (Facsimiles I, p.157) Looking at a cart-boy fr. Standen’s shopdoor. (p. 157) Looking at boy thro’ window. (p. 162) Looking at boys, several instances. (p. 173) Imprudent looking at organ-boy and other boys. (p. 174) Looking at a boy at Tiverton. (p. 177) Temptation in thinking over boy I saw. (p. 181) Looking at a chorister at Magdalen, and evil thoughts. (p. 195)
The question of "Do other scholars agree with Dr. Kaylor?" can probably be gauged by the fact that chapter 3 of his book, a close-reading of Hopkins's "Epithalamion", first appeared in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in his field: Michael M. Kaylor, ‘“Beautiful Dripping Fragments”: A Whitmanesque Reading of Hopkins’ “Epithalamion”’, Victorian Poetry, 40.2 (2002), pp. 157-87. The question of validation on such a point rests with people like the famous Victorian scholars who oversee and edit journals like Victorian Poetry. It is not for Wikipedia readers to decide, is it? Welland_R 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am going to pull a passage from Dr. Kaylor's book, since that is the only Uranian material I have on this computer. On p. 176, there is a footnote (footnote 2), which reads:
In The Great War and Modern Memory: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), after discussing ‘the tradition of Symonds, Wilde, Rolfe, Charles Edward Sayle, John Francis Bloxam, and other writers of warm religio-erotic celebrations of boy-saints, choirboys, acolytes, and “server-lads”’, Paul Fussell notes that ‘Hopkins’s “The Handsome Heart: At a Gracious Answer” is in the tradition’ (p.288).
I am not going to devote more time to this, but I bet you would find 50 occasions in Kaylor's book where very important critics such as Fussell are quoted as saying the same thing as Kaylor (and, in Fussell's case, Oxford doesn't produce a 25th anniversary edition for just any critic). Why doesn't someone just send an email to Kaylor? His address is on the author's page at the end of the book. I'm not writing that letter myself, because I will probably need his advice for my dissertation, and a question about a Wikipedia entry is not the way I want to first say "Hello". Welland_R 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the function of an encyclopedia is to inform, rather than obscure, and we are obligated to integrate all aspects of Hopkins' life into this article, not just his poetry. His poetry, and his life, cannot be understood in a vacuum where we do not take into account the religious environment he lived in, the sexual repression he suffered and self-inflicted, and the pederastic revival that surrounded him. Dolben (sic) was the pupil of William Johnson, later "Cory", who was the kingpin of Victorian pederasty, Pater was its philosopher, Eton and Oxford its Athens and Sparta. Where have you been? Dolben was a strikingly handsome adolescent in his mid-teens who wrote pederastic verse and fell in love with older students whom he courted in his verse, and Hopkins fell in love with him. Rather than wondering why Haiduc insists on turning people into pederasts I think it more appropriate to ask, why are so many so invested in falsifying this central aspect of his life and art? And you are free to read as much or as little personal insinuation into that as you implied in your own post.
As for subdividing the article, I am all for it as long as we keep in mind that we cannot truly separate any of these facets of Hopkins' life. Haiduc 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me is the sense given by certain passages in the article (particularly the "Oxford and the priesthood" section) that Hopkins's homosexuality is an ascertained fact rather than a historical theory. An article in the Washington Post in 2008 (specifically, a review of Paul Mariani's biography of the good Father; see < http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670020311/1n9867a-20>) only went so far as to say that "some scholars have claimed" that Hopkins was homosexual - and the Washington Post is not, as far as I know, a citadel of conservatism. Has some sort of new evidence emerged in the intervening two years, or is this simply an instance of that common problem, Wikipedia editors overstating their case? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia editors overstating their case?" In general or on the issue of homosexuality? Contaldo80 ( talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
...to have the in-line references to various books moved down to footnotes, plus a Bibliography (or References) section. PiCo 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to say more about Hopkins' use of language as well as his experiments in rhythm and 'inscape'. I suggest the following, which I will post if nobody wants to tweak it:
The language of Hopkins’ poems is often striking. His imagery can be simple, as in Heaven-Haven, where the comparison is between a nun entering a convent and a ship entering a harbour out of a storm. It can be splendidly metaphysical and intricate, as it is in As Kingfishers Catch Fire, where he leaps from one image to another to show how each thing expresses its own uniqueness, and how divinity reflects itself through all of them.
He uses many archaic and dialect words, but also coins new words. One example of this is twindles, which seems from its context in Inversnaid to mean a combination of twines and dwindles. He often creates compound adjectives, sometimes with a hyphen (such as dapple-dawn-drawn falcon) but often without, as in rolling level underneath him steady air. This concentrates his images, communicating the instress of the poet’s perceptions to his reader.
Added richness comes from Hopkins’ extensive use of alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia and rhyme, both at the end of lines and internally as in:
-- Guinevere50 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this person, but from this:
...his last words sound more like those of a person in the manic phase of manic-depression (which should probably be changed to bipolar disorder, I think) than one who has recovered from that illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.48.207 ( talk) 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
"After suffering ill health for several years and bouts of diarrhea, Hopkins died of venereal disease in 1889"
This is factually incorrect. Hopkins died of Typhoid Fever. This is well documented, and there is consensus on the issue. Additionally, Typhoid fever is NOT a venereal disease, and there is consensus on that as well. 70.165.103.148 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)ar71c40k3
"...his disagreement with the Irish politics of the time..."
What does this actually mean? There are a number of sides in politics. Was he against every side in the political debates of the day, or against the concept of participation in politics per se? I think this sentence needs to be explained more, or else removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.91.68 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 April 2007
There is a large problem with the statements that say that 'his suppressed erotic impulses...etc' in that as a part of the clergy, any such impulses are subjective (how can you prove it?) and that any true 'evidence' would have likely been destroyed by the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIREBRANDGRIM ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 June 2007
There is really entirely too much emphasis in this article on Hopkins's supposedly homosexual tendencies. While there has been considerable speculation in the past about his relationship with Digby Dolben, much of the most recent scholarship has noted that the Victorian period was a time of close male-male friendships; and in any case, that we only have two poems to which the relationship bears any possible direct relation, and furthermore, that even these have been interpreted in alternate ways. Thus, the relationship may warrant being noted, but there certainly shouldn't be a whole section devoted to his supposed "erotic influences," as if Hopkins love of God were simply somehow a sublimation of his own unfulfilled desire. Shouldn't that be an end of the LGTB movement, that it may be accepted as normal for a man to have some sort of passionate attachment to another man, and not be inordinately set aside somehow for it? No doubt this whole discussion would have been very painful for Hopkins; why draw more attention to it than is warranted? ( 138.16.28.233 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Apropos of this, I have made a slight emendation in the article regarding Hopkins supposed reaction to Digby Dolben's death. To say that he "never fully recovered" from that event seems a bit over the top to me, judging from what I have read on the subject. Hopkins had in fact not seen Dolben for two years when the latter died, and when he wrote to Bridges to offer his condolences Hopkins expressed himself with characteristic coolness, referring even to what he called Dolben's "lack of sense", and declaring almost nonchalantly that he in fact did not know Dolben well enough himself to be much affected by his death one way or the other.
Nevertheless, my emendation may seem inappropriate, in that it doesn't fit the rest of the sentence entirely well. Perhaps some more comprehensive re-writing is called for, but I don't want to indulge too much myself for fear of violating the article. Fixlein ( talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is, as a matter of fact, no real evidence at all that Hopkins was homosexual. Michael Lynch was self-interested and wrong, as are most of the Hopkins scholars who have attempted to make something of this issue when there is in reality nothing to be made of it. The most that could be said about it is that it makes for an interesting instance of the common tendency among academics to read literature from the past as expressive of modern concerns which are in fact not to be found in it at all. There are, sadly, numerous ways in which literary classics can be misprised by modern critics with their own axes to grind. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixlein ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Alfred William Garrett; William Alexander Comyn Macfarlane; Gerard Manley Hopkins by Thomas C. Bayfield.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it (Hopkins is the guy on the right). If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend splitting the Life section into two - his time as a student and his time after this. It would make it easier to access.
And I agree that to have such a large section on eroticism in this article is to suggest it's much more of a theme of Hopkins than it is. It has become like the anti-semitism sections in other wiki-biographies which take up half the article because it is contraversial. Waving a large flag, even a great flag, is not what encylopedias are for. Spanglej ( talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to imply Hopkin's Life started at school or even University. He was actually born, and indeed born in Stratford, East London. Stratford's literary associations are not widespread so it would be good for this fact to be acknowldedged in WP. There is a small monument to him in Stratford.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.118.178 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 November 2009
W. H. Gardner's book says Stratford, Essex. So does Catherine Phillips's book. So does EB Ultimate Reference Suite 2012. We have to stick to the sources, I think. If your source says different, please tell us what it is. -- Kenatipo speak! 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, it would be helpful to the geographically challenged (like me) to give some indication somewhere that this Stratford is near London. Should we add, in parentheses, "now Greater London" or "near London" after "Essex"? (in the infobox) -- Kenatipo speak! 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Gerard Manley Hopkins was the "the eldest of nine children in the High Anglican, artistically minded horne of Kate and Manley Hopkins." says the "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" Yet, it mentioned in the "Dictionary of Literary Biography • Volume Fifty-seven Victorian Prose Writers After 1867" that "He was the eldest of their eight children who survived childhood." Thus, this leads to the fact the one of his siblings died at a certain point in time. I'm going to include this info about Hopkins.
Something's wrong with it! -- Matt723star ( talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section: "Oxford and the priesthood", we read, "Hopkins was an unusually sensitive and shy student and poet............................Hopkins began his time in Oxford as a keen socialite and prolific poet".
So was he "unusually sensitive and shy" or "a keen socialite"? Was he a "shy" poet or a "prolific" one? Can anyone reconcile these ideas in the references? Maybe he began as a keen socialite but became sensitive and shy later on, perhaps as the result of the conflict between his emerging sexuality and his religious convictions. It cannot be resolved without access to the sources but I think it needs doing. It's not good for the article to state two opposites so firmly. Budhen ( talk) 20:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
He began his time in Oxford as a keen socialite and prolific poet, but he seemed to have alarmed himself with the changes in his behaviour that resulted.
It would be interesting to know how we know it, too. And it should be "seems" to have... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixlein ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Reference 19 links to a book by the FDA, i.e. link is corrupted- poor referencing and was never archived. I could not find out which editor made this edit, but as it stands the sentence about Hopkins being bipolar isnt backed up by a source. Wuerzele ( talk) 09:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
"in which 157 people died" This looks like a typo. Historic England speaks of "the loss of about 57 passengers" ( https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/womens-history/maritime-women/wreck-deutschland/) 157 certainly does not add up, given the (admittedly incomplete) account at /info/en/?search=SS_Deutschland_(1866). Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I ( Camembert) have moved the below from the bottom of the article: —Statement and content added 7 March 2003.
(public domain—Section heading added by
Buckleycloud, 18 July 2006. Unsectioned as misleading, by
Moonraker12 (
talk)
17:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) .)
All of his work is in the public domain, so if we can find good sources we can add the verse here too.
(End of moved text)—Statement added later by Camembert, on 3 October 2005.
Is there room for critical analysis or sheer praise for individual poems here,or is that too subjective for an encyclopedia?.The list of famous poems feels a bit naked,in my view?andycjp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycjp ( talk • contribs) 27 March 2004
Hopkins' work is not yet all in the public domain - only his works published in 1918 by Robert Bridges are in the public domain (in the UK at least). Many of his poems are still in copyright for instance 'Let Me Be To Thee As The Circling Bird', 'The Alchemist In The City', 'On A Piece Of Music' and 'Margaret Clitheroe'. Work comes into the public domain 75 years after it was first published, but only in the counties in which it was published. This makes it complicated to work out which works are still subject to copyright and in which countries. I agree the list of famous poems seems somewhat naked. iuliac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.216.252 ( talk • contribs) 15 August 2005
I have restored "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J. (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet and Jesuit priest" to its earlier form (without the "Fr." or the "S.J"). This recent change is redundant for those "in the know" and obscure for those not "in the know". It literally means: "[The priest] Gerard Manley Hopkins, [of the Jesuits] (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet and Jesuit priest". Another alternative is for the sentence to read "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J. (July 28, 1844 – June 8, 1889) was a British Victorian poet", though this would probably be less agreeable to those wishing to accentuate his role as a Roman Catholic clergyman, since it suggests that his only memorable role is as a poet, which I would certainly suggest is more accurate ... No one would be making a Wikipedia entry for "Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J." were he not "Gerard Manley Hopkins, poet" (he is certainly not his friend Cardinal Newman!). (Welland_R) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Welland R ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Did Hopkins ever do any translations? I wondering in particular if he did a translation of François Mauriac's Therese (a translation from french). Johnny Panic 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The predominently homoerotic nature of Hopkins's desires is substantiated by enough critical scholarship to make the claim that "Noting it is vandalism" seem little more than homophobia or puritanical whitewashing. Perhaps the comment should be phrased in a more tentative form, and I have altered it in this regard. -- Welland R 10:53, 18 January 2006
I consider LauraMercy's phrasing (17:14, 18 January 2007) to be quite judicious: "Some of his poems have been described as embodying homoerotic themes, and he has been associated recently with the Uranian poets". I suggest that this phrasing be kept. -- Welland R 17:40, 18 January 2006
I am quite bewildered by this reply. Mr. JockeSnygg asked for examples from Hopkins's poems; none were provided. Mr. JockeSyngg asked if anyone agreed with Mr. Kaylor about Hopkins; the reply says that D'Arch Smith supports Mr. Kaylor on Dowling. That is not what Mr. JockeSyngg was asking. Surely it would be appropriate to respond to Mr. JockneSnygg's points? This reply does not refute Mr. JockeSyngg at all, and his suggestion still seems valid. Thank you for your time. LauraMercy 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Kaylor's evidence is rather astounding in what it reveals about Hopkins, but also what it reveals about Hopkins scholars. It becomes very clear that they have been suppressing details and ways of reading all along. Kaylor quotes Wendell Stacy Johnson, ‘Sexuality and Inscape’ (1976), on p. 161: "A celibate whose Ruskinian interest in natural beauty focussed upon the landscape and the innocent child or youth, Hopkins has not often been written of in sexual language or been critically analyzed for sexual themes and attitudes. Perhaps we should be glad". That was thirty years ago! Anyone in the know knew, hiding details like the following, handwritten by Hopkins into his journals (I just pulled them from Dr. Kaylor's book , p. 153):
Parker’s boy at Merton: evil thoughts. (Facsimiles I, p.157) Looking at a cart-boy fr. Standen’s shopdoor. (p. 157) Looking at boy thro’ window. (p. 162) Looking at boys, several instances. (p. 173) Imprudent looking at organ-boy and other boys. (p. 174) Looking at a boy at Tiverton. (p. 177) Temptation in thinking over boy I saw. (p. 181) Looking at a chorister at Magdalen, and evil thoughts. (p. 195)
The question of "Do other scholars agree with Dr. Kaylor?" can probably be gauged by the fact that chapter 3 of his book, a close-reading of Hopkins's "Epithalamion", first appeared in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in his field: Michael M. Kaylor, ‘“Beautiful Dripping Fragments”: A Whitmanesque Reading of Hopkins’ “Epithalamion”’, Victorian Poetry, 40.2 (2002), pp. 157-87. The question of validation on such a point rests with people like the famous Victorian scholars who oversee and edit journals like Victorian Poetry. It is not for Wikipedia readers to decide, is it? Welland_R 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am going to pull a passage from Dr. Kaylor's book, since that is the only Uranian material I have on this computer. On p. 176, there is a footnote (footnote 2), which reads:
In The Great War and Modern Memory: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), after discussing ‘the tradition of Symonds, Wilde, Rolfe, Charles Edward Sayle, John Francis Bloxam, and other writers of warm religio-erotic celebrations of boy-saints, choirboys, acolytes, and “server-lads”’, Paul Fussell notes that ‘Hopkins’s “The Handsome Heart: At a Gracious Answer” is in the tradition’ (p.288).
I am not going to devote more time to this, but I bet you would find 50 occasions in Kaylor's book where very important critics such as Fussell are quoted as saying the same thing as Kaylor (and, in Fussell's case, Oxford doesn't produce a 25th anniversary edition for just any critic). Why doesn't someone just send an email to Kaylor? His address is on the author's page at the end of the book. I'm not writing that letter myself, because I will probably need his advice for my dissertation, and a question about a Wikipedia entry is not the way I want to first say "Hello". Welland_R 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the function of an encyclopedia is to inform, rather than obscure, and we are obligated to integrate all aspects of Hopkins' life into this article, not just his poetry. His poetry, and his life, cannot be understood in a vacuum where we do not take into account the religious environment he lived in, the sexual repression he suffered and self-inflicted, and the pederastic revival that surrounded him. Dolben (sic) was the pupil of William Johnson, later "Cory", who was the kingpin of Victorian pederasty, Pater was its philosopher, Eton and Oxford its Athens and Sparta. Where have you been? Dolben was a strikingly handsome adolescent in his mid-teens who wrote pederastic verse and fell in love with older students whom he courted in his verse, and Hopkins fell in love with him. Rather than wondering why Haiduc insists on turning people into pederasts I think it more appropriate to ask, why are so many so invested in falsifying this central aspect of his life and art? And you are free to read as much or as little personal insinuation into that as you implied in your own post.
As for subdividing the article, I am all for it as long as we keep in mind that we cannot truly separate any of these facets of Hopkins' life. Haiduc 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What bothers me is the sense given by certain passages in the article (particularly the "Oxford and the priesthood" section) that Hopkins's homosexuality is an ascertained fact rather than a historical theory. An article in the Washington Post in 2008 (specifically, a review of Paul Mariani's biography of the good Father; see < http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670020311/1n9867a-20>) only went so far as to say that "some scholars have claimed" that Hopkins was homosexual - and the Washington Post is not, as far as I know, a citadel of conservatism. Has some sort of new evidence emerged in the intervening two years, or is this simply an instance of that common problem, Wikipedia editors overstating their case? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia editors overstating their case?" In general or on the issue of homosexuality? Contaldo80 ( talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
...to have the in-line references to various books moved down to footnotes, plus a Bibliography (or References) section. PiCo 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs to say more about Hopkins' use of language as well as his experiments in rhythm and 'inscape'. I suggest the following, which I will post if nobody wants to tweak it:
The language of Hopkins’ poems is often striking. His imagery can be simple, as in Heaven-Haven, where the comparison is between a nun entering a convent and a ship entering a harbour out of a storm. It can be splendidly metaphysical and intricate, as it is in As Kingfishers Catch Fire, where he leaps from one image to another to show how each thing expresses its own uniqueness, and how divinity reflects itself through all of them.
He uses many archaic and dialect words, but also coins new words. One example of this is twindles, which seems from its context in Inversnaid to mean a combination of twines and dwindles. He often creates compound adjectives, sometimes with a hyphen (such as dapple-dawn-drawn falcon) but often without, as in rolling level underneath him steady air. This concentrates his images, communicating the instress of the poet’s perceptions to his reader.
Added richness comes from Hopkins’ extensive use of alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia and rhyme, both at the end of lines and internally as in:
-- Guinevere50 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this person, but from this:
...his last words sound more like those of a person in the manic phase of manic-depression (which should probably be changed to bipolar disorder, I think) than one who has recovered from that illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.48.207 ( talk) 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
"After suffering ill health for several years and bouts of diarrhea, Hopkins died of venereal disease in 1889"
This is factually incorrect. Hopkins died of Typhoid Fever. This is well documented, and there is consensus on the issue. Additionally, Typhoid fever is NOT a venereal disease, and there is consensus on that as well. 70.165.103.148 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)ar71c40k3
"...his disagreement with the Irish politics of the time..."
What does this actually mean? There are a number of sides in politics. Was he against every side in the political debates of the day, or against the concept of participation in politics per se? I think this sentence needs to be explained more, or else removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.91.68 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 April 2007
There is a large problem with the statements that say that 'his suppressed erotic impulses...etc' in that as a part of the clergy, any such impulses are subjective (how can you prove it?) and that any true 'evidence' would have likely been destroyed by the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIREBRANDGRIM ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 June 2007
There is really entirely too much emphasis in this article on Hopkins's supposedly homosexual tendencies. While there has been considerable speculation in the past about his relationship with Digby Dolben, much of the most recent scholarship has noted that the Victorian period was a time of close male-male friendships; and in any case, that we only have two poems to which the relationship bears any possible direct relation, and furthermore, that even these have been interpreted in alternate ways. Thus, the relationship may warrant being noted, but there certainly shouldn't be a whole section devoted to his supposed "erotic influences," as if Hopkins love of God were simply somehow a sublimation of his own unfulfilled desire. Shouldn't that be an end of the LGTB movement, that it may be accepted as normal for a man to have some sort of passionate attachment to another man, and not be inordinately set aside somehow for it? No doubt this whole discussion would have been very painful for Hopkins; why draw more attention to it than is warranted? ( 138.16.28.233 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Apropos of this, I have made a slight emendation in the article regarding Hopkins supposed reaction to Digby Dolben's death. To say that he "never fully recovered" from that event seems a bit over the top to me, judging from what I have read on the subject. Hopkins had in fact not seen Dolben for two years when the latter died, and when he wrote to Bridges to offer his condolences Hopkins expressed himself with characteristic coolness, referring even to what he called Dolben's "lack of sense", and declaring almost nonchalantly that he in fact did not know Dolben well enough himself to be much affected by his death one way or the other.
Nevertheless, my emendation may seem inappropriate, in that it doesn't fit the rest of the sentence entirely well. Perhaps some more comprehensive re-writing is called for, but I don't want to indulge too much myself for fear of violating the article. Fixlein ( talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is, as a matter of fact, no real evidence at all that Hopkins was homosexual. Michael Lynch was self-interested and wrong, as are most of the Hopkins scholars who have attempted to make something of this issue when there is in reality nothing to be made of it. The most that could be said about it is that it makes for an interesting instance of the common tendency among academics to read literature from the past as expressive of modern concerns which are in fact not to be found in it at all. There are, sadly, numerous ways in which literary classics can be misprised by modern critics with their own axes to grind. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixlein ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Alfred William Garrett; William Alexander Comyn Macfarlane; Gerard Manley Hopkins by Thomas C. Bayfield.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it (Hopkins is the guy on the right). If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I recommend splitting the Life section into two - his time as a student and his time after this. It would make it easier to access.
And I agree that to have such a large section on eroticism in this article is to suggest it's much more of a theme of Hopkins than it is. It has become like the anti-semitism sections in other wiki-biographies which take up half the article because it is contraversial. Waving a large flag, even a great flag, is not what encylopedias are for. Spanglej ( talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to imply Hopkin's Life started at school or even University. He was actually born, and indeed born in Stratford, East London. Stratford's literary associations are not widespread so it would be good for this fact to be acknowldedged in WP. There is a small monument to him in Stratford.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.118.178 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 November 2009
W. H. Gardner's book says Stratford, Essex. So does Catherine Phillips's book. So does EB Ultimate Reference Suite 2012. We have to stick to the sources, I think. If your source says different, please tell us what it is. -- Kenatipo speak! 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, it would be helpful to the geographically challenged (like me) to give some indication somewhere that this Stratford is near London. Should we add, in parentheses, "now Greater London" or "near London" after "Essex"? (in the infobox) -- Kenatipo speak! 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Gerard Manley Hopkins was the "the eldest of nine children in the High Anglican, artistically minded horne of Kate and Manley Hopkins." says the "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" Yet, it mentioned in the "Dictionary of Literary Biography • Volume Fifty-seven Victorian Prose Writers After 1867" that "He was the eldest of their eight children who survived childhood." Thus, this leads to the fact the one of his siblings died at a certain point in time. I'm going to include this info about Hopkins.
Something's wrong with it! -- Matt723star ( talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section: "Oxford and the priesthood", we read, "Hopkins was an unusually sensitive and shy student and poet............................Hopkins began his time in Oxford as a keen socialite and prolific poet".
So was he "unusually sensitive and shy" or "a keen socialite"? Was he a "shy" poet or a "prolific" one? Can anyone reconcile these ideas in the references? Maybe he began as a keen socialite but became sensitive and shy later on, perhaps as the result of the conflict between his emerging sexuality and his religious convictions. It cannot be resolved without access to the sources but I think it needs doing. It's not good for the article to state two opposites so firmly. Budhen ( talk) 20:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
He began his time in Oxford as a keen socialite and prolific poet, but he seemed to have alarmed himself with the changes in his behaviour that resulted.
It would be interesting to know how we know it, too. And it should be "seems" to have... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixlein ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Reference 19 links to a book by the FDA, i.e. link is corrupted- poor referencing and was never archived. I could not find out which editor made this edit, but as it stands the sentence about Hopkins being bipolar isnt backed up by a source. Wuerzele ( talk) 09:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
"in which 157 people died" This looks like a typo. Historic England speaks of "the loss of about 57 passengers" ( https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/womens-history/maritime-women/wreck-deutschland/) 157 certainly does not add up, given the (admittedly incomplete) account at /info/en/?search=SS_Deutschland_(1866). Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)