Talk:Gerard Manley Hopkins

Public Domain

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.

be careful about the edition! Hopkins may be long dead, but the text of his poems is quite a problem. Some of the poems have been published in editions to which copyright is perhaps not available (I don't know, I'm just cautioning).

(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

Name in introductory sentence

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).

translations

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)

I've never heard of him doing any major translations but the Gerard Hopkins who has several French translations on amazon is, I think, his nephew. MeltBanana 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

GMH could hardly have translated Mauriac's Thérèse stories, since he died before they were written. However, I have a Penguin edition of Mauriac's Thérèse Desqueyroux, "Thérèse chez le docteur", "Thérèse a l'hôtel" and La Fin de la nuit, collected together under the title Thérèse which are indeed translated by a Gerard Hopkins, so I guess that's where the confusion comes from. --Camembert 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Homoeroticism

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

(Interpolated comments) Noting it being vandalism does seem a bit over the top, but "critical scholarship" has never substantiated the nature of Hopkins' "desires". The assertion is preposterous. Hopkins' sexual feelings are no more in the public domain than his personal hygiene, or what he was doing at 5 in the afternoon on his 21st birthday. That he was a devout believer in a religion which would have instructed him that homosexual feelings are an echo of the Fall of Man, and to be eradicated by personal discipline, needs no substantiation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no doubt he was the follower of a religion that instructed against homosexual impulses. But that does not, however, mean that he did not have these homosexual impulses with a sexual orientation in that regard. Such assertions are not preposterous in the least. And such an orientation is notable in a way that personal hygiene and activities at 5 o'clock are generally not. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I take the point, but the material consideration would be whether this aspect of Hopkins' personality has indeed been noted - by which I mean proved by evidence, not just assumed for small or questionable reasons because someone would like it to be so, and that certainly looks to me like what is going on in the discussions in here, just as it seems to be what's going on in Robert Bernard Martin's biography, as indeed the article indicates. The point in referring to the real overmastering concern of Hopkins' life is that because that, his religion, was without doubt his major influence, any personal inclinations discountenanced by it would not have taken the place with him, either personally or in his writing, that it is being insisted at us they did. That goes for homosexual implulses as much as for robbing banks.

However, as I don't intend to change the article in any way, perhaps I'd better just leave it at that.''

Fair enough. But I don't see there's anything wrong in assuming that Hopkins had a homosexual orientation. The default position doesn't need to be that he had a heterosexual orientation. In fact there is little evidence to suggest any passions (repressed or otherwise) with regard to women, but there are pointers towards a passion (albeit a celibate one) directed towards men. While I accept that religion played the dominant part in Hopkin's life, we should not discount the role of his sexuality. It's possible perhaps that his sexuality (or even negation of his sexuality) helped deepen his spiritual awareness or religious passions by redirecting his energies away from physical or emotional relations. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Hopkins took on himself the traditional discipline of celibacy, which was intended to deepen sprituality whatever orientation was being disciplined. It is not quite true to say that there is no evidence of feelings for women in Hopkins' biography. There is some small evidence of that from his youth, according to Martin himself (who apparently doesn't like it). The only thing 'wrong' with assuming Hopkins had a homosexual orientation is the degree to which it would be a falsification of what he was, not an understanding of that. One might ask the question: 'What would Hopkins himself have thought of so much being made of that side of his personality?' - if indeed it was a side, which seems to me far from proved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.13 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(End of interpolation)

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 agree, though it seems appropriate to have some discussion of his inner conflicts vis-a-vis his attraction to boys and young men, so as to place this in a proper context. Haiduc 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Link it to actual poems - a few of them have traces of homosexual yearning, which is quite poignant from the celibate priest with the strongly sensuous nature.PiCo 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a definition of Uranian poets from Wikipedia: The work of the Uranian poets was characterized by an idealised appeal to the history of Ancient Greece and a sentimental infatuation for adolescent boys, as well as by a use of conservative verse forms. Hopkins held a chair in Greek, but I have hard time to find any signs of linking him to the Uranians only because of this. I mean, I can't really see an unusual idealization for ancient Greece and he did certainly not use conservative verse forms.

When someone put out a link to Victorian pederasty, I think this article really gets lost in assumptions. I can't find any more than one reference to Hopkins being an Uranian (And I wonder how many Hopkins scholars agrees with this hypothesis by Michael Matthew Kaylor. There are absolutely no references for Hopkins being a pederast. So why is there a link to pederasty?

Furthermore, are we certain that Hopkins actually was homosexual? In the latest biographies about Hopkins (like Robert Bernard Martin in Gerard Manley Hopkins: A Very Private Life and Norman White - Hopkins, A literary Biography) they can not come to a conclusive statement about him being homosexual. Rather that he perhaps had those tendencies but as far as we know we can't say anything for sure. To state that he was attracted to male beauty is as far as i think one can take this debate. To talk about what kind of attraction this was will only be assumptions.

Perhaps it is time to lift out those parts from this article. JockeSnygg 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. To quote Kaylor: "Gerard Manley Hopkins sublimated most, if not all of his paederastic desires;" So who says that pederasty has to be un-sublimated to be pederasty? A priest is no less heterosexual for sublimating his heterosexuality, so why should it be any different with one who is a pederast? Without quoting letter and verse, Hopkins leaves a record of his desires for boys and young men, in verses identified as homoerotic and pederastic by published scholars.

Why is Kaylor "alone" in his views? He is not, D'Arch Smith supports him, for example when he asserts that "Seemingly unable — or more likely, unwilling — to distinguish adult homoeroticism from pederasty, [Dowling] blurs the two as though they were interchangeable, hoping to hide the pederastic in the shadow of the larger homoerotic. This seems a fashion among Gay Studies critics, since pederastic labels are politically and morally destructive, given the present environment, to their arguments for Hopkins and other Decadents as early ‘homosexual liberators’." Haiduc 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sorry for being abstruse. A closer reading will reveal that D'Arch Smith supports Kaylor's reading of GMH's homoeroticism as being of a pederastic nature, as well as his refutation of Dowling's refusal to identify it as such. So that answers one of JockneSnygg's questions. As for autograph evidence, I am looking through Kaylor's book and will let you know, but a number of scholars seem to have been persuaded of his homosexuality by the release of GMH's private papers, so I do not think we need Kaylor's corroboration for that. Haiduc 06:30, 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)

This is a very thorough and convincing reply. Thank you for writing it. I did not know some of the quotations.

You are indeed very knowledgeable about the work of Mr. Kaylor. Here is one small observation that I offer very tentatively. I took the liberty of reading through the list of your contributions. I know I may be mistaken, but it does appear that a reasonable reader might wonder whether you and Mr. Kaylor are the same person. You make a very convincing case for Mr. Kaylor's researches, but a word like "astounding" sounds different if an author uses it about himself! LauraMercy 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not Dr. Kaylor, just a grad student at Yale who plans to use his book as the spring-board for my own research. I have a fetish for Wilde, and I believe Dr. Kaylor has attacked him too harshly (just one point of difference). That said, I have found his work fits well into a number of places with holes in these Wikipedia entries, and it's easy to find again the material I've read, because his book is a PDF which allows for searching. That is all (but my friends are going to find the thought that I am him a hoot!). Welland_R 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Welland_R is or is not Kaylor is immaterial, and whether the material is astounding or not depends on one's own reaction, does it not? Haiduc 15:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit unclear: There are no consensus among scholars when it comes to Uranianism and Hopkins, (I even got a feeling that most Scholars dispute this) there’s not even a consensus regarding the sexualization of Hopkins poetry. Of course this do not necessarily proves this concept wrong but it certainly does not prove it right. In the book Love in earnest: some notes on the lives and writings of English 'Uranian' poets from 1889 to 1930 I do not get the impression that Timothy d'Arch Smith include Hopkins. (I have not read his book though but there are no discussion of Hopkins in articles about the book). Perhaps, even though I doubt an article in Victorian Poetry is a sufficient reason, the alleged link between Hopkins and the Uranians should be left in this article, but I think it should be better explained, since this is a rather radical approach from Michael Matthew Kaylor.

For me it mostly comes down to the pederasty link. I think there is not enough material to state something as this. There have been a (rather anachronistic) discussion of everything from Hopkins having a gay identity to that there are no signs of homoeroticism at all since the publication of his uncensored notebooks several decades ago. Furthermore the quotes above are to me an indication of that the Uranian hypothesis does not work. I think it shows that he reputed these feelings (what ever those thoughts were) and considered them as sinful. This proves to me that he did not celebrate those feelings in his poetry – It rather shows the opposite.

Hopkins had set very high moral standards for himself and this remark in his notebooks does not indicate him dwelling on sexual thoughts of young boys. I think one should be careful in the interpretation of loose sentences from a diary. Furthermore I find the Uranian concept as dangerously close to mixing up homoeroticism with pederasty.

I do think that the link that characterize Hopkins as a pederast should be removed. And when it comes to Hopkins alleged homoerotic tendencies I think that it is important to add that there are no consensus among scholars on how to correctly interpret this, especially not in his poems.

JockeSnygg 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what "dangerously close" is supposed to mean, but you are quite right, the Uranians saw homoeroticism in pederastic terms, with the signs of maturity, rough hairs, beards, hard chins, being seen as distasteful and unaesthetic. It was the adolescent male that was worshipped, and that seems to have caught Hopkins' eye. His identity as a Uranian is not based on D'Arch Smith, who did not include him, but on Kaylor, who did. His inclusion among the Uranians automatically categorizes him under Victorian pederasty. His repudiation of his desires does not change thir nature, as previously discussed. Haiduc 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference you know. ;-) And I already noticed that Kaylor calls him an Uranian poet, and apart from this article, he is the only one who calls Hopkins an Uranian. We do not actually know what Hopkins desires were or if they were of a sexual nature, and we do not know what actually caught Hopkins eyes. This are only assumptions and therefor not a ground for a categorization. I think it is strange that Wikipedia have a different concept of Hopkins then most of the scholars. That's all. JockeSnygg 17:44, 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)

The fact that Kaylor uses references does really not address my previous post. It remains to see if this notion will have any impact on the further research about Hopkins poetry. I'll guess there will be further discussions about Hopkins sexual preferences, personally I think this way of reading Hopkins is kind of missing the point with his poetry. If we can't come to an agreement here first I do not intend to start editing this article, I got a feeling it would just be reverted back. Good luck with your research Welland_R. JockeSnygg 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:-) Seems much more adequate. JockeSnygg 07:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And once again it is changed back to strong assumptions built upon only one work. There's a lot of 'seems to have been' which doesn't really fit in an encyclopedia. I can't list them all. Further more Dilben, a boy who died at an early age has been made in to an Uranian. Dilby was interested in ritualism, something with more impact on his life, but this doesn't get mentioned at all. I do not know why it is so important for Haiduc to turn people into pederasts, but I do not feel it has any place in a Encyclopedia. Why he adds this, when there is an ongoing discussion on the matter seems strange to me. Does Haiduc trying to trick his way of interpretation into the article...JockeSnygg 07:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I myself jumped into the altered material (via Haiduc) to correct and bastion some of it, it is still problematic for me as well. The problem is that the Hopkins entry is too small; unless it is broadened and provided subsections, these constant rewritings and controversial adjustments will continue (even a very minor figure like Lord Alfred Douglas has biographical subsections). The homoerotic materials should have their own section perhaps ... as with other sections about his metrical experiments, his life as a Jesuit, etc., etc. But I agree, in general, with your statements. Hopkins is famous as "a poet" ... not as a Jesuit, a person with pederastic desires, a Victorian jingoist, etc. Although these other issues are important to consider, "Hopkins the Poet" must be moved center-stage. Welland R 07:58, 6 February 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)

Haiduc, the subdivision you have made is well handled. Welland R 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, the role for an encyclopedia is not to write about tittle-tattle and every assumption about a certain subject. Usually authors tries to stick to things that are known. ;-) I would suggest to remove Martin and White from the Bibliography since someone may think that those two, up to this date most deep psychological studies of Hopkins, support this pederastic assumptions. And they don't.

And so that not any misunderstandings will occur: I do think Kaylors article got a place in a literary magazine. This does not automatically make it a part of an objective encyclopedia. (I'll think that is what we are at least trying to create).

Well, I'll guess it's better to have this in a special section. Still, I find it strange to have such loose assumptions built upon one persons work. And furthermore to have all this "it seems" in an encyclopedia is... well... Not a very professional way to go about.

The pederastic categorization is also very strange. There is not room for a discussion this way. This category just point out people as being pederasts. Not even without a mention that we are not absolutely sure that this is the case.

I'm very sad that I do not have the time to correct and debate all of this issues. Perhaps I will find the time later or perhaps someone else will see the grave errors done in this article and will try to correct them.

JockeSnygg 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you are too busy to continue exploring the best way to do justice to this topic. Clearly it is a task that no single editor can accomplish. As for Kaylor, he is a college professor and a PhD who has published his research with the support of his institution - this is not something we can reasonably ignore. And I disagree with your view that our man is being branded as a pederast. There IS a category for just that (with which I am not too happy). This merely places him in that cultural movement, and I think it is amply clear that his love was of a chaste nature. Haiduc 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I removed "homophobic" as an adjective for "critics" (see edits). As noted there, this is a completely subjective and politicized word and has no place in objective scholarly work. Especially in an encyclopedic format, it's inappropriate to assign motives to researchers' and critics' conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasrts (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'homophobic' was inappropriate as used in the article and support its removal. I disagree, however, that the term is either subjective or politicized. It is a legitimate term to be used in an encyclopaedia, and is found in academic and scholarly works in the same way that 'racism' and 'sexism' are debated at length in academic discourse. I accept, however, that it should not simply be used as a description for those that question whether Hopkins was homosexual based on analysing the evidence (unless they do so in spite of conclusive evidence that might support the supposition). Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2009 (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)

This article needs...

...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)

Have started one. JockeSnygg 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's rather curious that the article dwells on GMH's metrical experiments and his (rather arcane) ideas about inscape - but almost nothing about the content. He was, in fact, a profoundly conservative, totally Victorian poet with nothing new or striking to say - but with a highly original way of saying it. Rarely has the English language encountered a poet so prepared to take it by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. (Dylan Thomas comes to mind of course). This is worth mentioning - he was a run of the mill Nature Poet, in terminal denial over the realities of where England was headed (industrialisation, urbanisation, profound social change), but he came to light (i.e. was published) at just then right moment, when the conventions of the old poetic diction had at last revealed themselves unfit for the job. Incidentally, something about his publishing history and posthumous fame is needed, too. And why is modern poetry so God-awful? we're back exactly where the Victorians were, expressing outmoded thoughts in inappropriate language. I blame poetry competitions and the rise of Eng Lit faculties. PiCo 10:29, 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:

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;

As tumbled over rim in roundy wells

Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s

Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;

--Guinevere50 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Last words

I don't know anything about this person, but from this:

Though he suffered from what today might be diagnosed as manic depression, and battled a deep sense of anguish throughout his life, upon his death bed, he evidently overcame some of his feelings of despondency, at times stygian in their intensity. His last words were "I am so happy, I am so happy."

...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).

Hmm on their own I think it might be more that those last words could mean anything or nothing. They could indeed mean he was in a mania. However they could also mean he was just disoriented from dying or that he was experiencing a kind of "neurochemical rush" that I've heard occurs in some dying people or it could represent a hope of a beneficial afterlife or something else entirely. I'm a bit skeptical of putting too much weight in last words. Although I suppose it's plausible his loved ones hoped "I'm so happy" meant that his depression was lifted and that it was just nice he died happy.--T. Anthony 04:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Error

"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

What does this mean?

"...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

without saying what i think about religion...

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

Homoeroticism re-examined

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))

There is a lot of very extensive research on Hopkins' sexuality as it informs one's understanding of his greatest passion, his faith. Indeed, in many poems, these are inexorably linked. Michael Lynch made his claim to fame when he proposed that Hopkins was a "fully gay poet" ("Recovering Hopkins, Recovering Ourselves", The Hopkins Quarterly) which has created this massive cultural and academic interest in the subject. For example, Dennis Sobolev very rigorously investigates the homoeritic readings of Hopkins in "Hopkins' "Bellbright Biodies": The Dialectics of Desire in His Writing", as well as "Semantic Counterpoint and the Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins" (to a lesser extent). Joseph Bristow in ""Churlsgrace": Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Working-Class Male Body" similarly pinpoints what appears to be a fascination with the Harry Ploughman figure, and similar men, in his work, and even in his sermons! Clearly there is a perceived homoeroticism in his renderings of the Lord, and that is interesting to critics whatever Hopkins' sexuality was. Michael Kaylor's "Whitmanesque reading of Hopkins' "Epithalamanioon"" famously makes a great comparison of their styles, and how their sexualities play roles in defining their art form; Hopkins himself was something of a conflicted fan of Whitman. James W. Earl, Austin Warren, Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar also have a lot of interesting things to say on the subject, which aren't really mentioned in the article (for example, she reads "The Wreck of the Deustchland" as a heterosexual rape fantasy, and begins Madwoman in the Attic with the claim "Is the pen a metaphorical penis? Gerard Manley Hopkins seems to have thought so.") ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:52, 5 January 2009 (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)

I do think the section is meaninglessly long. This is supposed to be a summary of Hopkins, not a summary of his sexuality, whatever it may be. We can't speculate here. Other writers may, but we must provide the sources and not speculate on our own sides of this. If someone sees him as homoerotic, that's fine, if someone sees that as overthinking it, that's fine, we need not explain this in such detail. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 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)

"No real evidence"? What about his constant (and I do mean constant)personal and private journal entires castigating himself for looking at attractive (usually working class, but not exclusively so) men and adolescents, and the 'danger' of his male friendships - worldliness, yes, but it is clear to anyone who reads them that sex is in the mix too. Poetry can be misinterpreted: a man's words to himself can't. Hopkins was gay (in orientation if not in practice; it is possible to have desires and not act on them), and the fact that you don't like it suggests that you have a bit of an axe to grind yourself. Afraid that it diminishes him? It doesn't. He was a great poet AND he fancied men. What's the problem? 86.140.19.234 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem might be put this way: Hopkins once confided to his journal that his feelings for a friend's fiancée (who was female - people of the same sex didn't marry in those days) were stronger than was strictly in keeping with either propriety or friendship. He went straight to his confessor and asked for help. He couldn't handle such strong feelings for a woman alone. That would make him what, exactly? Are large conclusions to be drawn from that, or would it be special pleading to draw anything from it at all? I think it might be the latter, if you see the analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixlein (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As Hopkins wrote in a well known letter, “I always knew in my heart Walt Whitman’s mind to be more like my own than any other man’s living. As he is a very great scoundrel this is not a pleasant confession. And this also makes me more desirous to read him and more determined I will not.” David Couch (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New file File:Alfred William Garrett; William Alexander Comyn Macfarlane; Gerard Manley Hopkins by Thomas C. Bayfield.jpg

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)

"Life" and eroticism

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)

(Comment)

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

Where is Stratford?

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)

Siblings

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.

It is noted in the article text that various different sources give differing numbers of siblings. The Dictionary of Literary Biography and ODNB might give different detail on the siblings. Stillbirths, abortions, adoptions and infant deaths are sometimes included, sometimes not. Records are often not accurate in this area, especially in the 19th Century and before. We need more sourced detail on this. Thanks Span (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Article picture

Something's wrong with it! --Matt723star (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Shyness

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)

Changes in his behaviour?

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.

This tells us nothing. Valetude (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

Corrupted reference 19 ( linking to FDA)

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)

Typo?

"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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Deutschland_(1866). Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Andy Denis 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)