Talk:A. E. Housman

Included poetry

An anon. contributor included the poem "To an Athlete Dying Young", and I just fixed the misformatting due to lack of Wiki experience. However, it seems a good example of the themes in Housman's poetry so I kept it. (Copyright OK I suppose?) — Dizzley (Peter H) 06:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wikiquote

the old wikiquote link worked, but the new one done through a template does not link to the correct article. i am reverting to the older version until this kink can be worked out. the new version is more aesthetically pleasing, but not functional.--Alhutch 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

problem solved. had to create a redirect in wikiquote from Alfred Edward Housman to A. E. Housman. the wikiquote template is back in the article and all set now.--Alhutch 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Should article be titled "A.E. Housman"?

He seems to be generally known as A.E. Housman. My Penguin copy of his collected works refers to him nowhere by his full name (indeed I was unaware what it was). I would perhaps rename the article and put the full name as redirect. A comparable is A.A. Milne. RandomProcess 13:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've revisited this issue below, @ Full name in title. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

70 years since he died

20 April 2006 is the 70th annivesary of his death, so presumably his works become public domain on 1 Jan 2007? RandomProcess 11:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

homosexual reference?

The article seems to assume common knowledge in the fact of homosexuality. However, it does not explain how or why this is known about A.E. Housman. A line or two explaining this would be a welcome addition.

Do we need citations for common knowledge? If so, use Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041206/A-E-Housman --207.81.158.123 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To very belately answer the question: Yes, we do need citations. One is not born knowing that Housman was homosexual; one must have read it somewhere, or been told by someone who read it somewhere, or .... We cannot pander in mere rumours, but if something has been reported in a reputable publication, we can mention it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Parody of Housman

I know of a second parody of Housman, one which has been quoted in several books of quotations, but cannot recall the author. As it follows both Housman's pre-occupations (or the popular belief of them) and style I feel it might be included; all is needed is the author. The piece (as memory serves) goes;

What? Still alive at twenty two?

A fine, upstanding chap like you?

Why, if your throat is hard to slit,

Then slit your girls, and hang for it!

I should comment that AE is my favourite poet.LessHeard vanU 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What, still alive at twenty-two,
A clean upstanding chap like you?
Sure, if your throat 'tis hard to slit,
Slit your girl's, and swing for it.
Like enough, you won't be glad,
When they come to hang you, lad:
But bacon's not the only thing
That's cured by hanging from a string.
So, when the spilt ink of the night
Spreads o'er the blotting pad of light,
Lads whose job is still to do
Shall whet their knives, and think of you.

Hugh Kingsmill

Brilliant! So close to Housman and yet so far. --Slashme 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One of my mentors in academia is a Housman nut, and after I recited these four lines of Dorothy Parker (whom he also loves) to him, he said in disgust that they are satire on Housman:

I never see that prettiest thing
A cherry bough gone white with spring
But what I think, how gay 'twould be
To hang me from a flowering tree

Thought you all might like that, too.Delvebelow (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very amusing, but even funnier that your mentor didn't approve... Eebahgum (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kingsmill parody is marvellous, the only one Housman thought was good. The Parker one is lousy, which may be the reason the mentor disliked it. Seadowns (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Another delight is Wendy Cope's

"I think I am in love with A.E. Housman,
Which puts me in a worse-than-usual-fix.
No woman ever stood a chance with Housman,

And he’s been dead since 1936."

--Browne-Windsor (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That young sinner

What on earth is Housman on about here:

Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they're taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.
 
'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
In the good old time 'twas hanging for the colour that it is;
Though hanging isn't bad enough and flaying would be fair
For the nameless and abominable colour of his hair.
 
Oh a deal of pains he's taken and a pretty price he's paid
To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;
But they've pulled the beggar's hat off for the world to see and stare,
And they're haling him to justice for the colour of his hair.
 
Now 'tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet
And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat,
And between his spells of labour in the time he has to spare
He can curse the God that made him for the colour of his hair.

Is there something I should know about people sent to jail for their hair colour, or is this a veiled reference to gay men being sent to prison (Oscar Wilde etc.) --Slashme 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the latter. Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe quoted from this poem in the House of Lords in 2005 in a legal case involving a same-sex couple [1], although they happened to be women in this case. See paragraph 92. --Heron 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it specifically about Wilde, who also had red hair, and his persecution for his sexuality?LessHeard vanU 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a veiled reference to sexual orientation; rather, it is explicit. AEH makes the point that sexual orientation is no more a matter of choice than hair colour, and therefore sexual acts between men are against the law. Whether he is right may be debated, but the current law holds that he is. John Wheater 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is veiled, not explicit. If explicit, it would say in terms what it meant. That is what explicit means. Esedowns (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Housman in film

I'm new to this and don't know how to format for Wikipedia, but wanted to add that in the 1985 movie "Out of Africa", Karen Blixen/Isak Dinesen (Meryl Streep) read the poem To an Athlete Dying Young over the grave of Denys Finch Hatton (Robert Redford).

Add to "Housman in television": Sergeant Hathaway quotes the entirety of Book XL of "A Shropshire Lad" in the second episode ("The Dead of Winter") of Series 4 of Inspector Lewis: "Into my heart on air that kills." It is clearly a lament, as he re-connects after 20 years with a young lady for whom he seemingly has always carried a torch--but who now is engaged to another man.Ehpk5147 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A slight typo in my quote--sorry! It should read "Into my heart AN air that kills." One vowel can change the meaning entirely, n'est-ce pas??Ehpk5147 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

C20th Music

Why does David Downes have a different para to all the great composers listed in the music section? One for music, one for 'other': Either it's C20th music or it's not. It also seems an unbalanced amount of information for someone with no entry for themselves, when compared to the list of names prior. --Rob2000 09:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I am unfamiliar with Mr Downes, is it possible that he is not a composer in the classical style - and some individuals do not like their music tainted by those who work in the beat/popular field.LessHeard vanU 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. The sub-title isn't 20th Century Music. It's 20th Century British music. The section is about the remarkable impact of Housman's poetry on composers of a particular place and time. Arguably, Housman was second only to Shakespeare in this respect. This is not to say there shouldn't also be a discussion of Housman settings from other places and/or times, such as the David Downes piece cited, or Samuel Barber's With rue my heart is laden. If you know such repertoire, and better still can summarise and cite or link to articles on Housman's wider influence, then I'd strongly encourage you to improve an already good article.

We might like to create a seperate page for repertoire lists, and keep this article for discussion of Housman's influence, and the reasons for his popularity with particular groups of composers. Also, it will help if any further comment on this topic is made on the assumption of good faith. Countersubject 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see the point made by Rob2000, as subdivisions of a header they are unbalanced; one paragraph for a group of notable composers, one paragraph for one musician without a Wiki entry (though this in itself is no indication of <lack of> quality, it should be noted!). Perhaps the subheadings should be removed and placed within the text of each paragraph, and then be re-instated when the paragraphs are expanded and other examples given?LessHeard vanU 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also added a couple of other examples, as part of a note on interest in the poetry from composers of other places and times. And I also took the opportunity to create a stub on David Downes! Countersubject 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Great work!LessHeard vanU 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good job editors!--Rob2000 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of Africa

The Meryl Streep character also makes a toast to rose-lipped maidens & lightfoot lads, so there are at least two AE Housman references in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.241.229.183 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

King Edward's School

But which King Edward's School? There are several in the West Midlands alone. This needs disambiguating. 86.132.137.197 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of Chaeronea

Material about his membership of Order of Chaeronea was an error. A.E. Housman was here confused with his gay brother.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieON (talk • contribs)

Where is this Order mentioned in the text? Also, A.E. was (very likely) gay so why his brother and not him? LessHeard vanU 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

JamieON removed the comment about it. It was unsourced regardless. Seing as it is now up for contention, it should not be replaced unless a source can be found. The Jade Knight 10:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are currently no sources referenced which claim that Housman was gay. The Jade Knight 10:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

I have transferred the 'synopsis' of A Shropshire Lad which I originally wrote for this article, from this article to the A Shropshire Lad article, where its suitability or otherwise may be discussed if necessary at the article discussion page there. Eebahgum (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

...(sound of advancing footsteps) "Oh, alright...!" ...(sound of receding footsteps) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual sado-masochistic pornography and rent-boys

This is awful. If we must have it, can we please have some primary reference for these assertions and not just a quote from a BBC Radio programme? If Wikipedia content is to be justified merely by 'I heard it on the radio' I'm afraid it will rapidly become completely worthless. Eebahgum (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that print sources should be preferred to broadcasts, which may be difficult for readers to check. The ultimate source for the rent-boys may be Richard Perceval Graves, A. E. Housman (1979). Graves interpreted an unpublished document in Housman's hand as containing "references to a number of male prostitutes ... together with a note of the price paid on various occasions for their services, and a marginal note in which Alfred refers with some satisfaction to the large number of these homosexual encounters ..." (p. 155). This has been controversial: P. G. Naiditch in a generally negative review in Classical Journal 77 (1982) 361–364 thought that Graves shouldn't have made the suggestion without reproducing the document, and C. O. Brink, English Classical Scholarship (1986) called it "scurrilous fantasy" (p. 151), although it's not clear if he had actually seen the document. On the other hand, Norman Page in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states, "It seems likely that these visits [to France] also provided opportunities for homosexual adventures." I don't have access right now to Page's 1983 biography of Housman, which may discuss the issue. EALacey (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

EALacey. I have several biographies of AEH and may be able to help on this. 'in search of illicit pleasures' (p.12) of Page's 1983 bio refers us to p.155 of Graves book and note 18 on pp.282-3. Page glosses the 'document' as follows: '(it) was given considerable prominence in many of the reviews of his book; not all reviewers made it clear that his interpretation is expressed with some tentativeness. Housman's notes are far from explicit; I myself find it difficult to accept that they include 'a note of the price paid on various occasions' for the services of male prostitutes. They consist of a list of fiteen consecutive days of the week (from one Monday to the Monday a fortnight later); beside each is written a numeral, the only numerals employed being 0,3,9 and 10; beside all those except the ones with a 'zero' notation is a French noun indicating some masculine avocation or attribute - sailor, boxer, dancer, negro. (In one case danseur is queried.) In the margin '10 in 15 days' is written.'

Paul Naiditch, who should know since, to gather from his monographs he has read everything Housman wrote or read, dates the document to May 1932.(Norman Page, A.E.Housman:A Critical Biography, Macmillan, London 1983 pp.222-3). That would make Housman extremely active (or passive) in sexual encounters at age 73, hence one's natural scepticism. In any case, it is hardly pertinent to Housman's biography to go into details that must remain purely speculative, and in any case, playing up only to prurient perving. Obviously he fucked around in France. Do we have to supply on the Georges Simenon page details of the 5000 prostitutes he relieved himself on (5,000 according to his wife, 10,000 according to his own tumescent memory).

One might note that his younger brother Laurence was also homosexual and a member of the Order of Chaeronea, and the suggestion is that AEH also belonged to this order possibly, a suggestion based on hearsay about the diary of George Ives. Unfortunately the diary's names are all coded, and it is not available for consultation, and reposes in the Humanities Research Collection at the University of Texas (Page ibid.p.211)Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful info. Based on what you've written, I'd say the hypothesis that Housman used male prostitutes is too conjecutral to be worth discussing in a brief biography like the one in this article, especially given that it's not of great importance anyway. EALacey (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if that really is the whole strength of the evidence for rent-boys, then it is nothing more than a conjecture, and has no place at all in the main text on Housman's life. This is an article about Housman, not about what one highly imaginative commentator (Graves) thought about a list of words and numbers on a bit of paper. If the evidence were clear, I would support the inclusion of the statement actually within the text - I'm not trying to censor anything. But as it's just a guess, a tentative published suggestion, the right place for the whole statement is in a footnote, I suggest. Eebahgum (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus then. There's only point in mentioning the conjecture if such things played a significant role in AEH's public life. They didn't. Wilde used rent-boys, was found out, and it became a public scandal and led to a scandalous trial, and this forms part of his biography. Royalty screws round, it should not warrant notice unless, as with Mrs. Simpson or Charles or Diana, it became part of the public record. WH Auden used rent-boys, but who cares? Use this criterion, and most wiki lives on public people will have to cram in the usual, utterly banal details about call-girls, adulteries, toy-boys etc. I'd no more mention the fact in a wiki bio than I would the fact that Auden was careless with his snot, and occasionally pissed in the corner of people's apartments, as did Christopher Brennan, or that the English nobility that took over the colleges of Oxford during the great plague left the rooms full of shit. Any one who reads Auden, Housman, Hopkins, Verlaine, Stefan George, Wittgenstein, Turing, etc.etc., for these details should go elsewhere, but not to an encyclopedia. The decisive thing is, such stuff is utterly tedious compared to the excitement of his scholarship, and the elegiac tenderness of his lyrics.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'Great Lives' radio programme was broadcast BBC Radio 4 27th and 30th May 2008. Matthew Parris introduced Inspector Morse author (and classicist) Colin Dexter, who nominated A.E.H. as a 'Great Life', and Oxford academic Robert Douglas-Fairhurst. Eebahgum (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing how the detail of his homosexuality is pertinent to his poetry, which is the most notable aspect of his fame. Has anyone written how his sexuality informed his pessimistic/romantic style and pre-occupation with death and the transience of life (and how he did not consider his poetry as anything of real worth, in regard to his translations of the writers of antiquity). I think we are pretty much losing sight of the notability of Housman given the (pink) fog that was his preference of sexual partner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• The most notable aspect of his fame in general terms (popular) is his poetry. The most notable aspect of his fame in specific terms (academic) lies in his praeternatural capacity to see past dozens of transmission errors and bad emendations to restore readings, especially in Latin, that turn a bad text into a natural and fluent line. Housman's Muse is not of the highest order: he is a very fine minor genre poet. But as an emendator he stands up among the pléiade of the greatest textual critics since the Renaissance. This should be what is showcased (innumerable scholars mention it), then his poetry, and the central experience of his emotional life, his deep and lifelong unrequired love for Moses Jackson, which is what much of his poetry is about. The rest is just the usual barnyard gossip, and anything more than a line on rentboys should be struck out as a violation of WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What? People are still buying his poems, and they are still being referenced a century after their publication - and this is the basis of his notability, rather than being one of the finest translators of Latin of the last couple of hundred years. I see (from the article) that at least one of his "Lifes" is still the basis of the definitive work on the subject, but without review I cannot name who... However (and I admit to being a fan) I can recall many, many lines from A Shropshire Lad. I think you are mistaking plaintive language and uncomplicated rhyming structures for a lack of genius, wherein I (after others) would argue that the ability to confer the sense of pessimism and doomed romanticism (and some beautiful sly humour) in simple word structures is the very mark of such an accolade.

Also, nearly all people coming to this encyclopedia to learn about this subject will be prompted by the poetry - those who are familiar with his work in translating Latin are more likely to be more aware of Housman than the article here provides. The premise for inclusion in WP is notability, and Housmans popularity as a poet if far more notable than his work in academia. Oh, and his sexuality - while it was likely of utmost importance to him and may have effected his Muse - is only a footnote as to how it may have effected his choice of subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a distinction you prefer to ignore. There are two kinds of notability, that should be distinguished.

He was not one of the finest translators of Latin in the past couple of hundred years. He was a precise translator on occasion, but preferred to comment on poems rather than translate them.

I too like Housman's poetry. It is strong poetry in a minor register. Many of our most memorable poets rank thus. He is not a great poet: too limited in scale, his Muse is too narrow.

People come to Wikipedia for many reasons. We are here simply to give a balanced account of the man. Most of his work, and distinction lies in scholarship, his genius if you will. Most bios deal with this. It is a matter of weight. We should reflect his biographers, who mainly dwell on his work as a classicist, and devote at most a fifth of their books to his poetry.

Much of his poetry draws implicitly, in the most cunningly evasive way, on his reading of Greek and Latin literature. Without that allusiveness they can be understood as simple, beautifully crafted lyrics of course, but the deeper side of Housman in there, is refracted through the allusions, and the side engaged with antiquity, is lost, to the reader's loss, unless one notes the influence.

Of course he was a genius, but most critics take his pronounced poetic gift as something he sacrificed on the altar of his scholarship, to the gain of academia, and the loss of poetry-lovers. That was his choice, and we should respect it. Gerald Manley Hopkins is a much stronger and greater poetic genius because he forsook scholarship for poetry, before foresaking poetry for the Church.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some ideas here that, with all respect, I think should be refuted. First, he did not produce translations of works, except only that at one lecture he read out a version of an ode of Horace, "diffugere nives". Otherwise, his "translations" consisted of expounding the meaning of difficult phrases in texts, or ones that had been taken wrongly by others, mispunctuated perhaps, or had been corrupted. Then, there is the idea that he sacrificed poetic genius to scholarship. As said above, his poetic inspiration was narrow, rare and fitful. The article is good on this. Most importantly, there is the eloquently expressed idea that his poetry is full of allusions to the classics, which give it deeper meanings. I call this important because it is discouraging to people without the knowledge of the classics, that is, almost everyone. I believe this is quite wrong. He may have picked up phrases here and there from the classics, but they are quite unimportant poetically: they are just a bit of raw material. When a bloke invites his bird to a bit of the "light fantastic" he is not alluding to Milton, though using his words, and that is what Housman's classical borrowings are like. So don't be put off: you are missing nothing if you don't know that "On Wenlock Edge the wood's in trouble" borrows a couple of words from Horace. Seadowns (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To correct myself, Housman also translated a choric ode from each of the three great Greek tragedians. They were published in 1890. Seadowns (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

'Georgian'

I took the link to Georgian era out, as the link pointed to the era of the first four Georges who were before Victoria. Really the sentence needs to be reworded, since 'Georgian' refers to Georges I to IV. I don't know what the correct adjective is for the time of George V.

--Publunch (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The link would be better made to Georgian Poetry, as that term refers to those published during the reigns of George V and VI who are romantic, sentimental or hedonistic but not modernist. They are still referred to as "Georgian Poets." NRPanikker (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

removal of POV tag

I would like to thank Eclectiology for removing the POV tag. If anyone has an objection to this, please list it here before reverting. Thanks Mrathel (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

This article needs an infobox. P Cezanne (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the infobox I added and the format of the article; neither Housman nor layouts are my forte. Mrathel (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please list genealogical information

In encyclopedias, a person's mother and father should be listed if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.66.19 (talk • contribs)

Please make person articles more standard

This article does not match many other articles in regards to format. Compare this article to the similar poet Alfred Tennyson and you will see huge differences in the article format. Please standardize articles with the rest of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.66.19 (talk • contribs)

Other art Forms

I fear the section on Housman in Other Art Forms is growing to be too cumbersome and is attracting connective trivia. Perhaps if we were to put this into a text form it would discourage the addition of references that do not specifically talk about the article's subject. Mrathel (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Full name in title

Why is A. E. Housman referred to by his full name in the title? He's virtually never known as that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Alfred Edward Housman → A. E. Housman —

He's virtually never known by his full name "Alfred Edward Housman", always by A. E. Housman. Compare H. G. Wells, not Herbert George Wells; or D. H. Lawrence, not David Herbert Lawrence. Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support; even his Manilius uses Recensvit et enarravit A.E. Hovsman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fully support; very standard example of literary initials. City of Destruction 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fully support – although as long as there's a redirect it's not really crucial. AdeMiami (talk)

Disagree with the latter comment. That is a misconception of what redirects are for. It's not a case of "the route doesn't matter as long as they get to the right article in the end". In this case, they type the correct name "A. E. Housman", and they end up in the wrong place; the wrong place being an article with a name that nobody ever uses. We may as well call this article "Fred Smith" for all the good that does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - agree with others that AE is the more common name. Corvus coronoides _talk 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is very true. Let's move it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, he is presently published as A.E. Housman. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First paragraph

As it stood:

Lyrical and almost epigrammatic in form, the poems' wistful evocation of doomed youth in the English countryside...

But it isn't the "wistful evocation" that is "lyrical and almost epigrammatic in form." MagistraMundi (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A.E. Housman's tribute to RLS

According to this webpage (see references at the bottom of the page) around 1929 poet A.E. Housman wrote a tribute poem to RLS inspired by his gravestone Requiem. While I do not have access to the texts referenced it seems very likely that the variance in the lines from the two poems could be the source of the many misquotes. In either case I think it would be prudent to include this information in both WP articles since readers often want to know the source of a famous quotation and in this case the answer is two-fold. If anyone has access to the referenced book and letters please verify this information. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoehorned reference?

...many early 20th-century English composers (beginning with Arthur Somervell)...

Is it necessary to mention Arthur Somervell in the lede? It's jarring, because it reads as tho' a fan of Arthur Somervell has decided to get his name into prominence. But he isn't important in A.E. Housman's story and isn't particularly famous as an English composer. I don't think he should be mentioned so early. I'll remove the ref if there are no objections. MagistraMundi (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A. E. Housman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105225952/http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/engclass.htm to http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/engclass.htm
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25336-2646321,00.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20091012094540/http://www.tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25336-2646321,00.html on http://www.tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25336-2646321,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing Propertius

It is a cliché among people who write about Housman, repeated over and over again, to wonder at his having abandoned the great poet Propertius for the minor Manilius. Most of those who say this don't understand what the editor of a classical text is aiming at. However, the fact is that he did edit Propertius, but, amazingly, his edition was rejected for publication by both the OUP and Macmillan. After his death it was destroyed on his instructions. I think it would improve the article to add this important piece of information. If agreed I shall try to do so. Seadowns (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article that AEH published articles on Propetrius (among several others). Making a big thing of a work he directed to be burned strikes me as WP:UNDUE. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointed at this, because it is a chance to dispel a widely-held misconception about him. I see you have worked on this article before, but before I say more may I ask how much you are steeped in him and whether you have read his classical works? Seadowns (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Even more important here is to be steeped in Wikipedia's editing guidelines. AEH's interaction with Propertius is mentioned twice in the article. Possibly the failed edition might merit a very short footnote, supported by reliable references, but hardly more. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wot, no answer?

I'll return --no time at the present. Seadowns (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you have to keep to guidelines, but those guidelines perhaps allow a little more freedom than you seem to suggest. It would help me if you would quote them. In this article, for example, they seem to allow speculations and inventions of some authors on the reasons for Housman's failure in Greats to be quoted as facts. I have looked up the articles on various great scholars for comparison, and found quite a lot of freedom. To give but one example, the article on Porson, which is presumably within an allowable interpretation of the guidelines, devotes four lines to explaining why he refused to issue a work by Thomas Stanley, a very minor happening indeed.

I don't want to make a big thing, as you put it, over the Propertius edition, but there is already a big thing there, to wit a distorted view of Housman. It can be seen in minutes if you look at the Poetry Foundation article on him, which is not at all bad, and still more so if you search Frank Kermode's article called "Nothing for Ever and Ever". The source of much of the trouble may have been Edmund Wilson, as Kermode shows. It really would be good to do something to dispel this.

Incidentally, the reason why he ordered his work to be destroyed would have been that he trusted nobody to see it through the press, being fanatically insistent on absolute accuracy down to the smallest detail. He trusted his brother Laurence to issue a volume of poems from his surviving mss., but the Propertius would have been an entirely different proposition. Seadowns (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

For guidelines, take a look at the whole of WP:NPOV, which is a good statement of what an encyclopaedia is for. Your arguments above are an example of WP:OSE, which is the bain of Wikipedia. Your consistently erratic paragraphing and inability to master stylistic rules, which suggest you don't even bother to press the Show preview button below before saving, give a poor impression of your thoroughness in other spheres too.

It might be a good idea for you to make a preliminary test run in your Sandbox, citing WP:reliable sources. Then post it here on Talk so that I and other editors can judge whether emphasis is undue or not and a good case is made. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above. I always like to have my intellectual and personal deficiencies pointed out, so that I can struggle to correct them. It is a bit of a bane to me if I suspect that ignorance or good manners may be holding my critics back. I shall try to draft something, and I shall also try to write something for the Housman Journal, which may also be a good forum.

Seadowns (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not good at controlling the laptop, and can't create a sandbox. However, I now suggest that the edition should be mentioned in the biography passage, since he produced it in the important part of his life when he was establishing himself as a scholar. I suggest that after "Sophocles" the following, or something like it, should be inserted: "He also completed an edition of Propertius, but it was rejected by both the OUP and Macmillan late in 1885, and was destroyed after his death." The source for this is Dr Christopher Stray, p. 61 of the Housman Society Journal for 2019.

Given the very early date of the edition I can now understand why it was turned down. The OUP entrusted the task to Phillimore in 1897, and it came out in 1901. He had a more conservative approach, saying in his preface that the scribes were fallible men, but not beasts.

On a separate matter, I suggest that the remark about his atheism should be transferred to where it says his poetry lacks religious consolation. His remark about the Coverdale Bible was only a wind-up for his colleagues, and hardly seems worth mentioning.

I don't know why my paragraphs come out the way they do, or how to stop it happening. Seadowns (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable suggestion. I have deleted the earliest mention of Propertius in the article in preparation. Move mention of AEH's atheism where you like, but leave mention of the Coverdale Bible. It's sourced, I believe, and adds a light touch.

The trouble with your format was that you were insetting text with a blank at the start of new paras. Instead, you need to repeat the colons at the start of each new para, since they control insetting. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Pupils?

Pupils should be distinguished from students who merely attended his lectures. Pupils go to tutorials and have their work scrutinised by their tutor. I don't know whether he had pupils at London, but would guess not, since I have never heard of anyone laying claim to have been one. As a professor he would not have had pupils at Cambridge, so the reference to Enoch Powell having been one is incorrect, though Powell attended his lectures and put great value on them. Women at Cambridge had been taking the Classical Tripos since the 1870s, and would have attended his lectures. Indeed, there is a famous story about how he ridiculed a woman at one of his lectures, which I have heard first-hand from someone who was there. I propose to make the slight alterations required. Seadowns (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So far as I know Cambridge students are referred to as students, not as pupils (though in the Latin statutes they may be described as in statu pupillari). However, there's an article in the Housman Soc. newsletter which asserts that Powell and Housman did not meet personally. But later they did correspond. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Powell sent Housman a suggestion for Virgil. Housman replied that everything Powell had said was all right, but did not quite say he had found what Virgil must have written. Seadowns (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Work in Patent Office

It would be useful to have some detail about his work in the Patent Office. After all, many people might think he would have been of more use to the world in general there than in his later academic life. Seadowns (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at A. S. F. Gow's A. E. Housman: A Sketch and gain the impression that the detail of his official duties are not such as to warrant comment. AEH seems to have put far more energy into the private scholarship for which his work left him enough time. No more than a single sentence would be justified, surely? Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I shouldn't have mentioned this. Seadowns (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Since the end of March Galileeblack has been making unsourced changes to what was, admittedly, an insufficient Lead section and has refused to discuss the matter on his Talk page. Now it is rewritten according to editorial guidelines he has persisted in reverting changes without providing an edit summary. IMO this verges on WP:EDITWARRING. Contentious issues should be discussed here first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Added signature to Wikimedia Commons

Hello everyone just finished uploading Housman's signature to wikimedia commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_A._E._Housman.svg

As far as I know signatures cannot be copyrighted and as the book was published in 1896 with his signature in it, I uploaded it. Let me know if there are any issues.

I would add it to his page but I am unfamiliar with the formatting rules on wikipedia past simple edits.

Thank you Intomyheartanairthatkills (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Intomyheartanairthatkills:  Done. In this case, you would add |signature = Signature_of_A._E._Housman.svg to the infobox at the top of the article. See Help:Files for more general instructions on adding files. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Placing the signature at the foot of the infobox is the most sensitive place to put it. I was amused to find it was regular practice to have such signatures in early Victorian encyclopaedias, so there are historical precedents! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is A.E.Housman

Giải thích A.E Housman là ai 171.252.155.255 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

English translation of Gow's Latin inscription in Trinity chapel

I have made a few small changes to the English translation of the Gow's Latin memorial inscription in the chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge. No citation was provided for the translation used in the article, but it was obviously copied and pasted from the web site of Trinity chapel, which reproduces (without acknowledgment) the translation of James Clackson, Inscriptions from the Chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1990). Clackson's translation is generally quite good, but inaccurate in a few details. I have made the following changes:

• The word cavillatio in Latin denotes mockery, jeering, or railing. Although among friends light-hearted mockery can be treated as a joke, there is nothing in the word that necessarily implies wittiness, and Housman's blistering criticism of the incompetence of other scholars was not light-hearted. I have therefore translated tam acri cavillatione as "with such sharp mockery." (Clackson's translation treats these as two adverbs, but acri is an adjective modifying cavillatione.)

• The phrase horum studiorum paene reformator means "a virtual second founder of these studies", not "of textual studies".

• The phrase tenui carminum fasciculo does not mean "slim books of verse": fasciculo, the word here translated as books, is singular, not plural; and carminum, the word here translated as verse, is plural, not singular. The word fasciculus literally denotes not a book but a small bundle or sheaf (it's the diminutive form of fascis, a term for a bundle of sticks). The image that Gow was invoking was not a book but a thin sheaf of papers tied with a string. I have translated the phrase as "a slender sheaf of verses."

• The phrase in Helicone nostro means "on our Helicon," not "on the British Helicon." (Yes, "our" here by implication must mean the Helicon of British poets, but that's not what the Latin text says.)

• The next-to-last sentence as a whole says, literally, "The same man, as a poet, claimed a secure seat for himself on our Helicon by means of a slender sheaf of poems". The subject of the verb vindicavit is poeta, not fasciculo carminum; in the Latin text, it is the poet, not his poetry, who claimed the seat. Clackson's translation alters the syntax to make the poetry the subject of the verb, but in doing so subtly changes the sense. I have rearranged it to restore the literal meaning of the Latin.

I expect these corrections will prompt objections and cries of OR, but the only entirely reliable source here is the Latin text of Gow's tribute, and all I have done is make the actual meaning of the Latin text accessible to readers who cannot read the Latin for themselves. (As a fringe benefit, my changes also eliminate the copyvio caused by the verbatim copying of Clackson's translation without acknowledgment.) Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)