Talk:Alfred, Lord Tennyson/Archive 2

Popular poet?
Is Tennyson really "one of the most popular poets in the English language"? Rwood128 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably in the top ten. Powers T 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I still have my doubts and a web search suggests that I may be right (see Poetry.org for example). Hard evidence is needed in the article to support this claim. Rwood128 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly what would be more sustainable would be "one of the most popular English poets" or British, I suppose. Naturenet | Talk 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is better, even though The Daily Mail is not exactly a scholarly source. Can you do the editing? And it should be British because of the ambiguity of the word English.   Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall give it a go. And I suppose one might say the Daily Mail is the very epitome of what is 'popular', even in this context. Naturenet | Talk 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see the improvement. It now strikes me that what is really missing is a proper discussion of Tennyson's reputation. Rwood128 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So long as it doesn't form WP:OR original research, go ahead and write one! Naturenet | Talk 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There must be someone amongst all the 100+ watchers for this page who is a Tennyson expert, surely? Otherwise I may try and cobble something together from citable sources. Rwood128 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point of WP:OR. You don't need to be an expert, you just need to be a careful researcher. What's more, everyone will check your work and there's no shame in making a mistake in good faith. Please, go ahead. Naturenet | Talk 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Tennyson didn't do so well on a BBC vote. [] Rwood128 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Albion53's Edits
Albion53 recently edited out the entire section on Tennyson's relationship with Arthur Hallam. It seems to me that, though this section might make some people uncomfortable (as hard as that might be to believe in this day and age), it's definitely justified to have it here. Before it's deleted again, I'd hope to see some discussion here so that a consensus can be reached. Eceresa (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope this does not give the impression that I am homophobic/uncomfortable with the concept as Tennyson being gay as this is far from the case. (I for one do have several gay and bisexual friends.) The real issue that I have is this tendency for unfounded/unsubstantiated speculation (e.g., "calculating" the IQs of various famous scientists, poets, etc. despite the fact that it is quite hopelessly impossible to do such a thing in a manner that would be accepted scientifically without having them sit down to a Stanford-Binet in the old days or a WAIS), or skewing available data in support of a personal theory which is far from the dominant view within the field.


 * With regards to the present topic, you might want to refer to this reference . Several particular issues I have with the current text include the psychobabble and speculative nature of the following: "Tennyson's love for Hallam, likely homoerotic, was also unselfconscious, free from remorse or guilt or a sense of the illicit. The idea of homosexuality denoting a psychological identity did not yet exist, and since the men were most likely chaste[10], they had nothing to reproach themselves for, regarding the sin of sodomy." (R. B. Martin, Tennyson: The Unquiet Heart, Oxford, 1980.) Also, homosexuality has never been treated as a "psychological identity," unless the author means as a psychopathological construct, in which case this was only truly the case in several of the DSMs until DSM-IV, when it was removed. The whole paragraph sounds rather nonsensical. Again I'd refer to  for a more grounded approach that is also free from erroneous/non-existent psychological conceptualizations.


 * I do agree Tennyson and Hallam shared a very rare and close love - he does state repeatedly in In Memoriam that he was closer with Hallam than with his brothers - but I think we would need some strong evidence that it was homoerotic for us to make that assertion. Otherwise it would seem to be a knock against platonic love to say that two guys cannot love each other so strongly without it being homoerotic, or that romantic love is stronger than platonic love, which unfortunately is what the inclusion of the following would imply: "To the end of his days, and literally on his deathbed, Tennyson would proclaim that the greatest love of his life, the love that 'surpassed the love of women', was Hallam.[11]" Given the context in which he is repeatedly making these claims (the late 1800's where the physical expression of homosexuality was treated quite seriously - see Oscar Wilde and Tchaikovsky for examples), to make such statements would be quite a risk, unless both Tennyson and others around him did not believe it suggested his friendship with Hallam was homoerotic, regardless of whether it was or not.--Albion53 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, it might be a good idea to confess my relative ignorance. I've read quite a few of Tennyson's poems, but haven't made a study of his life, and my psychology experience is limited to one course during my undergraduate degree.  I quite agree with you as to the pointlessness of calculating IQ's without a test, but I don't see how that transfers to this case, where there seems to be a great deal of evidence that there was more than close friendship between these two men.  Quite apart from the poem, there's the fact that their correspondence was such that it was felt it needed to be burned after they died.  It's hard to read it any other way than homosexual (and that they were in romantic, rather than platonic, love was certainly a widely held theory when I was studying English lit).


 * As for the psychological stuff, I can't speak as well to that. Certainly the paragraph you cite as nonsensical makes perfect sense to me.  If there's a way of stating that they may not have considered themselves gay because the conception of a gay identity didn't exist then as it does now (and certainly, the line was at the very least a bit blurrier), by all means rephrase it.  Your comment that it doesn't exist in DSM-IV (though it was removed earlier, if the Wikipedia entry is to be believed) seems to miss the point, as it can be a basic part of a person's conception of his or her identity without being a disorder, or so it seems to a layman.  In any case, I think it's obvious that this section needs to stay.  It's an important part of his life, even if the phrasing could be changed to be more psychologically accurate. Eceresa (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try not to be as lengthy as the two previous editors. I don't know enough about psychology so I won't comment on that part of this discussion, but based on my knowledge and reading the two above comments, I have to side with Albion 53 on this one to a degree. I think that we can never know for certain either way especially with Tennyson's reputation as an intensely private man, but unfortunately there is simply not enough evidence uncovered to move the possibility of Tennyson having a homoerotic interest in Hallam outside the realm of "speculation" as Albion puts it. I do not recall this was a widely held theory or if it was, then not in my time. I do remember an old college friend initially writing her thesis arguing for a romantic interest between Tennyson and Hallam. But she instead arrived at the unexpected conclusion that this was a very unlikely possibility based on available evidence from letters etc.


 * Speaking of the letters, there are a myriad of plausible interpretations for the burning of letters. One reasonable possibility is that Hallam's father and Tennyson's son feared that their close relationship as expressed in the letters may be misinterpreted as being romantic. It wouldn't be the first time in history letters were burned out of fear they would be erroneously interpreted by others. What would add weight to the romantic theory is if there were friends or close acquaintances who expressed suspicions of a romantic relationship, yet nothing of the kind exists. There was ample suspicion among acquaintances that Tennyson indulged in opium, based partly on his appearance and his brother's addiction, but no suspicion of romantic interest in Hallam, despite the closeness of their relationship being known. What could also support this theory is if there is evidence of romantic interest on Tennyson or Hallam's part with other men, but again there is no evidence of this that I know of. On the other hand we do have documentation of Tennyson's love and infatuations with various women. I'm open to changing my mind if someone were to present a strong case but in the absence of tangible evidence of a romantic interest in Hallam, I think we can not make that claim at present even as a viable theory.76.117.2.182 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)--


 * I took a look at the link provided above by Abion and found a relevant excerpt from a letter by Hallam regarding his love for his fiance, Tennyson's sister Emily: "I love her madly: I feel as though I had never known love until now . . . . I feel above consequence, freed from destiny, at home with happiness." The bolding is by me. This was written after Hallam and Tennyson had already become close and stands in strong opposition to the romance theory.

Here I said I'd keep things short and I exceeded you both.76.117.2.182 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know.. There doesn't look like much support for the romantic love theory, and the argument looks much stronger the other way around. That part where from the letter about Tennyson's sister looks very convincing if Tennyson and Hallam were already established their friendship then. Just my two cents.155.247.166.29 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What's all this nonsense about Tennyson and AHH? That's ridiculous speculation. It was common, in the days of writing letters, to burn them, whether before or after the sender died. And AHH was going to marry Tennyson's sister. All this nonsense is clearly the result of an agenda on somebody's part and I'm removing this idiocy, whether there's some idiot professor's book about it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a frequent contributer to wikepedia but I thought I'd add to this interesting discussion. History has blessed us with many great talented gay artists who have left us with many wonderful and priceless creations, ranging from the Ancient Greeks to some of our very contemporaries in literature, music, visual arts and architecture. Unfortunately for us Tennyson is simply not one of them. It would have made his rather dull life - he's no Rimbaud, that's for sure - much more interesting and draw a wider readership but to state something that is not the case for this purpose, even if driven by good intentions, would be treating the poet ill. Unfortunately I'll have to place my vote for the removal of the section on Hallam EmilyWien (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tenny's as gay as the bright is day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheColumbineAsskicre (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments on the relationship (which is admittedly conjecture, but with some definite support) are appropriately cited. The section IS one-sided, though. I'd encourage those who have a problem with the theory to add properly cited information that refutes it. While, as I said before, I'm a lot more interested in his poetry than his life, it's hard for me to see a reason for removing this discussion (other than homophobia, of course). This isn't a discussion that can be definitively ended because the evidence has been destroyed (though that itself is suggestive), so I can see evening it out with evidence that suggests a wholly platonic friendship, but discussion of the relationship should stay. Eceresa (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may provide my input, my interest in Tennyson's poetry has led me to read a copious amount of Tennyson's letters and biographies. I had wondered myself if there was anything to his relationship with Hallam that was beyond just friendship. I have not come across anything to support this theory and in fact there were more reasons and not conjecture against my original theory. In answer to the question of why the letters of Hallam and Tennyson were burned, first, letter writing during that time period was much more common than now, and carried a much different meaning. It was a very different, more private world, certainly compared to today's internet culture where we have everyday people made into celebrities for posting their most private thoughts in blogs. Hallam's father did not want his son's letters published, despite the interest among friends in doing so. Henry Hallam gave as the reason "I felt that the voice of his inmost heart was not for the careless ear of the public" which indicated he preferred to have his late son's privacy respected. I should also mention this decision was made regarding Hallam's letters in general, not just those involving Tennyson. Tennyson's own son burned not just his father's communications with Hallam but also those written to Emily Sellwood prior to their marriage. When all this is considered it really is a stretch to jump to the conclusion that the letters of Tennyson and Hallam were burned to conceal a romantic attachment. A philosophy course in reasoning and logic would not be required to caution oneself against this position given the full context.Kristacinthia (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by (talk) and think it important to retain the section as it stands. I don't think the burning of letters in itself is taken to prove that a homosexual relationship between Hallam and Tennyson was covered up - but rather illustrates that scholars and biographers have been slow in exploring the issue of the relationship because of the ready access that the letters would (or would not) have given. Whether or not the relationship was a homoerotic one I think the key point to bear in mind the point of the text is that several scholars and biographers in modern times have put this forward as a tenable theory (hence it's inclusion). I don't think we have to prove either way beyond reasonable doubt - nor could we. I must confess though to finding it odd that to some extent Tennyson's reference to Hallam's sister Emily: "I love her madly: I feel as though I had never known love until now" is taken on face value, whereas the issue of same-sex attraction warrants significant discussion. We need to be careful about adopting a default position as the 'norm'. Pesonal relationships will always be to some extent a 'grey area'- because they are by their nature private and interior.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You proposed that we reach consensus yet this is not how consensus works. You do not ask for opinions and then simply state in the end that we should hold to your opinion when the general view differs from yours. Viewing your past [|edits where a consensus was called for], it is clear you know how this should really work. Therefore your motives and methods are highly questionable. The arguments for removing this section in is considerably stronger and more compelling than the ones you have offered for retaining it. Therefore the consensus is clearly for its removal. --Eru9 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Missed this the first time, and it's unlikely you'll read it now, but I'm not the one whose motives or methods were questionable here. I stated my opinion but respected the consensus.  You're the one who had to stoop to personal attack. Eceresa (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Viewing your past" - what do you mean by this? Are you making a personal attack on me? If you are then might I suggest that as a minimum you make sure the weblink worth so I can at least work out what you're talking about. Or perhaps you're trying to respong to another contributor - it's not very clear? In any case I personally don't agree that the arguments for removing this section are particularly compelling nor that there is consensus for removal. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back after an extended absence. Being qualified to speak on this topic as the focus of my work is Victorian literature, I might as well add some new material to this discussion while I'm here. The paragraphs under discussion present a rather fringe theory not widely accepted or much entertained by scholars. There is evidence suggesting that Tennyson's relationship with Hallam was not romantic in nature, and evidence suggesting that the romantic interest in both cases were directed towards members of the opposite sex.

Here's just one example. After applying in vain to Tennyson’s wealthier relatives for help with the dowry that would have allowed him to marry Emily, Hallam wrote in August 1833:

Poignant is the misery I often feel-or why say I, 'often'? it is always at my heart, smothered sometimes by force, yet there still, & withering all that other-wise might be pleasant-the misery of wearing a divided being, of being forced to live & smile in one place, while all my hope, desire, affection & true life are inseparable from another. Oh never, never think for a moment when I write gaily, & talk of enjoyments, & amusements, that my heart is or can be in them. Sometimes I am reckless; sometimes I try to assume philosophy; but the intervals are rare & short in which I obtain oblivion myself. To have known you, Emily; to love & be beloved by you is to be either most happy or most wretched- There can be no cold medium. God have mercy upon us.

What is consistent with this and also very telling is the following. In October 1833, shortly after Arthur Hallam’s death, his father, Henry Hallam, wrote to Tennyson:

I beg you to give my kindest regards to your mother, but especially to assure your poor sister Emily of my heart-felt & lasting affection. All that remains to me now is to cherish his memory, & to love those whom he loved. She above all is ever a sacred object of my thoughts. God knows how much we have felt for her & for you.

This letter implies that Hallam's father believed his son treasured Emily most. This hardly sounds like the letter of a father who burned his son's letters for fear of a homoerotic relationship with Tennyson.

Tennyson's guarded sense of privacy was widely known both in his times and ours. He spoke forcefully about the ravening curiosity of scholars. Great men, he said angrily, have their private lives ripped open like a pig. He would, he said, as soon kill a pig as write a letter, and he wanted to build an altar to the Englishwoman who, upon reading a biography, burned the letters she had from famous men. He wrote a poem expressing his envy of Shakespeare because people pried less into the lives of famous men during earlier times.

You may also want to look at this [].THE LETTERS OF ALFRED LORD TENNYSON Volume I. 1821-1850.Edited by Cecil Y. Lang and Edgar F. Shannon Jr. 366 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Here are a few excerpts: The next year Tennyson wrote to Edward Moxon, his publisher, that ''an Edinburgh paper mentions that I have a poem in the press. Confound the publicities and gabblements of the 19th century!'

A man not so much shy of attention as peevish about privacy, he hated being talked about, and when he had to talk about himself he was sometimes disingenuous.

Tennyson wrote few letters in his life; he disliked explaining himself. (Can one think of another famous poet in modern times who never wrote a single essay?) And after his death his son Hallam and his widow, Lady Emily, destroyed most of the correspondence as well as some of his personal papers.

The club's [Apostles] minutes indicate he skipped at least one meeting when he was scheduled to speak. Later one of his poems won the university's top prize, and he wrote to a friend asking him to read it for him at the award ceremony. Hallam said Tennyson was too shy.

And he was the man who could write moving letters to Emily Sellwood during an engagement that lasted 14 years. To her alone he wrote about writing: I require quiet, and myself to myself, more than any man when I write. And In letters, words too often prove a bar of hindrance instead of a bond of union.

And in response to Contaldo80, sorry I wasn't clear before. My previous comment wasn't addressed to you. When I was discussing past edits like this [] or this [] I was referring to the person who raised this current discussion in the first place, Eceresa. In any case it doesn't matter what I or you personally think as long as we have consensus. And there's clearly a consensus to have the paragraphs under discussion removed since there are 7 (Albion53, 76.117.2.182, 155.247.166.29, 138.163.0.41, EmilyWien, Kristacinthia, and Eru9/me) and only 2 against (Eceresa and Contaldo80). I am not counting the user whose name is an offensive pun on the Columbine Massacre and who is probably a non-contributor. Please do not reinsert the paragraphs unless there is a clear change in consensus following a proper discussion. --Rhu10 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I agree. Reading the text I can see that it doesn't flow particularly well and is clearly partisan in parts. I'd be grateful for thoughts though about how we can still retain a bit about Hallam (drawing upon growing academic interest in the nature of their relationship) in the article more generally, without over-doing it all. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Now added a short couple of sentences embodied into the main text. There's a fair bit of interest on the relationship amongst academics - although nothing can be explicitly proved. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo and apologies for the late response. I think the new sentences are much better than the old. I appreciate your efforts, but in all honesty, there's really not the growing interest in, or discussion of, his sexuality as you might believe. This is likely something that would be clear with greater familiarity with the field. Among scholars of English lit, there certainly is some smattering of sexuality in an article here or there, but these are relatively few and far between. In fact it appears that most of the discourse on this subject currently occurs outside of English lit rather than in it. Given the composition of the scholars in this area, this cannot be explained by prudishness. Rather, people outside the field are often speaking from a position of less familiarity with the subject at hand and so are more likely to reach a less informed conclusion. I will make some slight modifications to the sentences which I hope you will find acceptable.--Rhu10 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please by all means make your suggested amendments. I understand the points you are making and agree at looking again at the text. Although I would caution at approaching this purely from the english lit angle. While fundamental to discussion on Tennyson, academics of english lit will inevitably focus on the language of Tennyson's works, form and structure. What we also need to have alongside this is an acknowledgement of the socio-historical context within which Tennyson sits, as well as emerging academic research fields such as 'gay history'. Although interest within english lit on the relationship with Hallam may or may not be limited (and I'm happy to accept your better knowledge on this); it is nonetheless undeniable that interest has grown within in other academic fields. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that 'academics of english lit will inevitably focus on the language of Tennyson's works, form and structure' to the detriment of the sociohistorical context shows a gross misunderstanding of the discipline of english literature. The reason that there have not been many articles on sexuality - especially not in the vein of 'gay history' - is that to suggest that a historical figure from this period is homosexual or bisexual is fallacious (see, for example, the constructionist theories of Foucault).31.51.14.151 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

brother deemed dead?
from the article, "Another of Tennyson's brothers, Edward Tennyson, was institutionalised at a private asylum, where he was deemed dead." ?! 68.174.97.122 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit it's a fascinating assertion. "Brother deemed dead" would make a great first line for a comic novel. But as whoever wrote it declines to tell the rest of the story, I'm inclined to delete. I can't find any indication that Edward died in the asylum, only that he was confined there at some point. Any, I've eliminated the poetic but not very encyclopedic reference to his being deemed dead. pagnol (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotations
Where are the two longish quotations in the Early life section taken from? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Garden at Somersby Rectory.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Garden at Somersby Rectory.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 13, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-06-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Tennyson is said here to be the 9th most frequently quoted writer in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, however if you are to look up Alexander Pope, you will find that Pope is named as the third most frequently quoted "behind Shakespeare and Tennyson".

So which is it? Is Tennyson the sencond or the third most frequently quoted?

Run4itjcl (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another inconsistency is the death of his son - In the picture it says Lionel only lived until 1886,  but in the article it says that "Hallam died suddenly". The picture however says Hallam lived until 1928, long after Tennyson had passed. Looks like there is a mix up, but I don't know the facts to correct it. Metaldev (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External link
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.
 * A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.
 * Hbackman 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I work for Special Collections and Archives, Cardiff University - we hold a large collection of Tennyson's works (c. 500). I'd like to add an external link to our resource page for this collection in order to help researchers locate this material, but am aware this may be perceived as a conflict of interest due to my employment. If someone can add the external link below, or give me the ok to add it, that would be great. Thanks! Darkivist (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Tennyson collection, Special Collections and Archives, Cardiff University]


 * Added, as no objections. Darkivist (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)