Talk:Stefan George

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Talk

Hofmannstal - he was already an established figure in Vienna before meeting George, and had a fairly equivocal relationship with him (which is well documented). Some qualification required. Charles Matthews 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree, and I think his relationship pre-dated the Georgekreis proper. Anyway, I added some material, and brought the Kreis into the overly short bio section, as it's perhaps the most remembered thing about him. I was surprised that the article made no mention of his homosexuality whatsoever - so I put in a mention in the context of his worship of Maximin. Everything I did can be supported by the Norton book already cited.

KD Tries Again 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] The Old Cause

The Wikipedia Gay Lobby must be delighted with George. It was even possible to link to an article in the External Links section. George's unnatural inclinations have become a major theme of the Wikipedia article. I'm sure all will agree that this topic is of major importance.Lestrade 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The old cause being to provide information, it's not possible to omit the theme. It would be like having an article on Langston Hughes which doesn't mention he's black.KD Tries Again 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)KD

We are fortunate to have had so many reliable eyewitnesses to George's most private behavior. Also, George's innermost thoughts and desires are so well known by so many people that they can be publicly stated with certainty in the article. This, indeed, is important information, not mere subjective opinion.

Anyone could look at Langston Hughes and see the color of his skin. Likewise, I'm sure that many people were observers of the activity that occurred in George's bedroom. Also, I'm sure that George made many public statements, in front of many audiences, in which he described his own sexual behavior. Otherwise, how could we be so sure?

Of course, the direction of George's carnal preferences are perfectly obvious to like–minded individuals. They are clearly evident in his writings, but only as a dark, secret code that can be easily read by those who know how to decode the hidden references.Lestrade 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

George's personal writings and correspondence, and the accounts of his many close friends, are a matter of record. See Norton's book. If you have a source which suggests that the consensus view of George's sexuality is wrong, it would be interesting to hear about it.KD Tries Again 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)KD
It is the responsibility of whoever makes a positive statement to provide proof. Proof of any unnatural behavior by George can only be obtained by George's own explicit statements or by the statements of witnesses. In George's personal writings and correspondence, and in the accounts of his many close friends, were there any statements regarding homosexual behavior?Lestrade 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
With respect, I do believe you're quite wrong as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Editors have the responsibility not to establish the truth of claims, but to provide sources, the more authoritative the better. I haven't seen a modern work on George which fails to discuss his homosexuality, and given its plain relevance to his work as a poet, it would be remiss to omit it here.KD Tries Again 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)KD
What if the allegations are mere fabrications and fictions? Also, can you provide one quotation that shows the plain relevance of George's sexual behavior to his poetic work?Lestrade 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Again, with respect, there's no need. Wikipedia editors are not expected to conduct original research aimed at verifying conclusions drawn by scholars in the published literature. If you have any authorities which argue that George was not homosexual, or that his sexuality was irrelevant to his poetry, I'd encourage you to cite them in the article for balance. As I said, I'm unaware of any, and I think I know the (limited) English critical literature on George pretty well - the critical life by Norton and the two companions to the poetry by Norton and Rieckmann. If you've access to those, you can look up the subject in an instant. Perhaps there's something in German, although I honestly doubt it: in fact, the German Wikipedia article notes that homosexual and pederastic tendencies are attributed to George and his circle, and that seems a thoroughly sourced article. Good luck on finding something.KD Tries Again 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)KD

I am reading George's poetry in the hopes of seeing the plain relevance of his alleged sexuality to his poems. This plain relevance must be clearly evident because so much emphasis is given to his alleged sexuality in the Wikipedia article. It always amazes me how homosexuality totally consumes the lives of so many people and becomes the most important part of their lives. Their other characteristics seem to become inconsequential. George appears as a depraved, maniacal pederast whose one aim is to have sex with those of his own gender. Isn't this obvious from his poetry?Lestrade 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I hope you're enjoying it, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you're looking in the wrong place. According to Wikipedia Content criteria, what matters is not whether information in secondary sources is true, but whether its presence in the sources is verifiable. Going back to the primary sources to check is Original Research. I pulled Norton's bio off the shelf last night - it has a healthy index entry about homosexuality, and you can read some of the private correspondence of one of George's lovers. That's all that matters. Unless you have some conflicting sources, I assume we're done.KD Tries Again 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)KD
You've convinced me. Who could argue against the "healthy" index in Norton's biography? And as far as someone's private correspondence is concerned, that definitely seals it! But, then again, my October 1953 issue of Pravda asserts that Stalin was a hero and a savior of mankind. I now accept that George did not develop psychosexually beyond the phase of adolescent homoeroticism. But it would have been helpful to have seen a quote or two from all of those sources. Or maybe a line from his poetry.Lestrade 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Neither of us needs to be convinced in the slightest. All that matters is that the scholars are convinced. If the sole source on Stalin was a Pravda article, you can be sure that's what Wiki would cite. But this isn't the discussion page for fundamental Wiki policy. This seems a lot of fuss over one brief reference to his sexuality and a link. Are you really suggesting the theme needs to be enlarged? I could certainly add references to Keilson-Lauritz's work - she has written extensively on George's homo-eroticism. What we can't do, of course, is post our own interpretations of George's poems. KD Tries Again 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)KD

The Wikipedia article contains the following assertion:"George's homosexuality is reflected in the love poetry he devoted to a gifted adolescent of his acquaintance named Maximilian Kronberger… ." Is this a matter of faith or knowledge? Are we to accept this on someone's authority? Is there no difference between friendship and homosexual "love?" Is there no difference between fatherly affection and homosexual "love?" Whose writings support this? Where in those writings is this claimed? Is this merely someone's personal opinion? Is the poetry explicit or is it a matter of subjective interpretation?Lestrade 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade72.73.215.205 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

"Two works, Algabal (1892) and Maximin (1906), especially embody a gay sensibility."[1]. "What proved to be George's most passionate, most ill-fated and poetically most fruitful love affair began in 1902, when he approached a boy in a street of Munich: Max Kronberger, a 14-year-old grammar-school student...What followed was a poetical glorification which was sometimes compared to the literary monument erected by Dante for Beatrice..."[2]. " On both a personal and a poetic level, George’s homoeroticism is ever apparent...This analysis of the interdependence of George’s homoeroticism and aesthetics would not be complete, of course, without reference to the contradictory nature of George’s expression of the matter itself. While embracing and expressing homoeroticism on many different levels, from the religious cult of Maximin to the sensual language of his poems, George at the same time can be seen to veil these references in layer upon layer of artistic hermeticism and political elitism."[3]. "Sexual orientation: Gay."[4]. "(T)he homoerotic lyrics to “Maximin”" (Perloff, M., "German by the Grace of Goethe", Common Knowledge 2003 9(3):363-393). "Stefan was a gay poet born in Büdeshem, Bingen, into a family of wealthy wine merchants..."[5]. See also Marita Keilson-Lauritz's paper "Ubergeschlechtliche Liebe: Stefan George's Concept of Love" (Rieckmann, ed A Companion to the Works of Stefan George). I already cited Norton, the sole English-language full-length work on George, which discusses his homosexuality and the homo-eroticism of his poetry.
Just to repeat, you may well disagree with the literature or find it unconvincing, but Wikipedia's task is only to report what it says, not to re-evaluate and re-but it. As I said above, if you have even one source which discusses this matter and concludes either that George was not homosexual or that his poetry does not reflect homo-eroticism, let's have it in the article for balance. I am not committed to the view that George was gay, only to an accurate representation of the scholarly consensus.KD Tries Again 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)KD
Affirmanti incumbit probatio (Proof is incumbent on the person who affirms). It is up to those sources who affirm George's inversion to show that they are making true statements and not merely trying to advocate their own preference.Lestrade 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

With respect, that just doesn't happen to be the rule here. If you haven't already, see Wikipedia's "No original research" policy Wikipedia:No original research.

"Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

In other words, what's needed is published material which criticizes the consensus with respect to George's sexuality or the homo-eroticism in his poetry. Furthermore, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." In other words, you or I failing to find homo-eroticism in the primary source - the poetry - won't do; we need to cite a secondary source which comes to that conclusion. Norton and Rieckmann, who I've cited, are the only really comprehensive English language sources on George's life and work. As I said above, there's much more substantial German literature, but the Wiki German article too associates George's group with pederasty and homo-eroticism. If you have no secondary sources which dispute this, we're probably wasting space here.KD Tries Again 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)KD

I have now added a full and sourced discussion of the issue to the article.KD Tries Again 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)KD


German Wikipedia is hardly homophobic, the article is well sourced and does not put any emphasis on homosexuality. As I understand only one sentence mentions the issue as rumors: Georges intensive Pflege von Männerfreundschaften und Beziehungen zu überwiegend jungen Männern führte dazu, dass dem George-Kreis auch homosexuelle und päderastische Tendenzen nachgesagt werden. I'll cut down the multiple quotes from a single source that puts undue weight on that. -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Being a German, presumably his name was pronounced (sort of) "Ge-org-uh", not "jorj". Can something be said about this in the article? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)