Talk:Stefan George

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

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)

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)

Certainly not "-uh", and the g is probably too difficult for English-speakers (not at all like the sound in genius or Jordan, more like the sound in "gutter", "genesis"?); George = "Geh! [Go!] - Or - Geh!".--Radh (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why a hard g is remotely difficult for English speakers. We make this sound all the time. What we need in the article is an IPA pronunciation, but I'm an IPA dummy. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation of his full name should be [ʃtɛf·ɑn] [ɑːn·təʊn] [ge·ɔɹ·gʌ], I believe. JackofOz is correct that the German would be closer to "uh" not "eh" at the end of his name. It would be Geh (as in "step") or (as in "order") guh (as in "but"). At least in standard German; I know German speakers who would pronounce it closer to Radh's suggestions, but it seems to me that standard High German has it as JackofOz would have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.198.7 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added your IPA to the article. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

conservatism/nazism

Although identified with an extreme conservatism in politics, George refused honors from the National Socialist regime...

I've altered this section, because it makes it sound like Nazism is conservative, which is the opposite of the truth. If anyone has an objection, please explain. For those interested, a concise and straightforward explanation of reasons that Nazism is anything but conservative can be found on page 204 of Stanley G. Payne's A History of Fascism 1914-1945. Valkotukka (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit as is didn't make any sense as it jumps from his death back to his life and then back to his death again incongruously. I split the 'conservative' part from the 'nazi' part as this read like somebody's little soapbox about conservatism and nazism. The reader is now free to conclude on their own whether George refused nazi honors *because* he was a conservative or *in spite of the fact* that he was a conservative.Ekwos (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The George-Kreis and Victual Brothers

The wall painting of Erich Heckel, which on 16 June 1923 the public were handed over, show seven years after the date of death of the son of Oskar Kohnstamm (Rudolf Kohnstamm * April 14, 1897 Koenigstein im Taunus, † Verdun - the date of death comes from the memoirs of his brother Peter), one scene, which remembers at the Victual Brothers in Gotland 1405. Note the background and the black diagonal stripes. It's known, that the painting of Heckel shows members of the George-Kreis.

File:Die Welt des Mannes - Die reifen Männer, Ausschnitt Wandgemaelde E. Heckel, Angermuseum Erfurt.JPG

--Groth-Pfeifer (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What has the picture of the child got to do with the article (also, I don't understand the caption)? Is he mentioned in the article? If not the image should be removed. Hohenloh ⁺ 11:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Erich Heckel Wandbild - Angermuseum Erfurt - 1923 - Die Welt des Mannes - Stefan George ist in der Mitte mit Adeptem abgebildet.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Erich Heckel Wandbild - Angermuseum Erfurt - 1923 - Die Welt des Mannes - Stefan George ist in der Mitte mit Adeptem abgebildet.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Erich Heckel - Wall Painting Angermuseum Erfurt - 'The young dead' and 'The Funeral'.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Erich Heckel - Wall Painting Angermuseum Erfurt - 'The young dead' and 'The Funeral'.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have corrected the inaccurate renderings of George's collections listed in the bibliography, and removed the unreliable "encyclopedia.com" article in favour of a bound text by Ernst Morwitz, one of George's followers, who would certainly have a better idea of how to correctly translate the titles than the literal translations given on the encyclopedia.com citation. Examples of the absurdity of the literal translation include "The Carpet of Life" for "Teppich des Lebens" (correct title: "The Tapestry of Life") and "The New Empire" for "Das neue Reich" (correct title: "The Kingdom Come"). 216.37.198.7 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Conlangs

There is no mention of his conlangs Imri and Lingua Romana.--Error (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)