Talk:Dover Beach

References

This sentence from the first item in the "References to the Poem" section seems to me to be not entirely correct:

However, the speaker in "Dover Beach" is of unknown gender, and a common practice among Victorian poets was to write dramatic monologues from the perspective of someone else (e.g., Robert Browning's "Fra Lippo Lippi").

1) Most critics have taken the speaker to be Arnold himself; in those few instances where Arnold worded his poems as coming from a distinct character, he usually, as in "Strayed Reveller," assigned the speech explicitley to the speaker. 2) Browning and Arnold were close friends. To my knowledge Arnold does not attempt the sort of character pieces that Browning did, although he seems to have admired them. 3) Nothing here suggests that the sex of the speaker is particularly in question. 4) The comment seems to me to rather miss the irony of Hecht's poem. I should like to see a more extended comment on this poem, i.e. "Dover Bitch," in the main portion of the article. Hecht's response to the poem is not unimportant and counterpoints the poem in a very refreshing way. Arnold loved a good joke,-- I think he would have thought this quite funny. One parody of his writing during his life time, he actually went out of his way to promote to his readers. Mddietz 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sea of Faith

Wetman, do you have a reference for the Oceanus note? (While I think the analogy may be relevant, I have not seen it made in the criticism, -- but I may have overlooked it.) Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I should think that when anyone reads that the Sea of Faith "round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd", in a poem where Sophocles is being invoked, Arnold's reference to "ocean-stream", Okeanos, is too obvious to be much lingered over or stressed. I'm surprised that the reference has always escaped Mddietz until now. --Wetman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, sorry I missed your reply, I've pulled these comments under their own heading so we can discuss this a little more easily. A few points to make here:

1) No, I had not noted this as an allusion to Okeanos before you pointed to it. And I appreciate your pointing it out because it is an interesting conception of the poem (although I am not sure how to read it in the context of the poem as I have never seen Okeanos offered up as a Sea of Faith before).

2) I have not seen this allusion noted in any of the commentaries I have read. (And our job is, of course, to cite from accepted authorities only. If they have not called attention to this, I am loathe to say it is quite as obviously present as you suggest it is.)

3) As you seem to be asking my opinion, for what it's worth, I will share with you my thoughts. I don't think this is an allusion to Okeanos. These lines are usually taken as a reference to the beliefs of the medieval period, not the classical period. Arnold's writings on religion would bear this out. Moroever the Sea of Faith is a common metaphor for Arnold, whether Sophocles is mentioned or not, and again, usually refers to the medieval (catholic) notions of faith (catholic here meaning universal as much as the Roman church). The reference to the Sea of Faith is in a stanza that is carefully separated from the stanza referring to Sophocles. Not only is this stanza physically separated with the blank line that normally occurs between stanzas, it is also temporally separated,-- "Was once, too," suggests a difference in time from the preceding stanza. I am not sure that reading the Sea of Faith as an allusion to Okeanos does much to explain the refernce to Sophocles (who is described as looking out on a very specific body of water, the Aegean, not a metaphorical body of water. Although the sound that the Aegean makes is taken metaphorically). Nor does it quite explain the poet's discomfort at the retreat of the Sea of Faith. At best the allusion, if it is present, is very distant, and I am not seeing that it really enables a more effective reading of the poem.

Nonetheles, the allusion is interesting, but if we cannot find it in the writing of an accepted authority (which I would really hope we coudl as I would love to see what has been made of the allusion) I am inclined to say it ought not to be included in the article. I will take another look in Allott and see if it shows up there. Mddietz (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowledgeable users of Wikipedia read the related Talkpages. The Wikipedia reader who has penetrated this far may sense that Mddietz's equation "Okeanos ≠ Sea of Faith" is a less than complete summary of the seas in this poem, in which the comparison between the first two seas evokes the third. That is to say that Sophocles' Aegean is contrasted with "this distant northern sea", which— though there is no footnote to this effect— is the English Channel. The contrast, which is a contrast of cultures, introduces the image of the Sea of Faith, which is not specifically identified as the "Sea of Christian Faith", though doubtless that would be the only reading permitted by Mddietz. Arnold's deeply cultured Hellenism surfaces in many of his poems and essays. My set of Arnold contains only Arnold's own, very spare notes. Mddietz is apparently using a fully annotated edition of "Dover Beach". May we ask that Mddietz enter "any of the commentaries I have read" in the References section, as an aid to the reader? Sounds as if there are quite a few..

Wikipedia is merely a readers' guide. The point is to transmit information. The offending footnote merely pointed the reader to Oceanus. Why is Mddietz' response to this poem authoritative? --Wetman (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wetman, if what I have written came across as at all disrespectful to you personally, please accept my apology. It was not meant that way. As I pointed out, I think your suggestion that the poem contains an allusion to Oceanus is an interesting one. But as with all readings of this sort, there is room for discussion. I gave you my opinion only because I thought you had asked for it and I did nto want to be rude by not providing it. But I clearly labelled it as my opinion. And I also made it clear that that opinion was NOT relevant to a decision on what is to be included in the article.

As far as our work for Wikipedia is concerned, however, my personal opinion is, as I stated above, quite irrelevant. I am not here as an authority, and, of course, you are not either. I know you know that, so let us please set aside the non-collegial tone and focus on the issue at hand which is a very simple one, as I understand it. It is NOT whether the reading is a justifiable reading, neither of us is here to make that judgement. It is whether or not the reading you have offered is supported by the secondary literature. I have not seen it in any of the secondary literature. If I am understanding you correctly, you have not seen it either? For it to be included in the tertiary literature (Wikipedia) it must first be present in the secondary literature.

Finally, yes I have access to an annotated version of the poems. This is Allott's The Poems of Matthew Arnold, which is widely regarded as the authoritative text for Arnold's poems. Unfortunately, this book is out of print. (I just took a look on Abebooks and there is a heavily used copy available for $10 which is not a bad price for the Longman Poets series. By the way, most of the books on Arnold are OP, because he's become something of a whipping boy for post modernism and that has resulted in an unfortunate slow-down in the "Arnold scholarly industry" which makes our job here much more difficult.) I have already used Allott's notes in several places in this article. I glanced in Allott's book last night, and it did not contain a reference to Oceanus, but I forgot to bring it in with me today. I'll try to remember to bring it in tomorrow. I am happy to share what it contains; I'm not the gate keeper type. What Allott or any of the others say is our data for writing this article, not my data. (Frankly, I tried very, very hard in what I have written here NOT to include any of my own analysis of the poem. I sought a source for every comment I have made and included relevant comments on the poem whether I agree with them or not!)

You know, I'd also like to take a look into Tinker and Lowery (see references), but I think I have already mined that for all it's worth. One book I have not looked into yet is focused on Arnold and Classicism (can't remember the title or the author, but I have it at home and I'll see what it says.) I have NOT by any means looked at all the literature on Arnold nor on this poem, so we may yet find something on Oceanus. As I said above, I'm hoping we do.

Here is my listing for the Allott book from the Matthew Arnold article. (By the way if you go to the Matthew Arnold article you will see a very rich, but by no means complete, selection of books on Arnold, his prose and his poetry.)

Kenneth Allott (editor), The Poems of Matthew Arnold (London and New York: Longman Norton, 1965) ISBN 0393043770 Part of the "Annotated English Poets Series," Allott includes 145 poems (with fragments and juvenilia) all fully annotated.

P.S. Can we drop the third person bit? To be honest with you, I find it a bit offensive. My desire is to work with you in a collegial way. I hope you are interested in the same. Mddietz (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, I am sorry to tell you that Warren Anderson's Matthew Arnold and the Classical Tradition does not conatin any reference to Oceanus. Anderson's intention was to understand both Arnold's use of classical allusion and his realtionship to the classical tradition. He addresses Dover Beach at great length. Anderson suggests that for Arnold Sophocles was quite nearly a secular figure. He does not allow room for Arnold to have drawn mythic (religious) allusions in connection with Sophocles. I'm really shorthanding Anderson's argument here. It is much more nuanced than I can make it in a sentence or two. However, I see no way to find any viability for the allusion in what Anderson has written. But he is only one critic. We may yet find this allusion. Have you been able to come across anything in your research? Mddietz (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, I have searched a couple of bibliographies for a reference to Oceanus in the literature on "Dover Beach" but have still not been able to turn anything up. If you have not yourself come up with anything yet, I think we may have no choice but to set aside the note the note, at least until we can establish something more substantial on the issue. Do you agree? If so (and I suppose I may need to take a non-response to this question as agreement as I suspect you may have become so skeptical of a positive answer that you have given up the search and gone on to other things -- how else to account for your silence for so long upon this important issue?), then we should remove the note let us say within the next four days. Thank you, Mddietz (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Allott produced two different editions of Arnold's poetry. The Everyman one is not annotated (although it has a substantial introduction).--Poetlister 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And Kenneth Allott's wife, Miriam Allott, produced a selection of Arnold's poetry (and I think it had some notes) for Oxford Authors. The second half of that book contains select prose pieces edited by R. H. Super who had previously edited the eleven volume edition of Arnold's prose work. Miriam had silently helped her husband edit the Longman book (and one suspects he had done the same for her Longman edition of Keats). Another good selection of both the poetry and prose is Dwight Culler's Poetry and Criticism of Matthew Arnold. But all of these are currently out of print. Is the Everyman still in print? I thought the current Everyman was a new, very short, selection. Mddietz (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's still in print. It was published in 1965 and I have the 1966 reprint, far older than I am!--Poetlister 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Hate to tell you this but I am seven years older than your book. I have just visited Amazon to take a quick census of available Arnoldiana. I was delighted to see that two long out of print books have returned. Trillings "intellectual biography" of Arnold which is essential for studying Arnold. And Collini's exquisite and graceful short essay that has my vote for the most effective one volume introduction to Arnold. For poetry he is still very poorly served although a reprint of an early edition seem to have recently come out from Eibron. The current Everyman is not edited by Allott and is very short and very feeble. It does not contain Empedocles on Etna, nor, oddly enough, Thyrsis. This current series of Everyman are so short that they often really do a great disservice to the poets they feature. Bit of a shame. Mddietz (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I sought (from the English lecturers at the very college Arnold himself was a Fellow of) advice about whether the sources chosen represented the corpus of thought or not. Whilst the work of Profs Tinker and Lowry are now considered somewhat "elderly", they are still respected and accepted. Allott is the most respected work, and Honan's being considered an essential supplement. I also asked if there were any works that were omitted for a novice to the subject and it was thought not, the current sources would be comprehensive enough for any 'new reader'. I am still awaiting a response from another lecturer, but doubt it will vary from the first opinion. Thanks for the work that has been put into this article.--Alf ^melmac 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alf, thanks for taking the time to do this extra leg work. I had hoped I was on target with this. Thanks, Mddietz 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving article's discussion page

Might I suggest that now (Or soon) would be a good time to maybe archive some of this pages' contents? Anything that is now considered archaeic (old/closed discussion's etc.) could be archived in order free up space... the notice at the top of the edit box advises this also. Thoughts? Scarian^Talk 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarian, I think that might be a very wise idea. But I have no idea how to do that.

• Top of page The stuff at the very top of the page is a couple of years old and can certainly be archived.
• Caveat seems yet to be a wild roaring slug fest, although increasingly it does seem that the caveat writer is arguing with himself.
• Alternatives to caveat can go; they do not seem to be needed now.
• Response to the criticism in caveat seems to have been generally ignored, which probably it should have been.
• Interpretations and Reference My comments on the nature of the changes I made in the page (all of which I think are under the heads Interpretations and Reference) are probably archivable, although I do not know if it is too soon after the changes discussed in them to do so. Do they not need to be left up awhile in case some of the original contributors or other editors want to review the work.
• Criticism and Moved from article My dialogues with the caveat writer, at least my side of them... well in some cases I have simply deleted my own portion as they really added no value to the page. The caveat writers comments I refuse to touch in anyway. He might accuse me of censorship, and I wouldn't want that.
• Problems with article your call...
• Feedback can we leave that in. It may have some relevance to the future status of the page. Or am I being a little egotistical?

Mddietz 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooah, I will archive these on your recommendations. It is better to move on now - there is so much junk from the 'caveat' writer, I don't know which of his personalities are in charge of writing... Hmmph... Keep an eye on me whilst I archive just in case I screw up and remove something you want/need on here. Scarian^Talk 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a fair bit... The archive link is at the top of the page. Someone tell me, is it me or is the page still slow to load? (I have a download going on so that could be it, but it's bandwidth usage isn't that high) Also, the article archival link doesn't look too pretty at the moment. If I have made a mistake in archiving don't hesitate to tell me off for it and correct it. Also, I may have archived some material that could've been kept such as Alf's mediation (I don't know if it was resolved or not... that's why I was a little bit worried about archiving it) - but fortunatly we have Wikipedia history pages so nothing is lost forever. Hooah. Scarian^Talk 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine to me but let us see what anon says. I'm not having any trouble loading, but I'm at work and we have a pretty high-speed connect. Mddietz 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived (into Archive1) the last of the caveat related discussion material. What is left now should be only the material relevant to editing the page. Mddietz 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

First, why is the full text in the article itself? All it serves to do is make the Analysis section longer than it already is (and it's pretty long). Besides, that's what Wikisource is for. Secondly, are people really getting agitated over a little ol' article on a little ol' poem? Spread some WikiPeace! :) --Midnightdreary 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There was just some aggravation... I think WP:OWN played a part... But, as Alf has pointed out, it's an important little ol' poem ;-) Scarian^Talk 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So short poems don't get the text in wiki-articles? (well you learn something every day...), does that apply to nursery rhymes like This Little Piggy, I've never read any style guidance on poetry, never having edited any of those articles before.--Alf ^melmac 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "This Little Piggy" is a tad shorter than "Dover Beach," so I think four lines is a bit more excusable (what would really cause a discussion though is which of the two has more importance? :) I'll stop!). Other than that, check out WP:NOT#TEXT. I would suggest that the placement of the Wikisource box is perfect for people that are just looking for the text. Really, it just breaks apart a great analysis section (I'm assuming; I merely skimmed!). --Midnightdreary 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

After some further research, I found WP:L&P which suggests that for short copyright-free poems, full text inclusion is acceptable. There are no guidelines as far as what they mean by "short." In that case, I'd suggest it's up to the interested editors. As the unofficial personal caretaker of Edgar Allan Poe's poems, I never include full text within the article but leave a visible Wikisource box (as you folks already have here). If you choose to include it, though, I would at least recommend a separate header for it so that it doesn't cut into anything and it's easy to find. So, yeah, hope that helps. :) --Midnightdreary 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Very many thanks for a comprehensive answer. Somehow, I'm not tempted to discuss the relevant importance between This Little Piggy and Dover Beach :D I'm guessing that both Mddientz and the anon would prefer to have the text in so your idea about giving it its own section should be considered. Thanks again.--Alf ^melmac 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I frankly wondered about this when I included the text of the poem. Guess I should have done a bit of research on that. I rather like having the poem in and would vote to keep it in. Quoting extensive passages from a poem as part of the analysis of that poem has been a common practice since the about the mid-nineteenth century when Arnold was writing; he actually makes a comment on that somewhere. The New Critics in dismissing summary statements tended continue this practice as the poem itself was foremost and by quoting from it, they could avoid having to summarize it. Printing the entire poem is, however, not a standard of the analytical process. I originally had the analysis interspersed within the poem, but moved it out of the poem as an act of appeasement. The way it is now it is more like an annotated poem. The earlier version, even though the poem was quoted in whole, had, to my mind, much more the feel of an article than a mere reprinting of the poem. Perhaps anon might have some constructive thoughts on this issue. But if I do not hear differently I think I'll change it back to the way it was. Mddietz 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not having heard anything to the contrary, I have gone ahead and returned the interelaving of the comments with the poem. I added a few words to make the connection with the Sophocles section a little more clear, & provided dates for Sophocles to help clarify the historical relationship. I separated the caveat into its own section as it really is not continuous in matter with the analysis. I have not heard from anon, so I assume he is now pleased as punch with the results we have achieved. For now I plan to do nothing more of any significance with this page, but hope to revisit it in a month or two (after I have finished another major project I have started and which really should take priority. Mddietz 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooah, a bit more could be done (by anyone who know's about this poem), e.g. Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry could be cut down... it's a bit lengthy to read. And References to Dover Beach (Or whatever the section's title is) could, also, be cut down. We don't need that many references, just the most notable will do. Agree or disagree? Scarian^Talk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the comments provided by anon really belong more appropriately in the Matthew Arnold article, but... I fully agree on the References to Dover Beach: some of these are interesting, others are rather so-so. The catch-22 reference is nicely written because it makes the connection more explicite and because Heller was clearly in tune with the source poem. Lumping the vast majority of these into a single paragraph would probably be the best way to handle them. Right now they look too much like a laundry list with an "oh I got one, too" feel to them. I still want to make a more thorough search of the critical materials and add in comments like the one I mention from Riede somewhere above. But in due time, I have to go work on other things right now. Then I will come back to this and the Matthew Arnold page. Thanks for all your help. Mddietz 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article's "essay style" issues

User:Mddietz has asked me to point out specifically what I see as some of the problems this article currently has. To address Mddietz's request, I'll extract quotes from the article (or from the Analysis portion of the article that I excised wholesale) and say why these passages could be improved. Foremost, remember, we're trying to write an encyclopedia article here, not an essay, critique, or analytical work. Our mission therefore is one of organization. We must present the information to the reader in a way that works from general to specific and maintains an encyclopedic tone. Argumentation/rhetoric are to be avoided. If a statement cannot be presented with indisputable factual clarity, there should be attribution.

• "says Park Honan" ... "Tinker and Lowry suggest passages" ... "According to Tinker and Lowry"...
  • Who are these people and why should we care what they have to say about the poem? Apparently, they are critics who have written analyses. We do no favor to the article by importing their thought wholesale through unfettered quotation. And certainly, we should not be name-dropping them, sans any prefatory introduction to them, as though the reader is expected to already be familiar with them. That is the practice of an academic article, not an encyclopedia article.
• "Allott also detects an echo of Senancour's Obermann"...
  • Comparative literature-y statements like these come way too early in the article, before the reader has even been introduced to the poem's text and significance. (Florid, metphorical wording is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. A poem does not literally echo.)
• Way too much text is dedicated to "The Dover Bitch". A passing mention of this poem, and its significance, suffices. Certainly it should not be so extensively quoted, and this may even be a case of a copyvio.
• Phrasing like "Even in the U. S. Supreme Court the poem has had its influence" strays far from encyclopedic tone. The writer is arguing something to the reader. Presentation of the relevant information can be more effectively couched in a plainspoken, factual tone: "'Dover Beach' was referenced by Justice William Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co...."

I could say a lot more on this, but I think I've said enough for this article's principal authors to get my drift. The authors of the article could improve it by taking a step back from the subject and approaching it from the perspective of someone who has never heard of the poem before (which probably describes 99% of readers searching Wikipedia for "Dover Beach"). The reader should be "gently eased" into the subject, and within a few paragraphs after the lead, if not therein, the "who-what-where-when-why" questions must be answered. (I don't think they are, in the article's present version.) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. I appreciate the comments. In general, I quite agree with much of what you have to say. But deleting the majority of the article with no comment in the discussion section is absolutely bad Wikipedian citizenship, and I hereby (metaphorically and floridly) slap your hand for doing so and say "shame on you," you appear to be someone who should know better than that. Now we have that out of the way, lets go about fixing this article as good friends and collaborators. (I have reinstated the last version of the article. Lets start from that and work at this as respectful co-collaborators, shall we?)

I wrote this rather quickly because I was caught up in a little battle with someone who was vandalizing the site (all of which you can read in the archives if you have any interest--I no longer do). As I say, I wrote it much too quickly, and in truth, I'm not that happy with it. Your description of how an encyclopedia article should build, moving from general to specific, is wonderfully stated and very appropo. It certainly agrees with my conception of an encyclopedia article. I have a feeling that together we may be able to get this article into such a state and I should be very happy to see that.

I have spent a lot of the last year studying Arnold and his poetry. I have read a fair amount of the source material,-- which if presssed in the opposite direction I suspect you would say is more important than you appear to regard it in your statement above. I am sure you just got carried away with the rhetoric of your argument (an arugment which was, nonethless, wonderfully put together--take that as a complement from someone who is, himself, more than a novice in rhetoric--but calling "echo" a florid metaphor, your rhetoric got the better of you there, didn't it?). What I will tell you is that most of the major issues associated with the poem are included in the Analysis section. We should find a way to introduce them to the reader using the approach that you recommend.

Your comment on the weasel wording in the intro I fully agree with, although I probably reverted it when I put back the analysis.

I tend to include comments like "Honan said," or "Lowery said" perhaps because my background is scholarly. In scholarship one does that because things are never quite so settled as an encyclopedia will make them appear. (I prefer the term "scholar" to "academic," the latter being essentially a pejorative term.) Your argument for not doing the "name-dropping" is a good one; I am quite willing to follow it. As to the names that I have dropped, just slide up the discussion page a chat or two and you will find out that they are relevant authorities. (Wikipedia as a tertiary document is entirely dependent upon authority, although I can see why we might not want to overstate that, it should, of course, remain true of all statements made in wikipedia that they capture an authority other than the immediate editor's authority. Your sentence, "If a statement cannot be presented with indisputable factual clarity, there should be attribution," is, as I am sure you know, easier to say than to achieve, and full of much complexity--the hermeneutics of which, we surely do not want to get into.)

"Dover Bitch" -- "copyvio"? Give me a break! I'd be very surprised if it was. Seems fair usage to me. Lets stick to the argument of whether it is too much or not. You may be right, but it is a pretty important response to "Dover Beach." I'm inclined to leave it in, but I'm open to discussing alternatives.

The final three paragraphs in the Influence section are really quite horrible. At one point the article consisted almost entirely of these rather irrelevant trivia items (all bulletized). I paragraphed them, but felt uncomfortable taking them out. But if you want to take a knife to them, I will be happy to cheer you on. I am utterly astonished that you would leave in the influence section and take out the anlysis. I cannot imagine what you were thinking. Surely, you are not telling me that these little bits of trivia are more important than the discussion in the Analysis section?

I saw your comment on "The Raven" but is that really a fair comaprison? The Raven is arguably more important in pop culture than it is in literature. What there is to write about "Dover Beach," what makes it important, are things like its relationship to Sophocles, its peculiar exegesis of history, its compelling use of imagery, its position in Arnold's life and thought, its concern for the nature of love in the modern world. Now I would agree with you that the article could be better constructed to get these points across. But I cannot imagine wanting to turn it into something like "The Raven" article; this is not the same type of poem. (I don't mean to suggest that one poem is more important than the other. Both are successful poems, but neither is the most important of its type. Frankly, both are of relatively moderate importance as poetry. "The Raven" on the other hand is of great signficiance as a cultural artifact (at least today, in America), while "Dover Beach" is of only moderate importance as a cultural artifact, although it does have some cultural resonance.)

"Mark" Mddietz (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of hermeneutics, let's get in to some, limiting ourselves to the lead for now. The questions I can answer from the material that appears in the article, I will answer. You'll have to fill in the blanks as the resident expert.

• What is "Dover Beach"?
  • It's a poem. And a fairly short one at that (thus its title should not be italicized in the lead—titles of short works properly go in quotation marks).
    • Okay. What kind of poem? In other words, what poetic form does it take?
      • Not sure. (It would be nice if the article said as much in the first sentence of the lead.)
• Who wrote "Dover Beach"?
  • Matthew Arnold.
    • Who?
      • Oh, you haven't heard of him? Let's call him "English poet Matthew Arnold". (I don't know, would "Victorian poet Matthew Arnold" be better?)
• When was it written?
  • We don't know, exactly. It was published in 1867 in a collection called New Poems. As to when it was written, surviving notes indicate it may have been started as early as 1849.
• So where is this "Dover Beach" supposed to be?
  • The English ferry port of Dover, facing France at the narrowest part of the English Channel, where Arnold honeymooned in 1851. Where, exactly, Arnold stayed on his honeymoon is unknown.
• Why did Arnold write the poem? What is the poem's meaning, and what influence has the poem had?
  • I can't really tell. There is no summarization of the answers to these questions, either in the lead or in any of the various sections. "Its relationship to Sophocles, its peculiar exegesis of history, its compelling use of imagery, its position in Arnold's life and thought, its concern for the nature of love in the modern world"... we may have something to start with here.

I brought up "The Raven" not because I believed its subject was a similar type of poem to that of this article—the poem itself is irrelevant—but because that article's organization has been finely honed; this is particularly true of the lead, which answers the who-what-when-where-why questions succinctly. The lead for that article usefully serves as a model for our work on this one. Robert K S (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this. I think it is a very good way to introduce the article. Clearly the handling of the your last question is the real difficulty (and after all "what did he mean?" -- that is the real hermeneutic question, isn't it?) Of course, there is no real answer to your question: why did Arnold write this poem? Arnold does not tell us directly. But we have the conjectures of the learned that we can turn to. Perhaps it is the scholar in me, but I am loathe to put this in my own words for fear that it will no longer be a statement in tertiary scholarship. In this article (and the Mathew Arnold article) the comments that tended to be given on this poem were -- well, I don't want to be uncivil -- let me just say they were not particularly insightful.

Let me give it a go, nonetheless.

"In "Dover Beach," Mathew Arnold attempts to understand the impact of that modern condition in which "the sea of faith," of religious certainty, has receded, leaving only "the vast edges drear/And naked shingles of the world." (ref Honan) While such a condition may be modern (that is to say, relevant to Arnold and the nineteenth century) it, nonetheless, was heard by "Sophocles long ago" who "Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought/Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow/Of human misery." Sophocles was a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of Fate and the will of the Gods. (ref Tinker and Lowery) But for Arnold, the Greek vision of..."

Okay, here I have to break. I'm going to need more time to figure out how to say this. The last sentence was leading me into my own interpretation (one supported to some extent by Collini and others) that Arnold saw the Greeks as moderns and the reference to Sophocles is usually misread because it is regarded as an appeal to something ancient, when it is probably rather an appeal to something that Arnold regarded as modern. The problem I am having here is keeping my own thoughts out of this.

And this is a complex poem. It is not, like "The Raven", a poem where we can with some reasonable veracity say -- this is what it means. I'm out of time right now. Let me think this over and get back with you later. I do appreciate what you have done so far, and I am not at all trying to be difficult. Thanks for getting this going... Mddietz (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: poetic form -- it has been called the first major modern free verse poem. (I can't remember who said that -- I think it may have been Collini.) This depends upon a very loose definition of free verse. Otherwise it may best be called a short lyric. Arnold seems not to have intended it to have any specific form. At best, one might say it follows the in and out flow of the tide described in the opening stanza (but that of course is my own observation and does not belong in the article). Mddietz (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I like what you've written. Looking forward to more. As for being able to say "what the poem means", the best we can do is give one or more of the existing interpretations and attribute them. But I think you're off to an excellent start. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Meaning Discussion

Thought I'd give us a new head for this as we work it out. Other head was getting too long. Here is a new go at this that I think may flow a little better.

"Dover Beach" is a difficult poem to analyze; some of its passages and metaphors have become so well-known that they are hard to see with "fresh eyes" [ref Collini, 1988, pg. 39-40]. Arnold begins with a naturalistic and detailed nightscape of the beach at Dover in which auditory imagery plays a significant role [ref Culler, 1966, p. 39; Honan, 1981, pg. 234; Pratt, 2000, pg. 80-81] ("Listen! you hear the grating roar"). The beach, however, is bare, with only a hint of humanity in a light that "gleams and is gone"[ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39.]

[first stanza]

Arnold takes two aspects of this naturalistic image in turn and examines them. Arnold hears the sound of the sea as "the eternal note of sadness." Sophocles, a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of fate and the will of the Gods, also heard this same sound as he stood upon the shore of the Ægean. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 176-178. Tinker and Lowery attempt to discover a specific reference to Sophocles and conclude "no passage in the plays [of Sophocles] is strictly applicable" to the passage in "Dover Beach".] Critics differ widely on how to interpret this image of the Greek Classical age. One critic sees a difference between Sophocles in the classical age of Greece interpreting the "note of sadness" humanistically, while Arnold in the industrial nineteenth century hears in this sound the retreat of religion and faith.[ref Culler, 1966, p. 40] A more recent critic connects the two as artists, Sophocles the tragedian, Arnold the lyric poet, each attempting through words to transform this note of sadness into "a higher order of experience."[ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 81. Pratt goes on to equate this passage to Wallace Stevens' "The Idea of Order at Key West" – "Blessed rage for order.../The maker's rage to order words of the sea."]

[second stanza]

Having examined "the eternal note of sadness" Arnold turns to the action of the tide itself and sees in its retreat a metaphor for the loss of faith in the modern age [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39. Collini calls the "Sea of Faith" "a favoured Arnoldian metaphor."] once again expressed in an auditory image ("But now I only hear/Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar"). This third stanza begins with an image not of sadness, but of "joyous fulness" similar in beauty to the image with which the poem opens.[ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40. Culler describes this as a "lovely, feminine, protective image of the Sea." But another critic sees not the beauty of the metaphor, but its awkwardness and obscurity. [Pratt pg. 82]

[third stanza]

I'm going to break here just to be sure I don't lose what I've written so far. Mddietz (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The final stanza begins with an appeal to love, then moves on to the famous ending metaphor. Critics have varied on their interpretation of the first two lines of this stanza; one calls them a "perfunctory gesture...swallowed up by the poem's powerfully dark picture" [ref. Collini, 1988, pg. 40.], while another sees in them "a stand against a world of broken faith." [Pratt, 2000, pg. 82] Midway between these is the interpretation of one of Arnold's biographers who describes being "true/To one another" as "a precarious notion" in a world that has become "a maze of confusion" [ref: Honan, 1981, pg. 235. "That lovers may be 'true/To one another' is a precarious notion: love in the modern city momentarily gives peace, but nothing else in a post-medieval society reflects or confirms the faithfulness of lovers. Devoid of love and light the world is a maze of confusion left by 'retreating' faith."]

The simile with which the poem ends is most likely an allusion to a passage in Thucydides' account of the battle of Epipolae. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 175. "Here are to be found the details used by Arnold: a night-attack, fought upon a plain at the top of a cliff, in the moonlight, so that the soldiers could not distinguish clearly between friend and foe, with the resulting flight of certain Athenian troops, and various 'alarms,' watchwords, and battle-cries shouted aloud to the increasing confusion of all."] This final image has, also, been variously interpreted by the critics. The "darkling plain" of the final line has been described as Arnold's "central statement" of the human condition [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 41.] But a more recent critic has seen the final line as "only metaphor" and, thus, suspetible to the "uncertainty" of poetic language [ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 82 (emphasis in the original) Pratt points to the phrase "as on" in the final line, the language of simile.]

[fourth stanza]

Readers have questioned the unity of the poem. The sea of the opening stanza does not appear in the final stanza, while the "darkling plain" of the final line is not apparent in the opening. [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40; Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80] Various solutions to this problem have been proffered. One critic saw the "darkling plain" with which the poem ends as comparable to the "naked shingles of the world." [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40.] While another found the poem "emotionally convincing" even if its logic may be questionable. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80] The same cirtic notes that "the poem upends our expectations of metaphor" and sees in this the central power of the poem.[Pratt, 2000, pg. 80] The form of the poem itself provides some clues to its unity. The careful dictition in the opening description, [Allott, 1965, pg. 240.] and the overall, spell-binding rhythm and cadence of the poem [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 40.] prove a source of the poem's appeal. One commentator sees the strophe-antistrophe of the ode at work in the poem, ending in the "cata-strophe" of tragedy. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 81] Finally, another critic sees the complexity of the poem's structure resulting in "the first major 'free-verse' poem in the language." [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 41.]

Mddietz (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left the notes in the section above set off by brackets so that they can be seen in context. In several I have included some longer quotations which I think provide clarity but would bog down the primary text if written out in full there. For example, I think the long passage from Tinker and Lowery on the passage from Thucydides really gives a wonderful feel for that passage and how it relates to Arnold's treatment of it. I should love to inlcude Sainsbury to get an early impression, but I don't have his text at hand just now. I have avoided the "name-dropping" by using "a critic," "another critic," etc. I have greatly expanded the sources with Dwight Culler (widely regarded as quite an imprtant commentator) and Pratt (one of the most recent reflecting some of the post-modern critique). Collini is generally better known on Arnold's prose but does a fine job with "Dover Beach". Only the more detailed discussion of Thucydides and its relation to Arnold and his set seems a real loss from the current Analysis section. Could this be moved to the Compostion section? How do you link Aegean to its Wikipedia article when it is printed with the ligature? Same question with hyphenated 'free-verse' [Collini's spelling]? Mddietz (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dover Beach" is a difficult poem to analyze; some of its passages and metaphors have become so well-known—this is a POV push and it's not encyclopedic. Who believes that it's a difficult poem to analyze? It's not a hard fact. If you insist on keeping something like this—and you should insist upon it iff it represents consensus—then the proper way to do so is to preface the statement with something to the effect of "Critics including so-and-so, what's-his-name and that-guy have argued that 'Dover Beach' is a difficult poem to analyze..." But ask of this sentence: what knowledge does it impart to the reader? It's wishy-washy and vague. Skip it and get down to brass tacks. Don't bother saying "It's tough to know what the poem means." Just get to the part where you start giving best guesses. "X believes it means this, whereas Y has this differing interpretation..."

that they are hard to see with "fresh eyes" [ref Collini, 1988, pg. 39-40].—we should be generally opposed to this kind of verbiage-borrowing in an encyclopedia article. It's in the style of academic articles, yes, but wanton quoting only gives the sense that we're not in control of our own writing. It's as if the article is a dummy to an unseen ventriloquist. To convey the thought of others, rephrase into original language and then, if necessary, include a quoted passage in the citation (the various cite templates allow for this).

Arnold begins with a naturalistic and detailed nightscape of the beach at Dover in which auditory imagery plays a significant role [ref Culler, 1966, p. 39; Honan, 1981, pg. 234; Pratt, 2000, pg. 80-81] ("Listen! you hear the grating roar"). The beach, however, is bare, with only a hint of humanity in a light that "gleams and is gone"[ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39.]—Good stuff. IMO, drop everything that comes before and start with this sentence. We're finally telling the reader news he can use.

Just minor markup on the rest—Arnold takes two aspects of this naturalistic image in turn and examines them. Arnold He hears the sound of the sea as "the eternal note of sadness." According to the poem, Sophocles, a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of fate and the will of the gods, also heard this same sound as he stood upon the shore of the Ægean. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 176-178. Tinker and Lowery attempt to discover a specific reference to Sophocles and conclude "no passage in the plays [of Sophocles] is strictly applicable" to the passage in "Dover Beach".] Critics differ widely on how to interpret this image of the Greek Classical age. One critic sees a difference between Sophocles in the classical age of Greece interpreting the "note of sadness" humanistically, while Arnold in the industrial nineteenth century hears in this sound the retreat of religion and faith.[ref Culler, 1966, p. 40] A more recent critic connects the two as artists, Sophocles the tragedian, Arnold the lyric poet, each attempting through words to transform this note of sadness into "a higher order of experience."[ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 81. Pratt goes on to equate this passage to Wallace Stevens' "The Idea of Order at Key West" – "Blessed rage for order.../The maker's rage to order words of the sea."]

Having examined "the eternal note of sadness" Arnold turns to the action of the tide itself and sees in its retreat a metaphor for the loss of faith in the modern age [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39. Collini calls the "Sea of Faith" "a favoured Arnoldian metaphor."] once again expressed in an auditory image ("But now I only hear/Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar"). This third stanza begins with an image not of sadness, but of "joyous fulness" similar in beauty to the image with which the poem opens.[ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40. Culler describes this as a "lovely, feminine, protective image of the Sea."] But another critic sees not the beauty of the metaphor, but its awkwardness and obscurity. [Pratt pg. 82]

The final stanza begins with an appeal to love, then moves on to the famous ending metaphor. Critics have varied on their interpretation of the first two lines of this stanza; one calls them a "perfunctory gesture...swallowed up by the poem's powerfully dark picture" [ref. Collini, 1988, pg. 40.], while another sees in them "a stand against a world of broken faith." [Pratt, 2000, pg. 82] Midway between these is the interpretation of one of Arnold's biographers who describes being "true/To one another" as "a precarious notion" in a world that has become "a maze of confusion" [ref: Honan, 1981, pg. 235. "That lovers may be 'true/To one another' is a precarious notion: love in the modern city momentarily gives peace, but nothing else in a post-medieval society reflects or confirms the faithfulness of lovers. Devoid of love and light the world is a maze of confusion left by 'retreating' faith."]

The simile with which the poem ends is most likely an allusion to a passage in Thucydides' account of the battle of Epipolae. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 175. "Here are to be found the details used by Arnold: a night-attack, fought upon a plain at the top of a cliff, in the moonlight, so that the soldiers could not distinguish clearly between friend and foe, with the resulting flight of certain Athenian troops, and various 'alarms,' watchwords, and battle-cries shouted aloud to the increasing confusion of all."] This final image has, also, been variously interpreted by the critics. The "darkling plain" of the final line has been described as Arnold's "central statement" of the human condition [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 41.] But a more recent critic has seen the final line as "only metaphor" and, thus, suspetible susceptible to the "uncertainty" of poetic language [ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 82 (emphasis in the original) Pratt points to the phrase "as on" in the final line, the language of simile.]

Readers have questioned the unity of the poem. The sea of the opening stanza does not appear in the final stanza, while the "darkling plain" of the final line is not apparent in the opening. [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40; Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80] Various solutions to this problem have been proffered. One critic saw the "darkling plain" with which the poem ends as comparable to the "naked shingles of the world." [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40.] While another found the poem "emotionally convincing" even if its logic may be questionable. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80] The same cirtic notes that "the poem upends our expectations of metaphor" and sees in this the central power of the poem.[Pratt, 2000, pg. 80] The form of the poem itself provides some clues to its unity. The careful dictition in the opening description, [Allott, 1965, pg. 240.] and the overall, spell-binding rhythm and cadence of the poem [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 40.] prove a source of the poem's appeal. One commentator sees the strophe-antistrophe of the ode at work in the poem, ending in the "cata-strophe" of tragedy. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 81] Finally, another critic sees the complexity of the poem's structure resulting in "the first major 'free-verse' poem in the language." [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 41.]

How do you link Aegean to its Wikipedia article when it is printed with the ligature?—just pipe it. Ægean. Robert K S (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Robert, I completely overlooked your response here. I've been diving in at infrequent moments and Wetman's comments may have gotten me completely side-tracked. Let me give some thoughts to these and come back at this afresh. It may be a while before I can do this because I will be out of town for a few days. But please don't think that is because I am ignoring you or do not value your comments. Thanks, Mddietz (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I may be able to get to this more quickly now that I've read it all the way through and given it some thought. I'll follow your suggestion and drop the intro wording. I'm not real keen on the last paragraph myself; the opening sentence is, as you point out, very poor; it's a real grab bag of issues. I think it needs more thought. This paragraph I'll have to get back to later. Mddietz (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for doing the clean up on the article. I wonder if the last paragraph might best be used as the starting point for a section on Critical response. I have just read through an annotated bibliography on Arnold (searching for the unfindable Oceanus) and have developed something of a sense of the primary critcial issues assocdiated with the poem. I do not have time now, but later I shall come back here adn write out a list of what i think are the primary issues that critics have addressed over time. I think these could be easily summarized in short section that might bring the aricle nearer to some kind of relative completion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddietz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Many readers may not be familiar with the actual beach at Dover, Kent. It is composed of gravel and pebbles, so that when the sea and weather conditions are right the water throws the beach stones about, making very loud noises, a mixture of scrapeing, banging, roaring, rumbling, and clanking sounds. Not to be missed! 6 September 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.109.97 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of the Poem

Poetlister, I don't have my copy of Honan ready to hand. Allot does not show the elided "e"s, but does say that he has silently modernized the text relative to such silent "e"s. He notes taht the ellisions were an Arnold tendency (sounds like he was not happy that the convention of the series (Longman/Norton Annotated Enlgish Poets) was to modernize). I don't remember now, but I think I typed this out from Allott (either that or I pulled it from somewhere off the web, probably the latter or I would have used the AE ligature). The version closer to Arnold's original is probably the better alternative. Should your comment on the Honan book read "text of the poem" not just "text"? Thanks, Mark Mddietz (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I had to have copied this from somewhere on line because Allott does not inlcude the em dash after the semi-colon in line 3. Should there be a space after the semicolon when there is no space after the em dash? This punctuation followed by an em dash is very Arnoldian; usually it is comma em dash. Mddietz (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the full text of the poem as it once existed in a box did not serve the Wikipedia reader. That the full text is necessary for understanding the commentary upon it, which provides the gist of this article, is demonstrated by the fact that the full text, though broken into sections, is inserted in the present copy. Why not restore the box with the full text? --Wetman (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue one way or another, but I'll point out that the full text is a click away at Wikisource, and that such is clearly noted at the top of this article. Robert K S (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always liked the idea of having the text in the article. I separated the comments from the text of the poem at one point, but that got a lot of attention from the "no pems in a Wikipedia article police." Given the role of the article, it seems to me to make most sense to have the commentary interspersed with the full text of the poem. Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, do you have a reference for the Oceanus note? (While I think the analogy may be relevant, I have not seen it made in the criticism, -- but I amy have overlooked it.) Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert, are you comfortable with the revised version of the anlayis above? Should I replace the version currently in the article with this new version? Won't be able to get to it until this weekend, but would like to know what you recommend. Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I should think that when anyone reads that the Sea of Faith "round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd", in a poem where Sophocles is being invoked, Arnold's reference to "ocean-stream", Okeanos, is too obvious to be much lingered over or stressed. I'm surprised that the reference has always escaped Mddietz until now. --Wetman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Mddietz: I used the Everyman Poets edition, which scrupulously follows the author's wishes. I assumed that the one referenced in the article was an American reprint of this; if not, I'll add a reference. Obviously, we should reproduce what Arnold wanted. --Poetlister 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister, I'm a little confused. The note you added was to Honan's biography (which I did not think had the full text of the poem). Was this an error? I have not checked, but I think I took the text from wikisource, so the changes in the orthography probably are in that version. I juat checked in Dwight Culler's selection of the poetry and prose (which is a good, popular edition form a very well respected Arnold scholar) and all the changes you have made are in that edition. I would suggest that we make a note that our text has been compared to and updated from authoritative editions and list Culler and Everyman. I do not have an early edition of any of the poetry (all my early editions of Arnold are from his prose work). [Poetry and Criticism of Matthew Arnold, edited by Dwight Culler, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961; ISBN 0395051525] Mddietz (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. I'll fix the references.

Perfect Square microcosm

I noticed when reading the poem that if one reads just the lines that are perfect squares, it makes a mini-poem that maintains a rhyme scheme and keeps the same theme of the original poem:

1 The sea is calm to-night.

4 Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand

9 Listen! You hear the grating roar

16 Heard it on the AEgan, and it brought

25 It's melancholy, long, withdrawing roar

36 Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight.

--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main articlee mention Ian McEwan's references to the poem in Saturday but surprisingly not the reference in the same writer's book title "On Chesil Beach, " That might be worth adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukovets (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Presaging Existentialism

This poem sounds like Arnold was an inadvertent early entrant into the crafting of raw existentialism where metaphor seeks to convey impression rather than object. Accordingly, Arnold's use of the word "faith" must be understood as "trust" where an "in" as in "trust in" isn't allowed(no object). For example, "darkling" can't be defined and Arnold makes sure that the reader shouldn't try by preceding its usage with the qualifier "as". What sense or impression is Arnold trying to convey across this poem? Hopelessness. Ahhaha (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comments. First, I'm not sure "inadvertent" is quite the right term here; Arnold was fairly worldly wise, so he was not much outside of the movement of ideas coming from across the channel. Second, I think there is little doubt that Arnold's reference to a "sea of faith" is a reference to Christian religion -- he wrote so much on that topic (Christianity) and used the term "sea of Faith" elsewhere in ways that make the reference to religion quite apparent. Third, I would agree a note of "hopelessness" is certainly here. Georges Santayana says somewhere that his own reading of poetry was very impacted by Arnold in that, as an undergrad, he would read only poetry that was as pessimistic as Arnold's. Finally, I would urge at least a touch of historicism -- this is a poem that gets reinterpretted by every age, but few take the time to find Arnold in the poem -- the route of existentialism does not seem to me to be the best route to find Arnold, but a good route to follow if you are a fan of reader response theory and want only to find what you want to find. Mddietz (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence section should include Don Cupitt's book

Cupitt wrote 'The Sea of Faith' in 1984. It was followed by a TV series. The title was subsequently used for the Sea of Faith Network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cupitt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith_(TV_series)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith Simon Kidd (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)