While watching a video concerning computer science, the content of which is meant for a different audience, I was tempted down a rabbit hole. A mere thirty-eight seconds into the video, a reference is made to a "quote" by A.E. Housman and used by Edsger W. Dijkstra which is presented as follows, "A moment's thought would have shown him. But a moment is a long time, and thought is a painful process" - A.E. Houseman. The irony of what is about to be discussed was not lost on me as I wrote these first lines, including the misspelling of Housman, or the fact that, as yet, I have not watched the rest of the video! However, at the time, I was unaware of the mother-load of irony I was about to uncover.
I am not acquainted with the textual critic and poet, A.E.Housman, or what is more likely, his acquaintance has been taken from me by Time as a small portion of his heavy toll. Much to my chagrin, I had heard of Dijkstra despite the fact I could not write a computer program far beyond "Hello, World" to save my life. These encouraging thoughts notwithstanding, the profundity of the quote tempted me, and down the rabbit hole I went.
To begin, I did what anyone would do and asked my neighbors, the Interwebs, to give me information about the quote and its author. The results given to me by Mr. Web were simply lists of the quote in question displayed on products I could purchase, should I desire to show others how deeply I am able to think. The irony is almost painfully pleasant at this point, but I will try not to mention it at every turn.1
I proceeded to ask Mr. Web to provide me with the context of the quote. Instead of doing as asked, he provided me instead with the opinion of their young daughter, Gemini, on the matter while not omitting mention of more products I could buy, and then, with a profuse yawn, listed several papers, articles, and blog posts concerning the sexuality of A.E. Housman. It may not be useless to add here that young Gemini was sure the quote in question was somehow an attestation to the themes of an unfair universe or God as relates to homosexuals. These themes, she seemed to think, would be necessarily visible to anyone reading Housman's poetry.
It being my bent to explore the historicity of claims of homosexuality, not to refute them, but to ensure the person in question and their work have not been oversimplified in order to prove an obvious point2, I eventually ended my research by reading an article from The Quarterly Review whose author concluded that A.E. Housman may or may not have been gay.
As most of the search results provided by Mr. Web proceeded under the assumption that Housman was gay, and further, that everything he ever wrote or thought was a result of, or at the very least, influenced by this circumstance, I was satisfied The Quarterly Review's author was correct, and Housman may or may not have been gay, and that it was largely immaterial.3 I realize those who treasure his poetry as a stronghold of homosexual existential angst may find this a disagreeable conclusion. However, I can assure them, existential angst is common among men, both straight and gay. That being said, as I was not primarily concerned with Housman's sexuality, I continued further down the rabbit hole.
The first thing I learned from various sources, which are easily found by both Mr. Web and his daughter, is a universal understanding that his poetry had a decidedly pessimistic tone. A few cursory looks at his poetry seemed to confirm this, and while this bent does appeal to me and will garner my further attention in the future, it was still not my primary question. That is to say, up to this point, I had still found no mention of the context of his most famous quote, although I had seen it used in the form first mentioned above, and in relation to his poetry and sexuality many times.
Finally, I turned to Mrs. Web and asked her to provide me with the context of the quote. I am the first to admit that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Web are particularly easy to trust; however, when asked in the most polite manner, she was willing to provide more than I could have hoped for.4 It turns out the "quote" had not only been misquoted, but the context of said quote made it fantastically ironic. Something I admit brought me no small amount of satisfaction.
Now, before I conclude by providing the true context of the quote, I must say I do not blame mankind for making what Housman actually said more linguistically comfortable, for applying it in ways he did not originally intend, or both. As Housman pointed out later in the same preface, "Frailty of understanding is in itself no proper target for scorn and mockery: nihil in eo odio dignum, misericordia digna multa [it is not that there is anything in him worth hating; but rather that he is to be pitied]."5
The above caveat being understood, all thanks to Adam Roberts and his notebook for my ability to finally provide the actual quote, its proper context, and the irony embedded in this sentence, as I have no copy of Housman's preface on hand. In short, Housman's day job was not poetry, but textual criticism. During the course of Housman's work, he wrote a critique of the works of Juvenal. In the preface, he saw fit to criticize the critique of a contemporary who had taken a stab at elucidating Juvenal, which included the following6:
Either a is the source of b and c and d or it is not. If it is, then never in any case should recourse be had to b or c or d. If it is not, then the rule is irrational; for it involves the assumption that wherever a’s scribes made a mistake they produced an impossible reading. Three minutes’ thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.
So as It turns out, the actual quote is academic in nature. The thick layer of sugar with a cherry of monumental size on top is that the multitudes who have since quoted Housman could have taken three minutes to find out those were not his words. Indeed, "Three minutes’ thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time." - A.E. Housman
As always, I reserve the right to be wrong.