Talk:Thomas Rymer

Various thoughts

 * 1) The article currently claims (April 2020) that Rymer went to Northallerton Grammar School, with a ref for a book by Michael Riordan, which is cited a number of times in the article. However, both the DNB00 and the EB article say that he went to a private school in Danby Wiske. I am more inclined to go with them unless anyone can demonstrate the greater reliability of Riordan.
 * 2) I intend to add a bit more about Rymer's criticism of that sacred cow, Shakespeare, and how much it riled Dyden and others, including more recently George Saintsbury. I'm with Rymer, personally.
 * 3) Once I've finished the Career section, I'm intending to do some work on Foedera. This huge work has a fiendishly complex publishing history, related at considerable length in the prefaces to Sir Thomas D. Hardy's Syllabus vols 1 & 2. The Gentleman's Magazine article, which is cited a number of times, contains a number of inaccuracies and is superseded by Hardy's account. The foot of the EB article also contains an excellent summary of Hardy's thorough and scholarly research, which I think deserves to be brought into this current article.
 * 4) The BHO website with vols 8-12 of Foedera is a bit strange. It's good to have Hardy's Syllabus next to the individual entries: but the errata and corrigenda in Hardy's vol. 3 have not been incorporated (I've checked myself), and Hardy is not credited at all. The web pages give the impression that Foedera was actually published along with the English abstracts, which is not the case: this mistaken idea has also crept into the article. The BHO web pages also wrongly state that the Hague edition was published in London, and this error is blithely included in their cites.
 * 5) The Victoria County Histories recommend citing the 4th (Record) edition. Hardy demonstrates at length in the preface to his Syllabus vol 2 how faulty and error-filled the entire misguided enterprise was, giving as a small example 50 mistakes chosen at random from Vol I alone.(Hardy, Syllabus Vol 2, p. xix-xx) His thorough and minutely-reasoned 30-page critical dismissal of Clarke's work is masterly and devastating. Hardy hoped to correct the entire published corpus, but when he realised the enormity of the task he wisely refrained from attempting it. As a consequence the manifold faults of the Record edition have never been corrected.
 * 6) thanks for your tidying of ref spacing. I've fallen into a particular way of spacing my cite params, which I have done automatically for some time. You have a different preference. There is no particular recommended way. I'm going to continue to do it "my way", but don't feel I'm doing it just to annoy you. Please carry on. :) MinorProphet (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * On the matter of his education, the DNB article by Sidney Lee was published in 1893 and the EB in 1911. The article by Arthur Sherbo in the modern ODNB, published in 2004 and revised (but not this detail) in 2013, says: "For eight years, from 1651 to 1659, Thomas attended the Northallerton Free School kept by Thomas Smelt." – and doesn't mention any other pre-Cambridge schooling. No footnotes, of course, but that looks rather more authoritative to me, especially in conjunction with Riordan. All the sources mention Thomas Smelt, who taught first at Danby Wiske and afterwards at Northallerton; hence, presumably, the confusion. George Hickes appears to have been taught by Smelt at both locations (see this source). If Hickes and Rymer were exact contemporaries (they're described as "classmates" in the article) that may have been true for Rymer as well, but on present evidence I can't comment further. All may be explained in Riordan's book. GrindtXX (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Argh, at least three vaguely related Thomas Smelts: Biographical Register of Christ's College 1505 - 1905 Vol 1 mentions the schoolmaster but only in passing. Sir Thos. Hardy, (Syllabus Vol 1 pp xvi-xvii) says in the margin 'Educated at Northallerton', mentions Danby Wiske in the text, but ends "On leaving Northallerton..." Hardy says he received his info from the head of Northallerton Grammar School (note, p. xviii). Hardy (note, p. xvii) also says that Rymer must have been born in early 1641, since he was 17 when he went to Sidney Sussex in 1658. And Educational Records: II Sources for the History of English Grammar Schools (Continued) by W. E. Tate (jstor) says on p. 77 that Smelt taught at the Grammar School from 1652-1686, also mentioning Hickes and John Kettlewell, both non jurors. So if Rymer was born in 1641 and was with Smelt for 8 years until 1658, it seems that he was with Smelt at Danby Wiske for a couple of years from 1650–1652 when they both removed to Northallerton Grammar: Hickes (b. 1642) was previously at Thirsk until 1652, according to George Hickes. So all fits together, and seems to make sense to me. MinorProphet (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The cite for Thirsk and Northallerton in George Hickes is again Riordan: according to Amazon, "Michael Riordan has published widely on the town's history and is the Town Council's official historian." But how accurate is he?MinorProphet (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Year and place of birth?
Digging around, I found various infos in Alumni Cantabrigienses... Vol 3, Part 1 (1924), p. 503 (by Venn, of diagram fame) (plus his father, Ralph Rimer, was at St, John's and then Caius), digitally reproduced in ACAD - A Cambridge Alumni Database, citing DNB (1911) and Ingledew's Northallerton (1858) including some info on Smelt on p. 284 and Rymer on 288-9. But opinion is divided. Hardy Vol 1, pp. xvi-xvii says that Ingledew must be wrong with 1638, saying the Sidney Sussex College book states he went up in 1658 aged 17; and thinks that he was born in Yafforth. But The book of matriculations and degrees: a catalogue of those who have been matriculated or been admitted to any degree in the University of Cambridge from 1544 to 1659, p. 582, states that he was admitted as imp. (impubes, ie under the age of 14), p[ensioner] and E[aster term] in 1659. See (Abbreviations {p. 32}). Also see intro re impubes, p. x. So Hardy seems to be mistaken in this case. I can see I'm unlikely to get close to the truth. Also, Alumni Cantabrigienses quoted above says that Ralph Rymer was allowed out of confinement in 1666, and not executed in 1663 as per DNB. Argh. MinorProphet (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you using ODNB or DNB? ——  SN  54129  08:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to DNB as cited above. I often deliberately forget about ONDB, but I have now read Sherbo's article: he agrees that Rymer was born in Yafforth. Hardy must have been somehow mistaken that R. went up to Cambridge in 1658 aged 17 - the date of 29 April 1659 seems fairly definite - but the imp. of The book of matriculations... by the Venns (1913), appears to have been forgotten by the time of publication of Alumni Cantab. (1924). The records of Cambridge were a complete mess at the time, as the intro to Matriculations shows. But Sherbo says that R. only contributed 2 poems to the memorial volume of Waller's verse, whereas it seems he wrote 3. (Just for fun I had a stab at translating the lines on Waller's tomb - they are particularly Latinate, with all sorts of mind-bending constructions like double datives etc.)
 * However, Sherbo says that R. translated Ovid's "Amores, iii.6, for Dryden's Miscellany Poems (1684)". As my refs demonstrate, R.'s rendering seems to have only been printed in the 1692 edition - But is Sherbo right in saying it was Amores rather than Tristia? (the source is Tedder in EB 1911). They both contain a Book III with a sixth poem: Amores III.6 and Tristia III.6 Annoyingly, I didn't check it last year when I made all the refs. I must have located a copy, otherwise I couldn't have given the page number - but now I can't find it online. Sherbo is good with the literary stuff. I really like Dr. Johnson's quote: "Dryden's criticism has the majesty of a queen; Rymer's has the ferocity of a tyrant."
 * I seem to remember coming across a book somewhere which showed that most of the writers of the time—poets, dramatists and critics—all knew each other fairly well and moved in a relatively tight circle of mutual acquaintance and at least nodding respect. I also like "T. S. Eliot, a better poet than himself a critic of the drama, has made the remarkable statement that he has never 'seen a cogent refutation to Rymer's objections to Othello" [Eliot, Selected Essays, 121] (1932). Hmm, did Ezra Pound ever broach the subject? Also a good bibliography. My 329 tabs in Firefox are slowing things down, best save and reboot... MinorProphet (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Start class?
Very much inaccurate. B at minimum and kudos/thanks to MinorProphet for all the work and care.

Minor points: (with replies by MinorProphet (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC))
 * There's no benefit to any reader and quite a lot of needless difficulty caused by adding columns to the notes and bibliographic lists. It saves space and is easier to read when they're presented as single wider lists. I fixed it but, y'know, kindly don't unfix it.
 * It's just my personal preference. MinorProphet (talk)


 * It's confusing that the guy's life is randomly interrupted by an extended digression on his major work and its separate history as literature. The more common way to handle this is to have all the bio bits as ===Subsections=== of a ==Life== section and the works handled together or separately under a different ==Works== . Is there a reason not to do it that way here? Just leave the sentence about the years of his life spent on the work in the bio area and punt the rest to its own subsection, pending enough material to warrant a full separate article.
 * Point taken, done MinorProphet (talk)


 * Is there a reason to handle the notes, cites, and attributions as coloned headwords but the bibliography as a ===Subsection=== ? I can't think of one. Using the equal signs creates easy subsection links and is normal, but in any case seems like it'd be better to pick one or the other and use it consistently. If you just dislike them showing up in the TOC, you can check Help:TOC to see how to stop that depth from displaying.
 * Done MinorProphet (talk)


 * There's no real reason for the EB11 etc. to be listed separately from the other sources except for how ugly their templates are. Just don't use those templates. If you really want to for some reason, the normal thing is usually to just punt them to the bottom of the alphabetical list of other sources, separated by a blank line.
 * What would you suggest? I agree they're intrusive, but the template does make things easier than filling out a whole cite encyclopedia.


 * There's a lot of benefit to having the guy's works listed together. Some are in the middle of the biblio list, but not all. Most bizarrely, you provide excessive amounts of detail on the completely full name of most sources (with very inconsistent capitalization including occasional needless ALLCAPS) but not on the Foedera which is the main work people coming to this page are going to be looking for. The Foed. itself and its volume links are hidden away in a footnote. Whether you provide a list in a new #Works section or provide Rymer's works in a new part of the #Bibliography list, the Foed. should be included there and its links given there. There's also no point in specifying in the article that it's at the Internet Archive unless you're providing a series of links to copies on other platforms. People who are that curious where the link is going can hover their mouse cursor, just like they have to do for every other link on the page.
 * Agreed, it's messy, will sort out next. MinorProphet (talk)


 * I do know it's weird/ugly to have the Foed.'s abbreviation listed when it's not used in the article itself but there are a bunch of British scholars who very unhelpfully abbreviate it in their footnotes with no clarification at all since they considered it common knowledge to anyone worthy enough to be their readers. That obviously isn't the case any more so it is better to have it easily googlable this way. Sorry for the ugliness in the article.
 * Foed. is fine, not ugly at all. MinorProphet (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

— Llywelyn II   08:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your comments. While I was working the article a few years ago, I made a load of notes for a potential separate article on Foedera, with all the links to every edition I could find. Although I discovered a whole more than appears in the article, I got rather bogged down in its torturous publication history and just lost interest in it and Rymer as well. Your comments re-sparked my interest. I have (I hope) fixed various inaccuracies and considerably revised and expanded the article as a result. There's more to do for a complete list of works. MinorProphet (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

DoB and 1st para, 'Early life and education'
Attempt to sort out a number of points raised above, citing from the article as of 3 May 2024:

0. Born c1643 (lede) 1. Thomas Rymer was born at Appleton Wiske, near Northallerton in the North Riding of Yorkshire in 1643,, 2. or possibly at Yafforth. 3. He was the younger son of Ralph Rymer, lord of the manor of Brafferton in Yorkshire, said by Clarendon to possess a good estate. 4. The son studied at Northallerton Grammar School, where he was a classmate of George Hickes. 5. There he studied for eight years under Thomas Smelt, a noted Royalist. = acad Alumni Database 6. Aged 16, he went to study at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, matriculating on 29 April 1659.

0. Date of birth. DNB00, EB1911 say c1642, and Hardy says c.1641, but Sherbo says he was born c.1643, because he also says he was aged 16 when he went up to Cambridge. But according to Hardy, he was definitely aged 17 (septemdecem), although Alumni Database reffed in the article atm says 16.
 * "Thomas Rymer filius Radulphi Rymer de Brafferton in comitatu Eboracensi generosi Lit : Gram : per octo annos a Thoma Smelt apud oppidum Northallerton dictum institutus, annos agens septemdecem, admissus est pensionarius minor, tutore et fidejussore Johanne Luke in artibus magistro 29 Ap. 1658." The foregoing is from the Admission Book of Sidney College, Cambridge, and was kindly communicated to me by the Master of Sidney, through my friend the Rev. H. R. Luard, Registrary of the University of Cambridge. (Hardy Vol.1, 1 p. xviii)  So he was definitely aged 17 (septemdecem), although acad Alumni Database reffed in the article atm says 16. But they only cite DNB and Ingledew's Northallerton, which Hardy shows to be wrong.

Using death date and age (NB not the best choice, see also Age calculation templates): If he had his 17th b/day just before his admission, the latest he could have been born would be eg 25 April 1642, so on April 29, 1659, just.

But if just about to have his 18th birthday soon after admission, the earliest he could have been born would have been eg 1 May 1641, he would still be, on April 29, 1659 and say, 51 weeks.


 * Result: Change DoB to c. 1642 with note showing possibilty of birth between early May 1641 and late April 1642.

1 & 2. Place of birth

As per above, DNB00, EB1911 and ODNB (Sherbo) all say he was born in Yafforth, only Riordan perhaps following Ingledew or acad says Appleton Wiske, which is around 11 miles away. Also, Rymer's entry in the Alumni Database is all wrong about place and DoB: cites D.N.B. and Ingledew, Northallerton, who Hardy shows is mistaken: Hardy says that Ralph Rymer, Thomas' father, held an estate at Yafforth and Wickmore or Wigmore, Yorkshire, WHERE? He shows that there were other Rymers in Appleton Wiske, and that "I think it therefore quite clear that the Rymers of Appleton Wisk are only collaterally connected with Thomas Rymer the historiographer." (vol 1 pp xvi-xvii) On p. xviii Hardy disambigs a different Thomas Rymer at Cambridge, probably again from Appleton Wiske.
 * Result: Change place of birth to Yafforth, with note re probable wrongness of Appleton Wiske, ref. Hardy and others.

3. Father. Acad spells his name as Rimer. Discovered more about Rimer, lord of the manor of Brafferton, and also first rented and then bought land at Yafforth. Will add this to the article w/refs.

4. School

Both Hardy (Syllabus Vol.1, pp. xvi-xviii) and Richard L. Harris say he was first at school in Danby Wiske (like George Hicks) before going to Northallerton with Smelt.

5. Smelt

Educational Records: II Sources for the History of English Grammar Schools (Continued) by W. E. Tate (jstor) confirms on p. 77 that "Smelt taught at the Northallerton Grammar School from 1652-1686." If Rymer was at Cambridge in 1659, having spent "eight years with Smelt" these years would have begun in possibly 1651, indicating perhaps just one year at Danby W.

6. Age on going to Cambridge

Rymer was admitted to Sidney Sussex on 29 April 1659 aged 17.(see point 0.) So he might have been just 17 (eg born 25 April), or about to turn 18 (eg born on 1 May).
 * Result: Change 16 → 17 as per Hardy.

Other stuff about John Luke: (not hugely relevant, but no WP article as yet...)

"John Luke, B.D. who became Fellow of Sidney Sussex in 1654, [acad says M.A. 1656] was the second Proctor nominated by the College. He was afterwards Fellow of Christ's and Professor of Arabic."

Described in the Hardy quote above from Sidney admissions book as fidejussore = "guarantor, one who gives surety or goes bail" (uncommon)

"Another university graduate who used a posting to one of the Levant Company’s chaplaincies to pursue the study of Oriental languages was John Luke. Luke was appointed to serve as chaplain to the English factory at Izmir in 1664." ... " How far Luke progressed in his Arabic studies is unknown. He evidently knew enough to be appointed as the fourth Thomas Adams professor on his return to Cambridge (this, however, is not to say very much: until well into the eighteenth century the chair was held as a sinecure by men who knew little or no Arabic)."



MinorProphet (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)