Talk:Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford)

Regius Prof. George Etherege (or Etherige) not the same as George Etherege

The Etherege mentioned here is certainly not the same man as the dramatist the link leads to - he was a) born in about 1635, and b) "John Dennis assures that to his certain knowledge he understood neither Greek nor Latin". So I've removed the link. Mhmaudling (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford)

This discussion has been copied here from the humanities reference desk.

The source I followed in expanding the article says it was Nicholas Harp(e)sfield (1519-1575). (In agreement with: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) But several sources repeat that it was his elder brother John.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Can anyone trace, assess, or dismiss the claim that it was John? Also, is the spelling Harpesfeild more correct or authoritatively attested? Wareh (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything specific on this person, but it should be noted that standardized spelling is a relatively new addition to the English Langauge. While doing some research on the article on Plymouth Colony, 17th century writings, even by the same author showed wide variations in spelling. Most people just spelled things fonetikalee. Even with personal names, (for example Myles vs. Miles Standish) and even with the person using it themselves in their own writings there was variation. So your best option is to pick a spelling that seems well represented and stick to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is generally reliable, and should have a fair idea of who held positions at Oxford. They state that John Harpsfield (standardising to this spelling, in line with most of the works they cite) was the first Regius Professor of Greek. During the same period, according to the ODNB, Nicholas was the principal of White Hall in the city. Warofdreams talk 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources for Nicholas are learned or internal works on Oxford, too, which one would expect to be able to rely upon. Thanks for the pointer to ODNB; I now realize I have online access to it (John, Nicholas). Unfortunately, the crucial sentence ("Harpsfield became Oxford's first regius professor of Greek, and lectured there from 1541 to about 1545.") is fishy: the Regius Professorship by all accounts was established in 1546. A glance at ODNB's sources shows that this could well be an error inherited from R.W. Chambers' 1929 biographical essay (in my list above[14] and widely available in libraries). I may look up Chambers and see what source, if any, he cites, but I'm skeptical. Could Nicholas' greater notoriety as a Catholic controversialist have aided the confusion? (Yes, I agree we can pretty much set aside the spelling issue.) Wareh (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is usually reliable, but I shouldn't call it generally reliable, as it has a well-deserved reputation for being much less meticulously sourced (and proof-read by authors) than the old DNB. Frankly, the ODNB has a lot of mistakes in it, including some 'schoolboy howlers', and I am cautious of relying on it alone. Later, I'll check the standard history of the University for you, which is more reliable, but I have a meeting now. Xn4 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I tracked down the EETS edition (#186, 1932, repr. 1963) of Chambers' life of Nicholas. He points out that Anthony Wood's brief account in Athenae Oxonienses (1691) was the basis for "various other biographies, which for the most part merely repeat Wood's facts." Wood states that Nicholas was appointed Regius Prof. of Greek in 1546, but Chambers considers this a mistake (pp. clxxviii-clxxx). His reasoning seems pretty sound:

• "Unless his scribes have done him very great wrong, it does not seem as if Nicholas had any very exhaustive knowledge of Greek." But John's translation of Simplicius' commentary on Arist. Phys. I was dedicated to Henry VIII, and when imprisoned (as ODNB mentions) it was he who appealed to humanists with letters in Greek.
• T.F. Kirby's roll of Winchester Scholars is the one source Chambers found for John as Reg.Prof. This information independent of Wood "was probably depending upon one of the MS. books preserved at Winchester College." And indeed Chambers reports information from the archivist, who confirms the MS. has Joh.^s Harpisfield as Graecae Linguae Profess. Regius. And confrimation "beyond doubt" comes from further information in the archives of Westminster Abbey, which not only has John as "reder of Greke" for 1542-43 and 1543-44 in an account of the ten Regius Professors (Divinity, Law, Medicine, Greek, and Hebrew, in both universities) whose payment was in the charge of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but even proves that all the Regius Professorships date back to 1541 (not 1546 as commonly supposed).

I'll make the necessary corrections and citations at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford), but I'm sure the corrections need to go in the other articles on the original ten Regius Professorships. Obviously, I was very hasty to speak of Chamber as a source of "inherited error" above. Wareh (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, it seemed eight of the articles on the original Regius professorships had accurate information about the chairs' existence prior to 1546. I corrected the Oxford Greek article and Regius Professor of Medicine (Oxford), so as far as I know the basic job I referred to is complete. Wareh (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There clearly has been confusion on this point for a very long time, and perhaps we should say so in the article. To add to the confusion, the accounts of the newly reconstituted Christ Church for 1546 show payments to George Etheridge as Regius Professor of Greek. Xn4 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's discussed in Chambers (p. clxxx) and is taken into account in my latest revisions at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford). Despite my evident great confusion above, I think if you look at Chambers' essay you'll see that it would be misleading to advise the reader that the basic facts are suspect. Of course, I won't be surprised if someone comes along and tries to reinsert the bogus factoid, but I'll watch out for that. As it turns out, ODNB was right in this case, on who and on when (the years 1541-1545 that I supposed "fishy" above). Chambers is really cogent on this, and OBNB relied on him. Wareh (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see I wrote (with some footnotes, which you might like to look at) in Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) "The exact date of the chair's foundation is uncertain. Some sources say that John Story, the first professor, was appointed in about 1541, while others say the chair was founded in 1546. No foundation document survives, but in 1544 Robert Weston was recorded as acting as Story's deputy." And later "Payments to Story as professor of Civil Law are found in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations for the periods Michaelmas 1546 to Michaelmas 1550", so it may be that those accounts might be able to throw some light on this matter. Xn4 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Others say"--but the only reference there is to the same 2005 Oxford news release that was cited in the two articles I've corrected. I put no stock in it at all, and, quite frankly, I'd be plenty comfortable deleting while others say the chair was founded in 1546.<ref name=news/> at Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) (the news office doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside real historical sources and scholarship), but I'll leave that up to you. Wareh (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you're right. It would be good if formal statements by a great university could be given some credibility, but of course there's no contest between a press office and The History of the University of Oxford. I'll revise what's said there. I think I may have included it because I thought there were other sources quoting the later date, but I couldn't find them at the time. I'll look again. Xn4 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If your experience is like mine, you'll find no shortage of repetitions of the date in scholarly publications and university registers. But if you raise the bar to writers who show some awareness & consideration of the contrary evidence (which you've provided and cited in the article), the number of sources may suddenly shrink to zero. Thanks for your interest & good work on that article. Wareh (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)