Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 7th, 2017, 05:08 PM   #51
1an
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
I'd agree there probably was an original (maybe on of the Robert Hods who seem to have been survivors of Montfort's rebellion, or the Robert Hod (Hobbehod) in 1220'2 Yorkshire. Whether he contributed much more than the name to the legend as we have it is another matter
The man of legend is Robin of Loxley otherwise known as Robin Hood.

Anyone else is not the man of legend.

Last edited by 1an; January 7th, 2017 at 06:28 PM.
1an is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 8th, 2017, 01:39 AM   #52
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: England
Posts: 637

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Lodge? He is supposed to have built a chapel in the forest - hardly official ownership/
But doesn't he take the knight to his lodge in Barnsdale?


Quote:
Could be former occupation indeed, no early source tells of his life before outlawry, or how he was outlawed. He could I suppose have been anything of roughly Yeoman status - some sort of merchant or craftsman, upper servant, freeholder/farmer. But I don't see how anyone could actively be a merchant while outlawed.
Well again, is it 100% certain that Robin really was outlawed in the Geste? And even if he was, Geoffrey Luttrell surely still would have had connections in both Barnsdale and Nottingham if he used to travel to and from those places for his trade.

Quote:
Well he loaned money first, then gave some (when he was otherwise repaid). The point is not really about paying, but that he firmly distinguishes his Yeoman status from that of a knight. A prosperous Yeoman maybe could be as well-off as minor gentry, but knighthood is surely a more precise ranking.
Quoting from memory -"It never was the case, dear worthy God, a Yeoman should pay for a Knight".
I see. That does seem to contradict the Geoffrey Luttrell theory. Were there different categories of knighthood or something?
Calebxy is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:04 AM   #53
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 578

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1an View Post
The man of legend is Robin of Loxley otherwise known as Robin Hood.

Anyone else is not the man of legend.
Locksley first appears (IIRC) in the Sloane MS, a 16th century 'hotch-potch of the legend' to quote Holt.
No mention in any early ballad, historian etc. Hardly a crucial point.
If you do reckon Sloane is authoritative (why?) remember it agrees with Major's early date.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:09 AM   #54
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 578

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calebxy View Post
But doesn't he take the knight to his lodge in Barnsdale?
Need that mean any more than shelters built in the woods?



Quote:
Well again, is it 100% certain that Robin really was outlawed in the Geste? And even if he was, Geoffrey Luttrell surely still would have had connections in both Barnsdale and Nottingham if he used to travel to and from those places for his trade.
He is positively called outlaw in the Geste and other early ballads, and hunted when he appears in Nottingham.


Quote:
I see. That does seem to contradict the Geoffrey Luttrell theory. Were there different categories of knighthood or something?
I think Luttrell is quite well-studied (thanks to the Psalter perhaps), if he had spent years as a forest outlaw I suspect we'd know.
If an outlaw was successful enough to start a legend, yet not leave a clearer trace in the records he must surely have been a fairly obscure person, we know about outlawed Knights and above (Folvilles, Fulk Fitz Warin) I suspect.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:28 AM   #55
1an
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Locksley first appears (IIRC) in the Sloane MS, a 16th century 'hotch-potch of the legend' to quote Holt.
No mention in any early ballad, historian etc. Hardly a crucial point.
If you do reckon Sloane is authoritative (why?) remember it agrees with Major's early date.
Holt explains the early date when he writes, “Major’s conception about a 13th century Robin Hood was not reinforced by argument, evidence or proof it was simply recycled through later versions of the tale and so became an integral part of the legend."

In shorthand I call it Chinese whispers. John Major was living in France at the time and he may well have been speaking about King John of France who was captured at Potiers. Robin Hood would have been about 20 years of age at the time and may have been there as an archer. Edward III pardoned all outlaws and enlisted them in his army. They were usually the best men at arms and he needed them. I showed you the green clad men living in the forest. Major wrote King John correctly meaning King John of France, and the Brits immediately thought King John of England. There weren't even any friars in England at that time. It appears to have been a misunderstanding.
1an is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:41 AM   #56
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 578

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1an View Post
Holt explains the early date when he writes, “Major’s conception about a 13th century Robin Hood was not reinforced by argument, evidence or proof it was simply recycled through later versions of the tale and so became an integral part of the legend."

In shorthand I call it Chinese whispers. John Major was living in France at the time and he may well have been speaking about King John of France who was captured at Potiers. Robin Hood would have been about 20 years of age at the time and may have been there as an archer. Edward III pardoned all outlaws and enlisted them in his army. They were usually the best men at arms and he needed them. I showed you the green clad men living in the forest. Major wrote King John correctly meaning King John of France, and the Brits immediately thought King John of England. There weren't even any friars in England at that time. It appears to have been a misunderstanding.
Holt doesn't really 'explain' the date, he just points out that it is as unsupported by real evidence as any other possible date. The Poitiers theory is sheer speculation, Major is quite clear about the date.

But the real point is that you say Sloane (and Major) are wrong about the date, so why is Sloane so trustworthy about the place? That is also "not reinforced by argument, evidence or proof ".

Both Holt and Knight date the Sloane MS c1600, a collection from various ballads and stories. It shows (together with the tale Dodsworth collected) that by the later 16th century some versions of the legend connected RH with Locksley. 16th century ballads connected him with all sorts of things and people, it is hardly conclusive evidence for the original birthplace more than 200 years before.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:45 AM   #57
1an
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Holt doesn't really 'explain' the date, he just points out that it is as unsupported by real evidence as any other possible date. The Poitiers theory is sheer speculation, Major is quite clear about the date.

But the real point is that you say Sloane (and Major) are wrong about the date, so why is Sloane so trustworthy about the place? That is also "not reinforced by argument, evidence or proof ".

Both Holt and Knight date the Sloane MS c1600, a collection from various ballads and stories. It shows (together with the tale Dodsworth collected) that by the later 16th century some versions of the legend connected RH with Locksley. 16th century ballads connected him with all sorts of things and people, it is hardly conclusive evidence for the original birthplace more than 200 years before.
Someone penned the Sloane MS and took it to be King John of England instead of King John of France. Holt rubbished the very idea and explained that it was unsupported by any evidence.
1an is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:54 AM   #58
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 578

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1an View Post
Someone penned the Sloane MS and took it to be King John of England instead of King John of France.
Pure assumption.
Major doesn't just mention a King John, in his History of Britain he is discussing the period of John and Richard and says "About this time it was, as I conceive, that there flourished those most famous robbers Robert Hood, an Englishman, and Little John".
Quote:
Holt rubbished the very idea and explained that it was unsupported by any evidence.
As is the mention of Locksley in Sloane, and it's written even later than Major.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 03:15 AM   #59
1an
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: UK
Posts: 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Pure assumption.
Major doesn't just mention a King John, in his History of Britain he is discussing the period of John and Richard and says "About this time it was, as I conceive, that there flourished those most famous robbers Robert Hood, an Englishman, and Little John".

As is the mention of Locksley in Sloane, and it's written even later than Major.
Obviously the Sloane MS was written later than Major. It quotes him. The Sloane MS also describes Hathersage. Further to that we have the recently discovered pardon that cannot be disputed, neither can Dodsworth's account. Furthermore the King is not Edward II it is Edward III who is known as "Our comely king."

The date, place, and time all tally as do events in the early ballads. For example Robin and Little John climbed over Nottingham City wall to escape the sheriff. The wall was not completed until 1337.

There is much more, but just to say anyone who is not called Robin Hood, does not come from Loxley and was not living in the time of Edward III is not the man of legend.
1an is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 04:39 AM   #60
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 578

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1an View Post
Obviously the Sloane MS was written later than Major. It quotes him. The Sloane MS also describes Hathersage. Further to that we have the recently discovered pardon that cannot be disputed, neither can Dodsworth's account. Furthermore the King is not Edward II it is Edward III who is known as "Our comely king."

The date, place, and time all tally as do events in the early ballads. For example Robin and Little John climbed over Nottingham City wall to escape the sheriff. The wall was not completed until 1337.

There is much more, but just to say anyone who is not called Robin Hood, does not come from Loxley and was not living in the time of Edward III is not the man of legend.
The recently-discovered pardon is completely irrelevant, it is too late (after Langland) and it is certainly not the pardon told of in the Geste (for his men were pardoned with him and they are not in the York list, also it was in the reign of Richard II, not Edward on whom you are so keen). As you said yourself there are many Robert Hoods around.
Dodsworth simply noted down a vague undated legend, if there had been any reason to think it true a conscientious antiquary like him would have said so, at least given a date.
'Comely' is not that rare an adjective.
The City wall? So what. A detail added later, or an story written by someone who had never been near Nottingham and assumed walls. These are stories, not historical documents.

You mention 'the man of legend'. That's the point, are we talking about the legend (which has been developing and changing since the Middle Ages), or a possible original behind it? When people look for a possible original Arthur they don't expect him to match the details of all the later legends, quite the opposite. The legend in both cases is not the same as the original (if there was one). By your approach we would have to date Arthur in the late Middle Ages because of the details of armour and heraldry.

Major's date and Locksley in the Sloane MS are both ""not reinforced by argument, evidence or proof ", yet you reject the date because that doesn't suit your pre-conceived theory, while insisting on the birth-place. That is just cherry-picking. Both are unsupported notes in an unevidenced source from centuries later, either could be interesting, neither is real evidence for anything more than the stories around at the time.

When you make a positive statement like "‘Silence’ who is Sir Richard Vernon", don't acknowledge that it is nonsense when it is pointed out, why should anyone take a positive statement like 'he must be Robert of Loxley' as any more reliable?

Last edited by johnminnitt; January 8th, 2017 at 04:46 AM.
johnminnitt is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
fact, fiction, hood, robin



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Robin Hood George Washington Medieval and Byzantine History 9 July 19th, 2013 03:26 AM
The Roman Robin Hood? Clodius Ancient History 21 March 18th, 2012 04:36 PM
Was Robin Hood real? Trout Bum Medieval and Byzantine History 29 January 11th, 2012 05:30 AM
Best Robin Hood film? Nick History in Films and on Television 22 June 4th, 2010 09:40 AM
Robin Hood? hisstory History Book Reviews 14 April 5th, 2007 02:44 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.