posted 20 September 2001 01:10 PM         

Firstly, I am still waiting for a reply to my question of several months ago. I shall ask it again. Are the monks from St Mary's Abbey York not travelling South? You stated that those stopped were travelling North! Yet the Gest clearly states that the monks are going from St Mary's Abbey York to London ward, this means they were travelling SOUTH, please explain.

After I presented certain facts, you then said that the travellers ( the Knight and the monks) had gone past Blyth and Doncaster and then somehow wound up in Sherwood Forest!

Mr Henshaw I am not quite sure what you mean. Surely this cannot be correct if they were travelling North (which they were not) and had passed Blyth and Doncaster,they could not possibly be in Sherwood Forest, they would in fact be in Barnsdale in Yorkshire!

Speaking of the Gest, please have another look. As the knight says "my purpose was to have dined at Blyth or Doncaster. Why would the knight say this if he had gone past? It does not make sense, you don't need a lot of thought to figure this out!

Mr Henshaw the Gest certainly can not be taken as gospel but some parts are clear.

I shall say it again, the knight and the monks were travelling South, they had not yet reached Blyth or Doncaster, the monks were coming from St Marys Abbey York on their way to london ward, where else could they possibly be but Barnsdale in Yorkshire. Look again at the facts Mr Henshaw, The Saylis (The Sayles know as a place of ambush, documented proof robberies occured there, the Sayles, a very Small tenancy of the Honour of Pontefract not more than the tenth of a knight's fee. It occurs as a place in Barnsdale in the account of the aid for knighting the Black Prince in 1347. Mr Henshaw where do you get this idea that "Barnsdale owes it's fame to the Gest not the other way round" Mr Henshaw this is not fact, it is simply your opinion. As I have stated, the Sayles was know in 1347, probably before the Gest was composed! please explain.

The Gest clearly mentions these place names, The Saylis and Watlinge Street, there is documented proof that both the thirteenth and fourteenth century Watling Streets passed through Barnsdale in Yorkshire. The Saylis the high ground that overlooks Barnsdale in Yorkshire, which the Gest clearly tells of Little Jonh "looking into". Mr Henshaw, what of Wentbreg, (Wentbridge) may I point out that Robin Hood and the Potter (another early ballad) clearly says WENTBREG. All this is documented in the ealy ballads The Saylis (the Sayles) Watling Street, Wentbreg (Wentbridge) Blyth Doncaster York Town, yet still you refuse to accept the fact that this is Barnsdale in Yorkshire. Mr Henshaw you are not following the facts you are distorting them. Your obsession with trying to remove Yorkshire from the legend of Robin Hood has failed. Even Leland when he visited southern Yorkshire in the early sixteenth century writes; "the famose forest of Barnesdale wher they say Robyn Hudde lyvid like an owtlaw. His geography may have been off but he is clearly referring to the Yorkshire Barnsdale.

The Gest is made up of several stories, the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire components are clear, as for the sheriff, as Graham has already pointed out, they did not always stay within their home turf, the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire components have become entwined, so your sheriff becomes unimportant.

Why show a picture of yourself at Robin's grave in Yorkshire, whether you believe it is his grave or not it is still part of the legend.

I cannot understand why some people have so much trouble in accepting the possability that Robin Hood Robert Hod Hode Hude may simply have been the outlaw/yeoman's name.

Mr Henshaw please have another look at the facts. The Gest and the early tradition is clear. His name is Robin Hood Hode Hude and he is a yeoman. He has had this name and the title of yeoman for centuries not the slightest hint from any medieval historian or any record that he ever held any title or position in society at all.

Mr Henshaw I say it again, many historians have come to accept the fact that the Barnsdale of the Gest is Barnsdale in Yorkshire, do I need to list them all again. They have come to this acceptance for very good reason. Mr Henshaw you may have been born and bred in Nottingham or Nottinghamshire but please do not leave your view so narrow.

David, as I have said before, my site should be finished by December.

posted 21 September 2001 04:02 AM         

The geography of the Geste is something I've been wanting to comment on for a while. The Geste cannot of course be taken as historical fact, and nor should it ever be, and anyone who does so to prove their case is missing the point that it is a disillation of earlier myths - it's kind of like using Shakespeare as history without realising he was a) writing hundreds of years after the fact, b) often took his histories from earlier sources (ie Geoffrey of Monmouth and William of Malmesbury), and c) often had to take the political sensibilities of his patrons into account when writing his histories.

Having said that, for those who do take it as historical fact, I would like to nail a few misconceptions about the places named in the Geste. First off, I, like JC Holt, consider that the first two Fytes are the earliest. The Death of Robin Hood may be contemporary, but Fytes 7 & 8 are obviously set much later, and I believe they were also written later. Having said that, there was once a Kirkly Hall in Nottinghamshire, I have discovered - just haven't found out where it was yet.

In the first two Fytes, there are actually only four places that matter - 'The Saylis', 'Blith and Dancastere', 'Watling Strete' and 'Bernysdale'.

Now, admittedly, Saylis (given that it might be the Sayles plantation), Barnsdale (if this is how you interpret Bernysdale) and Watling Street are all within a few miles of each other in Yorkshire. Unfortunately this is where the Yorkshire theory begins to fall apart: first off, Robin's men were clearly travelling north when they encountered the knight -

"And walke up to the Saylis,
And so to Watlinge Strete,
And wayte after some unkuth gest,
Up chaunce ye may them mete"

Robin is telling his men to walk 'up' to the Saylis, and from there to go to Watling Street (as this stretch of the A1 was definitely known in those times): in other words, to approach both from the South.

"They wente up to the Saylis,
These yeman all thre;
They loked est, they loke weest;
They myght no man see."

But as they loked in to Bernysdale,
Bi a derne strete,
Than came a knyght ridinghe;
Full sone they gan hym mete.

And then it continues:

'I graunte," he sayde, "with you to wende,
My bretherne, all in fere;
My purpos was to have dyned to day
At Blith or Dancastere."'

So, they meet a knight near Barnsdale who was on his way to Blyth or Doncaster. True, the Knight could have been travelling south through Barnsdale Wood, Yorkshire, on his way to Blyth or Doncaster, when Robin's men met him - except for one thing:

'Then spake that gentyll knyght,
To Lytel Johan gan he saye,
"To-morrowe I must to Yorke toune,
To Saynt Mary abbay.'

This is, for me, the death of the Yorkshire theory - why, if the knight was in Barnsdale, Yorkshire, would he have hoped to spend the night in Blyth or Doncaster, way to the south, if he was on his way to York, which was to his north? Clearly Blyth or Doncaster were on his way to York, but he hadn't got to Blyth or Doncaster when he met Robin's men. Which means he was south of Blyth or Doncaster when he met them, which means he was absolutely nowhere near Barnsdale in Yorkshire.

One last thing - the Wentbridge thing is a red herring:

'He bare a launsgay in his honde,
And a man ledde his male,
And reden with a lyght songe
Unto Bernsydale.

But at Wentbrydge ther was a wrastelyng,
And there taryed was he,
And there was all the best yemen
Of all the west countree.'

In other words, he was on his way back from York to Bernysdale, but got waylaid at Wentbridge. Wentbridge could of course be the Yorkshire Wentbridge (and probably is), but then, if he was on his way back south from York, he would go through Wentbridge, whether he was going to Barnsdale Yorkshire or Sherwood - in other words the Wentbridge reference doesn't prove anything.

Of course, there is another Barnsdale, as I've already said in another post, but I'm going to say it again anyway. It's in Rutland, just north of Rockingham Forest (and in those days pretty much part of it), one of Prince John's favourite hunting grounds. Just to the East of this Barnsdale Wood (now much smaller than it was, largely thanks to the creation of Rutland Water) is the A1, also then called Watling Street, and just below is what is now called Willow Brook, which as Robert Henshaw says would then have been called Sallix. And just below Willow Brook is Fotheringhay, the seat of Earl David of Huntingdon. So in other words, should Earl David have been masquerading as Robin Hood during his 'disappearance' from 1190-94, his men would have had to go up to the Sallix from Fotheringhay to get to Watling Street, just along which was Barnsdale Wood.

Of course, this would be to use the Geste as a history, which, as I said, is to miss the point. It does prove however that the locations can be made to fit other places though, if you're determined enough.

Even so, the Yorkshire end of things is plainly wrong.

All the best

Alastair

posted 21 September 2001 03:52 PM         

to the left of the page, at the top and bottom of the 'author' column, in fairly small type, are clickable page numbers.

All the best

posted 23 September 2001 02:32 AM         

Yorkshire, as many historians believe, is still the front runner.

Alastair, did Kirkly Hall ever have a prioress?

posted 23 September 2001 12:47 PM         

Why don't you nip on over to the thread I started and add some references there. I'd like to get all the "proofs" on one page so to speak. That makes it easier to discuss.

A point I would like to make here is:

Robin Hood's adventures in York, Nottingham, Derby, or Rutland do not preclude his adventures in any other place. The areas of which you speak are fairly close together. Many of you speak as if there were walls or guarded barbed wire borders preventing the band from moving about freely.

I think you all need to blow the cobwebs out and loosen up a bit.

It makes very great sense that Robin Hood, if he were, in fact, a highway bandit would steal something in York and then "hideout" in Sherwood until the heat was off. The same is true if he skipped over the line into Rutland, or Lincolnshire. He, quite probably worked one area for a while and then went off to find sweeter pickings. This would be especially true if he were going to survive doing this for 20 or 30 years!

If Robin had anything like his seven score of "wight" bowman, they quite possibly worked various areas in small bands which could be drawn together quickly (via messages relayed by the hunting horns) if the sheriff made any concerted effort to apprehend them.

I saw something on TV a while back, can't remember what on, but somebody ask a crook, "Why do you steal from the rich?".
The crook replied, "'Cause they have the money!"

Gotta go, just thought I'd stick my nose in for a bit.

Best regards,

posted 23 September 2001 02:30 PM         

OK, point taken, it is possible the Knight had given up on all hope of repaying the Abbot, and was heading off on pilgrimage or crusade 'over the salte see' (and by the way, I can only find this once in the Geste, not twice). But this then gives no clue as to whether he was going north or south. If he was on his way to the Holy Land, he could have been heading south to Dover (or similar) via Blyth or Doncaster, thence to go to France, or he could have been heading north via Blyth or Doncaster to the nearest big port, ie what is now Kingston upon Hull. To be honest, he could have been heading to any port, and thus we have no idea at all whether he was heading north or south, and the geography of the Geste is once more irrelevant to the location of Robin's base. It still could have been Sherwood (Bernysdale) or Barnesdale Yorks.

My question is then why would Robin be telling his men to be careful of the Sheriff of Nottingham if they were in Yorkshire?

"These bisshoppes and these archebishoppes,
Ye shall them bete and bynde;
The hye sherif of Notyingham,
Hym holde ye in your mynde."

The Sheriff of Nottingham(shire) in those days was also the Sheriff of Derbyshire, but not the Sheriff of Yorkshire. If they were to be careful of the Sheriff, assuming they were in Barnesdale Forest Yorkshire, should Robin not be tellng them to be careful of the Sheriff of Yorkshire?

The Sheriffs of Yorkshire for the various Robin Hood periods were as follows (from http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/yrksdict/sheriffs.txt)<

RICHARD 1.
1189 Radulphus to Glanvile.
90 Johan. Mareschallus.
Osbertus de Longocampo.
91 Osbertus de Longocampo.
92 Hugo Bardulf.
Hugo de Boebi.
93 Iidem.
94 Iidem.
95 Galfrid, archiep. Ebor. et Rog. de Batuent. pro quin an.

JOHN.
1199 Galfrid filius Petri, et Jacob. de Paterne
1201 Iidem.
2 Will. de Stutevile, et Will. Breto.
3 Iidem.
1204 Galfrid. filius Petri, Will. de Percy et Radolph. de Normanvile.
5 Galfrid. fil. Poter, et Rad. de Normanvile.
6 Rob. de Lacy Const. Cestrien, et Rob. Wallensis, pro qainque an.
11 Galfrid. fil. Renfredi, et Henricus Rademan sive Radenor,
pro quantuor an.
15 Rob. de Percy, et Hen. de Midleton.
16 Petrus filius Herberti, et Ric. de Husseburn.

A.D. HENRY III.
1217 Galfrid de Nevile. et Simon de Hale.
18 Idem.
19 Idem.
20 Galfrid de Nevile.
21 Idem et Simon de Hales.
22 Idem.
23 Idem.
24 Simon de Hales.
25 Eustachius de Ludham.
26 Idem et Rob. de Cokefeld.
27 Rob. de Cokefeld.
28 Idem.
29 Idem.
30 Will. de Stutevile, et Phil de Ascelles.
31 Idem.
32 Idem.
33 Petrus de Rivall.
34 Bryanus de Insola.
35 Johan. filius Galfridi.
36 Idem.
37 Brianus filius Alani, at Roger de Stapleton.
38 Idem.
39 Brianus fil Alani, Nich. de Molis. et Will. de Midelton.
40 Nicholas de Molis.
41 Idem et Will. de Midelton.
42 Nich. de Molis, Hen. de Bath, et Remery de Cerve.
1243 Hen. de Bada, pro qual. ann.
47 Hen. de Bathon, pro duo an.
49 Will, Dacre.
50 Idem et Rob. de Creppings.
51 Rob. de Creppings.
52 Will. Dacre.
53 Rob. de Creppings.
54 Will. de Horsenden.
55 Will. de Latimer.
56 Idem et Joh. de Oketon, pro quinque an.
61 Petrus de Percy.
62 Idem.
63 Idem.
64 Idem. et Rob. de Nevile.
65 Will. de Basale.
66 Idem. et Joh. de Oketon.
67 Idem.
68 Will. de Latimer.
69 Idem.
70 Idem.
71 Roger Extraneus et Hen. de Kirkby.
72 Iidem.

This assumes we don't believe Robin Hood was active before the Third Crusade. However, even if we go with Graham's theory that Robin was active at the time of William Peverel, Peverel wasn't Sheriff of Yorkshire either. Basically there weren't any Sheriffs of Yorkshire who were also Sheriff of Nottinghamshire at the same time, although Hugh Bardulf was Sheriff of Yorkshire in 1192, and Sheriff of Nottingham in 1200. The Nottinghamshire Rolls have no mention of a Sheriff for 1190-93, but there seem to be several candidates: William de Wendeval & Roger de Montbegun, who were Constables of the Castle, or Ralph Murdac, with whom the previous two surrendered the castle to Richard's forces in 1194. However, I believe William de Briwerre was Sheriff from 1190-92, as he was kind of a travelling troubleshooting Sheriff for King Richard (and Prince John, for that matter), having in his time been Sheriff of Dorset, Oxfordshire, Bucks, Berks, Northants and Derbyshire.

'Among other offices he was at various times sheriff of Hampshire and of other counties, (including Nottingham while Richard Coeur-de Lion was on a Crusade.'
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~villages/somchurc.htm<

(Not saying this is authoratative, of course)

He was also Sheriff of Nottingham in 1203.

And so the debate goes on, as it ever was!

All the best

Alastair

posted 23 September 2001 04:40 PM         

------------------
Graham

[This message has been edited by graham (edited 23 September 2001).]

posted 24 September 2001 09:05 AM         

Robin is telling his men who to rob and who to "bete and bynde" He does mention the sheriff of Nottingham, but I do not recall him actually saying to "be careful of the sheriff of Nottingham"

Alastair there are two references to the "salte see" seek and you shall find.

Alastair, if you can find a region between York and Doncaster (remember the monks are travelling from Yorke Towne to London Ward), that has Bernysdale or Barnsdale, the Saylis, or the Sayles, Watlinge Street or Watling street and Wentbreg or Wentbridge, and has the high ground of the Saylis or the Sayles that Little John "walked up to" and looked into Bernysdale, and is before Blyth and Doncaster, I will agree with you.

I recall you saying that if people looked hard enough they could find another region that had these place names.

I challenge you, find a region that has all these factors, but this region must have all these factors, and please no Walton Streets.

posted 27 September 2001 12:15 PM         

“The plays were performed in woodland glades and village greens. The place names became those in the area and included the nearest castle, abbey, and manor of those who had administrative rights over them. The characters in the plays became the personalities who were well known to the local audience. Some village people became known by the name of the character they played and if the king were mentioned it would be the reigning monarch of the day. There were never many manuscripts, the plays being committed to memory, and allowing for their gradual loss over the years it is doubtful if we can place too much reliance on them for historical details when studying the life and times of Robin Hood. Later, writers introduced romance in the form of Maid Marion, and the Robin Hood story continues to evolve by which process it has been kept alive to this day. The rhymes and plays of Robin Hood should be read in the same way one would read medieval mummery plays, rather than as historical documents.”

posted 28 September 2001 01:00 AM         

What you have is the perfect description of the Mummer's plays which were performed as part of the Robin Hood Days. They weren't "like mummery plays" as the article you posted says, they were mummery plays which seem an outshoot of the Morris Dance (the Moor's Dance historically).

See Jeffrey L. Singman's "Robin Hood: The Shaping of the Legend" for what is probably the best account of the Robin Hood games I've seen to date, but Dobson and Taylor and others discuss them. They are a separate body of literature related to the ballads only by the crossover of characters and some events.

These playings at Robin Hood were loathed by the clergy and banned in many places. people were literally held for ransom by the players and the money given to the poor through the parish churches.

All the best,

posted 30 September 2001 08:41 AM         

“Take me my gold again,” said the abbot,
”Sir justice, that I took thee:”
”Not a penny,” said the justice,
”By God, that died on tree.”

Apparently it should read

“Give me my gold again,” said the Abbot

Which is a little different to say the least and I wondered if there was anything else that was different from what we regard as the norm, although I can’t imagine the place names being any different, but I thought it might be worthwhile if someone took a close look.
http://icg.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/litsubs/romances/robinreg.html<

posted 02 October 2001 04:16 PM         

De Kyme would have been a knight, yes, or at leasy gentry of some kind? I get confused.

posted 03 October 2001 11:25 AM         

Thank you,

After you latest comments I would have thought the pantomime season had already begun.

David seems as confused as I, you agree with me that Robin is a yeoman in the early stories, and you say "I have never said that Robin Hood was anything other than a yeoman". Mr Henshaw, you are telling us that Robin Hood was Robert de Kyme a knight? A knight is not a yeoman, Robin even agrees he is below the stature of a knight in the Gest.

Mr Henshaw you do not seem to remember things you have said before.

You have not mentioned this to me before, so how can you say you have always maintained the monks were travelling South. First it was "they' were travelling North, now it is the monks travelling south, and the knight travelling North, Please?

Mr Henshaw I have explained the knight to you several months ago why have you repeated this again, why make me repeat it yet again, it would be much easier if you could remember things.

As I have said to you and Alastair, The knight only says he will go back in the direction of York after he has been given the money to repay the loan, he would naturally head back in that direction to repay the loan as quickly as possible.

He tells us he was heading over the "salte see,an se where Christe was quyke and dede on the mount of Calvere". Mr Henshaw this refrence to the holy land, which direction would the knight go to get there, South Mr Henshaw, if the knight was heading North he would be heading in the opposite direction, why would he do that.

The Gest is telling us that both the knight and the Monks were heading South, "My purpose was to have dined today in Blyth or Doncaster, why would he say this if he had gone past, it does not make sense, they have not yet reached Blyth or Doncaster, they are in Barnsdale in Yorkshire, read the Gest Mr Henshaw. Why is the knight borrowing from St Mary,s abbey York why are the monks going from York to London ward.The story is the same for both the knight and the monks, the merry men went "up" to the saylis, they look East, they look West, then they look into Bernesdale. Look at some facts for a change Mr Henshaw, you have finally admitted that several historians agree on Yorkshire, and they are not all from Yorkshire, historians Mr Henshaw, but of course you tower above them, above all that would put their opinions on this site, you have this lofty idea that you own the monopoly on Robin Hood, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Mr henshaw please realize, your ideas are your opinion not fact. Everyone has the right to an opinion but others can present them in a constructive way, but not you, you do not offer constructive opinion, you are too busy trying to distort the facts, and discredit historians like Holt and several others that I have already mentioned, (to boost you own theories) when they are much more learned than you or I. You are not interested in facts Mr Henshaw have another look at the facts, they speak for themselves.

Mr Henshaw I never said I believed Robin was buried at Kirklees, this is tradition, which has been known for years. I have read David's paper and have communicated with him. While he believes a Thomas of Wakefield is buried with a Roberd Hude, this has not been proven,it is his theory, it is not fact. No-one knows, if any Roberd Hude or a Thoms or thomas is buried there, this news is old hat.

Mr Henshaw, I have already told you I have read several versions of the Gest why must I always repeat myself.

Mr Henshaw it does not matter if you have read the original Wynken de Worde version of the Gest, what does this prove? there are at least five editions of the Gest, the Lettersnjder edition could be earlier than the the Wynken de Worde edition, there are word differences and slight plot changes between them.

Why can Bernesdale not be Barnsdale, why can the Saylis not be the Sayles, why can Wentbreg not be Wentbridge, why can Watlinge street not be Watling street.

As A.H. Smith says Barnsdale scarely occurs before the fifteenth century, but it does occur. If you read my reply you will find that the Sayles is mentioned as a place in Barnsdale for the knighting of the Black Prince in the fourteenth century, the Sayles existed before this, and has now became known as Sayles Plantation. I shall say it again Mr Henshaw, the idea that Barnsdale owes it's fame to the Geste is simply your opinion.

I have made it clear that Wentbridge is the place mentioned in Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin and Little Jonh try to extract "pavage" from the potter, in Wentbreg, their turf.

What does it matter if Robin Hood and the Potter does not mention a dale in a forest adjacent to Nottingham? If the author had borrowed from a copy of the Gest it means some copies of the Gest have Wentbreg, more proof of Yorkshire

Once again the Gest mentions a forest, they may be in Sherwood Forest in this part of the Gest, but Sherwood Forest is never named, why would the author of the gest not simply say Sherwood forest, it could be that he does not want to confuse the two regions.

Different parts of the great North Road were named Watling street, but the Sayles, Watling street and Wentbridge in Yorkshire in Barnsdale, are all within the radius of a few miles.

If you read the Gest Mr Henshaw you will see that the author has put the Gest together from different stories, some of Yorkshire some of Nottinghamshire, while he has done a skillful job there are inconsistencies.

The knight of the earlier verses may only be identified as Sir Richard at the Lee in the later verses simply for the sake of unity. Many historians believe the story of the knight to be earlier than the story of Sir Richard at the Lee. The gest is not an accurate document, but some of the place names are clear.

Mr Henshaw you mention Kirklees in Yorkshire, you wanted to believe it to be the place of Robin's death, here you admit Yorkshire is part of the legend. In Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne, Guy may say "men call his Robin Hood, but what does this prove? The first stanza of the Gest says "His name was Robyn Hode"?

I'm sure you will reply Mr Henshaw, i'm sure you will once again ignore, miss or forget things I/you have said, but as you say, it certainly generates some lively discussions.

Robert Fortunaso

posted 05 October 2001 08:56 PM         

Just a suggestion, but perhaps first you ought to uninstall the programme that caused the problem and see what happens.

Then you can try doing a printer self test, which I do on my printer by turning it off, then pressing the PAPER and POWER button together. Check your instruction book as regards your particular printer.

If it prints a test pattern then you know the printer is OK.

If nothing happens, then with the power ON you can try unpluging the printer from the mains for about one minute then reapply power and the printer may go through a reset routine, then you can try another self test. If the printer still won’t print, there is a fair chance the printer has gone faulty.

If the printer does a self-test OK but still won’t print documents, then make sure the printer driver is set to default. You can always try re-installing the printer driver.

Other than that I can’t help and I am going away for a few days where there isn’t a computer, so I will have withdrawal symptoms, but I hope everything goes OK for you.

posted 07 October 2001 12:14 AM         

The offer to publish theories applies to anyone. If you or anyone else would like to do this, just drop me line to keri@robinhood.info

Hope to hear from you soon.

posted 07 October 2001 05:12 AM         

The knight of distraint thing actually began to become common at the end of Henry II's reign and was pretty much a fait acompli by the end of John's.

If you check your non-Robin Hood English History of this period you will find that inflation grew by five fold in the period 1180-1220 which was also a time of great upheavel as you had the end of the reign of Henry II, the rebellions by his kids, various crusades, Richard I, John I, Magna Carta, et al.

The primary cause for this inflation according to most recent research was the INFLOW of silver coin into England, not as you might suspect, the lack of money for goods. Because money was available, farmers could get more for their crops, mercenaries needed to fight the wars could get more for their services, kights were, in many cases, simply mercenaries, "Militarii" is the Latin term most normally translated as knight, but it more correctly translates as "soldier", usually a hired soldier.

We see this is Robin Hood as he recruits his merry men by combating them to test their skills and then hiring them. The typical and eventually illegal way was "cloth and fee" mentioned in the gest by the sheriff but we see in in various ballads such as RH and the Pindar of Wakefield where Robin offers to hire the pindar.

The changing of hired help usually occurred at Easter (more correctly at Lady's day, march 25th, I think) and at Michalmas (September 29)

The Pindar in one version says that "if that my master doe a bridge mee of my pay aat Barns dale with out all faile Ile be next Easter Day." in another it is at Michalmas but the meaning is clear as it is in other ballads.

Robin generally offers two good suits and a wage and the men flock to him. Robin is in this way reflecting the problems then pertinent to his society (if you believe Robin to be a late 12th century early to middle 13th century character as his obituaries all suggest)

Also, I have yet to find in any of the Robin Hood ballads any trace of the alleged hatred of the Normans by the Saxons that everybody gets all wrapped up in. The earliest mention and practically only mention of it I find starts with Ivanhoe and carries on through Errol Flynn, TV and the current crop of movies. Could someone point out where they find this in the ballads I've been reading?

Best regards,

BJ NORTHON
Evart, Michigan

posted 08 October 2001 09:39 PM         

As far as I can tell, the first true inkling of anti-Norman sentiment is alluded to in Ritson, 1795. And it becomes a plot element in Scott's Ivanhoe in 1819 and Peacock's Maid Marian in 1822 (supposedly begun before Ivanhoe).

I've been doing some research to revise sections of the website. I notice that the Norman Yoke metaphor plays a role in the pamplets of the Diggers and the Levellers. Perhaps the "Norman Yoke" was associated with radicalism, and therefore would be especially inappropriate in the later Restoration period.