Robin Hood question

[David]

Ok, this is really the wrong group for this subject, but as you all
seem to be intelligent and well-informed types, and as the medieval
history newsgroup appears to be full of wackos, I thought I would post
it here.

There are, I think, at least some interesting parallels with research
into King Arthur and the nature of evidence.

For the past few years I've been helping with some research into the
origins of the Robin Hood legend, using the work of Professor Holt, Dr
David Crook, Michael Wood etc as a basis.

I don't want to give away all the details of the results as yet
(sounds suspicious, I know) but I would like to ask everyone here a
question.

These are the words of an early 15th century chronicler named Walter
Bower, for the year 1266:

'John de Eyvill was a rebel at Ely: Robert Hode was an outlaw in the
woodland briars and thorns'

This is one of the earliest mentions of Robin Hood, and it places him
on the side of the baronial rebels in the period of civil war 1257-68.
A plausible idea, but like the work of Nennius etc in relation to
Arthur it has no basis because there has been no contemporary evidence
to back it up.

Now suppose a bunch of amateurs spent years digging through medieval
court records and found indisputable primary evidence of a
Yorkshireman called Robert Hod committing crimes between the years
1254-1276?

Can I ask what would you all make of that? Think if something similar
was found relating to Arthur - what would you all make of it??

Sorry to go off topic, but this is a serious question.

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by David
Now suppose a bunch of amateurs spent years digging through medieval
court records and found indisputable primary evidence of a
Yorkshireman called Robert Hod committing crimes between the years
1254-1276?
Can I ask what would you all make of that? Think if something similar
was found relating to Arthur - what would you all make of it??

There is no end of bunches of amateurs spending years digging through
records - generally that which marks them out is the way in which they
write; the absolute certainty (their own that is) that they have the one
true answer; and their dismissal of anyone who differs from 'the solution',
especially if the one differing from them is a 'professional'. If your
discoveries are written up in the same way, you are likely to be thought of
as a bunch of cranks, and the more certain (obstinate?) you are about your
solution, the more likely to be dismissed by mainstream thought.

So, lets look at that which you write:

amateurs - does that inspire more confidence as the underdog beating teh
professionals at their own game?

"indisputable primary evidence' - is there any such thing? Some would
argue that the very essence of history is "since all historical judgements
involve perrsons and points of view, one is as good as another and there is
no 'objective' historical truth" [Clark cited Carr 'What is History'
Penguin Second Edn 1987 reprint 1990 page 8] On that basis, then the
primary evidence you produce is disputable, and may be disputed -
handwriting, name (eg can Hod -> Hood?) , dating, later insertion, is this
the same Hood that Walter Bower was referring to (his previous rebel was
around Ely a different geographical context to Yorkshire) or whatever.

As a first stab at answering your question, I would suggest that how it is
taken will very much depend upon the way you write it up - with the
certainty (that marks you out as enthusiastic amateurs) or, in my view
better, tentatively and with some humility, because you may (just?) have
got it completely wrong.

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[David]

Sorry, I haven't made myself clear: when I said 'indisputable primary
evidence' I meant that the records concerned are indisputably genuine
medieval court records, not that the man they mention was indisputably
Robin Hood. The records concerned are to be found in the Callenders of
Inquisitions and the Curia Regis - everyday contemporary legal stuff
and considered pretty reliable in their (often rather terse) details.

Humility and tentativeness are the name of the game, absolutely: we're
very much aware that a great many people aren't going to accept 'our'
candidate as THE Robin Hood, but that's ok. He's certainly not much
like the modern image of Robin Hood, but I think we can explain that.

I didn't quote Bower fully: in another extract he places his 'Robert
Hode' in Barnsdale in south Yorkshire, and one of the problems we have
is that our Robert Hod was active in North and East Yorkshire - right
on the fringes of traditional Robin Hood territory, not the centre of
it.

Hod does indeed = Hood. Medieval spellings of Hood varied from Hood,
Hode, Hod, Hudde, Ode, Ote, Odo etc. Very confusing!

Thanks for the reply. Anyone else interested? (no, I'm not trying to
sell a book!)

Post by Malcolm Martin

Post by David
Now suppose a bunch of amateurs spent years digging through medieval
court records and found indisputable primary evidence of a
Yorkshireman called Robert Hod committing crimes between the years
1254-1276?
Can I ask what would you all make of that? Think if something similar
was found relating to Arthur - what would you all make of it??

There is no end of bunches of amateurs spending years digging through
records - generally that which marks them out is the way in which they
write; the absolute certainty (their own that is) that they have the one
true answer; and their dismissal of anyone who differs from 'the solution',
especially if the one differing from them is a 'professional'. If your
discoveries are written up in the same way, you are likely to be thought of
as a bunch of cranks, and the more certain (obstinate?) you are about your
solution, the more likely to be dismissed by mainstream thought.
amateurs - does that inspire more confidence as the underdog beating teh
professionals at their own game?
"indisputable primary evidence' - is there any such thing? Some would
argue that the very essence of history is "since all historical judgements
involve perrsons and points of view, one is as good as another and there is
no 'objective' historical truth" [Clark cited Carr 'What is History'
Penguin Second Edn 1987 reprint 1990 page 8] On that basis, then the
primary evidence you produce is disputable, and may be disputed -
handwriting, name (eg can Hod -> Hood?) , dating, later insertion, is this
the same Hood that Walter Bower was referring to (his previous rebel was
around Ely a different geographical context to Yorkshire) or whatever.
As a first stab at answering your question, I would suggest that how it is
taken will very much depend upon the way you write it up - with the
certainty (that marks you out as enthusiastic amateurs) or, in my view
better, tentatively and with some humility, because you may (just?) have
got it completely wrong.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Malcolm Martin]

David

I think the only other point I would want to raise, before dropping out of
this thread, is whether it might be argued against you that your Robin Hod
committing crimes between the years 1254-1276 had adopted (or been given?)
that name:

either following on the similar exploits of an earlier one (eg one said by
some to be in the Court records of 1224/5)

or from a mythical folk-hero outlaw - in the same way we would now say "a
Robin Hood type character", or "He's a Walter Mitty"

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[martymonster]

I think Malcolm's point regarding assumption of the name is a kind of a
biggie.

Has Guy of Gisbourne entered into these studies at all? Just curious.

Though it does seem fairly intuitive/believable to me, I'd be interested to
see some descriptions of how we arrived at the understanding that Hod, Hode,
Hood, Hudde, Ode, Ote, Odo are the same.

Afraid I don't consider myself one of the learned here but I hope you don't
mind my responding.



-mart

Post by Malcolm Martin
David
I think the only other point I would want to raise, before dropping out of
this thread, is whether it might be argued against you that your Robin Hod
committing crimes between the years 1254-1276 had adopted (or been given?)
either following on the similar exploits of an earlier one (eg one said by
some to be in the Court records of 1224/5)
or from a mythical folk-hero outlaw - in the same way we would now say "a
Robin Hood type character", or "He's a Walter Mitty"
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[David]

I don't mind you responding at all - flattered at the interest!

As to yours and Malcolm's questions regarding the name. The name
'Robert Hod' as stated in these records is written as 'Robs Hod'
(short for the Latin 'Robertus)

There is no hint that the man in question has had this name bestowed
on him: it appears to be just his given name, like mine is David.
Robert was an extremely common name and Hod or Hood was/is fairly
common in Yorkshire.

The alternative spellings of Hod can be proved by cross-referencing a
great many people in medieval records who bore the name but appear as,
for example, Thomas Hode, Ode, Ote etc. It seems to have originally
derived from FitzOdo, and in the 13th century the 'Fitz' began to be
dropped and for some reason a 'H' was acquired. Medieval spelling,
especially of names, could be random in the extreme.

Gisburne (the place in Yorkshire) did play a part in this research for
a while, but less so now. We've scoured the records for any mention of
a Guy, Gui etc of Gisbourne, but sadly there is none. The original
story of Robin Hood and Guy of Gisburne has some suspicious
similarities with one of the stories of Guy of Warwick, and could have
been filched from there.

Post by martymonster
I think Malcolm's point regarding assumption of the name is a kind of a
biggie.
Has Guy of Gisbourne entered into these studies at all? Just curious.
Though it does seem fairly intuitive/believable to me, I'd be interested to
see some descriptions of how we arrived at the understanding that Hod, Hode,
Hood, Hudde, Ode, Ote, Odo are the same.
Afraid I don't consider myself one of the learned here but I hope you don't
mind my responding.
-mart

Post by Malcolm Martin
David
I think the only other point I would want to raise, before dropping out of
this thread, is whether it might be argued against you that your Robin Hod
committing crimes between the years 1254-1276 had adopted (or been given?)
either following on the similar exploits of an earlier one (eg one said

by

Post by Malcolm Martin
some to be in the Court records of 1224/5)
or from a mythical folk-hero outlaw - in the same way we would now say "a
Robin Hood type character", or "He's a Walter Mitty"
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Alf]

Post by David
Ok, this is really the wrong group for this subject, but as you all
seem to be intelligent and well-informed types, and as the medieval
history newsgroup appears to be full of wackos, I thought I would post
it here.
There are, I think, at least some interesting parallels with research
into King Arthur and the nature of evidence.
For the past few years I've been helping with some research into the
origins of the Robin Hood legend, using the work of Professor Holt, Dr
David Crook, Michael Wood etc as a basis.
I don't want to give away all the details of the results as yet
(sounds suspicious, I know) but I would like to ask everyone here a
question.
These are the words of an early 15th century chronicler named Walter
'John de Eyvill was a rebel at Ely: Robert Hode was an outlaw in the
woodland briars and thorns'
This is one of the earliest mentions of Robin Hood, and it places him
on the side of the baronial rebels in the period of civil war 1257-68.
A plausible idea, but like the work of Nennius etc in relation to
Arthur it has no basis because there has been no contemporary evidence
to back it up.
Now suppose a bunch of amateurs spent years digging through medieval
court records and found indisputable primary evidence of a
Yorkshireman called Robert Hod committing crimes between the years
1254-1276?
Can I ask what would you all make of that? Think if something similar
was found relating to Arthur - what would you all make of it??
Sorry to go off topic, but this is a serious question.

I would guess from your wording that you're an American. Sorry to
disappoint you then but your amateur research has been done before and
is a matter of record over here in the UK and all over the Internet.
And if you're UK then you missed a couple of good TV documentaries
last year which covered the Robert/Robyn/Robe Hod/Hoode/Hode etc, etc,
subject in great good detail.

[David]

As a matter of fact I'm British, and I've seen the documentaries you
mention. Without being too pompous or sensational about it - as I seem
to be annoying people, which isn't my intention - the information I
have helped to find (most of it is NOT my research) has nothing to do
with the content of any these programmes.

These tended to concentrate on a Robert Hood of Wakefield alive in the
14th century, but this particular theory has been torn to pieces by
people a great deal more learned than I.

Post by Alf

Post by David
Ok, this is really the wrong group for this subject, but as you all
seem to be intelligent and well-informed types, and as the medieval
history newsgroup appears to be full of wackos, I thought I would post
it here.
There are, I think, at least some interesting parallels with research
into King Arthur and the nature of evidence.
For the past few years I've been helping with some research into the
origins of the Robin Hood legend, using the work of Professor Holt, Dr
David Crook, Michael Wood etc as a basis.
I don't want to give away all the details of the results as yet
(sounds suspicious, I know) but I would like to ask everyone here a
question.
These are the words of an early 15th century chronicler named Walter
'John de Eyvill was a rebel at Ely: Robert Hode was an outlaw in the
woodland briars and thorns'
This is one of the earliest mentions of Robin Hood, and it places him
on the side of the baronial rebels in the period of civil war 1257-68.
A plausible idea, but like the work of Nennius etc in relation to
Arthur it has no basis because there has been no contemporary evidence
to back it up.
Now suppose a bunch of amateurs spent years digging through medieval
court records and found indisputable primary evidence of a
Yorkshireman called Robert Hod committing crimes between the years
1254-1276?
Can I ask what would you all make of that? Think if something similar
was found relating to Arthur - what would you all make of it??
Sorry to go off topic, but this is a serious question.

I would guess from your wording that you're an American. Sorry to
disappoint you then but your amateur research has been done before and
is a matter of record over here in the UK and all over the Internet.
And if you're UK then you missed a couple of good TV documentaries
last year which covered the Robert/Robyn/Robe Hod/Hoode/Hode etc, etc,
subject in great good detail.

[Bert Olton]

David -

It's probably not really the "wrong group" for the subject - there are a
surprising number of Arthur nuts who also study the Robin Hood legend.
As you point out, the similarities are fairly obvious and fascinating.
In fact, I imagine you've already stumbled across it, but if not, Alan
Lupack's outstanding website "The Camelot Project" includes an entire
section on Robin hood (got to:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/cphome.stm

then use the "Related Scholarly Projects" drop down box, select "The
Robin Hood Project" and GO!

I haven't gotten into the Robin Hood legends myself, so I'll leave it at
that, other than to say, great question and I'll be interested in
reading what comes of it.

Bert

[David]

Thanks for the link, Bert. I have seen the site many times but
appreciate the link anyway!

If you're interested in keeping up with the research I could email you
some information? (don't worry, I really am not trying to sell
anything!)

Post by Bert Olton
David -
It's probably not really the "wrong group" for the subject - there are a
surprising number of Arthur nuts who also study the Robin Hood legend.
As you point out, the similarities are fairly obvious and fascinating.
In fact, I imagine you've already stumbled across it, but if not, Alan
Lupack's outstanding website "The Camelot Project" includes an entire
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/cphome.stm
then use the "Related Scholarly Projects" drop down box, select "The
Robin Hood Project" and GO!
I haven't gotten into the Robin Hood legends myself, so I'll leave it at
that, other than to say, great question and I'll be interested in
reading what comes of it.
Bert

[John Adcox]

Not to change the subject, but it sounds like this would make a fun novel plot.

John

___
John Adcox

Click below for Mythology, Philosophy, Literature, Writing References and more.
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com