Talk:A Gest of Robyn Hode

Synopis

I've never read this story, so I can't really say anything for sure; maybe the original text is like this. But the synopsis of this story seems terribly disjointed. 74.10.242.204 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer is Yes and Yes. As part of the general cleanup described below, I will try to make this comprehensible.--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE - I have started the revision. There are many missing key points. No wonder you had trouble understanding this.--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE 2 - The first draft is complete. It is longer than I expected. Reading Late Middle English is not that difficult, but it does takes a little while to get used to. Fortunately, Gest is nowhere near as dense as Chaucer or Shakespeare! So you can read the Summary first, and then tackle the poem. I also had to include details I need to make the rest of the article easier to understand without constantly referring back to the original poem. --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding new section: Importance in early Middle English literature

Hi y'all!! Starting my spring cleaning early (or late, depending on your global hemisphere) of Yeoman. I have a rather lengthy section on the Gest of Robyn Hode which (even though it is germane to the Yeoman topic) is contributing to making the main article too long. During the next 2-3 weeks, I will be moving it here as a new section. Anyone interested in providing suggestions or additional input for the new section can visit the original at A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode Ta-Ta for now!--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

Hi, y'all!! Now that I have re-read this article more closely, there are serious issues to be addressed:

• the article is heavily biased towards Child. What Child did is important, but he did it over 100 years ago. Since then, scholars have become serious about folklore as part of English literature. There is a lot more to be said. D C Fowler's A Literary History of the Popular Ballad (1968) was a substantial update/rewrite of Child. It is not mentioned.
• The lead describes Gest as a folk song. Firstly, we have no evidence that Gest was a folk song, and secondly, we have no evidence that it was ever "in the oral tradition"; it appears for the first time in print, not manuscript. Furthermore, recent scholars, such as Fowler, doubt that it was ever sung; minstrels are described as "talking" or "speaking", sometimes to the accompaniment of an instrument (such as a harp). (Rather reminiscent of Beowulf being performed in Anglo-Saxon great halls.)
• lead mentions the fits & the "two oldest books"; but the article never discusses them.
• The Background section is jumbled. It mixes specific information about Gest with general information about the Robin Hood tradition. All that stuff about the "real" Robin Hood has already been discussed in the Robin Hood article, which should be tagged as Main.
• The Adaptations section mostly contains information that is already covered in the main Robin Hood article.

I propose the following changes:

• to re-write the lead in order to introduce Gest as the printed literature it is, & continue with a brief history of the linguistic and literary analyses performed on Gest as a Middle English poem.
• Secondly, the Background section will be re-written to expand on the scholarship introduced in the lead.
• Synopsis will be re-written and expanded to discuss the various storylines first, and then the form of the poem (quatrains & fyttes).
• A new section will expand on the literary analysis of Gest as a poem, that was introduced in the Background section.
• A new section will discuss the historical analysis done on the poem's internal evidence. This will introduce the current thinking of Gest being a reworking of older Robin Hood ballads to reflect 15th century social & economic concerns.
• The Excerpts section will be deleted; excerpts will quoted as appropriate within the rest of the article.
• There will be a new section discussing the importance of Gest as late Middle English literature; highlighting its Northern/East Midlands dialect. Linguistic evidence for dating Gest to the mid-to late 15th century will be summarized.
• The Background section will be re-written to concentrate on Gest's Northern England/Scottish borders roots. It will also examine in more detail what is known about the earliest print editions. And, yes, Barnesdale will be discussed.
• A new section on the importance of Gest to English Romanticism will discuss the importance of Ritson's 1795 reprint of the Gest as the inspiration for the character of Robin of Locksley in Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe. I will probably move the Yeoman section on Ivanhoe to here.

The existing information on Child will be gathered into a new section discussing the importance of Gest as a folk ballad. Specific claims made by Child will be compared to later scholarship.

Tat-ta for now!--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE 1:

Hi, y'all!! First drafts of the new lead, Earliest Texts, Geography, & the First Fytte summary have been uploaded. Glory be! The sources are scattered hither and yon, and every author has to put his 2 pence in. It's also sometimes difficult to separate the Gest from the main academic discussion of the Robin Hood canon. Gest may or may not be (directly) related to the rest of the ballads, as we don't know where (or when) the Gest poet took his inspiration. So I am treating it as a stand-alone poem in the article. If you want to drink from the fire hose, see the very good main Robin Hood article. Tackling the Second Fytte summary now. No longer synopses; I have to mention various details so I can refer to them in other sections without repeating too much. Besides, there doesn't appear to be Cliff/Spark notes on the Gest. Tally-ho! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE 2:

Hi, y'all!! I've slowed down a bit with the research for the Historical Analysis section. First, I had to weed out all of that stuff about the historicity of Robin Hood, which really is not pertinent here, & which passes as scholarship today for Robin Hood. That leaves Holt & Fowler as my main sources (with Keen on the sidelines, cheering everyone on). I've had to verify many of their assertions with side trips into the history of the Scottish Marches & the Wars of the Roses. I think it has been fruitful; it indicates how the legend was manipulated very early on, & provides a few clues as to why, but that's outside my scope. It will also help with writing a better Literary Analysis section, on which I've had trouble finding the handle. Now I can see how it all "fyttes". *GROAN* Tally-ho! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE 3:

Hi, y'all! Re-read this article this morning. Oh, dear - the order of my sections are a disaster. I never expected this article to expand as it has. Therefore, I re-arranged my section order so that the Summary & Geography are the first 2 sections. I am anticipating that most visitors will be aged 10-16 years, who want a quick rundown on the narrative, & who will therefore wonder where Barnsdale Forest is. The rest of the article is now aimed for those who want or need more in-depth content. I have been disappointed that most of the other Wiki articles on Middle English language & literature are so shallow (except for Chaucer). Even poor Ivanhoe, a level 5 vital article, is thin on content. Which is probably why I have felt obligated to elaborate on some areas in order to patch-over some of the gaps for my more-interested readers. Fortunately, my high school AP English literature classes are coming in handy, so I can delve into Google Scholar without getting lost. I have also limited the ToC to a single level, for a better high-level view of the overall article on the mobile platform. I hope this helps make the article a little more user-friendly. Tally-ho!!! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE 4:

Hi, y'all! Sometimes I feel as though I'll never finish the "Historical Analysis" section ... I was using Ikegami's corroborating evidence for 15th c composition (Douglas Gray & David Parker), which would place Gest's compilation ca 1420-1521. I just finished Ohlgren's Edwardus redivivus in a "Gest of Robyn Hode" which offers evidence that the original tales comprising Gest were written during reign of Edward III (r 1327-1377), and the compilation was done after the Battle of Agincourt (1415). Gray was right - again. I'll be moving the Scottish chroniclers stuff to their respective main articles, and starting over from scratch. I also have to tweak the "Poet's Sources" section; those 'awkward transitions' are now very important. Tally-ho!!! --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor point...and thanks

I think this is wonderful - both interesting and wondrous. I have a cursory background in the subject, meaning almost none, except I synopsized the Child ballads for WP's list page a few years ago. My comment, then, is very general. In reading "the poet" in the first paragraph, I was puzzled and thought I had missed something, so I re-read the first few lines. Finding nothing, I went elsewhere to track down the answer. My comment: would the reader be better served if 'the poet' were addressed on the spot?" Allreet (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! you are correct - I trimmed down the lead & took too much out. I mean to refer to the poet of Gest. During my next editing session, I'll put it back in. I'm delighted you found Gest wonderful; I'm also enjoying becoming re-acquainted with Middle English literature. Regards, --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Split of /*Importance as an English ballad*/

Because of size/content. --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Split of /*Literary Analysis*/

due to content/length. --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Climate

Saw this article linking to 1257 Samalas eruption. I am kind of concerned that this article is drawing a connection between this work and the little ice age without any source explicitly drawing such a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

— Thank you very much for helping me improve this article!! I am interpreting your comment as referring to a lack of citations between Gest and the beginning of the Little Ice Age.

• Firstly, the "Abrupt climate change" section was originally intended as part of the historical background for the period during which A Gest of Robyn Hode was written. The "Linguistic analysis" and the "Internal Evidence" sections show, with multiple citations, that Gest was compiled during the late 15th to early 16th century. The beginning of the Little Ice Age is a major part of that historical background. Unfortunately, the background paragraphs have become unwieldy, and will be moved (as noted in the 'Under Construction' banner) to the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages#Little Ice Age and the Great Famine; which is lacking citations for the Little Ice Age. I have reputable references for the Abrupt Climate Change as being considered part of the Crisis ([Martin Bauch and Gerrit Jasper Schenk (eds), The Crisis of the 14th Century - Teleconnections between Environmental and Societal Change? (2020)] being just the latest). There are many independent lines of evidence which have convinced volcanologists & climate scientists that the 1257 Samalas eruption can be considered as the beginning of the Abrupt climate change leading up to the Little Ice Age. At the risk of incurring 'citation overkill', all my reputable sources will be referenced.
• Secondly, and rather unfortunately, I placed the specific references to Gest near the end, so they are almost invisible. In the new summary paragraphs, I will be more explicit about the passages in Gest which can be linked to the Abrupt Climate Change; [Bruce Campbell, Nature as historical protagonist: environment and society in pre-industrial England (2010)] is a major reference for much of this 14th-15th century climate impact in England; but there are others.

I will post update when finished. --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see is that while we can link the volcano to climate (and maybe climate to this Gest) that does not licence us to drawing a connection between the volcano and the Gest, see WP:SYNTH. I'll solicit some opinions by people who might know this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the input!

However, it is not as simple as Salamas eruption causing LIA. It's actually a combo of 4 climate-affecting volcanic eruptions over a 50-yr period followed by a re-inforcing , etc etc. The more I look at this content, I want to completely remove it from Gest & put it into Crisis of Late Middle Ages & Little Ice Age volcanism. (I did not remember these articles being so sparse and/or outdated when I first read them.)

After reading WP:SYNTH, I have to admit that there is no single source which directly connects LIA with Gest, or any other Robin Hood tale. -- AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, and I think you need one. Best moved elsewhere (where it will get more readers no doubt), as you suggest. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

State of article

In April 2022, User:AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist decided that what they had to say about the historical context of the Gest was more important than the text itself, and spun off the latter into two separate articles: A Gest of Robyn Hode (ballad) and A Gest of Robyn Hode (poem). IMO this carries WP:COATRACK to a troubling extreme. For that reason, and taking into account the original research concerns above and AHH's absence since June 2022, I believe that dramatically reducing the article in size and refocusing it on the Gest text should be considered as a way forward. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The major revisions were undoubtedly in good faith, but I cannot make heads or tails of the distinction being made with the spin-off of separate ballad and poem articles (maybe there needs to be a split, but all three articles are on the same topic: it's not like there's a separate poem or ballad). And this article is stuffed with highly questionable, original research details like which part of the Little Ice Age influenced the tale. Thinking that there should be a big revert back, and the additions worth including slowly worked back in to the article. SnowFire (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Little Ice Age thing has always bugged me. What is the evidence/source that links this poem to climate change? And even if there is one, do we need a detailed explanation of how volcanoes caused the LIA? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I take back what I said about a full revert - checking, the state of the article was far too short given the amount written on the work, so it's great what AHH added - if you're still out there somewhere, your work is appreciated! That said... yeah, some of it is better for a graduate student writing an article for publication in a literary journal, too much detail / too much OR. Some of it is valuable but should probably really be in a "Historic locations of Robin Hood" type article, which is much more worthy of being spun-off than the current poem / ballad articles. I've removed the little ice age stuff and giant timeline of events in medieval England for now, although the timeline might be salvageable somewhere else. SnowFire (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

sentence

SnowFire, please note that the caption does not contain a sentence or, as the policy you quote emphasises, a complete sentence, so my edit was correct. Spicemix (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)