Posted on 11/23/2014 10:50:37 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Robin Hood was not a jacobin nor a socialist, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. But here, I will highlight where he was transformed into one.
The title of the book is: "Robin Hood: A Collection of All the Ancient Poems, Songs, and Ballads, Now Extant Relative to that Celebrated English Outlaw ; to which are Prefixed Historical Anecdotes of His Life", authored by Joseph Ritson, who was sympathetic to Jacobinism. This book was first printed in 1795. This book is a collection of his works, which means that he was spreading this filth around in who knows how many publications in how many countries prior to collecting them. Ever wonder why now, that idea of Robin Hood as a communist is so widespread? This is why.
About Ritson's Jacobin viewpoint, see "Joseph Ritson: a critical biography", by Henry Alfred Burd. P. 177 (here)
Previous to this, most old stories of Robin Hood had him stealing from the Sheriff of Nottingham(Child Ballad 122), or, from characters such as The Bishop of Hereford. (Child Ballad 143; alt) There are a few outliers, such as Martin Parker's Ballad(154), which Ritson cites, but it was Ritson who mainstreamed this idea where no longer do the Sheriff or King John get rich via taxes, and instead, it is Robin Hood who does the redistributing.
Now, for a small examination of Ritson's writing, particularly page xlvii:
In a word, every man who has the power has also the authority to pursue the ends of justice, to regulate the gifts of fortune, by transfering the superfluities of the rich to the necessities of the poor; by relieving the oppressed, and even, when necessary, destroying the oppressor. These are the objects of the social union, and every individual may, and to the utmost of his power should, endeavour to promote them.
This kind of language seems very familiar. Who does that sound like to you?
I think the point that gets missed is that the medieval times in England, under, I believe, the Same John mentioned in Robin Hood, signed the Magna Carta, which is part of the foundation for the U.S..
I’ve considered this before. Didn’t Ritson come to a rather ignominious end? Like a lot of people with his philosophy in our day, he was unhinged.
Funny, I was trying to explain this to my 16 yo grandson the other day. Do you have links to info I can give him?
But if memory serves me correctly, John did sign the Magna Carta voluntarily, he was forced if he wanted to live.
He was one of the worst kings England ever had. He squandered almost all the lands his father had gained and this is why his nickname is "John Lackland".
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor. And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch.
Moore: What did you sing?
Singers: We sang... he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
Moore: Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.
I would just stick with the original sources. Since Ritson did this so long ago, you really have to dig far back to get to the real Robin Hood.
The Child Ballads 118-154 are mostly Robin Hood, but there are probably others in the list:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/index.htm
Surprisingly enough, Wikipedia’s page for Ritson does accurately portray both Ritson’s history revisionism, as well as his motivation for it.(Jacobinism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ritson
One of the links in my original posting goes to an old book which does not appear to have the Ritson poison in it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JDRYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA17
Good luck with correcting that.
He was pressed into it. But it was important in order to place limits on the power of the crown. But Robin Hood was more a protest against the power of the crown. He would be protesting the work against family farms, making the nation poorer, and pushing so many people into both unemployment/underemployment. Let’s not get started on outsourcing...
I love the Flynn portrayal. Plenty of wittiness about it.
Nothing surprising about this. My medieval hero, Richard the Third, is also claimed to be a socialist by his leftie fans - all because he implemented bail and told the nobles to knock off being horrible to the peasants.
He signed the Magna Carta under duress, and Pope Innocent III sided with him, annulling it after John complained that the charter compromised the Pope's rights as a lord (England being a vassal state of the Vatican). This led to civil war.
John wasn't exactly the cartoon villain that the legends portray him as, but he was cruel, autocratic, and not a little corrupt.
Who would that be
Richard wasn’t that nice of a guy either. His crusade cost a lot of Gold to the crown to carry out.
Olivia de Havilland
http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/robin-hood/12-olivia-de-havilland.jpg
Thanx link no good for me but I know who she is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
