In the Middle Ages, how much did people know about King Arther?

Question

I know both parties involved in this question are a legend, however I am wondering how much people in the Middle Ages knew about Robin Hood. Say I'd want to incorporate the Arthurian legend into the Robin Hood story somehow, how much would people know about the myth? Would they know the legend we know now or would it be a different story? Would they know it at all? Also, most importantly, would Excalibur be called by that name back then or is it known as something else? I'm trying to keep my version of Robin Hood as true to the legend as possible, but I want to give it a different twist then the normal "steals from the rich & gives to the poor" version. Of course, there will be that too but it won't be the primary focus of the story. If you have any links about the outlaw, then I'd like to see them too. The Best Answer will go to the one that is most understandable and has the most information with the most possible proof available.


Thanks a ton in advance!! :-)

Answer 1

There are a number of stories of Arthur and much of what we know today is a conflation of these; although there is no one work from which the story derives, the first known detailed published story - and the basic story from which most of the others work - is by Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae from the 12th Century. He is referenced in earlier poems, so certainly people in the High and Late Middle Ages would have been familiar with this general story or some variant of it. There is at least one reference to Arthur in a 9th and another in a 10th C. work. They would have likely known about Excalibur and Merlin, which/who were both in Geoffrey's work but possibly not Lancelot and the Holy Grail which were not but were in other 12th and 13th C. works. They would have known the story much better than people in the times between the Late Middle Ages and the Modern Era, as the story was not in fashion much during the Renaissance nor the Enlightenment. Arthur may have been semi-historical (a real man may have existed around which the legends grew up).



Robin Hood, on the other hand, was well known but not well written about in the Middle Ages as he lived in them. By the 14th or 15th C. he was being written about in vague references and there are earlier references in legal documents, etc. He was real, 16th C. references to him being a myth are not currently supported by any reputable scholars, though he is also obviously legendary (i.e. a real man almost certainly existed but many legends obscure what he may have actually done).



So, the likelihood is that High Middle Ages people in Britain would have recognized both stories and at least the Arthurian legend would have been reasonably similar to ours; however, they wouldn't have been able to understand the two together very easily, since the characters date some 600 years apart. They would have seen Robin as a semi-legendary mysterious contemporary of themselves, whereas Arthur would have been an almost mythological king of ancient England.

Answer 2

1) Say I'd want to incorporate the Arthurian legend into the Robin Hood story somehow



You **must read** "The Sword in the Stone" by T H White (he does this).



However, supposedly the two legendary figures lived far apart in time. Arthur was the last of the Roman leaders of Britain, supposedly, while Robin Hood was a Saxon lord who lived during the Crusades - after the Norman Invasion - roughly 700 years later.



The legend of Arthur was certainly known in Robin Hood's time - The Mabinogion seems to have the most primitive legends of Arthur (no mention of a round table or French knights, for example). Probably your best bet is to read about Arthur in "The History of the Kings of Britain". That is from about Robin Hood's time and would give you a very good idea regarding what people believed about Arthur at that time. It is very similar to Mallory's Arthur.





2) Also, most importantly, would Excalibur be called by that name back then or is it known as something else?



"Excaliburn" is a Latin word (actually it means "out of the stone" - not "cut steel" as claimed by Mallory). I think the name "Excalibur" in some form is very appropriate to Robin Hood's time period.





Jim

Answer 3

Robin Hood was a legend even way back in Mid evil times so they must have known about him enough to at least fantisize about him. Maybe times were so bad then that he was like an inspiration to pick up morale.



King Arthur was also a legend in Mid evil times so maybe the same things applies to him. The Discovery or NatGo Channel did a history on him and proved that there was a person that did fit his description back then but his name was not Arthur and he was not a king.

Answer 4

As to the people of those times literacy was the preserve of the wealthy and a book could cost five years or more of wages. Whatever was in the way of ballads and legends from mouth to mouth and generation to generation was likely richer than what eventually found its way into writing being in the process censored. The common man being common, a lot of stuff was likely in the category of the Ballad of Eskimo Nell. The idea of clean justice and high idealism in Robin Hood and the saga of Merlin is redolent of some scholar reading the Iliad and the Odyssey and adapting it to the venue of Britain.

Answer 5

King Arthur

Answer 6

Nothing at all.