The story of Robin Hood is a mixture of myth, legend and history. Often, Robin Hood is seen as someone that was mythical, a legend who has survived the test of history. Since medieval times, the tales of Robin Hood have captured the imaginations of people. To this day, the tales of Robin Hood captures our imagination. In modern times, the tales of Robin Hood have been displayed on; TV, film, books and audio books. It seems that with each passing generation, or decade even, a new telling of the medieval English outlaw is told to a new generation. Sometimes the retelling of Robin Hood in modern times can often display a modern quality to it. Forgetting it's medieval surroundings. Or, sometimes the modern tales of Robin Hood portray an almost fictional retelling of medieval times - a bit like Braveheart. Perhaps we can give Robin Hood a bit of a break when it comes to historical accuracy, given that it is a tale which is largely seen to be mythical. But even when we retell mythical tales, from whatever the historical era, do we not have a duty to retell it in a way that is honest about the era. In other words, when we retell historical things, whether they are mythology or historically factual, do we not have a duty to tell history as it was, rather than glossing it over and pretending it was something else? If we want people to learn about history, then we do. Though, at the same time, it's understandable why modern historical TV shows or films try to make things modern. People are looking to be entertained when they watch historical (or mythological) TV shows. However, at the same time, we are also looking to learn something about the historical era, or figure, when we watch something. Often the desire to entertain with historical shows can see history being retold in a way that is more like fiction, than fact. This can happen with shows centered on mythology, which is also part of our history. Even with mythology, or fiction, there has to be a realism about it. If there is no realism, then people lose interest. Despite all of this, I actually do like the modern retelling of Robin Hood. Even if at times, they seem to portray a medieval England which is more fiction-like than reality. But, with Robin Hood being seen as largely folklore, we can forgive that. So, how much of Robin Hood is actually folklore? Is the Robin Tale all mythology? Is it a mixture of mythology and historical accuracy? Or, perhaps it's historically accurate? The disappointing answer is, is that there isn't much if any, facts or historical evidence about Robin Hood. On BBC History Extra, historianDavid Baldwin argues that there are seven myths surrounding Robin Hood. He states those seven myths as being: 1. That Robin Hood was a real person 2. That Robin lived during Richard I reign 3. That Robin robbed from the rich and gave to the poor 4. That Robin was Earl of Huntington. A nobleman 5. Maid Marian married Robin 6. Robin was buried at Kirklees Priory 7. That his merry men were real people These are the seven myths that we think about Robin Hood, according to Baldwin. So, is there anything to suggest that there is some historical accuracy to the so-called mythology surrounding Robin Hood. Perhaps. Historians have tried to comb through historical records from the middle ages to find the real Robin Hood. In some instances, they have been successful. For example, there are records of known ''Robehod'' and ''Rabunhod'', criminals who lived Nottinghamshire in the 13th century. The figure known as ''Robehod'' has the full name of William Robehod. On the website, 'The Legend of Robin Hood,' the following is said about the figure: ''David Crook discusses these Latin references in his article. William the son of Robert le Fevere from Enborne in Berkshire is indicted for various larcenies and the harbouring of thieves. He takes to flight, is outlawed, and his chattels are taken without warrant by the prior of Sandleford. The prior is pardoned by the king for this act and in the receipt for this writ, the fugitive is referred to as William Robehod. Crook felt that the apparent change of the surname from William son of Robert le Fevere, in one reference, to William Robehod in the second, meant that Robin Hood was already a well-known name for a fugitive criminal. The old French words forgeron, faverges, or favarges, mean a ‘forge’, hence blacksmith. Lefevre appears to be originally a French occupational surname meaning ‘smith’ (pronounced ‘le fur’), thus the name Robert le Fevere, according to general consent, suggests his occupation, a blacksmith. Stephen Knight (Robin Hood, A Complete Study of the English Outlaw, 1994, p. 25) thought that ‘William Robehod is just a miswritten or misunderstood version of name and patronymic – William Robert would be a common way of recording this man’s name at the time. The record is certainly a slender basis on which to assume the outlaw, definitely known by the 1370s, was already notorious over a century before’.' In other words, what this is saying is that William Robehod was an outlaw. And the the name, Robin Hood, was a common name for an outlaw or criminal. This could tell us two things. It could either tell us that firstly, this is a coincidence. Or, that this is where the legend of Robin Hood started. And is based on William Robehod. This indicates that there is perhaps truth in the legend of Robin Hood. That we know there probably was a real person called Robin Hood. It's also possible that he did rob from the poor, to give to the rich. As the Scottish historian, John Major (not to be confused with the former British Prime Minister), said the following in 1521: ''At this time (the reign of Richard the Lionheart) there flourished the most famous robbers Robin Hood and Little John, who lay in wait in the woods, and robbed those that were wealthy... The feats of Robin are told in song all over Britain. He would allow no woman to suffer injustice, nor would he rob the poor, but rather enriched them from the plunder taken from abbots.'' If we are to believe John Major, then there was a Robin Hood and Little John and they were outlaws in the woods who robbed from the rich, to give to the poor. But, as promising as this seems to us, that it seems to give us the real Robin Hood, the problem is, John Major gives us no evidence to support his claims. We are left assuming two things about Major's claims. Either, that he was writing a historical fiction piece. Or, that he had knowledge that made him believe that there was an historical Robin Hood and Little John. Who robbed from the rich, to give to the poor. And, who lived in Sherwood Forest. Major was a historian, not a fiction writer. An indication that he was writing history, not fiction. It's also possible that other evidence that tells us something about this Robin Hood figure, could have been destroyed. It wouldn't be the first time in history that there was or had been an attempt to destroy history. These are just thoughts and assumptions though. Other parts of the Robin Hood story are added later. Such as the character of Maid Marian. Therefore, we can make up our mind of Robin Hood being one of the following: 1. That the tales of Robin Hood are completley fiction 2. That the tales of Robin Hood have some truth to them 3. Or, that the tales of Robin Hood are historical fact Either one of these three are correct. Which one do you believe? Perhaps with folklore and mythology, there is always some truth. And this is the case with Robin Hood. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle...
4 Comments
|
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|