Robin of the Hood

The Robin Hood stories, despite what a recent film would have you believe, are largely legendary. Like the stories of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table, these stories never happened, at least not in the way they have been imagined through the years. Granted, there may have been a real outlaw who served as the model for all the Robin Hood legends. His name was Robert Hod, but he certainly didn't live in Sherwood Forest or maintain a band of merry men.

The legend of Robin Hood has been passed down to us throughout the years in a form of poetry called the ballad. Ballads are kind of an early form of country-western music, a narrative that plays out with the aid of musical accompaniment, usually a guitar. Balladeers and bards, the practitioners of the ballad, would at first sing of Robin as a trickster-like figure who stole from the rich for his own delight and amusement. It wasn't until much later (1589) that Robin Hood became famous because he "tooke from rich to give the poore". Also, the merry men did not enter into the stories in their earliest forms, nor did the Maid Marion. And since ballads were transmitted orally, meaning that they were meant to be sung and not written down, nobody really could compare the various versions of the legend in a scholarly sense. As a result, each bard had his own way of telling the tale, complete with a particular villain, conflict, and theme that could alter (and often did) to suit the bard or his audience.

By the year 1400, a certain priest remarked that his parishioners would rather listen to a bard sing of "a tale or a song of Robyn Hood" than listen to one of his sermons. Thus was the growing appeal of the legend, and as the appeal grew, so did its cast of characters. Over time, Little John, Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet, Much the Miller's son, the Sheriff of Nottingham, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, and the Maid Marion were added to suit various purposes. By the sixteenth century, when Robin suddenly became a vigilante freedom-fighter rather than a trickster, the public decided he needed a love interest. The Maid Marion, in effect, was fashioned for him to woo and marry. It helped that she was a Norman aristocrat; her love for the Anglo-Saxon yeoman Robin gave his cause some legitimacy. Marrying the cousin of King Richard would practically make Robin Hood the legitimate ruler of his own people.

Speaking of Richard the Lionhearted, after he returned from the Crusades, the king discovered that his brother John had attempted to supplant him as king. Interestingly enough, Nottingham Castle and the powers-that-be who lived there were the most fervent supporters of John's attempt. So practically as soon as Richard returned home, he made his way to Nottingham Castle, set up some gallows, and executed those who were found guilty of treason. By the way, Prince John would eventually become king anyway, but it would be a few more years and, fittingly, after Richard's death. The most amusing part of this story, which is true by the way, is not the duplicity of John or the swift justice of the king or the fact that the action takes place mostly in Nottingham, the focal point of many Robin Hood legends. No, the interesting thing to me is that as soon as the garrison at Nottingham was surrendered back into Richard's hands, he promptly went off again to celebrate by hunting in Sherwood Forest. No record exists to show he met Robin Hood there. :)

Visiting Sherwood Forest must surely be an attraction for any tourists interested in Robin Hood sites. After all, Robin Hood is just as well known for the location of his hiding place as he is for his trickery and thievery. Indeed, his name "Hood" is medieval slang for the forest itself. Still, it should be pointed out that Robin's Sherwood is a legendary setting modeled after the real Sherwood but not exactly like it. Knowing this might save you some anxiety if you were, for instance, determined to match every single location in the forest with a plot point in the legends. Don't be disappointed; it just doesn't work like that.

Now, let's say a few things about how the legends of Robin Hood have been handled over the years. The medieval ballads were first written down in the nineteenth century, and as you can imagine, there were no two that were exact matches. Fortunately, you can easily access these ballads and read them for yourselves on the internet. The best place to look at them is at this site: www.boldoutlaw.com. The site even provides a medieval ballad tune to assist you in imagining what these songs would have sounded like when performed by a bard. Of course, ever since the ballads were first recorded in written form, numerous writers and storytellers have taken up the Robin Hood brand and made it their own, much like the King Arthur stories have been told and retold throughout the years. This pattern continued well into the twentieth century when Hollywood finally got its claws on the legend and has either done it justice or ripped it to shreds ever since (take your pick).

Other than the original ballads, probably my favorite written form of the legend was actually crafted by an American. Howard Pyle was a late nineteenth-century writer and illustrator who managed to capture the trickster qualities of Robin while also emphasizing his status as a beloved vigilante. Meanwhile, Pyle also produced drawings of the legends that look remarkably like original medieval woodcuttings. My parents gave me a copy of Pyle's book, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, one year for Christmas. I have treasured it ever since. (Also of interest, Pyle's students included N.C. Wyeth and Jessie Wilcox Smith, world-famous illustrators themselves.) Check out this book because it is beautiful and so much fun to read. Reading Pyle is almost like being back in Sherwood with Robin Hood and Little John, honestly!

My favorite film version of the legend would have to be the Micheal Curtiz-directed, 1936 vehicle starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland: The Adventures of Robin Hood. If you have read my blog about 1066, then you know all about the Norman conquest. Well, the interesting thing about Curtiz's film is that the story plays out with the various conflicts between the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans surging in the background. It also includes Prince John as a delightfully effeminate villain played to perfection by Claude Rains, one of my favorite supporting actors of early Hollywood (see: Casablanca, Notorious, etc.). Add to that Basil Rathbone (aka Sherlock Holmes) as Sir Guy, and you have a seriously good swashbuckling time on your hands. This film is so saturated in wit, humor, pure joy, romance, and technicolor that it's virtually impossible not to be entertained by it. I show it to my students every year, and I'm always amazed that in this age when technology has advanced beyond our wildest dreams, an old classic movie about a man of the forest can still make my jaded students smile. Also, if you are interested in appealing to a younger audience, Disney's animated version of the legend is a surprisingly faithful adaptation, and the portrayal of Prince John in the film may have even been inspired by Rains' performance. My favorite thing about the Disney film is that it begins with narration that comes from, you guessed it, a rooster who also serves as a balladeer. In fact, the whole film is practically sung to the audience in ballad form. What a wise decision on the studio's part to remain faithful to the source of the legends and appeal to young audiences at the same time!

There are some serious historical inaccuracies in some other film versions of this legend. I liked the Kevin Costner version well enough when I was much younger, but now that I'm older it just annoys me that Costner is the only person in the film without an English accent. Couldn't they find an English actor to play the part? This unfortunate fact did lead to some good comedy though as Cary Elwes would later say in the Mel Brooks' film Robin Hood: Men in Tights, "Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak . . . with a British accent!" Obviously, I am not the only one annoyed by Costner's lack of Englishness.

I don't really know if I want to see the new film starring Russell Crowe. In many ways, it looks like a very tiring and spiritless retread of material that should be buoyant and joyful. Also, I don't like how they've been advertising that this is the "true story of the epic outlaw". This is a legend, people! Does everything have to be a true story? I think not. I agree with Maxwell Scott, a character in John Ford's film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, when he says, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Who wouldn't prefer the lusty legend to the grim-faced reality of Russell Crowe any day?