Tag Archives: Robin Hood

Where do legends come from?

Robin Hood on a horse, ca. 1475. Wikimedia Commons.

As you may recall, I am peripherally involved in the world of Viking scholarship – not as a real researcher, but as a lowly translator. I am also, of course, a creator of historical fantasy, which means I’ve had to learn a few things. Not as much as I think I’ve learned, of course, but a few things. And, of course, I have ideas.

Here’s one of them.

The scholarly controversy over how the Icelandic historical sagas should be understood, as I’ve often mentioned, is about how much we can believe of what the sagas tell us. Many historians won’t use the sagas at all, because they were written after a period of oral transmission. And a lot of historians are very suspicious of oral tradition.

For instance, I often come across a statement like this: “Historians disagree whether King Harald Fairhair of Norway ever actually existed.” They mention that there are no clear mentions of him anywhere except in the sagas.

For some historians, in fact, it seems that a mention in a saga is proof of non-existence.

Which makes no sense to me.

One comes across the same argument with figures like King Arthur and Robin Hood. “There are legends about these characters,” the historians say. “Therefore, we’re sure they never existed.”

“Why?” Walker screams.

Historians seem to think that legends spring out of the human mind, ex nihilo. As atheists think the universe was created – by nobody, out of nothing.

It makes more sense to me that legends probably come from something. Perhaps something trivial, perhaps they happened to a different historical character – but they came from something.

What historians don’t seem to remember is that in this real world they write about, actual things do happen. Sometimes they’re quite exciting things. People remember them, and repeat them to others.

At the Green Bay Viking festival, a friend told me a story about building a working guillotine on commission, and nearly chopping his hand off. I’ve been retelling that story ever since.

It happened. Interesting things do happen in real life.

Why should the default explanation for a good story be that somebody just made it up?

Robin Hood, To Tell the Truth

Host: Would the real Robin Hood, outlaw of Sherwood Forest, Duke of Lockesley, please stand up? Psst, one of you should stand. Who’s the original?

(All three subjects stand.)

Host: Ha, ha! They’re still playing with us, folks. Okay, that’s swell. Now, two of you sit down and the genuine Robin Hood remain standing. Come on, now. We’re running out of air time.

Shout from audience: Let ’em shoot it out with arrows!

Blackthorn and Stone has written about the changing character of Robin Hood and how the original stories aren’t the most important thing about him. Was Robin an actual person who lived over 650 years ago? No, he appears to be have been a commonly beloved folk hero.

Interesting to note about the early Robin Hood-esque character is that Hereford’s noble status and inheritance problems don’t feature in the country pageant version of Robin Hood—however, they do turn up again in the Tudor period and have stuck with us ever since.

Did the Tudor era reinvent a Robin Hood for their purposes, or were they actually harkening back to the original conception of the rogue? Evidence for the interpretation of Robin Hood as an archetype, rather than a person, is found when looking at where the vast majority of Robin Hood pre-1600 source material comes from: plays and festivals.

Blackstone and Stone, “An Outlaw Hero for Every Age

DVD Review: The Adventures of Robin Hood


So I wrote a while back about buying the DVD set of the old English Sir Lancelot TV series, starring William Russell. All in all it was fairly disappointing, compared to my childhood memories. The production values were low, and the plots rather silly.
I expected little better when I bought the complete The Adventures of Robin Hood from the same period (at under 20 bucks a great deal, as it ran 143 episodes). I’m happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised. The Adventures of Robin Hood holds up considerably better than Sir Lancelot, or so it appears as I complete my viewing of the first season.
My main worry was ideological. As is well known, the producers of Robin Hood hired a number of American communists, blacklisted in Hollywood, to write for the series. My occasional viewing of random episodes over the years gave me the idea that party line came out in a number of story elements.
But (at least in the first season) I actually saw little of that. In fact, much is made of the injustice of the Norman’s stealing the property of Saxons (Robin in particular). At one point, somebody even goes so far as to say that unjust taxes are theft. Also, the Church is treated with considerable respect (doubtless in deference to English broadcasting standards of the day). Continue reading DVD Review: The Adventures of Robin Hood