(no subject)
May. 16th, 2010 02:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwydion* I can move properly today, though I'm not really up to dealing with the mess the cats made over the past week.
* I've been warned about Robin Hood. I'm going to avoids it on the grounds that you'd all be subjected to the ranting ala Troy or Braveheart and that's ugly for everyone.
* Sometimes people ask what we know about the 'historical" Robin hood. Short answer is, "We don't." This is what we think might have happened. there are in surviving Court Rolls something like three outlaws named Robert or robin between William the bastard's conquest of England and the death of Henry II. do not quote me on the numbers as it's been about 15 years and I'm rusty. All that we know is these guys were hanged for theft. Traditional tales are generally set in the time of Richard and john. By then, there were hardly any Anglo Saxon nobles left, and pretty much all of them were of mixed Norman and A/S decent. Richard himself had no real interest in England and spent hardly any of his reign there. He loved combat and the tournament circuit. there's a lot of romantic blather about what an amazing king he would have been if he'd stayed put and ruled. my feeling is, no one made him go crusading. If he'd really wanted to rule, he easily could have; he chose not to. I have trouble believing someone with no interest in ruling could have been much good at it. Still, it was something people could fantasize about; it was a romantic notion. Likely the stories about various outlaws some of whom may have been Robert or Robin started coalescing at this point, but we have no written proof, just an occasional reference.
In the early 14th century, there was a period of semi-anarchy under Edward II. A huge number of younger sons who's only assets were a horse, arms, and armour formed bands and alternately preyed on travelers/merchants or did stints as mercenaries. Noticed how well the dispossessed noble turned outlaw story fits Robin hood's origin story. This is the period people started recording Robin Hood stories. Likely there was the preexisting robin hood myth with bits of stuff about Richard/John etc.. All other outlaw stories that fit the template accrued to the existing myth since it was easier to make a story or song people would pay to hear about an existing set of characters. Internal evidence suggest a lot of the mythos and characters accrued in this period of semi-anarchy and civil strife instead of at the earlier date, with more accrued over the passing centuries after. This is likely also when robin hood became a noble as this would make the stories more attractive to noble patrons. A noble Robin was more likely to be written about than a peasant one, hence the paper trail going from sparse references to proper accounts. In the course of the 14th century characters got added and it got way more elaborate. This process continued throughout the centuries. 19th century and later versions generally try to pin things down to one century and assert internal consistency that didn't exist in the originals.
The political undercurrents were likely always there. Medieval peasants loved trickster stories about commoners. When Robin Hood first got coopted for the gentry, it was in a time of periodic civil war. People could identify as the underdog fighting a big powerful foe for the rightful ruler. Then you get the hundred years war with it's own legacy of overseas war and lost heirs. (The Black Prince is treated by the English much as Richard was, with all this longing for what might have been if he'd lived to rule.) Then you get more civil War during the war of the roses. All this stuff made the stories easy to use to comment safely on current events and could be tailored to appeal to a variety of audiences.
I believe Robin Hood is an accretion, not one guy from one historical period with a single political angle. He grew and changed even as England herself grew and changed. you can't make an "historically accurate" Robin hood movie, but you sure can make an inaccurate one by violating the known facts about whichever time period you pick for your story, if that makes sense.
* I've been warned about Robin Hood. I'm going to avoids it on the grounds that you'd all be subjected to the ranting ala Troy or Braveheart and that's ugly for everyone.
* Sometimes people ask what we know about the 'historical" Robin hood. Short answer is, "We don't." This is what we think might have happened. there are in surviving Court Rolls something like three outlaws named Robert or robin between William the bastard's conquest of England and the death of Henry II. do not quote me on the numbers as it's been about 15 years and I'm rusty. All that we know is these guys were hanged for theft. Traditional tales are generally set in the time of Richard and john. By then, there were hardly any Anglo Saxon nobles left, and pretty much all of them were of mixed Norman and A/S decent. Richard himself had no real interest in England and spent hardly any of his reign there. He loved combat and the tournament circuit. there's a lot of romantic blather about what an amazing king he would have been if he'd stayed put and ruled. my feeling is, no one made him go crusading. If he'd really wanted to rule, he easily could have; he chose not to. I have trouble believing someone with no interest in ruling could have been much good at it. Still, it was something people could fantasize about; it was a romantic notion. Likely the stories about various outlaws some of whom may have been Robert or Robin started coalescing at this point, but we have no written proof, just an occasional reference.
In the early 14th century, there was a period of semi-anarchy under Edward II. A huge number of younger sons who's only assets were a horse, arms, and armour formed bands and alternately preyed on travelers/merchants or did stints as mercenaries. Noticed how well the dispossessed noble turned outlaw story fits Robin hood's origin story. This is the period people started recording Robin Hood stories. Likely there was the preexisting robin hood myth with bits of stuff about Richard/John etc.. All other outlaw stories that fit the template accrued to the existing myth since it was easier to make a story or song people would pay to hear about an existing set of characters. Internal evidence suggest a lot of the mythos and characters accrued in this period of semi-anarchy and civil strife instead of at the earlier date, with more accrued over the passing centuries after. This is likely also when robin hood became a noble as this would make the stories more attractive to noble patrons. A noble Robin was more likely to be written about than a peasant one, hence the paper trail going from sparse references to proper accounts. In the course of the 14th century characters got added and it got way more elaborate. This process continued throughout the centuries. 19th century and later versions generally try to pin things down to one century and assert internal consistency that didn't exist in the originals.
The political undercurrents were likely always there. Medieval peasants loved trickster stories about commoners. When Robin Hood first got coopted for the gentry, it was in a time of periodic civil war. People could identify as the underdog fighting a big powerful foe for the rightful ruler. Then you get the hundred years war with it's own legacy of overseas war and lost heirs. (The Black Prince is treated by the English much as Richard was, with all this longing for what might have been if he'd lived to rule.) Then you get more civil War during the war of the roses. All this stuff made the stories easy to use to comment safely on current events and could be tailored to appeal to a variety of audiences.
I believe Robin Hood is an accretion, not one guy from one historical period with a single political angle. He grew and changed even as England herself grew and changed. you can't make an "historically accurate" Robin hood movie, but you sure can make an inaccurate one by violating the known facts about whichever time period you pick for your story, if that makes sense.