Every child in the English-speaking world grows up knowing the legend of Robin Hood. Robin was a thief who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Although many books have been written and movies made about Robin Hood, there has been very little proof that the altruistic thief was a real person.
Some have said it is just a myth. Others believe the stories of several thieves from the 12th and 13th centuries have been combined to create the hero. Still others believe Robin Hood was a real person. There has also been a question about exactly where the thief lived and operated if he was real. Several locations have claimed to be the home of the famous outlaw.
A recently discovered note found in the margin of a medieval history book may help to answer some of the doubts. Julian Luxford, an art history lecturer at St Andrews University, found the short note that had been scribbled in the book by a monk around 1460. The note said:
"Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies." The note seems to verify that there was a single thief known as Robin Hood who operated out of Sherwood Forest -- just as the legend is popularly told.
That makes me happy, since I have always preferred to believe the stories were true. But it seems like much of the media seem to think the note also shows Robin may not be as heroic as the legend shows him to be. Almost every media story on the discovery says it shows "that Britain's legendary outlaw Robin Hood wasn't as popular as folklore suggests." I disagree.
The note shows only that Robin Hood was not popular among the clergy of the time. This is not news, since the clergy was a big part of the establishment during that time and most likely were among Robin's victims. If a note was found from some noble of the time or the Sheriff of Nottingham, I'm sure you would find the same negative sentiment.
Robin Hood was not a hero of the establishment. He was a hero to poor and ordinary folk who were the victims of that same establishment. Once again, the media doesn't get the story right!
I also found that piece very interesting. It's really just the headline that's messed up. As the scholar acknowledges, the reference he found is one solitary instance, important because it's rare.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mean that "Hood was not so good" or that medieval (not "ancient") Brits widely questioned him or that he even existed any more than my posts on PTS represent the widespread views of Amarilloans.
It only adds to the pool of evidence. But fascinating nonetheless.
New Proof That Robin Hood Existed
ReplyDeleteAnd even newer proof that he does again. :)
If Robin Hood had been nothing but a thief, there would be no awesome legends about him...Who would try to convince themselves and others that a menace was actually a hero?
ReplyDeleteIf you go to the British Museum,In the Sloane Manuscripts,there is proof of his birth, he was born 1160 in Locksely (modern day loxely) in Yorkshire.
ReplyDelete