Paul Buhle,
“Robin Hood: People’s Outlaw and Forest Hero.” Illustrated by Garry Dumm,
Christopher Hutchinson, and Sharon Rudahl. (PM Press, Oakland, Calif. 2011) 106 pp., $15 paper.
As I write,
in late May 2012, a playhouse here in Philadelphia is advertising its production of
“Robin Hood” as an action play “aimed at kids five years and up.” At the same
time, in Chicago, anti-NATO demonstrators are calling for a “Robin Hood tax”
on financial transactions, as part of their demand to “tax the rich.”
Who is the
real Robin?
Is he the
swashbuckling hero portrayed in cartoons, TV, and Hollywood musicals? The class-conscious
guerrilla leader, fighting to avenge the peasantry against their oppressors? Or
perhaps the “Green Robin,” who with his Merry Men inhabits the woodlands in
respectful harmony with Nature?
Robin is
not the same champion to all people. Throughout the centuries, he seems to have
been redefined, if not re-invented, with each telling of the tale. Nonetheless,
scores of works have probed into the question of Robin’s identity—an
extraordinary quest, considering that most investigators agree that the Robin
Hood stories are mainly fiction.
With his
new book, “Robin Hood: People’s Outlaw and Forest Hero,” Paul Buhle, editor of
the left journal Radical America, enters the ranks of historians seeking to
uncover the multiple themes and meanings of the Sherwood Forest legend. In his conclusions,
however, Buhl readily sides with those who perceive that Robin over the
centuries has appeared primarily as a standard-bearer in battles against
injustice.
He states,
“No other medieval European saga has had the staying power of Robin Hood; no
other is wrapped up simultaneously in class conflict (or something very much
like class conflict), the rights of citizenship in their early definitions,
defense of the ecological systems, and the imagined utopia of freedom
disappearing into a mythical past.”
Buhle
acknowledges, of course, that scriptwriters often eviscerate the political
content of the Robin Hood legend. A number of recent movie renditions reduce
the hero to little more than a romantic or heroic action figure. Or worse, they
present him as the willing agent of jingoistic big-power politics. For example,
says Buhle, while Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” mega-feature of a couple of years
ago might give a slight nod to Robin’s role as the defender of downtrodden
villagers, the subject “in practice only manages to protect one empire against
another.”
The
earliest known references to Robin Hood in popular culture appeared in the
early 13th century, including in the rolls of several English justices. This
suggests that the outlines of the fictional character might be based, however
loosely, on the historical memory of the exploits of a real person or persons.
Buhle skips
over this tantalizing question, however, and begins his chronology many
centuries later with “The Dream of John Ball,” a novella by William Morris,
artist and “father of British socialism.” In this work, which was serialized
for newspaper readers in 1886-87, Morris plots the adventures of a man who
leaps from the modern era into a 14th-century English village. There he finds a
group of yeomen (independent small landowners) who have risen up against the
corrupt local sheriff and other Crown officers who seek to oppress them.
The
villagers are led by the lay preacher John Ball, a real though obscure figure
in English history. According to Morris, Ball led his followers along the trail
of rebellion blazed by Robin and his men. Thus, a ballad singer in Morris’
narrative states to the time-traveler, “Was it not sooth that I said, brother,
that Robin Hood should bring us John Ball?”
John Ball
was a participant in the uprising of 1381, whose major leader was Wat Tyler.
The yeomen under Tyler’s command armed themselves with staves and
pitchforks and marched on London to protest high taxes and growing
poverty. After meeting with the King, Tyler was betrayed; he and Ball were
assassinated, and the movement was dispersed.
Buhle
argues that Wat Tyler’s uprising of 1381, “the first major outbreak of a class
and social conflict across England … prepared the ground for the
popularity of the Robin Hood saga.” Robin Hood was called into existence by
popular desires for a hero figure to represent their struggles for social
justice.
Perhaps the
first allusion to Robin in literature, William Langland’s “Piers Plowman,”
appeared in manuscript in the years immediately proceeding Wat Tyler’s
rebellion. In the story, Sloth, a priest, confesses, “I kan [know] not parfitly my Paternoster
as the preest it singeth, / But I kan rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf Erl
of Chestre.” In other words, he cannot always remember his prayers, but he can
readily recite the ballads of popular heroes. (Five centuries later, Mark Twain
put a similar statement into the mouth of the whimsical young rebel, Tom Sawyer.)
While Buhle
convincingly argues that the period of Wat Tyler’s rebellion was a “Robin Hood
era,” the reader might wonder why Buhle concentrates the better part of two
chapters on those years alone. It was a full century after Wat Tyler that the
efforts by landlords to enclose the pastures began to get fully underway in England, expelling thousands of small
farmers from the countryside. Didn’t the impoverished population need Robin
Hood at that moment to help chart a path of resistance?
Indeed,
Buhle briefly notes, Robin as protector of the poor appeared again in the late
15th century in a collection of verse tales under the title, “A Lyttell Geste
of Robyn Hode.” But from the late 16th century onward, a more conservative
Robin began to enter English literature, often as an official project to erase
the militantly radical one. Following the defeat of the Spanish armada,
audiences saw Robin Hood as a patriotic national hero on the London stage.
And
Shakespeare’s Robin Hood-type characters, such as Orlando and the Duke in “As
You Like It,” were noblemen who had temporarily fled palace life for a sylvan
arcadia.
From there,
Buhle follows the contrasting renditions of Robin Hood and his band through the
centuries. Important examples include Joseph Ritson’s popular volume of 1795,
poet John Keat’s antiwar Robin and Marian of 1817, Walter Scott’s patriotic
“Ivanhoe” of 1819, storyteller and illustrator Howard Pyle’s “Merry Adventures”
of 1883, and Errol Flynn’s version filmed on the eve of World War II (1938), in
which he vanquishes (Hitlerite?) evil while vying for the heart of Olivia de
Havilland’s Maid Marian.
Buhle
presents his chapters as a series of almost autonomous essays. Each chapter is
packed with facts and critical insight, but often on themes that to a certain
extent had been dealt with earlier. The discontinuity and repetition in the
narrative left me a bit confused, at least on my first time thorough the book,
over where the author was leading his readers.
Luckily,
the book’s illustrations provide a framework to help us make sense of Buhle’s
choppy structure. The illustrations appear in four separate sections that
underscore major themes of the adjacent chapters. Gary Dumm gives us a
comic-strip portrayal of the peasant and religious struggles in England of the 14th century. Christopher
Hutchinson, a supporter and contributor to Socialist Action newspaper, uses
collage to provide “Robin Hood” heroes for the modern age (Che, Malcolm,
Harriet Tubman, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.). And Sharon Rudahl’s cartoons tell the
tales of Maid Marian—warrior, revolutionary activist, and proto-feminist.
Why read
this book? Because the world still has a need for Robin. Today, Buhle points
out, “the rich and powerful now command almost every corner of the planet and,
in order to maintain their control, threaten to despoil every natural resource
to the point of exhaustion. Meanwhile, billions of people are impoverished
below levels of decency during centuries of subsistence living.”
Yet
resistance to authority continues, and so, Robin lives on “in the streets of
Cairo, Egypt, and Madison, Wisconsin, USA, among the many other places where
people dream of a better life and struggle for it openly, cheerful to be
rebellious.”
> The
article above was written by Michael Schreiber, and is reprinted from the July
2012 print edition of Socialist Action newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment