The Parallels of King David and Robin Hood

I was sitting in a Panera talking with my friend, Renée, when she told me that she saw many similarities between the life of King David of Israel and the story of Robin Hood. Skeptical and surprised, I listened as she began to lay out the parallels and earnest excitement radiated from her deep brown eyes as she attempted to convince me.  I was been astounded, and a swirl of thoughts and possibilities rustled through my mind. The similarities were clear and I saw potential blog material. Before long she cried out with animation, "Your face! You're not sure what you just heard!"
"No, you're right!" I stuttered out, and continued, "My blog is all about comparisons. I was thinking about maybe you could do a guest post for my blog."
Fortunately she was excited with this idea, and so I am pleased to present the first ever guest post on Lore and Literature:

The Parallels of King David and Robin Hood

By Renée Du'Quatre

 Ever since I was a child, I have loved the story of Robin Hood. It has always been one of my favorites. It’s a fun, adventurous, romantic story with memorable characters that you immediately grow to love. When I was little I would take my toys, assign them a character from the story, and play for hours.

Growing up in a Christian home I also learned all about the Bible at a young age. Biblical History was one of my favorite subjects in school and even now as an adult I still love and enjoy studying the Word of God.

 Over the years I’ve seen many different versions of Robin Hood and read over the history of King David many times. As I learned more and studied each of them individually, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the two legendary, historical heroes. 

I believe it started when I was still in either elementary or middle school and we had to read a novelized version of the life of King David called The Fugitive King by Elizabeth Rice Handford. It struck me then how similar David’s life (before he was crowned king) was to that of Robin Hood.

 Now, I don’t know if this is just me and how my strange, overactive mind works, but personally I don’t believe it takes a lot of imagination to see all the similarities here. 

Granted, with Robin Hood most of the details in the characters and the story line vary depending on the version you read or watch. But I think most of the details listed below are ones that most adaptations generally stick to and are traditionally accepted by those who enjoy or are familiar with the story. 

After a few days of researching I was able to compile this list:

Robin, or Sir Robin of Locksley, was a knight who was pursued by the oppressive ruler Prince John.

David was a shepherd, (who as a young man was anointed to be the next king of Israel, 1 Samuel 16:1-13), who became appointed as head over the king’s men of war, (1 Samuel 18:5) and was later resented and hunted by King Saul. (1 Samuel chapter 19.) 

Both were honorable men with titles and a promising future. Both were declared fugitives and were savagely pursued by the active rulers of their land and forced into hiding for years. (1 Samuel 26:1; 27:1.)

Both were noted as being excellent warriors. (1 Samuel 18:5-7.)

Robin is famous for using his bow and arrow.

David is known for using his sling and a smooth stone. (1 Samuel 17:40, 49.)

Both had high respect and loyalty to their kings. Robin was known for being dedicated to King Richard. David, even though he was pursued by King Saul, still refused to kill him or even do him harm. (1 Samuel 24:1-22, 26:1-25.)

Robin is known for taking down his foe, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, (in some adaptations an assassin, in others a fellow nobleman) who was sent to kill him.

David is known for taking down the giant, Philistine champion, Goliath. (1 Samuel chapter 17.)

Robin had his ‘Merry Men.’

David had his ‘Mighty Men.’ (2 Samuel 23:8-39.)

Robin’s best friend was ‘Little John.’

David’s best friend was Prince Jonathan. (1 Samuel 18:1-4, 19:1-20:42.)

Jonathan and David used a bow and three arrows as a signal in I Samuel 20:18-23; something Robin and Little John would be accustomed to do. (In 2 Samuel 1:17-27 David wrote The Song of the Bow in mourning over the death of Jonathan.) 

Robin was in love with Maid Marian who (in certain versions) was a relative (or ward) to the king (in early adaptations she is a shepherdess).

David’s first wife, Michal, was the second daughter of King Saul. (1 Samuel 18:17-30.) 

Both women were used by the callous rulers, (the men whose responsibility it was to protect them) as bait/a snare in order to trap the men they loved. (1 Samuel 18:17-30) However, instead of trapping them they proved to be helpful assets in their escape. (1 Samuel 19:15-17.)

Robin and his ‘Merry Men’ liked to sing and are known through ballads.

David was a musician who wrote many songs and poems.

Both were God-fearing men, (David was a man after God’s own heart [1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22]) who were associated with godly men. 

Robin was good friends with Friar Tuck.

David was anointed by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13) and goes to him for safety when hunted by King Saul in 1 Samuel 19:18. Later when he is king, David is rebuked by Nathan the prophet for sinning with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:1-14) and by the prophet Gad for an unspecified sin in 2 Samuel 24:1-17.  (Possibly his sin was taking a census of the people, an act of pride instead of relying wholly on God.) Gad is also referred to as David’s Seer in 2 Samuel 24:11. 

Robin would occasionally disguise himself like a beggar or farmer to spy on his enemies or extract information from them.

David pretended to be insane before Achish the king of Gath when he was in fear of his life. (1 Samuel 21:10-15.)

Although they are both highly acclaimed heroes and usually praised for their valiant efforts, they are also notoriously remembered for their faults. Robin was an outlaw and a thief. David was an adulterer and a murderer. 

I’m sure there are probably more similarities to the two heroes that I missed.

Overall, my reason for pointing out these similarities is purely out of love and respect for both legendary heroes. It was fun for me to consider, and then take the time to do some personal research on each man.  

I hope you enjoy reading as much as I enjoyed researching. 

Note: I put Biblical references to David but no references to Robin, because the Bible is literal, factual history whereas the stories of Robin Hood (as I previously mentioned) are mostly based off ballads and traditions that vary; most of which are listed on the Wikipedia website and can be referenced there if desired.

The Avengers - my thoughts

Back in November I wrote about Thor and Captain America and how I hoped The Avengers would be on par. (It's a Marvel! Good movies do still exist!)  The Avengers, was, in my opinion, a fun movie to watch; the messages it contained were much more subtle than Captain America and Thor. Marvel did a pretty good job maintaining a consistent level of cleanliness.The movie was as clean as Captain America but not as clean as Thor: There was language, some innuendos (but nothing explicit), plus one scene where a character found himself without clothing. However, there wasn't anything sexual about the scene. It was just awkward as a viewer (kind of like almost walking in on someone in the bathroom).

My thoughts on the movie:
The characters seemed like real people despite their super powers and amazing talents.
It was neat to "meet" Natasha, Dr. Banner, and Iron Man. I haven't seen the Hulk and Iron Man movies, so they were new to me.
Lots of fighting, action, and humor, making it a fun film.
The relationship between the Black Widow (Natasha) and Hawkeye was interesting. It was neat to see how they comforted each other; they seemed like marooned souls clinging to one another amidst a storm of self-reproach.
I think that many of us see a little of ourselves in the Hulk.  Sometimes when you're so angry you can hardly control yourself.  Sometimes you just want to SMASH. You don't know always know what you want to smash, but you want to destroy something, or even anything. Fortunately, most of us are still aware that we don't want to break our valuables and that kicking or punching furniture or the walls will result in more pain to ourselves, so we don't do it.  
New York always gets flattened when aliens and superheros show up.
I think that this film did a good job showing the dust and debris that results from the destruction of buildings.
Tony Stark would be rather annoying in real life, but he always has some snarky comment and often performs with cool panache.
I saw the movie in theatres twice and both times when the Hulk grabbed Loki and thwacked him against the floor like a ragdoll, the audience cheered. It's what we'd all been wanting: someone to finally stop him in his tracks. The others just seemed so incapable of stopping him for whatever reason.  Sometimes brawn is superior to brains.
I think Thor couldn't bring himself to harm his brother. Not an unreasonable sentiment.
Pepper is probably one of the few people who could actually have an involved long term relationship with Stark without letting him walk all over her. Still, I don't understand how someone of her intelligence could love him. 
Speaking of Stark, he tried to startle Banner into turning into the Hulk for no reason other than curiosity. What is wrong with that guy?! That was a childish act, like a kid who pokes his finger into a power outlet out of curiosity, except worse because he's a grown man and knows that the Hulk is dangerous.
Yet Stark has a moment of true heroism when he flies the nuke into outer space and almost dies.
The government dropping nukes on it's own citizens: not cool, at all. That makes me so angry. And afraid. It's really rather disturbing.
Colson is not just the jerk from Thor who took Jane's science equipment, but a character in his own right. He has some interesting quirks and it was quite funny when he overrides Starks' phone and security system and Stark has no choice but to answer the phone (kind of like the Chuck Norris cell phone joke: there is a picture of a cell phone screen showing that Chuck Norris is trying to call. Instead of the buttons: answer and ignore, there is only: answer and answer.) 
Natasha (the Black Widow) is a really interesting person. She reminds me of Mara Jade from Timothy Zahn's StarWars book series. Red hair; tight, black clothing; a dark past; information extractor; fighter; loves someone who understands her, accepted her past, and who has amazing talents also.
Off course, I love Captain America's declaration, "There's only one God, and He doesn't dress like that."
Also, the part when he saves the old man who refused to bow to Loki was great. However, I think the dialogue could have been better. It was a place for some real profound lines, but they didn't appear.
That part reminds me of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's stand. When they refused (on pain of death) to bow to an idol that everyone else bowed too, they were thrown into a furnace but God protected them and they came out unscathed!  (Daniel 3)
 Natasha spoke of the "red on her ledger," (her assassin work before she joined the good guys,) and how she wanted to make up for it. Intriguing. In our lives, we all have red on our ledger: horrible acts we wish we had not committed, moments of hatred, of wanting to scar and hurt. But nothing we do can wipe that away. Instead, they become scars on our own souls. Ugly red wounds that turn to ugly scars. The only way our ledgers can be wiped clean and the pain of those wounds healed is by the blood of Jesus. His blood washes away our list of crimes.
A ledger is a good description of reality, for the Bible says that our sins are recorded in a book for the final judgment: "Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books...and each person was judged according to what they had done." Revelations 20:12b-13.  If you have been forgiven by God, then you don't need to worry, you ledger is clean.

Cu Chulainn and Achilles: Famous but Dead

Cu Chulainn (pronounced "Coo Chullen," ch as in loch) is the greatest hero in Irish lore. He is from the Ulster cycle of Irish lore/mythology and has some surprising similarities with Achilles, the Greek hero. In fact, David Greene's An Anthology of Irish Literature calls him "the Achilles of the Ulster cycle."

Both Achilles and Cu Chulainn were sons of a god and a royal human. Thetis (goddess) and Prince Peleus (mortal) were Achilles' parents. Cu Chulainn's mother was Deichtire, sister to King Conchubar. Some say his father was Lug, the Celtic god of light, while others say his father was an Irish chieftain.

Cu Chulainn

At any rate, he was not a normal human. The Boyhood Deeds of  Cuchulain says, "Now the stripling who by the time seven years were completed since his birth, had done such deeds: had destroyed the champions by whom two-thirds of the Ulstermen had fallen unavenged." 

Both had special horses.  As a wedding gift, Peleus and Thetis received two immortal horses named Balius and Xanthus. They came to be Achilles' horses.  Xanthus spoke to Achilles before his death. 

Cu Chulainn was found as a baby by the men of Ulster, and as they were taking him home, they heard a horse whinnying nearby. They stopped to check it out and found a mare who had just dropped her foal.  They took the newborn  horse, saying he was meant for the special baby.  The Gray of Macha, as the horse came to be called, served the warrior well in battle and was cognizant on an almost human level. Born the same day, they died the same day.

And now, moving on to the most important part. The greatest similarity between the warriors is their mindset and their fates.

In History 261, I learned that Achilles had a choice. He could become the greatest and most renowned warrior ever and live a short life, or live a peaceful, normal, and long life.  He chose renown and died in the Trojan War.  The funny things is, Cu Chulainn had the same choice.

When Cu Chulainn was just seven years old, he heard Cathbad the Druid tell his pupils that whoever took up arms that day would become the greatest warrior ever but lead a short life. Immediately he took up arms.

Cu Chulainn explained,  "For when they asked him what special virtue lay in this day, he told them that the name of whatsoever youth should therein for the first time take arms, would top the fame of all Erin's men; nor thereby should he suffer resulting disadvantage, save that his life must be fleeting short."

Cathbad confirmed his words, "noble and famous indeed thou shalt be, but transitory, soon gone."

"Little care I," said Cu chulainn, "nor though I were but one day or one night in being, so long as after me the history of myself and doings may endure."  The quotes are from The Boyhood Deeds of Cu Chulainn.

And so, the great Greek warrior Achilles and the great Celtic warrior Cu Chulainn faced the same decision, made the same choice, and died young but are still remembered today.

Sources:

The Cu Chulainn stories (except the story of Cu Chulainn's birth) are from David Greene's An Anthology of Irish Literature, vol. 1 
James Hunter's Achilles article
Thetis and Peleus
Xanthus
The picture of Cu Chulainn was cropped by Edana A. Click on the caption to see the original.

Unferth, Wiglaf, and Gawain's Guide: The Importance of supporting characters

I wrote this for a class in response to a question about supporting roles.

Supporting Characters

Like buttresses in cathedrals, the supporting characters or side characters In Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight play important roles.  Buttresses support the cathedrals and are located on the sides of these grand buildings ("gothic cathedral and church construction").  Without buttress support, cathedrals have a limited height ("gothic cathedral and church construction") and would not be quite as grand.  In literature, supporting/side characters strengthen and enrich the story-line.  Giving the hero someone to act off of and they also play functional roles in these grand tales.  Unferth, Wiglaf, and Sir Gawain's guide are side characters with important roles.  They act as foils, reflections, and springboards to the heroes of the tales, respectively, while also upholding themes from the work.

      Unferth is a foil to Beowulf.  A "foil" is "any person or thing that, by strong contrast, underscores or enhances the distinctive characteristics of another"(The American Heritage Dictionary).  Through Unferth’s antagonistic tale and Beowulf’s response, both men’s true natures are revealed.  Thus Beowulf’s positive traits are brought to the fore by comparison with Unferth's ignobility.

      Unferth first appears at a feast in Heorot after Beowulf made known that he had come to slay Grendel.  Unferth was jealous of Beowulf’s renown: “Beowulf’s coming, / his sea-braving, made him sick with envy: / he could not brook or abide the fact / that anyone else alive under heaven might enjoy greater regard that he did” (44).  Out of his envy he speaks and attacks Beowulf’s reputation.  He accused Beowulf of “vanity” (44) saying that this was the only reason he engaged in a swimming match (44), stubbornness: “no matter who tried, / friend of foe, to deflect the pair of you, neither would back down (44),” and obsession: “the sea-test obsessed you” (44).  Thus he attacked Beowulf’s character on three points and additionally criticized the fact that he engaged in the swimming competition by making it appear as folly and should not have occurred.  For he says the only reason Beowulf did it was vanity alone and no other higher reasons (such a rescue).  Also Unferth makes the fact that Beowulf could not be dissuaded seem as if he ought to have been dissuaded.  Unferth attacks Beowulf’s strength and ability with “he outswam you, /came ashore the stronger contender” (44).  Unferth puts Beowulf down by saying “So Breca made good his boast upon you and was proved right (44).  “You,” in this situation is accusative, plus, if Breca was “right” then Beowulf must be "wrong."  Unferth sums up his argument saying that Beowulf will again “be worsted; no one has ever / outlasted an entire night against Grendel” (44-45). 

      However, Unferth did not tell the tale truthfully, giving Beowulf a chance to correct him.  He informs Unferth that he was not defeated but victorious (45).  Recounting more details about the swimming challenge, Beowulf reveals even more of his strength and fighting abilities.  He mentions the cold (ln 546), the churning condition of the sea (546,548), the sea-monsters he fought (553-567), and also the fact that he wore chain mail (550-552) and carried a drawn sword (539-540).  Thus the conditions were even harder than already mentioned by Unferth, and the hearer/reader begins to see that Beowulf is insanely strong and perhaps deserving of the acclaim given by the narrator when Beowulf was first introduced: “There was no one else like him alive. / In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth, / highborn and powerful” (pp 38).  Before this interlude with Unferth, no accounts had yet been offered to prove Beowulf's abilities. Their dialogue is essential to the story in that it shows Beowulf to be already an experienced warrior and super strong.  The removal of Unferth would result in the loss of this evidence.

      Furthermore the event sheds light on Beowulf's character.  He is bold and forthright in his dealings with Unferth.  He tells Unferth that he is under the influence of alcohol, “But it was mostly beer / that was doing the talking”(45).  He bluntly says, "The truth is this:” (45).  Contradicting Unferth’s story forthrightly, he declares, “I was the strongest swimmer of all” (45).  Without Unferth to say this too, Beowulf would never have uttered these beautiful lines: "The fact is, Unferth, if you were truly/ as keen or courageous as you claim to be / Grendel would never have got away with / such unchecked atrocity, attacks on you king, havoc in Heorot and horrors everywhere" (46).  Again, Beowulf chooses the direct approach.  Very importantly, Beowulf's ethics are revealed.  He is not just a brute thirsting for blood; he believes in the protection of one's liege and hall through courage.  Beowulf criticizes the Danes for their lack of courage (46).  Unlike them, Beowulf is brave for he decided to face Grendel: he says so himself (46).  Not only does Beowulf define heroism but he adheres to it in his actions for he came to conquer Grendel (47) and succeeded (61).  Without these revelations of Beowulf's character and thought life, much texture would have been lost.

      Unferth also serves as an example of what is not a hero.  He has not fought in any comparable fights, is not known for his swordsmanship, or bravery in battle (46).  Instead he slew his kinsmen (46).  According to Beowulf, Unferth is destined for damnation because of this misdeed (46) and the narrator too condemns such actions (79).  Unferth is a liar for Beowulf implies that he is not as brave as he claims to be (46).  A hypocrite, Unferth accuses out of envy which is similar to the vanity of which he accuses Beowulf.  

      Interestingly even Unferth’s account of the swimming test is strangely complimentary to Beowulf.  Perhaps an attempt to describe him as reckless, Unferth uses terms that also sound very masterful: “you waded in, embracing the water, / taking its measure, mastering currents” (44), Basically, Beowulf is unafraid, welcoming the challenge of the sea, working with it, and proving stronger.  Unferth recounts that the men were in the water for seven nights (44).  Seven nights!  A magnificent feat in and of itself, but Unferth also recounts that they did this in winter (44), making the feat all the more amazing because the air and water would have been even colder than usual.  Unferth is perhaps recounting these details to make the challenge seem increasingly foolish, but one cannot help but be astounded by the stamina of these men, and since both Breca and Beowulf survived the ordeal, it was obviously not so foolhardy a thing for them to attempt.  

      Wiglaf is Beowulf's kinsman (90).  He embodies the same values as Beowulf: protect your lord and refuse to be a coward.  Along with the other warriors Wiglaf initially ran for safety from the dragon as Beowulf fought it (88).  Beowulf had given these men armor and riches and in turn they were expected to protect him (94).  Unlike the others Wiglaf returned to defend his lord (89) and the pair slew the dragon (88). 

      During the fight with the dragon, the narrator says of Wiglaf, "the noble son of Weohstan /…displayed his inborn bravery and skill" (90).  So, like Beowulf he is brave and skilled in war craft.  Wiglaf is named a "young hero" by the narrator (93), just as Beowulf was a hero (he saved the Danes from Grendel and his mother, and his people from the dragon).

        Wiglaf also has hard words for cowards: "a stern rebuke was bound to come / from the young warrior to the ones who had been cowards."  He tells them that, "A warrior will sooner die than live a life of shame," (94) and that Beowulf died because not enough men were there to protect him (94).  Additionally he informs them they shall be dispossessed (94).  Unlike Beowulf's unworthy followers, Wiglaf will continue in the tradition of Beowulf as a courageous warrior.  Therefore he is essential to the story as Beowulf's legacy.  His presence also softens the blow of the loss of such a mighty man as Beowulf.

       In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the lead character, Sir Gawain is escorted by a nameless guide.  He is first mentioned as Gawain leaves the castle, "And went on his way alone with the man / That was to lead him ere long to that luckless place" (204).  The man encourages Sir Gawain, who he believes is going to his doom, to leave the area without encountering the Green Knight.  If Sir Gawain had accepted this, he would have betrayed his honor as a knight. The guide says to him, “I have your good at heart and hold you dear” (204), showing that this man is not just offering advice because he ought to warn of danger to those ignorant of it but because he actually cares about Sir Gawain, and believes his advice to really be in his interest.  He tells Gawain about the fearsome Green knight (204) and then advises him to not seek the Green Knight, “And so, good Sir Gawain, let the grim man be; Go off by some other road, in God’s good name!” (205).  Assuring Gawain that he will not tell that he did not fulfill his duty, the guide says, “I shall…/…give you my word / That I shall swear by God’s self and the saints above, by heaven and by my halidom and other oaths more, that ever you fled for fear from any that I knew.”  Thus he places temptation before Sir Gawain by providing an escape for Gawain in his last moments before meeting the Green Knight, when the reality of his probable death is imminent and Gawain is most likely to take up such an offer.  Sir Gawain did not want to die (210) so this temptation was dangerous.  Gawain had already broken his word by keeping the green girdle that might possess the power to save his neck.  Obviously Gawain is fallible; he may yet again decide that life is more important than honor.

      According to the man the green knight is "a villain, the veriest on earth…/…he is rugged and rude, and ready with his fists, And more immense in his mold of mortals alive" (204-205).  He does not respect station or worth "heedless of right, / For be it chaplain or churl that by the Chapel rides, / Monk or mass-priest or any man else, he would as soon strike him dead as stand on two feet" (205).  All in all, he is a fearsome fellow and this account may increase the fear in Gawain's heart and lessen his resolve to keep his promise.

      Now, Sir Gawain must respond, and either accept the offer or go on to his probable doom. Courteously (demurring (204)) beginning with “Many thanks!.../…Fair fortune befall you for your friendly words! /And conceal this day’s deed I doubt not you would” (205) but ending by rejecting the offer: “if I turned back now, / Forsook this place for fear, and fled, as you say, / I were a caitliff coward; I could not be excused” (205). The man answers tartly, "I see you are set to seek your own harm, / If you crave a quick death, let me keep you no longer!" (205). But after telling Gawain the directions he says good bye with, "Now goodbye in God's name, Gawain the noble!" indicating perhaps that he recognizes Gawain's heroism in going to meet his doom despite the possibility of an ignoble escape. 

      The guide cares more about his own fate and is very afraid of the Green Knight since he says, "For all the world's wealth I would not stay here, / Or go with you in this wood one step further!"(206).  He then road away as fast as he could (206).  This man's fear and description of the Green Knight heightens the fear and suspense the reader feels as Gawain approaches his dwelling and give insight into the Green knight's unorthodox behavior that could not be gathered from Gawain's observations. 

      This tale is a series of temptations which test Sir Gawain’s virtue.  He is tempted to commit a number of vices including sexual immorality, dishonesty, greed, and cowardice.  Volunteering for a game of blow exchanges with the Green Knight, Sir Gawain swears that he will journey to the home of his opponent the following year and undergo the return blow (170).  Magically, the Green Knight survives decapitation by Sir Gawain and leaves the hall with bearing his head (171).  True to his word Gawain sets out to find the home of the Green Knight and assumes that he will die by the return blow (176).  The temptation to break his word and escape is the next to final trial Gawain experiences; it is the last temptation before he re-encounters the Green Knight. 

      Each of these supporting characters has different roles and functions.  Unferth is a foil to Beowulf and demonstrates un-heroic behavior while Wiglaf carries on the traditions of heroism.  Additionally, Sir Gawain's guide is an important figure in the story because he guides Sir Gawain to the Green Chapel where one of the most pivotal scenes occurs and figures as another tempter in a tale about temptation. 

Works Cited

"foil."  The American Heritage Dictionary.  1976.  Print.

"gothic cathedral and church construction"  23 November 2010.  Abelard.org.  23 November 2010.       Web.

Reidhead, Julia. ed.  The Middle Ages.  The Norton Anthology of English Literature.  Ed. Stephen       Greenblatt.  8^th ed. Vol. 1.  New York: W W Norton and Company, 2006.  7 vols. Print.

Seamus Heaney.  Trans.  Beowulf.  34-100.

Marie Borrof.  Trans.  Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.  162-231.