ROBIN HOOD, a Collection of all the Ancient Poems, Songs and Ballads, now extant, Relative to that Celebrated English Outlaw; by Joseph Ritson; With eighty Wood Engravings by Thomas Bewick and nine Etchings from original paintings by A.H. Tourrier and E. Buckman.
ROBIN HOOD.
PUBLISHER’S NOTE.
Of this fine Large Paper Edition one hundred copies are printed, each being numbered.
The portrait and nine etchings are given in duplicate, one being printed on Whatman paper and the other on Japanese.
No. 61
J. Ritson.
J. Ritson.
RITSON
ROBIN HOOD
A Collection of all the Ancient Poems, Songs and Ballads, now extant, Relative to that Celebrated English Outlaw
TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED HISTORICAL ANECDOTES OF HIS LIFE
BY JOSEPH RITSON
With Eighty Wood Engravings
BY THOMAS BEWICK
PRINTED ON CHINA PAPER
Also Nine Etchings from Original Paintings
BY A. H. TOURRIER AND E. BUCKMAN
LONDON
JOHN C. NIMMO
14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.
1885
PUBLISHER’S NOTICE.
THIS edition of ROBIN HOOD is printed from that published in 1832, which was carefully edited and printed from Mr. RITSON’S own annotated edition of 1795.
The original wood engravings, by the celebrated THOMAS BEWICK, have been again used; and from being printed on China paper, will be found superior in clearness and beauty to the first impression.
The nine etchings now given have been newly etched from original pictures painted by A. H. TOURRIER and E. BUCKMAN.
-
CONTENTS.
- [i] THE LIFE OF ROBIN HOOD
- [xiv] NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
-
-
Part the Second.
- [149] I. ROBIN HOOD’S BIRTH, BREEDING, VALOUR, AND MARRIAGE
- [161] II. ROBIN HOOD’S PROGRESS TO NOTTINGHAM
- [166] III. THE JOLLY PINDER OF WAKEFIELD, WITH ROBIN HOOD, SCARLET, AND JOHN
- [170] IV. ROBIN HOOD AND THE BISHOP
- [175] V. ROBIN HOOD AND THE BUTCHER
- [181] VI. ROBIN HOOD AND THE TANNER
- [189] VII. ROBIN HOOD AND THE TINKER
- [197] VIII. ROBIN HOOD AND ALLIN A DALE
- [203] IX. ROBIN HOOD AND THE SHEPHERD
- [209] X. ROBIN HOOD AND THE CURTALL FRYER
- [217] XI. ROBIN HOOD AND THE STRANGER
- [235] XII. ROBIN HOOD AND QUEEN KATHERINE
- [244] XIII. ROBIN HOOD’S CHASE
- [249] XIV. ROBIN HOOD’S GOLDEN PRIZE
- [254] XV. ROBIN HOOD RESCUING WILL STUTLY
- [262] XVI. THE NOBLE FISHERMAN; OR, ROBIN HOOD’S PREFERMENT
- [268] XVII. ROBIN HOOD’S DELIGHT
- [274] XVIII. ROBIN HOOD AND THE BEGGAR
- [280] XIX. LITTLE JOHN AND THE FOUR BEGGARS
- [285] XX. ROBIN HOOD AND THE RANGER
- [290] XXI. ROBIN HOOD AND LITTLE JOHN
- [298] XXII. ROBIN HOOD AND THE BISHOP OF HEREFORD
- [303] XXIII. ROBIN HOOD RESCUING THE WIDOW’S THREE SONS FROM THE SHERIFF WHEN GOING TO BE EXECUTED
- [309] XXIV. ROBIN HOOD AND MAID MARIAN
- [314] XXV. THE KING’S DISGUISE, AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ROBIN HOOD
- [323] XXVI. ROBIN HOOD AND THE GOLDEN ARROW
- [330] XXVII. ROBIN HOOD AND THE VALIANT KNIGHT
- [335] XXVIII. ROBIN HOOD’S DEATH AND BURIAL
-
Part the Second.
- [341] APPENDIX
- [387] GLOSSARY
- LIST OF EMBELLISHMENTS.
PREFACE.
HE singular circumstance that the name of an outlawed individual of the twelfth or thirteenth century should continue traditionally popular, be chanted in ballads, and, as one may say,
Familiar in our mouth as household words,
at the end of the eighteenth, excited the editor’s curiosity to retrieve all the historical or poetical remains concerning him that could be met with: an object which he has occasionally pursued for many years; and of which pursuit he now publishes the result. He cannot, indeed, pretend that his researches, extensive as they must appear, have been attended with all the success he could have wished; but, at the same time, it ought to be acknowledged that many poetical pieces, of great antiquity and some merit, are deservedly rescued from oblivion.
The materials collected for the “Life” of this celebrated character, which are either preserved at large or carefully referred to in the “Notes and Illustrations,” are not, it must be confessed, in every instance, so important, so ancient, or, perhaps, so authentic, as the subject seems to demand; although the compiler may be permitted to say, in humble second-hand imitation of the poet Martial:
Some there are good, some middling, and some bad;
But yet they were the best that could be had.
Desirous to omit nothing that he could find upon the subject, he has everywhere faithfully vouched and exhibited his authorities, such as they are: it would, therefore, seem altogether uncandid or unjust to make him responsible for the want of authenticity of such of them as may appear liable to that imputation.
THE LIFE OF ROBIN HOOD.
T will scarcely be expected that one should be able to offer an authentic narrative of the life and transactions of this extraordinary personage. The times in which he lived, the mode of life he adopted, and the silence or loss of contemporary writers, are circumstances sufficiently favourable, indeed, to romance, but altogether inimical to historical truth. The reader must, therefore, be contented with such a detail, however scanty or imperfect, as a zealous pursuit of the subject enables one to give; and which, though it may fail to satisfy, may possibly serve to amuse.
No assistance has been derived from the labours of his professed biographers ([1]);[1] and even the {ii} industrious Sir John Hawkins, from whom the public might have expected ample gratification upon the subject, acknowledges that “the history of this popular hero is but little known, and all the scattered fragments concerning him, could they be brought together, would fall far short of satisfying such an inquirer as none but real and authenticated facts will content. We must,” he says, “take his story as we find it.” He accordingly gives us nothing but two or three trite and trivial extracts, with which every one at all curious about the subject was as well acquainted as himself. It is not, at the same time, pretended, that the present attempt promises more than to bring together the scattered fragments to which the learned historian alludes. This, however, has been done, according to the best of the compiler’s information and abilities; and the result is, with a due sense of the deficiency of both, submitted to the reader’s candour.
ROBIN HOOD was born at Locksley, in the county of Nottingham ([2]), in the reign of King Henry the Second, and about the year of Christ 1160 ([3]). His extraction was noble, and his true name ROBERT FITZOOTH, which vulgar pronunciation easily corrupted into ROBIN HOOD ([4]). He is frequently styled, and commonly reputed to have been, EARL OF HUNTINGDON; a title to which, in the latter part of his life, at least, he actually appears to have had some sort of pretension ([5]). In his youth he {iii} is reported to have been of a wild and extravagant disposition; insomuch that, his inheritance being consumed or forfeited by his excesses, and his person outlawed for debt, either from necessity or choice, he sought an asylum in the woods and forests, with which immense tracts, especially in the northern parts of the kingdom, were at that time covered ([6]). Of these, he chiefly affected Barnsdale, in Yorkshire, Sherwood, in Nottinghamshire, and, according to some, Plompton Park, in Cumberland ([7]). Here he either found, or was afterward joined by, a number of persons in similar circumstances—
“Such as the fury of ungovern’d youth
Thrust from the company of awful men,” ([8])
who appear to have considered and obeyed him as their chief or leader, and of whom his principal favourites, or those in whose courage and fidelity he most confided, where Little John (whose surname is said to have been Nailor), William Scadlock (Scathelock or Scarlet), George a Green, pinder (or pound-keeper) of Wakefield, Much, a miller’s son, and a certain monk or frier named Tuck ([9]). He is likewise said to have been accompanied in his retreat by a female, of whom he was enamoured, and whose real or adopted name was Marian ([10]).
His company, in process of time, consisted of a hundred archers; men, says Major, most skilful in battle, whom four times that number of the boldest fellows durst not attack ([11]). His manner of recruiting was somewhat singular; for, in the words of an {iv} old writer, “whersoever he hard of any that were of unusual strength and ‘hardines,’ he would desgyse himselfe, and, rather then fayle, go lyke a begger to become acquaynted with them; and, after he had tryed them with fyghting, never give them over tyl he had used means to drawe [them] to lyve after his fashion” ([12]): a practice of which numerous instances are recorded in the more common and popular songs, where, indeed, he seldom fails to receive a sound beating. In shooting with the long bow, which they chiefly practised, “they excelled all the men of the land; though, as occasion required, they had also other weapons” ([13]).
In those forests, and with this company, he for many years reigned like an independent sovereign; at perpetual war, indeed, with the King of England, and all his subjects, with an exception, however, of the poor and needy, and such as were “desolate and oppressed,” or stood in need of his protection. When molested, by a superior force in one place, he retired to another, still defying the power of what was called law and government, and making his enemies pay dearly, as well for their open attacks, as for their clandestine treachery. It is not, at the same time, to be concluded that he must, in this opposition, have been guilty of manifest treason or rebellion; as he most certainly can be justly charged with neither. An outlaw, in those times, being deprived of protection, owed no allegiance: “his hand was against every man, and every man’s hand against him” ([14]). {v} These forests, in short, were his territories; those who accompanied and adhered to him his subjects:
“The world was not his friend, nor the world’s law:”
and what better title King Richard could pretend to the territory and people of England than Robin Hood had to the dominion of Barnsdale or Sherwood is a question humbly submitted to the consideration of the political philosopher.
The deer with which the royal forests then abounded (every Norman tyrant being, like Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord”) would afford our hero and his companions an ample supply of food throughout the year; and of fuel, for dressing their vension, or for the other purposes of life, they could evidently be in no want. The rest of their necessaries would be easily procured, partly by taking what they had occasion for from the wealthy passenger who traversed or approached their territories, and partly by commerce with the neighbouring villages or great towns.
It may be readily imagined that such a life, during great part of the year, at least, and while it continued free from the alarms or apprehensions to which our foresters, one would suppose, must have been too frequently subject, might be sufficiently pleasant and desirable, and even deserve the compliment which is paid to it by Shakespeare in his comedy of As you like it (act i. scene 1), where, on Oliver’s asking, “Where will the old duke live?” Charles answers, “They say he is already in the forest of Arden, and {vi} a many merry men with him; and there they live like the OLD ROBIN HOOD OF ENGLAND; . . . and fleet the time carelessly as they did in the golden world.” Their gallant chief, indeed, may be presumed to have frequently exclaimed with the banished Valentine, in another play of the same author:[2]
“How use doth breed a habit in a man!
This shadowy desert, unfrequented woods,
I better brook than flourishing peopled towns:
Here can I sit alone, unseen of any,
And, to the nightingale’s complaining notes,
Tune my distresses and record my woes.”
He would doubtless, too, often find occasion to add:
“What hallooing and what stir is this to-day?
These are my mates, that make their wills their law,
Have some unhappy passenger in chace:
They love me well; yet I have much to do,
To keep them from uncivil outrages.”
But, on the other hand, it will be at once difficult and painful to conceive,
“
When they did hear
The rain and wind beat dark December, how,
In that their pinching cave, they could discourse
The freezing hours away!” ([15]).
Their mode of life, in short, and domestic economy, of which no authentic particulars have been even traditionally preserved, are more easily to be guessed at than described. They have, nevertheless, been elegantly sketched by the animating pencil of an excellent though neglected poet:—
“The merry pranks he play’d, would ask an age to tell,
And the adventures strange that Robin Hood befell,
When Mansfield many a time for Robin hath been laid,
How he hath cousen’d them, that him would have betray’d;
How often he hath come to Nottingham disguis’d,
And cunningly escap’d, being set to be surpriz’d.
In this our spacious isle, I think there is not one,
But he hath heard some talk of him and Little John;
And to the end of time, the tales shall ne’er be done,
Of Scarlock, George a Green, and Much the miller’s son,
Of Tuck the merry frier, which many a sermon made
In praise of Robin Hood, his outlaws, and their trade.
An hundred valiant men had this brave Robin Hood,
Still ready at his call, that bowmen were right good,
All clad in Lincoln green ([16]), with caps of red and blue,
His fellow’s winded horn not one of them but knew,
When setting to their lips their little beugles shrill,
The warbling ecchos wak’d from every dale and hill.
Their bauldricks set with studs, athwart their shoulders cast,
To which under their arms their sheafs were buckled fast,
A short sword at their belt, a buckler scarce a span,
Who struck below the knee, not counted then a man:
All made of Spanish yew, their bows were wondrous strong;
They not an arrow drew, but was a cloth-yard long.
Of archery they had the very perfect craft,
With broad-arrow, or but, or prick, or roving shaft,
At marks full forty score, they us’d to prick, and rove,
Yet higher than the breast, for compass never strove;
Yet at the farthest mark a foot could hardly win:
At long-outs, short, and hoyles, each one could cleave the pin:
Their arrows finely pair’d, for timber, and for feather,
With birch and brazil piec’d to fly in any weather;
And shot they with the round, the square, or forked pile,
The loose gave such a twang, as might be heard a mile.
And of these archers brave, there was not any one,
But he could kill a deer his swiftest speed upon,
Which they did boil and roast, in many a mighty wood,
Sharp hunger the fine sauce to their more kingly food. {viii}
Then taking them to rest, his merry men and he
Slept many a summer’s night under the greenwood tree.
From wealthy abbots’ chests, and churls’ abundant store,
What oftentimes he took, he shar’d amongst the poor:
No lordly bishop came in lusty Robin’s way,
To him before he went, but for his pass must pay:
The widow in distress he graciously reliev’d,
And remedied the wrongs of many a virgin griev’d: ([17])
He from the husband’s bed no married woman wan,
But to his mistress dear, his loved Marian,
Was ever constant known, which wheresoe’er she came,
Was sovereign of the woods; chief lady of the game:
Her clothes tuck’d to the knee, and dainty braided hair,
With bow and quiver arm’d, she wander’d here and there,
Amongst the forests wild; Diana never knew
Such pleasures, nor such harts as Mariana slew.” [3]
That our hero and his companions, while they lived in the woods, had recourse to robbery for their better support is neither to be concealed nor to be denied. Testimonies to this purpose, indeed, would be equally endless and unnecessary. Fordun, in the fourteenth century, calls him “ille famosissimus siccarius,” that most celebrated robber, and Major terms him and Little John “famatissimi latrones.” But it is to be remembered, according to the confession of the latter historian, that, in these exertions of power, he took away the goods of rich men only; never killing any person, unless he was attacked or resisted: that he would not suffer a woman to be maltreated; nor ever took anything from the poor, but charitably fed them with the wealth he drew from the abbots. I disapprove, says he, of the rapine {ix} of the man: but he was the most humane and the prince of all robbers ([18]). In allusion, no doubt, to this irregular and predatory course of life, he has had the honour to be compared to the illustrious Wallace, the champion and deliverer of his country; and that, it is not a little remarkable, in the latter’s own time ([19]).
Our hero, indeed, seems to have held bishops, abbots, priests, and monks, in a word, all the clergy, regular or secular, in decided aversion.
“These byshoppes and thyse archebyshoppes,
Ye shall them bete and bynde,”
was an injunction carefully impressed upon his followers. The Abbot of Saint Mary’s, in York ([20]), from some unknown cause, appears to have been distinguished by particular animosity; and the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire ([21]), who may have been too active and officious in his endeavours to apprehend him, was the unremitted object of his vengeance.
Notwithstanding, however, the aversion in which he appears to have held the clergy of every denomination, he was a man of exemplary piety, according to the notions of that age, and retained a domestic chaplain (Frier Tuck, no doubt) for the diurnal celebration of the divine mysteries. This we learn from an anecdote preserved by Fordun ([22]), as an instance of those actions which the historian allows to deserve commendation. One day, as he heard mass, which he was most devoutly accustomed to do (nor would {x} he, in whatever necessity, suffer the office to be interrupted,) he was espied by a certain sheriff and officers belonging to the king, who had frequently before molested him in that most secret recess of the wood where he was at mass. Some of his people, who perceived what was going forward, advised him to fly with all speed, which, out of reverence to the sacrament, which he was then most devoutly worshipping, he absolutely refused to do. But the rest of his men having fled for fear of death, Robin, confiding solely in Him whom he reverently worshipped, with a very few, who by chance were present, set upon his enemies, whom he easily vanquished; and, being enriched with their spoils and ransom, he always held the ministers of the Church and masses in greater veneration ever after, mindful of what is vulgarly said:
“Him God does surely hear
Who oft to th’ mass gives ear.”
Having, for a long series of years, maintained a sort of independent sovereignty, and set kings, judges, and magistrates at defiance, a proclamation was published ([23]) offering a considerable reward for bringing him in either dead or alive; which, however, seems to have been productive of no greater success than former attempts for that purpose. At length, the infirmities of old age increasing upon him ([24]), and desirous to be relieved, in a fit of sickness, by being let blood, he applied for that purpose to the Prioress of Kirkleys nunnery in Yorkshire, his {xi} relation (women, and particularly religious women, being, in those times, somewhat better skilled in surgery than the sex is at present), by whom he was treacherously suffered to bleed to death. This event happened on the 18th of November 1247, being the 31st year of King Henry III. and (if the date assigned to his birth be correct) about the 87th of his age ([24]). He was interred under some trees, at a short distance from the house; a stone being placed over his grave, with an inscription to his memory ([25]).
Such was the end of Robin Hood: a man who, in a barbarous age, and under a complicated tyranny, displayed a spirit of freedom and independence which has endeared him to the common people, whose cause he maintained (for all opposition to tyranny is the cause of the people), and, in spite of the malicious endeavours of pitiful monks, by whom history was consecrated to the crimes and follies of titled ruffians and sainted idiots, to suppress all record of his patriotic exertions and virtuous acts, will render his name immortal.
With respect to his personal character: it is sufficiently evident that he was active, brave, prudent, patient; possessed of uncommon bodily strength and considerable military skill; just, generous, benevolent, faithful, and beloved or revered by his followers or adherents for his excellent and amiable qualities. Fordun, a priest, extols his piety, Major (as we have seen) pronounces him the most humane and the prince of all robbers; and Camden, whose testimony is of {xii} some weight, calls him “prædonem mitissimum,” the gentlest of thieves. As proofs of his universal and singular popularity: his story and exploits have been made the subject as well of various dramatic exhibitions ([26]), as of innumerable poems, rimes, songs and ballads ([27]): he has given rise to divers proverbs ([28]); and to swear by him, or some of his companions, appears to have been a usual practice ([29]): his songs have been chanted on the most solemn occasions ([30]); his service sometimes preferred to the Word of God ([31]): he may be regarded as the patron of archery ([32]); and, though not actually canonised (a situation to which the miracles wrought in his favour, as well in his lifetime as after his death, and the supernatural powers he is, in some parts, supposed to have possessed ([33]), give him an indisputable claim), he obtained the principal distinction of sainthood, in having a festival allotted to him, and solemn games instituted in honour of his memory, which were celebrated till the latter end of the sixteenth century; not by the populace only, but by kings or princes and grave magistrates; and that as well in Scotland as in England; being considered, in the former country, of the highest political importance, and essential to the civil and religious liberties of the people, the efforts of government to suppress them frequently producing tumult and insurrection ([34]). His bow, and one of his arrows, his chair, his cap, and one of his slippers, were preserved, with peculiar veneration, till within {xiii} the present century ([35]); and not only places which afforded him security or amusement, but even the well at which he quenched his thirst, still retain his name ([36]): a name which, in the middle of the present century, was conferred as a singular distinction upon the prime minister to the king of Madagascar ([37]).
After his death his company was dispersed ([38]). History is silent in particulars: all that we can, therefore, learn is, that the honour of Little John’s death and burial is contended for by rival nations ([39]); that his grave continued long “celebrous for the yielding of excellent whetstones;” and that some of his descendants, of the name of Nailor, which he himself bore, and they from him, were in being so late as the last century ([40]).
FOOTNOTES TO “THE LIFE OF ROBIN HOOD”, pp. i–xiii
[1] For Notes, &c., see p. xiv. et seq.
[2] Two Gentlemen of Verona, act v. scene 4.
[3] Drayton’s Polyolbion, song xxvi.
{xiv}
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING LIFE.
(1) “Former biographers,” &c.] Such, that is, as have already appeared in print, since a sort of manuscript life in the Sloane Library will appear to have been of some service. The first of these respectable personages is the author, or rather compiler, of “The noble birth and gallant achievements of that remarkable outlaw Robin Hood; together with a true account of the many merry extravagant exploits he played; in twelve several stories: newly collected by an ingenious antiquary. London, printed by W. O.” [William Onley], 4to, black letter, no date. These “several stories,” in fact, are only so many of the songs in the common Garland transposed; and the “ingenious antiquary,” who strung them together, has known so little of his trade, that he sets out with informing us of his hero’s banishment by King Henry the Eighth. The above is supposed to be the “small merry book” called Robin Hood, mentioned in a list of “books, ballads, and histories, printed for and sold by William Thackeray at the Angel in Duck-lane” (about 1680), preserved in one of the volumes of old ballads (part of Bagford’s collection) in the British Museum.
Another piece of biography, from which much will not be expected, is “The lives and heroick atchievements of the renowned Robin Hood and James Hind, two noted robbers and highwaymen. London, 1752.” 8vo. This, however, is probably nothing more than an extract from Johnson’s “Lives of the Highwaymen,” in which, as a specimen of the authors historical authenticity, we have the life and actions of that noted robber, Sir John Falstaff.
KIRKLEY HALL.
KIRKLEY HALL.
{xv}
The principal if not sole reason why our hero is never once mentioned by Matthew Paris, Benedictus Abbas, or any other ancient English historian, was most probably his avowed enmity to churchmen; and history, in former times, was written by none but monks. They were unwilling to praise the actions which they durst neither misrepresent nor deny. Fordun and Major, however, being foreigners, have not been deterred by this professional spirit from rendering homage to his virtues.
(2) —“was born at Locksley, in the county of Nottingham.”] “Robin Hood,” says a MS. in the British Museum (Bib. Sloan. 715), written, as it seems, toward the end of the sixteenth century, “was borne at Lockesley in Yorkshyre, or after others in Nottinghamshire.” The writer here labours under manifest ignorance and confusion, but the first row of the rubric will set him right:
“In Locksly town, in merry Nottinghamshire,
In merry sweet Locksly town,
There bold Robin Hood was born and was bred,
Bold Robin of famous renown.” [4]
Dr. Fuller (Worthies of England, 1662, p. 320) is doubtful as to the place of his nativity. Speaking of the “Memorable Persons” of Nottinghamshire, “Robert Hood,” says he, “(if not by birth) by his chief abode this country-man.”
The name of such a town as Locksley, or Loxley (for so we sometimes find it spelled), in the county of Nottingham or of York, does not, it must be confessed, occur either in Sir Henry Spelman’s Villare Anglicum. in Adams’s Index Villaris, in Whatley’s England’s Gazetteer,[5] in Thoroton’s History of Nottinghamshire, or in the Nomina Villarum Eboracensium (York, 1768, 8vo). The silence of these authorities is not, however, to be regarded as a conclusive proof that such a place never existed. The names of towns and villages, of which no trace is now to be found but in ancient writings, would fill a volume.
{xvi}
(3) —“in the reign of King Henry the Second, and about the year of Christ 1160.”] “Robin Hood,” according to the Sloane MS., “was borne . . . in the dayes of Henry the 2nd, about the yeare 1160.” This was the 6th year of that monarch; at whose death (anno 1189) he would, of course, be about 29 years of age. Those writers are therefore pretty correct who represent him as playing his pranks (Dr. Fuller’s phrase) in the reign of King Richard the First, and, according to the last-named author, “about the year of our Lord 1200.” [6] Thus Mair (who is followed by Stowe, Annales, 1592, p. 227), “Circa hæc tempora [sci. Ricardi I.] ut auguror,” &c. A MS. note in the Museum (Bib. Har. 1233), not, in Mr. Wanley’s opinion, to be relied on, places him in the same period, “Temp. Rich. I.” Nor is Fordun altogether out of his reckoning in bringing him down to the time of Henry III., as we shall hereafter see; and with him agrees Andrew of Wyntowne, in his “Oryginale Cronykil,” written about 1420, which, at the year 1283, has the following lines:
“Lytil Jhon and Robyne Hude
Wayth-men were commendyd gud:
In Yngil-wode and Barnysdale
Thai oysyd all this tyme thare trawale.”
A modern writer (History of Whitby, by Lionel Charlton, York, 1779, 4to), though of no authority in this point, has done well enough to speak of him as living “in the days of abbot Richard and Peter his successor;” that is, between the years 1176 and 1211. The author of the two plays upon the story of our hero, of which a particular account will be hereafter given, makes him contemporary with King Richard, who, as well as his brother Prince John, is introduced upon the scene; which is confirmed by another play, quoted in Note [5]. Warner, also, in his Albion’s England, 1602, p. 132, refers his existence to “better daies, first Richard’s daies.” This, to be sure, may not be such evidence as would be sufficient to decide the point in a court of justice; but neither judge nor counsel will dispute {xvii} the authority of that oracle of the law Sir Edward Coke, who pronounces that “This Robert Hood lived in the reign of King R. I.” (3 Institute, 197).
We must not therefore regard what is said by such writers as the author of “George a Greene, the pinner of Wakefield,” 1599 (see Note [9]), who represents our hero as contemporary with King Edward IV.,[7] and the compiler of a foolish book called “The noble birth, &c. of Robin Hood” (see Note [1]), who commences it by informing us of his banishment by King Henry VIII. As well, indeed, might we suppose him to have lived before the time of Charlemagne, because Sir John Harington, in his translation of the Orlando Furioso, 1590, p. 391, has made
“Duke ’Ammon in great wrath thus wise to speake:
This is a Tale indeed of Robin Hood,
Which to beleeve, might show my wits but weake;”
or to imagine his story must have been familiar to Plutarch, because in his Morals, translated by Dr. Philemon Holland, 1603, p. 644, we read the following passage:—“Evenso [i.e. as the crane and fox serve each other in Æsop], when learned men at a table plunge and drowne themselves (as it were), in subtile problemes and questions interlaced with logicke, which the vulgar sort are not able for their lives to comprehend and conceive; whiles they also againe for their part come in with their foolish songs, and vain ballads of Robin-Hood and Little John, telling tales of a tubbe, or of a roasted horse, and such like.” Who, indeed, would be apt to think that his skill in archery was known to Virgil? And yet, as interpreted by our facetious friend Mr. Charles Cotton, he tells us that
“Cupid was a little tyny,
Cogging, lying, peevish nynny;
But with a bow the shit-breecht elf
Would shoot like Robin Hood himself.”
In a word, if we are to credit translators, he must have {xviii} existed before the siege of Troy; for thus, according to one of Homer’s:
“Then came a choice companion
Of Robin Hood and Little John,
Who many a buck and many a doe,
In Sherwood forest, with his bow,
Had nabb’d; believe me it is true, sir,
The fellow’s Christian name was Teucer.”
Iliad, by Bridges, 4to, p. 231.[8]
This last supposition, indeed, has even the respectable countenance of Dan Geoffrey Chaucer:
“Pandarus answerde, it may be well inough,
And held with him of all that ever he saied,
But in his hart he thought, and soft lough,
And to himselfe full soberly he saied,
From hasellwood there Jolly Robin plaied,
Shall come all that thou abidest here,
Ye, farewell all the snow of ferne yere.”
Troilus (B. 5), Speght’s edition, 1602.
(4) “His extraction was noble, and his true name Robert Fitzooth.”] In “an olde and auncient pamphlet,” which Grafton the chronicler had seen, it was written that “This man discended of a noble parentage.” The Sloane MS. says “He was of . . . . parentage;” and though the material word is illegible, the sense evidently requires noble. So, likewise, the Harleian note: “It is said that he was of noble blood.” Leland also has expressly termed him “nobilis” (Collectanea, i. 54). The following account of his family will be found sufficiently particular. Ralph Fitzothes, or Fitzooth, a Norman, who had come over to England with William Rufus, married Maud or Matilda, daughter of Gilbert de Gaunt, Earl of Kyme and Lindsey, by whom he had two sons: Philip, afterward Earl of Kyme, that earldom being part of his mother’s dowry, and William. Philip the elder died without issue; William was a ward to Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, in whose household he received his education, and who, by the king’s express command, gave {xix} him in marriage to his own niece, the youngest of the three daughters of the celebrated Lady Roisia de Vere, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Guisnes in Normandy, and lord high chamberlain of England under Henry I., and of Adeliza, daughter to Richard de Clare, Earl of Clarence and Hertford, by Payn de Beauchamp, baron of Bedford, her second husband. The offspring of this marriage was our hero, Robert Fitzooth, commonly called Robin Hood. (See Stukeley’s Palæographia Britannica, No. I. passim.)
A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March 1793, under the signature D. H.,[9] pretends that Hood is only a corruption of “o’ th’ wood, q.d. of Sherwood.” This, to be sure, is an absurd conceit; but, if the name were a matter of conjecture, it might be probably enough referred to some particular sort of hood our hero wore by way of distinction or disguise. See Scot’s Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1584, p. 522. In Jonson’s masque of “The king’s entertainment at Welbeck” (Works, 1756, vii. 53), certain characters are introduced “in livery hoods,” of whom Fitz-ale says,
“Six hoods they are, and of the blood,
They tell of ancient Robin Hood.”
It may be remembered that Hugh Capet, the first king of France of the third and last race, obtained that surname from a similar circumstance. It is unnecessary to add that Hood is a common surname at this day, as well as a place in Yorkshire, formerly Hode; and that Edward the Third, in the tenth year of his reign, confirmed to Thomas, the son of Robert de Hode, of Hoveden, in tail-general, certain places of moorland, &c. in vasto de Incklesmore, &c. (Ro. Pa. 10 E. 3. m. 31).
(5) “He is frequently styled . . . Earl of Huntingdon, a title to which, for the latter part of his life at least, he actually appears to have had some sort of pretension.”] In Grafton’s “olde and auncient pamphlet,” though the author had, as already noticed, said “this man discended of a NOBLE PARENTAGE,” he adds, “or rather beyng of a base stocke {xx} and linage, was for his manhood and chivalry advaunced to the noble dignitie of an ERLE.”
In the MS. note (Bib. Har. 1233) is the following passage: “It is said that he was of noble blood no lesse then an earle.” Warner, in his Albion’s England, already cited, calls him “a county.” The titles of Mundy’s two plays are: “The downfall” and “The death of Robert earle of Huntington.” He is likewise introduced in that character in the same author’s Metropolis Coronata, hereafter cited. In his epitaph we shall find him expressly styled “Robert, Earl of Huntingtun.”
In “A pleasant commodie called Looke about you,” printed in 1600, our hero is introduced, and performs a principal part. He is represented as the young Earl of Huntington, and in ward to Prince Richard, though his brother Henry, the young king, complains of his having “had wrong about his wardship.” He is described as
“A gallant youth, a proper gentleman;”
and is sometimes called “pretty earle” and “little wag.” One of the characters thus addresses him:
“But welcome, welcome, and young Huntington,
Sweet Robyn Hude, honor’s best flowing bloome,”
and calls him
“
Vertuous and modest, Huntington’s right heyre.”
It is also said that
“His father Gilbert was the smoothst fac’t lord
That ere bare armes in England or in Fraunce.”
In one scene, “Enter Richard and Robert with coronets.”
“Rich. Richard the Prince of England, with his ward,
The noble Robert Hood, earle Huntington,
Present their service to your majestie.”
Dr. Percy’s objection, that the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom,[10] but only call him a yeoman, will be considered in another place. How he founded his pretensions to this title will be seen in his pedigree. Here it is. {xxi}
The Pedigree of Robin Hood Earl of Huntington. [The footnote referenced in the figure is [here]. A transcription of this chart using the genealogical numbering system of Robert B. Henry is [here].]
{xxii}
(6) “In his youth he is reported to have been of a wild and extravagant disposition,” &c.] Grafton’s pamphlet, after supposing him to have been “advaunced to the noble dignitie of an erle,” continued thus: “But afterwardes he so prodigally exceeded in charges and expences, that he fell into great debt, by reason whereof, so many actions and sutes were commenced against him whereunto he answered not, that by {xxiii} order of lawe he was outlawed.” [12] Leland must undoubtedly have had good authority for calling him “nobilis ille exlex.” [13] Fordun supposes him in the number of those deprived of their estates by King Henry III. “Hoc intempore,” says he, “de exheredatis surrexit & caput erexit ille famosissimus siccarius Robertus Hode & littill Johanne cum eorum complicibus” (p. 774). The Sloane MS. says he was “so ryotous that he lost or sould his patrimony & for debt became an outlawe;” and the Harleian note mentions his “having wasted his estate in riotous courses.” The former authority, however, gives a different, though, it may be, less credible, account of his being obliged to abscond. It is as follows: “One of his first exployts was the going abrode into a forrest & bearing with him a bowe of exceeding great strength, he fell into company with certayne rangers or woodmen, who fell to quarrel with him, as making showe to use such a bowe as no man was able to shoote withall. Whereto Robin replyed that he had two better then that at Lockesley, only he bare that with him nowe as a byrding bowe. At length the ‘contention’ grewe so hote that there was a wager layd about the kyllyng of a deere a greate distance of, for performance whereof Robin offered to lay his head to a certayne some of money, the advantage of which rash speach the others presently tooke. So the marke being found out, one of them, both to make his hart faynt and hand unsteady, as he was about to shoote urged him with the losse of head if he myst the marke. Notwithstanding Robyn kyld the deare, and gave every man his {xxiv} money agayne, save to him which at the poynt of shooting so upbraided him with danger to loose his hed for that wager; & he sayd they would drinke togeyther: whereupon the others stomached the matter and from quarelling they grewe to fighting with him. But Robin, getting him somewhat of, with shooting dispatch them, and so fled away; and then betaking himselfe to lyve in the woods,” &c.[14]
That he lurked or infested the woods is agreed by all. “Circa hæc tempora,” says Major, “Robertus Hudus Anglus & parvus Joannes, latrones famatissimi, in nemoribus latuerunt.”
Dr. Stukeley says that “Robin Hood took to this wild way of life in imitation of his grandfather Geoffrey de Mandeville, who being a favorer of Maud empress, King Stephen took him prisoner at S. Albans, and made him give up the tower of London, Walden, Plessis, &c., upon which he lived on plunder” (MS. note in his copy of Robin Hood’s Garland).
(7) “Of these, he chiefly affected Barnsdale,” &c.] “Along on the lift hond,” says Leland, “a iii. miles of betwixt Milburne and Feribridge I saw the wooddi and famose forrest of Barnesdale, wher thay say that Robyn Hudde lyvid like an outlaw” (Itinerary, v. 101).
“They haunted about Barnsdale forrest, Compton [r. Plompton] parke,[15] and such other places” (MS. Sloane).
“His principal residence,” says Fuller, “was in Shirewood forrest in this county [Notts], though he had another haunt (he is no fox that hath but one hole) near the sea in the North Riding in Yorkshire, where Robin Hood’s Bay still retaineth his name: not that he was any pirat, but a land-thief, who retreated to those unsuspected parts for his security” (Worthies of England, p. 320). {xxv}
In Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire, p. 505, is some account of the ancient and present state of Sherwood forest; but one looks in vain through that dry detail of land-owners for any particulars relating to our hero. “In anno domini 1194, King Richard the First, being a hunting in the forrest of Sherwood, did chase a hart out of the forrest of Sherwood into Barnesdale in Yorkshire, and because he could not there recover him, he made proclamation at Tickill in Yorkshire, and at divers other places there, that no person should kill, hurt, or chase the said hart, but that he might safely retorne into forrest againe, which hart was afterwards called a hart-royall proclaimed” (Manwood’s Forest Laws, 1598, p. 25, from “an auncient recorde” found by him in the tower of Nottingham Castle).[16]
(8) “Here he either found,” &c.] After being outlawed, Grafton tells us, “for a lewde shift, as his last refuge, [he] gathered together a companye of roysters and cutters, and practised robberyes and spoyling of the kinges subjects, and occupied and frequented the forestes or wild countries.” See also the following note.
(9) “Little John, William Scadlock, George a Green, pinder of Wakefield, Much a miller’s son, and a certain monk or frier named Tuck.”] Of these, the pre-eminence is incontestably due to Little John, whose name is almost constantly coupled with that of his gallant leader. “Robertus Hode & littill Johanne,” are mentioned together by Fordun as early as 1341; and later instances of the connection would be almost endless. After the words, “for debt became an {xxvi} outlaw,” the Sloane MS. adds: “then joyninge to him many stout fellowes of lyke disposition, amongst whom one called Little John was principal or next to him, they haunted about Barnsdale forrest,” &c. See Notes 39, 40.
With respect to Frier Tuck, “thogh some say he was an other kynd of religious man, for that the order of freyrs was not yet sprung up” (MS. Sloan.), yet as the Dominican friers (or friers preachers) came into England in the year 1221, upward of twenty years before the death of Robin Hood, and several orders of these religious had flourished abroad for some time, there does not seem much weight in that objection: nor, in fact, can one pay much regard to the term frier, as it seems to have been the common title given by the vulgar (more especially after the Reformation) to all the regular clergy, of which the friers were at once the lowest and most numerous. If Frier Tuck be the same person who, in one of the oldest songs, is called the curtail frier of Fountains-dale, he must necessarily have been one of the monks of that abbey, which was of the Cistercian order. However this may be, Frier Tuck is frequently noticed by old writers as one of the companions of Robin Hood, and as such was an essential character in the morris-dance (see Note [34]). He is thus mentioned by Skelton, laureat, in his “goodly interlude” of Magnificence, written about the year 1500, and with an evident allusion to some game or practice now totally forgotten and inexplicable:
“Another bade shave halfe my berde,
And boyes to the pylery gan me plucke,
And wolde have made me freer Tucke,
To preche oute of the pylery hole.”
In the year 1417, as Stow relates, “one, by his counterfeite name, called Frier Tucke, with manie other malefactors, committed many robberies in the counties of Surrey & Sussex, whereupon the king sent out his writs for their apprehension” (Annales, 1592).
George a Green is George o’ the green, meaning perhaps the town-green, in which the pound or pinfold stood of which he had the care. He has been particularly celebrated, and {xxvii} “As good as George a Green” is still a common saying.[17] Drayton, describing the progress of the river Calder, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, has the following lines:
“It chanc’d she in her course on ‘Kirkley’ cast her eye,
Where merry Robin Hood, that honest thief, doth lie;
Beholding fitly too before how Wakefield stood,
She doth not only think of lusty Robin Hood,
But of his merry man, the pindar of the town
Of Wakefield, George a Green, whose fames so far are blown
For their so valiant fight, that every freeman’s song
Can tell you of the same; quoth she, be talk’d on long,
For ye were merry lads, and those were merry days.”
Thus, too, Richard Brathwayte, in his poetical epistle “to all true-bred northerne sparks of the generous society of the Cottoneers” (Strappado for the Divell, 1615):
“But haste, my muse, in colours to display
Some auncient customes in their high-roade way,
At least such places labour to make knowne
As former times have honour’d with renowne.
The first whereof that I intend to show
Is merry Wakefield, and her pindar too,
Which fame hath blaz’d with all that did belong,
Unto that towne in many gladsome song,
The pindar’s valour, and how firme he stood
In th’ townes defence ’gainst th’ rebel Robin Hood,
How stoutly he behav’d himselfe, and would,
In spite of Robin, bring his horse to th’ fold,
His many May-games which were to be seene
Yearly presented upon Wakefield greene,
Where lovely Jugge and lustie Tib would go,
To see Tom-lively turne upon the toe;
Hob, Lob, and Crowde the fidler would be there,
And many more I will not speake of here.
Good God! how glad hath been this hart of mine,
To see that towne, which hath, in former time,
So flourish’d and so gloried in her name,
Famous by th’ pindar who first rais’d the same!
Yea, I have paced ore that greene and ore
And th’ more I saw’t I tooke delight the more, {xxviii}
For where we take contentment in a place,
A whole daies walke seemes as a cinquepace.
Yet as there is no solace upon earth
Which is attended evermore with mirth,
But when we are transported most with gladnesse,
Then suddenly our joy’s reduc’d to sadnesse;
So far’d with me to see the pindar gone,
And of those jolly laddes that were not one
Left to survive: I griev’d more then Ile say:
(But now for Bradford I must hast away).
Unto thy task, my muse, and now make knowne
The jolly shoo-maker of Bradford towne,
His gentle craft so rais’d in former time
By princely journey-men his discipline,
Where he was wont with passengers to quaffe,
But suffer none to carry up their staffe
Upon their shoulders, whilst they past through town,
For if they did he soon would beat them downe;
(So valiant was the souter) and from hence
Twixt Robin Hood and him grew th’ difference;
Which, cause it is by most stage-poets writ,
For brevity I thought good to omit.”
In the latter part of this extract, honest Richard evidently alludes to “A pleasant conceyted comedie of George a Greene, the pinner of Wakefield; as it was sundry times acted by the servants of the right honourable the earle of Sussex,” 1599, 4to, which has been erroneously ascribed to Heywood the epigrammatist, and is reprinted, with other trash, in the late edition of Dodsley’s Old Plays; only it unluckily happens that Robin Hood is almost the only person who has no difference with the souter (or shoemaker) of Bradford. The play, in short (or at least that part of it which we have any concern with), is founded on the ballad of Robin Hood and the Pinder of Wakefield (see part ii. song 3), which it directly quotes, and is, in fact, a most despicable performance.[18] King Edward (the Fourth) having taken King James of Scotland prisoner, after a most bloody battle near Middleham Castle, from which of 30,000 Scots not 5000 had escaped, comes with his royal captive in disguise to Bradford, where they {xxix} meet Robin Hood and George a Green, who have just had a stout affray: and after having read this, and a great deal more such nonsensical stuff, Captain Grose sagaciously “supposes that this play has little or no foundation in history;” and very gravely sits down and debates his opinion in form.
“The history of George a Green, pindar of the town of Wakefield,” 4to, no date,[19] is a modern production, chiefly founded on the old play just mentioned, of neither authority nor merit.
Our gallant pinder is thus facetiously commemorated by Drunken Barnaby:
“Hinc diverso cursu, sero
Quod audissem de pindero
Wakefeeldensi; gloria mundi,
Ubi socii sunt jucundi,
Mecum statui peragrare
Georgii fustem visitare.”
“Turning thence, none could me hinder
To salute the Wakefield pindar;
Who indeed is the world’s glory,
With his comrades never sorry.
This was the cause, lest you should miss it,
George’s club I meant to visit.”
“Veni Wakefield peramænum,
Ubi quærens Georgium Greenum,
Non inveni, sed in lignum
Fixum reperi Georgii signum,
Ubi allam bibi feram
Donec Georgio fortior eram.”
“Strait at Wakefield I was seen a,
Where I sought for George a Green a;
But could find not such a creature,
Yet on a sign I saw his feature,
Where strength of ale had so much stir’d me,
That I grew stouter far than Jordie.”
Besides the companions of our hero enumerated in the text, and whose names are most celebrated and familiar, we find those of William of Goldsbrough (mentioned by Grafton), Right-hitting Brand (by Mundy), and Gilbert with the white {xxx}
hand, who is thrice named in the Lyttell Geste of Robyn Hode (i. 52, 71), and is likewise noticed by Bishop Gawin Douglas in his Palice of Honour, printed at Edinburgh in 1579, but written before 1518:
“Thair saw I Maitlaind upon auld Beird Gray,
Robene Hude, and Gilbert with the quhite hand,
How Hay of Nauchton slew, in Madin land.” [20]
As no mention is made of Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudeslie, either in the ancient legend or in more than one of the numerous songs of Robin Hood, nor does the name of the latter once occur in the old metrical history of those famous archers reprinted in Percy’s Reliques, and among pieces of ancient popular poetry, it is to be concluded that they flourished at different periods, or at least had no connection with each other. In a poem, however, intitled, “Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and young William of Cloudesley, the second part,” 1616, 4to, b. l. (Bib. Bod. Art. L. 71, being a more modern copy than that in Selden C. 39, which wants the title, but was probably printed with the first part, which it there accompanies, in 1605; differing considerably therefrom in several places, and containing many additional verses), are the following lines (not in the former copy):
“Now beare thy father’s heart, my boy,
Said William of Cloudesley then,
When i was young i car’d not for
The brags of sturdiest men.
The pinder of Wakefield, George a Green,
I try’d a sommer’s day,
Yet he nor i were victors made
Nor victor’d went away.
Old Robin Hood, nor Little John,
Amongst their merry men all,
Nor fryer Tuck, so stout and young,
My courage could appall.”
(10) “Marian.”] Who or whatever this lady was, it is observable that no mention of her occurs either in the Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode, or in any other poem or song {xxxi} concerning him, except the not very old ballad of Robin Hood’s Golden Prize, where she is barely named, and a still more modern one of no merit (see part ii. song 24).[21] She is an important character, however, in the two old plays of The death and downfall of Robert earl of Huntington, written before 1600, and is frequently mentioned by dramatic or other writers about that period. Her presence, likewise, was considered as essential to the morris-dance. See Note [34].
In the First Part of King Henry IV. Falstaff says to the hostess, “There’s no more faith in thee than in a stew’d prune; nor no more truth in thee than in a drawn fox; and for womanhood, Maid Marian may be the deputy’s wife of the ward to thee;” upon which Dr. Johnson observes, that “Maid Marian is a man dressed like a woman, who attends the dancers of the morris.” “In the ancient songs of Robin Hood,” says Percy, “frequent mention is made of Maid Marian, who appears to have been his concubine. I could quote,” adds he, “many passages in my old MS. to this purpose, but shall produce only one:[22]
‘Good Robin Hood was living then,
Which now is quite forgot,
And so was fayre Maid Marian,’ &c.”
Mr. Steevens, too, after citing the old play of “The downfall of Robert earl of Huntington,” 1601, to prove “that Maid Marian was originally a name assumed by Matilda, the daughter of Robert, Lord Fitzwater, while Robin Hood remained in a state of outlawry,” observes, that “Shakespeare speaks of Maid Marian in her degraded state, when she was {xxxii} represented by a strumpet or a clown;” and refers to figure 2 in the plate at the end of the play, with Mr. Tollet’s observations on it. The widow, in Sir W. Davenant’s “Love and Honour,” says, “I have been Mistress Marian in a maurice ere now;” and Mr. Warton[23] quotes an old piece, entitled “Old Meg of Herefordshire for a Maid Marian, and Hereford town for a morris-dance: or 12 morris-dancers in Herefordshire of 1200 years old,” London, 1609, 4to, which is dedicated, he says, to one Hall, a celebrated tabourer in that country.[24] See Note [34].
(11) “His company,” &c.] See the entire passage quoted from Major in a subsequent note. “By such bootyes as he could get,” says the writer of the Sloane MS., “his company encreast to an hundred and a halfe.”
(12) —“the words of an old writer.”] The author of the Sloane manuscript; which adds: “after such maner he procured the pynner of Wakefeyld to become one of his company, and a freyr called Muchel [r. Tuck] . . . Scarlock he induced upon this occasion: one day meeting him as he walket solitary & like to a man forlorne, because a mayd to whom he was affyanced was taken from [him] by the violence of her frends, & given to another that was old & welthy, whereupon Robin, understanding when the maryage-day should be, came to the church as a begger, & having his own company not far of, which came in so soone as they hard {xxxiii} the sound of his horne, he tooke the bryde perforce from him that [bare] in hand to have marryed her, & caused the preist to wed her & Scarlocke togeyther.” (See part ii. song 8.) This MS., of which great part is merely the old legend or Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode turned into prose, appears to have been written before the year 1600.
(13) “In shooting,” &c.] MS. Sloan. Grafton also speaks of our hero’s “excellyng principally in archery or shooting, his manly courage agreeyng thereunto.”
Their archery, indeed, was unparalleled, as both Robin Hood and Little John have frequently shot an arrow a measured mile, or 1760 yards, which it is supposed no one, either before or since, was ever able to do. “Tradition,” says Master Charlton, “informs us that in one of ‘Robin Hood’s’ peregrinations, he, attended by his trusty mate Little John, went to dine [at Whitby Abbey] with the abbot Richard, who, having heard them often famed for their great dexterity in shooting with the long bow, begged them after dinner to shew him a specimen thereof; when, to oblige the abbot, they went up to the top of the abbey, whence each of them shot an arrow, which fell not far from Whitby-laths, but on the contrary side of the lane; and in memorial thereof, a pillar was set up by the abbot in the place where each of the arrows was found, which are yet standing in these our days; that field where the pillar for Robin Hood’s arrow stands being still called Robin Hood’s field, and the other where the pillar for Little John’s arrow is placed, still preserving the name of John’s field. Their distance from Whitby Abbey is more than a measured mile, which seems very far for the flight of an arrow, and is a circumstance that will stagger the faith of many; but as to the credibility of the story, every reader may judge thereof as he thinks proper; only I must here beg leave to observe that these very pillars are mentioned, and the fields called by the aforesaid names, in the old deeds for that ground, now in the possession of Mr. Thomas Watson” (History of Whitby, York, 1779, p. 146).[25] {xxxiv}
Dr. Meredith Hanmer, in his Chronicle of Ireland (p. 179), speaking of Little John, says, “There are memorable acts reported of him, which I hold not for truth, that he would shoot an arrow a mile off and a great deale more; but them,” adds he, “I leave among the lyes of the land.” [26] See Note [39]. {xxxv}
(14) “An outlaw, in those times, being deprived of protection, owed no allegiance,” &c.] Such a character was, doubtless, at the period treated of, in a very critical situation; it being equally as legal and meritorious to hunt down and dispatch him as it was to kill a wolf, the head of which animal he was said to bear. “Item foris facit,” says Bracton (who wrote about the time), “omnia que pacis sunt, quia a tempore quo utlagatus est caput gerit lupinum, ita ut impune ab omnibus interfici possit” (l. 2, c. 35). In the great roll of the exchequer, in the 7th year of King Richard I., is an allowance by writ of two marks to Thomas de Prestwude, for bringing to Westminster the head of William de Elleford, an outlaw. (See Madox’s History of the Exchequer, 136.) Those who received or consorted with a person outlawed were subject to the same punishment. Such was the humane policy of our enlightened ancestors! See Note [21].
(15)
“
. . . . they could discourse
The freezing hours away! ”]
(Cymbeline, act iii. scene 3). The chief subjects of our hero’s conversation are supposed, by a poetical genius of the 16th {xxxvi} century, to have been the commendation of a forest-life and the ingratitude of mankind.
“I have no tales of Robin Hood, though mal-content was he
In better daies, first Richard’s daies, and liv’d in woods as we
A Tymon of the world; but not devoutly was he soe,
And therefore praise I not the man: but for from him did groe
Words worth the note, a word or twaine of him ere hence we goe.
Those daies begot some mal-contents, the principall of whome
A county was, that with a troope of yomandry did rome,
Brave archers and deliver men, since nor before so good,
Those took from rich to give the poore, and manned Robin Hood.
He fed them well, and lodg’d them safe in pleasant caves and bowers,
Oft saying to his merry men, What juster life than ours?
Here use we tallents that abroad the churles abuse or hide,
Their coffers’ excrements, and yeat for common wants denide.
We might have sterved for their store, & they have dyc’st our bones,
Whose tongues, driftes, harts, intice, meane, melt, as syrens, foxes, stones,
Yea even the best that betterd them heard but aloofe our mones.
And redily the churles could prie and prate of our amis,
Forgetfull of their owne. . . .
I did amis, not missing friends that wisht me to amend:
I did amend, but missed friends when mine amis had end:
My friends therefore shall finde me true, but I will trust no frend.
Not one I knewe that wisht me ill, nor any workt me well,
To lose, lacke, live, time, frends, in yncke, an hell, an hell, an hell!
Then happie we (quoth Robin Hood) in merry Sherwood that dwell.” [27]
It has been conjectured, however, that, in the winter season, our hero and his companions severally quartered themselves in villages or country-houses more or less remote, with persons of whose fidelity they were assured. It is not improbable, at the same time, that they might have tolerably comfortable habitations erected in the woods.
Archery, which our hero and his companions appear to have carried to a state of perfection, continued to be cultivated for some ages after their time, down, indeed, to that of Henry VIII., or about the year 1540, when, owing to the introduction of artillery and matchlock-guns, it became neglected, and the bowmen of Cressy and Agincourt utterly extinct; though it may be still a question whether a body of expert archers would not, even at this day, be superior to an equal {xxxvii} number armed with muskets.[28] The loss sustained from this change by the people at large seems irreparable. Anciently, the use of the bow or bill qualified every man for a soldier; and a body of peasants, led on by a Tyler or a Cade, was not less formidable than any military force that could be raised to oppose them: by which means the people from time to time preserved the very little liberty they had, and which their tyrants were constantly endeavouring to wrest from them. See how the case stands at present: the sovereign, let him be who or what he will (kings have been tyrants, and may be so again), has a standing army, well disciplined and accoutred, while the subjects or people are absolutely defenceless: as much care having been taken, particularly since “the glorious revolution,” to deprive them of arms as was formerly bestowed to enforce their use and practice.[29] The following extract from Hale’s Historia Placitorum Coronæ (i. 118) will serve to show how familiar the bow and arrow was in the 14th century:—“M. 22. E. 3. Rot. 117. coram rege Ebor. This was the case of Henry Vescy, who had been indicted before the sheriff in turno suo . . . of divers felonies, whereupon the sheriff mandavit commissionem suam Henrico de Clyderawe & aliis ad capiendum prædictum H. Vescy, & salvo ducendum usque castrum de Ebor.” Vescy would not submit to an arrest, but fled, and inter fugiendum shot with his bow and arrows at his pursuers, but in the end was killed by Clyderawe: to which may be added a remarkable passage in Harison’s “Description of England” (prefixed to Holinshed’s Chronicle, 1587), to prove how much it had declined in the 16th. “In times past,” says he, “the {xxxviii} cheefe force of England consisted in their long bowes. But now we have in maner generallie given over that kind of artillerie, and for long bowes in deed doo practise to shoot compasse for our pastime; which kind of shooting can never yeeld anie smart stroke, nor beat down our enemies, as our countrymen were woont to doo at everie time of need. Certes the Frenchmen and Rutters,[30] deriding our new archerie in respect of their corslets, will not let, in open skirmish, if anie leisure serve, to turne up their tailes, and crie, Shoote, English; and all because our strong shooting is decaied and laid in bed. But if some of our Englishmen now lived that served King Edward the Third in his warres with France, the breech[31] of such a varlet should have beene nailed to his bum with one arrow, and an other fethered in his bowels, before he should have turned about to see who shot the first” (p. 198). Bishop Latimer, in his sixth sermon before King Edward VI., gives an interesting account how the sons of yeomen were, in his infancy, trained up to the bow. “But now,” says he, “we have taken up whooring in townes, instead of shooting in the fieldes.”
(16)
“All clad in Lincoln green.”]
This species of cloth is mentioned by Spenser (Faerie Queene, VI. ii. 5):
“All in a woodman’s jacket he was clad
Of Lincolne greene, belay’d with silver lace
And on his head an hood with aglets sprad,
And by his side his hunter’s horne he hanging had.”
It is likewise noticed by our poet himself, in another place:
“Swains in shepherds gray, and gyrles in Lincolne greene.” [32]
See Polyolbion, song xxv., where the marginal note says, “Lincolne anciently dyed the best green in England.” Thus Coventry had formerly the reputation of dying the best blue. {xxxix} See Ray’s Proverbs, p. 178. Kendal green is equally famous, and appears to have been cloth of a similar quality. This colour was adopted by foresters to prevent their being too readily discovered by the deer. See Sir John Wynne’s History of the Guedir Family (Barrington’s Miscellanies), p. 419. Thus the Scotish Highlanders used to wear brown plaids to prevent their being distinguished among the heath. It is needless to observe that green has ever been the favourite dress of an archer, hunter, &c. See Note [34].[33] We now call it a Saxon or grass green:
“His coat is of a Saxon green, his waistcoat’s of a plaid” (O. song).
Lincoln green was well known in France in or before the 13th century. Thus, in an old fabliau, transprosed by M. Le Grand (Fabliaux ou Contes, iv. 13), “Il mit donc son surcot fourré d’écureuil, et sa belle robe d’Estanfort teinte en verd.” Estanfort is Stamford, in Lincolnshire.[34] This cloth is, likewise, often mentioned by the old Scotish poets under the names of Lincum licht, Lincum twyne, &c., and appears to have been in universal request: and yet, notwithstanding this cloud of evidence, Mr. Pinkerton has had the confidence to assert that “no particular cloth was ever made at Lincoln.” (See Ancient Scotish Poems, ii. 430.) But, indeed, this worthy gentleman, as Johnson said of Goldsmith, only stumbles upon truth by accident. {xl}
(17)
“From wealthy abbots’ chests,” &c.]
“But who,” exclaims Dr. Fuller, having cited this passage, “made him a judge? or gave him a commission to take where it might be best spared, and give where it was most wanted?” That same power, one may answer, which authorises kings to take where it can be worst spared, and give it where it is least wanted. Our hero, in this respect, was a knight-errant; and wanted no other commission than that of Justice, whose cause he militated. His power, compared with that of the king of England, was by no means either equally usurped or equally abused: the one reigned over subjects (or slaves) as a master (or tyrant), the other possessed no authority but what was delegated to him by the free suffrage of his adherents, for their general good: and as for the rest, it would be absurd to blame in Robin what we should praise in Richard.[35] The latter, too, warred in remote parts of the world against nations from which neither he nor his subjects had sustained any injury; the former at home against those to whose wealth, avarice, or ambition he might fairly attribute not only his own misfortunes, but the misery of the oppressed and enslaved society he had quitted. In a word, every man who has the power has also the authority to pursue the ends of justice, to regulate the gifts of fortune, by transferring the superfluities of the rich to the necessities of the poor; by relieving the oppressed, and even, when necessary, destroying the oppressor. These are the objects of the social union, and every individual may, and to the utmost of his power should, endeavour to promote them. Had our Robin Hood been, like M’Donald of Barrisdale, a reader of Virgil, he, as well as that gallant chief, might have inscribed on his baldric— {xli}
“Hæ tibi erunt artes; pacis componere mores,
Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.” [36]
(18) “But it is to be remembered,” &c.] The passage from Major’s work, which has been already quoted, is here given entire (except as to a single sentence introduced in another place). “Circa hæc tempora [s. Ricardi I.] ut auguror, Robertus Hudus & Parvus Joannes latrones famatissimi, in nemoribus latuerunt, solum opulentum virorum bona diripientes. Nullum nisi eos invadentem vel resistentem pro suarum rerum tuitione occiderunt. Centum sagittarios ad pugnam aptissimos Robertus latrociniis aluit quos 400 viri fortissimi invadere non audebant. Fæminam nullum opprimi permisit, nec pauperum bona surripuit, verum eos ex abbatum bonis ablatis opipare pavit. Viri rapinam improbo sed latronum omnium humanissimus & princeps erat” (Majoris Britanniæ Historia, Edin. 1740, p. 128).
Stowe, in his Annales, 1592, p. 227, gives an almost literal version of the above passage; Richard Robinson versifies it;[37] and Camden slightly refers to it. {xlii}
(19) —“has had the honour to be compared to the illustrious Wallace,” &c.] In the first volume of Peck’s intended supplement to the Monasticon, consisting of collections for the history of Præmonstratensian monasteries, now in the British Museum, is a very curious riming Latin poem with the following title: “Prioris Alnwicensis de bello Scotico apud Dumbarr, tempore rigis Edwardi I. dictamen sive rithmus Latinus, quo de Willielmo Wallace Scotico illo Robin Whood, plura sed invidiose canit;” and in the margin are the following date and reference:—“22. Julii 1304. 32. E. 1. Regist. Prem. fol. 59. a.” This, it maybe observed, is the first known instance of our hero’s name being mentioned by any writer whatever; and affords a strong and respectable proof of his early popularity.
(20) “The abbot of St. Mary’s in York.”] “In the year 1088, Alan, Earl of Richmond, founded here a stately abbey for black monks to the honour of St. Olave; but it was afterwards dedicated to the Blessed Virgin by the command of king William Rufus. Its yearly revenues at the suppression amounted to £1550, 7s. 9d. Dugd., £2850, 1s. 5d. Speed” (Willis’s Mitred Abbeys, i. 214). The abbots in our hero’s time were—
- Robert de Harpsham (el. 1184), ob. 1198.
- Robert de Longo Campo, ob. 1239.
- William Rondele, ob. 1244.
- Tho. de Wharterhille, ob. 1258.
(21) —“the sheriff of Nottinghamshire.”] Ralph Murdach was sheriff of Derby and Nottinghamshires in the first year of King Richard I., and for the seven years preceding, and William Brewerre in his sixth year, between which and the first no name appears on the roll. See Fuller’s Worthies, &c.
In the year 1195, Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, {xliii} justiciary of all England, sent throughout the kingdom this form of oath: that all men of the realm of England would keep the peace of the lord the king to their power; and that they would neither be thieves nor robbers, nor the receivers of such, nor consent to them in anything; and that when they were able to know such-like malefactors, they would take them to the utmost of their power, and deliver them to the sheriff; who in no wise should be delivered unless by the lord the king or his chief justice; and if unable to take them, they should cause the bailiffs of the lord the king to know who they were: and, cry being raised for pursuing outlaws, robbers, thieves, or their receivers, all should fully do that suit to the utmost of their power, &c. Knights were to be assigned for these purposes, and men chosen and faithful were sent to execute them in every county, who by the oath of true men of the vicinages took many and put them in the king’s prisons; but many, being forewarned, and conscious of evil, left their houses and possessions and fled (R. de Hoveden, p. 757).
(22) —“an anecdote preserved by Fordun,” &c.] “De quo eciam quædam commendabilia recitantur, sicut patuit in hoc, quod cum ipse quondam in Barnisdale iram [f. ob iram] regis & fremitum principis, missam, ut solitus erat, devotissime audiret, nec aliqua necessitate volebat interrumpere officium, quadam die cum audiret missam, à quodam vicecomite & ministris regis, sæpius per prius ipsum infestantibus, in illo secretissimo loco nemorali, ubi missæ interfuit, exploratus, venientes ad eum qui de suis hoc perceperunt, ut omni annisu fugeret suggesserunt, qui, ob reverentiam sacramenti, quod tunc devotissime venerabatur, omnino facere recusavit. Sed ceteris suis, ob metum mortis trepidantibus, Robertus tantum confisus in eum, quem coluit reveritus, cum paucissimis, qui tunc forte ei affuerunt, inimicos congressus & eos de facili devicit, et de eorum spoliis ac redemptione ditatus, ministros ecclesiæ & missas semper in majori veneratione semper & de post habere præelegit, attendens quod wlgariter dictum est:
Hunc deus exaudit, qui missam sæpius audit.”
J. De Fordun Scotichronicon, à Hearne, Ox. 1722, p. 774. {xliv}
This passage is found in no other copy of Fordun’s Chronicle than one in the Harleian Library. Its suppression in all the rest may be fairly accounted for on the principle which is presumed to have influenced the conduct of the ancient English historians. See Note [1].
(23) —“a proclamation was published,” &c.] “The king att last,” says the Harleian MS., “sett furth a proclamation to have him apprehended,” &c. Grafton, after having told us that he “practised robberyes,” &c., adds, “The which beyng certefyed to the king, and he beyng greatly offended therewith, caused his proclamation to be made that whosoever would bryng him quicke or dead, the king would geve him a great summe of money, as by the recordes in the Exchequer is to be seene: But of this promise no man enjoyed any benefite. For the sayd Robert Hood, being afterwardes troubled with sicknesse,” &c. (p. 85.) See Note [14].
(24) “At length the infirmities of old age increasing upon him,” &c.] Thus Grafton: “The sayd Robert Hood, beyng troubled with sicknesse, came to a certain nonry in Yorkshire called Bircklies [r. Kircklies], where desiryng to be let blood, he was betrayed and bled to death.” The Sloane MS. says that “[Being] dystempered with could and age, he had great payne in his lymmes, his bloud being corrupted, therefore to be eased of his payne by letting bloud, he repayred to the priores of Kyrkesly, which some say was his aunt, a woman very skylful in physique & surgery; who, perceyving him to be Robyn Hood, & waying howe fel an enimy he was to religious persons, toke reveng of him for her owne howse and all others by letting him bleed to death. It is also sayd that one Sir Roger of Doncaster, bearing grudge to Robyn for some injury, incyted the priores, with whome he was very familiar, in such a maner to dispatch him.” See the Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode, ad finem. The Harleian MS., after mentioning the proclamation “sett furth to have him apprehended,” adds, “At which time it happened he fell sick at a nunnery in Yorkshire called Birkleys [r. Kirkleys]; & desiring there to be let blood, hee was betrayed & made bleed to death.”
Kirkleys, Kirklees, or Kirkleghes, formerly Kuthale, in the {xlv} deanery of Pontefract, and archdeaconry of the West Riding of Yorkshire, was a Cistercian, or, as some say, a Benedictine nunnery, founded, in honour of the Virgin Mary and St. James, by Reynerus Flandrensis in the reign of King Henry II. Its revenues at the dissolution were somewhat about £20, and the site was granted (36 Hen. 8.) to John Tasburgh and Henry Savill, from whom it came to one of the ancestors of Sir George Armytage, Bart., the present possessor. The remains of the building (if any) are very inconsiderable, and its register has been searched after in vain. See Tanner’s Notitia, p. 674. Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodiensis, p. 91. Hearne’s “Account of Several Antiquities in and about the University of Oxford,” at the end of Leland’s Itinerary, vol. ii. p. 128.
In 1706 was discovered, among the ruins of the nunnery, the monument of Elisabeth de Staynton, prioress; but it is not certain that this was the lady from whom our hero experienced such kind assistance. See Thoresby and Hearne ubi supra.
“One may wonder,” says Dr. Fuller, “how he escaped the hand of justice, dying in his bed, for ought is found to the contrary; but it was because he was rather a merry than a mischievous thief (complementing passengers out of their purses), never murdering any but deer, and . . . . ‘feasting’ the vicinage with his vension” (Worthies, p. 320). See the following note.
(25) “He was interred under some trees at a short distance from the house; a stone being placed over his grave with an inscription to his memory.”] “Kirkley monasterium monialium, ubi Ro: Hood nobilis ille exlex sepultus” (Leland’s Collectanea, i. 54). “Kirkleys Nunnery, in the Woods, whereof Robin Hood’s grave is, is between Halifax and Wakefield upon Calder” (Letter from Jo. Savile to W. Camden, Illus. viro epis. 1691).
“
It chanced she in her course on ‘Kirkley’ cast her eye,
Where merry Robin Hood, that honest thief, doth lie.”
(Polyolbion, song 28.)
See also Camden’s Britannia, 1695, p. 709. {xlvi}
In the second volume of Dr. Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum is an engraving of “the prospect of Kirkley’s abby, where Robin Hood dyed, from the footway leading to Heartishead church, at a quarter of a mile distance. A. The New Hall. B. The Gatehouse of the Nunnery. C. The trees among which Robin Hood was buryed. D. The way up the Hill were this was drawn. E. Bradley wood. F. Almondbury hill. G. Castle field. Drawn by Dr. Johnston among his Yorkshire Antiquitys, p. 54 of the drawings. E. Kirkall, sculp.” It makes plate 99 of the above work, but is unnoticed in the letterpress.
According to the Sloane MS., the prioress, after “letting him bleed to death, buryed him under a great stone by the hywayes syde;” which is agreeable to the account in Grafton’s Chronicle, where it is said that, after his death, “the prioresse of the same place caused him to be buried by the highway-side, where he had used to rob and spoyle those that passed that way. And vpon his grave the sayde prioresse did lay a very fayre stone, wherein the names of Robert Hood, William of Goldesborough, and others were graven. And the cause why she buryed him there was, for that the common passengers and travailers, knowyng and seeyng him there buryed, might more safely and without feare take their jorneys that way, which they durst not do in the life of the sayd outlawes. And at eyther ende of the sayde tombe was erected a crosse of stone, which is to be seene there at this present.”
“Near unto ‘Kirklees’ the noted Robin Hood lies buried under a grave-stone that yet remains near the park, but the inscription scarce legible” (Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodiensis, fo. 1715, p. 91). In the Appendix, p. 576, is the following note, with a reference to “page 91:”—
“Amongst the papers of the learned Dr. Gale, late dean of Yorke, was found this epitaph of Robin Hood:
The genuineness of this epitaph has been questioned. Dr. Percy, in the first edition of his “Reliques of Ancient English Poetry” (1765), says “It must be confessed this epitaph is suspicious, because in the most ancient poems of Robin Hood there is no mention of this imaginary earldom.” This reason, however, is by no means conclusive, the most ancient poem now extant having no pretension to the antiquity claimed by the epitaph: and indeed the Doctor himself should seem to have afterward had less confidence in it, as, in both the subsequent editions, those words are omitted, and the learned critic merely observes that the epitaph appears to him suspicious. It will be admitted that the bare suspicion of this ingenious writer, whose knowledge and judgment of ancient poetry are so conspicuous and eminent, ought to have considerable weight. As for the present editor’s part, though he does not pretend to say that the language of this epitaph is that of Henry the Third’s time, nor indeed to determine of what age it is, he can perceive nothing in it from whence one should be led to pronounce it spurious, i.e. that it was never inscribed on the grave-stone of Robin Hood. That there actually was some inscription upon it in Thoresby’s time, though then scarce legible, is evident from his own words: and it should be remembered as well that the last century was not the era of imposition, as that Dr. Gale was both too good and too learned a man either to be capable of it himself or to be liable to it from others.
That industrious chronologist and topographer, as well as respectable artist and citizen, master Thomas Gent, of York, in his “List of religious houses,” annexed to “The ancient and modern state of” that famous city, 1730, 12mo, p. 234, informs us that he had been told “that his [Robin Hood’s] tombstone, having his effigy thereon, was order’d, not many years ago, by a certain knight to be placed as a harth-stone in his great hall. When it was laid overnight, the next morning it was ‘surprizingly’ removed [on or to] one side; and {xlviii} so three times it was laid, and as successively turned aside. The knight, thinking he had done wrong to have brought it thither, order’d it should be drawn back again; which was performed by a pair of oxen and four horses, when twice the number could scarce do it before. But as this,” adds the sagacious writer, “is a story only, it is left to the reader to judge at pleasure.” N.B.—This is the second instance of a miracle wrought in favour of our hero!
In Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, p. cviii., is “the figure of the stone over the grave of Robin Hood [in Kirklees park, being a plain stone with a sort of cross fleuree thereon], now broken and much defaced, the inscription illegible. That printed in Thoresby, Ducat. Leod. 576, from Dr. Gale’s papers, was never on it.[38] The late Sir Samuel Armitage owner of the premises, caused the ground under it to be dug a yard deep, and found it had never been disturbed; so that it was probably brought from some other place, and by vulgar tradition ascribed to Robin Hood” (refers to “Mr. Watson’s letter in Antiquary Society minutes”). This is probably the tomb-stone of Elizabeth de Staynton, mentioned in the preceding note.
The old epitaph is, by some anonymous hand, in a work entitled “Sepulchrorum inscriptiones; or a curious collection of 900 of the most remarkable epitaphs,” Westminster, 1727 (vol. ii. p. 73), thus not inelegantly paraphrased:
“Here, underneath this little stone,
Thro’ Death’s assaults, now lieth one,
Known by the name of Robin Hood,
Who was a thief, and archer good;
Full thirteen years, and something more,
He robb’d the rich to feed the poor: {xlix}
Therefore, his grave bedew with tears,
And offer for his soul your prayers.” [39]
(26) —“various dramatic exhibitions.”] The earliest of these performances now extant is “The playe of Robyn Hode, very proper to be played in Maye games,” which is inserted in the Appendix to this work, and may probably be as old as the 15th century. That a different play, however, on the same subject has formerly existed, seems pretty certain from a somewhat curious passage in “The famous chronicle of king Edward the first, sirnamed Edward Longshankes,” &c., by George Peele, printed in 1593.
“Lluellen . . . . . weele get the next daie from Brecknocke the booke of Robin Hood, the frier he shall instruct us in his cause, and weele even here . . . wander like irregulers up and down the wildernesse, ile be maister of misrule, ile be Robin Hood that once, cousin ‘Rice,’ thou shalt be little John, and hers frier David, as fit as a die for frier Tucke. Now, my sweet Nel, if you will make up the messe with a good heart for maide Marian, and doe well with Lluellen under the green-woode trees, with as good a wil as in the good townes, why plena est curia. [Exeunt.
Enter Mortimor, solus.
Mortimor. . . . . . Maisters, have after gentle Robin Hood,
You are not so well accompanied I hope,
But if a potter come to plaie his part,
Youle give him stripes or welcome good or worse.
[Exit.
Enter Lluellen, Meredith, frier, Elinor, and their traine. They are all clad in greene, &c. sing, &c. Blyth and bonny, the song ended, Lluellen speaketh.
Luellen. Why so, I see, my mates of olde,
All were nor lies that Bedlams [beldams] told;
Of Robin Hood and little John,
Frier Tucke and maide Marian.”
Mortimer, as a potter, afterwards fights the frier with “flailes.”
2. “The downfall of Robert earle of Huntington, afterward {l} called Robin Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with his love to chaste Matilda, the lord Fitzwater’s daughter, afterwardes his faire maide Marian. Acted by the right honourable, the earle of Notingham, lord high admirall of England, his servants. ¶ Imprinted at London, for William Leake, 1601.” 4to, b. l.
3. “The death of Robert, earle of Huntington, otherwise called Robin Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with the lamentable tragedie of chaste Matilda, his faire maid Marian, poysoned at Dunmowe, by king John. Acted, &c. ¶ Imprinted &c. [as above] 1601.” 4to, b. l.
These two plays, usually called the first and second part of Robin Hood, were always, on the authority of Kirkman, falsely ascribed to Thomas Heywood, till Mr. Malone fortunately retrieved the names of the true authors, Anthony Mundy and Henry Chettle.[40] As they seem partly founded on traditions long since forgotten, and refer occasionally to documents not now to be found; at any rate, as they are much older than most of the common ballads upon the subject, and contain some curious and possibly authentic particulars not elsewhere to be met with, the reader will excuse the particularity of the account and length of the extracts here given.
The first part, or downfall of Robert earle of Huntington, is supposed to be performed at the court and command of Henry VIII., the poet Skelton being the dramatist, and {li} acting the part of chorus. The introductory scene commences thus:
“Enter Sir John Eltam, and knocke at Skelton’s doore.
Sir John. Howe, maister Skelton! what, at studie hard?
[Opens the doore.
Skel. Welcome and wisht for, honest Sir John Eltam,—
Twill trouble you after your great affairs,
[i.e. the surveying of certain maps which his majesty had employed him in;
To take the paine that I intended to intreate you to,
About rehearsall of your promis’d play.
Elt. Nay, master Skelton; for the king himselfe,
As wee were parting, bid mee take great heede
Wee faile not of our day: therefore I pray
Sende for the rest, that now we may rehearse.
Skel. O they are readie all, and drest to play.
What part play you?
Elt. Why, I play little John,
And came of purpose with this greene sute.
Skel. Holla, my masters, little John is come.
[At every doore all the players runne out: some crying where? where? others, Welcome, Sir John: among others the boyes and clowne.
Skel. Faith, little Tracy, you are somewhat forward.
What, our maid Marian leaping like a lad!
If you remember, Robin is your love,
Sir Thomas Mantle yonder, not Sir John.
Clow. But, master, Sir John is my fellowe, for I am Much the
miller’s sonne. Am I not?
Skel. I know yee are, sir:—
And, gentlemen, since you are thus prepar’d,
Goe in, and bring your dumbe scene on the stage.
And I, as prologue, purpose to expresse
The ground whereon our historie is laied.
[Exeunt, manet Skelton.
Trumpets sounde, [1] enter first King Richard with drum and auncient, giving Ely a purse and sceptre, his mother and brother John, Chester, Lester, Lacie, others at the king’s appointment, doing reverence. The king goes in: presently Ely ascends the chaire, Chester, John, and the queene part displeasantly. [2] Enter ROBERT, EARLE OF HUNTINGTON, leading Marian; followes him Warman, and after Warman, the prior; Warman ever flattering and making curtsie, taking gifts of the prior behinde and his master before. Prince John enters, offereth to take Marian; Queen Elinor enters, offering to pull Robin from her; but they infolde each other, and sit downe within the curteines. [3] Warman with the prior, Sir Hugh Lacy, Lord Sentloe, and Sir Gilbert Broghton folde hands, and drawing the curteins, all (but the prior) enter, and are kindely received by Robin Hoode.”
{lii}
During the exhibition of the second part of the dumb show, Skelton instructs the audience as follows:
“This youth that leads yon virgin by the hand
Is our earle Robert, or your Robin Hoode,
That in those daies was earle of Huntington;
The ill-fac’t miser, brib’d in either hand,
Is Warman, once the steward of his house,
Who, Judas like, betraies his liberall lord,
Into the hands of that relentlesse prior,
Calde Gilbert Hoode, uncle to Huntington.
Those two that seeke to part these lovely friends,
Are Elenor the queene, and John the prince,
She loves earle Robert, he maide Marian,
But vainely; for their deare affect is such,
As only death can sunder their true loves.
Long had they lov’d, and now it is agreed,
This day they must be troth-plight, after wed:
At Huntington’s faire house a feast is helde,
But envie turnes it to a house of teares.
For those false guestes, conspiring with the prior;
To whom earle Robert greatly is in debt,
Meane at the banquet to betray the earle,
Unto a heavie writ of outlawry:
The manner and escape you all shall see.
Looke to your entrance, get you in, Sir John.
My shift is long, for I play Frier Tucke;
Wherein, if Skelton hath but any lucke,
Heele thanke his hearers oft with many a ducke.
For many talk of Robin Hood that never shot in his bowe,
But Skelton writes of Robin Hood what he doth truly knowe.”
After some Skeltonical rimes, and a scene betwixt the prior, the sheriff, and justice Warman, concerning the outlawry, which appears to be proclaimed, and the taking of Earl Huntington at dinner, “Enter Robin Hoode, little John following him; Robin having his napkin on his shoulder, as if hee were sodainly raised from dinner.” He is in a violent rage at being outlawed, and Little John endeavours to pacify him. Marian being distressed at his apparent disorder, he dissembles with her. After she is gone, John thus addresses him:
“Now must your honour leave these mourning tunes,
And thus by my areede you shall provide; {liii}
Your plate and jewels ‘i wil’ straight packe up,
And toward Notingham convey them hence.
At Rowford, Sowtham, Wortley, Hothersfield,
Of all your cattell mony shall be made,
And I at Mansfield will attend your comming;
Where weele determine which waie’s best to take.
Rob. Well, be it so; a God’s name, let it be;
And if I can, Marian shall come with mee.
John. Else care will kill her; therefore if you please,
At th’ utmost corner of the garden wall,
Soone in the evening waite for Marian,
And as I goe ile tell her of the place.
Your horses at the Bell shall readie bee,
I meane Belsavage,[41] whence, as citizens
That ‘meane’ to ride for pleasure some small way,
You shall set foorth.”
The company now enters, and Robin charges them with the conspiracy, and rates their treacherous proceedings. Little John in attempting to remove the goods is set upon by Warman and the sheriff; and during the fray “Enter Prince John, Ely and the prior, and others.” Little John tells the prince he but defends the box containing his own gettings; upon which his royal highness observes,
“You do the fellow wrong; his goods are his:
You only must extend upon the earles.
Prior. That was, my lord, but nowe is Robert Hood,
A simple yeoman as his servants were.”
Ely gives the prior his commission, with directions to make speed, lest “in his country-house all his heards be solde;” and gives Warman a patent “for the high sheriffewick of Nottingham.” After this, “Enter Robin like a citizen; and then the queen and Marian disguised for each other. Robin takes Marian, and leaves the queen to Prince John, who is {liv} so much enraged at the deception that he breaks the head of Ely’s messenger. Sir Hugh, brother to Lord Lacy, and steward to Ely, who had been deeply concerned in Huntington’s ruin, is killed in a brawl by Prince John, whom Ely orders to be arrested; but the prince, producing letters from the king revoking Ely’s appointment, “lifts up his drawne sworde,” and “Exit, cum Lester and Lacy,” in triumph. Then “Enter Robin Hoode, Matilda at one doore, little John and Much the Miller’s sonne at another doore.” After mutual congratulations, Robin asks if it be
“
Should stretch so farre, that he doth hunt the lives
Of bonnie Scarlet, and his brother Scathlock?
Much. O, I, sir. Warman came but yesterday to take charge of the jaile at Notingham, and this daie, he saies, he will hang the two outlawes. . . .
Rob. Now, by my honour’s hope, . . .
He is too blame: say, John, where must they die?
John. Yonder’s their mother’s house, and here the tree,
Whereon, poore men, they must forgoe their lives;
And yonder comes a lazy lozell frier,
That is appointed for their confessor,
Who, when we brought your monie to their mother’s,
Was wishing her to patience for their deaths.”
Here “Enter Frier Tucke;” some conversation passes, and the frier Skeltonizes; after which he departs, saying,
“
Unto this hanging businesse; would for mee
Some rescue or repreeve might set them free.
Rob. Heardst thou not, little John, the frier’s speach?
John. He seemes like a good fellow, my good lord.
Rob. He’s a good fellowe, John, upon my word.
Lend me thy horne, and get thee in to Much,
And when I blowe this horne, come both and helpe mee.
John. Take heed, my lord: the villane Warman knows you,
And ten to one he hath a writ against you.
Rob. Fear not: below the bridge a poor blind man doth dwell,
With him I will change my habit, and disguise,
Only be readie when I call for yee,
For I will save their lives, if it may bee. . . .
{lv}
Enter Warman, Scarlet and Scathlock bounde, Frier Tuck as their confessor, officers with halberts.
War. Master frier, be briefe, delay no time.
Scarlet and Scatlock, never hope for life;
Here is the place of execution,
And you must answer lawe for what is done.
Scar. Well, if there be no remedie, we must:
Though it ill seemeth, Warman, thou shouldst bee,
So bloodie to pursue our lives thus cruellie.
Scat. Our mother sav’d thee from the gallows, Warman,
His father did preferre thee to thy lord:
One mother had wee both, and both our fathers
To thee and to thy father were kinde friends. . . .
War. Ye were first outlawes, then ye proved theeves. . . .
Both of your fathers were good honest men;
Your mother lives their widowe in good fame:[42]
But you are scapethrifts, unthrifts, villanes, knaves,
And as ye liv’d by shifts, shall die with shame.”
To them enters Ralph, the sheriff’s man, to acquaint him that the carnifex, or executor of the law, had fallen off his “curtall” and was “cripplefied” and rendered incapable of performing his office; so that the sheriff was to become his deputy. The sheriff insists that Ralph shall serve the turn, which he refuses. In the midst of the altercation, “Enter Robin Hoode, like an old man,” who tells the sheriff that the two outlaws had murdered his young son, and undone himself; so that for revenge-sake he desires they may be delivered to him. They denying the charge, “Robin whispers with them,” and with the sheriff’s leave, and his man’s help, unbinds them: then, sounds his horn; and “Enter little John, Much . . . Fight; the frier, making as if he helpt the sheriffe, knockes down his men crying, Keepe the king’s peace. Sheriffe [perceiving that it is “the outlawed earle of Huntington”] runnes away, and his men.” (See the ballad of “Robin Hood rescuing the widow’s sons,” part ii. num. xxiii.) {lvi}
“Fri. Farewell, earle Robert, as I am true frier,
I had rather be thy clarke then serve the prior.
Rob. A jolly fellowe! Scarlet, knowest thou him?
Scar. Hee is of Yorke, and of Saint Maries cloister;
There where your greedie uncle is lord prior. . . .
Rob. Here is no biding, masters; get yee in. . . .
John, on a sodaine thus I am resolv’d.
To keepe in Sherewoodde tille the king’s returne,
And being outlawed, leade an outlawe’s life. . . .
John. I like your honour’s purpose exceeding well.
Rob. Nay, no more honour, I pray thee, little John;
Henceforth I will be called Robin Hoode,
Matilda shall be my maid Marian.”
Then follows a scene betwixt old Fitzwater and Prince John, in the course of which the prince, as a reason to induce Fitzwater to recall his daughter Matilda, tells him that she is living in an adulterous state, for that
“—Huntington is excommunicate,
And till his debts be paid, by Rome’s decree,
It is agreed, absolv’d he cannot be;
And that can never be.—So never wife,” &c.
Fitzwater, on this, flies into a passion, and accuses the prince of being already married to “earle Chepstowe’s daughter.” They “fight; John falles.” Then enter the queen, &c., and John sentences Fitzwater to banishment: after which “Enter Scathlocke and Scarlet, winding their hornes at severall doores. To them enter Robin Hoode, Matilda, all in greene . . . Much, little John; all the men with bowes and arrowes.[43]
“Rob. Wind once more, jolly huntsmen, all your horns,
Whose shrill sound, with the ecchoing wods assist,
Shall ring a sad knell for the fearefull deere,
Before our feathered shafts, death’s winged darts,
Bring sodaine summons for their fatall ends. {lvii}
Scar. Its ful seaven years since we were outlawed first,
And wealthy Sherewood was our heritage:
For all those yeares we raigned uncontrolde,
From Barnsdale shrogs to Notingham’s red cliffes.
At Blithe and Tickhill were we welcome guests:
Good George a Greene at Bradford was our friend,
And wanton Wakefield’s pinner lov’d us well.[44]
At Barnsley dwels a potter, tough and strong,
That never brookt we brethren should have wrong.
The nunnes of Farnsfield (pretty nunnes they bee)
Gave napkins, shirts, and bands to him and mee.
Bateman of Kendall gave us Kendall greene;
And Sharpe of Leedes sharpe arrows for us made.
At Rotherham dwelt our bowyer, God him blisse,
Jackson he hight, his bowes did never misse.
This for our goode, our scathe let Scathlocke tell,
In merry Mansfield how it once befell.
Scath. In merry Mansfield, on a wrestling day,
Prizes there were, and yeomen came to play,
My brother Scarlet and myselfe were twaine;
Many resisted, but it was in vaine,
For of them all we wonne the mastery,
And the gilt wreathes were given to him and me.
There by Sir Doncaster of ‘Hothersfield,’
We were bewraied, beset, and forst to yield;
And so borne bound from thence to Notingham,
Where we lay doom’d to death till Warman came.”
Some cordial expressions pass between Robin and Matilda. He commands all the yeomen to be cheerful; and orders Little John to read the articles.
“Joh. First, no man must presume to call our master,
By name of earle, lorde, baron, knight, or squire:
But simply by the name of Robin Hoode.
That faire Matilda henceforth change her name,
‘And’ by maid Marian’s name be only cald.
Thirdly, no yeoman following Robin Hoode
In Sherewood, shall use widowe, wife, or maid,
But by true labour, lustfull thoughts expell.
Fourthly, no passenger with whom ye meete,
Shall yee let passe till hee with Robin feaste:
Except a poast, a carrier, or such folke,
As use with foode to serve the market townes.
Fiftly, you never shall the poore man wrong. {lviii}
Nor spare a priest, a usurer, or a clarke.
Lastly, you shall defend with all your power
Maids, widowes, orphants, and distressed men.
All. All these we vowe to keepe, as we are men.
Rob. Then wend ye to the greenewod merrily,
And let the light roes bootlesse from yee runne,
Marian and I, as soveraigns of your toyles,
Will wait, within our bower, your bent bowes spoiles.
[Exeunt winding their hornes.”
In the next scene, we find Frier Tucke feignedly entering into a conspiracy with the prior and Sir Doncaster to serve an execution on Robin in disguise. Jinny, the widow Scarlet’s daughter, coming in on her way to Sherwood, is persuaded by the frier to accompany him, “disguised in habit like a pedler’s mort.” Fitzwater enters like an old man:—sees Robin sleeping on a green bank, Marian strewing flowers on him; pretends to be blind and hungry, and is regaled by them. In answer to a question why the fair Matilda (Fitzwater’s daughter) had changed her name, Robin tells him it is
“Because she lives a spotlesse maiden life:
And shall, till Robin’s outlawe life have ende,
That he may lawfully take her to wife;
Which, if King Richard come, will not be long.”
“Enter Frier Tucke and Jinny like pedlers singing,” and afterward “Sir Doncaster and others weaponed.” The frier discovers the plot, and a fray ensues. The scene then changes to the court, where the prior is informed of six of his barns being destroyed by fire, and of the different execrations of all ranks upon him, as the undoer of “the good lord Robert, earle of Huntington;” that the convent of St. Mary’s had elected “Olde father Jerome” prior in his place; and lastly, a herald brings his sentence of banishment, which is confirmed by the entrance of the prior. Lester brings an account of the imprisonment of his gallant sovereign, King Richard, by the Duke of Austria, and requires his ransom to be sent. He then introduces a description of his matchless valour in the Holy Land. John not only refuses the ransom-money, but usurps the style of king; upon which Lester grows furious, {lix} and rates the whole company. The following is part of the dialogue:
“Joh. (to Lester). Darest thou attempt thus proudly in our sight?
Lest. What is’t a subject dares, that I dare not?
Sals. Dare subjects dare, their soveraigne being by?
Lest. O God, that my true soveraigne were ny!
Qu. Lester, he is.
Lest. Madame, by God, you ly.
Chest. Unmanner’d man.
Lest. A plague of reverence!”
After this, and more on the same subject, the scene returns to the forest, where Ely, being taken by Much, “like a countryman with a basket,” is examined and detected by Robin, who promises him protection and service. On their departure:
“Joh. Skelton, a worde or two beside the play.
Fri. Now, Sir John Eltam, what ist you would say?
John. Methinks I see no jeasts of Robin Hoode,
No merry morices of Frier Tuck,
No pleasant skippings up and downe the wodde,
No hunting songs, no coursing of the bucke:
Pray God this play of ours may have good lucke,
And the king’s majestie mislike it not!
Fri. And if he doe, what can we doe to that?
I promis’d him a play of Robin Hoode,
His honorable life, in merry Sherewod;
His majestie himselfe survaid the plot,
And bad me boldly write it, it was good.
For merry jeasts, they have bene showne before
As how the frier fell into the well,
For love of Jinny, that faire bonny bell:
How Greeneleafe rob’d the shrieve of Notingham,
And other mirthful matter, full of game.”
“Enter Warman banished.” He laments his fall, and applies to a cousin, on whom he had bestowed large possessions, for relief; but receives nothing, except reproaches for his treachery to his noble master. The jailor of Nottingham, who was indebted to him for his place, refuses him even a scrap of his dog’s meat, and reviles him in the severest terms. Good-wife Tomson, whose husband he had delivered from death, to his great joy, promises him a caudle, but {lx} fetches him a halter,[45] in which he is about to hang himself, but is prevented by Fitzwater, and some of Robin Hood’s men, who crack a number of jokes upon him; Robin puts an end to their mockery, and proffers him comfort and favour. Then enters Frier Tucke, with an account of Sir Doncaster and the prior being stripped and wounded in their way to Bawtrey: Robin, out of love to his uncle, hastens to the place. After this “Enter Prince John, solus, in green, bowe and arrowes.
“John. Why this is somewhat like, now may I sing,
As did the Wakefield pinder in his note;
At Michaelmas commeth my covenant out,
My master gives me my fee:
Then Robin Ile weare thy Kendall greene,
And wend to the greenewodde with thee.” [46]
He assumes the name of Woodnet, and is detected by Scathlocke and Frier Tucke. The prince and Scathlocke fight, Scathelocke grows weary, and the frier takes his place. Marion enters, and perceiving the frier, parts the combatants. Robin enters, and John submits to him. Much enters, running, with information of the approach of “the king and twelve and twenty score of horses.” Robin places his people in order. The trumpets sound, the king and his train enter, a general pardon ensues, and the king confirms the love of Robin and Matilda. Thus the play concludes, Skelton promising the second part, and acquainting the audience of what it should consist.
The second part, or death of Robert earle of Huntington, is a pursuit of the same story. The scene, so far as our hero is concerned, lyes in Sherwood. A few extracts may not be unacceptable. {lxi}
“Sc. iiii. Winde hornes. Enter king, queene, &c. Frier Tuck carrying a stag’s head, dauncing.” The frier has been sent for to read the following incription upon a copper ring round the stag’s neck:
“When Harold Hare-foote raigned king,
About my necke he put this ring.”
The king orders “head, ring, and all” to be sent to Nottingham Castle, to be kept for monuments. Fitzwater tells him he has heard “an olde tale,”
“That Harold, being Goodwin’s sonne of Kent,[47]
Hunted for pleasure once within this wood,
And singled out a faire and stately stagge,
Which, foote to foote, the king in running caught;
And sure this was the stagge.
King. It was no doubt.
Chester. But some, my lord, affirme,
That Julius Cæsar, many years before,
Tooke such a stagge, and such a poesie writ.” [48] {lxii}
Upon which his majesty very sagaciously remarks,
“It should not be in Julius Cæsar’s time:
There was no English used in this land
Untill the Saxons came, and this is writ
In Saxon characters.”
The next quotation may be of service to Dr. Percy, who {lxiii} has been pleased to question our hero’s nobility, because “the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom,” and the old legend expressly asserts him “to have been a yeoman.” It is very true; and we shall here not only find his title established, but also discover the secret of his not being usually distinguished or designed by it.
“Enter Roben Hoode.
King. How now, earle Robert!
Fri. A forfet, a forfet, my liege lord,
My master’s lawes are on record,
The court-roll here your grace may see.
King. I pray thee, frier, read them mee.
Fri. One shall suffice, and this is hee.
No man that commeth in this wod,
To feast or dwell with Robin Hood,
Shall call him earle, lord, knight, or squire,
He no such titles doth desire,
But Robin Hood, plain Robin Hoode,
That honest yoeman, stout and good,
On paine of forfetting a marke,
That must be paid to mee his clarke.
My liege, my liege, this lawe you broke,
Almost in the last word you spoke;
That crime may not acquitted bee,
Till Frier Tuck receive his fee.”
Now, the reason that “the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom,” and the old legend expressly asserts him “to have been a yeoman,” appears, plainly enough, to be, that as, pursuant to his own injunction, he was never called, either by his followers, or in the vicinity, by any other name than Robin Hood, so particularly the minstrels, who were always, no doubt, welcome to Sherwood,[49] {lxiv} and liberally entertained by him and his yeomanry, would take special care never to offend against the above law: which puts an end to the dispute.—Q. E. D.
Our hero is, at length, poisoned by a drink which Doncaster and the prior, his uncle, had prepared for him to give to the king. His departing scene and last dying speech are beautiful and pathetic.
“Rob. Inough, inough, Fitzwater, take your child.
My dying frost, which no sunnes heat can thawe,
Closes the powers of all my outward parts;
My freezing blood runnes back into my heart,
Where it assists death, which it would resist:
Only my love a little hinders death,
For he beholds her eyes, and cannot smite.
Mat. O let mee looke for ever in thy eyes,
And lay my warme breath to thy bloodlesse lips,
If my sight can restraine death’s tyrannies,
Or keep lives breath within thy bosome lockt.”
He desires to be buried
“At Wakefield, underneath the abbey-wall;”
directs the manner of his funeral; and bids his yeomen,
“For holy dirges, sing ‘him’ wodmen’s songs.”
The king, upon the earl’s death, expresses his sorrow for the tragical event; ratifies the will; repeats the directions for the funeral; and says,
“Fall to your wod-songs, therefore, yeomen bold,
And deck his herse with flowers, that lov’d you deere.”
The whole concludes with the following solemn dirge:
“Weepe, weepe, ye wod-men waile,
Your hands with sorrow wring;
Your master Robin Hood lies deade,
Therefore sigh as you sing. {lxv}
“Here lies his primer, and his beades,
His bent bowe, and his arrowes keene,
His good sworde and his holy crosse:
Now cast on flowers fresh and greene.
“And, as they fall, shed teares and say,
Well a, well a day, well a, well a day!
Thus cast yee flowers and sing,
And on to Wakefield take your way.”
The poet then prosecutes the legend of Matilda, who is finally poisoned, by the procurement of King John, in Dunmow Priory.
The story of this lady, whom the author of these plays is supposed to have been the first that converted into the character of Maid Marian, or connected in any shape with the history of Robin Hood, is thus related by Stow, under the year 1213: “The chronicle of Dunmow sayth, this discord arose betwixt the king and his barons, because of Mawd called the faire, daughter to Robert Fitzwalter, whome the king loved, but her father would not consent; and thereupon ensued warre throughout England. . . . . . Whilst Mawd the faire remayned at Dunmow, there came a messenger unto her from King John about his suite in love, but because she would not agree, the messenger poysoned a boyled or potched egge against she was hungrie, whereof she died” (Annales, 1592). Two of Drayton’s heroical epistles pass between King John and Matilda. He has also written her legend.
4. “Robin Hood’s penn’orths, by Wm. Haughton.” [50]
5. “Metropolis coronata, the triumphs of ancient drapery: or, rich cloathing of England, in a second yeeres performance. In honour of the advancement of Sir John Jolles, knight, to the high office of lord maior of London, and taking his oath for the same authoritie, on Monday being the 30. day of October, 1615. Performed in heartie affection to him, and at the bountifull charges of his worthy brethren the truely honourable society of drapers, the first that received such dignitie, in this citie. Devised and written by A. M. {lxvi} [Anthony Mundy] citizen and draper of London.” 1615, 4to.
This is one of the pageants formerly usual on Lord Mayor’s day, and of which several are extant, written as well by our author Mundy,[51] as by Middleton, Dekker, Heywood, and other hackney dramatists of that period. They were thought of such consequence that the City had for some time (though probably not till after the Restoration) a professed laureat for their composition; an office which expired with Elkanah Settle in 1723–24. They consisted chiefly of machinery, allegorical or historical personages, songs and speeches.
“After all these shewes, thus ordered in their appointed places, followeth another device of huntsmen, all clad in greene, with their bowes, arrowes and bugles, and a new slaine deere, carried among them. It savoureth of earle Robert de la Hude, sometime the noble earle of Huntington, and sonne in law (by marriage) to old Fitz-Alwine,[52] raised by the muses all-commanding power, to honour this triumph with his father. During the time of his out-lawed life in the forest of merry Shirwood, and elsewhere, while the cruel oppression of a most unnatural and covetous brother hung heavy upon him, Gilbert de la Hude, lord abbot of Christall [r. Kirkstall] abbey, who had all or most of his lands in mortgage: he was commonly called Robin Hood, and had a gallant company of men (out-lawed in the like manner) that followed his downecast fortunes; as little John, Scathlocke, Much the miller’s son, Right-hitting Brand, fryar Tuck, and many more. In which condition of life we make instant use of him, and part of his brave bowmen, fitted with bowes and arrowes, of the like strength and length, as good records {lxvii} deliver testimonie, were then used by them in their killing of deere. . . . .
“Afterward, [viz. after “Fitz-Alwine’s speech to the lord maior at night,”] as occasion best presenteth itselfe, when the heate of all other employments are calmly overpast, earle Robin Hood, with fryer Tuck, and his other brave huntesmen, attending (now at last) to discharge their duty to my lord, which the busie turmoile of the whole day could not before affoord: they shewe themselves to him in this order, and earle Robin himselfe thus speaketh.
The speech spoken by Earl Robert de la Hude,
commonly called Robin Hood.Since graves may not their dead containe,
Nor in their peacefull sleepes remaine,
But triumphes and great showes must use them,
And we unable to refuse them;
It joyes me that earle Robert Hood,
Fetcht from the forrest of merrie Shirwood,
With these my yeomen tight and tall,
Brave huntsmen and good archers all,
Must in this joviall day partake,
Prepared for your honour’s sake.
No sooner was i raysde from rest,
And of my former state possest
As while i liv’d, but being alone,
And of my yeomen seeing not one,
I with my bugle gave a call,
Made all the woods to ring withall.
Immediately came little John,
And Scathlock followed him anon,
With Much the honest miller’s sonne;
And ere ought else could be done,
The frollicke frier came tripping in,
His heart upon a merrie pinne.
Master (quoth he) in yonder brake,
A deere is hid for Marian’s sake,
Bid Scathlock, John, or honest Brand,
That hath the happy hitting hand,
Shoote right and have him: and see, my lord,
The deed performed with the word.
For Robin and his bow-men bold,
Religiously did ever holde,
Not emptie-handed to be seene,
Were’t but at feasting on a greene; {lxviii}
Much more then, when so high a day
Calls our attendance: all we may
Is all too little, tis your grace
To winke at weakenesse in this case:
So, fearing to be over-long,
End all with our old hunting song.
The song of Robin Hood and his huntes-men.
Now wend we together, my merry men all,
Unto the forrest side a;
And there to strike a buck or a doae,
Let our cunning all be tried a.
Then goe we merrily, merrily on,
To the green-wood to take up our stand [a],
Where we will lye in waite for our game,
With our best bowes all in our hand [a].
What life is there like to bold Robin Hood?
It is so pleasant a thing a:
In merry Shirwood he spends his dayes,
As pleasantly as a king a.
No man may compare with bold Robin Hood,
With Robin Hood, Scathlocke and John [a]:
Their like was never, nor never will be,
If in case that they were gone [a].
They will not away from merry Shirwood,
In any place else to dwell [a]:
For there is neither city nor towne,
That likes them half so well [a].
Our lives are wholly given to hunt,
And haunt the merry greene-wood [a];
Where our best service is daily spent,
For our master Robin Hood [a].”
6. “Robin Hood and his pastoral May games.” 1624.
7. “Robin Hood and his crew of soldiers.” 1627.
These two titles are inserted among the plays mentioned by Chetwood in his British Theatre (p. 67) as written by anonymous authors in the 16th century to the Restoration. But neither Langbaine, who mentions both, nor any other person, pretends to have ever seen either of them. The former, indeed, may possibly be “The playe of Robyn {lxix} Hode,” already noticed; and the other is probably a future article. Langbaine, it is to be observed, gives no date to either piece; so that it may be fairly concluded those above specified are of Chetwood’s own invention, which appears to have been abundantly fertile in every species of forgery and imposture.
8. “The sad shepherd, or a tale of Robin Hood.”
The story of our renowned archer cannot be said to have been wholly occupied by bards without a name, since, not to mention Mundy or Drayton, the celebrated Ben Jonson intended a pastoral drama on this subject, under the above title; but dying, in the year 1637, before it was finished, little more than the two first acts have descended down to us. His last editor (Mr. Whalley), while he regrets that it is but a fragment, speaks of it in raptures, and, indeed, not without evident reason, many passages being eminently poetical and judicious.
“The persons of the play,” so far as concerns our immediate purpose, are: [1] “Robin Hood, the chief woodman [i.e. forester], master of the feast. [2] Marian, his lady, the mistress. [3] Friar Tuck, the chaplain and steward. [4] Little John, bow-bearer. [5, 6] Scarlet, Scathlocke,[53] two brothers, huntsmen. [7] George a Green, huisher of the bower. [8] Much, Robin Hood’s bailiff or acater.” The rest are the guests invited, the witch of Paplewick, her daughter, the swin’ard her son, Puck Hairy or Robin Goodfellow, their hind, and lastly a devout hermit. “The scene, Sherwood, consisting of a landscape of a forest, hills, valleys, cottages, a castle, a river, pastures, herds, flocks, all full of country simplicity; Robin Hood’s bower, his well, &c.” “The argument of the first act” is as follows: “Robin Hood, having invited all the shepherds and shepherdesses of the vale of Be’voir to a feast in the forest of Sherwood, and trusting to his mistress, Maid Marian, with her woodmen, to kill him venison against the day; having left the like charge with Friar Tuck, his chaplain and steward, to command the rest of his merry men to see the bower made {lxx} ready, and all things in order for the entertainment: ‘meets’ with his guests at their entrance into the wood, and conducts them to his bower: where, by the way, he receives the relation of the sad shepherd Æglamour, who is fallen into a deep melancholy for the loss of his beloved Earine, reported to have been drowned in passing over the Trent, some few days before. . . . . In the meantime Marian is come from hunting. . . . . Robin Hood inquires if she hunted the deere at force, and what sport he made? how long he stood? and what head he bore? all which is briefly answered, with a relation of breaking him up, and the raven, and her bone. The suspect had of that raven to be Maudlin the witch of Paplewick, whom one of the huntsmen met i’ the morning at the rousing of the deer, and is confirmed by her being then in Robin Hood’s kitchen, i’ the chimney corner, broiling the same bit which was thrown to the raven at the quarry or fall of the deer. Marian, being gone in to shew the deer to some of the shepherdesses, returns discontented; sends away the venison she had killed to her they call the witch; quarrels with her love Robin Hood, abuseth him, and his guests the shepherds; and so departs, leaving them all in wonder and perplexity.”
By “the argument of the second act” it appears that the witch had “taken the shape of Marian to abuse Robin Hood and perplex his guests.” However, upon an explanation of the matter with the true Marian, the trick is found out, the venison recovered, and “Robin Hood dispatches out his woodmen to hunt and take her: which ends the act.” The third act was designed to be taken up with the chase of the witch, her various schemes to elude the pursuers, and the discovery of Earine in the swineherd’s enchanted oak. Nothing more of the author’s design appearing, we have only to regret the imperfect state of a pastoral drama, which, according to the above learned and ingenious editor, would have done honour to the nation.[54] {lxxi}
9. “Robin Hood and his crew of souldiers, a comedy acted at Nottingham on the day of his saCRed majesties corronation. Vivat rex. The actors names: Robin Hood, commander; Little John, William Scadlocke, souldiers; messenger from the sheriffe. London, printed for James Davis, 1661.” 4to.
This is an interlude, of a few pages and no merit, alluding to the late rebellion, and the subject of the day. The outlaws, convinced by the reasoning of the sheriff’s messenger, become loyal subjects.
10. “Robin Hood. An opera, as it is perform’d at Lee’s and Harper’s great theatrical booth in Bartholomew-fair.” 1730. 8vo.
11. “Robin Hood.” 1751. 8vo.
This was a ballad-farce, acted at Drury-lane Theatre, in which the following favourite song was originally sung by Mr. Beard, in the character of Robin Hood:
As blithe as the linnet sings in the green wood,
So blithe we’ll wake the morn;
And through the wide forest of merry Sherwood
We’ll wind the bugle horn.
The sheriff attempts to take bold Robin Hood,
Bold Robin disdains to fly;
Let him come when he will, we’ll, in merry Sherwood,
Or vanquish, boys, or die.
Our hearts they are stout, and our bows they are good,
As well their masters know;
They’re cull’d in the forest of merry Sherwood,
And never will spare a foe.
Our arrows shall drink of the fallow deer’s blood,
We’ll hunt them all o’er the plain!
And through the wide forest of merry Sherwood,
No shaft shall fly in vain.
Brave Scarlet, and John, who ne’er were subdu’d,
Give each his hand so bold;
We’ll range through the forest of merry Sherwood,
What say my hearts of gold?
12. “Robin Hood; or Sherwood forest: a comic opera. As performed at the theatre-royal in Covent-garden. By Leonard Mac Nally, esq.” 1784. 8vo. {lxxii}
This otherwise insignificant performance was embellished with some fine music by Mr. Shield. It has been since reduced to, and is still frequently acted as, an after-piece.
A drama on the subject of Robin Hood, under the title of The Foresters, has been long expected from the elegant author of The School for Scandal. The first act, said to have been written many years ago, is, by those who have seen or heard it, spoken of with admiration.[55]
(27) —“innumerable poems, rimes, songs and ballads.”] The original and most ancient pieces of this nature have all perished in the lapse of time, during a period of between five and six hundred years’ continuance; and all we now know of them is that such things once existed. In the Vision of Pierce Plowman, an allegorical poem, thought to have been composed soon after the year 1360, and generally ascribed to Robert Langeland, the author introduces an ignorant, idle, and drunken secular priest, the representative, no doubt, of the parochial clergy of that age, in the character of Sloth, who makes the following confession:
“I cannot parfitli mi paternoster, as the preist it singeth,
But I can ryms of Roben Hode, and ‘Randolf’ erl of Chester,
But of our lorde or our lady I lerne nothyng at all.” [56]
{lxxiii}
Fordun, the Scotish historian, who wrote about 1340, speaking of Robin Hood and Little John, and their accomplices, says, “of whom the foolish vulgar in comedies and tragedies make lewd entertainment, and are delighted to hear the jesters and minstrels sing them above all other ballads;” [57] and Mair (or Major), whose history was published by himself in 1521, observes that “The exploits of this Robert are celebrated in songs throughout all Britain.” [58] So, likewise, Maister Johne Bellendene, the translator of “that noble clerk Maister Hector Boece” (Bois or Boethius), having mentioned “that waithman Robert Hode with his fallow litil Johne,” adds, “of quhom ar mony fabillis and mery sportis soung amang the vulgar pepyll.” [59] Whatever may have been the nature of the compositions alluded to by the above writers, several of the pieces printed in the present collection are {lxxiv} unquestionably of great antiquity; not less, that is, than between three and four hundred years old. The Lytell Geste, which is first inserted, is probably the oldest thing upon the subject we now possess;[60] but a legend, apparently of the same species, was once extant, of, perhaps, a still earlier date, of which it is some little satisfaction to be able to give even the following fragment, from a single leaf, fortunately preserved in one of the volumes of old printed ballads in the British Museum, in a handwriting as old as Henry the Sixth’s time. It exhibits the characters of our hero and his fidus Achates in the noblest point of view.
“He sayd Robyn Hod . . . . yne the preson,
And owght off hit was gon.
The porter rose a-non certeyn,
As sone as he hard Johan call;
Lytyll Johan was redy with a sword,
And bare hym throw to the wall.
Now will I be jayler, sayd lytyll Johan,
And toke the keys in hond;
He toke the way to Robyn Hod,
And sone he hyme unbond.
He gaffe hym a good swerd in his hond,
His hed ther-with for to kepe;
And ther as the wallis wer lowest,
Anon down ther they lepe.
To Robyn . . . . . sayd:
I have done the a god torne for an . . .
Quit me when thow may;
I have done the a gode torne, sayd lytyll [Johan],
Forsothe as I the saye; {lxxv}
I have browghte the under the gren wod . . .
Farewell & have gode daye.
Nay, be my trowthe, sayd Robyn,
So schall it never bee;
I make the master, sayd Robyn,
Off all my men & me.
Nay, be my trowthe, sayd lytyll Johan,
So schall it never bee.”
This, indeed, may be part of the “story of Robin Hood and Little John,” which M. Wilhelm Bedwell found in the ancient MS. lent him by his much honoured good friend M. G. Withers, whence he extracted and published “The Turnament of Tottenham,” a poem of the same age, and which seemed to him to be done (perhaps but transcribed) by Sir Gilbert Pilkington, formerly, as some had thought, parson of that parish.[61]
That poems and stories on the subject of our hero and his companions were extraordinarily popular and common before and during the 16th century is evident from the testimony of divers writers. Thus, Alexander Barclay, priest, in his translation of The Shyp of Folys, printed by Pynson in 1508, and by John Cawood in 1570,[62] says:
“I write no jeste ne tale of Robin Hood.”
Again: