Bluegrass Messengers

Recordings & Info 117. A Gest of Robyn Hode

[The traditional Ballad Index has an extensive 10 part series of notes on the "Gest" and the Robin Hood ballads. I've included them all on this page for now but eventually (since each part is so long) will put them on separate pages attached to this page. 

R. Matteson 2012]

CONTENTS:

 1) Alternative Titles 
 2) Traditional Ballad Index (10 parts;)
 
ATTACHED PAGE: (see left hand column)
  1)  Roud No. 70:  (5 Listings)

Alternative Titles

Lytell Gueste of Robyn Hode

Traditional Ballad Index: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 01

DESCRIPTION: 456 stanzas about Robin Hood, his men, his travels, his robberies, his courtesy, his victims, his relations with the king, his piety, his betrayal and death, etc. Much of the ballad deals with Little John, the Sheriff, and their relations with Robin
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST_DATE: before 1534 (Wynkyn de Worde's edition of A Little Geste of Robyn Hoode was probably printed c. 1505)
LONG_DESCRIPTION: A narrative in eight fits, set after Robin has become an outlaw.
In fit one, Robin sends out his men to seek a guest for dinner. They find a knight, who, however, has gone deeply in debt to ransom his son.
In  the second fit, the knight (who has been lent the money to pay his debt by Robin) appeals to his lenders to have pity on him. They demand payment instead, and hope to have his lands. The knight pays his debts using Robin's money.
In the third fit, Little John takes part in an archery contest, wins, is invited to the Sheriff's house, has a fight with the Sheriff's cook, and induces the cook to join Robin's band.
In the fourth fit, Robin again seeks a dinner guest; they find a servant of the abbey to whom the knight owed money. They take his purse; it amounts to 800 pounds (twice what they lent the knight).
In the fifth fit, Robin and his men join an archery contest, but are discovered and must take shelter in the knight's castle.
In the sixth fit, the sheriff goes to London to appeal to the King; Robin and his men escape. The Sheriff captures the knight instead. Robin rescues him and kills the sheriff.
In the seventh fit, the King comes to deal with Robin Hood. He disguises himself and meets Robin's band. He pardons them and takes him into his service. This extends into the eighth fit.
At the end of the eighth fit, Robin grows tired of servitude and returns to the greenwood. Eventually he is killed by the prioress of Kirklees.
KEYWORDS: Robinhood outlaw knight royalty
HISTORICAL_REFERENCES: 1272-1307 - Reign of Edward I
1307-1327 - Reign of Edward II
1327-1377 - Reign of Edward III
FOUND_IN: Britain(England) Ireland
REFERENCES: (7 citations)
Child 117, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text)
Bronson 117,"Robin Hood" (6 versions of tunes about Robin Hood, though none has a substantial text and only one shows any words at all; Bronson, with reason, questions their validity and does not attempt to link them to particular ballads); cf. Chappell/Wooldridge I, pp. 273, "Robin Hood (2 tunes, partial text) {Bronson's #2a}
OBB 115, "A Little Geste of Robin Hood and his Meiny" (1 text, probably from Child with modernizations)
Gummere, pp. 1-67+313-320, "A Gest of Robin Hode" (1 text, supposedly based on Child's a print but in fact somewhat closer to Child's "b" text printed by Wynken de Worde)
HarvClass-EP1, pp. 128-186, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text, which appears to follow Gummere exactly)
ADDITIONAL: R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor, _Rymes of Robyn Hood: An Introduction to the English Outlaw_, University of Pittsburg Press, 1976, pp. 79-112, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text, newly edited from the sources)
Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren, editors, _Robin Hood and Other Oudlaw Tales_, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2000, pp. 80-168, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text, newly edited from the sources)
Roud #70
NOTES: This is the longest ballad by far in Child's collection -- so long, indeed, that is should properly be called a romance, not a ballad. It is also the single most important source for the legend of Robin Hood. That makes it a logical location for an introduction to the whole Robin Hood corpus. In addition, there are many questions about its text and meaning.
Given the length of the "Gest," this results in a very long set of notes -- although, I hope, also one of the most comprehensive discussions ever compiled of this piece. But, because it is so long, it has to be broken up into separate parts, contained in separate Ballad Index entries.. Roughly speaking, the Notes divide into an introduction to the Robin Hood corpus, a discussion of the historical problems of the "Gest" in particular, a detailed commentary on the "Gest," and a discussion of the text of the "Gest."
The Contents below descibes the outline of these various entries.
*** Included in this entry:
* Full References for the song
* Bibliography
(Note: In the Bibliography, items shown in ALL CAPS I would consider primary references Robin Hood scholars should acquire. Items marked with a ++ represent items primarily about Robin Hood -- some of which, however, I consider to be unimportant enough that I have not marked them as primary sources).
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 02 (File Number Link C117A):*
* Introduction
* The Early Ballads
* The Text of the Gest
* The Date of the Gest
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 03 (File Number Link C117B):*
* The Gest: A Romance and its Sources
* What the Gest Represents
* Historical and Literary Sources for the History of Robin Hood
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 04 (File Number Link C117C):*
* The Common Elements of the Early Ballads
* The Later Robin Hood Ballads
* Outlaw or Not?
* Dating the Legend
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 05 (File Number Link C117D):*
* Sidelights on the Legend
* The Redating of the Legend: Robin Hood and Richard I
* Who Made Maid Marion, and Other Late Additions
* The Presumed History of Robin Hood
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 06 (File Number Link C117E):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fit I (Stanzas 1-50)
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 07 (File Number Link C117F):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fit I (Stanz 51)-Fit II
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 08 (File Number Link C117G):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fits III-V
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 09 (File Number Link C117H):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fits VI-VIII
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 10 (File Number Link C117I):*
* Notes on the Text of the "Gest"
>>BIBLIOGRAPHY<<
Alexander: Marc Alexander, _A Companion to the Folklore, Myths & Customs of Britain_, Sutton Publishing, 2002
Anderson: George K. Anderson, _Old and Middle English Literature from the Beginnings to 1485_, being volume I of "A History of English Literature," 1950 (I use the 1966 Collier paperback edition)
Ashley: Maurice Ashley, _Great Britain to 1688_, University of Michigan Press, 1961
Backhouse: Janet Backhouse, _The Lindisfarne Gospels_, 1981 (I use the 1997 Phaidon paperback edition)
Bainton: Roland H. Bainton, _The Reformation of the sixteenth century_, Beacon Press, 1952 (I use the 1959 paperback edition)
Baldwin++: David Baldwin, _Robin Hood: The English Outlaw Unmasked_, Amberley, 2010
Barber: Richard Barber, _Edward Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A Biography of the Black Prince_, 1978 (I use the 2000 Boydell Press paperback)
Barlow-Edward: Frank Barlow, _Edward the Confessor_ (one of the English Monarchs series), University of California Press, 1970
Barlow-Rufus: Frank Barlow, _William Rufus_ (one of the Yale English Monarchs series), 1983, 1990, 2000 (I use the 2000 Yale paperback edition)
Barr: Helen Barr, editor, _The Piers Plowman Tradition_ (being texts of "Pierce the Ploughman's Crede," "Richard the Redeless," "Mum and the Sothsegger," and "The Crowned King"), Everyman, 1993
Baugh: Albert C. Baugh, "Convention and Individuality in Middle English Romance," printed in Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg, editors, _Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies_, Rutgers, 1970
Benet: William Rose Benet, editor, _The Reader's Encyclopedia_, first edition, 1948 (I use the four-volume Crowell edition. I usually check it against the single volume fourth edition edited by Bruce Murphy and published 1996 by Harper-Collins; the fourth edition, however, cuts the article on Robin dramatically, so the material here is from the first edition)
Benson/Foster: _King Arthur's Death: The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure_, edited by Larry D. Benson, revised by Edward E. Foster, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1994
Bett: Henry Bett, _English Myths & Legends_, being apparently a single volume edition of two separate volumes, _English Myths_ and _English Legends_, published with separate pagination and separate indices and no indication of the original date (I use the 1991 Dorset Press edition of the combined volumes)
Bettenson: Henry Bettenson, editor, _Documents of the Christian Church_, 1943, 1963 (I use the 1967 Oxford paperback edition)
Binns: Norman E. Binns, _An Introduction to Historical Bibliography_, second edition, revised, Association of Assistant Librarians, 1962
Boyce: Charles Boyce, _The Wordsworth Dictionary of Shakespeare_, originally published in 1990 by Facts on File as _Shakespeare A-Z_; I use the 1996 Wordsworth paperback edition
Bradbury: Jim Bradbury, _Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-1153_, 1996 (I use the 1998 Sutton paperback)
Briggs-Dictionary: Kathering Briggs, _A Dictionary of British Folk-Tales in the English Language_, Part A, Folk Narratives, 1970 (I use the 1991 Routledge paperback which combines volumes A.1 and A.2)
Briggs-Folktales: Katherine Briggs, _British Folktales_ (originally published in 1970 as _A Dictionary of British Folk-Tales), revised 1977 (I use the 1977 Pantheon paperback edition)
Brooke: Christopher Brooke, _The Saxon and Norman Kings_, 1963 (I use the 1975 Fontana edition)
Burne: [Lt. Col.] A[lfred]. H. Burne, _The Battlefields of England_ (a compilation of two volumes from the 1950s, _Battlefields of England_ and _More Battlefields of England_, with a new introduction by Robert Hardy), Pen & Sword, 2005
Burrow/Turville-Petre: J. A. Burrow and Thorlac Turville-Petre, _A Book of Middle English_, second edition, 1996 (I use the 1999 Blackwell paperback edition)
Cawthorne++: Nigel Cawthorne, _A Brief History of Robin Hood: The True History Behind the Legend_, Running Press, 2010
CHAMBERS: E. K. Chambers,  _English Literature at the Close of the Middle Ages_, Oxford, 1945, 1947
Chandler/Beckett: David Chandler, general editor; Ian Beckett, associate editor, _The Oxford History of the British Army_, 1994 (I use the 1996 Oxford paperback edition)
Chaucer/Benson: Larry D. Benson, general editor, _The Riverside Chaucer_, third edition, Houghton Mifflin, 1987 (based on F. N. Robinson, _The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer_, which is considered to be the first and second editions of this work)
Chaucer/Mills: Maldwyn Mills, editor, _Troylus and Criseyde_, 1953 (I use the 2000 Everyman edition with a new introduction)
Chaucer/Warrington: John Warrington, editor,  _Troylus and Criseyde_, revised and with an introduction by Maldwyn Mills, 1974 (I use the 1988 paperback edition)
Cheetham: Anthony Cheetham, _The Life and Times of Richard III _(with introduction by Antonia Fraser), George Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972 (I used the 1995 Shooting Star Press edition)
CHEL1: Sir A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller, Editors, _The Cambridge History of English Literature, Volume I: From the Beginnings to the Cycles of Romance_, 1907 (I use the 1967 Cambridge edition)
CHILD: N.B. All page references to Child's _The English and Scottish Popular Ballads_ are to volume III of the five volume Dover edition
Cid/Michael: _The Poem of the Cid_, bilingual edition with English translation by Rita Hamilton and Janet Perry and introduction by Ian Michael, 1975 (I use the 1984 Penguin paperback edition)
Cid/Simpson: _The Poem of the Cid_, translated by Lesley Byrd Simpson, University of California Press, 1957
Castor: Helen Castor, _Blood & Roses: The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century_, Faber & Faber, 2004
CLAWSON++: William Hall Clawson, _The Gest of Robin Hood_, University of Toronto Studies: Philological Series, 1909 (I use the undated Nabu Public Domain reprint, a poor-quality scan of a library copy)
Clute/Grant: John Clute and John Grant, _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_, Orbit, 1997, 1999
Craig: Hardin Craig, _The Literature of the English Renaissance: 1485-1660_, being volume II of _A History of English Literature_, 1950, 1962 (I use the 1966 Collier paperback)
Dahmus: Joseph Dahmus, _Seven Medieval Kings_, 1967 (I use the 1994 Barnes & Noble edition)
Davies: J. G. Davies, _The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship_ (originally published in Britain as _A New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship_), Westminster, 1986
Dawkins: Richard Dawkins, _The Ancestor's Tale_, 2004 (I use the 2005 Mariner Books edition)
Dellinger: Harold Dellinger, editor, _Jesse James: The Best Writings on the Notorious Outlaw and His Gang_, Globe Pequot Press, 2007 (being a collection of excerpts, usually out of context, some from scholars, some completely unscholarly)
Dickins/Wilson: Bruce Dickins & R. M. Wilson, editors, _Early Middle English Texts_, 1951; revised edition 1952
DictPirates: Jan Rogozinsky, _Pirates_, Facts on File, 1995; repubished as _The Wordsworth Dictionary of Pirates_, Wordsworth, 1997
DictSaints: Revd. Philip D. Noble, editor, _The Watkins Dictionary of Saints_, Watkins Publishing, 2007
DOBSON/TAYLOR++: R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor, _Rymes of Robyn Hood: An Introduction to the English Outlaw_, University of Pittsburg Press, 1976
Dockray: Keith Dockray, _Edward IV: A Source Book_, Sutton, 1999
Douglas: David C. Douglas, _William the Conqueror_, University of California Press, 1964
Doherty: Paul Doherty, _Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II_, Carroll & Graf, 2003
Domesday: (Ann Williams and G. H Martin, editors), _Domesday Book: A Complete Translation_, 1992 (I use the 2003 Penguin Classics paperback edition)
Duff-Bibliog: E(dward) Gordon Duff, _Fifteenth Century English Books: A Bibliography of Books and Documents Printed in England and of Books for the English Market Printed Abroad_, Bbliographic  Society/Oxford University Press, 1907 (I use the undated Nabu Public Domain reprint, a poor-quality scan of a library copy)
Duff-Hand-List: E(dward) Gordon Duff, _Hand-Lists of English Printers 1501-1556_, Part I, Blades, East & Blades, 1895 ("Digitized by Google")
Duff-Printers: E(dward) Gordon Duff, _The Printers, Stationers, and Bookbinders of Wesminster and London from 1476 to 1535_, Cambridge University Press, 1906 ("Digitized by Google")
EncycLiterature: [no author listed], _Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature_, Merriam-Webster, 1995
Emerson: O. F. Emerson, _A Middle English Reader_, 1905; revised 1915 (I use the 1921 Macmillan hardcover)
Featherstone: Donald Featherstone, _The Bowmen of England_, Clarkson N. Potter, 1968 (I used the 2003 Pen & Sword paperback edition)
Finlay: Victoria Finlay, _Color: A Natural History of the Palette_, 2002 (I use the 2004 Random House paperback)
Finley: M. I. Finley, _The World of Odysseus_, second edition, 1978 (I use the 1979 Penguin paperback)
Ford-Mabinogi: _The Mabinogi and other Medieval Welsh Tales_, Translated and Edited, with an Introduction, by Patrick K. Ford, University of California Press, 1977
Frye: Northrup Frye, _Anatomy of Criticism_, 1957 (I use the 2000 Princeton edition with a new foreword by Harold Bloom)
Garnett/Gosse: Richard Garnett and Edmund Gosse, _English Literature: An Illustrated Record_ four volumes, MacMillan, 1903-1904 (I used the 1935 edition published in two volumes)
Gillingham: John Gillingham, _Richard the Lionheart_, Times Books, 1978
Gillingham - Wars: John Gillingham, _The Wars of the Roses_, Louisiana State University, 1984
GutchI++: John Mathew Gutch, editor, _A Lytell Geste of Robin Hode: With Other Ancient & Modern Ballads and Songs Relating to the Celebrated Yeoman_, volume I, Longman, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1847 ("Digitized by Google")
GutchII++: John Mathew Gutch, editor, _A Lytell Geste of Robin Hode: With Other Ancient & Modern Ballads and Songs Relating to the Celebrated Yeoman_, volume II, Longman, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1847 ("Digitized by Google")
Hahn: Thomas Hahn, editor, _Sir Gawain: Eleven Romanes and Tales_, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1995
Hall: Louis B. Hall, _The Knightly Tales of Sir Gawain_, with introductions and translations by Hall, Nelson-Hall, 1976
Happe: Peter Happe, editor, _English Mystery Plays_, 1975 (I use the 1985 Penguin Classics edition)
Harvey: John Harvey, _The Plantagenets_, 1948, 1959 (I use the 1979 Fontana paperback edition)
Hazlitt: W. C. Hazlitt, _Dictionary of Faiths & Folklore_, Reeves & Turner, 1905 (I use the 1995 Studio Editions paperback)
Hewitt: H. J. Hewitt, _The Organization of War under Edward III_, 1966 (I use the 2004 Pen & Sword edition with a new introduction by Andrew Ayton)
Hicks: Michael Hicks, _Who's Who in Late Medieval England (1272-1485)_, (being the third volume in the Who's Who in British History series), Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991
Hollister: C. Warren Hollister: _Medieval Europe: A Short History_, fifth edition, Knopf, 1982
HOLT1++: J. C. Holt, _Robin Hood_, first edition,Thames & Hudson, 1982. (See also Holt2.)
HOLT2++: J. C. Holt, _Robin Hood_, second edition, revised and enlarged, Thames & Hudson, 1989. Note: This second edition is so close to the first that for about the first 180 pages the pagination is identical. Therefore I have cited Holt1 wherever possible, since the material can also be found in Holt2 at the same point.
Hutchison: Harold F. Hutchison, _Edward II: 1284-1327_, 1971 (I use the 1996 Barnes & Noble edition)
IcelandicFaulkesJohnston: _Three Icelandic Outlaw Tales (The Sage of Gisli, The Sage of Grettir, The Saga of Hord_, translated by Anthony Faulkes and George Johnson with Introduction by Anthony Faulkes, 1961-2001 (I use the 2001 Everyman paperback)
Isaac:  Frank Isaac, _English & Scottish Printing Types 1501-35 * 1508-41_, Facsimilies and Illustrations No. II, Bibliographic Society, Oxford University Press, 1930
James: M(ontague) R(hodes) James, Litt.D, _The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalog_, in four volumes, Cambridge, 1900-1903 ("Digitized by Google")
Jenkins: Elizabeth Jenkins, _The Princes in the Tower_, Coward McCann, & Geoghan, 1978
Jolliffe: J. E. A. Jolliffe, _The Constitutional History of Medieval England: From the English Settlement to 1485_, 1337, 1947, 1954, fourth edition 1961 (I use the 1967 A. & C Black edition)
Johnson: Paul Johnson, _A History of Christianity_, 1976 (I use the 2005 Borders reprint)
Jones-Larousse: Alison Jones, _Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore_, Larousse, 1995 (I use the 1996 paperback edition)
KEEN: Maurice Keen, _The Outlaws of Medieval Legend_, Dorset, 1961, 1977, 1987
Kelly.A: Amy Kelly, _Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_, Harvard University Press, 1950
Kelly.J: John Kelly, _The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time_, Harper Collins, 2005
Kerr: Nigel and Mary Kerr, _A Guide to Medieval Sites in Britain_, Diamond Books, 1988
Knight++: Stephen Knight, editor (with a manuscript description by Hilton Kelliher), _Robin Hood: The Forresters Manuscript (British Library Additional MS 71158), D. S. Brewer, 1998
KNIGHT/OHLGREN++: Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren, editors, _Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales_, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2000. Much of the material in this book is also available at http://tinyurl.com/tbdx-KnightOhlgren.
Kunitz/Haycraft: Stanley J. Kunitz and Howard Haycraft, Editors, _British Authors Before 1800: A Biographical Dictionary_, H. W. Wilson, 1952 (I use the fourth printing of 1965)
Lack: Katherine Lack, _Conqueror's Son: Duke Robert Curthose, Thwarted King_, Sutton, 2007
Lacy: Norris J. Lacy, Editor, _The Arthurian Encyclopedia_, 1986 (I use the 1987 Peter Bedrick paperback edition)
Langland/Goodridge: William Langland, _Piers the Ploughman_, translated into modern English with an introduction by J. F. Goodridge, Penguin, 1959, 1966
Langland/KnottFowler, Thomas A. Knott and David C. Fowler, editors, William Langland, _Piers the Plowman: A Critical Edition of the A-Version_, Johns Hopkins, 1952
Langland/Schmidt: A. V. C. Schmidt, editor, William Langland, _The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text  Based on Trinity College Cambridge MS. B.15.17_, 1978; I use the updated Everyman 1995 paperback edition
Linklater: Eric Linklater, _Conquest of England_, Doubleday, 1966
Lord: Albert B. Lord, _The Singer of Tales_, Harvard University Press, 1960
Loomis: Roger Sherman Loomis and Laura Hibbard Loomis, editors (and translators), _Medieval Romances_, 1957 (I use the undated Modern Library paperback)
Luria/Hoffman: Maxwell S. Luria & Richard Hoffman, _Middle English Lyrics_, a Norton Critical Edition, Norton, 1974
Lyon: Ann Lyon, _Constitutional History of the United Kingdom_, Cavendish Publishing, 2003
Magnusson: Magnus Magnusson, _Scotland: The Story of a Nation_, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2000
Malory/Rhys: Sir Thomas Malory, _Le Morte d'Arthur_, with an introduction by Sir John Rhys, in two volumes, 1906 (I use the 1978 Everyman two volume edition)
Markale: Jean Markale (translated by Jon E. Graham), _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of the Troubadours_ (French title: _La vie, la legende, l'influence d'Alienor_), 1979, 2000; English edition, Inner Traditions, 2007
Matthew: Donald Matthew, _King Stephen_, Hambledon Continuum, 2002
Mattingly: Garrett Mattingly, _Catherine of Aragon_, 1941 (I use the 1990 Book-of-the-Month club edition)
Maxfield/Gillespie: David K. Maxfield, "St. Anthony's Hospital, London: A Pardoner-Supported Alien Priory, 1219-1461," article in James L. Gillespie, editor, _The Age of Richard II_, St. Martin's, 1997
McGrath: Alister E. McGrath, _Christian Theology: An Introduction_, Third Edition, Blackwell, 2003
McLynn: Frank McLynn, _Richard & John: Kings at War_, Da Capo, 2007
McNamee: Colm McNamee, _The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306-1328_, Tuckwell, 1997
Mersey: Daniel Mersey, _The Legendary Tales and Historical Truths of the Most Notorious Warrior_, Conway, 2002. N.B. Although this book quotes "translations" and "modernizations" of the "Gest,"  it does not appear Mersey has actually read the "Gest" itself.
Moran: James Moran, _Wynkyn de Worde: Father of Fleet Street_, 1960, 1976; revised edition with a foreward by John Dreyfus and an updated bibliography by Lotte Hellinga and Mary Erler published by the British Library 2003
Mortimer: Richard Mortimer, _Angevin England 1154-1258_, Blackwell, 1994
Mustanoja: Tauno F. Mustanoja, "The Suggestive Use of Christian Names in Middle English Poetry," in Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg, editors, _Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies_, Rutgers, 1970
NewCentury: Clarence L. Barnhart with William D. Haley, editors, The _New Century Handbook of English Literature_, revised edition, Meredith Publishing, 1967
Northup: George Tyler Northup, _An Introduction to Spanish Literature_, University of Chicago Press, 1925
Oates: J. C. T. Oates, "The Little Gest of Robin Hood: A Note on the Pynson and Lettersnijder Editions," originally published in _Studies in Bibliography_, Volume 16, Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1963; now available (without the footnotes) at http://tinyurl.com/tbdx-OatesGRH
Ohlgren: Thomas H. Ohlgren, editor, _Medieval Outlaws: Ten Tales in Modern English_, Sutton, 1998
OHLGREN/MATHESON++: Thomas H. Ohlgren, _Robin Hood: The Early Poems, 1465-1560, Texts, Contexts, and Ideology_, with an Appendix: The Dialects and Languages of Selected Robin Hood Poes by Lister M. Matheson, University of Delaware Press, 2007
Oram: Richard Oram, editor, _The Kings & Queens of Scotland_, 2001 (I used the 2006 Tempus paperback edition)
Ormrod: W. M. Ormrod, _The Reign of Edward III_, 1990 (I use the slightly updated 2000 Tempus edition)
OxfordComp: John Cannon, editor, _The Oxford Companion to British History_, Oxford, 1997
Pearce: Joseph Piearce, _Tolkien: Man and Myth: A literary life_, Ignatius Press, 1998
Perroy: Edouard Perroy, _The Hundred Years War_, Capricorn, 1965 (a translation by W. B. Wells of Perroy's French original _La Guerre de Cent Ans_, 1945)
PHILLIPS: Seymour Phillips, _Edward II_, Yale, 2010
Pickering: David Pickering, _The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore_, Cassell, 1999
Pollard++: A. J. Pollard, _Imagining Robin Hood_, Routledge, 2004
Powicke: Sir Maurice Powicke, _The Thirteenth Century: 1216-1307_, second edition, Oxford, 1962 (I used the 1998 paperback edition)
PRESTWICH1: Michael Prestwich, _Edward I_, 1988 (I use the revised 1997 edition in the Yale English Monarchs series)
Prestwich3: Michael Prestwich, _The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377_, Weidenfeld, 1980 (I use the 2001 Routledge paperback edition)
Pringle: Patrick Pringle, _Stand and Deliver: Highwaymen from Robin Hood to Dick Turpin_, (no copyright date listed but after 1935; I use the 1991 Dorset edition)
Reid: Peter Reid, _By Fire and Sword: The Rise and Fall of English Supremacy at Arms: 1314-1485_, Constable, 2007
RiversideShakespeare: G. Blakemore Evans, textual editor, and others, _The Riverside Shakespeare_, Houghton Mifflin, 1974
Ross-Edward: Charles Ross, _Edward IV_, 1974 (I use the 1997 paperback edition in the Yale English Monarch series with a new introduction by R. A. Griffiths)
Ross-Richard: Charles Ross, _Richard III_, University of California Press, 1981
Ross-War: Charles Ross, _The Wars of the Roses_, Thames and Hudson, 1976
Runciman1: Steven Runciman, _A History of the Crusades, Volume I: TheFirst Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem_, 1951 (I use the 1998 Cambridge paperback reprint)
Runciman3: Steven Runciman, _A History of the Crusades, Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades_, 1951 (I use the 1999 Cambridge paperback reprint)
Sands: Donald B. Sands, editor, _Middle English Verse Romances_, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966
Satin: Morton Satin: _Death in the Pot: The Impact of Food Poisoning on History_, Prometheus, 2007
Saul: Nigel Saul, _Richard II_ (a volume in the Yale English Monarchs series), Yale, 1997
Scott/Duncan: Sir Walter Scott, _Ivanhoe_, edited with an introduction by Ian Duncan, [Oxford] World Classics, 1996
Seward: Desmond Seward, _The Hundred Years War: The English in France, 1337-1453_, Atheneum, 1978
Sharpe: James Sharpe, _Dick Turpin: The Myth of the English Highwayman_, Profile Books, 2004 (I use the 2005 paperback edition)
Shippey: Tom Shippey, _The Road to Middle-Earth_, revised edition, Houghton-Mifflin, 2003
Shuffleton: George Shuffelton, editor, "King Edward and the Hermit," originally  published in _Codex Ashmole 61: A Compilation of Popular Middle English Verse_, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2008. Much of the material in this book is also available at http://tinyurl.com/tbdx-Shuffleton
Simpson/Roud: Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud, _A Dictionary of English Folklore_, Oxford, 2000
Sisam: Kenneth Sisam, editor, _Fourteenth Century Verse and Prose_, Oxford, 1925
Smith: Goldwin Smith, _A Constitutional and Legal History of England_ (no copyright date listed but written after 1979; I use the 1990 Dorset edition)
Steinberg/Trevitt: S. H. Steinberg, _Five Hundred Years of Printing_, 1955; new edition revised by John Trevitt, The British Library/Oak Knoll Press, 1996
Stenton: Doris Mary Stenton, _English Society in the Early Middle Ages (1066-1307)_, Pelican, second edition, 1952
StentonEtAl: Sir Frank Stenton, _Anglo-Saxon England_, 1943, 1947; third edition published posthumously in 1971 with additional revisions and notes by several collaborators (I use the 1989 Oxford paperback version of the 1971 edition)
Swanton: _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, translated and edited by Michael Swanton, 1996 (I use the 1998 Routledge edition)
Tatton-Brown/Crook: Tim Tatton-Brown and John Crook, _The Abbeys and Priories of England_, New Holland Publishers, 2006
Tolkien/Gordon: J. R. R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon, _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, second edition revised and edited by Norman Davis, Oxford, 1967
Turville-Petre: Thorlac Turville-Petre, _Alliterative Poetry of the Later Middle Ages: An Anthology_, Routledge, 1989
Tyerman: Christopher Tyerman, _Who's Who in Early Medieval England (1066-1272)_, (being the second volume in the Who's Who in British History series), Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996
Urban: William Urban (with a foreword by Terry Jones), _Medieval Mercenaries: The Business of War_, Greenhill Books, 2006
Wagner: John A. Wagner, _Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses_, ABC-Clio, 2001
Walker: Ian W. Walker, _Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King_, 1997 (I use the 2010 History Press paperback)
WalkerEtAl: Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, Robert T. Handy, _A History of the Christian Church_, 1918, 1959, 1970, 1985; I use Scribners's eighteenth printing of the fourth edition
Warren-Henry: W. L. Warren, _Henry II_, University of California Press, 1973; I use the 1977 paperback edition)
Warren-John: W. L. Warren, _King John_, 1961 (I use the 1978 University of California paperback edition)
Weinreb/Hibbert: Ben Weinreb and Christopher Hibbert, editors, _The London Encyclopedia_, Macmillan, 1983 (I use the 1986 Ader & Adler reprint)
Wilgus: D. K. Wilgus, _Anglo-American Folksong Scholarship Since 1898_, Rutgers University Press, 1959
Wilkinson: B. Wilkinson, _The Later Middle Ages in England, 1216-1484_, Longmans, 1969 (I use the 1980 paperback edition)
Wilson: R. M. Wilson: _The Lost Literature of Medieval England_, Philosophical Library, 1952
Williams: Neville Williams: _Henry VIII and His Court_, Macmillan, 1971
Wimberly: Lowry Charles Wimberly, _Folklore in the English and Scottish Ballads: Ghosts, Magic, Witches, Fairies, the Otherworld_, 1928 (I use the 1965 Dover paperback edition)
Wolffe: Bertram Wolffe, _Henry VI_, 1981 (I use the 2001 paperback edition in the Yale English Monarch series with a new introduction by John L. Watts)
Young: Charles R. Young, _The Royal Forests of Medieval England_, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979
Young/Adair: Peter Young & John Adair: _Hastings to Culloden: Battles of Britain_, 1964, 1979; I used the 1996 Sutton edition revised by Adair alone
 

Traditional Ballad Index: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 02

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 03 (File Number C117B)
NOTES: >> INTRODUCTION <<
It is a rare man that can make a name for himself that lasts across the years. It is still rarer for a name to make a man. Yet that is what happened with Robin Hood.
Dobson/Taylor, p. ix, sneer a little at the ballad scholars who have worked on this story, lumping them with "local enthusiast[s]" and "writer[s] of children's stories." Pollard, p. ix, notes that in recent years there has been an upsurge in Robin Hood scholarship, but most of it sociological -- a study of popular protest. Pollard wishes "to reclaim some of the ground for the historian."  And this note -- exceptionally long as it is -- is an attempt to reclaim a bit of it for the folklorist also.
It appears that by 1250 at the latest, the name "Robin Hood," or some close variant ("Robehod," "Rabunhod") was commonly used as a name for un-apprehended prisoners. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 21, mentions a Robert Hod in 1226 who was a fugitive and whose property was given to St. Peter's of York . Baldwin, p. 51, tells of a Robert Hood of Cirencester who committed murder no later than 1216. Holt2, p. 188, lists William Lefevre of Berkshire, who was active 1261-1262, and who came to be known as "William Robehod." Baldwin, p. 52, probably following Holt2, p. 187, says there was a "distinct concentration" of people with the surname "Robinhood" in southeast England in the late thirteenth century. Child notes many more people with the name during the fourteenth century.
There is no reason to think these Robin Hoods were anything but common criminals, or that their name meant anything. As Pollard says on p. 187, "That there was an oulaw persona, possibly based on a person or persons who had once existed, called Robehod or variations of that name, known fairly widely by the 1260s, is not in doubt. But we do not know when or by whom stories about this persona were created, let alone when and by whom some of them were brought together as a narrative recognizably set in the early fourteenth century." What is certain is that, over the next two centuries, "Robehod" became "Robin Hood," the forest outlaw  who defied the law and still managed to remain free for many years.
The legend has taken many twists over the years. Presumably it started with those robbers named Robehod. But it came to stand for more. The legend seems to have been at its best in the period from perhaps 1400 to 1500, when the "Gest" and other early ballads were written. It took a severe turn for the worse when Anthony Munday wrote a series of Robin Hood plays, and in the process converted Robin to a banished nobleman, gave him a wife, and otherwise bastardized what until then had been an excellent piece of folklore.
We cannot hope to find the "real" Robin Hood. Many scholars have tried to find an Original Robin over the years; none of their attempts has gained wide support, and most have convinced no one but the scholar himself. Many would agree with Mortimer's statement (p. 23) that "The Robin Hood of later legend was not a historical figure, but there were plenty of robbers and outlaws who were genuine enough." Yes, there are plenty of things named after Robin -- for instance, Wilson, p. 138, thinks the earliest significant record of Robin is the 1322 mention in the Monkbretton _Chartulary_ of "The stone of Robin Hode," in Skelbroke in the West Riding of Yorkshire, near a site which later boasted a Robin Hood's Well. But the earlier records of outlaws named Robin Hood show that this stone is not a memorial of an early robber; it is a relic of a legend. Or, as Holt1, p. 106, declares, "the Robin Hood place names illustrate the spread of the legend, not the doings of the outlaw."
Holt1 (pp. 53-61) summarizes attempts to locate the original Robin; all have problems. Although all can be made to fit some part of the legend, they require ignoring other parts. Given the vast amount of effort expended, it seems clear that the surviving records are not sufficient to find "the" Robin Hood. Either the records are incomplete (to show how poor our sources are for the pre-Tudor period, consider that we don't even know the names of two of King Edward I's children; Prestwich1, p. 126) or there was no one man behind the legend. The summary in Baldwin, p. 42, is probably best: "It is clearly impractical to regard the ballads as even a semi-fictionalized biography of Robin and his followers."
The one thing that seems possible is that there was some early storyteller who created the first cycles of Robin Hood tales. The "Gest" as we have it can hardly be his work, but since it is composite, it may well incorporate portions of his account. Some of the other early ballads may also be close to this early myth-making. But for this, the "Gest" is the single most important source -- being as it is far longer than any truly traditional British ballad on record (it will probably be evident that, in this case, "gest" means "geste" ("song of deeds"), or perhaps "jest," not "guest").
Robin's situation in some ways resembles that of that other great name in British legend, King Arthur. There seems to have been an historical Arthur, although all we know is that he probably fought a battle against the Saxons at Mount Badon. The Welsh made him into the subject of folktale -- but it was Geoffrey of Monmouth whose largely fictional work created the Arthur legend. (For details on this, see "King Arthur and King Cornwall" [Child 30]).
Most of what follows is, of course, based heavily on the work of others, such as Holt and Keen and Knight/Ohlgren. I have tried to summarize the more important suggestions of these scholars, even when I disagree with them. Nonetheless, there seems to be much that is yet to be mined from the "Gest" and the other Robin Hood ballads.
>> THE EARLY BALLADS <<
The "Gest" is considered by Holt (Holt1, pp. 15-34.), following Child and others, to be one of only five fundamental pieces of the Robin Hood corpus, the others being "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne" [Child 118],  "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119], "Robin Hood and the Potter" [Child 121], and "Robin Hood's Death" [Child 120].
There are only a few variants on this list, mostly involving the "Death" -- my guess would be that this is because the Percy version is a mess and all the other copies are late. Holt1, pp. 27-28, do not even acknowledge any of the recent traditional versions of the "Death," and Knight/Ohlgren look at the 1786 English Archer version (Child's B) only where the Percy text fails (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 599) -- even though there are other traditional texts, including Davis's version, which appears to be a slightly damaged and mixed version of a very good original. Fortunately, since the "Death" overlaps the "Gest," its antiquity is not a major concern.
Keen's list of Robin Hood ballads of "proven early origin"  (pp. 116-117) is the "Gest," the "Story of Robin Hood and the Potter," "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne," and "Robin Hood and the Monk"; he excludes the "Death" even though its plot is part of the "Gest" and so clearly ancient. (
On page 123, Keen in effect appends "Robin and Gandelyn" [Child 115] to his list (while adding that it is only the skeleton of a ballad; in his view, it is a sort of proto-Robin tale). He also points out the much-mentioned connection of the Robin Hood corpus to "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly" [Child 116].
Ohlgren, p. 217, lists only the "Gest," the "Monk," and the "Potter" as early, seemingly based solely on external evidence: These three, and only these three, can be shown to predate 1525. "Robin Hood and the Monk" seems to be the earliest, coming from a manuscript of about 1450 (Percy/Wheatley I, p. 105, calls it "possibly as old as the reign of Edward II," but offers no reason for this incredibly early date. Thomas Wright also suggested this date, but Dobson/Taylor, p. 123n1, are openly contemptuous of this date). The manuscript, while well-written, is much-stained and hard to read (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 31); there may be a few textual uncertainties as a result.
The manuscript of the "Potter" is dated c. 1500 by Child and Ohlgren (and Copland in his late sixteenth century edition of the "Gest"  also printed a play which seems to have drawn on the same tradition; Dobson/Taylor, p. 208). In fact there is very strong evidence that it is somewhat older, since it was the property of Richard Calle of Norfolk, who was active in the period 1455-1475 (see the notes to the "Potter"). But it is safe to add "Guy of Gisborne" to the list of early ballads, because, while the ballad itself is from the Percy folio, there is a fragment of a play on the same plot from c. 1475.
The list in Knight/Ohlgren, not surprisingly, is similar to that in Ohlgren; they file under "Early Ballads and Tales"  the "Monk," the "Potter," the "Gest," "Guy of Gisborne" -- and tack on "The Tale of Gamelyn," "Robyn and Gandelyn," and "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesley."
EncycLiterature, p. 957, lists the Gest, the Potter, the Monk, and Guy of Gisborne as the "core" of the legend.
Chambers,  pp. 132-134, after a nod to "Robyn and Gandeleyn" (which on p. 131 he calls the earliest tale of Robin Hood, never mentioning that it does not use the name "Robin Hood") lists as early ballads Guy of Gisborne, the Monk, and the Potter, plus perhaps the Gest, but not the Death; instead he offers "Robin Hood and Friar Tuck," i.e. "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar" [Child 123].
The dating of the "Curtal Friar" is a vexing question. The language of our surviving versions of the ballad is rather modern, but that is not an indication of date of origin. The tale as it stands features absurdly many fighters and dogs, but that may be the result of the inflation common in tradition.
The first apparent linking of the Friar and Robin Hood dates from the fragmentary play of "Robin Hood and the Sheriff" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 203), based on the same story as "Guy of Gisborne"; it has a reference to, and perhaps even a part for, "ffrere Tuke." Even more explicit is the play printed by Copland around 1560, often called "Robin Hood and the Friar," which has three characters: Robin, Little John, and Fryer Tucke (see the versions on pp. 286-290 of Knight/Ohlgren or pp. 210-214 of Dobson/Taylor). Both of these plays predate the earliest version of hte ballad of the Friar (Dobson/Taylor, p. 209).
From about the same time as "Robin Hood and the Sheriff" comes the so-called Tollet Window -- a panel window of the Morris Dances and May games, reproduced in GutchI, p. 349, and RiversideShakespeare, p. 1478, and alluded to on Dobson/Taylor, p. 62. It was thought by GutchI, p. 338, to have been painted in the time of Henry VIII but based on originals from the time of Edward IV.
The window shows in its bottom three panels an unknown man, a lady (presumed to be Maid Marian), and a friar (presumed to be Friar Tuck). There is no overwhelming reason to think the first figure is Robin -- but neither is there any other obvious candidate.  However, RiversideShakespeare, p. 1478, believes that Robin is not the man to Marian's left but the hobby-horse above her. Obviously the presence of Robin in this context is debatable -- and, hence, so is this early connection with Friar Tuck. In any case, we note that this is a century after Langland's reference to Robin, and more than half a century after the Staffordshire Friar Tuck.
Logic says that the Friar is not integral to the legend -- if there had been a genuine cleric in Robin's band, for instance, why is he not mentioned when Robin dies? And why do we see Robin going to mass in Nottingham in the Monk?. We do meet Friar Tuck in the play version of "Guy of Gisborne" (Baldwin, pp. 68-69; Cawthorne, p. 188), but this might be the source of, rather than inspired by, the "Curtal Friar."
There isn't even absolute proof that the "Tuck" of later legend is the same as the Curtal Friar of the ballad. We are forced to admit that the data is not sufficient to reach a certain conclusion about Tuck. I personally think him a later addition; in any case, I will not base arguments on the "Curtal Friar." For how Tuck came to be associated with Robin, see the section on "Who made Maid Marion?"
In sifting through these materials, Keen sounds a useful warning:"we must remember that we are not dealing with a host of different stories, but with a host of versions of the same story, and that what is significant is the similarity of tone, the forest setting, the animus against the law and its officers, the callous indifference to bloodshed, and not the differences of detail. At the same time we must remember that we are not dealing with a series of individual characters, but with a type-hero, the outlaw, who, though he may appear under more than one alias, remains essentially the same, and what is significant about him is not his name or his individual acts, but his conventional attitudes" (pp. 126-127). Although, just to show how confusing these things are, Pollard, p. 12, says that "We are not dealing with one Robin Hood character: we are dealing with several."
>> THE TEXT OF THE GEST <<
Chances are that we do not have the text of the "Gest" in anything like its original form. The place names it mentions make it almost certain that it was written by a Yorkshireman (see the note on Stanza 3) -- and a Yorkshireman who rarely travelled beyond his home county.
Yet the text as we have it is in fairly generic Middle English, with almost no signs of northern dialect (Brandl, according to Clawson, p. 7-8, detected what he considered "Northern rhymes" in certain sections, but Clawson notes that such rhymes are in fact found throughout, and are in any case found in other parts of the country. There is nothing distinctly northern about the poem). Chaucer could almost have written it; certainly he would have understood it with little difficulty. There are some Robin Hood ballads in northern dialect, such as "Robin Hood and the Bride," a variant  of "Robin Hood and Allen a Dale" [Child 138] found in the Forresters manuscript, but the "Gest" in its printed forms is not one of them.
And yet, this is the period when regional dialects of English were at their strongest and most distinct, and because English was only slowly regaining its role as an official language, "authors in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries generally wrote the English that they spoke -- whether in London, Hereford, Peterborough, or York" (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 5). Admittedly the "Gest" is more likely from the fifteenth century. But the expectation would still be that it would contain local linguistic forms.
The fact that it is so free of Northernisms strongly argues that there was a recensional stage when these characteristics were purged. What's more, because the surviving prints are all in essentially the same dialect, all our surviving copies must derive from this de-Northernized copy of the text. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating our surviving witnesses. Dobson/Taylor, p. 6, suggest that "the next move in the investigation of the Robin Hood legend would seem to lie with linguistic scholars." But this challenge was not taken up until Ohlgren suggested it to Lister M. Matheson, and even Matheson's work is very preliminary.
Matheson, on p. 210 of Ohlgren/Matheson, declares that the printed editions of Pynson, de Worde, Goes, and Notary have all adapted the text to fit their preferred dialects, but adds that "a number of Northern spelling and forms survived this process.... Their appearance suggests strongly that the original author was indeed a Northerner and possibly a Yorkshireman." I must confess that I do not see how his methodology can support such a strong conclusion; his method is to compares the prints against the suggested regional dialects -- but not to compare the prints against each other in a meaningful way. Only by this means could he determine the residual dialect before the various changes.
Matheson does suggest, based on his analysis, that the source for the Pynson and de Worde editions was not a lost print by Caxton, because in that case the spellings would have been more standard. This conclusion is probably strong enough to stand. It does not mean that there was no Caxton print, but that it was not the common source. Pynson or de Worde might have used a Caxton original, but not both.
Like most of the Robin Hood ballads (and, of course, like the romances), we have no field collections of the "Gest" -- it is likely that it never existed in tradition. What we have are printed editions. Child's text is based on seven of these, which he calls a, b, c, d, e, f, and g -- a system usuallybut not always  followed by the later scholars. The prints may be briefly described as follows:
a: "A Gest of Robyn Hode," is in the National Library of Scotland. The call number in Advocates Library H.30.a. Often referred to as the "Lettersnijder edition," based on the font used. A photo of the front graphic can be found in the photo section preceding p. 223 of Ohlgren, and a photo of the whole first page is on p. 107 of Ohlgren/Matheson. Isaac's plates 92-93 show the layout of two interior pages. Contains all or parts of Child's stanzas 1-83, 118-208, 314-349 -- just under half the total. It is Dobson and Taylor's A.
b. "A Lytell Geste of Robyne Hode," printed by Wynken de Worde. The surviving copy is in the library of the University of Cambridge, Selden 5.18. Photos of the frontispiece can be found in Ohlgren (again, in the section preceding p. 223), on p. 113 of Ohlgren/Matheson, and in Holt, p. 14. Dobson and Taylor cited it as B.
c. Bodleian, Douce e.12 (called Fragment #16 by Child). Duff-Bibliog #361. Two leaves. Portions of stanzas 26-60 only, said by Duff-Bibiog, p. 100, to have been taken from a binding and to be the central leaves of a quire. A photo is on p. 121 of Ohlgren/Matheson. Dobson/Taylor refer to Child's c and d under the siglum D.
d. Bodleian, Douce f.1 (called Fragment #17 by Child). Portions of stanzas 280-350 only. A photo is on p. 125 of Ohlgren/Matheson. Dobson/Taylor refer to Child's c and d under the siglum D. The pages were placed in binding strips and have been trimmed; this has resulted in the loss of text at the beginning of lines as well as at the top and bottom of pages. Unusually, this edition indents alternate lines, so that some lines are more defective than others.
e. Bodleian, Douce f.51(3) (called Fragment #16 by Child). Portions of stanzas 435-450 only;  from stanza 443 on, only the ends of the lines survive. A photo, showing the extent of the damage, is on p. 100 of Ohlgren/Matheson. It is reported to have been extracted from the binding of a book (Oates, p. 3).  Dobson/Taylor collectively cite e, p, and q under the symbol P.
f. "A Mery Geste of Robyn Hoode," British Library C.21.c. Printed by William Copland, meaning that it is from 1548 or later although before 1570. Since Copland registered a Robin Hood play in 1560, and Copland's print contains two dramas as well as the "Gest" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 208), it is likely that 1560 is the year of printing -- although Dobson/Taylor suggest that Copland had printed the plays in an earlier separate form, in which case the date must be after 1560. A photo is on p. 129 of Ohlgren/Matheson. Dobson and Taylor made the unfortunate decision to ignore Child's sigla and cite this as C. A single leaf of another Copland edition is Oxford, Cordington Libraray, All Souls college, k.4.19. It has been hypothesized that this is a later edition; I do not know if this has been proved.
g. "A Mery Iest of Robin Hood," Bodleian Library,  Z.2.Art.Seld. Printed for Edward White, who was active well into the seventeenth century (e.g. Wikipedia reports that he printed the 1611 third quarto of Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus." He or a relative was also among the first to license "Greensleeves") He may well have known Anthony Munday, of whom more below. Gutch, p. 141, suggests on the basis of a Stationer's Register entry that this copy was printed in 1594.
Since Child's time, two more small fragments have been discovered. For reasons to be seen, I am labelling them p and q rather than h and i.These were studied in detail by Oates, and the descriptions are from his paper.
p. The "Penrose fragment," formerly owned by Boies Penrose but now in the Folger Shakespeare Library. A full leaf and a portion of a second, recovered from a book binding. Stanzas 227.4-235.2, 243.2-250.4, 312.4-319.3, 327.3-335.1. Dobson/Taylor collectively cite e, p, and q under the symbol P.
q. The University of Cambridge fragment. Found in a book binding and presented to Cambridge University in 1917. Contains 220.1-227.3, 319.4-327.2. Dobson/Taylor collectively cite e, p, and q under the symbol P.
Thus far is fact. Beyond that we must rely on inference. What follows summarizes information we derive from the contents of the prints (typefaces, etc.)
The type of a (Lettersnijder)  is Lettersnijder 98 -- that is, 20 lines are 98 millimeters tall, making the type 13.9 point (in the modern usage of 72 points=1 inch.) The orthography is very peculiar. The first page is set entirely as prose -- Oates, p. 9, makes the reasonable suggestion that it was originally intended to be set as poetry, but then it was decided to include the woodcut of the mounted archer at the top, and the text had to be reset and dramatically compressed to make room for it.
Based on the samples in Isaac (plates 92, 93), the spaces between words are very small -- in a lot of cases, there are no spaces at all. The only punctuation marks are points which are placed almost at random (certainly not where we would place periods; some hardly even qualify as comma breakss) and a handful of section marks, some of which indicate line breaks. It also lacks stanza breaks.
The first letters of lines are capitalized, but in Isaac's first sample, almost nothing else (e.g. in lines 50.2-58.1, we find the following: "lancaster," "seynt mari abbey," "criste" (christ), and four instances of "robyn" -- balanced by one instance of "Robyn," as well as "Caluere." If you can see a pattern in that, you're smarter than I am.) In the second sample, proper names are regularly capitalized ("Robyn," "John," "Scarlok," although not "wylluam" or "much"), as is the pronoun "I." This second section also typically spells "The(e)" with a y and a superscripted e -- a usage not found in the first sample.
I rather suspect, based on the usage, that there were two typesetters, one more familiar with English orthography than the other.
Gutch1, pp. 80, 142, contends that Lettersnijder was issued by Myllar and Chepman in 1508, and Holt1, p. 122, also refers to it as among "the Chapman (sic.) and Myllar Prints of 1508." This is understandable but a mistake. Chepman and Myllar were authorized to print mass books and other materials in Scotland in 1507, and published for about twenty years (Isaac, introduction to Myllar and Chepman).
The largest single collection of works from their press is Advocates H.30. This book contains in one binding no fewer than eleven quarto books. The first nine of these are typographically similar, and seven of the nine contain a colophon or other markings associating them with Myllar and Chepman. The three with dates are all from 1508: _Porteus of Noblenes_, Chaucer's _The Maying_, and the _Knightly Tale of Gologros and Gawaine_.  (For the full list of contents, see Isaac or  p. 144 of Gutch1)
The natural assumption is that the last two items in the volume are also from Myllar and Chepman, especially since item #10, _The Twa marrit wemen and the wedo_, is attributed to the Scottish poet Dunbar. But it is notable that every one of the properly attributed Myllar and Chepman prints, according to Isaac, is in a Textura face. The Avocates copy of the "Gest" is not in Textura; it is, of course, in Lettersnijder.
The link to Myllar and Chepman appears dubious on other grounds. The small catalog of their known works includes two by Dunbar, one by Henryson, and Blind Harry's _Wallace_. Their other works, if not as obviously Scots by authorship, are strongly Scottish in style -- Hahn's edition of "Golagras and Gawain," based on the Myllar/Chempan edition, is so broadly Scots that it is not until line 76 that he can go a whole line without a gloss! Whereas at least 80% of the lines in the "Gest" make perfectly good English sense as printed, without need for explanation. And, as Clawson says on p. 2 (cf. Isaac), the incipit to the Advocates text of the "Gest" reads "Here begynneth" (English), not "Here begynnis" (Scots), a reading which would surely have been "Scotticised" even if nothing else had been.
Thus the strong weight of evidence is that Chepman and Myllar did not print the "Gest." There is, indeed, no reason to think that the printer was Scottish.
Beyond that we can say little, because the Lettersnijder font was common around the beginning of the sixteenth century. Most printers who used Lettersnijder were Dutch, and there are a few instances of errors which make sense in Dutch (e.g. "mijn" for "mine"; 200.3), so it is highly probable that it was the product of a Dutch press. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 80, and Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 101, mention an attribution to Jan van Doesborch of Antwerp, but this is speculation; the only real support for the belief is the fact that van Doesborch printed books for the English market. But Isaac, notes to Laurence Andrew,e, mentions a belief that van Doesborch published only books associated with Andrewe, and there is no reason to think the "Gest" should be so associated.
Because we do not know the printer, the the date is uncertain; the period 1510-1520 is often suggested, but it might be a decade or two earlier. Holt1, p. 15, merely suggests that it was published in Antwerp between 1510 and 1515.
It  is clear that compositor did not know English very well, he also shows signs of inexperience in his craft. In particular, he seems to have had trouble with inverted letters, such as n/u and, once or twice, m/w. There may also be a few instances of mistaking the letter thorn for a d when it should have been transcribed th. (See the note on Stanza 179. This may indicate that the common ancestor of a and b still used eth and/or thorn. I have not spotted any instances which might arise from confusion caused by a yogh.)
(Incidentally, although a has the most problems with inversions, b also has a few, in 299.1, 305.3, 363.2. This leads me to wonder if there wasn't a printed version which preceded both a and b with many inversions, most but not all of which b corrected.)
Child, p. 40, offered a handful of instances which made him believe a more primitive than b, and this opinion has been repeated many times. I did not consider Child's short list of examples sufficient to be decisive, and Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 101, also admits doubts.
Wynken de Worde's b text is without doubt the earliest of the complete copies. De Worde (the successor of England's first printer Caxton) worked from 1492 to 1534, although the piece has no internal dating. The colophon says that b was "Enprented at London: In fletestrete at the sygne of the sone" (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 98). And de Worde did not move to Fleet Street until 1500. Thus the earliest possible date is actually in that year.
However, de Worde -- although his typography was always behind the times (Binns, p. 110, says that "most of his printing was of indifferent quality and some of it was thoroughly bad")  -- gradually changed his fonts and his collection of clip art (he started using pure Textura-style blackletter but eventually acquired Roman and Italic and even Greek type; as Moran points out on pp. 26-38 -- although the Greek is perhaps the most unreadable font I have ever seen in my life).
Binns, p. 109, suggests that the "Gest" was printed around 1498-1500, when de Worde was busily printing other romances -- "Bevis of Hampton," "Sir Eglamour," and "Guy of Warwick." (E.g. Duff-Hand-List, p. 2, lists as his only four books certainly dated to 1498 the "Description of Britain," the "Morte d'Arthur," the "Canterbury Tales," and the "Legenda Aurea.") This makes excellent sense but suffers from the fact that a date before 1500 is ruled out by the colophon.
Based on the facsimiles, it appears de Worde published the "Gest" using his Textura 95 font (Duff's #8; facsimiles in Isaac, figures 2, 3, 7, 8 and Duff-Bibliog, plate XIV, where it is called #4). The number "95" refers to the size of the type -- it means that 20 lines of type were 95 mm. tall. In other words, 20 lines equalled 270 points, meaning that it was about 13 point type (as we would describe it today).
Isaac, facing figure 1, says that Textura 95 was "the most frequently found of all de Worde's types in the sixteenth century"; he used it for his entire career. Duff-Bibliog, pp. 127-129, lists 103 books believe to have been printed by de Worde before 1500; 82 of these use at least some Textura 95, and 26 appear to use it exclusively. However, it did evolve somewhat; in this periord, there were multiple forms of the letters a, d, h s, v, w, and y (Isaac, figure 1). The heading line of de Worde's edition of the "Gest" uses four of these letters, in states a-1, d-1, h-1, and y-2. The y is datable: de Worde was using y-1 in 1502, but by 1506 had shifted to y-2 (Isaac, notes to plates 2 and 3).
So the date almost has to be after 1503. But on other grounds, the earlier, the better. The illustration at the head of the print, which shows a woman, a man carrying a sword backwards, and a man who appears to be a herald. The artwork has no relevance at all to the "Gest," and de Worde gave up a large portion of his clip art (as well as some fonts of type) when he made the move; much of the material, in fact, ended up in the hands of another printer, Julian Notary (Duff-Printers p. 131). Had de Worde printed the "Gest" before his move, or long after, he could probably have used better art.
Another argument for a not-too-late date is the fact that, in around 1507, de Worde his rival Richard Pynson began a policy of cooperation (Isaac, notes on Pynson). This ended a strong rivalry that had existed between the two. Given that de Worde and Pynson both seem to have produced editions of the "Gest," this is an argument that the de Worde edition was printed before their agreement.
This is strong evidence for Ferguson's date of around 1506, (Oates, p. 7); this date is also found in the _Short Title Catalogue of Book Printed in England, Scotland & Ireland, 1475-1640_ (Ohlgen/Matheson, p. 112). My own date, based on examination of the facsimilies independent of the above, was c. 1505.
All that being said, someone really needs to examine the actual printed copy, not just facsimiles (which may not be the exact size of the original), checking all the letters; my suspicion is that, using Isaac's data, we could offer a much more exact date.
Of all the copies of the "Gest," de Worde's appears to have been the most used. No fewer than three readers but their names in it (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 117). One called himself "George Poll" (Powell) and urged readers to kiss his "briche and buttocks."  A second simply says "By me John"; this is perhaps John Cony, who signed that name to two other books which were bound with the Gest, "The assemble of goodes" and "The Frere and the Boye" (interestingly, another copy of the latter poem is also bound in the volume containing sole copy of the "Potter").
The third name is entered twice, with different spellings: One claims the book is "Avdary Holman[']s," the other says it is "By me avdery homan of titsey." Audrey Holman also put her name in two of the other books bound with the "Gest." Ohlgren devoted significant effort to trying to locate Audrey Holman, eventually coming up with three candidates (Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 117-120). His most likely candidate is his #2; we don't have her dates, but her older brother was born in 1571 (meaning that she was probably a few years younger), and she was still alive in 1621. She eventually married William Masters and had two children. Thus she cannot be the original owner. Still, the fact that the book went through at least three and probably four owners before being entered into the Bagford collection shows how popular it was.
It is has been stated that c and d are from the same original -- note, e.g., that Dobson/Taylor cite them under the same siglum, although they do not quite state that they are the same edition. However, even a casual glance at the letter forms shows they are distinct.
Ritson thought c to have been printed by Wynken de Worde -- but dated it 1489 (Child, p. 40). Duff-Bibliog, p. 100, has no doubt that it is by de Words, noting that "though in the earlier type it has the later I, and Caxton's I does not occur. It cannot be earlier than 1500, and quite probably was printed a year or two later." Ritson's date, at least, is impossible, because de Worde was Caxton's assistant until Caxton died in 1491 (Duff-Printers, p. 23); de Worde could not produce a book of his own before 1491, and the evidence is that it took him several years to start publishing large numbers of books (perhaps because he did not have Caxton's skills at compiling and editing). Knight/Ohlgren, p. 87, mention the attribution but not the year. Oates, p. 6, accepts the attribution to de Worde, and allows that it predates b, but does not offer a date.
The type is a good argument for the attribution to de Worde, but because there are so many Texturas floating around, it isn't quite proof. And, if it is from de Worde, why then are there so many differences from b? The differences are rarely substantial, but they are numerous.
Farmer instead suggested John Rastell as a printer (Child, p. 40). Rastell's dates are disputed; Child claims 1517-1536, but Isaac's introduction to Rastell suggests that he was in business from about 1512. (He also has the distinction of being the first English printer to handle music and text in one pass.) However, Rastell is another printer using those ubiquitous Textura types, so I doubt this can be demonstrated with certainty. I will say that, based on the facsimiles in Isaac, it doesn't look like Rastell's style.
Gutch1, pp. 80, 141, follows Ritson in saying that Copland's f print seems to have been derived from b, and Clawson, p. 3, declares it "apparently a reprint of b." This is clearly true; I noticed the matter independently before I saw the (brief and undocumented) claim in Gutch. It is strange to note that Child and other recent editors seem to have paid little attention to this fact -- Child cites the variants in f without saying anything about the ancestry of that print.
It is hardly surprising that William Copland  followed the text of de Worde, because it is believed that William Copland was either the younger brother or the son of another printer, Robert Copland -- and Copland actually worked for Wynken de Worde early in his career (Isaac, introduction to Copland; Duff-Printers, p. 146), and apparently was responsible for editing some of de Worde's editions (Duff-Printers, p. 7); he was also mentioned in de Worde's will (Duff-Printers, p. 139).
Thus it is very likely that William Copland would have worked from a copy of de Worde's own earlier printing -- indeed, it is possible that Robert Copland worked on b. (Ohlgren seems to think it more than possible; on p. 114-115 of Ohlgren/Matheson, he suggests that the "rose garland" used in the archery contest of stanza 398 may have been an interpolation by Copland. The obvious difficulty with this is, if Copland had been rewriting the "Gest," why didn't he fill in the several lacunae in the poem? And we find other mentions of rose garlands in the Robin Hood literature; see, e.g, Knight, p. 7).
Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 186, notes the somewhat curious fact that there seem to have been many early editions of the "Gest," but that production then slacked off. Ohlgren thinks there was a 45 year gap between the Notary and Copland editions. Since his date for Notary's print is conjectural, the gap may not have been that long -- but it was probably substantial. Ohlgren's suggestion is that copies ceased to be printed because Henry VIII turned Protestant and Robin Hood was very Catholic. This does not account for the whole gap, because Henry was still quite Catholic, thank you, in 1520 (and even 1530), and never ceased to regard himself as Catholic. But it might explain part of the gap.
White's g text rarely gets much attention, simply because it is so much later than the others. It is instantly clear that the text has been much modernized, although this does not prove whether it is from a good or a bad source. We will cover its affinities below.
From the lineation, it will be evident that the two p and q fragments are from the same edition. It is also generally accepted that e is part of the same print (although not necessarily part of the same copy of that print). It is also clear from the fact that the first verses of q come before the first verses of p, but the last verses of p come before the last verses of q, that the two were not properly bound in a single quire. Oates, pp. 5-6, is convinced that they were mis-collated -- that is, the edition had its pages out of order.
This raises an interesting point. The epq text is widely attributed to Richard Pynson. The suggestion seems to go back to Duff-Bibliog, p. 100, based on a single leaf of q (even though he admits that the "collation [is] not known), and is accepted by Isaac (preface to images 92 and 93 of the "Gest"), and was accepted without question by Oates (p. 4), Dobson/Taylor (pp. 71-72), and Ohlgren (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 98). In terms of the type, this fits -- epq seems to be in the Textura 95 that Isaac  (in the notes preceding plate 13) says was Pynson's standard type.
But almost everyone had a Textura 95: de Words (Isaac, before plate 1), Pynson (Isaac, figures 13, 14, 15, 19 -- indeed, based on figure 19, Pynson's collection of ornaments includes several which appear to me to be exactly the same as those de Worde used in the "Gest.), Hugo Goes (Isaac, before plate35; Goesacquired his Textura from de Worde), Robert Copland (Isaac, before plate 45), John Scolar (Isaac, plate 47; he and his successor Charles Kyrfoth, like Goes, had their Textura from de Worde), John Skot (Isaac, before plate 50), Thomas Berthelet (Isaac, introduction to Berthelet, says that this is another instance where that printer acquired it from de Worde), John Byddell (yet another had worked for de Worde and may  have gotten some of his type; Isaac, introduction to Byddell), John Herford (Isaac, introduction to Herford).
Plus Julian Notary had a Textura 92 (Isaac, before plate 26), as did Ursin Mylner (Isaac, before plate 44).  There were Textura 93s in the library of John Rastell  (Isaac, before plate 36), Henry Pepwell (Isaac, before plate 48), Peter Treveris (Isaac, before plate 53), and Richard Bankes (Isaac, before plate 55). Even Chepman and Myllar, in Scotland, used a Textura 93 similar to de Worde's Textura 95 (Isaac, introduction to Chepman and Myllar).
This list could easily be extended, especially given how freely de Worde spread his favorite font around. And, as Duff-Bibliog points out on p. ix, "it is clear that almost all early English printers well understood what is now called 'leading', that is, producing a greater space between the lines by inserting slips of metal, so that we find the same type often with two, sometimes with three, different measurements." Thus simply measuring the height of the type is not sufficient to determine which font it is.
Ohlgren says on p. 101 of Ohlgren/Matheson that epq uses the forms of w and s found in Pynson's Textura 95. This appears to be correct based on the samples in Isaac, but the sample is too small. The fact that epq seems to be in Pynson's type is not quite proof.
Matheson, on p. 203 of Ohlgren/Matheson, affirms that the orthography of epq matches Pynson's. This too is strong evidence at a time when printers followed very different standards. But it appears from the footnote on p. 249 that Matheson used only a small collection of facsimiles, meaning he didn't have much material to work with.
According to Binns, pp. 110-111, Pynson was a Norman; he perhaps began as a bookseller rather than a printer. he probably learned the printing trade from Guillaume Le Talleur of Rouen, and in 1490 took over the printing business of William de Machlinia of Belgium. He moved to Fleet Street in 1500, began to work on government documents in 1503,  became Royal Printer in 1508, introduced Roman type into England in 1509, and retired in 1528, dying two years later. According to Binns, p. 512, his listed output consists of law books, official publications, and missals. Steinberg/Trevitt, p. 48, declare that Pynson "obtained a virtual monopoly of law codes and legal handbooks."
And note the description of Pynson's work. Steinberg/Trevitt, p. 48: "Pynson published some 400 books, technically and typographically the best of the English incunabula." Or Binns, p. 112, "Pynson was without doubt the finest printer of his day. He had a fine range of types and used them well. His press-work was superior to that of his contempraries. He used illustration more sparingly and more effectively than de Worde, and was much more successful with his decorative initials and borders." And yet he decided to print something completely different in the "Gest,' and when he did so, he got the pages in the wrong order?
The matter is trivial; we are less concerned with the printer of epq than its text, but I do think caution is indicated. The one important result of Ohlgren's examination is that, if epq is indeed by Pynson (and I think it likely, just not certain), then it almost certainly dates from 1505 or earlier, when Pynson adopted a different form of w.
Ohlgren manages to assign printers to every edition except a (Ohgren/Matheson, p 98). In addition to Pynson for epq, de Worde for b, Copland for f, and White for g, he argues that c is the work of Hugo Goes of York, while d comes from the press of Julian Notary.
I wouldn't consider either attribution to be very strong. The connection of c with Goes is also found in the _Short Title Catalog_, but the font (as noted above) proves relatively little. Since Goes, de Worde, John Scolar. and Thomas Berthelet all had copies of de Worde's Textura 95, and Pynson had something quite close, any of them could have been responsible -- indeed, the way the text is printed looks to me a bit more like the sample of Scolar in Isaac than the sample of Goes. The _Short Title Catalog_ suggests 1506-1509 as the date, but with a question mark.
Our knowledge of Goes is very limited; according to Isaac, we have three addresses for him (London, Beverly, and York), but the two former addresses were taken from materials now lost; our only datable book was printed at "York, in the Street called Steengate" in 1509 (Isaac). We have records of only three books by him (Binns, p. 129), and only one -- the _Directorium Sacerdotum_ -- still survives.
We certainly cannot rule out the possibility that Hugo Goes printed the "Gest" -- a work which would likely be popular in Yorkshire. On the other hand, we note that his one known book was in Latin, and the other two also sound like they were intended for clerical use and were in Latin. From such works to the "Gest" is rather a stretch. And while the survival of early books is rather a matter of chance, the fact that we have so many surviving books by de Worde, and so few by Goes, is at least a slight argument against Goes as the printer.
Ohlgren does not absolutely deny the possibility that de Worde published c. On p. 122 of Ohlgren/Matheson, he says that if it is by de Worde, it must be earlier than b -- a statement which he does not justify. But he goes on to mention the point made above, that b and c have significant differences, which he considers strong evidence that c is not by de Worde. This is true but not decisive; I think we must consider the printer of c uncertain. What the differences do prove is that c can be treated as an independent witness.
Ohlgren does point out on p. 123 a suggestion that the Goes edition might have encouraged people to name all sorts of places in Yorkshire after Robin. This is possible but beyond proof.
The attribution of d to Notary is based on the use of Textura 92 (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 126), but the difference between Textura 92 and Textura 93 (or even Textura 95) is really only a difference in leading. Plus Notary wasn't the only printer using a Textura 92. Ohlgren says he was the only "major London printer" to use Textura 92, but offers no reason to think d came from a London printer. The _Short Title Catalog_ dated it "c. 1515?" -- but this was apparently only a guess.
There is another argument against the attribution to Notary, and that  is the list of materials Notary printed. The list on p. 129 of Duff-Bibliog lists seven items. Six are in Latin and appear to be church books. The only exception is a print of Chaucer's "Mars and Venus." Notary seems to have been aiming for a rather highbrow market; the "Gest" hardly fits!
There is agreement that all these prints have a recent common source, possibly a lost printed copy but more probably (given the dates of Pynson and de Worde) a manuscript, and clearly not the original, since all copies share certain defects. Further evidence for a recent source is shown by the fact that all the copies are quite closely similar.  I do not think any reasonable scholar would dispute this point.
What, then, is the relationship between these prints?
Dobson/Taylor, p. 8, suggest that a is "apparently a cheap reprint of a previous and now lost edition by Richard Pynson," i.e. of epq. This follows from a comparison made on p. 9 of Oates, who compared the 70 lines for which epq and a both survive. Oates found several significant differences between a and epq, but six times as many cases where the two agree with each other against b. It is clear that they represent a single phase of the text, and it is likely that one is a copy of the other.
Oates is convinced that a is a copy of epq. And his evidence extends beyond the textual. The woodcut at the head of the Lettersnijder edition is a copy of one used by Pynson in his edition of the Canterbury Tales. But (contrary to, e.g., Holt1, p. 122) it is enphatically a copy -- the images can be seen side by side on pp. 104-105 of Ohlgren/Matheson, and the Canterbury version differs in the face, the spurs, the ribbons on the horse, and other details from the Lettersnijder version; in addition, Lettersnijder is cropped more closely. Oates believes -- and I think it almost certain he is correct -- that Pynson used that same illustration in his edition of the "Gest," and the Lettersnijder printer then copied it (and, as mentioned, forgot to leave room for it!).
Matheson seems to confirm this, declaring on pp. 200, 203 of Ohlgren/Matheson that the spelling of a closely matches epq. He does not a few variants in a which are valid English alternatives rather than errors, and suggests that this might mean that a native English speaker was involved in the typesetting of a. It strikes me as at least as possible that the copy of epq used to create a had a few corrections written into it -- but it might also be that these variants are from the typesetter who knew English, as opposed to the one (responsible for the majority of the remaining text) who did not.
There is a secondary point: If the Lettersnijder edition is derived from Pynson, it must be post-1490, when Pynson began printing, and likely post-1495. Probably Lettersnijder is later than that. If Duff is correct in dating Pynson to 1500, then a date after 1510 seems likely for Lettersnijder. (On the other hand, Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 107-108 suggests a date in the early 1490s for Pynson, which allows Ohlgren on p. 110, to claim a date of c. 1495 for Lettersnijder.)
Looking at the other substantial copies, it is instantly clear that f and g go together -- g in fact looks like a modernized copy of f, perhaps compared with a copy of b; most of the differences between f and g are cases of an archaic form in f being replaced by a more modern form in g. Clawson, p. 3, calls it "very similar" to f.
On this basis, I would be inclined to date g as late as possible -- a Jacobean date would be far better than an Elizabethan, and frankly, I'm inclined to suspect that the attribution to White is deceptive and the piece actually printed in the reign of Charles I. f also has some signs of modernization, although far fewer than g,
It is also clear that f and g go with b. The relationship between b and f is noted on p. 130 of Ohlgren/Mathison, with the observation that f has had its language modernized -- although Ohlgren seems to have missed a few points about the copy of b used to produce f (Ohlgren does not examine g in any detail, merely calling it a "close copy" of f -- which is true of the basic text, but g modernizes f even more than f modernized b). Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 132-133, suggests that Copland printed the work in part because of its anti-clerical tone.
There are strong indications that the copy of b used by the compositor of f was damaged. A good example is in stanza 305. The text of b has Little John say "No lyfe on me be lefte." All fg can offer is "That after I eate no bread," which is so utterly feeble that the only possible explanation is that the exemplar was damaged. In stanza 400, b has "And bere a buffet on his hede, I-wys right all bare," while fg give us "A good buffet on his head bare, For that shal be his fine," which fails to rhyme and is inept anyway. These readings suffice to prove the kinship of fg. The relationship to b is less instantly obvious but will be evident to anyone who goes over the collation.
Child does seem to have realized that fg were relatives of b, but he does not really describe the situation, if indeed he even thought in terms of a stemma. But it seems clear that we have two basic groups, which we might call Pynson and de Worde. Pynson consists of epq and a, with a having value only where epq is defective (admittedly, more than 80% of our knowledge of the Pynson text comes from a). de Worde consists of bfg -- and, because b is complete, this means not only that g has no value (as was recognized, e.g. by Dobson/Taylor and Ohlgren) but also that f has no value.
Unfortunately, the fragments c and d are all so short that their affinities cannot be firmly established. My feeling is that c and d are closer to the b group than to a, but not as close to b as are. This conflicts with the opionon of Ohlgren, p. 122, who thinks (on the basis of spelling rather than text) that it is another copy of Pynson. But if that is the case, why is it so distinct from a? I don't think Ohlgren's opinion can be sustained. The best guess is that it is independent.
Where the fragments are extant, they can give us some help. But the two combined include less thant a quarter of the "Gest." For the largest part of the poem, we are stuck choosing between a and b -- or, indeed, between b and conjectural emendation.
Although we cannot prove whether epq/a or b is the older text, Child (p. 40), Dobson/Taylor, and Knight/Ohlgren (p. 80) all consider a to be the more primitive -- but Child's evidence is summarized in a single note on p. 40 listing about a dozen variants. The primary evidence, really, is that a was incompetently typeset (note that there is a homoioteleuton error as early as the second stanza), meaning that the typesetter wasn't fiddling with it. Child in particular takes a as his copy text insofar as it is extant; he uses other readings only where it appears badly corrupt. Both Child and Knight/Ohlgren follow their copy text so closely as to alternate between spelling Little John's name "Lytel" where b is the copy text and "Litell" where a is extant -- an obvious absurdity.
As Ohlgren/Matheson states on p. 101, "Since 1899... all of the poem's editors have repeated Child's assertion that the Lettersnijder edition [a]... is the earliest surviving edition... and hence it has been given pride of place in various critical editions, even though it is in an imcomplete state. It has even supplanted the almost-complete Wynkyn de Worde edition [b]." This even though, as Ohlgren continues, "Lettersnijder is not only a decidedly poorer version of the text but also an almost incompetent copy of an earlier version by Richard Pynson, which now must be recognised as the earliest surviving edition of the poem."
Even before reading Ohlgren's comments, I didn't buy Child's argument. Child's collation method seems almost designed to obfuscate (particularly since he was inconsistent in how he recorded variants), but if we convert it to an inline collation, it was easy to see the two groups mentioned above: a on the one hand and bfg on the other.
It is at this point that the fact that the text we have is not northern becomes important. The common ancestor of a and b was not the original -- and if a preserves this edited text better than b, that doesn't really make it much closer to the original.
Hence I think Child's extreme preference for a exaggerated. True, it has older grammatical forms. But recall that it is probably Dutch, typeset by a Dutch compositor. Many of its errors are pure and simple goofs -- e.g. in 6.4, "vnkoutg" for "vnkouth"; 15.4 "mynge" for "mynde."  Clearly the compositor of a simply transcribed the original mechanically.
Wynken de Worde, although born in the Low Countries, was thoroughly familiar with English, and his work was designed to make English audiences comfortable -- and, indeed, to standardize the language. His press made a habit of updating grammatical forms (Steinberg/Trevitt, p. 58). His text of the "Gest" has surely been touched up, so if the question is solely one of grammatical form, a is generally to be preferred. But there is no hint that de Worde made substantial revisions. Where the difference is one of fundamental meaning, as opposed to grammatical form, it seems to me that b has as much authority as a, and the poem should be re-edited on that basis.
The fact that Pynson and de Worde and (apparently) three other printers all issued versions of the "Gest" around the beginning of the fifteenth century is obviously a testimony to its popularity. But the fact that Pynson and de Worde have noticeably different texts is also noteworthy. If two printers, who sometimes worked together and were for very long based on the same street, produced substantially different versions, this clearly implies that one is not dependent on the other, although it is likely they are based on a common recent source.
Bottom line: The text of the "Gest" needs to be re-edited eclectically, based on the Pynson and de Worde types, with c and d consulted where extant and conjectural emendation sometimes necessary, especially in the places where Pynson is lost.
Fortunately very few of the differences between the texts are substantial -- the main reason why the texts are considered to go back to a single fairly recent original. But at least one variant, in stanza 53, is potentially significant; see the note on that verse.
If we were to grade the condition of the text, we would probably list it as "fair." There is no real doubt as to the general course of the narrative, meaning that the text of the "Gest" is in better shape than, say, the text of the "Death." But the amount of minor damage is extensive. As a result, I have included a textual commentary following the commentary on the content of the "Gest."
Based on the close similarity between the surviving texts, the archetype of the surviving versions (that is, their most recent common ancestor) probably dates from the reign of Henry VI or Edward IV (i.e. between 1422 and 1483), with the latter reign more likely than the former; this is obviously the latest possible date of composition But it is nearly certain that there were several generations of copies between the poet's autograph manuscript and the last common ancestor of our surviving copies. The various common errors, such as the lost first line of stanza 7, demonstrate this.
>> THE DATE OF THE GEST <<
If the "Gest" is not contemporary with the events it describes, when was it in fact written?
The dating of the poem remains a matter of controversy. GutchI, p. 81, claimed a date from the time of Chaucer, or the reign of Richard II (1377-1399) or Henry IV (1399-1413), which is not quite the same thing, but close. Chambers, p. 134, thinks he can detect signs of fourteenth century language in the "Gest." Child rejected this but left room for a date c. 1400. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 81, reject even this -- but their argument that the poem cannot have had a long life in manuscript is not logically sound.
Even if we allow for the possibility of rewrites to modernize the language, the "Gest" is unlikely to be earlier than the fourteenth century, simply because the saga of Robin Hood seems to be exclusively English. Unlike, say, the story of King Arthur, the Robin Hood tradition seems to be solely the possession of the English and English-speaking Scots (Holt1, p. 114). Given that the poem is clearly the work of a professional composer (see the section on the "Gest" as a romance), this requires a date after English was reasserting itself as a language of the middle and upper classes, which can hardly be before 1300.
Clawson, pp. 5-6, goes over Child's text and counts instances of inflexional -e and -es, counting 252 in all, or about one every other stanza. He argues for these as instances of fourteenth century usage (repeating the claim on p. 128), but this is far from decisive. These endings certainly were still used by Chaucer, and were gone by the time of Malory, but there are a few still in Charles of Orleans, and a provincial dialect might have preserved them longer than London did.
 Holt, p. 192, mentions Clawson's observation that the poem throughout preserves Middle English inflexional endings (and of a type, it appears, more typical of the regions outside London), but also points out that no study of the language has been made since Clawson's 1909 work -- unfortunate, since knowledge of Middle English dialects has greatly increased since them. And inflexional -e alone can't prove much.
Vocabulary isn't really much help. There are a few strange words in the "Gest," some of which will be mentioned in the notes, but they are no hint to date because we don't know their meaning! Nor are there many words which changed their usage between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. We do note that there is no mention of the office of Ranger, an office probably instituted in the early fourteenth century and known to have been in existence in 1341 (Young, p. 163) -- but there is no mention of the older office of forester, either, so that's no help.
Ohlgren, p. 217, argues that the original was made in the reign of Henry V (1413-1422) or the first reign of Henry VI (1422-1461), but advanced no direct evidence.
Ohlgren argues that the poem, although written in Lancastrian times, was set in the reign of Edward III, perhaps on the basis of Laurence Minot [c. 1300-1352? (see note on Stanza 353). That the poet tried to set the poem in the reign of Edward III is certainly not inherently impossible, but it is not compelling. Minot seems to have been a northerner (Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 358), but his poems apparently survive in only a single manuscript, so there is little reason to think he was popular outside court circles. Nor can I detect any other allusions to his work (e.g. he often referred to Edward III as a boar -- Sisam, p. 254 -- and there is no hint of that in the "Gest").
Keep in mind that Edward III, once a hero-king, "outlived his own generation and his own usefulness, and became a considerable liability to the throne during his last years" (Ormrod, p. 35). Also, Edward III relied on parliament far more than earlier kings, and while he was anything but a constitutional monarch, that did mean that he had to redress grievances. And this was remembered. Why would a Robin Hood have arisen in this time? A date in the reign of Edward III is tempting to us now because (as we shall see) Langland's 1377 mention of Robin Hood is the earliest datable reference. But the elements of the poem suggest several different dates. We shall deal with these below.
In this connection we might note that Henry V (reigned 1413-1422) kept very tight reign on criminals, but his son Henry VI did not (1422-1461 plus 1470-1471), and his government was riven by faction (Wolffe, pp. 116-117). There was also much disorder in the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413), as that king tried to hold the throne he had usurped from Richard II. Might the disorder of the times have given rise to an interest in an alternate source of order?
Holt2, p. 10, observes that "Robin... was the product of a society where the threshold which separated lawful behavior  from self-help by force of arms was indistinct and easily crossed." This, of course, was true for most of the middle ages. On the other hand, it was probably never more true than in the 1450s, at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses (see, e.g., Wagner, pp. 186-187, regarding the Percy-Neville feud).
Ohlgren, in his later writings, seems to have reconsidered his original dating. On p. 185 of Ohlgren/Matheson, he strongly urges a date toward the end of the Yorkist period, choosing 1483 as a somewhat arbitrary approximation. This, I think, is impossibly late, given that Ohlgren is arguing that Pynson's first printing was from around 1495. Although the primary texts of the "Gest," by de Worde and Pynson, are similar enough to have a recent common ancestor, they are also defective enough that it is hard to believe the original could be only twelve years old at the time Pynson printed it!
I think we are forced to admit that we don't know the date of the final editing of the "Gest," although it is probably fifteenth century; my personal date would be in the second quarter of the century -- but with older components. If it were much older than that, given the northern base of the legends, it would probably be much harder to understand.
Keen, followed by Holt1, pp. 35-36, does note that the three shorter early ballads have very different "feel": The "Potter" is humorous, with little real violence but a lot of tricks. Pollard, p. 12, in fact calls Robin a "trickster" in this tale -- although, in the "Gest," it really appears that Little John, not Robin, is the trickster. Nor is that the only instance -- e.g. in "Robin Hood and Allen a Dale" [Child 138], John is impressed into the role of Bishop, and rather than asking three times whether there are objections to the marriage, he asks seven times.
By contrast, The "Monk" and "Guy," especially the latter, are very bloody; in describing the latter, Pollard (p. 12) calls Robin a "cold-blooded killer." Pollard, p. 96, counts "nine murders in the early ballads," although on p. 97 he grants that this is far fewer than the hundreds slain in "Adam Bell" and admits that the outlaws rarely inflict injury on the victims they rob. Compare this to Fulk FitzWarin, who kills fourteen of King John's knights on their first meeting (Ohlgren, p. xix), and more thereafter.
Pollard's suggestion, on pp. 98-99, is that Robin is appropriating forms of violence allowed by  the rules of chivalry -- although, it should be noted, he has to take several of the ballads collectively to make this argument.
The "Death," if it be granted as ancient, is of course more a tale of treachery than anything else.
If the diverse nature of these ballads tells us anything, it is that the material of the legend is old enough that several different poets worked on it, each taking it in a different direction. We note that the "Gest," although composite, does not use any elements of the "Monk," the "Potter," or "Guy," and merely uses the content, not the lyrics, of the "Death." This implies a very large amount of material, of which the "Gest" takes only a small subset.
I will admit that I have held very different opinions over the date of the "Gest." Any suggestion must be extremely tentative. Right at the moment, however, I would be inclined to a date around the early 1450s, although based on materials from the earlier fifteenth and perhaps even the late fourteenth centuries. And the historical framework, if there was one, probably dates from the early fourteenth (which may, indeed, be the period when the name "Robin Hood" ceased to be that of simply a successful outlaw and became that of a courteous outlaw concerned with justice and propriety). It also seems likely that there was a revision of sorts, cleaning up the northern dialect although not changing the plot. Ohlgren's suggestion that this took place in Yorkist times is plausible, although I would prefer the period prior to 1475 to give more time for divergences to crop up.
 

Traditional Ballad Index: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 03

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 04 (File Number C117C)
Last updated in version 2.6
NOTES: THE GEST: A ROMANCE AND ITS SOURCES
Child included the "Gest" among the ballads. As a result, it tends to be discussed among the ballads. But this is really a mistake. The "Gest" is not a ballad. It is a romance.
Of course, this mostly a matter of definition. But the similarities of the "Gest" to the romances are strong and its similarity to the common ballads slight. Dobson/Taylor, p. 8, say it is "not strictly a ballad in any conventional sense" and add on p. 10 that 'the 'curteyse outlaw' of the Gest has many of the attributes of the well-born chivalric hero of medieval tradition. In other words the contents as well as the form of the early Robin Hood ballads reveal the strong influence upon them of the conventions of late medieval English romance."
Wilgus, p. 36, declares explicitly, "the Robin Hood ballads [combine] the features of the chanson de geste and the literary romance." CHEL1, p. 300, says, "Of Robin Hood [presumably the "Gest"] and Adam Bell and many more, it is hard to say whether they are to be ranked with ballads or with romances." Clawson, p. 49, looks at the first 15 stanzas of the "Gest," which provide a thumbnail description of Robin and declares, "The combination of a direct opening wtith characteristic description is not a ballad, but an epic construction."
And yet, these scholars do not take the next step and move the "Gest" to the romance category. They probably should have. For this, a comparison of the "romance" of Gamelyn and the so-called "ballad" we call the "Gest" is instructive.
If you see "Gamelyn" and the "Gest" on a printed page, they may at first glance appear rather different (see, e.g, the version of Gamelyn on p. 194 of Knight/Ohgren, or that on p. 156 of Sands) -- but this is because "Gamelyn" is printed in long lines, with each pair of lines rhyming, and is not divided into stanzas. The "Gest" is usually written in short lines and with stanza division. But the choice between long and short lines is arbitrary, and the stanza division found in Child does not derive from the sources -- b, c, d, epq, and f all print it without stanza divisions, and a not only lacks stanza divisions, it doesn't even have line breaks in the first portion.
The similarities are many -- the first long line of the "Gest" is "Lythe and listin, gentilmen That be of frebore blode"; the first line of "Gamelyn" is "Listeth and lestneth and herkneth aright." Some copies of "Gamelyn" are divided into Fitts, like the "Gest" (so the edition of Knight/Ohlgren although not the edition of Sands). And the "Gest" as printed by Knight/Ohlgren has 1824 short lines = 912 long lines; "Gamelyn" has 902 long lines in Sands, 898 long lines in Knight/Ohlgren -- in other words, it is almost exactly the same length as the "Gest."
And it is the "Gest," not "Gamelyn," which does not fit its alleged category -- the "Gest" is five times longer than the longest non-Robin Hood ballads in Child's collection. But if we look at the dozen romances in Sands (whose collection includes most of the best of the English romances), we find that their lengths are 1542 lines (King Horn), 3001 lines (Havelok the Dane), 810 lines (Athelston), 902 lines (Gamelyn), 580 lines (Sir Orfeo), 1044 lines (Sir Launfal), 408 lines (Lay Le Friene), 1131 lines (The Squire of Low Degree), 1083 lines (Floris and Blancheflour), 234 lines (The Tournament of Tottenham), 855 lines (The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnall, although this is damaged and must have been much longer), 660 lines (Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle). The median lenght of these dozen romances is 879 lines -- just less than the length of the "Gest." The mean (average) is 1020 lines, or just more than the "Gest."
The fact that the length of the "Gest" is typical of romance does not make it a romance, of course. But the style of the Gest is the style of the romance: Sands, p. 1, says "Very generally, one can say that the Middle English romance is usually metrical, and the most favored prosodic convention is the iambic tetrameter couplet. The narrative concerns a series of incidents often very loosely strung together" -- a description which, except for the length of the lines, perfectly fits the "Gest.'"
Baugh also says, p. 141, that "the weakest point in medieval romance is characterization." The characters in romance are mostly stock -- gallant knights, hostile giants, beautiful princesses. The "Gest" succeeds in giving us new types, but mostly they are just sketched out. We have some insight into the behavior of Robin, John, the knight, perhaps the Sheriff, and the King, but very little of Scarlock or Much, and none at all into the others -- we don't know why the Prioress of Kirkless did what she did, for instance.
Hahn, p. 10, lists as characteristics of the contents of romances "chivalry, Arhturian legend, prowess in combat, personal love, intrigue, encounters with the marvelous, and the decisive resolution of every real or personal conflict." Of these seven, the "Gest" has at least four and arguably as many as six.
Some, to be sure, demand that a romance be "concerned with love' (so Hollister, p. 275). And the "Gest" certainly does not have a love interest. On the other hand, Robin's love of the Virgin Mary particularly suffuses the tale of Robin, the knight, and the abbot.
This is not to say that the "Gest" is a typical romance. It assuredly is not. A typical romance is a courtly tale, usually about knights, stressing certain themes such as physical prowess and loyalty to one's superiors and duties (Baugh, pp. 123). Mortimer, p. 27, observes that "The fine sentiments of loyalty were what the aristocracy liked to hear about and be told they possessed" -- in other words, loyalty tales were what they wanted in their romances. Little wonder, then, that they enjoyed tales like "Floris and Blancheflour," of a couple who were loyal even when threatened with death, or "Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnall," where Gawain marries a hag out of loyalty to Arthur -- and is rewarded for it.
Ohlgren declares on p. 136 of Ohlgren/Matheson that "the creators of the early Robin Hood poems deliberately cloaked them in courtly ideology, not because of 'ideology lag' but because the poems themselves marked a stage in the dialectical process of transforming the knightly adventurer to merchant adventurer." This whole chapter of Ohlgren/Matheson -- the longest in the book -- is an argument that Robin should be seen as "the 'marchaunt' of Sherwood" and the target audience is the guilds. He offers many cases of actions taken by Robin which fit with guild practice -- although almost all of them have other significance as well, and many of them were forced on him by his outlaw status. There is nothing in Ohlgren's list which forces us to consider Robin a guildsman.
I truly don't think it's as simple as any of the suggestions above -- but it is certainly true that the "Gest" is not like other romances. As Holt1, p. 66, declares, "The ballads are not bred in simple fashion from the romances. Mutation has intervened."
The "Gest" takes all the standard romance themes and diverts them from the gentry to the yeomanry -- perhaps because more minstrels were being forced to cater to the common people rather than the nobility (Loomis, p. ix, suggests that this is because the nobility was becoming literate -- all Kings of England from at least Edward III on could read and write -- so minstrels had to find someone still illiterate to hear their tales). Robin is not the greatest knight; he is the greatest archer. He is not loyal to his superiors; he is loyal to his fellows, as when he rescues Sir Richard from the Sheriff, or refuses to abandon Little John to be killed.
To accomplish this change of type, the "Gest" naturally must include new themes and perhaps some unusual materials, and at times the result is rather clumsy (as witness the fact that the "Gest" never figures out whether Robin is based in Barnsdale or near Nottingham). But overall it does a good job of reinventing the romance form .
As an aside, we might note that this was an early step in what became a general trend. In 1957, Northrup Frye wrote The Anatomy of Criticism, in which he classified literature into "myth" (a very poor term; he means supernatural tales, not ancient traditions which explain something), "romance" (which I would summarize tales of extraordinary but not fully divine creatures) "high mimesis (tales of exceptional men)," "low mimesis (the typical mode of modern fiction about rather ordinary people)," and "irony." (Summarized on pp. 33-34 of Frye.) Shippey, p. 211, points out perhaps the most important fact of Frye's analysis -- that fiction has tended to move down the scale over the centuries.
Shippey wanted to make the point that J. R. R. Tolkien was bucking the trend (which he assuredly was), but his discussion helped me to see that the "Gest" is like Chaucer in accelerating the trend. As Chaucer took the format of the "Decameron" and changed it to a tale of ordinary people, the author of the "Gest" took the romances (most of which fit Frye's "romance" genre) and -- while retaining the form -- converted it to a tale of high mimesis. Robin is a great archer, and an honest judge -- but there is no magic in the tale (by contrast, e.g., to Hereward, whose magical power was so great that they hired a witch against him; Alexander, p. 130), no Gawain whose courtesy overcomes all, no Roland so mighty that he can die only by blowing a horn so hard that he causes himself to suffer internal injuries!
(To be sure, Wimberly, p. 216, is convinced that there is a witch active in the Percy version of the "Death." But this is beyond proof -- the old woman is banning Robin, but we have no evidence that anyone thought she actually was a witch or had the power to make curses stick. And this element in any case is missing in the "Gest." This seems to be the only reference in all of Wimberly of magic in the Robin Hood ballads. All the magical elements we hear about today -- hobgoblins and the like -- seem to be modern inventions.)
The "Gest" in fact turns a common romance trope upside-down. In romance, a knight often goes hunting in the forest (this is the opening action of many of the Gawain romances, e.g.; Hahn, p. 169, and occurs even in some of the Welsh romances, such as the tale of Pwyll; Ford, p. 35). In the "Gest," a knight is hunted in the forest!
This is in many ways a dramatic improvement in the romance genre; CHEL1, p. 319, complains of their general trend: "Sated with the sight of knights and ladies, giants and Saracens, one longs to meet an honest specimen of the citizen class, but such relief is never granted." Never granted, that is, as long as one definces the romances as containing only knights, ladies, giants, and Saracens, but not Robin Hood.
It is noteworthy that Frye, p. 34, says that the hero of a tale of high mimesis is "a leader" -- of an outlaw band, say. Frye also suggests, pp. 36-37, that many tales of myth, romance, and high mimesis end with the death of the hero -- and that, in the first two, the death seems to imply the coming of a new, but probably inferior, age. This is what is called "thinning" in fantasy circles. Clute/Grant mention on p. 942 the most famous example of this: "The passing away of a higher and more intense REALITY provides a constant leitmotif in the immensely detailed mythology created by J. R. R. TOLKIEN. The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) comes at the end of aeons of slow loss." What's more, it ends with the departure and loss of much that came before: The destruction of the Rings of Power brings the end of Sauron -- but also the devastation of the power that created Rivendell and Lorien, and the passing of the Elves; it hastens the decline of the Ents and the fading of the dwarves.
Even the word "romance" ceases to refer to a tale of honor and wonder and becomes simply a word for a love affair.
The Norse gods fail, and fall, at Ragnarok. Brien Boru wins at Clontarf, but dies in the battle. The death of Beowulf ends the heroic age of the Geats and leaves them exposed to outside attack. The death of Arthur means the end of Celtic Britain. The books about them end in elegy.
The tale of Robin ends in death and elegy, but the world is not changed. Not only did the prioress kill him -- the final triumph of the organized church over its tormenter -- but, according to the "Death," she is not even slain in her turn. In the long run, Robin has made little difference.
The romances most often connected with the tales in the "Gest" are the aforementioned romance of Gamelyn, plus those of Hereward the Wake, Fulk FitzWarin, and Eustache the Monk.
Hereward "the Wake" lived around the time of the Norman Conquest, although "Nothing certain is known of [his] background or of his early life" (Linklater, p. 238). Supposedly he was rebellious from his youth, and was an outlaw even before the Normans came (Cawthorne, p. 136) -- advantageous from the standpoint of the tale, because he was untainted by the conquest (Ohlgren, p. 17). In 1070 he apparently joined a Danish invasion in an attempt to regain lands he thought were his.
When the Danish invasion failed, he based himself on the easily-defended island of Ely until the monks of the island betrayed him (Baldwin, p. 35; Ohlgren, p. 13). He reportedly escaped, but is not heard from again in sober history (Linklater, p. 239, although Ohlgren, p. 13, mentions some reports that he was eventually reconciled with William the Conqueror). As Douglas, p. 222, puts it, "Hereward, having escaped with difficulty, passed out of history into legend.'
StentonEtAl, p. 106, notes that "Hereward and a few companions cut their way out to further adventures, in which Normans and English came before long to find a common interest." But we cannot really tell which of these are based on actual events and which are pure fiction; the Gesta is very bad history at its best (e.g. it never mentions the Danes who helped Hereward establish his base at Ely; Ohlgren, p. 15), and mixed with that bad history are many items which, flatly, are not history at all -- if the exploits described in Cawthorne, pp. 137-145, were even partly true, we would have learned of it from the chronicles!
In addition to his Gesta, which claims to be based partly on materials left by his priest Leofric (Ohlgren, p. 14; Wilson, pp. 124-125 says that it does appear that there were two sources used), the fourteenth century Croyland Chronicle says that women mentioned Hereward in their songs and dances (Chambers, p. 73). Knight/Ohlgren, p. 633, quote Charles Plummer's 1889 quip that Hereward had a brief life in history and a long one in romance. Indeed, Charles Kingsley wrote about him in the nineteenth century (Benet, p. 498). It is possible that he was eventuallly reconciled with William (Ohlgren, p. 13), but clear proof is lacking; the hypothesis is based on a short reference in Gaimar plus some references to Herewards (not necessarily the same Hereward) in Domesday Book (e.g. a Hereward held property in Marston Jabbett in Warwickshire at the time of Domesday, and held it in the reign of Edward the Confessor also; Domesday, p. 658; there was also a Hereward with land in Lincolnshire; Holt1, p. 63).
His saga contains two extremely close parallels to Robin Hood tales, one in which he disguised himself as a potter, as in the "Potter," and one in which he fought with a cook, as Little John fights the Sheriff's cook in the "Gest" (Baldwin, p. 36). Hereward also quarrels with an abbot, although Ohlgren, p. 16, notes that in this saga abbots are not all wicked; foreign abbots are distinguished from native. We also see an instance where he finds himself in trouble when his sword breaks (Cawthorne, p. 148), which resembles what happens to Robin in the "Monk."
It's possible that we see even older folklore in the story of Hereward: Hereward, we are told, was holding out on the island of Ely, and William the Conqueror built a causeway out to the island to attack him (Cawthorne, p. 134). This is reminiscent of the well-known story of how Alexander the Great took Tyre fourteen centuries earlier.
Ohlgren, p. 17, observes that the saga of Hereward is too early to really partake of the greenwood legend, but some of its elements may have contributed to the eventual formation of that legend.
The story of Hereward survives in only one copy (Ohlgren, p. 13).
Although the story of Eustace the Monk is often compared to that of Robin Hood, its parallels in the "Gest" are often to the story of Little John taking service with the Sheriff of Nottingham in Fit 3. Eustace, like John, quarrelled with his master (in this case, the Count of Bolougne) and turned outlaw, taking particular care to hunt the Count (Cawthorne, p. 120). In this, he was noteworthy for his use of disguise, as well as for playing the "Truth of Consequences" game with those he robbed (Cawthorne, p. 125).
In addition, Eustace eventually went to sea as a pirate. I wonder if this part of his story didn't inspire an equivalent story about Robin, which became "The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148]. He was in fact a servant for a time of King John, "and well known in the streets of WInchelsea" (Powicke, p. 10). But he then went to serve the French, and was a vital supporter of the French invasion of England.
Ironically, the man who is said to have tricked so many opponents finally succumbed to a trick; at a sea battle in 1217, an English ship seemed to be falling behind their fleet, and the lords Eustace was carrying in a last bid to retrieve the English position in France insisted on attacking it. The English threw powdered lime into the wind and incapacitated the French. Eustace's ship was captured. Although the nobles aboard were ransomed, Eustace was executed on the spot (Powicke, pp. 12-13).
Although Eustace's robberies are somewhat like Robin's, the differences in his story are very great. Whereas Robin served only himself, Eustace's services as a mercenary were available to the highest bidder (DictPirates, p. 115). His success is attributed to necromancy (Ohlgren, p. xviii), which Robin of course never would have considered. He was executed as a pirate in about 1217 (Cawthorne, p. 122). And he felt no qualms about exposing innocent bystanders to questioning and even beatings by the authorities (Cawthorne, p. 127). Plus his use of disguise was far more complete -- he even disguised himself as a woman and lured a man with sex (Cawthorne, pp. 128-129).
It strikes me as highly ironic that the story of Robin, who detested monks and abbots, would be based on the story of Eustace, who was a Benedictine monk (Cawthorne, p. 121), although one who had little use for his vows.
There is only one copy of the story of Eustace, and thiat is in Old French (Ohlgren, p. 61).
Fulk FitzWarin (sometimes FitzWarrene or Fitz Waryn) was the name of three post-conquest barons. The romance of "Fouke le Fitz Waryn" (found in translation in Knight/Ohlgren and Ohlgren) is about the third of these, and conflates the careers of the first two (Cawthorne, pp. 96-97). Fulk the third was a rebel against King John, and became the subject of a romance similar in theme to the tale of Robin's forgiveness by the King -- although with many unrelated elements (such as a tale that Fulk and John grew up together, but quarreled over a game of chess, causing John to hate Fulk; this is possible, since it fits John's youthful temper and we know little of the prince's childhood, but completely unverifiable; Warren-John, pp. 96-97).
Interestingly, Fulk, like Robin, has a giant sidekick -- in this case, his brother Alan (Cawthorne, p. 101). I also note with interest that the tale of Fulk contains an incident in which the outnumbered FitzWarins fight off their attackers, killing many and leaving only one whole (Cawthorne, p. 99). The similarity to ballads from "Earl Brand" [Chilld 7] to "Johnie Cock" [Child 114] to "The Dowie Dens o Yarrow" [Child 214] will presumably be obvious.
Keen hints that the tale of Robin, which probably started as a story of one of the Edwards, was attracted to the Richard I/John period by the similarity to the plot of Fulk. On the other hand, Fulk's tale is full of supernatural elements (Keen, p. 39; Ohlgren, p. xix points out conflicts with giants, serpents, and dragons); Robin's tale has none. Fulk's tale also has a number of elements which are historically impossible (e.g. the great battle with King John described on p. 106 of Cawthorne). Either the compiler of the "Gest" knew a version of Fulk's tale which omits all the falderol, or he ruthlessly cut it out. Although any conclusion must be tentative because we know so little of the historical Fulk, I would be more inclined to see Fulk's tale as deriving from the same elements as Robin's but elaborated in a different direction -- especially since (as Keen admits on p. 50) Fulk was a nobleman seeking noble position; Robin was a yeoman trying to survive a justice system which did not respect him.
As Cawthorne says on p. 120, "Certainly Robin of Locksley, the dispossessed earl of Huntington, bears a closer similarity to Fulk FitzWarren than he does to the Robin Hood of the ballads."
Like the tales of Hereward and Eustace, there is only one copy (British Library, Royal MS. 12.C.XII) of the romance of Fulk (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 687), which is in Anglo-Norman although we have a partial summary of a Middle English version (Ohlgren, p. 106). The manuscript, which is clarly not the original was written in the first half of the thirteenth century, making it clearly older than the "Gest."
We've already mentioned the romance of Gamelyn, which is perhaps from around 1350 (Holt1, p. 71). Pollard, pp. 13-14, suggests that the Tale of Gamelyn is a sort of a link between the Robin Hood tales and the aristocratic romances; CHEL1, p. 298, offers it as an example of native English romance without French influence and calls it "As You Like It" without Rosalind or Celia, adding tht Thomas Lodge used it as the basis of a novel.
Gamelyn was the youngest of three brothers. When his father died, the oldest brother seeks to dispossess Gamelyn, who is still a minor. Gamelyn rebels and flees to the greenwood with the sheriff in pursuit. His brother then becomes sheriff, and Gamelyn submits but is condemned along with the middle brother. Gamelyn and his outlaws then free the middle brother, kill the eldest, and are pardoned by the King, who appoints Gamelyn a royal official (Baldwin, p. 178).
"Gamelyn" helped inspire, at several removes, Shakespeare's "As You LIke It.
The parallels to the Robin Hood story are obvious; Gamely kills the sheriff (in this case, his brother), and he is pardoned by the King -- but "Gamelyn" is largely about family dynamics (a topic of intense interest to the aristocracy), not outlawry. Plus the tale of Gamelyn is extremely violent -- at least as violent as the "Monk" or "Guy of Gisborne," and over a longer period; it is much more bloody than the "Gest," where Robin only uses actual violence when attacked by the sheriff.
There are textual similarities between the "Gest" and "Gamelyn"; both are in rhymed couplets (although Gamelyn has shorter lines; it almost seems to hint at Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse) and they open with similar sterotyped invocations (see the first line in Sands, p. 156).
It is far from clear how popular "Gamelyn" actually was; it owes its survival to an odd chance. In the Canterbury Tales, the Cook's Tale is only a stub; either Chaucer never finished it (the more likely explanation) or his intended tale has been lost. Some scribe, sensing a need, plugged in the Tale of Gamelyn (Chaucer/Benson, p. 1125, although Sands, p. 154, and CHEL1, p. 298, mention with approval Skeat's suggestion that Chaucer might have planned to convert it into a tale for the Yeoman; perhaps it was among his papers). This means we have dozens of copies of Gamelyn, but odds are that every copy derives from the original manuscript copied into the Canterbury Tales.
In "Robin Hood Newly Revived" [Child 128], Robin welcomes Young Gamwell into his band; Sands, p. 155, suggests that Gamwell is Gandelyn.
These four romances -- Hereward, Fulk, Eustace, and Gandelyn -- are the tales most often linked to the "Gest." But these are not the only romances which share elements with the "Gest." We should also note several links between the "Gest" and the Gawain legend. Child's "A" version of the late ballad "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine' [Child 145] goes so far as to state that SIr Richard Lee comes from "Gawiin's blood" (stanza 22; cf. Holt1, p. 164), but this is too late to have any value.
The list of common elements is long, although none of the parallels are close. Robin's refusal to eat dinner before something interesting happens(Stanzas 6-7) is also found in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." Gawain, like Robin, has a strong reliance on the Virgin Mary (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xxi.) The fragmentary romance of "The Turk and Gawain" hints at a hitting game such as the "pluck-buffet" of Stanza 424. And Hahn, p. 26, notes that more than half his Gawain tales "begin with a forest episode." Hahn suggests that these were interludes to, in effect, let the audience settle into their seats -- but it would be no great stretch to create a romance which never left the greenwood.
Hall, pp. 12-13, observes that, although the Gawain tales seem mostly to have been committed to writing in the fifteenth century, the equipment they describe is mostly fourteenth century -- the era of the three Edwards, and hence the presumed era of the "Gest."
In referring to the Gawain romances, Hall, p. 10, says that four of his seven romances are in Scottish dialect, and five of seven are set in Inglewood or Carlisle. Hahn, whose definition of a "Gawain romance" is distinctly broader, notes on p. 4 n. 6 that seven of his Gawain works are set in Carlisle but that only five other Middle English romances, all with some Arthurian links, even mention Carlisle! And Gawain was said to be the son of the King of Orkney, who was also Lord of Lothian near the Anglo-Scottish border (Hahn, p. 4). Was Gawain some sort of local hero in Cumbria or Northumbria? Obviously this is close to Robin Hood's haunts.
Child called Robin Hood "a popular Gawain" because of his courtesy (a remark which seems to have been noticed only by Gummere, p. 314), but he did not pursue the matter. Still, courtesy is a key component of both the Gawain cycle and of the "Gest" (see the note on Stanza 2). It seems reasonable to assume that the author of the "Gest" was familiar with the various Gawain stories floating around the north of England, and that they influenced his writing.
Clawson, in fact, compares the compiler of the "Gest' to the Gawain/Pearl poet (Clawson, p. 128). This is about like comparing Spike Jones to Stephen Foster -- too absurd even for consideration. But it is another token of the similarities in genre.
The "Greenwood Legend" is such a broad term that is can hardly be considered a source; it is more a theme. But English tales of a forest as a refuge go back at least to "Beowulf," where we find people using it to hide from the dragon (Young, 2). Young (p. 164) firmly declares that the Robin Hood legends can only be understood in the light of the forest laws -- although he also says on p. 170 that the conflicts over the forest were between the King and the nobles, not the upper and lower classes.
The "King in Disguise" is a commonplace now best known from the (later) tale of the Scottish King James V, but which also occurred in a late Middle Scots romance, "The Taill of Rauf Coilyear," which is probably from about the same time as the "Gest" (Sands, p. 2).
Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 2-3, and Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 12, point out that the "truth or consequences" game of outlaws asking travellers how much they have, and being robbed only if they lie, is also found in the tales of Eustac(h)e the Monk (where the Abbot of Jumieges claims to have four marks but turns out to have 30; Baldwin, p. 38; Cawthorne, p. 126) and Fulk FitzWarren.
The reconciliation with the king motif is found in the tales of Fulk and of Hereward the Wake.
The Outlaw in Disguise, used especially in the "Potter" and in "Guy" but also implicit in Robin's and Little John's dealings with the Sheriff (cf. Holt1, p. 35), is found, in much fuller form, in the tales of Eustace, Fulk, and Hereward.
Several sources even compare Robin to William Wallace, especially as portrayed after the fact by Blind Harry, who makes Wallace a great archer (Baldwin, pp. 39-40; Keen, pp. 75-76). But Blind Harry is more recent than the earliest reports of Robin Hood.
Less often mentioned as a possible source, but with real parallels to the story of Robin and the King, are the stories of "King Edward and the Hermit" and "King Edward and the Shepherd," with the former being particularly interesting. It exists in only one copy, in Codex Ashmole 61, and that is defective at the end (Shuffleton, paragraph 1). Ashmole 61 is of the fifteenth century (Sisam, p. 13), meaning that it was probably written within a few decades of the composition of the "Gest." And the manuscript's contents are very intriguing; it also has copies of "Sir Orfeo" and other romances such as "Sir Isumbras" and "Sir Cleges," plus several dozen other miscellaneous items.
We also note that a copy of "King Edward and the Shepherd" is found in the same manuscript as "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119] (Dobson/Taylor, p. 9), MS. Cambridge Ff. 5.48 (a fact that Child curiously failed to mention).
"King Edward and the Hermit" is summarized on pp. 418-423 of Briggs-DIctionary. In the story, the king is on a hunting party (in Sherwood no less), and gets lost, and meets a hermit who does not recognize him and eventually treats him to a meal of the King's own deer. In the end. presumably, the hermit goes to the court and the king is revealed (Shuffleton, paragraphs 2-3).
Child prints relatives of this tale under the title "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" [Child 173], but the Ashmole version, in which the King is an anonymous Edward, seems to me to fall closer to the "Gest" in feel as well as in date, and is long enough to count as a romance rather than a ballad -- Shuffleton prints it in twelve-line stanzas (although the aabccbddeffe rhyme scheme is far more complex than the "Gest"), and it is 520 lines long, implying a total length of probably about 600-700 lines. My guess is that "King Edward and the Hermit" and "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" are a romance-and-ballad pair, similar to "Sir Orfeo" and "King Orfeo" or "King Horn" and "Hind Horn." So the compiler of the "Gest" very possibly knew this other romance of a King Edward.
There is also a version of this, known as "John the Reeve," found in the Percy Folio; according to Clawson, pp. 107-108, Edward I is the hero of this version. But the plot is generic to tales of this type and could apply to any king. Clawson, pp. 109-111, cites several other tales of the type, but most of these are either too late to be relevant or are tales unlikely to have been known in northern England (e.g. one is about Charlemagne).
Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 148-149, classes all of these as "Tke King and the Subject," a genre name going back to Child, and observes that the king of "King Edward and the Shepherd" is clearly Edward III, while the "Tanner of Tamworth" is of course referred to the reign of Edward IV. The lineage of these poems may be one of the reasons why the "Gest" sets itself in the reign of a King Edward. But, treated collectively, the "King and Subject" tales are an amalgam of many reigns -- and many Edwards.
We might hypothesize that there was a romance, now lost, of Ranulf Earl of Chester which also contributed to the "Gest." This would make sense in the light of Langland's link between Robin and Ranulf (discussed extensively below), but unless it should somehow come to light, this remains pure speculation. Still, one story of Ranulf sounds a little like a part of the story of Robin and the knight: Ranulf was leading an army into Wales, but in the face of superior forces had to take refuge in Rothelan castle. He was rescued by a crowd of locals, supposedly led by minstrels (Wilson, pp. 128-129). We have this tale only from a rather fictional-sounding chronicle (Dugdale's Baronage); perhaps there is a more Robin Hood-like version in the original source.
Some of the aspects of the "outlaw tale" may predate the Norman Conquest and go back to Old Norse elements. IcelandicFaulkesJohnston, p. xxv, says that "there are some similarities between the outlaw sagas of Iceland and English outlaws like Robin Hood." If these actually go back to common roots, they would almost have to stem from the period of the Danish invasions of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries.
IcelandicFaulkesJohnston, p. xxv, makes the interesting observation that "Although Gisli spends his outlawry in solitude or being sheltered by his wife, and Grettir on remote heathland or island with an occasional male companion, and they only occasionally attract other outlaws, Hord gathers together a band of outlaws and lives with his wife and children in a community with a hierarchy resembling that of society in general. Both Gisli and Grettir employ tricks to escape their enemies, often disguising themselves or impersonating other people, and Grettir, like Robin Hood, attends assemblies of his people in disguise, obtaining safe-conduct from them, and competing in games (which he of course wins). Grettir, again like Robin Hood, manages to get on good terms with the king (of Norway), though he fails to become integrated back into society."
The analogies between Robin and the Biblical King David perhaps don't get enough attention from folklorists. Like Robin, David was regarded as a mannered outlaw -- according to the Bible, he never raided Israel, but only Geshurites and Girzites and Amalekites and other non Hebrews (1 Samuel 27:8-10, although few Biblical scholars actually believe this). He remained loyal to his king, having refrained from killing Saul when he had the chance (there are two versions of this, in 1 Samuel 24 and 26). Like Robin, David was famous for piety. Even the story of Nabal, Abigail, and David (1 Samuel 25) has some parallels to the tale in the "Potter," although the differences are too great for them to be truly considered related.
We should remember that, although literacy was becoming more widespread in the time the "Gest" was written, for many centuries the only people who could read and write were clergy, and what they read was mostly the (Latin Vulgate) Bible. The authors who wrote this tale would certainly have a lot of Biblical stories and quotations stored up in their heads.
The other religious element underlying the "Gest" is the form known as the "Miracles of the Virgin." The best-known English example of this is Chaucer's Prioress's Tale (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 306). In this, a young boy neglects his other studies to give all his attention to learning a song of the Virgin Mary, which he is able to sing beautifully. A group of Jews, despising the singing, cut his throat and throw his body away. But -- here is the miracle -- even having taken a death wound, the boy continues to sing the Virgin's song. As a result, he is found, the Jews are punished, and the boy finally given release and taken to heaven.
It is sometimes claimed that "Brown Robyn's Confession" [Child 57] is a Miracle of the Virgin (Wimberly, p. 381), but it would better be described as a song offering the possibility of such a miracle than one in which it actually happens.
Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 152-153, and Clawson, p. 31, offer a parallel to this tale from the Vernon MS. (Bodleian MS. Eng. poet.a.1), "The Merchant's Surety," in which one Theodorus seeks a loan from a Jew, Abraham, offering the Virgin Mary as guarantee. An image of Mary reveals gold hidden by Abraham from Theodorus. (For more on this, see the note on Stanza 65.) Clawson, pp. 35-36, also points to the German tale of "Schimpf und Ernst," which is much like the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Monk, but is not a Miracle of the Virgin; again, see the note on Stanza 65.
Clawson, pp. 25-30, notes a number of tales in which making a loan to a man with poor security is rewarded supernaturally, although not all of these are Miracles of the Virgin. One of these, described on p. 26, describes an instance, similar to the "Gest," in which the creditor is paid back twice, once rather miraculously -- but it is an Arabic tale that surely is not a source of the "Gest." His next two examples are Arabic and Russian. The only one of his examples which might be an actual source is a variant of "The Merchant's Surety."
Chaucer/Benson, p. 913, notes that Miracles of the Virgin were often violently anti-Semetic (like the tale in Chaucer). Yet, here again, our poet has transformed the type. We still see a conflict between religious groups -- but the conflict is not between Christians and Jews, it is between true Catholics and the wealthy church hierarchy.
The "Gest" may also have some elements derived from stories of actual historical outlaws. There is a genuine tale of a man who gave support to a King of England while based in the woods. Early in the reign of the boy king Henry III, the French were occupying much of southeast England. Most of the barons who opposed the invasion were of course in the north and west -- but in the heart of the Rrench-occupied territory was the great forest of the Weald. William of Kensham, a local bailiff, organized resistance to the French in the forest, and came to be known as "Williken of the Weald" (Powicke, p. 10). He played a significant part in the expulsion of the French, and I wonder if this might not have vaguely influenced the tale of Robin.
Baldwin, pp. 104-106, mention a band of criminals, the Coterels, who lived in the early to mid fourteenth century; they were active during the reign of Edward III, and according to Bellamy "poached, ambushed, had a spy in Nottingham, ill-treated clerics, were pursued by bounty hunters and the sheriff, operated in Sherwood, entered royal service, had as an ally a member of the gentry who had lost his inheritance [Sir Williiam Aune], and were pardoned by the King" (quoted by Baldwin, p. 111; see also Dobson/Taylor, p. 27).
On the other hand, Cawthorne, p. 196, says that Sir Richard Ingram, sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, was in league with them, which doesn't sound much like Robin Hood!
Dobson/Taylor, pp. 27-28, although mentioning the Folvilles and the Coterels, think a closer parallel to Robin Hood is the band which William Beckwith led in Knaresborough forest in Lancashire in the period 1387-1392. Bellamy had much to say about this group, but of course their date is very late -- after Langland's first mention of Robin Hood.
Dobson/Taylor, p. 28, add that there is one very strong difference between the Robin Hood cycle and the actual outlaws: "the early Robin Hood ballads lack the theme of feuding between neighbours which seem to have been such a dominant element in the exploits of fourteenth-century gangs."
Keen, p. 101, regards the "Gest" as a combination of elements from four other ballads or tales, which he titles "Robin Hood and the Knight," "Robin Hood, Little John and the Sheriff," "Robin Hood and the King," and "Robin Hood's Death." He derives this list from Child (page 42), slightly changing the name of the first. Except for the last, they do not correspond to any extant ballads, although some of them were imitated in the later legends. Keen also notes that, for all its length, the "Gest" opens with Robin already in the greenwood; he simply appears there, almost like a wood sprite. There is no early legend of where Robin came from.
Pollard's list of components of the "Gest," on p. xvi, is "Robin Hood and the Knight," "Robin Hood and the Sheriff," " Little John and the Sheriff" (a tale which he suggests is for comic relief; p. 6) "Robin Hood and the King," and "The Death of Robin Hood."
Brandl sees three different components, consisting (according to Clawson, p. 7 n. 4) of fits I+II+IV, V+VI, and III+VII+VIII -- which we might perhaps call "Robin and the Knight," "Robin and the Archery Contest," and "Little John, the Sheriff, Robin, and the King."
Holt1, pp. 24-25, suggests that the "Gest" is based on at least two cycles, one being the account of the indebted knight and the other being the rest -- although Lord, p. 206, reminds us that even the creators of modern epics often produce tales which are episodic, with stories of the same hero all being jumbled together. He cites as an early English example the case of "Beowulf," with the episodes of Grendal and the Dragon. On p. 13, Lord explicitly contrasts the performers of epics with those of folk singers (although, we should note, an epic is not precisely the same as a romance -- and Lord was not speaking of actual folk singers anyway but of professionals who called themselves "folk" performers.)
Clawson digs even deeper than the other scholars, seeking to identify individual ballads which became components of the "Gest." His analysis strikes me as too detailed -- he assumes too many ballads which have the same form as the "Gest." But some of them may be real:
* A ballad of Robin Hood and the Knight, in which Robin, upon learning of the Knight's difficulties, pays his debts (Clawson, p. 24, 41), which forms the primary basis of the first fit.
* A possible tale of the knight going to Calvary and/or repaying the Abbot (Clawson, p. 42), which is the main element of the second fit, although Clawson was not certain this was in ballad form. He does suggest that there was, at minimum, a ballad about a knight on crusade (Clawson, p. 44). He says on p. 125 that the compiler treated it very freely, and compares it to "The Heir of Linne" [Child 267].
* A ballad about a wrestling (Clawson, p. 47), which underlies the wrestling at the end of the second fit. This may be somehow related to the tale of Gamelyn (Clawson, p. 48).
* A ballad about someone infiltrating an enemy's household, which underlies the tale of Little John becoming a servant of the Sheriff and then convincing the cook to desert at the beginning og the third fit (Clawson, pp. 63-64).
* A ballad about a robber in disguise tricking a high official into the forest and then robbing him, which underlies the tale of Little John tricking the sheriff with the tale of the green hart at the end of the third fit (Clawson, p. 75). He also suggests a "Robin Hood Meets His Match" ballad was used here (Clawson, p. 126).
* A ballad of Robin Hood robbing two monks, which in the "Gest" is turned into a tale of Robin robbing the High Cellarer (Clawson, pp. 19-20), which is the primary source of the fourth fit (Clawson, pp. 23-24, 41).
* A ballad of Robin Hood and his men participating in a shooting contest in Nottingham, being recognized, and fighting their way out (Clawson, p. 80), which provided the bulk of the fifth fit. He compares this not only to the tale of Fulk but of William Wallave.
* A ballad of Robin Hood organizing a rescue and killing the Sheriff, which occupies most of the sixth fit from stanza 329 on (Clawson, p. 86). Clawson, pp. 86-87, notes that many of the elements of this are similar to "Robin Hood Rescuing Three Squires [Child 140]," although that song contains many details not found in the "Gest." Clawson also notes on p. 89 a similarity to the story of Wulric the Heron, an ally of Hereward the Wake, as well as of Gamelyn's rescue of his brother Ote. These are, however, parallels of theme only, with no detailed similarities.
* A ballad in which the Sheriff places a price on Robin's head (Clawson, p. 96). Clawson does not attribute any portion of the "Gest" to this ballad but hypothesizes it to explain the enmity between the two. That there was such a tradition seems likely; there is no evidence that it was in ballad form.
* Some sort of ballad about Robin and the King (Clawson, p. 119), probably built around a visit to the royal court (Clawson, p. 127).
* The tale of Robin Hood's Death, which he merely excerpts to provide the last half-dozen verses (Clawson, pp. 123-124).
* In addition, Clawson posits elements which he does not claim existed in ballad form: The tale of a miraculous repayment of a loan (Clawson, p. 36), an exemplum about the Virgin Mary (Clawson, p. 38).
All of these sections have at least some stanzas by the compiler of the "Gest." In all, he attributes all or parts of stanzas 1-16, 44-61, 69-78, 80-85, 126-134, 143, 144, 150-153, 205-207, 253-254, 266-269, 276-280, 281, 309-328, 354-364 (see list on pp. 125-127 of Clawson). But Clawson, p. 86, suggests that only one major section -- stanzas 309-328, in which the Knight takes Robin Hood into his castle, thus setting up the confrontation with the King -- is a really independent part of the "Gest" supplied by the compiler.
There are two problems withClawson's view. One is primarily a matter of terminology: The sections he claims are from "ballads" often include stanzas with highly irregular meter. These can hardly be from ballads as we would understand the term, although they could well be from metrical romances, where the metrical rules are looser. The other problem is that his hypothesis simply requires too many sources. Holt2, p. 200 n. 11, says cautiously, "Clawson may have been a little to ready to multiply the number of separate components which must have underlain the Gest and to assume that those components already took the form of ballads." I would go farther: To postulate as many different ballads as he does is possible but too complicated to be convincing.
(In Clawson's defence, he was simply following in a venerable tradition that goes all the way back to the great Karl Lachmann's analysis of Homer, which also split that epic into smaller oral pieces; Lord, p. 10. Lachmann was a great textual critic, perhaps the greatest innovator in that field. As a folklorist... eh....)
Personally, I agree with Keen: there are at least four different parts, which (with the exception of the story which became "Robin Hood's Death") survive largely intact in the "Gest" but with a little glue to hold them together. This is not necessarily incompatible with Holt's two-source hypothesis, because the five component stories could have been gathered into smaller cycles. The one thing that we must keep in mind is that any particular feature we find might come from the source or the compiler or from some other stage in this complex history.
If it be objected that this scheme is incredibly complex and that this use of sources is more than a composer could normally juggle, it is worth noting that the Odyssey -- universally acclaimed as one of the greatest of epic poems -- is generally considered to be just such as composite, combining multiple sources in a continuous narrative (Finley, p. 35). The difference lies not in the nature of the combination but in the skill with which the elements were combined.
WHAT THE GEST REPRESENTS
Comparisons of Robin to other figures of folklore can be tricky. Robbers are just robbers -- but Keen, p. 128, suggests that the Robin Hood of legend, from the very start, was completely unlike an outlaw such as Dick Turpin or Jesse James: Robin "was the enemy of the existing order, not a parasite on it." Similiarly, Cawthorne, p. 71, says that he represented anarchy in the May Games -- "a rebel against the normal order of things." On this basis he allegedly acted as a control on social unrest. (Although we should note that Pollard, p. 109, declares that Robin uses "righteous violence to maintain true justice precisely when the officers of the law have failed." Pollard, pp. 157-158, follows Hobsbawm in seeing Robin as the "Noble Robber." It is hard to deny that this is what the Robin Hood tale became, but it is far less clear in the ballads than in modern folklore.)
Perhaps it would be clearer to say that Robin stood outside the existing order than that he was its enemy, but he was certainly something unusual. Jones-Larousse, p. 371 goes so far as to maintain that "it seems likely that he is an entirely fictitious character, in whom was embodied the rebellious disquiet during the turbulent years from the end of the 12th century, which culminated in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381." Keen, in his chapter "The Outlaw Ballad as an Expression of Peasant Discontent," also invokes (pp. 166-167) Wat Tyler's 1381 rebellion, although he does not mention Robin Hood in this immediate context, and on p. 173 denies a direct connection. Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 144, even compares him with the later rebel Jack Cade.
Holt objected to the connection on the grounds that Robin was a northern hero, with no connection with the southern rebels, and Dobson/Taylor, p. 30, agree. In any case, we know from Langland that the legend was already in existence in some form. We might even speculate that later poets wanted to explicity deny a connection between Robin and Wat Tyler -- Tyler, after all, failed to accomplish anything.
Ashley, p. 86, believes Robin represents a different sort of protest: "Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest was to become a popular hero because he defied the forest laws."
But to create a legend needs more than a feeling of discontent. John Ball, who actually preached the sort of message that Jones-Larousse describes (Ball's catch phrase was "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?"), is barely remembered -- and, as Dobson/Taylor point out on p. 32, "The strong sense of Christian fraternity expressed in the mysterious letters (possibly written by ohn Ball)... has left little imprint on the outlaw ballads.". Similarly, the Lollards, who represented many of these same ideals and who were as much against wealthy clerics as was Robin, never had any great success.
Some moderns have even more extreme speculations -- to then, Robin became a wood spirit: "Robin Hood, whom modern criticism has transformed from a forester into a forest elf, a kinsman of Herne the Hunter. It can hardly be considered a dry or destructive criticism which thus metamorphoses Robin Hood and Maid Marian into Oberon and Titania!" (Garnett/Gosse, p. 305). Child (p. 47) mentions a scholar who claimed he was a manifestation of Woden, the Anglo-Germanic chief god, and CHEL1, p. 218, says explicitly that in the period around 1200 "the ancient figure of Woden was being slowly metamorphosed into the attractive Robin Hood." Pollard, p. 78, mentions scholars who have equated him with figures of legend such as the Green Man, or even Robin Goodfellow! Frye, p. 196, proposes that "The characters who elude the moral antithesis of heroism and villainy generaly are or suggest spirits of nature....Kipling's Mowgli is the best known of the wild boys; a green man lurked in the forests of medieval England, appearing as Robin Hood and the knight of Gawain's adventure."
If you think that's bad, consider this: Wilgus, p. 315, mentions a whole movement -- the "Cambridge School" -- which make the claim that Robin was "the grand master of a witch coven and therefore the survival of a pagan god."
Happily, Child declared (p. 48) that he could not 'admit... even the shadow of a case" for any such interpretation. Similarly Anderson, pp. 147-148: "Efforts to attach Robin Hood to the tradition of the Huntington family or of the family of Ralph [sic.] of Chester. as well as efforts to give him a purely mythological kinship with Woden, come to nothing." As a result, this sort of silliness has largely faded.
Much more likely is W. E. Simone's conclusion, quoted on p. 316 of Wilgus: "A historic figure may be at the matrix, and he may wear the tatters of a god, but certainly the legend has been built, ballad by ballad, overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, by the ballad maker. His imagination wove a rich diversity into the ballads which, surprisingly enough, will support almost any theory for the origin of the great English outlaw."
As Wilgus summarizes on pp. 316-317, "Simone has restored Robin Hood to his rightful place in a pattern, not of ritual myth, but of the outlaw from before Hereward the Saxon to Jesse James and beyond -- "a story that has been created before and will undoubtedly be created again." Pringle, p. 14, is even more succinct: "The psychology of Robin Hood is very plain. There was no Robin Hood, so it was necessary to invent one."
(It appears, in fact, that one recounting of the Jesse James story actually borrowed from the "Gest." It was told by Homer Croy in 1949, and is found on pp. 79-81 of Dellinger. The James Gang came upon a woman who was about to lose her land. They give her the money to redeem the property, tell her to get the receipt, then as the mortgage agent leaves her land, rob him and take the $800. Note that this not only is the basic plot of the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Monk in the "Gest," but the sum of money involved even matches, in a different currency, that stolen from the Monk!)
The audience of the tales has been much debated. The very first line of the "Gest" calls on "gentilmen" to listen to it (pointed out by Pollard, p. 173), yet follows that up by speaking of those of freeborne blood -- much more likely to be a reference of yeomen and guildsmen than the aristocracy or gentry. And CHEL1, p. 276, observes that our surviving medieval epics gradually become more popular: "Beowulf was composed for persons of quality, Havelok [the Dane] for the common people."
Dobson/Taylor, p. 10, declare that "'yeoman minstrelsy' remains the most appropriate description for the Gest" as well as the two other earliest poems, the "Monk" and the "Potter" -- but they hardly explain the term; as Holt1, p. 110, declares, "the words leave much to be defined."
Dobson/Taylor add on p. 32 that "An unprejudiced reading of the Gest leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the outlaw leader's famous acts of liberality derive less from any notion of social distribution of wealth than from the aristocratic virtues of largesse and display," which seems to imply an audience of people trying to climb the social ladder. But they go on to add on p. 33 that "in the last resort it is the differences between Robin Hood and his counterparts [such as Hereward the Wake and Fulk] rather than their similarities which deserve most attention." Robin, they point out, shows no desire to take a high place in the legitimate social hierarchy. This even though, we should note, he is described as having enough money and followers to be a baron (see the notes on stanzas 49 and 229).
Holt1, p. 128, believes the legend as a whole was addressed to the various clerks and other officials of feudal households, many of whom would have borne the title "yeoman." Yet he also notes that Robin Hood plays were at least known to, and very likely performed before, the Pastons (Holt1, p. 142) -- who were of the gentry, and fairly substantial even by the standards of that class. He also has a throwaway comment, on p. 157, that the tales were targeted to "young men without responsibility" (this on the basis of the lack of women in the early stories).
Ohlgren suggests, p. 220, that the target audience of the "Gest" was the rising class of merchants and guildsmen. Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 25, claims that "another ideological subtext promotes the interests of the London guilds by portraying Robin as a cloth merchant. The poem, I believe, was originally commissioned in the mid-to-late fifteenth century... [for use] at the election dinner of one of London's major cloth guilds."
The logic strikes me as a stretch -- yes, there are some points of contact between Robin's acts and the behavior of the guilds. But Robin is too much the critic of society for him to be a close fit with the guilds. The lack of business-like language in the "Gest" is no proof, since most of the modern terms such as "profit" did not come into English until quite late (Shippey, p. 85) -- but Robin doesn't *think* like a merchant, as his refusal to make a profit on his dealings with the Knight show. The contacts Ohlgren sees arise, I think, because the "Gest" poet came from a mercantile background, not because they were his audience.
Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 26-27, also mentions a widespread belief that Robin Hood plays and legends were an "outlet valve" created by the upper classes to keep the lower classes from getting out of hand. This strikes me as even more improbable -- for one thing, the many ballads in which a lord marries a commoner seem to imply that the primary goal of the lower classes was to move up the social scale, not overthrow it. And would even the stupidest lord be tempted to give his villeins encouragement to run off? I strongly doubt it.
Pollard, although pointing out on p. 29 that the "Potter" is clearly written for a yeoman audience, on p. xi, suggests that from a very early time the legend "appealed to both gentry and the commons. There are elements of both chivalric romance and lewd ribaldries" in the extant materials. He suggests on pp. 8-9 that the "Potter," the "Monk," and "Guy of Gisborne" were addressed to common people, but that different portions of the "Gest" were addressed to gentle and humble audiences.
Anderson, p. 148, says that "Robin Hood is, in his prime, a fine archer and woodsman; he is something of a socialist, even a communist; he is an outlaw, but a beloved outlaw who represents the commoner's itch for opportunity at the expense of his feudal masters. He is decent, self-respecting, and chivalrous (though not chivalric); he is God-fearing, devout, but carefree; he has, in short, all the middle-class virtues." This obviously would seem to imply a middle-class (yeoman) audience.
Ohlgren, on p. 112 of Ohlgren/Matheson, suggests that the "Gest" has a "pro-Yorkist bias" and so would have appealed to the Yorkist exiles in France and Burgundy in the period after Richard III was overthrown in 1485. There were Yorkist exiles, of course, and it is not impossible that the Lettersnijder edition was produced for them -- but I'm somewhat pro-Yorkist myself, and I completely fail to see evidence of a "Yorkist bias" in the "Gest." And, if the Tudors had seen even a hint of such a thing, how could so many printers working under the Tudors (Pynson, de Word, Copland, and -- if Ohlgren is right -- Goes and Notary) have produced editions?
It is obvious that printers of the period thought the tale would appeal to an educated audience; were it not so, the "Gest" would not have been printed. The fact that it was printed, and repeatedly, proves that either the business classes or the aristocracy read it. The initial invocation also sounds rather like that in a lot of the romances, hinting at al attempt to appeal to the sasme audience. Still, it seems likely that it originated with the people. It seems even more likely, as Knight/Ohlgren observe on p. 82, that the ultimate audience was mixed.
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF ROBIN HOOD
Other than the ballads, the first literary reference to Robin Hood -- and the first source to explicitly treat him as a figure of legend -- is in Langland's Piers Plowman. In the "B" text, Passus V, lines 395-396, we read
I kan [ken, know] noght parfitly my Paternoster as the preest it syngeth,
But I kan [ken] rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf Erl [Earl] of Chestre
(so Langland/Schmidt, p. 82, but there are no major variants in these lines -- although the numbering varies; Dobson/Taylor on p. 1. n. 1 call these lines 401-402). It is believed that this was written around 1377, at the very end of the reign of Edward III or early in the reign of Richard II, implying that by that date the Robin Hood legend had already entered the ballad tradition. In the C text, according to Dobson/Taylor, p. 1, the reference is found in passus VIII, line 11.)
There is no particular reason to think that Langland means that Robin and Ranulf of Chester were contemporary with each other. We do find a statement in the Forresters manuscript text of "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child 139] that "Randolph kept Robin fifteen winters" (Knight, p. xvii, with the actual text on p. 2), but there is no reason to think that that Randolph is the Earl of Chester (a point even Knight admits on p. 2). Even if it were, it isn't much help. Several Earls of Chester were named Ranulf, with the second and the sixth being probably the most important (Child, in his note on p. 40, seems to refer to the sixth earl).
The first Ranulf became Earl of Chester in 1121 when his uncle died in the famous sinking of the White Ship (Tyerman, p. 146). His son, the second Ranulf, succeeded to the Earldom in 1129 (Tyerman, p. 146) but did not become heavily inolved in politics until the time of King Stephen (reigned 1135-1154). Bradbury, p. 144, calls him the fourth earl of Chester, and notes on p. 175 that he died in 1153.
Warren-Henry, p. 25, says of him: "In the extent of lands he held and the number of his vassals, Earl Ranulf de Gernons eclipsed all the other barons of the realm. The marcher lordship of Cheshire was only one element, and not the most important, in an honor which embraced wide estates throughout the midlands, major holdings in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and manors scattered over most of the southern counties. In addition he held important lordships and hereditary fiefs which made him a dominating influence in western Normandy as far as the confines of Brittany."
According to Bradbury, p. 37, "Ranulf de Gernons (the mustachioed) was a vitriolic individual." During the civil war between Stephen and the rightful queen Matilda, he had reason to dislike Stephen, but generally stayed neutral -- until Stephen made an attack on his position. Ranulf called on the forces of the Empress Matilda and her half-brother Robert of Gloucester. The combined armies routed and captured Stephen (Warren-Henry, p. 26); had Matilda's behavior been even slightly more reasonable, she might have been able to assume the throne. When she failed, Ranulf went back to Stephen's side -- only to be arrested by that King (Bradbury, p. 137). This forced Ranulf back into rebellion, and prolonged the civil war -- which, until that moment, Stephen had been winning.
There is an interesting sidelights on this Ranulf. First, we know that he had an ongoing quarrel with the constable of Nottingham, William Peverel, whom he accused of poisoning him (Bradbury, p. 164).
A later Ranulf of Chester -- the "third Randle" of Child, p. 40 -- became earl in 1181 and held the dignity for half a century. He thus was active at the end of the reign of King John. He seems to be the standard nominee for Langland's earl.; Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 50, notes several other recent scholars who have accepted this link. And he does have a link of sorts with the tale of Robin Hood, since this Ranulf is mentioned in the story of Fulk FitzWarren (Knight, p. 2; Cawthorne, p. 114), which is considered a source of the "Gest." For once this is historically possible, since Ranulf was alive in the reign of King John.
Baldwin, p. 28, says that "The only thirteenth-century Randolf (more usually Ranulf), Earl of Chester, was Ranulf 'de Blundeville' (i.e. of Oswestry), who died in 1232" -- although he is honest enough to add that "it is unclear if he was associated with Robin in some way." Nor, of course, can we arbitrarily assume that Robin lived in the thirteenth century, although this is Baldwin's position.
Powicke, p. 2, observes that when the barons wished to make the Earl Marshal regent over the new King Henry III in 1216, who was still a young boy, "The marshal was reluctant. In any case he felt that they should await the coming of Ranulf de Blundevill, earl of Chester, the greatest baron of the realm." Only when Ranulf arrived did the marshal finally accept the office of protector -- although, interestingly, when an attempt was made to bring him into the Marshal's government in 1217, the barons rejected it (Jolliffe, p. 267). Eventually they drove Ranulf to the brink of rebellion (Jolliffe, p. 268; Powicke, pp. 24-25 has a confusing story of him beseiging foreigners in the Tower of London)-- which makes a certain amount of sense for an associate of Robin.
Langland/Schmidt, p. 427, thinks this is the Ranulf that Langland meant, since his note on the verse refers to the Earl who lived from 1172-1232. Langland/Goodridge, p. 274, says "The Earl of Chester may be the one who married Constance [of Brittany], the widow of Geoffrey Plantagenet and mother of Prince Arthur (Earl from 1181 to 1231). Though his exploits are known, no ballads about him have survived."
Although the ballads are lost, Wilson, p. 128, says that Dugdale's Baronage has a "long unhistorical story, ascribed to an 'old mon of Peterborough,'" of the deposition of King John, with Ranulf of Chester defeating a French invasion and crowning Henry III -- obviously something that sounds a lot like a romance.
His career was certainly ballad-worthy. How often, for instance, do you hear of a man kidnapping *his own wife*? Yet Ranulf did so (Gillingham, p. 260). When in 1199 the throne of England became vacant, he had to decide whether to support John or Ranulf's own stepson Arthur of Brittany as the new King of England -- and he chose John. Arthur's mother, Constance of Brittany, who was now his wife, obviously wasn't happy with that. She preferred to be separated from him, and to live in Brittany, while Ranulf preferred England, so he had to capture her to assert control over her (Cawthorne, p. 32; according to Tyerman, p. 333, the marriage was finally dissolved in 1199).
Late in his life, according to Tyerman, p. 334, Ranulf was a participant in the Fifth Crusade (the one that attacked Egypt). And crusaders always tended to attract romantic tales.
Apart from the mention of "rhymes of Robin Hood," there are two other comments in Langland that may have some very tangential interest to the Robin Hood legend (cf. Holt1, p. 156). In the A-text, V.234 (Langland/KnottFowler, p. 82), we read
Roberd the robbour on Reddite [making restitution] lokide.
In the B-text, V.462 (Langland/Schmidt, p. 85), this becomes
Roberd the robbere on Reddite loked.
Despite the disagreement on the spelling of "robber," (and the fact that the C-text changes "robbere" to "ryfeler"; Mustanoja, p. 62), there is no question but that Langland's Robert was one. And Robin is the diminutive of Robert. It may be coincidence -- Piers the Plowman is alliterative, and Langland may have simply wanted a name beginning with "R" -- but it is of note that this robber has the same name as Our Hero. Indeed, one manuscript actually reads "Robyn" for "Roberd" (MS. W, according to Mustanoja, p. 61; this is at Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.17, according to Langland/Schmidt, p. liv., which James, volume 1, p. 480, dates to the fourteenth century; the binding contains fifteenth century materials)
In addition, Langland mentions "Folvyles Laws" (Passus XIX, line 248 in Langland/Schmidt). According to Baldwin, pp. 107-108, and Holt1, p. 155, this is a reference to the Folville Gang, a band of robbers active in the reigns of Edward II and Edward III who in 1332 robbed a justice of the King's Bench (Baldwin, p. 106). Baldwin, p. 105, says that they eventually made peace with the authorities (perhaps because they were willing to fight for Edward III in France), and says on page 107 that they were admired in certain quarters. Despite Langland's reference, which seems to imply that "Folville Laws" were instances of "might makes right," the account of their deeds and their pardon could have influenced the Robin Hood legend.
John Ball, the hedge priest who helped incite Wat Tyler's 1381 rebellion, told his listenerds to bid "Piers Plowman go to his work and chastise wel Hobbe the Robbere" (for full text of the remark, from John Ball's Letter to the Peasants of Essex, 1381, see Sisam, pp. 160-161). Since there is at least one instance of a man being called both "Hobbehod" and "Robehod," Cawthorne, p. 40, thinks this might be a reference to Robin. It is interesting to note that the letter's salutation says it is from "Iohan Schef, som tym Seynte Marie prest of (Y)ork" -- the very religious house with which the knight of the "Gest" was involved. But Sisam's extensive notes on this verse do not link it Robin Hood; the one historical figure he cites is Robert Hales, the Treasurer of England who was killed in 1381 -- although Sisam thinks even that link unlikely. Sisam also notes that "lawless men" were called "Robert's men" starting in the fourteenth century.
Curiously, from about the same time as Langland and John Ball comes a mention of a yeoman archer, clad in much the same forest costume we see in most Robin Hood stories: lines 101, 103-105, 108 of the prologue to the Canterbury Tales read as follows (Chaucer/Benson, p. 25):
A YEMAN [yeoman] hadde he and servantz namo...
And he was clad in cote and hood of grene.
A sheef of pecok arwes, bright and kene,
Under his belt he bar ful thriftily....
And in his hand he baar a myghty bowe....
In line 118, Chaucer goes on to call the yeoman a "forster" = forester.
For the peacock feathers, see the note on stanza 132 of the "Gest." For foresters, see the note on stanza 1. On this basis, Dobson/Taylor, p. 35, suggest that "this may have been Chaucer's own portrait of Robin Hood," and Pollard seems convinced (pp. 47-48) that Chaucer's yeoman is patterned on Robin, although we of course have no proof that Robin was called a forester, or even was considered to live in the forest, at this time.
Keen also mentions a line in Troilus and Criseyde which reads "From haselwode, there joly Robin pleyde" (V.1174 in Chaucer/Benson), which Keen -- without manuscript support that I can see -- converts to "hazellwood there Jolly Robin plaid."
Keen thinks this passage a reference to Robin Hood, and Knight/Ohlgren, p. 1, call it "probably a glimpse of the outlaw at a distance." Chaucer/Benson, p. 1054, mentions the possibility but regards it as improbable, noting that "Joly Robin was a common name for a shepherd or rustic." Mustanoja, p. 64, appears to think it a reference to the French Robin-and-Marion traditions. Cawthorne, p. 31, seems to accept it as a reference to Robin, and Baldwin, p. 28, mentions it without even quoting the doubts. Chaucer/Mills, p. 274, states that it refers to the shepherd hero of "Robin and Marion" type romances. Chaucer'/Warrington's notes don't even mention Robin Hood. Chaucer/Benson and Chaucer/Warrington both think the hazelwood is a place divorced from contact with society -- an otherworld -- rather than part of the greenwood.
What is certain is that Chaucer never mentioned Robin Hood by name, though the Miller and several others in the Canterbury Tales are named Robin. However, some manuscripts *do* mention Robin. In a piece called The Reply of Friar Daw Topias (Wilson, p. 139; Chambers, p. 130) we read
And many men speken of Robyn Hood,
And shotte nevere in his bowe.
Cawthorne, p. 40, also notes this proverb in an edition of Dives and Pauper, which he cites as being a few years older than Friar Daw Topias. Dobson/Taylor, p. 2, observe that Dives was published by Pynson in 1493, but never really critically edited; it refers elsewhere to Robin Hood as a figure of song.
What Wilson believes to be a variant this proverb, minus the name of Robin, is found in Troilus and Criseyde, iii.859-861 (actually ii.861). And two manuscripts of Chaucer, H4 and Ph, make the line to refer to Robin (although neither manuscript is considered very good; Chaucer/Benson, pp. 1161-1162. Holt1, p. 141, also thinks this a de-Robinized version of the proverb).
For full discussion of this proverb, see Dobson/Taylor, p. 289. This is their section on proverbs of Robin Hood, but this appears the only true proverb of the bunch.
Robin occurs in several chronicles, but they place him in very diverse contexts. At one time it was believed he was mentioned by Fordun c. 1386 (Benet, p. 934), but Fordun's Chronicle was continued by Bower, and it is now accepted that Bower interpolated the reference to Robin (Keen, p. 177). Bower himself (c. 1445, according to Holt1, p. 40) called Robin a "famous murderer" and links him to Little John; he dates them to 1266 (reign of Henry III; Holt speculates that this might make him one of the defeated followers of Simon de Montfort; compare Keen, p. 177; Chambers, p. 130; Dobson/Taylor, p. 16; Cawthorne, p. 36).
Pollard, p. 3, makes the interesting observation that Bower's tale of Robin is not attested elsewhere. There is a Latin text in a footnote on p. 41 of Child, and a translation on p. 26 of Knight/Ohlgren. It involves Robin being trapped while hearing mass and managing to escape. Bower thus is in the odd situation of calling Robin a murderer and saying he was saved because of his religious devotion!
Baldwin, in fact, makes Bowyer's dating the basis for his whole book. He thinks Robin is based on Roger Godberd and Little John on Walter Devyas. Godberd was a rather rambunctious member of the yeomanry who fought for de Montfort, and Devyas was his ally (their biography occupies pp, 153-166 of Baldwin). The knight of the "Gest" is Sir Richard Foliot (Baldwin, p. 169), one of whose castles resembled the description of Sir Richard's in the "Gest" (Baldwin, p. 170), and who did shelter Godberd for a time (Holt1, p. 99).
The parallels to the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Abbott are impressive enough that Holt allows the possibility that Godberd's story was a source for the "Gest." Baldwin, p. 172. compares several of their actions to the events in the "Monk." They even operated in Sherwood Forest (Baldwin, p. 182).
There are difficulties, however. Even Baldwin admits, p. 168, that Roger Godberd was not known as an archer -- and, surely, if there is one thing Robin Hood must be, it is an archer! Nor was Godberd notably pious, and he had a wife and children (Baldwin, p. 174). Plus he was taken into custody in 1272 (Cawthorne, p. 152), and stayed there long enough to plead a case (Baldwin, pp. 183-184, 187). And Holt1, p. 98, observes that the association of Godberd with Sherwood was a misreading of the source manuscript; it actually reads "Charnwood."
Plus the story of Gilbert de Middleton has parallels to the story of the Knight which are about as close as those of Roger Godberd (see note on Stanza 292) -- and allow us a more consistent chronological framework. And, if the story of Roger Godberd is so carefully preserved that even the description of the Knight's castle is accurate, why does the "Gest" not tell more of the early parts of Roger Godberd's story?
I observe that Powicke's immense history of the thirteenth century never mentions Godberd. If he really did anything important enough to inspire the Robin Hood legend, that would seem unlikely.
And Baldwin, p. 172, quotes a section in Bower about Robert Hood, who was one of the rebels against Henry III -- but in a context separate from his mention of Robin Hood. Bower's information about Robert Hood may be from a historical source, but his information about Robin Hood is from legend, and there is no reason to equate the two.
Admittedly, some secondary support for Bower's date in the reign of Henry III comes from the fact that Henry, in his 1251 Assize of Arms, includes bowmen for the first time; men with property of 40 to 100 shillings were to bear a sword, dagger, and bow (Featherstone, p. 26; in the first assize, of 1181, a freeman with land worth 16 marks was supposed to have a hauberk, helmet, shield, and lance, according to Mortimer, p. 54). Thus this is the period when the longbow was first coming to prominence.
It is true that Gerald of Wales refers to what sounds like a longbow in 1188 (Baldwin, p. 46). But we are referring to English, not Welsh, use of the longbow. Even Henry III's son Edward I still took mostly spearmen when he fought in Wales in the 1280s, and archers do not seem to have been important at the great battles of Lewes and Evesham in the 1260s (Chandler/Beckett, p. 9). In any case, Lewes and Evesham were battles between the barons and Henry III; it doesn't make much sense for Robin to be a follower of Earl Simon unless he was at least of the gentry.
This does not mean that Roger Godberd's exploits could not have contributed to the general outlaw legend; they might well have. But that does not make him the Original Robin, or even a direct source.
Chandler/Beckett, p. 9, claims that it was "not until the 1330s that [longbowmen's] full value began to be recognized." This is a strong argument that Robin should be dated between about 1251 (when bows were becoming common) and 1330 (when they were all but universal).
The Scotsman Andrew de Wynton/Wyntoun (c. 1415, according to Holt1, p. 40; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, dates him c. 1420; EncycLiterature, p. 1218 gives his dates as c. 1350-c.1423) mentions Robin and John; see the note on Stanza 3. Wyntoun -- who was an old man at the time he wrote his octosyllablic chronicle, and so would probably have known had the legend arisen in recent decades (Baldwin, p. 59) dates Robin to 1283-1285 (reign of Edward I), and places him in "Ynglewode and Bernysdale" or "Ingilwode and Bernnysdaile" ("Inglewood and Barnsdale"). Keen, p. 176, thinks the mention of Inglewood, not normally associated with Robin, may be by confusion with "Adam Bell" -- although we there is no evidence that Adam's tale existed at this time.
It is interesting to note that Young, p. 118, shows a chart of forest receipts for Inglewood in the 1300s, and it reveals a decline in the 1320s, hitting bottom in 1323, followed by a sharp spike in 1324 and rising to a peak in 1328 before declining again. In the chronology below, the low point corresponds exactly to the time when Robin was most active in the greenwood, and the ascent begins the year below. Of course, the most likely explanation is that all this has to do with Edward II's wars with Scotland and the Duke of Lancaster, not with Robin Hood.
Alternately, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, suggest that the linkage of Inglewood and Barnsdale derives from the Barnsdale in Rutland, associated with the Earls of Huntingdon, who were Kings of Scotland. Except that the Scots king had lost the Huntingdon earldom a century before Wynton's time.
From about the same time is a scrap of poetry beginning
Robyn Hod in Scherewod stod,
Hodud & hathud, hosut & schod.... (Wilson, p. 140. cf. Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 18).
The fragment is only four lines, with no details, and the date of the handwriting is only a guess Baldwin, p. 28, would place it around 1410; but Wilson says only that the most likely date is early fifteenth century. Ohlgren/Matheson place in c. 1425 based on the fact that it uses linguistic forms which were just coming into use.
Dobson/Taylor, p. 18, go so far as to call it "the very first poem on the subject of Robin Hood," but it tells us nothing. Its main significance, apart from being a very early bit "ryme of Robyn Hood," lies in the fact that it places him in Sherwood (a name which is not mentioned even in the Nottingham portions of the "Gest") rather than Barnsdale. On the other hand, the mention of Sherwood is the only reason to assume the Robin Hood of this poem is the legendary outlaw.
Balancing that reference is a 1429 mention (supposedly as a legal maxim!) "Robin Hode en Bernesdale stode" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 18). Given the uncertainty of the date of the Sherwood reference, we really cannot say whether the Sherwood or Barnsdale reference is earlier.
Dobson/Taylor, p. 23, point to a chartulary of (probably) 1422 which mentions a Robin Hood's Stone; it seems to be on the same site as one of the places now known as Robin Hood's Well (in Barnsdale, on the Great North Road about four miles south of Sayles and Wentbridge).
A 1439 petition to parliament compares a certain Piers Venables to "Robyn-hode and his meyne" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 4Chambers, p. 130). The next year, we find a gang making some sort of demonstration and declaring that they were "Robynhodesmen" (Baldwin, p. 28).
A ship Robyn Hude was at Aberdeen in 1438 (Chambers, p. 131, Dobson/Taylor, p 40), although we don't know why it was so named. Perhaps vaguely linked to this is a report of an "early fifteenth century sermon" which mentions prophecies of "Thomas of Asildowne [Thomas of Ercildoune, i.e. Thomas the Rhymer] and Robyn Hoode" (Pollard, p. 163. This seems to be the only early mention of a supernatural side to Robin -- and, at that , it might not by prophecies by, but rather prophecies about, Robin. It would appear that this is the sermon mentioned by Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 50-51, which was preached to parliament by Chancellor Robert Stafford in 1433.).
Our next mention of Robin probably comes from the ballads themselves; the earliest Robin Hood ballad manuscript is "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119], which occurs in ms. Cambridge Ff. 5.48 of about 1450. Soon after, we find a dramatic fragment of the story of "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne" [Child 118] scribbled on the back of a slip of financial receipts dated 1475/6 C.E. (Note, incidentally, that Guy is *not* "Sir Guy"; he is a yeoman, not a knight.) This is not the ballad itself, but it is clearly the same story. The Complaynt of Scotland (1549), which mentions many ballads, also mentions shepherds' tales of "Robene Hode and litil ihone" (Chambers, p. 165).
A note in the margin of a reference work, Higden's Polychronicon, mentions Robin Hood as a robber. The Polychronicon was written by Ranulf (or Ralph) Higden (or Hyden, or Hygden), about whom little is known except that he probably diedi n 1364. It was a seven-book history of the world, popular enough to exist in about a hundred copies. In its original form, it seems to have ended with the year 1327, although there were continuations, including a common one taking the history to the year 1342 (Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 269). As a history, it is of slight significance, and it does not itself mention Robin Hood. But because it was so common, it would easily pick up glosses about other historical events. That seems to be the case with this particular note.
The note is not contemporary with the text; it is believed to have been written in about 1460. It gives no date and few other details, but it is written in a part of the Polychronicon dealing with the late period of Edward I's reign (implying a date for Robin c. 1295). Although the newspapers at the time made a lot of noise about the discovery of this note (Baldwin, pp. 60-61), the uncertainty about its date dramatically reduces its value. Its interest lies in the fact that it is in a history copied in England (Baldwin, p. 62). Every previous mention is either Scottish (Bower, Wyntoun, Major; see Holt1, p. 51) or literary rather than historical (Langland). (Indeed, Pollard, p. 64, makes the curious comment that, although the Robin Hood legend is clearly northern, the references to it in historical sources are all from southern England.)
During the Wars of the Roses, a certain Robin, surname unknown, led a gang in Yorkshire which supported the Earl of Warwick in 1468 (Ross-Edward, p. 119). One Robin of Redesdale raised a rebellion against Edward IV in 1469. This fellow also called himself "Robin Mend-All" (Ross-Edward, p. 126). The name is patently a disguise (Warkworth's Chronicle declares that Robin was really Sir William Conyers; Dockray, p. 69), and he was commissioned by the Earl of Warwick and other rebels, but Scott/Duncan, p. 531, calls him an "avatar" of Robin Hood, and I agree that the name seems a clear attempt to invoke Robin's legend. This marks an interesting change; in the early 1400s, rebels called themselves "Jack' -- in 1450, it was Jack Cade, and a rebel of the 1430s called himself Jack Sharp (Wolffe, p. 66).
On the other hand, another rebel of the period was called Robin of Holderness, and although Holt1, p. 58, links both Robin of Redesdale and Robin of Holderness with Robin Hood, the rebel of Holderness had few Robin Hood characteristics; it seems much more likely that "Robin" was just a common name for "ordinary folks." Note, however, the fact that Little John in stanza 149 of the "Gest" claims to be from Holderness.
It is fascinating to note that Robin of Redesdale's rebellion prompted Edward IV to come north to try to suppress him (Ross-Edward, p. 129), just as the king in the "Gest" came north to deal with Robin Hood. Edward, in fact, seems to have based himself at Nottingham for a time (Ross-Edward, p. 131). And, somewhat later, Edward formally pardoned Conyers/Robin (Ross-Edward, p. 144).
Edward IV's attempt to deal directly with Robin of Redesdale was, however, a complete flop; Redesdale was an open rebel, and Edward's attempt to suppress him never got off the ground; Edward in fact was captured soon after by the Earl of Warwick and temporarily removed from power (Ross-Edward, p. 133). And Redesdale beat forces sent by Edward to deal with him at the battle of Edgecote (Dockray, p. 65)
At least, that is the best reconstruction we can give today. Our historical sources for this period are extremely poor (Ross-Edward, pp. 130-131). Ross-Edward devotes an appendix to the sources for the various Robin-the-rebels (pp. 439-440), noting that they are so confused that different scholars have proposed four different explanations:
1. That there was a single rebellion, by Robin of Redesdale;
2. That there was a single rebellion, bu Robin of Holderness (or "Robert Hulderne");
3. That there were two rebellions, one by Redesdale and one by Holderness;
4. (and this is the one that Ross tentatively follows) That there were three rebellions, by Redesdale, by Holderness, and a revived rebellion by Redesdale. Reid, pp. 431-432, has a variant on this in which Robin of Holderness came first, then Robin of Redesdale, who was "suppressed" but then revived his rebellion.
About all we can say for certain is that one of the rebellions seemed to invoke Robin Hood.
At almost this same time, Child notes a mention of Robin Hood in the Paston Letters (1473) -- the legend inspired one or more Paston servants (the stableboy W. Wood, according to Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 57; Holt1, p. 142, mentions a "Kothye Plattyng") to run off to Barnsdale! It may be that the servant was inspired by that play of Guy of Gisborne; it has been suggested that the play came from the Paston correspondence (Dobson/Taylor, p. 204; Pollard, pp. 12, 164), and the glue on the back of the paper seems to imply that it was extracted from a larger collection of materials (Cawthorne, p. 68). Dobson/Taylor, p. 18, suggest that Paston's reference to Barnsdale is a joke, but it still links Robin with Barnsdale.
(It is interesting to note that the two earliest Robin Hood manuscripts, Cambridge MS. Ff.5.48 containing "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119] and Cambridge MS. E.e.4.35 containing "Robin Hood and the Potter" [Child 121], was owned by someone who gave the Latin version of his name as Ricardo Calle, whom Ohlgren believes was Richard Call, a servant of the Pastons of Norfolk (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 21). Thus we have four substantial Paston links to Robin Hood: The "Monk," the "Potter," the play of Guy, and the servant who ran away. It seems Robin was very well known in the Paston area of Norfolk by the 1460s.)
The Tollet Window, mentioned above in connection with Friar Tuck, is only one of many pieces of evidence showing that, by the late fifteenth century, Robin Hood was a character in the May games -- Holt2, p. 194, thinks that this was how most people knew him around 1500. And most scholars, including Dobson/Taylor, p. 41 and Holt1, p. 160, think this is how he came to be associated with Maid Marian.
The first known instance of Robin in the games comes from Exeter in 1427 (Keen, p. 228),. But, except that he was a bowman associated with Little John, little can be learned from these early games. Although we do read that Robin collected tolls for the games, which might link to the notion of robbery (so Holt2, pp. 195-196). Supposedly playing the role of Robin Hood was very popular, and men had to wait years for the chance, at least in the town of Yeovil (Cawthorne, p. 70).
Pollard, p. 91, seems to suggest that the revival of the forest laws under Henry VII Tudor (reigned 1485-1509) would have renewed interest in that most noteworthy of poachers, Robin Hood -- which might be why the "Gest" was printed at least twice around this time. But the number of mentions of Robin in the century before 1485 rather reduces the force of this argument.
The Scotsman Gavin Douglas in 1501 mentions "Roene Hude, and Gilbert with the quhite hand" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 5) -- the first mention of Gilbert. Dobson/Taylor think this an allusion to the "Gest," but this seems unlikely -- why link Robin to such an obscure character?
Supposedly Henry VIII played around at being an outlaw in 1510 -- "he made a carefully prepard invasion of Queen Catherine's chamber one morning, with a dozen companions, all in short coats of Kentish Kendal with hoods on their heads, each with his bow and arrows, sword, and buckler, 'like outlaws, or Robin Hood's men, whereof the Queen, the ladies, and all others there were abashed.'" Only after dancing did the men reveal their identity (Williams, pp. 46-47).
Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 186, suggests that this was associated with the 1515 publication of Julian Notary's edition of the "Gest," but since we cannot prove either that Notary produced an edition or that he did it in 1515, this is obviously speculation.
Dancing with women, of course, is utterly unlike the early legend, but the gear is Robin Hood-like. Indeed, our source Edward Hall compares them to Robin Hood's men (Cawthorne, p. 72; Dobson/Taylor, p. 42; the textof Hall's report is in Ohlgren/Matheson, pp. 127-128) -- but he was writing a third of a century later and is not a very reliable author. Ohlgren suggests on p. 128 of Ohlgren/Matheson that there is some sort of link between Hall's account and the events of the last two fits of the "Gest."
Kendal Green was a color associated with outlaws, see the note on stanza 422.
We shouldn't make too much of Henry's games; Mattingly, p. 129, says of this event, "Once when the court was at Greenwich, a party of masked invaders, all in Kendal Green, burst into the Queen's apartments, conveniently followed by a band of music." It was obviously evident at once that this was Henry VIII -- and the fact that he chose outlaws is not unusual, because he and his fellow revelers did this sort of thing regularly, invading the Queen's appartments in the guise of "Turks or Moors or Germans."
Later, in 1515, Henry saw a Robin Hood pageant (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 9; Williams, p. 47; Cawthorne, pp. 72-73), although we have few details; it seems to have involved a longbow exhibition. This is perhaps most significant because Anthony Munday (of whom more below) used this as a framing device for his plays: The opening phase of "The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington" features actors playing Henry's courtiers presenting a play before King Henry, with the courtiers then taking the roles of Robin and colleagues, making it a "play within a play" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 221; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 298, plus the cast of characters on p. 303, etc.).
In 1521, John Major (according to Holt1, p. 41) dated Robin to 1193/4 (reign of Richard I), although he called this an "estimate" (Keen, p. 177; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 27, quotes him as saying that Robin lived "About this time... as I conceive"). Major confirms that tales -- and songs -- of Robin were widespread (Dobson/Taylor, p. 5), that he defended women, that he robbed abbots, and that he had a large band of a hundred men (compare Stanza 229, where Robin is credited with seven score followrs). Major condemned his acts but called him the "humanest" of robbers.
Baldwin, p. 29, points out that Major credited Robin with helping rather than robbing the poor. Major also calls Robin the "dux" of robbers, which Knight/Ohlgren render as "chief." Cawthorne, p. 38, points out that "dux" was also the root of the English word "duke," and suggests that this was the first attempt to link Robin to the nobility -- which is perhaps possible, but the context seems to imply merely that Robin was the foremost robber. And to call Robin a shadow duke, rather than a shadow earl, is impossible in Major's context -- the first English Dukes were not created until the reign of Edward III (OxfordCompanion, p. 557; Barber, p. 20), and it was not until some time later that England saw its first non-royal duke.
In any case, Major published his work *after the "Gest" was published*, and probably long after it was written, so we have no reason to believe that the author of the "Gest" had even heard of a date in the era of Richard and John.
Major's date was followed by John Leland (fl. 1530) and later by Richard Grafton (fl. 1550), who claims to have found records of Robin in the exchequer rolls -- records which, however, cannot now be found. Grafton, who seems to have published in 1569 (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 27) also claimed an "ancient pamphlet" (but what are the odds that he would have an unprinted pamphlet? And if it was printed, then it wasn't very ancient.) Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 187, suggests that the pamphlet was a copy of the "Gest," but if this were so, why would Grafton have dated Robin to the reign of Richard I?
Grafton's claims of documentation seem to have given his claims extra weight (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 28), but there is every reason to think the claims were false. For more on Grafton, see the notes to Stanzas 451, 454.
Baldwin, p. 30, observes that Grafton claimed Earl Robin was outlawed for debt -- and points out that this is extremely unlikely. Earls certainly went bankrupt from time to time, but they didn't get outlawed, they just had to forfeit properties.
William Tyndale, the first man to translate the Bible from Greek into English, in 1528 denounced Robin Hood stories as "ribabldries" (Pollard, p. 10).
Around 1550, Bishop Hugh Latimer mentions "Robin Hood's Day" in a sermon to Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553), and gripes that he cannot find people to preach to on this day (Dobson/Taylor, p. 39), this is probably a reference to the May Games (Hazlitt, p. 519).
The Scottish parliament, in the course of the reformation, banned the May Games and Robin's role in 1555 (Cawthorne, p. 73).
The Stationer's Register for 1557-1558 contains a mention of the "ballett of Wakefylde and a grene" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 47). If, as seems likely, this is an early printed version of "The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield," that would make it perhaps the first Robin Hood piece printed after the "Gest," and the first true broadside print. There was also a "ballett of Robyn Hod" entered in 1562-1563, but this we cannot identify at present. Dobson/Taylor, p. 48, observe that Robin Hood broadsides are commonly registered starting in 1624; a handful of these survive today.
In 1560, William Copeland registered a Robin Hood play in the Stationer's Register (Cawthorne, p. 74). This is very likely the play which appears at the end of the "f" print of the "Gest," although the matter cannot be proved.
Our first tune associated with Robin, according to Bronson, comes from the period from 1575-1591, but as it is simply called "Robin hoode," and has no lyrics, we do not know whether it was for one of the extant ballads or is something else.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 5, observe that a "remarkable number of plays and games of Robin Hood" are attested, from all parts of Britain, by 1600. Indeed, in 1577-1578, the Scottish Kirk felt the need to go beyond its action of 1555 and suppress "playes of Robin Hood, King of May, and sick others, on the Sabboth Day," and later to ban them entirely (Child, p. 45). He even begins to appear on the London stage in the 1590s (Cawthorne, p. 77) -- at least once in association with the pindar of Wakefield (Cawthorne, p. 78). One of these plays includes the unlikely stage direction "Enter Robin Hood in Lady Faukenberg's nightgown, a turban on his head" (Cawthorne, p. 80).
But these are only mentions; we do not have the scripts of the plays themselves, and cannot know what state of the legend they reveal. Knight/Ohlgren think Robin is used in them to raise money for community projects. On p. 6 they suggest that the surname "Robinhood," mentioned also by Holt, arose because it became hereditary in some families for someone to play Robin in village pageants. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 7, suggest that the plays may have preceded and given rise to the ballads. Chronologically this is certainly possible -- but the difficulty is that it is much easier for a ballad to spread than a play. The first play might have preceded the first ballad -- but in general, it seems likely that the ballads preceded the legend and the plays followed.
The London stage had certainly seen Robin in drama by 1593, when George Peele's Edward the First, sirnamed Edward Longshanks was published (Dobson/Taylor, pp. 43-44).
We do not kow the exact date when Anthony Munday started working on Robin Hood plays, but we know that he was paid five pounds for one in February 1598 (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 296).
Munday died in 1633; he born 1553 according to his tombstone, although there are indications that he was younger, according Kunitz/Haycraft, pp. 370-371; Boyce, p. 453, gives his birth date as "c. 1560."
Munday had apparently been a printer and an unsuccessful actor before turning his limited talents to writing. Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, give an amazing summary of his early career: "First he imitated the Mirror for Magistrates in two gloomy poems, The Mirror of Mutability and The Pain of Pleasure. Then he imitated Lyly's Eupheues in his prose romance Zelauto. Next, he turned informer against his Catholic friends and was instrumental in having several of them executed. In 1581-82 he wrote several anti-Catholic pamphlets and The English-Roman Life...." It was apparently around 1585 that he turned his talents to drama.
His two dramatic works on the Robin Hood theme were "The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington" and "The Death of Robert, Earle of Huntington." Knight/Ohlgren suggest that this was originally intended to be one play, but was too long, Henry Chettle was called upon to break it into two items (making it one of the small handful of items we still have from Chettle's pen; Kunitz/Haycraft, pp. 104-105), although Dobson/Taylor, p. 221, think the plays are substantially as Munday wrote them.
The pair of plays seem to have been produced in 1599, although Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, date them to 1601 (the date they were printed) and Boyce, p. 453, to 1598 (apparently on the basis that Philip Henslowe commissioned "antony monday" to write a Robin Hood play in that year; Dobson/Taylor, p. 221).
Whether one play or two, monograph or collaboration, a primary source seems to have been Michael Drayton's 1594 poem "Matilda, the Fair and Chaste Daughter of Lord. R. Fitzwater" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 222) -- a long work now almost impossible to find. But Monday used his sources with "a freedom which occasionally bordered on violence" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 222, quoting the Malone Society edition of Munday).
It has been suggested (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 296) that the Robin Hood plays inspired Shakespeare to write "As You Like it." However, of the four Shakespeare references I checked, only one even mentioned the possibility, and only as a possibility. Perhaps the Munday plays suggested a play in the greenwood -- but Shakespeare also used the greenwood in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" without evident extermal prompting. Such vague thematic links as exist probably derive from the fact that Shakespeare's source for "As You Like It" used "The Tale of Gamelyn" for his plot.
There is an actual link between Munday and Shakespeare (as well as Chettle), but it is quite indirect: Munday seems to have been the primary scribe, as well as the primary author (perhaps with Chettle), of the play "Sir Thomas More," which Shakespeare (and three or four others) were called upon to rewrite because it was so lousy (RiversideShakespeare, p. 1683).
Although he had a modest success as a translator of French and Spanish romances, Munday seems to have been a hack; only one other of his unquestioned plays survives ("John a Kent and John a Cumber," written in 1594 according to Craig, p. 187), although Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, also credit him with "Fidele and Fortunio" (1585) and "Sir John Oldcastle" (1600).
Few of these products is regarded as memorable; Craig, p. 109, is the most charitable, and praises the Robin Hood plays and the poem "I serve a mistress whiter than the snow'" (which does absolutely nothing for me), yet even Craig admits that Munday was "not a great author." FordEtAl, p. 126, quotes an early source which calls him a "dismal draper of misplaced literary ambitions" (a wisecrack that is widely quoted but somehow never attributed). He would be almost completely forgotten were it not for his work on the Robin Hood plays and "Sir Thomas More."
It is an interesting comment on the power of Elizabethan theater that such a lousy work as Munday's plays could have so much influence on tradition. Admittedly Shakespeare's so-called "history" plays, which have about as much history in them as Hitler had friendship for Jews, have distorted people's understanding of the Plantagenets for centuries -- but that's Shakespeare. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 10, describe Munday's works as the best of the "gentrified" stories of Robin Hood, but grant that the Munday version "lacks an inner thematic and political tension," resulting in the enfeebling of the tradition.
Dobson/Taylor, p. 44, point out ironically that another alleged Munday play, "Metropolis Coronata, The Triumphes of Ancient Drapery," completely changes the scenario and makes Robin the son-in-law not of Lord Fitzwater but o Henry Fitz-Aylwin, the first Lord Mayor of London. However there seems to be significant doubt about whether Munday wrote the 1615 pageant. In any case, it had far less influence than his earlier work. For Ohlgren's suggestions about this piece, see the notes to Stanza 310.
Dobson/Taylor's conclusion about Munday is that "No English writer has ever handled the Robin Hood legend in a more high-handed and cavalier fashion" (p. 45) -- which does not alter the fact that he completely altered the shape of the story.
From around the same time as Munday is the biography of Robin found in British Library MS. Sloane 780. This seems to agree with Munday in making Robin a nobleman (Holt1, p. 42, although damage to the manuscript at the key point, and the fact that it is generally quite hard to read, make this unsure).
(Briggs, in her summaries of the Robin Hood tales, notes on p. 474 of volume A.2 that there is no satisfactory treatment of the subject of the noble outlaw in the various motif indices, which is truly unfortunate in examining tales such as this.)
In 1632, Martin Parker published "The True Tale of Robin Hood," which lists Robin's death date as December 4, 1198, very late in the reign of Richard I (Holt1, p. 41).
The first of the garlands was published in 1663 (and, according to Dobson/Taylor, p. 52, it cannot have been the first); it is the primary basis for many of Child's texts. Another garland followed in 1670. It has been suggested that the Forresters Manuscript was intended as the copy text for a garland. Eventually the garlands ran 80-100 pages and included 16-27 ballads (Dobson/Taylor, p. 51), although hardly what we would consider the best of them. We might note the comment of Dobson/Taylor (p. 50) that "generally, the Robin of the broadsides [and hence the garlands] is a much less tragic, less heroic and in his last resort less mature figure than his medieval predecessor." This was the Robin Hood of the middle seventeenth and eighteenth century.
The Percy Manuscript, the earliest source for, among others, "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne," "Robin Hood's Death," "Robin Hood and the Butcher," "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar," "The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield," "Robin Hood Rescuing Three Squires," and "Little John A Begging," is thought to date from the mid-seventeenth century; so is the Forresters manuscript, discovered in 1993, with texts, often edited or expanded, of 22 Robin Hood ballads (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 13). Knight, p. xviii, suggests that it might have been compiled as the basis for a new and improved garland.
In 1661, the town of Nottingham was publishing a play, "Robin Hood and His Crew of Souldiers" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 237). This obviously implies that Robin was well known by then -- and that Nottingham thought him worth claiming, even though the tale heavily rewrites the legend and is really quite poor.
The papers of Thomas Gale (d. 1702) say that the inscription on Robin's alleged tombstone dated his death to 24 Kalends of December 1247 (this is not a legitimate Roman date, but may mean December 24; in any case the language of the inscription is far too modern for 1247 and Keen, p. 180, notes clear evidence of fakery: "Neither [English] spelling nor its pronunciation were ever so hideously mauled as here." (This was, of course, written before the days of Nigerian scams and sex sites pretending to be by illiterate Asians.) Those wishing to see the absurd thing for themselves may see Percy-Wheatley I, pp.103-104, or -- with a different spelling which is doubtless revealing -- Holt2, p. 42. Cawthorne, p. 44, does point out that Gale had the education to know better than to use a date of 24 Kalends. Ritson accepted this death date (Cawthorne, p. 45), even though it forced him to make Robin 87 years old at the time!
Other sources report a grave at Kirklees, with the inscription "Here lie Roberd Hude, William Goldburgh, Thomas" (names not otherwise found in Robin Hood lore, unless William Goldburgh was the real name of the man known in tradition as William Scarlock/Scathelock/Scarlett. We do find the names in Grafton; see the notes on Stanzas 451, 454. It has been suggested that the stone's inscription was taken from Grafton rather than the reverse). This was copied by Johnston in 1665, but was no longer legible in the time of Gough (1786), apparently because people had been chipping off portions as souvenirs or maybe even relics with curative powers (Cawthorne, p. 45; Balswin, p. 75), although Gough reprinted Johnson's version.
Today the grave slab can no longer be found -- presumably because the artifact-hunters and seekers of toothache cures kept pounding on it -- and Keen, pp. 180-182, notes conflicts in our sources regarding it. Gough did report that the ground under the slab was undisturbed, meaning that the slab was either a trick or had been moved (Holot1, p. 44). Holt1, p. 41, is convinced that the slab was real, because so many witnesses reported it, but while the actual stone might have given us some useful information, the stories about it don't.
There are many other alleged relics. We know of a "Robin Hood's stone" in Barnesdale, which apparently was seen by Henry VII in 1486 (Pollard, p. 70; Baldwin, p. 79, observes that this is the first spot which can be documented to have been named for Robin), "Robin Hood's Well," mentioned in 1622 (in fact, there are at least two Robin Hood's Wells, according to Baldwin, p. 78, one near Nottingham and the other near Barnsdale; Betts, Legends, p. 17, says they are near Doncaster and Fountains Abbey); etc.
Bett, pp. 16-17 in the "Legends" volume, gives a catalog of (mostly unlikely) sites and objects associated with Robin, such as Robin Hood's Penistone, a great rock which he is said to have kicked from the next town; a Robin Hood's Tower at Richmond Castle in Yorkshire; Robin Hood's Picking Rods in Derbyshire; and even Robin Hood's Bog in Northumberland.
Some may have been named for him long ago, but they are simply too widely scattered to have been originally associated with his legend. Indeed, Dobson/Taylor, pp. 295-311, give a catalog of artifacts and places traditionally associated with Robin Hood, and while the great majority are in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Yorkshire -- but there are items in some two dozen counties, scattered from Kent to Essex to to Shropshire to Cumberland to Northumberland to Norfolk.
In addition to Robin's alleged gravestones, Keen, p. 182, notes *three* graves for Little John, one English (plates 7 and 36 in Baldwin offer a photo and an enhanced sketch of the English gravestone, which is in Derby), one Scottish, one Irish (where one legend says he was executed; Cawthorne, p. 80, who also notes a piece of wood at Barnsley alleged to have been John's bow). Will Scarlet's grave is said to be at Blidworth in Nottinghamshire (Carthorne, pp. 80-81). But all such relics are either lost or too-recent inventions. And, of course, some could refer to other people named Robert Hood.
Percy's Reliques was published in 1765, which published "Guy of Gisborne" -- the first publication of one of the older ballads since the White edition of the "Gest." Plus, of course, it sparked the "ballad mania" which eventually let to much more serious scholarship (Dobson/Taylor, p. 53).
In 1795, Joseph Ritson published his "Robin Hood." It is to him that Dobson/Taylor, p. 54, give credit for the "rehabilitation" of Robin -- and in one sense his is invaluable, as it contains a vast amount of Robin Hood material not accessible elsewhere (note how many of the Child references are to Ritson; Dobson/Taylor, p. 54, note that he published versions of all the major ballads except the "Monk"). On p. 55, they mention some evidence that Ritson's work actually influenced the later tradition.
Ritson also marked an important change -- for the first time, we see analysis of tradition. Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 437,. say of him "Ritson was the first 'scientific' editor of such material, and he was savagely critical of editors who (like Percy) 'improved' their originals or (like Pinkerton) wrote spurious folk poetry."
Unfortunately, his skills did not match his ambitions; his editions of Robin Hood material retail a lot of late rubbish, making little attempt to separate early from late. Ritson, e.g., says that Robin was born in 1160, in the reign of Henry II (Holt1, p. 45), providing what seemed like a basis for the Gilberts and Reads who "retold" the legend.
It was Ritson, too, who is largely responsible for the notion of "robbing the rich to give to the poor"; Major in 1521 had hints of it (Holt1, p. 154), but it is not mentioned in the ballads. (Although Holt2, p. 194, thinks it not unlikely: The poor weren't worth robbing, and by helping them even a little, Robin would build a support system). Dobson/Taylor, p. 55, suggest that this is a consequence of Ritson's radicalism -- he was one of the few British supported of the French Revolution, and was a follower of Tom Paine.
It is hard to imagine how such an idea could have arisen out of history. Almost all historical highway robbers were in it exclusively for the money. Sharpe, pp. 49-50, notes the case of James Hind, or "Captain" Hind, who lived in the time of the English Civil War and boasted that "most of the robberies he committed had parliamentarians as their victim" (making him a curious parallel to the oh-so-loyal-to-the-monarch Robin Hood) -- but the main reason that Hind was so noteworthy was that a robber with a political agenda was such a rare thing.
Interestingly, Hind was eventually to be credited to refusing to rob the poor (Sharpe, p. 54). It may well be that he was credited with this trait before Robin Hood was.
The lack of the theme of giving to the poor, so vital to the legend today, raises an interesting question: Why the Robin Hood legend became so widespread? If it wasn't due to transferring wealth from rich to poor, then why was he remembered? Perhaps for being free when few were? But this would not explain his survival after the reign of Edward III. It is yet another point on which we have no clear answer.)
Sir Walter Scott was apparently the first to suggest that Robin was a Saxon opposed to the Norman Conquest. In 1820, he made Robin an opponent of the "Norman" dynasty of Henry II, Richard I, and John (Holt1, p. 183). But as Holt observes, the Saxon/Norman dichotomy was false by 1189 -- and to place Robin in, or before, the actual Norman period (which ended in 1154) is absurd; prior to William the Conqueror, there were no forest laws (Keen, p. 26)
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164, mention that forests were in the law codes of Ine, Alfred, and Cnut, but these rules were not onerous; Young, p. 7, says that the Norman creation of royal forest and forest law "provoked more negative comments from chroniclers than any of their other acts") and the longbow was not in use. It is true that Cawthorne, p. 134, sees an antagonism between "the Saxon peasantry and the Norman gentry" in the Robin Hood tales -- but there is absolutely no sign in the "Gest" of a distinction between Saxons and Normans, or even between those who speak England and those who speak French.
Robin's place as a Saxon rebel seems to be a confusion with the tale of Hereward the Wake (itself mostly legend) -- a suspicion strengthened by the parallels between "Robin Hood and the Potter" and a similar tale of Hereward's disguise, as well as by the fact that Hereward, like Robin, is said to have eventually reconciled with the King. Keen, p. 21, calls Hereward the "lineal ancestor of Robin Hood." But, although the link is obvious, Hereward was a political rebel, Robin an economic rebel. Robin has no quarrel with the King, only with the King's laws.
The forest laws offer additional evidence against an eleventh or early twelfth century date. There is no evidence that either Barnsdale or Sherwood was royal forest in Norman times. Young, p. 10, says "there is no mention of Sherwood forest [in Norman times], and its condition in the eleventh century can only be a matter of speculation." On p. 9, Young shows a map of known Norman forest sites. There are many along the Welsh border, and in the New Forest area in Hampshire and Suffolk. There are scattered sites in south-central and east-central England. There are none in Nottinghamshire or Yorkshire.
By the thirteenth century, we know that Sherwood was a royal forest (see map on pp. 62-63 of Young). So were Inglewood and Allerdale in Lancashire, plus Farndale, Pickering, and Galtres in Yorkshire and vicinity -- but not Barnsdale. In the early years of Edward III's reign, Sherwood, Inglewood, Galtres, and and Pickering were still forest, and Farndale had transformed into Spaunton. There is still no report of Barnsdale as a forest -- although Knaresborough in Yorkshire, which is very close to Barnsdale (according to Holt1, p. 86, it was the closest royal forest to Barnsdale), is now on the list.
A noteworthy point about the forests and forest law is how much the enforcement fell off during the Edwardian period. After all Edward I's attempts to take advantage of the forest, things slipped under Edward II and Edward III. Young, p. 154, notes an extreme decline in forest eyres in the fourteenth century, with typically only a few counties visited year by year. He notes that "Only Yorkshire had as many as four eyres in the fourteenth century (1334, 1336, 1337, and 1339)." It is fascinating to note that this would be the period when Robin Hood might have been lurking in Barnsdale after fleeing Edward II's court, if the "Gest" is treated as an historical source.
The one thing that comes out clearly in looking at the early chroniclers is how much they *disagree*. Clearly they have no more reliable data than we do. Holt1, p. 185, compares the accretions of Scott and Ritson to an ivy strangling the old oak of the Robin Hood legend. This is partly false -- in many ways the modern version is in better shape than when the seventeenth century broadsides made Robin a buffoon. But Scott and Ritson made permanent the false image of Robin the nobleman of the time of Richard ; we can dismiss it and pass on to more useful speculation as we seek the date. For example, Robin Hood is Catholic, so we can obviously eliminate the period of Henry VIII and all later kings; the official religion in the legend is clearly Catholicism.
 

Traditional Ballad Index: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 04

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 05 (File Number C117D)
Last updated in version 2.6
NOTES: THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF THE EARLY BALLADS
If the chronicles are useless, we can only turn back to the early ballads, especially the "Gest". These give us a surprisingly limited picture. Robin is an outlawed yeoman (see notes on stanzas 1 and 2), attended by a band of unknown size (see the notes on stanzas 4, 17, 229). Little John is certainly one of this band, but the others (Much the Miller's Son and Will Scarlock/Scadlock/Scarlett/whatever) are not really characters, just names. They live in the north of England, in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire or possible Lancaster or Cumbria.
Holt, p. 86, makes the interesting note that Robin's band may not even have lived in the greenwood; there is, for instance, little or no mention of the King's Deer in the early sources -- but see the notes on stanzas 32-33, 357-358, 377. In the end, the King meets Robin because he's angry about the lack of deer in Plumpton Park.
The forest laws, according to Young, p. 4, protected "the red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, and the wild boar until a judicial decision in 1339 [reign of Edward III] removed the roe from the list," and points out on p. 5 that the purpose of the law was not just to protect the animals but their habitat. This was the reason, e.g., why people were forbidden to cut down trees in royal forests. But Holt does make an important point: We don't see foresters in the "Gest." It is not clear why.
As far as his character goes, Robin is genuinely religious, clearly Catholic (and devoted to the Virgin Mary; see note on Stanza 10) -- but no friend of high church officials such as abbots and bishops (see note on Stanza 19), whom he happily robs. Note too that it was a prioress who murdered him! (Stanza 451, etc.) He is willing to rescue those in need, but he does not seem to go out of his way to do so. He very likely eventually meets the King, who is coming to investigate troubles in the North (Stanzas 357-358, etc.)
What is absent from these accounts is notable. Holt1, pp. 35-38, catalogs what is missing: Maid Marian, Richard the Lion-Hearted (recall that Gest's king is Edward; Stanza 353), Robin's birth as Robin of Lockesly and/or Earl of Huntingdon (in the early legend, Robin is clearly a yeoman; stanza 1), and the theme of robbing the rich to give to the poor. Pollard, p. 188, offers a similar list of famous elements of the modern telling which are absent from the early stories: robbing the rich to give to the poor, Robin the Anglo-Saxon earl fighting the Normans, the Sheriff as agent of "Prince" John who is attempting to overthrow King Richard, and the tale of Maid Marion. (Pollard attributes all these changes to the rise of class consciousness, which I must say I find a stretch.)
Can we possibly add more details from the later ballads?
THE LATER ROBIN HOOD BALLADS
If we look at the ballads with true traditional attestation, the list is longer than the list of early ballads, but still rather thin. It appears that we can list only about fifteen songs, or fewer than half the pieces printed by Child, and only about four of these have a strong hold in tradition:
* Willie and Earl Richard's Daughter [Child 102] (traditional in US, but possibly from print)
* Robin Hood's Death [Child 120] (traditional in US)
* The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield [Child 124] (traditional attestation somewhat dubious)
* Robin Hood and Little John [Child 125] (traditional in Scotland, Canada, US)
* Robin Hood and the Tanner [Child 126] (traditional in England, US)
* Robin Hood and the Prince of Aragon [Child 129] (traditional in US, although much damaged; the tune may have come from a non-traditional source)
* Robin Hood and the Ranger [Child 131] (traditional in England)
* The Bold Pedlar and Robin Hood [Child 132] (traditional in England, Scotland, US, Canada; probably the most popular Robin Hood ballad in tradition)
* Robin Hood and the Beggar (II) [Child 134] (traditional in Scotland)
* Robin Hood and Allen a Dale [Child 138] (traditional in Scotland)
* Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham [Child 139] (traditional in Canada)
* Robin Hood Rescuing Three Squires [Child 140] (traditional in England, Scotland, US; probably second only to #132 in popularity)
* Robin Hood Rescuing Will Stutly [Child 141] (traditional in US)
* Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford [Child 144] (traditional in England)
* Robin Hood Was a Forester Bold (traditional in US)
These add little useful information to the sources we already identified. Most of them are clearly late poor imitations of the basic handful -- as Keen notes (pp. 99-100), "Most, at least in the form in which we have them, are compositions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Robin Hood's traditional world already belonged to a half-forgotten past. The cruel forest laws have fallen into desuetude; archery was no longer a national exercise; the abbeys whose monks the outlaws had robbed had been dissolved. Robin Hood's legend belonged, in fact, to a world so far away in time that almost anything could be believed of it, and as a result his story was sometimes changed out of recognition." In seeking the source of the legend, therefore, we must work mostly with the small collection of early ballads. The only one late text to which we will pay much attention is the "Bishop of Hereford."
Having catalogued our sources (such as they are), we can attempt to wring some meaning from them.
OUTLAW OR NOT?
Both Munday and the late ballad "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child 139] offer explanations for how Robin was driven to the greenwood. Holt1, p. 44, also notes a tale transmitted by Roger Dodsworth, in which Roger Locksley killed his stepfather and was forced into the wood; in this version, it is apparenly Little John who was the disgraced nobleman.
These stories are all different -- and all late. There is no clue in the early materials how Robin came to be outlawed (Holt1, p. 9). Pollard, p. 13, points out the parallel in the tale of Gamelyn, in which Gamelyn is dispossessed by his brothers, but there is no sign of this in the "Gest" or other early ballads. In fact, we don't even know that Robin *was* outlawed, at least initially; he may simply have been forced off his land, or perhaps away from his employment. Kings and lords of this period were good at that.
Since we will have to deal in time with the claim that Richard I was Robin's king, we should note Richard was particularly rapacious, because of the financial demands of his crusade -- and later of his ransom, which resulted in an almost unendurable 25% tax, according to Gillingham, p. 230. Many people must have been forced off their lands to pay for their lion-hearted, pea-brained king.
But would Robin then side with Richard? I think not. If Robin were simply dispossessed, as opposed to outlawed, a date in the reign of one of the Edwards would seem more likely even if the "Gest" didn't refer to King Edward. And if Robin's ancestors were in fact squatters (which is perfectly possible), then there is a high likelihood that they took over the land in the lawless period after the Norman Conquest, and the sooner after the Conquest they did so, the more time for them to think the land was theirs.
Even Edward I, often held up as a lawgiver, was a land-grabber in his personal capacity as king, and Prestwich1, p. 105, comments that "The methods he used did him little credit: he was devious and grasping." For more on his methods, see the discussion on stanza 47.
Edward I's queen was even worse about grabbing land (Prestwich1, pp. 124-125; on p. 124 and again on p. 262, he quotes a fragment of what sounds like a folk rhyme, although apparently it was taken down in Latin: "The king he wants to get our gold, The queen would like our lands to hold"). And if other kings weren't as concerned with updating the statute books, they certainly were just as eager to latch onto any cash they could.
Around 1298, Edward I had had a major dispute with local residents about the boundaries of the royal forests (Prestwich1, p. 518), which had been at their greatest in the reign of Henry II and since steadily been reduced (Young, p. 19). Many locals tried to encroach upon the forests, leading to the conflict with the King (Prestwich1, p. 527; Young, p. 139).
Edward I being Edward I, this might well have caused him to punish harshly anyone whom he could lay his hands on. Edward, under pressure, reduced the total area of the royal forest -- but in 1305 "laid down that those people who had been placed outside the Forest boundaries would no longer be allowed to exercise any rights of common within them." In 1306, he reneged and took back some of that forest land (Prestwich1, p. 548).
This raises an interesting possibility, that the reason we never see Robin go to the greenwood is that he never did -- he was there all along. He lived in the wood on what he thought was his personal land, until the king reclaimed it. There is a tradition (found e.g. in "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage" [Child 149] , although this is a very poor source) that Robin's father was a forester. This raises the possibility that Robin was a yeoman forester, and was displaced as a result of someone eventually enforcing the 1306 law.
Prestwich1, p. 286, adds that, in Edward I's time, due to some legal changes which made legal penalties stiffer but convictions harder to obtain, "Fairs and markets were the scene of a good many crimes, as when a royal bailiff was assaulted by Thomas de Aston and his two brothers, pursued, and beaten up publicly in the market at Stafford." Several similarities to "Robin Hood and the Potter" [Child 121] will surely be evident.
Another possibility relating to the forest laws has to do with the way they treated guilt. Young, p. 107, descibes the "climate of fear" they generated: If someone was found near the dead body of a deer, that person was often punished -- severely -- for its death. It was difficult to establish innocence. So Robin might simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Although it is usually assumed that Robin was an ordinary yeoman, it may be that Robin might have been a *royal* yeoman, in service to the king (Holt1, p. 120, argues strongly for this). In that case, it is not unlikely that he was cast out of the royal service during a purge of the household Edward I conducted in 1300 (Prestwich1, p. 159). On the other hand, there is little sign that Robin knows about courtly manners. 1300 also seems a little early for him to be active based on him still being the active head of his band in 1322 (if we can trust the one genuine chronological peg we have in the "Gest").
"Robin Hood's Birth" also has the tradition that "his mother was neece to the Coventry knight Which Warwickshire men call sir Guy." This presumably is a reference to Guy of Warwick, a famous saga hero who indeed was credited with killed a great boar although one who is claimed to have lived in the reign of Athelstan (Simpson/Roud, p. 158, Pickering, p. 128. Don't ask me what someone named "Guy" was doing in tenth century England...).
The period of the Wars of the Roses (roughly 1455-1485) were also tough on landowners. Since the crown changed hands so many times, there was a real danger that one might be attainted if one supported the wrong side. We don't know of any great lords turning outlaw, but a yeoman might. There are, however, two problems with a date this late: First, the "Gest" was probably already in existence, and second, of the two kings who reigned for most of this period, Henry VI was not active enough for the role given him in the "Gest" and wasn't named Edward anyway, and Edward IV, while obviously named "Edward," hardly had enough time as King.
If we had to make a wild guess about how Robin came to be outlawed, Pollard's suggestion that he had been a yeoman of the forest (pp. 41-43; see also the note on Stanza 222) does make a certain amount of sense. Perhaps he -- or, more likely, his father -- had been yeoman of the forest displaced during Edward I's reign, and he stayed in the forest to maintain his claim to what he considered his home and occupation. But while reasonable, this is clearly beyond proof.
The bottom line is, we simply don't know why Robin was outlawed (or, rather, why the earliest hearers of the tradition though he was outlawed). But the circumstances of the Edwardian period certainly offer many opportunities.
Dobson/Taylor, p. 29, make the interesting comment that "the royal courts of medieval England degraded the severity of sentences of outlawry by its over-use. During the course of the fourteenth century the application of the process of outlawry to cases of misdemeanor and even civil offenses lessened its deterrent effect still further." Outlawry, intended to be a hideous sentence which drove the victim away from home or forced him to appear in court, became more like having a pile of outstanding traffic tickets -- something which might even be considered a virtue to some.
Perhaps we should just conclude, with Shippey, p. 233, "in romance it is a good rule that not everything should be explained." If we truly *knew* why Robin went to the greenwood, it would probably detract from the legend: If he committed a true crime and was outlawed, it makes him less of a good man, but if he was simply went broke, that is far too mundane. The best answer, from a dramatic standpoint, is doubtless the one adopted by modern retellers: That he was driven from his land by unjust superiors. But even this runs the risk of reducing his motives to petty jealousy....
DATING THE LEGEND
In trying to date the Robin Hood legend, we must recall that we are dealing with multiple sources -- half a dozen different ballads, the most important of which, the "Gest," is itself compiled from multiple sources. Dobson/Taylor, p. 14. point out that the legend changed in the sixteenth century, and on p. 37 point out that there were at least two major periods of alteration of the story, the sixteenth century change coming at the hands of Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights and a later alteration by early nineteenth century romantics.
Pollard, p. x, points out that, since Robin's story changed completely in the sixteenth century, we cannot discount the possibility that it also changed completely between 1377 and 1450 -- and he notes on page 2 that all our extant early sources date from the fifteenth century. Thus any pattern we perceive in the various sources might be just the coincidental agreement of independent sources, or a side effect of the evolution of the legend.
I do not deny this point, but the more I looked at the scattered hints, the more I have become convinced that the intended setting of the "Gest" is a particular period: The reign of Edward II. This section tries both to present that case and to offer the evidence for other periods.
To show how confusing it all is, the "Gest" says the King is "Edward." Knight, p. xx, says that in the Forresters manuscript, three pieces name the king "Richard" (presumably Richard I). Two call him "Henry" (presumably Henry II, although Henry III is not an unreasonable possibility), and Knight thinks that one other Forresters piece also points to a King Henry -- although in this case either Henry V or Henry VIII, since his queen is Catherine.
As Baldwin points out on p. 48, we have conflicting evidence, some "suggesting an earlier date of composition [probably in the reign of Henry III or Edward I], the other later [probably the reign of Edward III]." On p. 84, Baldwin stoutly maintains that there were five kings in "what may loosely be called the Robin Hood era," referring to Richard I through Edward II. In fact, the evidence of names found by Holt shows there is every reason to think that the legend originated before Edward II. The content of the later ballads seems to indicate a date in the reign of Edward III or later. This by itself is modest support for the reign of Edward II as the meeting point, so to speak, of the two groups of evidence.
The references to Robin's skills with the bow really do seem to imply that he was a bowman from the start -- which by itself is a dating hint. The mention of the longbow requires, at the earliest, a post-conquest date for Robin; it also gives a latest possible date before the time of Henry VIII -- probably well before. Keen, p. 138, dates the decline of the longbow to the Battle of Castillon in 1453. This is accurate, in a way, although the English continued to use bows for many decades (e.g. they were a key weapon in the Wars of the Roses).
But Robin the Legendary Archer must have lived long before Castillon. Edward III, more than a century before that, commanded regular competitions with the bow (see the note on Stanzas 145-146) -- something often seen in the Robin Hood tales. And yet, once these competitions were well-established, it would be almost impossible for a band of outlaws, gathered at random, to all become master bowmen. For the longbow requires great skill (contrary to what is implied by Keen, p. 138). Longbows required more pull than short bows, but even the strongest muscles could not compete with a crossbow in power and range. To compete with crossbows, longbowmen had to aim in an arc far above their targets. This took long practice; archers, for the most part, had to be brought up to the bow, and stay with it throughout their lives -- even in the reign of Edward III, we find the king complaining that the common people weren't spending enough time with the bow (Chandler/Beckett, p. 10).
That was the main reason no one other than the English and Welsh took to the longbow.; it was too tricky. But the longbow won battles for the English at Halidon Hill (1333) and Crecy (1347) during the reign of Edward III. Featherstone in fact (p. 31) claims that archers from Sherwood Forest were given conditional pardon to serve the King at this time. It is true that Edward III gave pardons to outlaws wiling to fight in France (Ormrod, p. 57), but Ormrod says nothing of archers from Sherwood. Ormrod does tell us that this was new; no earlier King had offered such pardons (although Prestwich1, p. 561, says that Edward I pardoned soldiers who served in his campaigns. For the conditions attached to such pardons, see the notes on Stanza 439).
Hewitt, p. 30, observes that Edward III offered at least 850 pardons to those willing to serve in his wars in 1339-1340, several hundred more in 1346-1347, 140 in 1356, and 250+ in 1360-1361 -- and that very many of these were for murders. He believes that as many as an eighth of the soldiers in some English armies may have been pardoned criminals, and observes that some -- Sir Robert Knowles and Sir Hugh Calvely being obvious examples -- held quite senior commands.
We known that, as early as the reign of Edward I, longbow training was required of ordinary folk (Seward, p. 53), just as it would be in the time of Edward III.
In other words, by 1333, the longbow was a universal weapon, and the odds of Robin's men being exceptional is slight. This is evidence for a date before 1333.
It has been argued that, since the longbow was already common as early as the time of Edward I (reigned 1272-1307), we are forced to a date in the reigns of Henry II (1154-1189), Richard I (1189-1199), John (1199-1216), or Henry III (1216-1272).
This is not compelling; although Edward I had encouraged the use of the bow at times in his reign, he was not consistent. For his preparations for the invasion of Wales in 1277, Edward I ordered cartloads of crossbow bolts (Prestwich1, p. 179), leaving little if any room for arrows. Edward II (1307-1327) largely turned his back on the use of the bow. This was a major reason he lost at Bannockburn in 1314 (Phillips, pp. 236-237, who notes that a military revolution was going on at the time; both at Bannockburn and at Courtrai in 1302, mounted knights had lost to infantry, forcing a reassessment of tactics. The English learned the lesson after 1314, and Edward III began to depend on longbows; the French would need another century to learn).
Still, the use of the bow means that the only serious candidates for the Kings in the Robin Hood legend are Henry II (reigned 1154-1189), his son Richard I (1189-1199), his brother John (1199-1216), his son Henry III (1216-1272), his son Edward I (1272-1307), his son Edward II (1307-1327), and his son Edward III (1327-1377). Many would restrict the period even more -- e.g. McLynn, p. 244, would examine only the period 1215-1381.
Our single strongest clue, as repeatedly mentioned, is the fact that stanzas 353, 384, 450 of the "Gest" give the name of the king of England as Edward. At first glance. since we are not told which Edward, we might think this was Edward I. In many ways Edward I fits the content of the legend better than Henry II (his great-grandfather), Richard (his grand-uncle), or John (his grandfather), notably since the longbow was not used in the time of the early kings, at least outside Wales. The flip side is, there is nothing in the "Gest" which sounds specific to this reign.
Hunter, as mentioned in the notes to Stanzas 357-358, pointed out that Edward II had made a trip to the north in 1322-1323 which fits the ballad. The real problem with his reconstruction is that he then goes on to try to ring in a Robin Hood who was active around Wakefield at the time, and who was a follower of the Lancastrian rebels (Cawthorne, p. 49). This badly weakens his case, because the "Gest" implies that Robin was always loyal to the King. Hunter's full reconstruction cannot stand up, and many have rejected all of it on that basis -- but the evidence he found for the 1322-1323 visit to the north stands up. If (and this is a substantial if!) the "Gest" is supposed to be based on actual events, 1323 is an extremely strong candidate for the King's visit to Robin.
Nonetheless, Holt2, p. 192, affirms that fits 7-8 of the "Gest" *must* be based on Edward II's northern trip, and I agree.
The 1322-1323 dating is suitable on other grounds. We know that Edward II was very concerned with forests and forest management at this time (Young, p. 145).
And the context fits. There was a major famine and economic downturn in 1315-1317 (Prestwich3, p. 92; Phillips, p. 238, blames it on excessive rain beginning in 1314, adding on pp. 252-253, that the years 1315 and 1316 were unusually cold, that 1317 brought only a brief respite, and that 1318-1321 also saw bad weather and poor harvests). The problems were especially bad in the north; according to Wilkinson, p. 124, the bad harvest of 1315 was "followed by famine 'such as our age has never seen.'"
Kelly.J, p. 14, notes that worldwide conditions were so bad that some think they may have started the chain of events which led to the Black Death thirty years later. Kelly.J, p. 56, observes that large tracts of land were left unpopulated -- sometimes because they were simply no longer productive in the poor climate. On pp. 58-59, he notes that some parts of Yorkshire had all their topsoil eroded away. The rain was so heavy that in Yorkshire and Nottingham some farm fields became lakes -- he calls them "inland seas." The problem was so bad that there were widespread reports of cannibalism (p. 60).
Satin, pp. 106-107, mentions estimates that one tenth of the population of Europe died of famine in this period. J.Kelly, p. 62, thinks it may have exceeded 15% in some areas. Tenants everywhere were driven from their lands. If the knight was truly trying to repay a loan at this time, it is understandable that he failed -- it was the worst time in memory for raising money. This would surely raise the irony of the abbott serving rich food at this time, too.
To add to the misery of northerners, in the aftermath of Bannockburn, the Scots raided freely throughout the north of England. They had raided the north before, it is true, but these were larger raids, better organized, which penetrated much farther south (Phillips, p. 248). They could not capture fortified cities or castles, but they destroyed the holdings of peasants and forced them to flee (McNamee, pp. 72-74). And, of course, the lords rarely gave their tenants any sort of help if they had been raided -- if anything, their exactions increased as they gathered up food to feed their garrisons (McNamee, pp. 144-145).
As McNamee says on p. 147, "Altogether the North of England's castles ought to have been its salvation from the Scottish raids. The failure of the crown to pay and provision garrisons adequately, and to exercise control over castellans, left them to prey on those they were supposed to defend."
The Scots were relatively quiet in 1316 and 1317, but were back in 1318, when their raids reached as far south as Yorkshire (McNamee, pp. 84-86). There must have been very many refugees in the latter year -- and indeed as early as 1314, when McNamee, p. 134, says Northumberland was "descending into chaos." Plus we have reports of outbreaks of sheep murrain in 1315-1319 (McNamee, p. 107), which of course damaged the wool clip, meaning that the chief source of non-farm income for the northern provinces was much reduced. Other northern leaders were paying the Scots not to raid them, placing another demand ultimately on the peasants (McNamee, pp. 129-140).
These were the circumstances in which villeins slipped away from their lands and formed gangs. We know that the unsettled conditions of Edward II's reign weakened feudal bonds and created uncertainties for freeholders (Prestwich3, p. 109). It was the ideal situation for bands like Robin's -- which probably combined a few yeomen, such as Robin himself, with villeins -- to form.
There was actually a special word for the bands of robbers who arose in the wake of the Scottish incursions around the time of Bannockburn -- they were called schavaldores. They may well have robbed clergy; at least, a bishop told Edward II that he couldn't send tax money because of them (McNamee, p. 55). Nor was it easy to fight them, because the conditions made it hard to feed and supply a large force (McNamee, p. 81). And if a gang formed in 1316-1317, and grew larger in 1318-1319, it would allow enough time for the band to become well-known by the time Edward came north in 1322, and to make a significant dent in the deer population.
Edward II wasn't the only monarch whose reign saw near-anarchy in some parts of England. Three other kings -- Stephen (reigned 1135-1154), Henry III (1216-1272), and Henry VI (1422-1461, plus a brief restoration in 1470-1471) -- lived in times when government largely broke down. But Stephen was too early for legendary bowmen, and never had enough control to visit the forests of the north. Henry VI is far too late, and was a "useful political vegetable" in his later years (so Ross-War, p. 52; Ross-War, p. 118, notes that Henry VI was take prisoner *three times* during the Wars of the Roses). If anarchy is a criterion for dating Robin, then by far the most likely reigns are those of Henry III and Edward II. The intervening reign, of Edward I, is also possible simply because his taxes caused so much unrest.
We see in the notes to stanza 93 that we cannot identify the official or office the "Gest" means when it refers to a "justice." But the Edwardian period was one of extreme rapaciousness. Note during Edward II's reign the Earl of Lancaster, who held four earldoms after 1311 (McNamee, p. 51) and was chief counselor after 1316; and the Despensers, who largely ran the government when not in exile. The younger Despenser -- the ally of Robert Baldock the extortionist chancellor (for whom, again, see notes on Stanza 93) -- used just the sorts of methods described in the "Gest" to obtain lands formerly held by the Earl of Gloucester, killed at Bannockburn (Hutchison, p. 104).
Recall also the case of the Bishop of Durham being robbed by outlaws led by Gilbert de Middleton in the reign of Edward II (see notes on stanza 292 of the "Gest").
Edward II, as mentioned in the notes on Stanza 357, was the one king who seems to have made a hunting trip similar to that in Fit 7 of the Gest.
It is interesting to note that Edward II was the first king to request that his retainers recruit infantry as well as cavalry (Chandler/Beckett, p. 19). Every previous army of course included infantry, but they were incidental. It makes sense to imagine Edward II trying to hire a group of top bowmen. It makes far less sense to try to imagine the haughty Richard I or the foolish Henry III trying it.
Note also that the King talks to the outlaws with no hint of a translator (see note on Stanza 379). This is an argument for one of the Edwards, although it is little clue to which.
It is interesting to note that Robin and his men spend most of their time on foot, but that in Stanza 152 the Sheriff offers Little John a horse. This hints at a date after 1330, when Edward III mounted his archers. This was a major change -- it made archers (and hence armies) more mobile, but the greater need for horses also meant that armies were smaller. The fact that mounted archers aren't common probably argues for a date before the middle of the reign of Edward III, but probably not too much earlier, since the idea of mounting archers was obviously in the air.
There is nothing unusual about common folk who respect the King but reject lesser authorities. Campaigns to rid a King of his "evil councilors" were almost routine, and were the main excuse for the revolts against Edward II (e.g. Prestwich3, pp. 82-84). Somewhat later, in Wat Tyler's rebellion, the rebels respected Richard II but wanted the heads of many others (Saul, p. 68). They actually killed Archbishop Sudbury of Canterbury (Saul, p. 69). Pollard, p. 216, notes that campaigns against "evil councilors" waere common for centuries -- Jack Cade's 1450 rebellion was loyal to Henry VI, as were barons who began the Wars of the Roses, and even the sixteenth century Pilgrimage of Grace were theoretically loyal to Henry VIII -- just not to his religion.
By the end of his reign, Edwawrd II seems to have been very unpopular in the south of England, but was perhaps not so unpopular in the north. Phillips, pp. 532-533, gives a partial list of those who supported his deposition. They include many southern bishops and barons, but relatively few northerners. Henry of Lancaster supported the move, but he was a special case -- and apparently the only earl with major lands north of the Humber to support the deposition. The bishops of Coventry and of Lincoln supported the move, but the Archbishop of York signally did not, nor did the Bishop of Carlisle (Phillips, p. 536), and the Bishop of Durham is also missing from the list. The opinions of northern lords may not reflect those of commoners, of course, but it is reasonable to assume that northerners were more sympathetic to this otherwise-disliked King.
"Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119] offers us little in the way of datable evidence, but we note that the king in the song is extremely foolish. Since the manuscript is from c. 1450, this might be a veiled allusion to the King at that time (Henry VI, who was never very clever and eventually went mad), but if we assume the song is older, then we must look for an easily-fooled King. The best candidates for this arer Henry III or Edward II, with Edward being the better bet.
To be sure, John also had a very bad reputation, and in his earlier days was prone to bad mistakes. Warren-John, pp. 46-47, admits that John "stood in 1194 as a traitor and a fool. Such a reputation long clung to him, and in some quarters was perhaps never entirely displaced; but, in fact, the real John had not yet emerged.... As a king he was to show a grasp of political realities that had eluded the young Henry [John's oldest brother], a more fierce determination than even Geoffrey could boast of, as sure a strategic sense as Richard displayed and a knowledge of government to which the heroic crusader never even aspired. Only the Old King himself [Henry II] is comparable to the later John in his powers of organization...."
This is probably too kind to John. Tyerman, p. 296, is probably more balanced when he says John was "the most notorious English king, one of the most unfairly maligned but also one of the least successful. THe legend of his awfulness as a person as well as a ruler dates from his own lifetime. Even now, when his positive qualities as a conscientious judge, a careful administrator, a man of culture and a ruler of energy are widely recognized, his personality and style leave a nasty taste in the mouth." John was simply too sneaky to be on the list of possible Kings for the "Monk."
If we try to bring in Richard I, we have a timing problem.. Gillingham, p. 242, observes that Richard I did visit Sherwood Forest -- for one day, in 1194. He spent it hunting; clearly, in Richard's time, the forest had not been hunted out. Gillingham notes, however, that this was "the nearest [Richard] ever came to... Robin Hood," and that he promptly headed back to Nottingham to get some work done.
That visit to England lasted two months. Richard would never again return (Baldwin, p. 86).
Richard I might qualify as a fool -- he was a *terrible* king, despite his legend (as Warren-John says on p. 38, "Everything was sacrificed to raising money for [the Third Crusade], even good government." On p. 41, he adds that "Richard was no judge of men," so friendship with Robin Hood would have been no compliment to Robin anyway. Jolliffe, p. 227, notes that "With the accession of Richard we come to an new phase... in which the community begins to realize the potentialities of bureaucracy for oppression."
Runciman3, p. 75, compares his performance at home and on crusade and says "He was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier"). But Richard spent only about six months of his reign in England (Gillingham, p. 5). As Baldwin says on p. 84, "Richard I is unique among English monarchs in that he was a figure of European standing yet played only a small part in the affairs of his own kingdom." Thus it might be possible to fit him into the "Gest" (though even that is a squeeze), but not into the "Monk."
One very minor support for the reign of Henry II or Richard I is that the "Gest" never mentions a coroner -- an office created by RIchard I (Lyon, pp. 43-44). But this is at best quite indirect testimony; although coroners were royal officials responsible for looking into deaths and retaining suspects, there is no incident in the "Gest" which directly requires a coroner to be present.
The versions of the story which place Robin in the reigns of Richard and John have other problems. These tales often involve an incredible anachronism, as they refer to "Prince John." But John never held the feudal title "prince" -- indeed, England did not *have* princes until Edward I created the title of Prince of Wales a century after the reign of Richard I. John's feudal title was Count of Mortain. He was Count John, not Prince John.
What's more, the common picture of Richard as a fine king and John as a grasping tyrant are simply untrue. John fought with his barons, and one of the points of conflict was the forest law (Young, p. 60), but "how far [John] was a tyrant to common men is doubtful. At least he knew where Angevin government pressed them, and in 1212... he bid high for the support of the counties and boroughs, restoring the forest custom of his father" (Jolliffe, p. 247). On p. 248, Jolliffe adds that John investigated some of the worse abuses of sheriffs, and for the first time made them serve at pleasure rather than at farm (Jolliffe, pp. 269-270), which eliminated the main incentive to extort the locals.
Jolliffe adds that when the barons rose against John, the towns and the people generally stood with the king. What's more, John consulted with the locals about forest laws (Jolliffe, p. 307), which none of his predecessors had done.
Richard would never have done any of those things -- he *needed* to farm out sheriff's duties so as to raise the cash for his wars. Richard might, perhaps, have pardoned Robin in return for money, but only John would have pardoned him for right.
Also, if the reign were that of Richard I and John, would we not hear of the much-reviled chief forester Hugh de Neville (Young, p. 49), or of John's forester of Nottingham and Derby, Brian de Lisle (Young, p. 51). It has been claimed that, in this period, the four chief officials of England were the justiciar, chancellor, treasurer, and chief forester (Young, p. 49). The first and last would decline in importance in the reigns of Henry III and after; it is hard to imagine the a forest outlaw being able to ignore the chief forester in the early Angevin period.
On the other hand, a date in the reign of Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, or even Edward I has the advantage that it give time for tales to grow around Robin. This is more problematic if we accept a date in the reign of Edward II or Edwawrd III. Could a Robin Hood who was active in 1323 or later have become a legendary figure as early as the time Langland wrote in 1377?
This may not be quite as unlikely as it sounds. A similar situation occurs in the great Spanish epic The Poem of the Cid. This in fact has many similarities to the Robin Hood legend. Northup, p. 47, tells us that "The poet interpreted history imaginatively, but his imagination is restrained. Magic does not appear.... We lack completely the exaggeration so common in the French epic, where, as in the Chanson de Roland, whole armies fall in a faint. The Cid's personal exploits are no greater than those recorded of many knights...." This is the same mode of "high mimesis" as in the "Gest": Robin is an exceptional but not superhuman character.
The general feel of the "Cid" resembles the "Gest" in other ways: "There is no element of romantic love.... The poet is interested neither in in his hero's youth nor in his death. The Cid is presented in his prime, engaged in his greatest achievements" (Northup, p. 47). "The Cid figures as a loyal vassal ever seeking a reconciliation with his lord" (Northup, p. 44), and eventually he gains this reconciliation. The Cid is an outlaw, and his first act in the extant portion of the poem is to commit a robbery (Cid/Simpson, p. v). The Cid is "pious... loyal to his companions and even to his King... and... endowed with a saving peasant humor" (Cid/Simpson, p. vi). There is even a similarity in meter: The "Gest" is metrically irregular, and the "Cid" has so many different line formations that scholars, according to Northup, p. 48, cannot agree whether it is intended to be in ballad meter (eight syllables in four feet, then a caesura, then six syllables in three feet) or in Alexandrines (sixteen syllables with a caesura in the middle).
And when was the "Cid" written? Many authorities believe it was c. 1140 (Cid/Simpson, p. vii; Northup. p. 42). That date has been questioned in more recent times, but the sole extant manuscript seems to have been taken from an exemplar, not the original, which was written in 1207 (Cid/Michael, p. 16). Therefore the story must date from the twelfth century. The Cid died in 1099. it is likely that the time gap between the life and the tale of the Cid is no greater than that between Edward II and Langland. And the "Cid," although grounded in reality, contains a fair amount of non-historical material; it is proof that legends can quickly gather about a sufficiently extraordinary figure.
And Robin Hood wasn't even real -- anything could be added to his legend! The question is not what could be said about him, but what could be said about his context. There is nothing in the "Gest" that cannot be made to fit reasonably well in the context of the Edwardian period.
Another objection to a date in the reign of Edward II is that that king was deposed and murdered in 1327; is it possible that the legend would take no notice of this? (To be sure, the "Gest" says that Robin left the King's service after only a year; see the note on stanza 435. This would have allowed him to avoid Edward's debacle. But would it not be mentioned?) And why no mention of the war between Edward and Robert Bruce of Scotland, which was the main business of Edward's northern visit? (And in which Edward's forces suffered defeats at the hands of Bruce's raiders; Hutchison, p. 119.)
Keen, p. 186, suggests that Edward's unpopularity would argue against him being the good King of the "Gest." This would certainly be true if the audience of the poem was aristocratic; it is less of an objection in the case of the common people. Wilkinson, p. 132, observes that "after Edward's death it was the manner of his dying rather than his ruling which tended to be remembered. It was his cruel death and not his foolish life which made his tomb at Gloucester the centre of a cult." Being an ally of Edward II might be considered a failing in 1325; twenty years later, it might be a reason to make Robin a hero, for supporting Edward II when few others would.
Keen, p. 140, thinks that the frequent mentions of Robin as a yeoman implies a late date (p. 140), presumably after Edward III, since this was the period when villeins were becoming free yeomen. Keen, pp. 141-142, adds that the lack of offences against "vert" (the plants of the forest) dates Robin to the time of Edward III or later -- but poaching was a worse offence than three-cutting Young, p. 108. The typical forest eyre adjudicated far more offenses against "vert" than venison, although the penalties for the latter were higher -- despite which, Pollard, p. 85, says that even poaching was little punished in the fifteenth century).
It was not until very late, when the English navy needed every tall tree it could find for ship's masts, that tree-cutting became a serious crime. In any case, it was often difficult to prosecute offences against "vert" -- Henry VI, for example, granted so many exceptions that the laws became simply unenforceable (Wolffe, p. 111). It was only under Henry VII, whose goal was to bring the entire nation under his thumb, that the forest laws really revived (Pollard, p. 86).
To be sure, Ohlgren, p. 220, argues that Robin "imitates knightly behavior by giving liveries and fees to his retained men" (e.g. he notes on p. 317 that Robin's men wore a uniform of scarlet, not green, although later, they give the King green cloth; Ohlgren, p. 319 n.35) -- behavior typical of what is now called "bastard feudalism," which was largely a product of the Hundred Years' War (OxfordComp, p. 84). But Robin was not a king that he would be able to give out lands and titles; his behavior was quite typical of what a local Lord of the Manor would have done even in the height of the feudal era.
It was in 1296 that Edward I made a decision which completely changed the nature of military service in England. In that year, he conducted a census seeking men wealthy enough to perform knight service. In the past, such a demand had been made only of knights. After 1296, the qualification was simply wealth (Prestwich, p. 406). The barriers had fallen; a rich yeoman or an esquire could now do the work of a knight. This would obviously make it easier for a former yeoman such as Robin to enter royal service.
Looking at the case for other monarchs, we see that the main evidence for the reigns of Richard I and John comes from a strong mass of later legend, supported by late songs such as "The King's Disguise, and Friendship with Robin Hood" [Child 151], which explicitly gives the king the name "Richard." However, this ballad is probably an eighteenth century rewrite of the last two fits of the "Gest," and is certainly a hack job; it has no independent value. There are no hints in the early ballads which directly support a date in the period 1189-1216, except for the suggestion that Sir Richard at Lee might be going on crusade (see note on Stanzas 56-57), and this is neither a clear reference nor a decisive link to Richard I. Nor is there any sign, in the "Gest," of the difficult relations between Richard and John which so affected England in the mid-1190s (Warren-John, pp. 40-45) -- there isn't even a hint that the King had a brother. If Robin and Richard I actually met, it is almost inevitable that the Gest would have mentioned his troublesome brother.
We might add that, although Richard became a hero of folklore, he does not seem to have been popular in his own time. According to Warren-John, p. 31, the only son of Henry II to be popular with his contenporaries was Henry the Young King, who died before his father and never exercised power.
The "Gest," and several other song of Robin, show the outlaw, although a devoted Catholic, as opposed to the clerical establishment -- he happily robs bishops and abbots. Such a man would be unlikely to approve of Richard I, who financed his crusade largely by selling lands and rents to the bishops (Kelly.A, p. 252). Many of the abuses which Robin fought against were actually the result of Richard's actions. He might well have gotten along with Edward I, however, who went so far as to appeal to the Pope for the ouster of Archbishop Winchelsea of Canterbury (which he obtained; Prestwich, p. 541. It was yet another phase in Edward's attacks on the church). Edward II also had trouble with his bishops, notably Orleton of Hereford (more on this below), but Orleton wasn't the only one.
I can't help but note an irony: One folkloric account of the death of Richard I has the Greek Fates cut off his life. Why? Because he introduced the crossbow into France (Gillingham, p. 12). Not the longbow, note, the *crossbow*. For the evidence that Robin's weapon was the true longbow, which came later, see the note on Stanza 132.
The best argument for the reign of Henry III is that this is the period when the longbow was first becoming a respected weapon in the royal muster. The rebellion of Simon de Montfort could tie in with the traditions of conflict in the legends. Plus it was a long reign, giving lots of opportunities for potential Robins. And, for the very little it's worth, it ties in with Langland's reference to Ranulf of Chester, since one of the Ranulf of Chester was active early in the reign. And the reign of Henry III of course saw the activities of Roger Godberd, Baldwin's original Robin Hood.
I should probably mention that Keen sees links between the legend of Robin Hood and the stories told of William Wallace in the centuries after Wallace's death (Keen, pp. 75-76). Wallace was executed by Edward I in 1305, shortly before Edward II took the throne. So there is a theoretical possibility that the links to Edward II arise because the Wallace legend arose in Edward II's time, and that the Wallace legend was then converted to the Robin Hood legend. I really don't think this likely, however; first, the legend of Wallace (as opposed to Wallace the man) seems more recent than the Robin legend, and second, the Wallace legend and the Robin legend are dependent on very different monarchical situations, and I see no hint of Wallace's situation in Robin's legend or vice versa.
Holt seems to argue (Holt1, p. 115) that the fourteenth century feel in the legends is because Robin Hood is an English vernacular hero, and that it was only in the fourteenth century that the English vernacular again became common. In effect, he's arguing that Robin Hood must be from the fourteenth century because the fourteenth century allowed great men like Chaucer. This oversimplifies. First, French was still the language of the upper class in the early fourteenth century. Second, there was plenty of English vernacular writing prior to 1300 (e.g. Layamon's "Brut," "King Horn," "Havelock the Dane," "The Owl and the Nightingale"). None of this compares to Chaucer in quality -- but neither was there any quality Anglo-French literature in this period, and the fifteenth century produced no great English literature either. Chaucer was Chaucer because he was a genius, not because he lived in the fourteenth century! And Chaucer's contemporary Gower wrote as fluently in French and Latin as English.
Holt in his first edition made much of the links to the era of Edward II. His discovery of many "Robinhoods" in a period prior to that, already alluded to, caused him to back away from this in his second edition (Holt2, p. 189). This causes him to bring up a Robert Hod/Hobbehod, who seemingly was in trouble in two different shires in 1225-1226. He suggests, very vaguely, that this man might have been active in the 1190s, an outlaw in 1225, and dead in 1247 -- a version of the legend owing much to Ritson. This places him in the reigns of Richard I, John, and Henry III. But Holt is not convinced. Indeed, he thinks the first Robin Hood may have been earlier still.
Benet, p. 934, offers a similar speculation: "It is doubtful whether [Robin] ever lived -- the truth probably being that the stories associated with his name crystallized gradually around the personality of some popular local hero of the early 13th century."
Several scholars have strongly suggested that the "Gest" is targeted at the reign of Edward III. These include Ohlgren, who treats a date in the reign of Edward III as established fact, and Pollard. The chief evidence in Knight/Ohlgren seems to be the reference in the "Gest" to the "comely King," which title we know was used of Edward III (see note on Stanza 353). Pollard (pp. 202-204) bolsters the argument that Edward III must be meant with the claim that Edward III restored justice after a period when it was lacking, or at least was considered to have done so. This is true but a poor argument -- note that the single most substantial element in the "Gest" is built around an injustice which Robin has to correct because royal justice cannot.
Remember too that Edward II was proposed for sainthood.by Richard II (Phillips, pp. 600-606). True, Edward did not deserve it, but the idea was obviously "in the air" about the time the elements of the "Gest" were coalescing. And saints were generally considered just but unworldly -- a perfect fit for the King in the "Gest," who has a weak grip on what is going on but tries for justice once he finds out.
Yet even Holt2, p. 192, thinks that Edward II's trip north was a key component in the legend. I tend to agree.
Can we make something out of all this conflicting data? If we sit down and list all our various points of evidence, and fit which kings they match, we get this list (in alphabetical order by trait):
* King during a crusading period: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* King who used distraint of knighthood: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* King during whose reign high clerical officials were known to have been robbed by outlaws: Edward II
* King during whose reign longbows were a common weapon: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* King during whose reign longbows were used but not widely encouraged: Henry III, Edward II
* King during whose reign social unrest would encourage outlawry: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Henry IV, Henry VI
* King during whose reign there could be a connection between Robin and Ranulf of Chester: Henry III, Edward I
* King named Edward: Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Edward IV
* King went to the north of England and was concerned with deer herds: Edward II
* King who lived during the period of problems with livery: Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Edward IV
* King who was clearly not up to the job, but who was regularly in England, fitting the situation in "Robin Hood and the Monk": Henry III, Edward II
* King who would be relatively likely to personally deal with ordinary outlaws: John, Edward II, Edward IV
* Kings whose reigns were early enough that Robin might be legendary by 1377: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* Kings in whose reign a sheriff would be powerful but not a noble: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* Kings in which coins were available for the counting of money: Henry III (briefly), Edward I, Edward II, Edward III (after 1344), Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI
* Kings who used a gold coinage: Henry III (briefly), Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* Kings who spoke English: John (?), Edward I, Edward II (?), Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* Kings who reigned more than 22 years: Henry II, Henry III, Edward I, Edward III, Henry VI
The archetype of the legend need not fit all these traits, but certainly should fit most of them. Note that Edward II fits probably 15 of the 18, and the only three he doesn't fit (a gold coinage, a reign of 22 years, and a tie to Ranulf of Chester) are the weakest on the list. Richard I fits only *two* of the traits.
Second place after Edward II is Edward I, who fits twelve traits (I will admit that I am sorely tempted to link Robin to the disorder and breakdown of law at the end of Edward I's reign. But the visit of the King implies a still-strong monarch. By 1290, when things started to come unglued, Edward I was too old). Henry III had eleven or (briefly) twelve traits. Edward III had seven; no one else had more than six.
For the reign of Henry II (three traits) there is no direct evidence except a sort of historical reconstructionism: "If Robin was around during the short reign of Richard I, he must have been around in the long reign of Henry II." But given Robin's problems with bishops, could he possibly have lived in the time of Henry II without mention of Becket? Or of Becket's rival for the Archbishopric of Canterbury, Gilbert Foliot -- who just happened at the time of Becket's election to have been Bishop of Hereford? (Dahmus, p. 160).
Adding to the case for Edward II is the fact that he seems to have been unusually pious. This is not to say that the other Plantagenets were not (with the likely exception of John, who was very possibly a freethinker). But Edward II was particularly fond of religious observance and religious men, according to Phillips, p. 66. What's more, when Edward was in danger after Bannockburn, he is said to have vowed to the Virgin Mary to found a college if he were spared (Phillips, p. 68). Edward II was also devoted to (St.) Edward the Confessor -- but when he upgraded the chapel of St. Edward at Windsor, he set it up to say two masses a day, one for his father Edward I and one for the Virgin (Phillips, p. 69). Edward's devotion to Mary probably did not match Robin's -- but it was evidently stronger than most.
Thus the clear preponderance of evidence points to the reign of Edward II as the period in which the "Gest" is set. Almost everything fits, and no other reign fits as well. I emphasize that this is not proof -- the "Gest" is clearly an assembly from older materials, and those older materials might have come from diverse reigns. But *if* there was some chronological setting used as backdrop for those early legends, it is likely that the context was the reign of Edward II -- or possibly spanned the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (since Edward I also fits at several points), or Edward II and Edward III. It is morally certain that it did not arise out of the reign of Richard I.
Holt's conclusion, on p. 190, is that "The answer then to the question 'Who was Robin Hood?', must be 'There was more than one.'" This suggestion is, I think, undeniable. But the legend, if not the man, was born in the reign of Edward II.

 

Traditional Ballad Index: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 05

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 06 (File Number C117E)
Last updated in version 2.6
NOTES: SIDELIGHTS ON THE LEGEND
If we accept as an hypothesis that many of the early Robin Hood tales were associated with Edward II, it can potentially explain other features of the legend.
One of our most difficult questions is the place where Robin lived. Although we think of him as haunting Sherwood Forest (and indeed, 17 of the ballads place Robin in Sherwood or Nottingham), the "Gest" never actually names Sherwood, and early sources usually place him in Barnsdale. Dobson/Taylor catalog these on pp;. 18-19: The "Gest" and "Guy of Gisborne" have explicit references to the Barnsdale area, and the "Potter" mentins Wentberg, which is probably near Wentbridge in Barnsdale. On the other hand, there is the "Robyn Hod in Scherewod stod" verse, and the "Monk" places itself in "mery Scherewode" in stanza 16.
The reference to Barnsdale is not necessarily to Barndsale Forest, merely to some place called Barnsdale. Barnsdale the place is not a forest; Child, p. 50, calls it a "woodland region," and Dobson/Taylor, p. 21, say of it, "A magnesian limestone area, probably not much more heavily wooded in the later middle ages than today, Barnsdale does not appear to have ever been a forest in either the literal or legal sense." It is in west Yorkshire, somewhat east of Leeds and Wakefield, more than ten leagues to the north of Sherwood (see map in p. 101 of Holt2). Barnsdale, note, is outside the "beat" of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Although some (e.g. Baldwin, p. 44) claim that Robin could have lived in both Barnsdale and Sherwood, the two are so far apart that an outlaw could not reasonably occupy both simultaneously. (As of 2004, in fact, this has become an issue in the British parliament, with Nottinghamshire posting signs saying "Robin Hood Country" and Yorkshire wanting them taken down.) A man could travel from one to the other in a day, but would not have time to do anything upon arriving.
It is interesting to note that the three Edwards regularly hunted in Sherwood (Baldwin, p. 44). But this doesn't help us explain the events in the "Gest," because the King there complained about lack of deer at Plumpton Park, and that assuredly is not in Sherwood.
Additional minor evidence for why Barnsdale is a more likely home for the legend comes from the fact that arrows had iron warheads. In the Middle Ages, only five counties in England were important iron-producing areas. One was Yorkshire (Hewitt, p. 70). Nottingham was not one of them. Thus it would have been easier for Robin to liberate arrows in Barnsdale than Sherwood.
We should probably demonstrate why the claim that Robin Hood was earl of Huntingdon (the correct spelling) is impossible, and the claim that he was any sort of noble is almost as bad. The last Saxon Earl of Huntingdon was Waltheof, who was a young man at the time of the Norman Conquest. Our information on this period is scanty, but he was executed for some sort of treasonous activity in 1076 (Barlow-Rufus, p. 31) -- perhaps for complicity in Malcolm Canmore's invasion of the north in that year (Douglas, pp. 232-233).
Apparently Waltheof had no male heir, but according to Tyerman, p. 21, "his heirs were not harried," so the Huntingdon earldom was allowed to pass to his daughter Matilda/Maud and her husband Simon of Senlis (St. Liz), a soldier who served William the Conqueror well; she married him probably around 1090 (in the time of, and probably at the command of, William II; Bartow, pp. 93, 172-173).
After Simon's death, Matilda (who by now was around 40) married the future King David I of Scotland (Magnusson, p. 73, says this took place in 1114; Oram, p. 65, says in 1113), meaning that David was the first of several Kings of Scotland who also were Earls of Huntingdon. Matilda had earlier children (Oram, p. 65), but is was decided that her children by David would be the heirs of Huntingdon. There was only one child, a boy Henry, who ended up as David's only son, since the king never remarried after Matilda died in 1130 (Oram, p. 73). Thus Henry of Huntingdon became both Earl of Huntingdon and ancestor of the royal line of Scotland.
For the moment, however, he was perhaps more English than Scottish. Henry in fact became a member of the English King Stephen's court (Bradbury, p. 33), and Henry's son Malcolm "the Maiden" campaigned in France with Stephen's successor Henry II as his vassal (Magnusson, p. 80).
King David before his death passed the earldom to his son Henry (it was common practice for kings to give their heirs some sort of property to manage), and this was confirmed by King Stephen in 1139 (Bradbury, p. 36, although he notes that Ranulf of Chester wanted to take Carlisle from Henry of Huntingdon. Stephen ignored this -- one reason Ranulf turned against him -- although Stephen did split off part of the Huntingdon earldom to form the earldom of Northampton; Bradbury, p. 37. Thus a person with Northampton ancestry might also claim the Huntingdon earldom -- but as far as I know, no one ever linked Robin with Northampton.).
Henry of Huntingdon however died a year before his father, so he never became king of Scotland. Henry's older sons became kings, so the third son, David, eventually was given the earldom (Bradbury, p. 177). The honor passed to David's son John in 1219. John also inherited the earldom of Chester, but died childless in 1237 (Oram, p. 90). The Earldom of Chester went back to the English crown, but the Huntingdon earldom, although Mortimer, p. 78, declares it extinct, went to the Bruces of Anandale, since they were descended from Earl David's second daughter Isabel (see genealogy on p. 301 of Oram). Isabel's son Robert Bruce, the future competitor for the throne of Scotland and grandfather of King Robert I, fought with Henry III at the Battle of Lewes and was taken captive (Powicke, p. 190), and his son Robert fought with Edward I in Wales (Prestwich1, p. 196); indeed, an earlier Bruce had fought been with the English army that defeated the Scots at the Battle of the Standard in 1138! (Young/Adair, p. 24).
It would probably have been very difficult in this period to take the Huntingdon earldom from the heirs of Waltheof, since the dead earl was by this time being informally venerated as a saint (Tyerman, p. 21).
Members of the Scots royal family thus held the Huntingdon earldom from the reign of Henry I until the reign of Edward I -- Robert Bruce #2 (the son of the competitor and the father of the future king) held to his English allegiance until his death in 1306, very probably so that he would not lose his English title. The Bruces, like their ancestors, were at least as English as Scottosh -- they had a home in London at this time (Oram, p. 117), and one of Robert Bruce's brothers bore that quintessentially English name, Edward -- an especially noteworthy point since he was born in the reign of Edward I. Another brother, Alexander, graduated from Cambridge in 1303 (Oram, p. 118).
Still, Robert Bruce, Earl of Huntingdon, was regarded by all as a Scot, not an Englishman. This brings us to the curious part. Remember Langland's link between Robin Hood and Ranulf of Chester? The last Earl Ranulf of Chester died in 1232 without a direct heir (Mortimer, p. 78, who adds that his lands were divided). The next person in line for the Chester earldom was "John the Scot," the son of David of Huntingdon (Powicke, p. 197 n.). Once he died, the English crown reclaimed the Chester earldom (Mortimer, p. 78).
Even though the English King took back the Chester earldom, if you assume that Robin really was Earl of Huntingdon, then he almost had to be Scottish, and he also had the claim to being Earl of Chester. In other words, if Robin really was an earl, then Langland's link of Ranulf and of Robin would be of cousins (probably first cousins once removed), with Robin being Ranulf's heir!
No, I don't buy a word of it either. Apart from all the assumptions we have to accept, the Scots never took to the longbow -- one of the main reasons why the English won most of the battles with the Scots from 1300 to 1513. The one major Scottish win, at Bannockburn, came about because Edward II ignored his archers -- a lesson his son was quick to learn. And yet, if we continue the speculation, we do find in "Robin Hood and the Scotchman" [Child 130] the interesting fact that Robin is willing to accept Scots into his band. But this ballad is late, and the surviving versions short -- and the "Scotchman" shows no indications of actual Scottishness. I almost wonder if this isn't some sort of strange attempt to show James I or some other Stuart king that Robin was an equal opportunity outlaw.
One last observation: Martin Parker's feeble "A True Tale of Robin Hood" [Child 154], which in stanza 3 makes Robin Earl of Huntingdon in the reign of Richard I, in stanza 83 has Robin's men flee to "the Scottish King," but not Robin himself. Parker seems to have made up much of his tale, but some might be from now-lost tradition. His tale fits badly in the reign of Richard I; Richard lived before the formation of the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France. Scotland and England were often friendly in this period. Outlaws who fled to Scotland might be turned over to the English king. It was only after Bannockburn in 1314 that Scotland would be a safe and secure refuge.
None of that is really relevant, except to prove the following: The only way that Robin Hood could have been shadow Earl of Huntingdon is if he has been a child of Matilda daughter of Waltheof by her first marriage to Simon of Senlis. But that would mean that he was born in 1107 at the latest, and probably a few years earlier. This would mean that he would have been active in the reigns of Henry I (reigned 1100-1135) and Stephen (1135-1154). And that's just plain too early.
There is one other question: If the legend early on made Robin a shadow earl (perhaps under the influence of the Tale of Gamelyn or some such), why Earl of Huntingdon? We can't really answer this, but it leads to interesting speculations.
The office of Earl was established before the Norman Conquest. In Saxon times, the number and boundaries of the earldoms were not at all fixed (e.g. E. A. Freeman, as reproduced on p. 362 of Barlow-Edward, pp. 362-363, shows eight earldoms in 1045, but only six plus a sub-earldom in 1065-1066). Our knowledge of the earldoms at the time is very limited (Walker, p. 231), but they did not correspond at all to the modern counties; indeed, counties were often swapped from earl to earl during the reign of Edward the Confessor (Walker, pp. 2333-234, tabulates the little we know about these changes).
But several earldoms always existed in the late Saxon period, based in large part on the ancient kingdoms of Britain: The earldoms of Wessex, Mercia, and Northumberland, plus apparently the smaller earldom of East Anglia. The three major earldoms had belonged to three great families under King Cnut: Godwine of Wessex, Leofric of Mercia, and Siward of Northumbria (the father of the above-mentioned Waltheof). All of them were dead before 1060, but the later earls were selected from their descendents.
Without bothering with the details of how it ended up so, in 1066 King Harold II son of Godwine retained his old Earldom of Wessex as well as being king. His brother Gyrth was Earl of East Anglia, and his brother Leofwine held an Earldom in the southeast that doesn't seem to have had a name (Barlow-Edward, p. 197). Edwin the grandson of Leofric held Mercia, and his brother Morkere/Morcar had recently been granted Northumbria (Barlow-Edward, p. 238). Waltheof, the only living son of Seward, had been very young when his father died, but around 1065 was given land in Huntingdon and Northamptonshire (Barlow-Edward, p, 194 n. 3; Walker, p. 234). It is not clear what this earldom was called at the time, but after the Conquest, it was labelled the earldom of Huntingdon.
Here is what is interesting. After the Conquest, William the Conqueror broke up the great Earldoms -- indeed, it is Douglas's opinion (pp. 295-297) that William completely redefined the office of Earl, from an administrative post to a military one -- most of his earls held marcher counties. He immediately dissolved Harold's earldom of Wessex, and when a few years later he got rid of Edwin and Morkere, he dissolved Mercia and chopped Northumbria down to the county of Northumberland (Linklater, pp. 263-264). East Anglia was divided into Norfolk and Suffolk. Leofwine's southeastern earldom also was dissolved.
Thus Waltheof's earldom of Huntingdon, although small compared to the other Saxon earldoms, was the only one to survive essentially intact. Was whoever invented the Huntingdon claim anticipating Scott's idea of Robin the Saxon survivor? No idea. However, had Robin not been claimed as shadow earl of some other county, it is not unlikely that Scott, or an earlier author, would have converted him to Earl of Huntingdon just because it was such a historically interesting title.
But if Robin Hood was not Earl of Huntingdon, which he wasn't, then he surely did not live in the Barnsdale in Rutland. So we're still trying to decide between Sherwood and the Barnsdale in Yorkshire.
Or maybe someplace to the west. Much of the material in the "Gest" parallels portions of "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly" [Child 116], first published in 1536. Those three outlaws were based in Inglewood in Cumbria and Lancashire, not Barnsdale or Sherwood (though, we might note, Wynton places Robin in Inglewood). An attempt to combine the two legends produced the monstrosity that is "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage" [Child 149]. Some have tried to claim "Adam Bell" as an ancestor of the Robin Hood legend. But there is in fact no reason to think the dependency does not go the other way; Chambers, p. 159, calls it "almost a burlesque of Robin Hood."
More reasonably, the reference to Inglewood might come out of Edward II's wars with Scotland. McNamee, p. 47, notes that people in southwest Scotland were hiding their cattle in Inglewood due to English raids. (We see a similar situation in England in 1345, when English herders took their cattle to Knaresborough and Galtres forests in Yorkshire due to Scottish raids; Hewitt, p. 103.) Talk about an opportunity for outlaws! -- maybe Robin made a business trip. Another possibility is that Robin originally set up in Barnsdale, but during the period of the Scots raids, pickings grew so slim in Yorkshire that he moved south, perhaps temporarily, to Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, which was south of the area devastated by the Scots.
Young, p. 99, has an interesting table calculating up the average rate of offenses against venison at several forests in the late thirteenth century. The lowest rate is two per year at Melksham in Wiltshire. Ten of the other twelve forests for which statistics were available, all in southern or central England, averaged four or five offenses per year. Only two exceeded five offences per year: Sherwood, with seven, and Inglewood, with eight. (Barnsdale is not in the list.) It would seem that both were well-known as outlaw haunts.
"Guy of Gisborne" hints at a location somewhat south of Inglewood, in Lancashire -- but close enough that Robin could be in both. Gisburn is a small town, due north of modern Burnley, relatively close to the west coast of Britain, on the Ribble river in Lancashire; it is 30 or 40 miles west and somewhat north of Barnsdale -- although, interestingly, it is directly between Barnsdale and Sir Richard's presumed home in Wyresdale. If Guy lived in Robin's locality, Robin might well have lived in Bowland Forest east of the Wyre river, roughly in the center of a triangle with vertices at Preston, the city of Lancaster, and Gisburn. The chances of anyone from Sherwood, or even Barnsdale, casually showing up in the Gisburn area are slight.
Holt1, p. 105, makes the interesting observation that, although references to Lancashire locations are relatively few, they are scattered across the several parts of the poem -- the killing of the knight of Lancaster is in fit 1, the mention of Verysdale (Wyresdale?) is in fit 2, and King Edward is near the passes of Lancashire and Plumpton Park in fit 7. Holt suggests that the Lancashire references were all added after the story was nearly finished; the other possibility, of course, is that they are very ancient and precede localization to Sherwood and Barnsdale.
Vague additional support for a Lancashire setting comes from stanza 53 of the "Gest," which says that the Knight's son slew a knight of Lancaster/Lancashire. Obviously Lancashire knights were most common in Lancashire -- but on the other hand, who would identify a knight as being "of Lancashire" if the setting were Lancashire?
And then there is the alternate reading "Lancaster." Although a geographic designation, it is also a political one -- could the boy have slain a knight who was a vassal of the Earl (or Duke) of Lancaster? If so, it might even explain why Robin befriended Sir Richard, since the Earl of Lancaster, as we shall see, was Edward II's strongest adversary. And Lancastrians still existed and "were unreconciled" after the earl's execution (Wilkinson, p. 128). Alternately, "Lancaster" might be an anachronism -- a supporter of the House of Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses, which began after the "Gest" was written (probably, anyway) but before the "Gest" was printed.
This is one of the most important variants in the "Gest," and I disagree withChild on purely textual grounds -- although it would be very helpful if someone could do a more serious critical analysis. But if my analysis of the text is correct, then the reading "Lancashire" is an argument, although a weak one, against placing the Robin in Lancashire.
If the "Curtal Friar" be regarded as solid evidence, the Friar is from Fountains Abbey. The abbey dates from the twelfth century (founded 1132, according to Tatton-Brown/Crook, p. 112, by the Cisterians; Kerr, pp. 193-194, says the founders wanted to adopt a stricter rule and so broke away from the Benedictines -- although Tyerman, p. 116, says that this worked only moderately well), so it is no help with dating -- but it is in west Yorkshire, near Barnsdale, not in Nottinghamshire. It was raided by the Scots in 1318 or 1319 (McNamee, p. 88) -- which might perhaps explain why the Friar was active so far from his base: the Abbey residents were scattered. (The other possibility is that he was herding sheep; Kerr, p. 195, says that the abbey at one time had 15,000 sheep!)
I do note that Fountains eventually came to start paying significant sums to visiting minstrels (Holt1, p. 137); might Fountains Abbey have come to be part of the tradition because some visiting performer zipped its name into one of his Robin Hood songs?
For the interesting relationship between Richard of Fountains and the Abbot of St. Mary's, see the notes to Stanza 88.
Minor additional support for Barnsdale comes from the fact that several Scottish chroniclers knew of Robin; they would have been more likely to know of a Yorkshire robber than one from Nottinghamshire or probably Lancashire.
Almost all the sites named after Robin Hood are much later than the earliest references to the outlaw. The one partial exception, according to Holt1, p. 107, is a Robin Hood marker in Barnsdale attested from 1422. The first known Nottingham is dated to 1485 (Holt1, p. 408).
If we allow the dubious possibility that Edward IV was the "Gest's" king, this tends to support the Sherwood hypothesis. Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III all visited the north mostly for their wars. Edward IV, since he was not born to be king (he was the son of Richard Duke of York, and gained the throne by conquest), spent much time in the north when he was young, but after winning the Battle of Towton at the very beginning of his reign, tended to stay in the south. What is interesting is that Ross-Edward, p. 271, lists several visits he made around the country in the 1470s (his last trips outside southern England). One did go as far north as York, but in most, the King visited Nottingham and then returned south. He in fact rebuilt Nottingham castle to be a more comfortable residence (Ross-Edward, p. 272). Thus he was far more often in the vicinity of Sherwood than Barnsdale.
Edward's interest in Nottingham is in sharp contrast to his predecessor Henry VI, who visited Nottinham only once in the long period from his accession in 1422 until 1450 (Wolffe, p. 94). The map on pp. 96-97 of Wolffe, however, does show Henry VI visiting Blythe and Doncaster.
If we have three Robin Hood centers, in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Nottinghamshire, it makes slightly better sense to assume the legend originated in Yorkshire. In that case, the legend spread out from the central county. Otherwise, we have to assume that it spread from Nottinghamshire to Yorkshire to Lancashire, or vice versa, without being picked up in other counties. This could have happened -- but in general we should prefer the "middle" variant.
On the other hand, the earlier we date Robin, the more likely a Lancashire origin becomes. Of the three counties, Lancashire is the closest to Wales, where the longbow originated. Yorkshire is the most remote of the three. If we assume Robin took up the bow on his own, rather than under royal encouragement, then Lancashire makes the best sense.
Holt1, p. 53, notes that the description of Barnsdale in the "Gest" is more detailed and accurate (mentioning, e.g., Watling Street) than that of Sherwood (see the note on Stanza 3). On p. 88, he amplifies this, saying that "Barnsdale seems real. Sherwood is somewhat like the 'wood near Athens'" of Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The details of Barnsdale might, however, be from the poet rather than the legend.
Kirklees, where Robin died according to both the "Gest" and the "Death," is much closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood -- a sick man would hardly want to make the two-day journey from Sherwood to Kirklees. But from Barnsdale it is about twenty miles -- perhaps less. It is also fairly close to Lancashire.
Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire all fit the account of King Edward's northern visit; Edward II visited all these places.
Of the three places (Nottinghamshire, west Yorkshire, Lancashire), Lancashire would be the least likely haunt for robbers; it was a rather poor area and is far from the main routes north from London. Barnsdale and Sherwood are both near the Great North Road/Watling Street (see map on p. 82 of Holt1).
Prestwich3, p. 68, makes the fascinating note that, when Edward I was preparing to campaign against Scotland, his army consisted of knights, men-at-arms, archers -- and *slingers* from Sherwood Forest. It was apparently not unusual for the King to call on foresters to recruit forces for his wars (in fact, Edward II called out levies from the forests south of Trent in 1322 for a campaign against Scotland; Young, p. 165) -- but this is the only instance I can think of of slingers in an English army. Could this be another reason for the transfer of Robin from Barnsdale to Sherwood?
My guess is that Barnsdale was Robin's original home, and that locals in other areas adopted him, and that Sherwood and Nottinghamshire won out because Nottinghamshire and Sherwood are larger and better known (Dobson/Taylor, p. 20; most modern maps don't even show Barnsdale). The connection with the unscrupulous Sheriff John of Oxford may have helped. So might the memory of Roger Godberd, that particularly busy robber who was active in Nottinghamshire in the reign of Henry III (Holt1, pp. 97-99) who was Baldwin's candidate for the Original Robin Hood. Several scholars have suggested that the current legend is a fusion of two cycles, one based in Barnsdale and one involving the Sheriff of Nottingham which attracted Robin of Barnsdale (Dobson/Taylor, p. 14). Holt1, p. 97, seems to accept a possibility that the Godberd tale, which involved the constable of Nottingham, might have attracted the Robin Hood legend to Sherwood.
But the possibility that the attraction went the other way cannot be ruled out; since Barnsdale was known as a den of robbers by 1306 (Holt1, p. 52; Dobson/Taylor, p. 24, following Hunter), a robber in Sherwood might have been relocated to Barnsdale (perhaps also helped by the link to the Hood family of Wakefield). Once the memory of Barnsdale as a haunt of robbers faded, the Sherwood legend might re-emerge.
I'll admit that I've had some pretty strange thoughts about this. For example, the fact that there seemed to be Robin Hood legends in three places -- Barnsdale, Sherwood, and Inglewood -- gave rise to the thought that Robin invented the idea of "franchising." The image is of a guy who sleeps and eats at home, then goes to his day job of Robinbooding. Robin set up his first outlaw band in Barnsdale. Then he granted a license for the name to someone (Young Gamwell, perhaps?) in Sherwood. Then he opened a third franchise in Inglewood -- perhaps selling the rights there to Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesley. Robin, after all, must have employed a very good bowyer, and Robin's fletcher must also have been good. They, and perhaps other specialists in his band, could potentially serve several outlaw bands.
It is interesting to note that two of the ballads describe Robin as robbing the Bishop of Hereford: "Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" [Child 144] and "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" [Child 145]. The former is of course all about the robbery. The latter mentions it only in passing (stanza 23 of Child's "A" refers to Hereford, as does line 177 of the Knight/Ohlgren text based on the Forresters manuscript; see also Knight, p. 39, second stanza; Knight, p. 58). "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" is partly based on the "Gest," and may also have influence from one of the various tales of Robin robbing bishops. In any case, "Queen Katherine" cannot be an early legend -- England did not have a Queen Katherine from the time of William the Conqueror until Henry V married Catherine of Valois in 1420.
"Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" is another matter. The plot comes from Eustace the Monk, and it is so similar in concept to "Robin Hood and the Bishop" [Child 143] that Knight/Ohlgren do not seem even to distinguish them. But while copies of "The Bishop of Hereford" are fairly recent, it is noteworthy among the late ballads in placing Robin in Barnsdale, not Sherwood -- a strong hint a token of older content. And Child considers it superior to most of the later ballads, plus it is fairly well attested in tradition.
Admittedly the action in "Hereford" is probably a doublet of the robbing of the abbot in the "Gest," or the monk in the "Monk." But why the Bishop of Hereford? Hereford is nowhere near any of Robin's known haunts. Nor, we note, is it a rich bishopric. Barlow-Rufus, p. 262, has a table of the values of sundry bishoprics. The list is not complete. but Hereford, with a farm of 270 pounds per year in the time of Henry II, is the poorest see listed except for Chichester. Even allowing for inflation (there reportedly was heavy inflation in the early 1200s; Mortimer, p. 51), it's hard to see how a Bishop of Hereford could have 300 pounds in cash to haul around.
Almost all ot these problems are solved if we assume that the Bishop involved is Adam Orleton, Bishop of Hereford at the end of the reign of Edward II. Although he was only Bishop of Hereford at that time, he soon after was translated to Worcester (in 1327), and then to Winchester (in 1333); according to Hicks, p. 60, he was among the very first bishops to be translated (moved from one bishopric to another), a practice which had been frowned on in the early church.
Winchester was the richest diocese in England (with a farm of 1440 pounds per year in Henry II's time, or more than five times the value of Hereford, according to Barlow-Rufus, and on the order of 4000 pounds per year by the time of Henry III, according to Mortimer, p. 81), and was still considered "the richest of English sees" (Wolffe, p. 67) and a "lucrative" bishopric in the time of Henry VI (Wolffe, p. 56).
And, if we assume that Robin was a supporter of Edward II, then he had a particular reason to go after Orleton -- and to call him Bishop of Hereford even after his translation. Doherty describes Orleton (p. 86) as "ruffianly," while Hutchison, p. 128, calls him "unamiable and self-serving." Even the less pro-Edward Harvey declares (p. 160) that he was one of several bishops who "counted treason as nothing."
The most positive assessment I can find of him is in Hicks, p. 61, who thinks the Pope liked and promoted Orleton because Orleton -- a man of "exceptionally obscure" origins -- believed in a strongly hierarchical church (a church, thus, which might promote men like Orleton!). Hicks also notes that he seems to have made genuine efforts to manage his diocese well, and says that his reputation has suffered because of the works of one particular chronicler. This argument does not seem to have been convincing; few other historians have anything better to say of Orleton than Ormrod, p. 28, who merely calls him a "political prelate" (although, interestingly, he would later play a role in claiming the kingdom of France for Edward III) and Barber, who on p. 14 calls him "far from incompetent."
Orleton was unusual in that he was not the monarch's pick for his see. Edward II had opposed Orleton's appointment in the first place (Prestwich3, p. 105; Hicks, p. 61). Phillips, p. 450, says that Edward II had sent him on a mission to Avignon in 1317, and that Orleton managed to obtain the Bishopric of Hereford while there, presumably by intrigue. Edward tried to have the Pope set him aside. Orleton would more than have his revenge:
Edward II had trouble with several of his bishops at one time or another, but Phillips, pp. 453-454, says that Orleton was the one bishop with whom he was never reconciled -- he was actually called before judges in 1324 (Phillips, p. 453). Doherty, p. 86, declares that Orleton of Hereford was a friend of Roger Mortimer (who became Isabella's lover and later led the rebellion against Edward II) and helped Mortimer escape from the Tower. Edward, not surprisingly, took away his temporalities (Hutchison, p. 130). Later, Orleton would preach against Edward II's favorites the Despensers (Doherty, p. 91), and Hutchison, p. 135, declares that he "preached treason" at Oxford.
"The bishop of Hereford declared in the parliament of 1326 that if Isabella rejoined her husband [Edward II] she would suffer death at his hands. Soon after, we find the Bishop of Hereford allied with Queen Isabella against the King; he was one of those who joined her party in France" (Prestwich3, p. 97; although Phillips, p. 504, says that Orleton joined the rebels after they landed in England. Doherty also supposts the claim that Orleton saved Isabella from being reunited from her husband, allowing her to stick with her lover Mortimer).
Phillips, p. 98, says that Orleton was the first to openly declare Edward II a sodomite -- although it must have been whispered earlier; he also called Edward a tyrant (Phillips, p. 523, who notes however that Orleton later claimed -- once the political tide had turned -- that he was using the words about Hugh Despenser the Younger rather than Edward. Phillips, pp. 523-524, n. 22, does add that the charge of sodomy was widely reported on the continent but occurs rarely in English chronicles).
Once the anti-Edward rebellion succeeded, Isabella and Mortimer had to figure out what to do with Edward. They finally decided on trying to get him to publicly give up his throne -- and Orleton was one of those sent to talk him into it (Doherty, p. 110. Edward of course refused to go along). Orleton did manage to retrieve the Privy Seal (Hutchison, p. 137). When Parliament met, Orleton presented most of the arguments for Edward's deposition (Doherty, pp. 110-111; Hutchison, p. 138, says that on January 13, 1327, he preached on the theme "A foolish king shall ruin his people"). In Hutchison's view, in the period immediately after Edward's deposition, three people ran the country: "the adulteress Isabella, her paramour Mortimer and the execrable Orleton" (p. 140).
Orleton would later, once Edward III was firmly in control, be accused of ordering the death of Edward II. He was able to prove his innocence -- he was both out of favor and out of the country at the time of the murder (Doherty, pp. 130-131) -- but surely friends of the king would be those most likely to listen to such rumors.
We know Orleton ended up with a reputation for sneakiness. A late source, demonstrably false, told of him sending a message to Edward II's guards, "Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est" (Doherty, p. 130). If punctuated with a comma after timere, this becomes "Do not be afraid to kill Edward; it is good"; if punctuated with a comma before timere, it is "Do not kill Edward; it is good to be afraid." We know it's not true because, first, Orleton wasn't in the country to send the message, and second, the story was originally told of someone else (Hutchison, p. 142; Doherty, pp. 130-131). But it is probably a valid example of how Orleton was seen at the time.
Thus, while Robin Hood disliked bishops in general, if he lived c. 1327, the bishop he would surely hate above all would be Orleton of Hereford.
The most likely time for the robbery might be the period in 1327-1328, when memories of Orleton's part in the deposition of Edward II were fresh and Orleton was Lord Treasurer and hence would be dealing with large sums of money. Toward the end of the latter year, Orleton lost his post of Treasurer because he disagreed with the forced regency of Roger Mortimer (Ormrod, p. 15).
So while it would be unlikely that a bishop would carry 300 pounds, let along the 800 pounds allegedly taken from the cellarer of the "Gest," Orleton, if taken after 1333, or during his time as treasurer, would be good for the sum. And Robin and his men might call him "Bishop of Hereford" even after he was translated, because the translations took place under a regime they disapproved of. And Orleton lived until 1345, so there was plenty of time to rob him after his translations.
It is perhaps slightly ironic to note that it has been suggested that the compiler of the tale of Fulk FitzWarin was a member of Orleton's clerical family (Ohlgren, p. 106).
Orleton went blind by 1340, and died in 1345 (Hicks, p. 62).
THE REDATING OF THE LEGEND: ROBIN HOOD AND RICHARD I
Holt1, p. 36, declares, "Nothing has so confused the story of Robin so much as the imposition of modern anacrhronism on the medieval legend." The observations above and below surely show how true this is. If the original stories of Robin Hood are so clearly linked to the period of the Edwards, how did the later Robin Hood come to be so associated with the time of Richard I? As Dobson/Taylor point out on p. 16, "there is no evidence whatsoever" that Robin lived in the time of Richard and John, adding in note 3, "The only serious scholar to accept a twelfth-century date for Robin Hood in recent years was Professor W. Entwistle."
So why Richard I?
Some of it may have been the curious similarity between the story in the "Gest" of Robin and the Knight and that of Saint Robert of Knaresborough (see note on Stanza 91). Also, there was a tale, in Roger of Wendover's chronicle (1232?) which Briggs-Folktales prints on pp. 219-220, called "King Richard and the Penitent Knight," about a knight condemned for killing deer. This has some similarities to the tale in the "Gest," and might have caused the two to become attracted.
Probably a bigger part of it is just the wild guesses of the earlier chroniclers. It is interesting that many of the early reports about Robin are Scottish; Pollard, p. 190, suggests that the Scots chroniclers might have transferred Robin from the reign of the Edwards, who oppressed Scotland, to Richard, who granted Scotland independece. And Munday, and later Walter Scott, strengthened the suggestion.
But those early guesses -- which, after all, are probably based in part on materials we no longer have -- could also have been influenced by the many similarities (some trivial, some quite significant) between Edward II and Richard I:
* Both have been charged with homosexuality (although Edward managed to father children, which Richard did not. Edward was not openly accused of homosexuality until Tudor times; Philipps, pp. 25-26. But Edward's obsession with Piers Gaveston was a major issue even before Edward took the throne; Hutchison, p. 30). To be sure, Richard's homosexuality is disputed (see the notes to "Richie Story" [Child 232]). But the only other seemingly-homosexual pre-Tudor English king was William Rufus, who never married and apparently dressed his courtiers in effeminate styles (Barlow-Rufus, pp. 102-104). No one wanted to imitate Rufus, who was not admired. (Although, interestingly, he, like Richard, died of an arrow shot probably by a vassal.) In any case, Rufus was known for his poor relations with the church (Barlow-Rufus, p. 110) and his appropriation of funds from bishoprics he refused to fill (Barlow-Rufus, p. 181); although Barlow-Rufus on p. 113 denies that Rufus was actually non-Christian, the pious Robin probably would not have liked him.
* Both Richard and Edward were younger sons of overbearing fathers who did not initially expect to succeed to the throne (Edward II's older brother Alfonso was heir at the time Edward was born; Alfonso did not die until 1284, when he was 11 years old; Hutchison, pp. 5-6. Richard's brother was Henry the Young King, who died in 1183, when Richard was already 25 or 26).
* Both suffered severe financial difficulties (not that that is unusual for an English King).
* Neither held true to his word (Hutchison, p. 69, notes Edward's repeated flouting of the Ordinances to which he agreed; one of the reasons Richard fought his father was that neither could be trusted).
* Both were considered to have inherited the overlordship of Scotland from their fathers, and both lost it (Richard sold it to finance his crusade, Edward forfeited it at Bannockburn).
* Both died violently when rather young -- around 43. Richard was still on the throne when he died, whereas Edward II had been deposed earlier in the year, but Richard had sown a wind which would be reaped by his brother John, and which brought John to the brink of deposition.
Plus, Richard I is often said (somewhat exaggeratedly) to have been in conflict with his younger brother and successor John. This is a particularly common theme in the Robin Hood stories. And Edward II had been in conflict with his nobles long before his deposition -- notably with his cousin Henry of Lancaster.
Lancaster wasn't Edward II's brother -- but Edward II had no living full brothers, and his two half-brothers were young, and his only male heirs in 1318 were two boys under the age of seven. Apart from those boys, Henry of Lancaster was the heir in male line of Edward II; both were grandsons in male line of King Henry III. Close enough to a brother for ballad purposes (Wilkinson, p. 119, calls him the "first lord of the royal blood"); had Edward II died accidentally around 1315, the temptation would have been strong to give the throne to Lancaster.
Indeed, when Edward was deposed, Henry of Lancaster (the brother of the executed Thomas of Lancaster) became the nominal head of the government as regent for the young Edward III (Hutchison, p. 140). Plus, when Edward II was overthrown, Henry of Lancaster was part of the force which turned against him. And the Scots seem to have addressed a letter to Lancaster in which they called him "King Arthur" (Phillips, p. 406, although of course Arthur was not his name.)
In the end, even his real brother would betray Edward II: in the final rebellion which overthrew the king, Edward's half-brother the Earl of Norfolk gave support to the invaders led by Edward's wife, although he was not a leader (Hutchison, p. 134; Phillips, p. 504). The sons of Edward I all seem to have been pretty useless. Edward II never managed peace with his barons. His half-brother Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, was disastrously defeated in Gascony; Hutchison, p. 125. And the other half-brother, Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, was a non-entity until the rebellion of 1326).
I also note that Richard at the Lee in the "Gest" and Richard I in the later legend are alleged to have been held up, then released, by Robin. Might confusion of names have somehow contributed to the assignment of Robin to the reign of Richard I? Particularly with the legend of Fulk FitzWarren also attracting Robin to the reigns of Richard and John? Keen, pp. 46-48, seems convinced that the story of Fulk lies at the roots of most of the "Gest." I would be more inclined to say that the same motifs went into both -- indeed, the fact that Fulk (who is historical) was firmly dated to the reign of Richard and John would be a reason to date Robin to the same period.
It must have b een tempting to dissociate Robin Hood the hero from Edward II the disaster. Richard I was a failure as a king, but he was a glorious failure -- a crusader, a figure of romance, a fighter to the end. But "No other English king has received such unanimous disapproval as Edward II," according to Hutchison, p. 145. I'm not sure that's true -- Henry VI was pure disaster -- but certainly Edward II was the worst in the century before Langland wrote "Piers Plowman," and retains a poor reputation to this day.
Suppose, then, that there was a tale of an outlaw who met with and supported Edward II. Perhaps he was one of those who conspired to restore Edward II after his deposition. Would not the temptation be to transfer his exploits to another time -- perhaps a time when there was a romantic king otherwise similar to Edward? After all, "More than any other King of England[,] Richard the Lionhearted belongs, not to the sober world of history , but to the magic realm of legend and romance. The picture we have of him is still shaped by the images of a child's view of the Middle Ages" (Gillingham, p. 4. He adds on pp. 5-6 that "Once we look a little more closely at some of the stories about Richard it soon becomes obvious that the coat of legendary paint which conceals him is a very thick coat indeed").
There might be another reason for the transfer. Richard I, after he went on crusade, was captured by Leopold of Austria, and was in captivity for more than a year. Since he had been out of the country for about four years in all, there were sporadic rebellions on his return. Most of these collapsed quickly. The very last town to hold out was Nottingham (Gillingham, p. 241). Since the sheriff of Nottingham was Robin's foe, and the town of Nottingham opposed Richard, mightn't that have helped attract Robin to Richard's time? Or, perhaps, explain a transfer from Barnsdale to Sherwood in Nottinghamshire.
WHO MADE MAID MARION, AND OTHER LATE ADDITIONS
In the earliest stage of the legend, Robin's band seems to have consisted of Robin himself, Little John, Scarlock, and Much (see the note on Stanza 4). Others -- Allen a Dale, Will Stutely, perhaps Friar Tuck -- came from one-off ballads. But no one is more closely associated with the late legend than Maid Marian.
The link between Robin and Marion/Marian perhaps comes from French romances -- Simpson/Roud, p. 223, note that Robin and Marion were stock lovers in French tradition starting in the thirteenth century, and Holt1, p. 160, observes that Gower knew this tradition circa 1380. Dobson/Taylor, p. 42, declare that it is "virtually certain that by origin whe was the shepherdess Marion of the medieval French pastourelles, where she was partnered by the shepherd Robin."
Mustanoja, p. 53, suggests that equivalent native English lovers would be Jankin and Malkin, citing e.g. the thirteenth century "Lutel Soth Sermun." They are, he suggests on p. 54, the names of "'any frivolous young man' and 'any flighty girl.'" (It is perhaps of interest to note that "Malkin" is connected by different scholars variously to the name Mary=Marion and Matilda, both of which are alleged as the true name of Maid Marion; Mustanoja, p. 55.) He also notes on p. 53 an English tradition linking men named Robin with women named Gill. If the link derived from English folktales, we almost certainly would not see Robin and Marian together.
Marian's link to Robin Hood may have been cemented by the May Games, where Marian was queen (and supposedly very lusty indeed, according to Dobson/Taylor, p. 42 -- a strong contrast to the aristocratic, chaste Marian of the Munday plays). This would also explain why there is no Scottish tradition about them (Chambers, p. 121).
In light of their role in the Games, it is interesting to note that Marian was often said to be as good a fighter as Robin himself (see "Robin Hood and Maid Marian" [Child 150]), and in the May Games she was usually played by a man (Benet, p. 675) or boy (Dobson/Taylor, p. 42).
Child says categorically that she should be linked sexually with Friar Tuck, not Robin (p. 218, in the notes to Child 150).
The data for this is somewhat ambiguous. The first mention of Robin and Marian in the same immediate context, made by Barclay around 1508, seems to contrast them, not link them: "Yet would I gladly hear some merry fytte Of Maid Marian, or else of Robin Hood" (Cawthorne, p. 181; Dobson/Taylor, p. 41). Henry Mackyn in his description of the May Games says that after the play of Saint George and the dragon, and various dances, there appears "Robyn Hode and lytull John, and Maid Marian and frere Tuke" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 40).
Observe that "Robin Hood and Maid Marian" is the only ballad that is really about her; two others mention her, but in a context such that she might be associated with any of Robin's band, or none.
Knight/Ohlgren note on p. 58 (compare Pollard, pp. 26-27) the almost complete absence of women in the early ballads (if you exclude the Virgin Mary). There is the prioress of Kirkless in the "Death," and we briefly see the Knight's wife in the "Gest," but the only woman who is at all a character is the Sheriff's wife in the "Potter," who gives hints of being interested in Robin. Pollard, p. 27, comments that she seems to be drawn from the same sources as the Wife of Bath and Noah's wife (who, in the plays of this period, was usually a shrew).
Pollard, pp. 14-15, suggests that, after the Reformation, Robin's devotion to Mary (which of course is idolatry to Protestants) was diverted to Marian instead.
It is worth noting that in Robin's death scene (in both the "Death" and the "Gest"), Robin makes no mention of a wife, and certainly none of children. There is no early hint that he was married. (To be sure, Munday had Marian die, poisoned by an agent of King John, shortly after Robin's death; Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 426-428. But this is entirely out of Munday's head.)
The many ballads in the Forresters Manuscript mention Marion only once, and not in a love context (Knight, p. xx). This implies that, even as late as the seventeenth century, Robin and Marion were not strongly linked.
Munday's plays invented a love triangle between Robin, Marian, and Prince John (Simpson/Roud, p. 299). This gives me the mad image of Robin courting Marian in English and John in Norman French, but this is patently an accretion. It is true that Robert FitzWalter, who in legend was the mother of Matilda=Marian (Holt, p. 162), was a genuine enemy of King John (Tyerman, p. 307), and that "There is a story of Robert arriving at the trial of his son-in-law for murder with five hundred armed men, a reflection if not of the truth then of his reputation for violence and wealth" (Tyerman, p. 312). That would need a lot of twisting to turn into the Robin and Marian legend, though.
Holt1, p. 162, gives Munday much of the blame for fixing the notion of a date in the reign of Richard I as well as for ennobling Robin -- but it probably comes ultimately from the fact that Fulk FitzWarrene married a woman, Matilda, whom John had sought after (Keen, p. 51; the plot as summarized by Cawthorne, p. 103, is almost identical to the Munday tale). The story of Marian is, to me, the clearest indication of the Robin legend borrowing from the Fulk legend (or, rather, of Munday using the Fulk tale) -- but Marian's entry into the Robin Hood corpus did not occur until both traditions were past their prime.
The case of Friar Tuck is more mysterious. Both as the Curtal Friar and as Friar Tuck (if, indeed, these two are the same), he seems to be a native English figure. But is he truly a part of the Robin Hood saga? Dobson/Tarlor on p. 41 point out the complications of this legend: "Many ingenious attempts to trace the origins of the Friar Tuck of the Robin Hood legend seem to have foundered on a failure to appreciate that he was the product of a fusion between two very different friars." They add that he did not become a key part of the Robin Hood legend until Scott reshaped him in Ivanhoe.
We should keep in mind that public opinion of friars waxed and waned dramatically. One of the main topics of "Pierce the Ploughman's Crede" is the corrupted state of various friars (Barr, p. 6), but in early Lancastrian times friars were given exclusive rights to preach in some settings. Edward I seems to have approved of them, and his queen liked them a lot (Prestwich1, pp. 112-113). But the ballad of the Curtal Friar is not clear enough to tell us whether the friars were "in" or "out" in Robin's time.
Simpson/Roud, p. 135, cautiously declare, "Tuck may have been an independent comic figure based on the medieval stereotype of a disreputable friar -- fond of fighting, hunting, and wenching." Copland's play seems to indicate that Tuck was lusty indeed; Dobson/Taylor, p. 209, observes that Child cut a dozen extremely bawdy lines from the end. Based on one of these lines, it appears that he wore an artificial phallus (Cawthorne, p. 75). Certainly Robin offers him "a lady free" as part of his fee (line 111 on p. 289 of Knight/Ohlgren). This does not, however, eliminate the likelihood that the outlaw of 1417 was the first "Friar Tuck."
Robin Hood's friar may not be a version of this particular figure of fun, but that Tuck originated separately seems very likely -- indeed, Holt1, pp. 58-59, described an actual outlaw of 1417 who called himself Friar Tuck. According to Baldwin, p. 68, he actually was in holy orders; his name was Robert Stafford, and he was chaplain of Linfield in Sussex. Stafford was like Robin in at least one regard: He was good at evading capture. He avoided the authorities for more than a dozen years (Pollard, p. 95).
Dobson/Taylor, p. 4, suggest that Stafford took the name "Friar Tuck" in imitation of Robin Hood's association, and Holt seems to think (p. 16) that Robin and the Friar were connected from the start.
On the other hand, Alexander, p. 99, notes Tuck's strong history outside the Robin Hood legend: "In the May Day entertainments Friar Tuck took on the role of the Fool while at Christmas he became the Abbot of Misrule in charge of the celebrations."
On this evidence, whatever the age of the ballad of the Curtal Friar, it draws upon tales not integral to the Robin Hood legend. The friar, like Maid Marian, may have come to be associated with Robin via the May Games.
Keen, p. 134, suggests that Marian and Tuck have no analogies in the early ballads because they were "inappropriate" to the natural situation of an outlaw. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 10, suggest that Marian was made a major character by Munday because he made Robin a nobleman, and a nobleman needs a wife so that he can have heirs. McLynn, p. 243, offers the wild suggestion that "Maid Marian underlies the link to fertility cults"!
If Munday helped establish Maid Marian,and retained Friar Tuck, he is even more important in the establishment of Robin as a nobleman. It is little surprise to see this sort of "promotion"; it happened with Hereward the Wake as well. The claim that Robin was well-born was made by Grafton, and was supported by the Gale inscription, paraphrased by Parker in 1598. Dr. William Stukeley, in 1746, combined inaccurate records of the peerage with a good deal of imagination (such as a "marriage" which took place after one of the participants was dead; Cawthorne, p. 47) to convert Robin into "Robert fitz Ooth" (an unattested name; read perhaps Fitzhugh?), third earl of Huntingdon, giving his death date as 1274, just after the accession of Edward I (Holt1, pp. 42-43). This even though the Huntingdon earldom was then in the hand of the Bruce family.
The ballad "Willie and Earl Richard's Daughter" [Child 102] makes Robin the (bastard) grandson of an Earl -- but Child declares the piece to be no part of the Robin Hood legend, and Bronson calls it a rehash of Child 101. It is a late ballad, plus Child's "A" text does not say which earldom Richard held ("B," which makes him Earl of Huntingdon, is patently literary). What's more, the mention of Robin Hood looks like a paraphrase of the proverb of Robin's bow in "Friar Daw Topias." Besides, the bastard descendent of an earl had no claim to nobility in English law. The Bruce claim to the Huntingdon earldom was valid, and Robin's claim, if he made one, would not have been upheld.
Since we don't know how Robin came to be outlawed, we certainly can't say where he was born! The common story that he was from Locksley (presumabed to be near Sheffield, and thus a bit north and a bit west of Nottingham but well south and west of Barnsdale and south and east of Lacashire) is found in "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" [Child 145] and in one manuscript biography probably based on the ballads (Cawthorne, pp. 42-43), but it is probably best known because Scott used the name in Ivanhoe.
THE PRESUMED HISTORY OF ROBIN HOOD
Suggestions for the "original" Robin Hood are many. Baldwin, as we've mentioned several times, liked Roger Godberd. Hunter famously held out for the Robert Hood of Wakefield who lived in the reign of Edward II. Owen in 1936 found an outlaw named Robert Hood who was pursued by the Sheriff of Yorkshire in 1230 (Dobson/Taylor, p. 16; Holt1, pp. 53-54). But, for all that scholars try to make these characters fit the legend, they simply cannot be the same person as the hero of the "Gest." To try to flesh out the legendary Robin, we must look to the tales, not the chronicles.
Cawthorne, p. 46, offers a "shadowy biography" of Robin based on the combined legends: Born in Locksley around 1160, active as a robber around 1193-1194, outlawed again 1225, died 1247. Cawthorne claims this conforms to the 22 years Robin spent away from the court in the "Gest," although I fail to see how Robin could go to the greenwood for fear of King Edward when the King from 1216 to 1272 was Henry III.
Nor is this the only such reconstructed biograply; Cawthorne, p. 46, goes on to describe a biography suggested by Dodsworth in the seventeenth century. In this, Locksley was apparently Robin's surname. He had to flee after wounding his stepfather with a plow, met Little John in Derbyshire -- and suggested that John, not Robin, was the nobleman!
Most of these reconstructions fall down under their own weight, which should perhaps be a warning to me and other modern reconstructors. As Holt1, p. 61, says, "no one ever put a name to the abbot or the sheriff or... even to the prioress of Kirklees. They are lay figures. They contributed to the legend as types, not as individuals." But these attempts try to reconstruct based on the whole tradition -- as if all of it had equal value. This is clearly hopeless; many of the ballads are just made-up add-ons.
By restricting our aim, we can perhaps produce better results. As Holt1 says on p. 40, even though Robin Hood is essentially fiction, "From the first he was believed to be a real historical person." Dobson/Taylor, p. 11, make the even stronger statement that "the geographical allusions in the Early Robin Hood ballads, and especially in the Gest, are sufficiently specific to suggest the exploits of a real Barnsdale outlaw lay behind the later Robin Hood saga."
I think this statement is too stong; Holt's belief that there was no single source of the legend is clearly correct. But Holt's suggestion that Robin was *believed* to be historical is the more important point. This means that anyone writing about him would try to create a real world setting. I think there could be a historical framework underlying the "Gest" -- even though its hero is not himself historical. If I had to guess, I would guess that the first elements of the legend started to coalesce in the reign of Henry III -- but that the legend came to be set in other periods. Probably in different periods in the various early ballads. We know that, by the time the "Gest" was written, chroniclers were already producing conflicting dates (see the information above on Wyntoun and Bower and such).
But this means that anyone writing a tale of Robin had what amounted to free rein to choose a time. So we should not ask when Robin Hood lived, but *when the author of the "Gest" believed he lived.*There is, of course, an assumption here, which is that there is a chronology imposed on the materials -- which in turn assumes that Clawson is wrong and the "Gest" is made of only three or four component elements, not from dozens of ballads. This assumption is very weak, but it is stronger than Clawson's alternative.
We can, on this basis, create a "biography" of Robin Hood -- the biography used in the "Gest" (and only in the "Gest," note). Again, keep in mind that I do not claim that what follows is the story of an actual outlaw. I do not believe it is. I am not even sure that the author of the "Gest" worked from a chronological framework -- very likely he did not. But most authors, when they write novels, compile mental histories of their major characters. *If* the author of the "Gest" had such a framework -- a tremendous "if"! -- then this is my reconstruction of what the author of the "Gest" thought was Robin's story.
Robin Hood was born in the reign of Edward I, perhaps between 1290 and 1295. He was the son of a yeoman, perhaps in eastern Lancashire, the property of that "rapacious, grasping and cruel landlord," the Earl of Lancaster (Hutchison, p. 115), although we cannot rule out the possibility that he was born in Yorkshire -- perhaps in the area of Pontrefract, which is near Barnsdale; Lancaster's wife, Alice de Lacy, held the honor of Pontrefract from her father (Holt1, p. 53), and inherited it from her father in 1311 (Hutchison, p. 66) -- although Alice walked out on her husband in 1317! (Hutchison, p. 92).
It was a very unsettled period -- Edward I and his barons had been on the brink of civil war when the Scottish situation forced them to cooperate (Prestwich1, pp. 424-427). At this time, common men were expected to practice the longbow, and Robin took up this weapon at an early age. But Edward took fewer infantry on his later campaigns in Scotland (Prestwich1, p. 513, who argues that this was one reason the campaigns failed), and after the death of Edward I in 1307, the laws about the bow were relaxed. Some gave up the bow; Robin, the best of the local boys, continued to practice, and became better still as he grew older.
The reign of Edward II was a time of unrest. Probably sometime between 1310 and 1315, Robin found himself in trouble with the authorities in Lancashire. Perhaps it was in 1311, when the Earl of Lancaster succeeded to the de Lacy holding of Pontrefract (as well as to lands around Wyresdale). Perhaps Robin supported Edward II against the Earl of Lancaster -- dangerous in Lancashire even in normal times, a county where the Earl had palatinate powers even in peacetime. And Lancaster's power increased during the Scots Wars, since he became regional commander after Bannockburn (Phillips, p. 250). The possibility that Robin was one of the rebels against Lancaster is discussed in the notes to Stanza 412.
Another possibility is that the depression that had started in the 1290s forced him off his lands. Maybe it was an effect of the inflation of the period, caused by the appearance of cheap coins designed to look like English pennies but with rather less silver content; Edward I had been unable to prevent the import of these coins -- and later did a reminting allowing him to pick up cash but at the cost of jacking up prices for others (Prestwich, p. 531-532). Maybe it was an after-effect of Edward I's forest laws. Or perhaps it was the result of the 1315 famine, which would explain why his band was so small at the beginning of the "Gest" (see the notes to stanzas 4 and 17). We don't have enough detail to know.
Whatever the reason, Robin fled (over the border) to Yorkshire. Perhaps he went directly to the greenwood; perhaps, given the poor economy of the time, he sought work and only fled society when he could not find it. But by 1316 -- perhaps much earlier -- he was in Barnsdale. He likely joined an existing band of outlaws -- and rose to the top because of his superior leadership skills and ability with the bow. The early events of the "Gest," such as the encounter with Sir Richard atte Lee, happened in the period between 1313 and 1322 -- probably toward the middle ot the period, when Edward II still wanted to go on crusade, with 1316-1317 the most likely dating.
In 1322/1323, Edward II visited Robin during his northern trip. He gave Robin a (probably conditional) pardon -- very possibly because Robin had supported Edward against the Earl of Lancaster. But Robin -- a yeoman born and bred -- did not enjoy court life, and especially court life in the corrupt court of Edward II. He returned to the north, and to the greenwood. Possibly he spent some time in Sherwood at this time -- and possibly suffered enough pressure from the Nottinghamshire authorities that he returned to Barnsdale.
If the robbery of the Bishop of Hereford was part of the legend from the beginning, it probably took place in the years after 1327, when Orleton of Hereford had helped depose Edward II. Perhaps some of Robin's exploits in archery contests took place around 1330, when Edward III was starting to revive the practice but before Robin grew too old.
In 1345, Robin -- now well into his fifties -- grew ill. Although he had lived in Yorkshire for most of the last thirty years, his family was in Lancashire or on the border between Lancashire and Yorkshire. He therefore went to Kirklees, near that border, to be treated. But three decades had weakened the family ties, and there he was tricked and died. Many of his men, now leaderless, took the pardon of Edward III (Hewitt, p. 30, says that hundreds of outlaws were pardoned around 1346); some very likely served at Crecy (we cannot prove this either way, because none of the indentures for soldiers at Crecy has survived; Hewitt, p. 35).
There are a few other historic events which might tie in with this (call this the "hints for the historical novelist" section). For instance, if Robin joined Edward II's court in 1323, then he probably left it in 1324. It is interesting to note that this was a period when Robert Baldock and the Despensers were passing a series of changes in the government. Most of these were good reforms (Hutchison, p. 122), but Robin might not have trusted a change made by Baldock, given his (possible) involvement in the Richard atte Lee situation (see the note on Stanza 93). Or perhaps, with the Despensers sucking up all the available grants, there were no properties left for Robin (see the note on stanza 435).
When Edward II was taken into custody, the Earl of Lancaster (the brother of the man Edward had executed) originally had custody of him, but eventually turned him over to others. Was this because of the conspiracy in early 1327 which arose to free Edward (Doherty, p. 115)?
Given the timing and location, Robin and his band might have been part of the conspiracy. Doherty, p. 121, speaks of a "Dunheved gang," said to be "irrepressible," which tried to rescue Edward. Might this be Robin and his men? It is true that two of their raids were in Berkeley and Cirencester, far from Robin's home, and that Dunheved (or Dunhead) was said to be from the vicinity of Kenilworth in Warwickshire (Phillips, p. 542), but another Dunheved raid was in Chester, which wasn't too far away from Yorkshire (Doherty, p. 122). The counter-argument is that most of the raiders were allegedly captured (Doherty, pp. 124-125) and killed with torture (Hutchison, p. 141). It does appear that Edward was briefly loose, but not long enough to make any difference.
Neither that nor even Edward II's death stopped the rescue attempts, however -- supposedly a "demon-raising friar" said Edward was still alive (Doherty, pp. 147-150). An Italian priest claimed to have talked to Edward II as late as 1340 (Doherty, p. 185). And, if people could believe a dead king alive, they could certainly believe he could be rescued..... (Doherty, p. 217, thinks there is an actual possibility that Edward II escaped. But this section of Doherty is so fantastic that I came away with the idea that maybe, after escaping, Edward II would have gone on to join Robin Hood's band -- maybe, given his height, he was the original version of Little John. And no, I am *not* advancing this hypothesis; I use it to demonstrate how far-fetched Doherty's hypothesis is.) What is certain is that the cause of Edward II inspired great passion -- so much of it that there was a serious attempt to have him canonized (Phillips, pp. 600-604).
We also note that the new Earl of Lancaster died in 1345 (Ormrod, p. 27). Might this have freed Robin to visit his family in Lancaster -- and resulted in his fatal willingness to go to Kirklees?
It is a sad tale. Not only did Robin die by violence, but he failed in his goals. Holt, p. 10, declares that the tale of Robin is "all very satisfying," since Robin brings proper justice -- as well as being true to his word (unlike the sheriff), devout (unlike, seemingly, the established clergy), generous (unlike the abbot), courteous (unlike the cellarer). Holt sees Robin as winning the fight with oppression.
But the actual record is depressing. Edward II ended up deposed and murdered. The church would have to wait two more centuries for reform of the monasteries and the episcopal system -- and, when Henry VIII did all that, he left the episcopal system largely intact and did away with the practice of extreme reverence for Mary shown by Robin. Yeomen did gain in rights after his time -- but that was due to the Black Death, not to the work of outlaws. Robin's story is one of a long, slow defeat. But that was the way of the Middle Ages. If he could not change the world, at least he "dyde pore men moch god."
 NAME: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 06
DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn HodeÓ [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 07 (File Number C117F)
NOTES: >> NOTES ON THE CONTENT OF THE "GEST" <<
With the above as background, let us look at the "Gest" itself, looking in detail at the contents. What follows is a sort of "Annotated Gest"; I have noted passages which might help us discover its history, or which need explanation.The notes are assembled under Child's stanza numbers; I have also supplied Knight/Ohlgren's line numbers.
This is not a commentary on the text, although I sometimes have had to make reference to textual issues. The textual commentary follows this section.
I have tried to note instances where the text of the "Gest" makes sense in historical context -- that is, where an event or statement in the "Gest" could be a reference to something which actually happened in history. Let me stress that I do not think that the "Gest" is history. But it is surely based at least in part on historical memories.
The majority of the links are to events in the reign of Edward II. This is perhaps slightly artificial -- once I had enough parallels to the reign of Edward II, I was forced to research Edward II in detail, causing me to find far more parallels. Also, I became convinced that the poem "targets" the reign of Edward II -- that is, that the poet was setting his poem in that reign. The number of Edward II references is, frankly, rather overwhelming. Most of these are probably coincidence. But I include them all because, while most of the details are coincidence, there is no way of knowing *which* of them are coincidence. And I have tried to include links to other reigns as well.
** Stanza 1/Line 1 ** The opening formula, "Lythe and listin, gentilmen..." occurs thrice more, in Stanza 144 (beginning of the third fit), Stanza 282 (second stanza of the fifth fit), and Stanza 317 (beginning of the sixth fit). The latter three mark major transitions in the poem. The break at the start of the third fit is a transition from the story of Robin Hood and the knight to the story of Little John and the sheriff; the break in stanza 282 indicates the start of the archery contest in Nottingham; the break at the start of the sixth fit marks the start of the episodes of the sheriff and King seeking to apprehend Robin.
It is interesting to ask whether these formulae were in the originals combined by the author of the "Gest," or whether he added them himself. They do not represent the most logical break points; on the other hand, those in stanzas 144 and 317 do represent roughly a third of the work. If we assume a typical recitation speed of five verses per minute, that would mean that each break comes after about half an hour. It would not be a surprise for a minstrel to take a halt after that period of time. The use in stanza 282 may have been imported from one of the sources, or an alternate break point.
As an alternative to the idea of the singer taking a break, Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 162, seems to suggest that the breaks built into the "Gest" are for phases of a feast. Ohlgren says that there "is a major meal in every fytte except fytte 6." This leads to the idea, suggested by Dean A. Hoffman (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 163) that the meals in the "Gest" might correspond to the serving of additional courses. But the meal in fit 3 is merely a hastily-grabbed snack, and several of the other references are short. And I doubt the minstrel and the cooks could coordinate that closely. I think it far more likely that the performances were organized around the "Lythe and listin" formula than about the meals.
The use of such an introductory formula is common, though of course not universal, in minstrelsy. Old English even had a word, "Hwaet," which we might infomally translate as "Listen up and listen good!" It is the first word of "Beowulf" and "The Dream of the Rood" and doubtless much other Anglo-Saxon literature. In much later folk song, we still find opening formula along the lines of "Come all ye bold (something-or-others) and listen to my song." Even the Slavic epics, which surely have no genetic relationship to any in English, have formulaic openings (Lord, p. 45).
It is interesting to note the alliteration of "lythe"  (probably the imperative of "lythen," glossed by Knight/Ohlgren as "attend," hence "pay attention"; cf. Langland/KnottFowler, p. 279) and "listen," as well as the relatively strong L sound of "gentilmen." "Lythe" and "listen," although distinct words, are almost redundant; it would have been easy to use another word instead of "lythe" -- except for the alliteration. Although the poem was probably compiled after the peak of the alliterative revival which gave us "Piers Plowman" and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," Benson/Foster, p. 5, notes that the "Stanzaic Morte Arthur" still delighted in alliteration, and this formula may derive from some source which does so also. There are a few other alliterative formulae in the Gest, e.g. Gummere, p. 315, points out "wordes fayre and fre" in stanza 31. Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 59, note that in the Middle English period "Rhymed verse frequently uses alliteration as an ornament of style."
Observe that the word "lythe" as a verb for "pay attention" does not appear to have been used by Chaucer (based on Chaucer/Benson, p. 1265), who rejected alliteration, but is found in "Piers Plowman" (see p. 279 in Langland/KnottFowler; p. 532 in Langland/Schmidt) and in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" (Tolkien/Gordon, p. 196), both alliterative. The word is from Old English hlytha, listen, and appears to have been fairly common in early Middle English, but by the fourteenth century it seems to have been almost completely confined to alliterative works.
This introductory formula survives in some of the later ballads; "Robin Hood and the Beggar, I" [Child 133] opens "Come light and listen, you gentlemen all"; "Robin Hood and the Beggar, II" [Child 134] preserves the form "Lyth and listen, gentlemen."
Compare also the Romance of Gamelyn, which opens "Listeth and lestneth and hearkneth aright" (Sands, p. 156).
The outlaw ballad of "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly" [Child 116] has the lines "Now lith and lysten, gentylmen, And that of myrthes loveth to here" at the beginning of stanza 5.
"The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle" opens "Lythe and listenythe the lif of a lord riche" (Hahn, p. 47; cf. Sands, p. 326, who uses a slightly different orthography).
The invocation of "gentlemen" would seem to imply an aristocratic audicene. On the other hand, the formula might simply have been imported from some other romance targeting the upper class.
** Stanza 1/Line 3 ** Right from the start we are told that Robin was a "gode yeman," i.e. a "good yeoman." This has inspired some debate. The term "yeoman" is perhaps derived from "yongman," "young man," a usage actually found in stanzas 187-288 (Pollard, p. 33, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 149); this implies the sense "low fellow on the totem pole," and hence the meaning "royal servant."
The word had two meanings in the period around 1400 -- a small freeholder or a household officer. To some extent, this influences the dating of the poem. Keen, p. 140, thinks that the frequent mentions of Robin as a yeoman implies a late date (p. 140), presumably after Edward III, since this was the period when villeins were becoming free yeomen.
There is logic to this. Robin seems to have a significant band (see note on stanza 229) -- and, if the poem really would have us believe that they are all yeomen, that effectively requires that the date be after 1400.
But there were always yeomen in England. It's just that the number increased after the Black Death. Robin and John and a few of the others could be yeomen, with the rest villeins. Indeed, it makes better sense to assume that most of them were villeins, and fled to the greenwood for lack of another choice (a free man could always seek work elsewhere). In the period from Henry II to Edward II, villeins -- peasants -- were bound to the land (there are cases of them being sold; Stenton, pp. 142-143).
The Black Death of 1349 (which took place about halfway through the reign of Edward III) changed that by producing a shortage of workers (Ormrod, p. 29). The nobility tried to halt the exodus of the peasants (Wat Tyler's rebellion of 1381 was largely against these restrictions; Wilkinson,  pp. 158-164; Ormrod, p. 30), but more and more peasants were becoming free in the reign of Edward III, and almost all were free by the early fifteenth century. Wilkinson, p. 187, after a catalog of restrictive laws, concludes that "Nothing, in the end, could resist a movement toward greater emancipation of the peasant" -- indeed, the fact that, by the reign of Edward III, they all carried longbows made it difficult for the nobility to suppress them!
Pollard, p. 34, points out the the "Statute of Additions of 1413," which required legal documents to state the class and occupation of those entering into a deal. This in effect made "yeoman" an official legal term. This is minor evidence for the belief that the "Gest" was written after that date.
Holt, however, is convinced that "The legend is... not [about] the yeoman freeholder, but the yeoman servant of the feudal household" (p. 4). This, in a sense, gives us another link to the story of David and Saul, in 1 Samuel 25:10, Nabal complains about David, saying "There are many servants today who are breaking away from their masters."
Some support for Holt's contention comes from the "Monk," where the King makes John and Much yeomen of the crown for bringing the letter about Robin Hood (cf. Holt, p. 29).
Pollard, p. 41, also notes the interesting title of "Yeoman of the Forest," a title for foresters. On p. 43 Pollard notes that both Little John and Robin refer to Robin by the title "yeoman of the forest" (see, e.g., stanza 222). And we do find Robin called a forester's son in stanza 3 of "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor and Marriage," as well as in "Robin Hood Was a Forester Bold," which is not included in the Child canon.
But there is no hint in the "Gest" of Robin having ever held the title officially. What's more, a typical forest had only about half a dozen active foresters, according to Pollard, p. 44. If Robin's band truly numbered in the scores, it had to be something different. And foresters had various duties, such as managing the trees, e.g. by trimming, pruning, and cutting, to make the forest yield particular types of wood (Kerr, pp. 148-149). There is no evidence that Robin's men did any of these things.
In stanza 14, Robin orders his men to spare yeomen who walk the greenwood. Pollard, p. 45, suggests that this means Robin intends his men to leave the foresters alone. If I were a forester, I probably wouldn't want to be my life on that, but it's an interesting point. Pollard, pp. 46-47, argues that Robin sees himself as a sort of King of the Foresters, even to the point of trying to employ Little John as his bowbearer (the aid to the Keeper of the Forests) in the "Monk" (stanza 9. This strikes me as a little strong; Robin is simply saying, as he often does, that he needs only Little John as a companion. In any case, this theme does not appear in the "Gest.")
Pollard also argues, p. 50, that Robin's men are fully aware of the terminology of forestry and hunting, but the examples he cites are vague enough that they might have come from the poet, or from second-hand knowledge of forestry.
By the late fifteenth century, a yeoman could be quite well-to-do; at least some earned in excess of the 40 shillings per year required to be permitted to vote for members of parliament (Pollard, p. 35; Lyon, p. 152). It is noteworthy that 40 shillings is far less than the twenty marks which were bandied about as wages at several times in the "Gest" (Stanzas 150, 170-171).
The frequent mentions of yeomen in the "Gest" may be intended to appeal to a yeoman audience (which would be much larger in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, when the poem was probably compiled) -- but this does not mean that it is about a time when yeomen were common.
** Stanza 2/Line 5 ** In addition to being a yeoman, Robin is a "prude (proud) outlaw." This does not mean he was a convicted criminal -- or not exactly.  "Outlaw" was a technical term for one who failed to answer a summons for trial (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 149). Robin and his men are several times called outlaws (this being the first time; his men being called outlaws for the last time in stanza 447, when Robin returns to them after his time at King Edward's court; Robin himself is called a "good outlaw" in the very last verse (stanza 456), ironically immediately before he is said to have done much good for poor men.
it is noteworthy that nowhere are we told what Robin's original crime was.
One thing that is worth remembering is that "outlaw" was, at this time, primarily a local term. The King might, of course, send out a warrant to watch for a particular criminal, but most judgments were passed in one particular area. As Pollard notes on p. 105, "Men were frequently hounded for outlawry when they had no knowledge that they had in fact been outlawed, often in another county." It is at least possible that we see a hint of this in Stanzas 331-332 of the "Gest," in the arrest of the knight while hawking.
It is true that the "Monk" calls Robin the "kynggis felon" (stanza 21), and in the "Gest" we will eventually see King Edward intervene in the case. But the King's interest was more in rebellion than in what we would consider ordinary crime.
** Stanza 2/Line 7 ** Robin, we are told, is a "curteyse" -- that is, a courteous -- outlaw.
The very fact that this word is used shows that Robin is not a Saxon rebel; Shippey, p. 129, notes that the word is "post-Anglo-Saxon."
Courtesy in the Plantagenet period is more than manners; it is the specific rules of polite society -- and is one of the most basic elements in the description of a hero. Sir Gawain, the subject of so many romances, "achieved a reputation as the most courteous of Arthur's knights. After the late thirteenth century, courtesy became the hallmark of knighthood" (Hall, p. 4). Chaucer's Knight "loved chivalrie, Trouthe and honouyr, fredom and curteisie" (Prologue, lines 45-46; Chaucer/Benson, p. 24). Of king in "Sir Orfeo" we are told that "Large and curteis was he" (line 4; Sands, p. 187). Examples could be repeated indefinitely. The theme of courtesy will recur many times in the "Gest," as Robin is called "courteous" (implying that he is as good as a knight or member of the gentry), while those of higher station fail of their courtesy. (Observe, e.g., the abbot's treatment of the knight in stanza 103.)
Other examples: In stanza 24, we learn that Little John is courteous. In stanza 29, Robin courteously takes off his hood. In stanza 108, the knight begs the justice for courtesy (and is turned down). In stanzas 115 and 121, the knight calls the abbot uncourteous.  In 151, Little John calls the knight (or maybe Robin) courteous. The sheriff's butler is uncourteous in stanza 159. John greets the sheriff courteously in 182. Robin is courteous to the monk in 226; the monk is not so courteous in return. In 256 the monk calls Robin uncourteous. The knight greets Robin courteously in 263, and offers a courtesy gift in 270. In 295, the prize arrow is accepted courteously by Robin.  In 312, the knight recalls Robin's courtesy. In 383 Robin addresses the disguised king courteously.
This theme of courtesy gives a fascinating link to the Gawain romances. Robin, as Child said, was a "popular Gawain." And Gawain was the epitome of courtesy -- as Hahn notes on p. 2, even Chaucer's oh-so-particular Squire refers to Gawain as the pinnacle of courtesy (V.95, or F.85; p. 170 in Chaucer/Benson).
in the Gawain legend, courtesy and chivalry have important effects. Hahn, p. 25, declares that "Repeatedly, Gawain exhibits a willing retraint of available force or a refusal of the authority of position, which separates him from non-chivalrous opponents and also from the arbitrary bullying or domineering impertinance of Sir Kay." The result is to maintain and strengthen the social order.
Compare Robin's treatment of his victims in the "Truth or Consequences" game -- and also the contrast between the courteous Robin and the uncourteous monk in Stanza 226. Robin's courtesy, like Gawain's, allows him to sometimes restrain the force he could otherwise use. Which probably allows him to survive longer than he otherwise would, and to bring about better justice. Robin is an exceptional outlaw just as Gawain (in the British tradition) is an exceptional knight.
** Stanza 3/Line 9 ** "Robyn stode in Bernesdale." In the "Gest," there is uncertainty over whether Robin was based in Barnesdale (Yorkshire) or in Nottinghamshire (the "Gest" does not mention Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, but it was the great forest of that county; if Robin indeed worked in Nottinghamshire, Sherwood would surely have been his base). This is a complicated question discussed in the introduction; it is worth remembering that the early ballads tend to say Barnsdale. In the "Gest," the Richard at Lee portions are set in Barnsdale, the rest mostly in Nottingham (Holt1, p. 24); presumably the author combined tales without cleaning up the inconsistencies.
It has also been suggested (Baldwin, p. 44) that "Barnsdale" should be Bryunsdale in Nottinghamshire (near Basford). Tbis would obviously solve many of the problems, but it is a small and obscure place; it seems much more likely that "Bernesdale" means Barnsdale.
There is even some dispute over whether Barnsdale is in Yorkshire or Rutland. (Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 149-150, based on the research of Knight. Rutland, and the town of Huntingdon which is also associated with Robin in some of the late tales, are in east-central England south of the Wash. The one thing going for Rutland is that, according to McLynn, p. 241, and Knight/Ohlgren, p. 40, etc., Rutland's Barnsdale was in the domain of the Earl of Huntingdon, which would make sense if Robin were shadow earl of Huntingdon -- but not otherwise, since Rutland is in the wrong direction from Nottingham (to the southeast). There are some alleged Robin Hood relics in Rutland (Cawthorne, p. 34), but as usual there is no reason to think they are authentic.
The place names in the "Gest" are informative. The following list shows (I believe) every place named in the Gest, with the stanzas where it is mentioned:
Barnsdale: 3, 21, 82, 83, 134, 213, 262, 440, 442
Blythe: 27. 259
Calvary: 57
Doncaster: 27, 259 / In connection with Roger of Doncaster: 452, 455
Holderness: 149
Kirkesly, i.e. presumably Kirklees: 454 / In connection with the Prioress of Kyrkesly: 451
Lancaster or Lancashire: 53, 357
London: 253
Nottingam: 178, 205, 289, 325, 332, 337, 344, 354, 365, 369, 370, 380, 384. The Sheriff of Nottingham is given that full title in 15, 146, 282, 313,317, 329, 422, 423
Plumpton Park: 357
Saylis: 18, 20, 209, 212
St. Mary's Abbey: 55, 84, 233
Verysdale: 126
Watling Street: 18, 209
York: 84
In addition, there may be an allusion to "Wentbridge" in 135.
Calvary and London are, of course, not local cities and so do not reflect on the site of the action. Watling Street passes through many counties: Of the other names listed:
- In Yorkshire are: Doncaster, Holderness, Kirklees (near the Lancashire border), St. Mary's Abbey, Saylis, York (plus Wentbridge if that reading is accepted).
- In Yorkshire or Rutland are: Barnsdale
- In Yorkshire or Lancashire are: Plumpton Park
- In Lancashire are: Lancaster, Wryesdale (Verysdale)
- In Nottinghamshire are: Blythe (near the Yorkshire border), Nottingham
Thus we have five sites that are certainly in Yorkshire, and two more that probably are. Two, perhaps three, are in Lancashire. Other than Nottingham itself, the only place name mentioned in Nottinghamhire is Blythe, and it is just across the border from Yorkshire.
Thus we have no *specific* references to places in Nottinghamshire. All references to specific places are found in the Barnsdale section, and all are in or near Yorkshire. The detailed data in the "Gest" all points to Robin being based in Barnsdale, and specifically the Barnsdale in Yorkshire.
Holt says that Barnsdale was known as a haunt of robbers as early as 1306. This hints that there were outlaws on the scene before Robin's arrival.
Holt, pp. 73-75, does make the fascinating observation that, if we break up the material in the "Gest" into Nottingham and Barnsdale portions, the Nottingham parts are all parallels of earlier materials from the legends of Fulk and Hereward and such, while the Barnsdale portions (the tale of the knight, plus the death) are mostly original: "the nearer Robin gets to Nottingham the less authentic he becomes."  This may be the best argument for a Barnsdale setting: It looks as if the Sherwood stories took older materials and just inserted Robin's name. But note that this still means that the adaption of these materials to refer to Robin must predate the "Gest" -- and must have had time to travel to Yorkshire to be combined with the Barnsdale stories.
** Stanza 3/Lines 11-12 ** Like Robin Hood, Little John is called a yeoman at the very first mention of his name. This is the only information we have about his origin in the "Gest" (unless we count his story to the sheriff, where he calls himself Robin Greenleaf of Holderness; see the notes on stanza 149). Unlike most of the other outlaws, Robin and John seem to have been connected almost from the start; Wyntoun, the very first chronicler to mention Robin, wrote
Lytill Ihon and Robyne Hode
Waythemen were commendyd gude
(so Chambers, p. 131; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, and Dobson/Taylor, p. 4, have very different orthographies. The version in Holt1, p. 40, is even more distinct, reading "Waichmen" for "Waythemen." This is not as absurd as it sounds; "i" and "y" were interchangeable at this time, and "c" and "t" looked almost identical in scripts of the time -- a problem which also afflicts the manuscript of "Judas" [Child 23]).
Little John has his own folklore -- that he was so-called because he was huge, or because his birth name was John Little (Baldwin, p. 64); another account give his name as John Nailor. The story that he was a giant is the one which has survived. There is, however, little evidence of this in the "Gest," where he often serves as a trickster.
Given that there does not seem to be an early story of his origin, is it possible that, instead of being a giant, he was in fact originally regarded as small, like many jesters? Note that, in stanzas 147-152 of the Gest, there is no hint that Little John is in any way unusual -- surely, if he were really a giant, the Sheriff would have asked more questions! And in Stanza 307, Much carries Little John for a mile -- hard to do if he were exceptionally large. Pollard, p. 13, calls John the "master of disguise," which also seems unlikely for a giant.
What is more, in Stanza 42, we see John counting money in a style perhaps reminiscent of the practices of the Exchequer, as if he were a clerk.
One might speculate that the idea of Little John as a giant derives from the romance of "Bevis of Hampton." In this as in many romances, the hero fights a giant -- but it features the interesting twist that Bevis, after defeating the giant, takes him on as a servant (Baugh, pp. 131-132), just as Robin at one time would have John be his bow-bearer. This, obviously, is a romance idea which was not followed by the author of the "Gest."
** Stanza 4/Line 13 ** Since "Will Scarlet," or some such name, came to be one of the standard members of Robin Hood's band, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he is not here called "William" or "Will," but just by his surname (Scarlock is mentioned in 11 stanzas of the "Gest." In stanza 208, he is "Wyllyam Scarlock." Other than that, it's just "Scarlock."). There is a variant in the spelling; see the textual note.
That some such man was early associated with Robin Hood follows from the fact that "Guy of Gisborne," stanza 13, refers to "Scarlett"; the "Monk"has "Wyll Scathlok" in stanza 63, and the Percy text of the "Death" has "Will Scarlett" in stanza 2. In addition, there is a parliamentary roll for Winchester in 1432 which some joker decided to pad out with the names of outlaws. In addition to the genuine citizens, it adds the names of "Adam, Belle, Clyme, Oclaw, Willyam Cloudesle, Robyn, hode, Inne, Grenewode, Stode, Godeman, was, hee, lytel Joon, Muchette Millerson, Scathelock, Reynold" -- that is, "Adam Bell, Clym o' [the] Clough, WIlliam [of] Cloudesly," then a clear line from a Robin Hood ballad, "Robin Hood in the greenwood stood, A goodman was he," then a list of his followers, Muchette the miller's son, Scathelock, Reynold (Holt1, p. 69, with a photo on p. 70; cf. Cawthorne, p. 58).
There is also an instance in the Forresters book where a later hand has corrected "Will Stutley" to "Will Scathlock" (Knight, p. xxvi), but the manuscript also has "Scarlett" and (once) "Scarett."
Anthony Munday, who did so much damage to the tradition, made Scathelock and Scarlet into separate characters (see, e.g., the Cast of Characters on p. 303 of Knight/Ohlgren). Obviously both names were known in his time -- but there is no reason to think that they were originally anything but one person.
"Scarlock" and "Scathelock" both imply a man who is good at getting past locks. He is the only one of Robin's band whom we might accuse of an actual crime: The name implies that he was a burglar. (At least, thatÕs the general view; Alexander, p. 266, declares that the "ÔScathelokeÕ version of his name suggests that he was red-haired.Ò) It also makes it likely that "Scarlet" was a correction to make him less an obvious criminal.
But there is no obvious reason to prefer either "Scarlock" or "Scathelok." I will generally use "Scarlock" because Child does. For more detail, see the textual note.
** Stanza 4/Line 14 ** Much the Miller's Son, like Scarlock, is found in several of the early ballads; in stanza 8 of the "Monk" we encounter "Moche (th)e mylner sun," who joins Little John in robbing and killing the Monk; and he occasionally turns up in the later ballads. As a personal name, "Much" has not been found elsewhere; it has been suggested that it is a nickname, although from what source is not clear (unless it's the Muchette of the Winchester parliamentary return, but that's not a common name either).
In "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar" [Child 123], he becomes "Midge" (stanza 4 in Child's B text) or "Mitch" in the version in the Forresters manuscript (Knight, p. 72, line14).
In stanza 73, we find Much complaining that Little John is measuring cloth too generously. As a wild speculation, could he have been called some nickname such as "Not So Much," because he was tight-fisted, and could this then have been shortened to "Much"? This also makes sense in light of the famous rapacity of millers expressed in songs such as "The Miller's Will (The Miller's Three Sons)" [Laws Q21].
Much is not named in the plays of Robin Hood prior to Munday's works (see pp. 275-296 of Knight/Ohlgren), but there are parts for unnamed outlaws. Many of plays of this era used had a few types of characters who went under different names but always played much the same part -- as we see clowns in Shakespeare's plays, e.g. I wonder if Much might not have originated in such a play as a penny-pinching cheapskate who became an object of fun. It is noteworthy that Munday made him a clown (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 303).
In this first instance of his name, there is variation in the prints on whose son Much was; see the textual note.
It is interesting to note that Much is called "little Much" on several occasions (stanza 69 in some of the prints; stanza 73; stanza 77). The significance of this is unclear. It is distinctly odd that a tends to spell the word "lytell" wien applied to Much, "Litell" when applied to John. But perhaps the description "Little Much" explains the designation "Midge" used in the "Curtal Friar" -- perhaps it is used because it means a small person.
The next line says that every inch of Much's body was worth a "grome." Is this an indication that Much was short but capable? "Grome" is a difficult word; Knight/Ohlgren in this place gloss it as "man," and Gummere, p. 314, interprets the line as meaning that every inch of him was worth an ordinary man. But grome is also used in stanza 224, and there it might mean "groom" (and is so glossed in Knight/Ohlgren). The word has several meanings in Middle English. One is anger (Emerson, p. 377; "gromful" is "fierce," according to Dickins/Wilson, p. 273). Sands, p. 384, lists "grom" as meaning "man," perhaps derived from "growan," "grow."; and Langland/KnottFowler, p. 272, list "man" as the meaning of "grome"; Langland/Schmidt, p. 526, gives "fellows" as the meaning of "gromes." Turville-Petre, p. 233, suggests "servant, attendant" as a meaning for "grom" (perhaps from "groom"?). The exact meaning thus eludes us; I might suggest that the idea is that every one of Much's (relatively few) inches was worth a (taller but) lesser man -- or, alternately, that Much, being a free man, is worth more than any number of servants. Or just possibly we should emend "grome" to "grote," "groat."
It is interesting to note that, other than Robin and John, plus sundry saints, only seven people are given personal names in the "Gest" (many others, such as the Sheriff of Nottingham, the Abbot of St. Mary's, and the Prioress of Kirklees, have titles -- but no names; they are just placeholders) The list of people with names is as follows:
(King) Edward: Stanzas 353, 384, 450
Gilbert (of the White Hand): Stanzas 292, 401, 404
Much (the Miller's Son): Stanzas 4, 17, 61, 69, 73, 77, 83, 208, 214, 223, 293, 307
Reynold: Stanza 293 (also adopted as an alias by Little John in stanzas 149, 150, 157, 183, 189, but stanza 293 is the only mention of Reynold as a member of Robin's band)
(Sir) Richard at Lee: Stanzas 310, 331, 360, 410, 431
Roger (of Doncaster): Stanzas 452, 455
Scarlock/Scathelock: Stanzas 4, 17, 61, 68, 74, 77, 83, 208, 293, 402, 435
Note that Much is mentioned 12 times, and Scarlock in 11 -- and nine of the mentions of Much's name (including the first eight) are all in immediate context of the mention of Scarlock, and similarly the first nine mentions of Scarlock are in the context of Much.  The only exceptions are in stanza 214-223, where Much helps John take the sheriff; stanza 307, where Robin and Much refuse to leave Little John in the hands of the Sheriff; stanza 402, where Scarlock but not Much is involved in the archery contest before the King, and stanza 435, where Scarlock stays with Robin in the King's service when everyone else except Little John abandons him. It would appear that Scarlock was found in the tale of Robin and the King, but Much was not. The rest of the time, it is almost as if they are a comedy team -- e.g. in stanza 73 Much complains about John's generosity with cloth, and Scarlock replies (in effect) "Why not? It didn't cost *us* anything."
It is interesting to note that, although Robin is said to have seven score men (stanza 229), only five of them have speaking roles, and the role of Gilbert is trivial. At this stage, we might speculate, Robin's band is quite small -- perhaps just the four we see here (Robin, John, Scarlock, and Much), or these four plus a few cooks and wiv es and craftsmen. See also the note on Stanza 17.
** Stanzas 6-7/Lines 21-28 ** Robin will not eat until he entertains a guest. Not much of a hint as to dating, but we know that this idea of not eating until something notable happens is common in romances, particularly Arthurian romances. We see it also in the ballad of "The Boy and the Mantle" [Child 29]; Child's notes to that piece list several parallels, although many are French or Latin rather than English.
One romance which contains the idea is, of course, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." The theme is far too common to suggest literary dependence (although see the note on Stanza 185), but it is worth noting that the manuscript of "Sir Gawain" is generally dated to c. 1400 (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xxv), with the poem probably composed not too many decades before that. More interestingly, it is generally accepted, based on the language, that "Sir Gawain" comes from somewhere in the north or north-west of England, quite possibly in Lancashire (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xiii), right in the area where Robin Hood was allegedly active.
The romance of "The Turk and Gawain," which also features the pluck-buffet contest (see stanza 424) at another point sees the Turk ordering Gawain to fast (lines 48-59, 83-88 on pp. 341-343 of Hahn). This romance is also considered northern, although it is probably later than the Green Knght.
Thus we know that this motif was in circulation in the area where Robin supposedly lived, in the time when his legend was coming into being. See the section on "Sources" in the introduction.
The author of the "Gest" would probably not like the comparison, but it is noteworthy that King Saul, who could not save Israel and was overthrown by the Philistines, also had a tendency to fast and even to order his men to fast; see in particular 1 Samuel 13.
Robin will again wait for a guest in stanza 143.
** Stanza 7/Line 25 ** The line that begins Stanza 7 is lacking in all texts; see the textual note.
** Stanza 7/Line 28 ** "That dwelleth here bi west." If this line is correct, it can hardly refer to Nottingham; perhaps West Yorkshire or Lancashire is meant. Perhaps we should understand it as "from the west" -- which might (might!) refer to a follower of the Earl of Lancashire, the enemy of Edward II, and hence possibly of Robin himself.
** Stanza 8/Lines 31-32 ** According to this stanza, Robin heard "thre messis," i.e. three masses, before meals. This is the first indication of Robin's intense religious devotion. The next is in stanza 10, where we hear that he loved "Our dere Lady" above all others.
It is worth asking who officiated at the masses, however. In "Robin Hood and the Monk," we find Robin deciding to go to Nottingham because he has not heard mass for two weeks (Holt1, p. 28). Did Robin at some point acqure a priest? How, and who was it? Or does the reference in the "Monk" refer to a high mass (Missa solemnis, featuring deacon and subdeacon and others singing and performing ancilliary tasks), whereas the "Gest" refers to a low mass, requiring only an officiating priest? (Davies, p. 364).
I do note the curious fact that Henry VIII heard three masses a day when he went hunting, and sometimes as many as five on other days (Williams, p. 40). Since Henry VIII did not take the throne until 1509, we know the "Gest" cannot refer to him -- but since Henry played at Robin Hood, could he have been influenced by it?
** Stanza 10/Lines 37-40 ** For love of "Our dear Lady," i.e. the Virgin Mary, Robin will never hurt a woman. We also see this paralleled in the "Monk" (in stanza 34, Little John says that Robin has "servyd Oure Lady many a day" and expects that she will protect him; cf. Holt, p. 29) and "Guy" (stanza 39; Robin, who has tripped, calls on the "deere Lady"  and is saved; cf. Holt, p. 32).
There is an even fuller parallel in the "Death"; in stanza 25 of Child's "A" text, from the Percy folio, Robin declares that he will not hurt any widow at his end; in stanzas 15-16 we read, even more explicitly, "I never hurt woman in all my life, Nor men in woman's Company.... I never hurt fair maid in all my time, Nor at mine end shall it be."j
The protection of women was a common theme in the period; Mortimer, p. 23, notes that 'Those accused of murdering women were noticeably less likely to be acquitted than those accused of killing men -- there seems to have been a strong disapproval of violence by and against women, while that among men was normal."
Reverence of Mary was also frequent; the Virgin was often loved with a desperate, sometimes surprisingly erotic, love. The well-known poem "I Sing of a Maiden That Is Makeless" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 170) is a typical example. Mary is makeless -- both matchess and without a mate (Steven Manning, in Luria/Hoffman, p. 331). There is a strong sense of physical intimacy (Thomas Jemielity, in Luria/Hoffman, p. 326), even if the intimacy is with God. Other poems of this period have lines such as "Upon a lade my love is lente" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 177) and "WIth all my lif I love that may" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 183). Idolatrous, and even perverted, as the idea seems to Protestants, it was (and is) deeply ingrained in many Catholics.
Robin's devotion to the Virgin is even more explicit and significant in "Guy of Gisborne": in stanza 38, Guy succeeds in wounding Robin in the side, and seems to have won their battle. But in stanza 39, Robin invokesthe "deere Lady" who is "both mother and may" -- and goes on to win the fight. This "mother and maid" theme is quite common in Middle English poetry; it occurs explicitly in "I Sing of a Maiden (last stanza) and implicitly in much of the vast quantity of Marian poetry (see pp. 170-189 of Luria/Hoffman)
There is, of course, no basis in the Bible for Mariolatria such as Robin exhibits, and it developed in the Catholic Church only slowly (and was ruthlessly pruned out of most Protestant sects). We see some hints of it in Irenaeus at the end of the second century (WalkerEtAl, p. 192), but the creeds barely mention the Virgin Mary -- both the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds mention her only as the mother of Jesus, and both starting only in about the fifth century (in the case of the Nicene Creed, Mary was introduced when the Council of Chalcedon rewrote it; in the case of the Apostles' Creed, the creed only dates from about the fifth century. See Bettenson, pp. 21-26).
But it was not until the time of Duns Scotus, who died in 1308, that we see Mariology become clearly defined (McGrath, p. 52). This brought about a debate over whether Mary was a co-redemptrix along with Jesus -- a view with absolutely no scriptural basis, but which Robin seems to share.
This was typical of Scotus's views; Scotus, in his opposition to Thomist Aquinas, came to a position of extreme doubt toward the power of thinking; "he according enlarges the number of doctines already recognised as capable of being apprehended by faith alone" (CHEL1, p. 211). Mariolatreia, for which there was no evidence even in the Thomist sense (and a modern empiricist finds even Aquinas far removed from rational thought, with Scotus being pretty close to incomprehensible), was a typical Scotist doctrine.
Once the cult took off, though, it took off like wildfire. To give a semi-random example, Hewitt, pp. 182-186, gives a list of the ships impressed by the British government to take an expedition to France in 1345. In all, 148 ships participated -- and 23 of them were named _Seynt Marie_ or some variant!
Thus, the later the "Gest," the better the fit for Robin's extreme devotion to the Virgin. Still, the "Gest" shows no hint of (e.g.) the Immaculate Conception, another non-Biblical belief which was popularized by Duns Scotus but which did not become official Catholic doctrine until 1854 (McGrath, pp. 46-47; WalkerEtAl, p. 351). So we cannot absolutely rule out an early date; we can only say that Robin's views are more typical of a late date than an early.
It is interesting to note that there are several sites in Yorkshire with strong Marian associations. St. Mary's Abbey is the most obvious, but Kerr, p. 185, notes a bridge chapel of St. Mary's at Wakefield -- a place which Robin must surely have been tempted to haunt! It was built and consecrated in the reign of Edward III, however.
Ohlgren, who is convinced that the "Gest" has ties to the English guild system, notes that four important guilds chose Mary as their patron saint (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 151; the guilds were drapers, clothworkers, mercers, skinners). And we see John as a draper in stanza 73, and Robin offering up cloth in stanzas 70fff. and in 418. Interesting, but I don't find it as compelling as Ohlgren.
For more on Robin's piety, see the note on stanza 8. For a further example of Robin's devotion to the Virgin, see the note on stanza 65.
** Stanzas 11-12/Lines 41-48 ** In these stanzas, Little John asks instructions on how to live his life -- an oddity for someone who presumably has been part of Robin's band for some time. The whole business reminds me a bit of the way the disciples questions Jesus in the New Testament (see, e.g., the way in which they ask how to pray in Luke 11:1), but this is probably just a coincidence, the result of people who have heard Catholic preachers read the same lessons over and over again.
** Stanza 14/Line 49 ** Robin disclaims force here, but he will certainly use it, e.g., against the Sheriff; see Stanza 348.
** Stanza 14/Line 56 ** Robin's instructions say not to bother knights or squires who would be "a gode felawe." "Felawe"/"Fellow" is a word which occurs relatively rarely in the "Gest," but, as Pollard points out on p. 144, is extremely common in the "Potter." Pollard, pp. 134-142, extensively discusses Middle English uses of the word "fellow," but his conclusion boils down to the fact that it was even more ambiguous then than it is now. It might mean a servant or low-born person (compare the usage in some texts of the "Edward/Lizie Wan" type in which the mother fears that the son has done "some fallow's deed"), or even a member of a gang of robbers, but typically it means something like a comrade or equal.
On p. 142, Pollard points out the common equation between a fellowship and a meine/meyne, a band of followers -- a word of course used in the title of the "Gest" in some of the prints.
"Felawe" occurs in stanzas 14, 171, and "felaushyp"in 229. "Meyne" is in 31, 95, 97, 262, 419. Pollard, p. 143, appears to suggest that "fellow" refers to someone willing to join Robin's band, but it seems to me that Robin's actual followers are his "meyne," and his "fellows" are allies but not close followers.
** Stanza 15/Line 59 ** It is in this stanza that we first meet the Sheriff of Nottingham, who eventually became the primary bad guy of the cycle.
There is no explanation offered for why the sheriff is Robin's enemy (Holt1, p. 9), unless it's just the fact that he is a sheriff. This hardly seems sufficient in a Barnsdale context -- perhaps the Sheriff of Yorkshire, or the Sheriff of Lancashire, might be Robin's enemy, but why Nottingham?
Clawson, pp. 90-96, discusses some possibilities, most of which center around the events of fits III, V, and VI, including the Sheriff's breaking of his oath to be Robin's friend (see notes on stanzas 202, 204, 287). But these events, in the context of the "Gest," took place after this speech.
Pollard, p. 106, comments that "[W]e are never told why Robin Hood was outlawed. It is implied that he is the victim of malicious litigation by others for personal gain, in which the sheriff has colluded." This certainly would explain the hostility, but I must confess that I fail to see where this is implied.
Alternately, if we accept the idea that Robin was a forester or descendant of foresters, found in some of the late ballads although not the early, it might be that the hostility derives from the confilct between forest and non-forest officialdom. When a murder was committed in the forest, it led to problems between sheriff and forester, and disagreements over authority also arose when it was unclear whether a lesser crime had been committed inside or outside the forest (Young, p 93). Perhaps we might envision the sheriff stepping on Robin's family's perceived rights one too many times.
Holt mentions that Robin might have been outlawed by a group of false jurors, which would have been assembled by the Sheriff. This closely resembles a key element of "The Outlaw's Song of Trailbaston," a piece written c. 1305 and surviving in a unique copy of c. 1341 (Ohlgren, p. 99), copied perhaps in response to Edward III's attempt to use Trailbaston as a source of revenue for his wars (Ohlgren, p. 102).
It is written in French, and is the complaint of a many who claims to have served under the King (presumably Edward I), but who was hauled before the judges allegedly for hitting his servant a few times (Prestwich1, p. 286). Edward I's trailbaston law , promulgated in 1305 (Powicke, pp. 345-346), was designed to control thugs who went around beating and intimidating people (a "baston" is a club), so the idea of trailbaston courts was good (apparently this sort of thing was extremely common in 1304, and the trailbaston courts did a good job of cleaning it up, according to Prestwich1, pp. 285-286) -- but, in the Outlaw's Song, the singer declares that anyone is subject to fine or imprisonment by the courts. Being an archer, he faced a forty shilling fine or imprisonment (Prestwich1, p. 287), and so was forced to the woods instead. He recorded his complaint in writing and tossed it onto a highway so that the wider world might hear it.
The similarity to the conception of Robin Hood is obvious: An archer, probably a yeoman, forced into outlawry without cause, who flees to the woods. (Although he does threaten to kill his judges in stanza 10 -- Ohlgren, p. 103 -- which doesn't exactly make him sound like the image of meekness).
Alternately, the hostility might be a side effect of the tale of Gamelyn, where Gamelyn's older brother becomes sheriff and uses his authority against Gamelyn (Baldwin, p. 178).
Or maybe it's just the idea that a hero must have a worthy adversary (cf. Ohlgren, p. 109). In the early ballads, Robin has only two real adversaries: The sheriff, and Guy of Gisbborne. Guy, while a valiant fighter, is only a yeoman, meaning that he belongs to Robin's social class. Plus he winds up dead. The sheriff winds up dead, too, but since he doesn't have a name, he is replaceable. And he is also probably of the gentry or higher. So he becomes Robin's most available opponent -- even if he is in the wrong county!
The office of Sheriff (Shire-Reeve) went back to Saxon times, and gained in importance under the Normans -- "Norman kings, like Anglo-Saxon rulers, needed a link between the central power and local authorities.... It was upon the sheriff, so similar to the Norman _vicecomes_ on the continent, that the mantle of local power fell....  Usually the strong central authorities appointed outstanding feudal barons in the shires as sheriffs" (Smith, p. 73). Bradbury, p. 128, notes a case in the reign of King Stephen, during which Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, was sheriff of Essex, Hampshire, London, and Middlesex! In the time of William II, many counties did not have a baron or earl; it was the sheriff who ran the county (Barlow-Rufus, p. 160).
At their peak, they were without doubt the most important royal officials. Barlow-Rufus, p. 72, believes that in the near-civil-war between William II and his older brother Robert Curthose, it was the support of the sheriffs that allowed William to keep his throne. On p. 190, Barlow-Rufus describes them as responsible for "Revenue, justice, defence and the execution of many administrative orders.'
After Norman times, the office declined. By the fifteenth century, the rewards were so small that it became a post to be avoided at all costs. The clipping of its powers began with the creation of the Justices of the Peace -- figures who do not appear in the early ballads in any form (Dobson/Taylor, p. 14). First created in the early fourteenth century, they were given broad powers by parliament in 1361 (Prestwich3, p. 234; Lyon, p. 154). Sheriffs began to be locally appointed in 1338, and in 1371 Edward III finally gave in to pressure and accepted that sheriffs should be appointed annually (Ormrod, p. 146). There was some backsliding on this (Richard II started appointing his own sheriffs in 1397; Saul, pp. 383-384), but there was no going back to the days of the over-powerful Sheriff.
Smith, p. 75, says that "the golden age of the sheriff was in the early part of the twelfth century. The thirteenth century saw  many of his duties distributed among other men or abolished entirely. In still later times, especially under the Tudor monarchs (1485-1603), the lords lieutenant of the counties and the justices of the peace... assumed the main burdens of local government. The once proud sheriffs found that their stepping stones to power were cracked and crumbled by the new forces and new men."  Similarly Pollard, p. 103: "By the fifteenthcentury the sheriff's remit was much reduced from earlier times. The great era of sheriff as the king's viceroy had been the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."
Pollard, p. 104, does however note that, even in the fifteenth century, the sheriff's office was important enough that corrupt sheriffs could be a real problem -- this was one of the complaints during Jack Cade's rebellion. But Pollard cannot accept Robin's sheriff as a fifteenth century official: "He is, anachronistically, the king's viceroy, occupying the office at the King's pleasure, and in regular communication with him. He resides, it seems permanently, not as a fifteenth-century sheriff would, but in the royal castle of Nottingham. He displays many of the characteristics of a great lord. He keeps a great household, under the direction of his steward and butler. He retains on a grand scale..." (Pollard, p. 106). Pollard, who wishes to place every attribute of the "Gest" in the fifteenth century, simply rejects the description of the sheriff -- but what he really proves is that the portrayal looks back to an earlier time.
The fact that the sheriff of Nottingham is a powerful official is, therefore, an argument that Robin must date from the reign of Edward III or earlier. However, there is a secondary argument against Robin living in the time of Richard and John or earlier. He could not have lived in Norman times -- if he had, the sheriff of Nottingham would have been called by his feudal title, not "sheriff." Smith, p. 73, implicitly notes that the barons were still sheriffs in the era of the earlier Plantagenets, but that "in John's reign (1199-1216) considerable confusion in the counties resulted when no strong man would take the office of sheriff. After all, many barons in John's day were among the king's enemies."
Another change began in 1236, when the various counties were carefully surveyed and re-valued. This allowed Henry III to force the sheriffs to operate on what we would now call a "percentage basis" -- instead of paying the king a flat fee and then being allowed to collect whatever they could make the county yield, they had to pay the king a fraction of the revenue (Mortimer, p. 43). It took some time for this to become permanent, but this once again made the office of sheriff less popular with the nobility.
Holt, p. 25, notes that we meet the sheriff twice, in fits 3 and 5, and his character seems to change dramatically: "The sheriff of fytte five is menacing and villainous. The sheriff of fytte three is a laughing stock." This might just be an indication of different sources, but it might be an indication of the high turnover of sheriffs which often happened in periods of unrest -- although we should also note that Robin seems to treat the sheriff as the same man (see the notes on stanzas 204 and 287).
Hence the role of the Sheriff, as seen in the "Gest" and elsewhere, argues for a date in the reign of Henry III, Edward I, or Edward II; prior to the reign of Henry III, the sheriff was a noble, and after Edward III, the sheriff simply didn't have the power to act as the sheriff does in the "Gest" and elsewhere.
The fact that the sheriff is, supposedly, a bad official is no argument as to date. Edward I had at one time made a top-to-bottom survey of his officials. We have only partial results, but they are indicative. Prestwich1, p. 95: "The Lincolnshire returns are particularly full. In the wapentake (the local equivalent of the hundred) of Aswardhurn the jurors listed eleven recent sheriffs and eighteen lesser royal officials, along with five seigneurial officials, and accused them of a range of offenses."  Prestwich1, pp. 95-96, notes that much of the official misbehavior came as a result of government revaluing of the land to increase revenue (since land worth more was supposed to bring in more tax).
At least some of them were creative. According to Prestwich1, p, 95, one thieving sheriff claimed that he had confiscated chickens to prevent them being used to drop incendiaries on London!
As time passed, the sheriffs became more closely tied to the court. Wolffe, pp. 98, notes that "in 1448 alone fourteen of the thirty-six counties of England had household men as sheriffs." This might explain why the sheriff of Nottingham, in the latter part of the "Gest" and in the "Monk," has such access to the King: Perhaps, after getting rid of the sheriff of the early part of the "Gest" and of the "Potter," the King replaced him with a man who was closer to him.
It is worth noting that, in the year after Bannockburn, King Edward II replaced no fewer than thirty sheriffs -- although, surprisingly,  the sheriffs he chose often were not closely tied to him; in 1326-1327, when Isabella and Mortimer were trying to clear out Edward's adherents, they saw need to replace only nine of 24 sheriffs (Phillips, p. 446).
Baldwin, p. 70, says that during some of the period in which we are interested, there was no actual sheriff of Nottingham (compare Pollard, p. 106, who declares that the title should have been "sheriff of Nottingham and Derby"), but on pp. 70-71 he lists a number of officials who might have been treated as the sheriff: Philip Mark, sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire 1209-1224, Brian de Lisle, chief forester of those shires 1209-1217 and with other local posts of importance (including sheriff of Yorkshire) until 1241 (these first two were first suggested by Holt; Holt1, p. 60); Eustace of Lowdham, sherrif or under-sheriff of Yorkshire 1225-1226 and of Nottingham and Derby 1232-1233; Robert of Ingram, of Nottingham and Derby intermittendtly from 1322-1334 and occasional mayor of Nottingham (cf. Dobson/Taylor, p. 15); and Henry de Fauconberg, to whom we shall return.
On the other hand, Holt found few Sheriffs of Nottingham with any responsibility for forests (Dobson/Taylor, p. 15).
Of course, the title "sheriff of Nottingham" might be a disguise. I note that, in the second reign of Edward IV, Lord Hastings became Constable of Nottingham Castle and steward and keeper of Sherwood Forest. Close enough to a sheriff for a ballad. And Hastings was also Edward IV's chamberlain -- meaning that he controlled who had access to the king. It is possible that Robin might have been a Lancastrian outlaw -- perhaps even Robin of Redesdale or Robin of Holderness -- whom Edward IV tried to suppress and then offered a pardon. Possible -- but highly unlikely; there just aren't enough specifics in the "Gest" to suggest that the poet was writing about current political controversies.
"A strong argument has linked the fictional sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood stories with the real holder of that office in the 1330s [reign of Edward III], John of Oxford. He was guilty of a long catalogue of acts of arbitrary imprisonment, extortion, fraud and other offenses" (Prestwich3, p. 232). Baldwin, p. 72, refers to him, under the name "John de Oxenford." Holt1, p. 60, also mentions this identification (first made by Maddicott, who thinks the "Gest" referred to events of 1334-1338) with some approval (while expressing strong doubts about Madicott's other identifications), and Pollard alludes to it on p. 185, although without enthusiasm. Hicks, p. 83, declares that "John Oxenford's 'eccentric and yet typical career' so vividly illustrates the scope for corruption in local government that he has been proposed as the model for the sheriff ofNottingham in the ballads of Robin Hood."
Hicks, p. 84, lists among his offences accepting a bribe to set a prisoner free, extortion of various types (charging more than the accepted rate for receipt of writs, collecting fees twice, etc.), and having himself fraudulently elected to parliament. Despite this, he seems to have died in poverty and obscurity (Hicks, p. 85). Hicks, p. 85, concludes, "His origins and fate are thus unusual, but his misconduct in office was exceptional only in scale and fully explains why 'men still had a justifiable distrust' of sheriffs.
I am inclined to think, however, that memories of the vile Oxenford are more likely to have caused the Robin Hood legend to be transplanted to Nottinghamshire and Sherwood Forest, where it was not native, than to have originated the legend.
If John of Oxenford is the actual sheriff of the source story, then Thomas de Multon was perhaps the Abbot of St. Mary's and Geoffrey Scrope the justice (Baldwin, p. 73; Pollard, p. 185-186, who observes that Ohlgren and Aytoun also thought these events contributed to the legend; Holt1, p. 60). But I suspect that this is being too specific, and Holt agrees, particularly with respect to Scrope; had the author of the "Gest" known all these details, he would have used them. John of Oxford may have been the model of the sheriff, but it is unlikely that he actually was the sheriff.
Pollard, p. 107, proposes that the fifteenth century model for the sheriff might be Ralph, Lord Cromwell of Tattershall, who in 1434 became Constable of Nottingham Castle and Steward of Sherwood Forest. A veteran of Agincourt, he also was Chancellor in 1433 (Kerr, p. 131).
This again strikes me as highly unlikely. Cromwell would have been mostly an absentee landlord; he was for many years treasurer of England (Wolffe, p. 73), and had to deal with the financial disasters of Henry VI's reign. And he had lands far outside Nottinghamshire -- Tattershall is in Lincoln, he built a fine manor at Wingfield in Derbyshire (Kerr, p. 131), and his manors of Wressle and Burwell were in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (Gillingham-Wars, p. 77). It is true that Wolffe, p. 274, calls him acquisitive, which fits, and Wolffe, pp. 121-123, shows how badly justice was distorted in the reign of Henry VI -- but Cromwell lived until 1456, and his death was natural (Wolffe, p. 357). And he would have been a contemporary of the author of the "Gest" -- yet the author of the "Gest" gives us almost no personal details about him. It is, I suppose, possible that the author wanted to slander him and be safe from persecution, but it just doesn't fit.
If we assume that the actual sheriff involved is the man who was sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire in 1323 when Edward II came north, that seems to have been Sir Henry de Faucumberg/Fauconberg, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in 1318-1319 and 1323-1325, and sheriff of Yorkshire 1325-1327, 1328-1330 (Cawthorne, p. 198). Cawthorne speculates that Fauconberg was actually transferred from Nottinghamshire to Yorkshire when Robin left court, in order to keep track of the outlaw. But, of course, he didn't end up dead while fighting Robin. He does appear, based on Cawthorne, p. 199, to have had sticky fingers, and to have been sustained by Edward II because he had fought against Thomas of Lancaster. This, theoretically, might have made him Robin's ally if we think (as I do) that Robin was an enemy of Lancaster. But this isn't really the right sheriff. It appears to me that we want the sheriff of 1317 and 1322, not 1318 and 1323.
It is interesting to learn that Fauconberg came from Holderness (see the note on Stanza 149).
But the bottom like is, I really don't think we should seek too hard for the historical sheriff. Unlike the King, there were few chronicle stories about sheriffs that our poet could use as a reference! The Sheriff probably derives primarily from the poet's imagination.
** Stanza 17/Line 68 ** "And no man abide with me." Robin has just ordered out Little John, Much the Miller's Son, and Scarlock. Does sending forth these three indeed leave him with no other men? Or has Robin sent all the others elsewhere? In Stanza 61, we also find references to Robin, John, Much, and Scarlock as if they are the only ones present. We cannot tell, but this is another indication that Robin's band may at this time have been small; see also the note on Stanza 4/Line 14.
** Stanza 18/Lines 69-70 ** "Saylis" and "Watling Street." "Saylis" is presumed to be Sayles, near Pontrefract, in the Barnsdale area, a holding listed by Baldwin, p. 43, as a tenth of a knight's fee. This identification was first made by Hunter (Dobson/Taylor, p. 22). Other than localizing Robin to Barnsdale rather than Sherwood, it has no evident significance, but Baldwin does say that "its value as a look-out position over the Road is apparent, even today." In particular, it overlooks the bottleneck at Wentbridge (Holt1, p. 83). According to Dobson/Taylor, p. 22 n. 4, it is fully 120 feet above the plain, making it not only a good place to watch Watling Street but anyone who would approach Barnsdale from the north or east.
It is in teresting that in every use (stanzas 18, 20, 209, 212)  it is "the Saylis," not "Saylis." This sounds like it refers to a residence, not a village -- which would make sense if it were someone's holding. And, indeed, Dobson/Taylor, p. 22, note that the spot is still known as "Sayle's Plantation."
Watling Street was the single most important Roman Road in England, running from London to the north. Its mention is no help as to location, since it runs through both Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Holt1, pp. 84-85, observes that Watling Streetchanged route in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the "Gest" seems to match the situation in the latter. This is more evidence for an Edwardian date, although it might come from the poet rather than the legend.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 151, object that this section of the Great North Road -- now the A1 -- was properly called Ermine Street. and that Watling Street in fact runs to Chester (a point first noted by Ritson), but Dobson/Taylor, p. 22, point out that the name was used for many Roman roads -- and was used for the road toward Pontrefract in Yorkshire was referred to as "Watling Street" from at least the thirteenth century. The key is probably that it was the Roman Road running from London to Yorkshire.
The use of the name is a minor dating hint; Weinreb/Hibbert, p. 934, say that the name "Watling Street" is first attested in1230 for the road that in Anglo-Saxon times was known as Athelyngestrate. The road of course is older than this, but the use of the name "Watling Street" is strong evidence that the poem cannot be earlier than the reign of Henry III. Of course, the internal evidence in any case makes it much more recent than that.
Robin's men are again ordered to Sayles and Watling Street in stanza 209, and they reach Sayles in 212.
** Stanza 19/Lines 73-74 ** "Erle or ani baron, Abbot, or ani knyght." It may be coincidence, but the list of titles (Earl, Baron, Knight) is interesting. The titles "Earl," "baron," and "knight" went back to Norman times (although it took some time to establish fixed duties and titles). Note the absence of what became the two highest titles of the nobility, Duke and Marquis.
Edward III created the first dukes, beginning with his son the Black Prince (Barber, p. 20) and notably including Henry of Grosmont, the nephew of the enemy of Edward II, who became the first Duke of Lancaster -- significant because he had power in the region near Barnsdale and was given palatinate powers (OxfordCompanion, p. 557). York also became a dukedom at an early date; Edward III's fourth son Edmund was Duke of York. Richard II created the title of marquis in 1385 for the de Vere Earl of Oxford (OxfordCompanion, p. 621).
The failure to mention the titles of duke and marquis does not require us to accept a date prior to the reign of Edward III -- dukes were not common, and marquises were very rare. But the lack of those titles is at least a minor support for a date before Edward III.
It is interesting to note that we don't actually *see* any Earls in the "Gest." The title exists, but they aren't coming out of the woodwork they way they are in the twenty-first century. It is perhaps worth noting that the number of earls declined significantly in the reign of Henry III (Jolliffe, p. 283) -- and that neither Nottinghamshire nor Yorkshire had an earl at the end of that reign, nor generally in the next few decades; York became an earldom in the late Edwardian period.
Turning to abbots, we observe in the Tale of Gamelyn a scene where Gamelyn, who is pretending to be a prisoner, is ignored by a number of clergymen. Gamelyn then curses all abbots and priors (Cawthorne, p. 171). Could that passage have influenced this?
It's also interesting to note that secular law generally did not apply to clergy in the middle ages -- except, by special agreement with the Pope, forest law *did* apply (Young, p. 24). This is significant in light of the fact that Robin made his own version of forest law apply to high-ranked monks.
Clawson, p. 17, claims that "Hostility to wealthy and powerful churchmmen was a natural attribute of the mediaeval English outlaw," but as evidence he cites only the fight of Hereward the Wake against a Norman abbot, plus the tale of Gamelyn and the later Robin Hood ballads. Other than the case of Hereward, which was political and far too early, he seems to have no historical examples.
There is an interesting footnote in the forest laws: "Every archbishop, bishop, earl, or baron travelling through the forest may take one or two beasts by view of the foresters or he may blow a horn to give notice if they are not present" (Young, p. 68). Thus one might argue that the higher clergy and nobility were given the right, first, to interfere with Robin's livelihood, and second, that they used his patented horn calls. One wonders if Robin's use of the horn (in the Gest, found in stanzas 229, 389, 447 -- and far more common in the "Robin Meets His Match" class of ballads) might not have been inspired by this.
The fact that Robin so dislikes the higher clergy is perhaps another slight argument against the king of the "Gest" being Edward IV. Bishops in the middle ages were political figures, and often appointed from noble families -- e.g. the Bishop of York in 1470 was John Neville, the son of the late Earl of Salisbury and the brother of the Earl of Warwick (Wagner, p. 174) and the Archbishop of Canterbury was Thomas Bourchier, brother of the Earl of Essex and half-brother of the late Duke of Buckingham (Wagner, p. 35). But both these two were made bishops before Edward IV came to the throne (George Neville became Bishop of Exeter at the age of 23!). According to Ross-Edward, p. 320, the bishops appointed by Edward were, almost without exception, highly educated, and from gentle rather than noble families. This does not mean that they were saints, but certainly they set a much higher standard than the bishops of previous reigns.
Given Robin's hostility to the clergy, we should perhaps also note that the Catholic church was in rather bad shape in this period. The reigns of Edwrd II and Edward III almost exactly overlapped the so-called "Babylonian Captivity" (1305-1377), when the Popes, instead of being based in Rome, were living at Avignon, and hence unduly influenced by France. (This was in some ways better than being influenced by the Italian mobs, but to an Englishman, the French would presumably be The Enemy, and Rome just some faraway place.) There was also a papal schism in the 1180s, and various schisms in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is easy to imagine an outlaw, who could not possibly know which Pope was actually canonically elected (especially since, in this period, the elections were often anything but honest), thinking something like "a plague on both your episcopal hierarchies."
It is perhaps worth adding that the Black Death decimated the clergy to a greater extent even than the population as a whole (Ormrod, p. 116; Kelly.J., p. 191), dealing a severe blow to monasticism in England and even weakening the bishops. The strong disdain of the higher clergy shown in the "Gest" appears to make more sense in the half century before the Black Death than in the period immediately after (although the hierarchy of course went back to its bad old ways thereafter).
** Stanza 20/Lines 77- 80 ** Note the precise parallel in stanza 212. The parallel continues through the first line of stanza 21 and stanza 213, except for a textual variant; see the note on stanza 213.
** Stanza 21/Line 82 ** John and his companions know a "derne" (hidden) street -- an indication that they know the forest well. This is a curious contrast to Stanzas 11-12, where Robin gives his men their instructions as if for the first time.
Pollard, pp. 58-59, objects that this makes little sense, because the forests of England in the Middle Ages were relatively tame places, often filled with little towns and farms, and easy to travel. This is, of course, true, but that is little help to a traveler who does not live in the forest and know these side paths.
In the parallel in stanza 213, John and his men look down the highway, i.e. Watling Street. Does the difference matter? Perhaps; the knight, who is alone, can travel a path, but the monk of stanza 213, who has a large company, needs to follow the road.
** Stanza 24/Line 94 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 27/Line 108 ** "Blith or Dancaster" -- towns along Watling Street/the Great North Road, now typically spelled "Blythe" and "Doncaster." We will meet Roger of Doncaster at the end of the "Gest," when he is involved in Robin's murder. The two towns are between Nottingham and Yorkshire (Doncaster is now a fairly major town, Blythe a hamlet somewhat to its south), so they are no help on the question of whether Robin is based in Barnsdale or Sherwood -- although, if the knight is truly planning to go on crusade (see the notes on Stanzas 56-57), hewould presumably head south to London to start. If he is indeed headed south, that is additional support for Robin being in Barnsdale, not Sherwood.
We will meet these two places again in Stanza 259, where the implication of a setting in Barnsdale is even stronger.
The mention of Doncaster supplies some vague evidence against the contention (highly unlikely on other grounds) that the King Edward of the song is Edward IV. During the 1470 conflict that led to his temporary deposition, the Marquis of Montague was moving to attack Edward IV at Doncaster when Edward fled the country (Wagner, p. 179). This being Edward's strongest connection to Doncaster, and surely well-known at the time, could a contemporary author have failed to note it were Edward IV the hero of the Gest?
** Stanza 28/Line 151 ** Robin orders Little John to search the knight's baggage. This is a standard stage of the "truth or consequences" game, and will happen again in Stanza 246 (searching the Cellarer of Saint Mary's); oddly, we do not see the King searched in stanza 382.
Ohlgren on p. 158 of Ohlgren/Matheson says that guilds had the right of search of their members, and -- given his strenuous efforts to prove that the "Gest" is targeted at the guilds -- claims this as evidence of origin. But, as noted above, the source tales of Hereward and Eustace involve searches of prisoners, and we also see it (e.g.) in the later tales of Dick Turpin. An outlaw who did not search his victims would not be very successful!
** Stanza 29/Line 113 ** Robin and his men are here described as having a "lodge." Pollard thinks this is the same place as the trystel tree (for which see the note on Stanza 176), which is possible but by no means automatic; indeed, it would make sense for outlaws to have several meeting places in the forest and not bring outsiders to their man base. The existence of a lodge does indicate that Robin and his men have been here for a while (again making stanzas 11-12 seem odd), and also argues against the claim (for which see Stanza 176) that it is always summer at his camp -- a lodge is far more important in winter than summer.
Note also the sheriff's statement in stanza 198 that the life of the outlaws is harder than the requirements of "any" order of anchorites or friars. If it is always summer, it's not a very comfortable summer.
A faint possibility is that the Barnsdale/Sherwood confusion is caused by seasonal change -- Robin lives in one in the summer and the other in winter (probably Barnsdale in summer and Sherwood in winter, since Nottinghamshire would have better weather, and more travellers, in winter). But the much higher likelihood is that the confusion is just that: Confusion.
If the lodge is an actual building, its construction is probably another violation of the forest laws; Young, p. 109, says that the usual penalty in the early medieval period was twelve pence (still a large fine for a villein) but that in some cases the building might be razed.
** Stanza 29/Line 115 ** Note that, although Our Hero is called Robyn Hode/Robin Hood, this is very nearly the only reference to him wearing a hood. Hood is, of course, an English surname, and Hoods did live in the north country in Edwardian times; Hunter located records of several, and even tried to contend that one was "the" Robin Hood (Holt1, pp. 45-46). We really have no evidence whether the author of the "Gest" thought "Hode" a surname, or a name given for Robin's apparel -- or whether he even considered the question. Here, the hood is simply used as a demonstration of manners: Robin is courteous enough to take off his hood. (For "courtesy" see the note on Stanza 2.
We will again see Robin doff his hood to a guest in Stanza 225.
** Stanza 32/Line 125 ** Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 76, 152, suggest that the act of Robin and the knight washing together (paralleled in stanz 231, and also the "Potter," Stanza 41), is a demonstration of "civilized" or courtly behavior: People eating at a communal meal were expected to have clean hands. They add that the custom became increasingly common in the fourteenth century -- in other words, it is a custom from the reign of Edward II or later. It should be kept in mind, however, that washing of hands is a custom which goes back to pre-Christian times -- although one which Jesus declared not necessary from a religious standpoint (see, e.g., the first part of chapter 7 of the Gospel of Mark).
** Stanzas 32-33/Lines 127-132 ** Although outlaws are usually said to poach deer, and indeed the state of the king's deer park becomes an issue in Stanzas 357-358, and Robin admits in 377 to living by the King's deer, note that the menu here consists of bread, wine, "noumbles" of the deer (i.e. probably organ meat), swan, pheasant, and other birds (probably including duck). Mortimer, p. 19, says of the Plantagenet period that "Wild birds were an important component of the diet; the number of species and quantity of bones found archaeologically in medieval contexts is 'considerably greater than in any earlier period since the advent of farming. Species excavated or known to have been sold include swans, cranes, rooks, pipits, larks, crows, jackdaws and plovers, as well as wild ducks and, of course, quantities of blackbirds which were presumably baked in a pie."
On the evidence, the outlaws were not particularly reliant upon deer. It is interesting to note that the no plant matter of any kind is mentioned except bread and wine -- both of which can be stored for long periods (at least, flour and wine can). It sounds like a scurvy-inducing diet (assuming the deer organs are cooked, anyway), and makes me wonder if the meeting really took place in summer (see note to  Stanza 176). This is winter food.
We also note that rabbit is not mentioned in this extensive catalog of animals which could be caught in a forest. This is not proof of anything, but rabbits were not brought to England until the thirteen century. Had they been mentioned, it would have been a strong hint of a late date.
** Stanza 37/Lines 145-148 ** Robin, to be blunt, shakes down the knight, on the grounds that a yeoman should not pay for a knight's meal. (Ironic, since, of course, tenant farmers raised the food that the gentry and nobility ate every day.) In Robin's case, this becomes a "truth or consequences" game -- those who admit their wealth are not robbed. (Of course, as Holt points out on p. 11, only the rich had any reason to lie about their wealth, so the social justice aspect of this can be exaggerated.)
Child, p. 53, notes that in the tale of Eustace the Monk, Eustace too asked, more directly, how much money his victims had. He then searched them, and confiscated everything above the amount they confessed to (e.g. the Abbot of Jumieges claimed to have four marks but turned out to have 30; Baldwin, p. 38). A summary of Eustace's methods is found on Cawthorne, p. 125. The parallel to the tale of Eustac(h)e is also mentioned on Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 2-3, and Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 12, plus they note something parallel in the tale of Fulk FitzWarren.
We shall see Robin ask this question again in Stanza 243; in that case, he will receive a false answer.
** Stanza 42/Lines 165-166 ** Little John will also spread out his mantle and count in Stanza 247. Might this be an indication that John is the most educated of the band? We don't really have any evidence either way, but it is interesting that he seems to be in charge of calculations.
What's more, the use of his mantle for counting seems to relate to the practice of the Exchequer (which presumably would have been used by others doing counting). According to Mortimer, p. 66, the Exchequer was so-called because its offers sat at a table with a checkered cloth when they examined the accounts of sheriffs and other officers.
Mortimer, p. 67, adds, "The calculations were performed by using the columns of the checked cloth to represent pence, shillings, pounds and so on; little heaps of coins representing the sum due were piled on one row of squares, and others representing sums atually paid put in the row below.... This means of calculation had the advantage of easing the problem of easing the problems of doing elementary arithmetic in roman numerals, by introducing what amounted to a zero."
** Stanza 43/Line 172 ** To the factually correct statement here that the knight is "trewe inowe," compare the ironic statement in stanza 248 that the monk is "trewe ynowe" not because the monk told the truth but because he has brought twice the payment Robin Hood expected from the knight.
** Stanza 45/Line 179 ** In this verse, Robin, trying to understand why the knight is so poor, remarks, "I trowe thou warte made a knyght of force" -- in other words, that the knight was compelled to become a knight.
This is clearly a reference to the phenomenon called "distraint of knighthood" (cf. Child, p. 45), under which the King forced a man with sufficient income to become a knight. (Realize that the picture of a knight from King Arthur television shows bears little relation to reality -- a knight was not a chivalrous soldier; a knight was a person with certain clearly-defined duties within the state.) This was primarily a revenue-raising measure -- during a war, the King could demand feudal service of a knight, or payment in lieu of it. Urban, p. 38, puts the situation bluntly: The duty of a knight to the king "was first to pay the fees that accompanied the ceremony [of knighthood], and second to pay scutage [the fee in lieu of service]. Whether they ever appeared in person, equipped for battle, hardly mattered."
According to OxfordCompanion, p. 298, it was Henry III who first used the proceedure, demanding that those with income of twenty pounds per year become knights (cf. Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 13). The standard soon became 40 pounds (Prestwich3, p. 138; Ormrod, p. 151, says that land valued at 40 pounds was the standard in the reign of Edward III), which better suited the genuine demands of knighthood.
Even as late as 1471-1472, in the reign of Edward IV, an examination of the tax rolls showed that the annual cost of a knight's household was 100 pounds, a baron's 500 pounds, and a viscount's 1000 pounds (Ross-Edward, p. 262). Magna Carta had fixed the "relief" owed to the crown for a knight's fee at five pounds (Mortimer, p. 46. The "relief" was the amount a new possessor had to pay the monarch to enter his estate -- in effect, an inheritance tax). A baron, by contrast, owed 100 pounds. This is further evidence that a knight's normal income was in the range of a few tens of pounds.
But it was Edward I, not Henry III, who really made distraint of knighthood common, starting in 1278 (Ohlgren, pp. 316-317, n.13). This was part of a massive housecleaning campaign which Edward embarked upon to regularize the government and improve his revenue; he also replaced almost all the sheriffs (Prestwich1, p. 278) so that he could more easily enforce the changes -- and also better learn who had the money to become a knight.
Dobson/Taylor, following Child and an article by Holt, argue that distraint of knighthood points to the reigns of Henry III or Edward I. But in 1316, Edward II followed in his father's footsteps: "On 28 February every landholder with land worth [fifty pounds] or more was ordered to take up knighthood" (Phillips, p. 268).
Thus Robin's remark is clear evidence for the reign of Henry III or later -- and probably the reign of Edward I or later. In fact, it is a pretty strong argument for the reigns of Edward I or Edward II, because Edward III didn't bother with making many knights. The evidence of the campaigns in the Hundred Years' War is that the number of knights fell dramatically in his reign (Prestwich3, p. 139; Reid, p. 219, argues that there were 870 knights on Edward III's expedition of 1359, but this seems to be too many knights compared to the number of archers).
** Stanza 47/Line 187 ** The knight'sstatement that his family had held his land for "a n hundred wynter" is significant in the context of land tenure (and, perhaps, Robin's outlawry). At first glance, this requires only that the year be 1166 or after (since effectively no Englishmen continued their land tenure after the Norman Conquest; it all was given to Frenchmen). This means the date could be as early as the reign of Henry II. And, indeed, we see proclamations at the beginning of Henry II's reign saying, in effect, that tenants had to prove that they had held their land at the end of Henry I's reign in 1135; changes in the two decades since were illegitimate (Mortimer, p. 7)..
However, William the Conqueror's writ ran only weakly in northern England -- indeed, Cumbria and Northumberland were considered part of Scotland in this period. William just didn't have enough followers to control the area (Barlow-Rufus, p. 297). A few Normans were established in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but the English kings did not really begin to assert control until the reign of William Rufus beginning in 1087. And Henry II died in 1189. Thus, while not impossible, it is highly unlikely that a knight from Lancashire or Yorkshire could have claimed a century's tenure in the reign of Henry II.
But the hundred year tenure becomes dramatically significant if we assume that the time is that of Edward I or after. Even as Edward I was making new knights, he was also doing his best to regain land for the crown. Edward clawed back land using something called "Quo Warranto" proceedings (Prestwich1 has many pages on this, e.g. p. 347). This required landholders either to show a valid deed *or* to show actual possession of the land for the period from 1189 to 1290 (when the proceedings took place). Theoretically this was an advance in law -- Hollister, p. 260, observes that Edward was converting England from government by custom to government to government by written law and record -- but the conversion was difficult.
 Edward also made changes to something called "novel disseissin" (Prestwich1, p. 271). Combining what Prestwich1 says with what Smith says on p. 167, it appears that the changes made it easier to update an old writ -- and, hence, use out-of-date charges to dispossess a landowner. Since a deed might have been lost in the interim, the re-issuing of the writ, and the convening of a jury, would make it easier to evict the tenant.
Thus, for the knight to claim a hundred years' possession was to say that he had met the requirements of Edward I's land tenure requirements. An owner might speak with pride of a century's possession before Edward I came along -- but after Edward I's time, he was making a *legal* claim of right.
Edward I's laws were very hard on smallholders. To an illiterate peasant, the papers would easily be lost, and a century of possession was hard to prove. Many tenants must have lost their land. (This apart from the fact that many lineages failed to produce male heirs. I read somewhere that there were five thousand tenured knights mentioned in the Domesday Book, and that not one of those lineages is still in tenure. To maintain a line for a hundred years -- probably four generations -- was not insignificant.)
Corrupt officials made the problem of maintaining tenure worse; Edward I eventually tried to clean this up in 1298 (Prestwich1, pp. 431-432), but the bad precedent would continue for the rest of his reign and into the next. The victim of this fast dealing might not be a criminal -- but with no land, he had no livelihood. We have no information on how Robin Hood came to be displaced from his property -- but it is quite possible that he lost it due to one of Edward I's land-grabbing tricks. Kelly.J, p. 56, notes a substantial decrease in the area of land being cultivated starting around 1300; land laws and bad weather were driving tenants away.
** Stanza 48/Lines 189-190 ** In effect, the knight declares that he is poor because "time and chance happen to them all" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). There is nothing at all unusual about this view of fate; this was the standard pre-modern attitude. It is the whole theme of the Book of Job; who was a "blameless and upright man... who feared God and turned away from evil' (Job 1:1).
What is noteworthy is not the knight's attitude but the fact that Robin does not say something to the effect that it happened to him, too. This is additional clear evidence, were it needed, that Robin in the "Gest" is not a fallen nobleman. The result also differs from the Book of Job, where Job's three friends start out trying to comfort him and then turn on him when he persists in declaring himself innocent (in 16:20 Job openly declares that "my friends scorn me"). Robin asks pointed questions to get to the heart of the matter -- but, having been satisfied with the answers (as Job's friends were not), he resolves to help the knight.
** Stanza 49/Line 195 ** "Four hundred pound of gode money."
We see large sums of money at several points in the "Gest" -- in stanza 247, the monk carries eight hundred points. In stanza 120, we see that the knight and Little John between them could carry "Four hundred pound" (stanza 120). In stanza 176, John and the cook carry off three hundred pounds plus plate.
But no horse can be expected to carry 800 pounds of silver, even taking into account the fact that the pound sterling is only three-quarters of a pound Avoirdupois. For the weight and volume of a sum of 400 pounds, see the note on Stanza 120.
And, even though the knight in Stanza 121 tells the abbot "have here thi golde," money almost had to be kept in the form of silver. Prior to the reign of Edward III, the only coinage in England was the silver penny (Mortimer, p. 68), which went back all the way to King Offa in around 770 (Brooke, p. 59). There had been a brief attempt to introduce gold coins in the reign of Henry III, but it was withdrawn due to being undervalued (OxfordComp, p. 224). But to carry value equivalent to 800 pounds would seem to require gold coinage (the exchange rate of silver and gold varied, but it is safe to say that 800 pounds sterling of silver would be no more than 50 pounds avoirdupois of gold).
There is also the problem of counting 400 pounds, or even more extremely, 800 pounds. 800 pounds at 240 silver pence to the pound is 192,000 pennies. Even 20 marks, the amount the monk claimed in stanza 243,  is 3200 pence. (Could Little John count that high? If he could, is this the reason why he is always the one who counts the cash?)
The number 400 pounds does have a peculiar significance. Tyerman, p. 245, shows a diagram of the checkered tablecloth used by exchequer clerks to count money. Based on this layout, the maximum that could be counted was 400 pounds (properly, 439 pounds and some change, but 400 pounds in round numbers). It was the largest amount that could be counted in one sitting.
It is true that, early in the reign of Edward IV, we hear of travellers being robbed of 200 pounds, 300 pounds -- even, in two unusual cases, of 700 pounds and 1000 pounds (Pollard, p. 92). But even if these reports are accurate, this is almost a century after the death of Edward III, and a century and a half after the reign of Edward II. Given inflation, those amounts appear to be less than is being bandied about here. Plus, by then, there were gold coins.
Odds are that the figures bandied about are simply exaggeration and that most of the money the knight used was actually letters of credit or something equivalent. Otherwise, it would be hard even to find that much coin. Prestwich1, p. 408, estimates that the total currency in *all of England* at only about a million pounds in the 1290s. No one but the crown and a few of the very richest earls could have hundreds of pounds -- even the King had only about 25,000 pounds of revenue in the twelfth century (Barlow-Rufus, p. 224).
But we need only assume the monk was carrying a substantial amount of money (even the 20 marks, or 13 and a third pounds, he claimed at the outset) for this to be a dating hint. Smith, p. 126, says that "coined money had become more widely available in the twelfth century," leading to more use of coinage in the reigns of Richard and John, but the first real reform of the coinage came under Edward I in 1279-1280, who introduced the farthing and groat and regularized other coinage (OxfordComp, p. 224). And coining was carried out only periodically, meaning that there was often shortage of coin. This was true for much of Henry III's reign, and late in Edward I's reign because of the high taxation for his wars (Prestwich1, p. 405). And Edward I hit the church particularly hard, because that is where the money was (Prestwich1, p. 418). Prestwich3, p. 236, and Ormrod, p. 156, also note currency crises in the early reign of Edward III. Thus, if there really was money being used in Robin Hood's time, the reign of Edward II is a very good bet.
On the other hand, it wasn't a bad rule of thumb to assume that the value of land was ten times the income -- in other words, if the knight had 400 pounds of land, then he would have income of forty pounds a year. Which matches the 40 pounds of income eventually expected of a knight. The knight may even have had a little more than 400 pounds of land, since the abbott (based on his behavior) very likely wanted securities worth more than the amount he was lending.
To put this in perspective, Mortimer, p. 80, says that in the reign of Henry II, "few lords" earned as much as 500 pounds per year. Tyerman, p. 305, estimates the average baron's income in the reign of John as 200 pounds. According to Ormrod, p. 141, a knight bachelor in Edward III's armies in the Hundred Years' War was paid 4 shillings a day (about 70 pounds per year), and a knight bachelor 2 shillings a day (35 pounds per year). Seward, p. 269, gives figures for expected incomes in 1436: 865 pounds for a baron, 208 pounds for a "well-to-do knight," 60 pounds for a lesser knight, 24 pounds for an esquire. Prices had of course inflated substantially in the period since the reign of Edward III; it is safe to assume that these values would have been at least a third less in 1345.
Which makes it curious to see the monk in stanza 92 declares the knight's lands to be worth 400 pounds per year. As the above numbers show, that is the income of a baron (if a rather impoverished one), not a knight. It is probably an error -- either by the monk or the poet.
Last updated in version 2.6
File: C117E
===
NAME: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 07
DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn HodeÓ [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 08 (File Number C117G). This entry contains notes on Stanza 51-Fit II of the "Gest."
NOTES: ** Stanza 52/Lines 205-206 ** Compare the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32, although the Prodigal Son, unlike the knight's son, was not his heir. It is curious to note that, although the story of the knight is the fullest episode in the "Gest," we never find out the youth's fate. Did he flee the country, leaving his father on the hook for his bail?
** Stanzas 52-53/Lines 208-210 ** It is possible that there is a dating hint in stanza 52-53, describing how  the knight's son killed a knight and a squire. Stanza 52, line four, states that this took place "In felde wolde iust full fayre." Ohlgren, p. 223,  takes this to mean that the boy killed them in a tournament, reading "iust" as "joust" (the interpretation given also by Dobson/Taylor, p. 82, and Knight/Ohlgren, p. 96). This certainly makes better sense than reading it as "just."
We should note however that in stanza 116 the word "jousts" is printed "ioustes." Of course, consistency of spelling is rare in "Gest." But this may be one of the reasons why some have rejected this interpretation. Also, while the youth might have killed one man in an organized tournament, what are the odds that he killed two?
Still, if it does refer to an organized joust, it is a hint of a date in the reign of Edward I or Edward II. The first jousts, reported from the twelfth century, consisted of a man taking a spot of ground (say, the entrance to a bridge) and defending it from attackers (Reid, p. 33). They had no resemblance to the organized tilting of Malory; they were just mad scrambles. If more than two were involved, they were often called "melees." To see one man kill two in a joust is an oddity -- although killing two in a melee tournament is not impossible.
It is also possible that there is a political subtext here, since jousts were sometimes used as an excuse to raise private armies (Barber, p. 18).
Tournaments were disliked by the Church because they promoted fighting and sometimes killed people. Edward I, as a favor to the Church, banned them (Prestwich3, p. 37). This did not prevent people from organizing them, of course; they were too popular. But the fact that they were illegal made it murder to kill someone at one. That ended in the reign of Edward III, who "was a great patron of tournaments" (Prestwich3, p. 205), and indeed a highly successful competitor. So if the knight's son was accused of murder for killing people in a tournament, it implies a date in the reign of Edward I or Edward II.
See also the note on Stanza 116.
** Stanza 53/Line 209 ** Child's text, in line 53.1, says "He slewe a knyght of Lancaster;" so too Dobson/Taylor and Knight/Ohlgren. This is one of the most important variants in the "Gest," with various witnesses reading "Lancaster," "Lancashire," "Lancasesshyre," and "Lancastshyre ," which is much more likely to be the original reading than "Lancaster" (see the textual note). The distinction is potentially significant. "Lancashire" is without question a place designation. "Lancaster" might be -- but it is more likely a political designation, referring to a follower of the earl or duke of Lancaster.
** Stanza 54/Line 216 ** Gummere, p. 315, explains the odd form "Saynt Mari Abbey" as a genitive, "Mari" meaning "Mary's." There are few other such inflected forms in the "Gest"; perhaps most of the rest have been modernized. This may be one of the reasons why some scholars have suggested early dates for the "Gest."
St. Mary's Abbey was in York. It was founded by Alan the Red, a close companion of William the Conqueror, who was one of the chief rulers of the north of England (Barlow-Rufus, p. 313). William Rufus, the Conqueror's son, seems to have been present at the turf-cutting, presumably as part of his campaign to secure the throne he had just taken (Lack, p. 43). Henry I would also endow it (Barlow-Rufus, p. 432), so it was well-established and well-endowed by Plantagenet times.
After the Reformation, it naturally failed, and the buildings are in ruins; what is left can be seen in the gardens of the York Museum (Kerr, p. 187).
According to Pollard, p. 123, St. Mary's wasn't particularly popular with the local people: "There had been bitter and much publicised conflict between the abbeys of Bury St Edmunds, St Albans and St Mary's and the townsmen on their doorsteps in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." Pollard in fact reports that the conflict between St. Mary's and York, about who controlled certain lands, was at its height in 1326-1327, at the very end of Edward II's reign.
On p. 128, Pollard adds that "St. Mary's would appear  to have been one of the most active of the great Benedictine monasteries in the land and money market in the early fourteenth century."
This wasn't the only time in the reign of Edward II that St. Mary's was "in the headlines." It came to particular prominence when the King's favorite Piers Gaveston was to be housed there in 1312 while the peers decided what to do with him (Phillips, p. 188). People in the north of England would likely have been aware of this, but since no one except Edward liked Gaveston, I'm not sure what significance, if any, the fact might have had.
In addition, St. Mary's was supposed to have been the original home of the "hedge priest,' John Ball, the prophet of Wat Tyler's Rebellion of 1381 (Hicks, p. 153). Again, I'm not sure how this might relate, but perhaps it inspired our author to think of St. Mary's as producing populist outcasts.
For the act of borrowing based on land as collateral, and for St. Mary's right to acquire lands whem most abbeys were barred, see the next note.
** Stanza 55/Lines 219-220 ** The knight borrowed 400 pounds from the Abbott of Saint Mary, offering his land and holdings as collateral. The deal the knight struck with the Abbott is typical for the period. In 1093, for instance, we read of an abbott's son-in-law charged with some sort of financial crime. The abbott and others put up sureties worth 500 marks -- and lost them when the fellow  fled to Flanders (Barlow-Rufus, p. 252).
Holt1, p. 75, calls the idea of the church gaining the knight's land the one original theme of the "Gest," not found in any other early romance. He observes that this violates the law of mortmain, passed by Edward I in 1279, which largely forbade the turning over of secular land to monastic organizations. He argues that, because of mortmain, the thirteenth century is a better date for the events of the "Gest" than some later time.
This need not follow. Edward I seems to have proposed mortmain as a curb on Archbishop Pecham of Canterbury (Prestwich1, p. 251). After Edward's time, kings allowed so many exceptions to mortmain that it was almost a dead letter (Powicke, p. 325). According to Smith, p. 186, "The intent of the Statute of Mortmain soon came to be widely evaded. For political and other powerful reasons, kings sometimes granted licences permitting the alienation of lands to the church." Smith also mentions a system known as "uses," where the land was handed over to a secular entity but the church enjoyed its use -- i.e. its income. The law was not rewritten to prevent this until 1391, in the reign of Richard II (Smith, pp. 186-187), and uses were not entirely stamped out until 1535, when Henry VIII imposted the Statute of Uses (Lyon, p. 170).
Pollard, p. 126, seems to suggest that the transfer of land was in fact illegal due to mortmain and that Robin was upholding the actual law. I can see no hint of this in the "Gest," and find it hard to believe that the crafty abbot would not have covered his bases.
One suspects that most kings would allow the handover -- provided they got their cut. We know that that was what was required in the 1450s, e.g., when John Fastolf was denied the right to found a chapel after refusing to pay off Henry VI's government (Castor, pp. 118-119) And a clever lawyer might have gotten around even that. Holt's real objection is that the Abbott shows no signs, in the song, of trying to evade mortmain -- but there is another point, and an astounding one: the abbot of St. Mary's Abbey -- founded in 1086, according to Tatton-Brown/Crook, p. 61, and upgraded by William Rufus in 1089 -- had unusual privileges, he was allowed to wear a mitre and had a seat in parliament like a bishop (Tatton-Brown/Crook, pp. 61-62). And he had the right to administer secular justice on his own lands (Tatton-Brown/Crook, p. 62). This made him so unpopular that the abbey had to be fortified in 1318.
(In the department of Really Strange Footnotes, I can't help but mention that I have dated the incident of Robin Hood and the Knight to 1316-1317 -- and Saint Mary's was fortified in that year. Could the abbey have been fortified to guard against Robin? Of course, the tenants -- and the Scots -- were the real reason.)
And St. Mary's had another amazing privilege: It had been given a special exemption to mortmain. Starting in 1301, they were allowed to take up to 200 pounds per year in property (Pollard, p. 128; Baldwin, p. 47). This privilege continued through most of the reign of Edward II, and we have records of the Abbot in the 1330s making loans. To be sure, the knight's lands were worth 400 pounds, which is more than 200 -- but remember that the loan was made in one year and paid in another. Given the legal nature of loans at the time (which were more like corporations pooling property), a good lawyer could certainly write the deed so that half the land was acquired when the loan was made and half when it failed to be paid.
We should also note that, in 1311, Edward II was forced to submit to the Ordinances -- a series of acts meant to control the government (and get the finances in better order). In effect, a committee of overseers -- the Ordainers -- was appointed. One of the Ordinances required "that no gifts of land, revenue, franchies, or wardship and marriages were to be made without the approval of the Ordainers" (Phillips, p. 172). The Ordinances never really worked; they contained some good ideas, but no functional enforsement mechanism (Phillips, pp. 179-180). But in the north of England, where the Earl of Lancaster (a chief sponsor of the Ordinances) had great influence, no doubt the form of the ordinances had to be followed closely.
These laws very likely explain why the "justice" was present: He was to write a transfer which met the requirements of mortmain -- or, perhaps, he would be the one granted the "use" of the land. He might also have been present to grant Ordainer approval.
The passage of mortmain was a part of a war between church hierarchy and king that was characteristic of the reign of Edward I (Prestwich1, p. 253; on p. 256, he lists the clergy's grievances). This fits rather well with the attitude of Robin Hood, who was a friend of the church and of the King but who despised bishops. But this doesn't help with dating. King John had such bad relations with the church that the Pope interdicted England (an argument, in a way, against placing Robin in John's reign -- Robin would largely have agreed with the anti-episcopal John). Henry II's reign saw  the murder of Becket, whom Henry had nominated Archhishop because of his trouble with other clergymen. Stephen not only arrested several bishops, he actually tried starving them (Matthew, p. 91). Conflicts between King and bishops were so common that they tell us very little.
** Stanzas 56-57/Lines 223-226 ** There is a hint in these verses that the knight is going on crusade -- he will go "ouer the salte sea And se where Criste was quyke and dede" ("over the salty sea and see where Christ lived and died"). Although Ohlgren, p. 317 n. 18, makes the unlikely suggestion that Sir Richard was going to participate in the Hundred Years' War (see the note on Stanzas 88-89), and even suggests in n. 23 that he was getting money from the crown, the text clearly implies a visit to Palestine (stanza 57 says that the knight is going to "Caluere" =Calvary).
Can we use this as a date peg? Not with certainty -- after all, people had been going on pilgrimage as early as the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine the Great (Runciman1, p. 39), and by the tenth century, pilgrimages were common and were sometimes given as pennances (Runciman1, pp.43-44). But Stanzas 88-89 hint that the knight will not just travel to Jerusalem but fight there. If the knight were going as part of a larger English expedition, this would at first glance seem to point to either the Third Crusade, led by Richard I (hence c. 1190; this is the implication of Holt2, p. 193) or Prince Edward's crusade (c. 1270). Those were the only two occasions on which English royalty  went to the Holy Land.
This is not conclusive, however; there were other times when an Englishman might reasonably expect to go crusading There weren't many English involved in the First Crusade, but one of the major leaders was Robert Duke of Normandy (Lack, p. 75), the son of William the Conqueror who arguably should have become King of England in 1087 when the Conqueror died, and who certainly should have become King in 1100 when William Rufus died The Second Crusade, almost purely a French affair, was a washout, but the Third, the Crusade of Kings, was a very large affair. Several other Crusades followed; all were flops, but all attracted at least a few zealous followers.
Although Edward I's Crusade has the advantage of being relatively late, which makes it a better fit than the First and Third Crusades,  it isn't really a good candidate. It was a very small expedition. Prestwich1, p. 71, thinks Edward took fewer than 1000 soldiers, and many of those were paid at least partly by the French. Since most of those men were retainers, not knights, the number of knights involved must have been counted only in the hundreds. This out of perhaps 15,000 knights  in England at the time. And Prince Edward was not yet Edward I when he set out; Henry III died while Edward was still on his way home (after a valiant but futile trip; the French crusade had bogged down outside Tunis -- Prestwich1, pp. 73-74 -- and while Edward went on to Acre, he had too few men to accomplish anything except rebuild a tower and manage a few raids.)
But although Edward I was the last serious English crusader, that was not the final end of the Crusading impulse; "The crusade was preached again and again" (Powicke, p. 232). Edward  I himself took the cross a second time in 1287 (Prestwich3, p. 23), but first the fall of the last Crusader cities, Acre and its dependencies, in 1291 (Runciman3, pp. 412-423) and then internal troubles kept him from fulfilling the vow. Edward managed to send a few soldiers, according to Runciman3, p. 413, but they were too few to make a difference and the King was too occupied to come himself.
Nonetheless, toward the end of the reign of Edward I, Clement V -- who was a Gascon and hence a subject of Edward I -- became Pope, and one of his chief goals was to restart the Crusades.
Clement worked very hard to heal the problems between England and France in hopes of enabling the Crusade (Phillips, p. 108). Clement in fact appointed Anthony Bek, the Bishop of Durham at the beginning of Edward II's reign, titular Catholic patriarch of Jerusalem in 1306 (Phillips, p. 51n.), a title he held until his death in 1311 (Phillips, p. 174). If anyone had an interest in restarting the crusade, it was obviously him!  And Durham (just south of Newcastle) was a northern Bishopric, and one with palatinate powers. As a wild hypothesis, what the knight might have meant is that he would have joined the retinue of Bishop Bek (or, more likely, his successor) with the eventual expectation of joining Clement's proposed crusade -- which however never got off the ground.
Edward II was at least theoretically supportive of Clement's attempts; Edward  and his father-in-law  Philip IV of France took the cross in 1313, as did Edward's wife and Philip's daughter Isabella (Phillips, p. 210;  this actually became the subject of a manuscript illustration reproduced as plate 11 in Phillips). Nothing came of this, partly because of tensions between the two and partly because of Bannockburn, but the knight might have been expecting more. Runciman3, p. 434, in fact suggests that Philip's sole purpose in taking the cross was to get his hands on the money that would have gone into the Crusade -- and certainly his plundering of the Templars in this decade (Phillips, p. 211) had been for purposes of getting his hands on their money (Runciman3, pp. 434-438). But Edward was likely sincere.
(I have to note a very folkloric touch here: Philip IV eventually had the Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, burned at the stake, since the Templars were being accused of being heretics. From the flames, de Molay was said to have called Philip IV and Pope Clement V to meet him at God's tribunal, and to have cursed Philip's line; Doherty, p. 58. And, indeed, Philip and Clement both died within a year -- and Philip's three sons all died without male heirs, and there is evidence that they were cuckolded anyway; Phillips, p. 222. Thus the Capetian line died out, except for Isabella the wife of Edward II. The Valois inherited the Kingdom of France -- and as a result had to fight the Hundred Years' War against Edward II's and Isabella's son Edward III and his heirs. This, as I shall argue below, was the backdrop of the latter part of Robin's legend.)
Edward II was formally committed to the crusade from 1313 to 1316. In the latter year, with his reign having been blighted by Bannockburn and crop failures and fights with his barons, he formally asked the Pope to let him put off his crusade (Phillips, p. 284); the postponement was granted in early 1317 (Phillips, p. 287). So the most likely period for a knight to consider crusading was 1313-1317.
Even this is not the last possible date. As late as the reign of Edward III, the King of England talked about going on crusade with the King of France  (Perroy, p. 88; Seward, p. 28). Even after that, there were still Crusades; they just didn't go to Palestine. So, for instance, in 1385, Bishop Despenser of Norwich was allowed to use money from crusading indulgences to pay for a cross-channel expedition in Flanders; this war on fellow Catholics was called a crusade because there were two different popes at the time (Saul, pp. 105-106). Again, when Henry of Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV) was exiled by Richard II, he went to fight pagans in northeastern Europe, and was considered to have gone on crusade.
To be sure, there is no hint that the knight is joining a larger expedition. It sounds as if he plans to go on his own. This suggests the possibility that the knight, instead of going on crusade, meant to join one of the crusading orders -- the Templars or the Hospitalars. But the Templars, as noted above, were suppressed during the reign of Edward II -- and Edward II promised to take the cross to fill the void left by their destruction (Doherty, p. 56). The Hospitalars lasted much longer, but after 1291, they had no place in Palestine. Thus the Knight could not reach Calvary by joining the orders -- and besides, the members of the orders were supposed to be unmarried, and we know the knight has a wife.
The most logical guess, adding all this up: The Knight was considering joining an organized crusade (probably Edward II's), but was prepared to go even if there was no crusade.
** Stanza 59/Line 233 ** "Where be thy frendes?"The language here is again vaguely reminiscents of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32, where "no one gave [the prodigal] anything." It is probably not an allusion but just one of those things people heard repeated.
Comnpare also Wisdom of Sirach 12:8-9: "A friend is not known (i.e. shown to be true) in prosperity, nor is an enemy hidden in adversity. One's enemies are friendly when one prospers, but in adversity even a friend disappears."
Finally, Sirach 29:10 advises, "Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend" -- advice which only Robin follows.
It is significantly of note that Robin never asks the knight about his feudal overlord, who would in the Norman and early Plantagenet periods have been the person to whom anyone would naturally apply. I cannot see, anywhere in the "Gest," any sign of feudal relations. Feudalism was never dismantled; it just slowly faded, and was replaced  by "bastard feudalism" -- in which affinities, or personal and contract relationships, took the place of the former relationships based on tenure and social order (Wagner, pp. 19-20). By asking about friends, the text strongly implies a date in the era of bastard feudalism.
The change from feudalism to bastard feudalism was gradual, but the dividing line is usually placed in the reign of Henry III (Jolliffe, p. 331). Thus this comment fits well in the era of the three Edwards -- and fits not at all with the time of Henry II, Richard I, and John.
** Stanza 61/Lines 241-244 ** Note that only four outlaws are mentioned as hearing the Knight's story: Robin, John, Much, and Scarlock. For the possibility that these are the only members of te band, see the note to Stanza 17.
** Stanza 62/Line 248 ** Although we usually say that Jesus died on the cross, the New Testament contains a number of places where he is said to have died on a tree (Greek xylon, which means both "tree"  and "wood"): Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, 1 Peter 2:24.
** Stanza 63/Line 252 ** Robin's refusal to accept Peter, Paul, or John as a guarantor of a loan is rather ironic, although probably not intentionally so. There isn't much mention of commerce or moneylending in the New Testament, but what there is mostly involved with Peter and Paul. Paul, when the slave Onesimus ran away from his owner Philemon, tried to induce Philemon to free Onesimus voluntarily on the grounds that Philemon owed him for bringing salvation, but if Philemon refused, Paul promised, "I will repay it" (Phillemon 19).
The case of Peter is not so explicit, but when the question of the Temple Tax came up, Jesus told Peter to take a hook and catch a fish, which would contain the money to pay the tax (Matthew 17:24-27). And when Ananias and Sapphira tried to cheat the church, it was Peter who called them out, resulting in their deaths (Acts 5:1-11). Thus Peter and Paul, whom Robin disdains, are the primary New Testament examples of financial integrity. Mary -- who as a woman would have had no control over money -- is never mentioned in a financial context.
** Stanza 65/Line 259 ** Having admitted that he has no other securities (a strange statement, since if he could pay his debt to St. Mary's Abbey, he would have his land back, and the land would be security), the Knight offers "Our dear Lady," i.e. the Virgin Mary, as security -- a guarantee which Robin at once accepts. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 82, declare that this must be based on the common motif of Miracles of the Virgin, for which see the introduction, although a precise parallel to this particular tale has not been found. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 153, mention a tale, "The Merchant's Surety," which similar themes although the plot details are rather different.
Similar in another way is the German tale of "Schimpf und Ernst," described on pp. 35-36 of Clawson, in which a man is captured, then released to raise his ransom based on a promise held by "got den herren" -- "God the Lord." The man cannot raise the funds, but his captor meets a monk who says God is his Lord. The captor robs the monk and takes what he finds as the ransom. The similarity in plot to the tale of Robin and the monk in Fit Four is obvious, but the transfer from God as guarantor to Mary as guarantor significantly reshapes the story.
For more on Robin's devotion to the Virgin, see the note on Stanza 10.
It is just possible that this Miracle of the Virgin is a dating hint. As noted in the section on sources, Miracles of the Virgin were often anti-Semitic. But that theme does not show up here at all -- the "Gest" is anti-church hierarchy, not anti-Jews. This makes sense, because Edward I had expelled the Jews from England in 1290. (For this, see the notes to "Sir Hugh, or, The Jew's Daughter" [Child 155], or Powicke, p. 322, or Prestwich1, p. 346). The absence of Jews in the tale may be because the author lived in a time after the Jews were expelled, but it might also be because the original tale came from a time after the Jews were expelled.
There is also the matter that, at this time, very few people other than clerics and some merchants and nobles were literate. What knowledge of Christianity most people had came partly from sermons and partly from performances such as the mystery plays. This definitely could cause people to develop peculiar notions. And Robin, as an outlaw, might not have much access to the regular clergy (despite the "three masses" of Stanza 8), but probably could see the Mystery Plays.
I mention this because the Mystery Plays seem to have been particularly popular in Yorkshire. Happe, p. 10, notes that we have four cycles of mystery plays plus odds and ends. Two of the cycles are from Yorkshire: The York cycle itself, and the so-called Towneley cycle, which is from Wakefield (a well-known Robin Hood site); this is the cycle which contains the famous Second Shepherd's Play. A third cycle is from Chester, not too far from Robin's haunts (the source of the fourth is uncertain). So Robin might have derived much of his knowledge of theology from this limited source -- one in which the Virgin Mary is one of the few female players to come off well.
(It should probably be noted, however, that we have no evidence of the use of mystery plays before about 1375; Happe, p. 13. Indeed, the plays were associated with the feast of Corpus Christi, and that was not promulgated until 1311 and did not become common in Britain until 1318, according to p. 19 of Happe. Thus the "real" Robin is unlikely to have learned anything from the mystery plays -- but the author of the "Gest" might well have.)
** Stanza 67/Line 268 ** The "modernization" of the "Gest" by Maud Isabel Ebbutt, quoted on p. 176 of Mersey, interprets the phrase "well tolde it be" to mean "well counted, with no false or clipped coins therein."  This obviously assumes coinage (see the note on Stanza 49). And coin clipping certainly happened in Edwardian times (there were actually pennies that were designed to be cut into quarters!), and there were poor imported coins with less silver content than English pennies. But all Robin says is that John is to be sure the knight gets the right amount.
** Stanza 68/Lines 271-272 ** Here we see the actual loan paid out. The method is curious; see the textual note.
** Stanzas 70-72/Lines 276-286 ** Little John points declares to Robin that they must give the threadbare knight "a lyueray" (livery), suggesting scarlet and green. Robin gives him three yards of "euery colour." Despite this, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 281, suggest that the original reading should be "scarlet in graine," i.e. "scarlet dyed in the grain," a high grade scarlet cloth. There seems little point to this emendation.
A better explanation may come from Finlay, p. 147, who says of scarlet that "A fashion statement in medieval Europe was to wear clothes made of a new cloth, imported from central Acia. The new cloth was called 'scarlet'... vastly popular... but... extremely expensive -- at least four times the price of ordinary cloth. But the curious thing is, scarlet was not always red. Sometimes it was blue or green or occasionally black, and the reason that in English 'scarlet' means 'red' and not 'chic-textile-that-only-socialites-can-afford-but-we-all-aspire-to' is because of kermes [a red dye made from insects]." So perhaps the best explanation is that John suggests scarlet-type cloth dyed green, and Robin says scarlet-type cloth in all colors.
Green cloth will appear as Robin's color in Stanza 422. The reference to scarlet is more interesting, since the standard red dye of this period was kermes, "a red coloring obtained from insects living on evergreen oak trees in lands bordering the Mediterranean," according to Backhouse, p. 32; it is related to carmine and cochineal, and is said to be the origin of the word "crimson."  It was expensive even in southern Europe, since harvesting it was labour-intensive, and very expensive in places such as England where it had to be imported. If scarlet is genuinely meant, as opposed to a poorer grade of red, this is an indication that Robin is giving gifts like a nobleman, and perhaps taking the role of a liege lord.
Knight, p. xix, makes the interesting observation that no fewer than nine of the ballads in the Forresters Manuscript refer to Robin's men wearing green; two also refer to Robin himself wearing scarlet.
We might note as a sidelight that we find the Paston family also debating the use of a red dye in their livery (Castor, p. 75).
The gift of cloth hints at the granting of livery (although we note that the knight is not given a livery badge, just cloth). It is interesting to note that, when the knight comes to return Robin's money, he wears white and red (stanza 133). The red might be Robin's color, but the white seemingly is not.
Is this a dating hint? Keen (pp. 137-138), referring to the general greenwood legend, strenuously argues that it must date from the fourteenth or fifteenth century, because of references such as this (as well as in some of the other early ballads) to livery and its misuse. As documentation of the problem he points, e.g., to certain sections in "Richard the Redeless" on this theme.
There is no question but that this was a much-discussed issue; Barr, pp. 19-20, says that "Richard the Redeless" goes so far as to identify various characters by their livery badges. Saul, pp. 200-201, says  that the commons regularly petitioned about this in the reign of Richard II -- this even though Richard at one time withdrew the use of his own livery (Lyon, p. 116). One petition asked that "all liveries called badges, whether given by the king or the lords, of which use has begun since the first year of King Edward III (1327), and all lesser liveries, such as hoods, shall henceforth not be given or worn but shall be abolished upon the pain specified in this document."
The attempt at a fix did not work; parliament would still be bugging the crown about abuses of livery in the reign of Edward IV (Ross-Edward, p. 349).
The nature of the petition to Richard II implies that the problem was not believe to go back more than a reign or two. And Robin was legendary by 1377. Thus Keen's argument agrees with the "Gest" in dating Robin to the reign of one of the Edwards -- with Edward II and Edward III being the best bets. Livery was simply not an issue in the reign of Henry III, let alone the earlier kings.
The green and red cloth have another dating significance: They are another argument against the reign of Richard I. That king so despised common people that he restricted those of lower classes to gray clothing; colors were reserved to the upper (Finlay, p. 365). Thus if this incident took place in the reign of Richard I, giving the knight colored cloth might be making him guilty of a crime. And Richard, if he came to see Robin, would probably refuse to see a man clothed in Lincoln Green.
Robin also acts as a cloth merchant in stanza 418, and Ohlgren thinks this ties him to one of the cloth guilds; see the note on Stanza 10.
** Stanza 71/Lines 283-284 ** John declares that no merchant in England is as rich as Robin. This screams for an early date, before "bastard feudalism" and the rise of the merchant princes. An obvious example is the de la Pole family of Hull. William de la Pole's birth was so obscure that we don't even know his father's name (Hicks, p. 93), but his wealth was great enough that he became a major financier of Edward III's campaigns in the Hundred Years' War (OxfordCompanion, p. 758) and still had enough left over to found major memorial institutions at his death while leaving his family well-off (Kerr, p. 159); it eventually allowed his son to become Earl of Suffolk in the reign of Richard II (Saul, p. 117) -- although he was chased from the country just two years lated (Reid, p. 506).
By 1386, Michael de la Pole was earning more than 400 marks per year (Maxfield/Gillespie, p. 229), and while some of this was from lands Richard had granted him, much was from his merchant activity. The de la Poles were not the only merchants to (in effect) buy their way into the gentry (although Hicks, p. 94, does say that they were "the only great noble family based on trade in the later middle ages"); if John is right and no merchant can compare with Robin, this strongly implies a date before the time of Edward III.
Ohlgren/Mathison, p. 25, claims that the reference to merchants is evidence that the poem was created for one of the merchant guilds. But how would the guild have reacted to Robin being richer than they?
** Stanza 72/Lines 287-288 ** For the use of a "bowe-tree" as a measure, see also the end of the Percy version of "Robin Hood's Death": "Lay my yew bowe by my side, My met-yard [measuring rod] wi..." (Stanza 27 of the A text).
** Stanza 73/Lines 291-292 ** For a (just barely possible) explanation of Much the Miller's Son's complaint about Little John's generosity, see the note to Stanza 4 about Much.
Ohlgren, p. 24, suggests that reference to John as a "drapar" -- i.e. a draper -- is another indication that the "Gest" was intended for an audience of a guild, perhaps the guild of drapers. I would be more inclined to think the line is a joke.
** Stanzas 75-77/Lines 297-308 ** It is interesting to see Robin keeping horses -- fine horses, in fact -- in the greenwood. This may be an indication of date; it was not until the reign of Edward III that it became customary to mount archers. But how could the outlaws keep them fit while living in a forest?
Also, where could Robin have come across such fine beasts as these were said to be (in stanza 100, the porter praises the animals highly)?At this time, even horses were divided into yeoman's horses and gentleman's horses (Pollard, p. 36). One suspects that the animals had recently been taken from some relatively high-ranked person, and that Robin was willing to give them away because he had no good way to keep them.
Note that he gives the knight both a courser and a palfrey. To oversimplify, the courser or destrier was a fighting horse and the palfrey a riding horse (often a woman's riding horse, but a knight when not expecting battle might well ride a palfrey to avoid overburdening his warhorse). We may see this palfrey again in stanza 263.
The fact that the knight apparently lacks a good horse may possibly be an indication of just how hard he has been squeezed by his creditors. Mortimer, p. 26, notes that "When a knight's creditors foreclosed on him and his belongings were sold, he was to be left a horse -- unless he was a figting knight... in which case he was to be left his armour and several horses."
A quality horse, incidentally, was a significant addition to Robin's gifts. In the reign of Edward III, horses which were taken to France for the war were assessed before being shipped, and the minimum assessment was eight marks and the maximum ten pounds (Hewitt, p. 87) -- vastly more than the annual income of a plowman, e.g. Given that the horse is said to be extremely fine, it presumably is worth at least ten pounds.
** Stanza 80/Lines 317-320 ** Robin offers Little John as a servant on the grounds that a good knight should have one. This is fair enough -- but why pick his right-hand man, who (if he is indeed a giant) is highly recognizable, a very good fighter, and the man who counts the money? Is it possible that Robin chose John to watch over the knight and make sure he wasn't pulling a fast one?This might explain the curious events of stanzas 151-152.
Clawson, p. 56, suggests that the purpose of having Robin appoints John to the post so that John would be in better position to insinuate himself into the Sheriff's entourage. But given how little emphasis there is in the third fit on the knight being John's master, this hardly seems necessary.
** Stanza 84/Line 334 ** Clawson, p 45, makes the interesting observation that, although Little John has been made the Knight's servant, this is the last time John is mentioned in the second fit. The Knight rinds an entourage to come with him as he repays his loan (see the note on stanza 97), but there is no indication that John is part of the group. (And the comic potential of having John present are obvious.) Clawson therefore suggests that most of the scene between the Knight and the abbot is based on the tale of a crusading knight rather than a Robin Hood story.
Clawson also suggests on pp. 45-46 a comparison to "The Heir of Linne" [Child 267]. In the latter, the Heir is rescued from his profligacy by a gift from his forethoughtful father; there isn't much real similarity except that a surprise legacy allows the Heir to pay off debts otherwise beyond his ability to pay.
** Stanza 88/Line 349 ** Ritson, cited by Gummere, p. 88, notes that the prior of an abbey was the most senior official after the abbot, and hence the one in best position to cross the abbot -- which would explain the abbot's complaint in stanza 91 that the prior is always in his beard.
I do make one interesting note: Tyerman, p. 116, observes that the founder of Fountains Abbey (the supposed home of Friar Tuck), Richard of Fountains, was prior of Saint Mary's Abbey before breaking away. In the second fit of the "Gest," the Abbot is against the Knight, the Prior approves of him. Could the tale in the "Gest" be a faint echo of the conflict between the two which took place in 1132, and could this explain how a friar of Fountains came to be friendly with Robin Hood?
** Stanzas 88-89/Lines 351-356 ** The last two lines of stanza 88 make nonsense and are likely corrupt; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 154, suggest that the Prior means "*If it were me, I would rather pay the hundred pounds right away." But this must be taken in the light of the next stanza. The knight, according to the Prior, has been beyond the sea -- another hint at a crusade. Or might the Prior -- the one sympathetic person at St. Mary's -- have known that the knight was considering going on crusade? But one of the rules of the crusades was that the Crusader's lands and debts were to be safe while he was on Crusade -- even if he was delayed. So the Prior might be saying, "We have to wait." Alternately, perhaps, "Better to take a hundred pounds than get nothing" -- which might be what happened if the Abbot forced the knight on crusade and he died there.
There is one other interesting possibility: The church generally forbade usurious mortgages -- but was likely to allow them for Crusaders, because it was the only way Crusaders could raise cash quickly (Barlow-Rufus, p. 363, who points out that William the Conqueror's son Robert of Normandy was one so victimized.) Could it be that the knight claimed he was going on crusade in order to get the loan he had to have, on usurious terms, since he could not raise the money any other way? And then, when he failed to earn the money he needed to pay off the load, did he consider going crusading anyway?
The second line of stanza 89 is also probably troubled, and has caused several editors to emend the text (see textual note). Surprisingly, given the uncertainty of the text, scholars have tried to hang large conclusions on the meaning of this line.
The reading  "In Englonde is his ryght," if original, is probably to be understood "fighting for England's cause" (although Pollard, p. 250, thinks it refers to the knight's English estates) This is the one piece of supporting evidence for Ohldgren's claim (for which see Stanzas 56-57) that the knight had been fighting in the Hundred Years' War -- a battle in France was far more a battle on behalf of England than a battle in the Holy Land. And a knight could hardly hope to go to Palestine and back in a year, whereas it was at least possible to make a one year trip to France. But, first, the Knight is in fact in England, not France or Palestine; second, the knight never mentions any fighting in France; third, while a man might bet his land on the proceeds of war (which often had a large payoff in booty), he would never risk a one year loan; there was too much risk that he could not get back in time. Ohlgren's explanation is not quite impossible, but this one conjectured line is not a sufficient basis for an understanding which causes so many difficulties.
Clawson, p. 43, considers there to be a contradiction here: He argues that the original source had the knight actually going on crusade, which of course is impossible in light of his meeting with Robin in the first fit. Clawson suggests that this has floated in from some lost ballad. However, the simplest explanation would appear to be simply that the knight in the first fit had talked about crusading, and that the prior (who presumably had heard of the knight's plans from some other source *before* the knight met Robin) thought he had actually made the trip.
** Stanza 91/Line 362 ** The abbott swears by "Saint Richard" (see textual note). Ohlgren, p. 224, expands this to refer to "Saint Richard of Cichester," described in a note as Richard de Wych, 1197-1253.
The only real support for suggestion is the fact that there is no important saint named Richard (see p. 977 of the list of saints in Benet or pp. 211-212 of DictSaints; Gummere, p. 316,  observes that Ritson managed to find three Saints Richard, but all are quite obscure. There was a Saint Richardis who lived in the ninth century, according to DictSaints, p. 211, but she had no obvious English connections.).
Richard of Chichester is the only Saint Richard likely to have been known in England. He was canonized in 1262 (OxfordCompanion, p. 806; Dobson/Taylor, p. 85). Obviously the use of such an oath implies a date after 1262 (late in the reign of Henry III). This is more evidence for a date in the reign of one of the Edwards. But I have no idea why the abbott would swear by Saint Richard -- he was not a Northern saint, being associated (naturally) with Chichester and Sussex. Maybe it's just that "Richard" is a Southern (indeed, a French) name, and the poet wanted to suggest that the Abbot wasn't a local?
Alternately, perhaps it's supposed to be ironic, since Richard of Chichester spent time in poverty, and "denounced nepotism and simony, insisted on strict clerical discipline, and was most at home in the company of the poor and needy" (DictSaints, p. 211).
If Richard of Chichester is indeed meant, then we might guess that the visit to St. Mary's took place on April 3, Richard's feast day. And there is no other significant saint associated with that day (DictSaints, p. 290).
Two other possibilities occurs to me. One is Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury following Becket. Warren-Henry, p. 536, declares that "Richard of Dover was no time-server, and was to be one of the leaders in a remarkable efflorescence of interest in the development of canon law in England... he gave first place to the reform of the clergy."
Johnson, p. 211, declares that he "gave first place to the reform of the clergy and cooperation with the State." He of course was not canonized -- but canonization was rarely formal at this time (Richard of Chichester was noteworthy mostly because a real pope canonized him). People were called saints who never made it into the calendar of the church. Richard of Dover seems to have been a reasonably good man -- and it strikes me that the compiler of the "Gest" might have been subtly ironic to have the very unholy Abbott of Saint Mary's swear by a reforming bishop.
Tyerman, p. 231, says that he was an "unlikely choice as Becket's successor. A previously obscure mediocrity, he nonetheless demonstrated, to the dismay of the Becketeers, that effective cooperation with the king was possible," and adds on p. 232 that "it was Richard's policies, not Becket's, which charted the relationship between the English church and state for the rest of the Middle Ages."
The other is a radical emendation -- from "Saint Richard" to "Saint Robert." Robert of Knaresborough (in Yorkshire!) lived in the forest with a fugitive knight (Young, p. 59), and according to web sources, he died in 1218. The resemblance to the situation in the "Gest" is obvious. Indeed, I wonder if his situation might not have been one of the things that attracted the Robin Hood tale to the era of Richard I and John. If the Abbot did swear by Robert of Knaresborough, the irony would be exquisite.
Whoever the abbot is swearing by, it is interesting to see a churchman utter so many oaths (in stanza 91, he swears by God and Saint R....; in 92, by God that bought him dear, in 110, by God that died on a tree). The form of the oaths is pious, but the way the abbot omits them comes close to blasphemy.
** Stanza 92/Line 368 ** "Four hundred pounde by yere." Usually understood as "four hundred pounds per year," i.e. land yielding an income of 400 pounds annually. This is likely an error, perhaps for 40 pounds annually, perhaps for 400 pounds total value of the land. See note on stanza 49.
** Stanza 93/Line 369 ** The "hy selerer," or "high cellarer," was respondible for provisioning the abbey, and for bringing in supplies from outside. This position would vary in importance -- some abbeys raised most of their own food. But, clearly, the abbot of St. Mary's is fond of fine food, meaning that the cellarer would be responsible for getting him what he wants. This doubtless means that he is responsible for a large budget as well. We will meet the cellarer of St. Mary's again in Stanza 233, in very interesting circumstances.
** Stanza 93/Line 371 ** Child's text reads "The [hye] iustyce of Englonde"; the better text is probably to omit "hye," making it the "iustice of Englonde." This is one of the more significant textual problems of the "Gest" (see the textual note), because neither reading makes good sense. (Clawson, p. 52, who thinks that this scene was adopted from an existing ballad by the compiler of the "Gest," suggests that the justice was an insertion by the compiler, which might help explain the confusing reference.) In this case, we probably need to consider possible meanings of both readings.
If we omit "high," this  fails to explain why this man is called THE "justice of England."  To be sure, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 155 (note on line 416) explain that the title "justice," without a descriptive, refers simply to a "professional lawer... the agent of a powerful lord -- the abbot in this case," and note that justices had many functions in local courts. This would also explain why the justice has taken "clothe and fee," i.e. livery, from the abbot (stanza 107) -- the chief justice would never wear another's livery. But that still leaves us with the problem of "the justice of England."
We might speculate that the line is meant to be understood that the abbot had control of justice in England, but this doesn't wash because we see in stanzas 94, 96, etc. that this justice was an actual person.
But "the high justice of England" is no better. There was no such office. The number of courts and jurisdictions was extremely high in the early Plantagenet period -- a side effect of the fact that, until the reign of Edward I, legislation was essentially ad hoc. Edward I finally settled on the statute as a method of imposing laws, but even he had no standard legal format; some statutes were in Latin, some in French (Prestwich1, p. 268. English did not become the standard language of law until the reign of Edward III).
Although we begin to see a professional class of judges starting around 1200 (Mortimer, p. 73), the title Lord Chief Justice did not evolve until later. There was a court _coram rege_ ("with the king") from an early date (Mortimer, p. 53), which became the King's Bench came  in 1268, but did not operate independently of the king until the time of Edward III (OxfordComp, p. 548). What's more, in the reign of Edward IV, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench was paid 215 pounds in a year (Ross-Edward, p. 329). Even allowing for inflation, could the Abbot have taken a big enough cut from the profit of the knight's land to make it worthwhile to bribe such an official? This seems unlikely.
To be sure, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench would have been in the north frequently during the Scottish wars of Edward I and Edward II, so perhaps the Abbot could have borrowed him. But, since the Justice followed the King, the Abbot couldn't count on that. He might give the Justice a fee, but livery?
The other major early court was the Court of Common Pleas, but it was permanently based at Westminster (Mortimer, p. 61); a justice of Common Pleas would have had no actual jurisdiction in Yorkshire. By the time, in the fifteenth century, that there were special judges with particular jurisdictions, the expectation would have been that they also had to be addressed with some particular ceremonial which is absent here (Lyon, p. 155).
There was the justiciar in the early Plantagenet period (the office seems to have been made prominent by Henry I, although it may have been established earlier; Barlow-Rufus, p. 202. Barlow-Rufus, p. 204, adds that "the post of chief justiciar... hardly ever acquired a certain title," which is interesting). According to Jolliffe, p. 298, the barons felt the justiciar was "'to amend according to the law the wrongs done by all other justices and bailiffs and earls and barons', in short, to be the guardian of common right." Obviously it would make sense to call a person in this office the "high justice," but only if the correct title had been forgotten.
Not all justiciars were honest (Richard I, for instance, immediately after taking the throne deposed Henry II's justiciar Ranulf de Glanville for dishonesty ; Gillingham, p. 129; Tyerman, p. 237, adds that he was fined an incredible 15,000 pounds). But Henry III left the office of justiciar vacant after 1234, revived it only under pressure decades later, then let it lapse, never to be revived (Prestwich1, p. 25). There was never a justiciar under a King Edward (even when Edward II appointed his favorite Piers Gaveston as regent, he called him "custos regni" rather than justiciar; Phillips, p. 133), and since in earlier years the purpose of the office was mostly to serve as a viceroy, the justiciar is not likely to have been involved in a legal dispute.
(Edward I did appoint a justiciar of North Wales after he conquered the territory;  Prestwich1, p. 206. But the post was specific to Wales; in England, the Welsh justiciar -- initially Otto de Grandson -- seems still to have been known by his English titles. Certainly the justiciars carried none of their Welsh authority in England.)
Pollard, p. 102, thinks the justice might be the chief justice of the forests north of the Trent. (This seems to be a variation on a suggestion by Valentine Harris that John de Segrave, Justice of the Forests North of Trent and Constable of Nottingham Castle in the time of Edward II, was the original Sheriff of Nottingham; Dobson/Taylor, p. 15.) This produces a title which fits -- but why would the Abbot need to buy his support? The Abbot is not trying to dispossess Robin Hood, who lives in the greenwood; he is going after the Knight.
In earlier times, there had been a single chief justice of the forest (Young, p. 74), but from 1239 onward, and at certain times before, the office was divided and there were two chief justices, one for north and one south of the Trent. This, from 1239, even if "justice" means "justice of the forest," he could not be the justice of all England. (Unless we emend "Englonde" to "the forest" or some such.) In addition, from 1311 until 1397, the forest officials were formally known as "gardiens," not "justices" (although it would be no surprise if people still called them justices). They were certainly not all honest; in the reign of Henry III, a chief forester ended up paying a thousand marks to the King as a punishment for misdeeds (Young, p. 77), and John de Neville, son of John's chief forester, was known to have abused his office (Young, p. 112).
It is fascinating to note that, toward the end of the reign of Edward II, Edward's much-favored councilor Hugh Despenser the Elder was Justice of the forests south of Trent (Young, p. 146). The Despensers were hated by almost everyone else (see the notes to "Hugh Spencer's Feats in France" [Child 158]), and many contemporaries regarded them as Edward's evil geniuses. As justices south of Trent, they probably wouldn't affect Robin, but the fact that Despenser had been a forest justice might influence how he is regarded.
In the period between the decline of the justiciar and the independence of the King's Bench, the Lord Chancellor (an officer which came into existence no later than 1069; Douglas, p. 293, although the Chancery did not really become separate from the King until the reign of Edward I; Lyon, p. 69) was generally in charge of justice.
And some Chancellors were pretty sleazy. Mortimer, p. 65, notes that "The beneficiary had to pay for charters and writs; the chancellor had ample opportunity to feather his nest." Powicke, pp. 335-339, generally praises Edward I's chancellors, but Prestwich1, p. 110, says that one of them,Robert Burnell, was sustained by Edward despite charges of corruption. (Edward, in fact, proposed Burnell for Archbishop of Canterbury in 1278 -- and the Pope turned it down flat; Prestwich1, p. 249; Hicks, p. 10. Edward later tried to have Burnell made Bishop of Winchester; that too was shot down; Prestwich, p. 255.) Burnell died in 1292, according to Prestwich1, p. 293, so if he is the corrupt official involved, the Richard at Lee episode would have to have taken place by about 1290.
To give him his due, Powicke, p. 338, thinks Burnell played a major role in shaping Edward's legislation and softening the king's justice. Hicks, p. 10, declares that Burnell was not a reformer (which is why the Pope didn't want to make him archbishop), but "he probably was not guilty of the immorality, murder, usury, or simony with which he was charged." And he seems to have been generally accessible; Prestwich, p. 234, sums him up as "affable, but slippery." In any case, Hicks, p. 9, says that he was rarely separated from the King.
If our criterion is simply a corrupt senior judge, we do see an instance in the reign of Edward I when a justice of the King's Bench, William Bereford, was accused of corruption (Prestwich1, p. 167). Bereford nonetheless continued to serve in various posts until 1326 -- almost the end of the reign of Edward II. That might imply he was honest -- but more likely implies that he knew which side of his bread was buttered. If the Justice of the "Gest" is to be identified with an actual person (a position I would not wish to defend), Bereford is a good candidate. Not the only one, however....
Another possibility in the reign of Edward I was Walter Langton, Keeper of the Wardrobe after 1290. The Wardrobe was responsible for paying for Edward's wars, so it had both financial and judicial responsibilities, and Prestwich1, pp. 139-140, says that Langton was "a man of great ability and little principle" -- a man who, in fact, was accused of killing his mistress's husband with his own hands. Phillips, p. 3, says that he fell "spectacularly" as soon as Edward I was dead, and was accused of "murder, adultery, simony, pluralism, and intercourse with the devil."
As a wild speculation, Langton, in addition to his office of Keeper of the Wardrobe, was Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Obviously the Archbishop of York had jurisdiction over Barnsdale and the Yorkshire area, but Coventry isn't that far south of Nottingham (it's closer to it than is Barnsdale!). Could it have been Langton who forced Robin off his lands? There is absolutely no evidence for this, but it would explain why Robin so disliked high church officials, and why he would approve of Edward II who got rid of Langton.
Not even Edward I could stomach Thomas de Weyland, his chief justice of Common Pleas, who covered up for two murderers (Prestwich1, p. 339). Or what about Ralph Hengham of the King's Bench? Edward deposed him in 1289 and fined him heavily (Prestwich1, p. 293).
Perhaps Edward I's problem was that he didn't pay his officers much, according to Prestwich1, p. 154, so they had to gather money in other ways.
Prestwich1, p. 561, points out that the reign of Edward I saw "the virtual demise of the system of judicial eyres under an ever increasing weight of business, but there was no really effective replacement for them ever devised.... [I]t is clear that the pressures of war from the mid-1290s aggravated an already difficult situation. Few criminals were brought to book, and of those who were, many received pardons for good service on the king's campaigns." (For more on these pardons, see the note on Stanza 439.) This situation continued in the reign of Edward II, and was the perfect situation for abusive justice such as we see in the Richard at Lee story.
Prestwich1 states (p. 294) that starting around 1290 "[t]here was a change coming over the character of the judicial benches." Until that time, most of the judges and judicial officials had been clerics. But "[t]here was an increased secularization of the judicial profession evident by the end if Edward [I]'s reign." In other words, professional clerics -- who would generally have some other income, and no official family to support (although many of course had mistresses) -- were giving way to professional lawyers, who had no other source of income and who did have families. The latter would naturally be more aggressive in trying to crank up their income, often by inflicting harsher punishments. Which increases the odds of a man losing his land.
There is a tale of Edward II's chancellor Robert Baldock that sounds very much like the "Gest." "One favorite technique of the Despensers and their allies the Earl of Arundel and Robert Baldock was to compel men to acknowledge large fictitious debts to them.... William de Boghan lost some lands when payment was demanded after he acknowledged a debt of [4000 pounds]" (Prestwich3, pp. 94-95). There are records of them actually imprisoning Edward II's niece to extort her to give up lands! (Phillips, pp. 446-447, who reports that "the appearance of legality hid the reality of fraud, threats of violence and abuse of legal process").
(When Edward fell, in fact, Baldock was taken and tried along with the Despensers. Only the fact that he was a clergyman saved his life -- and even so, he ended up in prison and died soon after; Phillips, p. 516.)
A polemic of the time of Edward II was very upset about the conditions; "The church, from popes and cardinals to parish priest, is corrupt. Money rules in the ecclesiastical courts, the parson has a mistress, abbots and priors ride to hounds, friars fight for the corpses of the rich and leave the poor unburied. Chivalry is in decay; instead of going on crusade, earls, baron and knights war among themselves. Justices, sheriffs, and those who raise taxes for the king are all bribable" (from the "Poem on the Evil Times of Edward II," quoted on pp. 17-18 of Phillips).
J. R. Maddicott proposed (Holt1, p. 59) that the justice involved is Geoffrey le Scrope, Chief Justice of the King's Bench at the end of Edward II's reign and the beginning of Edward III's, whom Prestwich3 (p. 232) called "a remarkable political survivor" and who has the advantage, from our standpoint, of being one of the Scropes of Bolton, a family based in Yorkshire (Ormrod, pp. 99-100). Much Internet searching, however, seems to reveal that Scrope was -- by the standards of the time -- relatively honest.
Another interesting point, made by Prestwich3, p. 105, was that there was an extremely high rate of official turnover in the reign of Edward II -- in twenty years, he had fifteen treasurers and ten keepers of the privy seal. This might explain why the official involved is so vaguely titled -- no one remembered who played what role in Edward II's reign. Alternately, by the fifteenth century, the Signet was used as s third seal (Lyon, p. 151), so by the time the ÒGestÓ was written, there might have been some confusion of terminology.
In the end, none of this is decisive. Jolliffe, p. 236, suggests that in general the Angevin legal system broke down whenever the King wasn't actively keeping it in line. But this fits a great many reigns: Richard I, especially early in his reign (because he wasn't around), John (because he just had too many plates to juggle), Henry III (first because he was a minor and then because he was incompetent), Edward II (incompetent), Henry IV (weak on his throne and so unable to assert himself), and Henry VI (incompetent).
** Stanza 97/Lines 387-388 ** Somehow, the knight has acquired a group of followers (meyne) whom he instructs to dress in the clothes they wore over the sea. This hints at a company going on a crusade (Clawson, pp. 42-44, suggests that this has floated in from some sort of crusading ballad), but there are several problems:First, how  could an impoverished knight maintain a company, and second, when did he have time to go overseas? Plus the meinie is ignored in the next several verses. This looks as if it floated in from somewhere else (but see stanza 125). Perhaps the text is defective; see the note on the text of stanza 98.
** Stanza 99/Line 396 ** The irony of this line is obvious. The abbott evidently told his friends what he was up to, but not the porter. Thus not all monastics are evil -- it is the leaders who are under fire.
** Stanza 100/Line 399 ** For the surprising quality of the horse Robin gave the knight, see the note on Stanzas 75-77. The word "coresed" is unattested; some glossaries suggest that it means something like "dressed" (perhaps "corseted"), but the more likely meaning is that it is well-built -- i.e. thorougly capable of running a course; so e.g. Dobson/Taylor, p. 86.
** Stanza 102/Line 405 (and many stanzas following) ** The abbot is at meat. As we shall learn in stanza 122, it is "royal fare." Note that, in Stanza 103, the abbot does not ask the knight to join them, or even greet him; he just asks for his money.
This is not a direct Biblical allusion, but it is reminiscent of a scandal in Corinth that drew a rebuke from Paul (1 Corinthians 11:20-21): "When you gather, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one is hungry and another one is drunk."  Of course communal meals had ceased to be part of the church's practice long before Robin's time (the mass was something completely different), but the lack of hospitality is blatant.
** Stanza 103/Lines 411-412 ** Note the abbot's complete lack of courtesy: He says no words of welcome or bring the  knight into the feast. For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2; also the knight's request for courtesy in stanza 108, and the note on 102 for the theological implications of this.
** Stanzas 106-109/Lines 423-436 ** This scene makes me think a little of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:26-36). In the parable, the man falls in among thieves; so too the knight is in the presence of a thief (the abbot). The man in the parable appeals, mutely, for the help of a priest and Levite, who are responsible for helping the people. Similarly, the knight appears first to the justice and then to the sheriff, who are supposed to uphold justtice. A second appeal to the abbot also fails. It is Robin, the outlaw, who supplies justice, just as the Samaritan -- a foreigner despised by Jews -- who helped out the Jew  betrayed by those who should have rescued him.
For the knight's actions, compare also Proverbs 6:1-3: "My son, if you have stood surety for your friend/neighbour... go, hasten, and importune your neighbour.'
** Stanza 107/Lines 425-426 ** Child, p. 52, notes that the justice is bound to the abbott "with cloth and fee," i.e. by livery and payment, and that to hire someone to help deprive another of property was defined as conspiracy in the reign of Edward I. However, we have no indication that the justice was hired solely for this purpose, so this does not preclude a date after Edward passed his statute. Indeed, we find an instance late in Edward I's reign where one Margaret of Hardeshull appealing to the chancellor not to turn her case over to Ralph Hengham because Hengham was in the pay of her opponent in the case (Prestwich3, pp. 22-23).
The one firm date we have regarding this issue is that in the reign of Edward III judges were forced to take an oath not to accept livery (Pollard, p. 194). Thus a date before 1346 is strongly indicated -- but it is also possible that the arrangement is illegal, or that the justice in fact was a lawyer or otherwise not bound by the laws preventing judicial corruption. In light of the uncertainty about who the justice really was, this probably cannot be used as a dating hint.
For the whole issue of corrupt judges, see also the note on stanza 93.
** Stanza 108/Line 430 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 109/Lines 433-436 ** Here the knight promises to "trewely serue" the abbot until his debt is paid. This is a tall order. Recall from the note on Stanza 49 that a knight bachelor was paid 35 pounds per year in the reign of Edward III, meaning that it would take 12 years to pay off the debt as a servant being paid a knight's wages. Given the inflation in that era, we can probably assume it would have taken at least 15 years to pay off the Abbot based on wages in the reign of Edward I or Edward II -- and that's if the Abbot accepts the knight's service at the full military rate, which is, obvioucly, unlikely. Odds are that the knight (who, after all, has an adult son) would be dead by the time he could pay off the debt. Our tentative conclusion must be that the knight is nof offering his personal service but his feudal loyalty -- he is offering to be the Abbot's vassal.
** Stanza 112/Lines 447-448 ** "For it is good to assay a frende Or that a man have need." Compare Wisdom of Sirach 6:4: "Gold is tested in the firre, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation." Sirach 9:10 adds a warning not to trade old and trusted friends for new. Sirach is, of course, one of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, but this would not matter to a Catholic.
** Stanza 114/Line 455 ** To the statement here that the knight was never a "false knyght," compare the statement in Stanza 320 that he is "a trewe knyght."
** Stanza 115/Line 460 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 116/Line 461 ** "In ioustes and in tournement." Tournaments, in the sense of mock battles, were quite old, and are not a dating hint. The joust -- the formalized passage of arms -- is altogether another matter. Of course it was well-known by the time the "Gest" was published (imagine Malory without jousts!), and in its more French form "juste" it occurs in Chaucer (Chaucer/Benson, p. 1260) and Langland (Langland/Schmidt, p. 528). But the idea was rare before the reign of Edward III, and the highly organized tournament we think of as a joust flatly did not exist in the early Plantagenet era. If not an anachronism, this is another hint of an Edwardian date, and the later the better.
See also the note on Stanzas 52-53, about the knight's son killing a knight and a squire, perhaps in a tournament.
** Stanzas 117-119/Lines 465-476 ** Although, theoretically, the abbot should own the land if the knight cannot repay, the justice apparently advises him to give the knight some consideration to induce the knight to sign away the land -- or, perhaps, to have him openly sell it to the abbot, since this would make the issue of ownership more certain. (This, at least, is the obvious interpretation of the lines; Mersey, p. 181, thinks that the justice is trying to extort a higher fee from the abbott. But this would not address the danger of the knight being willing to attack his dispossessor.)
The abbot, nettled, offers a hundred pounds; the justice suggests 200 -- a sum which would actually leave the knight fairly well off. Presumably the purpose is to keep the knight from turning outlaw and preying upon the new legal owners of the land (so, implicitly, the last line of stanza 117). But the knight refuses any such offer outright (stanza 119). This is, in one sense, standard knightly defiance. But what would he have done had he not had 400 pounds available to pay  off the loan?
The justice's warning is probably wise. Note that, in stanzas 360-361, the King gives away the Knight's land, and in Stanzas 362-363, a counselor warns that no one will be able to enjoy the land while Robin is alive.
** Stanza 120/Lines 479-480 ** Here the knight repays the abbott by shaking four hundred pounds out of a bag. Difficult, if the money is in the form of silver; we are told that 100 pounds sterling of silver pennies filled a barrel (Barlow-Rufus, p. 365, and see note on Stanza 49). It would probably be a small barrell -- 100 pounds sterling is roughly 35 kilograms, and the density of silver is 10.5 kilograms per litre, so 100 pounds sterling takes up a bit more than three litres, and 400 pounds sterling is just about 13 litres. If melted down, that's a cube about 23 centimeters on a side. But if supplied in the form of coin, it will be much bulkier -- coins cannot be stacked perfectly . My rough calculation is that, in the form of coin, 400 pounds sterling would take up about17 litres (possibly more, if the pile contains coins of different sizes and thicknesses, such as farthings and groats as well as silver pennies).
In all, you're looking at 300 pounds/ 135 kilograms, and a cube 26 centimeters (just over 1 foot) on a side. The man who shakes that out of a bag isn't a middle-aged knight with an adult son, it's the Incredible Hulk. And even if the man could carry such a sack, what sort of cloth made in the Middle Ages could bear the strain?
And isn't it odd that no one counts the coin?
But give the Justice and Sheriff credit: Once the loan is repaid, they follow the law.
** Stanza 120/Line 481 ** "Have here thi golde, sir abbot." Here the poet resolves the problem of the incredible quantity of silver by telling us the knight gave gold. It solves the problem of weight; it leaves the problem of either coming up with enough gold coin (if we are in the late reign of Edward III) or of testing the weight and purity of the gold (if the knight gives raw metal).
The most likely explanation is anachronism: The poet simply did not realize that there were no gold coins prior to the reign of Edward III (see thenote on Stanza 49), and that it was not until roughly the Lancastrian Era that there were enough of them in circulation for a scene like this to be possible. This is strong evidence for dating the composition of the poem relatively late.
** Stanza 121/Lines 483-484 ** The knight declares that, had the abbot been courteous, he would have been rewarded. For the concept of courtesy, see the note on stanza 2. The rest of the verse reflects the church's attitude toward lending, interest, and usury. Exodus 22:25 explicitly forbids the people of Israel to lend at interest to each other. Leviticus 25:36-37 forbids interest and taking advantage of another's poverty. Deuteronomy 23:20 grants that "on loans to a foreigner you may charge interest," but 23:19 forbids charging interest to Israelites.
The church therefore forbid lending at interest. Since lending is sometimes necessary, Thomas Aquinas developed a doctrine of mutual risk, in which both the borrower and the lender were considered to be involved in whatever activity required the loan. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that this attitude began to shift (Bainton, pp. 237-249).
For one who truly needed a loan, this left only two choices. One was to borrow from the Jews, who were allowed to lend to Christians at interest. But Edward I had passed a strict anti-usury law in 1275, and -- having wrung every cent out of the Jews that he could -- expelled them from England in 1290 (Powicke, p. 322; Prestwich, pp. 343-346; Stenton, p. 197). This might be an indication of date: the knight probably could not have borrowed from Jews after 1275, and certainly not after 1290.
After 1290, that left only the possibility of borrowing from Christians. All such borrowing followed informal rules. Officially, the lender simply gave the borrower the money, expecting to be paid back, without interest, at the end of the loan period. Unofficially, it was understood that the lender would receive the money -- and also a gift from the borrower. In law, it was two separate transactions. In practice, the gift was the interest on the loan. In this case, the knight says that he will not pay the gift because of the abbot's vile behavior -- and, under the law, he had every right to do so. Hence his statement in stanza 124 that "shall I haue my londe agayne."
It is not clear how much interest would have been expected. Child, p. 52, points out that in stanza 270 the knight repays Robin with a gift of 20 marks on a 400 pound loan. Since 400 pounds is 600 marks, this is one part in thirty, which out to three and a third percent interest (with no compounding, of course). But the knight also gave the gift of bows and arrows (see notes on Stanzas 131 and 132).
** Stanza 122/Lines 485-486 ** For the abbot and his fine meal see the note on Stanza 102.
** Stanza 123/Lines489-492 ** The Abbot, having failed to gain the knight's land, demands that the justice repay the fee mentioned in stanza 107. However, the fee is not a contract as we would understand it -- the justice is the Abbot's man, but owes only certain duties. He has done these (presumably by showing up and witnessing the transaction), and sees no need to repay the fee. Perhaps a more honest man might return the fee -- but a more honest man would never have taken it in the first place. It is ironic that the Abbot, who tried to hold to the letter of the law, himself requested more than the letter of the law when the tables turned.
** Stanza 124/Line 495 ** On the knight's right to reclaim his land see the note on Stanza 121.
** Stanza 125/Lines 499-500 ** The knight puts on his good clothing, referring back presumably to the "symple wedes" of stanza 97, although that stanza and this seem to be the only references to what amounts to a disguise. (Could this be a reference to one of the sources? The tales of Fulk and Eustace and such are much taken with disguise, an element largely downplayed in the "Gest.") Note that the fact that he left his poor clothing behind when he changes into his richer attire is a strong argument that the "symple wedes" are not crusading garments.
** Stanza 126/Line 504 ** The knight's home is listed as "Verysdale." Ritson declared that there was a Lancashire forest named "Wierysdale" (Gummere, p. 336), and Mersey, p. 181, offers "Uterysdale" (a reading supported by several online sources but with no attestation in the prints and not found on any map I've seen). I'm somewhat tempted by "Weardale," the region along the Wear in Durham -- after all, a knight coming from Weardale would have to pass along the Great North Road to reach London orYork (the problem being that a man going from Weardale to York would never get as far south as Doncaster).
These problems have led most scholars to believe that the name "Verysdale" refers to Lee in Wyresdale; (Holt2, photo 15 facing p. 97; Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 9).The Wyre river is in Lancashire, somewhat north of the Ribble; Lee is not far from the town of Lancaster, being somewhat to the south and east at the crossing of the Wyre.
This fits with the statement in stanza 53 that the knight's son slew a Lancashire/Lancaster knight; presumably the boy killed someone close to home. Holt1, p. 103, notes that the lands around Wyresdale were divided among the Earls of Lancaster and the de Lacys of Lincoln -- but that all of them came into the Earl of Landcaster's hands when the last de Lacy earl died in 1311. Thus, if Wyresdale is meant and the period is, as I contend, the reign of Edward II, there is an intimate connection between Wyresdale and the Earl of Lancaster.
It should be noted, however, we also find the knight, in Stanza 310, having a castle somewhere between Nottingham and Robin's home. This may be the result of the "Gest" blending together two different accounts.
I must admit that I am tempted, instead of reading "Verysdale," to read "Ayredale." The river Aire, which naturally passes through the Airedale, flows east into the Ouse between York and Doncaster. Indeed, Ferrybridge over the Aire is on the Great North Road. In other words, it is right on the knight's path. This would fit well with the situation in stanza 310.
Another faint possibility is the valley of the river Ure, which however is not nearly as well known; I've never found a reference to "Uredale."
As a further interesting footnote, we observe that, in the time of Edward IV, there was an outlaw called "Robin of Redesdale," also known as "Robin Mend-All." As we shall see, he seems to have tried to invoke the spirit of Robin Hood -- and "Redesdale" is rather similar to "Wyresdale." Although the significance of the name "Mend-All" is rather uncertain -- one of the names Jack Cade had used in his 1450 rebellion was "Jack Amendalle" -- "Jack Amend-all" (Wagner, p. 133) -- or perhaps "John Amend-All" (Hicks, p. 279; the latter name seems also to have been used by a Norfolk rebel a few years later; Castor, p. 88).
** Stanza 131/Line 521** A hundred bows. It's worth noting that the best bows were made of yew, with the best yew coming from the Iberian peninsula. The knight, who is a legal citizen, could acquire imported yew bowstaves; Robin, as an outlaw, very possibly could not.
This may also be a dating hint. The Hundred Years' War led to a much-increased demand for munitions -- every archer in France needed a bow  and several sheafs of arrows. During periods of heavy campaigning, this led to significant supply bottlenecks; in 1356, for instance, it was reported that no arrows at all were available inEngland (Hewitt, p. 66). This does not preclude a date in the reign of Edward III, since there were truce years and years of light campaigning during the War, but it is an argument against the years of the major battles.
** Stanza 132/Lines 525-526 ** The knight gives Robin arrows which are "an elle long." The ell, or "cloth yard" (hence the famous "clothyard arrow") was 45 inches long, or about 1.15 meters.
Holt and others think that Robin's weapon could have been a short bow., and it is true that few of the ballads mention the longbow specifically. Holt1, p. 79, even denies that there is a distinction. Similarly, Bradbury, p. 35, argues that longbows were used at the Battle of the Standard in 1138 -- but by "longbows" he means "non-crossbows." But a short bow could be fired facing forward, while a longbow was fired from the side, with the head over the shoulder and, for a long range shot, the left hand above the head. Some short bows, it's true, were longer than some longbows; the difference is one of technique.
But Robin's exploits imply a weapon of superior range and accuracy (see also Stanza 398). This clearly requires the longbow. What's more, a short bow would not require a clothyard arrow -- and most short bows were too short to be very effective with such a long arrow. The reference to these arrows strongly implies a longbow. And, indeed, the Lettersnijder edition of the "Gest" is illustrated with a picture of a longbowman, although this is canned clip art -- it had in fact been used earlier to illustrate an edition of Chaucer! (Baldwin, plate 40 facing p. 160; the image is also in Ohlgren, plate 21 after p. 222 and precedes p. 1 in Dobson/Taylor).
We are also told that the arrows were fletched with peacock feathers. Chaucer's yeoman archer also had arrows with peacock feathers (Prologue, line 104; , or see the section quoted above).
This is one of several indications that Robin must date after the time of Richard I and John. Chandler/Beckett, pp. 20-21, note that Richard and John's archers were crossbowmen. Indeed, according to Gillingham, p. 276, Richard suffered his fatal wound because he himself decided to take a turn shooting at the defenders of Chalus-Chabrol -- with a crossbow. This surely comes close to proof positive that Richard and Robin did not know each other -- Richard was too good a soldier to be fiddling around with crossbows if longbows had been available.
** Stanza 132/Line 527 ** The arrows had silver on them -- somewhere (see textual note). It hardly matters where, in practice; the point is, they were fancy and expensive.
** Stanza 133 /Line 529** An escort of "a hundred men." This sounds similar to the indenturing of soldiers, used particularly during the Hundred Years' War. This again implies a date during or after the reign of Edward I, with Edward III using indentures most heavily of all. A force of a hundred men is, we should note, very substantial at the time; it is hard to determine the actual size of armies in this period, but this is quite a few for a mere knight (at the great battle of Crecy, for instance, the ratio of knights to ordinary soldiers seems to have been less than 20:1). This is another hint that our knight had more resources than most.
** Stanza 133/Line 432 ** The knight returns to Robin wearing colors of red and white -- not green (and the red might not be the scarlet of Stanzas 70-72; we cannot tell). Thus he does not seem to be wearing Robin's colors.
** Stanza 135-142/Lines 537-570 ** The story of the "wrestling. Holt1, p. 23, considers the incident of the wresting an incidental insertion, arguing that it is not necessary to the plot. Certainly it seems to interrupt the action. But he offers no reason for the insertion; it seems more likely that such an oddity would be original than that it would be added later on.
 Wrestling was considered a rather low-class sport at this time (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 157, note that Chaucer's Miller was a successful wrestler, and that his prize was a ram). The amazingly large prize in stanzas 136-137 (a white bull, a saddled courser with gold trimming, gloves, a gold ring, and a pipe of wine) suggests a special contest -- and yet, there seems to be no one to enforce the rules, forcing the knight to step in. This causes a delay, which is useful in terms of the plot because it allows time for Robin Hood's men to rob the monk of St. Mary's. Perhaps this strange wrestling was included in the Miracle of the Virgin tale that underlies this plot segment.
Alternately, we see Robin himself engaged in wresting in some of the later ballads, including the very first ballad of the Forresters manuscript, where Robin fights the crowd that drives him to turn outlaw (Knight, p. 1). He also wrestles in the play of c. 1475 which parallels "Guy of Gisborn" (Holt1, p. 33).
Another possibility is that this is some sort of side effect of the Tale of Gamelyn, which shares some elements with the "Gest." Gamelyn's story includes a tale of Gamelyn wrestling with a local champion -- a tale which occupies about a hundred lines (Clawson, p. 48).
I am also vaguely reminded of the romance of "The Tournament at Tottenham," one copy of which happens to be included in the same manuscript (Cambridge Ff. 5.48) as the sole witness to Robin Hood and the Monk" (Dobson/Taylor, p. 9). This is the farcical tale of a potter named Perkin who wishes to win a bailiff's daughter, and is told to take part in a tournament to earn her hand. He proceeds to win the tournament but nearly loses the girl when another entrant proceeds to make off with her (Sands, pp. 313-314). It does not appear parallel to this story, but several motifs are the same: A competition featuring low-born men rather than gentry, a richer-than-usual prize for such an event, and an attempt to cheat the winner.
If we accept the conjectural reading "Ayredale" for the location of the knight's castle (see note to Stanza 126). then it is reasonable to assume that the wrestling took place a Ferrybridge on the Aire, a convenient meeting point.
** Stanza 138/Line 551 ** A yeoman, apparently not a local, wins the wrestling match, and this causes a disturbance. The reason is not clear (see textual note). The likely meaning is something like "And he was far from home and friendless," but the line may be corrupt.
** Stanza 142/Line 565 ** Five marks: As we shall see in Stanza 150, twenty marks per year is an extremely generous allowance for a yeoman. Five marks thus represent at least a 25% bonus on a man's yearly pay, and probably more.
** Stanza 143/Lines 571-572 ** For Robin waiting to dine until a guest arrives, see the note on Stanzas 6-7.
Last updated in version 2.6
File: C117F
===
NAME: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 08
DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn HodeÓ [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 09 (File Number C117H). This entry contains notes on Fits III-V of the "Gest."
NOTES: ** Stanza 144/Lines 573-574 ** Observe the parallel to the first stanza, which also begins "Lyth and listin, gentilmen," and to stanzas 282 and stanza 317. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
This whole fit is about Little John as servant of the Sheriff. Pollard, p. 172, suggests that it is, in a way, a parody of _The Book of Nurture_, which trains a masterless young man in how to be a proper servant. Little John completely overturns the conventions. The curiosity in that case is that the Sheriff hires John after John competes well at archery. Why would he hire an archer as a domestic servant?
Clawson, p. 58, points out that this fit is chronologically out of order; the proper place for it is somewhere in the second fit (he suggests stanza 130). But he suggests that it is more effective when placed here.
Clawson, p. 61, notes that the basic theme of this section -- of the hero, or his servant, taking a position in the household of his enemy -- is found also in the stories of Hereward the Wake and Eustace the Monk. But the details of both accounts differ substantially from the "Gest." Neither tale can be considered a direct source, although they may have inspired some intermediate stage.
** Stanzas 145-146/ Lines 577-584 ** This archery contest, seen by the Sheriff of Nottingham, is the first of several in the "Gest" (see stanzas 282-283, 397). An archery contest is also a key element of the "Potter," where it gains Robin access to the sheriff (Holt1, p. 34). These contests could have taken place at any time, but it is noteworthy that Edward III, to improve the quality of the archers who would be fighting in France, commanded regular competitions with the bow  (Keen, p. 139) .
** Stanza 146/Line 582 ** The "bullseye" type target for archery practice is a modern invention. Later in the "Gest" (stanza 398) we read of a rose garland on a pole (wand). Here we find Little John splitting the wand on which the target rests. This is of course an exceptional -- indeed, a well-nigh impossible -- feat. John surely must have used his own bow and arrows, and they must have been exceptionally well made, although we are given no information about the source of his equipment.
** Stanza 149/Line 593 ** "Holdernes"=Holderness. A small town in eastern Yorkshire, almost on the seacoast, not far north of the Humber. It is so small that it doesn't appear even on my 1 cm.=4 km. map of northern England, but it was well enough remembered that Conan Doyle had a fictitious "Duke of Holderness" in "The Adventure of the Priory School." The nearest significant town, Patrington, lies just to the west. (At least, so the maps I've checked online. Cawthorne, p. 164, says that it adjoins Beverly, north of Kingston-upon-Hull. In either case, it is in eastern Yorkshire north of the Humber, and both locations are far from any of the places associated with Robin Hood-- although closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood or Nottingham, even if you ignore the need to cross the Humber).
Holderness was probably better known in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than now; in hte fourteenth century, one of the most beautiful major churches in the country was built there: Patrington Church, called "The Queen of Holderness" (Kerr, pp. 180-181). Might the pious John have claimed to be from there because of its great church?
John's mention of Holderness has at least two points of interest to Robin Hood scholars. The first is because it was the alleged home of "Robin of Holderness," who led one of many small rebellions against King Edward IV. Second, Henry de Faucumberg, the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in 1318-1319 and 1323-1325, came from a family which had an estate in Holderness (Cawthorne, p. 199). Would John have listed his home as Holderness had he known the Sheriff came from there? Surely not.
Of course, all of this is moot if the Sheriff is not based on a real person -- and he almost certainly is not; see the note on Stanza 15.
And yet, there is another interesting point: In the early stages of the Hundred Years' War, the English feared French raids, and set up local defence systems. The local sheriffs were responsible for this (Hewitt, p. 5). Most of the sites places under defence were on the English south coast (Hewitt, p. 6) or East Anglia (Hewitt, p. 3). But there was also a warning issued in Holderness (Hewitt, p. 6). Could some side effect of this have been what caused Robin or John to turn against the sheriff?
I do have to mention one minor conceit of my own. It is well-documented that one of the seminal visions which led J.R.R. Tolkien  to produce _The Lord of the Rings_ and his other works. In a glade in Roos, he saw his wife dancing, and it gave him the vision of the tale of Beren and Luthien (Shippey, p. 244; Pearce, p. 205, quotes Tolkien's own description of the event), the most beloved of all the tales of Middle-Earth to its author.
Roos happens to be very close to Holderness. Is it possible that this spot inspired two of the three greatest myth-cycles of English history? (Those of Robin Hood and Tolkien's Middle-Earth; obviously the origin of Arthur was elsewhere.)
** Stanza 149/Line 595 ** "Reynold Greenleaf." Later on, in stanza 293, we meet a Reynold who is a member of Robin's band. Why, then, does Little John borrow his name? This is never explained. My personal conjecture is that some lost list said that Reynold was part of Robin's band (Child prints an item from Ravenscroft which might somehow be related), but no tale existed of him, so the creators of two of the component poems of the "Gest" included him in the band in difference guises, and the compiler of the "Gest" never straightened it out. But this is only conjecture.
Knight/Ohlgren suggest on p. 182 that there was a ballad of Reynold serving the sheriff, which the compiler of the "Gest" took over and, presumably, transferred to Little John, leaving a few inconsistencies such as this one. Clawson, p. 64, attributes this suggestion to Fricke and thinks this may not have been a Robin Hood ballad but just a ballad of someone infiltrating the household of an enemy.
Cawthorne, p. 163, offers a third suggestion, which is quite interesting: That "Reynold Greenleaf" was rhyming cant for "thief." But has rhyming cant been shown to exist in the North at this time?
Pollard, p. 175, notes the fascinating fact that a man named "Greneleff" was accused of acting like Robin Hood in 1503. Knight/Matheson, p. 188, mentions the same fellow, although dating it to 1502 (and reprinting the relevant chronicle entry). But this is surely too late to have influenced the "Gest" -- perhaps Greenleaf took his name based on the same forgotten legend as the one which the Gest's author was using? Dobson and Taylor, in fact, suggest on p. 4 that he took the name from the "Gest," and Ohlgren is open to the possibility.
** Stanza 149/Line 596 ** "When I am at home." This is one of the few instances of a line where we might see northern dialect inflluence: "dame" in the second line should rhyme with "hame," not "home."
The verse reminds me a little of "The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry" [Child 113], which involves, in a sense, another example of a man incognito, but that song is probably much more recent than the "Gest."
** Stanza 150/LIne 600 ** The Sheriff of Nottingham offers Little John "Twenty marke (20 marks)  to thy fee." A mark is two-thirds of a pound, so this is thirteen and a third pounds per year. Recall that, in the reign of Edward III, a knight's fee was forty pounds, or sixty marks, a year! (See note on Stanza 45.)
Holt1, p. 122, cites an instance of a household yeoman (valet) earning two pounds a year. Hunter said that valets at the court of Edward II received three pence a day (Child, p. 55; cf. Holt1, pp. 122-123); this was also the wage of a foot archer in Edward III's wars (Hewitt, p. 36). This is 1095 pence per year, or not quite seven pounds. Seward, p. 269, says that "minor gentry, merchants, yeomen, and inportant artisans" could expect to earn from 15 to 20 pounds in 1436; a plowman made only 4 pounds per year. But this is after substantial inflation, plus a major increase in wages for the lower classes following the Black Death (a plowman before the plague earned between 10 shillings and a pound per year).
Hence to offer a servant twenty marks, in the period before 1350, was to offer a fee far above the prevailing rate (and, of course, is even more absurd if we go back to the period of Richard and John). Wages rose dramatically, and rents fell, after the Black Death (Pollard, p. 20; Kelly.J, pp. 205-206), but the amount still seems excessive even by post-plague standards. (Unless, by some wild chance, the source of this is Scottish, and the reference is to Scottish marks, which were only a fraction of English. But then the amount seems too small.)
The likeliest explanation is an anachronism; at some time in the history of the poem, the pay was adjusted to a fifteenth century rate. But if we assume the reading is old, we note that twenty marks is roughly what a man-at-arms was paid to serve in the foreign armies of Edward III (Ormrod, p. 141, states a man-at-arms as earning a shilling a day; Hewitt, p. 34, says that a man-at-arms earned 6  pence a day -- which happens to work out to almost exactly 20 marks in a year). Could the Sheriff of Nottingham be recruiting soldiers? If so, nothing comes of it, since John's brief service is all served in England. Bottom line: such a large fee would imply a date after the reign of Edward I -- ideally, one after the Black Death, when wages rose.
** Stanzas 151-1522/Lines 601-606 ** "The sherif gate Litell John Twelue monethes of the knight." Could it really be that simple?Would the sheriff, who presumably was the sheriff who was present when the knight and Little John repaid the abbot, not have seen what was going on? Would he hire John under those circumstances -- and would the knight be in position to consent so freely? On the face of it, we might suspect that a stanza or two is missing here.
Of course, there is another possibility, if we assume that Little John was in fact the knight's watchdog (see the note to Stanza 80). The knight might have desired to be rid of his shadow -- or John might have been satisfied that the knight was honest, and they could have agreed that he could go on to other activities.
For "courtesy" see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 152/Line 608 ** The Sheriff gives John a "gode hors." Edward III began to use mounted archers in 1330 (Chandler/Beckett, p. 19)., and used them regularly on his campaigns in France -- this was one of the secrets of his success: He mounted not only the knights but the soldiers who would fight as infantry. This let his army move much faster than one which combined horsemen and infantry. If in fact the Sheriff is recruiting John for an expedition (see note on Stanza 150), he would indeed need a horse.
** Stanza 155/Line 618 ** The sheriff goes hunting -- seemingly in the forest, and seemingly for a hart (see note on Stanza 185). This is curious, since on its face this appears to be a violation of the forest laws against taking venison. It is true that the King sometimes granted exceptions -- but these were very limited. Young, p. 133, reports that in the final ten years of Henry III's reign (i.e. 1262-1272), that king granted rights in Sherwood Forest to take ten harts and three hinds of red deer and 61 bucks and 12 does of fallow deer. The restrictions under Edward I were even stiffer; from 1272-1287 he granted only one hart, 61 bucks, and 43 does. Does this mean that the sheriff was violating the law with his hunt?
** Stanza 156/Line 624 ** There is uncertainty about the text here (see textual note), but no question that a cranky Little John demands to be fed. This demand begins the quarrel which eventually causes Little John to fight, and then recruit, the cook.
** Stanza 159/Line 633 ** For courtesy, which the butler does not show, see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 163/Line 650 ** Clawson, pp. 69-70. speculates on why the cook (as opposed to the butler or other household servant) becomes the hero in this part of the saga. He mentions a parallel to the story of Hereward, and also that there were other tales of heroic cooks, although he cites no examples that seem likely to be well-known to English audiences. Cooks are commonly mentioned in folk song and lore (because sailors and cowboys and such were so dependent on their skills), but these mentions are generally much more recent than the "Gest."
** Stanza 164/Line 654 ** It is not certain wheether the last word of this line should be "hyne" or "hynde"; see the textual note.  Knight/Ohlgren gloss "shrewede hynde" as "cursed servant" and do not even note the variant.
There is the faint possibility that "hynde/hinde" should be read as "hind," the female red deer, but this is extremely unlikely. The word intended is probably hyne/hine, a Middle English word not found in Chaucer but fairly common in other thirteenth and fourteenth century texts. It goes back probably to Old English hine, from hiwan, household, or higa, member of the household. The exact sense varies slightly; Sisam interprets it as servant/laborer;  Emerson, p. 384, offers servant/domestic; Turville-Petre, p. 236, servant/farm-worker; Sands, p. 385, servant; Langland/KnottFowler, p. 274, peasant/servant; Langland/Schmidt, servant/thing of low worth. Thus the sense might be of a peasant who wasn't up to his job.
Every one of these sources spells it "hyne" or "hine," without a d, but Emerson notes that "hynde" was a dialect version of the word. Thus the usage might tell us a little about the point of origin of the various texts, but this is far from sure.
** Stanza 168/ Lines 669-672 ** Little John and the cook fight for as long as it takes to walk two miles (probably about 40 minutes, although it might be anything between half an hour and an hour depending on the burdens the walkers carried), then "maintained" the fight for an hour. This is a quite exceptional period to be actually engaged in swordplay -- most medieval battles lasted only a couple of hours, usually with pauses. Supposedly the Battle of Evesham in 1265, which Baldwin would have us believe involved Robin, lasted two hours (Burne, p. 170). The Battle of Crecy in 1347, the greatest of Edward III's battles, technically lasted about six hours (Seward, p. 66), but it involved almost no hand-to-hand contact. Ross-War, pp. 123-125, says that the battle of Barnet in 1471, which began at sunrise, was over before the morning mist burned off, and many of the soldiers were not engaged for large parts of the battle.
Thus for two men to fight hand-to-hand for nearly two hours is an astounding feat. It is surprising that we do not hear more of the cook in the rest of the "Gest," given his prowess. It seems evident that this scene floated in from another tale, which presumably ended with the cook joining the band; there was nothing more to say about him.
Clawson, p. 66, does point out that many of the "Robin Hood meets his match" type ballads involve extended fights of this type -- another indication that this tale came from an earlier source.
** Stanzas 170-171/Lines 679-682 ** "Two times in the yere thy clothing chaunged shulde be; And eyery yeare.. Twenty merke to thy fe." In other words, Little John offers the cook, whom he has been battling, twenty marks a year and two changes of livery. For the high fee of twenty marks, see the note on stanza 150; for the idea of livery, the note on stanzas 70-72. In stanza 420, we see Robin expecting to have two changes of clothing per year from the King.
** Stanza 174/ Line 695 ** The comment that the locks were of "good steel" is likely to be misunderstood by moderns. Carbon steels were known at this time, and sometimes someone would turn up an iron deposit with enough nickel or cobalt in it to make a fairly good steel -- but generally medieval steels were not as strong (or as corrosion-resistant) as modern steels. Plus, locks were generally rather primitive. Yes, they had keys, but the keys were not very fancy. Much of the security of medieval locks came from all the leaves and decoration which made it hard to even operate the things. These often produced weak points. It was a lot easier to smash even the best medieval lock than the modern equivalents.
** Stanza 176/Lines 704, 706 ** There is an interesting textual variant here (see textual note), but the correct reading is almost certainly that Little John and the cook took "Three hundred pounde and more" to Robin Hood "Under the grene wode hore," that is, "under the green wood hoar."
"Hore," modern "hoar," is the root word of "hoarfrost," and refers to a grey or white color. Hence, by implication, it means "old." Gummere, p. 317, claims it was a common word for a forest. Did Robin meet the sheriff under an old tree or under a grey tree? If the latter, it implies that the tree is without leaves, which in turn implies that the season is winter, or at least that it is early enough in spring that the leaves have not budded.
This despite the fact that Pollard, p. 57, says that the "Gest" takes place in "perpetual early summer"; Baldwin, p. 33, agrees, and speculates that the band must have scattered in winter. I would not consider this decisive (see the notes to Stanza 29 and 32-33; also the faint hint in Stanza 91 that it might be April) -- but it is hard to believe that the sheriff would go so far afield in winter. So the word probably means "old" in this context. There are living trees associated with Robin Hood (e.g. Holt prints a photo of the "Major Oak" in Sherwood), but any tree ancient enough to be considered old at the time of the composition of the "Gest" is almost certainly dead by now.
Although Robin's tree is probably gone, there does seem to have been a "trystel tree," mentioned in stanzas 274, 286, 298, 387, 412, in the "Monk" (Stanza 37) and "Guy of Gisborne" and also, apparently, in Henry VIII's 1515 pageant  (Pollard, pp. 52-53). Pollard on p. 53 claims that this requires that Robin be understood as an outlawed forester, but this strikes me as going beyond the data -- surely any band of outlaws will have a series of recognized meeting places!
There is the interesting question of just what "trystel" means. fg changed "trystel-tre" to "trusty tree," which is banal but perhaps possible. The word itself is rare, and (given the lack of Middle English spelling conventions) could be from several roots. Is it from "traist," "confidence" (Emerson, p. 450, compare Turville-Petre, p. 257, "traistis," "trust"); "trist," "appointed place, rendezvous" (Emerson, p. 451), whence our "tryst" (a word which we often think of as having sexual connotations, but which simply means a meeting place where secret things happen); or "tryste," "trust" (Emerson, p. 452)="truste," "trust" or "loyalty" (Dickins/Wilson, p. 315)? The essential meaning, however, is clear: A safe place to meet.
** Stanza 181/Line 361 ** Although the third fit is all about Little John and the sheriff, Clawson, p. 70, points out that it has two parts (which we might call "Little John in the Sheriff's Household" and "Little John Traps the Sheriff" or some such), and that these two are not directly linked in any way. Clawson considers these two originally to have been independent stories, and this the dividing point (the latter being almost incontestible of the former assertion is true).
** Stanza 185/Lines 737-738 ** "a ryght fayre harte, His coloure is of grene." A green hart? And the sheriff bought this tale? (And from a deserter?) The problem was sufficient that Allingham, without manuscript evidence, proposed emending "of grene" to "full shene" (cf. Gummere, p. 317). But, of course, John is referring obliquely to Robin Hood, while trying to lure the Sheriff with the sight of a wonder; the "sixty... tyndes" -- that is, sixtry tines, or forks in the antlers -- of the next verse are also intended to make the beast seem wondrous.
Might the green hart be a hint of another link to "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?" (Again, probably not; Tolkien/Gordon, p. xx, believe the green knight came from the legend of the green man, whereas here, based on stanza 188, Robin is the green hart. Still, it's interesting to see this use of the color green.)
Child, p. 53, notes that a disguised Fulk FitzWarren lured King John into a trap using a tale of a long-horned stag. Clawson, p. 74, points out other similarities to this tale, e.g. Fulk brings in his men to trap the king. Evidently Little John wanted to go that tale one better. There is a difference in the tales, however, as we see from Cawthorne, p. 113. In the Fulk version, Fulk disguises himself as a peasant -- a charcoal-burner (itself an illegal occupation within the bounds of a forest unless one had a warrant from the king; Young, p. 110) . In the "Gest," John is incognito but does not use a new disguise.
The great hart -- that is, a buck with very large antlers -- was always the most desired trophy for a hunter;  Pollard, p. 63, notes that they were becoming hard to find in the Middle Ages. (This, in fact, has happened again in the United States. In the Midwest, white-tailed deer ar so common as to be pests --  but because the rules favor hunting bucks over does, the population never goes down -- yet there are almost no large-antlered bucks left. The old males have been killed off, and the young ones are fathering the children.)
Clawson, p. 72, observes that we do find, in "Robin Hood and the Butcher" [Child 122], Robin himself, in disguise, offering to take the Sheriff to see his horned animals, which turn out to be deer. But the parallels are not close; in the "Gest," it is John, not Robin, who undertakes the deception, and John promises deer, not cattle. And the "Butcher" is widely felt to be a variation on the "Potter" andyway, and is more recent than the "Gest."
See also the note on stanza 155 about the sheriff's right to hunt in the forest.
** Stanzas 187-188/Lines 741-746 ** Little John professes to be afraid of the deer in the wood, and the sheriff insists on seeing them. Note that the sheriff, whatever the reasons for his dispute with Robin (reasons which we are never told), does not lack courage.
** Stanzas 188-189/Lines 751-756 ** The capture of the sheriff. Note that Robin also captures the Sheriff in the "Potter" (Holt1, p. 34)
** Stanza 191/Lines 762-764 ** Knight, p. 23, points out that the  trick of having the Sheriff eat from his own silver also occurs in the Forresters version of "Robin Hood and the Sheriffe," i.e. "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152].
** Stanza 192/Line 767 ** Robin grants the Sheriff his life "for the love of Little John." This is an interesting change from Stanza 15, where Robin gives specific orders against the Sheriff and John seemingly makes no objection. Could this be a different sheriff? This would likely be an indication of a late date, after it became the norm to change sheriffs regularly.
We see a similar situation in the "Potter," where again the sheriff is captured but spared. There, however, Robin spares the sheriff for the sake of his wife (Holt1, p. 34) rather than for the sake of LIttle John.
** Stanza 202/lLines 805-806 ** Robin makes the Sheriff swear by his "bright brand," i.e. sword. Swearing by the sword is a well-attested phenomenon; known e.g. from Malory (e.g. when Lancelot defeats three knights who are attacking Sir Kay, he makes them swear on their swords to submit to the judgment of the court; Book VI, chapter xi; Malory/Rhys, p. 169).
Some have suggested that tthe oath on the sword goes back all the way to the time when great men had swords with names and histories. Pickering, p. 281, claims that "an oath made on a sword was onde considered as binding as one made on a Bible."  Normally, of course, we would expect a devout Christian like Robin to prefer an oath on the Bible -- but remember that Robin lived in a Catholic England in the era before printing. Even if Robin was literate (unlikely), Bibles were rare, and a complete New Testament (which required hundred of sheets of expensive parchment and months of scribal labor) would generally cost more than a sword. And Bibles were rarely seen outside religious foundations; even if they had been cheap, the Catholic Church didn't like lay people to read the Bible, or to see it translated into the vernacular. So a sword was surely his best bet for an oath.
Gummere, p. 317, observes that an oath upon the sword was still common lore in Shakespeare's day; see Hamlet, Act I, scene v, (lines 147-150 in RiversideShakespeare). Wimberly, p. 94, mentions three instances of swearing by or on swords in versions of other ballads: "Queen Eleanor's Confession" [Child 156], "The Bonnie House o Airlie" [Child 199], and "The Gypsy Laddie" [Child 200], although the motif is not present in all versions of any of those ballads.
Note that when Robin kills the sheriff, it is with this same bright brand (Stanza 348). Robin then calls him untrue (Stanza 349). In stanza 305, however, Little John calls it a "browne swerde."
In the final line of the stanza. Robin declares that the Sheriff shall swear not to harm him "by water ne by lande." Is this a hint that Robin is also a pirate? If so, the hint is not picked up -- although there was a Scottish ship _Robin Hood_. It's conceivable that this wandered in from the legend of Eustace the Monk, who was a pirate, or some other such story. Odds are, hwoever, that this is simply an oath that rhymes well.
** Stanza 204/Line 813 ** The sheriff swears an oath of friendship -- considered a very strong vow, at least unless one was a a king engaging in international diplomacy. (Some things never change....) For a possible consequence of this oath, see the note on Stanza 287.
** Stanza 204/Lines 815-186 ** The text says that the sheriff was "as full of grene wode As ever was hepe of stone"-- he was as full of (fed up with) the greenwood as was a "hepe" of stone. Knight/Ohlgren interpret "hepe" as "hip," a fruit, so the sheriff was as full as a fruit is with its seed (a suggestion going back to Ritson; cf. Dobson/Taylor, p. 93).  But the ordinary meaning of "hepe" is "heap," just as you would expect, with a secondary meaning of "crowd, group, host." The more likely reading is that the sheriff was as full of the greenwood as a heap is full of stones.
** Stanza 205/Line 819 ** Althouth we tend to think of Robin leading "merry men," there aren't many references to the merry men in the "Gest"; they are usually young men, yeomen, or Robin's meinie. We do see "mery men" again in Stanzas 281, 316, 382, and the a text of 340; also his "mery meyne" in Stanza 262, and "mery yonge men" in 287.
** Stanza 206/Lines 823-824 ** Robin fears that the Virgin is "wrothe with me, For she sent me nat my pay" (or so most editors; see the textual note).
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 159, say that "commercial interests" are invading Robin and his band, but this does not follow. Robin accepted the Virgin as surety on his loan to the knight; her failure to pay is thus a theological, not a monetary, issue. Robin uses the identical words in Stanza 235. Of course, all will turn out well....
Given the emphasis on the Virgin Mary in this section, I am tempted to suggest that Robin's meeting with the knight, and the repayment, might both have happened on one  of the Mariological feast days. Davies, p. 349, lists these as:
2 February -- the Purification of the Blessed Virgin (Candlemass)
25 March -- the Annunciation
July 2 (later moved to 31 May)-- the Visitation
15 August -- the Assumption of Mary
8 September -- the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin ("a very old feast," although the reason for the date is not known)
Of these, 8 September seems the most logical, since the weather in the day would still be fine, but it would be getting chilly at night, explaining the sheriff's uncomfortable night in stanza 200. It would also help explain Robin's three masses in Stanza 8.
I emphasize that this is purest speculation. There are no indications in the text that the events took place on a feast day.
** Stanza 207/Lines 825-828 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 208 (and following) / Lines 209 (and following) ** Clawson, pp. 9-13, prints parallel texts of (most of) stanzas 17-44 with stanzas 208-251. The similarities between the two are too significant to be regarded as coincidence; clearly the poet designed them to be parallel.
The more noteworthy similarities will be pointed up in the notes below.
Clawson, p. 15, follows Fricke in suggesting that one of these tales was originally an independent ballad, which was taken over by the author of the "Gest" and then duplicated. But on p. 16, he allows the possibility of two source ballads. As supporting evidence, Clawson points out on p. 16 that the story of Eustace the Monk has two versions of the tale of Eustace taking a traveller, one in which the victim tells the truth and is spared, while in the other, the man Eustace captures lies and is robbed. But, as Clawson points out, these incidents are told in very different ways; they cannot be seen as the direct inspiration of the "Gest's" account.
Clawson's considered suggestion, on p. 17, is that the tale of Robin and the Knight originally existed in a short (ballad?) version in which Robin captured the knight and then, being generous, paid off the Knight's debt. The difficulty with this suggestion is that we have no evidence, in any extant source prior to Ritson, of this theme of Robin giving to the poor.
** Stanza 209/Lines 832-833 ** "Sayles"and "Watlynge-Street." See note on stanza 18.
** Stanza 212/Lines 845-848 ** Note the precise parallel in stanza 20 to the language about seeking a victim. The parallel extends to the first line of stanza 213 (but see the next note)
** Stanza 213/Line 850 ** In the parallel in stanza 21, instead of ofserving the highway, John and his men observe a "derne [secret] strete." See the note on stanza 21. See also the tale of "Schimpf und Ernst," about the robbing of a monk to pay another man's debt; this is summarized in the notes to stanza 65.
** Stanza 213/Line 852 ** Here again we see men riding palfreys, as in Stanzas 75-77. Of course, monks were not fighters, so it is less surprising to see them riding a type of horse usually associated with a woman.
** Stanza 213/Line 851 ** Child, p. 53, notes that the "black monks" are Benedictines -- possibly significant, because the Benedictines were "the richest and most worldly" order of monks (Pollard, p. 131). And, yes, St. Mary's was a Benedictine house (Pollard, p. 124). I note in addition that Edward I, his wife Eleanor of Castile, and Edward II had Dominincan confessors; Phillips, p. 65. On p. 73 Phillips tells of a Dominican priory founded by Edward. Phillips, p. 507, notes that the London Dominicans were so close to Edward II that, when London turned against the King, the monks felt it necessary to flee. After Edward's deposition, many Dominicans seem to have been involved in trying to bring him back (Phillips, p. 545). So it's possible that the Dominicans were the pro-Edward friars, which might make the Benedictines the allies of the anti-Edward party. But this is an extremely long stretch. The Benedictines were well established in Yorkshire -- the first Benedictine monasteries in England may well have been those founded at Ripon and Hexham, by Wilfred of York in the late seventh century (OxfordCompanion, p. 95).
It is ironic to note that Eustace the Monk, considered to be a source of the "Gest," was a Benedictine (Cawthorne, p. 121), meaning that Robin was attacking a member of the order to which the hero of one of the source legends belonged.
It probably isn't very significant in the way Robin treats these monks, but I will note that Duns Scotus, the pioneer of extreme Mariolatreia (see the note on Stanza 10) was associated with the Franciscans (WalkerEtAl, p. 349).
Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 166, notes as an apparent inconsistency the fact that we see two monks here, but after this, only one monk is mentioned. Of course, the junior monk might have fled with the guards, but we have no indication of this. Clawson, p. 19, cites several instances of the number shifting, and thinks(pp. 19024)  the references to two monks represents a survival of an older ballad: In this ballad, Robin had robbed two monks; the compiler of the "Gest" took this ballad and mixed it up with elements taken from the tale of Robin and the Knight, producing a confused amalgam.  It is a noteworthy point, particularly given other signs that the "Gest" is composite, but beyond proof.
** Stanza 214/Lines 853-856 ** This stanza is the first clear part of a runnng gag which occupies most of the fourth fit: That this monk of St. Mary's Abbey (stanza 233) has brought the payment of the loan for which the knight offered the Virgin Mary as guarantor. The monk of course would not see it this way, but in in stanza 207, John had told Robin he was sure the knight would pay; in this stanza, John suggests that the monk is bringing it; in stanza 236, John firmly states that "this monke it hath brought"; in 242 Robin agrees that the monk has brought it; and in 248 John counts the monk's money and finds that it is twice what the knight owes; "Our Lady hath doubled your cast." This causes Robin to affirm, in 249-250, that Mary is the truest woman and best security he has found. In 271, the knight shows up to pay the debt, and Robin refuses the gift, because Our Lady brought the payment.
** Stanza 215/Line 858 ** In Child's text, Little John tells his subordinates to "frese your bowes of ewe (yew)." There are several possible variants, but this is the most likely reading. What it means is another question; see the discussion in the textual notes.
** Stanza 216/Lines 861-862 ** The monk's company has seven "somers" -- i.e. sumpters, pack horses. Sumpters generally were not fast but could carry large burdens for a long time. At least two and probably three would be required to carry the eight hundred pounds of silver (stanza 247). That leaves four to carry the baggage of the company -- which would be substantial for a company of 52 guards, two monks, and two servants. This presumably would be mostly food, plus perhaps some spare arrows or such; the soldiers would carry their own clothing and weapons. Unless the company has carts (which are not mentioned), this means that they carried food for only about three days -- evidence that they would need money to buy food along the way.
** Stanza 219/Line 873 ** John orders, "Abyde, chorle monke." This is less an insult than it sounds today -- "churl" derives from Old English "ceorl," who was simply a peasant farmer. In Chaucer, e.g., it means both "common man"and "boor," but the former meaning is more common, in the opinion of Chaucerr/Benson, p. 1228 (under "cherl"). But one thing is certain: it means a person at the bottom of the social scale. Many monks, especially senior monks, were in fact younger sons of aristocrats whose families had purchased them a comfortable position. By calling the lead monk a churl, John (who is said in Stanza 3 to be a yeoman) appears at minimum to be asserting superior social status. A modern equivalent might be something like, "Hold it right there, low--life."
John will use "chorle" again, with stronger force, in Stanza 227.
** Stanza 222/Line 887 ** Note that Little John here calls Robin a "Yeoman of the Forest." This might, of course, mean simply "a yeoman who lives in the forest." But it was also an office in the Edwardian period; see the note on Stanza 1.
** Stanza 223/Line 889 ** Child's text says that Much had a"bolte" ready. There is a variant here (see the textual note); probably because the usage is imprecise; Ritson noted that a "bolt" from a bow was usuallly used to shoot birds (Gummere, p. 318); also, of course, crossbows fired bolts and longbows arrows. The text is probably correct, however, since an arrow could casually be called a bolt.
** Stanza 224/Line 895 ** The word "grome" appears twice in the "Gest," here and in Stanza 4. The meaning in stanza 4 is uncertain; here, it clearly means "groom." "Groom" was the lowest of three levels of servants in noble households in the late fifteenth century, the two above it being squire and yeomen (Dobson/Taylor, pp. 34-35; Pollard, p. 37; observe that "groom" was the only one which was never an independent social rank).
** Stanza 226/Lines 901-904 ** For Robin Hood and his hood, see the note to Stanza 29. Here, as there, the hood is simply used as a demonstration of courtesy (for which see Stanza 2): Robin is mannered enough to take off his hood. But in contrast to the well-mannered knight of Stanza 29, the monk has not the courtesy to remove his hood in response to Robin's gesture. He will call Robin uncourteous in stanza 256.
** Stanza 227/Line 905 ** For John's use of the word "chorle," see the note on stanza 219.
** Stanza 229/Line 915 ** Could Robin really have fed and supplied seven score men in Barnsdale? This is an astonishing number of outlaws -- but the poet will give this number several times (stanzas 288, 342, 389, 416, 448, and by implication in 342, where the reference is to seven score of bows, implying a similar number of bowmen). Possibly the number is derived from the tale of Gamelyn, where Gamelyn encounters seven score men in the forest when he and his brother's steward Adam flee there (Cawthorne, p. 171).
Ohlgren, on p. 154 of Ohlgren/Matheson, suggests instead that 140 is the approximate number of members of a guild at the time. This fits his suggestion that the poem is aimed at  the guilds.
Pollard, pp. 93-94, discusses outlaw bands in  the fifteenth century and notes that large bands did not hold together -- men would join and leave in short order. Probably it is just a matter of the poet exaggerating again. But if we take it seriously, the time is obvious: The Scots wars of Edward II, when raiders and robbers were everywhere. At minimum, it must be before the Black Death; if it were after, there would be enough land available that there would be no need for hundreds of men to go off and be outlaws.
It is interesting that none of the references to this large band are in the section of the "Gest" devoted to Robin, the Knight, and St. Mary's abbey; all might derive from the other tales used by the author of the "Gest." In the take of Robin and the Knight, there are hints that Robin's only followers are Little John, Scarlock, and Much (see the notes on Stanzas 4 and 17 ).
** Stanza 230/Line 918 ** There is disagreement as to the meaning of "raye." Ritson suggested undyed cloth; Gummere, p. 318, prefers Halliwell's explanation "striped cloth," which is also accepted by Knight/Ohlgren. We might also consider the possibility of emending to something like "scarlet and ryche arraye."
** Stanza 231/Line 921 ** For Robin's custom of washing before dinner, see the note on Stanza 32.
** Stanza 233/Line 932 ** The "Hye Selerer," or High Cellarer, was present when the knight went to St. Mary's (see the note to Stanza 93). This makes Stanza 239 particularly interesting.
** Stanza 235/Lines 939-940 ** These lines are the same as those at the end of Stanza 206; see the note there.
** Stanza 236/Lines 943-944 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 237/Line 947 ** "A lytell money" -- clearly a joke; 400 pounds was a lot of money. See the note on Stanza 49.
** Stanza 239/Lines 955-956 ** The cellarer denies having heard of Robin's loan guaranteed by the Virgin Mary. Formally and legally, he is absolutely correct; he was not a witness to the meeting between Robin and the knight. But we know  from Stanza 93 that the cellarer of St. Mary's was present when the knight paid the abbot. Unless a new cellarer has been appointed in the last year (possible, but unlikely, particularly in a story as well-worked-out as this), he should know about the loan to the knight. To give him his due, he might have no particular reason to recall that that little fiasco happened exactly a year before. But recall that Little John was serving as the knight's yeoman in Fit 2. Might not the cellarer have recognized him? (At least in fiction.)
** Stanza 240/Lines 959-960 ** "For Gode is holde a ryghtwys man" -- perhaps an echo of the Nicene Crede ("one Lord Jesus Christ, who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man") or even John 1:14 ("and the word became flesh and dwelt among us"). The righteousness of God is a very common theme in Paul (see, e.g. Romans 3:25-26). The righteousness of Mary ("his dame") is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, but is vaguely hinted at in the creeds.
The text of these lines is rather messed up; see the textual note.
** Stanza 242/Lines 965-966 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 243/Line 969 ** As in Stanza 37, Robin asks his guest to tell how  much money he is carrying; see the note on that stanza.
** Stanza 243/Line 971** The monk claims, falsely, to have only "twenty marke" -- 20 marks, or 13 and a third pounds sterling, or 3200 pence. This is, by interesting coincidence, the amount the Sheriff offered Little John in Stanza 150, and which Little John offered the cook (stanza 171). It is a significant sum, which would surely have been enough to take the Monk to London had he travelled with a small company.
But the monk had 52 men in his company (stanza 216), and he did not have enough horses to supply their needs for more than a few days (stanza 216 again). If we assume he is paying each one three pence a day (a suitable rate, and one which would allow them to buy their own food), that's 156 pence per day for the whole company. Even if we assume no expenses other than paying the company, that means that the entire 20 marks would be used up in 21 days. In practice, he would presumably have other expenses -- if nothing else, his own food and lodging, which we can assume would cost more than the guards'. Even if we assume that the monk was very cheap about such things (which would explain why most of the men abandoned him so easily), in practice 20 marks probably would not maintain the company for more than about ten days. To bring so many from Yorkshire to London (stanza 253) really calls for a budget of more than 20 marks; he just doesn't have enough reserve. So he stands convicted by implication from the start.
** Stanza 247/lines 985-986 ** Little John spreads his mantle "As he had done before" -- in stanza 42, when he counted the knight's money.
** Stanza 247/Line 988 ** The monk allegedly carried "eyght [hondred] pounde" -- 800 pounds. For this extremely high total, see the note on stanza 49. See also the textual note.
** Stanza 248/Lines 991-992 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214. Here John jokes that the monk is true -- true not in his statement (Stanza 243) that he had twenty marks, but true in his delivery of Robin's pay.
Compare this to the factually accurate statement in Stanza 43  that the knight is "trewe inowe" because he had only the handful of change that he said he had.
Although I doubt that the poet was thinking of this, there is an interesting analogy to the account of Joseph in Egypt in Genesis 40. In that tale, Pharaoh's baker and butler are imprisoned for having displeased Pharaoh, and Joseph interprets their dreams, telling both that Pharaoh will "lift up your head."  As John says the knight is true because he is true and the monk is true in a completely different sense, so Joseph tells the butler that Pharaoh will lift up his head and restore him (Genesis 40:13), but he will lift up the baker's head and hang him (Genesis 40:19).
In the final line of the stanza, b says the Virgin Mary has doubled Robin's "cast," fg read "cost." This probably doesn't really mean "cost," since such usage is primarily modern, but even if it did, the reading of b is preferable -- Robin gambled on the knight's honesty (or on the Virgin's, if you will),  as he might gamble on dice -- and he has been repaid double, as he might in gambling on dice.
** Stanza 251/Lines 1003-1004 ** Robin here promises to be "a friend" to the Virgin "yf she haue nede." Arguably she calls in this promise in stanza 336, where the knight's wife asks Robin for help "For Our dere Ladyes sake."
** Stanza 252Line 1005 ** Note that here Robin says that he will provide silver, but not gold, if the Virgin needs it. See the note on Stanza 49; it is somewhat curious to see silver promised here but gold paid out there.
** Stanza 253/Lines 1009-1012 ** Apparently the monk is being sent to London to try to get the King to deal with the Knight and give his lands to the abbot. (Something that formally should be done by Parliament with a bill of Pains and Penalties, but that's too complicated to put in a ballad.)  This is obviously similar to a portion of the plot of the "Monk," which also involves St. Mary's. Here, as there, the monk is intercepted -- in each case, by John and Much. But here there is no rescue, just a preemptive strike.
That the monk's action is a legal one is proved by the word "mote" in the second line of the stanza. "Mote," or "moot" as we would usually spell it (think of "Entmoot," Tolkien fans), is a term "constantly associated with law," according to Gummere, p. 318.
Clawson, pp. 21-22, thinks that stanzas 253-254 contradict each other somewhat, and are out of place after stanza 252. He would move 253-257 to a location around stanza 232. Clawson's arrangement makes sense, and could possibly have arisen if the common ancestor of our prints had an arrangement of five stanza per page and became disarranged, but I do not think the disorder enough to justify such a drastic change.
** Stanza 256/Line 1021 ** The text of this line is troublesome and probably damaged (see textual note); the sense is probably that Robin asks what, or how much money, the monk is carrying on another horse.
** Stanza 256/Line 1024 ** "That were no curteysye." For the importance of courtesy, see the note on Stanza 2; for Robin's courtesy to the Monk, see Stanza 226.
** Stanza 257/Lines 1026-1027 ** Could Shakespeare have known this little bit of casuistry? Compare Falstaff's justification of his less-than-honourable ways: "Why, Hal, 'tis my vocation, Hal, 'tis no sin for a man to labor in his vocation" (1 Henry IV, I.ii, lines 104-105 in RiversideShakespeare).
** Stanzas 259-260/Lines 1035-1040 ** The monk has enough self-possession enough to try a little irony:, saying in effect, "The food is cheaper in Blythe and Doncaster." Robin, not to be outdone, in effect praises the abbot for sending such a profitable victim.
** Stanza 259/Line 1036 ** "Blith or...Dankestre", i.e. Blythe or Doncaster, for which see the note to Stanza 28. In this case, since we are absolutely certain the monk is going to London (stanza 253), this is strong evidence that the scene is Barnsdale, not Sherwood. This reinforces the sense that the knight was heading south in stanza 28.
** Stanza 263/Line 1049 ** Is this the palfrey Robin gave the knight in Stanza 77? We cannot say.
** Stanza 263/Line 1051 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2. The knight again shows courtesy in 270.
** Stanza 265/Lines 1059-1060 ** Robin, having pretended that the monk was bringing the knight's money, perhaps continues the pretense here -- since Robin has been paid, the knight has no necessary reason to show up.
** Stanza 266/Line 1063 ** For the difficult problem of the "hye iustice" see the note on Stanza 93. Here, however, there is no textual variant.
** Stanza 268/Line 1069 ** There are very many problems with the text of this verse; several lines are probably missing. See the textual mote. Kittredge suggests that "a grefe" should be read as "a-grefe," in other words, don't take a grievance, don't hold a grudge.
** Stanza 270/Line 1079 ** Twenty marks of interest. See note on stanza 121.
** Stanza 271/Line1081-1084 ** For the story of Mary's repayment of the knight's loan, see the note on Stanza 214. This particular passage is reminiscent of the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42-44. Jospeh's brothers, jealous of the fact that he was his father's favorite, sold him into Egypt. There Joseph became the vizier. When famine hit Canaan, the brothers had to go down to Egypt for food. They brought money, but Joseph (who knew them although they did not recognize him) played a trick on them, causing the money to be placed in their sacks of grain. The famine was long, and eventually they were forced to come to Egypt again. When they came, they tried to explain, and Joseph declared (Genesis 43:23) "your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you; I received your money." (After some additional testing of his brothers, Joseph finally concluded that they had reformed, and all lived happily every after, but that has no parallel in this tale).
** Stanza 272/Lines 1085-1086 ** Note that Robin, in these lines, refuses to commit usury by accepting more than what he is owed. Admittedly he took the payment from the wrong source -- but he does not collect more than his due. It is a peculiar form of honesty, but considering the behavior of modern bankers (with their careful scheduling of payments to generate overdraft fees, and their concealment of loan terms), perhaps we ought not criticise.
** Stanza 274/Line 1096 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 275/Line1102 ** There is a variant here, probably caused by the fact that "tresure" does not appear to rhyme with "me." " But "treasure" is doubtless to be pronounced "treasury."
** Stanzas 280-281/Lines 1117-1124 ** Although the copies all place the end of the fourth fit after stanza 280, internal evidence clearly indicates that the fits should be divided after stanza 281 (observe the use of the "lythe and listen" formula at the beginning of 282).
Of course, it is a genuine question whether the fits are authorial or editorial. The latter strikes me as more probable, in which case the fits have no authority anyway. My guess would be that the fits were marked by the editor who produced the first printed edition, and all the later printers followed that first ediiton -- and the editor marked "Fyfth Fytte" in the margin of the source manuscript alongside stanza 281, meaning it to follow 281, but hte compositor set it before.
** Stanza 282/Lines 1125-1126 ** Observe the parallel to the first stanza, which also begins "Lyth and listin, gentilmen," and to stanzas 144 and 317. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
** Stanza 282/Lines 1125-1128 ** In Fit 5, as in Fit 3, the Sheriff of Nottingham is Robin's chief opponent, and there is no indication that a new sheriff has been appointed. But the Sheriff of Fit 3 is a relatively incompetent figure of fun. The Sheriff of Fit 5 comes close to destroying Robin (Holt1, p. 25). In Stanza 15, Robin had warned against the Sheriff; one suspects the warning was against the Sheriff of Fit 5, not the one of Fit 3. For more about the status of sheriffs, and why the new sheriff might have been closer to the king than the old, see the notes on Stanza 15.
This is the second archery contest of the "Gest"; for the first, see the note to Stanzas 145-146. Robin and his men will stage their own in stanza 397. But this one is different; it is supposed to bring in all the best archers of the North. Given that Robin's men in Stanza 301 almost fall victim to an ambush, this raises the possibility that the contest was intended to lure Robin into a trap. We see this made explicit in the Forresters version of "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152] (Knight, p. 23).
** Stanza 285/Lines 1137-1140 ** The golden arrow as a prize for an archery contest. This strikes me as a rather strange prize; in a time when life was relatively short and people were poor, mementos like this were not popular; in the absence of another prize, the winner would probably have to melt it down. Nor would it be an effective arrow, since the gold would blunt and the silver break. Nonetheless the idea seems to have inspired "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152].
Estimating the value of the arrow is difficult, because we don't have its dimensions. It probably wasn't a full "cloth yard." A reasonable assumption is that it would be the length of a war arrow -- about 28 inches (Featherstone, p. 65), or 70 centimeters. The shaft, by implication, had a diameter of about .3 inches, or .75 cm. The point would be a pyramid 2 inches  (Featherstone, p. 66), or 5 cm., long and with sides about 75 cm. So the golden arrowhead would have a volume of about 1 cubic centimeter. Add perhaps 50% for the golden feathers and we get 1.5 cc. The density of gold is 19 grams per cubic centimeter. So the weight of gold is 28.5 grams -- a hair over one ounce; the difference is well within our margin of error, which is on the order of 50% even assuming we've guessed the right kind of point for the arrow.
The volume of silver is a little more than 30 cubic centimeters. The density of silver is 10.5 grams per cubic centimeter. So the total mass of silver is about 325 grams, or 11.5 ounces. So the total value, in silver equivalent, is about 30 oz. of silver. That's about 2.5 pounds sterling. It's a substantial sum to a yeoman, but one a royal official could probably afford. This makes rather more financial sense than many of the figures in the "Gest."
** Stanzas 287-288/Lines1145, 1151 **  "Yonge men" may be an archaism, the root form of "yeomen." (Or not; the point is disputed.) For yeomen note on Stanza 1.
** Stanza 287/Lines 1147-1148 ** Robin decides to participate in the Nottingham archery contest, declaring he  "wyll wete [test] the shryues fayth, Trewe and yf he be." Ohlgren, p. 282, interprets this to mean that Robin will test whether the sheriff is true to the oath he swore in stanza 204 to be Robin's friend. This raises questions -- for starters, after that embarrassment, would the Sheriff still be sheriff?
But there is another point. The spelling in this line is not ""sherif," as in (for instance) stanzas 204 and 205, nor "sheryfe," as in stanza 282. Terminal e in middle English was often an optional syllable, for rhyme or meter, and i and y were really the same letter, so "sherif" and "sheryfe" were genuine variants. But "shryues"? That's about as close to "shreward," "rogue" (Dickins/Wilson, p. 306) as to "sherif"; also consider "shryn," "shrine" -- perhaps Robin made a pilgrimage and made some sort of conditional vow and wanted to see the effects?
It's just a feeling, but I suspect textual corruption here.
Even if "shryues" means "sherif," there is the possibility that Robin is not testing the Sheriff's oath of friendship but his promise to give the prize to the best archer no matter who it be -- that is, will he give the award to one of Robin's men? As it turns out, he will not -- a hint, it seems to me, that in fact it is a new sheriff.
Note however that in stanzas 296-298, Robin complains that the sheriff is untrue.
These lines give us another, very vague, parallel to the story of David and Saul., this time to 1 Samuel 20. By this time Saul is so jealous of David that he wants David dead. He had tried to have David killed by demanding that he kill a hundred Philistines as a bride-price for his daughter Michal -- but David, instead of dying, produced the hundred Philistine foreskins (the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 18:27 in fact says that David killed two hundred, although the Greek says only one hundred). In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to take David in his bed, but David escapes.
In 1 Samuel 20, David and his friend Jonathan, Saul's son, agree to test Saul. David will be absent from Saul's monthly banquet. Saul will ask where he is. Jonathan will explain that he has gone to a family sacrifice, and has asked Jonathan for permission to do so. If Saul accepts the explanation, then David and Jonathan will know  that David is safe; if Saul does not accept the explanation, then David must flee.
As it turns out, in 1 Samuel 20:30, Saul refuses Jonathan's explanation and even reviles Jonathan's mother, Saul's own wife.
Thus David tested Saul just as Robin tests the Sheriff, and just as Saul failed the test, so too does the Sheriff. And, in the end, Saul's lack of faith probably cost him his life (although it is not David who kills him), and certainly the Sheriff's lack of faith results in Robin killing him.
** Stanza 288/Line 1151 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 292/Line1166 ** There is a variant here, over which outlaws hit the target, and whether they sliced or clave it; see the textual note. Knight/Ohlgren suggest, p. 161, that stanza 292 refers to a sort of "tiebreak" between Robin and Gilbert, the winners of the preliminary round, but the description of the contest is too brief for us to really assess what happened.
** Stanza 292/Lines 1167-1168 ** "Gylberte With the whyte hande." Until this point, the only outlaws given any real mention are Little John, Much the Miller's Son, and Scarlock, and John is the only one who has done much of anything. We have no background on Gilbert of the White Hand. (We do note that fg call him Gilbert of the "lylly white" hand.) As mentioned above, there was a 1501 mention of Gilbert by Gavin Douglas, but it tells us nothing except that he was associated with Robin by that year.
Is there any possibility that the name "Gilbert" was traditionally used for foresters? Young, p. 49, mentions a case in the time of Henry II when four knights were tried for killing a group of men including Gilbert the forester. But I know of no other foresters named Gilbert.
It is probably coincidence, but we  find an instance in the reign Edward II of the bishop-elect of Durham and two cardinals being robbed by outlaws in the north of England (Hutchison, p. 88) -- a situation quite similar to "Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" [Child 144] as well as to portions of the "Gest." Prestwich3, p. 103, and McNamee, p. 84, say that the crime was committed by Gilbert de Middleton in 1317 -- exactly halfway into the reign of Edward II (and, astonishingly, exactly the time we would have expected Robin to have robbed the Monk if the knight had been talking of going on crusade in 1316). Phillips, p. 299, says that Middleton was one of Edward's household knights, as was one of his fellow robbers, Sir John de Lilburn.
Apparently all of this involved a local resident, John d'Eure, acknowledged a debt of 100 marks to John de Sapy, the keeper of the tenporalities of Durham, an agreement overseen by the Prior of Durham. This debt was only supposed to be paid if Louis de Beaumont was consecrated as Bishop of Durham (Philipps, p. 300). It's not the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Abbot, but it's surprisingly close.
According to Phillips, p. 299, the two cardinals were quickly released, but Bishop Louis of Durham, along with his brother Henry de Beaumont, were held for more than a month. The result was a political crisis, with Edward and the Earl of Lancaster each suspecting the other.
All this causes us to ask, Could "Gilbert de Middleton" have become "Gilbert of the White Hand"?
To be sure, Gilbert de Middleton's story does not end happily. He was captured in 1318, taken to London, tried, and executed (Phillips, p. 302).
As a really, *really* wild additional stretch, I'm going to mention the existence of a royal yeoman listed as "Robert le Ewer." The description on p. 437 of Phillips is astonishing: "One chronicler even described him as 'the prince of thieves'.... He appears to have served in the Scottish campaign but in September 1322 left the king secretly without permission and headed for his home county of Hampshire, where he allegedly acted like a Robin Hood, distributing the good of executed contrairants to the poor as alms for their souls."
As an alternate explanation for the name "white hand," Baldwin, p. 66, notes that Robert Earl of Leicester (1168-1190) was known as "Blanchemains," French for "White Hand." There is no reason to think Gilbert related to the Beaumonts of Leicester, however. Baldwin suggests that the name may have arisen because Earl Robert had vitiligo, which causes a sort of localized albinoism. But if we are getting speculative, we can wonder if there might not be a reason why Gilbert did not have a tan on his hands -- perhaps he had been a clerk or some such.
Some versions of the Tristam legend refer to "Isuelt of the White Hand" (CHEL1, p. 310), but I strongly doubt this is related.
** Stanza 293/Line 1170 ** Reynold. For Little John's use of the name Reynold Greenleaf, see the notes to Stanza 149. This is the only time in the "Gest" that Reynold is mentioned as an archer separate from Little John. (Although we do find Reynold listed amongh Robin's men in the list in the Winchester parliamentary roll of 1432; see the note on Stanza 4/Line 14). Scholars often treat this as a sign of inconsistency, and it surely is, but I wonder if, in the source, Little John did not compete under the name Reynold, and the compiler of the "Gest" failed  to notice this.
** Stanza 295/Line 1179 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanzas 296-298/Lines 1181-1192 ** For Robin's decision to test the value of the Sheriff's oath, see the note on Stanza 287. For the oath itself, see Stanza 204.
The first line of stanza 296, "They cryed out on Robyn Hode," is interesting. Who is doing the crying? The townsfolk of Nottingham? This is the suggestion of Knight/Ohlgren, p. 162, which obviously implies that Robin was not as popular with the townsfolk as some would have us think. It would also explain their fear of Robin and his men in Stanza 428. If it does mean the townsfolk, of course, it relieves the Sheriff of some of his guilt. But see the note on Stanza 301.
** Stanza 298/Line 1190 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 301/Line 1201 ** The fact that an ambush has been laid in would seem to imply that the whole shooting contest was a trap -- not a legitimate contest but a way of luring Robin from the greenwood (see also the note on Stanza 282). This would seem to contradict the passage in stanza 296 implying that the townsfolk, not the sheriff, initiated the attack on Robin.
** Stanza 302/Lines 1205-1206 ** Little John's injury in the knee is similar to an event in the tale of Fulk FitzWarren, where Fulk is wounded in the leg (Baldwin, p. 37); also similar is the fact that both find shelter with a friendly knight.. Note however that in the tale of Fulk it is the hero himself, not his chief lieutenant, who is wounded. There is also a somewhat similar instance where Fulk's brother is wounded (Cawthorne, p. 115). Clawson, pp. 81-83, also notes a parallel in the story of William Wallace -- in which Wallace in fact executes the man, but another where Wallace rescues a man by carrying him on his back.
** Stanzas 303-305/Lines 1209-1220 ** The instances of an injured man pleading not to fall into the hands of an enemy are of course very old. Child, p. 54, has an eastern analogy involving one Giphtakis, but completely ignores the 3000 year old appeal of Saul of Israel, wounded by the Philistines on Gilboa, that his armor-bearer kill him rather than letting the Philistines capture him. This tale is told in 1 Samuel 31 -- the immediate follow-up to the raid on Ziklag., for which see Stanzas 338-339. There is, of course, the difference that there was no one to rescue Saul, who (when his armor-bearer could not bring himself to do the dead) fell on his own sword.
** Stanza 305/Lines1217-1220 ** Little John, if taken by the sheriff, would be tried and surely convicted -- and sentenced to death by torture. Very likely drawing and quartering -- castration, half-hanging, and evisceration, with his dead body cut into parts which would be displayed outside the gates of local towns. Given the sheriff's reasons to dislike John, we can hardly doubt that the punishment would be even more severe than usual. Little wonder that he begged for a quick, clean death!
It is interesting to see John call Robin's blade a "browne swerde"; elsewhere (Stanzas 202, 348) it is a "bright bronde."
** Stanza 309/Lines 1233-1236 ** Robin and his men come to a castle, which we learn in the next stanza belongs to Sir Richard at the Lee. This stanza describes it as a "fair castle, a little within the wood," walled, and with a double ditch.
This isn't much of a description -- after the Norman Conquest, the Normans studded England with what were called motte-and-bailey castles (Douglas, p. 216, who notes that this was one of the chief methods by which the Normans beat the English), which consisted of a ditch enclosing a palisade (wall), with the dirt used in digging the ditch carried inside to build a hill. Later, many of these had the palisade walls rebuilt in stone, but still, it would be hard to find a castle that didn't have a wall and ditch, and the addition of a second ditch was a cheap additional precaution.
Nonetheless Baldwin, p. 170, makes this description one of the keys to his identification of Sir Richard in the ballad with the historical Richard Foliot and his castle of Fenwick.
Clawson, p. 84, notes that the Sheriff probably could not expect to have enough men to overwhelm Robin and his seven score men, which is probably true. On this bases, Clawson (who regards this fit as an expansion of a ballad of Robin escaping the Sheriff) thinks the business with the castle an expansion. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the original of this story assumed that Robin had so many followers.
** Stanza 310/Line 1238 ** "Syr Rychard at the Lee," or Sir Richard at Lee, as it is usually modermized. Note that, although Sir Richard is linked with the knight of the first four fits, this is the first time he is named -- an indication, presumably, of the composite nature of the "Gest." The poet has combined two tales, and claimed the knight of one is the knight of the other. Nonetheless the tale hints that they are distinct -- Sir Richard is close at hand when Robin and his men flee the Sheriff of Nottingham, which implies that he lived near Barnsdale or Sherwood. But the knight of stanza 126 lives in Verysdale, believed to be in Lancashire.
This is not as strong an objection as it sounds. We know from stanza 49 that the knight has land worth 400 pounds. The value of an ordinary manor would be measured in the tens of pounds in the fourteenth century. The knight almost certainly has at least three manors, and six to ten is a better bet. So there is no reason why he should not have manors in both Lancashire and south Yorkshire -- or, if we accept "Ayredale" for "Verysdale" in stanza 126, then he could have manors in north and south Yorkshire.
The real issue is the use of the name "Richard at Lee." One suggestion is that the name is derived from a Lord Mayor of London in Edward IV's time, Richard Lee (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 134). This possibility cannot be ruled out, but neither is there really anything to commend it.
Clawson's hypothesis (p. 101) regarding the origin of the "Gest" involves a very large number of sources, and he suggests that the compiler inserted the name here from a portion of one of the sources he used later on. But why, then, not introduce it in the first fit as well?
It is interesting to note that, in "The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148], Robin takes service with a fisherman under the name "Simon over the Lee" (stanza 7 in Child's text) -- the name "Simon" likely being suggested by the fact that Simon Peter was a fisherman, and became a fisher of men (Matthew 4:18-19 and parallels). It is even more interesting to observe that, in the Forresters Manuscript version of this ballad, which in this case seems to preserve an earlier form, Robin becomes "Simon of the Lee," (Knight, p. xvi), exactly paralleling the form in the "g" print of the "Gest." This late ballad would seem to imply that Robin was taking the knight's title.
Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 167, has a rather far-out suggestion for the use of the name at this point, based on the existence of the "other" Munday Robin Hood play, "Metropolis Coronata, The Triumphes of Ancient Drapery."  Ohlgren mentions this piece and dates it to 1615. Then Ohlgren makes one of his flying leaps into quicksand. On p. 168, Ohlgren makes the observation that the fact that the "Metropolis Coronata" was written for a Lord Mayor means that the Robin Hood story was thus freely adapted to the situations of specific persons.
Because this happened once, Ohlgren, p. 169, speculates that the "Gest" might have been written for the London Mayor Sir Richard Lee, made Lord Mayor in 1460 and 1469 -- although not knighted until 1471. This would make a lot more sense if Sir Richard's name had been used throughout, rather than only in the latter half of the "Gest," and if the name had been "Richard Lee," not "Richard at the Lee," and if he had been a knight at the time Ohlgren would have us believe the "Gest" was performed.
Ohlgren, p. 169, explains the concealment of the Knight's name by analogy to _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, where Sir Bertilak is not named until the end. This hypothesis of course suffers from the substantial problem that Gawain could not be allowed to know that Bertilak is the Green Knight, whereas there is no reason to hide the Knight's name.
** Stanza 312/Line 1246 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 313/Line 1251 ** For Child's reading "proud[e]" see the note on Stanza 282.
** Stanza 315/Lines 1258-1259 ** Saint Quentin was an early martyr, slain in Gaul. His dates are unknown, but it was early enough that he was in conflict with Roman authorities (DictSaints, p. 206). He was not well-known in England; his cult was centered in France. He was not the patron saint of anything in particular. It is curious to find Sir Richard invoking him, unless he was a family saint dating back to the time before the Conquest. This is a strong argument against the idea that Robin Hood was a pro-Saxon rebel; he would not in that case be friends with a guy swearing by Norman saints.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 162, suggest that Sir Richard swears by Saint Quentin because he is promising to spare Robin from Quentin's fate. Alternately, we might suggest that the day is October 31, Quentin's feast day.
The "forty days" of the next line (in Child's text; see the textual note) was the traditional annual period of feudal military service. It might also be an allusion to something such as the forty days and forty nights of rain during Noah's Flood in Genesis 7:4, etc., or the forty days Moses was on the mountain in Exodus 24:18, or the forty days Jesus fasted in the wilderness in Matt. 4:2, etc. The most likely explanation, however, is to the traditional right of sanctuary in a church: a wrongdoer was allowed protection there for forty days before being expelled into exile or civil custody (Lyon, p. 160). Hence the knight would seem to be offering Robin the same sanctuary that he would get from a church.
If the correct reading is, as I believe, Òtwelve days,Ó there is no obvious source for the reading. Perhaps the twelve days of Christmas/Epiphany? But there is no hint of this in the text.
** Stanza 316/Line 1261 ** Gummere, p. 318, interprets "Bordes were layde"  to mean that tables were set up by laying boards on trestles, although one might also understand this as meaning that the sideboards were filled (laden).
Last updated in version 2.6
File: C117G
===
NAME: Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 09
DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn HodeÓ [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 10 (File Number C117I). This entry contains notes on Fits VI-VIII of the "Gest."
NOTES: ** Stanza 317-318/Lines 1265-1272 ** Here again we have the "Lyth and listin, gentilmen" formula of stanzas 1, 144, and 282. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
These stanzas, however, contain several additional curious readings (see the textual notes). As they currently stand, Stanza 317 ends in mid-sentence. This is unusual although not entirely unknown in the "Gest."
Observe also that, as it is written, we learn that  the "proude shyref... full cam to the hye shyref." This on its face implies TWO sheriffs.  Possibly the poet is simply using "hye" to refer to any senior official, as some texts refer to the "hye justice" in  stanza 93. But this still seems to leave us with two sheriffs. And there is no such office as the "hye shyref." Possibly the poet uses this title to contrast with the under-sheriff (since the sheriff was for long the chief royal official of a county, he necessarily had many subordiates -- Mortimer, p. 66, lists deputy sheriffs, summoners, clerks, sergeants, "ministers," and bailiffs).
But the reference to a separate high sheriff would, on its face, make Robin's enemy the under-sheriff. It was unlikely enough that a sheriff was a lord with a castle and many servants. It is frankly unbelievable that an under-sheriff would have such.  Presumably the intent of these lines is that the Sheriff raised some sort of hue and cry.
** Stanza 319/Line 1274 ** "Traytour knight." To charge the knight with treason is formally false; even after Edward III broadened and clarified the statute of treason in 1352, it included only plotting the death of the monarch, levying war against the monarch, raping the King's eldest daugher, killing royal justices in performance of their duties, and importing forged coins (Prestwich3, pp. 230-231). Clearly the knight had done none of these. However, the laws of treason were easily stretched -- Edward I had executed William Wallace on a charge of treason, even though Wallace never acknowleged Edward as his king (Prestwich, p. 503). Edward II, similarly, had a great many men executed on treason charges in 1322 (Phillips, p. 410). Some, like the Earl of Lancaster, were guilty to a degree, but some, like Bartholomew Badlesmere, had merely disagreed with the King until Edward forced him into open rebellion. Edward then arranged that he suffer an unusually harsh execution (Phillips, p. 411).
One suspects that the Sheriff was using the threat of a treason charge to frighten the knight into giving up Robin. The penalty for treason, as suffered by William Wallace, was drawing and quartering, one of the most painful and horrid deaths possible. This was similar to what was suffered by Badlesmere. (And probably why Little John begged for a quick death in Stanza 305.) If the Sir Richard gave up Robin, the likely penalty for harboring a fugitive would have been merely a fine. So the sheriff offered a strong incentive.
If the King is in fact Edward II, and if this in fact takes place about a year before Edward's visit north in 1323, then the charge becomes particularly telling: "Give up Robin Hood, or the King will do to you as he just did to Badlesmere and all the other rebels who fought with Lancaster."
Here again we have a Biblical parallel from the story of David, this one told in 2 Samuel chapter 20. After the rebellion of Absalom failed, Sheba son of Bichri rebelled against David. The rebellion quickly failed, and Sheba fled to Abel-Bethmaacah. David's army, under Joab, demanded the surrender of Sheba, implying that the city would be sacked if Sheba was not surrendered, but spared if Sheba were turned over. The outcome, however, was different: The residents of Abel gave up Sheba, throwing his head over the wall to Joab.
** Stanza 320/Line 1280 ** Sir Richard declares himself "a trewe knyght." Compare Stanza 47, where the knight declares that he is a proper knight; Stanza 109, where he promises to be a true servant if treated properly; Stanza 114, where he says he is not a false knight.
**Stanza 321/Line 1283** The Knight appeals to the King's will. Robin will do the same in stanza 353. This touchingly naive faith in the King's justice is somewhat reminiscent of the actions of Paul in Acts 25:11-12, where Paul, having been arrested and kept in prison for a long time without charge, appeals to Caesar (rendered "the Emperor" in some versions), to escape local justice. It is highly unlikely that this was a direct source for the "Gest," but might underlie it at some removes.
** Stanzas 331-332/Lines 1321-1328 ** If we need proof that the knight was in good financial shape by this time, these stanzas prove it: Hawking was an expensive and aristocratic sport. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, point out that the knight would not be properly armed while hawking (which requires special gloves and such rather than armor), making the sheriff's behavior in arresting him at this time somewhat improper. This is dubious, but the sheriff's decision to bind him hand and foot (stanza 333) is certainly improper behavior toward a member of the gentry who, as far as we can tell, has not been outlawed. Although the King had said in stanza 325 that he would take Robin Hood, that is not by itself a jury finding -- and Magna Carta had guaranteed the right to trial by jury long before Edward I took the throne.
The intent of the last line of 331 is not entirely clear (due in part to a textual variant), but if we are to understand that the sheriff let the hawk(s) fly loose, it means that he has done the knight monetary damage in addition to arresting him.
Clawson, p. 89, points out an inconsistency here: That the knight should have known better than to go hawking in public when he knew the Sheriff would be after him. He thinks this indicates that the compiler has shifted sources. However, this does not really fit his source-critical analysis. Probably the Knight just didn't think the Sheriff would watch him that closely.
** Stanza 336/Line 1343 ** Note that knight's wife invokes the Virgin Mary in asking Robin for help. This might be an appeal to Robin's known love for the Virgin -- but it also recalls his promise in Stanza 251 the if Mary has "nede to Robyn Hode," he will be her friend.
** Stanzas 338-339/Lines 1352-1353 ** These lines are missing in all the early prints, making this one of the most important defect in the "Gest"; see the textual notes.
There is a bit of a hint at the career of David here. David, after Saul tried to murder him, entered the service of the Philistines. The Philistines were preparing the the climactic campaign against Saul which ended in the Battle of Mount Gilboa (for which see the note to Stanzas 303-305). David and his company (supposedly 600 men) were preparing to serve on the Philistine side against Israel. But a majority of the Philistine leaders did not want an Israelite serving in their army at the great battle; they feared he would turn on them. They sent David to his home in Ziklag (1 Samuel 29).
When David got home, he found that Amelekites had raided Ziklag, and taken the wives, children, and relatives of David's soldiers prisoner (1 Samuel 30:1-2). David, frightened of his own men (who were brigands, after all), asked an oracle whether he should pursue them, and was told "Pursue, for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue" (1 Samuel 30:9). And, indeed, even as Saul was being killed at Gilboa (very conveniently for David), David overtook the raiders and rescued his wives and his followers' families.
** Stanza 342/Line 1366 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 345/Lines 1379-1380 ** Note that Robin here asks the Sheriff for tidings of the king. This is perhaps an indication that Robin, despite being an outlaw, still is devoted to the King. We will see many more such indications in the seventh fit, where Robin honors the monk who comes from the king.
** Stanza 346/Lines1381-1382 ** Robin says that he has not moved this fast on foot in seven years. Probably this is just a conventional statement -- but it is interesting that it was seven years from 1316, which for various reasons seems to be roughly the time the knight went into debt, to 1323 when Edward II made his trip to the north.
** Stanzas 347-348/Lines 1385-1392 ** Why did not Robin's arrow kill the sheriff itself? Although improvements in plate armor meant that a longbow could no longer piece armor at long range by the mid-1400s (Reid, p. 353), the two were within speaking range, and an arrow  fired at that range could still pierce armor. Probably the sheriff was dead and Robin simply made sure. But there is also a symbolic element: in Stanza 202, the sheriff swore on Robin's "bright brand"; since he broke the oath, the bright brand is used to execute him.
Pollard, pp. 107-108, sees a symbolic element to the whole episode of the sheriff: Killing the corrupt official is one half of restoring true justice (the other half being the receipt of the King's pardon). He adds that there was an "inextricable link between violence and the law in fifteenth century society." This is unquestionably true -- one of the major causes and side effects of the Wars of the Roses was that nobles settled their differences in battle rather than in the courts -- but it was hardly held up as ideal. And fifteenth century, which opened with the overthrow of Richard II and also saw the overthrows of Henry VI (twice), Edward IV (temporarily), and Richard III, was a period when the king's power to grant pardon and justice was hardly taken seriously  -- a man pardoned by one king could expect to be subject to severe persecution by the next. In any case, Pollard's case is based on a fifteenth century date.
The cutting off of the head really sounds more like the Robin Hood of "Guy of Gisborne" than the Robin of the rest of the "Gest," however -- and surely he would not have been so crude to a man who supposedly was the husband of the Sheriff's wife of the Potter. Note that Robin accuses the sheriff's body of falsehood in the next stanza.
Child gives the last line of stanza 348 as "With his bright[e] bronde." "Brighte" is the reading of bdfg; a has "bright." In stanza 202, both a and b read "bright." We must at least allow for the possibility that the copyist of a assimilated this verse to that. "Brighte" is also better metrically. Although Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, prefer to read "bright," the case for "brighte" appears slightly better.
Note that this isn't the only time in the early ballads that Robin kills the Sheriff. He does so also in "Guy of Gisborn" (cf. Holt1, pp. 32-33). Does this mean that there were several traditions of how Robin killed the sheriff, or that there were none and that different sources came up with different means? We cannot really say.
** Stanza 351/Line 1402 ** In this stanza Robin cuts... something... in two to free the knight. It may have been his "hoode" or his bonds; see the textual note. Perhaps the  the guards could have tied the knight's hood over his eyes to prevent him from seeing. Also, "hode" sometimes seems to be used to refer to the head, or the contents of the hood, but this hardly helps. In practical terms, of course, it does not matter; what counts is that Robin cut the knight free.
If the original reading was "hoode," it is interesting to see that it is spelled with a double o, while Robin's name is spelled "Hode," with only one o.
** Stanza 352/Lines 1405-1406 ** Robin bids the knight to abandon his horse (the horse Robin gave him?) and run with the outlaws. For residents of an actual forest, this is always good advice -- but it makes less sense if Robin inhabits open land that is only nominally forest (which was the case for much of Barnsdale).
This may be a dating hint, sine it was not until the reign of Edward III that archers were mounted. So it makes sense, if we are in the reign of Edward II or earlier, for archers to be unmounted. On the other hand, this seems to contradict the situation in Stanza 152, where the Sheriff offers John a horse.
** Stanza 353/Line 1411 ** For this "appeal to Caesar," see the note on stanza 321.
Clawson, p. 113, makes an interesting point here: unlike almost all stories of penitents being helped by the King, Robin does not make a direct appeal, even though Robin in this verse strongly implies that he is seeking pardon. Robin will not leave the greenwood, which he loves, to go to the King. So the King must come to Robin. Clawson implies that a large part of this section is rewriting designed to turn a story of a normal appeal to the King into a case of the King coming to the suppliant.
** Stanza 353/Line 1412 ** "Edwarde, our comly kynge." Although there have been references to the King before this (stanzas 319, 321, 322, 325, 326, 345), this is the first one which gives him a name -- and it isn't William, Henry, Richard, or John, it's Edward.
There were six Kings Edward in English history before the first certain reference to Robin Hood as a figure of folklore: Edward the Elder (reigned c. 899-925), Edward the Martyr (c. 973-978), Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). There was another Edward, Edward IV (reigned 1461-1470 and 1461-1483) who lived before the "Gest" was published, and in some ways he fits the ballad -- but the piece would almost certainly have had to have been rewritten to refer to him, and this would likely have taken place in Tudor times. Not likely when Henry VII was trying to make a claim that he was the legitimate King (which he simply wasn't).
We can instantly reject the first three Edwards (the Elder, the Martyr, and the Confessor), because they lived before the Norman Conquest. The very fact that Our Hero is named "Robin" -- diminutive of "Robert" -- proves that he must be post-Conquest. The name "Robert" is Franko-Norman; William the Conqueror's father was named Robert, as was his eldest son. Checking multiple histories, I can find *no* pre-Conquest Englishmen named Robert; the index in Swanton lists 16 men named Robert -- and only one lived in England pre-conquest, and he was Robert Archbishop of Canterbury, and seems to have been an import from France (this was the period when Edward the Confessor was favoring Normans over Englishmen). Barlow-Rufus , p. 164, notes that Robert was, after William, the most common name among post-Conquest Norman office-holders.
The introduction discusses the matter of which Edward is meant. The only help we have in this verse is the fact that this Edward is called "comely." (A description also used for the king in line 331 of the "Monk," although this does not necessarily imply dependence; it was probably conventional).
Keen, p. 143,  reminds us that Edward IV (reigned 1461-1470 and 1471-1483) was, in his prime, considered the handsomest man in Europe (cf. Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 150, which attributes the observation to Knight, not Keen). Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, and Pollard, p. 200, point out that Edward III was called "our cumly King" in Laurence Minot's Poem IV; Ohlgren is convinced (and Pollard, p. 201, seems to accept the argument) that this means the "Gest" is about Edward III. This even though Ohlgren admits (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 147) that there is "no direct evidence" that the author of the "Gest" knew Minot. Nor was Minot popular; only one copy of his works survived (British Library, MS. Cotton Galba IX, according to CHEL1, p. 356). Although the author of the "Gest" would have had access to Minot if anyone did; Minot's verse shows signs of northern dialect and he seems to have known a lot about Yorkshire (CHEL1, p. 357).
Ohlgren then goes on (Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 148) to suggest that the allusions, originally to Edward III, were then adapted to Edward IV.
The argument is however neutral; Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III were all tall and majestic, if not quite so handsome as Edward IV. The chronicles call Edward II "Fair of body and great of strength"  and "Of a well proportioned and handsome person" (Doherty, p. 35). The anonymous author of the _Life of Edward II_, in speaking of the new King Edward III, hoped that he would have the traits of his ancestors: The energy of Henry II, the bravery of Richard I, the long life and reign of Henry III, the wisdom of Edward I -- and the good looks of Edward II (Ormrod, p. 47). In any case the phrase "comely king" is probably just a customary description.
There is another problem with making Edward IV the King of the "Gest," and that is that there is no hint in the "Gest" of the context of the Wars of the Roses. This even though the greatest of the battles in the Wars (indeed, believed to be the biggest battle ever fought in Britain) was the 1461 Battle of Towton (Reid, pp. 410-412). The preliminaries included two fights at Ferrybridge (Wagner, p. 272), which is right in the middle of Robin Hood country and might even be where the Knight saw the wrestling (see note on Stanza 126). The Towton battlefield itself is just a little north of there, between Ferrybridge and Tadcaster on the river Cock (see map on p. 428 of Reid). There was also a battle at Wakfield (see the map on p. 317 of Wagner). And, in 1469, Edward IV planned to gather his armies at Doncaster, although he never made it there (Castor, p. 203).
The conclusion is inevitable: If Robin Hood lived in Barnsdale in the reign of Edward IV, there would surely be some mention of these events. (To be sure, it's different if Robin lived in Sherwood.)
Plus, before we can say that the "Gest" refers to Edward IV, we have to prove that its current form comes from the reign of Edward IV. This has been asserted but not demonstrated.
To sum up: If we are to figure out which Edward is Robin Hood's king, we shall have to use other arguments than just the fact that he is here called "comely."
** Stanza 354/Lines 1413-1414 ** It is extremely unlikely that the King would come all the way to Nottingham simply to deal with an outlaw band and a disobedient knight. Edward I, it is true, spent some time chasing after William Wallace, but that is almost the only instance. Presumably he had other business. Unfortunately, Nottingham was a place English kings visited fairly often -- it was roughly the northern limit of their usual circuit. So this by itself is not a dating hint -- although there are several hints in the following stanzas.
** Stanzas 357-358/Lines 1425-1427 ** "Lancasshyre... Plomton Parke... He fauled many of his dere." In other words, the King went to a hunting reserve in Lancashire, called Plumpton Park, but was upset to find it almost devoid of deer. (A common problem, apparently; by the fifteenth century, red deer were nearly gone throughout the south and midlands, according to Pollard, p. 60, and presumably even the fallow deer were badly threatened in some places.)
It is interesting to note that Plompton Park is also mentioned in "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth," stanza 38 -- Child's version of the family of ballads referred to above as "King Edward and the Hermit." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164, point out that Plumpton/Plompton is also mentioned in The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148] (stanza 13) -- Simon in that song wishes he were hunting deer in the park. It is not clear whether there is literary dependence.
Several locations have been proposed for "Plumpton Park"; Holt lists them on p. 101. His own preference is for Plumpton Wood in Lancashire, near the forest of Myerscough. Child, pp. 54-55, mentions a couple of possibilities, listing first Camden's suggestion of a location on the bank of the Petterel in Cumbria east of Inglewood; this was also Ritson's preferred site (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164). Dobson/Taylor, p. 105, prefer Hunter's suggestion of Plumpton Park near Knaresborough in Yorkshire (about halfway between York and Harrowgate), a choice also mentioned, rather disapprovingly, by Child, and with strong approval by Baldwin, p. 23. I note that the Plumpton family was still based in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the reign of Edward IV (Ross-Edward, p. 200). Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164  are convinced it is in Inglewood Forest, where there was a Plumpton Hay. But it hardly matters which one is meant. It is a northern forest which has been hunted out, and Robin Hood is thought to be to blame.
Holt1, p. 156 quotes a document describing "great destruction of the game" in the lands which had formerly belonged to Thomas of Lancaster, which is extremely interesting in connection to Edward II's northern trip of 1322-1323, although it does ot tell us which Plumpton is involved.
It is certain that there was a Plumpton Park in existence from a very early date; we know that Geoffrey de Neville in 1279-1281 was repairing a paling and hiring men to guard a park and lawn within in (Young, p. 115). This Plumpton was in Inglewood (Young, p. 116).
There is a summary of the forest laws in Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 164-165, and much detail (naturally) in Young, who notes on p. 3. that "the royal forest of first of all an area in which a special kind of law --the forest law -- applied." On pp. 28-29, Young lists twelve major points of the laws as enforced by Henry II. Several of these are of great significance to the Robin Hood legend, including #2, that no one should have bows, arrows, or dogs in the royal forest; #3, that wood could not be taken from the forests; #4-#7, assuring that foresters guarded the forest; #7, charging the foresters with guarding venison (game) and vert (trees and habitat); and #8, that a forester was responsible for any unexplained destruction in the forest (making the forester responsible for suppressing people like Robin)
The forest laws before the Norman Conquest were relatively mild, but William the Conqueror started putting lands into royal forests, eventually including about a quarter of England (Young, p. 5), meaning that much "forest" was not woodland but merely land designated for the King's purposes. The primary purpose of the laws was to preserve trees and game where they existed. They also brought in some revenue from the farming out of the office of forester (Young, p. 14; on p. 52, Young mentions a case of a man paying 900 marks=600 pounds to become forester of Cumbria!), so Robin's band might be costing the King money as well as game.
The punishments for violating the laws varied over time, at least in practice if not officially; item #30 or so in the lengthy list of proofs that Richard I was not Robin's king comes in the fact that Richard ordered poachers of the deer to be blinded and castrated. Only in the period of the Magna Carta were these penalties relaxed --the forest charter of 1217 declared that no one would be executed or mutilated for violation of the forest laws (Young, p. 67).
Even before that, fines were a more typical punishment, and even those were often forgiven (Young, p. 30) -- but even a fine could destroy a serf. And the fines could be huge -- one year, forest eyres brought in 12,000 pounds, although between 1000 and 2000 was more typical (Young, p. 39). Even these often were kept on the books for decades because they went unpaid (Young, p. 40). A man who failed to pay could, under the later forest laws, be imprisoned for a year and a day and then exilded (Young, p. 68).
There is another footnote: "Park," like "Forest," was an officially designated area. The forest laws applied, but with some modifications (Young, p. 45). The custodians of a park were not foresters but, logically, parkers. A park was fenced to keep the game within (or without), and one of the tasks of the parker was to maintain the fence -- a park could be seized by the king if the enclosure was not tight (Young, p. 96). I gain the impression that parks were much more closely controlled than forests, so for Robin to be raiding a park was a significant accomplishment.
This hunting episode is by far the strongest dating hint in the "Gest."  Almost all kings of England hunted deer, but they rarely went as far as Lancashire to do it; it was too long a trip, and the north of England too unsettled and uncomfortable.
As it turns out, all three Edwards spent time in the north of England -- but Edward I and Edward III were fighting the Scots, not hunting.
Of the kings of England in this period, we know  that Richard I liked hunting -- indeed, we know  that his one approach to Sherwood Forest was to hunt there (Gillingham, p. 242). John's son Henry III was "indifferent to hunting" (Baldwin, p. 114).
In 1852, Joseph Hunter (probably the first quality Robin Hood scholar, and the one who, according to Holt1, p. 179, restored the "Gest" to its rightful place in the legend) showed that the only King Edward who made a progress to northern England which resembled that of the "Gest" was Edward II, who visited Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Nottingham in 1323 (Holt1, p. 45). This was in the aftermath of one of the myriad baronial conflicts of Edward II's reign. He had finally managed to defeat and execute his long-time enemy the Earl of Lancaster (Hutchison, p. 114), and spent a period of months in the north of England trying to deal with the aftermath of the baronial conflict and with Scotland. While this was going on, he naturally spent time hunting and otherwise amusing himself.
Phillips, p. 73, says that Edward II had only an "occasional" interest in hunting, but most of his other biographers seem to think he was very keen for the hunt; his huntsman wrote the first English hunting manual (Hutchison, p. 10), and Edward himself spent great sums upon related activities, importing horses from Lombardy and buying a dead earl's entire stud and delighting in hounds (Doherty, p. 28). We also know that, in a conflict over forest laws, he gave in but reserved the right to hunt in the lands which he allowed to be disafforested (Young, p. 144). Even his wife Isabella is said to have engaged in hunting (Doherty, p. 176). Whereas Prestwich1, p. 115, thinks that Edward I was more interested in falconry (compare Powicke, p. 228).
In any case, even if Edward himself did not hunt, he would need a steady supply of meat for his table --and for the pet lion he kept (Phillips, p. 93). So he would be concerned if a forest had been hunted out even if he did not intend to hunt it himself. Plus parks reportedly brought in income as well as game (Young, p. 96; Barber, p. 39 notes that in the reign of Edward III, bad park management resulted in a shortfall of no less than a thousand pounds), so a hunted-out park might cost the treasury much-needed income.
To be sure, Child, p. 55, tartly comments, "Hunter, who could have identified Pigromitus and Quinapallus, if he had given his mind to it, sees in this passage, and in what precedes it of King Edward's trip to Nottingham, a plausible semblence of historical reality. Edward II, as may be shown from Rymer's Foedera, made a progress in the counties of York, Lancaster, and Nottingham, in the latter part of the year 1323. He was in Yorkshire in August and September, in Lancashire in October, at Nottingham November 9-23." (He also visited Nottingham in March/April, Baldwin, p. 57. Baldwin, like Child, does not think Edward's visit the source of the legend, but notes that many were made outlaws in Edward II's time, and thinks the visit might have led to tales of outlawry which contributed to the legend; Baldwin, pp. 58-59.)
Child is surely correct in thinking that Hunter wrang much more out of the historical data than is justified -- as Holt1, p. 47, points out, Hunter's argument was circular in that he started with the "Gest," found some people who might just possibly have been those mentioned in the "Gest," and then used the "Gest" to try to prove what he had assumed. But Holt1, p. 56, concedes that Child did "less than justice to Hunter's case" -- and I agree. *If* the "Gest" is to be linked to any actual historical events, this is the key date. The King Edward of these stanzas is Edward II. Our only hesitation about this conclusion is that the "Gest" is composite, or not intended to be based on history. This could be an isolated fragment associated with Edward II, with other parts of the piece deriving from other contexts.
** Stanza 359/Lines 1433-1434 ** Wild rages were characteristic of all the Plantagenets (except the feeble-minded Henry VI and the forgiving Edward IV and Richard III), and are no key to dating. On p. 94 of McLynn, for instance, we find reports of both Henry II and John biting their fingers when in a rage. Edward I was supposed to have once torn out his son's hair in anger (Phillips, p. 120, who doubts that it actually happened. More significant is the fact that people were willing to believe that it happened.)
There are hints, too, that Edward II's rages grew worse after his triumph over Lancaster in 1322. In 1323, he ordered the execution of Andrew de Harclay, who had won the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322 which gave Edward the win over Lancaster. After Boroughbridge, Edward made Harclay Earl of Carlisle. When word came that Harclay was negotiating with the Scots -- something fairly necessary in his position, although Harclay did go a little far in proposing a draft treaty -- Edward not only had him executed but also degraded from both earldom and knighthood (Phillips, pp. 432-433). A few weeks later, he sent a councilor to prison for disagreeing with him (Phillips, p. 435). The picture we get, in the 1323 period, is of a man who had lost all patience with opposition, even friendly opposition.
But we note that, although Edward vows a particular punishment (confiscation of lands) for the knight, he does not promise anything in particular for Robin. No doubt the implication was clear: Robin would suffer a traitor's death. This of course did not happen. But note the blow the king inflicts upon Robin in stanza 408. If called out to fulfill a vow to punish Robin, the King could say he had done so -- with his own hand!
** Stanza 363//Lines 1449-1452 ** The king is warned that no one will be able to safely occupy the Knight's land because of Robin Hood. This is similar to the situation in Stanza 117 in which the Justice warns the Abbot of the danger of simply confiscating the Knight's lands.
** Stanza 364/Lines 1453-1454 ** The warning to the king continues: The person who occupies the knight's land will lose "the best ball in his hode." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 165, suggest that this is a reference to ancient games which use a human head as a ball. I personally doubt this. It is true that tthere are many accounts of warriors collecting heads as trophies, and the Grimm Brothers story "The Boy Who Set Out to Learn What Fear Was" has a tale of spirits playing ninepins using skulls for balls, and there are various accounts of men being executed after losing some sort of game -- but I do not know of any real uses in British history of a head or skull for a ball. Neither would suit the purpose at all well; the human head is neither round enough to roll well nor consistent enough in its components to bounce well.
 I note that Wimberly, who has much discussion of heads and bones in ballad folklore, never mentions this idea.
Gummere, p. 319, explains the phrase as "a jocose expression of old standing" -- but offers no evidence or parallel citation.
I'm reminded a bit of the drawing of lots by pulling colored balls from a hood. But I can see no reason why that would apply here.
The line is in any case over-long. Perhaps we should emend to something like "At honde of Robyn Hode" or similar.
** Stanza 365/LInes 1457-1458 ** These lines line reports that the King's stay specifically in Nottingham lasted half a year. This doesn't fit any of the Edwards -- although Edward II was in Nottingham in early 1323 (March or April), and again from November 9-23 (Baldwin, pp. 55, 57), which makes about half a year from the time he first arrived to the time he finally left the area. He never stayed in one place for any lenght of time, however In any case, the King couldn't visit Plumpoton Park if he never left Nottingham.
The king's base in Nottingham may be genuine history (Edward II did spend time there), or the author may have placed him there because the story is associated with Sherwood -- but it is interesting to note that Nottingham, until the time of Edward I's northern wars, was generally as far north as a Plantagenet king would go on his regular travels (Mortimer, p. 17).
If we absolutely have to find a fit for spending a long spell continuously in Nottingham, it was probably Richard III in the period shortly before his death. With his wife and his son dead, and Henry Tudor about to invade, Richard chose Nottingham as the "castle of his care," and stayed there for much of 1485 until Henry Tudor finally landed.
** Stanza 367/Line 1465 **  A forester suggests the king's next act. If had been is a forester in Barnsdale or Sherwood, he might well know Robin (recall that in Stanza 14, Robin told John, Much, and Scarlock not to harm a yeoman who walked "the grene wode shawe," which probably means a forester). Could the whole situation be a set-up?
** Stanza 368/Line 1470 **"Gete you monkes wede," i.e. "disguise yourself as a monk." The motif of a king in disguise is rather common in folklore; we find it in "King Estmere" [Child 60] and in "King William and the Keeper," and in the Robin Hood cycle it occurs also in "The King's Disguise, and Friendship with Robin Hood" [Child 151], plus there were many later  tales of James V of Scotland doing this sort of thing. In "Queen Eleanor's Confession" [Child 156], we even find the King and a companion disguised as clergymen, although for a rather different purpose. Indeed, Pollard, p. 201, reminds us that Shakespeare used the gimmick in "Measure for Measure." Clawson, p. 107, points out evidence gathered by Kittredge that people in the late fourteenth century believed that Edward III had visited people in disguise.
It didn't happen often in reality -- certainly there is no hint that the haughty Edward III went incognito. Interestingly, we do find Richard I trying to disguise himself to cross central Europe on his way home from the Crusade (Gillingham, p. 223). But this did not happen in England, or any land the Plantagenets ruled -- and the disguise was a failure anyway; Richard was taken prisoner and was not released until he had paid a huge ransom. Like most of Richard's ideas that didn't involve fighting, it was a really dumb thing to do. Bonnie Prince Charlie also disguised himself, on his voyage to Skye, but that was long after the "Gest."
One account of the life of Henry VI says that he often dressed as a "townsman" or a "farmer" (Wolffe, p. 10), and it is certain that he was often in disguise in the early 1460s when he had been overthrown and was trying to avoid capture. But the 1460s are a late date for the composition of the "Geste," and in any case Henry at this time had no power, and would not date reveal himself so openly -- and was not forceful enough to play the role of the king in the "Gest."
There is an account of Edward II in disguise reported from about the 1360s, which cannot be true but which might have fostered the idea of the concealed King: In about 1305, when Edward II and his father Edward I were quarrelling, Edward I was supposedly riding along a muddy, dangerous road in winter -- and Edward II, in disguise, came out and led his father's horse through the mud, so that his father did not fall (Phillips, p. 603).
Plus Edward II reportedly liked hanging around with monks and friars (Philipps, p. 602). The idea of dressing as a monk would probably appeal to him.
The idea of adopting a cleric's disguise would be particularly good in 1323, because Edward II had ordered them to gather, separately from parliament, early in that year. He summoned them to Lincoln to discuss a war subsidy (Phillips, p. 432). Thus Robin and his men, in that year, might have been keeping a particularly close watch for high church officials.
Also, there were several tales of Edward II having escaped his execution in 1327 and wandering around Europe. The probability of this is exceptionally low, but the stories usually describe him in the guise of a hermit of some sort (Phillips, pp. 582-592, 612, who doesn't believe it; Doherty, pp. 185-215, who takes one version seriously without being absolutely convinced). The story is in fact extremely implausible -- but it might have influenced the idea of Edward II disguising himself as a monk.
There is also an interesting tale from 1234, in the reign of Henry III: The King was going to visit Windsor Forest, and an outlaw named Richard Siward was attacking travellers in the area. If I understand the tale told on p. 105 of Young, it seems that only the King's presence kept Siward from attacking his party. Siward was not pardoned, however; attempts were made to take him as he moved toward Wales.
** Stanzas 368-369/Lines 1471-1476 ** The King is told to go from an abbey to Nottingham. This is pretty typical of what happened when Kings stayed in the north. They often stayed in abbeys, which were usually much wealthier than anything else in the vicinity and used to taking in guests. Also, the King could not stay in one place for very long; no place in the north had food and other supplies enough to provide for the king and all his entourage for more than a few days.
The idea that the King wandered about in the north fits far better with the history of Edward II (see Stanza 365) than the idea of him staying in one place for all that time.
** Stanza 369/Line 1473 ** The forester offers to be the king's ledes-man, i.e. guide, leader, but emendations to this line have been proposed; see the textual note.
** Stanza 373/LIne 1490 ** "Forsooth as I you say." This phrase occurs here, in Stanza 375, in and in stanza 424, but nowhere before this (although there are a few other uses of "forsooth"). This is a curious pattern of occurrences which may indicate the use of a source.
** Stanza 373/Line 1491 ** The king is said to have sung as he rode. Sadly, this is not much help with identification. There was a famous early story about Richard I making himself known to his minstrel Blondel by a song he sang (Gillingham, p. 224, although he notes that it can hardly be true). As late as the reign of Richard III, probably the last king to die before the "Gest" was printed, we find bishops complaining that the King was too interested in music and dance (Ross-Richard, pp. 141-142). But we know that Edward II was interested enough in music to send a courtier to the Welsh marches to learn the crwth (Phillips, p. 37), and Hutchison, p. 10, reports that "he was to be a keen patron of musicians and minstrels." Given that he was also fond of "theatricals," it would be no surprise to find him a singer as well as a hearer of music.
** Stanza 373/Line 1492 ** Since the "monks" wear grey, not black, they are not portraying themselves as Benedictines -- incidentally meaning that they are not from St. Mary's.  Nor are they Cisterians, the white monks.
** Stanza 375/LIne 1500 ** "For this line see the note on stanza 373.
** Stanza 377/Lines 1505-1507 ** Here Robin in effect admits to living by poaching, despite claiming to be a yeoman of the forest. But see the note on Stanzas 32-33.
** Stanza 378/Line 1512 ** There is a textual variant in the spelling of the worde "saynt"; it is possible that this is a difference between the meanint "saint" and "saintly," but we really cannot tell. There is no well-known saint named "Charity"; the idea here seems to be "for holy charity."
** Stanza 379/Lines 1501-1504, etc. ** Note that the King and Robin speak to each other, seemingly in English, certainly without a translator. This implies a King who speaks English. William the Conqueror could not, nor could most of the kings between William I and Henry III. Richard I certainly could not (OxfordCompanion, p. 802. As Gillingham points out on p. 24, Richard had almost no English blood -- only one of his great-grandparents, Edith the wife of Henry I, could be considered English. The rest were all Normans or French or other "foreigners." Gillingham, p. 33, says Richard could write songs in Norman French and Provencal, and crack jokes in Latin -- but never mentions English. Markale declares on p. 57 that "never has an English king been so French").
The situation changed in the century after that. It is universally agreed that English was the first language of all kings from Henry VI (ascended 1422) on. Henry IV (1399-1413) is often said to be the earliest English King whose first language was English (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 17), Richard II (1377-1399) was clearly also fluent, having been able to casually converse with Wat Tyler's rebels while still in his early teens (Saul, p. 68ffff.). Edward III certainly knew English, and Edward I spoke it as a second language (Prestwich1, p. 6); so it is not unreasonable to assume Edward II did also; Hutchison, p. 9, thinks he did. So does Phillips, p. 60, although he finds no English documents at all among Edward II's letters; over 90% were in French, with the rest in Latin.
** Stanza 380/Lines 1517-1518 ** A subtle and artful statement, this: It gives the strong impression of being a statement by a clergyman, and yet it is basically the truth: The King has been in Nottingham in the company of the king. He is the head of the King's company, but he has been with it.... And a good King should not lie.
** Stanza 381/Line 1524 ** The text here is uncertain (see textual note). Child's text "I wolde vouch it safe on the" means that, if the king/abbot had a hundred pounds, he would trust it to Robin Hood. The reading of b is, however, "I vouch it half on the," that is, he would turn half over to Robin if his budget were in better shape.
** Stanza 382/Lines 1525Ð1528 ** This should be Robin's cue to search the King's party (see the note on Stanza 28), yet he fails to do so. Is this another hint that this is a set-up?
** Stanza 384/Lines 1533-1536 ** "The greteth Edwarde." For King Edward see note to stanza 353. Actual instances of a King inviting an outlaw to meet him are not unknown -- it happend a lot in Scotland -- but many monarchs could not be trusted to keep their safe conduct.
The royal seal was of course the means of validating official documents -- many of the early Norman and Plantagenet kings could not read or sign their names, and even if they could, the commoners could not read it. Thus developed the custom of sealing official documents. The King might have as many as three seals, and always had two, the Great Seal and the Privy Seal.
The Great Seal was generally kept by the Chancellor, who from the time of Edward I was housed at Chancery, often away from the court (Lyon, p. 69). Hence the Privy Seal, kept by  the keeper of the Privy Seal, but which tended to move with the King (unless, as was common, he used a third seal to move the privy seal). A complication in the case of Edward II was that he had lost the privy seal at Bannockburn (Phillips, pp. 233-234) -- and, astonishingly, managed to misplace it again a decade later, during his time in the north (although, that time, it was found after a few days; Phillips, p. 320).
The song of course does not make it clear whether the seal was the great or the privy seal. Given the situation, the privy seal seems more likely. But we cannot be sure; the usage of the seals varied (Jolliffe, p. 278); indeed, if we knew which seal was involved, it would be a dating hint.
We also see the use of the King's seal in the "Monk" (Holt, p. 29), although there it is not addressed to the outlaws.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, claims that the seal itself was revered. Too much weight probably should not be given to this; the English monarchy had not yet developed, for instance, the Tudor habit of calling the monarch "Your Majesty." The King was not a near-divine being -- as witness the fact that Edward II, and later his great-grandson Richard II, would be deposed....
** Stanza 385/Lines 1537-1540 ** This is a crux (see the textual note). The last word of 385.1 may be "tarpe" or "targe" or possibly "seale" -- the latter the easiest word, but then the other readings would not have arisen. The actual text of b says that the king showed his broad "tarpe." There seems to be no such word in Middle English. Child's suggestion is "targe." The normal meaning of "targe" is "shield." A shield would not bear a seal. A shield might well show the King's colors, to help identify him in battle, but in that case he would not give it to a monk.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, note that the OED lists "targe" as a word for the privy seal in the Edwardian period, based perhaps on the use of a shield in the seal at the time; and Dobson/Taylor, p. 107, also gloss "targe" as "seal."
This raises two difficulties. First, the seals of the Edwards did *not* contain shields -- all were quite similar, with the King mounted and wearing armor on one side, and enthroned on the other. The exchequer seal did have a shield -- but the exchequer seal isn't going to cause anyone to get all excited. Plus  the use of "targe" for "seal"  was obscure even at that time, and probably effectively vanished by the time the "Gest" was written. The only justification for assuming the targe is a seal, rather than a shield, is that Robin refers to the seal in the next stanza.
Robin for "curtesy" then gets down on one knee at the sight of whatever-it-is. This, if nothing else, demonstrates his respect for the king.
** Stanza 387/Line 1548 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 389/Line 1555 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 390/Line 1560 ** "Saynt Austyn." This is usually stated to be Augustine of Canterbury, who converted Britain to Catholicism, not the more famous Augustine of Hippo. I am not absolutely convinced, however. The Dominicans (who first came to England in 1221; Powicke, p. 24) followed the rule of Augusting of Hippo (OxfordCompanion, p. 301). And Edward II seems to have been fond of the Dominicans (see note to Stanza 213). Might he have picked up this oath from his Dominican confessor? In any case, this cannot he be regarded as an indication of date. Augustine was sent to Kent by Pope Gregory the Great in 597 (Benet, p. 967).
There is a passage in one of Gower's French works (Mirour de l'omme) mentioning Saint Augustine and an unknown "Robyn" in consecutive lines (20886-20887, as given in Mustanoja, p. 64). I doubt that this is significant, however.
** Stanza 391/Lines 1563-1564 ** The king observes that Robin's men are "more at his byddynge" than are the King's own. This again hints at a date in the reign of Edward II. Nobody crossed Edward I -- at least not for long!  Edward III had more trouble with his subordinates, especially about taxes, but his soldiers were quite obedient. Whereas orrders from Edward II were quite regularly ignored.
Discipline was not a widely-stressed virtue at this time. Reid, p. 32, notes that we have absolutely no records of soldiers training as a body. They learned their weapons, of course, but they do not seem to have practiced unit maneuvers -- certainly not at a scale larger than the company. So if Robin had his men firmly in hand, he really did have unusual control over his forces.
** Stanza 397-398/Lines 1585-1589 ** About an archery contest in which Robin's men shoot at garlands at great distance. This is another indication that Robin's weapon must be the longbow, not a short bow. For another indication, and supporting evidence, see stanza 132.
** Stanza 402/Lines 1606, 1608 ** The rhyme here, in all the prints, is spare... sore. It seems likely that the poet intended the rhymes to be pronounces "spare... sair." This is perhaps a hint of northern origin -- and of editing by a non-northern typesetter.
** Stanza 405/Lines 1619-1620 ** Robin has had each man who loses pay off to his master -- presumably, for others in the competition, another archer who wins a head-to-head contest. But here he treats the king/abbot as his master, for no obvious reason. Is this another hint that Robin actually already knew it was the King?
** Stanza 406/Lines 1621-1622 ** Many religious orders rejected shedding blood, with the interesting effect that we see fighting churchmen inventing weapons such as the mace and the war hammer so they could kill without letting blood. Probably most would not absolutely reject the striking of blows. It's a good bit of disguise, though.
** Stanza 408/Lines 1629-1630 ** The strength of the disguised king fells Robin. All three Edwards were tall and strong (as was Edward IV later on), but Edward II in particular seems to have had a reputation for exception physical strength. Barbour, the author of the Bruce -- obviously no fan of Edward -- wrote that he was "the strongest man of any  that you could find in any country" (Phillips, p. 83), although this was written half a century after Edward's reign. When he was overtaken by the enemy at Bannockburn, every blow he struck was said to have felled its victim (Phillips, p. 233); his strength was regarded as being responsible for his escape. We also read in "Adam Davy's Dreams about Edward II (written probably early in that king's reign) that Edward was a "kni(3)t of mychel mi(3)ht" (Emerson, p. 227, although CHEL1, p. 356, says that we do not know why Davy wrote; there might be an element of flattery).
The king in stanzas 359-360 had been very angry with Robin Hood, without, it seems promising him any particular punishment (he said he would take the knight's lands, but merely wished to see Robin). If he vowed punishment for Robin, he could at least technically use this blow as a basis for saying he had fulfilled the vow. Fulfilled it with his own hand, in fact.
** Stanza 411/Lines 1643-1644 ** "Now I know you well" -- somehow, Robin and Sir Richard recognize the King. Possibly Sir Richard had met him -- but Robin? Was it just by the strength of the King's arm (this is the explanation of Baldwin, p. 24, but is surely inadequate) Or by his face on his seal? Robin saw the seal, but seals are not very detailed. The only likely way for ordinary people to know the king (unless he wore a crown or the like) was coin portraits. This argues for one of the Edwards rather than an earlier King (see note on Stanza 49), and the later the better; it argues very strongly indeed against Richard I and John, who made so little change to the old molds that their coins still used the name of Henry II (OxfordCompanion, p. 224).
** Stanza 412/Lines 1645-1648 ** Note that Child had two versions of the first two lines of this stanza (see the textual note). In his original edition, he printed
'Mercy then, Robyn,' sayd our kynge,
'Vnder your trystyll-tre,
In a correction (volume V., p. 297 in the Dover edition) he amended this to follow ing:
'Mercy,' then said Robyn to our kynge,
'Vnder this trystyll-tre.'
The former reading, however, is very much to be preferred.
Does the reading really mean what it says? Did the King expect that Robin would attack him if he became known? It sounds like it. Hunter hypothesized that Robin was one of Lancaster's rebels against Edward II. But here we again see evidence that Robin was not a rebel against a king, but an outlaw of some other sort.
Under what context might we find a man who does not consider himself a rebel, but who is regarded as a rebel by the King? It is reasonable to assume that Robin was opposed to one of the King's retainers -- or, in the case of Edward II, one of that king's traitorous vassals. I find myself wondering if Robin might have been one of the followers of Adam Banaster, one of Lancaster's vassals who rebelled against his lord. (Prestwich3, p. 92; Prestwich3, p. 96 refers to a period of "virtual civil war" in Lancashire).
Hicks, p. 48, is even more harsh, declaring, 'Lancaster's misuse of his power reflects 'the repulsive nature of the man. A generous almsgiver and pious benefactor, perhaps more than conventionally devout', he was also sexually immoral, quarrelsome, selfish and vindictive. He was rapacious to his tenants, maintained his retainers beyond the legitimate bounds of lordship, and seized what he wanted in defiance of right and the law. He readily resorted to brutality, violence, in his Thorpe Waterville dispute with Pembroke, his suppression of Adam Banaster's rebellion, his feud with Warenne, Sir Gilbert Middleton's kidnapping of two cardinals, and when wasting Damory's lands."
What would *you* do if he had been your overlord?
There is in fact a printed item (I hesitate to call it a song, or even a poem; it makes most doggerel look good) called "Robin Hood and the Duke of Lancaster: A Ballad," set to the tune of "The Abbot of Canterbury," which purports to treat of a quarrely between Robin and the Duke of Lancaster. It is printed in Dobson/Taylor (pp. 191-194), and there are several copies in the Bodleian collection (Douce Prints a.49(1), G. Pamph. 1665(8), Johnson c.74; reprinted on p. 398 of GutchII).
It apparently was printed in 1727 (GutchII, p. 397). But it is almost beyond belief that it represents an actual tradition; it claims to have taken place in the year 1202, when John was King -- but there was no Duke of Lancaster in 1202; there were no Dukes in England at all (Edward III created the first English dukes, beginning by making his son Edward the Duke of Cornwall in 1337; Barber, p. 20). So you don't have to look up that piece. And, believe me, you don't want to. Gutch suggests that it is a satire about a courtier who wanted a job as a royal forester, presumably in the reign of George I or George II; Dobson/Taylor, p. 192, are even more specific, declaring it to refer to Lord Lechmere, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the reign of George I.
** Stanza 412/Line 1646 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 413/Lines 1651-1652 ** Here Robin formally asks the King's pardon, for himself and his men -- yet we still do not learn what his crime was!
It is interesting to note that, although Edward II seems rarely to have given out pardons as King, when Isabella and her rebels seemed to be in danger of taking over the country, Edward is reported to have given pardon to more than a hundred outlaws if they would join his forces (Phillips, p. 505 n. 307). This did not take place during Edward's northern excursion, but it might have figured into the legend somehow.
** Stanza 414/Lines 1654-1655 ** The king here tells a truth, although an ironic one: He intended to have Robin and his men leave the woods by taking them prisoner; instead he chooses to induce them to leave the woods by pardoning them.
For the effects of the offer of pardon and a place at the court, see the note to Stanza 435. For conditional pardons, see the note on Stanza 439.
** Stanza 416/Lines 1661-1664 ** Robin promises to come to court to be the King's servant (parallel, in a small way, toJohn and Much becoming yeomen of the crown in the "Monk"; cf. Holt1, p. 29). But he also promises to bring at least some of his men. To me, this seems to imply either that Robin wants pardon for all his men, or that he is promising to bring them all to be the King's soldiers (or bodyguards? If the year is 1323, Edward II might well have wanted a loyal bodyguard).
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, say however that "The idea of Robin holding an alternative lordship, with his own retinue, is clear." What is not clear is what is meant by an "alternative lordship." Certainly Robin, if were gentrified, would want to keep a retinue, but there is no hint whatsoever that he is being offered any sort of title -- merely a position.
For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229. In this verse we see Robin with "seven score and three" followers. Probably this is just poetry, but it might be that the three are Little John, Scarlock, and Much, and the seven score are all the other unnamed archers who exist mostly to supply "alarums and excursions."
** Stanza 417/Lines 1665-1668 ** Baldwin, p. 41, follows Pollard in pointing out that no outlaw could dictate the conditions of his own pardon. This is true in the sense that it was up to the King to grant the pardon and set the conditions. On the other hand, outlaws could decide whether to take the pardon -- and so could negotiate what it would take for them to give up their rebellion. I would consider this to be a warning by Robin to the King -- and, as it turns out, it was a warning Edward would have been wise to heed.
** Stanzas 417-418/Lines 1668-1669 ** This is marked as the beginning of the eighth and final fit. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, point out that there is no reason for a break here -- there is no scene change, and no break in the action. They suggest that the insertion of the heading is editorial. This seems likely -- unless, perhaps, there was damage either following 417 or preceding 418 (more likely, I suspect, the latter) and the material has been lost which would justify the break between fits.
** Stanza 418/Lines 1669-1672 ** Robin had earlier acted as a cloth merchant in stanzas 70-73, and Ohlgren thinks this ties him to one of the cloth guilds; see the note on Stanza 10. In fact, Ohlgren/Matheson, p. 180 accuses him of violating the law against "forestalling," but this law is not mentioned in either of my constitutional histories of England; I doubt it was really an issue.
** Stanza 420/Lines 1677-1680 ** Robin agrees to clothe the King in green, and expects the King to give him clothing in return at Yule (Christmastide and year's-end). In other words, Robin is accepting the King's livery. Since Robin does not expact a change of clothing until then, the date is presumably after midsummer's day (June 25).
The king's acceptance of green, and his calling forth of Robin's men while wearing green, is a strong argument against the king being Richard I; see the note on Stanzas 70-72.
** Stanza 421/Lines 1681-1684 ** Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, says that the King's wearing green livery "acknowledges forest values." It also gets the king out of dirty (sweaty? flea-infested?) garments, so he might simply have wanted to change clothes. Nonetheless it does seem symbolic -- a symbol much more likely from Edward II than either his father or son; see the note on Stanza 424.
** Stanza 422/Line 1685 ** "Lyncolne grene," or Lincoln Green, and Kendall Green, were famous colours in the middle ages -- probably because greens were hard to make (Finlay, p. 275). There were few good dyes at the time -- and none at all that allowed cloth to be dyed green in one step. Paintings typically used copper compounds for greens -- but these were not good dyes. Green cloth was made by mixing the blue of woad (indigo, or modern FD&C blue dye #2) with any of several organic yellows. Supposedly Lincoln Green used a yellow dye called "weld" (Finlay, p. 276) -- usually applying the dyes serially.
Incidentally, weld fades faster than indigo, so if by chance you come across a piece of green cloth from that era, it will now appear blue (Finlay, p. 276).
Why Lincoln Green? Gummere, p. 319, quotes someone (Ritson?) as explaining that it was good at letting the outlaws hide from the deer. Neither Ritson nor Gummere could know  it, but this is rather unlikely. Deer do not see as we do. Human vision is trichromatic -- red, green, and blue. But trichromatic vision, among non-marsupial mammals, is exclusive to primates (Dawkins, pp. 146-150). Deer, and all the other mammals of English forests, have dichromatic vision -- green and blue sensors only. We do know  that dichromats can see through various forms of camoflage which fool trichromats (Dawkins, p. 151), and there are certainly concealment schemes which will fool a dichromat and not a trichromat. Without knowing the exact shade of green, we can't say just how a deer or rabbit would perceive a man in Lincoln Green, but based on the way it was made, I don't think it would be ideal camoflage. Brown or black would be better.
Others argue that Lincon Green was camoflage against human intruders. This makes some sense. Lincoln Green is a little too olive to be ideal forest coloration -- but there was no good leaf green available.
Finlay, p. 276, suggests instead that Robin dressed his men Lincoln Green "to show off," because green cloth was expensive due to the need for multiple dying steps. However, the evidence is that Lincoln Green was not that expensive -- certainly not when compared with, say, scarlet red based on kermes. The Welsh soldiers in Edward III's wars, for instance, were clothed in white and green (Hewitt, p. 39) -- and it is certain that no one would have spent much on clothing the Welsh!
Nonetheless, Kendall Green is a good symbolic color for outlaws, because Kent was famously considered a rebellious county (Cawthorne, p. 78) --  e.g. most of Wat Tyler's rebels came from there. This is probably somewhat exaggerated; Kentish rebels tended to be noticed more often in London because rebels in Kent could reach the city far more easily than those in, say, Lincolnshire. But Kent did have fewer villeins and more free men (OxfordComp, p. 959), so the people probably were somewhat more rowdy.
Wimberly, p. 178, says that green "is a fairy color and of ill omen," but points out that it is one of the most common colors of clothing in the ballads. Despite all those attempts to link Robin with the Green Man or the like, I doubt that the color has any mystical significance.
For more on cloth offered by Robin, see the notes on Stanzas 70-72.
** Stanza 424/LIne 1694 ** "For this line see the note on stanza 373.
** Stanza 424/Line 1695 ** The plucke-buffet, believed to be a contest in which the players exchange blows as forfeits, is attested in many forms. The extreme form is the beheading game of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." It also occurs in the tale of "The Turk and Gawain," found in the Percy folio, although we cannot tell the exact details because the folio is so damaged at this point (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xix). It also features in two other Gawain romances, the related "Syre Gawene and the Carle of Carlyle" and "The Carle off Carlile" (Lacy, p 154), although the latter of these is almost certainly later than the "Gest" and the former may be.
As a sport, it is sometimes known as an "Irish Stand-Down." Child, in his notes on this stanza (page 55) mentions a romance in which Richard the Lion-Hearted himself engaged in this game, but this is one of those stories (like Richard killing a lion with his bare hands by tearing out its heart -- and then eating it raw; Gillingham, pp. 7-8) which is demonstrably false.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, seem to think that the contest between Robin and the King was also more serious than some casual shooting with the bow, followed by a blow to the loser, but they offer no reason for this hypothesis.
More interesting is the question of whether any English king would engage in such a contest with his subjects.
Holt1, p. 61, argues that the legend of the King being reconciled with Robin is derived from Fulk, or Hereward, or maybe (who knows?) Alfred and the Cakes (an idea going back at least to Clawson, p. 104, who on p. 105 mentions a similar story told of Henry II), all involving an incognito king. This is of course a common theme of folklore (see the note on stanza 368) but the fact that the motif is legendary does not preclude a reconciliation between King and outlaws -- several rebellions ended that way, because it was easier for the King to befriend the rebel than run him down!
This motif does however argue against a date in the reigns of Richard I or Edward I -- they were strong grudge-holders. Prestwich1, p. 202, says explicitly, "Clemency towards his enemy was not in Edward [I]'s character." What's more, Edward I had a strong streak of violence when crossed (Prestwich1, p. 3); he just wasn't the sort to go off and negotiate with rebels.
There is an actual recorded instance of Edward I accidentally ending up in single combat with an enemy because a ditch cut Edward off from his supporters, and Edward did formally forgive the other man -- "but there is no evidence that he was ever regarded with any special favor" (Prestwich1, p. 56, although Baldwin, p. 146, says that "There is nothing to substantiate Nicholas Trivet's story" of this encounter, and Pollard, p. 196, flatly declares it fiction. Clawson, pp. 107-108, points to the tale of John the Reeve, in the Percy Folio, in which Edward I is separated from his followers, but this is not the same tale).
Baldwin, p. 95, has a good summary when he says that "Edward [I] was respected b his barons, but he was a man of violent temper far removed from the jovial and understanding 'King Edward' of the ballads."
Richard I was, if anything, worse; he was aloof and generally lacked the common touch; according to Kelly.A, p. 173, "Richard was less affable in crowds than Henry [II], more selective in his friendshps, and less accessible to general company. He lacked the charm that attracted a large personal following... He often ruffled his peers with an overweening brusqueness."
He was such a snob that, when he heard a hawk shriek in a commoner's house, he went in and attacked the owners (even though they were not his subjects) -- and was forced to take to his heels when they fought back (McLynn, p. 144). During the conquest of Cyprus, he insulted the island's inhabitants by shaving off the men's beards just because they were ruled by his enemy (McLynn, p. 157). At Acre, he demeaned the Duke of Austria so badly that he left the crusade -- and Leopold of Austria was a *duke*, almost as high on the social scale as Richard himself. Richard didn't have subjects; he had two kinds of slaves, the chained and the unchained. The notion of him even talking to a commoner, other than one of his soldiers, is absurd.
Henry II had a way with common people, and was relatively accessible to them -- Dahmus, pp. 148-150 -- but even if we can accept such an early date for Robin, Henry was another grudge-holder.
Henry III, according to Baldwin, p. 118, "was often tempermental but he did not bear grudges."
By contrast, Edward II had a strange interest in common tasks and men, according to Hutchison, pp. 148-149 -- he liked woodworking and metalwork, kept company with craftsmen, and worked at thatching. A story tells of him engaged in hedging and ditching when he might have been at mass (Prestwich3, p. 80), and there are records of him ordering plaster so that he might build walls (Prestwich3, p. 81). Phillips, p. 13, quotes his best contemporary biographer as saying, "If he had practiced the use of arms, he would have exceeded the prowess of King Richard. Physically this would have been inevitable, for he was tall and strong, a handsome man with a fine figure.... If only he had given to arms the attention that he expended on rustic pursuits...." After Bannockburn, a member of his household declared that the king could not win battles if he "appl[ied] himself to making ditches and digging and other improper occupations' (Phillips, p. 15).
Even Hutchison, almost his only defender, admits on p. 2 his "rather odd personality."  Although most instances of him engaging in a form of common labor are attested by only one source, Phillips, p. 72, mentions four source attesting his love for ordinary men's work, and the reports of him spending time rowing are well-attested. Phillips goes on to note that Edward II "enjoyed the near-presence of the low-born," and mentions an instance in 1325 of sailors and carpenters eating in the royal chamber.
What's more, Edward II liked games, including gambling games, and did not insist upon winning (Phillips, p. 75). This fits the stanza's indication that Robin out-shot the king and so was entitled to beat up his monarch. (Possibly the King felt this to be safer than to have his half dozen men fight all of Robin's band.) The wonder is that the King decided to participate, having seen Robin's prowess. He was probably a good archer with a hunting bow, but a longbow was a different matter.
And where Edward I, for instance, tended to look down his nose even at the higher nobility, Edward II displayed very little snobbishness. In Edward I's last years, there was a quarrel between the King and his son over the size and expense of the Prince's household. According to Phillips, p. 99 and note 131, there were four men the Prince really wanted to keep around him. Two were of gentle blood -- Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare -- but the other two were yeomen.
Jolliffe, pp. 369-370, declares that "like several of our more incompetent kings, Edward II was inclined to advance popular principles" -- meaning, in this case, the principles of ordinary people rather than the high nobility; Edward increased the role of the commons in parliament (presumably to reduce the power of the barons).
It is true that Edward II was a man who never changed his mind, and he certainly held grudges. His best early biographer wrote in the _Life of Edward II_ that, in 1322 when Edward finally seemed to have defeated his enemies, "the earl of Lancaster once cut off Piers Gaveston's head, and now by the king's command the earl of Lancaster had lost his head" (quoted by Phillips, p. 409). But Edward's grudges were very specific and pointed. A man who had not directly offended him or joined his enemies was forgivable. (To be sure, Hunter thought that the original Robin Hood served the Earl of Lancaster, and that this was why he needed the King's pardon. But the subtle hints in the "Gest" all point to an outlaw who was loyal to the King all along, as several mentions in the "Gest" demonstrate; Mark Ormrod also apparently pointed this out in an unpublished paper; Pollard, p. 253 n. 58.)
If ever there had been a king likely to meet with outlaws, it was Edward II. Doherty, pp. 23-24, explains this oddity based on the way his father neglected him: "Left to his own devices, bereft of a father  and a mother-figure, the young Edward naturally looked for friendship from others, whether they were ditchers, rowers, sailors or boatmen." Doherty, p. 26, also thinks that Edward II had "a desperate yearning to be liked."
Edward's willingness to hang around with common people became so proverbial that, according to pp. 60-61 of Doherty, a pretender actually showed up during this reign claiming to be the real King Edward; he had been swapped with a peasant boy after a nurse had allowed him to be injured and was afraid to reveal the truth. The "proof" of this was that Edward showed tastes such as only a peasant would have, and thus must be an imposter. Naturally this pretender was executed (as was his cat, which obviously was innocent), but the whole story shows what Edward's reputation was like.
The only other Plantagenet I can imagine hanging around with common folks was John. However, we have already read, in stanzas 403-409, tells of an Irish stand-down between Robin and the King, in which the King gives Robin a blow which floors him. The Plantagenets were mostly very tall -- Edward I was called "Longshanks," and when his skeleton was measured, he was found to have been 6'2" (Prestwich, p. 567). Edward III is said to have been 6'3". Richard is said to have been tall, well-built, and with unusually long arms and legs (McLynn, p. 24). The only exceptions were Henry II, who was of average height, and John, who at 5'5" was perhaps the shortest Plantagenet known to us (Warren-John, p. 31). Henry II was strong despite his height. But John does not seem to have been a mighty man.
To be sure, the last King Edward to live before the publication of the "Gest," Edward IV, was so open to commoners that he became the hero of "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" [Child 273]. Edward IV's brother Richard III seems to have tried -- seemingly for the first time -- to actually build a government out of men who were not members of the nobility; Cheetham, pp. 161-162. But both of these are almost certainly too late.
In connection with the King's fist-fight with Robin, see the note on Stanzas 429-430 regarding Edward II's fondness for horseplay and practical jokes.
** Stanza 428/Lines 1709-1712 ** Upon seeing what appears to be a mass invasion by Robin Hood's men, the people of Nottingham are very afraid (though without reason, as it turns out). This may very well connect with their hostility to him in Stanzas 296.
** Stanzas 429-430/Lines 1713-1717 ** The king laughs at the rout of the townsfolk, as people try by any means possible to flee the coming of Robin Hood. This too  fits well with what we know of Edward II, who seems to have been fond of practical jokes and rough humor (Doherty, pp. 50-51). One can imagine him staging this little scene to see how the folk of Nottingham would respond; indeed. Mersey, p. 188, calls this "a jest on the king's part." For another instance of his fondness for low games and roughhousing, see  the note on Stanzas 429-430.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, compare this to the story of "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child139], in which the people of Nottingham also fear and attack the outlaw. They see this as a contrast between "forest and urban values," but "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" is a later writing and not a source for the "Gest." And while there doubtless is a contrast between town and outlaw morals, the fear of the people of Nottingham more likely derives from the fact that Robin has already had two conflicts with them, one at the time of the archery contest when they attacked him and once when Robin attacked and killed the sheriff.
** Stanza 433/Line 1731 ** It is interesting to observe that Robin, who in Stanza 68 had been able to lend 400 pounds, apparently has only 100 pounds at his disposal here. (For more on the value of this money, see the notes to Stanzas 49 and 120). In stanza 150 we see the sheriff offer Little John 20 marks per year; in Stanzas 170-171, Little John offers the cook 20 marks per year to join Robin's band. Since 100 pounds is 150 marks, Robin's 100 pounds would pay only seven men for a full year at their old wage. If he truly had seven score men (Stanza 416), he could have paid them only one mark each -- or enough for three weeks at their old rate. See also the note on Stanza 435.
The implication, obviously, is that either Robin left much of his money behind, or that he had lost it in the interval between his intervention on the knight's behalf and the time he met the king. (Or, of course, that this section is from another source with more reasonable ideas of what money was worth.) It seems more likely that Robin's fortune would have declined; traffic would have learned to avoid Barnsdale if Robin became a truly successful robber (note the fear of him shown by the people of Nottingham in Stanza 428), plus his band probably grew in that time, meaning that he had to pay more in wages.
One wonders if Robin might not have accepted the King's offer because he was going broke.
Holt1, p. 118, makes the interesting observation that, by the time the "Gest" was probably written, "local society fell, in descending order, into knights, squires, gentlemen, yeomen and husbandmen.... Only the first two, knight and squire, had distinguishing qualifications. The gentleman, particularly, was sometimes simply he who claimed to be a gentleman, or lives like a gentleman, perhaps especially one who got into debt like a gentleman." That certainly sounds like Robin's behavior.
** Stanza 434/Lines 1733-1736 ** Gummere, commenting on Robin's prodigality, says on p. 319, "This liberal expenditure was the proper thing for knights and men of rank...." But his chief expense was likely just paying his men. In stanza 52, we perhaps saw a hint of the Tale of the Prodigal Son. This too mayhave been influenced by that tale (in chapter 15 of Luke); the Prodigal takes his inheritance, spends it on loose living, and then has to go home in disgrace.
It is interesting, although perhaps not very relevant, to note that Grafton declared that Robin went to the greenwood because of excess generosity (Knight, p. 1; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 28).
** Stanza 435/Line1737 ** After a year at the King's court (literally fifteen months, but the author is always adding threes to things), Robin has used up his resources. This is not really unusual. The King's senior officers often did not enjoy actual payment for their work; rather, the King granted them some sort of compensation. A cleric would get a certain number of "livings"; a secular lord would be given an office or the rent from sundry manors. We note that the King's offer of a place at his court (stanzas 414-415) contained no such offer. Perhaps Robin assumed one would be forthcoming (see stanza 420, where he seems to accept the King's livery); perhaps he did not realize the need for such a grant; perhaps the King simply did not live up to his promise.
This would fit well with either Edward I, who was notably stingy with pay for his officials, or with Edward II after his victories of 1322-1323 -- Phillips, p. 421, reports that in this period "Like the archetypal miser Edward [II] not only gathered every penny he could but was remarkably loath to spend any more than he had to." One almost wonders if he mightn't have brought Robin to court to try to get a hand on Robin's treasure.
As mentioned in the notes on Stanza 433, Robin's 100 pounds would pay only seven men for a full year at their old wage -- little wonder they deserted. Even if he paid only the three pence a day expected by valets (see the note on Stanza 150), that would allow him to maintain only about twenty men for a year.
** Stanza 436/Line 1742 ** There is a variant here which perhaps affects Robin's feelings about watching the archers; see the textual note.
** Stanza 437/Lines 1745-1748 ** Robin, in the King's service, recalls being a successful archer. Clearly he is not spending much time practicing with his bow at this time. This, it seems to me, is exceptionally strong evidence that this is not happening during the reign of Edward III. That king won his victories with the bow, and would not put the best bowman in England out to pasture!
One wonders if Robin might not have been disappointed with the court in other ways. This was the period when Edward's favorites the Elder and Younger Hugh Despensers were dominating -- and corrupting -- the government. (For more on them, see the notes on Stanza 93, or on "Hugh Spencer's Feats in France" [Child 158].) It was a period when no one's money or land was safe if the Despensers wanted it. Phillips, p. 448, notes that Edward II was deeply if indirectly  involved in their extortion -- it couldn't have happened without his consent. But the attitude at this time seems always to have been "It's not the King, it's his evil counselors." Robin could have been -- would have been! -- disgusted by the Despensers, and might not have blamed the King. But he would doubtless wish to get away.
** Stanza 439/Lines 1753-1756 ** Robin determines to leave the King's service. This is an interesting decision if he had taken the King's pardon, because most pardons in the Edwardian period were conditional: "Though a few pardons were granted in advance, for the great majority of men indicted of murder or other serious felonies, charters of pardon were withheld till the [military] services had been performed and attested by the leaders in whose companies the men had served. Even then the pardons were frequently subject to further conditions" (Hewitt, p. 29).
For a man hired as a solder, Hewitt (p. 30) lists four typical conditions of a pardon, of which Robin arguably violates three: He must put up surety for his behavior (which Robin, one he is broke, can no longer do); that he be available for service to the King for up to a year at a time (Robin initially fulfulls this, then violates it -- and since most of his men deserted him before he himself quit the court [Stanzas 433-435], they would have violated it immediately upon desertion), and that he stay in the King's service while still in the vicinity of the conflict (which, if the King is Edward II and the conflict is that resulting in Edward's overthrow, he failed to do). Thus Robin, in all likelihood, violates the conditions of his pardon.
Pollard, p. 206, sees this as a sort of allegory: He believes that the King is Edward III, considered responsible for restoring justice -- but even this ideal king could not restore justice enough to satisfy Robin.
The difficulties with this hypothesis are myriad: First is the internal inconsistency -- if Pollard is going to claim that the "Gest' is set in the reign of Edward III because Edward III is a paragon of justice, then he can't really have it both ways. Nor is there any hint of this sort of allegory anywhere else in the "Gest." Plus Robin doesn't complain of injustice; he complains of being broke and of not being used as an archer.
In any case, Robin had to leave the King's service. Since the "Gest" and the "Death" tell the same general story, the story of Robin's death almost certainly existed before the "Gest" was composed. So Robin had to be in the greenwood in order to die. That means he had to leave the court.
** Stanza 440/Line 1759 ** Robin (claims to have) founded a chapel to Mary Magdalene. Given his piety, his ill management of his money, and his magnanimity, it seems not unlikely that Robin would have endowed a chapel -- it was a common thing to do in this period, when the prayers of the faithful were thought to shorten one's time in purgatory. The dedication to St. Mary Magdalene is interesting -- the first genuinely approprate mention of a saint in the "Gest." Robin would naturally have wanted a female saint, and Mary Magdalene was the saint of penitents (Benet, p. 975).
We have another faint parallel to the story of David here, although in the case of David and Saul, David was already in trouble with the King, whereas Robin is merely dissatisfied. David (thought Jonathan) tells Saul that he must go home for a family religious celebration. Having left the court, he flees and becomes an outlaw.. The core of this story is in 1 Samuel, chatper 20.
** Stanza 442/Line 1767 ** "Barefote and wolwarde" -- i.e. barefoot and with wool next to the skin. Walking barefoot was the standard token of a pilgrimage or penitant -- e.g. when Raymond of Toulouse set out to lead the Christian army on the last stage of the journey to Jerusalem in the First Crusade, he walked barefoot (Runciman1, p. 261). When Jane Shore was forced to do penance for her adultery with Edward IV,"on a Sunday, wearing nothing but her kirtle, she was led barefoot through the streets, a taper in her hand" (Jenkins, p. 166). Wearing wool next to the skin -- i.e. presumably a hair shirt -- is an even stronger sign of penitence; a hair shirt irritated the skin, and also held lice, so it was painful -- and it could be worn under other garments so that one could suffer a penance without parading one's piety before men. Becket, for instance, was said to have been wearing a hairshirt when he died (OxfordCompanion, p. 90).
Gummere, p. 120, notes a similar reference in Piers Plowman (B.xviii.1 in Skeat's edition): "Wooleward and wete-shoed went I forth after," which Langland/Schmidt, p. 306 (which spells the third word "weetshoed"), glosses as "With my skin toward the wool [i.e. with no shirt toward my cloak] and with wet feet [with feet shod with wet rather than with wet shoes]." Gummere also finds such a penance in v. 3512f. of "The Pricke of Conscience" by Hampole (that is, Richard Rolle, died 1349, known as the "Hermit of Hampole"; Benet, p. 941 -- although, according to Sisam, pp. 36-37, his authorship of "The Pricke of Conscience" has been strongly questioned. NewCentury, p. 940, calls the "Pricke" the most popular poem of the fourteenth century but notes that there is no evidence that Rolle wrote it).
As Knight/Ohlgren emphasize on p. 168, this is a sign of penance, not poverty.
** Stanza 445/Lines 1777-1780 ** As Robin arrives in the greenwood "on a merry morning," he hears the birds singing. Pollard, p. 72, notes this as an invocation of the legend of the merry greenwood. It does seem to indicate that Robin returned to the forest in late spring or summer.
** Stanza 448/Line 1791 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
**Stanza 450/Line 1798 ** Robin spent "Twenty yere and two" in the greenwood after leaving the King. This would seem as if it might be a dating hint -- but it isn't much of one. Edward I reigned 35 years (1272-1307), Edward III reigned for fifty (give or take a few months; his official reign was 1327-1377), and Edward IV, from first to last, reigned just about exactly 22 (1461-1483, although with a hiatus in 1470-1471). Only Edward II fell short of this total -- he reigned twenty years, 1307-1327.
Thus Edward I or Edward III might be meant, or the number might be a later adjustment to the reign of Edward IV. But the