  (1) “Former biographers,” &c.] Such, that is, as have already appeared in print, since a sort of manuscript life in the Sloane Library will appear to have been of some service. The first of these respectable personages is the author, or rather compiler, of “The noble birth and gallant achievements of that remarkable outlaw Robin Hood; together with a true account of the many merry extravagant exploits he played; in twelve several stories: newly collected by an ingenious antiquary. London, printed by W. O.” [William Onley], 4to, black letter, no date. These “several stories,” in fact, are only so many of the songs in the common Garland transposed; and the “ingenious antiquary,” who strung them together, has known so little of his trade, that he sets out with informing us of his hero’s banishment by King Henry the Eighth. The above is supposed to be the “small merry book” called Robin Hood, mentioned in a list of “books, ballads, and histories, printed for and sold by William Thackeray at the Angel in Duck-lane” (about 1680), preserved in one of the volumes of old ballads (part of Bagford’s collection) in the British Museum. Another piece of biography, from which much will not be expected, is “The lives and heroick atchievements of the renowned Robin Hood and James Hind, two noted robbers and highwaymen. London, 1752.” 8vo. This, however, is probably nothing more than an extract from Johnson’s “Lives of the Highwaymen,” in which, as a specimen of the authors historical authenticity, we have the life and actions of that noted robber, Sir John Falstaff. KIRKLEY HALL. KIRKLEY HALL. {xv} The principal if not sole reason why our hero is never once mentioned by Matthew Paris, Benedictus Abbas, or any other ancient English historian, was most probably his avowed enmity to churchmen; and history, in former times, was written by none but monks. They were unwilling to praise the actions which they durst neither misrepresent nor deny. Fordun and Major, however, being foreigners, have not been deterred by this professional spirit from rendering homage to his virtues. (2) —“was born at Locksley, in the county of Nottingham.”] “Robin Hood,” says a MS. in the British Museum (Bib. Sloan. 715), written, as it seems, toward the end of the sixteenth century, “was borne at Lockesley in Yorkshyre, or after others in Nottinghamshire.” The writer here labours under manifest ignorance and confusion, but the first row of the rubric will set him right:
Dr. Fuller (Worthies of England, 1662, p. 320) is doubtful as to the place of his nativity. Speaking of the “Memorable Persons” of Nottinghamshire, “Robert Hood,” says he, “(if not by birth) by his chief abode this country-man.” The name of such a town as Locksley, or Loxley (for so we sometimes find it spelled), in the county of Nottingham or of York, does not, it must be confessed, occur either in Sir Henry Spelman’s Villare Anglicum. in Adams’s Index Villaris, in Whatley’s England’s Gazetteer, {xvi} (3) —“in the reign of King Henry the Second, and about the year of Christ 1160.”] “Robin Hood,” according to the Sloane MS., “was borne ... in the dayes of Henry the 2nd, about the yeare 1160.” This was the 6th year of that monarch; at whose death (anno 1189) he would, of course, be about 29 years of age. Those writers are therefore pretty correct who represent him as playing his pranks (Dr. Fuller’s phrase) in the reign of King Richard the First, and, according to the last-named author, “about the year of our Lord 1200.”
A modern writer (History of Whitby, by Lionel Charlton, York, 1779, 4to), though of no authority in this point, has done well enough to speak of him as living “in the days of abbot Richard and Peter his successor;” that is, between the years 1176 and 1211. The author of the two plays upon the story of our hero, of which a particular account will be hereafter given, makes him contemporary with King Richard, who, as well as his brother Prince John, is introduced upon the scene; which is confirmed by another play, quoted in Note 5. Warner, also, in his Albion’s England, 1602, p. 132, refers his existence to “better daies, first Richard’s daies.” This, to be sure, may not be such evidence as would be sufficient to decide the point in a court of justice; but neither judge nor counsel will dispute {xvii} the authority of that oracle of the law Sir Edward Coke, who pronounces that “This Robert Hood lived in the reign of King R. I.” (3 Institute, 197). We must not therefore regard what is said by such writers as the author of “George a Greene, the pinner of Wakefield,” 1599 (see Note 9), who represents our hero as contemporary with King Edward IV.,
or to imagine his story must have been familiar to Plutarch, because in his Morals, translated by Dr. Philemon Holland, 1603, p. 644, we read the following passage:—“Evenso [i.e. as the crane and fox serve each other in Æsop], when learned men at a table plunge and drowne themselves (as it were), in subtile problemes and questions interlaced with logicke, which the vulgar sort are not able for their lives to comprehend and conceive; whiles they also againe for their part come in with their foolish songs, and vain ballads of Robin-Hood and Little John, telling tales of a tubbe, or of a roasted horse, and such like.” Who, indeed, would be apt to think that his skill in archery was known to Virgil? And yet, as interpreted by our facetious friend Mr. Charles Cotton, he tells us that
In a word, if we are to credit translators, he must have {xviii} existed before the siege of Troy; for thus, according to one of Homer’s:
This last supposition, indeed, has even the respectable countenance of Dan Geoffrey Chaucer:
(4) “His extraction was noble, and his true name Robert Fitzooth.”] In “an olde and auncient pamphlet,” which Grafton the chronicler had seen, it was written that “This man discended of a noble parentage.” The Sloane MS. says “He was of .... parentage;” and though the material word is illegible, the sense evidently requires noble. So, likewise, the Harleian note: “It is said that he was of noble blood.” Leland also has expressly termed him “nobilis” (Collectanea, i. 54). The following account of his family will be found sufficiently particular. Ralph Fitzothes, or Fitzooth, a Norman, who had come over to England with William Rufus, married Maud or Matilda, daughter of Gilbert de Gaunt, Earl of Kyme and Lindsey, by whom he had two sons: Philip, afterward Earl of Kyme, that earldom being part of his mother’s dowry, and William. Philip the elder died without issue; William was a ward to Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, in whose household he received his education, and who, by the king’s express command, gave {xix} him in marriage to his own niece, the youngest of the three daughters of the celebrated Lady Roisia de Vere, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Guisnes in Normandy, and lord high chamberlain of England under Henry I., and of Adeliza, daughter to Richard de Clare, Earl of Clarence and Hertford, by Payn de Beauchamp, baron of Bedford, her second husband. The offspring of this marriage was our hero, Robert Fitzooth, commonly called Robin Hood. (See Stukeley’s PalÆographia Britannica, No. I. passim.) A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March 1793, under the signature D. H.,
It may be remembered that Hugh Capet, the first king of France of the third and last race, obtained that surname from a similar circumstance. It is unnecessary to add that Hood is a common surname at this day, as well as a place in Yorkshire, formerly Hode; and that Edward the Third, in the tenth year of his reign, confirmed to Thomas, the son of Robert de Hode, of Hoveden, in tail-general, certain places of moorland, &c. in vasto de Incklesmore, &c. (Ro. Pa. 10 E. 3. m. 31). (5) “He is frequently styled ... Earl of Huntingdon, a title to which, for the latter part of his life at least, he actually appears to have had some sort of pretension.”] In Grafton’s “olde and auncient pamphlet,” though the author had, as already noticed, said “this man discended of a NOBLE PARENTAGE,” he adds, “or rather beyng of a base stocke {xx} and linage, was for his manhood and chivalry advaunced to the noble dignitie of an ERLE.” In the MS. note (Bib. Har. 1233) is the following passage: “It is said that he was of noble blood no lesse then an earle.” Warner, in his Albion’s England, already cited, calls him “a county.” The titles of Mundy’s two plays are: “The downfall” and “The death of Robert earle of Huntington.” He is likewise introduced in that character in the same author’s Metropolis Coronata, hereafter cited. In his epitaph we shall find him expressly styled “Robert, Earl of Huntingtun.” In “A pleasant commodie called Looke about you,” printed in 1600, our hero is introduced, and performs a principal part. He is represented as the young Earl of Huntington, and in ward to Prince Richard, though his brother Henry, the young king, complains of his having “had wrong about his wardship.” He is described as
and is sometimes called “pretty earle” and “little wag.” One of the characters thus addresses him:
and calls him
It is also said that
In one scene, “Enter Richard and Robert with coronets.”
Dr. Percy’s objection, that the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom, {xxii} (6) “In his youth he is reported to have been of a wild and extravagant disposition,” &c.] Grafton’s pamphlet, after supposing him to have been “advaunced to the noble dignitie of an erle,” continued thus: “But afterwardes he so prodigally exceeded in charges and expences, that he fell into great debt, by reason whereof, so many actions and sutes were commenced against him whereunto he answered not, that by {xxiii} order of lawe he was outlawed.” That he lurked or infested the woods is agreed by all. “Circa hÆc tempora,” says Major, “Robertus Hudus Anglus & parvus Joannes, latrones famatissimi, in nemoribus latuerunt.” Dr. Stukeley says that “Robin Hood took to this wild way of life in imitation of his grandfather Geoffrey de Mandeville, who being a favorer of Maud empress, King Stephen took him prisoner at S. Albans, and made him give up the tower of London, Walden, Plessis, &c., upon which he lived on plunder” (MS. note in his copy of Robin Hood’s Garland). (7) “Of these, he chiefly affected Barnsdale,” &c.] “Along on the lift hond,” says Leland, “a iii. miles of betwixt Milburne and Feribridge I saw the wooddi and famose forrest of Barnesdale, wher thay say that Robyn Hudde lyvid like an outlaw” (Itinerary, v. 101). “They haunted about Barnsdale forrest, Compton [r. Plompton] parke, “His principal residence,” says Fuller, “was in Shirewood forrest in this county [Notts], though he had another haunt (he is no fox that hath but one hole) near the sea in the North Riding in Yorkshire, where Robin Hood’s Bay still retaineth his name: not that he was any pirat, but a land-thief, who retreated to those unsuspected parts for his security” (Worthies of England, p. 320). {xxv} In Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire, p. 505, is some account of the ancient and present state of Sherwood forest; but one looks in vain through that dry detail of land-owners for any particulars relating to our hero. “In anno domini 1194, King Richard the First, being a hunting in the forrest of Sherwood, did chase a hart out of the forrest of Sherwood into Barnesdale in Yorkshire, and because he could not there recover him, he made proclamation at Tickill in Yorkshire, and at divers other places there, that no person should kill, hurt, or chase the said hart, but that he might safely retorne into forrest againe, which hart was afterwards called a hart-royall proclaimed” (Manwood’s Forest Laws, 1598, p. 25, from “an auncient recorde” found by him in the tower of Nottingham Castle). (8) “Here he either found,” &c.] After being outlawed, Grafton tells us, “for a lewde shift, as his last refuge, [he] gathered together a companye of roysters and cutters, and practised robberyes and spoyling of the kinges subjects, and occupied and frequented the forestes or wild countries.” See also the following note. (9) “Little John, William Scadlock, George a Green, pinder of Wakefield, Much a miller’s son, and a certain monk or frier named Tuck.”] Of these, the pre-eminence is incontestably due to Little John, whose name is almost constantly coupled with that of his gallant leader. “Robertus Hode & littill Johanne,” are mentioned together by Fordun as early as 1341; and later instances of the connection would be almost endless. After the words, “for debt became an {xxvi} outlaw,” the Sloane MS. adds: “then joyninge to him many stout fellowes of lyke disposition, amongst whom one called Little John was principal or next to him, they haunted about Barnsdale forrest,” &c. See Notes 39, 40. With respect to Frier Tuck, “thogh some say he was an other kynd of religious man, for that the order of freyrs was not yet sprung up” (MS. Sloan.), yet as the Dominican friers (or friers preachers) came into England in the year 1221, upward of twenty years before the death of Robin Hood, and several orders of these religious had flourished abroad for some time, there does not seem much weight in that objection: nor, in fact, can one pay much regard to the term frier, as it seems to have been the common title given by the vulgar (more especially after the Reformation) to all the regular clergy, of which the friers were at once the lowest and most numerous. If Frier Tuck be the same person who, in one of the oldest songs, is called the curtail frier of Fountains-dale, he must necessarily have been one of the monks of that abbey, which was of the Cistercian order. However this may be, Frier Tuck is frequently noticed by old writers as one of the companions of Robin Hood, and as such was an essential character in the morris-dance (see Note 34). He is thus mentioned by Skelton, laureat, in his “goodly interlude” of Magnificence, written about the year 1500, and with an evident allusion to some game or practice now totally forgotten and inexplicable:
In the year 1417, as Stow relates, “one, by his counterfeite name, called Frier Tucke, with manie other malefactors, committed many robberies in the counties of Surrey & Sussex, whereupon the king sent out his writs for their apprehension” (Annales, 1592). George a Green is George o’ the green, meaning perhaps the town-green, in which the pound or pinfold stood of which he had the care. He has been particularly celebrated, and {xxvii} “As good as George a Green” is still a common saying.
Thus, too, Richard Brathwayte, in his poetical epistle “to all true-bred northerne sparks of the generous society of the Cottoneers” (Strappado for the Divell, 1615):
In the latter part of this extract, honest Richard evidently alludes to “A pleasant conceyted comedie of George a Greene, the pinner of Wakefield; as it was sundry times acted by the servants of the right honourable the earle of Sussex,” 1599, 4to, which has been erroneously ascribed to Heywood the epigrammatist, and is reprinted, with other trash, in the late edition of Dodsley’s Old Plays; only it unluckily happens that Robin Hood is almost the only person who has no difference with the souter (or shoemaker) of Bradford. The play, in short (or at least that part of it which we have any concern with), is founded on the ballad of Robin Hood and the Pinder of Wakefield (see part ii. song 3), which it directly quotes, and is, in fact, a most despicable performance. “The history of George a Green, pindar of the town of Wakefield,” 4to, no date, Our gallant pinder is thus facetiously commemorated by Drunken Barnaby:
Besides the companions of our hero enumerated in the text, and whose names are most celebrated and familiar, we find those of William of Goldsbrough (mentioned by Grafton), Right-hitting Brand (by Mundy), and Gilbert with the white {xxx} hand, who is thrice named in the Lyttell Geste of Robyn Hode (i. 52, 71), and is likewise noticed by Bishop Gawin Douglas in his Palice of Honour, printed at Edinburgh in 1579, but written before 1518:
As no mention is made of Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudeslie, either in the ancient legend or in more than one of the numerous songs of Robin Hood, nor does the name of the latter once occur in the old metrical history of those famous archers reprinted in Percy’s Reliques, and among pieces of ancient popular poetry, it is to be concluded that they flourished at different periods, or at least had no connection with each other. In a poem, however, intitled, “Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and young William of Cloudesley, the second part,” 1616, 4to, b. l. (Bib. Bod. Art. L. 71, being a more modern copy than that in Selden C. 39, which wants the title, but was probably printed with the first part, which it there accompanies, in 1605; differing considerably therefrom in several places, and containing many additional verses), are the following lines (not in the former copy):
(10) “Marian.”] Who or whatever this lady was, it is observable that no mention of her occurs either in the Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode, or in any other poem or song {xxxi} concerning him, except the not very old ballad of Robin Hood’s Golden Prize, where she is barely named, and a still more modern one of no merit (see part ii. song 24). In the First Part of King Henry IV. Falstaff says to the hostess, “There’s no more faith in thee than in a stew’d prune; nor no more truth in thee than in a drawn fox; and for womanhood, Maid Marian may be the deputy’s wife of the ward to thee;” upon which Dr. Johnson observes, that “Maid Marian is a man dressed like a woman, who attends the dancers of the morris.” “In the ancient songs of Robin Hood,” says Percy, “frequent mention is made of Maid Marian, who appears to have been his concubine. I could quote,” adds he, “many passages in my old MS. to this purpose, but shall produce only one:
Mr. Steevens, too, after citing the old play of “The downfall of Robert earl of Huntington,” 1601, to prove “that Maid Marian was originally a name assumed by Matilda, the daughter of Robert, Lord Fitzwater, while Robin Hood remained in a state of outlawry,” observes, that “Shakespeare speaks of Maid Marian in her degraded state, when she was {xxxii} represented by a strumpet or a clown;” and refers to figure 2 in the plate at the end of the play, with Mr. Tollet’s observations on it. The widow, in Sir W. Davenant’s “Love and Honour,” says, “I have been Mistress Marian in a maurice ere now;” and Mr. Warton (11) “His company,” &c.] See the entire passage quoted from Major in a subsequent note. “By such bootyes as he could get,” says the writer of the Sloane MS., “his company encreast to an hundred and a halfe.” (12) —“the words of an old writer.”] The author of the Sloane manuscript; which adds: “after such maner he procured the pynner of Wakefeyld to become one of his company, and a freyr called Muchel [r. Tuck] ... Scarlock he induced upon this occasion: one day meeting him as he walket solitary & like to a man forlorne, because a mayd to whom he was affyanced was taken from [him] by the violence of her frends, & given to another that was old & welthy, whereupon Robin, understanding when the maryage-day should be, came to the church as a begger, & having his own company not far of, which came in so soone as they hard {xxxiii} the sound of his horne, he tooke the bryde perforce from him that [bare] in hand to have marryed her, & caused the preist to wed her & Scarlocke togeyther.” (See part ii. song 8.) This MS., of which great part is merely the old legend or Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode turned into prose, appears to have been written before the year 1600. (13) “In shooting,” &c.] MS. Sloan. Grafton also speaks of our hero’s “excellyng principally in archery or shooting, his manly courage agreeyng thereunto.” Their archery, indeed, was unparalleled, as both Robin Hood and Little John have frequently shot an arrow a measured mile, or 1760 yards, which it is supposed no one, either before or since, was ever able to do. “Tradition,” says Master Charlton, “informs us that in one of ‘Robin Hood’s’ peregrinations, he, attended by his trusty mate Little John, went to dine [at Whitby Abbey] with the abbot Richard, who, having heard them often famed for their great dexterity in shooting with the long bow, begged them after dinner to shew him a specimen thereof; when, to oblige the abbot, they went up to the top of the abbey, whence each of them shot an arrow, which fell not far from Whitby-laths, but on the contrary side of the lane; and in memorial thereof, a pillar was set up by the abbot in the place where each of the arrows was found, which are yet standing in these our days; that field where the pillar for Robin Hood’s arrow stands being still called Robin Hood’s field, and the other where the pillar for Little John’s arrow is placed, still preserving the name of John’s field. Their distance from Whitby Abbey is more than a measured mile, which seems very far for the flight of an arrow, and is a circumstance that will stagger the faith of many; but as to the credibility of the story, every reader may judge thereof as he thinks proper; only I must here beg leave to observe that these very pillars are mentioned, and the fields called by the aforesaid names, in the old deeds for that ground, now in the possession of Mr. Thomas Watson” (History of Whitby, York, 1779, p. 146). Dr. Meredith Hanmer, in his Chronicle of Ireland (p. 179), speaking of Little John, says, “There are memorable acts reported of him, which I hold not for truth, that he would shoot an arrow a mile off and a great deale more; but them,” adds he, “I leave among the lyes of the land.” (14) “An outlaw, in those times, being deprived of protection, owed no allegiance,” &c.] Such a character was, doubtless, at the period treated of, in a very critical situation; it being equally as legal and meritorious to hunt down and dispatch him as it was to kill a wolf, the head of which animal he was said to bear. “Item foris facit,” says Bracton (who wrote about the time), “omnia que pacis sunt, quia a tempore quo utlagatus est caput gerit lupinum, ita ut impune ab omnibus interfici possit” (l. 2, c. 35). In the great roll of the exchequer, in the 7th year of King Richard I., is an allowance by writ of two marks to Thomas de Prestwude, for bringing to Westminster the head of William de Elleford, an outlaw. (See Madox’s History of the Exchequer, 136.) Those who received or consorted with a person outlawed were subject to the same punishment. Such was the humane policy of our enlightened ancestors! See Note 21. (15)
(Cymbeline, act iii. scene 3). The chief subjects of our hero’s conversation are supposed, by a poetical genius of the 16th {xxxvi} century, to have been the commendation of a forest-life and the ingratitude of mankind.
It has been conjectured, however, that, in the winter season, our hero and his companions severally quartered themselves in villages or country-houses more or less remote, with persons of whose fidelity they were assured. It is not improbable, at the same time, that they might have tolerably comfortable habitations erected in the woods. Archery, which our hero and his companions appear to have carried to a state of perfection, continued to be cultivated for some ages after their time, down, indeed, to that of Henry VIII., or about the year 1540, when, owing to the introduction of artillery and matchlock-guns, it became neglected, and the bowmen of Cressy and Agincourt utterly extinct; though it may be still a question whether a body of expert archers would not, even at this day, be superior to an equal {xxxvii} number armed with muskets. (16)
This species of cloth is mentioned by Spenser (Faerie Queene, VI. ii. 5):
It is likewise noticed by our poet himself, in another place:
See Polyolbion, song xxv., where the marginal note says, “Lincolne anciently dyed the best green in England.” Thus Coventry had formerly the reputation of dying the best blue. {xxxix} See Ray’s Proverbs, p. 178. Kendal green is equally famous, and appears to have been cloth of a similar quality. This colour was adopted by foresters to prevent their being too readily discovered by the deer. See Sir John Wynne’s History of the Guedir Family (Barrington’s Miscellanies), p. 419. Thus the Scotish Highlanders used to wear brown plaids to prevent their being distinguished among the heath. It is needless to observe that green has ever been the favourite dress of an archer, hunter, &c. See Note 34.
Lincoln green was well known in France in or before the 13th century. Thus, in an old fabliau, transprosed by M. Le Grand (Fabliaux ou Contes, iv. 13), “Il mit donc son surcot fourrÉ d’Écureuil, et sa belle robe d’Estanfort teinte en verd.” Estanfort is Stamford, in Lincolnshire. (17)
“But who,” exclaims Dr. Fuller, having cited this passage, “made him a judge? or gave him a commission to take where it might be best spared, and give where it was most wanted?” That same power, one may answer, which authorises kings to take where it can be worst spared, and give it where it is least wanted. Our hero, in this respect, was a knight-errant; and wanted no other commission than that of Justice, whose cause he militated. His power, compared with that of the king of England, was by no means either equally usurped or equally abused: the one reigned over subjects (or slaves) as a master (or tyrant), the other possessed no authority but what was delegated to him by the free suffrage of his adherents, for their general good: and as for the rest, it would be absurd to blame in Robin what we should praise in Richard.
(18) “But it is to be remembered,” &c.] The passage from Major’s work, which has been already quoted, is here given entire (except as to a single sentence introduced in another place). “Circa hÆc tempora [s. Ricardi I.] ut auguror, Robertus Hudus & Parvus Joannes latrones famatissimi, in nemoribus latuerunt, solum opulentum virorum bona diripientes. Nullum nisi eos invadentem vel resistentem pro suarum rerum tuitione occiderunt. Centum sagittarios ad pugnam aptissimos Robertus latrociniis aluit quos 400 viri fortissimi invadere non audebant. FÆminam nullum opprimi permisit, nec pauperum bona surripuit, verum eos ex abbatum bonis ablatis opipare pavit. Viri rapinam improbo sed latronum omnium humanissimus & princeps erat” (Majoris BritanniÆ Historia, Edin. 1740, p. 128). Stowe, in his Annales, 1592, p. 227, gives an almost literal version of the above passage; Richard Robinson versifies it; (19) —“has had the honour to be compared to the illustrious Wallace,” &c.] In the first volume of Peck’s intended supplement to the Monasticon, consisting of collections for the history of PrÆmonstratensian monasteries, now in the British Museum, is a very curious riming Latin poem with the following title: “Prioris Alnwicensis de bello Scotico apud Dumbarr, tempore rigis Edwardi I. dictamen sive rithmus Latinus, quo de Willielmo Wallace Scotico illo Robin Whood, plura sed invidiose canit;” and in the margin are the following date and reference:—“22. Julii 1304. 32. E. 1. Regist. Prem. fol. 59. a.” This, it maybe observed, is the first known instance of our hero’s name being mentioned by any writer whatever; and affords a strong and respectable proof of his early popularity. (20) “The abbot of St. Mary’s in York.”] “In the year 1088, Alan, Earl of Richmond, founded here a stately abbey for black monks to the honour of St. Olave; but it was afterwards dedicated to the Blessed Virgin by the command of king William Rufus. Its yearly revenues at the suppression amounted to £1550, 7s. 9d. Dugd., £2850, 1s. 5d. Speed” (Willis’s Mitred Abbeys, i. 214). The abbots in our hero’s time were—
(21) —“the sheriff of Nottinghamshire.”] Ralph Murdach was sheriff of Derby and Nottinghamshires in the first year of King Richard I., and for the seven years preceding, and William Brewerre in his sixth year, between which and the first no name appears on the roll. See Fuller’s Worthies, &c. In the year 1195, Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, {xliii} justiciary of all England, sent throughout the kingdom this form of oath: that all men of the realm of England would keep the peace of the lord the king to their power; and that they would neither be thieves nor robbers, nor the receivers of such, nor consent to them in anything; and that when they were able to know such-like malefactors, they would take them to the utmost of their power, and deliver them to the sheriff; who in no wise should be delivered unless by the lord the king or his chief justice; and if unable to take them, they should cause the bailiffs of the lord the king to know who they were: and, cry being raised for pursuing outlaws, robbers, thieves, or their receivers, all should fully do that suit to the utmost of their power, &c. Knights were to be assigned for these purposes, and men chosen and faithful were sent to execute them in every county, who by the oath of true men of the vicinages took many and put them in the king’s prisons; but many, being forewarned, and conscious of evil, left their houses and possessions and fled (R. de Hoveden, p. 757). (22) —“an anecdote preserved by Fordun,” &c.] “De quo eciam quÆdam commendabilia recitantur, sicut patuit in hoc, quod cum ipse quondam in Barnisdale iram [f. ob iram] regis & fremitum principis, missam, ut solitus erat, devotissime audiret, nec aliqua necessitate volebat interrumpere officium, quadam die cum audiret missam, À quodam vicecomite & ministris regis, sÆpius per prius ipsum infestantibus, in illo secretissimo loco nemorali, ubi missÆ interfuit, exploratus, venientes ad eum qui de suis hoc perceperunt, ut omni annisu fugeret suggesserunt, qui, ob reverentiam sacramenti, quod tunc devotissime venerabatur, omnino facere recusavit. Sed ceteris suis, ob metum mortis trepidantibus, Robertus tantum confisus in eum, quem coluit reveritus, cum paucissimis, qui tunc forte ei affuerunt, inimicos congressus & eos de facili devicit, et de eorum spoliis ac redemptione ditatus, ministros ecclesiÆ & missas semper in majori veneratione semper & de post habere prÆelegit, attendens quod wlgariter dictum est:
J. De Fordun Scotichronicon, À Hearne, Ox. 1722, p. 774. {xliv} This passage is found in no other copy of Fordun’s Chronicle than one in the Harleian Library. Its suppression in all the rest may be fairly accounted for on the principle which is presumed to have influenced the conduct of the ancient English historians. See Note 1. (23) —“a proclamation was published,” &c.] “The king att last,” says the Harleian MS., “sett furth a proclamation to have him apprehended,” &c. Grafton, after having told us that he “practised robberyes,” &c., adds, “The which beyng certefyed to the king, and he beyng greatly offended therewith, caused his proclamation to be made that whosoever would bryng him quicke or dead, the king would geve him a great summe of money, as by the recordes in the Exchequer is to be seene: But of this promise no man enjoyed any benefite. For the sayd Robert Hood, being afterwardes troubled with sicknesse,” &c. (p. 85.) See Note 14. (24) “At length the infirmities of old age increasing upon him,” &c.] Thus Grafton: “The sayd Robert Hood, beyng troubled with sicknesse, came to a certain nonry in Yorkshire called Bircklies [r. Kircklies], where desiryng to be let blood, he was betrayed and bled to death.” The Sloane MS. says that “[Being] dystempered with could and age, he had great payne in his lymmes, his bloud being corrupted, therefore to be eased of his payne by letting bloud, he repayred to the priores of Kyrkesly, which some say was his aunt, a woman very skylful in physique & surgery; who, perceyving him to be Robyn Hood, & waying howe fel an enimy he was to religious persons, toke reveng of him for her owne howse and all others by letting him bleed to death. It is also sayd that one Sir Roger of Doncaster, bearing grudge to Robyn for some injury, incyted the priores, with whome he was very familiar, in such a maner to dispatch him.” See the Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode, ad finem. The Harleian MS., after mentioning the proclamation “sett furth to have him apprehended,” adds, “At which time it happened he fell sick at a nunnery in Yorkshire called Birkleys [r. Kirkleys]; & desiring there to be let blood, hee was betrayed & made bleed to death.” Kirkleys, Kirklees, or Kirkleghes, formerly Kuthale, in the {xlv} deanery of Pontefract, and archdeaconry of the West Riding of Yorkshire, was a Cistercian, or, as some say, a Benedictine nunnery, founded, in honour of the Virgin Mary and St. James, by Reynerus Flandrensis in the reign of King Henry II. Its revenues at the dissolution were somewhat about £20, and the site was granted (36 Hen. 8.) to John Tasburgh and Henry Savill, from whom it came to one of the ancestors of Sir George Armytage, Bart., the present possessor. The remains of the building (if any) are very inconsiderable, and its register has been searched after in vain. See Tanner’s Notitia, p. 674. Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodiensis, p. 91. Hearne’s “Account of Several Antiquities in and about the University of Oxford,” at the end of Leland’s Itinerary, vol. ii. p. 128. In 1706 was discovered, among the ruins of the nunnery, the monument of Elisabeth de Staynton, prioress; but it is not certain that this was the lady from whom our hero experienced such kind assistance. See Thoresby and Hearne ubi supra. “One may wonder,” says Dr. Fuller, “how he escaped the hand of justice, dying in his bed, for ought is found to the contrary; but it was because he was rather a merry than a mischievous thief (complementing passengers out of their purses), never murdering any but deer, and .... ‘feasting’ the vicinage with his vension” (Worthies, p. 320). See the following note. (25) “He was interred under some trees at a short distance from the house; a stone being placed over his grave with an inscription to his memory.”] “Kirkley monasterium monialium, ubi Ro: Hood nobilis ille exlex sepultus” (Leland’s Collectanea, i. 54). “Kirkleys Nunnery, in the Woods, whereof Robin Hood’s grave is, is between Halifax and Wakefield upon Calder” (Letter from Jo. Savile to W. Camden, Illus. viro epis. 1691).
See also Camden’s Britannia, 1695, p. 709. {xlvi} In the second volume of Dr. Stukeley’s Itinerarium Curiosum is an engraving of “the prospect of Kirkley’s abby, where Robin Hood dyed, from the footway leading to Heartishead church, at a quarter of a mile distance. A. The New Hall. B. The Gatehouse of the Nunnery. C. The trees among which Robin Hood was buryed. D. The way up the Hill were this was drawn. E. Bradley wood. F. Almondbury hill. G. Castle field. Drawn by Dr. Johnston among his Yorkshire Antiquitys, p. 54 of the drawings. E. Kirkall, sculp.” It makes plate 99 of the above work, but is unnoticed in the letterpress. According to the Sloane MS., the prioress, after “letting him bleed to death, buryed him under a great stone by the hywayes syde;” which is agreeable to the account in Grafton’s Chronicle, where it is said that, after his death, “the prioresse of the same place caused him to be buried by the highway-side, where he had used to rob and spoyle those that passed that way. And vpon his grave the sayde prioresse did lay a very fayre stone, wherein the names of Robert Hood, William of Goldesborough, and others were graven. And the cause why she buryed him there was, for that the common passengers and travailers, knowyng and seeyng him there buryed, might more safely and without feare take their jorneys that way, which they durst not do in the life of the sayd outlawes. And at eyther ende of the sayde tombe was erected a crosse of stone, which is to be seene there at this present.” “Near unto ‘Kirklees’ the noted Robin Hood lies buried under a grave-stone that yet remains near the park, but the inscription scarce legible” (Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodiensis, fo. 1715, p. 91). In the Appendix, p. 576, is the following note, with a reference to “page 91:”— “Amongst the papers of the learned Dr. Gale, late dean of Yorke, was found this epitaph of Robin Hood: Hear undernead dis laitl stean laiz robert earl of Huntingtun nea arcir ver az hie sa geud an pipl kauld im robin heud sick utlawz az hi an iz men vil england nivr si agen. obiit 24 [r. 14] kal dekembris 1247.” The genuineness of this epitaph has been questioned. Dr. Percy, in the first edition of his “Reliques of Ancient English Poetry” (1765), says “It must be confessed this epitaph is suspicious, because in the most ancient poems of Robin Hood there is no mention of this imaginary earldom.” This reason, however, is by no means conclusive, the most ancient poem now extant having no pretension to the antiquity claimed by the epitaph: and indeed the Doctor himself should seem to have afterward had less confidence in it, as, in both the subsequent editions, those words are omitted, and the learned critic merely observes that the epitaph appears to him suspicious. It will be admitted that the bare suspicion of this ingenious writer, whose knowledge and judgment of ancient poetry are so conspicuous and eminent, ought to have considerable weight. As for the present editor’s part, though he does not pretend to say that the language of this epitaph is that of Henry the Third’s time, nor indeed to determine of what age it is, he can perceive nothing in it from whence one should be led to pronounce it spurious, i.e. that it was never inscribed on the grave-stone of Robin Hood. That there actually was some inscription upon it in Thoresby’s time, though then scarce legible, is evident from his own words: and it should be remembered as well that the last century was not the era of imposition, as that Dr. Gale was both too good and too learned a man either to be capable of it himself or to be liable to it from others. That industrious chronologist and topographer, as well as respectable artist and citizen, master Thomas Gent, of York, in his “List of religious houses,” annexed to “The ancient and modern state of” that famous city, 1730, 12mo, p. 234, informs us that he had been told “that his [Robin Hood’s] tombstone, having his effigy thereon, was order’d, not many years ago, by a certain knight to be placed as a harth-stone in his great hall. When it was laid overnight, the next morning it was ‘surprizingly’ removed [on or to] one side; and {xlviii} so three times it was laid, and as successively turned aside. The knight, thinking he had done wrong to have brought it thither, order’d it should be drawn back again; which was performed by a pair of oxen and four horses, when twice the number could scarce do it before. But as this,” adds the sagacious writer, “is a story only, it is left to the reader to judge at pleasure.” N.B.—This is the second instance of a miracle wrought in favour of our hero! In Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, p. cviii., is “the figure of the stone over the grave of Robin Hood [in Kirklees park, being a plain stone with a sort of cross fleuree thereon], now broken and much defaced, the inscription illegible. That printed in Thoresby, Ducat. Leod. 576, from Dr. Gale’s papers, was never on it. The old epitaph is, by some anonymous hand, in a work entitled “Sepulchrorum inscriptiones; or a curious collection of 900 of the most remarkable epitaphs,” Westminster, 1727 (vol. ii. p. 73), thus not inelegantly paraphrased:
(26) —“various dramatic exhibitions.”] The earliest of these performances now extant is “The playe of Robyn Hode, very proper to be played in Maye games,” which is inserted in the Appendix to this work, and may probably be as old as the 15th century. That a different play, however, on the same subject has formerly existed, seems pretty certain from a somewhat curious passage in “The famous chronicle of king Edward the first, sirnamed Edward Longshankes,” &c., by George Peele, printed in 1593.
2. “The downfall of Robert earle of Huntington, afterward {l} called Robin Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with his love to chaste Matilda, the lord Fitzwater’s daughter, afterwardes his faire maide Marian. Acted by the right honourable, the earle of Notingham, lord high admirall of England, his servants. ¶ Imprinted at London, for William Leake, 1601.” 4to, b. l. 3. “The death of Robert, earle of Huntington, otherwise called Robin Hood of merrie Sherwodde: with the lamentable tragedie of chaste Matilda, his faire maid Marian, poysoned at Dunmowe, by king John. Acted, &c. ¶ Imprinted &c. [as above] 1601.” 4to, b. l. These two plays, usually called the first and second part of Robin Hood, were always, on the authority of Kirkman, falsely ascribed to Thomas Heywood, till Mr. Malone fortunately retrieved the names of the true authors, Anthony Mundy and Henry Chettle. The first part, or downfall of Robert earle of Huntington, is supposed to be performed at the court and command of Henry VIII., the poet Skelton being the dramatist, and {li} acting the part of chorus. The introductory scene commences thus:
{lii} During the exhibition of the second part of the dumb show, Skelton instructs the audience as follows:
After some Skeltonical rimes, and a scene betwixt the prior, the sheriff, and justice Warman, concerning the outlawry, which appears to be proclaimed, and the taking of Earl Huntington at dinner, “Enter Robin Hoode, little John following him; Robin having his napkin on his shoulder, as if hee were sodainly raised from dinner.” He is in a violent rage at being outlawed, and Little John endeavours to pacify him. Marian being distressed at his apparent disorder, he dissembles with her. After she is gone, John thus addresses him:
The company now enters, and Robin charges them with the conspiracy, and rates their treacherous proceedings. Little John in attempting to remove the goods is set upon by Warman and the sheriff; and during the fray “Enter Prince John, Ely and the prior, and others.” Little John tells the prince he but defends the box containing his own gettings; upon which his royal highness observes,
Ely gives the prior his commission, with directions to make speed, lest “in his country-house all his heards be solde;” and gives Warman a patent “for the high sheriffewick of Nottingham.” After this, “Enter Robin like a citizen; and then the queen and Marian disguised for each other. Robin takes Marian, and leaves the queen to Prince John, who is {liv} so much enraged at the deception that he breaks the head of Ely’s messenger. Sir Hugh, brother to Lord Lacy, and steward to Ely, who had been deeply concerned in Huntington’s ruin, is killed in a brawl by Prince John, whom Ely orders to be arrested; but the prince, producing letters from the king revoking Ely’s appointment, “lifts up his drawne sworde,” and “Exit, cum Lester and Lacy,” in triumph. Then “Enter Robin Hoode, Matilda at one doore, little John and Much the Miller’s sonne at another doore.” After mutual congratulations, Robin asks if it be
Here “Enter Frier Tucke;” some conversation passes, and the frier Skeltonizes; after which he departs, saying,
To them enters Ralph, the sheriff’s man, to acquaint him that the carnifex, or executor of the law, had fallen off his “curtall” and was “cripplefied” and rendered incapable of performing his office; so that the sheriff was to become his deputy. The sheriff insists that Ralph shall serve the turn, which he refuses. In the midst of the altercation, “Enter Robin Hoode, like an old man,” who tells the sheriff that the two outlaws had murdered his young son, and undone himself; so that for revenge-sake he desires they may be delivered to him. They denying the charge, “Robin whispers with them,” and with the sheriff’s leave, and his man’s help, unbinds them: then, sounds his horn; and “Enter little John, Much ... Fight; the frier, making as if he helpt the sheriffe, knockes down his men crying, Keepe the king’s peace. Sheriffe [perceiving that it is “the outlawed earle of Huntington”] runnes away, and his men.” (See the ballad of “Robin Hood rescuing the widow’s sons,” part ii. num. xxiii.) {lvi}
Then follows a scene betwixt old Fitzwater and Prince John, in the course of which the prince, as a reason to induce Fitzwater to recall his daughter Matilda, tells him that she is living in an adulterous state, for that
Fitzwater, on this, flies into a passion, and accuses the prince of being already married to “earle Chepstowe’s daughter.” They “fight; John falles.” Then enter the queen, &c., and John sentences Fitzwater to banishment: after which “Enter Scathlocke and Scarlet, winding their hornes at severall doores. To them enter Robin Hoode, Matilda, all in greene ... Much, little John; all the men with bowes and arrowes.
Some cordial expressions pass between Robin and Matilda. He commands all the yeomen to be cheerful; and orders Little John to read the articles.
In the next scene, we find Frier Tucke feignedly entering into a conspiracy with the prior and Sir Doncaster to serve an execution on Robin in disguise. Jinny, the widow Scarlet’s daughter, coming in on her way to Sherwood, is persuaded by the frier to accompany him, “disguised in habit like a pedler’s mort.” Fitzwater enters like an old man:—sees Robin sleeping on a green bank, Marian strewing flowers on him; pretends to be blind and hungry, and is regaled by them. In answer to a question why the fair Matilda (Fitzwater’s daughter) had changed her name, Robin tells him it is
“Enter Frier Tucke and Jinny like pedlers singing,” and afterward “Sir Doncaster and others weaponed.” The frier discovers the plot, and a fray ensues. The scene then changes to the court, where the prior is informed of six of his barns being destroyed by fire, and of the different execrations of all ranks upon him, as the undoer of “the good lord Robert, earle of Huntington;” that the convent of St. Mary’s had elected “Olde father Jerome” prior in his place; and lastly, a herald brings his sentence of banishment, which is confirmed by the entrance of the prior. Lester brings an account of the imprisonment of his gallant sovereign, King Richard, by the Duke of Austria, and requires his ransom to be sent. He then introduces a description of his matchless valour in the Holy Land. John not only refuses the ransom-money, but usurps the style of king; upon which Lester grows furious, {lix} and rates the whole company. The following is part of the dialogue:
After this, and more on the same subject, the scene returns to the forest, where Ely, being taken by Much, “like a countryman with a basket,” is examined and detected by Robin, who promises him protection and service. On their departure:
“Enter Warman banished.” He laments his fall, and applies to a cousin, on whom he had bestowed large possessions, for relief; but receives nothing, except reproaches for his treachery to his noble master. The jailor of Nottingham, who was indebted to him for his place, refuses him even a scrap of his dog’s meat, and reviles him in the severest terms. Good-wife Tomson, whose husband he had delivered from death, to his great joy, promises him a caudle, but {lx} fetches him a halter,
He assumes the name of Woodnet, and is detected by Scathlocke and Frier Tucke. The prince and Scathlocke fight, Scathelocke grows weary, and the frier takes his place. Marion enters, and perceiving the frier, parts the combatants. Robin enters, and John submits to him. Much enters, running, with information of the approach of “the king and twelve and twenty score of horses.” Robin places his people in order. The trumpets sound, the king and his train enter, a general pardon ensues, and the king confirms the love of Robin and Matilda. Thus the play concludes, Skelton promising the second part, and acquainting the audience of what it should consist. The second part, or death of Robert earle of Huntington, is a pursuit of the same story. The scene, so far as our hero is concerned, lyes in Sherwood. A few extracts may not be unacceptable. {lxi} “Sc. iiii. Winde hornes. Enter king, queene, &c. Frier Tuck carrying a stag’s head, dauncing.” The frier has been sent for to read the following incription upon a copper ring round the stag’s neck:
The king orders “head, ring, and all” to be sent to Nottingham Castle, to be kept for monuments. Fitzwater tells him he has heard “an olde tale,”
Upon which his majesty very sagaciously remarks,
The next quotation may be of service to Dr. Percy, who {lxiii} has been pleased to question our hero’s nobility, because “the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom,” and the old legend expressly asserts him “to have been a yeoman.” It is very true; and we shall here not only find his title established, but also discover the secret of his not being usually distinguished or designed by it.
Now, the reason that “the most ancient poems make no mention of this earldom,” and the old legend expressly asserts him “to have been a yeoman,” appears, plainly enough, to be, that as, pursuant to his own injunction, he was never called, either by his followers, or in the vicinity, by any other name than Robin Hood, so particularly the minstrels, who were always, no doubt, welcome to Sherwood, Our hero is, at length, poisoned by a drink which Doncaster and the prior, his uncle, had prepared for him to give to the king. His departing scene and last dying speech are beautiful and pathetic.
He desires to be buried
directs the manner of his funeral; and bids his yeomen,
The king, upon the earl’s death, expresses his sorrow for the tragical event; ratifies the will; repeats the directions for the funeral; and says,
The whole concludes with the following solemn dirge:
The poet then prosecutes the legend of Matilda, who is finally poisoned, by the procurement of King John, in Dunmow Priory. The story of this lady, whom the author of these plays is supposed to have been the first that converted into the character of Maid Marian, or connected in any shape with the history of Robin Hood, is thus related by Stow, under the year 1213: “The chronicle of Dunmow sayth, this discord arose betwixt the king and his barons, because of Mawd called the faire, daughter to Robert Fitzwalter, whome the king loved, but her father would not consent; and thereupon ensued warre throughout England. ..... Whilst Mawd the faire remayned at Dunmow, there came a messenger unto her from King John about his suite in love, but because she would not agree, the messenger poysoned a boyled or potched egge against she was hungrie, whereof she died” (Annales, 1592). Two of Drayton’s heroical epistles pass between King John and Matilda. He has also written her legend. 4. “Robin Hood’s penn’orths, by Wm. Haughton.” 5. “Metropolis coronata, the triumphs of ancient drapery: or, rich cloathing of England, in a second yeeres performance. In honour of the advancement of Sir John Jolles, knight, to the high office of lord maior of London, and taking his oath for the same authoritie, on Monday being the 30. day of October, 1615. Performed in heartie affection to him, and at the bountifull charges of his worthy brethren the truely honourable society of drapers, the first that received such dignitie, in this citie. Devised and written by A. M. {lxvi} [Anthony Mundy] citizen and draper of London.” 1615, 4to. This is one of the pageants formerly usual on Lord Mayor’s day, and of which several are extant, written as well by our author Mundy, “After all these shewes, thus ordered in their appointed places, followeth another device of huntsmen, all clad in greene, with their bowes, arrowes and bugles, and a new slaine deere, carried among them. It savoureth of earle Robert de la Hude, sometime the noble earle of Huntington, and sonne in law (by marriage) to old Fitz-Alwine, “Afterward, [viz. after “Fitz-Alwine’s speech to the lord maior at night,”] as occasion best presenteth itselfe, when the heate of all other employments are calmly overpast, earle Robin Hood, with fryer Tuck, and his other brave huntesmen, attending (now at last) to discharge their duty to my lord, which the busie turmoile of the whole day could not before affoord: they shewe themselves to him in this order, and earle Robin himselfe thus speaketh.
The song of Robin Hood and his huntes-men.
6. “Robin Hood and his pastoral May games.” 1624. 7. “Robin Hood and his crew of soldiers.” 1627. These two titles are inserted among the plays mentioned by Chetwood in his British Theatre (p. 67) as written by anonymous authors in the 16th century to the Restoration. But neither Langbaine, who mentions both, nor any other person, pretends to have ever seen either of them. The former, indeed, may possibly be “The playe of Robyn {lxix} Hode,” already noticed; and the other is probably a future article. Langbaine, it is to be observed, gives no date to either piece; so that it may be fairly concluded those above specified are of Chetwood’s own invention, which appears to have been abundantly fertile in every species of forgery and imposture. 8. “The sad shepherd, or a tale of Robin Hood.” The story of our renowned archer cannot be said to have been wholly occupied by bards without a name, since, not to mention Mundy or Drayton, the celebrated Ben Jonson intended a pastoral drama on this subject, under the above title; but dying, in the year 1637, before it was finished, little more than the two first acts have descended down to us. His last editor (Mr. Whalley), while he regrets that it is but a fragment, speaks of it in raptures, and, indeed, not without evident reason, many passages being eminently poetical and judicious. “The persons of the play,” so far as concerns our immediate purpose, are: [1] “Robin Hood, the chief woodman [i.e. forester], master of the feast. [2] Marian, his lady, the mistress. [3] Friar Tuck, the chaplain and steward. [4] Little John, bow-bearer. [5, 6] Scarlet, Scathlocke, By “the argument of the second act” it appears that the witch had “taken the shape of Marian to abuse Robin Hood and perplex his guests.” However, upon an explanation of the matter with the true Marian, the trick is found out, the venison recovered, and “Robin Hood dispatches out his woodmen to hunt and take her: which ends the act.” The third act was designed to be taken up with the chase of the witch, her various schemes to elude the pursuers, and the discovery of Earine in the swineherd’s enchanted oak. Nothing more of the author’s design appearing, we have only to regret the imperfect state of a pastoral drama, which, according to the above learned and ingenious editor, would have done honour to the nation. 9. “Robin Hood and his crew of souldiers, a comedy acted at Nottingham on the day of his saCRed majesties corronation. Vivat rex. The actors names: Robin Hood, commander; Little John, William Scadlocke, souldiers; messenger from the sheriffe. London, printed for James Davis, 1661.” 4to. This is an interlude, of a few pages and no merit, alluding to the late rebellion, and the subject of the day. The outlaws, convinced by the reasoning of the sheriff’s messenger, become loyal subjects. 10. “Robin Hood. An opera, as it is perform’d at Lee’s and Harper’s great theatrical booth in Bartholomew-fair.” 1730. 8vo. 11. “Robin Hood.” 1751. 8vo. This was a ballad-farce, acted at Drury-lane Theatre, in which the following favourite song was originally sung by Mr. Beard, in the character of Robin Hood:
12. “Robin Hood; or Sherwood forest: a comic opera. As performed at the theatre-royal in Covent-garden. By Leonard Mac Nally, esq.” 1784. 8vo. {lxxii} This otherwise insignificant performance was embellished with some fine music by Mr. Shield. It has been since reduced to, and is still frequently acted as, an after-piece. A drama on the subject of Robin Hood, under the title of The Foresters, has been long expected from the elegant author of The School for Scandal. The first act, said to have been written many years ago, is, by those who have seen or heard it, spoken of with admiration. (27) —“innumerable poems, rimes, songs and ballads.”] The original and most ancient pieces of this nature have all perished in the lapse of time, during a period of between five and six hundred years’ continuance; and all we now know of them is that such things once existed. In the Vision of Pierce Plowman, an allegorical poem, thought to have been composed soon after the year 1360, and generally ascribed to Robert Langeland, the author introduces an ignorant, idle, and drunken secular priest, the representative, no doubt, of the parochial clergy of that age, in the character of Sloth, who makes the following confession:
{lxxiii} Fordun, the Scotish historian, who wrote about 1340, speaking of Robin Hood and Little John, and their accomplices, says, “of whom the foolish vulgar in comedies and tragedies make lewd entertainment, and are delighted to hear the jesters and minstrels sing them above all other ballads;”
This, indeed, may be part of the “story of Robin Hood and Little John,” which M. Wilhelm Bedwell found in the ancient MS. lent him by his much honoured good friend M. G. Withers, whence he extracted and published “The Turnament of Tottenham,” a poem of the same age, and which seemed to him to be done (perhaps but transcribed) by Sir Gilbert Pilkington, formerly, as some had thought, parson of that parish. That poems and stories on the subject of our hero and his companions were extraordinarily popular and common before and during the 16th century is evident from the testimony of divers writers. Thus, Alexander Barclay, priest, in his translation of The Shyp of Folys, printed by Pynson in 1508, and by John Cawood in 1570,
Again:
Again:
{lxxvi} The same Barclay, in the fourth of his Egloges, subjoined to the last edition of The Ship of Foles, but originally printed soon after 1500, has the following passage:
Robert Braham, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to Lydgate’s Troy-book, 1555, is of opinion that “Caxton’s recueil” [of Troy] is “worthye to be numbred amongest the trifelinge tales and barrayne luerdries of Robyn Hode and Bevys of Hampton.” (See Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, by Herbert, p. 849.) “For one that is sand blynd,” says Sir Thomas Chaloner, “would take an asse for a moyle, or another prayse a rime of Robyn Hode for as excellent a making as Troylus of Chaucer, yet shoulde they not straight-waies be counted madde therefore?” (Erasmus’s Praise of Folye, sig. h.) “If good lyfe,” observes Bishop Latimer, “do not insue and folowe upon our readinge to the example of other, we myghte as well spende that tyme in reading of prophane hystories, of Canterburye tales, or a fit of Roben Hode” (Sermons, sig. A. iiii.) The following lines, from a poem in the Hyndford MS. compiled in 1568, afford an additional proof of our hero’s popularity in Scotland:
That the subject was not forgotten in the succeeding age, can be testifyed by Drayton, who is elsewhere quoted, and in his sixth eclogue makes Gorbo thus address “old Winken de Word:” {lxxvii}
Richard Johnson, who wrote “The History of Tom Thumbe,” in prose (London, 1621, 12mo, b. l.), thus prefaces his work: “My merry muse begets no tales of Guy of Warwicke, &c. nor will I trouble my penne with the pleasant glee of Robin Hood, little John, the fryer, and his Marian; nor will I call to mind the lusty Pinder of Wakefield, &c.” In “The Calidonian Forrest,” a sort of allegorical or mystic tale, by John Hepwith, gentleman, printed in 1641, 4to, the author says,
Of one very ancient, and undoubtedly once very popular, song this single line is all that is now known to exist: {lxxviii} “Robin Hood in Barnsdale stood.” However, though but a line, it is of the highest authority in Westminster Hall, where, in order to the decision of a knotty point, it has been repeatedly cited, in the most solemn manner, by grave and learned judges. M. 6 Jac. B. R. Witham v. Barker, Yelv. 147. Trespass, for breaking plaintif’s close, &c. Plea. Liberum tenementum of Sir John Tyndall, and justification as his servant and by his command. Replication, That it is true it is his freehold, but that long before the time when &c. he leased to plaintif at will, who entered and was possessed until, &c. traversing, that defendant entered, &c. by command of Sir John. Demurrer: and adjudged against plaintif, on the ground of the replication being bad, as not setting forth any seisin or possession in Sir John, out of which a lease at will could be derived. For a title made by the plea or replication should be certain to all intents, because it is traversable. Here, therefor, he should have stated Sir John’s seisin, as well as the lease at will; which is not done here: “mes tout un come il ust replie Robin Whood in Barnwood stood, absque hoc q def. p commandement Sir John. Quod nota. Per Fenner, Williams et Crook justices sole en court. Et judgment done accordant. Yelv. p def.” In the case of Bush v. Leake, B. R. Trin. 23 G. 3, Buller, justice, cited the case of Coulthurst v. Coulthurst, C. B. Pasch. 12 G. 3 (an action on bond), and observed, “There a case in Yelverton was alluded to, where the court said, you might as well say, by way of inducement to a traverse, Robin Hood in Barnwood stood.” It is almost unnecessary to observe, because it will be shortly proved, that Barnwood, in the preceding quotations, ought to be Barnsdale. This celebrated and important line occurs as the first of a foolish mock-song, inserted in an old mortality, intitled “A new interlude and a mery of the nature of the iiii elementes,” supposed to have been printed by John Rastall about 1520; where it is thus introduced:
“The lives, stories, and giftes of men which are contained in the bible, they [the papists] read as thinges no more pertaining unto them than a tale of Robin Hood” (Tyndale, Prologue to the prophecy of Jonas, about 1531). Gwalter Lynne, printer, in his dedication to Ann, Duchess of Somerset, of “The true beliefe in Christ and his sacramentes,” 1550, says, “I woulde wyshe tharfore that al men, {lxxxi} women, and chyldren, would read it. Not as they haue bene here tofore accustomed to reade the fained storyes of Robin-hode, Clem of the Cloughe, wyth such lyke to passe the tyme wythal,” &c. In 1562, John Alde had license to print “a ballad of Robyn god,” a mistake, it is probable, for Robyn Hod. Alexander Hume, minister of Logie, about 1599, says in one of his “Hymnes or Sacred Songs,” printed in that year, that
Complaint of Scotland, Edin. 1801, Dissertation, p. 221.
All the entire poems and songs known to be extant will be found in the following collection; but many more may be traditionally preserved in different parts of the country which would have added considerably to its value. Most of the songs inserted in the second half of this volume were common broad-sheet ballads, printed in black letter, with woodcuts, between the Restoration and the Revolution; though copies of some few have been found of an earlier date. “Who was the author of the collection intitled Robin Hood’s Garland, no one,” says Sir John Hawkins, “has yet pretended to guess. As some of the songs have in them more of the spirit of poetry than others, it is probable,” he thinks, “it is the work of various hands: that it has from time to time been varied and adapted to the phrase of the times,” he says, “is certain.” None of these songs, it is believed, were collected into a garland till after the Restoration; as the earliest that has been met with, a copy of which is in the possession of Francis Douce, Esq., was printed by W. Thackeray, a noted ballad-monger, in 1670. This, however, contains no more than sixteen songs, some of which, very falsely as it seems, are said to have been “never before printed.” “The latest edition of any worth,” according to Sir John Hawkins, “is that of 1719.” None of the old editions of this garland have any sort of preface: that prefixed to the modern ones, of Bow or Aldermary churchyard, being {lxxxv} taken from the collection of old ballads, 1723, where it is placed at the head of Robin Hood’s birth and breeding. The full title of the last London edition of any note is—“Robin Hood’s Garland: being a complete history of all the notable and merry exploits performed by him and his men on many occasions: To which is added a preface [i.e. the one already mentioned] giving a more full and particular account of his birth, &c., than any hitherto published. [Cut of archers shooting at a target.]
Adorned with twenty-seven neat and curious cuts adapted to the subject of each song. London, Printed and sold by R. Marshall, in Aldermary church-yard, Bow-lane.” 12mo. On the back of the title-page is the following Grub-street address:
The last seven lines are not by the author of the first six, but were added afterwards; perhaps when the twenty-four songs were increased to twenty-seven. (28) —“has given rise to divers proverbs.”] Proverbs, in all countries, are, generally speaking, of very great antiquity; and therefore it will not be contended that those concerning our hero are the oldest we have. It is highly probable, however, that they originated in or near his own time, and of course have existed for upwards of 500 years, which is no modern date. They are here arranged, not, perhaps, according to their exact chronological order, but by the age of the authorities they are taken from. 1. “Good even, good Robin Hood.” The allusion is to civility extorted by fear. It is preserved by Skelton, in that most biting satire against Cardinal Wolsey, “Why come ye not to court?” (Works, 1736, p. 147).
2. “Many men talk of Robin Hood that never shot in his bow.” “That is, many discourse (or prate rather) of matters wherein they have no skill or experience. This proverb is now extended all over England, though originally of Nottinghamshire extraction, where Robin Hood did principally reside in Sherwood forest. He was an arch-robber, and withal an excellent archer; though surely the poet “One may justly wonder,” adds the facetious writer, “this archer did not at last hit the mark, I mean, come to the gallows for his many robberies.” The proverb is mentioned, and given as above, by Sir Edward Coke in his 3d Institute, p. 197. See also Note 26. It is thus noticed by Jonson in “The king’s entertainment at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, 1633:”
{lxxxviii} We likewise meet with it in Epigrams, &c., 1654:
On the back of a ballad in Anthony a Wood’s collection he has written,
Ray gives it thus:
which Kelly has varied, but without authority. Camden’s printer has separated the lines, as distinct proverbs (Remains, 1674):
This proverb likewise occurs in The downfall of Robert earle of Huntington, 1600, and is alluded to in a scarce and curious old tract intitled “The contention betwyxte Church-yeard and Camell, upon David Dycer’s Dreame,” &c. 1560, 4to, b. l.
The Italians appear to have a similar saying:
{lxxxix} 3. “To overshoot Robin Hood.” “And lastly and chiefly, they cry out with open mouth as if they had overshot Robin Hood, that Plato banished them [i.e. poets] out of his commonwealth” (Sir P. Sidney’s Defence of Poesie). 4. “Tales of Robin Hood are good [enough] for fools.” This proverb is inserted in Camden’s Remains, printed originally in 1605; but the word in brackets is supplied from Ray. 5. “To sell Robin Hood’s pennyworths.” “It is spoken of things sold under half their value; or if you will, half sold, half given. Robin Hood came lightly by his ware, and lightly parted therewith; so that he could afford the length of his bow for a yard of velvet. Whithersoever he came, he carried a fair along with him; chapmen crowding to buy his stollen commodities. But seeing the receiver is as bad as the thief, and such buyers are as bad as receivers, the cheap pennyworths of plundered goods may in fine prove dear enough to their consciences” (Fuller’s Worthies, p. 315). This saying is alluded to in the old North-country song of Randal a Barnaby:
6. “Come, turn about, Robin Hood.” Implying that to challenge or defy our hero must have been the ne plus ultra of courage. It occurs in “Wit and Drollery,” 1661:
7. “As crook’d as Robin Hood’s bow.” That is, we are to conceive, when bent by himself. The following stanza of a modern Irish song is the only authority for this proverb that has been met with:
8. “To go round by Robin Hood’s barn.” This saying, which now first appears in print, is used to imply the going of a short distance by a circuitous method, or the farthest way about. (29) —“to swear by him, or some of his companions, appears to have been a usual practice.”] The earliest instance of this practice occurs in a pleasant story among “Certaine merry tales of the mad-men of Gottam,” compiled in the reign of Henry VIII. by Dr. Andrew Borde, an eminent physician of that period, which here follows verbatim, as taken from an old edition in black letter, without date (in the Bodleian Library), being the first tale in the book. “There was two men of Gottam, and the one of them was going to the market at Nottingham to buy sheepe, and the other came from the market; and both met together upon Nottingham bridge. Well met, said the one to the other. Whither be yee going? said he that came from Nottingham. Marry, said he that was going thither, I goe to the market to buy sheepe. Buy sheepe! said the other, and which way wilt thou bring them home? Marry, said the other, I will bring them over this bridge. By Robin Hood, said he that came from Nottingham, but thou shalt not. By Maid Marrion, said he that was going thitherward, but I will. Thou shalt not, said the one. I will, said the other. Ter here! said the one. Shue there! said the other. Then they beate their staves against the ground, one against the other, as there had beene an hundred sheepe betwixt them. Hold in, said the one. Beware the leaping over the bridge of my sheepe, said the other. I care not, said the other. They shall not come this way, said the one. But they shall, said the other. Then said the other, & if that thou make much to doe, I will put my finger in thy mouth. A turd thou wilt, said the other. And as they were at that contention, another man of Gottam {xci} came from the market, with a sacke of meale upon a horse, and seeing and hearing his neighbours at strife for sheepe, and none betwixt them, said, Ah fooles, will you never learn wit? Helpe me, said he that had the meale, and lay my sack upon my shoulder. They did so; and he went to the one side of the bridge, and unloosed the mouth of the sacke, and did shake out all his meale into the river. Now, neighbours, said the man, how much meale is there in my sacke now? Marry, there is none at all, said they. Now, by my faith, said he, even as much wit is in your two heads, to strive for that thing you have not. Which was the wisest of all these three persons, judge you.” “By the bare scalp of Robin Hood’s fat frier,” is an oath put by Shakespeare into the mouth of one of his outlaws in the Two Gentlemen of Verona, act iv. scene 1. “Robin Hood’s fat frier” is Frier Tuck; a circumstance of which Doctor Johnson, who set about explaining that author with a very inadequate stock of information, was perfectly ignorant. (30) —“his songs have been preferred, not only on the most solemn occasion to the psalms of David, but in fact to the New Testament.”] [“On Friday, March 9th, 1733] was executed at Northampton William Alcock for the murder of his wife. He never own’d the fact, nor was at all concern’d at his approaching death, refusing the prayers and assistance of any persons. In the morning he drank more than was sufficient, yet sent and paid for a pint of wine, which being deny’d him, he would not enter the cart before he had his money return’d. On his way to the gallows he sung part of an old song of Robin Hood, with the chorus, Derry, derry, down, To this maybe added, that at Edinburgh, in 1565, “Sandy Stevin menstrall [i.e. musician] was convinced of blasphemy, alledging, That he would give no moir credit to The new testament, then to a tale of Robin Hood, except it wer confirmed be the doctours of the church” (Knox’s Historie of the Reformation in Scotland, Edin. 1732, p. 368). William Roy, in a bitter satire against Cardinal Wolsey, intitled, “Rede me and be nott wrothe For I saye nothynge but trothe,” printed abroad, about 1525, speaking of the bishops, says:
To the same effect is the following passage in another old libel upon the priests, intitled “I playne Piers which can not flatter, a plowe-man men me call,” &c. b. l. n. d. printed in the original as prose:
See also before, p. lxxii. So in Laurence Ramsey’s “Practise of the Divell” (n. d. 4to, b. l.):
(31) “His service to the Word of God.”] “I came once myselfe,” says Bishop Latimer (in his sixth sermon before King Edward VI.), “to a place, riding on a jorney homeward from London, and I sent worde over night into the towne that I would preach there in the morning, bicause it was a holy day, and methought it was an holydayes worke. The churche stode in my way; and I tooke my horse and my company and went thither (I thought I should have found a great companye in the churche), and when I came there, the churche dore was faste locked. I taried there half an hower and more; at last the keye was founde; and one of the parishe commes to me, and sayes, Sir, this is a busie day with us, we cannot heare you; it is Robin Hoodes daye. The parishe are gone abroad to gather for Robin Hoode, I pray you let them not. I was fayne there to geve place to Robin Hoode. I thought my rochet shoulde have bene regarded, thoughe I were not; but it woulde not serve, it was fayne to geve place to Robin Hodes men. {xciv} “It is no laughyng matter, my frendes, it is a weepyng matter, a heavy matter, under the pretence for gatherynge for Robin Hoode, a traytour (32) —“may be called the patron of archery.”] The bow and arrow makers, in particular, have always held his memory in the utmost reverence. Thus, in the old ballad of London’s Ordinary:
The picture of our hero is yet a common sign in the country, and, before hanging-signs were abolished in London, must have been still more so in the City; there being at present no less than a dozen alleys, courts, lanes, &c., to which he or it has given a name. (See Baldwin’s New Complete Guide, 1770.) The Robin Hood Society, a club or assembly for public debate, or school for oratory, is well known. It was held at a public-house, which had once borne the sign, and still retained the name of this great man, in Butcher Row, near Temple Bar. It is very usual in the North of England for a publican whose name fortunately happens to be John Little to have {xcv} the sign of Robin Hood and his constant attendant, with this quibbling subscription:
An honest countryman, admiring the conceit, adopted the lines, with a slight, but, as he thought, necessary alteration, viz.:
Drayton, describing the various ensigns or devices of the English counties at the battle of Agincourt, gives to
(33) —“the supernatural powers he is, in some parts, supposed to have possessed.”] “In the parish of Halifax is an immense stone or rock, supposed to be a Druidical monument, there called Robin Hood’s pennystone, which he is said to have used to pitch with at a mark for his amusement. There is likewise another of these stones, of several tons weight, which the country-people will tell you he threw off an adjoining hill with a spade as he was digging. Every thing of the marvellous kind being here attributed to Robin Hood, as it is in Cornwall to King Arthur” (Watson’s History of Halifax, p. 27). At Birchover, six miles south of Bakewell, and four from Haddon, in Derbyshire, among several singular groups of rocks, are some stones called Robin Hood’s stride, being two {xcvi} of the highest and most remarkable. The people say Robin Hood lived here. (34) —“having a festival allotted to him, and solemn games instituted in honour of his memory,” &c.] These games, which were of great antiquity and different kinds, appear to have been solemnised on the first and succeeding days of May, and to owe their original establishment to the cultivation and improvement of the manly exercise of archery, which was not, in former times, practised merely for the sake of amusement. “I find,” says Stow, “that in the moneth of May, the citizens of London, of all estates, lightlie in every parish, or sometimes two or three parishes joyning together, had their severall mayinges, and did fetch in Maypoles, with divers warlike shewes, with good archers, morrice-dancers, and other devices for pastime all the day long: and towards the evening they had stage-playes and bonefires in the streetes. .... These greate Mayinges and Maygames, made by the governors and masters of this citie, with the triumphant setting up of the greate shafte (a principall Maypole in Cornhill, before the parish church of S. Andrew, therefore called Undershafte) by meane of an insurrection of youthes against alianes on Mayday 1517, the ninth of Henry the Eight, have not beene so freely used as afore” (Survey of London, 1598, p. 72). The disuse of these ancient pastimes, and the consequent “neglect of archerie,” are thus pathetically lamented by Richard Niccolls, in his London’s Artillery, 1616:
The lines,
may be reasonably supposed to allude to Henry VIII., who appears to have been particularly attached, as well to the exercise of archery as to the observance of May. Some short time after his coronation, says Hall, he “came to Westminster with the quene, and all their traine: and on a tyme being there, his grace therles of Essex, Wilshire, and other noble menne, to the numbre of twelve, came sodainly in a mornyng into the quenes chambre, all appareled in short cotes of Kentish Kendal, with hodes on their heddes, and hosen of the same, every one of them his bowe and arrowes, and a sworde and a bucklar, like outlawes, or ‘Robyn’ Hodes men; whereof the quene, the ladies, and al other there were abashed, aswell for the straunge sight, as also for their sodain commyng: and after certayn daunces and pastime made thei departed” (Hen. VIII. fo. 6, b). The same author gives the following curious account of “A maiynge” in the 7th year of this monarch (1516): “The kyng & the quene, accompanied with many lordes & ladies, roade to the high grounde on Shoters hil to take the open ayre, and as they passed by the way they espied a company of tall yomen, clothed all in grene, with grene whodes & bowes and arrowes, to the number of ii. C. Then one of them whiche called hymselfe Robyn Hood, came to the kyng, desyring hym to se his men shote, & the kyng was content. Then he whisteled, and all the ii. C. archers shot & losed at once; and then he whisteled again, and they likewyse shot agayne; their arrowes whisteled by craft of the {xcviii} head, so that the noyes was straunge and great, and muche pleased the kyng, the quene, and all the company. All these archers were of the kynges garde, and had thus appareled themselves to make solace to the kynge. Then Robyn Hood desyred the kyng and quene to come into the grene wood, and to se how the outlawes lyve. The kyng demaunded of the quene and her ladyes, if they durst adventure to go into the wood with so many outlawes. Then the quene said, if it pleased hym, she was content. Then the hornes blewe tyll they came to the wood under Shoters-hill, and there was an arber made of bowes, with a hal, and a great chamber, and an inner chamber, very well made and covered with floures and swete herbes, which the kyng muche praised. Then sayd Robyn Hood, Sir, outlawes brekefastes is venyson, and therefore you must be content with such fare as we use. Then the kyng and quene sate doune, and were served with venyson and vyne by Robyn Hood and his men, to their great contentacion. Then the kyng departed and his company, and Robyn Hood and his men them conduicted: and as they were returnyng, there met with them two ladyes in a ryche chariot drawen with v. horses, and every horse had his name on his head, and on every horse sat a lady with her name written .... and in the chayre sate the lady May, accompanied with lady Flora, richely appareled; and they saluted the kyng with diverse goodly songes, and so brought hym to Grenewyche. At this maiyng was a greate number of people to beholde, to their great solace and confort” (fo. lvi. b). That this sort of May-games was not peculiar to London appears from a passage in Richard Robinson’s “Third assertion Englishe historicall, frendly in favour and furtherance of English archery:”
The games of Robin Hood seem to have been occasionally of a dramatic cast. Sir John Paston, in the time of King Edward IV., complaining of the ingratitude of his servants, mentions one who had promised never to desert him, “and ther uppon,” says he, “I have kepyd hym thys iii yer to pleye seynt Jorge, and Robyn Hod and the sheryf off Notyngham, In some old accounts of the churchwardens of St. Helen’s at Abingdon, Berks, for the year 1556, there is an entry For setting up Robin Hoodes Bower; I suppose, says {c} Warton, for a parish interlude. (See History of English Poetry, ii. 175.) In some places, at least, these games were nothing more, in effect, than a morris-dance, in which Robin Hood, Little John, Maid Marian, and Frier Tuck were the principal personages; the others being a clown or fool, the hobby-horse (which appears, for some reason or other, to have been frequently forgot
Perhaps the clearest idea of these last-mentioned games, about the beginning of the 16th century, will be derived from some curious extracts given by Mr. Lysons in his valuable work intitled “The Environs of London” (vol. i. 1792, p. 226), from the contemporary accounts of the “churchwardens of the parish of Kingston upon Thames.” A fryers cote of russet and a kyrtele of worstyde weltyd with red cloth, a mowrens These games appear to have been discontinued at Kingston, as a parochial undertaking at least, after the above period, as the industrious inquirer found no further entries relating to them. Some of the principal characters of the morris seem to have gradually disappeared, so that at length it consisted only of the dancers, the piper, and the fool. In Mr. Tollet’s window we find neither Robin Hood nor Little John, though Marian and the frier are still distinguished performers.
It is therefore highly probable, as hath been already suggested, that the May-game of Robin Hood and the morris-dance had originally no sort of connection; that the performers had united their forces, because their joint efforts proved more successful, lucrative, or agreeable; and that, in fine, the latter gradually shook off companions from whose association they no longer derived any advantage. An old writer, describing a country bridal show exhibited before Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth Castle in 1575, {cvii} mentions “a lively moris dauns, according too the auncient manner, six daunsers, mawd Marion, and the fool.” Stubbs’s chapter, upon “Lords of mis-rule” (Anatomie of Abuses, 1583) contains a singular description of a grand parochial morris-dance, which is worthy of perusal. It is observable that, in the sham second part of Hudibras, published 1663, this place is said to be
(Grey’s edition of Hudibras, ii. 90.) Of what nature these were (at Kingston) we are not informed. See Plot’s Natural History of Oxfordshire; Leland’s Collectanea, v. Roas. Hocktide or Hock-day was the Tuesday fortnight after Easter. Two falsehoods are asserted of this festival: one, that its celebration was owing to the general joy excited by the death of Hardecnute, which in fact took place on the 8th of June: the other, that it was the anniversary of the general slaughter of the Danes in 1042; which Henry of Huntingdon and others expressly fix on St. Brice’s day, being the 13th of November. It plainly appears, by these extracts, that Robyn Hode, Little John, the frere, and mayde Maryan were fitted out at the same time with the mores daunsars, and, consequently, it would seem, united with them in one and the same exhibition. “Also it was said, that the ladie hir selfe, the same daie hir husband and she should be crowned, said that she feared they should prove but as a summer king and queene, such as in countrie townes the yoong folks choose for short to danse about maipoles” (Holinshed, at the year 1306). As to the original institution of May-poles, or king and queen of May,—in a word, of the primitive purpose and celebration of a popular festival at that season,—nothing {cviii} satisfactory or consequential can be discovered. The curious reader, at the same time, may consult Spelman’s Glossary, voce MAIUMA, and Ducange, vv. MAJUMA, MAIUS. In an old manuscript music-book given lately by Mr. Dalziel to the Advocates’ Library are the following scraps of songs about Robin Hood:
Much curious matter on the subject of the morris-dance is to be found in “Mr. Tollet’s opinion concerning the Morris-dancers upon his Window.” (See Steevens’s Shakespeare, v. 425, edition 1778, or viii. 596, edition 1793. See also Mr. Waldron’s notes upon the Sad Shepherd, 1783, p. 255.) Morris-dancers are said to be yet annually seen in Norfolk, In Scotland, “The game of Robin Hood was celebrated in the month of May. The populace assembled previous to {cvix} the celebration of this festival, and chose some respectable “As numerous meetings for disorderly mirth are apt to engender tumult, when the minds of the people came to be agitated with religious controversy, it was found necessary to repress the game Notwithstanding the above representation, it is certain that these amusements were considerably upon the decline before the year 1568. This appears from a poem by Alexander Scot, preserved in the Hyndford MS. (in the Advocates’ Library, compiled and written in that identical year), and inaccurately printed in The Evergreen:
(35) —“His bow, and one of his arrows, his chair, his cap, and one of his slippers were preserved till within the present century.”] “We omitted,” says Ray, “the sight of Fountain’s Abbey, where Robin Hood’s bow is kept” (Itineraries, 1760, p. 161). “Having pleased ourselves with the antiquities of ‘Notingham,’ we took horse and went to visit the well and {cxi} ancient chair of Robin Hood, which is not far from hence, within the forest of Sherwood. Being placed in the chair, we had a cap, which they say was his, very formally put upon our heads, and having performed the usual ceremonies befitting so great a solemnity, we receiv’d the freedom of the chair, and were incorporated into the society of that renowned brotherhood” (Brome’s Travels over England, &c., 1700, p. 85). “On one side of this forest [sci. of Sherwood] towards Nottingham,” says the author of “The Travels of Tom Thumb over England and Wales” (i.e. Robert Dodsley), “I was shewn a chair, a bow, and arrow, all said to have been his [Robin Hood’s] property” (p. 82). “I was pleased with a slipper, belonging to the famous Robin Hood, shewn me, fifty years ago, at St. Ann’s well, near Nottingham, a place upon the borders of Sherwood forest, to which he resorted” (Journey from Birmingham to London, by W. Hutton, Bir. 1785, p. 174). (36) —“Not only places which afforded him security or amusement, but even the well at which he quenched his thirst, still retain his name.”] Robin Hood’s Bay is both a bay and a village on the coast of Yorkshire, between Whitby and Scarborough. It is mentioned by Leland as “a fischer tounlet of 20. bootes caullid Robyn Huddes bay, a dok or bosom of a mile yn length” (Itinerary, i. 53). “When his robberies,” says Master Charlton, “became so numerous, and the outcries against him so loud, as almost to alarm the whole nation, parties of soldiers were sent down from London to apprehend him: and then it was, that fearing for his safety, he found it necessary to desert his usual haunts, and, retreating northward, to cross the moors that surrounded Whitby [one side whereof happens, a little unfortunately, to lie open to the sea], where, gaining the sea-coast, he always had in readiness near at hand some small fishing vessels, to which he could have refuge, if he found himself pursued; for in these, putting off to sea, he looked upon himself as quite secure, and held the whole power of the English nation at defiance. The chief place of his resort {cxii} at these times, where his boats were generally laid up, was about six miles from Whitby, to which he communicated his name, and which is still called Robin Hood’s Bay. There he frequently went a fishing in the summer season, even when no enemy appeared to annoy him, and not far from that place he had buts or marks set up, where he used to exercise his men in shooting with the long-bow.” Near Gloucester is “a famous hill” called “Robin Hood’s hill,” concerning which there is a very foolish modern song. Another hill of the same name exists in the neighbourhood of Castleton, Derbyshire. “Over a spring call’d Robin Hoods well (3 or 4 miles [on] this side [i.e. north] of Doncaster, and but a quarter of a mile only from 2 towns call’d Skelbrough and Bourmallis) is a very handsome stone arch, erected by the Lord Carlisle, where passengers from the coach frequently drink of the fair water, and give their charity to two people who attend there” (Gent’s History of York. York, 1730, p. 234). Though there is no attendance at present, nor is the water altogether so fair as it might and should be, the case was otherwise in the days of honest Barnaby.
{cxiv} He mentions it again:
A different well, sacred either to Robin Hood or to St. Ann, has been already mentioned. “Not far [off Bitham, in Lincolnshire] is Robyn Huddes cros, a limes of the shires” (Leland’s Itinerary, i. 25). (37) —“conferred as a singular distinction upon the prime minister to the king of Madagascar.”] The natives of this island, who have dealings with our people, pride themselves, it seems, in English names, which are bestowed upon them at the discretion or caprice of the sailors: and thus a venerable minister of state, who should have been called Sir Robert Walpole or Cardinal Fleury, acquired the name of Robin Hood. Mr. Ives, by whom he is frequently mentioned, relates the following anecdote:— “The reader will excuse my giving him another instance .... which still more strikingly displays the extreme sensibility of these islanders, in respect to their king’s dignity. Robin Hood (who seemed to act as prime minister, and negotiate most of the king’s concerns with our agent-victualler) was one day transacting business with another gentleman of the squadron, and they happened to differ so much about the value of a certain commodity, that high words arose, and at length Robin Hood in the greatest agitation started from the ground where he was sitting, and swore that he would immediately acquaint the king of Baba with what had passed. Our English gentleman, too much heated with this threat, and the violent altercation which had preceded it, unguardedly replied, ‘D—n the king of Baba.’ The eyes of Robin Hood flashed like lightning, and in the most violent wrath he retorted, ‘D—n King George.’ At the same instant he left the spot, hurrying away towards the Madagascarian cottages. Our countryman was soon struck with the impropriety of his behaviour, followed and overtook the disputant, and having {cxv} made all proper concessions, the affair was happily terminated.” (38) “After his death his company was dispersed.”] They and their successors, disciples, or followers are supposed to have been afterward distinguished, from the name of their gallant leader, by the title of Roberdsmen. Lord Coke, who is somewhat singular in accusing him of living “by robbery, burning of houses, felony, waste and spoil, and principally by and with vagabonds, idle wanderers, night-walkers, and draw-latches,” says that “albeit he lived in Yorkshire, yet men of his quality took their denomination of him, and were called Roberdsmen throughout all England. Against these men,” continues he, “was the statute of Winchester made in 13 E. 1. [c. 14], for preventing of robbery, murders, burning of houses, &c. Also the statute of 5 E. 3. [c. 14], which ‘recites’ the statute of Winchester, and that there had been divers manslaughters, felonies, and robberies done in times past, by people that be called Roberdsmen, wasters and draw-latches; and remedy [is] provided by that act for the arresting of them. At the parliament holden 50 E. 3.,” he adds, “it was petitioned to the king that ribauds and sturdy beggars might be banished out of every town. The answer of the king in parliament was, touching ribauds: The statute of Winchester and the declaration of the same with other statutes of Roberdsmen, and for such as make themselves gentlemen, and men of armes, and archers, if they cannot so prove theirselves, let them be driven to their occupation or service, or to the place from whence they came.” He likewise notices the statute of 7 R. 2. [c. 5], by which it is provided “that the statutes of Roberdsmen and draw-latches be firmly holden and kept” (3 Inst. 197). These Roberdsmen are mentioned in Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede, written about 1400:
{cxvi} Mr. Warton, who had once thought that the friers Robertines were here meant, observes that “the expression of Robin Hoode’s men, in Bishop Latimer’s sermon, is not without an allusion to the bad sense of Roberdsmen” (H. E. P. ii. additions, sig. d. 4). It does not, however, appear that the latter word has been ever used in a good one; nor is there, after all, sufficient ground for concluding that these people were so named after Robin Hood. (39) —“the honour of Little John’s death and burial is contended for by rival nations.”] I. By England.—At the village of Hathersage, about six miles from Castleton, in Derbyshire, is Little John’s grave. A few years ago some curious person caused it to be opened, when there were found several bones of an uncommon size, which he preserved; but, meeting afterwards with many unlucky accidents, he carefully replaced them; partly at the intercession of the sexton, who had taken them up for him, and who had in like manner been visited with misfortunes: upon restoring the bones all these troubles ceased. Such is the tradition at Castleton. E. Hargrove, in his “Anecdotes of Archery,” York, 1792, asserts that “the grave is distinguished by a large stone placed at the head, and another at the feet, on each of which are yet some remains of the letters I. L.” (p. 26). “In the yeare one thousand one hundred foure score and nine, there ranged three robbers and outlaws in England, among which Robert Hood and Little John weere cheefeteins, of all theeves doubtlesse the most courteous. Robert Hood being betrayed at a nunrie in Scotland called Bricklies, the remnant of the crue was scattered, and everie man forced to shift for himselfe. Whereupon Little John was faine to flee the realme by sailing into Ireland, where he sojornied for a few daies at Dublin. The citizens being doone to understand the wandering outcast to be an excellent archer, requested him hartilie to trie how far he could shoot at random; who yeelding to their behest, stood on the bridge of Dublin, and shot to that mole hill, leaving behind him a monument, rather by his posteritie to be woondered, than possiblie by anie man living to be counterscored. But as the repaire of so notorious a champion to anie countrie would soone be published, so his abode could not be long concealed: and therefore to eschew the danger of [the] lawes, he fled into Scotland, where he died at a towne or village called Moravie.” (40) —“some of his descendants of the name of Nailor,” &c.] See the preface to the History of George a Green. As surnames were by no means in general use at the close of the twelfth century, Little John may have obtained that of Nailor from his original profession.
But however this, or the fact itself may be, a bow, said to have belonged to Little John, with the name of Naylor upon it, is now, as the editor is informed, in the possession of a gentleman in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The quotation about whetstones is from the Sloane MS. Those, indeed, who recollect the equivocal meaning of the word may think that this production has not been altogether confined to the grave of Little John. “2em-dashgreate Apollo, who’s as good At pricks and buts as Robin Hood.” pedigree, see transcriber's note. The Doctor seems, by this pedigree, to have founded our hero’s pretensions on his descent from Roisia, sister of Robert Fitzgilbert, husband of Alice, youngest daughter of Judith, Countess of Huntingdon, which, whatever it might do in those times, would scarcely be thought sufficient to support such a claim at present. Beside, though John the Scot died without issue, he left three sisters, all married to powerful barons, either in Scotland or in England, none of whom, however, assumed the title. It is, therefore, probable, after all, that Robin Hood derived his earldom by some other channel. Dr. Stukeley, whose learned labours are sufficiently known and esteemed, was a professed antiquary, and a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England. He has not, it is true, thought it necessary to cite any ancient or other authority in support of the above representations; nor is it in the editor’s power to supply the deficiency. Perhaps, indeed, the Doctor might think himself entitled to expect that his own authority would be deemed sufficient: upon that, however, they must be content to rest. Sit fides penes auctorem! Mr. Parkin, who published “A reply to the peevish, weak, and malevolent objections brought by Dr. Stukeley in his Origines RoystonianÆ, No. 2” (Norwich, 1748, 4to), terms “his pedigree of Robin Hood, quite jocose, an original indeed!” (See pp. 27, 32.) Otho and Fitz-Otho, it must be confessed, were common names among the Anglo-Normans,* but no such name as Othes, Ooth, Fitz-Othes, or Fitz-Ooth, has been elsewhere met with. Philip de Kime, also, was certainly a considerable landholder in the county of Lincoln in the time of King Henry II., but it nowhere appears, except from Dr. Stukeley, that his surname was Fitz-Ooth. The Doctor likewise informs us that the arms of Ralph Fitz-Ooth, and consequently of our hero, were “g. two bendlets engrailed, o.” * “Filius Roberti filii Odonis est in custodia Domini Regis, et est vj annorum, et ipse est heres decime partis unius militis, et vix possunt inde habere victum suum ipse et mater sua.” Rotulus de vidius, &c. (31 H. 2) MSS. Har. 624. Drayton (Polyolbion, song 26) introduces Sherwood in the character of a nymph, who, out of disdain at the preference shown by the poet to a sister-forest, “All self praise set apart, determineth to sing That lusty Robin Hood, who long time like a king Within her compass liv’d, and when he list to range, For some rich booty set, or else his air to change, To Sherwood still retir’d, his only standing court.” “Were he as good as George a Greene, I would strike him sure.” What Mr. Barrington “thinks” may be true enough, perhaps, of the Toxophilite Society and other modern archers; but people should not talk of Robin Hood who never shot in his bow. The above ingenious writer’s censure of Dr. Hanmer’s credulity and ignorance, seems to be misapplied, since he cannot be supposed to believe what he holds not for truth, and actually leaves among the lyes of the land. See also the old song, printed in the Appendix, No. 3. Drayton, who wrote before archery had fallen into complete disuse, says— “At marks full forty score they us’d to prick and rove.” That Mr. Barrington, indeed, was very ill informed on the subject is evident from a most scarce book in the editor’s possession, intitled “Aime for the archers of St. George’s fields, containing the names of all the marks in the same fields, with their true distances according to the dimensuration of the line. Formerly gathered by Richard Hannis, and now corrected by Thomas Bick and others. London, Printed by N. Howell for Robert Minehard and Benjamin Brownsmith, and are to be sold at the sign of the man in the moon in Blackman street, 1664,” 16mo, where the distance from Alpha to Bick’s memorial is 18 score 16 yards; and 11 score 7 yards (though there are inferior numbers, the lowest being 9, 12) appears to be a very moderate shot indeed. Two of these marks are Robin Hood and Little John. See also Shakespeare’s Second Part of K. Henry IV., act iii. scene 2, where it is said that Old Double “would have clapp’d i’ the clout at twelve score; and carry’d you a forehand shaft a fourteen and fourteen and a half;” and the notes upon the passage in Steevens’s edition, 1793. It is probable, after all, that the word forty in Drayton is an error, of the transcriber or pressman, for fourteen. Whatever Robin Hood’s father might do, there can be no question that the author of the old ballad in which he is mentioned (part ii. song 1) has “shot in a lusty strong bow” when he speaks of “Two north-country miles and an inch at a shot.” “She got on her holyday kirtle and gown They were of a light Lincolne green.” “And farewell all gaie garments now, With jewels riche of rare devise: Like Robin Hood, I wot not how, I must goe raunge in woodmen’s wyse, Cladde in a cote of greene or gray, And gladde to get it if i maye.” The workes of a young wyt, Done by N. B. Gent. 1577, 4to, b. l. “Because I do that,” said the pirate to Alexander, “with a single ship which thou dost with a great fleet, I am called a thief, and thou art called a king.” “—pacisque imponere morem.” One might, to the same purpose, address our hero in the words of Plautus (Trinummus, act iv. scene x): “Atque hanc tuam gloriam jam ante auribus acceperam, et nobiles apud homines, Pauperibus te parcere solitum, divites damnare atque domare. Abi, laudo, scis ordine, ut Æquom’st, Tractare homines, hoc dis dignum’st, semper mendicis modesti sint.” “2em-dashI’ve heard before This commendation of you, and from great ones, That you were wont to spare the indigent, And crush the wealthy.—I applaud your justice In treating men according to their merits.— ’Tis worthy of the gods to have respect Unto the poor.” “Richard Coeur de Lyon cald a king and conquerour was, With Phillip king of France who did unto Jerusalemm passe: In this king’s time was Robyn Hood, that archer and outlawe, And little John his partener eke, unto them which did drawe One hondred tall and good archers, on whom foure hondred men, Were their power never so strong, could not give onset then; The abbots, monkes, and carles rich these onely did molest, And reskewd woemen when they saw of theeves them so opprest; Restoring poore men’s goods, and eke abundantly releeved Poore travellers which wanted food, or were with sicknes greeved.” (Third Assertion, &c., quoted elsewhere.) “Here, under this memorial stone, Lies Robert earl of Huntingdon; As he, no archer e’er was good, And people call’d him Robin Hood: Such outlaws as his men and he Again may England never see.” “Feb. 1597–8.
In a subsequent page is the following entry: “Lent unto Robarte Shawe, the 18 of Novemb. 1598, to lend unto Mr. Cheattle, upon the mending of the first part of Robart Hoode, the sum of xs.;” and afterwards—“For mending of Robin Hood for the corte.” See Malone’s edition of “The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare,” 1790, vol. i. part ii. (Emendations and additions.) “Item, .... i green gown for Maryan. Item, vi grene cottes for Roben Hoode, and iiii knaves sewtes. Item, i hatte for Robin Hoode, i hobihorse. Item, Roben Hoodes sewtte. Item, the fryers trusse in Roben Hoode.” Malone’s Shak. II. ii. (Emen. & ad.) When Julius CÆsar here was king, About my neck he put this ring; Whosoever doth me take, Let me go for CÆsar’s sake.” In The Midwife, or Old Woman’s Magazine (vol. i. p. 250), Mrs. Midnight, in a letter “To the venerable society of antiquarians,” containing a description of CÆsar’s camp on Windsor forest, has the following passage: “There have been many extraordinary things discovered about this camp. One thing, I particularly remember, was a deer of about sixteen hundred years old. ..... This deer it seems was a favourite of CÆsar’s, and on that account he bedecked her neck with a golden collar and an inscription, which I shall by and by take notice of; she had been frequently taken, but when the hunters, the peasants, and poor people saw the golden collar on her neck, they readily let her go again. However, as she continually increased in strength and in bulk, as well as in age, after the course of about fifteen or sixteen centuries, the flesh and skin were entirely grown over this collar, so that it could not be discover’d till after she was kill’d, and then to the surprise of the virtuosi it appear’d with this inscription: When Julius CÆsar reigned here, Then was I a little deer; If any man should me take, Let me go for CÆsar’s sake. “This collar, which is of pure gold, I am told weighs thirty ounces, and as the blood of the creature still appears fresh upon it, I believe it may be as valuable as any of your gimcracks; however, there will be no harm in my sending of it to you; and if I can procure it, you may depend on my taking the utmost care of it.” As no notice is announced of this wonderful piece of antiquity in the voluminous and important lucubrations of the above learned body, it most probably never came into their possession; which is very much to be lamented, as it would have been an admirable companion for Hardecnute’s chamber-pot, King Edward the first’s finger, and other similar curiosities. Juvenal des Ursins gravely relates that in the year 1380 a hart was taken at Senlis with a chain about his neck inscribed “CÆsar hoc me donavit.”* Upton, to be even with him, supposes a hart to have been taken at Bagshot near Windsor, with a motto on the collar in the French language, which proves the ancient Romans were familiar therewith long before it existed: “Julius CÆsar, quant jeo fus petis, Cest coler suz mon col ad mys.”† This dictator perpetuo, in fact, seems to have collared every hart he took. The family of Pompei in Italy use two harts for their supporters on whose collars were the letters N. M. T., in memory of one on whose collar were these words: “Nemo Me Tangat, CÆsaris sum.” Anstis, ii. 113. The original of all these stories is to be found in Pliny, who says: “It is generally held and confessed that the stagge or hind live long; for an hundred yeer after Alexander the great, some were taken with golden collars about their necks, overgrowne now with haire and growne within the skin: which collars the said king had done upon them” (Naturall Historie, by Holland, 1601, B. 8, c. 32). Pausanias, moreover, speaking of one Leocydas, who fought for the Megalopolitans, in conjunction with Lydiades, against the LacedÆmonians (about the year 243 before Christ), says he was reported to be the descendant in the ninth degree of that Arcesilaus, who living in Lycosura saw that stag which is sacred to the goddess Despoine worn out with old age. This stag, he adds, had a collar on its neck with the following inscription: Caught young, when Agapenor sail’d for Troy. By which, he concludes, it is evident that a stag lives much longer than an elephant (B. 8, c. 10). * Histoire de Charles VI. † Upton de re militari, p. 119. “Whether he be messengere, Or a man that myrthes can, Or yf he be a pore man, Of my good he shall have some.” The reading of the original edition is confirmed by a very old manuscript in the Cotton Library (Vespasian, B. XVI.) differing considerably from the printed copies, which gives the passage thus: “I can nouzt perfiitli my pater-noster as a prest it syngeth: I can rymes of Robyn Hood, of Rondolf erl of Chestre, Ac of oure lorde ne of oure ladi the leste that ever was maked.” (See also Caligula, A. XI.) The speaker himself could have told Mr. Warton he was no frier: “I have ben prieste & person passynge thyrty winter, Yet can I nether solfe, ne singe, ne sayntes lyves read; But I can find in a fielde or in a furlong an hare, Better than in Beatus vir or in Beati omnes Construe one clause well, & kenne it to my parishens.” “Veni Nottingham tyrones Sherwoodenses sunt latrones. Instar Robin Hood, & servi Scarlet & Joannis Parvi; Passim, sparsim, peculantur, Cellis, sylvis deprÆdantur.” “Thence to Nottingham, where rovers, Highway riders, Sherwood drovers, Like old Robin Hood and Scarlet, Or like Little John his varlet; Here and there they shew them doughty, In cells and woods to get their booty.” Whitlock relates that “the [parliament] committee who carried the propositions of peace to Oxford, had the king’s answer sealed up and sent to them. They, upon advice together, thought it not fit for them to receive an answer in that manner ... and made an address to his majesty that they might know what his answer was, and have a copy of it: to which his majesty replied, What is that to you, who are but to carry what I send, and if I will send the song of Robin Hood and Little John, you must carry it? To which the commissioners only said, that the business about which they came was of somewhat more consequence than that song” (Memorials, p. 115). “Robin Hood upon Greendale stood” (State-trials, iii. 634). A third corruption has taken place in Parker, p. 131 (King v. Cotton), though expressly cited from Yelverton, viz. “Robin Hood in Barnwell stood.” The following most vulgar and indecent rime, current among the peasantry in the North of England, may have been intended to ridicule the perpetual repetition of “Robin Hood in greenwood stood:” Robin Hood In green-wood stood. With his back against a tree; He fell flat Into a cow-plat, And all besh—n was he “O sleepst thou, or wakst thou, Jeffery Cooke?” occurs, likewise, in a medley of a similar description, in Pammelia 1609. “Bills, bows, and axes, quoth Robin Hood, But I have not time to tell; Yonder’s the sheriff and his company, But I hope all will be well. Hei, down, derry, derry, down;” and says, “I hope I may sing of old Robin without offending a grand jury, or being presented for disuniting Protestants.” In The Gentleman’s Magazine for December 1790 is the first verse of a song used by the inhabitants of Helston in Cornwall on the celebration of an annual festivity on the 8th of May, called the Furry-day, supposed Flora’s day, not, it is imagined, “as many have thought, in remembrance of some festival instituted in honour of that goddess, but rather from the garlands commonly worn on that day.” (See the same publication for June and October 1790.) This verse was the whole that Mr. Urban’s correspondent could then recollect, but he thought he might be afterwards able “to send all that is known of it, for,” he says, “it formerly was very long, but is now much forgotten.” The stanza is as follows: “Robin Hood and Little John They are both gone to fair O; And we will go to the merry green-wood, To see what they do there O. With hel an tow, And rum-be-low, And chearily we’ll get up, As soon as any day O, All for to bring the summer home, The summer and the May O.” “After which,” he adds, “there is something about the grey goose wing; from all which,” he concludes, “the goddess Flora has nothing to say to it.” She may have nothing to say to the song, indeed, and yet a good deal to do with the thing. But the fact is, that the first eight days of May, or the first day and the eighth, seem to have been devoted by the Celtic nations to some great religious ceremony. Certain superstitious observances of this period still exist in the Highlands of Scotland, where it is called the Bel-tein; Beltan, in that country, being a common term for the beginning of May, as “between the Beltans” is a saying significant of the first and eighth days of that month. The games of Robin Hood, as we shall elsewhere see, were, for whatever reason, always celebrated in May.—N.B. “Hel-an-tow,” in the above stanza, should be heave and how. Heave and how, and Rumbelow, was an ordinary chorus to old ballads, and is at least as ancient as the reign of Edward II., since it occurs in the stanza of a Scotish song, preserved by some of our old historians, on the battle of Bannockburn. To lengthen this long note: Among the Harleian MSS. (num. 367) is the fragment of “a tale of Robin Hood dialouge-wise beetweene Watt and Jeffry. The morall is the overthrowe of the abbyes; the like being attempted by the Puritane, which is the wolfe, and the politician, which is the fox, agaynst the bushops. Robin Hood, bushop; Adam Bell, abbot; Little John, colleagues of the university.” This seems to have been a common mode of satirising both the old Church and the reformers. In another MS. of the same collection (N. 207), written about 1532, is a tract entitled “The banckett of John the reve, unto Peirs Ploughman, Laurens Laborer, Thomlyn Tailyor, and Hobb of the Hille, with others;” being, as Mr. Wanley says, a dispute concerning transubstantiation by a Roman Catholic. The other, indeed, is much more modern: it alludes to the indolence of the abbots, and their falling off from the original purity in which they were placed by the bishops, whom it inclines to praise. The object of its satire seems to be the Puritans; but here it is imperfect, though the lines preserved are not wholly destitute of poetical merit.—“Robin Hood and the Duke of Lancaster, a ballad, to the tune of The Abbot of Canterbury,” 1727, is a satire on Sir Robert Walpole. The late Dr. Johnson, in controverting the authenticity of Fingal, a composition in which the author, Mr. Macpherson, has made great use of some unquestionably ancient Irish ballads, said, “He would undertake to write an epick poem on the story of Robin Hood, and half England, to whom the names and places he should mention in it are familiar, would believe and declare they had heard it from their earliest years” (Boswell’s Journal, p. 486). “Of the 24 songs in what is now called ‘Robin Hood’s Garland,’ many are so modern as not to be found in Pepys’s collection, completed only in 1700. In the [editor’s] folio MS. are ancient fragments of the following, viz.—Robin Hood and the beggar.—Robin Hood and the butcher.—Robin Hood and fryer Tucke.—Robin Hood and the pindar.—Robin Hood and queen Catharine, in two parts.—Little John and the four beggars, and “Robine Hood his death.” This last, which is very curious, has no resemblance to any that have yet been published; [it is probably num. xxviii. of part ii.], and the others are extremely different from the printed copies; but they unfortunately are in the beginning of the MS. where half of every leaf hath been torn away.” As this MS. “contains several songs relating to the civil war in the last century,” the mere circumstance of its comprising fragments of the above ballads is no proof of a higher antiquity; any more than its not containing “one that alludes to the Restoration” proves its having been compiled before that period; or than, because some of these 24 songs are not to be found in Pepys’s collection, they are more modern than 1700. If the MS. could be collated, it would probably turn out that many of its contents have been inaccurately and unfaithfully transcribed, by some illiterate persons, from printed copies still extant, and, consequently, that it is, so far, of no authority. See the advertisement prefixed. “Is not my reason good? Good—even good—Robin Hood.” (His. En. po. vol. ii.) “Your knowledge is great, your judgement is good, The most of your study hath ben of Robyn Hood; And Bevys of Hampton, and syr Launcelot de Lake, Hath taught you full oft your verses to make.” “The gentry to the King’s-head, The nobles to the crown,” &c. “My beer is stout, my ale is good, Pray stay and drink with Robin Hood; If Robin Hood abroad is gone, Pray stay and drink with Little John.” In an old circular woodcut, preserved on the title of Robin Hood’s Garland, 1670, as well as on that of Adam Bell, &c., printed at Newcastle in 1772, is the apparent representation of a May-game, consisting of the following personages: 1. A bishop. 2. Robin Hood. 3. The potter (or beggar). 4. Little John. 5. Frier Tuck. 6. Maid Marian. Figures 2 and 4 are distinguished by their bows and different size. The frier holds out a cross; and Marian has flowing hair, and wears a sort of coronet. But the execution of the whole is too rude to merit a copy. At Lord Fitzwilliams’s at Richmond there is, or lately was, a curious painting by Vinckenbooms, representing old Richmond palace, with a group of morris-dancers. It has been badly engraved by Godfrey, who reduced the figures to too small a scale. Mr. Douce has a tracing from the original picture with all the figures distinctly marked. See a poem at the end of Hall’s Downfall of May-games, 1661, 4to. It may seem, perhaps, from a passage in Browne’s Britannia’s Pastorals (Song 4), that Robin Hood’s bower was prepared for the reception of himself and his Marian, as king and queen of May. The lines are these: “As I have seene the lady of the May Set in an arbour, on a holy-day, Built by the May-pole, where the jocund swains, Dance with the maidens to the bagpipe’s strains.” “At Baptis-day with ale and cakes bout bonfires neighbours stood, At Martle masse wa turnd a crabbe, thilke told of Roben Hood, Till after long time myrke, when blest were windowes, dares and lights, And pails were fild, and hathes were swept, gainst fairie elves and sprits: Rock and plow Mondaies gams ... with saint-feasts and kirk-lights.” A very learned and ingenious gentleman conceives that the enumeration of characters in the passage quoted in the text belongs solely to the May, and has no relation whatever to the morrise. That the two games, however, though essentially distinct in their origin, got somehow or other blended together appears unquestionable. “As fit as a morris for May-day” is one of the clown’s similes in All’s well that ends well (act ii. scene 2).
We are told that formerly, in the celebration of May-games, the youth divided themselves into two troops, the one in winter livery, the other in the habit of the spring. See Brand’s Popular Antiquities, p. 261.” This quotation is misapplied. Liveries, in the present instance, are pieces of paper or sateyn with some device thereon, which were distributed for money among the spectators. So in a passage which will be shortly quoted from Jack Drum’s Entertainment: “Well said, my boyes, I must have my lord’s livory; what is’t? a May-pole?” See also Stubbs’s Anatomie of Abuses, 1583, sig. M. 2 b, and Skelton’s Don Quixote, part ii. chap. 22. “Her huke of Lyncole grene.” “All women in generall,” says Moryson, speaking of the Netherlands, “when they goe out of the house, put on a hoyke or vaile, which covers their heads, and hangs downe vpon their backs to their legges,” &c. (Itinerary, 1617, part 3, p. 169). Sir John Cullum seems to have mistaken Rose Sparkes’ “best hook” for a “hook worn at the bottom of the stays, to regulate the sitting of the apron” (History of Hawsted, p. 25). Morione, in Italian, signifies a murrion or scull-cap; and though the derivation alluded to appears to have the sanction of Blount’s Glosographia, nothing can be more completely absurd. Marian is Mary. “And Marian’s nose looks rede and raw.” “Coc. Oh the lord! what be these?... Clo. They should be morris-dancers by their gingle, but they have no napkins. Coc. No, nor a hobby-horse. Clo. Oh, he’s often forgotten, that’s no rule; but there is no maid Marian nor friar amongst them, which is the surer mark. Coc. Nor a fool that I see.”—(Tollet’s Memoir.) 2em-dash“’Tis meet we all go forth, To view the sick and feeble parts of France: And let us do it with no show of fear; No, with no more, that if we heard that England Were busied with a Whitsun morris-dance.” Shak. K. Hen. V., act ii. scene 4. “Nympha fui quondam latronibus hospita sylvÆ Heu nimium sociis nota, Robine, tuis. Me pudet innocuos latices fudisse scelestis, Jamque viatori pocula tuta fero, En pietatis honos! Comes hanc mihi Carliolensis Ædem sacravit qu bibis, hospes, aquas.” The same author (Gent), in his “long and pathetick prologue,” setting forth “the contingencies, vicissitudes or changes of this transitory life,” “spoken, for the most part, on Wednesday and Friday the 18th and 20th of February 1761, at the deep tragedy of beautiful, eloquent, tender-hearted, but unfortunate Jane Shore, .... uttered and performed at his benefit” ... (being then Ætatis 70, and far declined into the vale of sorrow,*) has very artfully contrived to introduce our hero and his famous well. “The concave hall, ’mongst sources never view’d, Nor heard the goddesses, in merry mood, At their choice viands sing bold Robin Hood:† Whose tomb at Kirkley’s nunnery display’d, A false, hard-hearted, irreligious maid, Who bled, and to cold death that earl betray’d. But fame still lasts, while country folks display His limpid fountain, and loud-surging bay.” * He died in 1778, aged 87. † “Omnes agnovere deam; lÆtique receptant AlcÆum musÆ comitem, ponuntur IÂcchi Crateres; flaventque scyphis Cerealia vina: Accedunt vultus hilares; festique lepores, Et jocus, et risus: dulci testudine Naias Pulchra modos variat; furtisque insignis et arcu Hodi latronis, fluvios bene nota per istos, Ludicra gesta canit: resonant laquearia plausu.” “Viventes venÆ, spine, catinusque catenÆ, Sunt Robin Hoodi nota trophÆa sui.” “A well, thorne, dish, hung in an iron chaine, For monuments of Robin Hood remaine.” “And ryse wyth ribaudy as Rebertes knaves.” “The famous Little John (Robin Hood’s companion) lyes buried in Fethersedge churchyard, in the peak of Derbyshire, one stone at his head, another at his feet, and part of his bow hangs up in the chancell. Anno 1652.” H. E[llis]. European Magazine, October 1794, p. 295. |
|
