_To the Editor._
Sir,--Having been in the country during the publication of the first
parts of the _Table Book_, I have but now just bought them; and on
perusing them, I find in part 1, col. 112 et infrâ, Mr. C. Lamb’s first
specimen of the Garrick Plays, called “King John and Matilda;” wherein
the said Matilda, the daughter of the _old_ baron Fitzwater[235] is
supposed to be poisoned by King John’s order, in a nunnery. She is
especially entitled therein as “immaculate”--“Virtue’s white
_virgin_,”--and “_maid_ and martyr.” Now, sir, I presume it to be well
known, that in the best legends extant of the times of Richard I. and
John, this identical Matilda, or Maud Fitzwater, is chronicled as the
_chère amie_ and companion of the outlawed Robert Fitzooth, earl of
Huntingdon, whom, as “Robin Hood,” she followed as “_Maid_ Marian;” and
with whom, on his restoration to his honours by king Richard, (to his
earldom and estates,) she intermarried, and became countess of
Huntingdon, and was in _every_ respect a wife, though we have no records
whether she ever became a mother; and that when by king John the earl
was again outlawed, and driven to the wilds of Sherwood forest, his
countess also again shared his misfortunes, and a second time took the
name of “_Maid_ Marian,” (then rather a misnomer,) as he did that of
“_Robin Hood_.”
During the _first_ outlawry of Robin Hood, and while Marian, or more
properly Matilda, was yet a _maid_, John (then prince John, Richard
being in Palestine) made overtures to the old baron Fitzwalter for his
daughter as a mistress, and being refused, and finding she was in the
society of Robin Hood and his merry men, attacked them, and a bloody
fray ensued; during which, John and Matilda (in the _male_ costume of
forest green) met, and fought: John required her to yield, and she as
resolutely desired him, in a reproachful taunt, to _win_ her first; and
so stoutly did she belabour him, as the rest of the foresters did his
party also, that he was constrained to yield, and to withdraw from a
contest in which nothing was to be got but blows.
We hear nothing more of any attempts of John’s to molest her or her
party till after the death of Richard, and his own accession to the
throne, when he spitefully ousted the earl and countess from their
honours and possessions, and confiscated all to his own use; and thus
this unfortunate pair, as I have above stated, were again constrained to
quit the castle for the forest.
But it is certain, that long before John became king, Matilda, alias
Maud, alias Marian, had ceased to be a maid; and we have no account of
any attempts whatsoever made by _king_ John upon or against the quondam
Matilda Fitzwalter, afterwards alternately Maid Marian and countess of
Huntingdon. Indeed all the legends of Robin Hood’s life present “Maid
Marian” as having lived with him unmolested by any such attempts during
the whole of his _second outlawry_, and as having survived Robin’s
tragical end; though of _her_ subsequent fate they are all silent,
expressing themselves indeed ignorant of what was her destiny. Certainly
she may then have retired into a nunnery, but at all events not as
Matilda Fitzwalter; for she had been legally married and formally
acknowledged by Richard I. as countess of Huntingdon; and as she spent
the last part of her fellowship with her husband in Sherwood forest
under her romantic forest appellation, it is scarcely probable that she
would resume her title on entering into a nunnery. I would presume,
therefore, that however and wherever she ended her days, it must have
been under the cognomen of “_Maid_ Marian.” And as her husband lived for
some years in the forest after the accession of John, I should think it
scarcely likely that after such a great lapse of time, and after the
change which had taken place in Matilda both as regards her worldly
station and age, and I should presume person, (from such a continued
exposure to the air and weather,) John should renew any attempt upon
her. I should therefore feel exceedingly gratified if either yourself or
Mr. C. Lamb could adduce any historical facts to reconcile all these
discrepancies, and to show how the facts, as supposed in the play of
“King John and Matilda,” could, in the natural course of events, and in
the very teeth of the declarations made in the history of Robin Hood and
his consort, have taken place.
Mark this also;--the historians of Robin Hood and Maid Marian (and their
history was written, if not by contemporaries, yet in the next
generation; nor is it likely that such a renowned personage should be
unnoticed in chronicles for any space of time) all declare that they
could not ascertain the fate of Marian after the death of Robin. _His_
death and burial are well known, and the inscription to his memory is
still extant; but _she_ was lost sight of from the time of his decease.
How comes it then that Robert Davenport, in the 17th century, should be
so well informed, as to know that Matilda ended her days in a nunnery by
poison administered by order of king John, when there is _no tradition
extant_ of the time or manner of _her_ decease? We have no other
authority than this of Davenport’s tragedy on the subject; and I should
therefore be inclined to think that he was misinformed, and that the
event recorded by him never happened. As to its being _another_ Matilda
Fitzwalter, it is highly preposterous to imagine. Is it likely that at
the same time there should be two barons of that name and title, each
having a daughter named Matilda or Maud? Davenport calls his baron the
_old_ baron Fitzwater; and the father of Maid Marian is described as the
_old_ baron: both must therefore have lived in the reign of Richard I.,
and also in that of John till their death. Indeed we have proof that the
baron was alive in John’s reign, because Richard I. having restored him
at the same time that he pardoned Fitzooth, _John dispossessed them
both_ on his accession.
I think it therefore highly improbable that there should have been so
remarkable a coincidence as _two_ barons Fitzwalter, and _two_ Matildas
at the same time, and both the latter subject to the unwelcome addresses
of John: consequently I cannot give credence, without _proofs_, to the
incident in Davenport’s play.