Produced by Simon Gardner, Dianna Adair, Louise Davies and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by the Digital & Multimedia
Center, Michigan State University Libraries.)
Transcriber's Notes
Archaic, dialect and inconsistent spellings have been retained as in
the original. Other than minor corrections to format or punctuation,
any changes to the text have been listed at the end of the book.
In this Plain Text version of the e-book, symbols from the ASCII and
Latin-1 character sets only are used.
Italic typeface is indicated by _underscores_. Bold typeface is
indicated by =equals symbols=. Small caps typeface is represented by
UPPER CASE. Superscript characters are indicated by a preceding caret
(^). [OE] and [oe] represent the oe-ligature (upper and lower case). A
pointing hand symbol is represented as [right pointing hand].
Footnotes are numbered in sequence throughout the book and presented
at the end of the section or ballad in which the footnote anchor
appears. Notes with reference to ballad line numbers are presented at
the end of each ballad and the presence of a note is indicated at the
end of line number ## by "[L##]".
* * * * *
ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH
BALLADS
EDITED BY
FRANCIS JAMES CHILD.
VOLUME V.
BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY
M.DCCC.LX.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY, in the Clerk's Office of the
District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME FIFTH.
BOOK V.
Page
INTRODUCTION. Robin Hood vii
1. Robin Hood and the Monk 1
2 a. Robin Hood and the Potter 17
2 b. Robin Hood and the Butcher 33
3. Robyn and Gandelyn 38
4. A Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode 42
5. Adam Bel, Clym of the Cloughe, and Wyllyam of Cloudeslé 124
6. Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne 159
7. The Birth of Robin Hood 170
8 a. Rose the Red, and White Lilly 173
8 b. The Wedding of Robin Hood and Little John 184
9 a. Robin Hood and the Beggar 187
9 b. The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield, with Robin Hood,
Scarlet, and John 204
9 c. Robin Hood and the Ranger 207
9 d. Robin Hoods Delight 211
9 e. Robin Hood and Little John 216
9 f. Robin Hood and the Tanner 223
9 g. Robin Hood and the Tinker 230
9 h. Robin Hood and the Shepherd 238
9 i. Robin Hood and the Peddlers 243
9 k. The Bold Pedlar and Robin Hood 248
9 l. Robin Hood and the Beggar, Part I 251
10 a. Robin Hood and the Beggar, Part II 255
10 b. Robin Hood and the Old Man 257
10 c. Robin Hood rescuing the Widows three Sons 261
10 d. Robin Hood rescuing the three Squires 267
11. Robin Hood and the Curtall Fryer 271
12. Robin Hood and Allin-a-Dale 278
13. Robin Hoods rescuing Will Stutly 283
14. Robin Hoods Progress to Nottingham 290
15. Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford 294
16. Robin Hood and the Bishop 298
17. Robin Hoods Golden Prize 303
18. Robin Hoods Death and Burial 308
19. Robin Hood and Queen Katherine 312
20. Robin Hoods Chase 320
21. Little John and the Four Beggers 325
22. The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hoods Preferment 329
23. Robin Hood and the Tanners Daughter 334
APPENDIX.
1. Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valour, and Marriage 343
2. A True Tale of Robin Hood 353
3. Robin Hood and Maid Marian 372
4. The Kings Disguise and Friendship with Robin Hood 376
5. Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow 383
6. Robin Hood and the Valiant Knight 388
7. The Birth of Robin Hood 392
8. Rose the Red, and White Lillie 396
9. Robin Hood and the Stranger 404
10. Robin Hood and the Scotchman 418
11. The Playe of Robyn Hode 420
12. Fragment of an Interlude (?) of Robin Hood 428
13. By Lands-dale hey ho 431
14. In Sherwood livde stout Robin Hood 433
15. The Song of Robin Hood and his Huntesmen 434
GLOSSARY 437
BOOK V.
ROBIN HOOD.
There is no one of the royal heroes of England that enjoys a more
enviable reputation than the bold outlaw of Barnsdale and Sherwood.
His chance for a substantial immortality is at least as good as that
of stout Lion Heart, wild Prince Hal, or merry Charles. His fame began
with the yeomanry full five hundred years ago, was constantly
increasing for two or three centuries, has extended to all classes of
society, and, with some changes of aspect, is as great as ever.
Bishops sheriffs, and game-keepers, the only enemies he ever had, have
relinquished their ancient grudges, and Englishmen would be almost as
loath to surrender his exploits as any part of the national glory. His
free life in the woods, his unerring eye and strong arm, his open hand
and love of fair-play, his never-forgotten courtesy, his respect for
women and devotion to Mary, form a picture eminently healthful and
agreeable to the imagination, and commend him to the hearty favor of
all genial minds.
But securely established as Robin Hood is in popular esteem, his
historical position is by no means well ascertained, and his actual
existence has been a subject of shrewd doubt and discussion. "A tale
of Robin Hood"[1] is an old proverb for the idlest of stories, yet all
the materials at our command for making up an opinion on these
questions are precisely of this description. They consist, that is to
say, in a few ballads of unknown antiquity. These ballads, or others
like them, are clearly the authority upon which the statements of the
earlier chroniclers who take notice of Robin Hood are founded. They
are also, to all appearances, the original source of the numerous and
widespread traditions concerning him; which, unless the contrary can
be shown, must be regarded, after what we have observed in similar
cases, as having been suggested by the very legends to which, in the
vulgar belief, they afford an irresistible confirmation.
Various periods, ranging from the time of Richard the First to near
the end of the reign of Edward the Second, have been selected by
different writers as the age of Robin Hood; but (excepting always the
most ancient ballads, which may possibly be placed within these
limits) no mention whatever is made of him in literature before the
latter half of the reign of Edward the Third. "Rhymes of Robin
Hood"[2] are then spoken of by the author of _Piers Ploughman_,
(assigned to about 1362,) as better known to idle fellows than pious
songs, and from the manner of the allusion it is a just inference that
such rhymes were at that time no novelties. The next notice is in
Wyntown's Scottish Chronicle, written about 1420, where the following
lines occur--without any connection, and in the form of an
entry--under the year 1283.
"Lytil Jhon and Robyne Hude
Waythmen ware commendyd gude:
In Yngilwode and Barnysdale
Thai oysyd all this time thare trawale."[3]
At last we encounter Robin Hood in what may be called history; first
of all in a passage of the _Scotichronicon_, often quoted, and highly
curious as containing the earliest theory upon this subject. The
_Scotichronicon_ was written partly by Fordun, canon of Aberdeen,
between 1377 and 1384, and partly by his pupil Bower, abbot of St.
Columba, about 1450. Fordun has the character of a man of judgment and
research, and any statement or opinion delivered by him would be
entitled to respect. Of Bower, not so much can be said. He largely
interpolated the work of his master, and sometimes with the absurdest
fictions.[4] _Among his interpolations_,[5] and forming, it is
important to observe, _no part of the original text_, is a passage
translated as follows.[6] It is inserted immediately after Fordun's
account of the defeat of Simon de Montfort, and the punishments
inflicted on his adherents.
"At this time, (_sc._ 1266,) from the number of those who had been
deprived of their estates, arose the celebrated bandit Robert Hood
(with Little John and their accomplices) whose achievements the
foolish vulgar delight to celebrate in comedies and tragedies, while
the ballads upon his adventures sung by the jesters and minstrels are
preferred to all others.
"Some things to his honor are also related, as appears from this.
Once on a time, when, having incurred the anger of the king and the
prince, he could hear mass nowhere but in Barnsdale, while he was
devoutly occupied with the service, (for this was his wont, nor would
he ever suffer it to be interrupted for the most pressing occasion,)
he was surprised by a certain sheriff and officers of the king, who
had often troubled him before, in the secret place in the woods where
he was engaged in worship as aforesaid. Some of his men, who had taken
the alarm, came to him and begged him to fly with all speed. This, out
of reverence for the host, which he was then most devoutly adoring, he
positively refused to do. But while the rest of his followers were
trembling for their lives, Robert, confiding in him whom he
worshipped, fell on his enemies with a few who chanced to be with him,
and easily got the better of them; and having enriched himself with
their plunder and ransom, he was led from that time forth to hold
ministers of the church and masses in greater veneration than ever,
mindful of the common saying that
"God hears the man who often hears the mass."
In another place Bower writes to the same effect: "In this year (1266)
the dispossessed barons of England and the royalists were engaged in
fierce hostilities. Among the former, Roger Mortimer occupied the
Welsh marches, and John Daynil the Isle of Ely. Robert Hood was now
living in outlawry among the woodland copses and thickets."[7]
Mair, a Scottish writer of the first quarter of the 16th century, the
next historian who takes cognizance of our hero, and the only other
that requires any attention, has a passage which may be considered in
connection with the foregoing. In his _Historia Majoris Brittaniæ_, he
remarks, under the reign of Richard the First: "About this time
[1189-99], as I conjecture, the notorious robbers Robert Hood of
England and Little John lurked in the woods, spoiling the goods only
of rich men. They slew nobody but those who attacked them, or offered
resistance in defence of their property. Robert maintained by his
plunder a hundred archers, so skilful in fight that four hundred brave
men feared to attack them. He suffered no woman to be maltreated, and
never robbed the poor, but assisted them abundantly with the wealth
which he took from abbots."
It appears then that contemporaneous history is absolutely silent
concerning Robin Hood; that, excepting the casual allusion in _Piers
Ploughman_, he is first mentioned by a rhyming chronicler, who wrote
one hundred years after the latest date at which he can possibly be
supposed to have lived, and then by two prose chroniclers, who wrote
about one hundred and twenty-five years and two hundred years
respectively after that date; and it is further manifest that all
three of these chroniclers had no other authority for their statements
than traditional tales similar to those which have come down to our
day.[8] When, therefore, Thierry, relying upon these chronicles and
kindred popular legends, unhesitatingly adopts the conjecture of Mair,
and describes Robin Hood as the hero of the Saxon serfs, the chief of
a troop of Saxon banditti that continued, even to the reign of Coeur
de Lion, a determined resistance against the Norman invaders,[9] and
when another able and plausible writer accepts and maintains, with
equal confidence, the hypothesis of Bower, and exhibits the renowned
outlaw as an adherent of Simon de Montfort, who, after the fatal
battle of Evesham, kept up a vigorous guerilla warfare against the
officers of the tyrant Henry the Third, and of his successor,[10] we
must regard these representations which were conjectural three or four
centuries ago, as conjectures still, and even as arbitrary
conjectures, unless one or the other can be proved from the only
_authorities_ we have, the ballads, to have a peculiar intrinsic
probability. That neither of them possesses this intrinsic probability
may easily be shown, but first it will be advisable to notice another
theory, which is more plausibly founded on internal evidence, and
claims to be confirmed by documents of unimpeachable validity.
This theory has been propounded by the Rev. John Hunter, in one of his
_Critical and Historical Tracts_.[11] Mr. Hunter admits that Robin
Hood "lives only as a hero of song;" that he is not found in authentic
contemporary chronicles; and that, when we find him mentioned in
history, "the information was derived from the ballads, and is not
independent of them or correlative with them." While making these
admissions, he accords a considerable degree of credibility to the
ballads, and particularly to the _Lytell Geste_, the last two _fits_
of which he regards as giving a tolerably accurate account of real
occurrences.
In this part of the story, King Edward is represented as coming to
Nottingham to take Robin Hood. He traverses Lancashire and a part of
Yorkshire, and finds his forests nearly stripped of their deer, but
can get no trace of the author of these extensive depredations. At
last, by the advice of one of his foresters, assuming with several of
his knights the dress of a monk, he proceeds from Nottingham to
Sherwood, and there soon encounters the object of his search. He
submits to plunder as a matter of course, and then announces himself
as a messenger sent to invite Robin Hood to the royal presence. The
outlaw receives this message with great respect. There is no man in
the world, he says, whom he loves so much as his king. The monk is
invited to remain and dine; and after the repast, an exhibition of
archery is ordered, in which a bad shot is to be punished by a buffet
from the hand of the chieftain. Robin having once failed of the mark
requests the monk to administer the penalty. He receives a staggering
blow, which rouses his suspicions, recognizes the king on an attentive
consideration of his countenance, entreats grace for himself and his
followers, and is freely pardoned on condition that he and they shall
enter into the king's service. To this he agrees, and for fifteen
months resides at court. At the end of this time he has lost all his
followers but two, and spent all his money, and feels that he shall
pine to death with sorrow in such a life. He returns accordingly to
the green wood, collects his old followers around him, and for
twenty-two years maintains his independence in defiance of the power
of Edward.
Without asserting the literal verity of all the particulars of this
narrative, Mr. Hunter attempts to show that it contains a substratum
of fact. Edward the First, he informs us, was never in Lancashire
after he became king, and if Edward the Third was ever there at all,
it was not in the early years of his reign. But Edward the Second did
make one single progress in Lancashire, and this in the year 1323.
During this progress the king spent some time at Nottingham, and took
particular note of the condition of his forests, and among these of
the forest of Sherwood. Supposing now that the incidents detailed in
the _Lytell Geste_ really took place at this time, Robin Hood must
have entered into the royal service before the end of the year 1323.
It is a singular, and in the opinion of Mr. Hunter a very pregnant
coincidence, that, in certain Exchequer documents containing accounts
of expenses in the king's household, the name of Robyn Hode (or Robert
Hood) is found several times, beginning with the 24th of March, 1324,
among the "porters of the chamber" of the king. He received, with
Simon Hood and others, the wages of three pence a day. In August of
the following year Robin Hood suffers deduction from his pay for
non-attendance, his absences grow frequent, and, on the 22d of
November, he is discharged with a present of five shillings, "_poar
cas qil ne poait pluis travailler_".[12]
It remains still for Mr. Hunter to account for the existence of a
band of seven score of outlaws in the reign of Edward the Second, in
or about Yorkshire. The stormy and troublous reigns of the
Plantagenets make this a matter of no difficulty. Running his finger
down the long list of rebellions and commotions, he finds that early
in 1322 England was convulsed by the insurrection of Thomas Earl of
Lancaster, the king's near relation, supported by many powerful
noblemen. The Earl's chief seat was the castle of Pontefract, in the
West Riding of Yorkshire. He is said to have been popular, and it
would be a fair inference that many of his troops were raised in this
part of England. King Edward easily got the better of the rebels and
took exemplary vengeance upon them. Many of the leaders were at once
put to death, and the lives of all their partisans were in danger. Is
it impossible then, asks Mr. Hunter, that some who had been in the
army of the Earl, secreted themselves in the woods and turned their
skill in archery against the king's subjects or the king's deer; "that
these were the men who for so long a time haunted Barnsdale and
Sherwood, and that Robin Hood was one of them, a chief amongst them,
being really of a rank originally somewhat superior to the rest?"
We have then three different hypotheses concerning Robin Hood, one
placing him in the reign of Richard the First, another in that of
Henry the Third, and the last under Edward the Second, and all
describing him as a political foe to the established government. To
all of these hypotheses there are two very obvious and decisive
objections. The first is that Robin Hood, as already remarked, is not
so much as named in contemporary history. Whether as the unsubdued
leader of the Saxon peasantry, or insurgent against the tyranny of
Henry or Edward, it is inconceivable that we should not hear something
of him from the chroniclers. If, as Thierry says, "he had chosen
Hereward for his model," it is unexplained and inexplicable why his
historical fate has been so different from that of Hereward. The hero
of the Camp of Refuge fills an ample place in the annals of his day;
his achievements are also handed down in a prose romance which
presents many points of resemblance to the ballads of Robin Hood. It
would have been no wonder if the vulgar legends about Hereward had
utterly perished, but it is altogether anomalous[13] that a popular
champion who attained so extraordinary a notoriety in song, a man
living from one hundred to two hundred and fifty years later than
Hereward, should be passed over without one word of notice from any
authoritative historian.[14] That this would not be so, we are most
fortunately able to demonstrate by reference to a real case which
furnishes a singularly exact parallel to the present, that of the
famous outlaw, Adam Gordon. In the year 1267, says the continuator of
Matthew Paris, a soldier by the name of Adam Gordon, who had lost his
estates with other adherents of Simon de Montfort, and refused to seek
the mercy of the king, established himself with others in like
circumstances near a woody and tortuous road between the village of
Wilton and the castle of Farnham, from which position he made forays
into the country round about, directing his attacks especially against
those who were of the king's party. Prince Edward had heard much of
the prowess and honorable character of this man, and desired to have
some personal knowledge of him. He succeeded in surprising Gordon with
a superior force, and engaged him in single combat, forbidding any of
his own followers to interfere. They fought a long time, and the
prince was so filled with admiration of the courage and spirit of his
antagonist that he promised him life and fortune on condition of his
surrendering. To these terms Gordon acceded, his estates were
restored, and Edward found him ever after an attached and faithful
servant.[15] The story is romantic, and yet Adam Gordon was not made
the subject of ballads. _Caruit vate sacro._ The contemporary
historians, however, all have a paragraph for him. He is celebrated by
Wikes, the Chronicle of Dunstaple, the Waverley Annals, and we know
not where else besides.
But these theories are open to an objection stronger even than the
silence of history. They are contradicted by the spirit of the
ballads. No line of these songs breathes political animosity. There is
no suggestion or reminiscence of wrong, from invading Norman, or from
the established sovereign. On the contrary, Robin loved no man in the
world so well as his king. What the tone of these ballads would have
been, had Robin Hood been any sort of partisan, we may judge from the
mournful and indignant strains which were poured out on the fall of De
Montfort. We should have heard of the fatal field of Hastings, of the
perfidy of Henry, of the sanguinary revenge of Edward, and not of
matches at archery and encounters at quarter-staff, the plundering of
rich abbots, and squabbles with the sheriff. The Robin Hood of our
ballads is neither patriot under ban, nor proscribed rebel. An outlaw
indeed he is, but an "outlaw for venyson," like Adam Bell, and one
who superadds to deer-stealing the irregularity of a genteel highway
robbery.
Thus much of these conjectures in general. To recur to the particular
evidence by which Mr. Hunter's theory is supported, this consists
principally in the name of Robin Hood being found among the king's
servants shortly after Edward II. returned from his visit to the north
of his dominions. But the value of this coincidence depends entirely
upon the rarity of the name.[16] Now Hood, as Mr. Hunter himself
remarks, is a well-established hereditary name in the reigns of the
Edwards. We find it very frequently in the indexes to the Record
Publications, and this although it does not belong to the higher class
of people. That Robert was an ordinary Christian name requires no
proof, and if it was, the combination of Robert Hood must have been
frequent also. We have taken no extraordinary pains to hunt up this
combination, for really the matter is altogether too trivial to
justify the expense of time; but since to some minds much may depend
on the coincidence in question, we will cite several Robin Hoods in
the reign of the Edwards.
28th Ed. I. Robert Hood, a citizen of London, says Mr. Hunter,
supplied the king's household with beer.
30th Ed. I. Robert Hood is sued for three acres of pasture land in
Throckley, Northumberland. (_Rot. Orig. Abbrev._)
7th Ed. II. Robert Hood is surety for a burgess returned for
Lostwithiel, Cornwall. (_Parliamentary Writs._)
9th Ed. II. Robert Hood is a citizen of Wakefield, Yorkshire, whom Mr.
Hunter (p. 47) "may be justly charged with carrying supposition too
far" by striving to identify with Robin the porter.
10th Ed. III. A Robert Hood, of Howden, York, is mentioned in the
_Calendarium Rot. Patent_.
Adding the Robin Hood of the 17th Ed. II. we have six persons of that
name mentioned within a period of less than forty years, and this
circumstance does not dispose us to receive with great favor any
argument that may be founded upon one individual case of its
occurrence. But there is no end to the absurdities which flow from
this supposition. We are to believe that the weak and timid prince
that had severely punished his kinsman and his nobles, freely pardoned
a yeoman, who, after serving with the rebels, had for twenty months
made free with the king's deer and robbed on the highway, and not
only pardoned him, but received him into service _near his person_. We
are further to believe that the man who had led so daring and jovial a
life, and had so generously dispensed the pillage of opulent monks,
willingly entered into this service, doffed his Lincoln green for the
Plantagenet plush, and _consented_ to be enrolled among royal flunkies
for three pence a day. And again, admitting all this, we are finally
obliged by Mr. Hunter's document to concede that the stalwart archer
(who, according to the ballad, maintained himself two and twenty years
in the wood) was worn out by his duties as "proud portèr" in less than
two years, and was discharged a superannuated lackey, with five
shillings in his pocket, "_poar cas qil ne poait pluis travailler_."
To those who are well acquainted with ancient popular poetry, the
adventure of King Edward and Robin Hood, will seem the least eligible
portion of this circle of story for the foundation of an historical
theory. The ballad of King Edward and Robin Hood is but one version of
an extremely multiform legend, of which the tales of _King Edward and
the Shepherd_ and _King Edward and the Hermit_ are other specimens;
and any one who will take the trouble to examine will be convinced
that all these stories are one and the same thing, the personages
being varied for the sake of novelty, and the name of a recent or of
the reigning monarch substituted in successive ages for that of a
predecessor. (See _King Edward the Fourth and the Tanner of
Tamworth_.)
Rejecting, then, as nugatory every attempt to assign Robin Hood a
definite position in history, what view shall we adopt? Are all these
traditions absolute fictions, and is he himself a pure creation of the
imagination? Might not the ballads under consideration have a basis in
the exploits of a real person, living in the forests, _somewhere_ and
at _some time_? Or, denying individual existence to Robin Hood, and
particular truth to the adventures ascribed to him, may we not regard
him as _the ideal of the outlaw class_, a class so numerous in all the
countries of Europe in the middle ages? We are perfectly contented to
form no opinion upon the subject; but if compelled to express one, we
should say that this last supposition (which is no novelty) possessed
decidedly more likelihood than any other. Its plausibility will be
confirmed by attending to the apparent signification of the name Robin
Hood. The natural refuge and stronghold of the outlaw was the woods.
Hence he is termed by Latin writers _silvaticus_, by the Normans
_forestier_. The Anglo-Saxon robber or highwayman is called a
wood-rover, _wealdgenga_, and the Norse word for outlaw is exactly
equivalent.[17] It has been often suggested that Robin Hood is a
corruption, or dialectic form, of Robin of the Wood, and when we
remember that _wood_ is pronounced _hood_ in some parts of
England,[18] (as _whoop_ is pronounced _hoop_ everywhere,) and that
the outlaw bears in so many languages a name descriptive of his
habitation, this notion will not seem an idle fancy.
Various circumstances, however, have disposed writers of learning to
look further for a solution of the question before us. Mr. Wright
propounds an hypothesis that Robin Hood was "one among the personages
of the early mythology of the Teutonic peoples;" and a German
scholar,[19] in an exceedingly interesting article which throws much
light on the history of English sports, has endeavored to show
specifically that he is in name and substance one with the god Woden.
The arguments by which these views are supported, though in their
present shape very far from convincing, are entitled to a respectful
consideration.
The most important of these arguments are those which are based on the
peculiar connection between Robin Hood and the month of May. Mr.
Wright has justly remarked, that either an express mention of this
month, or a vivid description of the season, in the older ballads,
shows that the feats of the hero were generally performed during this
part of the year. Thus, the adventure of _Robin Hood and the Monk_
befell on "a morning of May." _Robin Hood and the Potter_, and _Robin
Hood and Guy of Gisborne_ begin, like _Robin Hood and the Monk_, with
a description of the season when leaves are long, blossoms are
shooting, and the small birds are singing, and this season, though
called summer, is at the same time spoken of as May in _Robin Hood and
the Monk_, which, from the description there given, it needs must be.
The liberation of Cloudesly by Adam Bel and Clym of the Clough is also
achieved "on a merry morning of May."
Robin Hood is moreover intimately associated with the month of May
through the games which were celebrated at that time of the year. The
history of these games is unfortunately very defective, and hardly
extends beyond the beginning of the 16th century. By that time their
primitive character seems to have been corrupted, or at least their
significance was so far forgotten, that distinct pastimes and
ceremonials were capriciously intermixed. At the beginning of the 16th
century the May sports in vogue were, besides a contest of archery,
four _pageants_,--the Kingham, or election of a Lord and Lady of the
May, otherwise called Summer King and Queen, the Morris Dance, the
Hobby Horse, and the "Robin Hood." Though these pageants were diverse
in their origin, they had, at the epoch of which we write, begun to be
confounded; and the Morris exhibited a tendency to absorb and blend
them all, as, from its character, being a procession interspersed with
dancing, it easily might do. We shall hardly find the Morris pure and
simple in the English May-game; but from a comparison of the two
earliest representations which we have of this sport, the Flemish
print given by Douce in his _Illustrations of Shakespeare_, and
Tollett's celebrated painted window, (described in Johnson and
Steevens's _Shakespeare_,) we may form an idea of what was essential
and what adventitious in the English spectacle. The Lady is evidently
the central personage in both. She is, we presume, the same as the
Queen of May, who is the oldest of all the characters in the May
games, and the apparent successor to the Goddess of Spring in the
Roman Floralia. In the English Morris she is called simply The Lady,
or more frequently Maid Marian, a name which, to our apprehension,
means Lady of the May, and nothing more. A fool and a taborer seem
also to have been indispensable; but the other dancers had neither
names nor peculiar offices, and were unlimited in number. The Morris
then, though it lost in allegorical significance, would gain
considerably in spirit and variety by combining with the other shows.
Was it not natural, therefore, and in fact inevitable, that the old
favorites of the populace, Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, and Little John,
should in the course of time displace three of the anonymous
performers in the show? This they had pretty effectually done at the
beginning of the 16th century, and the Lady, who had accepted the more
precise designation of Maid Marian, was after that generally regarded
as the consort of Robin Hood, though she sometimes appeared in the
Morris without him. In like manner, the Hobby Horse was quite early
adopted into the Morris, of which it formed no original part, and at
last even a Dragon was annexed to the company. Under these
circumstances we cannot be surprised to find the principal performers
in the May pageants passing the one into the other; to find the May
King, whose occupation was gone when the fascinating outlaw had
supplanted him in the favor of the Lady, assuming the part of the
Hobby Horse,[20] Robin Hood usurping the title of King of the May,[21]
and the Hobby Horse entering into a contest with the Dragon, as St.
George.
We feel obliged to regard this interchange of functions among the
characters in the English May pageants as fortuitous, notwithstanding
the coincidence of the May King sometimes appearing on horseback in
Germany, and notwithstanding our conviction that Kuhn is right in
maintaining that the May King, the Hobby Horse, and the Dragon-slayer,
are symbols of one mythical idea. This idea we are compelled by want
of space barely to state, with the certainty of doing injustice to the
learning and ingenuity with which the author has supported his views.
Kuhn has shown it to be extremely probable, first, that the Christmas
games, which both in Germany and England have a close resemblance to
those of Spring, are to be considered as a prelude to the May sports,
and that they both originally symbolized the victory of Summer over
Winter,[22] which, beginning at the winter solstice, is completed in
the second month of Spring; secondly, that the conquering Summer is
represented by the May King, or by the Hobby Horse (as also by the
Dragon-slayer, whether St. George, Siegfried, Apollo, or the Sanskrit
Indras); and thirdly, that the Hobby Horse in particular represents
the god Woden, who, as well as Mars[23] among the Romans, is the god
at once of Spring and of Victory.
The essential point, all this being admitted, is now to establish the
identity of Robin Hood and the Hobby Horse. This we think we have
shown cannot be done by reasoning founded on the early history of the
games under consideration. Kuhn relies principally upon two modern
accounts of Christmas pageants. In one of these pageants there is
introduced a man on horseback, who carries in his hands a bow and
arrows. The other furnishes nothing peculiar except a name: the
ceremony is called a _hoodening_, and the hobby horse a _hooden_. In
the rider with bow and arrows, Kuhn sees Robin Hood and the Hobby
Horse, and in the name _hooden_ (which is explained by the authority
he quotes to mean wooden) he discovers a provincial form of _wooden_
which connects the outlaw and the divinity.[24] It will be generally
agreed that these slender premises are totally inadequate to support
the weighty conclusion that is rested upon them.
Why the adventures of Robin Hood should be specially assigned, as they
are in the old ballads, to the month of May, remains unexplained. We
have no exquisite reason to offer, but we may perhaps find reason good
enough in the delicious stanzas with which some of these ballads
begin.
In summer when the shawès be sheen,
And leavès be large and long,
It is full merry in fair forèst
To hear the fowlès song;
To see the deer draw to the dale,
And leave the hillès hee,
And shadow them in the leavès green
Under the green-wood tree.
The poetical character of the season affords all the explanation that
is required.
Nor need the occurrence of exhibitions of archery and of the Robin
Hood plays and pageants, at this time of the year, occasion any
difficulty. Repeated statutes, from the 13th to the 16th century,
enjoined practice with the bow, and ordered that the leisure time of
holidays should be employed for this purpose. Under Henry the Eighth
the custom was still kept up, and those who partook in this exercise
often gave it a spirit by assuming the style and character of Robin
Hood and his associates. In like manner the society of archers in
Elizabeth's time, took the name of Arthur and his knights: all which
was very natural then and would be now. None of all the merrymakings
in merry England surpassed the May festival. The return of the sun
stimulated the populace to the accumulation of all sorts of
amusements. In addition to the traditional and appropriate sports of
the season, there were, as Stowe tells us, divers warlike shows, with
good archers, morris-dancers, and other devices for pastime all day
long, and towards the evening stage-plays and bonfires in the streets.
A Play of Robin Hood was considered "very proper for a May-game," but
if Robin Hood was peculiarly prominent in these entertainments, the
obvious reason would appear to be that he was the hero of that loved
green-wood to which all the world resorted, when the cold obstruction
of winter was broken up, "to do observance for a morn of May."
We do not therefore attribute much value to the theory of Mr. Wright,
that the May festival was, in its earliest form, "a religious
celebration, though, like such festivals in general, it possessed a
double character, that of a religious ceremony, and of an opportunity
for the performance of warlike games; that, at such festivals, the
songs would take the character of the amusements on the occasion, and
would most likely celebrate warlike deeds--perhaps the myths of the
patron whom superstition supposed to preside over them; that, as the
character of the exercises changed, the attributes of the patron would
change also, and he who was once celebrated as working wonders with
his good axe or his elf-made sword, might afterwards assume the
character of a skilful bowman; that the scene of his actions would
likewise change, and the person whose weapons were the bane of dragons
and giants, who sought them in the wildernesses they infested, might
become the enemy only of the sheriff and his officers, under the
'grene-wode lefe.'" It is unnecessary to point out that the language
we have quoted contains, beyond the statement that warlike exercises
were anciently combined with religious rites, a very slightly founded
surmise, and nothing more.
Another circumstance which weighs much with Mr. Wright, goes but a
very little way with us in demonstrating the mythological character of
Robin Hood. This is the frequency with which his name is attached to
mounds, wells, and stones, such as in the popular creed are connected
with fairies, dwarfs, or giants. There is scarcely a county in England
which does not possess some monument of this description. "Cairns on
Blackdown in Somersetshire, and barrows near to Whitby in Yorkshire
and Ludlow in Shropshire, are termed Robin Hood's pricks or butts;
lofty natural eminences in Gloucestershire and Derbyshire are Robin
Hood's hills; a huge rock near Matlock is Robin Hood's Tor; ancient
boundary stones, as in Lincolnshire, are Robin Hood's crosses; a
presumed loggan, or rocking-stone, in Yorkshire, is Robin Hood's
penny-stone; a fountain near Nottingham, another between Doncaster and
Wakefield, and one in Lancashire, are Robin Hood's wells; a cave in
Nottinghamshire is his stable; a rude natural rock in Hope Dale is his
chair; a chasm at Chatsworth is his leap; Blackstone Edge, in
Lancashire, is his bed."[25] In fact, his name bids fair to overrun
every remarkable object of the sort which has not been already
appropriated to King Arthur or the Devil; with the latter of whom, at
least, it is presumed that, however ancient, he will not dispute
precedence.
"The legends of the peasantry," quoth Mr. Wright, "are the shadows of
a very remote antiquity." This proposition, thus broadly stated, we
deny. Nothing is more deceptive than popular legends; and the
"legends," we speak of, if they are to bear that name, have no claim
to antiquity at all. They do not go beyond the ballads. They are
palpably of subsequent and comparatively recent origin. It was
absolutely impossible that they should arise while Robin Hood was a
living reality to the people. The archer of Sherwood who could barely
stand King Edward's buffet, and was felled by the Potter, was no man
to be playing with rocking stones. This trick of naming must have
begun in the decline of his fame, for there was a time when his
popularity drooped, and his existence was just not doubted; not
elaborately maintained by learned historians, and antiquarians deeply
read in the Public Records. And what do these names prove? The vulgar
passion for bestowing them is notorious and universal. We Americans
are too young to be well provided with heroes that might serve this
purpose. We have no imaginative peasantry to invent legends, no
ignorant peasantry to believe them. But we have the good fortune to
possess the Devil in common with the rest of the world; and we take it
upon us to say, that there is not a mountain district in the land,
which has been opened to summer travellers, where a "Devil's Bridge,"
a "Devil's Punch-bowl," or some object with the like designation, will
not be pointed out.[26]
We have taken no notice of the later fortunes of Robin Hood in his
true and original character of a hero of romance. Towards the end of
the 16th century, Anthony Munday attempted to revive the decaying
popularity of this king of good fellows, who had won all his honors as
a simple yeoman, by representing him in the play of _The Downfall of
Robert Earl of Huntington_, as a nobleman in disguise, outlawed by the
machinations of his steward. This pleasing and successful drama is
Robin's sole patent to that title of Earl of Huntington, in
confirmation of which, Dr. Stukeley fabricated a pedigree that
transcends even the absurdities of heraldry, and some unknown forger
an epitaph beneath the skill of a Chatterton. Those who desire a full
acquaintance with the fabulous history of Robin Hood, will seek it in
the well-known volumes of Ritson, or in those of his recent editor,
Gutch, who does not make up by superior discrimination for his
inferiority in other respects to that industrious antiquary.
[1] "This is a tale indeed of Robin Hood,
Which to beleeve might show my wits but weake."
Harington's _Ariosto_, p. 391, as cited by Ritson.
[2] Sloth says:--
"I kan noght parfitly my pater-noster,
As the preest it syngeth,
But I kan rymes of Robyn Hood,
And Randolf erl of Chestre."
Wright's ed. v. 3275-8.
[3] A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_, (July, 1847, p. 134,) has
cited an allusion to Robin Hood, of a date intermediate between the
passages from Wyntown, and the one about to be cited from Bower. In
the year 1439, a petition was presented to Parliament against one
Piers Venables of Aston, in Derbyshire, "who having no liflode, ne
sufficeante of goodes, gadered and assembled unto him many misdoers,
beynge of his clothynge, and, in manere of insurrection, wente into
the wodes in that countrie, like as it hadde be _Robyn Hode and his
meynè_." _Rot. Parl._ v. 16.
[4] "Legendis non raro incredibilibus aliisque plusquam anilibus
neniis." Hearne, _Scotichronicon_, p. xxix.
[5] Hearne. Mr. Hunter agrees to this.
[6] Hearne, p. 774.
[7] _Scotichronicon_, ed. Goodall, ii. 104.
[8] A comparison of the legends concerning William Tell, as they
appear in any of the recent discussions of the subject, (e.g. Ideler's
_Sage von dem Schuss des Tell_, Berlin, 1836,) with those of Robin
Hood and Adam Bell, will be found interesting and instructive.
[9] In his _Histoire de la Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands_,
l. xi. Thierry was anticipated in his theory by Barry, in a
dissertation cited by Mr. Wright in his Essays: _Thèse de Littérature
sur les Viccissitudes et les Transformations du Cycle populaire de
Robin Hood._ Paris, 1832.
[10] London and Westminster Review, vol. xxxiii. p. 424.
[11] No. 4. _The Ballad Hero, Robin Hood._ June, 1852.
[12] Hunter, p. 28, p. 35-38.
[13] Mr. Hunter thinks it necessary to prove that it was formerly a
usage in England to celebrate real events in popular song. We submit
that it has been still more customary to celebrate them in history,
when they were of public importance. The case of private and domestic
stories is different.
[14] Most remarkable of all would this be, should we adopt the views
of Mr. Hunter, because we know from the incidental testimony of _Piers
Ploughman_, that only forty years after the date fixed upon for the
outlaw's submission, "rhymes of Robin Hood," were in the mouth of
every tavern lounger; and yet no chronicler can spare him a word.
[15] Matthew Paris, London, 1640, p. 1002.
[16] Mr. Hunter had previously instituted a similar argument in the
case of Adam Bell, and doubtless the reasoning might be extended to
Will Scathlock and Little John. With a little more rummaging of old
account-books we shall be enabled to "comprehend all vagrom men." It
is a pity that the Sheriff of Nottingham could not have availed
himself of the services of our "detective." The sagacity that has
identified the Porter might easily, we imagine, have unmasked the
Potter.
[17] See Wright's _Essays_, ii. 207. "The name of Witikind, the famous
opponent of Charlemagne, who always fled before his sight, concealed
himself in the forests, and returned again in his absence, is no more
than _witu chint_, in Old High Dutch, and signifies the _son of the
wood_, an appellation which he could never have received at his birth,
since it denotes an exile or outlaw. Indeed, the name Witikind, though
such a person seems to have existed, appears to be the representative
of all the defenders of his country against the invaders." (_Cf._ the
_Three_ Tells.)
[18] Thus, in Kent, the Hobby Horse is called _hooden_, i.e. wooden.
It is curious that Orlando, in _As You Like It_, (who represents the
outlaw Gamelyn in the _Tale of Gamelyn_, a tale which clearly belongs
to the cycle of Robin Hood,) should be the son of Sir Rowland _de
Bois_. Robin de Bois (says a writer in _Notes and Queries_, vi. 597)
occurs in one of Sue's novels "as a well-known mythical character,
whose name is employed by French mothers to frighten their children."
[19] Kuhn, in _Haupt's Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, v. 472.
The idea of a northern myth will of course excite the alarm of all
sensible patriotic Englishmen, (e.g. Mr. Hunter, at page 3 of his
tract,) and the bare suggestion of Woden will be received, in the same
quarters, with an explosion of scorn. And yet we find the famous shot
of Eigill, one of the mythical personages of the Scandinavians, (and
perhaps to be regarded as one of the forms of Woden,) attributed in
the ballad of _Adam Bel_ to William of Cloudesly, who may be
considered as Robin Hood under another name. See the preface to _Adam
Bel_.
[20] As in Tollett's window.
[21] In Lord Hailes's _Extracts from the Book of the Universal Kirk_.
[22] More openly exhibited in the mock battle between Summer and
Winter celebrated by the Scandinavians in honor of May, a custom still
retained in the Isle of Man, where the month is every year ushered in
with a contest between the Queen of Summer, and the Queen of Winter.
(Brand's _Antiquities_, by Ellis, i. 222, 257.) A similar ceremony in
Germany, occurring at Christmas, is noticed by Kuhn, p. 478.
[23] Hence the Spring begins with March. The connection with Mars
suggests a possible etymology for the Morris--which is usually
explained, for want of something better, as a Morisco or Moorish
dance. There is some resemblance between the Morris and the Salic
dance. The Salic games are said to have been instituted by the Veian
king Morrius, a name pointing to Mars, the divinity of the Salii.
Kuhn, 488-493.
[24] The name Robin also appears to Kuhn worthy of notice, since the
horseman in the May pageant is in some parts of Germany called
Ruprecht (Rupert, Robert).
[25] Edinburgh Review, vol. 86, p. 123.
[26] See some sensible remarks in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for
March, 1793, by D. H., that is, says the courteous Ritson, by Gough,
"the scurrilous and malignant editor of that degraded publication."
ROBIN HOOD AND THE MONK.
This excellent ballad, which appears to be the oldest of the class
preserved, and is possibly as old as the reign of Edward II. (see
Wright's _Essays_, &c., ii. 174), is found in a manuscript belonging
to the public library of the University of Cambridge (Ff. 5, 48). It
was first printed by Jamieson, _Popular Ballads_, ii. 54, afterwards
in Hartshorne's _Metrical Tales_, p. 179, and is here given from the
second edition of Ritson's _Robin Hood_, (ii. 221,) as collated by Sir
Frederic Madden.
The story is nearly the same in _Adam Bel, Clym of the Cloughe, and
Wyllyam of Cloudeslè_.
In somer when the shawes be sheyne,
And leves be large and longe,
Hit is full mery in feyre foreste
To here the foulys song.
To se the dere draw to the dale, 5
And leve the hilles hee,
And shadow hem in the leves grene,
Vndur the grene-wode tre.
Hit befell on Whitsontide,
Erly in a may mornyng, 10
The son vp fayre can shyne,
And the briddis mery can syng.
"This is a mery mornyng," seid Litulle Johne,
"Be hym that dyed on tre;
A more mery man then I am one 15
Lyves not in Cristianté."
"Pluk vp thi hert, my dere mayster,"
Litulle Johne can sey,
"And thynk hit is a fulle fayre tyme
In a mornynge of may." 20
"Ze on thynge greves me," seid Robyne,
"And does my hert mych woo,
That I may not so solem day
To mas nor matyns goo.
"Hit is a fourtnet and more," seyd hee, 25
"Syn I my Sauyour see;
To day will I to Notyngham," seid Robyn,
"With the myght of mylde Mary."
Then spake Moche the mylner sune,
Euer more wel hym betyde, 30
"Take xii of thi wyght zemen
Well weppynd be thei side.[L32]
Such on wolde thi selfe slon
That xii dar not abyde."
"Off alle my mery men," seid Robyne, 35
"Be my feithe I wil non haue;
But Litulle Johne shall beyre my bow
Til that me list to drawe.
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
"Thou shalle beyre thin own," seid Litulle Jon,[L39]
"Maister, and I wil beyre myne, 40
And we wille shete a peny," seid Litulle Jon,
"Vnder the grene wode lyne."