Robin Hood: the Man and the Myth

Robin Hood: The Man and the Myth

(by Robert Janas)

The Ballads

The story of Robin Hood, the bold outlaw of Sherwood Forest, is one of the most popular and enduring legends of all time. The original stories are to be found in popular ballads of late medieval England, the earliest existing copies of which date from the mid-15th century. The ballads were certainly in existence prior to this time, and were probably based on oral stories and traditions from an even earlier period. The first confirmed reference to the Robin Hood ballads can be found in Piers the Plowman, a poem written by William Langland in 1377. A character in the poem makes the statement that he may not know how to say his prayers properly, but he does know “the rhymes of Robyn hood”. Stories of Robin Hood must have been widely known and popular at least by this time, and probably go back even further. The Robin Hood of the original ballads is a very different character than the legendary hero with whom most people today are familiar. He is not a champion of the common people, fighting for justice. He is not an outlawed nobleman who opposes tyranny and oppression, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. He has no social agenda or political objectives. He is just a common outlaw and thief. Though he is not a nobleman, neither is he a peasant. He is described in the ballads as a “yeoman”, a member of the middle class of medieval England. He does not seem to have been forced into an outlaw’s life by dire circumstance. We do not really know why he has become an outlaw. For all we know he has freely chosen this profession. In any event, he loves his work. And he is not always such a nice guy. The early ballads are filled with violence and bloody deeds perpetrated by Robin and his men. On the other hand, Robin does have his good qualities. He generally treats the common people well. He instructs his men to target only the rich nobility and higher clergy, and to avoid harming women of any class. In one story he even gives money to a poor knight, Sir Richard at the Lee, who, though a nobleman, is kindly and gentle. Also, despite being a criminal, Robin is a devout Catholic, with a special reverence for the Virgin Mary. The ballads tell various stories about Robin’s exploits and adventures, many of which deal with the attempts of the Sheriff to capture Robin, and the ingenious ways in which Robin eludes and defeats him. Themes of disguise and trickery are common. Though we think of him today as a great swordsman and the best archer of his time, in the ballads he actually loses a number of his fights and contests of skill, sometimes to men who he then recruits to join his band, which is the case with his most constant and trusted companion, Little John. The main portrait of Robin Hood from the ballads is that of an intelligent, resourceful and quick-witted man with exceptional leadership skills, a man who other men will gladly follow. Some of the stories also tell of what eventually happens to Robin. In one, he meets the King, who takes a liking to Robin and pardons him. Robin enters the King’s service for a time, but comes to miss his former way of life. He returns to being an outlaw in the forest, where he remains for another twenty-two years. This ballad, as well as one other, relates how Robin Hood dies. Robin is wounded or becomes ill. He seeks help at the Priory of Kirklees, where the Prioress bleeds him to death. Bleeding was an accepted medical practice in medieval times, when it was believed that people could be cured of illness by draining some of the “bad” blood from them, and accidental death from this procedure was not uncommon. However, in this case, the Prioress, whose lover is one of Robin’s enemies, purposely murders him. One story states that before he dies, Robin shoots an arrow out a window and commands Little John to bury him wherever the arrow falls. (There actually is a grave at Kirklees with a headstone stating that it is the grave of Robin Hood, with a date of death given as 1247. Though the tradition that this is the grave of Robin Hood is very old, the headstone was reportedly placed there only in the 18th century, and the date given for his death is therefore not necessarily reliable.)

The Legend Develops

The early ballads about this happy-go-lucky outlaw and “rebel without a cause” were very popular with the common people of England in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was a time when the old social order was breaking down, and there was much popular unrest and resentment towards the corruption and abuses of the nobility and clergy. Over time the legend evolved, as popular tales tend to do, with new elements, stories and characters being added. Eventually the stories became popular with the upper classes as well, and this may have led to significant changes. It would no longer have been “politically correct” for Robin Hood to be just a common outlaw. So he became more noble and heroic, someone with whom people of any class could sympathize, and justifications for his outlaw life were given. In 1599 a major change took place. In that year the playwright Anthony Munday presented the first of two plays about Robin Hood. Perhaps inspired by some of the prevailing theories at that time about the dates for Robin Hood, as well as research of the time into his lineage (now considered by many to be faulty), Munday set his plays at the end of the 12th century, during the reign of Richard I. “Robin Hood” became the alias of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon, a nobleman who is outlawed for remaining loyal to the absent King Richard, and for opposing the tyranny of Prince John. The heroic, “champion of the common people” theme was solidified, and characters such as Lady Marian became more prominent. Munday’s plays were very popular, and his version of the story was further developed by later writers of fiction, such as Sir Walter Scott, who made Robin Hood a character in his novel Ivanhoe, and Howard Pyle, who in the late 19th century wrote a collection of Robin Hood stories that became very popular with young readers. This version of the story was also used frequently in the 20th century as the basis for the classic Robin Hood films starring Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn, as well as countless other movies, books and television shows. This modern version of the story is basically as follows. The setting is England in the early 1190s. It is just a little over one hundred years since the Norman conquest of Saxon England, and significant divisions still exist between the Norman ruling class and the (mostly Saxon) lower classes. King Richard I, the Lionheart, though a Norman, wishes to be King of all the English people, and to put an end to injustice. However, before he can make good on this promise, he is called away to fight in the Crusades. During his absence, his evil brother Prince John takes control, and ruthlessly oppresses the common people. While returning from the Crusades, Richard is captured by his enemy, the Duke of Austria, who hands him over to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI, another enemy, who holds him for ransom. Prince John levies new oppressive taxes on the common people, supposedly to raise money to pay for Richard’s ransom. In reality, he is in league with Richard’s enemies, conspiring to keep Richard imprisoned. He intends to keep the tax money for himself, and when his position is solidified, to steal the throne from his brother. Robert of Loxley, the Saxon Earl of Huntingdon, remains loyal to Richard and opposes Prince John. For this he is stripped of his title and lands, and forced to become an outlaw. Taking refuge in Sherwood Forest, he gathers together his band of “Merry Men”, and leads the fight against the tyranny of Prince John and his henchmen, the Sheriff of

2 Nottingham and Sir Guy of Gisbourne. They rob the rich supporters of Prince John, both to obtain money to alleviate the suffering of the poor, and to raise money that will really be used to pay Richard’s ransom. Along the way, Robin meets the Lady Marian, a young noblewoman who is being forced into an unwanted marriage with Sir Guy, and they fall in love. After many adventures, Robin meets King Richard, who has returned to England in disguise, and aids him in defeating the forces of Prince John. Richard regains his throne and brings justice to the land. Robin is restored to his noble title, he and Marian wed, and everyone lives happily ever after. That is the modern Robin Hood legend. It does make for a good story. However, it is unfortunate that in the process of its development so much of what made the original Robin Hood of the ballads so much fun, and so much more real, has been lost.

Randolf Earl of Chester

There is one other interesting thing about the reference to Robin Hood in Piers the Plowman, something that has forever puzzled Robin Hood scholars. In the actual line referring to Robin Hood, the character states that he knows the rhymes of “Robyn hood and Randolf erle of Chestre”. Who is this Randolf, and what, if any, connection does he have to Robin Hood? There is no mention of such a person in any of the original Robin Hood ballads. There may have been a connection, some fact that was common knowledge at that time but has since been lost. Could it be that Randolf Earl of Chester is the true identity of Robin Hood himself? That would be very convenient, but it seems unlikely, since the character in Piers is referring to the ballads, in which Robin is never described as being a nobleman. Or maybe there is no connection. The character may simply have been stating that he is familiar with the ballads about Robin Hood, and is also familiar with other ballads that were popular at the time concerning Randolf. So far, no evidence of any medieval ballads featuring such a person has been discovered. Was there ever a real person called Randolf Earl of Chester? The Earldom of Chester did exist, from the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066 until 1237, and even after that there were some individuals who held the title though not the actual lands. The line of Earls did include a few by the name of Ranulf or Rannulf, which was the earlier medieval equivalent of “Randolf” or “Randolph”. There is some speculation that Ranulf De Blondeville, a powerful nobleman who was the Earl of Chester from 1181 to 1232, is the one referred to in Piers. There are no known ballads about him, but there is a possible connection to Robin Hood. This Ranulf’s sister, Maud, was married to David, Earl of Huntingdon, one of the candidates for a real Robin Hood (see below), and David’s son inherited the earldom after Ranulf’s death. However, the identification of Earl David as Robin Hood is inconclusive, and the Randolf Earl of Chester connection remains a mystery.

The “King” of the Geste

The ballads do provide one clue that might help to identify a more specific time period for Robin Hood, and perhaps the identity of the “real” Robin Hood. In The Geste of Robin Hood, one of the most famous ballads, Robin meets a personage referred to as “Edward, our comely King”. This Edward pardons Robin, who enters his service. But Robin misses his old way of life, and returns to being an outlaw in the forest. Some scholars believe that this Edward is King Edward II, who was reputed to be very handsome, and may have been referred to as “comely”. In 1321 the Earl of Lancaster led a revolt against Edward II, a revolt that was

3 centered in north-central England, the general vicinity of Robin Hood’s territory. After Lancaster was defeated in 1322, some of the surviving rebels took to the woods and became outlaws. King Edward visited the area a short time later and pardoned some of these men. Could one of them have been Robin Hood? Perhaps (see below), but one possible problem is that the line in Piers the Plowman may not be the first known reference to Robin Hood. There is a line in an early chronicle of the history of Scotland that compares William Wallace, the great Scottish national hero, to Robin Hood. The date of this chronicle is given as 1304. Some historians dispute that date, and believe the work was written much later. However, if the date of 1304 is accurate, then this would be the earliest known reference to Robin Hood, preceding Piers the Plowman by seventy-three years. It would also mean that the figure of Robin Hood was already well-known by that time, and the reign of Edward II would not have been the time period for either a “real” Robin Hood or the beginnings of the legend. Perhaps the King of the Geste is Edward II, and this ballad was a later addition to a body of stories that pre-dates his reign. However, some scholars have proposed an alternate theory. They believe that the word “comely” was not meant to mean “handsome”, but “to come”, as in “Edward, our King to come”, meaning someone named Edward who was not yet King but would be at some future time. Was there such a person during the time frame for Robin Hood? One possibility is King Henry III’s eldest son and heir apparent, Edward, who ultimately became King as Edward I. During his last years Henry was in poor physical and mental health, and Prince Edward was the de facto ruler of England. It was expected that he would soon succeed his father to the throne, which he did in 1272. In 1265 Edward led the royal forces at Evesham, the battle that ended the rebellion of Simon de Montfort. It is known that following de Montfort’s defeat and death, some of his surviving followers fled to the woods in the vicinity of Nottingham and became outlaws. Prince Edward visited Nottingham in the early 1270s, shortly before he was to become King, and may have pardoned some of these persistent rebels who had turned outlaw. Was one of them Robin Hood? The Geste tells us that Robin entered the King’s service after being pardoned. There is no surviving record of a man named Robin Hood in Edward I’s service during this time. However, “Robin Hood” could very well have been an alias, and he might have served under Edward using his real name, which we do not know. (A further note of interest is that Edward I, when he was Prince and heir apparent, also held the title “Earl of Chester”.) As with the Edward II theory, we have a good fit with the events described in the Geste, and the time frame would be right for Robin Hood. (See below for more on this theory.)

Characters of the Robin Hood Legend

The following are some of the more significant characters of the Robin Hood legend who appear in the original ballads and/or the later versions of the story.

Little John Little John is Robin Hood’s constant and faithful companion, his partner and right-hand man. “Little John” is a nickname, and something of a joke, since he is described as an individual of unusual size and strength. He plays a prominent role in all of the ballads, as well as the later stories. In some of the early ballads he is almost as important a character as Robin himself, and some stories even state that Little John was as good as or better than Robin with bow and sword. More than just the “brawn” to complement Robin’s “brains”, he was originally the leader of his

4 own outlaw band, and is often the one who saves the day when Robin finds himself in some difficulty. Little John is also one of the few characters, other than Robin himself, for whom there is some evidence that he may have been a real person. Several real-life individuals have been identified who could have been the “real” Little John. One of the most interesting is a man named John Nailer, or Naylor, from the village of Hathersage who lived in the mid-13th century. Local legend states that he participated in the rebellion of Simon de Montfort against King Henry III, during which he met Robin, and the two became outlaws together following de Montfort’s defeat at the battle of Evesham in 1265. There is a grave in Hathersage reputed to be his. In the 18th century the grave was supposedly opened, and a thigh bone was found, the length of which indicated that the deceased was a man of great height, standing seven feet tall or more. Local tradition also says that for many years Little John’s cap and bow hung in the parish church. The cap and bow, along with the thigh bone, have long since disappeared.

Friar Tuck Friar Tuck, the worldly country friar who joins Robin’s band, is one of the most colorful and beloved characters of the legend. He is jovial, irreverent, overly fond of food and drink, and pretty handy with a sword when he needs to be. Tuck is a later addition to the legend, and does not appear in the earlier ballads. There is one later ballad, Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar, describing Robin’s adventures with a friar who, though not identified by name, bears some resemblance to the traditional Friar Tuck. Tuck may also have been inspired by one or more real-life monks-turned-outlaw. In the early 1200s there was a famous pirate called Eustace the Monk who played both sides of the English-French wars of the time. Also of interest is evidence of a highwayman named John Stafford, hanged for his crimes in the second decade of the 1400s, who went by the alias of “Frere Tuck” or “Friar Tuck”. Did he borrow his alias from a character already associated with Robin Hood? We do not know. Stories of these men may have contributed to the creation of the “Friar Tuck” character as a later addition to the Robin Hood legend. The character may also have been created as a satire of the rural clergy of late-medieval England, who were generally known for their secular pursuits and lack of dedication to their religious duties, or as a contrast to the higher clergy of the time, who were viewed as corrupt and aloof.

Maid Marian Maid Marian, or Lady Marian, is an important character in the later versions of the legend. Her name is sometimes given as Mathilda, and she sometimes has the surname Fitzwalter (which, oddly enough, would indicate that she was of Norman lineage, not Saxon). She is Robin’s love, presented in some versions of the story as a young noblewoman being forced into an unwanted marriage to Sir Guy of Gisbourne. She is the archetype of traditional female perfection - demure, submissive, and feminine; but she also possesses a keen intelligence and great resourcefulness. She handles a sword well, too. Marian is a later addition to the story, and does not appear in the early ballads. She may have been the creation of later writers who felt that Robin needed a love interest. Or, she may have evolved from the traditions of the May Games. These were rural spring festivals with which the character of Robin Hood was sometimes associated, where Robin is the King of May, and he always has a Queen. It is also possible that she may have been created as the personification of the Virgin Mary, to whom Robin was devoted. Though Maid Marian is probably a purely fictional character, it is

5 interesting to note that a couple of the candidates for a real-life Robin Hood did have a wife whose name was Marian, Mathilda or Maud.

Much, Will Scarlet, Alan a’Dale Much the miller’s son and Will Scarlet appear in many of the early ballads as members of Robin Hood’s outlaw band, though as characters they are not as well-defined as Robin and Little John. It is said that Much was a young man, not much more than a boy, who was rescued by Robin when the Sheriff’s men were about to cut off his hand for poaching a deer. He is often portrayed as simple-minded, and it is said that “Much” was a nickname given him because his parents frequently commented that he was “not much”. Will Scarlet, whose last name has many variations, is said to have turned outlaw after the Sheriff’s men raped and murdered his wife, though there are other versions of what happened that made him turn outlaw. His last name is said to come from his habit of wearing scarlet-colored clothes, and in some later versions of the story he is portrayed as being something of a dandy. Since they are among the earliest identified companions of Robin Hood, then if Robin was real, it may be probable that they were also based on real people. However, attempts to identify real-life counterparts for them have so far proved inconclusive. Alan a’Dale appears in some of the later ballads. He is a wandering minstrel who joins Robin’s band. He generally does not participate in any adventures. His purpose is to provide entertainment for Robin and his men. In one story Robin rescues Alan’s lady love from a forced marriage to another man.

The Sheriff The Sheriff appears in many of the ballads as Robin’s main enemy. In medieval England the Sheriff was the chief representative of royal authority in a shire (or county), charged with enforcing the law and administering justice. The job did not come with a salary. In fact, the Sheriff usually had to pay the King for the privilege of holding that office. Nevertheless, it was an attractive and desirable position, because of the power and prestige it could bring; and, if one played it right, there was considerable money to be made from various fees for services, not to mention the extra revenue that an unscrupulous individual could acquire from bribes, extortion, and “skimming a little off the top”. Many medieval Sheriffs were known to be corrupt, and this may have contributed to the development of the Sheriff character in the Robin Hood ballads. The Sheriff is never identified by name, only by his title. This may be because the Sheriff is a composite character. The position of Sheriff was usually held by one particular person for only a few years at a time. Also, much of the real work such as chasing criminals was frequently done by the Sheriff’s assistants, or under-Sheriffs, who might also be referred to by the title of Sheriff. Therefore, there may have been many different Sheriffs who could have pursued an outlaw like Robin Hood during the course of his career. In a couple of the ballads Robin ultimately triumphs over his enemy. In one story, he cuts off the Sheriff’s head and sticks it on the end of his bow as a trophy. In the later version of the Robin Hood legend, the Sheriff becomes one of the chief henchmen of Prince John. In the ballads, the Sheriff is not always identified as the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, Nottingham does figure prominently in the stories, and the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire would have held authority over the area where Robin was active. Many different men held this position at various times during the period identified as the probable time frame for a real Robin Hood, or at least the origin of the legend. A number of them could be considered “bad” - corrupt, unscrupulous, ruthlessly ambitious – and may have helped to inspire the Sheriff

6 character in the Robin Hood stories. There is an interesting historical connection between Nottingham and the later version of the Robin Hood legend. When Richard I returned to reclaim his throne, Nottingham was one of the only castles to hold out against him. The Sheriff at that time, William de Wendenal, was apparently a supporter of Prince John. Richard was forced to besiege the castle, and after capturing it he is known to have spent some time hunting and celebrating in nearby Sherwood Forest (with his ally Robin Hood?).

Guy of Gisbourne Guy of Gisbourne appears in one of the early ballads. He is a sort of bounty hunter who comes looking for Robin Hood. Robin, in disguise, defeats Gisbourne in an archery contest. He then reveals his true identity, they fight, and Gisbourne is killed. Robin then cuts off his head and sticks it on the end of his bow as a trophy. (Is a pattern developing?) In the later version of the Robin Hood legend Gisbourne becomes “Sir” Guy, and plays a more prominent role in the story. Like the Sheriff, he is one of the chief henchmen of Prince John, and is the man who Lady Marian is being forced to marry against her will.

King Richard There is no connection in the ballads between Robin Hood and King Richard I, though at least one early chronicler places Robin Hood during his reign, and other theories have been proposed over the years identifying the late 12th century as the time period for the real Robin Hood. In the later version of the legend, Richard is the Good King to whom Robin is loyal, in contrast to the evil Prince John. Richard returns in the end to save the day (with Robin Hood’s help, of course). The historical Richard was a ruthless politician and bloodthirsty warrior. He was the second son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and may have been emotionally scarred by the continual marital (and political) battles between his parents, in which he and his brothers were frequently pawns. He had a close relationship with his mother, who adored and doted on him, but not with his father, who recognized his abilities but did not particularly like him. The early death of Young Henry, the eldest son and his father’s favorite, led to years of family squabbles over who was to get what pieces of Henry II’s empire, leading at times to rebellion and open warfare. Richard ultimately came out on top, acquiring the throne of England as well as most of Henry’s possessions in France in 1189. Richard was thoroughly Norman (he probably did not even speak English), and cared little for England, where he spent a total of only ten months during his entire ten-year reign. He preferred to concentrate his time and energies on the affairs of his French territories, which provided him with greater wealth, power and prestige, not to mention more opportunities for fighting. He also spent a significant portion of his reign in traveling to, fighting in, and trying to get back from the Third Crusade. (The story of his being captured and held for ransom by his enemies is true. In reality, Richard did not escape captivity. The ransom money was raised and paid, and Richard was released.) He does seem to have inherited some of the considerable political and organizational skills that his father possessed, but he squandered them on warfare and personal ambition. Richard’s main passion in life was war, and he was acclaimed as the greatest warrior of his time, though he was also an excellent musician and poet. He is believed by many historians to have been a homosexual. If the people of England bore any affection for him, it was probably because they did not really know him. Since he was rarely around, they could always blame any problems on whoever was in charge and dream of the day when “Good King Richard” would return and set

7 things right…which, of course, he never did. Richard died from a wound received during a pointless skirmish in France in 1199.

Prince John In the later versions of the Robin Hood legend, Prince John, the disreputable younger brother of King Richard, seizes control of England in Richard’s absence, oppresses the common people, and plots to steal the throne. The real John was the youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He spent much of his youth with his father. (He did not like his mother, and the feeling was mutual.) Towards the end Henry may have been grooming John to succeed him. Unfortunately, John inherited all of his father’s negative traits - ruthless ambition, hot temper, sexual promiscuity - and little of his intelligence and leadership skills. Loyalty was also not one of John’s strong points, since he ultimately turned on his father and joined his brothers in rebellion. He was sometimes known as “John Lackland” because he emerged from the dynastic struggles with nothing, reduced to getting by on whatever favors were bestowed on him by his elder brother Richard, who he both admired and resented. Though known as “Prince” John in the Robin Hood story, his official title was Count of Mortain. He did plot to seize the throne while Richard was absent on crusade. However, the tyranny and oppression that characterizes his rule in the Robin Hood story did not really happen, since he never actually succeeded in taking full control of the government from Richard’s appointed regents. When Richard returned, he forgave his brother’s indiscretions, but kept him on a short leash. John did finally become King of England when Richard died without an heir. (The next eldest brother, Geoffrey, had already died.) His seventeen-year reign was notable mainly for administrative incompetence, the treacherous murder of his nephew Arthur (Geoffrey’s son, a rival claimant to the throne), the loss of much of England’s territory in France through a series of disastrous wars, and the baronial revolt of 1215 that led to the institution of Magna Carta, which severely restricted royal authority. Though perhaps not quite the evil and sinister figure portrayed in the Robin Hood story, he was certainly not one of the shining lights of British monarchy.

Just how “Merry” were those Merry Men?

Could it be that Robin Hood and his Merry Men were gay? That possibility has been raised in recent years, causing considerable outrage among more traditional Robin Hood enthusiasts. Some scholars have pointed out that the early tales and ballads are filled with homoerotic imagery, allusions and subtext – the celebration of a lifestyle outside of mainstream society; all that male-bonding in the forest; the persistent phallic imagery of swords and arrows and quarter-staves; the virtual absence of important female characters (remember that Maid Marian was added to the story much later). The idea is that the authors of the original ballads saw Robin and his men as homosexual, and intended them to be perceived as such. Of course, social conventions being what they were in those days, they could not just come right out and say it. So they hid the truth behind a veil of imagery and allusion. Despite that, the people who made up their late-medieval audience presumably “got it”, accepted it, and enjoyed the “in”-joke, not being as homophobic as one might think. Is this far-fetched? Perhaps not. Nowadays, many people might think of gay liberation as a modern phenomenon, and that down through history, up until our time, gays were persistently condemned, ostracized and persecuted without exception. However, this is not the case. Throughout recorded human history there have been many cultures where homosexuality has, to varying degrees, been tolerated, accepted, condoned, and

8 even celebrated. Ancient Greece is perhaps the most well-known, though not the only, example of this. Even in those times and places where homosexuality was officially condemned and criminalized, there is evidence that 1) homosexual subcultures still managed to exist, survive and even thrive, 2) the authorities did not always actively prosecute homosexuals, and might turn a blind eye to their activities as long as they were being reasonably discreet, and 3) despite the official line promoted by church and state, a significant portion of the heterosexual population was not particularly hostile towards homosexuals. Was this the case in medieval England? Was it really Little John, and not Maid Marian, who made Robin Hood’s arrow fly? It’s more a matter of speculation than of hard evidence, but an interesting sidelight to the Robin Hood story nonetheless.

Was there a “Real” Robin Hood?

Was there a “real” Robin Hood, a real-life outlaw whose exploits formed the basis for the legend? The possibility has been investigated and debated for a long time, resulting in many theories, and a great deal of disagreement and controversy. What evidence we do have for such a person is sketchy and inconsistent. A number of English and Scottish chroniclers from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries make reference to Robin Hood as a real person, and give dates for him. Unfortunately, the original sources of their information are unknown, and there is little agreement among them on dates, which range from the late 12th to the late 13th century. Searches for contemporary evidence of a medieval outlaw named Robin Hood have brought to light some interesting but ultimately inconclusive information. Several references to a man named Robin Hood (or something like it) who was (or may have been) an outlaw have been found in the surviving records of medieval England. However, once again, the dates for these references cover a considerable span of time, from the early 1200s to the mid-1300s, and place the individual in different parts of the country. Obviously, they cannot all refer to the same person. None of these references provide enough detail to allow us, based on that evidence alone, to conclusively identify any one of these men as the “real” Robin Hood. The original ballads do not identify a specific time period for Robin Hood. No dates are given, and there is no mention of any historical events or people, aside from the “Edward our comely King” reference in the Geste, that can be used to determine when Robin Hood was supposed to have lived. Based on certain social and cultural themes and details present in the ballads, some scholars believe that the setting of the stories belongs to the period of the mid to late 13th century. However, as is always the case with Robin Hood, there is much disagreement. There are other difficulties complicating the search. Record keeping in medieval England, though better than one might imagine, was not as thorough and extensive as it is today, and over the centuries many records and documents of that time have probably been destroyed or lost. Also, such things as spelling and people’s names were not standardized and consistent. The name “Robin”, which could be a nickname for “Robert”, was very common, as was the surname “Hood”, which could have many variations. Therefore, the search for a man named “Robin Hood” (or something like it) who was (or may have been) an outlaw some time in medieval England over a span of a hundred and fifty years or more has produced a number of possible candidates. And if one were to find references in the same place and time to someone called “Robin Hod”, and another called “Robert Hude”, and yet another called “Robyn Hode”, and still another referred to in Latin as “Robertus Hood”, they might all be the same person. Or, they might not.

9 On the other hand, some scholars feel that there is no point in searching for the real, original Robin Hood, because he never existed. They believe that “Robin Hood” was not the name of a specific person, but a generic term applied to outlaws that developed during the early medieval period. It may have been derived from “robe and hood” man, a phrase sometimes used in those days to refer to outlaws and thieves, stemming from the fact that they frequently wore hooded robes to disguise themselves. This term may have eventually developed into “Robin Hood”. Or the name may have mythical origins. “Robin” was a name for more than one woodland spirit in English folklore (e.g. Robin Goodfellow, the “Puck” in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream), and “Hood” may have been derived from the phrase “of the wood”. Mysterious and elusive outlaws hiding out in the forest may have reminded people of woodland spirits from myth and legend. Any outlaw, particularly one whose true identity was unknown, may have been called “Robin Hood” or “a Robin Hood”, in much the same way that the name “John Doe” has been used in modern times to refer to an unidentified dead body. Over time, the name may have been personified as a character in stories about outlaws, just as Paul Bunyan personified lumberjacks and Pecos Bill personified cowboys in American folklore. Eventually the name would have been used by minstrels looking to “personalize” their outlaw ballads. There is also some debate over the location for Robin Hood and his exploits. Some sources state that Robin Hood’s real name was Robert of Loxley, and that it was from this village that he came. This identification is unconfirmed; and to complicate matters, there are, or at one time were, a number of villages in England called Loxley, or Lockesley, or some such variant. Today most people associate Robin Hood with Nottingham and nearby Sherwood Forest, in the county of Nottinghamshire, and these places do figure prominently in the ballads. However, there are also references in the ballads as well as local traditions that place him in the vicinity of Barnsdale, further to the north in the county of Yorkshire. It would seem that Robin covered quite a bit of territory during his career. Or, quite possibly, stories of an outlaw in one of these places merged over time with stories of another outlaw in the other place. Considering that an association with Robin Hood is very good for the tourist business, it is not surprising that there is quite a heated competition between these different areas for the distinction of being the home turf of this famous legendary outlaw.

Candidates for a “Real” Robin Hood

There are many theories about the identity of the real Robin Hood, and many possibilities for which evidence has been uncovered. One could write a book (and many have) detailing all the possibilities. The following are some of the more interesting and/or probable candidates for the source of the legend. • There was a nobleman named David in the late 12th and early 13th centuries who some people believe to have been the real Robin Hood, or at least the inspiration for the legend. David was the Earl of Huntingdon, a title often associated with the later nobleman- turned-outlaw version of Robin Hood. He was also a brother of two kings of Scotland, and Scottish historians from the 14th through the 16th centuries seemed very interested in Robin Hood. David was a supporter of King Richard I, and at various times opposed Richard’s brother John, both before and during John’s own reign as king. He was outlawed on more than one occasion. During the years when Richard was absent on crusade and then being held prisoner by his enemies, there is no record of David’s whereabouts or activities. Did he accompany Richard on crusade? Was he hiding out in

10 Sherwood Forest, living as an outlaw and rebel under the alias of “Robin Hood”? We do not know. However, when Richard returned, David re-emerged and assisted him in regaining his throne, participating in a siege of Nottingham castle. There is also the connection with the reference to Robin Hood in Piers the Plowman (see above). David Earl of Huntingdon would appear to be a promising candidate for the real Robin Hood. However, that would mean accepting the premise of a Robin Hood who was an outlawed nobleman during the reign of Richard I. The original ballads contain no evidence that would support such a theory. • The pipe roll (a medieval legal document) for Yorkshire of 1225 mentions a "Robertus Hood, fugitivis," who has failed to appear in court. There is other evidence around the same time of an outlaw named Robert Hobbehod. Other surviving documents record the hunt to find Robert of Wetherby, "outlaw and evildoer of our land", and detail the costs incurred to capture him, behead him, and hang him by a chain. Some people have theorized that these three are all the same man, and the inspiration for the Robin Hood legend. However, the connection between these three individuals is dubious at best; and even if it is the same man, there appears to be nothing exceptional about him as an outlaw that would have given rise to a legend like Robin Hood. • There are two men, Robert de Kyme and Roger Godberd, who were active in the Nottingham area during the mid-13th century, and some people have proposed that one or the other was the “real” Robin Hood. Both were connected with the rebellion of Simon de Montfort and became outlaws after the battle of Evesham. One problem with both of these candidates is that they were noblemen. The early ballads clearly identify Robin Hood as a yeoman, not an outlawed noble. • One Scottish chronicler states that Robin Hood and his ally Little John participated in the revolt of Simon de Montfort against King Henry III, and became outlaws in Sherwood Forest following de Montfort’s defeat at the Battle of Evesham in 1265. This writer also laments that stories about this Robin Hood, who he describes as a “cutthroat”, are very popular among the common people of England. It is known that some of de Montfort’s surviving followers fled to the woods in the vicinity of Nottingham and became outlaws. Records of the time show that in the late 1260s the Sheriff of Nottingham fought pitched battles with outlaws in Sherwood Forest, and a surviving document states that this Sheriff received a sum of money from the King for the purpose of pursuing outlaws, and that he “waged war on Robin”. It is interesting that one of the Sheriff’s principal targets is identified as “Robin”, and the use of the phrase “waged war” would seem to indicate that a considerable effort was made to pursue him. Henry’s son Prince Edward visited Nottingham in the early 1270s, shortly before he himself became King, and may have pardoned some of these persistent rebels who had turned outlaw. Another Scottish chronicler states that Robin Hood and Little John were active as outlaws in Sherwood in 1283. If the story in the ballads about Robin Hood returning to the forest after leaving the King’s service and remaining there for another twenty-two years is factual, then this particular outlaw from the 1260s-70s might still have been around in 1283. This would appear to be a very attractive candidate for the real Robin Hood. The time period and location are right; he is connected with Little John, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and Sherwood Forest; he appears to have been a very successful outlaw; and there is a possible connection with Edward I, who may be the King mentioned in The Geste of Robin Hood (see above). However, we know nothing about this man personally - his real

11 name, where he came from, his background before de Montfort’s rebellion, or what became of him. • There is evidence of a man named Robert Hood who lived with his wife Mathilda in the village of Wakefield, West Yorkshire, in the early 1300s. In 1321 the Earl of Lancaster rose in revolt against King Edward II. Wakefield was one of the centers of Lancastrian resistance, and many of its men are known to have joined the rebellion. After Lancaster was defeated in 1322, some of the surviving rebels took to the woods and became outlaws. King Edward visited the area a short time later and pardoned some of these men. There is also evidence of a man identified by the name Robin Hood who was in the King’s service during the same period, but left due to financial difficulties. One theory proposes that this Robert Hood of Wakefield is the real Robin Hood. He participated in Lancaster’s rebellion, and became an outlaw in the woods after Lancaster’s defeat. He was pardoned during King Edward’s subsequent visit to the area, entered the King’s service for a time under the name Robin Hood, and then left. It does fit nicely with the story of Robin Hood from the Geste ballad. However, there are some problems with this theory. There is no actual evidence that the Robert Hood of Wakefield and the Robin Hood in the King’s service were the same person, or that either of them was ever a rebel or an outlaw. There is also some evidence that this Robin Hood was already in the King’s service prior to the time of Lancaster’s rebellion.

These are just a few of the candidates and theories. There are many others, ranging from the possible to the improbable. Could any of them be our Robin Hood? Without more conclusive evidence, it is impossible to confirm any of these theories. So what can we say, with any reasonable degree of certainty, about a “real” Robin Hood? • He was not an outlawed nobleman, a champion of the people battling tyranny and injustice. Had he been, such an attractive story element almost certainly would have found its way into the early tales. There is no reason to believe he was anything more or different than what the original ballads show him to be - a member of the yeoman class who is a professional criminal working for his own profit. Any loftier interpretation is the result of how the legend of Robin Hood developed over the centuries, shaped and nurtured and fictionalized by the romanticism of later times. • We do not know how or why he became an outlaw. He may have committed a crime, been wrongly accused of some crime, fell into debt, became embroiled in some other kind of legal dispute, or ended up on the losing side of some political revolt. All of these were common occurrences in medieval England, and common reasons for someone turning outlaw. Whatever happened, he apparently decided to become an outlaw rather than face the consequences. Or he may have freely chosen to pursue a criminal profession. We simply do not know. The original ballads do not tell us, and any justifications that have been given for his outlaw life are later embellishments of the story. Whatever the reason, he apparently came to prefer being an outlaw. The ballads paint a picture of a man who enjoys his life and loves his work. • In his own day he was not considered to be very important within the larger scheme of things, and was not well-known outside his own immediate territory. Otherwise there would certainly be more documented evidence of him than what now exists. He was a common outlaw, one of many during that period, who plied his trade for a time and then faded away into historical obscurity.

12 • Though he may have been just a common criminal, there must have been something about him that was “uncommon”. He may not have merited much mention in the official records or histories of the day, but there must have been something unique or special enough about him that the common people in his area remembered him, and continued to tell stories about him after he was gone. Perhaps it was the success or audacity of his exploits; or maybe it was something about his personality, perhaps his sense of humor or the way he reveled in “tweaking the beard” of authority.

The Legacy of Robin Hood

There may have been a real Robin Hood, whose exploits inspired the original stories. “Robin Hood” may have been his real name, a nickname, or an alias he used. Or the stories of several different real-life outlaws may have merged together over time. Or various fictional tales about outlaws may have been merged together, with a single common main character developing who was given the name “Robin Hood” because it was already a common term used to refer to outlaws in general. Or maybe it was some combination of all these things. Whatever the case, these stories spread, and gained wider and ever increasing popularity. The tales grew in the telling, merging with, absorbing, and borrowing from other stories. Minstrels, looking to cash in on the popularity of the stories, wrote ballads about the outlaw Robin Hood. With the growing social unrest of the late medieval period, the ballads became very popular with the common people, who saw Robin Hood as the archetypal rebel against authority. The story continued to grow and evolve as later generations embraced him, and they modified him to suit their own tastes and purposes. He was transformed into a noble hero of mythic proportions, and ultimately enshrined at the highest level of the pantheon of legend. What would the “real” Robin Hood, if he ever did exist, have thought about all this? Maybe he would be flattered and humbled by the adulation. Or maybe he would be amused. He seems to have had a keen sense of humor, and a love of tricks and deception. Maybe he is looking down from heaven now, laughing at the great cosmic joke that took a slightly above average medieval rebel and outlaw and turned him into one of the greatest heroes of all time.

13