Fy, Let's A to the Bridal

See The Blythesome Bridal (File: PBB082)

Fye, Stick the Minister

DESCRIPTION: The singer saw "a bonny lass coortin' wi' the minister." The minister, says the singer, will kiss any lass he meets as fine as any man. But when the singer's married he can ignore the minister and "kiss an' coort as lang's we like"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: courting nonballad clergy
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1350, "Fye, Stick the Minister" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Roud #7230
File: GrD71350

Fylemore

DESCRIPTION: "Fylemore you're the place for merry sport and singing and the chief amongst them all is the charming beagle hunting" The singer describes the draghunt route and its "swift horses and fine riders." The riders are named. At hunt end all retire to the pubs.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1978 (OCanainn)
KEYWORDS: sports drink moniker dog horse hunting
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OCanainn, pp. 102-103, "Fylemore" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: OCanainn p.16, quoting his friend Olan Dwyer on draghunting: "They drag a piece of meat with stuff put on it to give it a good scent. There were two fellows -- whips or huntsmen -- fellows who were used to running -- and they had a special course laid out. Usually the start would be about two miles up on the hill and these two fellows would start with the meat about four miles away -- one could come back this way towards the start and the other would go on to the finish. When the fellow going to the start would finish they'd leave off the hounds and the first dog in the gap would be the winner. There'd be a raffle for the spectators -- they'd buy a ticket and draw a dog and they'd get the money if they won. There would be a bookie there as well."
OCanainn: "Fylemore is near Cahirciveen in Co Kerry. It was famous for its draghunt and dogs went to it from all over Cork and Kerry." - BS
File: OCan102

Fyvie Ploughmen, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer, not a ploughman, sings the ploughmen's praise. They whistle and sing in all weather. They should not cheat "the bonnie lassie." They are poor but if farmers don't pay them well enough "there is emigration to tak' them o'er the sea"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1904 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: infidelity emigration farming money nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #16, p. 2, ("Come listen, all ye ploughman lads") (1 text)
GreigDuncan3 420, "The Fyvie Ploughmen" (5 texts, 2 tunes)
Roud #5939
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Plains of Waterloo" (tune, per Greig)
cf. "Harrowing Time" (subject: ploughing match)
cf. "The Plooin' Match" (subject: ploughing match)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Ploughman Lad
The Ploughmen o' Fyvie
File: GrD3420

Gaberlunyie Man, A

See The Gaberlunzie Man [Child 279A] (File: C279A)

Gaberlunzie Man, The [Child 279A]

DESCRIPTION: A beggar comes to a lady's door and begs lodging. That night, he lures her daughter away with him. Later he returns to the lady's door and again begs lodging. The lady says she will never lodge a beggar again. He reveals her daughter, rich and happy
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1724 (Tea-Table Miscellany)
KEYWORDS: begging courting escape money elopement mother children disguise
FOUND IN: Britain(England,North),Scotland)) Ireland Canada(Mar) US(NE)
REFERENCES (13 citations):
Child 279 Appendix, "The Gaberlunyie-Man" (sic) (1 text)
Bronson (279 Appendix), "(The Jolly Beggar/The Gaberlunzie Man)" (49 versions)
Greig #30, pp. 1-2, "The Gaberlunzie Man" (1 text)
GreigDuncan2 275, "The Beggar Man" (22 texts, 20 tunes) {A=Bronson's #24, C=#9, D=#17, E=#19, F=#16?, G=#23, H=#25, I=#14, J=#13, K=#22, L=#10, M=#15, P=#8, R=#18, S=#12, T=#7; several other tunes cannot be identified with their sources}
BarryEckstormSmyth pp. 333-336, "The Gaberlunyie Man" (1 text plus an extensive quotation from Petrie, 1 tune) {Bronson's 32}
Percy/Wheatley II, pp. 67-71, "The Gaberlunyie Man" (1 text)
SHenry H810, p. 269, "A Beggarman Cam' ower the Lea" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ord, pp.375-377, "The Beggar Man" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #33}
MacSeegTrav 19, "The Gaberlunzie Man" (1 text, 1 tune)
Davis-More 42, pp. 333-338, "The Gaberlunyie-Man" (1 text, which though collected in Virginia comes from a man born in Scotland and is in Braid Scots)
Creighton/Senior, pp. 99-101, "The Gaberlunyie Man" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #11
BBI, ZN2346, "The silly poor man came over the lee" (?)
ADDITIONAL: [Ambrose Phillips?,] A Collection of Old Ballads Vol III, (London, 1725), #55, pp. 259-261, "The Gaberlunzie-Man"
Roud #119
RECORDINGS:
Maggie & Sarah Chambers, "The Beggarman (The Gaberlunzie Man)" (on FSB5 [as "The Auld Beggarman"], FSBBAL2) {Bronson's #46}
Liam Clancy, "Hi For the Beggarman" (on IRLClancy01)
Togo Crawford, "The Beggarman (The Gaberlunzie Man)" (on FSBBAL2)
Lizzie Higgins, "A Beggar Man" (on Voice17)
Ewan MacColl, "The Beggar Man" (ESFB1, ESFB2)
Maggie Murphy, "Clinking O'er the Lea" (on Voice07)
John Strachan, "The Beggarman (The Gaberlunzie Man)" (on FSBBAL2) {Bronson's #38}
BROADSIDES:
NLScotland, RB.m.143(126), "The Beggar Man" ("There was an old man cam' o'er the lea"), Poet's Box (Dundee), c.1890
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Jolly Beggar" [Child 279] and references there
cf. "The Beggar-Laddie" [Child 280]
cf. "A Great Big Sea Hove in Long Beach" (tune & meter)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Beggar's Bride
The Auld Gaberlunzie
NOTES: Although this ballad is associated in tradition with James V of Scotland, there is no evidence that he ever sought a woman in this fashion. James V in fact married a noble foreign lady, Mary of Guise-Lorraine.
Wheatley explains "Gaberlunyie" as a compound of "gaber," a wallet, and "lunyie," the loins, i.e. a Gaberlunyie man is one who carries a wallet by his side. The fact that the title vacillates between "Gaberlunyie" and "Gaberlunzie" implies that most singers were less aware of this than the average scholar....
For the relationship between this song and "The Jolly Beggar," see the notes to that song. Due to the degree of cross-fertilization of these ballads, one should be sure to check both songs to find all versions.- RBW
The following broadsides almost certainly belong here but I could not download them: Bodleian, 2806 c.18(171), "The Beggar Man" ("There was an old man cam o'er the lea"), unknown, n.d.; also Firth c.26(57), "The Beggar Man."
re A Collection of Old Ballads Vol III: Ambrose Philips, whose name does not appear in the Google Books copy is, according to Google Books, the editor. The New York Public Library catalog says "Compilation usually attributed to Ambrose Philips." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C279A

Gabriel's Trumpet (Baptist Numbered in God)

DESCRIPTION: "Baptist, Baptist is my name, I hope to live and die the same, Oh Baptist numbered in God." "Gabriel's trumpet is the voice of God, to wake up the members in the old Church Yard." The singer regrets his (sister's) death and looks forward to the afterlife
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1944 (Wheeler)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
MWheeler, pp. 71-72, "Gabriel's Trumpet" (1 text, 1 tune)
BrownIII 555, "Baptist, Baptist Is My Name" (1 fragment)
Roud #11881 and 10022
File: MWhee071

Gae Flit the Coo

DESCRIPTION: A wife comes in after moving the cow. Her husband insists she move it. She says "it is already done." He tells her again and "obedience is the woman's part." She complains that he is sour and sulky. He insists "obedience by nicht and day": move the cow!
AUTHOR: Alexander Smart (1798-1866) (source: Whistle-Binkie) but see Greig's note
EARLIEST DATE: 1842 (Whistle-Binkie)
KEYWORDS: dialog nonballad animal husband wife
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Greig #71, p. 2, "Gae Flit the Coo" (1 text)
GreigDuncan7 1306, "Gae Flit the Coo" (2 texts, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: Alexander Rodger, editor, Whistle-Binkie, Second Series (Glasgow, 1842), pp. 42-43, "The Flittin' o' the Cow"
Alexander Whitelaw, A Book of Scottish Song (Glasgow, 1845), p. 376, "The Flittin' o' the Cow"
Roud #6274
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Tak' Your Auld Cloak About Ye" (tune, per Whistle-Binkie)
NOTES: Greig, April 13, 1909: "We referred to this song a week or two ago as composed by Alexander Smart (1798-1866) and appearing originally in Whistle-Binkie, but as being now pretty much a traditional ditty." Greig's copy differs from Smart's in Whistle-Binkie only in some spelling ("coo" instead of "cow," for example). - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71306

Gaie-Annee, La

See Guillannee, La (La Gui-Annee) (File: BMRF584)

Gairdner and the Plooman, The

DESCRIPTION: A gardner has long courted the girl, "But the blythe blink o the plooman lad Has stown my hairt frae me, me, Has stown my hairt frae me." The singer first saw her love singing "under a bush o' rue." She finally turns to the plooman
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Grieg)
KEYWORDS: love courting farming
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Bronson 219, "The Gardener" (9 versions+3 in addenda, but #1 at least is "The Gairdner and the Plooman")
Ord, p. 94, "The Gairdner and the Ploughman" (1 text)
Roud #339
NOTES: This song sometimes is listed as a version of "The Gardener" [Child #219], including by Bronson, who counts one of Grieg's versions there. This is understandable, as the song is very diverse (Bronson himself says that "The Gardener" "rests uneasily in Child's collection. It is both too little of a ballad... and too sophisticated").
Nonetheless, I think they should be separated. "The Gardener" seems to have at its root a dialog involving flowers and courting. This piece mentions a gardener, but he isn't wandering around waving flowers in the girl's face, really, and she has a separate love interest. - RBW
File: Ord094

Gairdner and the Ploughman, The

See The Gairdner and the Plooman (File: Ord094)

Gal I Left Behind Me, The

See The Girl I Left Behind Me (lyric) (File: R546)

Galbally Farmer, The

See Darby O'Leary (File: CrSNB110)

Gale of August '27, The

DESCRIPTION: 87 fishermen set out in April for the Sable Island fishing grounds. When a storm blows up, their vessels sink and all are lost. A memorial service in Lunenburg draws 5000. The singer hopes they will meet again in Heaven
AUTHOR: George Swinamer
EARLIEST DATE: 1951
KEYWORDS: sailor sea fishing storm wreck funeral death religious
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Aug 25, 1927 - The _Joyce M. Smith_, _Uda F. Corkum_, _Mahala_, and _Clayton W. Walters_, all of Lunenburg, are lost with all hands off the Sable Island shoals
FOUND IN: US(MA) Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Doerflinger, pp. 184-185, "The Gale of August '27" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #9431
NOTES: Lunenburg is a town (and county) in Nova Scotia; the town is on the coast about 60 kilometers south and west of Halifax. Sable Island, the "graveyard of the Atlantic," is a long, low island about 250 km. due south of the eastern tip of Nova Scotia. - RBW
File: Doe185

Gallagher Boys, The

See Lost on Lake Michigan (File: WGM172)

Gallant 69th, The

See The Irish Sixty-Ninth (File: Wa014)

Gallant Brigantine, The [Laws D25]

DESCRIPTION: A sailor and a girl meet. She gives him her address, saying her husband would be glad to meet them. He mentions his wife and newborn son. They go off to her farm hand in hand; sailor, woman, and husband spend dinner and a pleasant afternoon together
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1932 (Creighton-NovaScotia)
KEYWORDS: courting husband wife
FOUND IN: US(MA,MW,NE) Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Laws D25, "The Gallant Brigantine"
FSCatskills 127, "The Islands of Jamaica" (1 text, 1 tune)
Peacock, pp. 218-223, "My Gallant Brigantine" (3 texts, 3 tunes)
Leach-Labrador 88, "Jamaica Girl" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lehr/Best 39, "The Gallant Brigantine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-NovaScotia 36, "Gallant Brigantine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-Maritime, pp. 142-143, "The Gallant Brigantine" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Ives-NewBrunswick, pp. 46-49, "The Gallant Brigantine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Manny/Wilson 69, "The Gallant Brigantine" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 670, GALLBRIG
Roud #648
RECORDINGS:
Mrs. Edward Gallagher, "My Gallant Brigantine" (on MRHCreighton)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Henry Orrison
NOTES: For this they wrote a ballad? - PJS
Even more amazing, the thing seems to have been fairly popular. Laws remarks, "This tongue-in-cheek narrative achieves its effect by repeatedly disappointing the listener's anticipation of stock situations of broadside balladry." - RBW
In Mrs. Gallagher's version, the last line is a teaser, leading you to expect that the sailor discovers his wife has run off with another man, but in fact she has had a baby son. - PJS
Ives-NewBrunswick: The final verse changes the tone entirely: "... the girl I loved so dear was the wife of another man, And I really thought my heart would break as I sailed for a foreign land." - BS
File: LD25

Gallant Farmer's Farewell to Ireland, The

DESCRIPTION: Michael Hayes claims he shot the land agent when he went to pay his rent and he has been running since. He describes the manhunt across Ireland and on ships at port. They go to America: "The paper said they had him caught" but he was not.
AUTHOR: T. Walsh (according to broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(201))
EARLIEST DATE: 1966 (Zimmermann)
KEYWORDS: murder manhunt escape farming Ireland
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Zimmermann 68B, "The Gallant Farmer's Farewell to Ireland" (1 fragment)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 26(201), "The Gallant Farmers' Farewell to Ireland" ("Farewell to old Irelaud [sic] the land of my fathers")," P. Brereton (Dublin), c.1867
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "M'Kenna's Dream" (tune, broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(201))
cf. "The Great Elopement to America" (see Notes)
cf. "The General Fox Chase" (character of Michael Hayes)
cf. "Rory of the Hill" (character of Michael Hayes)
NOTES: Compare "The Gallant Farmers' Farewell to Ireland" to broadside
Bodleian, 2806 c.8(158), "The Great Elopement to America" ("Farewell to old Ireland the land of my fathers"), Haly (Cork), 19C.
One of these is clearly derived from the other.
Here is the first verse of "The Gallant Farmers' Farewell to Ireland" [broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(201)] with Brereton's spelling:
Farewell to old Ireland the land of my Fathers,
From house home and farm I sharp had to flee,
I went to pay my rent on a fine summers morning
Myself and the agent we there did disgree
I had the money in my hand he told me I should quit the land
The truth to tel you know right well his words did me displease
He fel a victim to a shot his agency he soon forgot
And since that day theyre searching for the farmer Michael Hayes.
Here is the first verse of "The Great Elopement to America" [broadside Bodleian 2806 c.8(158)]:
Farewell to old Ireland the land of my fathers,
From house, home and farm, quite sharp I had to flee,
I once fell a courting a rich farmer's daughter
Myself and her father we could not agree;
500 pounds she had in hand, she asked me would I leave the land
I said I would, and to I did, and thought it no disgrace
To America we sailed off, we went as quick caused many to laugh
And since that day he is searching for his daughter Nancy Keays.
The description is based on broadside Bodleian, Harding B 26(201).
Zimmermann: "This ballad shows how a probably hateful character could become a gallant hero in the eyes of the oppressed peasants. Michael Hayes had been for many years the ruthless bailiff of a land agent, for whom he was said to have evicted more than one thousand people in one parish alone.... When he grew too old for this job he was allowed to stay on the land as a farmer, but a notice to quit was finally served on him too. He shot the agent in a hotel in Tipperary, (30th July, 1862)." In spite of a manhunt he was never caught. - BS
File: Zimm068B

Gallant Forty-Twa (II), The

See Here's to the Black Watch (File: GrD1071)

Gallant Forty-Twa, The

DESCRIPTION: Weaver Willie Brown enlists. The first sergeant fears he'll "make an awfu' mess o' the gallant forty-twa" Willie is always "first man at the table" When he goes home on furlough he'll teach his comrades to handle a gun and show them he's a corporal.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan1); 19C (broadside, NLScotland L.C.Fol.70(25a))
KEYWORDS: army Scotland humorous nonballad soldier
FOUND IN: Ireland Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
GreigDuncan1 70, "The Gallant Forty-Twa" (1 text, 1 tune)
Hammond-Belfast, pp. 36-37, "The Gallant Forty-Twa" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GALNT42*
Roud #1877
BROADSIDES:
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.70(25a), "The Gallant Forty-Twa," Poet's Box (Dundee), c.1890
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Bonnets o' Blue" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "McCaffery (McCassery)" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "Wha Saw the Forty-Second" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "Here's to the Black Watch" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "Old Recruiting Soldier (Twa Recruiting Sergeants)" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "The Bonnets o' Blue" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
cf. "Young Munro" (subject: 42nd Highlanders or Black Watch)
NOTES: NLScotland commentary to L.C.Fol.70(25a): "The 'forty-twa' is the 42nd Highland Regiment, more commonly known as the Black Watch." [For the record of this regiment, see "Wha Saw the Forty-Second." - RBW]
Hammond-Belfast attributes one verse and chorus to Oiny Boak and other verses to Hugh Quinn (1884-1956). Oiny Boak's verse ("You may talk about your Lancers or your Irish Fusiliers, Your Aberdeen Militia or the Dublin Volunteers; Or any other regiment that's lying far awa', But give to me the tartan of the gallant forty twa") is the chorus of the broadside. His chorus ("Strolling through the green fields on a summer's day, Watching all the country girls forking up the hay, I really was delighted till he stole my heart awa', Then left me for the tartan of the gallant forty-twa") and Quinn's verses (the female singer recalls the day her lover marched away to war, and then when he returned) have no broadside counterpart. If the Hammond-Belfast version is sung in Ireland, the broadside version is sung in Scotland (see GreigDuncan 1 70, which omits the chorus).
The source for the description is broadside NLScotland L.C.Fol.70(25a).
Also collected and sung by David Hammond, "The Gallant Forty-Twa" (on David Hammond, "I Am the Wee Falorie Man: Folk Songs of Ireland," Tradition TCD1052 CD (1997) reissue of Tradition LP TLP 1028 (1959)) - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Hamm036

Gallant Grahams, The

DESCRIPTION: "As I was crossing ower Boyne Water... For the killin' o' an English lord My gude braid sword they've ta'en frae me." The singer complains of being abandoned by the Grahams. He escapes and flees from his home in Carrickfergus
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1870 (Chambers)
KEYWORDS: murder home exile prison escape
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Ord, pp. 441-442, "The Galland Grahams" (1 text)
GreigDuncan2 245, "The Gallant Grahams" (1 fragment)
ADDITIONAL: Robert Chambers, The Popular Rhymes of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1870 ("Digitized by Google")), p. 312, "The Gallant Grahams"
Roud #5618
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Hughie Grame [Child 191]" (lyrics)
NOTES: This is clearly related to "Hughie Grame"; about half the material in Ord's text, for instance, is standard in "Hughie." The perspective is different, though: The setting seems to be Ulster (where many Scots emigrated, both before and after Culloden). Only one girl would laments the hero's fate, and she makes no attempt to save him. The hero lives. And it is told in first person throughout.
Clearly the relation between the two songs needs more study (though that may be difficult unless additional texts turn up). In the absence of that, I follow standard Ballad Index policy and split the two. But my initial inclination was to lump; they have that much in common. - RBW
Chambers's fragment is the chorus quoted by Ord. Chambers cites as his source Finlay's "Old Ballads." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord441

Gallant Hussar, The (A Damsel Possessed of Great Beauty)

DESCRIPTION: The beautiful damsel waits at her father's gate for the hussars to pass by. At last she sees her lover. She reports that her parents kept her confined for a whole year, but she is all the more determined to follow and marry him
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1904 (Ford)
KEYWORDS: elopement love separation soldier
FOUND IN: US(MW) Ireland Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 254-256, "The Gallant Hussar" (1 text, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan5 982, "The Gallant Hussar" (4 texts, 3 tunes)
SHenry H243a, pp. 473-474, "Young Edward the Gallant Hussar" (1 text, 1 tune)
Eddy 147, "A Damsel Possessed of Great Beauty" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
ST E147 (Full)
Roud #1146
BROADSIDES:
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.70(84b), "The Gallant Hussar," Poet's Box (Dundee), c. 1890
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Gallant Soldier (Mary/Peggy and the Soldier)" (plot)
cf. "Fare Ye Well, Enniskillen (The Inniskillen Dragoon)"
cf. "Caroline and Her Young Sailor Bold" (tune, per GreigDuncan5)
NOTES: Broadside Murray, Mu23-y1:031, "Answer to Young Jane and her Gallant Hussar," James Lindsay (Glasgow), 19C obviously claims to be an "answer" to this, but it's more of a sideline and continuation, in which Jane rejects another suitor and eventually goes off with the hussar. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: E147

Gallant Ninety-Twa, The

DESCRIPTION: "Brave Ninety-Twa, I've read your story, A valour tale of fadeless glory." "Reared 'mong these glens 'mid which I stand, The brave, heroic Gordons grand." The singer lists places visited by the Ninety-Second, and hopes it will retain its fame
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1930 (Ord)
KEYWORDS: soldier war
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
June 18, 1815 - Battle of Waterloo
Feb 26, 1881 - Battle of Majuba Hill
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ord, p. 289-291, "The Gallant Ninety-Twa" (1 text)
Roud #3776
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Aberdonians Fare Ye Weel" (subject: 92nd Highlanders or Gordon's Highlanders)
cf. "The Battle of Barossa" (subject: 92nd Highlanders or Gordon's Highlanders) and notes there
cf. "The Muir of Culloden" (subject: 92nd Highlanders or Gordon's Highlanders) and notes there
NOTES: Raised in 1794 as the 100th Foot, this regiment (the Gordon Highlanders) was renumbered the 92nd in 1798; under that number, it served in and was granted battle honours for the Peninsular War, the Hundred Days, and the Second Afghan War; it managed to miss the Crimea.
In 1881, the 92nd was consolidated with the 75th Highland Regiment as the Gordon Highlanders. The consolidated unit fought in the Sudan, in the Boer War, and on into the World Wars.
The 92nd does deserve a good deal of credit for Waterloo, incidentally. The first phase of the main battle consisted of the attack by d'Erlon's French corps on Wellington's center. This broke the British line, but Picton's division and others counterattacked and restored the situation. The 92nd was in the forefront of this fight, which was arguably the key to the battle -- had d'Erlon broken through, Napoleon would have won Waterloo; once the assault failed, Napoleon had almost no chance of beating Wellington completely before Blucher arrived with reinforcements.
The dating of the song is a bit of a conundrum. The last event mentioned seems to be Majuba Hill, part of the first (1880-1881) Boer war, in which a scratch force led by Major General Pomeroy-Colley attacked a larger and entrenched Boer force, with predictable results: The British lost about 20% of their force, including Pomeroy-Colley, killed in the field without achieving anything.
The 92nd was not engaged as a whole in this battle (and was given no battle honours), but portions were engaged, so it is fair to mention it. And yet, later that year, the 92nd lost its independent identity. Could the song, perhaps, have been written in response to the consolidation, or the threat of the same? - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord289

Gallant Shearers, The

DESCRIPTION: As autumn brings on the shearing, the singer asks, "Bonnie lassie, will ye gang... To join yon band of shearers?" He promises to work hard for her -- e.g. if it is dry, he will still love her; if it is hot, he will still work, and she will remain his
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1930 (Ord)
KEYWORDS: love courting work sheep
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ord, p. 267, "The Gallant Shearers" (1 text)
Roud #5593
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Band o' Shearers" (chorus)
NOTES: This song and "The Band o Shearers" share a chorus and a theme, and are undoubtedly connected, though it's not clear which is older. But the feel of the verses is different enough that I follow Ord in splitting them, as does Roud. - RBW
File: Ord267

Gallant Shoemaker, The

DESCRIPTION: A girl is courted by a wealthy farmer, but loves a shoemaker. Her father confines her to make her change her mind. She sends a letter to her love. He rides by and carries her away. They live happily, "For she had gotten her shoemaker."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan5)
KEYWORDS: love courting escape
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Ord, pp. 102-103, "The Gallant Shoemaker" (1 text)
Greig #42, p. 1, "The Gallant Shoemaker" (1 text)
GreigDuncan3 480, "My Lovie Was a Shoemaker" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan5 993, "The Gallant Shoemaker" (8 texts plus a single verse on p. 608, 4 tunes)
Roud #3950
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Iron Door" [Laws M15] (theme)
cf. "Locks and Bolts" [Laws M13] (theme)
cf. "The Sailor and His Love" (plot)
NOTES: GreigDuncan5 notes that Greig's version is a composite. - BS
The Greig/Duncan3 fragment reads "A shoemaker neat and fine, My lovie was a shoemaker, Shoemaker neat and fine, My love's a gallant shoemaker." In the notes, Greig declares, "The words are stated to be a chorus, but the music for the verses is the same." Roud lists this fragment as #5974, but I'm guessing it's the same as Ord's song. - RBW, (BS)
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord102

Gallant Soldier (I), The

DESCRIPTION: A soldier, passing through Ayr, asks a girl to leave home and he'd give her towers, castles and gold. She agrees. In Dundee he buys her a gown. At Inverness he meets a prettier girl. The first asks for her towers, etc. He has none and gives her no gold.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1905 (GreigDuncan1)
KEYWORDS: seduction infidelity gold promise soldier beauty clothes
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan1 88, "The Gallant Soldier" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #5792
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Plains of Waterloo" (tune)
File: GrD088

Gallant Soldier (II), The

See Soldier, Soldier, Will You Marry Me (File: R065)

Gallant Soldier, The (Mary/Peggy and the Soldier)

DESCRIPTION: (Peggy) comes out and sees the soldiers marching by. She falls in love with one and offers to marry him. He warns her of the problems of travel and separation. She offers to come with him; she has money to care for herself. He agrees to marry her
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1846 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 11(1627))
KEYWORDS: love courting soldier travel marriage money
FOUND IN: Ireland Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Greig #152, p. 3, ("For the walk so neat, and the dress so gay"); Greig #154, p. 2, ("Mary she went out one day") (2 texts)
GreigDuncan1 91, "Highland Soldier" (5 texts, 2 tunes)
SHenry H782, p. 473, "The Gallant Soldier" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, MARYSOLD
Roud #2496
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(1627), "The Highland Soldier" ("On the Highland mountains so far away"), J. Paul and Co. (London), 1838-1845; also Harding B 11(1548), Firth c.14(141), Harding B 11(1628), "[The] Highland Soldier"; Harding B 26(202), "The Gallant Soldier"
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.70(19a), "The Highland Soldier," Poet's Box (Dundee), c. 1890
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Gallant Hussar (A Damsel Possessed of Great Beauty)" (plot)
cf. "Rambling Sailor" (tune, per broadsides Bodleian Harding B 11(1627), Harding B 11(1628) and Harding B 11(1548))
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Lovely Maiden
NOTES: All three versions of this song known to me (the Sam Henry version and the Paul Brady version in the Digital Tradition, plus a version sung by Connie Dover on"If Ever I Return") contain the line, "But O how cruel my parents (can/must) be, To banish my darling so far from me." But at that stage in the song, the man is *already* a soldier, and the parents probably don't know what Mary/Peggy is up to anyway. The conclusion would seem to be that this song picked up elements of some song involving banishment of a true love. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: HHH782

Gallant Tommy Boyle, The

DESCRIPTION: "Come all you Beaver Island boys, I hope you will draw near To hear my lamentation." The singer tells of Tommy Boyle, drowned in Lake Michigan.His father mourns him. The priest praises him. He was proper and tall. All wish him rest in "that blessed land"
AUTHOR: Dan Malloy
EARLIEST DATE: 1940 (collected from Mike O'Donnel by Walton)
KEYWORDS: sailor death father
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Walton/Grimm/Murdock, pp. 175-176, 'The Gallant Tommy Boyle" (1 text, 1 tune)
RECORDINGS:
Pat MacDonough, "The Gallant Tommy Boyle" (1938; on WaltonSailors; the text is different in many particulars from the text in Walton/Grimm/Murdock even though it is from the same primary informant)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Lost on Lake Michigan" (subject)
File: WGM175

Gallant Victory, The

See The Golden Vanity [Child 286] (File: C286)

Galloping Randy Dandy O!

See Randy Dandy O (File: Hugi167)

Gallowa Hills

DESCRIPTION: "I will tak my plaidie, contented to be, A wee bit kiltie abune my knee...." "For the Gallowa Hills are covered wi' broom... And we'll gang oot ower ths hills tae Gallowa." The girl will leave her reel and spinning wheel to join her lad
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1992 (Sing Out!)
KEYWORDS: love travel
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
DT, GALLWA
ADDITIONAL: _Sing Out_ magazine, Volume 37, #2 (1992), p, 49, "Gallowa Hills" (1 text, 1 tune, Ray Fisher's version based on the singing of Jeannie Robertson)
Roud #3358
File: DTGallwa

Gallows [Laws L11]

DESCRIPTION: A young man is to be hanged. His family and a clergyman contrive a few minutes delay by each asking for a last word. Just before the boy is to be hanged, his true love arrives with a royal pardon and he is saved
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1929 (Barry, Ecksotm, Smyth)
KEYWORDS: execution reprieve
FOUND IN: US(NE) Canada(Mar,Newf) Ireland
REFERENCES (9 citations):
Laws L11, "Gallows"
Bronson 95, "The Maid Freed from the Gallows" (68 versions, but the last four, given in an appendix, are this song)
BarryEckstormSmyth pp. 389-393, 483, "The Gallows Tree" (2 texts plus a fragment, 2 tunes); p. 483 (1 tune) {Bronson's #67, #68; the tune in the addenda is Bronson's #66}
Flanders-Ancient3, pp. 15-41, "The Maid Freed from the Gallows" (8 texts plus a fragment, 8 tunes, but of the texts, only "A," "B1," and "B2" are 'The Maid Freed" [Child 95]; the remaining six are "Gallows") {G=Bronson's #65}
Kennedy 316, "Derry Gaol" (1 text, 1 tune)
SHenry H705, p. 132, "The Dreary Gallows" (1 text, 2 tunes)
Creighton/Senior, pp. 109-112, "Gallows" (3 texts plus 1 fragment, 1 tune)
Leach-Labrador 27, "Sweet Ann O'Neill" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 571, HANGMAN4
Roud #896
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Maid Freed from the Gallows" (Child 95)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Streets of Derry
NOTES: Kennedy, following Barry, speculates that this was based on an incident during the 1798 Irish rebellion. The only real supporting evidence is a reference to King George (which, for all it directly proves, could date it to the 1916 rebellion; in any case, Britain had a King named George every year from 1714 to 1839), and in any case the reference to King George in not found in many versions, where it is the Queen who offers the pardon.
Barry et all state unequivocally that the song is Irish. This is likely enough, but there are only a handful of Irish collections (Sam Henry's, and Sarah Makem sang it); the rest are all North American. It's just possible that the song originated in North America and crossed back.
All agree that this was inspired by "The Maid Freed from the Gallows," but the form clearly makes it a separate ballad.
Peter Kennedy lists the Sam Henry version of this piece as from 1924, but it was not published until 1937. - RBW
File: LL11

Gallows Tree, The

See Gallows [Laws L11] (File: LL11)

Gals o' Chile, The

See Bangidero (File: Hug053)

Gals O' Dublin Town, The

DESCRIPTION: Capstan shanty (also listed as a forebitter) Chorus: "Hurrah, hurrah, for the gals o' Dublintown. Hurrah for the bonnie green flag and the harp without the crown."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1938 (Colcord)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Capstan shanty (also listed as a forebitter) Chorus: "Hurrah, hurrah, for the gals o' Dublintown. Hurrah for the bonnie green flag and the harp without the crown." There are two versions of this, one describes the ship, flags and captain; the other is more along general sailing themes, i.e. weather and complaints.
KEYWORDS: shanty sailor ship
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Colcord, p. 175, "The Shenandoah" (1 text)
Hugill, pp. 140-142, "The Gals o' Dublin Town" (2 texts & a fragment, 2 tunes) [AbEd, pp. 112-113]
ST Hugi140 (Partial)
Roud #323
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Harp without the Crown
Heave Her and Bust Her
NOTES: The "Shenandoah" was an American clipper which sailed out of New York under the command of Captain Jim Murphy. The references to the "harp without the crown" refer to Murphy's custom of flying the Irish flag under the American one. - SL
This seems likely enough (though Ireland of course did not have an official flag at this time; the golden harp on a green field went back to Hugh O'Neill, but the orange, green, and white tricolor was also in use by the middle of the nineteenth century). But I sort of suspect that the song may be a modification of a piece about the C.S.S. raider Shenandoah. This is because both texts and tune look as if they were influenced by "The Bonnie Blue Flag." - RBW
File: Hugi140

Galway Bay

DESCRIPTION: "If you ever go across the sea to Ireland," then perhaps you can see Galway Bay. It's a land of beautiful women and children in the fields. They still speak a language the English don't know. The singer hopes to return there after death
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1958 (Margaret Barry parody)
KEYWORDS: home Ireland travel
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DT, GLWAYBAY*
Roud #9306
SAME TUNE:
Galway Bay Parody (sung by Margaret Barry on Voice14)
Galway Bay (2) (DT, GLWYBAY2)
NOTES: The Digital Tradition lists this as by Arthur Colahan.
Its popularity is probably demonstrated by the supply of parodies. Ben Schwartz gave this description of Margaret Barry's (Roud #12926):
"Singer considers going back to Ireland; 'it may be when I hear she's passed away/' She had a mouth as big as Galway Bay and she'd live, swim and die in it if it were Guinness. The rest of the song is a complaint about everyone singing Galway Bay."
Ben adds, "Among the references in the song are Topic Records and 'The Bedford Arms,' where the performance was recorded."
The other parody, in the Digital Tradition, is apparently from Tommy Makem. It could perhaps be considered the same parody -- it also talks about Galway Bay full of drink. But the ending is different. - RBW
File: RcGalBay

Galway Races, The

DESCRIPTION: On August 17 "half a million" gather at Galway for the horse races.The multitudes and occupations are described in great variety. "There was yet no animosity, no matter what persuasion"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (OLochlainn); 19C (broadside, LOCSinging as113080)
KEYWORDS: racing dancing food music Ireland political horse
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
OLochlainn 10, "The Sporting Races of Galway" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, [abbreviation unknown, but it's in there]
Roud #3031
RECORDINGS:
Liam Clancy, "Galway Races" (on IRLClancy01)
BROADSIDES:
LOCSinging, as113080, "The Sporting Races of Galway," unknown [Brereton (Dublin)?], 19C
NOTES: I could not see the following broadside in detail though it almost certainly refers to the same ballad:
Bodleian, Harding B 26(621), "The Sporting Races of Galway" ("As I roved out through Galway town to n ek for recreation"), P. Brereton (Dublin), c.1867. There are the usual Brereton spelling errors -- in this case in the first line -- as well as the imprint (so far as could be made out) that make me believe this is the same broadside as LOCSinging as113080. - BS
Although the "proper" title of this seems to be "The Sporting Races of Galway," I called it "The Galway Races" because that title (from the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem) seems to be what most people know these days.
Robert Gogan, 130 Great Irish Ballads (third edition, Music Ireland, 2004), p. 44, notes that the Races were such a Big Deal that many people went there without ever seeing, or wishing to see, a horse! - RBW
File: OLoc010

Galway Shawl, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer walks out in May and sees a beautiful girl in a Galway shawl. He comes to her home and meets her parents. She sings beautifully to his musical accompaniment. He leaves the next morning, but cannot stop thinking of her.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: courting beauty father mother music separation
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
SHenry H652, p. 269, "The Galway Shawl" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GLWYSHWL*
Roud #2737
RECORDINGS:
Margaret Barry, "The Galway Shawl" (on IRMBarry-Fairs)
File: HHH652

Gambler (I), The

DESCRIPTION: "My moments are lonesome, no pleasure I find, My true love is a gambler, It troubles my mind." Her love is gone. Gambling has put him in prison; it made him threaten to shoot her. She warns other girls of those who love cards more than wives
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908?
KEYWORDS: gambling abuse hardtimes poverty separation
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Combs/Wilgus 184, p. 190, "The Gambler" (1 text)
Roud #4302
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Wagoner's Lad" (floating lyrics)
cf. "The Roving Gambler (The Gambling Man)" [Laws H4] (theme, floating lyrics)
cf. "The Gambler's Sweetheart" (plot)
NOTES: From its structure and certain floating lyrics, as well as the subject matter, this seems likely to be a derivative or relative of "The Roving Gambler." However, it has enough detail of its own to deserve a separate listing. - RBW
File: CW190

Gambler (II), The

DESCRIPTION: "Good morning, Mister Railroad Man, What time do your trains roll by? At nine-sixteen and two-forty-four And twenty-five minutes till five." The gambler watches trains, wanders, and thinks about the woman who left him.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1953
KEYWORDS: train gambling hobo separation
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Botkin-RailFolklr, p. 459, "The Gambler" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 62, "The Gambler" (1 text)
DT, GAMBLR
RECORDINGS:
Dixon Brothers, "Rambling Gambler" (Bluebird 6809, 1937; on TimesAint04)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Good Morning Mister Railroadman
NOTES: I place the Dixon Brothers' recording here rather than in "Roving Gambler" mostly because of the tune; verses float freely between the two songs, so distinguishing them is difficult. - PJS
File: BRaF459

Gambler's Sweetheart, The

DESCRIPTION: "Forever remember your dark-eyed girl Whose love was ever true, Who has waited for your coming...." She accuses him of gambling while leaving her alone at home. She warns him that some day he'll find her dead.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1934 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: love gambling betrayal death
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 809, "The Gambler's Sweetheart" (2 texts)
Roud #7426
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Gambler" (plot)
NOTES: There are, obviously, many songs on this theme, and I suspect this may be a derivative of one of the others. But the lyrics have no obvious connection with any of the others, so I classify this piece separately. - RBW
File: R809

Gambling on the Sabbath Day [Laws E14]

DESCRIPTION: A young man murders his comrade and is condemned to die. His family's pleas for him are in vain; despite repenting, he is hanged. His downfall is blamed on his habit of gambling on the sabbath day
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (recording, George Reneau)
KEYWORDS: gambling murder execution
FOUND IN: US(Ap,So)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Laws E14, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day"
MHenry-Appalachians, pp. 105-106, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day" (1 text)
Randolph 137, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day" (3 texts plus 2 excerpts, 2 tunes)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 170-173, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 137A)
DT 624, CMBLSBTH (?! -- if this doesn't work, try GMBLSBTH)
Roud #3544
RECORDINGS:
William Hanson, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day" (OKeh 45529, 1931; rec. 1930)
George Reneau, "Gambling on the Sabbath Day" (Vocalion 15149, 1925)
NOTES: Ozark lore attributes this song to one Bill Walker, executed May 10, 1889. Since some people believe they learned the song before this time, the attribution is doubtful. - RBW
File: LE14

Gambling Suitor, The

See The Courting Case (File: R361)

Gamboling Man, The

See The Roving Gambler [Laws H4] (File: LH04)

Game of Cards (I), The

DESCRIPTION: A young man meets a girl by the highway. They walk together; she would play a game. He wants her to learn "the game of all fours." When the "cards" are "dealt," she takes his "jack." If he will return, she offers to "play the game over and over again."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1830 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 11(540))
KEYWORDS: cards sex bawdy seduction game
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South,Lond))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Kennedy 175, "The Game of Cards" (1 text, 1 tune)
MacSeegTrav 36, "All Fours" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
DT, GAMECARD
Roud #232
RECORDINGS:
Sam Larner, "All Fours" (on SLarner02)
Levi Smith, "The Game of Cards" (on Voice11)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(540), "The Cards" ("As I walked out one midsummer morning"), T. Birt (London), 1828-1829; also Harding B 11(1855), Firth b.27(418), "The Cards"; Firth b.34(281), "Game of All Fours"; Firth b.34(120), "Game of All Fours," unknown, n.d.
ALTERNATE TITLES:
One-Two-and-Three
The Game of All Fours
As I Walked Out
NOTES: The actual card-game of "All Fours" is also known, in the USA, as "Seven-Up," "Old Sledge," "High-Low-Jack," and "Pitch" -- but the use of the game as a sexual metaphor did not make it across the ocean. - PJS
W. C. Hazlitt A Dictionary of Faiths & Folklore, entry on "All Fours," notes that the common amusement of having an adult get down on arms and knees and have a child ride on his back is also known as "all fours," which obviously has high potential for sexual undercurrents.
There are other songs entitled "The Game of Cards" -- e.g. Healy-OISBv2, pp. 81-83. Some may have distant dependence on this, but most are probably distinct. - RBW
Yates, Musical Traditions site Voice of the People suite "Notes - Volume 11" - 11.9.02: "it should be stressed that this song has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the card game." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: K175

Game of Cards (II), The

DESCRIPTION: Cahill, Napoleon, D'Esterre and O'Connell, Castlereagh and Pitt are presented as players of all-fours or twenty-five representing Erin, France and John Bull. In 1798, "'Twas easy to beat drunken men." Now we're sober. "Nearly ready to finish the game"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1966 (Zimmermann)
KEYWORDS: game cards England France Ireland nonballad patriotic political
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Moylan 127, "The Game of Cards" (1 text)
Healy-OISBv2, pp. 81-83, "The Game of Cards" (1 text)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, 2806 b.9(35), "The Game of Cards" ("You true sons of Erin draw near me"), P. Brereton (Dublin), c.1867; also 2806 c.8(87), 2806 b.9(231), 2806 b.11(12), Johnson Ballads 3062, "The Game of Cards"; Harding B 26(283), "The Irish Volunteers of 1860"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Shan Van Voght (1848)" for references to the "stealing" of Grattan's Parliament
cf. "The Wheels of the World" for references to the "stealing" of Grattan's Parliament
NOTES: There is no "overall game" nor even a "game" in this broadside, just a set of disconnected plays in what seem to be two different card games.
Dr Daniel William Cahill [1796-1864] deals "the five fingers to France, The stout Knave of Clubs to America." Cahill argued against the government and the Established Church of Ireland (source: "Daniel William Cahill" in The Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent site).
Napoleon deals all-fours next.
"D'Esterre went to play O'Connell ... with a trigger the cards he did shuffle." Daniel O'Connell killed challenger D'Esterre in an 1815 duel over a disparaging speech by O'Connell about the Dublin Corporation (source: "Daniel O'Connell" in The Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent site).
The 1798 defeat at Tara is referred to as all-fours but seems to mix in the twenty-five rules.
"Castlereagh and old Pitt were gamesters ... Our Parliament they stole away." Castlereagh and William Pitt championed the Act of Union of Ireland and England in 1800, but both resigned with Cornwallis in 1801 when George III refused to allow Irish Emancipation (source: "Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh" in The Age of George III at the site of A Web of English History).
For another attribution of the 1798 loss to Irish drunkenness see "The Boys of Wexford."
For discussions of the card games of "All Fours" (Old Sledge, Auction Pitch, High-Low-Jack) and "Twenty-Five" (Spoil Five, Five Fingers) see the Card Games site and The United States Playing Card Company site. - BS
It would be hard to claim that alcohol ruined the 1798 rebellion; that was wrecked by lack of planning and the fact that the United Irish leadership was informant-riddled. But the Fenians of the nineteenth century did often fall prey to drink. A still later rebel, Vinnie Byrne, claims it nearly cost them even after the 1916 rebellion: "[Michael] Collins was a marvel. If he hadn't done the work he did, we'd still be under Britain. Informers and drink would have taken care of us." (See Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins, p. 116.)
The references to the stealing of Parliament remind me very much of "The Wheels of the World," though which came first is not clear. There is a similar reference in "The Shan Van Voght (1848)." For additional background, see the notes to those two songs.- RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: BrdTGoC2

Game of Howsers, The

See We Won't Go Home Until Morning (File: RJ19226)

Game Warden Song

DESCRIPTION: The game warden catches the singers netting salmon. He takes the nets but agrees, for a ride, not to turn them in. But he sends a letter to the magistrate. They are met by the judge with a summons. The warden gets half the $10 fine.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1960 (Leach-Labrador)
KEYWORDS: trial trick fishing judge punishment
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Leach-Labrador 82, "Game Warden Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST LLab082 (Partial)
Roud #9978
File: LLab082

Game-Cock, The

See The Trooper and the Tailor (File: FSC139)

Gamekeepers Lie Sleeping

DESCRIPTION: "I keep my dogs and my ferrets too, O I have them in my keepin' To catch good hares all in the night While the gamekeeper lies sleeping." The singer goes out one night and poaches a female rabbit. Her cries bring the keepers, but he escapes and sells her
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1891
KEYWORDS: poaching hunting dog animal commerce
FOUND IN: Britain(England(Lond,South))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Kennedy 249, "Gamekeepers Lie Sleeping" (1 text, 1 tune)
Copper-SoBreeze, pp. 266-267, "Dogs and Ferrets" (1 text, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: Tim Coughlan, Now Shoon the Romano Gillie, (Cardiff,2001), pp. 444-445, ("My master turned me out of doors") [English text from singing of New Forest Gypsies reported by Gillington, _Songs of the Open Road_ (1911)] [see addiitional references in NOTES]
Roud #363
RECORDINGS:
Wiggy Smith, "Hares in the Old Plantation" (on Voice18)
Tom Willett, "While Gamekeepers Lie Sleeping" (on TWillett01, HiddenE)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "While Gamekeepers Were Sleeping" (lyrics)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
I Keep My Dogs
Hares in the Old Plantations
The Sleeping Gamekeeper
I Keep My Dogs and Ferrets Too
While Gamekeepers Lie Sleeping
NOTES: See Tim Coughlan, Now Shoon the Romano Gillie, (Cardiff,2001), for five texts:
Coughlan #167, pp. 442-446, "I Have a Juk" [Romani-English text reported by Yates].
Coughlan #168, p. 446, "I Have a Dog" [Romani-English text from BBC Radio (1987)].
Coughlan #169, p. 446, "Mandy Had a Juk" [Romani-English fragment reported by Kennedy (1975)].
Coughlan #170, p. 446, "I Have a Juk" [Romani-English fragment reported by Richardson (1976-1977)].
Coughlan #171, p. 447, "Mandi Has a Jukkel" [Romani-English text reported by Stanley and Burke (1986)].
Jasper Smith is the source for #167, #168 and #171. - BS
File: K249

Gan to the Kye Wi' Me

DESCRIPTION: "Gan to the kye wi' me, my love, Gan to the kye wi' me; Over the moor and thro' the grove, I'll sing ditties to thee." The girl's cattle were stolen after he was killed in battle, but the singer hopes the kine are enough to support them
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1900 (Stokoe/Reay)
KEYWORDS: father death courting animal
FOUND IN: Britain(England(Scotland))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Stokoe/Reay, pp. 138-139, "Gan to the Kye Wi' Me" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST StoR138 (Full)
Roud #3162
File: StoR138

Ganging Through the Howe, Geordie

DESCRIPTION: Geordie goes to be with the girls spinning. He's no longer welcome there. He once "had Susan at your will" but thinks he has lost her also. The singer advises him to call on her again before his term ends "an ye'll get a kiss And maybe something mair"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: courting rejection nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1864, "Ganging Through the Howe, Geordie" (1 text)
Roud #13585
NOTES: Seasonal hiring of servants and farm workers usually was for six months, beginning May and November, and the term day marked the end of the employment period. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81864

Gaol Song (II)

See The Prisoner's Song (File: FSC100)

Gaol Song, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer describes the hard life in prison, abused by the guards, granted only the poorest food, and forced to work the treadmill and engage in other backbreaking labour. The singer, once free, vows to leave all such things behind
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906
KEYWORDS: work prison punishment captivity worksong
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 22-23, "The Gaol Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
Vaughan Williams/Lloyd, p. 39, "Gaol Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GAOLSONG*
Roud #1077
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. ""The County Gaol"
cf. "Durham Gaol"
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Treadmill Song
NOTES: The treadmill was a rotating cylinder that drove machinery such as a mill or a pump. It was a set of steps on a circular gear, which meant that, once started, the convict had no way to stop it; he had to keep walking the treads until relieved. Prisoners often collapsed in agony on such machines, first installed in Sydney in 1823. - RBW
While Lloyd does not mention [this] as a work song, it certainly has the cadence of one, so I have assigned that keyword. -PJS
File: FaE022

Garbey's Rock

See The Jam on Gerry's Rock [Laws C1] (File: LC01)

Garden Gate, The

DESCRIPTION: Mary and William have planned a secret meeting. She arrives at the garden gate at eight; William is not there. Nine comes; she searches, then vows to forsake him. He finally arrives at ten; he had been shopping for a ring. She forgives him
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1905 (GreigDuncan5); before 1830 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 25(709))
KEYWORDS: courting nightvisit separation marriage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber)) US(MW) Ireland
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Greig #124, p. 2, "The Garden Gate" (1 text)
GreigDuncan5 981, "The Garden Gate" (9 texts, 4 tunes)
Eddy 78, "The Garden Gate" (1 text, 1 tune)
SHenry H770, p. 485, "The Garden Gate" (1 text, 1 tune)
BrownIII 319, "The Garden Gate" (1 fragment, in which the girl tells her mother she is going to the garden gate; it may be a separate song, but with only four lines, we cannot tell )
ST E078 (Partial)
Roud #418
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 25(709), "The Garden Gate" ("The day was spent, the moon shone bright"), T. Birt (London), 1828-1829; also Harding B 17(105b), Harding B 11(87), Harding B 18(190), Firth c.14(180), Firth b.26(368), Firth b.25(187), Harding B 11(1292), Harding B 11(3454), Firth b.25(272), "The Garden Gate"
LOCSheet, sm1885 01480, "The Garden Gate," Geo. D Newhall (Cincinnati), 1885 (tune) ["composed by Jerome Hill"]
LOCSinging, sb20158b, "The Garden Gate" ("The day was clos'd, the moon shone bright"), H. De Marsan (New York), 1859-1878; also as104220, "The Garden Gate" ("The day was spent, the moon shone bright")
NOTES: See also Bodleian, Harding B 11(87), "Answer to The Garden Gate" ("One wintry eve the moon it shone"), J. Pitts (London), 1819-1844; also Harding B 25(71)[some words illegible], Firth b.26(368), Harding B 11(1292), "Answer to The Garden Gate."
Broadside LOCSinging sb20158b: H. De Marsan dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
Broadsides LOCSinging sb20158b and Bodleian Harding B 18(190) are duplicates. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: E078

Garden Hymn, The

DESCRIPTION: "The Lord into his garden comes, the flowers yield a rich perfume." The hymn describes how God's presence brings life to the garden. Jesus will "conquer all his foes And make his people one."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1800 (published by author)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Chase, pp. 158-159, "The Garden Hymn" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #11502
RECORDINGS:
Singers from Stewart's Chapel, Houston, MS, "Nashville" (on Fasola1)
NOTES: The authorship of this piece is somewhat dubious. It's usually credited to Jeremiah Ingalls, but sometimes to William Campbell. In the 1971 Sacred Harp Campbell is given credit as "Translator," whatever that means in the context of an English-language hymn. Sacred Harp gives Alexander Johnson as composer of the tune, but Amelia Ramsey, in her notes to the Stewart's Chapel recording, credits Ingalls for the tune as well. - PJS
Which mostly proves how confused the data in the Sacred Harp can be. John Martin writes to note that many of the Sacred Harp editions lack this piece, and others give different attributions.
Martin adds that he has searched the works of Ingalls, and finds the poem there, in a form rather different from the Sacred Harp version (e.g. it lacks the part about Jesus conquering his foes). Ingalls, Martin writes, "describes the words as 'att. John Stocker, 1777.'"
I finally gave up and decided to eliminate all author references for the piece. In any case, chances are that any version you hear is composite. - RBW
File: Cha158

Garden Where the Praties Grow

DESCRIPTION: ""Have you ever been in love, me boys, Oh! have you felt the pain? I'd rather be in jail, I would, than be in love again.... I'd have you all to know That I met her in the garden where the praties grow." The two marry and live happily ever after
AUTHOR: Johnny Patterson
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Sandburg)
KEYWORDS: love courting marriage
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Sandburg, p. 463, "I Met Her in the Garden Where the Praties Grow" (1 short text, 1 tune)
DT, PRATIGRO*
Roud #4803
RECORDINGS:
Dr. Smith & his Champion Hoss Hair Pullers, "In the Garden Where the Irish Potatoes Grow" (Victor 21711, 1928)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Why Paddy's Not at Work Today" (tune)
File: San463

Gardener Lad, The

See The Gardener [Child 219] (File: C219)

Gardener, The [Child 219]

DESCRIPTION: A "gardener" comes to a lady, offering many flowers if she will marry him. She is not interested.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1827 (Kinloch)
KEYWORDS: courting flowers rejection gardening
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Child 219, "The Gardener' (3 texts)
Bronson 219, "The Gardener" (9 versions+3 in addenda, but #1 at least is "The Gairdner and the Plooman")
GreigDuncan4 840, "The Gardener" (5 texts, 4 tunes)
Greig #42, pp. 1-2, "The Gardener Lad" (1 text)
Leach, p. 577, "The Gardener" (1 text)
OBB 159, "The Gardener" (1 text)
DBuchan 55, "The Gardener" (1 text)
DT 219, GRDNRCHD*
Roud #339
RECORDINGS:
Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, "The Gairdener Chyld" (on SCMacCollSeeger01) {cf. Bronson's #6}
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Gairdener Chylde
The Gardener's Wooing
NOTES: One can only suspect that this piece was made up to get in as many flower symbols as possible; at least, there seems little point to most of the imagery. For a catalog of some of the sundry flower symbols, see the notes to "The Broken-Hearted Gardener."
Child prints a text (additions and corrections to "The Gardener", p. 258 in Volume V of the Dover edition) which conflates this with "In My Garden Grew Plenty of Thyme" or something similar.
The song is also sometimes confused with "The Gairdener and the Plooman" (which see).
Although most mentions of flower symbolism in the ballads seem to go back to the Elizabethan-era symbols, it is perhaps worth noting that in the Victorian era there arose a form of flower arrangement known as Tussy Mussy, which was intended to convey meaning. The Chinese and Japanese also had art forms in which flower arrangements had meaning, but these surely did not affect British ballads! - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C219

Gardener's Delight, The

DESCRIPTION: "The gardener delights in his jolly flowers ... But my delight's in a bonny young lass." Adam, "lord and king o' the nation," needed "a young lass to lie near him" to complete his bliss. The singer is poor but "the rich and grand" have no more than he.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: sex Bible nonballad wife gardening flowers
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1270, "The Gardener's Delight" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #7186
NOTES: The tale of the creation of the woman from the rib of the man is told in Genesis 2:21-22 (with the description of her as his partner continuing until 2:24, and the statement that none of the animals was a partner fit for him in 3:20). The other account of the creation, in Genesis 1:27, strongly implies that men and women were created at the same time (implying, obviously, a different sort of partnership).
We might add that Genesis 2:15 has God putting Adam in the Garden of Eden "to till and keep it." - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71270

Gardner and the Ploughman, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer is courted by a gardner, tailor, and sailor but prefers her ploughman [his breath is sweetest] but he has "misshapen" her gown He overhears her, proposes and says she can fix the gown. She accepts. They marry.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1885 (GreigDuncan6)
KEYWORDS: courting love marriage sex worker
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #126, p. 1, "The Gairdener and the Plooman"; Greig #128, pp. 1-2, "The Gairdener and the Plooman" (2 texts)
GreigDuncan6 1125, "The Gardner and the Ploughman" (8 texts, 5 tunes)
Roud #6845
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Gairner Lad, a Frien' o' Mine
The Plooman Lad
NOTES: Greig notes that his text in #128 is a composite: the last two verses are from another version from Bell Robertson. GreigDuncan6 separates the texts as 1125F and 1125H. If that's the case the Greig text is rearranged a bit and omits two lines in 1125F.
This is not really like the songs is which a woman rejects lovers because of their occupations (see "Yon Bonnie Lad" and its references). Here the tailor's occupation is compared unfavourably to the sailor's, but the sailor himself is second best. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD61125

Gargal Machree

See Gay Girl Marie [Laws M23] (File: LM23)

Garners Gay (Rue; The Sprig of Thyme)

DESCRIPTION: Of a girl who has lost her thyme and her love. She uses other symbols to describe her sad state: With her thyme gone, her life is "spread all over with rue"; a woman is a "branching tree"; a man, a wind blowing through the branches and taking what he can
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1900 (Stokoe/Reay)
KEYWORDS: loneliness seduction virginity
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Silber-FSWB, p. 163, "Rue" (1 text)
Stokoe/Reay, pp. 80-81, "The Willow Tree, or, Rue and Thyme" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ritchie-Southern, p. 56, "Keep Your Garden Clean" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, THYMSPRG* THYMTHY
Roud #3
RECORDINGS:
Sara Cleveland, "The Maiden's Lament" (on SCleveland01)
BROADSIDES:
Murray, Mu23-y1:104, "The Wheel of Fortune," James Lindsay (Glasgow), 19C [an incredible mixture, with the "Wheel of Fortune" verse, though the rest seems an amalgam of thyme songs -- here spelled "time"; I file it here in desperation]; also Mu23-y1:105, "The Wheel of Fortune," James Lindsay (Glasgow), 19C [even more mixed, with the "Wheel of Fortune" verse, a thyme stanza, a bit of "Fair and Tender Ladies," a "Queen of Heart" verse, and more]
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Rue and the Thyme (The Rose and the Thyme)" (theme, symbols, lyrics)
NOTES: In flower symbolism, thyme stood for virginity. For a catalog of some of the sundry flower symbols, see the notes to "The Broken-Hearted Gardener."
Thyme songs are almost impossible to tell apart, because of course the plot (someone seduces the girl) and the burden (let no man steal your thyme) are always identical. For the same reasons, verses float freely between them. So fragmentary versions are almost impossible to classify.
The Digital Tradition has a version, "Rue and Thyme" (not to be confused with the Ballad Index entry with that title) which seems to have almost all the common elements. Whether it is the ancestor of the various thyme songs, or a gathering together of separate pieces, is not clear to me.
This is one of the more lyric versions of the piece, usually with almost no information about the actual seduction. The mention of multiple herbs, especially rue, seems characteristic.
To show how difficult all this is, Randolph and Ritchie have texts of this called "Keep Your Garden Clean" which are pretty much the same except for the first verse. On the basis of that distinction, I filed Randolph' with "In My Garden Grew Plenty of Thyme" and Ritchie's with "Garners Gay (Rue; The Sprig of Thyme)."
Jean Ritchie calls this a version of "The Seeds of Love," and Randolph calls his a "Seeds of Love" variant also, and Roud's classification seems to agree. I don't, though I rather wish I could, given the difficulty of distinguishing. - RBW
File: FSWB163

Garnish

DESCRIPTION: The singer recalls "the days of my youth [when] I roamed down to the seashore, With my golden-haired Kathleen to Garnish white strand" In all his travels since none can compare with her. He wishes he might return. He knows she is waiting.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1978 (OCanainn)
KEYWORDS: homesickness love emigration separation
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OCanainn, p. 57, "Garnish" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Garnish is an island in Bantry Bay in County Cork. - BS
File: OCan057

Garrawilla (The Shearer's Life)

DESCRIPTION: "I sing of Garrawilla, a station of the glen...." Though the singer says, "A shearer's life is jolly," he also complains of the bad conditions and the demands for fast and accurate work. But he concludes, "Heaven's sheep are shorn by Garrawilla men"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: Australia sheep work
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 128-129, "Garawilla" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Meredith and Anderson's informant, Jack Wright, claims that this was made up by a co-worker of his father's at Garrawilla. I find it interesting that only the first and last verses refer to this station. I wonder if the middle is not a generic song about shearing (which should perhaps be titled "The Shearer's Life"), onto which these two verses were tacked. - RBW
File: MA128

Garryowen (I)

DESCRIPTION: "Garryowen's gone to rack, We'll win her olden glories back." Sarsfield "tramp'd the English banner down ... And we will take our father's place And scowl into the Saxon face" "Draw your swords for Garryowen and swear upon the Treaty stone"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c.1867? (broadside, Johnson Ballads 2111a)
KEYWORDS: rebellion nonballad patriotic
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Croker-PopularSongs, p. 237, "Garryowen" (1 fragment seemingly appended to a text of "Garryowen (II)")
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Johnson Ballads 2111a, "Garryowen" ("Oh Garr[y]owen's gone to rack"), P. Brereton (Dublin), c.1867
LOCSinging, as104230, "Garryowen," unknown[?], n.d.
NOTES: Broadsides LOCSinging as104230 and Bodleian Johnson Ballads 2111a are duplicates.
Broadside Bodleian Johnson Ballads 2111a is the basis for the description.
The Treaty of Limerick was signed on October 3, 1691 by Sarsfield for the Irish and Ginkel for the English. Hayes, The Ballads of Ireland, Vol I, p. 215 re "The Treaty Stone of Limerick": "The large stone which served Sarsfield for a chair and writing desk, when signing the articles of the treaty of Limerick, is still [1855] shown as an object of historic interest to the stranger visiting that city."
Croker-PopularSongs: "Garryowen, in English, 'Owen's Garden,' is a suburb of Limerick." - BS
For more on Sarsfield, see "After Aughrim's Great Disaster." - RBW
File: CrPS237a

Garryowen (II)

DESCRIPTION: "Let Bacchus's sons be not dismayed"; "booze and sing" ;"take delight in smashing the Limerick lamps" and fighting in the streets. Doctors can fix our bruises. Break windows and doors. Beat bailiffs. "Where'er we go they dread the name Of Garryowen"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1839 (Croker-PopularSongs)
KEYWORDS: bragging violence drink nonballad doctor
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Croker-PopularSongs, pp. 230-237, "Garryowen" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Kathleen Hoagland, editor, One Thousand Years of Irish Poetry (New York, 1947), p. 264, "Garryowen"
H. Halliday Sparling, Irish Minstrelsy (London, 1888), pp. 478-479, 511, "Garryowen"
NOTES: Croker-PopularSongs: "Garryowen, in English, 'Owen's Garden,' is a suburb of Limerick."
Digital Tradition: "Official marching tune of Custer's Seventh Cavalry."
Croker-PopularSongs quoting a letter of 1833: Two of the characters in the song [Johnny Connell and Darby O'Brien] "were two squireens in Limerick, and about the time the song was written, between the years 1770 and 1780, devil-may-care sort of fellows, who defied all authority." The Digital Tradition version omits four of the seven verses from Croker, and adds none, and the verses mentioning Connell and O'Brien are among the missing: Connell went to Cork and O'Brien leapt over the dock, apparently at sentencing.
Croker-PopularSongs: "Speaking of the enjoyments of the people of Limerick at fair time or on festival days, Fitzgerald and MacGregor notice in their history, a fondness for music of the fiddle or bagpipe. 'Amongst the airs selected upon these occasions, 'Patrick's Day,' and 'Garryowen,' always hold a distinguished place.'"
The only obvious connection between "Garryowen (I)" and "Garryowen (II)" is the last line of the chorus: "From Garryowen in glory!"/"For Garryowen na glora" - BS
File: CrPS230

Garryowen, The

DESCRIPTION: Fragment: "She was accompanied by two vessels more, When to her misfortune on the Patch she bore. There was calico, check and some velveteen ...The likes of this vessel you never had known: The American trader called the Garryowen"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1945 (Ranson)
KEYWORDS: sea ship wreck commerce
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ranson, p. 126, "The Garryowen" (1 fragment)
NOTES: no date: "The 'Garryowen' was wrecked on the Patch, a sandbank off Balinoulart" (source: Ranson may be the source for Bourke in Shipwrecks of the Irish Coast v1, p. 52) - BS
File: Ran126

Garvagh Town

DESCRIPTION: The singer meets the "star of Garvagh town." She refuses his advances because he is a Roman Catholic. She remarks favorably on the "twenty-two religions held up in Garvagh town." They share a drink, discuss their differences further, shake hands and part
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1988 (McBride)
KEYWORDS: courting religious rejection drink beauty
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
McBride 34, "Garvagh Town" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Protestant Maid" (subject: religious conversion) and references there
NOTES: See "The Banks of Dunmore" for a song in which a Protestant suitor meets and is converted by a Roman Catholic farmer's daughter; after his conversion they marry. - BS
Garvagh is in County Derry, and in 1813 was the site of an incident of religious violence (see the notes to "March of the Men of Garvagh"), so it is a logical site for a meeting of religions. - RBW
File: McB1034

Gas Lights

DESCRIPTION: "Belfast and the new fashioned gas ... can from all darkness deliver." Business men, "jolly commanders," are named. People "from Scotland and England from Holland and Flanders" meet. Tradesmen are busy. Saturday nights are lively, well lit and safe.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1823 (according to Leyden)
KEYWORDS: commerce technology nonballad
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Leyden 6, "Gas Lights" (1 text)
File: Leyd006

Gaspard Tragedy, The

See The Cruel Ship's Carpenter (The Gosport Tragedy; Pretty Polly) [Laws P36A/B] (File: LP36)

Gates of Ivory, The

See Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight [Child 4] (File: C004)

Gates of Londonderry, The

DESCRIPTION: King James and all his Host" attack Derry "but vain were all their Popish arts, The Gates were shut by gallant hearts ...The 'Prentice Boys" "Red war, with fiery breath Cast pestilence and death" until "the gallant ship Mountjoy" broke the seige.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c.1895 (Graham)
KEYWORDS: battle rescue death starvation Ireland patriotic youth
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Dec 7, 1688 - The "Apprentice Boys" close the Londonderry gates against Lord Antrim's "Redshanks"
July 28, 1689 - Browning's ships break the 105 day seige of Derry (source: Cecil Kilpatrick, "The Seige of Derry: A City of Refuge" at the Canada-Ulster Heritage site)
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Graham, pp. 16-18, "The Gates of Londonderry" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Shutting of the Gates of Derry" (subject) and references and notes there
cf. "The Death of Nelson" (tune)
File: Grah016

Gatesville Cannonball, The

DESCRIPTION: A boastful youth meets a girl at a dance, takes her to her mother's bedside and seduces her.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: bawdy seduction sex
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Cray, pp. 79-81, "The Gatesville Cannonball" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #10407
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Rosemary Lane" [Laws K43]
cf. "When I Was Young (Don't Never Trust a Sailor)"
cf. "The Wabash Cannonball" (tune)
File: EM079

Gathering Mushrooms

DESCRIPTION: The singer meets a maid in the fields and asked what she is doing out so early. She is gathering mushrooms to make her mommy catsup. "Her panting breast on mine she pressed ... And her lips on mine did gently join And we both sat down together"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1955 (IRRCinnamond02)
KEYWORDS: courting food
FOUND IN: Ireland
ST RcTGMus (Full)
Roud #7001
RECORDINGS:
Robert Cinnamond, "The Maid Gathering Mushrooms" (on IRRCinnamond02)
NOTES: I thought "catsup" - however it's spelled - was always made from tomatoes. However, it is "a seasoned sauce of puree consistency the principal ingredient of which is usu. tomatoes but sometimes another foodstuff (as mushrooms or walnuts)" (source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1976)
The description is based on John Moulden's transcription from IRRCinnamond02 included in the Traditional Ballad Index Supplement. - BS
File: RcTGMus

Gathering Nuts in May

DESCRIPTION: "Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May, Here we go gathering... On a bright and pretty day." "Who will you have for your nuts in May?" "We'll have (a boy) for the nuts in May." A girl will "pull him across." Repeat for each player
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1894 (Gomme)
KEYWORDS: playparty courting harvest nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber)) US(MW,NE,So)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
GreigDuncan8 1599, "Here We Come Gathering Nuts in May" (3 texts)
Greig #152, p. 1, "Nuts in May" (1 text)
Randolph 561, "Gathering Nuts in May" (2 texts, 1 tune, although the second, fragmentary, text may be unrelated)
Linscott, pp. 16-18, "Here We Go Gathering Nuts in May" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, NUTSMAY
Roud #6308
RECORDINGS:
Tony Wales, "Four Children's Singing Games (Nuts in May)" (on TWales1)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush" (tune)
NOTES: Linscott explains, "This is certainly a dance survival from the May Day destivals of olden days.... The words are a corruption from 'knots of may,' the game is of English origin, and the tune a variant of the country dance melody 'Nancy Dawson.'" - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: R561

Gathering Rushes in the Month of May (Underneath Her Apron)

DESCRIPTION: Girl gathers rushes and bears a child, wrapping it in her apron. The baby cries; her father asks who the father was and where it was conceived, vowing to burn the place. The father was a sailor; she conceived "by yonder spring, where the small birds sing"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1937
KEYWORDS: pride sex accusation questions childbirth pregnancy baby father lover sailor clothes
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North,South))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DT, UNDRAPRN*
Roud #899
RECORDINGS:
Anne Briggs, "Gathering Rushes in the Month of May" (on BirdBush1, Birdbush2, Briggs3)
Jack Elliott, "Was It In the Kitchen?" (on Elliotts01)
NOTES: The Elliott version has the young man as a miner, not a sailor; it is mixed with "Never Let a Sailor Get an Inch Above Your Knee"; see "Rosemary Lane" for discussion of *that* mess. - PJS
File: DTundrap

Gatineau Girls, The

See The Jolly Shanty Boy (File: Be021)

Gauger, The

DESCRIPTION: "There was a captain of the fleet, A bonnie lassie he did entreat (x2) For to wed wi' him a sailor." She says her mother will not approve, and advises him to dress as a gauger. He fails to find any gin in the house, and says he will take the lass instead
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1894 (Murison collection, according to Lyle, _Fairies and Folk_)
KEYWORDS: courting trick disguise drink marriage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Greig #89, pp. 2-3, "The Gauger" (1 text)
GreigDuncan5 1015, "The Gauger" (7 texts, 5 tunes)
Ord, pp. 126-127, "The Gauger" (1 text)
DT, NWCGAUG*
Roud #2343
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Newcombe Gauger
The Rovin' Sailor
NOTES: It appears, in this case, that "gauger" is used in its sense of "revenue officer," though the secondary sense of one who is very aware of his own interests also fits. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord126

Gauger's Song, The

See The Private Still (The Gauger's Song) (File: HHH103)

Gawkie, The

See Bess the Gawkie (File: GrD81840)

Gay Caballero, The

DESCRIPTION: The gay caballero meets a gay senorita who gives him "exceedingly painful clapito" that results in a doctor cutting off the end of his "latraballee" and one of his "latraballeros." (In another version, her husband arrives, with predictable results)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927
KEYWORDS: bawdy humorous disease
FOUND IN: Australia Britain(England) US(So,SW)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Cray, pp. 231-235, "The Gay Caballero" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 492-493, "The Gay Caballero" (1 text, 1 tune)
Logsdon 29, pp. 169-172, "The Gay Caballero" (2 texts, 1 tune)
DT, GAYCAB
Roud #10095
RECORDINGS:
Frank Crumit, "The Gay Caballero" (Victor 21735, 1928) [a cleaned-up version, needless to say]
Lazy Larry, "The Gay Caballero" (Cameo 9019, 1929) [presumably a cleaned-up version]
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Fire Ship" (plot) and references there
cf. "Root, Hog, or Die (VI -- Cowboy Bawdy variant)" (theme of disease destroying sexual organs)
cf. "Cielito Lindo" (tune) and references there
NOTES: Logsdon's two texts, both from Riley Neal, have no words in common except "gay caballero"; one is a song about acquiring a veneral disease; in the other, the woman's husband shows up. Based solely on the texts, they are different songs. But Neal used the same tune, and both are in limerick form. I thought seriously about splitting them. But the "B" text, about the husband, is relatively clean. I suspect it might be a version for semi-polite company. So I'm lumping them, tentatively, until more data appears. - RBW
File: EM231

Gay Girl Marie [Laws M23]

DESCRIPTION: The singer sends a love letter to his "gay girl Marie." The courier, however, delivers it to her father, who is outraged, and sends her into exile. The singer searches at great length, and is almost in despair when he hears a girl weeping and it is Marie
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1841 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 25(768))
KEYWORDS: courting exile father reunion
FOUND IN: US(NE,So) Australia Ireland Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Laws M23, "Gay Girl Marie"
Randolph 124, "Gay Girl Marie" (1 text)
Meredith/Anderson, p. 194, "Gargal Machree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Leach-Labrador 135, "Grogal McCree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lehr/Best 45, "Gra Geal Mo Chroi" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 583, GAYGIRLM
Roud #1020
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 25(768)[illegible lines], "Gragerel Macgre" ("I am a fond lover that sorely opprest"), J. Jennings (London), 1790-1840; also Harding B 17(117a), "Grageral Macgree"
NOTES: Samuel P. Bayard conjectures that "Gay Girl Marie" is a corruption of Gaelic "mo gradh geal mo chroidhe," "bright heart's love." Meredith and Anderson make the same conjecture about their title, "Gargal Machree."
Sam Henry's has a title "Gragalmachree" which makes this certain, but it's not certain that it's the same song. Both obviously are built around the same Gaelic phrase, but they may be independent. That other song is indexed as "Gra Geal Mo Chroi (II -- Down by the Fair River)"; see the notes there. But note also that that song has many floating verses, one could easily confuse short versions. The editors of the Sam Henry collection, e.g., lumped a version of that song with this, and I followed that in early versions of the Index. Credit goes to Ben Schwartz for spotting the distinction. - RBW
File: LM23

Gay Goshawk, The [Child 96]

DESCRIPTION: An English lass is forbidden to marry the Scot she loves. He sends a message by his goshawk. She asks to be buried in Scotland should she die. This granted, she feigns death. Her coffin is taken to where her lover waits; they are reunited
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1802
KEYWORDS: love separation death burial trick reunion
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland) Ireland
REFERENCES (9 citations):
Child 96, "The Gay Goshawk" (8 texts)
Bronson 96, "The Gay Goshawk" (2 versions, though the second, from Christie, is described by Bronson as "padded out with a second strain.")
Leach, pp. 300-303, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 text)
Flanders-Ancient3, pp. 43-44, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 fragment, with lyrics typical of this piece but too short identify with certainty)
OBB 60, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 text)
PBB 43, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 text)
Gummere, pp. 265-269+358, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 text)
DBuchan 17, "The Gay Goshawk" (1 text, 1 tune in appendix) {Bronson's #1}
HarvClass-EP1, pp. 69-73, "The Gay Goss-hawk" (1 text)
Roud #61
File: C096

Gay Goss-hawk, The

See The Gay Goshawk [Child 96] (File: C096)

Gay Jemmie, the Miller

See The Gray Mare [Laws P8] (File: LP08)

Gay Maid of Australia, The

See Oxeborough Banks (Maids of Australia) (File: FaE044)

Gay Oul' Hag, The

DESCRIPTION: At a house on our street "the red-haired one is mine ... she's a gay old hag." We sat on the bed and with the last kiss I drove her crazy. I have money "from the Newross girl" but I'll not forsake my my "darlin' little wife ... she's a gay old hag"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1979 (Tunney-StoneFiddle)
KEYWORDS: nonballad rake whore wife
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Tunney-StoneFiddle, pp. 107-108, "The Gay Oul' Hag" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #5167
File: TSF107

Gay Ploughboy, The

DESCRIPTION: A rich farmer's daughter meets and falls in love with her father's ploughboy. He warns that her father will oppose them. She gives him twelve hundred pounds and they elope from Belfast for North America.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973 (Morton-Maguire)
KEYWORDS: courting elopement emigration farming father
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Morton-Maguire 38, pp. 126-127,171, "The Gay Ploughboy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2938
File: MoMa038

Gay Spanish Maid, A [Laws K16]

DESCRIPTION: The girl bids her lover farewell as he prepares to sail. A storm sinks the ship soon after it starts on its way; the entire crew is killed except her lover, who clings to a plank. She hears that the ship is lost and dies before her lover reaches her
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1917 (Cox)
KEYWORDS: ship storm death separation love drowning
FOUND IN: US(Ap,MW,NE,So) Canada(Mar, Newf)
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Laws K16, "A Gay Spanish Maid"
Randolph 125, "Gay Spanish Mary" (1 text)
Gardner/Chickering 40, "A Spanish Maid" (1 text plus an excerpt, 2 tunes)
Combs/Wilgus 87, pp. 134-135, "The Spanish Maid" (1 text)
JHCox 115, "A Gay Spanish Maid" (1 text)
Leach-Labrador 17, "Gay Spanish Maid" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Creighton-NovaScotia 35, "The Gay Spanish Maid" (1 text, 1 tune)
Mackenzie 33, "The Gay Spanish Maid" (1 text)
Dibblee/Dibblee, p. 79, "Gay Spanish Maid" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 560, GAYSPAN
Roud #708
RECORDINGS:
Edmund & Sadie Henneberry, "The Gay Spanish Maid" (on NovaScotia1)
File: LK16

Gay Spanish Mary

See A Gay Spanish Maid [Laws K16] (File: LK16)

Geaftai Bhaile Atha Bui (The Gates of Ballaghbuoy)

DESCRIPTION: Gaelic. Singer leads Mary astray but falls asleep, leaving her a virgin. His heart "is coal-black ... And for nine days I've wrestled with very death itself." Advice: "women are all guile; ... sleep the more soundly without them"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1991 (Tunney-SongsThunder)
KEYWORDS: foreignlanguage seduction sex virginity rejection
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Tunney-SongsThunder, pp. 35-37, "Geaftai Bhaile Atha Bui" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Bell/O Conchubhair, Traditional Songs of the North of Ireland, pp. 73-74, "Geaftai Bhaile Ath Bui" ("The Gates of Athboy") [Gaelic and English]
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Broomfield Hill" [Child 43] (plot) and references there
NOTES: The translations in Tunney-SongsThunder and Bell/O Conchubhair are very close and are the basis for the description. - BS
File: TST035

Gee, But I Want to Go Home

DESCRIPTION: A soldier complains about the coffee ("It's good for cuts and bruises And it tastes like iodine), food, clothes, work, and girls at the service club. Chorus: "I don't want no more of army life. Gee, but I want to go home"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1947
KEYWORDS: soldier army hardtimes home
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Lomax-FSUSA 39, "Gee, But I Want to Go Home" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 276, "Gee, But I Want To Go Home" (1 text)
DT, GOHOME*
ADDITIONAL: Leslie Shepard, _The Broadside Ballad_, Legacy Books, 1962, 1978, p. 181, "Army Life" (reproduction of a broadside page)
Roud #10053
RECORDINGS:
Pete Seeger, "Gee, But I Want to Go Home" (on PeteSeeger31)
NOTES: Why do I suspect that Oscar Brand had a hand in this song? - PJS
The song is probably a bit older than that, although I wouldn't be surprised if Brand did some rewriting. The major question is the date. Jerry Silverman files it among songs of World War I. He offers no proof. Since at least some versions of the song refer to dollars, we can operate on the assumption that it is American.
The song must be post-Civil War, since it says, "They give you fifty dollars [in pay] and take back 49." But Civil War privates were paid only $13 per month for most of the war; it was raised to $16 in 1864, but never to $50 (Boatner, p. 624). Indeed, this argues for a post-World-War-I date, since privates in that war were paid a dollar a day.
There had been an income tax as early as the Civil War, but it was very small, and one in which the tax was paid after it was earned -- there was no withholding. Withholding did not begin until 1943 (Schlesinger, p. 493). Of course, soldiers had certain amounts withheld for expenses. But extreme form of withholding sounds twentieth century -- probably late twentieth century.
Perhaps the extreme numbers come from the British version in Shepard, which makes the version read "They give you thirty shillings and take back 29." That number might indeed fit the World War I era.
Emsley, p. 197, says that iodine was discovered in 1811; on p. 196, says that it first came to be used as a disinfectant (to use a modern term) in the mid-nineteenth century. But HTIECivilWar, p. 484, does not list it among the contents of a Civil War doctor's medicine kit -- and the high rate of infected wounds, often resulting in death, offers strong evidence that iodine was not used as a disinfectant. Nor is it likely that ordinary soldiers would have known its taste in the 1860s.
The song also refers to "service clubs." I've never heard of such a thing in the Civil War era, when even the nurses were mostly male. There were a few more in World War I, but even then, they mostly stayed at home. In World War II, however, women were everywhere -- and the fighting was often at or near the home front. Soldiers saw more women -- but, it is true, they rarely saw the young and healthy women, who very often worked the civilian jobs the young men had given up.
Thus, it seems nearly impossible that this song originated in the Civil War, or any other nineteenth century war. Much of it seems specific to World War II. But, given that it seems to have been known as early as 1940, the best bet may be that it originated in World War I and was heavily elaborated. - RBW
Bibliography

Boatner: Mark M. Boatner III, The Civil War Dictionary, 1959 (there are many editions of this very popular work; mine is a Knopf hardcover)
Emsley: John Emsley, Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements, Corrected edition, Oxford, 2003
HTIECivilWar: Patricia L. Faust, editor, Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War, Harper & Row, 1986 (I use the 1991 Harper Collins edition)
Schlesinger: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., editor, The Almanac of American History, revised edition, Putnam, 1993 (I use the 1993 Barnes & Noble edition)

Last updated in version 2.5
File: LxU039

Geely Don Mac Kling Go

See The Wife Wrapt in Wether's Skin [Child 277] (File: C277)

Gelvin Burn

DESCRIPTION: The singer bids farewell to his old home, detailing all the historic and beautiful places nearby, "For I must go far from the Roe, my fortune to pursue." He promises to remember, and hopes that he will meet old friends again
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: emigration
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1385 - Death of "Cooey-na-Gal" O'Cahan
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H667, pp. 192-193, "Gelvin Burn" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #13549
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Banks of the Roe" (for Cooey-na-Gal) and references there
NOTES: For "Cooey-na-Gal" O'Cahan, and the other O'Cahans, see the notes on "The Banks of the Roe"
File: HHH667

General Florido

DESCRIPTION: French: "Oh General Florido! C'est vrai ye pas capab' pren moin!" "Oh, General Florido, It is true, you can't capture me." "There is a ship on the ocean, It is true, you can't capture me."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1963
KEYWORDS: foreignlanguage prisoner escape
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Courlander-NFM, pp. 169-170, (no title) (1 text plus translation, 1 tune)
NOTES: Curiously, for a song of (what Courlander reports to be) an escaping Spanish prisoner/slave, the song is in French.
I have not been able to locate a historical "General Florido"; I suspect it may simply be derived from the name "Florida." - RBW
File: CNFM169

General Fox Chase, The

DESCRIPTION: "I am a bold undaunted fox" who has always paid his rent and taxes. The land agent evicts him. "I stole away his ducks and geese, and murdered all his drakes." The "fox" becomes the target of a manhunt across Ireland and escapes to "the land of liberty"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1862 (Zimmermann)
KEYWORDS: emigration crime manhunt escape farming Ireland animal
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Zimmermann 68A, "The General Fox Chase" (1 text)
Munnelly/Deasy-Lenihan 19, "Farmer Michael Hayes" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, FARMHAYS
Roud #5226
RECORDINGS:
Tom Lenihan, "Farmer Michael Hayes" (on IRTLenihan01)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, 2806 b.10(136), "Gallant Michael Hayes" ("I am a bold undaunted fox, that never was before on tramp"), H. Such (London), 1863-1885; also 2806 c.8(103), 2806 b.10(100), "The General Fox Chase"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Gallant Farmer's Farewell to Ireland" (character of Michael Hayes)
NOTES: Zimmermann: "This ballad shows how a probably hateful character could become a gallant hero in the eyes of the oppressed peasants. Michael Hayes had been for many years the ruthless bailiff of a land agent, for whom he was said to have evicted more than one thousand people in one parish alone.... When he grew too old for this job he was allowed to stay on the land as a farmer, but a notice to quit was finally served on him too. He shot the agent in a hotel in Tipperary, (30th July, 1862)." In spite of a manhunt he was never caught.
Neither Zimmermann nor the Bodleian "The General Fox Chase" broadsides mention Michael Hayes by name; the slightly longer Bodleian "Gallant Michael Hayes" broadside mentions his name in only one line (I have reformatted the lines to emphasize what weak rhyme scheme there may be):
They searched the cellars underground,
The lime kilns, and each dwelling house,
And packet steamers there was found
To cross the raging sea,
But not meeting any chance,
They took another trip to France,
But still were baulked in their tramp,
They never met Gallant Michael Hayes.
Once these lines disappeared the remaining lines could be taken to apply to any fugitive. Zimmermann: "In 1865, a ballad singer was arrested in South Great George Street Dublin, for singing 'The General Fox Chase', which was then supposed to refer to the vain pursuit of Fenian fugitives. (The Nation, 4th November, 1865.)" - BS
File: Zimm068A

General Guinness

DESCRIPTION: General Guinness "is a soldier strong and 'stout,' Found on every 'bottle-front'" "He always finds a corkscrew far more handy than a sword." He "kept our spirits up in the midst of all the wars." "All over Bonnie Scotland too the General is seen"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1970 (Morton-Ulster)
KEYWORDS: drink humorous nonballad
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Morton-Ulster 47, "General Guinness" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2914
NOTES: Morton-Ulster: "General Guiness has been winning battles for a brave few years now. Arthur Guiness bought the small and ill-equipped brewery at James' Gate, Dublin in 1759." - BS
File: MorU047

General Lee's Wooing

DESCRIPTION: "My Maryland, my Maryland, I bring thee presents fine, A dazzling sword with jewelled hilt...." (The Confederates "woo" the border state, but the end is bloody): "My Maryland, my Maryland, alas the ruthless day... Proud gentlemen... whose bones lie stark"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: Civilwar battle death derivative
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Sept 17, 1862 - Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg). Robert E. Lee's invasion of Maryland meets a bloody check at the hands of McClellan
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Scott-BoA, pp. 233-235, "General Lee's Wooing" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "O Tannenbaum (Oh Christmas Tree)" (tune) and references there
cf. "The Battle of Antietam Creek" (subject)
NOTES: The Confederates always wanted Maryland to secede from the Union and join them. Local sentiment probably did not favor them, however, and in any case the federal government could hardly allow the secession of the state in which Washington was located.
The South had to pursue a forceful "wooing." In 1862, having won the Seven Days' Battles and Second Bull Run, Robert E. Lee took the Army of Northern Virginia into Maryland (Harpers, p. 393).
The invasion didn't go well. It was hoped that Marylanders would flock to the colors, but few recruits came in (Harpers, p. 393). Many of his Lee's own soldiers refused to cross the Potomac. Add the fact that Union General George McClellan captured a copy of Lee's orders (Boatner, p., 17), and it was almost a miracle that the Confederate commander was able to assemble his army at Sharpsburg to fight McClellan.
The Battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg was hardly a victory for anyone. It produced the highest casualties of any single day of battle in the war (Boatner, p. 21). By the time it was over, every regiment in Lee's army was worn out, and he may have had fewer than 25,000 effective soldiers left. McClellan still had unused troops, but he refused to commit them; his losses had also been immense. Murfin, p. 375, gives McClellan's losses at Antietam as 12,469, with another 2700 lost in preliminary skirmishes at South Mountain and Shepherdstown (this apart from some 12,000 captured by the Confederates at Harper's Ferry). Confederate records are never as reliable about such things, and are even worse for Antietam, but Murfin, p. 377, estimates Lee's losses in the Maryland campaign as 10,292 -- out of probably not more than 40,000 who went north into Maryland. Boatner quotes even more extreme numbers from Livermore: 12,410 Federerals, 13,724 Confederates. (The latter number, I must say, seems high; I suspect it includes men who did not cross the Potomac but came back to the colors after Lee went south.)
After the battle, Lee headed back across the Potomac. The wooing of Maryland was over. According to Scott, an unknown Union soldier wrote this song to commemorate the fiasco.
The Confederates had learned a lesson. Lee would invade the North again, leading ultimately to the Battle of Gettysburg, but that was not an attempt to bring in recruits or occupy northern territory; he was just trying to take the pressure off Virginia and try to defeat the Federals. Murfin, pp. 302-305, notes how, after Antietam, southerners would curse any band which played "Maryland, My Maryland."
Amazingly, even some of the southern papers got the idea; Murfin, p. 307, cites this from the Petersburg Express: "We think that General Lee has very wisely withdrawn his army from Maryland, the co-operation of whose people in his plans and purposes was indispensable for success. They have failed to respond to his noble appeal, and the victories (sic.) of Sharpsburg and Boonsborough, South Mountain, purchased with the torrents of blood, have been rendered improfitable in a material point of view."
As a matter of fact, they may indirectly have lost the South the war, since Lee's retreat ended, at least for the time, the possibility of foreign intervention. The one good result of Antietam was that it was enough of a Union victory -- barely -- to allow Lincoln to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. And that ended the possibility of intervention for all time. As Murfin writes on p. 311, "In a few strokes of the pen, with this thin thread of 'victory' at Sharpsburg as his guide, Lincoln changed the Civil War from a war of economics and politics to a war for the abolition of slavery, and automatically made Lee's Maryland campaign and the Battle of Antietam one of the most decisive of the war." - RBW
Bibliography

Boatner: Mark M. Boatner III, The Civil War Dictionary, 1959 (there are many editions of this very popular work; mine is a Knopf hardcover)
Harpers: Alfred H. Guernsey and Henry M. Alden, Harper's Pictorial History of the Great Rebellion in the United States, 1866 (I use the facsimile published by The Fairfax Press as Harper's Pictorial History of the Civil War; this is undated but was printed in the late Twentieth Century)
Murfin: James B. Murfin, The Gleam of Bayonets: The Battle of Antietam and Robert E. Lee's Maryland Campaign, September 1862, 1965 (I use the 1985 Louisiana State University Press edition)

Last updated in version 2.5
File: SBoA233

General Michael Collins

DESCRIPTION: A memorial to Michael Collins. His part in the Easter rising is recalled as well as other activities before the Treaty. "De Valera and his Die-hards they forced Civil War And Mick Collins was ambushed ... brother on brother they never should turn"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (OLochlainn-More)
KEYWORDS: Civilwar rebellion murder England Ireland memorial patriotic political
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Aug 22, 1922 - The head of the Provisional Government of Ireland, General Michael Collins shot and killed in an ambush by Anti-Treaty republicans (source: _Michael Collins (Irish Leader)_ and _Irish Civil War_ at the Wikipedia site)
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OLochlainn-More, pp. 264-265, "General Michael Collins" (1 text, tune referenced)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Lovely Willie" [OLochlainn 55] (tune)
NOTES: The song mentions Eamon de Valera. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6, 1921 established the Irish Free State. The Civil War that followed was between the pro-treaty and anti-treaty factions. De Valera led the ant-treaty faction. (source: Irish Civil War at the Wikipedia site) - BS
Michael Collins (1890-1922) and Eamon de Valera (1882-1975) were indeed probably the two most important figures of the Irish Civil War. De Valera came to prominence first; the highest-ranking officer to have been spared the executions following the Easter Rising of 1916, he was regarded as the head of the Irish rebel government. But in the struggle that followed, Collins, the "Big Fellow," had done more to make Irish indepenence real than the slight de Valera, who looked like (and was) a mathematics teacher -- and not even Irish by birth; he was born in the United States (a fact which saved his life in 1916; OxfordComp, p. 377). When it came time to form an actual Irish state, Collins became its de facto leader; de Valera, by his opposition to the Treaty with England which allows the formation of the Irish Free State, was for a time pushed out of government.
Collins was the son of a surprisingly well-educated farmer, Michael John Collins, who died when Collins was six (Coogan, p. 6. Collins senior was about sixty when he married Marianne O'Brien, then aged about 23, and Michael junior was the youngest child. His mother too died when he was fairly young).
Collins, ironically, worked in London from 1906 to 1915 (Coogan, pp. 15fff.), when he returned to Ireland to take part in the struggle for independence. He was involved in the Easter Rising, being imprisoned for his part in the attack on the General Post Office, but he was not at that time a leader. Eventually released, he became an important Irish Republican Army organizer. Elected to parliament in 1918, he joined the other members of Sinn Fein in withdrawing and forming the separatist Dail Eireann.
In the provisional government that the Dail formed, he became first the Minister of Home Affairs, then took the desperately difficult job of Minister of Finance (Coogan, p. 106). All the while he was continuing the battle against the British, becoming probably the most renowned fighter in Ireland.
Eventually, he was appointed, against his will, to the committee appointed to negotiate with England.
There were five Irish commissioners, plus a secretary (Fry/Fry, p. 313): Collins, Arthur Griffith (the founder of Sinn Fein), and secretary Erskine Childers were the most prominent. De Valera carefully stayed home -- and even from there, did his best not to become involved. After difficult negotiations, Collins, Griffith, and two other commissioners agreed to a treaty which gave Ireland home rule (in effect, dominion status) in return for continued paper allegiance to the King; it also separated Ulster from the rest of Ireland, with a boundary supposedly to be adjusted based on a religious census; this of course never happened; indeed, Kee, p. 160, says that Lloyd George had offered irreconcileable boundary promises to the Irish delegation and to Ulster leader James Craig, and adds on p. 172 that when the time came to appoint the commissioners, Ulster simply refused to take part. (For notes on sources, see the Bibliography at the end of this article.) A vague attempt was finally made at a survey, but no changes came about; in effect, the decision was that the boundary would remain unchanged and Britain would forgive a bunch of financial claims against Ireland; Kee, p. 173.
Collins apparently felt that Ireland had to have peace; the IRA was too close to exhaustion (Fry/Fry, p. 313). Coogan, p. 274, quotes Robert Barton, one of Collins's fellow commissioners. Collins was in anguish: "Collins rose looking as though he were going to shoot himself...." But "[Collins] knew that physical resistance, if resumed, would collapse, and he was not going to be the leader of a forlorn hope."
There were other reasons for signing. Collins had earned most of his successes by having a better intelligence system than the British, and there was evidence that the British were catching up; see Coogan, p. 76, 83, etc. where instances are listed of the British firing the informers in their midst.
In addition, the Irish commissioners had been pressured and bluffed by the much more politically astute Lloyd George (Dangerfield, pp. 334-339). To say they were tricked would be a little strong, but they were certainly manipulated.
On the other hand, rationally speaking, it was a good deal for Ireland; see the notes to "The Irish Free State."
When he signed the agreement in December of 1921, Collins is reported to have said "I have signed my own death warrant" (Wallace, p. 131; Fry/Fry, p. 317; Dangerfield, p. 339; Coogan, p. 276, notes that Lord Birkenhead had commented that in approving the Treaty that he might have signed his political death warrant; to which Collins replied "I may have signed my actual death-warrant").
Collins did not consider the Treaty final; he described it as "not the ultimate freedom that all nations aspire... to, but the freedom to achieve it" (Fry/Fry p. 314; Coogan, p. 301).
Ireland still wasn't satisfied; the Dail barely approved the treaty by a vote of 64-57.
It is ironic to note that when Collins cast his vote in favor of the treaty -- the first vote of the roll call to favor it -- he cast it as member from Armagh, which would not be part of Ireland under the treaty.
De Valera, who had authorized the commission to England without outlining clear terms, proceeded to denounce the treaty and quit his own government (Fry/Fry, p. 315). *This* was what ultimately doomed Collins. What followed was civil war.
A provisional government was formed early in 1922, and after de Valera failed to earn re-appointment as head of the Dail, the office went to Griffith. But Collins was the heart and soul of the provisional government, and its provisional president. An election in that year overwhelmingly supported treaty candidates (Golway, p. 276; Fry/Fry, pp. 315-316; Younger, pp. 313-314, states that "pro-Treaty panel candidates gained 239,193 votes of a total of 620,283 votes cast [39%]; anti-treaty panel candidates... polled 133,864 [22%]; and Labour, Independents and Farmers [most of whom would have accepted the Treaty] won between them 247,226 votes [40%]").
De Valera and the hardliners were so dissatisfied that they went to war against their own allies. (This was rather typical of de Valera, whose grip on reality was sometimes rather weak; even Younger, who is sufficiently pro-Irish that he consistently calls terrorists "freedom fighters," says on p. 90 that "odd decisions" "were... almost habitual with de Valera".)
(To be fair, there are many historians who, instead of seeing de Valera as too hardline and inconsistent, see him as brilliant and subtle -- perhaps too subtle for the opposition to understand. E.g, Kee, p. 149, says, "It was indeed because de Valera knew there must be compromise that he remained in Ireland, but not in his own self-interest"; it is Kee's view that he was *allowing* compromise while keeping the hard-liners on his side. The problem with this theory, of course, is that he kept the hard-liners, but didn't support the compromise, and the result was the Civil War.)
In the struggle that followed, Collins ironically had the backing of Britain. But an exhausted Griffith died in early August 1922, and Collins was slain from ambush within a fortnight (Fry/Fry, p. 317; Dangerfield, p. 294). There was already war, of course, but that pretty well guaranteed that the war would continue for generations, at least in Ulster. Collins seemingly hoped for peace with "the North-East corner" (Coogan, p. 301), but few others went along.
The assassination of Collins was in some ways interesting. He travelled with an armed and armored party, but the party had difficulty finding its way in the area of the "Mouth of Flowers." Several ambushes were set up; one managed to catch him despite being outgunned. Collins, hothead that he was, actually left his car to fight the assassins -- and was killed.
Collins was the only member of his party to die, though others were injured.
Other details are fuzzy. According to Coogan (p. 420), Sonny O'Neill, who probably fired the fatal shot, died without telling his side of the story. And De Valera would eventually cause the government to destroy -- not seal, *destroy* -- its records (p. 418).
It will tell you how horrid the situation was at the time of the Civil War that even Younger, who approved of Irish terrorism, admits that the anti-Treaty faction of de Valera "made no effort to rule in any positive way. What they were setting out to do was to prevent the Dail government and its interwoven Provisional Government from ruling either." (p. 268). Nor did they seek to learn the will of the people: "The plain fact was that de Valera and his adherents did not want an election which they knew they could not win'" (p. 269).
"To many of his compatriots, Collins was the real architect of Ireland's freedom, and some said he was the greatest Irish hero since Brian Boru" (Fry/Fry, p. 317). That statement is surely too strong, but it obviously explains such songs as this one.
A good analogy might be to Abraham Lincoln: Both Lincoln and Collins had fought great wars that defined their nations, and with the war ending, were responsible for reconstruction and healing. Both were assassinated before reconstruction really began. Many historians think that Lincoln would have moderated reconstruction had he lived, as they think Collins might have held down the Irish Civil War had he lived. In neither case can we know, and Collins, since he died earlier in the process, probably had even less chance than Lincoln. But he was surely the only man who had any chance.
Apparently there was eventually a movie about Collins, entitled "Michael Collins" (how original), by Neil Jordan, starring Liam Neeson and Julia Roberts. All I know about this is what I read in Michael Padden and Robert Sullivan, May the Road Rise to Meet You, pp. 157-161, which is anything but a scholarly account. Apparently this tried to lay the blame for Collins's death at the feet of de Valera -- which caused Coogan, who had been hired as a consultant to the film, to blow up, noting that, if such a thing had been shown to be true, it would have signed de Valera's own death warrant. Whatever the film was like, it proved to be rather a flop. - RBW
Bibliography

Coogan: Tim Pat Coogan Michael Collins (1992, 1996; I used the Roberts Rinehart edition), one of several biographies of the subject of this song. Coogan is mildly pro-Collins, but without slipping into hagiography, and the amount of detail he supplies is most useful.
Dangerfield: George Dangerfield, The Damnable Question: One Hundred and Twenty Years of Anglo-Irish Conflict (Atlantic Little Brown, 1976). Despite its title, the book is devoted primarily to the problems of Ireland's Protestant/Catholic relations and the unsolved Ulster question, but this of course means it devotes significant space to the issue of Partition.
Fry/Fry: Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry, A History of Ireland (1988; I used the 1993 Barnes & Noble edition). A general history, not overly long, but it seems fairly reliable and is quite easy to read.
Golway: Terry Golway, For the Cause of Liberty: A Thousand Years of Ireland's Heroes. (Simon & Schuster, 2000) This has a strange tendency to skip around, missing some incidents and devoting much ink to character details, but as such it contains some information not in the standard histories.
Kee: Robert Kee, Ourselves Alone, being volume III of The Green Flag (combined edition published 1972; I used the 1987 Quartet edition of volume III), is probably the most balanced work on Irish history I have read, and it concentrates heavily on the period leading up to final Irish independence.
OxfordComp: S. J. Connolly, editor, The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford, 1998. I've used this mostly for dates and quick facts, so there are few direct citations
Wallace: Martin Wallace, A Short History of Ireland (1973, 1986; I used the 1996 Barnes & Noble edition). The name is accurate: It's very short. But it likes to throw in the occasional detail not found elsewhere.
Younger: Calton Younger, Ireland's Civil War (1968, 1979; I used the 1988 Fontana edition). This is a very difficult book, at least for me, because it considers terrorism justifiable. It is a very detailed reference if you can stomach a guy who thinks murder counts as political leadership.

Last updated in version 2.5
File: OLcM264

General Monroe

DESCRIPTION: At Ballynahinch Monro and his men fight until night. Monro pays a woman not to tell where he is hiding. She calls the army. They takes him home to Lisburn. He is hanged, beheaded and his head put on a spear. Monro's sister swears to avenge his death.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1798 (Zimmermann)
KEYWORDS: betrayal execution rebellion Ireland
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1798 - Irish rebellion
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf) Ireland
REFERENCES (7 citations):
Peacock, pp. 998-999, "General Munro" (1 text, 1 tune)
OLochlainn 65, "General Munroe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Zimmermann 16, "General Munroe" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Moylan 84, "General Munroe" (1 text, 1 tune)
OBoyle 12, "General Monroe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Healy-OISBv2, pp. 60-61, "General Munroe (2)" (1 text); pp. 58-59, "General Munroe (1)" is a come-all-ye which appears to be a different song but which shares some verses
DT, GENMUNRO*
ST Pea998 (Partial)
Roud #1166
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Johnson Ballads 614, "General Munroe," E.M.A. Hodges (London), 1846-1854; also 2806 b.10(8), 2806 b.9(267), Firth b.26(204), Harding B 11(3562), Harding B 19(9), Firth b.25(315) [some illegible words], 2806 c.15(185), Harding B 11(1297), Harding B 11(1298), "General Munroe"; 2806 c.14(70) [partly illegible], "General Monro"; 2806 b.10(9), "General Munro"
Murray, Mu23-y1:024, "General Monro," James Lindsay Jr. (Glasgow), 19C
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Henry Munroe" (subject)
cf. "Betsy Gray" (subject: Battle of Ballynahinch)
NOTES: In the 1798 Irish Rebellion shopkeeper Henry Monro (1768-1798) led a force of the United Irishmen in a losing battle at Ballynahinch -- about 12 miles from Belfast. Monro was captured and was hanged three days later, on June 16, 1798. Source BBC History site The 1798 Irish Rebellion by Professor Thomas Bartlett. - BS
Monroe (also spelled Munroe, Munro, and Monro) was, ironically, not even Irish; he was a draper, of a Scottish family -- and, like Wolfe Tone among others, a Protestant (Stewart, p. 206; that page gives his birth date as 1758, not 1768 as in Bartlett). He was not a member of the United army, and had had no expectations of being appointed a general. But he ended up in command of rebel forces (or, rather, the rebel mob; it hardly qualified as an army) in Down. According to Stewart, pp. 64-65, the local committee of the United Irish had seen their commander, Simms, announce his resignation on June 1, 1798, when dragoons rode through the town. There was no obvious successor. The committee proposed three possible replacements, including Monroe, "a linen draper from Lisburn." Apparently the committee decided to appoint whichever one of the three they found first, and that proved to be Monroe.
Their commander was about as well equipped to be a general as his troops were to be an army; he had no military training and wasn't even particularly well educated. Nor did he have time to do anything about his troops' inadequacy even had he known what to do; Kee, p. 129 reports that he took command in the county only one day before the scheduled beginning of the rising; his predecessor had been arrested.
Discipline the troops certainly did not have; when Monroe pressed for an attack, Catholics in particular held back (one source says they were afraid of Monroe's Presbyterianism). In a sense, they were right to be hesitant, because the troops simply weren't ready to fight. (Bartlett/Dawson/Keough, p. 128, observes that "very few of he United Irishmen in either Antrim or Down had really been prepared for combat in 1798 -- principally, it would seem, because the United Irish military plan had centered on Dublin"). Then the Loyal troops appeared.
The sight of opposing forces caused many of Monroe's troops to desert. Monroe sent most of his best pikemen into Ballynahinch, since only in the town could they avoid the British guns. But a loyal force equipped with two cannon destroyed the rebel camp, and Major General George Nugent, commanding loyal forces in Ulster, then attacked the town. The remaining rebels were quickly routed (Pakenham, pp. 229-231). It was, for all intents and purposes, the end of the 1798 rebellion in Ulster.
Monroe, who was betrayed soon after the battle by a farmer named William Holmes (who lodged him in a pig house then gave him away; Stewart, p. 250), was hung a few days later -- outside his own front door, according to Bartlett/Dawson/Keough, p. 127. According to Stewart, p. 250,"Munro had behaved with great dignity during the trial and had impressed the army officers present. His last words were 'Tell my country I have deserved better of her.'" - RBW
The ballad is recorded on one of the CD's issued around the time of the bicentenial of the 1798 Irish Rebellion. See:
Franke Harte and Donal Lunny, "General Munro" (on Franke Harte and Donal Lunny, "1798 the First Year of Liberty," Hummingbird Records HBCD0014 (1998)) - BS
Bibliography

Bartlett/Dawson/Keough: Thomas Bartlett, Kevin Dawson, Daire Keogh, The 1798 Rebellion: An Illustrated History, Roberts Rinehart, 1998
Kee: Robert Kee, The Most Distressful Country, being volume I of The Green Flag (covering the period prior to 1848), Penguin, 1972
Pakenham: Thomas Pakenham The Year of Liberty, 1969, 1997 (I use the 2000 Abacus paperback edition)
Stewart: A. T. Q. Stewart, The Summer Soldiers: The 1798 Rebellion in Antrim and Down, Blackstaff Press, 1995

Last updated in version 2.5
File: Pea998

General Owen Roe

DESCRIPTION: Battle-weary Owen Roe finds a place to sleep. He pays a woman not to tell where he is hiding. She calls the cavalry. They capture him. He leaves his land to his family and his bridle and saddle to his son. His sister swears to avenge his death.
AUTHOR: Joseph Maguire
EARLIEST DATE: 1938 (sung by Joseph Maguire on Decca 12137, according to Spottswood)
KEYWORDS: betrayal execution rebellion Ireland
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
McBride 35, "General Owen Roe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #5284
NOTES: According to Ethnic Music on Records: a Discography of Ethnic Recordings Produced in the United States, 1893 to 1942 by Richard K Spottswood (Urbana, c1990), Joseph Maguire wrote and recorded "General Owen Roe": Decca 12137, recorded January 13, 1938 (matrix number 63147-A). - BS
McBride: "It tells of the bravery of ... Owen Roe O'Neill who returned from the continent to fight for the cause of his country in 1640.... This song tells of his bravery during an incident when he was betrayed while weary and tired from the throes of battle. [The singer] learned this song from a 78 r.p.m. record - he thinks it was a McGettigan record that came from the U.S. in the thirties. It seems possible that McGettigan wrote this version based on a similar song 'General Munroe' ...." The songs are more than similar. Whole verses are lifted, though the names are changed. Even the verse about Roe's/Munroe's sister is the same.
Owen Roe O'Neill was born in Co. Tyrone in either 1595 or 1597. He returned from the continent in 1642 and was appointed commander of the Northern Army of the Confederation of Kilkenny. His death was nothing like what is portrayed in this ballad. He became sick and died, probably of tetanus, on November 6, 1649 (source: "Owen Roe O'Neill - The Cavan Connection" by Jim Hannon at the Cornafean Online site). It had been thought that he was poisoned (see, for example, "Lament for Owen Roe O'Neill" by Thomas Davis:
"Did they dare, did they dare, to slay Owen Roe O'Neill!"
'Yes they slew with poison him they feared to meet with steel.'
"May God wither up their hearts! May their blood cease to flow!
May they walk in living death, who poisoned Owen Roe!
Edward Hayes, The Ballads of Ireland (Boston, 1859 (reprint of 1855 London edition)), Vol I, p. 204.) - BS
Owen Roe O'Neill (Eoghan Rua O'Neill) is one of those slightly ambiguous figures so common in Irish history. The date of his birth is perhaps even more uncertain than the above might imply -- Golway, p. 26, gives the year of his birth as around 1580; O hOgain, p. 399, says 1582, and Foster, p. 80 plumps for 1590.
Whenever he was born, Owen was the nephew of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone (for whom see "O'Donnell Aboo"); see Golway, p. 26. He left Ireland around the time of the "Flight of the Earls," and had spent thirty-odd years fighting for Spain in the hope that they would rescue Ireland. Finally, during the Civil War of the 1640s, he came home.
Foster, p. 90, says of him, "Subtle, aristocratic, a great figure in the Spanish army, O'Neill was deeply imbued with Continental Catholic zeal... While he was capable of fervent Royalist rhetoric [at a time when Charles I was at war with his own parliament], it was suspected that he harboured the characteristic O'Neill ambitions on his own account." Unfortunately, after so long away, he didn't understand either Irish or English politics.
According to Wallace, p. 48, he claimed to be fighting on the order of the embattled Charles I -- which was only partly true; the Irish *thought* Charles would support them, but in fact they fought without his encouragement (Foster, p. 88). Still, their claims helped splinter the Irish. O'Neill became one of the chief leaders of Irish forces, but there was no overall commander to coordinate strategy.
O'Neill won a medium-sized battle against Munroe at Benburb in 1646 (according to Fry/Fry, p. 153, he left 3000 English and Scots dead on the field); it was the greatest single victory of Irish forces in the period (Foster, p. 80). He could perhaps have marched on Dublin at this point, or moved to clean out the remainder of the Parliamentary army of Scots who occupied Ulster, but did neither, wasting his advantage as he tried to strengthen Catholic control over Ireland rather than win the final battle over the English that would have let the Irish decide things on their own (Foster, p. 98)..
Soon after, the always-fragile unity of the Irish forces crumbled completely -- the moderate leader the Earl of Ormond wanted to make terms; the Papal nuncio, supported by O'Neill, tried to hold out for absolute Catholic supremacy. And then Cromwell came. His dreadful work is described under "The Wexford Massacre." Ireland was left a conquered, ruined country.
O'Neill didn't see much of this; he died in 1649. Golway, p. 27, claims he "died under mysterious circumstances," though Wallace, p. 50, asserts he had been sick for some time; Foster, p. 102, splits the difference and says he died of a "mysterious illness." O hOgain, p. 400, claims it was cancer, and afflicted his knee. But apparently the worst pain came while negotiating with the British, leading to charges of poisoning. O hOgain, in fact, relates a tale that a dance was organized in his honor, and he was given poisoned boots! As O hOgain says, "His death was one of the most momentous losses in Irish history, and the people refused to believe it had come from natural causes."
Ultimately, I fear he did Ireland more harm than good; by holding out so long, he made compromise impossible and opened the door for Cromwell. - RBW
Bibliography

Foster: R. F. Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972 Penguin, 1988, 1989
Fry/Fry: Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry, A History of Ireland, 1988 (I use the 1993 Barnes & Noble edition)
Golway: Terry Golway, For the Cause of Liberty, Simon & Schuster, 2000
O hOgain: Daithi O hOgain, The Lore of Ireland, Boydell Press, 2006
Wallace: Martin Wallace, A Short History of Ireland, 1973, 1986 (I use the 1996 Barnes & Noble edition)

Last updated in version 2.5
File: McB1035

General Rawlinson, The

DESCRIPTION: General Rawlinson leaves Marystown and docks at New Harbour. In a gale "the vessel struck the rocks" and sinks but the crew get to shore. They spend three weeks on meager rations waiting to be taken home.
AUTHOR: Ben Doucey
EARLIEST DATE: 1977 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: sea ship storm wreck
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Jan 7, 1922 - General Rawlinson, docked at Oporto, Portugal, collides with the dock fin anchor and sinks. (Lehr/Best, Northern Shipwrecks Database)
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 40, "The General Rawlinson" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: I assume New Harbour, on the return trip, is in Portugal rather than the New Harbour not far from St John's. - BS
I assume the General Rawlinson was named for Henry Seymour Rawlinson (1864-1925), commander of the British Fourth Army in World War I. This presumably makes it a fairly new ship in 1922; perhaps the crew was inexperienced? - RBW
File: LdBe040

General Scott and the Veteran

DESCRIPTION: "An old and crippled veteran to the War Department came" to volunteer his services in the Civil War: "I'm not so weak but I can strike, and I've got a good old gun...." "We will plant our sacred banner in each rebellious town...."
AUTHOR: Bayard Taylor?
EARLIEST DATE: 1922 (Dean); said to have been written May 13, 1861
KEYWORDS: Civilwar patriotic soldier
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
July 25, 1814 - Battle of Lundy's Lane (Bridgewater), at which the veteran is alleged to have fought. Winfield Scott was a brigadier at Lundy's Lane
1861-1865 - American Civil War. General Winfield Scott (1786-1866), who had been one of the leading generals in the Mexican war, was brevet Lieutenant General and commander in chief of Union forces until age forced him to retire in November 1861
FOUND IN: US(MA,MW)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Warner 13, "General Scott and the Veteran" (1 text, 1 tune)
Dean, pp.128-129, "Billie Johnson of Lundy�s Lane" (1 text)
ST Wa013 (Full)
Roud #9583
NOTES: For details on the Battle of Lundy's Lane, see "The Battle of Bridgewater."
The reference to "Pickens" is to Fort Pickens, the *other* fort (besides Fort Sumter) in Federal hands when the Confederacy seceded. Fort Pickens was in Pensacola Bay, and a handful of federal troops under Lt. Adam J. Slemmer occupied in on January 10, 1861 (Boatner, pp. 641, 764-765; Catton, pp. 276-280).
This part of the story is quite similar to that of Fort Sumter -- as is the sequel: The Confederates demanded the surrender of Pickens several times in early April. But the Federals reinforced Pickens as they did not reinforce Sumter. Some 400 reinforcements arrived on April 12, and Colonel Harvey Brown took charge on April 18. The Federals held Pensacola for the entire war, depriving the Confederates of an excellent if rather out-of-the-way harbor.
The veteran's disparagement of the "mini" (minie) ball demonstrates both his crustiness and his uselessness -- the rifle musket and minie ball were the first (relatively) rapid-fire rifle type in the world (McPherson, pp. 474-475;-- about four times as fast as previous rifles. The veteran had used either smoothbore muskets (which couldn't hit a brick wall at fifty paces) or the older rifles (which took roughly two minutes to load and fire). In neither case was he as effective as he thought.
"Arnold" is, of course, the traitor Benedict Arnold (for whom see "Major Andre's Capture" [Laws A2])
It is ironic to note that the song ends with the general (nowhere explicitly mentioned as Winfield Scott, but the description fits) turning down the veteran. By the end of the war, the Federals had formed an Invalid Corps of such tired and crippled old men. They needed every body they could get.
Several other high Union officers had experience in the War of 1812 (information from Boatner). John Wool (1879-1869), who commanded the key Union positio of Fort Monroe in late 1861, had raised a company of New York soldiers in 1812 and fought on the Canadian border. Robert Patterson (1792-1881) had served with the Pennsylvanis militia in 1812-1813, and at the start of the Civil War, he was in charge of forces in the Shenandoah Valley. His performance was poor enough that he was mustered out of the service on July 27, 1861. Neither of these two would have been at the War Department in 1861, however, and -- unlike Winfield Scott -- neither had performed noteworthy service at Lundy's Lane.
There is one fairly well documented instance of a War of 1812 veteran fighting (as opposed to manning a desk) in the Civil War: John Burns of Gettysburg allegedly came out and fought with Union soldiers after Confederates chased off his cows. He is said to have been wounded three times and captured. No one, however, seems to have been able to verify his previous war service -- and, in any case, he was not a proper soldier, just sort of a one-man posse. Jameson, p. 94, says that he fought at Plattsburg, Queenstown, and Lundy's Lane, but offers no evidence.
I don't know if this song was inspired by an actual incident, but it could have been. According to Woodworth, p. 6, at the start of the Civil War, a veteran of Lundy's Lane organized a company of men in their forties and fifties, and offered it to the State of Illinois -- only to be turned down because the men were too old. It's easy to imagine a songwriter turning a general incident into one about a particular soldier. - RBW
Bibliography

Boatner: Mark M. Boatner III, The Civil War Dictionary, 1959 (there are many editions of this very popular work; mine is a Knopf hardcover)
Catton: Bruce Catton, The Coming Fury, being volume I of The Centennial History of the Civil War(Pocket, 1961, 1967)
Jameson: J. Franklin Jameson, Dictionary of United States History 1492-1895, Puritan Press, 1894
McPherson: James M. McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom (The Oxford History of the United States: The Civil War Era), Oxford, 1988
Woodworth: Steven E. Woodworth, Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee 1861-1865, Vintage Civil War Library, 2005

Last updated in version 2.5
File: Wa013

General Taylor

See Carry Him To the Burying Ground (General Taylor, Walk Him Along Johnny) (File: Hugi078)

General Wolfe

DESCRIPTION: "Oh, General Wolfe to his men did say, 'Come, come my boys, To yon blue mountain that stands so high...." "The very first volley the French fired at us, They wounded our general on his left breast." The dying Wolfe recalls his exploits
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1957
KEYWORDS: battle death Canada soldier
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Sept 13, 1759 - Battle of Quebec. Wolfe and Montcalm killed.
FOUND IN: Canada(Ont)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Fowke/Mills/Blume, pp. 50-51, "General Wolfe" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, BRAVWLF3*
Roud #624
RECORDINGS:
Margaret Ralph, "General Wolfe" (on Ontario1)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(2156), "Death of General Wolfe," unknown, n.d.; same broadside as 2806 c.16(156)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Brave Wolfe" (subject)
NOTES: This ballad veers curiously between truth and fancy. Wolfe did not lead his men up a mountain -- but he *did* lead them up a high cliff to the Plains of Abraham, where the Battle of Quebec was fought. The bullet which mortally wounded him was not fired in the first volley (since he had already taken two other wounds), but it did hit him in the breast. And he had indeed been in the army for 16 years when he died at the age of 32.
For full historical notes, see "Brave Wolfe."
Spaeth mentions a song, "The Death of General Wolfe" (not the same as "Brave Wolfe") published in 1775 -- but I don't know if that is the same as this song. - RBW
Fowke describes "The Death of the Brave General Wolfe" as an alternate title for "Brave Wolfe" [Laws A1] rather than this song. - PJS
File: FMB050

General Wonder

DESCRIPTION: "General wonder in our land ... As General Hoche appeared; General woe fled through our land ... General gale our fears dispersed ... General joy each heart has swelled, As General Hoche has fled... General of the skies That sent us general gale"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 2000 (Moylan)
KEYWORDS: navy war sea ship storm France Ireland patriotic
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
December 1796 - A gale disrupts the French Fleet of 43 ships and 15000 men under General Hoche in Bantry Bay; only one ship was sunk and drove several ashore, and the rest returned to Brest. (source: "'Rackets and Tea': The Life and Writings of William Hazlitt (1778-1830)" in _Biographies_ on the Blupete site)
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Moylan 29, "General Wonder" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Thomas Kinsella, _The New Oxford Book of Irish Verse_ (Oxford, 1989), p. 259, (no title) (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Shan Van Vogt" (subject)
NOTES: As this song implies, the French invasion commanded by General Hoche was probably the closest Ireland ever came to being liberated by foreign forces. General Hoche was one of the brightest young stars of the French Republic (Napoleon being the other), and he had a sufficient force to cause the British great discomfort at least. (It might have been more than discomfort, given how bad most of the senior British officers were.)
But the wind caused disaster twice. First it scattered and damaged the French fleet. Most ships made it to Bantry Bay, but bad weather made it difficult to land. And the wind had also blown Hoche and naval commander de Galles away from the rest of the fleet. With no assertive officer to force the remaining ships to get something down, the French fleet essentially sat still in Bantry Bay from December 22 to December 25, then sailed for home. The Royal Navy was severely (and rightly) criticized for its complete failure to do anything, but the British had lucked out even so. Hoche would die soon afterward, and no one else in France was willing to devote significant resources to Ireland.
For more context on Hoche's expedition, see the notes to "The Shan Van Voght." - RBW
File: Moyl029

Genette and Genoe

See Jeanette and Jeannot (File: SWMS245)

Gentle Annie

DESCRIPTION: The singer reports that it is harvest time, and soon he will be traveling on. He bids farewell to "gentle Annie," the daughter of the farm. He offers her various warnings
AUTHOR: Stephen C. Foster
EARLIEST DATE: 1856 (sheet music)
KEYWORDS: love separation farewell farming warning
FOUND IN: US(So) Australia
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Randolph 701, "Gentle Annie" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Saunders/Root-Foster 2, pp. 7-10+417, "Gentle Annie" (1 text, 1 tune); pp. 18-21+419, "Gentle Annie for the Guitar" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GENTLANN
ST R701 (Full)
Roud #2656
RECORDINGS:
Apollo Quartet of Boston, "Gentle Annie" (CYL: Edison [BA] 3289, n.d.)
Asa Martin, "Gentle Annie" (Champion 16568, 1933; rec. 1931; on KMM)
Ernest V. Stoneman, "When the Springtime Comes Again" (on Stonemans01)
BROADSIDES:
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.178.A.2(060), "Gentle Annie," James Lindsay (Glasgow), 1852-1859
NOTES: Stephen Foster's original version is said to be based on Annie Laurie, and is mostly a lyric (a lament for a dead girl: "Thou wilt come no more, Gentle Annie, Like a flower thy spirit did depart; Though art gone, alas! like the many That have bloomed in the summer of my heart"). I's been said that it was inspired by his grandmother, Annie Pratt McGinnis Hart.
The song, however, has evolved heavily, presumably because the tune is strong but the lyrics banal. The Australian version (the one you may know from the singing of Ed Trickett), in particular, is heavily localized, and has become a near-ballad of a migrant worker bidding farewell to the (young?) daughter of the household.
Properly, the two should be split, but given the limited circulation of each in tradition, I decided not to bother. - RBW
File: R701

Gentle Boy, The (Why Don't Father's Ship Come In)

DESCRIPTION: "As I roved out one evening As I sat down to rest, I saw a boy scarce four years old Sleep on his mother's breast." They tell about his father who sailed away and was lost in a hurricane. "They cast their eyes to heaven and son and mother died."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1929 (Greenleaf/Mansfield)
KEYWORDS: grief parting death sea disaster storm wreck baby mother father separation sailor
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greenleaf/Mansfield 113, "The Gentle Boy" (1 text)
Peacock, pp. 795-796, "The Ship That Never Came" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lehr/Best 120, "Why Don't Father's Ship Come In?" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2973
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Rocks of Scilly" [Laws K8] (theme)
File: GrMa113

Gentle Fair Jenny

See The Wife Wrapt in Wether's Skin [Child 277] (File: C277)

Gentle Robin

See A Robin, Jolly Robin (File: Perc1185)

Gentle Shepherdess, The

See The Sailor and the Shepherdess [Laws O8] (File: LO08)

Gentleman Frog, The

See Kemo Kimo (File: R282)

Gentleman Froggie

See Frog Went A-Courting (File: R108)

Gentleman of Exeter, A (The Perjured Maid) [Laws P32]

DESCRIPTION: A girl and a captain fall in love and vow to be true. After he sails away, though, she turns to another man. When the captain returns, she scorns him. He dies on the day of her wedding. That night he appears as a ghost and carries her away with him
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1896 (A. W. Moore _Manx Ballads and Music_)
KEYWORDS: courting infidelity marriage death ghost
FOUND IN: US(Ap,NE) Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Laws P32, "A Gentleman of Exeter (A Perjured Maid)"
SharpAp 130, "The Noble Man" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 66, "The Oxfordshire Captain" (1 text, 1 tune)
BBI, ZN2418, "Susan a Merchants Daughter dear"; cf. ZN789, "Disloyal lovers listen now"
DT 510, GENTEXTR*
Roud #997
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Susannah Clargy" [Laws P33] (plot)
cf. "The Ghost's Bride" (plot)
cf. "Alonzo the Brave and Fair Imogene" (plot)
File: LP32

Gentleman Soldier, The

DESCRIPTION: Soldier brings woman into his sentry-box. They have sex; he prepares to leave. She asks him to marry her; he says he can't, as he's already married -- and "two wives are allowed in the army, but one's too many for me!" Nine months later she has a child.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907
KEYWORDS: adultery seduction sex abandonment pregnancy bawdy humorous soldier
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South),Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Vaughan Williams/Lloyd, pp. 40-41, "The Gentleman Soldier" (1 text, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan7 1471, "The Sentry" (4 texts plus a single verse on p. 507, 3 tunes)
Roud #178
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Drumdelgie" (tune)
cf. "One Morning in May (To Hear the Nightingale Sing)" [Laws P14] (plot)
File: VWL040

Gentleman Still, A

See Poor, But a Gentleman Still (File: FSC103)

Gentleman's Meeting, A

See The Foggy Dew (The Bugaboo) [Laws O3]; also "Pretty Little Miss" [LawsP18] (File: LO03)

Gently, Johnny, My Jingalo

DESCRIPTION: The speaker successively places his hands on various portions of his love's anatomy, all of them respectable. She tells him, "Come to me, quietly, do not do me injury/Gently, Johnny, my jingalo". They marry.
AUTHOR: To all intents and purposes, Cecil Sharp
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: courting marriage sex derivative
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
GreigDuncan7 1412, "Johnny Jiggamy" (2 texts, 3 tunes)
Sharp-100E 65, "Gently, Johnny, My Jingalo" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 158, "Gently Johnny, My Jingalo" (1 text)
DT, JJINGLO*
Roud #5586
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "A-Rovin'" (plot, theme)
cf. "Yo Ho, Yo Ho" (theme, floating lyrics)
cf. "Tickle My Toe" (theme)
NOTES: [Sharp writes,] "The words were rather coarse, but I have, I think, managed to re-write the first and third lines of each verse without sacrificing the character of the original song." The second and fourth lines constitute a refrain, of course. With this in mind, I call this essentially a new song, written by CJS. Otherwise, it could well be listed under "A-Rovin'." -PJS
Ed Cray, following Reeves, notes that "Gently" was rewritten from "Yo Ho, Yo Ho," which follows the exact form of "A-Rovin'" although with even more explicit lyrics. Roud lumps the result with "Yo Ho." I say the amount of rewriting is so great to make them separate songs.
It is fascinating to find GreigDuncan having something similar before Sharp did his bowdlerizing. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: ShH65

Geordie [Child 209]

DESCRIPTION: Geordie is taken (for killing a man or the king's deer). When word comes to his lady, she sets out to do all possible to save his life. In most accounts she raises his ransom, though in others Geordie is executed
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1792 (Scots Musical Museum)
KEYWORDS: execution hunting punishment rescue wife
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber),England(All)) US(Ap,MA,MW,NE,NW,SE,So) Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (33 citations):
Child 209, "Geordie" (15 texts)
Bronson 209, "Geordie" (58 versions)
Greig #75, p. 1, "Gight's Lady" (1 text)
GreigDuncan2 249, "Gightie's Lady" (11 texts, 6 tunes) {A=Bronson's #3, C=#37?, D=#34}
BarryEckstormSmyth p. 475, "Geordie" (notes only)
Flanders-Ancient3, pp. 231-235, "Geordie" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Belden, pp. 76-78, "Geordie" (3 texts)
Randolph 28, "The Life of Georgie" (3 texts plus 1 excerpt, 2 tunes) {Randolph's A=Bronson's #36, D=#40}
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 52-53, "The Life of Georgie" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 28D) {Bronson's #40}
Davis-Ballads 39, "Geordie" (3 texts plus a fragment, 1 tune entitled "Georgie") {Bronson's #30}
Davis-More 34, pp. 262-266, "Geordie" (1 text, 1 tune)
BrownII 38, "Geordie" (1 text, in which the condemned man is "Georgia"!)
Scarborough-SongCatcher, pp. 213-215, "Geordie" (1 text, with local title "Georgy-O," plus an excerpt from Christie; 1 tune on p.411) {Bronson's #5}
Chappell-FSRA 17, "Johnny Wedlock" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #49}
Flanders/Brown, pp. 241-242, "Charley's Escape" (1 text from the Green Mountain Songster)
Greenleaf/Mansfield 17, "Lovely Georgie" (1 text)
Creighton-Maritime, p. 27, "Geordie" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton/Senior, pp. 73-75, "Geordie" (2 texts plus 1 fragment, 1 tune) {Bronson's #23}
Gardner/Chickering 128, "Georgie" (1 fragment)
Leach, pp. 554-559, "Geordie" (3 texts)
Sharp-100E 9, "Geordie" (1 text, 1 tune)
Niles 53, "Geordie" (1 text, 1 tune)
SharpAp 34, "Geordie" (4 short texts plus 2 fragments, 6 tunes){Bronson's #50, #31, #51, #30, #55, #41}
Sharp/Karpeles-80E 24, "Georgie" (1 text, 1 tune -- a composite version) {Bronson's #30}
Vaughan Williams/Lloyd, pp. 42-43, "Geordie" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #27}
Hodgart, p. 135, "Geordie" (1 text)
JHCox 23, "Geordie" (1 text)
Ord, pp. 408-410, "Gight's Ladye"; pp. 456-457, "My Geordie, O, My Geordie O" (2 texts, 1 tune) {Bronson's #4}
MacSeegTrav 16, "Geordie" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Silber-FSWB, p. 220, "Geordie" (1 text)
BBI, ZN279, "As I went over London Bridge"
DT 209, GEORDI GEORDI2* GEORDI4*
ADDITIONAL: James Kinsley, editor, Burns: Complete Poems and Songs (shorter edition, Oxford, 1969) #358, pp. 491-492, "Geordie -- An old Ballad" (1 text, 1 tune, from 1792)
Roud #90
RECORDINGS:
Harry Cox, "Georgie (Geordie)" (on FSB5, FSBBAL2) {Bronson's #24}
Paul Joines, "The Hanging of Georgie" (on Persis1)
Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, "Georgie" (on ENMacCollSeeger02)
Levi Smith, "Georgie" (on Voice11)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(1797), "The Life of Georgey," H. Such (London), 1849-1862; also Harding B 25(488), "Death of Georgy", W. Armstrong (Liverpool), 1820-1824; also Firth c.21(20), Harding B 11(2297), "Maid's Lamentation for her Georgy"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Prisoner at the Bar (The Judge and Jury)" (plot)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Death of Geordie
The Bog o' Gight
The Braes o' Gight
The Lady o' Gight
NOTES: The historical antecedents of this ballad are disputed. Some suggest that it is based on the life of George Gordon (1512-1562), Fourth Earl of Huntley, the son of Margaret Stewart, she being an illegitimate daughter of James IV. A blackletter ballad cited by Lloyd names Geordie as George Stoole of Northumberland, executed in 1610, but Lloyd suggests the ballad itself predates the 17th century. - PJS, RBW
To the above list of possibilities, I'm going to add one other possibility, though it is later than Lloyd's broadside. But it might have caused the song to be reshaped. According to Susan Maclean Kybett, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Dodd Mead, 1988, pp. 16-17, after the 1715 Jacobite rebellion, several peers (including, e.g., Lord Derwentwater) were condemned to death. One of them was William Maxwell of Nithsdale. His wife Winifred begged before George I for his life. Her request was refused, but she was granted a last visit -- and managed to help him escape.
I must admit to sometimes wondering if this is really a single ballad. In most texts, of course, Geordie is charged with murder. But in a few texts, such as Child's "H" and Ord's version "Gight's Ladye," the charge is poaching, and the whole feeling of the song (as well as the lyrics) is different. Coffin's notes in Flanders-Ancient3 observes that there are two endings, one with Geordie ransomed, one with him executed, and that these seem to form distinct family groups. I wouldn't be surprised if two separate songs were mixed. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: C209

Geordie Asking Miss Tiptoe in Marriage

See Geordie's Courtship (I Wad Rather a Garret) (File: Ord204B)

Geordie Davidson

DESCRIPTION: The singer and Geordie, who follows the plough, are in love. He has a farm, horses, cattle, "a house in guid order and everything fine." He has promised to marry in the summer and she will bid farewell to her other sweethearts.
AUTHOR: William Lillie (source: GreigDuncan4)
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan4)
KEYWORDS: love marriage farming nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan4 759, "Geordie Davidson" (1 text)
Roud #6181
NOTES: GreigDuncan4 quoting Greig: "Lines by William Lillie, on George Davidson, Burnmill, St Fergus. - The heroine was Mrs Hay, a daughter of the author. (This is a copy in pencil by D Scott about 1860)." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD4759

Geordie Downie

DESCRIPTION: "Hae ye heard o' a widow in rich attire... She's followed a tinker frae Dee-side, His name was Geordie Downie." She rejoices to follow tinker Geordie rather than her former husband. But he gets drunk, kills her, and falls off his horse and dies
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1904 (GreigDuncan2)
KEYWORDS: tinker Gypsy courting abandonment murder death horse
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
GreigDuncan2 279, "Geordie Downie" (2 texts, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan7 1349, "My Bonny Love Geordie Gordon" (1 fragment)
Ord, p. 461, "Geordie Downie" (1 text)
Roud #3930
NOTES: Ord discusses this in connection with the "glamour" cast by the Gypsy Laddie over women, implying that this is a sort of sequel of that song. This seems unlikely, but it probably does derive from the same sort of anti-Gypsy feeling. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord461

Geordie Gill

DESCRIPTION: "Of aw the lads I see or ken, There's yen I like abuin the rest; He's neycer in his warday duds Than others donn'd in aw their best." The singer recalls all the held she has had from Geordie. She admits that her heart is in his keeping
AUTHOR: Robert Anderson
EARLIEST DATE: 1900 (Stokoe/Reay)
KEYWORDS: love courting
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Stokoe/Reay, pp. 110-111, "Geordie Gill" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST StoR110 (Partial)
Roud #1536
File: StoR110

Geordie Moir

DESCRIPTION: The singer says that lassies that "wishes to keep a guid name" stay way from Schoolhill when "stockin' merchant." Geordie is home. Now "my bonnie hosein' laddie" is in Holland and "I win'er gin he minds on me"
AUTHOR: Baillie Livingstone (source: GreigDuncan6)
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan6)
KEYWORDS: courting travel nonballad rake
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan6 1081, "Geordie Moir" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #6772
File: GrD61081

Geordie Sits In Charlie's Chair

DESCRIPTION: "Geordie sits in Charlie's chair ... Charlie yet shall mount the throne." "Weary fa' the Lawland loon, Whae took frae him the British crown" whom the clans fought at Prestonpans. Cumberland's adventures in hell are recounted.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1821 (Hogg2)
KEYWORDS: Hell nonballad political Jacobites
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Hogg2 105, "Geordie Sits In Charlie's Chair" (1 text, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan1 131, "Highland Laddie" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #3808
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Hieland Laddie" (tune and structure)
cf. "The Lovely Lass of Inverness" (tune [Hogg2 pp. 162-164], according to Hogg)
NOTES: The alternate lines are "[My] bonny laddie, Highland laddie."
Hogg2: "I have been told the song was originally composed by an itinerant ballad-singer, a man of great renown in that profession, ycleped 'mussel-mou'ed Charlie'" and that the original had only two verses about Cumberland in hell, viz., "Ken ye the news I hae to tell, Cumberland's awa to hell, The deil sat girnin in the neuk, Riving sticks to roast the Duke," "They pat him neist upon a spit, And roasted him baith head and feet, But a' the whigs maun gang to hell, That sang Charlie made himsel'"
For more about Cumberland see the notes to "The Muir of Culloden." - BS
Mussel-mou'ed Charlie is a fairly well-documented figure of the eighteenth century (dates supposedly 1687-1792), whose real name was Charles Lesly; there is a short biography at the beginning of Kinloch's Ballad Book, along with a drawing of the singer. Kinloch, p. iv, says that he resided in Aberdeen in his later years, so it is reasonable to find his songs there.
Kinloch quotes this song on p. vi, though with different verses from those cited above.
Incidentally, at the time this song was presumably written, the throne of England upon which Geordie sat was *not* Charles's even under Jacobite reckoning; the titular James III and VIII, Bonnie Prince Charlie's father, lived until 1766. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD1131

Geordie Williamson

DESCRIPTION: At Aikey Fair the singer hires to Geordie Williamson. The cattleman, mistress, Ned the gardner, Jean the cook, and Jim the bailie [cattleman] are described. The food is bread and cheese. The cook is ugly but "she thocht she wis an awful swell"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: farming work moniker
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 379, "Geordie Williamson" (1 text)
Roud #5916
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Guise o' Tough" (some verses are shared)
NOTES: Ord translates "bailie" as cattleman on p. 261.
This is a short version of "The Guise o' Tough" with all names changed. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3379

Geordie's Courtship (I Wad Rather a Garret)

DESCRIPTION: "A maid of vain glory, with grandeur and pride Was asked by a ploughman for to be his bride." She rejects him, saying she would prefer to be hanged. He lists his assets. She still scorns him. He concludes, "I swear you shall never get me for a man."
AUTHOR: probably John Milne (source: Greig #129 quoting John Ord)
EARLIEST DATE: 1871 (Milne's Selection of Songs and Poems)
KEYWORDS: courting rejection curse
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greig #120, pp. 2-3, "Plooman Geordie" (1 text)
GreigDuncan4 827, "I Wad Rather a Garret" (3 texts, 3 tunes)
Ord, pp. 204-205, "Geordie Asking Miss Tiptoe in Marriage" (1 text)
Roud #5067
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Courting Case" (plot)
cf. "The Lass o' Glenshee" (tune, per Greig)
cf. "The Hills o' Glenorchy" (tune, per Greig)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Plooman Geordie
Sandy's Courtship
NOTES: That this is a composed song is beyond doubt. My only hesitation in attributing it to Milne is the diversity of the forms found in tradition; nearly every collection has a different title and even some difference in form. It's hard to imagine that much variation arising in the few decades between Milne's publication and the early collections.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were inspired by "The Courting Case" or something similar. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord204B

Geordie's Frank and Geordie's Free

DESCRIPTION: "Geordie's frank and Geordie's free The lasses like Geordie but Geordie likes me; What would the lasses o' Buchan gie For the favour o' my bonnie Geordie?"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: courting
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1348, "Geordie's Frank and Geordie's Free" (2 fragments)
Roud #7229
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan7 fragment. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71348

Geordie's Lost His Penker

DESCRIPTION: Geordie has lost his penker (largest marble) in a cundy (drain-grate). The singer rams a clothes prop up the cundy, but can't retrieve the penker. He ties on a terrier, but fails; finally he blows up the drain -- as Geordie finds the penker in his pocket
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1961 (recorded by Len Elliott)
KEYWORDS: game humorous
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North)) Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DR, GORDPENK
Roud #8244
RECORDINGS:
Len Elliott, "Geordie's Lost His Penker" (on Elliotts01)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Wee Willie's Lost His Marley
NOTES: Anyone who thinks everything in this song is simple and straightforward hasn't heard Louis Killen sing it, or seen the look in his eye as he sings, "He rammed it up the cundy...." - PJS
File: RcGLHP

Geordie's Wig

DESCRIPTION: "I wad sing a sang to you, Gin ye waur not a whig" about Geordie's burnt wig. "Fan he saw the wig was sung" he "flang't to the fire"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan1)
KEYWORDS: clothes humorous nonballad political royalty hair
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan1 122, "Geordie's Wig" (1 text)
Roud #5815
NOTES: GreigDuncan1: "[The singer's] mother used to sing the following -- a sort of nursery-song. She wonders if [it] be a bit of a Jacobite song. Sir Walter Scott makes someone say that Geordie flung his periwig into the fire when he heard of the Porteous Riot." - BS
I might speculate, instead, that it might be about George I's relationship with his wife. She was unfaithful to him, and he divorced and imprisoned her. (For background on this, see the notes to "Came Ye O'er Frae France.") But this is wild speculation. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD1122

George Alfred Beckett

DESCRIPTION: Beckett leaves Perlican for the coal fields of Cape Breton. At Glace Bay, he beats a taximan to death with an iron bar, intending to rob him. He escapes back to Newfoundland but is caught and returned to stand trial in Cape Breton
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1976 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: execution murder trial gallows-confession
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Apr 20, 1931 - George Alfred Beckett, convicted of murdering Nicolas Marthos, hanged in Sydney, Nova Scotia. (Lehr/Best)
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 41, "George Alfred Beckett" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: [Lehr/Best's] version starts with the usual references to honest parents who raised him tenderly. Lehr/Best discusses a version collected in Nova Scotia that adds the features expected at the end: don't do what I have done or you'll end on the gallows and, for my part, "may the Lord have mercy on my soul." Cape Breton, Sydney, and Glace Bay are eastern Nova Scotia. Perlican is on the Avalon Peninsula, not far from St John's. - BS
File: LeBe041

George Aloe and the Sweepstake, The

See High Barbaree [Child 285; Laws K33] (File: C285)

George Bunker

DESCRIPTION: George Bunker goes fishing but sees Nellie on the shore. He takes her for a "walk" and promises to marry her. He is already married. He sails away for fish intending to return to Nellie.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1958 (Peacock)
KEYWORDS: adultery seduction lie promise fishing sea ship infidelity
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Peacock, pp. 192-193, "George Bunker" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: Pea192

George Collins

See Lady Alice [Child 85] (File: C085)

George Jones [Laws D20]

DESCRIPTION: George Jones, of County Clare, tells the account of the Saladin mutiny. The mutineers kill the Captain and others of the crew, then are shipwrecked. Jones bids farewell and awaits execution
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Mackenzie)
KEYWORDS: ship mutiny execution farewell
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1844 - the former pirate Fielding convinces part of the crew of the "Saladin" to mutiny against the harsh Captain Mackenzie. The conspirators then turn against Fielding; they are taken and executed after the ship is wrecked off Halifax
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Laws D20, "George Jones"
Peacock, pp. 887-888, "The Saladin Mutiny" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-NovaScotia 110, "George Jones" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 113, "George Jones" (1 text, 1 tune)
Mackenzie 112, "George Jones" (1 text)
DT 353, SLDNMTNY*
Roud #1817
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charles Augustus (or Gustavus) Anderson" [Laws D19] (subject)
cf. "Saladin's Crew" (subject)
NOTES: For details on the Saladin Mutiny, see the notes to "Charles Augustus (or Gustavus) Anderson" [Laws D19]. - RBW
[Regarding the version in Creighton-SNewBrunswick]: Roud makes this "Charles Augustus (or Gustavus) Anderson" [Laws D19] but only the first verse belongs to that ballad. - BS
File: LD20

George Mann

DESCRIPTION: Charles Mann recalls his quiet youth. He describes murdering John Whatmaugh along with Gustave Ohr (blaming the deed on Ohr). They fly but are captured. He grieves for his father, come to see him die. He warns young men against his crime
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (Eddy)
KEYWORDS: execution gallows-confession murder
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1879 - George Mann and Gustave Ohr attack, rob, and beat to death John Whatmaugh. They are condemned to death later in the year
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Eddy 122, "Story of George Mann" (1 text)
ST E122 (Full)
Roud #4096
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charles Guiteau" [Laws E11] (meter)
cf. "Gustave Ohr" (meter, subject)
NOTES: As "The Story of George Mann," this song is item dE38 in Laws's Appendix II. - RBW
File: E122

George Reilly

See John (George) Riley (I) [Laws N36] AND John (George) Riley II [Laws N37] (File: LN37)

George Riley

See John (George) Riley (I) [Laws N36] AND John (George) Riley II [Laws N37] (File: LN36)

George Washington

See Hallelujah (File: R421)

George Whalen

See James Whalen [Laws C7] (File: LC07)

George's Bank (I)

See Fifteen Ships on Georges' Banks [Laws D3] (File: LD03)

George's Bank (II)

DESCRIPTION: A captain's wife and three babes wait for the ship sunk on George's Bank. "Now many's brave fishermen sacrificed yearly Out on the ocean where danger do rise But God is father and lover of these children. Help and pity us poor fisherman's wives"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1929 (Greenleaf/Mansfield)
KEYWORDS: grief death fishing sea ship wreck children wife
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Greenleaf/Mansfield 130, "George's Bank" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #16964
NOTES: The Northern Shipwrecks Database 2002 lists well over 200 ships by name lost on George's Bank between 1822 and 1995.
A July 2002 note by Wilfred Allan at Nova-Scotia Seafarers-L Archives site states "Georges Bank is at the edge of the Atlantic continental shelf between Cape Cod and Nova Scotia. Thus it straddles both the U.S and Canadian borders... about 250 km by 150 km in area." - BS
File: GrMa130

George's Banks

See The Roving Newfoundlanders (II) (File: GrMa150)

George's Quay

DESCRIPTION: Johnny Doyle sails for China leaving Mary pregnant. Years later Mary's son grows up. She dresses as a sailor and ships aboard a pirate to find Johnny. Their ships meet. Johnny is a captain. They return home, marry and she becomes pregnant again.
AUTHOR: Jimmy Montgomery (source: OLochlainn-More)
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (OLochlainn-More)
KEYWORDS: courting marriage reunion separation cross-dressing pregnancy sea ship baby sailor pirate
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
OLochlainn-More 89, "George's Quay" or "The Forgetful Sailor" (1 text, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: Frank Harte _Songs of Dublin_, second edition, Ossian, 1993, pp. 34-35, "George's Quay (or The Forgetful Sailor)" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Anyone else think this is an Irish rewrite of The Odyssey?
Incidentally, the song says that "In China... they're very wise and drown at birth their surplus daughters." This is historically true (though it's even more common in India), and there is evidence that elimination of baby girls continues in China due to the "one child" policy (though they now use abortion rather than infanticide). Ridley, p. 122, notes "The Chinese, deprived of the chance to have more than one child, killed more than 250,000 girls after birth between 1979 and 1984. In some age groups in China, there are 122 boys for every 100 girls. In one recent study of clinics in Bombay, of 8,000 abortions, 7,997 were of female fetuses."
Jolly, p. 121, has an even more extreme version of this statistic: In Bombay, 7999 out of 8000 aborted fetuses were female, and the parents of the single exception allegedly sued because they had been falsely informed that the fetus was female. Her note claims that this data came from UNICEF. This strikes me as too extreme to be possible. But the very fact that no one seems to question the statistic indicates that the bias against girls is extreme.
However, this is by no means wise if the goal is to leave descendants. The policy obviously produces a surplus of males -- who end up leaving with no descendants because they cannot marry. According to Jones, p. 37, the effects of this were felt as early as the nineteenth century, in the province of Huai-Pei. Many girls were killed during a famine. "As their brothers grew up, they found nobody to marry. Great gangs of disaffected youths grew into a horde of a hundred thousand rebels -- the Nian. They almost overthrew the dynasty before they were crushed." Jones observes that, in modern times, this has resulted in an epidemic of kidnapping women to serve as wives for unmarried sons, or simply to serve as prostitutes. Jones on pp. 33-36 adds myriad examples of female-killing in India.
If anyone is tempted to say that the West has not made progress in the direction of women's equality, consider this: According to Jones, p. 38, families in developed countries tend to stop having children as soon as they have at least one girl and at least one boy. And, on p. 39, in discussing a machine which can dramatically bias the sex ratios of children born by artificial insemination, he observes that three-fourths of the clients of the company doing the work ask for a daughter, not a son. - RBW
Bibliography

Jolly: Alison Jolly, Lucy's Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution, Harvard University Press, 1999
Jones: Steve Jones, Y: The Descent of Men, Houghton Mifflin, 2003
Ridley: Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Penguin, 1993

Last updated in version 2.5
File: OLcM089

Georgia Buck

DESCRIPTION: "Oh, my name is Georgia Buck, and I never had much luck." Various verses about Georgia's troubles and his wife, typically ending "Georgia Buck is dead, the last thing he said Was, 'Don't ever let a woman have her way" (or "Dig me a hole in the ground.")
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1913 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: marriage death
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 500, "Georgia Buck" (2 short texts plus a fragment)
Roud #3428
RECORDINGS:
Al Hopkins and his Buckle Busters, "Georgia Buck" (Brunswick 183/Vocalion 5182 [as the Hill Billies], 1927)
NOTES: Roud lumps this with "The Southern Soldier Boy (Barbro Buck)," or at least some versions of it. That seems to be based solely on the word "Buck" in the title. - RBW
File: Br3500

Georgia Creek

DESCRIPTION: "Georgia's creek where I forsake, To the red stone hills I came; I fell in love with a pretty little girl...." The two ride together to Charleston, but pray to escape the town. They look forward to returning to the hills where she will keep bees
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1929 (Henry, collected from Austin Harmon)
KEYWORDS: courting travel return bug
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
MHenry-Appalachians, pp. 35-36, "Georgia Creek" (1 text)
File: MHAp035

Georgia Lullabye

DESCRIPTION: "De little stars am blinkin', Cuase dey wants to go to sleep, Bye, oh mah baby, hush-a-bye." The stars need to watch, but baby can sleep. Mother is the sheep, baby is the lamb, and the mother loves the baby
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1932 (Henry)
KEYWORDS: lullaby nonballad
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
MHenry-Appalachians, pp. 218-219, "Georgia Lullabye" (1 text)
File: MHAp218

Georgie

See Geordie [Child 209] (File: C209)

Georgie Collins

See Lady Alice [Child 85] (File: C085)

Georgina

See Jenny Jones (Jennie Jo) (File: Lins026)

Georgina, The

DESCRIPTION: "On the seventeenth of March, my boys, good people you all may know" Georgina leaves Liverpool "all bound for Pernambuco in South America" [fragment; first verse only]
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1947 (Ranson)
KEYWORDS: drowning sea ship storm wreck sailor
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Mar 17, 1844 - Georgina wrecked on Blackwater Bank; twelve of the crew of fourteen are lost (source: Ranson; Bourke in _Shipwrecks of the Irish Coast_ v1, p. 44)
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ranson, p. 109, "The Georgina" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Pomona (II)" (subject)
SAME TUNE:
cf. "Thomas Murphy" (tune)
NOTES: Ranson: Tune is "Thomas Murphy" on p. 98. - BS
File: Ran109A

German Clockwinder, The

DESCRIPTION: A German (clockwinder/musician) comes to town, offering to "(mend/wind) (clocks/pianos)" by day or night. A lady takes his offer. Her husband finds them at work. He beats the German, who vows never again "to wind up the clock of another man's wife."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1954
KEYWORDS: technology bawdy sex foreigner
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South,Lond)) Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Kennedy 201, "The German Musicianer" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CLOKWIND*
Roud #241
RECORDINGS:
Harry Cox, "The Old German Musicianer" (on HCox01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Green Grows the Laurel (Green Grow the Lilacs)" (alternate tune)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The German Clockmaker
The Wonderful German Musician
File: K201

German Musicianeer, The

See The German Clockwinder (File: K201)

Gerry Ryan

See Jerry Ryan (File: Doyl3068)

Gerry's Rocks

See The Jam on Gerry's Rock [Laws C1] (File: LC01)

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 01

DESCRIPTION: 456 stanzas about Robin Hood, his men, his travels, his robberies, his courtesy, his victims, his relations with the king, his piety, his betrayal and death, etc. Much of the ballad deals with Little John, the Sheriff, and their relations with Robin
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1534 (Wynkyn de Worde's edition of A Little Geste of Robyn Hoode was probably printed c. 1495)
LONG DESCRIPTION: A narrative in eight fits, set after Robin has become an outlaw.
In fit one, Robin sends out his men to seek a guest for dinner. They find a knight, who, however, has gone deeply in debt to ransom his son.
In the second fit, the knight (who has been lent the money to pay his debt by Robin) appeals to his lenders to have pity on him. They demand payment instead, and hope to have his lands. The knight pays his debts using Robin's money.
In the third fit, Little John takes part in an archery contest, wins, is invited to the Sheriff's house, has a fight with the Sheriff's cook, and induces the cook to join Robin's band.
In the fourth fit, Robin again seeks a dinner guest; they find a servant of the abbey to whom the knight owed money. They take his purse; it amounts to 800 pounds (twice what they lent the knight).
In the fifth fit, Robin and his men join an archery contest, but are discovered and must take shelter in the knight's castle.
In the sixth fit, the sheriff goes to London to appeal to the King; Robin and his men escape. The Sheriff captures the knight instead. Robin rescues him and kills the sheriff.
In the seventh fit, the King comes to deal with Robin Hood. He disguises himself and meets Robin's band. He pardons them and takes him into his service. This extends into the eighth fit.
At the end of the eighth fit, Robin grows tired of servitude and returns to the greenwood. Eventually he is killed by the prioress of Kirklees.
KEYWORDS: Robinhood outlaw knight royalty
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1272-1307 - Reign of Edward I
1307-1327 - Reign of Edward II
1327-1377 - Reign of Edward III
FOUND IN: Britain(England) Ireland
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Child 117, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text)
Bronson 117,"Robin Hood" (6 versions of tunes about Robin Hood, though none has a substantial text and only one shows any words at all; Bronson, with reason, questions their validity and does not attempt to link them to particular ballads); cf. Chappell/Wooldridge I, pp. 273, "Robin Hood (2 tunes, partial text) {Bronson's #2a}
OBB 115, "A Little Geste of Robin Hood and his Meiny" (1 text, probably from Child with modernizations)
Gummere, pp. 1-67+313-320, "A Gest of Robin Hode" (1 text, supposedly based on Child's a print but in fact much closer to b)
HarvClass-EP1, pp. 128-186, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text, probably from Child)
ADDITIONAL: Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren, editors, _Robin Hood and Other Oudlaw Tales_, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2000, pp. 80-168, "A Gest of Robyn Hode" (1 text, newly edited from the sources)
Roud #70
NOTES: This is the longest ballad by far in Child's collection -- so long, indeed, that is should properly be called a romance, not a ballad. It is also the single most important source for the legend of Robin Hood. That makes it a logical location for an introduction to the whole Robin Hood corpus. In addition, there are many questions about its text and meaning.
Given the length of the "Gest," this results in a very long set of notes -- although, I hope, also one of the most comprehensive discussions ever compiled of this piece. But, because it is so long, it has to be broken up into separate parts, contained in separate Ballad Index entries.. Roughly speaking, the Notes divide into an introduction to the Robin Hood corpus, a discussion of the historical problems of the "Gest" in particular, a detailed commentary on the "Gest," and a discussion of the text of the "Gest."
The Contents below descibes the outline of these various entries.
*** Included in this entry:
* Full References for the song
* Bibliography
(Note: In the Bibliography, items shown in ALL CAPS I would consider primary references Robin Hood scholars should acquire. Items marked with a ++ represent items primarily about Robin Hood -- some of which, however, I consider to be unimportant enough that I have not marked them as primary sources).
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 02 (File Number Link C117A):*
* Introduction
* The Early Ballads
* The Text of the Gest
* The Date of the Gest
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 03 (File Number Link C117B):*
* The Gest: A Romance and its Source
* What the Gest Represents
* Historical and Literary Sources for the History of Robin Hood
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 04 (File Number Link C117C):*
* The Common Elements of the Early Ballads
* The Later Robin Hood Ballads
* Outlaw or Not?
* Dating the Legend
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 05 (File Number Link C117D):*
* Sidelights on the Legend
* The Redating of the Legend: Robin Hood and Richard I
* Who Made Maid Marion, and Other Late Additions
* The Presumed History of Robin Hood
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 06 (File Number Link C117E):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fit I (Stanzas 1-50)
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 07 (File Number Link C117F):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fit I (Stanz 51)-Fit II
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 08 (File Number Link C117G):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fits III-V
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 09 (File Number Link C117H):*
* Notes on the Content of the "Gest" -- Fits VI-VIII
*** Included in the Entry "Gest of Robyn Hode, A" --- Part 10 (File Number Link C117I):*
* Notes on the Text of the "Gest"
Bibliography

Anderson: George K. Anderson, Old and Middle English Literature from the Beginnings to 1485, being volume I of "A History of English Literature," 1950 (I use the 1966 Collier paperback edition)
Ashley: Maurice Ashley, Great Britain to 1688, University of Michigan Press, 1961
Backhouse: Janet Backhouse, The Lindisfarne Gospels, 1981 (I use the 1997 Phaidon paperback edition)
Bainton: Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the sixteenth century, Beacon Press, 1952 (I use the 1959 paperback edition)
Baldwin++: David Baldwin, Robin Hood: The English Outlaw Unmasked, Amberley, 2010
Barlow: Frank Barlow, William Rufus (one of the Yale English Monarchs series), 1983, 1990, 2000 (I use the 2000 Yale paperback edition)
Barr: Helen Barr, editor, The Piers Plowman Tradition (being texts of "Pierce the Ploughman's Crede," "Richard the Redeless," "Mum and the Sothsegger," and "The Crowned King"), Everyman, 1993
Baugh: Albert C. Baugh, "Convention and Individuality in Middle English Romance," printed in Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg, editors, Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies, Rutgers, 1970
Benet: William Rose Benet, editor, The Reader's Encyclopedia, first edition, 1948 (I use the four-volume Crowell edition. I usually check it against the single volume fourth edition edited by Bruce Murphy and published 1996 by Harper-Collins; the fourth edition, however, cuts the article on Robin dramatically, so the material here is from the first edition)
Benson/Foster: King Arthur's Death: The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure, edited by Larry D. Benson, revised by Edward E. Foster, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1994
Bettenson: Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1943, 1963 (I use the 1967 Oxford paperback edition)
Binns: Norman E. Binns, An Introduction to Historical Bibliography, second edition, revised, Association of Assistant Librarians, 1962
Boyce: Charles Boyce, The Wordsworth Dictionary of Shakespeare, originally published in 1990 by Facts on File as Shakespeare A-Z; I use the 1996 Wordsworth paperback edition
Bradbury: Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-1153, 1996 (I use the 1998 Sutton paperback)
Brooke: Christopher Brooke, The Saxon and Norman Kings, 1963 (I use the 1975 Fontana edition)
Burne: [Lt. Col.] A[lfred]. H. Burne, The Battlefields of England (a compilation of two volumes from the 1950s, Battlefields of England and More Battlefields of England, with a new introduction by Robert Hardy), Pen & Sword, 2005
Burrow/Turville-Petre: J. A. Burrow and Thorlac Turville-Petre, A Book of Middle English, second edition, 1996 (I use the 1999 Blackwell paperback edition)
Cawthorne++: Nigel Cawthorne, A Brief History of Robin Hood: The True History Behind the Legend, Running Press, 2010
CHAMBERS: E. K. Chambers, English Literature at the Close of the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1945, 1947
Chandler/Beckett: David Chandler, general editor; Ian Beckett, associate editor, The Oxford History of the British Army, 1994 (I use the 1996 Oxford paperback edition)
Chaucer/Benson: Larry D. Benson, general editor, The Riverside Chaucer, third edition, Houghton Mifflin, 1987 (based on F. N. Robinson, The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, which is considered to be the first and second editions of this work)
Chaucer/Mills: Maldwyn Mills, editor, Troylus and Criseyde, 1953 (I use the 2000 Everyman edition with a new introduction)
Chaucer/Warrington: John Warrington, editor, Troylus and Criseyde, revised and with an introduction by Maldwyn Mills, 1974 (I use the 1988 paperback edition)
Cheetham: Anthony Cheetham, The Life and Times of Richard III (with introduction by Antonia Fraser), George Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972 (I used the 1995 Shooting Star Press edition)
CHILD: N.B. All page references to Child's The English and Scottish Popular Ballads are to volume III of the five volume Dover edition
Cid/Michael: The Poem of the Cid, bilingual edition with English translation by Rita Hamilton and Janet Perry and introduction by Ian Michael, 1975 (I use the 1984 Penguin paperback edition)
Cid/Simpson: The Poem of the Cid, translated by Lesley Byrd Simpson, University of California Press, 1957
Clute/Grant: John Clute and John Grant, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, Orbit, 1997, 1999
Craig: Hardin Craig, The Literature of the English Renaissance: 1485-1660, being volume II of A History of English Literature, 1950, 1962 (I use the 1966 Collier paperback)
Dahmus: Joseph Dahmus, Seven Medieval Kings, 1967 (I use the 1994 Barnes & Noble edition)
Davies: J. G. Davies, The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (originally published in Britain as A New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship), Westminster, 1986
Dawkins: Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004 (I use the 2005 Mariner Books edition)
Dickins/Wilson: Bruce Dickins & R. M. Wilson, editors, Early Middle English Texts, 1951; revised edition 1952
DictPirates: Jan Rogozinsky, Pirates, Facts on File, 1995; repubished as The Wordsworth Dictionary of Pirates, Wordsworth, 1997
Dockray: Keith Dockray, Edward IV: A Source Book, Sutton, 1999
Doherty: Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II, Carroll & Graf, 2003
Emerson: O. F. Emerson, A Middle English Reader, 1905; revised 1915 (I use the 1921 Macmillan hardcover)
Featherstone: Donald Featherstone, The Bowmen of England, Clarkson N. Potter, 1968 (I used the 2003 Pen & Sword paperback edition)
Finlay: Victoria Finlay, Color: A Natural History of the Palette, 2002 (I use the 2004 Random House paperback)
Frye: Northrup Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 1957 (I use the 2000 Princeton edition with a new foreword by Harold Bloom)
Garnett/Gosse: Richard Garnett and Edmund Gosse, English Literature: An Illustrated Record four volumes, MacMillan, 1903-1904 (I used the 1935 edition published in two volumes)
Gillingham: John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart, Times Books, 1978
Gillingham - Wars: John Gillingham, The Wars of the Roses, Louisiana State University, 1984
GutchI++: John Mathew Gutch, editor, A Lytell Geste of Robin Hode: With Other Ancient & Modern Ballads and Songs Relating to the Celebrated Yeoman, volume I, Longman, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1847 (available on Google Books)
GutchII++: John Mathew Gutch, editor, A Lytell Geste of Robin Hode: With Other Ancient & Modern Ballads and Songs Relating to the Celebrated Yeoman, volume II, Longman, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1847 (available on Google Books)
Hahn: Thomas Hahn, editor, Sir Gawain: Eleven Romanes and Tales, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 1995
Hall: Louis B. Hall, The Knightly Tales of Sir Gawain, with introductions and translations by Hall, Nelson-Hall, 1976
Happe: Peter Happe, editor, English Mystery Plays, 1975 (I use the 1985 Penguin Classics edition)
Harvey: John Harvey, The Plantagenets, 1948, 1959 (I use the 1979 Fontana paperback edition)
Hazlitt: W. C. Hazlitt, Dictionary of Faiths & Folklore, Reeves & Turner, 1905 (I use the 1995 Studio Editions paperback)
HOLT1++: J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, first edition,Thames & Hudson, 1982. (See also Holt2.)
HOLT2++: J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, second edition, revised and enlarged, Thames & Hudson, 1989. Note: This second edition is so close to the first that for about the first 180 pages the pagination is identical. Therefore I have cited Holt1 wherever possible, since the material can also be found in Holt2 at the same point.
Hutchison: Harold F. Hutchison, Edward II: 1284-1327, 1971 (I use the 1996 Barnes & Noble edition)
IcelandicFaulkesJohnston: Three Icelandic Outlaw Tales (The Sage of Gisli, The Sage of Grettir, The Saga of Hord, translated by Anthony Faulkes and George Johnson with Introduction by Anthony Faulkes, 1961-2001 (I use the 2001 Everyman paperback)
James: M(ontague) R(hodes) James, Litt.D, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalog, in four volumes, Cambridge, 1900-1903 ("Digitized by Google")
Jenkins: Elizabeth Jenkins, The Princes in the Tower, Coward McCann, & Geoghan, 1978
Johnson: Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, 1976 (I use the 2005 Borders reprint)
Jones-Larousse: Alison Jones, Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore, Larousse, 1995 (I use the 1996 paperback edition)
KEEN: Maurice Keen, The Outlaws of Medieval Legend, Dorset, 1961, 1977, 1987
Kelly.A: Amy Kelly, Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings, Harvard University Press, 1950
Kelly.J: John Kelly, The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time, Harper Collins, 2005
Kerr: Nigel and Mary Kerr, A Guide to Medieval Sites in Britain, Diamond Books, 1988
Knight++: Stephen Knight, editor (with a manuscript description by Hilton Kelliher), Robin Hood: The Forresters Manuscript (British Library Additional MS 71158), D. S. Brewer, 1998
KNIGHT/OHLGREN++: Stephen Knight and Thomas Ohlgren, editors, Robin Hood and Other Outlaw Tales, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2000. Much of the material in this book is also available at http://tinyurl.com/tbdx-KnightOhlgren.
Kunitz/Haycraft: Stanley J. Kunitz and Howard Haycraft, Editors, British Authors Before 1800: A Biographical Dictionary, H. W. Wilson, 1952 (I use the fourth printing of 1965)
Lack: Katherine Lack, Conqueror's Son: Duke Robert Curthose, Thwarted King, Sutton, 2007
Lacy: Norris J. Lacy, Editor, The Arthurian Encyclopedia, 1986 (I use the 1987 Peter Bedrick paperback edition)
Langland/Goodridge: William Langland, Piers the Ploughman, translated into modern English with an introduction by J. F. Goodridge, Penguin, 1959, 1966
Langland/KnottFowler, Thomas A. Knott and David C. Fowler, editors, William Langland, Piers the Plowman: A Critical Edition of the A-Version, Johns Hopkins, 1952
Langland/Schmidt: A. V. C. Schmidt, editor, William Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity College Cambridge MS. B.15.17, 1978; I use the updated Everyman 1995 paperback edition
Linklater: Eric Linklater, Conquest of England, Doubleday, 1966
Loomis: Roger Sherman Loomis and Laura Hibbard Loomis, editors (and translators), Medieval Romances, 1957 (I use the undated Modern Library paperback)
Luria/Hoffman: Maxwell S. Luria & Richard Hoffman, Middle English Lyrics, a Norton Critical Edition, Norton, 1974
Magnusson: Magnus Magnusson, Scotland: The Story of a Nation, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2000
Markale: Jean Markale (translated by Jon E. Graham), Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of the Troubadours (French title: La vie, la legende, l'influence d'Alienor), 1979, 2000; English edition, Inner Traditions, 2007
Matthew: Donald Matthew, King Stephen, Hambledon Continuum, 2002
Mattingly: Garrett Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, 1941 (I use the 1990 Book-of-the-Month club edition)
Maxfield/Gillespie: David K. Maxfield, "St. Anthony's Hospital, London: A Pardoner-Supported Alien Priory, 1219-1461," article in James L. Gillespie, editor, The Age of Richard II, St. Martin's, 1997
McGrath: Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, Third Edition, Blackwell, 2003
McLynn: Frank McLynn, Richard & John: Kings at War, Da Capo, 2007
McNamee: Colm McNamee, The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306-1328, Tuckwell, 1997
Mersey: Daniel Mersey, The Legendary Tales and Historical Truths of the Most Notorious Warrior, Conway, 2002. N.B. Although this book quotes "translations" and "modernizations" of the "Gest," it does not appear Mersey has actually read the "Gest" itself.
Moran: James Moran, Wynkyn de Worde: Father of Fleet Street, 1960, 1976; revised edition with a foreward by John Dreyfus and an updated bibliography by Lotte Hellinga and Mary Erler published by the British Library 2003
Mortimer: Richard Mortimer, Angevin England 1154-1258, Blackwell, 1994
Mustanoja: Tauno F. Mustanoja, "The Suggestive Use of Christian Names in Middle English Poetry," in Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg, editors, Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies, Rutgers, 1970
NewCentury: Clarence L. Barnhart with William D. Haley, editors, The New Century Handbook of English Literature, revised edition, Meredith Publishing, 1967
Northup: George Tyler Northup, An Introduction to Spanish Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1925
Ohlgren: Thomas H. Ohlgren, editor, Medieval Outlaws: Ten Tales in Modern English, Sutton, 1998
Oram: Richard Oram, editor, The Kings & Queens of Scotland, 2001 (I used the 2006 Tempus paperback edition)
Ormrod: W. M. Ormrod, The Reign of Edward III, 1990 (I use the slightly updated 2000 Tempus edition)
OxfordComp: John Cannon, editor, The Oxford Companion to British History, Oxford, 1997
Perroy: Edouard Perroy, The Hundred Years War, Capricorn, 1965 (a translation by W. B. Wells of Perroy's French original La Guerre de Cent Ans, 1945)
PHILLIPS: Seymour Phillips, Edward II, Yale, 2010
Pickering: David Pickering, The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore, Cassell, 1999
Pollard++: A. J. Pollard, Imagining Robin Hood, Routledge, 2004
Powicke: Sir Maurice Powicke, The Thirteenth Century: 1216-1307, second edition, Oxford, 1962 (I used the 1998 paperback edition)
PRESTWICH1: Michael Prestwich, Edward I, 1988 (I use the revised 1997 edition in the Yale English Monarchs series)
Prestwich3: Michael Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, Weidenfeld, 1980 (I use the 2001 Routledge paperback edition)
Pringle: Patrick Pringle, Stand and Deliver: Highwaymen from Robin Hood to Dick Turpin, (no copyright date listed but after 1935; I use the 1991 Dorset edition)
RiversideShakespeare: G. Blakemore Evans, textual editor, and others, The Riverside Shakespeare, Houghton Mifflin, 1974
Ross-Edward: Charles Ross, Edward IV, 1974 (I use the 1997 paperback edition in the Yale English Monarch series with a new introduction by R. A. Griffiths)
Ross-Richard: Charles Ross, Richard III, University of California Press, 1981
Ross-War: Charles Ross, The Wars of the Roses, Thames and Hudson, 1976
Runciman1: Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I: TheFirst Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1951 (I use the 1998 Cambridge paperback reprint)
Runciman3: Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades, 1951 (I use the 1999 Cambridge paperback reprint)
Sands: Donald B. Sands, editor, Middle English Verse Romances, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966
Satin: Morton Satin: Death in the Pot: The Impact of Food Poisoning on History, Prometheus, 2007
Saul: Nigel Saul, Richard II (a volume in the Yale English Monarchs series), Yale, 1997
Scott/Duncan: Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe, edited with an introduction by Ian Duncan, [Oxford] World Classics, 1996
Seward: Desmond Seward, The Hundred Years War: The English in France, 1337-1453, Atheneum, 1978
Shippey: Tom Shippey, The Road to Middle-Earth, revised edition, Houghton-Mifflin, 2003
Shuffleton: George Shuffelton, editor, "King Edward and the Hermit," originally published in Codex Ashmole 61: A Compilation of Popular Middle English Verse, TEAMS (Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages), Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2008. Much of the material in this book is also available at http://tinyurl.com/tbdx-Shuffleton
Simpson/Roud: Jacqueline Simpson and Steve Roud, A Dictionary of English Folklore, Oxford, 2000
Sisam: Kenneth Sisam, editor, Fourteenth Century Verse and Prose, Oxford, 1925
Smith: Goldwin Smith, A Constitutional and Legal History of England (no copyright date listed but written after 1979; I use the 1990 Dorset edition)
Steinberg/Trevitt: S. H. Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing, 1955; new edition revised by John Trevitt, The British Library/Oak Knoll Press, 1996
Stenton: Doris Mary Stenton, English Society in the Early Middle Ages (1066-1307), Pelican, second edition, 1952
StentonEtAl: Sir Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 1943, 1947; third edition published posthumously in 1971 with additional revisions and notes by several collaborators (I use the 1989 Oxford paperback version of the 1971 edition)
Swanton: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, translated and edited by Michael Swanton, 1996 (I use the 1998 Routledge edition)
Tolkien/Gordon: J. R. R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, second edition revised and edited by Norman Davis, Oxford, 1967
Turville-Petre: Thorlac Turville-Petre, Alliterative Poetry of the Later Middle Ages: An Anthology, Routledge, 1989
Wagner: John A. Wagner, Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses, ABC-Clio, 2001
WalkerEtAl: Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church, 1918, 1959, 1970, 1985; I use Scribners's eighteenth printing of the fourth edition
Warren-Henry: W. L. Warren, Henry II, University of California Press, 1973; I use the 1977 paperback edition)
Warren-John: W. L. Warren, King John, 1961 (I use the 1978 University of California paperback edition)
Wilgus: D. K. Wilgus, Anglo-American Folksong Scholarship Since 1898, Rutgers University Press, 1959
Wilkinson: B. Wilkinson, The Later Middle Ages in England, 1216-1484, Longmans, 1969 (I use the 1980 paperback edition)
Wilson: R. M. Wilson: The Lost Literature of Medieval England, Philosophical Library, 1952
Williams: Neville Williams: Henry VIII and His Court, Macmillan, 1971
Wimberly: Lowry Charles Wimberly, Folklore in the English and Scottish Ballads: Ghosts, Magic, Witches, Fairies, the Otherworld, 1928 (I use the 1965 Dover paperback edition)
Wolffe: Bertram Wolffe, Henry VI, 1981 (I use the 2001 paperback edition in the Yale English Monarch series with a new introduction by John L. Watts)
Young/Adair: Peter Young & John Adair: Hastings to Culloden: Battles of Britain, 1964, 1979; I used the 1996 Sutton edition revised by Adair alone

Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 02

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 03 (File Number C117B)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: INTRODUCTION
It is a rare man that can make a name for himself that lasts across the years. It is still rarer for a name to make a man. Yet that is what happened with Robin Hood.
Pollard, p. ix, notes that in recent years there has been an upsurge in Robin Hood scholarship, but most of it sociological -- a study of popular protest. Pollard wishes "to reclaim some of the ground for the historian." And this note -- exceptionally long as it is -- is an attempt to reclaim a bit of it for the folklorist also.
It appears that by 1250 at the latest, the name "Robin Hood," or some close variant ("Robehod," "Rabunhod") was commonly used as a name for un-apprehended prisoners. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 21, mentions a Robert Hod in 1226 who was a fugitive and whose property was given to St. Peter's of York . Baldwin, p. 51, tells of a Robert Hood of Cirencester who committed murder no later than 1216. Holt2, p. 188, lists William Lefevre of Berkshire, who was active 1261-1262, and who came to be known as "William Robehod." Baldwin, p. 52, says there was a "distinct concentration" of people with the surname "Robinhood" in southeast England in the late thirteenth century. Child notes many more people with the name during the fourteenth century.
There is no reason to think these Robin Hoods were anything but common criminals, or that their name meant anything. As Pollard says on p. 187, "That there was an oulaw persona, possibly based on a person or persons who had once existed, called Robehod or variations of that name, known fairly widely by the 1260s, is not in doubt. But we do not know when or by whom stories about this persona were created, let alone when and by whom some of them were brought together as a narrative recognizably set in the early fourteenth century." What is certain is that, over the next two centuries, "Robehod" became "Robin Hood," the forest outlaw who defied the law and still managed to remain free for many years.
The legend has taken many twists over the years. Presumably it started with those robbers named Robehod. But it came to stand for more. The legend seems to have been at its best in the period from perhaps 1400 to 1500, when the "Gest" and other early ballads were written. It took a severe turn for the worse when Anthony Munday wrote a series of Robin Hood plays, and in the process converted Robin to a banished nobleman, gave him a wife, and otherwise bastardized what until then had been an excellent piece of folklore.
We cannot hope to find the "real" Robin Hood. Many scholars have tried to find an Original Robin over the years; none of their attempts has gained wide support, and most have convinced no one but the scholar himself. Many would agree with Mortimer's statement (p. 23) that "The Robin Hood of later legend was not a historical figure, but there were plenty of robbers and outlaws who were genuine enough." Yes, there are plenty of things named after Robin -- for instance, Wilson, p. 138, thinks the earliest significant record of Robin is the 1322 mention in the Monkbretton Chartulary of "The stone of Robin Hode," in Skelbroke in the West Riding of Yorkshire, near a site which later boasted a Robin Hood's Well. But the earlier records of outlaws named Robin Hood show that this stone is not a memorial of an early robber; it is a relic of a legend.
Holt1 (pp. 53-61) summarizes attempts to locate the original Robin; all have problems. Although all can be made to fit some part of the legend, they require ignoring other parts. Given the vast amount of effort expended, it seems clear that the surviving records are not sufficient to find "the" Robin Hood. Either the records are incomplete (to show how poor our sources are for the pre-Tudor period, consider that we don't even know the names of two of King Edward I's children; Prestwich1, p. 126) or there was no one man behind the legend. The summary in Baldwin, p. 42, is probably best: "It is clearly impractical to regard the ballads as even a semi-fictionalized biography of Robin and his followers."
The one thing that seems possible is that there was some early storyteller who created the first cycles of Robin Hood tales. The "Gest" as we have it can hardly be his work, but since it is composite, it may well incorporate portions of his account. Some of the other early ballads may also be close to this early myth-making. But for this, the "Gest" is the single most important source -- being as it is far longer than any truly traditional British ballad on record (it will probably be evident that, in this case, "gest" means "geste" ("song of deeds"), or perhaps "jest," not "guest").
Robin's situation in some ways resembles that of that other great name in British legend, King Arthur. There seems to have been an historical Arthur, although all we know is that he probably fought a battle against the Saxons at Mount Badon. The Welsh made him into the subject of folktale -- but it was Geoffrey of Monmouth whose largely fictional work created the Arthur legend. (For details on this, see "King Arthur and King Cornwall" [Child 30]).
Most of what follows is, of course, based heavily on the work of others, such as Holt and Keen and Knight/Ohlgren. I have tried to summarize the more important suggestions of these scholars, even when I disagree with them. Nonetheless, there seems to be much that is yet to be mined from the "Gest" and the other Robin Hood ballads.
THE EARLY BALLADS
The "Gest" is considered by Holt (Holt1, pp. 15-34.), following Child and others, to be one of only five fundamental pieces of the Robin Hood corpus, the others being "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne" [Child 118], "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119], "Robin Hood and the Potter" [Child 121], and "Robin Hood's Death" [Child 120].
Keen's list of Robin Hood ballads of "proven early origin" (pp. 116-117) is the "Gest," the "Story of Robin Hood and the Potter," "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne," and "Robin Hood and the Monk"; he excludes the "Death" even though its plot is part of the "Gest" and so clearly ancient. (My guess would be that this is because the Percy version is a mess and all the other copies are late. Holt1, pp. 27-28, do not even acknowledge any of the recent traditional versions of the "Death," and Knight/Ohlgren look at the 1786 English Archer version (Child's B) only where the Percy text fails (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 599) -- even though there are other traditional texts, including Davis's version, which appears to be a slightly damaged and mixed version of a very good original. Fortunately, since the "Death" overlaps the "Gest," its antiquity is not a major concern.
On page 123, Keen in effect appends "Robin and Gandelyn" [Child 115] to his list (while adding that it is only the skeleton of a ballad; in his view, it is a sort of proto-Robin tale). He also points out the much-mentioned connection of the Robin Hood corpus to "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly" [Child 116].
Ohlgren, p. 217, lists only the "Gest," the "Monk," and the "Potter" as early, seemingly based solely on external evidence: These three, and only these three, can be shown to predate 1525. "Robin Hood and the Monk" seems to be the earliest, coming from a manuscript of about 1450 (Percy/Wheatley I, p. 105, calls it "possibly as old as the reign of Edward II," but offers no reason for this incredibly early date). The manuscript, while well-written, is much-stained and hard to read (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 31); there may be a few textual uncertainties as a result. The manuscript of the "Porter" is dated c. 1500 by Child and Ohlgren (and Copland in his late sixteenth century edition of the "Gest" also printed a play which seems to have drawn on the same tradition). But it is safe to add "Guy of Gisborne" to the list, because, while the ballad itself is from the Percy folio, there is a fragment of a play on the same plot from c. 1475.
The list in Knight/Ohlgren, not surprisingly, is similar to that in Ohlgren; they file under "Early Ballads and Tales" the "Monk," the "Potter," the "Gest," "Guy of Gisborne" -- and tack on "The Tale of Gamelyn," "Robyn and Gandelyn," and "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesley."
Chambers, pp. 132-134, after a nod to "Robyn and Gandeleyn" (which on p. 131 he calls the earliest tale of Robin Hood, never mentioning that it does not use the name "Robin Hood") lists as early ballads Guy of Gisborne, the Monk, and the Potter, plus perhaps the Gest, but not the Death; instead he offers "Robin Hood and Friar Tuck," i.e. "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar" [Child 123].
The dating of the "Curtal Friar" is a vexing question. The language of our surviving versions of the ballad is rather modern, but that is not an indication of date of origin. The tale as it stands features absurdly many fighters and dogs, but that may be the result of the inflation common in tradition. Logic says that the Friar is not integral to the legend -- if there had been a genuine cleric in Robin's band, for instance, why is he not mentioned when Robin dies? And why do we see Robin going to mass in Nottingham in the Monk?. We do meet Friar Tuck in the play version of "Guy of Gisborne" (Baldwin, pp. 68-69; Cawthorne, p. 188), but this might be the source of, rather than inspired by, the "Curtal Friar."
There isn't even absolutely proof that the "Tuck" of later legend is the same as the Curtal Friar of the ballad. We are forced to admit that the data is not sufficient to reach a certain conclusion about Tuck. I personally think him a later addition; in any case, I will not base arguments on the "Curtal Friar." For how Tuck came to be associated with Robin, see the section on "Who made Maid Marion?"
In sifting through these materials, Keen sounds a useful warning:"we must remember that we are not dealing with a host of different stories, but with a host of versions of the same story, and that what is significant is the similarity of tone, the forest setting, the animus against the law and its officers, the callous indifference to bloodshed, and not the differences of detail. At the same time we must remember that we are not dealing with a series of individual characters, but with a type-hero, the outlaw, who, though he may appear under more than one alias, remains essentially the same, and what is significant about him is not his name or his individual acts, but his conventional attitudes" (pp. 126-127). Although, just to show how confusing these things are, Pollard, p. 12, says that "We are not dealing with one Robin Hood character: we are dealing with several."
THE TEXT OF THE GEST
Chances are that we do not have the text of the "Gest" in anyhing like its original form. The place names it mentions make it almost certain that it was written by a Yorkshireman (see the note on Stanza 3) -- and a Yorkshireman who rarely travelled beyond his home county. Yet the text as we have it is in fairly generic Middle English, with almost no signs of northern dialect. Chaucer could almost have written it; certainly he would have understood it with little difficulty. (There are, to be sure, some Robin Hood ballads in northern dialect, such as "Robin Hood and the Bride," a variant of "Robin Hood and Allen a Dale" [Child 138] found in the Forresters manuscript, but the "Gest" in its printed forms is not one of them.)
And yet, this is the period when regional dialects of English were at their strongest and most distinct, and because English was only slowly regaining its role as an official language, "authors in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries generally wrote the English that they spoke -- whether in London, Hereford, Peterborough, or York" (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 5). Admittedly the "Gest" is more likely from the fifteenth century. But the expectation would still be that it would contain local linguistic forms.
The fact that it is so free of Northernisms strongly argues that there was a recensional stage when these characteristics were purged. What's more, because the surviving prints are all in essentially the same dialect, all our surviving copies must derive from this de-Northernized copy of the text. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating our surviving witnesses.
Like most of the Robin Hood ballads (and, of course, like the romances), we have no field collections of the "Gest" -- it is likely that it never existed in tradition. What we have are printed editions. Child's text is based on seven of these, which he calls a, b, c, d, e, f, and g -- a system usually followed by the later scholars. The prints may be briefly described as follows:
a: "A Gest of Robyn Hode," is in the National Library of Scotland. The call number in Advocates Library H.30.a. Often referred to as the "Lettersnijder edition," based on the font used. A photo of the front graphic can be found in the photo section preceding p. 223 of Ohlgren. Contains all or parts of Child's stanzas 1-83, 118-208, 314-349 -- just under half the total.
Gutch1, pp. 80, 142, claims it was issued by Myllar and Chepman in 1508. This seems to be based on the fact that most of the items printed in Advocates H.30.a were issued by this company (Child, p. 39). Most of the other items in H.30.a were works of Scottish poets (the list is on p. 144 of Gutch1), although one of them, "The Knightly Tale of Golagras and Gawain," may also be from another document.
But the "Gest" is in a different font from the other items, and does not appear to be from the same press. The printer is not known, because the Lettersnijder font was common around the beginning of the sixteenth century. Most printers who used Lettersnijder were Dutch, and there are a few instances of errors which make sense in Dutch, so it is highly probable that it was the product of a Dutch press. Because we do not know the printer, the the date is uncertain; the period 1510-1520 is often suggested, but it might be a decade or two earlier. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 80, mention an attribution to Jan van Doesborch of Antwerp, but this too is speculation. Holt1, p. 15, merely suggests that it was published in Antwerp between 1510 and 1515.
It is clear that compositor did not know English very well, he also shows signs of inexperience. In particular, he seems to have had trouble with inverted letters, such as n/u and, once or twice, m/w. There may also be a few instances of mistaking the letter thorn for a d when it should have been transcribed th. (See the note on Stanza 179. This may indicate that the common ancestor of a and b still used eth and/or thorn. I have not spotted any instances which might arise from confusion caused by a yogh.)
b. "A Lytell Geste of Robyne Hode," printed by Wynken de Worde. The surviving copy is in the University of Cambridge. Photos of the frontispiece can be found in Ohlgren (again, in the section preceding p. 223) and in Holt, p. 14. De Worde (the successor of England's first printer Caxton) worked from 1492 to 1534, and the piece has no internal dating. However, de Worde -- although his typography was always behind the times (Binns, p. 110, says that "most of his printing was of indifferent quality and some of it was thoroughly bad") -- gradually changed his fonts and his collection of clip art (he started using pure blackletter but eventually acquired Roman and Italic and even Greek type; see Moran, pp. 26-38). The font of the "Geste" appears to be from his early period; I agree with those who date the print to 1519 or earlier. Binns, p. 109, in fact, argues for a date around 1498-1500, when de Worde was busily printing other romances -- "Bevis of Hampton," "Sir Eglamour," and "Guy of Warwick." This makes excellent sense but is beyond proof.
c. Bodleian, Douce Fragment #16. Portions of stanzas 26-60 only.
d. Bodleian, Douce Fragment #17. Portions of stanzas 280-350 only.
e. Bodleian, Douce Fragment #16. Portions of stanzas 435-350 only. It has been suggested (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 87) that some of the Douce fragments might be from a print by Wynken de Worde. This cannot be disproved, but why then are there so many differences from b? The differences are rarely substantial, but they are numerous.
f. "A Mery Geste of Robyn Hoode," British Library C.21.c. Printed by William Copland, meaning that it is from 1548 or later although before 1570. Since Copland registered a Robin Hood play in 1560, and Copland's print contains a play as well as the "Gest," it is likely (although not certain) that 1560 is the year of printing. Gutch1, pp. 80, 141, follows Ritson in saying that this print seems to have been derived from b, but Child and other recent editors seem to have paid little attention to this fact. Nonetheless, it seems clearly to be true; I noticed the matter independently before I saw the (brief and undocumented) claim in Gutch.
g. "A Mery Iest of Robin Hood," Bodleian Library, Z.2.Art.Seld. Printed for Edward White, who was active well into the seventeenth century (e.g. Wikipedia reports that he printed the 1611 third quarto of Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus.") He may well have known Anthony Munday, of whom more below. There are actually two surviving copies of this print, one in the British Library, one in the Bodleian. Child used the Bodleian copy. Gutch, p. 141, suggests on the basis of a Stationer's Register entry that it was printed in 1594.
There is agreement that all these prints have a recent common source, probably (given the dates of a and b) a manuscript, and clearly not the original, since all copies share certain defects. Further evidence for a recent source is shown by the fact that all the copies are quite closely similar. I do not think any reasonable scholar would dispute this point.
Although we cannot prove whether a or b is the older text, Child (p. 40), Dobson/Taylor, and Knight/Ohlgren (p. 80) all consider a to be the more primitive -- but Child's evidence is summarized in a single note listing about a dozen variants. The primary evidence, really, is that a was incompetently typeset, meaning that the typesetter wasn't fiddling with it. Child in particular takes a as his copy text insofar as it is extant; he uses other readings only where it appears badly corrupt. Both Child and Knight/Ohlgren follow their copy text so closely as to alternate between spelling Little John's name "Lytel" where b is the copy text and "Litell" where a is extant -- an obvious absurdity.
I don't buy this. Child's collation method seems almost designed to obfuscate (particularly since he was inconsistent in how he recorded variants), but if we convert it to an inline collation, we can construct a pretty clear stemma of the four substantial texts. There are two groups, a on the one hand and bfg on the other. Within the bfg group, f and g go together -- g in fact looks like a modernized copy of f, perhaps compared with a copy of b; most of the differences between f and g are cases of an archaic form in f being replaced by a more modern form in g, with a few other variants being cases where f has an obscure reading and g follows b.
On this basis, I would be inclined to date g as late as possible -- a Jacobean date would be far better than an Elizabethan, and frankly, I'm inclined to suspect that the attribution to White is deceptive and the piece actually printed in the reign of Charles I. f also has some signs of modernization, although far fewer than g, and the pair are just different enough from b that I do not think f directly taken from b -- either there is an intermediate copy or f is from a sister of b, not from b itself. It seems not unlikely that the immediate ancestor of f was a print which was damaged at several points, forcing the typesetter to improvise (see, e.g., the notes on stanzas 305-206, 338-339, 412-413). But clearly these corrections are just guesses; f and g have little independent value.
Child does seem to have realized that fg were relatives of b, but he does not really describe the situation, if indeed he event thought in terms of a stemma.
Unfortunately, the fragments c, d, e are all so short that their affinities cannot be firmly established. My feeling is that c and d are closer to the b group than to a, but not as close to b as are fg. There is no overlap between e and a, so we cannot test it at all, but again, it appears more distinct from b than are fg. Where the fragments are extant, they can give us some help. But the three combined include only about a quarter of the "Gest." For the largest part of the poem, we are stuck choosing between a and b -- or, indeed, between b and conjectural emendation.
It is at this point that the fact that the text we have is not northern becomes important. The common ancestor of a and b was not the original -- and if a preserves this edited text better than b, that doesn't really make it much closer to the original.
Hence I think Child's extreme preference for a exaggerated. True, it has older grammatical forms. But recall that it is probably Dutch, typeset by a Dutch compositor. Many of its errors are pure and simple goofs -- e.g. in 6.4, "vnkoutg" for "vnkouth"; 15.4 "mynge" for "mynde." Clearly the compositor of a simply transcribed the original mechanically.
Wynken de Worde, although born in the Low Countries, was thoroughly familiar with English, and his work was designed to make English audiences comfortable -- and, indeed, to standardize the language. His press made a habit of updating grammatical forms (Steinberg/Trevitt, p. 58). His text of the "Gest" has surely been touched up, so if the question is solely one of grammatical form, a is generally to be preferred. But there is no hint that de Worde made substantial revisions. Where the difference is one of fundamental meaning, as opposed to grammatical form, it seems to me that b has as much authority as a, and the poem should be re-edited on that basis.
Fortunately very few of the differences between the texts are substantial -- the main reason why the texts are considered to go back to a single fairly recent original. But at least one variant, in stanza 53, is potentially significant; see the note on that verse.
If we were to grade the condition of the text, we would probably list it as "fair." There is no real doubt as to the general course of the narrative, meaning that the text of the "Gest" is in better shape than, say, the text of the "Death." But the amount of minor damage is extensive. As a result, I have included a textual commentary following the commentary on the content of the "Gest."
Based on the close similarity between the surviving texts, the archetype of the surviving versions (that is, their most recent common ancestor) probably dates from the reign of Henry VI or Edward IV (i.e. between 1422 and 1483), with the latter reign more likely than the former; this is obviously the latest possible date of composition But it is nearly certain that there were several generations of copies between the poet's autograph manuscript and the last common ancestor of our surviving copies. The various common errors, such as the lost first line of stanza 7, demonstrate this.
THE DATE OF THE GEST
If the "Gest" is not contemporary with the events it describes, when was it in fact written?
The dating of the poem remains a matter of controversy. GutchI, p. 81, claimed a date from the time of Chaucer, or the reigns of Richard II (1377-1399) or Henry IV (1399-1413), which is not quite the same thing, but close. Chambers, p. 134, thinks he can detect signs of fourteenth century language in the "Gest." Child rejected this but left room for a date c. 1400. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 81, reject even this -- but their argument that the poem cannot have had a long life in manuscript is not logically sound.
Ohlgren, p. 217, argues that the original was made in the reign of Henry V (1413-1422) or the first reign of Henry VI (1422-1461), but advanced no direct evidence (although I would accept a date toward the beginning of that period). Holt, p. 192, mentions Clawson's observation that the poem throughout preserves Middle English inflexional endings (and of a type, it appears, more typical of the regions outside London), but also points out that no study of the language has been made since Clawson's 1909 work -- unfortunate, since knowledge of Middle English dialects has greatly increased since them.
Ohlgren argues that the poem, although written in Lancastrian times, was set in the reign of Edward III, perhaps on the basis of Laurence Minot [c. 1300-1352? (see note on Stanza 353). That the poet tried to set the poem in the reign of Edward III is certainly not inherently impossible, but it is not compelling. Minot seems to have been a northerner (Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 358), but his poems apparently survive in only a single manuscript, so there is little reason to think he was popular outside court circles. Nor can I detect any other allusions to his work (e.g. he often referred to Edward III as a boar -- Sisam, p. 254 -- and there is no hint of that in the "Gest").
Keep in mind that Edward III, once a hero-king, "outlived his own generation and his own usefulness, and became a considerable liability to the throne during his last years" (Ormrod, p. 35). Also, Edward III relied on parliament far more than earlier kings, and while he was anything but a constitutional monarch, that did mean that he had to redress grievances. And this was remembered. Why would a Robin Hood have arisen in this time? A date in the reign of Edward III is tempting to us now because (as we shall see) Langland's 1377 mention of Robin Hood is the earliest datable reference..But the elements of the poem suggest several different dates. We shall deal with these below.
In this connection we might note that Henry V (reigned 1413-1422) kept very tight reign on criminals, but his son Henry VI did not (1422-1461 plus 1470-1471), and his government was riven by faction (Wolffe, pp. 116-117). There was also much disorder in the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413), as that king tried to hold the throne he had usurped from Richard II. Might the disorder of the times have given rise to an interest in an alternate source of order?
I think we are forced to admit that we don't know the date of the final editing of the "Gest," although it is probably fifteenth century; my personal date would be in the second quarter of the century -- but with older components. If it were much older than that, given the northern base of the legends, it would probably be much harder to understand.
Keen, followed by Holt1, pp. 35-36, does note that the three shorter early ballads have very different "feel": The "Potter" is humorous, with little real violence but a lot of tricks (Pollard, p. 12, in fact calls Robin a "trickster" in this tale -- although, in the "Gest," it really appears that Little John, not Robin, is the trickster.
By contrast, The "Monk" and "Sir Guy," especially the latter, are very bloody; in describing the latter, Pollard (p. 12) calls Robin a "cold-blooded killer." Pollard, p. 96, counts "nine homicides in the early ballads," although on p. 97 he grants that this is far fewer than the hundreds slain in "Adam Bell" and admits that the outlaws rarely inflict injury on the victims they rob. Compare this to Fulk FitzWarin, who kills fourteen of King John's knights on their first meeting (Ohlgren, p. xix), and more thereafter.
Pollard's suggestion, on pp. 98-99, is that Robin is appropriating forms of violence allowed by the rules of chivalry -- although, it should be noted, he has to take several of the ballads collectively to make this argument.
The "Death," if it be granted as ancient, is of course more a tale of treachery than anything else.
If the diverse nature of these ballads tells us anything, it is that the material of the legend is old enough that several different poets worked on it, each taking it in a different direction.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117A

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 03

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 04 (File Number C117C)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: THE GEST: A ROMANCE AND ITS SOURCES
Child included the "Gest" among the ballads. As a result, it tends to be discussed among the ballads. But this is really a mistake. The "Gest" is not a ballad. It is a romance.
Of course, this mostly a matter of definition. But the similarities of the "Gest" to the romances are strong. Wilgus, p. 36, declares explicitly, "the Robin Hood ballads [combine] the features of the chanson de geste and the literary romance." A comparison of the "romance" of Gamelyn and the so-called "ballad" we call the "Gest" is instructive.
If you see "Gamelyn" and the "Gest" on a printed page, they may at first glance appear rather different (see, e.g, the version of Gamelyn on p. 194 of Knight/Ohgren, or that on p. 156 of Sands) -- but this is because "Gamelyn" is printed in long lines, with each pair of lines rhyming, and is not divided into stanzas. The "Gest" is usually written in short lines and with stanza division. But the choice between long and short lines is arbitrary, and several of the copies of the "Gest" do not divide the early verses into stanzas.
The similarities are many -- the first long line of the "Gest" is "Lythe and listin, gentilmen That be of frebore blode"; the first line of "Gamelyn" is "Listeth and lestneth and herkneth aright." Some copies of "Gamelyn" are divided into Fitts, like the "Gest" (so the edition of Knight/Ohlgren although not the edition of Sands). And the "Gest" as printed by Knight/Ohlgren has 1824 short lines = 912 long lines; "Gamelyn" has 902 long lines in Sands, 898 long lines in Knight/Ohlgren -- in other words, it is almost exactly the same length as the "Gest."
And it is the "Gest," not "Gamelyn," which does not fit its alleged category -- the "Gest" is five times longer than the next-longest ballads in Child's collection. But if we look at the dozen romances in Sands (whose collection includes most of the best of the English romances), we find that their lenghts are 1542 lines (King Horn), 3001 lines (Havelok the Dane), 810 lines (Athelston), 902 lines (Gamelyn), 580 lines (Sir Orfeo), 1044 lines (Sir Launfal), 408 lines (Lay Le Friene), 1131 lines (The Squire of Low Degree), 1083 lines (Floris and Blancheflour), 234 lines (The Tournament of Tottenham), 855 lines (The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnall, although this is damaged and must have been much longer), 660 lines (Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle). The median lenght of these dozen romances is 879 lines -- just less than the length of the "Gest." The mean (average) is 1020 lines, or just more than the "Gest."
The fact that the length of the "Gest" is typical of romance does not make it a romance, of course. But the style of the Gest is the style of the romance: Sands, p. 1, says "Very generally, one can say that the Middle English romance is usually metrical, and the most favored prosodic convention is the iambic tetrameter couplet. The narrative concerns a series of incidents often very loosely strung together" -- a description which, except for the length of the lines, perfectly fits the "Gest.'"
Baugh also says, p. 141, that "the weakest point in medieval romance is characterization." The characters are mostly stock -- gallant knights, hostile giants, beautiful princesses. The "Gest" succeeds in giving us new types, but mostly they are just sketched out. We have some insight into the behavior of Robin, Joh, the knight, perhaps the Sheriff, and the King, but very little of Scarlock or Much, and none at all into the others -- we don't know why the Prioress of Kirkless did what she did, for instance.
Hahn, p. 10, lists as characteristics of the contents of romances "chivalry, Arhturian legend, prowess in combat, personal love, intrigue, encounters with the marvelous, and the decisive resolution of every real or personal conflict." Of these seven, the "Gest" has at least four and arguably as many as six.
This is not to say that the "Gest" is a typical romance. It assuredly is not. A typical romance is a courtly tale, usually about knights, stressing certain themes such as physical prowess and loyalty to one's superiors and duties (Baugh, pp. 123). Mortimer, p. 27, observes that "The fine sentiments of loyalty were what the aristocracy liked to hear about and be told they possessed" -- in other words, loyalty tales were what they wanted in their romances. Little wonder, then, that they enjoyed tales like "Floris and Blancheflour," of a couple who were loyal even when threatened with death, or "Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnall," where Gawain marries a hag out of loyalty to Arthur -- and is rewarded for it.
The "Gest" takes all the standard romance themes and diverts them from the gentry to the yeomanry -- perhaps because more minstrels were being forced to cater to the common people rather than the nobility (Loomis, p. ix, suggests that this is because the nobility was becoming literate -- all Kings of England from at least Edward III on could read and write -- so minstrels had to find someone still illiterate to hear their tales). Robin is not the greatest knight; he is the greatest archer. He is not loyal to his superiors; he is loyal to his fellows, as when he rescues Sir Richard from the Sheriff, or refuses to abandon Little John to be killed. To accomplish this change of type, the "Gest" naturally must include new themes and perhaps some unusual materials, and at times the result is rather clumsy (as witness the fact that the "Gest" never figures out whether Robin is based in Barnsdale or near Nottingham). But overall it does a good job of reinventing the romance form .
As an aside, we might note that this was an early step in what became a general trend. In 1957, Northrup Frye wrote The Anatomy of Criticism, in which he classified literature into "myth" (a very poor term; he means supernatural tales, not ancient traditions which explain something), "romance" (which I would summarize tales of extraordinary but not fully divine creatures) "high mimesis (tales of exceptional men)," "low mimesis (the typical mode of modern fiction about rather ordinary people)," and "irony." (Summarized on pp. 33-34 of Frye.) Shippey, p. 211, points out perhaps the most important fact of Frye's analysis -- that fiction has tended to move down the scale over the centuries.
Shippey wanted to make the point that J. R. R. Tolkien was bucking the trend (which he assuredly was), but his discussion helped me to see that the "Gest" is like Chaucer in accelerating the trend. As Chaucer took the format of the "Decameron" and changed it to a tale of ordinary people, the author of the "Gest" took the romances (most of which fit Frye's "romance" genre) and -- while retaining the form -- converted it to a tale of high mimesis. Robin is a great archer, and an honest judge -- but there is no magic in the tale, no Gawain whose courtesy overcomes all, no Roland so mighty that he can die only by blowing a horn so hard that he causes himself to suffer internal injuries!
(To be sure, Wimberly, p. 216, is convinced that there is a witch active in the Percy version of the "Death." But this is beyond proof -- the old woman is banning Robin, but we have no evidence that anyone thought she actually was a witch or had the power to make curses stick. And this element in any case is missing in the "Gest." This seems to be the only reference in all of Wimberly of magic in the Robin Hood ballads. All the magical elements we hear about today -- hobgoblins and the like -- seem to be modern inventions.)
The "Gest" in fact turns a common romance trope upside-down. In romance, a knight often goes hunting in the forest (this is the opening action of many of the Gawain romances, e.g.; Hahn, p. 169). In the "Gest," a knight is hunted in the forest!
It is noteworthy that Frye, p. 34, says that the hero of a tale of high mimesis is "a leader" -- of an outlaw band, say. Frye also suggests, pp. 36-37, that many tales of myth, romance, and high mimesis end with the death of the hero -- and that, in the first two, the death seems to imply the coming of a new, but probably inferior, age. This is what is called "thinning" in fantasy circles. Clute/Grant mention on p. 942 the most famous example of this: "The passing away of a higher and more intense REALITY provides a constant leitmotif in the immensely detailed mythology created by J. R. R. TOLKIEN. The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) comes at the end of aeons of slow loss." What's more, it ends with the departure and loss of much that came before: The destruction of the Rings of Power brings the end of Sauron -- but also the devastation of the power that created Rivendell and Lorien, and the passing of the Elves; it hastens the decline of the Ents and the fading of the dwarves.
Even the word "romance" ceases to refer to a tale of honor and wonder and becomes simply a word for a love affair.
The Norse gods fail, and fall, at Ragnarok. Brien Boru wins at Clontarf, but dies in the battle. The death of Beowulf ends the heroic age of the Geats and leaves them exposed to outside attack. The death of Arthur means the end of Celtic Britain. The books about them end in elegy.
The tale of Robin ends in death and elegy, but the world is not changed. Not only did the prioress kill him -- the final triumph of the organized church over its tormenter -- but, according to the "Death," she is not even slain in her turn. In the long run, Robin has made little difference.
The romances most often connected with the tales in the "Gest" are the aforementioned romance of Gamelyn, plus those of Hereward the Wake, Fulk FitzWarin, and Eustache the Monk.
Hereward "the Wake" lived around the time of the Norman Conquest, although "Nothing certain is known of [his] background or of his early life" (Linklater, p. 238). Supposedly he was rebellious from his youth, and was an outlaw even before the Normans came (Cawthorne, p. 136) -- advantageous from the standpoint of the tale, because he was untainted by the conquest (Ohlgren, p. 17). In 1070 he apparently joined a Danish invasion in an attempt to regain lands he thought were his. When the invasion failed, he based himself on the easily-defended island of Ely until the monks of the island betrayed him (Baldwin, p. 35; Ohlgren, p. 13). He reportedly escaped, but is not heard from again in sober history (Linklater, p. 239, although Ohlgren, p. 13, mentions some reports that he was eventually reconciled with William the Conqueror).
StentonEtAl, p. 106, notes that "Hereward and a few companions cut their way out to further adventures, in which Normans and English came before long to find a common interest." But we cannot really tell which of these are based on actual events and which are pure fiction; the Gesta is very bad history at its best (e.g. it never mentions the Danes who helped Hereward establish his base at Ely; Ohlgren, p. 15), and mixed with that bad history are many items which, flatly, are not history at all -- if the exploits described in Cawthorne, pp. 137-145, were even partly true, we would have learned of it from the chronicles!
In addition to his Gesta, which claims to be based partly on materials left by his priest Leofric (Ohlgren, p. 14; Wilson, pp. 124-125 says that it does appear that there were two sources used), the fourteenth century Croyland Chronicle says that women mentioned Hereward in their songs and dances (Chambers, p. 73). Knight/Ohlgren, p. 633, quote Charles Plummer's 1889 quip that Hereward had a brief life in history and a long one in romance. Indeed, Charles Kingsley wrote about him in the nineteenth century (Benet, p. 498). It is possible that he was eventuallly reconciled with William (Ohlgren, p. 13), but clear proof is lacking.
His saga contains two extremely close parallels to Robin Hood tales, one in which he disguised himself as a potter, as in the "Potter," and one in which he fought with a cook, as Little John fights the Sheriff's cook in the "Gest" (Baldwin, p. 36). Hereward also quarrels with an abbot, although Ohlgren, p. 16, notes that in this saga abbots are not all wicked; foreign abbots are distinguished from native. We also see an instance where he finds himself in trouble when his sword breaks (Cawthorne, p. 148), which resembles what happens to Robin in the "Monk."
It's possible that we see even older folklore in the story of Hereward: Hereward, we are told, was holding out on the island of Ely, and William the Conqueror built a causeway out to the island to attack him (Cawthorne, p. 134). This is reminiscent of the well-known story of how Alexander the Great took Tyre fourteen centuries earlier.
Ohlgren, p. 17, observes that the saga of Hereward is too early to really partake of the greenwood legend, but some of its elements may have contributed to the eventual formation of that legend.
The story of Hereward survives in only one copy (Ohlgren, p. 13).
Although the story of Eustace the Monk is often compared to that of Robin Hood, its parallels in the "Gest" are often to the story of Little John taking service with the Sheriff of Nottingham in Fit 3. Eustace, like John, quarrelled with his master (in this case, the Count of Bolougne) and turned outlaw, taking particular care to hunt the Count (Cawthorne, p. 120). In this, he was noteworthy for his use of disguise, as well as for playing the "Truth of Consequences" game with those he robbed (Cawthorne, p. 125).
In addition, Eustace eventually went to sea as a pirate. I wonder if this part of his story didn't inspire an equivalent story about Robin, which became "The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148].
Although Eustace's robberies are somewhat like Robin's, the differences in his story are very great. Whereas Robin served only himself, Eustace's services as a mercenary were available to the highest bidder (DictPirates, p. 115;). His success is attributed to necromancy (Ohlgren, p. xviii), which Robin of course never would have considered. He was executed as a pirate in about 1217 (Cawthorne, p. 122). And he felt no qualms about exposing innocent bystanders to questioning and even beatings by the authorities (Cawthorne, p. 127). Plus his use of disguise was far more complete -- he even disguised himself as a woman and lured a man with sex (Cawthorne, pp. 128-129).
It strikes me as highly ironic that the story of Robin, who detested monks and abbots, would be based on the story of Eustace, who was a Benedictine monk (Cawthorne, p. 121), although one who had little use for his vows.
There is only one copu of the story of Eustace, and thiat is in Old French (Ohlgren, p. 61).
Fulk FitzWarin (sometimes FitzWarrene or Fitz Waryn) was the name of three post-conquest barons. The romance of "Fouke le Fitz Waryn" (found in translation in Knight/Ohlgren and Ohlgren) is about the third of these, and conflates the careers of the first two (Cawthorne, pp. 96-97). Fulk the third was a rebel against King John, and became the subject of a romance similar in theme to the tale of Robin's forgiveness by the King -- although with many unrelated elements (such as a tale that Fulk and John grew up together, but quarreled over a game of chess, causing John to hate Fulk; this is possible, since it fits John's youthful temper and we know little of the prince's childhood, but completely unverifiable; Warren-John, pp. 96-97).
Interestingly, Fulk, like Robin, has a giant sidekick -- in this case, his brother Alan (Cawthorne, p. 101). I also note with interest that the tale of Fulk contains an incident in which the outnumbered FitzWarins fight off their attackers, killing many and leaving only one whole (Cawthorne, p. 99). The similarity to ballads from "Earl Brand" [Chilld 7] to "Johnie Cock" [Child 114] to "The Dowie Dens o Yarrow" [Child 214] will presumably be obvious.
Keen hints that the tale of Robin, which probably started as a story of one of the Edwards, was attracted to the Richard I/John period by the similarity to the plot of Fulk. On the other hand, Fulk's tale is full of supernatural elements (Keen, p. 39; Ohlgren, p. xix points out conflicts with giants, serpents, and dragons); Robin's tale has none. Fulk's tale also has a number of elements which are historically impossible (e.g. the great battle with King John described on p. 106 of Cawthorne). Either the compiler of the "Gest" knew a version of Fulk's tale which omits all the falderol, or he ruthlessly cut it out. Although any conclusion must be tentative because we know so little of the historical Fulk, I would be more inclined to see Fulk's tale as deriving from the same elements as Robin's but elaborated in a different direction -- especially since (as Keen admits on p. 50) Fulk was a nobleman seeking noble position; Robin was a yeoman trying to survive a justice system which did not respect him.
As Cawthorne says on p. 120, "Certainly Robin of Locksley, the dispossessed earl of Huntington, bears a closer similarity to Fulk FitzWarren than he does to the Robin Hood of the ballads."
Like the tales of Hereward and Eustace, there is only one copy (British Library, Royal MS. 12.C.XII) of the romance of Fulk (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 687), which is in Anglo-Norman although we have a partial summary of a Middle English version (Ohlgren, p. 106). The manuscript, which is clarly not the original was written in the first half of the thirteenth century, making it clearly older than the "Gest."
We've already mentioned the romance of Gamelyn. Pollard, pp. 13-14, suggests that the Tale of Gamelyn is a sort of a link between the Robin Hood tales and the aristocratic romances. Gamelyn was the youngest of three brothers. When his father died, the oldest brother seeks to dispossess Gamelyn, who is still a minor. Gamelyn rebels and flees to the greenwood with the sheriff in pursuit. His brother then becomes sheriff, and Gamelyn submits but is condemned along with the middle brother. Gamelyn and his outlaws then free the middle brother, kill the eldest, and are pardoned by the King, who appoints Gamelyn a royal official (Baldwin, p. 178).
"Gamelyn" helped inspire, at several removes, Shakespeare's "As You LIke It.
The parallels to the Robin Hood story are obvious; Gamely kills the sheriff (in this case, his brother), and he is pardoned by the King -- but "Gamelyn" is largely about family dynamics (a topic of intense interest to the aristocracy), not outlawry. Plus the tale of Gamelyn is extremely violent -- at least as violent as the "Monk" or "Guy of Gisborne," and over a longer period; it is much more bloody than the "Gest," where Robin only uses actual violence when attacked by the sheriff.
There are textual similarities between the "Gest" and "Gamelyn"; both are in rhymed couplets (although Gamelyn has shorter lines; it almost seems to hint at Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse) and they open with similar sterotyped invocations (see the first line in Sands, p. 156).
It is far from clear how popular "Gamelyn" actually was; it owes its survival to an odd chance. In the Canterbury Tales, the Cook's Tale is only a stub; either Chaucer never finished it (the more likely explanation) or his intended tale has been lost. Some scribe, sensing a need, plugged in the Tale of Gamelyn (Chaucer/Benson, p. 1125, although Sands, p. 154, seems to think that Chaucer might have planned to convert it into a tale for the Yeoman; perhaps it was among his papers). This means we have dozens of copies of Gamelyn, but odds are that every copy derives from the original manuscript copied into the Canterbury Tales.
In "Robin Hood Newly Revived" [Child 128], Robin welcomes Young Gamwell into his band; Sands, p. 155, suggests that Gamwell is Gandelyn.
These four romances -- Hereward, Fulk, Eustace, and Gandelyn -- are the tales most often linked to the "Gest." But these are not the only romances which share elements with the "Gest." We should also note several links between the "Gest" and the Gawain legend. We note that Robin's refusal to eat dinner before something interesting happens(Stanzas 6-7) is also found in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." Gawain, like Robin, has a strong reliance on the Virgin Mary (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xxi.) The fragmentary romance of "The Turk and Gawain" hints at a hitting game such as the "pluck-buffet" of Stanza 424. And Hahn, p. 26, notes that more than half his Gawain tales "begin with a forest episode." Hahn suggests that these were interludes to, in effect, let the audience settle into their seats -- but it would be no great stretch to create a romance which never left the greenwood.
Hall, pp. 12-13, observes that, although the Gawain tales seem mostly to have been committed to writing in the fifteenth century, the equipment they describe is mostly fourteenth century -- the era of the three Edwards, and hence the presumed era of the "Gest."
In referring to the Gawain romances, Hall, p. 10, says that four of his seven romances are in Scottish dialect, and five of seven are set in Inglewood or Carlisle. Hahn, whose definition of a "Gawain romance" is distinctly broader, notes on p. 4 n. 6 that seven of his Gawain works are set in Carlisle but that only five other Middle English romances, all with some Arthurian links, even mention Carlisle! And Gawain was said to be the son of the King of Orkney, who was also Lord of Lothian near the Anglo-Scottish border (Hahn, p. 4). Was Gawain some sort of local hero in Cumbria or Northumbria? Obviously this is close to Robin Hood's haunts.
Child in fact called Robin Hood "a popular Gawain" because of his courtesy (a remark which seems to have been noticed only by Gummere, p. 314), but he did not pursue the matter. Still, courtesy is a key component of both the Gawain cycle and of the "Gest" (see the note on Stanza 2). It seems reasonable to assume that the author of the "Gest" was familiar with the various Gawain stories floating around the north of England, and that they influenced his writing.
The "King in Disguise" is a commonplace now best known from the (later) tale of the Scottish King James V, but which also occurred in a late Middle Scots romance, "The Taill of Rauf Coilyear," which is probably from about the same time as the "Gest" (Sands, p. 2).
Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 2-3, and Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 12, point out that the "truth or consequences" game of outlaws asking travellers how much they have, and being robbed only if they lie, is also found in the tales of Eustac(h)e the Monk (where the Abbot of Jumieges claims to have four marks but turns out to have 30; Baldwin, p. 38; Cawthorne, p. 126) and Fulk FitzWarren.
The reconciliation with the king motif is found in the tales of Fulk and of Hereward the Wake.
The Outlaw in Disguise, used especially in "Robin Hood and the Potter" but also implicit in Robin's and Little John's dealings with the Sheriff, is found, in much fuller form, in the tales of Eustace, Fulk, and Hereward.
Several sources even compare Robin to William Wallace, especially as portrayed after the fact by Blind Harry, who makes Wallace a great archer (Baldwin, pp. 39-40; Keen, pp. 75-76). But Blind Harry is more recent than the earliest reports of Robin Hood.
Rarely mentioned as a possible source, but with real parallels to the story of Robin and the King, are the stories of "King Edward and the Hermit" and "King Edward and the Shepherd," with the former being particularly interesting. It exists in only one copy, in Codex Ashmole 61, and that is defective at the end (Shuffleton, paragraph 1). Ashmole 61 is of the fifteenth century (Sisam, p. 13), meaning that it was probably written within a few decades of the composition of the "Gest." And the manuscript's contents are very intriguing; it also has copies of "Sir Orfeo" and other romances such as "Sir Isumbras" and "Sir Cleges," plus several dozen other miscellaneous items.
In "King Edward and the Hermit," that king is on a hunting party (in Sherwood according to Pollard, p. 200), and gets lost, and meets a hermit who does not recognize him and eventually treats him to a meal of the King's own deer. In the end. presumably, the hermit goes to the court and the king is revealed (Shuffleton, paragraphs 2-3).
Child prints relatives of this tale under the title "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" [Child 173], but the Ashmole version, in which the King is an anonymous Edward, seems to me to fall closer to the "Gest" in feel as well as in date, and is long enough to count as a romance rather than a ballad -- Shuffleton prints it in twelve-line stanzas (although the aabccbddeffe rhyme scheme is far more complex than the "Gest"), and it is 520 lines long, implying a total length of probably about 600-700 lines. My guess is that "King Edward and the Hermit" and "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" are a romance-and-ballad pair, similar to "Sir Orfeo" and "King Orfeo" or "King Horn" and "Hind Horn." So the compiler of the "Gest" very possibly knew this other romance of a King Edward.
We might hypothesize that there was a romance of Ranulf Earl of Chester which also contributed to the "Gest." This would make sense in the light of Langland's link between Robin and Ranulf (discussed extensively below), but unless it should somehow come to light, this remains pure speculation. Still, one story of Ranulf sounds a little like a part of the story of Robin and the knight: Ranulf was leading an army into Wales, but in the face of superior forces had to take refuge in Rothelan castle. He was rescued by a crowd of locals, supposedly led by minstrels (Wilson, pp. 128-129). We have this tale only from a rather fictional-sounding chronicle (Dugdale's Baronage); perhaps there is a more Robin Hood-like version in the original source.
Some of the aspects of the "outlaw tale" may predate the Norman Conquest and go back to Old Norse elements. IcelandicFaulkesJohnston, p. xxv, says that "there are some similarities between the outlaw sagas of Iceland and English outlaws like Robin Hood." If these actually go back to common roots, they would almost have to stem from the period of the Danish invasions of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries.
IcelandicFaulkesJohnston, p. xxv, makes the interesting observation that "Although Gisli spends his outlawry in solitude or being sheltered by his wife, and Grettir on remote heathland or island with an occasional male companion, and they only occasionally attract other outlaws, Hord gathers together a band of outlaws and lives with his wife and children in a community with a hierarchy resembling that of society in general. Both Gisli and Grettir employ tricks to escape their enemies, often disguising themselves or impersonating other people, and Grettir, like Robin Hood, attends assemblies of his people in disguise, obtaining safe-conduct from them, and competing in games (which he of course wins). Grettir, again like Robin Hood, manages to get on good terms with the king (of Norway), though he fails to become integrated back into society."
The analogies between Robin and the Biblical King David perhaps don't get enough attention from folklorists. Like Robin, David was regarded as a mannered outlaw -- according to the Bible, he never raided Israel, but only Geshurites and Girzites and Amalekites and other non Hebrews (1 Samuel 27:8-10, although few Biblical scholars actually believe this). He remained loyal to his king, having refrained from killing Saul when he had the chance (there are two versions of this, in 1 Samuel 24 and 26). Like Robin, David was famous for piety. Even the story of Nabal, Abigail, and David (1 Samuel 25) has some parallels to the tale in the "Potter," although the differences are too great for them to be truly considered related.
We should remember that, although literacy was becoming more widespread in the time the "Gest" was written, for many centuries the only people who could read and write were clergy, and what they read was mostly the (Latin Vulgate) Bible. The authors who wrote this tale would certainly have a lot of Biblical stories and quotations stored up in their heads.
The other religious element underlying the "Gest" is the form known as the "Miracles of the Virgin." The best-known English example of this is Chaucer's Prioress's Tale (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 306). In this, a young boy neglects his other studies to give all his attention to learning a song of the Virgin Mary, which he is able to sing beautifully. A group of Jews, despising the singing, cut his throat and throw his body away. But -- here is the miracle -- even having taken a death wound, the boy continues to sing the Virgin's song. As a result, he is found, the Jews are punished, and the boy finally given release and taken to heaven.
It is sometimes claimed that "Brown Robyn's Confession" [Child 57] is a Miracle of the Virgin (Wimberly, p. 381), but it would better be described as a song offering the possibility of such a miracle than one in which it actually happens.
Chaucer/Benson, p. 913, notes that Miracles of the Virgin were often violently anti-Semetic (like the tale in Chaucer). Yet, here again, our poet has transformed the type. We still see a conflict between religious groups -- bu the conflict is not between Christians and Jews, it is between true Catholics and the wealthy church hierarchy.
The "Gest" may also have some elements derived from stories of actual historical outlaws. Baldwin, pp. 104-106, mention a band of criminals, the Coterels, who lived in the early to mid fourteenth century; they were active during the reign of Edward III, and according to Bellamy "poached, ambushed, had a spy in Nottingham, ill-treated clerics, were pursued by bounty hunters and the sheriff, operated in Sherwood, entered royal service, had as an ally a member of the gentry who had lost his inheritance [Sir Williiam Aune], and were pardoned by the King" (quoted by Baldwin, p. 111). On the other hand, Cawthorne, p. 196, says that Sir Richard Ingram, sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, was in league with them, which doesn't sound much like Robin Hood!
Keen, p. 101, regards the "Gest" as a combination of elements from four other ballads or tales, which he titles "Robin Hood and the Knight," "Robin Hood, Little John and the Sheriff," "Robin Hood and the King," and "Robin Hood's Death." He derives this list from Child (page 42), slightly changing the name of the first. Except for the last, they do not correspond to any extant ballads, although some of them were imitated in the later legends. Keen also notes that, for all its length, the "Gest" opens with Robin already in the greenwood; he simply appears there, almost like a wood sprite. There is no early legend of where Robin came from.
Pollard's list of components of the "Gest," on p. xvi, is "Robin Hood and the Knight," "Robin Hood and the Sheriff," " Little John and the Sheriff" (a tale which he suggests is for comic relief; p. 6) "Robin Hood and the King," and "The Death of Robin Hood."
Holt1, pp. 24-25, suggests that the "Gest" is based on at least two cycles, one being the account of the indebted knight and the other being the rest.
Personally, I agree with Keen: there are at least four different parts, which (with the exception of the story which became "Robin Hood's Death") survive largely intact in the "Gest" but with a little glue to hold them together. This is not necessarily incompatible with Holt's two-source hypothesis, because the five component stories could have been gathered into smaller cycles. The one thing that we must keep in mind is that any particular feature we find might come from the source or the compiler or from some other stage in this complex history.
WHAT THE GEST REPRESENTS
Comparisons of Robin to other figures of folklore can be tricky. Robbers are just robbers -- but Keen, p. 128, suggests that the Robin Hood of legend, from the very start, was completely unlike an outlaw such as Dick Turpin or Jesse James: Robin "was the enemy of the existing order, not a parasite on it." Similiarly, Cawthorne, p. 71, says that he represented anarchy in the May Games -- "a rebel against the normal order of things." On this basis he allegedly acted as a control on social unrest. (Although we should note that Pollard, p. 109, declares that Robin uses "righteous violence to maintain true justice precisely when the officers of the law have failed." Pollard, pp. 157-158, follows Hobsbawm in seeing Robin as the "Noble Robber." It is hard to deny that this is what the Robin Hood tale became, but it is far less clear in the ballads than in modern folklore.)
Perhaps it would be clearer to say that Robin stood outside the existing order than that he was its enemy, but he was certainly something unusual. Jones-Larousse, p. 371 goes so far as to maintain that "it seems likely that he is an entirely fictitious character, in whom was embodied the rebellious disquiet during the turbulent years from the end of the 12th century, which culminated in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381." Keen, in his chapter "The Outlaw Ballad as an Expression of Peasant Discontent," also invokes (pp. 166-167) Wat Tyler's 1381 rebellion, although he does not mention Robin Hood in this immediate context, and on p. 173 denies a direct connection.
Ashley, p. 86, believes Robin represents a different sort of protest: "Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest was to become a popular hero because he defied the forest laws."
But to create a legend needs more than a feeling of discontent. John Ball, who actually preached the sort of message that Jones-Larousse describes (Ball's catch phrase was "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?"), is barely remembered. The Lollards, who represented many of these same ideals and who were as much against wealthy clerics as was Robin, never had any great success.
Some moderns have even more extreme speculations -- to then, Robin became a wood spirit: "Robin Hood, whom modern criticism has transformed from a forester into a forest elf, a kinsman of Herne the Hunter. It can hardly be considered a dry or destructive criticism which thus metamorphoses Robin Hood and Maid Marian into Oberon and Titania!" (Garnett/Gosse, p. 305). Child (p. 47) mentions a scholar who claimed he was a manifestation of Woden, the Anglo-Germanic chief god! Pollard, p. 78, mentions scholars who have equated him with figures of legend such as the Green Man, or even Robin Goodfellow! Frye, p. 196, proposes that "The characters who elude the moral antithesis of heroism and villainy generaly are or suggest spirits of nature....Kipling's Mowgli is the best known of the wild boys; a green man lurked in the forests of medieval England, appearing as Robin Hood and the knight of Gawain's adventure."
If you think that's bad, consider this: Wilgus, p. 315, mentions a whole movement -- the "Cambridge School -- which make the claim that Robin was "the grand master of a witch coven and therefore the survival of a pagan god."
Happily, Child declared (p. 48) that he could not 'admit... even the shadow of a case" for any such interpretation. Similarly Anderson, pp. 147-148: "Efforts to attach Robin Hood to the tradition of the Huntington family or of the family of Ralph [sic.] of Chester. as well as efforts to give him a purely mythological kinship with Woden, come to nothing." As a result, this sort of silliness has largely faded.
Much more liekly is W. E. Simone's conclusion, quoted on p. 316 of Wilgus: "A historic figure may be at the matrix, and he may wear the tatters of a god, but certainly the legend has been built, ballad by ballad, overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, by the ballad maker. His imagination wove a rich diversity into the ballads which, surprisingly enough, will support almost any theory for the origin of the great English outlaw."
As Wilgus summarizes on pp. 316-317, "Simone has retored Robin Hood to his rightful place in a pattern, not of ritual myth, but of the outlaw from before Hereward the Saxon to Jesse James and beyoung -- "a story that has been created before and will undoubtedly be created again." Pringle, p. 14, is even more succinct: "The psychology of Robin Hood is very plain. There was no Robin Hood, so it was necessary to invent one."
The audience of the tales has been much debated. The very first line of the "Gest" calls on "gentilmen" to listen to it (pointed out by Pollard, p. 173), yet follows that up by speaking of those of freeborne blood -- much more likely to be a reference of yeomen and guildsmen than the aristocracy or gentry. Anderson, p. 148, says that "Robin Hood is, in his prime, a fine archer and woodsman; he is something of a socialist, even a communist; he is an outlaw, but a beloved outlaw who represents the commoner's itch for opportunity at the expense of his feudal masters. He is decent, self-respecting, and chivalrous (though not chivalric); he is God-fearing, devout, but carefree; he has, in short, all the middle-class virtues." This obviously would seem to imply a middle-class (yeoman) audience.
Ohlgren suggests, p. 220, that the target audience of the "Gest" was the rising class of merchants and guildsmen. The logic strikes me as a stretch -- yes, there are some points of contact between Robin's acts and the behavior of the guilds. But Robin is too much the critic of society for him to be a close fit with the guilds. The contacts Ohlgren sees arise, I think, because the "Gest" poet came from a mercantile background, not because they were his audience.
Pollard, although pointing out on p. 29 that the "Potter" is clearly written for a yeoman audience, on p. xi, suggests that from a very early time the legend "appealed to both gentry and the commons. There are elements of both chivalric romance and lewd ribaldries" in the extant materials. He suggests on pp. 8-9 that the "Potter," the "Monk," and "Guy of Gisborne" were addressed to common people, but that different portions of the "Gest" were addressed to gentle and humble audiences.
It is obvious that printers of the period thought the tale would appeal to an educated audience; were it not so, the "Gest" would not have been printed. The fact that it was printed, and repeatedly, proves that either the business classes or the aristocracy read it. The initial invocation also sounds rather like that in a lot of the romances, hinting at al attempt to appeal to the sasme audience. Still, it seems likely that it originated with the people. It seems even more likely, as Knight/Ohlgren observe on p. 82, that the ultimate audience was mixed.
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF ROBIN HOOD
Other than the ballads, the first literary reference to Robin Hood -- and the first source to explicitly treat him as a figure of legend -- is in Langland's Piers Plowman. In the "B" text, Passus V, lines 395-396, we read
I kan [ken, know] noght parfitly my Paternoster as the preest it syngeth,
But I kan [ken] rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf Erl [Earl] of Chestre
(so Langland/Schmidt, p. 82, but there are no major variants in these lines). It is believed that this was written around 1377, at the very end of the reign of Edward III or early in the reign of Richard II, implying that by that date the Robin Hood legend had already entered the ballad tradition.
There is no particular reason to think that Langland means that Robin and Ranulf of Chester were contemporary with each other. We do find a statement in the Forresters manuscript text of "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child 139] that "Randolph kept Robin fifteen winters" (Knight, p. xvii, with the actual text on p. 2), but there is no reason to think that that Randolph is the Earl of Chester (a point even Knight admits on p. 2). Even if it were, it isn't much help. Several Earls of Chester were named Ranulf, with the second and the sixth being probably the most important (Child, in his note on p. 40, seems to refer to the sixth earl).
The second Ranulf lived in the time of King Stephen (reigned 1135-1154). Bradbury, p. 144, calls him the fourth earl of Chester, and notes on p. 175 that he died in 1153. Warren-Henry, p. 25, says of him: "In the extent of lands he held and the number of his vassals, Earl Ranulf de Gernons eclipsed all the other barons of the realm. The marcher lordship of Cheshire was only one element, and not the most important, in an honor which embraced wide estates throughout the midlands, major holdings in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and manors scattered over most of the southern counties. In addition he held important lordships and hereditary fiefs which made him a dominating influence in western Normandy as far as the confines of Brittany."
According to Bradbury, p. 37, "Ranulf de Gernons (the mustachioed) was a vitriolic individual." During the civil war between Stephen and the rightful queen Matilda, he had reason to dislike Stephen, but generally stayed neutral -- until Stephen made an attack on his position. Ranulf called on the forces of the Empress Matilda and her half-brother Robert of Gloucester. The combined armies routed and captured Stephen (Warren-Henry, p. 26); had Matilda's behavior been even slightly more reasonable, she might have been able to assume the throne. When she failed, Ranulf went back to Stephen's side -- only to be arrested by that King (Bradbury, p. 137). This forced Ranulf back into rebellion, and prolonged the civil war -- which, until that moment, Stephen had been winning.
Thereare two interesting sidelights on this Ranulf. First, we know that he had an ongoing quarrel with the constable of Nottingham, William Peverel, whom he accused of poisoning him (Bradbury, p. 164). Second, Ranulf may have been an author. A book called the Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England has been attributed to him (Smith, pp. 102-103). This is far from sure, and even if Ranulf was responsible for the book, that doesn't mean he was the scribe or the final editor. Still, it raises the faint possibility that the rhymes of Ranulf were rhymes *written by* him rather than about him. Which would in turn raise the possibility that Robin Hood composed rhymes. But this, we must emphasize, is speculation based on very faint evidence, and highly unlikely.
A later Ranulf of Chester -- the "third Randle" of Child, p. 40 -- became earl in 1181 and held the dignity for half a century. He thus was active at the end of the reign of King John. He seems to be the standard nominee for Langland's earl. Cawthorne, p. 32, calls him the "most likely candidate." And he does have a link of sorts with the tale of Robin Hood, since this Ranulf is mentioned in the story of Fulk FitzWarren (Knight, p. 2), which is considered a source of the "Gest."
Baldwin, p. 28, says that "The only thirteenth-century Randolf (more usually Ranulf), Earl of Chester, was Ranulf 'de Blundeville' (i.e. of Oswestry), who died in 1232" -- although he is honest enough to add that "it is unclear if he was associated with Robin in some way." Nor, of course, can we arbitrarily assume that Robin lived in the thirteenth century, although this is Baldwin's position.
Powicke, p. 2, observes that when the barons wished to make the Earl Marshal regent over the new King Henry III in 1216, who was still a young boy, "The marshal was reluctant. In any case he felt that they should await the coming of Ranulf de Blundevill, earl of Chester, the greatest baron of the realm." Only when Ranulf arrived did the marshal finally accept the office of protector. Langland/Schmidt, p. 427, thinks this is the Ranulf that Langland meant, since his note on the verse refers to the Earl who lived from 1172-1232. Langland/Goodridge, p. 274, says "The Earl of Chester may be the one who married Constance [of Brittany], the widow of Geoffrey Plantagenet and mother of Prince Arthur (Earl from 1181 to 1231). Though his exploits are known, no ballads about him have survived."
Although the ballads are lost, Wilson, p. 128, suggests that some of their contents are says that Dugdale's Baronage has a tale of the deposition of King John, with Ranulf of Chester defeating a French invasion and crowning Henry III -- all non-historical, but obviously something that sounds a lot like a romance. In addition, this Ranulf of Chester is a character in the romance of Fulk FitzWarin (Cawthorne, p. 114) -- in this case properly, since Ranulf was alive in the reign of King John.
His career was certainly ballad-worthy. How often, for instance, do you hear of a man kidnapping *his own wife*? Yet Ranulf did so (Gillingham, p. 260). When in 1199 the throne of England became vacant, he had to decide whether to support John or Ranulf's own stepson Arthur of Brittany as the new King of England -- and he chose John. Arthur's mother, Constance of Brittany, who was now his wife, obviously wasn't happy with that. She preferred to be separated from him, and to live in Brittany, while Ranulf preferred England, so he had to capture her to assert control over her (Cawthorne, p. 32).
Apart from the mention of "rhymes of Robin Hood," there are two other comments in Langland that may have some very tangential interest. In the A-text, V.234 (Langland/KnottFowler, p. 82), we read
Roberd the robbour on Reddite [making restitution] lokide.
In the B-text, V.462 (Langland/Schmidt, p. 85), this becomes
Roberd the robbere on Reddite loked.
Despite the disagreement on the spelling of "robber," (and the fact that the C-text changes "robbere" to "ryfeler"; Mustanoja, p. 62), there is no question but that Langland's Robert was one. And Robin is the diminutive of Robert. It may be coincidence -- Piers the Plowman is alliterative, and Langland may have simply wanted a name beginning with "R" -- but it is of note that this robber has the same name as Our Hero. Indeed, one manuscript actually reads "Robyn" for "Roberd" (MS. W, according to Mustanoja, p. 61; this is at Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.17, according to Langland/Schmidt, p. liv., which James, volume 1, p. 480, dates to the fourteenth century; the binding contains fifteenth century materials)
In addition, Langeland mentions "Folvyles Laws" (Passus XIX, line 248 in Langland/Schmidt). According to Baldwin, pp. 107-108, this is a reference to the Folville Gang, a band of robbers active in the reigns of Edward II and Edward III who in 1332 robbed a justice of the King's Bench (Baldwin, p. 106). Baldwin, p. 105, says that they eventually made peace with the authorities (perhaps because they were willing to fight for Edward III in France), and says on page 107 that they were admired in certain quarters. Despite Langland's reference, which seems to imply that "Folville Laws" were instances of "might makes right," the account of their deeds and their pardon could have influenced the Robin Hood legend.
John Ball, the hedge priest who helped incite Wat Tyler's 1381 rebellion, told his listenerds to bid "Piers Plowman go to his work and chastise wel Hobbe the Robbere" (for full text of the remark, from John Ball's Letter to the Peasants of Essex, 1381, see Sisam, pp. 160-161). Since there is at least one instance of a man being called both "Hobbehod" and "Robehod," Cawthorne, p. 40, thinks this might be a reference to Robin. It is interesting to note that the letter's salutation says it is from "Iohan Schef, som tym Seynte Marie prest of (Y)ork" -- the very religious house with which the knight of the "Gest" was involved. But Sisam's extensive notes on this verse do not link it Robin Hood; the one historical figure he cites is Robert Hales, the Treasurer of England who was killed in 1381 -- although Sisam thinks even that link unlikely. Sisam also notes that "lawless men" were called "Robert's men" starting in the fourteenth century.
Curiously, from about the same time as Langland and John Ball comes a mention of a yeoman archer, clad in much the same forest costume we see in most Robin Hood stories: lines 101, 103-105, 108 of the prologue to the Canterbury Tales read as follows (Chaucer/Benson, p. 25):
A YEMAN [yeoman] hadde he and servantz namo...
And he was clad in cote and hood of grene.
A sheef of pecok arwes, bright and kene,
Under his belt he bar ful thriftily....
And in his hand he baar a myghty bowe....
In line 118, Chaucer goes on to call the yeoman a "forster" = forester.
For the peacock feathers, see the note on stanza 132 of the "Gest." For foresters, see the note on stanza 1. On this basis, Pollard seems convinced (pp. 47-48) that Chaucer's yeoman is patterned on Robin, although we of course have no proof that Robin was called a forester, or even was considered to live in the forest, at this time.
Keen also mentions a line in Troilus and Criseyde which reads "From haselwode, there joly Robin pleyde" (V.1174 in Chaucer/Benson), which Keen -- without manuscript support that I can see -- converts to "hazellwood there Jolly Robin plaid." Keen thinks this a reference to Robin Hood, and Knight/Ohlgren, p. 1, call it "probably a glimpse of the outlaw at a distance." Chaucer/Benson, p. 1054, mentions the possibility but regards it as improbable, noting that "Joly Robin was a common name for a shepherd or rustic." Mustanoja, p. 64, appears to think it a reference to the French Robin-and-Marion traditions. Cawthorne, p. 31, seems to accept it as a reference to Robin, and Baldwin, p. 28, mentions it without even quoting the doubts. Chaucer/Mills, p. 274, states that it refers to the shepherd hero of "Robin and Marion" type romances. Chaucer'/Warrington's notes don't even mention Robin Hood. Chaucer/Benson and Chaucer/Warrington both think the hazelwood is a place divorced from contact with society -- an otherworld -- rather than part of the greenwood.
What is certain is that Chaucer never mentioned Robin Hood by name, though the Miller and several others in the Canterbury Tales are named Robin. However, some manuscripts *do* mention Robin. In a piece called The Reply of Friar Daw Topias (Wilson, p. 139; Chambers, p. 130) we read
And many men speken of Robyn Hood,
And shotte nevere in his bowe.
Cawthorne, p. 40, also notes this proverb in an edition of Dives and Pauper, which he cites as being a few years older than Friar Daw Topias.
What Wilson believes to be a variant this proverb, minus the name of Robin, is found in Troilus and Criseyde, iii.859-861 (actually ii.861). And two manuscripts of Chaucer, H4 and Ph, make the line to refer to Robin (although neither manuscript is considered very good; Chaucer/Benson, pp. 1161-1162).
Robin occurs in several chronicles, but they place him in very diverse contexts. At one time it was believed he was mentioned by Fordun c. 1386 (Benet, p. 934), but Fordun's Chronicle was continued by Bower, and it is now accepted that Bower interpolated the reference to Robin (Keen, p. 177). Bower himself (c. 1445, according to Holt1, p. 40) called Robin a "famous murderer" and links him to Little John; he dates them to 1266 (reign of Henry III; Holt speculates that this might make him one of the defeated followers of Simon de Montfort; compare Keen, p. 177; Chambers, p. 130; Cawthorne, p. 36).
Pollard, p. 3, makes the interesting observation that Bower's tale of Robin is not attested elsewhere. There is a Latin text in a footnote on p. 41 of Child, and a translation on p. 26 of Knight/Ohlgren. It involves Robin being trapped while hearing mass and managing to escape. Bower thus is in the odd situation of calling Robin a murderer and saying he was saved because of his religious devotion!
Baldwin, in fact, makes Bowyer's dating the basis for his whole book. He thinks Robin is based on Roger Godberd and Little John on Walter Devyas. Godberd was a rather rambunctious member of the yeomanry who fought for de Montfort, and Devyas was his ally (their biography occupies pp, 153-166 of Baldwin). The knight of the "Gest" is Sir Richard Foliot (Baldwin, p. 169), one of whose castles resembled the description of Sir Richard's in the "Gest" (Baldwin, p. 170).
The parallels to the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Abbott are impressive enough that Holt also tells the tale on pp. 97-99, allowing the possibility that it was a source for the "Gest." Baldwin, p. 172. compares several of their actions to the events in the "Monk." They even operated in Sherwood Forest (Baldwin, p. 182).
There are difficulties, however. Even Baldwin admits, p. 168, that Roger Godberd was not known as an archer -- and, surely, if there is one thing Robin Hood must be, it is an archer! Nor was he notably pious, and he had a wife and children (Baldwin, p. 174). Plus he was taken into custody in 1272 (Cawthorne, p. 152), and stayed there long enough to plead a case (Baldwin, pp. 183-184, 187).
Plus the story of Gilbert de Middleton has parallels to the story of the Knight which are about as close as those of Roger Godberd (see note on Stanza 292) -- and allow us a more consistent chronological framework. And, if the story of Roger Godberd is so carefully preserved that even the description of the Knight's castle is accurate, why does the "Gest" not tell more of the early parts of Roger Godberd's story?
I observe that Powicke's immense history of the thirteenth century never mentions Godberd. If he really did anything important enough to inspire the Robin Hood legend, that would seem unlikely.
And Baldwin, p. 172, quotes a section in Bower about Robert Hood, who was one of the rebels against Henry III -- but in a context separate from his mention of Robin Hood. Bower's information about Robert Hood may be from a historical source, but his information about Robin Hood is from legend, and there is no reason to equate the two.
Admittedly, some secondary support for Bower's date in the reign of Henry III comes from the fact that Henry, in his 1251 Assize of Arms, includes bowmen for the first time; men with property of 40 to 100 shillings were to bear a sword, dagger, and bow (Featherstone, p. 26). Thus this is the period when the longbow was first coming to prominence. It is true that Gerald of Wales refers to what sounds like a longbow in 1188 (Baldwin, p. 46). But we are referring to English, not Welsh, use of the longbow. Even Henry III's son Edward I still took mostly spearmen when he fought in Wales in the 1280s, and archers do not seem to have been important at the great battles of Lewes and Evesham in the 1260s (Chandler/Beckett, p. 9). In any case, Lewes and Evesham were battles between the barons and Henry III; it doesn't make much sense for Robin to be a follower of Earl Simon unless he was at least of the gentry.
This does not mean that Roger Godberd's exploits could not have contributed to the general outlaw legend; they might well have. But that does not make him the Original Robin, or even a direct source.
Chandler/Beckett, p. 9, claims that it was "not until the 1330s that [longbowmen's] full value began to be recognized." This is a strong argument that Robin should be dated between about 1251 (when bows were becoming common) and 1330 (when they were all but universal).
Baldwin, p. 28, quotes a fragment of a song (?) from c. 1410 reading "Robyn hod in scherewod stod, hodud and hathud and hosut and schod" -- "Robin Hood in Sherwood stood, hooded and hated and hosed and shod." This at least seems to imply that the references to Sherwood are early.
The Scotsman Andrew de Wynton/Wyntoun (c. 1415, according to Holt1, p. 40; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, dates him c. 1420) mentions Robin and John; see the note on Stanza 3. Wyntoun -- who was an old man at the time he wrote, and so would probably have known had the legend arisen in recent decades (Baldwin, p. 59) dates Robin to 1283-1285 (reign of Edward I), and places him in "Ynglewode and Bernysdale" or "Ingilwode and Bernnysdaile" ("Inglewood and Barnsdale"). Keen, p. 176, thinks the mention of Inglewood, not normally associated with Robin, may be by confusion with "Adam Bell" -- although we there is no evidence that Adam's tale existed at this time. Alternately, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, suggest that the linkage of Inglewood and Barnsdale derives from the Barnsdale in Rutland, associated with the Earls of Huntingdon, who were Kings of Scotland. Except that the Scots king had lost the Huntingdon earldom a century before Wynton's time.
A 1439 petition to parliament compares a certain Piers Venables to "Robyn-hode and his meyne" (Chambers, p. 130). The next year, we find a gang making some sort of demonstration and declaring that they were "Robynhodesmen" (Baldwin, p. 28).
A ship Robyn Hude was at Aberdeen in 1438, according to Chambers, p. 131, although we don't know why it was so named. Perhaps vaguely linked to this is a report of an "early fifteenth century sermon" which mentions prophecies of "Thomas of Asildowne [Thomas of Ercildoune, i.e. Thomas the Rhymer] and Robyn Hoode" (Pollard, p. 163. This seems to be the only early mention of a supernatural side to Robin -- and, at that , it might not by prophecies by, but rather prophecies about, Robin).
Our next mention of Robin probably comes from the ballads themselves; the earliest Robin Hood ballad manuscript is "Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119], which occurs in ms. Cambridge Ff. 5.48 of about 1450. Soon after, we find a dramatic fragment of the story of "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne" [Child 118] scribbled on the back of a slip of financial receipts dated 1475/6 C.E. (Note, incidentally, that Guy is *not* "Sir Guy"; he is a yeoman, not a knight.) This is not the ballad itself, but it is clearly the same story. The Complaynt of Scotland (1549), which mentions many ballads, also mentions shepherds' tales of "Robene Hode and litil ihone" (Chambers, p. 165).
A note in the margin of a reference work, Higden's Polychronicon, mentions Robin Hood as a robber.
The Polychronicon was written by Ranulf (or Ralph) Higden (or Hyden, or Hygden), about whom very little is known except that he probably diedin 1364. It was a seven-book history of the world, and was popular enough to exist in about a hundred copies. In its original form, it seems to have ended with the year 1327, although there were various continuations, including a common one taking the history to the year 1342 (Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 269). As a history, it is of slight significance, and it does not itself mention Robin Hood. But because it was so common, it would easily pick up glosses about other historical events. That seems to be the case with this particular note.
The note is not contemporary with the text; it is believed to have been written in about 1460. It gives no date and few other details, but it is written in a part of the Polychronicon dealing with the late period of Edward I's reign (implying a date for Robin c. 1295). Although the newspapers at the time made a lot of noise about the discovery of this note (Baldwin, pp. 60-61), the uncertainty about its date dramatically reduces its value. Its interest lies in the fact that it is in a history copied in England (Baldwin, p. 62). Every previous mention is either Scottish (Bower, Wyntoun) or literary rather than historical (Langland). (Indeed, Pollard, p. 64, makes the curious comment that, although the Robin Hood legend is clearly northern, the references to it in historical sources are all from southern England.)
During the Wars of the Roses, a certain Robin, surname unknown, led a gang in Yorkshire which supported the Earl of Warwick in 1468 (Ross-Edward, p. 119). One Robin of Redesdale raised a rebellion against Edward IV in 1469. This fellow also called himself "Robin Mend-All" (Ross-Edward, p. 126). The name is patently a disguise (Warkworth's Chronicle declares that Robin was really Sir William Conyers; Dockray, p. 69), and he was commissioned by the Earl of Warwick and other rebels, but Scott/Duncan, p. 531, calls him an "avatar" of Robin Hood, and I agree that the name seems a clear attempt to invoke Robin's legend. This marks an interesting change; in the early 1400s, rebels called themselves "Jack' -- in 1450, it was Jack Cade, and a rebel of the 1430s called himself Jack Sharp (Wolffe, p. 66).
On the other hand, another rebel of the period was called Robin of Holderness, and he had few Robin Hood characteristics; it seems much more likely that "Robin" was just a common name for "ordinary folks." (Note, however, the fact that Little John in stanza 149 of the "Gest" claims to be from Holderness.) Still, Child notes a mention of Robin Hood in the Paston Letters (1473) -- the legend inspired a Paston servant to run off to Barnsdale! It may be that the servant was inspired by that play of Guy of Gisborne; it has been suggested that the play came from the Paston correspondence (Pollard, pp. 12, 164), and the glue on the back of the paper seems to imply that it was extracted from a larger collection of materials (Cawthorne, p. 68).
It is fascinating to note that Robin of Redesdale's rebellion prompted Edward IV to come north to try to suppress him (Ross-Edward, p. 129), just as the king in the "Gest" came north to deal with Robin Hood. Edward, in fact, seems to have based himself at Nottingham for a time (Ross-Edward, p. 131). And, somewhat later, Edward formally pardoned Conyers/Robin (Ross-Edward, p. 144).
Edward IV's attempt to deal directly with Robin of Redesdale was, however, a complete flop; Redesdale was an open rebel, and Edward's attempt to suppress him never got off the ground; Edward in fact was captured soon after by the Earl of Warwick and temporarily removed from power (Ross-Edward, p. 133). And Redesdale beat forces sent by Edward to deal with him at the battle of Edgecote (Dockray, p. 65)
At least, that is the best reconstruction we can give today. Our historical sources for this period are extremely poor (Ross-Edward, pp. 130-131). Ross-Edward devotes an appendix to the sources (pp. 439-440), noting that they are so confused that different scholars have proposed four different explanations: 1. That there was a single rebellion, by Robin of Redesdale; 2. That there was a single rebellion, bu Robin of Holderness (or "Robert Hulderne"); 3. That there were two rebellions, one by Redesdale and one by Holderness; 4. (and this is the one that Ross tentatively follows) That there were three rebellions, by Redesdale, by Holderness, and a revived rebellion by Redesdale. About all we can say for certain is that one of the rebellions seemed to invoke Robin Hood.
By the late fifteenth century, Robin Hood was a character in the May games -- Holt2, p. 194, thinks that this was how most people knew him around 1500. The first known instance of Robin in the games comes from Exeter in 1427 (Keen, p. 228),. But, except that he was a bowman associated with Little John, little can be learned from these early games. Although we do read that Robin collected tolls for the games, which might link to the notion of robbery (so Holt2, pp. 195-196). Supposedly playing the role of Robin Hood was very popular, and men had to wait years for the chance, at least in the town of Yeovil (Cawthorne, p. 70).
Pollard, p. 91, seems to suggest that the revival of the forest laws under Henry VII Tudor (reigned 1485-1509) would have renewed interest in that most noteworthy of poachers, Robin Hood -- which might be why the "Gest" was printed at least twice around this time. But the number of mentions of Robin in the century before 1485 rather reduces the force of this argument.
Supposedly Henry VIII played around at being an outlaw in 1510 -- "he made a carefully prepard invasion of Queen Catherine's chamber one morning, with a dozen companions, all in short coats of Kentish Kendal with hoods on their heads, each with his bow and arrows, sword, and buckler, 'like outlaws, or Robin Hood's men, whereof the Queen, the ladies, and all others there were abashed.'" Only after dancing did the men reveal their identity (Williams, pp. 46-47). Dancing with women, of course, is utterly unlike the early legend, but the gear is Robin Hood-like. Indeed, the chronicler, Hall, compares them to Robin Hood's men (Cawthorne, p. 72) -- but he was writing a third of a century later.
Kendal Green was a color associated with outlaws, see the note on stanza 422.
We shouldn't make too much of Henry's games; Mattingly, p. 129, says of this event, "Once when the court was at Greenwich, a party of masked invaders, all in Kendal Green, burst into the Queen's apartments, conveniently followed by a band of music." It was obviously evident at once that this was Henry VIII -- and the fact that he chose outlaws is not unusual, because he and his fellow revelers did this sort of thing regularly, invading the Queen's appartments in the guise of "Turks or Moors or Germans."
Later, in 1515, Henry saw a Robin Hood pageant (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 9; Williams, p. 47; Cawthorne, pp. 72-73), although we have few details; it seems to have involved a longbow exhibition. This is perhaps most significant because Anthony Munday (of whom more below) used this as a framing device for his plays: The opening phase of "The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington" features Henry's courtiers (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 298, plus the cast of characters on p. 303, etc.).
In 1521, John Major (according to Holt1, p. 41) dated Robin to 1193/4 (reign of Richard I), although he called this an "estimate" (Keen, p. 177; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 27, quotes him as saying that Robin lived "About this time... as I conceive"). Major confirms that tales of Robin were widespread, that he defended women, that he robbed abbots, and that he had a large band of a hundred men (compare Stanza 229, where Robin is credited with seven score followrs). Major condemned his acts but called him the "humanest" of robbers.
Baldwin, p. 29, points out that Major credited Robin with helping rather than robbing the poor. Major also calls Robin the "dux" of robbers, which Knight/Ohlgren render as "chief." Cawthorne, p. 38, points out that "dux" was also the root of the English word "duke," and suggests that this was the first attempt to link Robin to the nobility -- which is perhaps possible, but the context seems to imply merely that Robin was the foremost robber. And to call Robin a shadow duke, rather than a shadow earl, is impossible in Major's context -- the first English Dukes were not created until the reign of Edward III (OxfordCompanion, p. 557), and it was not until some time later that England saw its first non-royal duke.
Major's date was followed by John Leland (fl. 1530) and later by Richard Grafton (fl. 1550), who claims to have found records of Robin in the exchequer rolls -- records which, however, cannot now be found. Grafton, who seems to have published in 1569 (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 27) also claimed an "ancient pamphlet" (but what are the odds that he would have an unprinted pamphlet? And if it was printed, then it wasn't very ancient.) Grafton's claims of documentation seem to have given his claims extra weight (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 28), but there is every reason to think the claims were false. For more on Grafton, see the notes to Stanzas 451, 454.
Baldwin, p. 30, observes that Grafton claimed Earl Robin was outlawed for debt -- and points out that this is extremely unlikely. Earls certainly went bankrupt from time to time, but they didn't get outlawed, they just had to forfeit properties.
William Tyndale, the first man to translate the Bible from Greek into English, in 1528 denounced Robin Hood stories as "ribabldries" (Pollard, p. 10).
Around 1550, Bishop Hugh Latimer mentions "Robin Hood's Day" in a sermon to Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553), this is probably a reference to the May Games (Hazlitt, p. 519).
The Scottish parliament, in the course of the reformation, banned the May Games and Robin's role in 1555 (Cawthorne, p. 73).
In 1560, William Copeland registered a Robin Hood play in the Stationer's Register (Cawthorne, p. 74). This is very likely the play which appears at the end of the "f" print of the "Gest," although the matter cannot be proved.
Our first tune associated with Robin, according to Bronson, comes from the period from 1575-1591, but as it is simply called "Robin hoode," and has no lyrics, we do not know whether it was for one of the extant ballads or is something else.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 5, observe that a "remarkable number of plays and games of Robin Hood" are attested, from all parts of Britain, by 1600. Indeed, in 1577-1578, the Scottish Kirk felt the need to go beyond its action of 1555 and suppress "playes of Robin Hood, King of May, and sick others, on the Sabboth Day," and later to ban them entirely (Child, p. 45). He even begins to appear on the London stage in the 1590s (Cawthorne, p. 77) -- at least once in association with the pindar of Wakefield (Cawthorne, p. 78). One of these plays includes the unlikely stage direction "Enter Robin Hood in Lady Faukenberg's nightgown, a turban on his head" (Cawthorne, p. 80).
But these are only mentions; we do not have the scripts of the plays themselves, and cannot know what state of the legend they reveal. Knight/Ohlgren think Robin is used in them to raise money for community projects. On p. 6 they suggest that the surname "Robinhood," mentioned also by Holt, arose because it became hereditary in some families for someone to play Robin in village pageants. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 7, suggest that the plays may have preceded and given rise to the ballads. Chronologically this is certainly possible -- but the difficulty is that it is much easier for a ballad to spread than a play. The first play might have preceded the first ballad -- but in general, it seems likely that the ballads preceded the legend and the plays followed.
We do not kow the exact date when Anthony Munday started working on Robin Hood plays, but we know that he was paid five pounds for one in February 1598 (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 296).
Munday died in 1633; he born 1553 according to his tombstone, although there are indications that he was younger, according Kunitz/Haycraft, pp. 370-371; Boyce, p. 453, gives his birth date as "c. 1560."
Munday had apparently been a printer and an unsuccessful actor before turning his limited talents to writing. Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, give an amazing summary of his early career: "First he imitated the Mirror for Magistrates in two gloomy poems, The Mirror of Mutability and The Pain of Pleasure. Then he imitated Lyly's Eupheues in his prose romance Zelauto. Next, he turned informer against his Catholic friends and was instrumental in having several of them executed. In 1581-82 he wrote several anti-Catholic pamphlets and The English-Roman Life.... It was apparently around 1585 that he turned his talents to drama
His two works on the Robin Hood theme were "The Downfall of Robert, Earle of Huntington" and "The Death of Robert, Earle of Huntington." Knight/Ohlgren suggest that this was originally intended to be one play, but was too long, Henry Chettle was called upon to break it into two items (making it one of the small handful of items we still have from Chettle's pen; Kunitz/Haycraft, pp. 104-105). The pair of plays seem to have been produced in 1599, although Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, date them to 1601 and Boyce, p. 453, to 1598.
It has been suggested (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 296) that the Robin Hood plays inspired Shakespeare to write "As You Like it." However, of the four Shakespeare references I checked, only one even mentioned the possibility, and only as a possibility. Perhaps the Munday plays suggested a play in the greenwood -- but Shakespeare also used the greenwood in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" without evident extermal prompting. Such vague thematic links as exist probably derive from the fact that Shakespeare's source for "As You Like It" used "The Tale of Gamelyn" for his plot.
There is an actual link between Munday and Shakespeare (as well as Chettle), but it is quite indirect: Munday seems to have been the primary scribe, as well as the primary author (perhaps with Chettle, of the play "Sir Thomas More," which Shakespeare (and three or four others) were called upon to rewrite because it was so lousy (RiversideShakespeare, p. 1683).
Although he had a modest success as a translator of French and Spanish romances, Munday seems to have been a hack; only one other of his unquestioned plays survives ("John a Kent and John a Cumber," written in 1594 according to Craig, p. 187), although Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 371, also credit him with "Fidele and Fortunio" (1585) and "Sir John Oldcastle" (1600).
Few of these products is regarded as memorable; Craig, p. 109, is the most charitable, and praises the Robin Hood plays and the poem "I serve a mistress whiter than the snow'" (which does absolutely nothing for me), and even Craig admits that Munday was "not a great author." FordEtAl, p. 126, quotes an early source which calls him a "dismal draper of misplaced literary ambitions" (a wisecrack that is widely quoted but somehow never attributed). He would be almost completely forgotten were it not for his work on the Robin Hood plays and "Sir Thomas More."
It is an interesting comment on the power of Elizabethan theater that such a lousy work as Munday's plays could have so much influence on tradition. Admittedly Shakespeare's so-called "history" plays, which have about as much history in them as Hitler had friendship for Jews, have distorted people's understanding of the Plantagenets for centuries -- but that's Shakespeare. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 10, describe Munday's works as the best of the "gentrified" stories of Robin Hood, but grant that the Munday version "lacks an inner thematic and political tension," resulting in the enfeebling of the tradition.
From around the same time as Munday is the biography of Robin found in British Library MS. Sloane 780. This seems to agree with Munday in making Robin a nobleman (Holt1, p. 42, although damage to the manuscript at the key point, and the fact that it is generally quite hard to read, make this unsure).
In 1632, Martin Parker published "The True Tale of Robin Hood," which lists Robin's death date as December 4, 1198, very late in the reign of Richard I (Holt1, p. 41).
The first of the garlands was published in 1663, and is the primary basis for many of Child's texts. Another garland followed in 1670.
The Percy Manuscript, the earliest source for, among others, "Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne," "Robin Hood's Death," "Robin Hood and the Butcher," "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar," "The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield," "Robin Hood Rescuing Three Squires," and "Little John A Begging," is thought to date from the mid-seventeenth century; so is the Forresters manuscript, discovered in 1993, with texts, often edited or expanded, of 22 Robin Hood ballads (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 13). Knight, p. xviii, suggests that it might have been compiled as the basis for a new and improved garland.
The papers of Thomas Gale (d. 1702) say that the inscription on Robin's alleged tombstone dated his death to 24 Kalends of December 1247 (this is not a legitimate Roman date, but may mean December 24; in any case the language of the inscription is far too modern for 1247 and Keen, p. 180, notes clear evidence of fakery: "Neither [English] spelling nor its pronunciation were ever so hideously mauled as here." (This was, of course, written before the days of Nigerian scams and sex sites pretending to be by illiterate Asians.) Those wishing to see the absurd thing for themselves may see Percy-Wheatley I, pp.103-104, or -- with a different spelling which is doubtless revealing -- Holt2, p. 42. Cawthorne, p. 44, does point out that Gale had the education to know better than to use a date of 24 Kalends. Ritson accepted this death date (Cawthorne, p. 45), even though it forced him to make Robin 87 years old at the time!
Other sources report a grave at Kirklees, with the inscription "Here lie Roberd Hude, William Goldburgh, Thomas" (names not otherwise found in Robin Hood lore, but found in Grafton; see the notes on Stanzas 451, 454. It has been suggested that the stone's inscription was taken from Grafton rather than the reverse). This was copied by Johnston in 1665, but was no longer legible in the time of Gough (1786), apparently because people had been chipping off portions as souvenirs or maybe even relics with curative powers (Cawthorne, p. 45; Balswin, p. 75), although Gough reprinted Johnson's version.
Today the grave slab can no longer be found -- presumably because the artifact-hunters and seekers of toothache cures kept pounding on it -- and Keen, pp. 180-182, notes conflicts in our sources regarding it. Gough did report that the ground under the slab was undisturbed, meaning that the slab was either a trick or had been moved (Holot1, p. 44). Holt1, p. 41, is convinced that the slab was real, because so many witnesses reported it, but while the actual stone might have given us some useful information, the stories about it don't.
There are many other alleged relics. We know of a "Robin Hood's stone" in Barnesdale, which apparently was seen by Henry VII in 1486 (Pollard, p. 70; Baldwin, p. 79, observes that this is the first spot which can be documented to have been named for Robin), "Robin Hood's Well," mentioned in 1622 (in fact, there are at least two Robin Hood's Wells, according to Baldwin, p. 78, one near Nottingham and the other near Barnsdale); etc.
In addition to Robin's alleged gravestones, Keen, p. 182, notes *three* graves for Little John, one English (plates 7 and 36 in Baldwin offer a photo and an enhanced sketch of the English gravestone, which is in Derby), one Scottish, one Irish (where one legend says he was executed; Cawthorne, p. 80, who also notes a piece of wood at Barnsley alleged to have been John's bow). Will Scarlet's grave is said to be at Blidworth in Nottinghamshire (Carthorne, pp. 80-81). But all such relics are either lost or too-recent inventions. And, of course, some could refer to other people named Robert Hood.
In 1795, Joseph Ritson published his "Robin Hood." In one sense this is invaluable, as it contains a vast amount of Robin Hood material not accessible elsewhere (note how many of the Child references are to Ritson). He marked an important change -- for the first time, we see analysis of tradition.
Kunitz/Haycraft, p. 437,. say of him "Ritson was the first 'scientific' editor of such material, and he was savagely critical of editors who (like Percy) 'improved' their originals or (like Pinkerton) wrote spurious folk poetry."
Unfortunately, his skills did not match his ambitions; his editions of Robin Hood material retail a lot of late rubbish, making little attempt to separate early from late. Ritson, e.g., says that Robin was born in 1160, in the reign of Henry II (Holt1, p. 45), providing what seemed like a basis for the Gilberts and Reads who "retold" the legend.
It was Ritson, too, who is largely responsible for the notion of "robbing the rich to give to the poor"; Major in 1521 had hints of it (Holt1, p. 154), but it is not mentioned in the ballads. (Although Holt2, p. 194, thinks it not unlikely: The poor weren't worth robbing, and by helping them even a little, Robin would build a support system). The lack of this theme, so vital to the legend today, raises an interesting question: Why the Robin Hood legend became so widespread? If it wasn't due to transferring wealth from rich to poor, then why was he remembered? Perhaps for being free when few were? But this would not explain his survival after the reign of Edward III. It is yet another point on which we have no clear answer.)
Sir Walter Scott was apparently the first to suggest that Robin was a Saxon opposed to the Norman Conquest. In 1820, he made Robin an opponent of the "Norman" dynasty of Henry II, Richard I, and John (Holt1, p. 183). But as Holt observes, the Saxon/Norman dichotomy was false by 1189 -- and to place Robin in, or before, the actual Norman period (which ended in 1154) is absurd; prior to William the Conqueror, there were no Forest Laws (Keen, p. 26; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164, mention that forests were in the law codes of Ine, Alfred, and Cnut, but these rules were not onerous) and the longbow was not in use.
It is true that Cawthorne, p. 134, sees an antagonism between "the Saxon peasantry and the Norman gentry" in the Robin Hood tales -- but there is absolutely no sign in the "Gest" of a distinction between Saxons and Normans, or even between those who speak England and those who speak French.
Robin's place as a Saxon rebel seems to be a confusion with the tale of Hereward the Wake (itself mostly legend) -- a suspicion strengthened by the parallels between "Robin Hood and the Potter" and a similar tale of Hereward's disguise, as well as by the fact that Hereward, like Robin, is said to have eventually reconciled with the King. Keen, p. 21, calls Hereward the "lineal ancestor of Robin Hood." But, although the link is obvious, Hereward was a political rebel, Robin an economic rebel. Robin has no quarrel with the King, only with the King's laws.
The one thing that comes out clearly in looking at the early chroniclers is how much they *disagree*. Clearly they have no more reliable data than we do. Holt1, p. 185, compares the accretions of Scott and Ritson to an ivy strangling the old oak of the Robin Hood legend. This is partly false -- in many ways the modern version is in better shape than when the seventeenth century broadsides made Robin a buffoon. But Scott and Ritson made permanent the false image of Robin the nobleman of the time of Richard ; we can dismiss it and pass on to more useful speculation as we seek the date. For example, Robin Hood is Catholic, so we can obviously eliminate the period of Henry VIII and all later kings; the official religion in the legend is clearly Catholicism.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117B

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 04

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 05 (File Number C117D)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF THE EARLY BALLADS
If the chronicles are useless, we can only turn back to the early ballads, especially the "Gest". These give us a surprisingly limited picture. Robin is an outlawed yeoman (see notes on stanzas 1 and 2), attended by a band of unknown size (see the notes on stanzas 4, 17, 229). Little John is certainly one of this band, but the others (Much the Miller's Son and Will Scarlock/Scadlock/Scarlett/whatever) are not really characters, just names. They live in the north of England, in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire or possible Lancaster or Cumbria.
Holt, p. 86, makes the interesting note that Robin's band may not even have lived in the greenwood; there is, for instance, little or no mention of the King's Deer in the early sources -- but see the notes on stanzas 32-33, 357-358, 377. In the end, the King meets Robin because he's angry about the lack of deer in Plumpton Park.
As far as his character goes, Robin is genuinely religious, clearly Catholic (and devoted to the Virgin Mary; see note on Stanza 10) -- but no friend of high church officials such as abbots and bishops (see note on Stanza 19), whom he happily robs. Note too that it was a prioress who murdered him! (Stanza 451, etc.) He is willing to rescue those in need, but he does not seem to go out of his way to do so. He very likely eventually meets the King, who is coming to investigate troubles in the North (Stanzas 357-358, etc.)
What is absent from these accounts is notable. Holt1, pp. 35-38, catalogs what is missing: Maid Marian, Richard the Lion-Hearted (recall that Gest's king is Edward; Stanza 353), Robin's birth as Robin of Lockesly and/or Earl of Huntingdon (in the early legend, Robin is clearly a yeoman; stanza 1), and the theme of robbing the rich to give to the poor. Pollard, p. 188, offers a similar list of famous elements of the modern telling which are absent from the early stories: robbing the rich to give to the poor, Robin the Anglo-Saxon earl fighting the Normans, the Sheriff as agent of "Prince" John who is attempting to overthrow King Richard, and the tale of Maid Marion. (Pollard attributes all these changes to the rise of class consciousness, which I must say I find a stretch.)
Can we possibly add more details from the later ballads?
THE LATER ROBIN HOOD BALLADS
If we look at the ballads with true traditional attestation, the list is longer than the list of early ballads, but still rather thin. It appears that we can list only about fifteen songs, or fewer than half the pieces printed by Child, and only about four of these have a strong hold in tradition:
* Willie and Earl Richard's Daughter [Child 102] (traditional in US, but possibly from print)
* Robin Hood's Death [Child 120] (traditional in US)
* The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield [Child 124] (traditional attestation somewhat dubious)
* Robin Hood and Little John [Child 125] (traditional in Scotland, Canada, US)
* Robin Hood and the Tanner [Child 126] (traditional in England, US)
* Robin Hood and the Prince of Aragon [Child 129] (traditional in US, although much damaged; the tune may have come from a non-traditional source)
* Robin Hood and the Ranger [Child 131] (traditional in England)
* The Bold Pedlar and Robin Hood [Child 132] (traditional in England, Scotland, US, Canada; probably the most popular Robin Hood ballad in tradition)
* Robin Hood and the Beggar (II) [Child 134] (traditional in Scotland)
* Robin Hood and Allen a Dale [Child 138] (traditional in Scotland)
* Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham [Child 139] (traditional in Canada)
* Robin Hood Rescuing Three Squires [Child 140] (traditional in England, Scotland, US; probably second only to #132 in popularity)
* Robin Hood Rescuing Will Stutly [Child 141] (traditional in US)
* Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford [Child 144] (traditional in England)
* Robin Hood Was a Forester Bold (traditional in US)
These add little useful information to the sources we already identified. Most of them are clearly late poor imitations of the basic handful -- as Keen notes (pp. 99-100), "Most, at least in the form in which we have them, are compositions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Robin Hood's traditional world already belonged to a half-forgotten past. The cruel forest laws have fallen into desuetude; archery was no longer a national exercise; the abbeys whose monks the outlaws had robbed had been dissolved. Robin Hood's legend belonged, in fact, to a world so far away in time that almost anything could be believed of it, and as a result his story was sometimes changed out of recognition." In seeking the source of the legend, therefore, we must work mostly with the small collection of early ballads. The only one late text to which we will pay much attention is the "Bishop of Hereford."
Having catalogued our sources (such as they are), we can attempt to wring some meaning from them.
OUTLAW OR NOT?
Both Munday and the late ballad "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child 139] offer explanations for how Robin was driven to the greenwood. Holt1, p. 44, also notes a tale transmitted by Roger Dodsworth, in which Roger Locksley killed his stepfather and was forced into the wood; in this version, it is apparenly Little John who was the disgraced nobleman.
These stories are all different -- and all late. There is no clue in the early materials how Robin came to be outlawed. Pollard, p. 13, points out the parallel in the tale of Gamelyn, in which Gamelyn is dispossessed by his brothers, but there is no sign of this in the "Gest" or other early ballads. In fact, we don't even know that Robin *was* outlawed, at least initially; he may simply have been forced off his land, or perhaps away from his employment. Kings and lords of this period were good at that.
Since we will have to deal in time with the claim that Richard I was Robin's king, we should note Richard was particularly rapacious, because of the financial demands of his crusade -- and later of his ransom, which resulted in an almost unendurable 25% tax, according to Gillingham, p. 230. Many people must have been forced off their lands to pay for their lion-hearted, pea-brained king.
But would Robin then side with Richard? I think not. If Robin were simply dispossessed, as opposed to outlawed, a date in the reign of one of the Edwards would seem more likely even if the "Gest" didn't refer to King Edward. And if Robin's ancestors were in fact squatters (which is perfectly possible), then there is a high likelihood that they took over the land in the lawless period after the Norman Conquest, and the sooner after the Conquest they did so, the more time for them to think the land was theirs.
Even Edward I, often held up as a lawgiver, was a land-grabber in his personal capacity as king, and Prestwich1, p. 105, comments that "The methods he used did him little credit: he was devious and grasping." For more on his methods, see the discussion on stanza 47.
Edward I's queen was even worse about grabbing land (Prestwich1, pp. 124-125; on p. 124 and again on p. 262, he quotes a fragment of what sounds like a folk rhyme, although apparently it was taken down in Latin: "The king he wants to get our gold, The queen would like our lands to hold"). And if other kings weren't as concerned with updating the statute books, they certainly were just as eager to latch onto any cash they could.
Around 1298, Edward I had had a major dispute with local residents about the boundaries of the royal forests (Prestwich1, p. 518). Many locals tried to encroach upon the forests, leading to the conflict with the King (Prestwich1, p. 527). Edward I being Edward I, this might well have caused him to punish harshly anyone whom he could lay his hands on. Edward, under pressure, reduced the total area of the royal forest -- but in 1305 "laid down that those people who had been placed outside the Forest boundaries would no longer be allowed to exercise any rights of common within them." In 1306, he reneged and took back some of that forest land (Prestwich1, p. 548).
This raises an interesting possibility, that the reason we never see Robin go to the greenwood is that he never did -- he was there all along. He lived in the wood on what he thought was his personal land, until the king reclaimed it. There is a tradition (found e.g. in "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage" [Child 149] , although this is a very poor source) that Robin's father was a forester. This raises the possibility that Robin was a yeoman forester, and was displaced as a result of someone eventually enforcing the 1306 law.
Prestwich1, p. 286, adds that, in Edward I's time, due to some legal changes which made legal penalties stiffer but convictions harder to obtain, "Fairs and markets were the scene of a good many crimes, as when a royal bailiff was assaulted by Thomas de Aston and his two brothers, pursued, and beaten up publicly in the market at Stafford." Several similarities to "Robin Hood and the Potter" [Child 121] will surely be evident.
Although it is usually assumed that Robin was an ordinary yeoman, it occurs to me that Robin might have been a *royal* yeoman, in service to the king. In that case, it is not unlikely that he was cast out of the royal service during a purge of the household Edward I conducted in 1300 (Prestwich1, p. 159). On the other hand, there is little sign that Robin knows about courtly manners. 1300 also seems a little early for him to be active based on him still being the active head of his band in 1322 (if we can trust the one genuine chronological peg we have in the "Gest").
"Robin Hood's Birth" also has the tradition that "his mother was neece to the Coventry knight Which Warwickshire men call sir Guy." This presumably is a reference to Guy of Warwick, a famous saga hero who indeed was credited with killed a great boar although one who is claimed to have lived in the reign of Athelstan (Simpson/Roud, p. 158, Pickering, p. 128. Don't ask me what someone named "Guy" was doing in tenth century England...).
The period of the Wars of the Roses (roughly 1455-1485) were also tough on landowners. Since the crown changed hands so many times, there was a real danger that one might be attainted if one supported the wrong side. We don't know of any great lords turning outlaw, but a yeoman might. There are, however, two problems with a date this late: First, the "Gest" was probably already in existence, and second, of the two kings who reigned for most of this period, Henry VI was not active enough for the role given him in the "Gest" and wasn't named Edward anyway, and Edward IV, while obviously named "Edward," hardly had enough time as King.
If we had to make a wild guess about how Robin came to be outlawed, Pollard's suggestion that he had been a yeoman of the forest (pp. 41-43; see also the note on Stanza 222) does make a certain amount of sense. Perhaps he -- or, more likely, his father -- had been yeoman of the forest displaced during Edward I's reign, and he stayed in the forest to maintain his claim to what he considered his home and occupation. But while reasonable, this is clearly beyond proof.
The bottom line is, we simply don't know why Robin was outlawed (or, rather, why the earliest hearers of the tradition though he was outlawed). But the circumstances of the Edwardian period certainly offer many opportunities.
Perhaps we should just conclude, with Shippey, p. 233, "in romance it is a good rule that not everything should be explained." If we truly *knew* why Robin went to the greenwood, it would probably detract from the legend: If he committed a true crime and was outlawed, it makes him less of a good man, but if he was simply went broke, that is far too mundane. The best answer, from a dramatic standpoint, is doubtless the one adopted by modern retellers: That he was driven from his land by unjust superiors. But even this runs the risk of reducing his motives to petty jealousy....
DATING THE LEGEND
In trying to date the Robin Hood legend, we must recall that we are dealing with multiple sources -- half a dozen different ballads, the most important of which, the "Gest," is itself compiled from multiple sources. Pollard points out, p. x, that Robin's story changed completely in the sixteenth century, so we cannot discount the possibility that it also changed completely between 1377 and 1450 -- and he notes on page 2 that all our extant early sources date from the fifteenth century. Any pattern we perceive might be just the coincidental agreement of independent sources, or a side effect of the evolution of the legend. I do not deny this possibility, but the more I looked at the scattered hints, the more I have become convinced that the intended setting of the "Gest" is a particular period: The reign of Edward II. This section tries both to present that case and to offer the evidence for other periods.
To show how confusing it all is, the "Gest" says the King is "Edward." Knight, p. xx, says that in the Forresters manuscript, three pieces name the king "Richard" (presumably Richard I). Two call him "Henry" (presumably Henry II, although Henry III is not an unreasonable possibility), and Knight thinks that one other also points to a King Henry -- although in this case either Henry V or Henry VIII, since his queen is Catherine.
As Baldwin points out on p. 48, we have conflicting evidence, some "suggesting an earlier date of composition [probably in the reign of Henry III or Edward I], the other later [probably the reign of Edward III]." On p. 84, Baldwin stoutly maintains that there were five kings in "what may loosely be called the Robin Hood era," referring to Richard I through Edward II. In fact, the evidence of names found by Holt shows there is every reason to think that the legend originated before Edward II. The content of the later ballads seems to indicate a date in the reign of Edward III or later. This by itself is modest support for the reign of Edward II as the meeting point, so to speak, of the two groups of evidence.
The references to Robin's skills with the bow really do seem to imply that he was a bowman from the start -- which by itself is a dating hint. The mention of the longbow requires, at the earliest, a post-conquest date for Robin; it also gives a latest possible date before the time of Henry VIII -- probably well before. Keen, p. 138, dates the decline of the longbow to the Battle of Castillon in 1453. This is accurate, in a way, although the English continued to use bows for many decades (e.g. they were a key weapon in the Wars of the Roses).
But Robin the Legendary Archer must have lived long before Castillon. Edward III, more than a century before that, commanded regular competitions with the bow (see the note on Stanzas 145-146) -- something often seen in the Robin Hood tales. And yet, once these competitions were well-established, it would be almost impossible for a band of outlaws, gathered at random, to all become master bowmen. For the longbow requires great skill (contrary to what is implied by Keen, p. 138). Longbows required more pull than short bows, but even the strongest muscles could not compete with a crossbow in power and range. To compete with crossbows, longbowmen had to aim in an arc far above their targets. This took long practice; archers, for the most part, had to be brought up to the bow, and stay with it throughout their lives -- even in the reign of Edward III, we find the king complaining that the common people weren't spending enough time with the bow (Chandler/Beckett, p. 10).
That was the main reason no one other than the English and Welsh took to the longbow.; it was too tricky. But the longbow won battles for the English at Halidon Hill (1333) and Crecy (1347) during the reign of Edward III. Featherstone in fact (p. 31) claims that archers from Sherwood Forest were given conditional pardon to serve the King at this time. It is true that Edward III gave pardons to outlaws wiling to fight in France (Ormrod, p. 57), but Ormrod says nothing of archers from Sherwood. Ormrod does tell us that this was new; no earlier King had offered such pardons (although Prestwich1, p. 561, says that Edward I pardoned soldiers who served in his campaigns). We known that, as early as the reign of Edward I, longbow training was required of ordinary folk (Seward, p. 53), just as it would be in the time of Edward III.
In other words, by 1333, the longbow was a universal weapon, and the odds of Robin's men being exceptional is slight. This is evidence for a date before 1333.
It has been argued that, since the longbow was already common as early as the time of Edward I (reigned 1272-1307), we are forced to a date in the reigns of Henry II (1154-1189), Richard I (1189-1199), John (1199-1216), or Henry III (1216-1272).
This is not compelling; although Edward I had encouraged the use of the bow at times in his reign, he was not consistent. For his preparations for the invasion of Wales in 1277, Edward I ordered cartloads of crossbow bolts (Prestwich1, p. 179), leaving little if any room for arrows. Edward II (1307-1327) largely turned his back on the use of the bow. This was a major reason he lost at Bannockburn in 1314 (Phillips, pp. 236-237, who notes that a military revolution was going on at the time; both at Bannockburn and at Courtrai in 1302, mounted knights had lost to infantry, forcing a reassessment of tactics. The English learned the lesson after 1314, and Edward III began to depend on longbows; the French would need another century to learn).
Still, the use of the bow means that the only serious candidates for the Kings in the Robin Hood legend are Henry II (reigned 1154-1189), his son Richard I (1189-1199), his brother John (1199-1216), his son Henry III (1216-1272), his son Edward I (1272-1307), his son Edward II (1307-1327), and his son Edward III (1327-1377). Many would restrict the period even more -- e.g. McLynn, p. 244, would examine only the period 1215-1381.
Our single strongest clue, as repeatedly mentioned, is the fact that stanzas 353, 384, 450 of the "Gest" give the name of the king of England as Edward. At first glance. since we are not told which Edward, we might think this was Edward I. In many ways Edward I fits the content of the legend better than Henry II (his great-grandfather), Richard (his grand-uncle), or John (his grandfather), notably since the longbow was not used in the time of the early kings, at least outside Wales. The flip side is, there is nothing in the "Gest" which sounds specific to this reign.
Hunter, as mentioned in the notes to Stanzas 357-358, pointed out that Edward II had made a trip to the north in 1322-1323 which fits the ballad. The real problem with his reconstruction is that he then goes on to try to ring in a Robin Hood who was active around Wakefield at the time, and who was a follower of the Lancastrian rebels (Cawthorne, p. 49). This badly weakens his case, because the "Gest" implies that Robin was always loyal to the King. Hunter's full reconstruction cannot stand up, and many have rejected all parts of it on that basis -- but the evidence he found for the 1322-1323 visit to the north stands up. If (and this is a substantial if!) the "Gest" is supposed to be based on actual events, 1323 is an extremely strong candidate for the King's visit to Robin.
The 1322-1323 dating is suitable on other grounds. There was a major famine and economic downturn in 1315-1317 (Prestwich3, p. 92; Phillips, p. 238, blames it on excessive rain beginning in 1314, adding on pp. 252-253, that the years 1315 and 1316 were unusually cold, that 1317 brought only a brief respite, and that 1318-1321 also saw bad weather and poor harvests). The problems were especially bad in the north; according to Wilkinson, p. 124, the bad harvest of 1315 was "followed by famine 'such as our age has never seen.'"
Kelly.J, p. 14, notes that worldwide conditions were so bad that some think they may have started the chain of events which led to the Black Death thirty years later. Kelly.J, p. 56, observes that large tracts of land were left unpopulated -- sometimes because they were simply no longer productive in the poor climate. On pp. 58-59, he notes that some parts of Yorkshire had all their topsoil eroded away. The rain was so heavy that in Yorkshire and Nottingham some farm fields became lakes -- he calls them "inland seas." The problem was so bad that there were widespread reports of cannibalism (p. 60).
Satin, pp. 106-107, mentions estimates that one tenth of the population of Europe died of famine in this period. J.Kelly, p. 62, thinks it may have exceeded 15% in some areas. Tenants everywhere were driven from their lands. If the knight was truly trying to repay a loan at this time, it is understandable that he failed -- it was the worst time in memory for raising money. This would surely raise the irony of the abbott serving rich food at this time, too.
To add to the misery of northerners, in the aftermath of Bannockburn, the Scots raided freely throughout the north of England. They had raided the north before, it is true, but these were larger raids, better organized, which penetrated much farther south (Phillips, p. 248). They could not capture fortified cities or castles, but they destroyed the holdings of peasants and forced them to flee (McNamee, pp. 72-74). And, of course, the lords rarely gave their tenants any sort of help if they had been raided -- if anything, their exactions increased as they gathered up food to feed their garrisons (McNamee, pp. 144-145).
As McNamee says on p. 147, "Altogether the North of England's castles ought to have been its salvation from the Scottish raids. The failure of the crown to pay and provision garrisons adequately, and to exercise control over castellans, left them to prey on those they were supposed to defend."
The Scots were relatively quiet in 1316 and 1317, but were back in 1318, when their raids reached as far south as Yorkshire (McNamee, pp. 84-86). There must have been very many refugees in the latter year -- and indeed as early as 1314, when McNamee, p. 134, says Northumberland was "descending into chaos." Plus we have reports of outbreaks of sheep murrain in 1315-1319 (McNamee, p. 107), which of course damaged the wool clip, meaning that the chief source of non-farm income for the northern provinces was much reduced. Other northern leaders were paying the Scots not to raid them, placing another demand ultimately on the peasants (McNamee, pp. 129-140).
These were the circumstances in which villeins slipped away from their lands and formed gangs. We know that the unsettled conditions of Edward II's reign weakened feudal bonds and created uncertainties for freeholders (Prestwich3, p. 109). It was the ideal situation for bands like Robin's -- which probably combined a few yeomen, such as Robin himself, with villeins -- to form.
There was actually a special word for the bands of robbers who arose in the wake of the Scottish incursions around the time of Bannockburn -- they were called schavaldores. They may well have robbed clergy; at least, a bishop told Edward II that he couldn't send tax money because of them (McNamee, p. 55). Nor was it easy to fight them, because the conditions made it hard to feed and supply a large force (McNamee, p. 81). And if a gang formed in 1316-1317, and grew larger in 1318-1319, it would allow enough time for the band to become well-known by the time Edward came north in 1322, and to make a significant dent in the deer population.
Edward II wasn't the only monarch whose reign saw near-anarchy in some parts of England. Three other kings -- Stephen (reigned 1135-1154), Henry III (1216-1272), and Henry VI (1422-1461, plus a brief restoration in 1470-1471) -- lived in times when government largely broke down. But Stephen was too early for legendary bowmen, and never had enough control to visit the forests of the north. Henry VI is far too late, and was a "useful political vegetable" in his later years (so Ross-War, p. 52; Ross-War, p. 118, notes that Henry VI was take prisoner *three times* during the Wars of the Roses). If anarchy is a criterion for dating Robin, then by far the most likely reigns are those of Henry III and Edward II. The intervening reign, of Edward I, is also possible simply because his taxes caused so much unrest.
We saw in the notes to stanza 93 that we cannot identify the official or office the "Gest" means when it refers to a "justice." But the Edwardian period was one of extreme rapaciousness. Note during Edward II's reign the Earl of Lancaster, who held four earldoms after 1311 (McNamee, p. 51) and was chief counselor after 1316; and the Despensers, who largely ran the government when not in exile. The younger Despenser -- the ally of Robert Baldock the extortionist chancellor (for whom, again, see notes on Stanza 93) -- used just the sorts of methods described in the "Gest" to obtain lands formerly held by the Earl of Gloucester, killed at Bannockburn (Hutchison, p. 104).
Recall also the case of the Bishop of Durham being robbed by outlaws led by Gilbert de Middleton in the reign of Edward II (see notes on stanza 292 of the "Gest").
Edward II, as mentioned in the notes on Stanza 357, was the one king who seems to have made a hunting trip similar to that in Fit 7 of the Gest.
It is interesting to note that Edward II was the first king to request that his retainers recruit infantry as well as cavalry (Chandler/Beckett, p. 19). Every previous army of course included infantry, but they were incidental. It makes sense to imagine Edward II trying to hire a group of top bowmen. It makes far less sense to try to imagine the haughty Richard I or the foolish Henry III trying it.
Note also that the King talks to the outlaws with no hint of a translator (see note on Stanza 379). This is an argument for one of the Edwards, although it is little clue to which.
It is interesting to note that Robin and his men spend most of their time on foot, but that in Stanza 152 the Sheriff offers Little John a horse. This hints at a date after 1330, when Edward III mounted his archers. This was a major change -- it made archers (and hence armies) more mobile, but the greater need for horses also meant that armies were smaller. The fact that mounted archers aren't common probably argues for a date before the middle of the reign of Edward III, but probably not too much earlier, since the idea of mounting archers was obviously in the air.
There is nothing unusual about common folk who respect the King but reject lesser authorities. Campaigns to rid a King of his "evil councilors" were almost routine, and were the main excuse for the revolts against Edward II (e.g. Prestwich3, pp. 82-84). Somewhat later, in Wat Tyler's rebellion, the rebels respected Richard II but wanted the heads of many others (Saul, p. 68). They actually killed Archbishop Sudbury of Canterbury (Saul, p. 69). Pollard, p. 216, notes that campaigns against "evil councilors" waere common for centuries -- Jack Cade's 1450 rebellion was loyal to Henry VI, as were barons who began the Wars of the Roses, and even the sixteenth century Pilgrimage of Grace were theoretically loyal to Henry VIII -- just not to his religion.
By the end of his reign, Edwawrd II seems to have been very unpopular in the south of England, but was perhaps not so unpopular in the north. Phillips, pp. 532-533, gives a partial list of those who supported his deposition. They include many southern bishops and barons, but relatively few northerners. Henry of Lancaster supported the move, but he was a special case -- and apparently the only earl with major lands north of the Humber to support the deposition. The bishops of Coventry and of Lincoln supported the move, but the Archbishop of York signally did not, nor did the Bishop of Carlisle (Phillips, p. 536), and the Bishop of Durham is also missing from the list. The opinions of northern lords may not reflect those of commoners, of course, but it is reasonable to assume that northerners were more sympathetic to this otherwise-disliked King.
"Robin Hood and the Monk" [Child 119] offers us little in the way of datable evidence, but we note that the king in the song is extremely foolish. Since the manuscript is from c. 1450, this might be a veiled allusion to the King at that time (Henry VI, who was never very clever and eventually went mad), but if we assume the song is older, then we must look for an easily-fooled King. The best candidates for this arer Henry III or Edward II, with Edward being the better bet.
To be sure, John also had a very bad reputation, and in his earlier days was prone to bad mistakes. Warren-John, pp. 46-47, admits that John "stood in 1194 as a traitor and a fool. Such a reputation long clung to him, and in some quarters was perhaps never entirely displaced; but, in fact, the real John had not yet emerged.... As a king he was to show a grasp of political realities that had eluded the young Henry [John's oldest brother], a more fierce determination than even Geoffrey could boast of, as sure a strategic sense as Richard displayed and a knowledge of government to which the heroic crusader never even aspired. Only the Old King himself [Henry II] is comparable to the later John in his powers of organization...." This is probably too kind to John, but John was simply too sneaky to be on the list of possible Kings for the "Monk."
If we try to bring in Richard I, we have a timing problem.. Gillingham, p. 242, observes that Richard I did visit Sherwood Forest -- for one day, in 1194. He spent it hunting; clearly, in Richard's time, the forest had not been hunted out. Gillingham notes, however, that this was "the nearest [Richard] ever came to... Robin Hood," and that he promptly headed back to Nottingham to get some work done.
That visit to England lasted two months. Richard would never again return (Baldwin, p. 86).
Richard I might qualify as a fool -- he was a *terrible* king, despite his legend (as Warren-John says on p. 38, "Everything was sacrificed to raising money for [the Third Crusade], even good government." On p. 41, he adds that "Richard was no judge of men," so friendship with Robin Hood would have been no compliment to Robin anyway. Runciman3, p. 75, compares his performance at home and on crusade and says "He was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier"). But Richard spent only about six months of his reign in England (Gillingham, p. 5). As Baldwin says on p. 84, "Richard I is unique among English monarchs in that he was a figure of European standing yet played only a small part in the affairs of his own kingdom." Thus it might be possible to fit him into the "Gest" (though even that is a squeeze), but not into the "Monk."
The versions of the story which place Robin in the reigns of Richard and John have other problems. These tales often involve an incredible anachronism, as they refer to "Prince John." But John never held the feudal title "prince" -- indeed, England did not *have* princes until Edward I created the title of Prince of Wales a century after the reign of Richard I. John's feudal title was Count of Mortain. He was Count John, not Prince John.
On the other hand, a date in the reign of Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, or even Edward I has the advantage that it give time for tales to grow around Robin. This is more problematic if we accept a date in the reign of Edward II or Edwawrd III. Could a Robin Hood who was active in 1323 or later have become a legendary figure as early as the time Langland wrote in 1377?
This may not be quite as unlikely as it sounds. A similar situation occurs in the great Spanish epic The Poem of the Cid. This in fact has many similarities to the Robin Hood legend. Northup, p. 47, tells us that "The poet interpreted history imaginatively, but his imagination is restrained. Magic does not appear.... We lack completely the exaggeration so common in the French epic, where, as in the Chanson de Roland, whole armies fall in a faint. The Cid's personal exploits are no greater than those recorded of many knights...." This is the same mode of "high mimesis" as in the "Gest": Robin is an exceptional but not superhuman character.
The general feel of the "Cid" resembles the "Gest" in other ways: "There is no element of romantic love.... The poet is interested neither in in his hero's youth nor in his death. The Cid is presented in his prime, engaged in his greatest achievements" (Northup, p. 47). "The Cid figures as a loyal vassal ever seeking a reconciliation with his lord" (Northup, p. 44), and eventually he gains this reconciliation. The Cid is an outlaw, and his first act in the extant portion of the poem is to commit a robbery (Cid/Simpson, p. v). The Cid is "pious... loyal to his companions and even to his King... and... endowed with a saving peasant humor" (Cid/Simpson, p. vi). There is even a similarity in meter: The "Gest" is metrically irregular, and the "Cid" has so many different line formations that scholars, according to Northup, p. 48, cannot agree whether it is intended to be in ballad meter (eight syllables in four feet, then a caesura, then six syllables in three feet) or in Alexandrines (sixteen syllables with a caesura in the middle).
And when was the "Cid" written? Many authorities believe it was c. 1140 (Cid/Simpson, p. vii; Northup. p. 42). That date has been questioned in more recent times, but the sole extant manuscript seems to have been taken from an exemplar, not the original, which was written in 1207 (Cid/Michael, p. 16). Therefore the story must date from the twelfth century. The Cid died in 1099. it is likely that the time gap between the life and the tale of the Cid is no greater than that between Edward II and Langland. And the "Cid," although grounded in reality, contains a fair amount of non-historical material; it is proof that legends can quickly gather about a sufficiently extraordinary figure.
And Robin Hood wasn't even real -- anything could be added to his legend! The question is not what could be said about him, but what could be said about his context. There is nothing in the "Gest" that cannot be made to fit reasonably well in the context of the Edwardian period.
Another objection to a date in the reign of Edward II is that that king was deposed and murdered in 1327; is it possible that the legend would take no notice of this? (To be sure, the "Gest" says that Robin left the King's service after only a year; see the note on stanza 435. This would have allowed him to avoid Edward's debacle. But would it not be mentioned?) And why no mention of the war between Edward and Robert Bruce of Scotland, which was the main business of Edward's northern visit? (And in which Edward's forces suffered defeats at the hands of Bruce's raiders; Hutchison, p. 119.)
Keen, p. 186, suggests that Edward's unpopularity would argue against him being the good King of the "Gest." This would certainly be true if the audience of the poem was aristocratic; it is less of an objection in the case of the common people. Wilkinson, p. 132, observes that "after Edward's death it was the manner of his dying rather than his ruling which tended to be remembered. It was his cruel death and not his foolish life which made his tomb at Gloucester the centre of a cult." Being an ally of Edward II might be considered a failing in 1325; twenty years later, it might be a reason to make Robin a hero, for supporting Edward II when few others would.
Keen, p. 140, thinks that the frequent mentions of Robin as a yeoman implies a late date (p. 140), presumably after Edward III, since this was the period when villeins were becoming free yeomen. Keen, pp. 141-142, adds that the lack of offences against "vert" (the plants of the forest) dates Robin to the time of Edward III or later -- but poaching was a worse offence than three-cutting (although Pollard, p. 85, says that even poaching was little punished in the fifteenth century). It was not until very late, when the English navy needed every tall tree it could find for ship's masts, that tree-cutting became a serious crime. In any case, it was often difficult to prosecute offences against "vert" -- Henry VI, for example, granted so many exceptions that the laws became simply unenforceable (Wolffe, p. 111). It was only under Henry VII, whose goal was to bring the entire nation under his thumb, that the forest laws really revived (Pollard, p. 86).
To be sure, Ohlgren, p. 220, argues that Robin "imitates knightly behavior by giving liveries and fees to his retained men" (e.g. he notes on p. 317 that Robin's men wore a uniform of scarlet, not green, although later, they give the King green cloth; Ohlgren, p. 319 n.35) -- behavior typical of what is now called "bastard feudalism," which was largely a product of the Hundred Years' War (OxfordComp, p. 84). But Robin was not a king that he would be able to give out lands and titles; his behavior was quite typical of what a local Lord of the Manor would have done even in the height of the feudal era.
It was in 1296 that Edward I made a decision which completely changed the nature of military service in England. In that year, he conducted a census seeking men wealthy enough to perform knight service. In the past, such a demand had been made only of knights. After 1296, the qualification was simply wealth (Prestwich, p. 406). The barriers had fallen; a rich yeoman or an esquire could now do the work of a knight. This would obviously make it easier for a former yeoman such as Robin to enter royal service.
Looking at the case for other monarchs, we see that the main evidence for the reigns of Richard I and John comes from a strong mass of later legend, supported by late songs such as "The King's Disguise, and Friendship with Robin Hood" [Child 151], which explicitly gives the king the name "Richard." However, this ballad is probably an eighteenth century rewrite of the last two fits of the "Gest," and is certainly a hack job; it has no independent value. There are no hints in the early ballads which directly support a date in the period 1189-1216, except for the suggestion that Sir Richard at Lee might be going on crusade (see note on Stanzas 56-57), and this is neither a clear reference nor a decisive link to Richard I. Nor is there any sign, in the "Gest," of the difficult relations between Richard and John which so affected England in the mid-1190s (Warren-John, pp. 40-45) -- there isn't even a hint that the King had a brother. If Robin and Richard I actually met, it is almost inevitable that the Gest would have mentioned his troublesome brother.
We might add that, although Richard became a hero of folklore, he does not seem to have been popular in his own time. According to Warren-John, p. 31, the only son of Henry II to be popular with his contenporaries was Henry the Young King, who died before his father and never exercised power.
The "Gest," and several other song of Robin, show the outlaw, although a devoted Catholic, as opposed to the clerical establishment -- he happily robs bishops and abbots. Such a man would be unlikely to approve of Richard I, who financed his crusade largely by selling lands and rents to the bishops (Kelly.A, p. 252). Many of the abuses which Robin fought against were actually the result of Richard's actions. He might well have gotten along with Edward I, however, who went so far as to appeal to the Pope for the ouster of Archbishop Winchelsea of Canterbury (which he obtained; Prestwich, p. 541. It was yet another phase in Edward's attacks on the church). Edward II also had trouble with his bishops, notably Orleton of Hereford (more on this below), but Orleton wasn't the only one.
I can't help but note an irony: One folkloric account of the death of Richard I has the Greek Fates cut off his life. Why? Because he introduced the crossbow into France (Gillingham, p. 12). Not the longbow, note, the *crossbow*. For the evidence that Robin's weapon was the true longbow, which came later, see the note on Stanza 132.
The best argument for the reign of Henry III is that this is the period when the longbow was first becoming a respected weapon in the royal muster. The rebellion of Simon de Montfort could tie in with the traditions of conflict in the legends. Plus it was a long reign, giving lots of opportunities for potential Robins. And, for the very little it's worth, it ties in with Langland's reference to Ranulf of Chester, since one of the Ranulf of Chester was active early in the reign. And the reign of Henry III of course saw the activities of Roger Godberd, Baldwin's original Robin Hood.
I should probably mention that Keen sees links between the legend of Robin Hood and the stories told of William Wallace in the centuries after Wallace's death (Keen, pp. 75-76). Wallace was executed by Edward I in 1305, shortly before Edward II took the throne. So there is a theoretical possibility that the links to Edward II arise because the Wallace legend arose in Edward II's time, and that the Wallace legend was then converted to the Robin Hood legend. I really don't think this likely, however; first, the legend of Wallace (as opposed to Wallace the man) seems more recent than the Robin legend, and second, the Wallace legend and the Robin legend are dependent on very different monarchical situations, and I see no hint of Wallace's situation in Robin's legend or vice versa.
Holt seems to argue (Holt1, p. 115) that the fourteenth century feel in the legends is because Robin Hood is an English vernacular hero, and that it was only in the fourteenth century that the English vernacular again became common. In effect, he's arguing that Robin Hood must be from the fourteenth century because the fourteenth century allowed great men like Chaucer. This oversimplifies. First, French was still the language of the upper class in the early fourteenth century. Second, there was plenty of English vernacular writing prior to 1300 (e.g. Layamon's "Brut," "King Horn," "Havelock the Dane," "The Owl and the Nightingale"). None of this compares to Chaucer in quality -- but neither was there any quality Anglo-French literature in this period, and the fifteenth century produced no great English literature either. Chaucer was Chaucer because he was a genius, not because he lived in the fourteenth century! And Chaucer's contemporary Gower wrote as fluently in French and Latin as English.
Holt in his first edition made much of the links to the era of Edward II. His discovery of many "Robinhoods" in a period prior to that, already alluded to, caused him to back away from this in his second edition (Holt2, p. 189). This causes him to bring up a Robert Hod/Hobbehod, who seemingly was in trouble in two different shires in 1225-1226. He suggests, very vaguely, that this man might have been active in the 1190s, an outlaw in 1225, and dead in 1247 -- a version of the legend owing much to Ritson. This places him in the reigns of Richard I, John, and Henry III. But Holt is not convinced. Indeed, he thinks the first Robin Hood may have been earlier still.
Benet, p. 934, offers a similar speculation: "It is doubtful whether [Robin] ever lived -- the truth probably being that the stories associated with his name crystallized gradually around the personality of some popular local hero of the early 13th century."
Several scholars have strongly suggested that the "Gest" is targeted at the reign of Edward III. These include Ohlgren, who treats a date in the reign of Edward III as established fact, and Pollard. The chief evidence in Knight/Ohlgren seems to be the reference in the "Gest" to the "comely King," which title we know was used of Edward III (see note on Stanza 353). Pollard (pp. 202-204) bolsters the argument that Edward III must be meant with the claim that Edward III restored justice after a period when it was lacking, or at least was considered to have done so. This is true but a poor argument -- note that the single most substantial element in the "Gest" is built around an injustice which Robin has to correct because royal justice cannot.
Remember too that Edward II was proposed for sainthood.by Richard II (Phillips, pp. 600-606). True, Edward did not deserve it, but the idea was obviously "in the air" about the time the elements of the "Gest" were coalescing. And saints were generally considered just but unworldly -- a perfect fit for the King in the "Gest," who has a weak grip on what is going on but tries for justice once he finds out.
Yet even Holt2, p. 192, thinks that Edward II's trip north was a key component in the legend. I tend to agree.
Can we make something out of all this conflicting data? If we sit down and list all our various points of evidence, and fit which kings they match, we get this list (in alphabetical order by trait):
* King during a crusading period: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* King who used distraint of knighthood: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* King during whose reign high clerical officials were known to have been robbed by outlaws: Edward II
* King during whose reign longbows were a common weapon: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* King during whose reign longbows were used but not widely encouraged: Henry III, Edward II
* King during whose reign social unrest would encourage outlawry: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Henry IV, Henry VI
* King during whose reign there could be a connection between Robin and Ranulf of Chester: Henry III, Edward I
* King named Edward: Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Edward IV
* King went to the north of England and was concerned with deer herds: Edward II
* King who lived during the period of problems with livery: Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Edward IV
* King who was clearly not up to the job, but who was regularly in England, fitting the situation in "Robin Hood and the Monk": Henry III, Edward II
* King who would be relatively likely to personally deal with ordinary outlaws: John, Edward II, Edward IV
* Kings whose reigns were early enough that Robin might be legendary by 1377: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* Kings in whose reign a sheriff would be powerful but not a noble: Henry III, Edward I, Edward II
* Kings in which coins were available for the counting of money: Henry III (briefly), Edward I, Edward II, Edward III (after 1344), Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI
* Kings who used a gold coinage: Henry III (briefly), Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* Kings who spoke English: John (?), Edward I, Edward II (?), Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV
* Kings who reigned more than 22 years: Henry II, Henry III, Edward I, Edward III, Henry VI
The archetype of the legend need not fit all these traits, but certainly should fit most of them. Note that Edward II fits probably 15 of the 18, and the only three he doesn't fit (a gold coinage, a reign of 22 years, and a tie to Ranulf of Chester) are the weakest on the list. Richard I fits only *two* of the traits.
Second place after Edward II is Edward I, who fits twelve traits (I will admit that I am sorely tempted to link Robin to the disorder and breakdown of law at the end of Edward I's reign. But the visit of the King implies a still-strong monarch. By 1290, when things started to come unglued, Edward I was too old). Henry III had eleven or (briefly) twelve traits. Edward III had seven; no one else had more than six.
For the reign of Henry II (three traits) there is no direct evidence except a sort of historical reconstructionism: "If Robin was around during the short reign of Richard I, he must have been around in the long reign of Henry II." But given Robin's problems with bishops, could he possibly have lived in the time of Henry II without mention of Becket? Or of Becket's rival for the Archbishopric of Canterbury, Gilbert Foliot -- who just happened at the time of Becket's election to have been Bishop of Hereford? (Dahmus, p. 160).
Adding to the case for Edward II is the fact that he seems to have been unusually pious. This is not to say that the other Plantagenets were not (with the likely exception of John, who was very possibly a freethinker). But Edward II was particularly fond of religious observance and religious men, according to Phillips, p. 66. What's more, when Edward was in danger after Bannockburn, he is said to have vowed to the Virgin Mary to found a college if he were spared (Phillips, p. 68). Edward II was also devoted to (St.) Edward the Confessor -- but when he upgraded the chapel of St. Edward at Windsor, he set it up to say two masses a day, one for his father Edward I and one for the Virgin (Phillips, p. 69). Edward's devotion to Mary probably did not match Robin's -- but it was evidently stronger than most.
Thus the clear preponderance of evidence points to the reign of Edward II as the period in which the "Gest" is set. Almost everything fits, and no other reign fits as well. I emphasize that this is not proof -- the "Gest" is clearly an assembly from older materials, and those older materials might have come from diverse reigns. But *if* there was some chronological setting used as backdrop for those early legends, it is likely that the context was the reign of Edward II -- or possibly spanned the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (since Edward I also fits at several points), or Edward II and Edward III. It is morally certain that it did not arise out of the reign of Richard I.
Holt's conclusion, on p. 190, is that "The answer then to the question 'Who was Robin Hood?', must be 'There was more than one.'" This suggestion is, I think, undeniable. But the legend, if not the man, was born in the reign of Edward II.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117C

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 05

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 06 (File Number C117E)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: SIDELIGHTS ON THE LEGEND
If we accept as an hypothesis that many of the early Robin Hood tales were associated with Edward II, it can potentially explain other features of the legend.
One of our most difficult questions is the place where Robin lived. Although we think of him as haunting Sherwood Forest (and indeed, 17 of the ballads place Robin in Sherwood or Nottingham), the "Gest" never actually names Sherwood, and early sources usually place him in Barnsdale. (Not necessarily Barndsale Forest, but some place called Barnsdale). Barnsdale the place -- which is not a forest, although Child, p. 50, calls it a "woodland region" -- is in west Yorkshire, somewhat east of Leeds and Wakefield, more than ten leagues to the north of Sherwood (see map in p. 101 of Holt2). Barnsdale, note, is outside the "beat" of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Although some (e.g. Baldwin, p. 44) claim that Robin could have lived in both Barnsdale and Sherwood, the two are so far apart that an outlaw could not reasonably occupy both simultaneously. (As of 2004, in fact, this has become an issue in the British parliament, with Nottinghamshire posting signs saying "Robin Hood Country" and Yorkshire wanting them taken down.) A man could travel from one to the other in a day, but would not have time to do anything upon arriving.
It is interesting to note that the three Edwards regularly hunted in Sherwood (Baldwin, p. 44). But this doesn't help us explain the events in the "Gest," because the King there complained about lack of deer at Plumpton Park, and that assuredly is not in Sherwood.
We should probably demonstrate why the claim that Robin Hood was earl of Huntingdon (the correct spelling) is impossible, and the claim that he was any sort of noble is almost as bad. The last Saxon Earl of Huntingdon was Waltheof, who was a young man at the time of the Norman Conquest. Our information on this period is scanty, but he was executed for some sort of treasonous activity in 1076 (Barlow, p. 31). Apparently he had no male heir, so the earldom was allowed to pass to his daughter Matilda/Maud and her husband Simon of Senlis (St. Liz), a soldier who served William the Conqueror well; she married him probably around 1090 (in the time of, and probably at the command of, William II; Bartow, pp. 93, 172-173).
After Simon's death, Matilda (who by now was around 40) married the future King David I of Scotland (Magnusson, p. 73, says this took place in 1114; Oram, p. 65, says in 1113), meaning that David was the first of several Kings of Scotland who also were Earls of Huntingdon. Matilda had earlier children (Oram, p. 65), but is was decided that her children by David would be the heirs of Huntingdon. There was only one child, a boy Henry, who ended up as David's only son, since the king never remarried after Matilda died in 1130 (Oram, p. 73). Thus Henry of Huntingdon became both Earl of Huntingdon and ancestor of the royal line of Scotland.
For the moment, however, he was perhaps more English than Scottish. Henry in fact became a member of the English King Stephen's court (Bradbury, p. 33), and Henry's son Malcolm "the Maiden" campaigned in France with Stephen's successor Henry II as his vassal (Magnusson, p. 80).
King David before his death passed the earldom to his son Henry (it was common practice for kings to give their heirs some sort of property to manage), and this was confirmed by King Stephen in 1139 (Bradbury, p. 36, although he notes that Ranulf of Chester wanted to take Carlisle from Henry of Huntingdon. Stephen ignored this -- one reason Ranulf turned against him -- although Stephen did split off part of the Huntingdon earldom to form the earldom of Northampton; Bradbury, p. 37. Thus a person with Northampton ancestry might also claim the Huntingdon earldom -- but as far as I know, no one ever linked Robin with Northampton.).
Henry of Huntingdon however died a year before his father, so he never became king of Scotland. Henry's older sons became kings, so the third son, David, eventually was given the earldom (Bradbury, p. 177). The honor passed to David's son John in 1219. John also inherited the earldom of Chester, but died childless in 1237 (Oram, p. 90). The Earldom of Chester went back to the English crown, but the Huntingdon earldom went to the Bruces of Anandale, since they were descended from Earl David's second daughter Isabel (see genealogy on p. 301 of Oram). Isabel's son Robert Bruce, the future competitor for the throne of Scotland and grandfather of King Robert I, fought with Henry III at the Battle of Lewes and was taken captive (Powicke, p. 190), and his son Robert fought with Edward I in Wales (Prestwich1, p. 196); indeed, an earlier Bruce had fought been with the English army that defeated the Scots at the Battle of the Standard in 1138! (Young/Adair, p. 24).
Members of the Scots royal family thus held the Huntingdon earldom from the reign of Henry I until the reign of Edward I -- Robert Bruce #2 (the son of the competitor and the father of the future king) held to his English allegiance until his death in 1306, very probably so that he would not lose his English title. The Bruces, like their ancestors, were at least as English as Scottosh -- they had a home in London at this time (Oram, p. 117), and one of Robert Bruce's brothers bore that quintessentially English name, Edward -- an especially noteworthy point since he was born in the reign of Edward I. Another brother, Alexander, graduated from Cambridge in 1303 (Oram, p. 118).
Still, Robert Bruce, Earl of Huntingdon, was regarded by all as a Scot, not an Englishman. This brings us to the curious part. Remember Langland's link between Robin Hood and Ranulf of Chester? The last Earl Ranulf of Chester died in 1232 without a direct heir. The next person in line was "John the Scot," the son of David of Huntingdon (Powicke, p. 197 n.). Even though the English King took back the Chester earldom, if you assume that Robin really was Earl of Huntingdon, then he almost had to be Scottish, and he also had the claim to being Earl of Chester. In other words, if Robin really was an earl, then Langland's link of Ranulf and of Robin would be of cousins (probably first cousins once removed), with Robin being Ranulf's heir!
No, I don't buy a word of it either. Apart from all the assumptions we have to accept, the Scots never took to the longbow -- one of the main reasons why the English won most of the battles with the Scots from 1300 to 1513. The one major Scottish win, at Bannockburn, came about because Edward II ignored his archers -- a lesson his son was quick to learn. And yet, if we continue the speculation, we do find in "Robin Hood and the Scotchman" [Child 130] the interesting fact that Robin is willing to accept Scots into his band. But this ballad is late, and the surviving versions short -- and the "Scotchman" shows no indications of actual Scottishness. I almost wonder if this isn't some sort of strange attempt to show James I or some other Stuart king that Robin was an equal opportunity outlaw.
One last observation: Martin Parker's feeble "A True Tale of Robin Hood" [Child 154], which in stanza 3 makes Robin Earl of Huntingdon in the reign of Richard I, in stanza 83 has Robin's men flee to "the Scottish King," but not Robin himself. Parker seems to have made up much of his tale, but some might be from now-lost tradition. His tale fits badly in the reign of Richard I; Richard lived before the formation of the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France. Scotland and England were often friendly in this period. Outlaws who fled to Scotland might be turned over to the English king. It was only after Bannockburn in 1314 that Scotland would be a safe and secure refuge.
None of that is really relevant, except to prove the following: The only way that Robin Hood could have been shadow Earl of Huntingdon is if he has been a child of Matilda daughter of Waltheof by her first marriage to Simon of Senlis. But that would mean that he was born in 1107 at the latest, and probably a few years earlier. This would mean that he would have been active in the reigns of Henry I (reigned 1100-1135) and Stephen (1135-1154). And that's just plain too early.
But if Robin Hood was not Earl of Huntingdon, which he wasn't, then he surely did not live in the Barnsdale in Rutland. So we're still trying to decide between Sherwood and the Barnsdale in Yorkshire.
Or maybe someplace to the west. Much of the material in the "Gest" parallels portions of "Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly" [Child 116], first published in 1536. Those three outlaws were based in Inglewood in Cumbria and Lancashire, not Barnsdale or Sherwood (though, we might note, Wynton places Robin in Inglewood). An attempt to combine the two legends produced the monstrosity that is "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage" [Child 149]. Some have tried to claim "Adam Bell" as an ancestor of the Robin Hood legend. But there is in fact no reason to think the dependency does not go the other way; Chambers, p. 159, calls it "almost a burlesque of Robin Hood."
More reasonably, the reference to Inglewood might come out of Edward II's wars with Scotland. McNamee, p. 47, notes that people in southwest Scotland were hiding their cattle in Inglewood due to English raids. Talk about an opportunity for outlaws! -- maybe Robin made a business trip. Another possibility is that Robin originally set up in Barnsdale, but during the period of the Scots raids, pickings grew so slim in Yorkshire that he moved south, perhaps temporarily, to Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, which was south of the area devastated by the Scots.
"Guy of Gisborne" hints at a location somewhat south of Inglewood, in Lancashire -- but close enough that Robin could be in both. Gisburn is a small town, due north of modern Burnley, relatively close to the west coast of Britain, on the Ribble river in Lancashire; it is 30 or 40 miles west and somewhat north of Barnsdale -- although, interestingly, it is directly between Barnsdale and Sir Richard's presumed home in Wyresdale. If Guy lived in Robin's locality, Robin might well have lived in Bowland Forest east of the Wyre river, roughly in the center of a triangle with vertices at Preston, the city of Lancaster, and Gisburn. The chances of anyone from Sherwood, or even Barnsdale, casually showing up in the Gisburn area are slight.
Vague additional support for a Lancashire setting comes from stanza 53 of the "Gest," which says that the Knight's son slew a knight of Lancaster/Lancashire. Obviously Lancashire knights were most common in Lancashire -- but on the other hand, who would identify a knight as being "of Lancashire" if the setting were Lancashire?
And then there is the alternate reading "Lancaster." Although a geographic designation, it is also a political one -- could the boy have slain a knight who was a vassal of the Earl (or Duke) of Lancaster? If so, it might even explain why Robin befriended Sir Richard, since the Earl of Lancaster, as we saw above, was Edward II's strongest adversary. And Lancastrians still existed and "were unreconciled" after the earl's execution (Wilkinson, p. 128). Alternately, "Lancaster" might be an anachronism -- a supporter of the House of Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses, which began after the "Gest" was written (probably, anyway) but before the "Gest" was printed.
This is one of the most important variants in the "Gest," and I disagree withChild on purely textual grounds -- although it would be very helpful if someone could do a more serious critical analysis. But if my analysis of the text is correct, then the reading "Lancashire" is an argument, although a weak one, against placing the Robin in Lancashire.
If the "Curtal Friar" be regarded as solid evidence, the Friar is from Fountains Abbey. The abbey dates from the twelfth century, so it is no help with dating -- but it is in west Yorkshire, near Barnsdale, not in Nottinghamshire. It was raided by the Scots in 1318 or 1319 (McNamee, p. 88) -- which might perhaps explain why the Friar was active so far from his base: the Abbey residents were scattered. (The other possibility is that he was herding sheep; Kerr, p. 195, says that the abbey at one time had 15,000 sheep!)
Minor additional support for Barnsdale comes from the fact that several Scottish chroniclers knew of Robin; they would have been more likely to know of a Yorkshire robber than one from Nottinghamshire or probably Lancashire.
If we allow the dubious possibility that Edward IV was the "Gest's" king, this tends to support the Sherwood hypothesis. Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III all visited the north mostly for their wars. Edward IV, since he was not born to be king (he was the son of Richard Duke of York, and gained the throne by conquest), spent much time in the north when he was young, but after winning the Battle of Towton at the very beginning of his reign, tended to stay in the south. What is interesting is that Ross-Edward, p. 271, lists several visits he made around the country in the 1470s (his last trips outside southern England). One did go as far north as York, but in most, the King visited Nottingham and then returned south. He in fact rebuilt Nottingham castle to be a more comfortable residence (Ross-Edward, p. 272). Thus he was far more often in the vicinity of Sherwood than Barnsdale.
Edward's interest in Nottingham is in sharp contrast to his predecessor Henry VI, who visited Nottinham only once in the long period from his accession in 1422 until 1450 (Wolffe, p. 94). The map on pp. 96-97 of Wolffe, however, does show Henry VI visiting Blythe and Doncaster.
If we have three Robin Hood centers, in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Nottinghamshire, it makes slightly better sense to assume the legend originated in Yorkshire. In that case, the legend spread out from the central county. Otherwise, we have to assume that it spread from Nottinghamshire to Yorkshire to Lancashire, or vice versa, without being picked up in other counties. This could have happened -- but in general we should prefer the "middle" variant.
On the other hand, the earlier we date Robin, the more likely a Lancashire origin becomes. Of the three counties, Lancashire is the closest to Wales, where the longbow originated. Yorkshire is the most remote of the three. If we assume Robin took up the bow on his own, rather than under royal encouragement, then Lancashire makes the best sense.
Holt1, p. 53, notes that the description of Barnsdale in the "Gest" is more detailed and accurate (mentioning, e.g., Watling Street) than that of Sherwood (see the note on Stanza 3). This might, however, be from the poet rather than the legend.
Kirklees, where Robin died according to both the "Gest" and the "Death," is much closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood -- a sick man would hardly want to make the two-day journey from Sherwood to Kirklees. But from Barnsdale it is about twenty miles -- perhaps less. It is also fairly close to Lancashire.
Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire all fit the account of King Edward's northern visit; Edward II visited all these places.
Of the three places (Nottinghamshire, west Yorkshire, Lancashire), Lancashire would be the least likely haunt for robbers; it was a rather poor area and is far from the main routes north from London. Barnsdale and Sherwood are both near the Great North Road/Watling Street (see map on p. 82 of Holt1).
Prestwich3, p. 68, makes the fascinating note that, when Edward I was preparing to campaign against Scotland, his army consisted of knights, men-at-arms, archers -- and *slingers* from Sherwood Forest. This is the only instance I can think of of slingers in an English army. Could this be another reason for the transfer of Robin from Barnsdale to Sherwood?
My guess is that Barnsdale was Robin's original home, and that locals in other areas adopted him, and that Sherwood and Nottinghamshire won out because Nottinghamshire and Sherwood are larger and better known (most modern maps don't even show Barnsdale). The connection with the unscrupulous Sheriff John of Oxford may have helped. So might the memory of Roger Godberd, that particularly busy robber who was active in Nottinghamshire in the reign of Henry III (Holt1, pp. 97-99) who was Baldwin's candidate for the Original Robin Hood.
But the possibility that the attraction went the other way cannot be ruled out; since Barnsdale was known as a den of robbers by 1306 (Holt1, p. 52), a robber in Sherwood might have been relocated to Barnsdale (perhaps also helped by the link to the Hood family of Wakefield). Once the memory of Barnsdale as a haunt of robbers faded, the Sherwood legend might re-emerge.
I'll admit that I've had some pretty strange thoughts about this. For example, the fact that there seemed to be Robin Hood legends in three places -- Barnsdale, Sherwood, and Inglewood -- gave rise to the thought that Robin invented the idea of "franchising." The image is of a guy who sleeps and eats at home, then goes to his day job of Robinbooding. Robin set up his first outlaw band in Barnsdale. Then he granted a license for the name to someone (Young Gamwell, perhaps?) in Sherwood. Then he opened a third franchise in Inglewood -- perhaps selling the rights there to Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough, and William of Cloudesley. Robin, after all, must have employed a very good bowyer, and Robin's fletcher must also have been good. They, and perhaps other specialists in his band, could potentially serve several outlaw bands.
It is interesting to note that two of the ballads describe Robin as robbing the Bishop of Hereford: "Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" [Child 144] and "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" [Child 145]. The former is of course all about the robbery. The latter mentions it only in passing (stanza 23 of Child's "A" refers to Hereford, as does line 177 of the Knight/Ohlgren text based on the Forresters manuscript; see also Knight, p. 39, second stanza; Knight, p. 58). "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" is partly based on the "Gest," and may also have influence from one of the various tales of Robin robbing bishops. In any case, "Queen Katherine" cannot be an early legend -- England did not have a Queen Katherine from the time of William the Conqueror until Henry V married Catherine of Valois in 1420.
"Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" is another matter. The plot comes from Eustace the Monk, and it is so similar in concept to "Robin Hood and the Bishop" [Child 143] that Knight/Ohlgren do not seem even to distinguish them. But while copies of "The Bishop of Hereford" are fairly recent, it is noteworthy among the late ballads in placing Robin in Barnsdale, not Sherwood -- a strong hint a token of older content. And Child considers it superior to most of the later ballads, plus it is fairly well attested in tradition.
Admittedly the action in "Hereford" is probably a doublet of the robbing of the abbot in the "Gest," or the monk in the "Monk." But why the Bishop of Hereford? Hereford is nowhere near any of Robin's known haunts. Nor, we note, is it a rich bishopric. Barlow, p. 262, has a table of the values of sundry bishoprics. The list is not complete. but Hereford, with a farm of 270 pounds per year in the time of Henry II, is the poorest see listed except for Chichester. Even allowing for inflation, it's hard to see how a Bishop of Hereford could have 300 pounds in cash to haul around.
Almost all ot these problems are solved if we assume that the Bishop involved is Adam Orleton, Bishop of Hereford at the end of the reign of Edward II. Although he was only Bishop of Hereford at that time, he soon after was translated to Worcester (in 1327), and then to Winchester (in 1333). Winchester was the richest diocese in England (with a farm of 1440 pounds per year in Henry II's time, or more than five times the value of Hereford, according to Barlow), and was still considered "the richest of English sees" (Wolffe, p. 67) and a "lucrative" bishopric in the time of Henry VI (Wolffe, p. 56).
And, if we assume that Robin was a supporter of Edward II, then he had a particular reason to go after Orleton -- and to call him Bishop of Hereford even after his translation. Doherty describes Orleton (p. 86) as "ruffianly," while Hutchison, p. 128, calls him "unamiable and self-serving." Even the less pro-Edward Harvey declares (p. 160) that he was one of several bishops who "counted treason as nothing." Few have anything better to say of him than Ormrod, p. 28, who merely calls him a "political prelate" (although, interestingly, he would later play a role in claiming the kingdom of France for Edward III).
Orleton was unusual in that he was not the monarch's pick for his see. Edward II had opposed Orleton's appointment in the first place (Prestwich3, p. 105). Phillips, p. 450, says that Edward II had sent him on a mission to Avignon in 1317, and that Orleton managed to obtain the Bishopric of Hereford while there, presumably by intrigue. Edward tried to have the Pope set him aside. Orleton would more than have his revenge:
Edward II had trouble with several of his bishops at one time or another, but Phillips, pp. 453-454, says that Orleton was the one bishop with whom he was never reconciled -- he was actually called before judges in 1324 (Phillips, p. 453). Doherty, p. 86, declares that Orleton of Hereford was a friend of Roger Mortimer (who became Isabella's lover and later led the rebellion against Edward II) and helped Mortimer escape from the Tower. Edward, not surprisingly, took away his temporalities (Hutchison, p. 130). Later, Orleton would preach against Edward II's favorites the Despensers (Doherty, p. 91), and Hutchison, p. 135, declares that he "preached treason" at Oxford.
"The bishop of Hereford declared in the parliament of 1326 that if Isabella rejoined her husband [Edward II] she would suffer death at his hands. Soon after, we find the Bishop of Hereford allied with Queen Isabella against the King; he was one of those who joined her party in France" (Prestwich3, p. 97; although Phillips, p. 504, says that Orleton joined the rebels after they landed in England. Doherty also supposts the claim that Orleton saved Isabella from being reunited from her husband, allowing her to stick with her lover Mortimer).
Phillips, p. 98, says that Orleton was the first to openly declare Edward II a sodomite -- although it must have been whispered earlier; he also called Edward a tyrant (Phillips, p. 523, who notes however that Orleton later claimed -- once the political tide had turned -- that he was using the words about Hugh Despenser the Younger rather than Edward. Phillips, pp. 523-524, n. 22, does add that the charge of sodomy was widely reported on the continent but occurs rarely in English chronicles).
Once the anti-Edward rebellion succeeded, Isabella and Mortimer had to figure out what to do with Edward. They finally decided on trying to get him to publicly give up his throne -- and Orleton was one of those sent to talk him into it (Doherty, p. 110. Edward of course refused to go along). Orleton did manage to retrieve the Privy Seal (Hutchison, p. 137). When Parliament met, Orleton presented most of the arguments for Edward's deposition (Doherty, pp. 110-111; Hutchison, p. 138, says that on January 13, 1327, he preached on the theme "A foolish king shall ruin his people"). In Hutchison's view, in the period immediately after Edward's deposition, three people ran the country: "the adulteress Isabella, her paramour Mortimer and the execrable Orleton" (p. 140).
Orleton would later, once Edward III was firmly in control, be accused of ordering the death of Edward II. He was able to prove his innocence -- he was both out of favor and out of the country at the time of the murder (Doherty, pp. 130-131) -- but surely friends of the king would be those most likely to listen to such rumors.
We know Orleton ended up with a reputation for sneakiness. A late source, demonstrably false, told of him sending a message to Edward II's guards, "Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est" (Doherty, p. 130). If punctuated with a comma after timere, this becomes "Do not be afraid to kill Edward; it is good"; if punctuated with a comma before timere, it is "Do not kill Edward; it is good to be afraid." We know it's not true because, first, Orleton wasn't in the country to send the message, and second, the story was originally told of someone else (Hutchison, p. 142; Doherty, pp. 130-131). But it is probably a valid example of how Orleton was seen at the time.
Thus, while Robin Hood disliked bishops in general, if he lived c. 1327, the bishop he would surely hate above all would be Orleton of Hereford.
The most likely time for the robbery might be the period in 1327-1328, when memories of Orleton's part in the deposition of Edward II were fresh and Orleton was Lord Treasurer and hence would be dealing with large sums of money. Toward the end of the latter year, Orleton lost his post of Treasurer because he disagreed with the forced regency of Roger Mortimer (Ormrod, p. 15).
So while it would be unlikely that a bishop would carry 300 pounds, let along the 800 pounds allegedly taken from the cellarer of the "Gest," Orleton, if taken after 1333, or during his time as treasurer, would be good for the sum. And Robin and his men might call him "Bishop of Hereford" even after he was translated, because the translations took place under a regime they disapproved of. And Orleton lived until 1345, so there was plenty of time to rob him after his translations.
It is perhaps slightly ironic to note that it has been suggested that the compiler of the tale of Fulk FitzWarin was a member of Orleton's clerical family (Ohlgren, p. 106).
THE REDATING OF THE LEGEND: ROBIN HOOD AND RICHARD I
Holt1, p. 36, declares, "Nothing has so confused the story of Robin so much as the imposition of modern anacrhronism on the medieval legend." The observations above and below surely show how true this is. If the original stories of Robin Hood are so clearly linked to the period of the Edwards, how did the later Robin Hood come to be so associated with the time of Richard I?
Part of it, of course, is just the wild guesses of the earlier chroniclers. It is interesting that many of the early reports are Scottish; Pollard, p. 190, suggests that the Scots chroniclers might have transferred Robin from the reign of the Edwards, who oppressed Scotland, to Richard, who granted Scotland independece. But those early guesses -- which, after all, are probably based in part on materials we no longer have -- could also have been influenced by the many similarities (some trivial, some quite significant) between Edward II and Richard I:
* Both have been charged with homosexuality (although Edward managed to father children, which Richard did not. Edward was not openly accused of homosexuality until Tudor times; Philipps, pp. 25-26. But Edward's obsession with Piers Gaveston was a major issue even before Edward took the throne; Hutchison, p. 30). To be sure, Richard's homosexuality is disputed (see the notes to "Richie Story" [Child 232]). But the only other seemingly-homosexual pre-Tudor English king was William Rufus, who never married and apparently dressed his courtiers in effeminate styles (Barlow, pp. 102-104). No one wanted to imitate Rufus, who was not admired. (Although, interestingly, he, like Richard, died of an arrow shot probably by a vassal.) In any case, Rufus was known for his poor relations with the church (Barlow, p. 110) and his appropriation of funds from bishoprics he refused to fill (Barlow, p. 181); although Barlow on p. 113 denies that Rufus was actually non-Christian, the pious Robin probably would not have liked him.
* Both Richard and Edward were younger sons of overbearing fathers who did not initially expect to succeed to the throne (Edward II's older brother Alfonso was heir at the time Edward was born; Alfonso did not die until 1284, when he was 11 years old; Hutchison, pp. 5-6. Richard's brother was Henry the Young King, who died in 1183, when Richard was already 25 or 26).
* Both suffered severe financial difficulties (not that that is unusual for an English King).
* Neither held true to his word (Hutchison, p. 69, notes Edward's repeated flouting of the Ordinances to which he agreed; one of the reasons Richard fought his father was that neither could be trusted).
* Both were considered to have inherited the overlordship of Scotland from their fathers, and both lost it (Richard sold it to finance his crusade, Edward forfeited it at Bannockburn).
* Both died violently when rather young -- around 43. Richard was still on the throne when he died, whereas Edward II had been deposed earlier in the year, but Richard had sown a wind which would be reaped by his brother John, and which brought John to the brink of deposition.
Plus, Richard I is often said (somewhat exaggeratedly) to have been in conflict with his younger brother and successor John. This is a particularly common theme in the Robin Hood stories. And Edward II had been in conflict with his nobles long before his deposition -- notably with his cousin Henry of Lancaster.
Lancaster wasn't Edward II's brother -- but Edward II had no living full brothers, and his two half-brothers were young, and his only male heirs in 1318 were two boys under the age of seven. Apart from those boys, Henry of Lancaster was the heir in male line of Edward II; both were grandsons in male line of King Henry III. Close enough to a brother for ballad purposes (Wilkinson, p. 119, calls him the "first lord of the royal blood"); had Edward II died accidentally around 1315, the temptation would have been strong to give the throne to Lancaster.
Indeed, when Edward was deposed, Henry of Lancaster (the brother of the executed Thomas of Lancaster) became the nominal head of the government as regent for the young Edward III (Hutchison, p. 140). Plus, when Edward II was overthrown, Henry of Lancaster was part of the force which turned against him. And the Scots seem to have addressed a letter to Lancaster in which they called him "King Arthur" (Phillips, p. 406, although of course Arthur was not his name.)
In the end, even his real brother would betray Edward II: in the final rebellion which overthrew the king, Edward's half-brother the Earl of Norfolk gave support to the invaders led by Edward's wife, although he was not a leader (Hutchison, p. 134; Phillips, p. 504). The sons of Edward I all seem to have been pretty useless. Edward II never managed peace with his barons. His half-brother Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, was disastrously defeated in Gascony; Hutchison, p. 125. And the other half-brother, Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, was a non-entity until the rebellion of 1326).
I also note that Richard at the Lee in the "Gest" and Richard I in the later legend are alleged to have been held up, then released, by Robin. Might confusion of names have somehow contributed to the assignment of Robin to the reign of Richard I? Particularly with the legend of Fulk FitzWarren also attracting Robin to the reigns of Richard and John? Keen, pp. 46-48, seems convinced that the story of Fulk lies at the roots of most of the "Gest." I would be more inclined to say that the same motifs went into both -- indeed, the fact that Fulk (who is historical) was firmly dated to the reign of Richard and John would be a reason to date Robin to the same period.
It must have b een tempting to dissociate Robin Hood the hero from Edward II the disaster. Richard I was a failure as a king, but he was a glorious failure -- a crusader, a figure of romance, a fighter to the end. But "No other English king has received such unanimous disapproval as Edward II," according to Hutchison, p. 145. I'm not sure that's true -- Henry VI was pure disaster -- but certainly Edward II was the worst in the century before Langland wrote "Piers Plowman," and retains a poor reputation to this day.
Suppose, then, that there was a tale of an outlaw who met with and supported Edward II. Perhaps he was one of those who conspired to restore Edward II after his deposition. Would not the temptation be to transfer his exploits to another time -- perhaps a time when there was a romantic king otherwise similar to Edward? After all, "More than any other King of England[,] Richard the Lionhearted belongs, not to the sober world of history , but to the magic realm of legend and romance. The picture we have of him is still shaped by the images of a child's view of the Middle Ages" (Gillingham, p. 4. He adds on pp. 5-6 that "Once we look a little more closely at some of the stories about Richard it soon becomes obvious that the coat of legendary paint which conceals him is a very thick coat indeed").
There might be another reason for the transfer. Richard I, after he went on crusade, was captured by Leopold of Austria, and was in captivity for more than a year. Since he had been out of the country for about four years in all, there were sporadic rebellions on his return. Most of these collapsed quickly. The very last town to hold out was Nottingham (Gillingham, p. 241). Since the sheriff of Nottingham was Robin's foe, and the town of Nottingham opposed Richard, mightn't that have helped attract Robin to Richard's time? Or, perhaps, explain a transfer from Barnsdale to Sherwood in Nottinghamshire.
WHO MADE MAID MARION, AND OTHER LATE ADDITIONS
In the earliest stage of the legend, Robin's band seems to have consisted of Robin himself, Little John, Scarlock, and Much. Others -- Allen a Dale, Will Stutely, perhaps Friar Tuck -- came from one-off ballads. But no one is more closely associated with the late legend than Maid Marian.
The link between Robin and Marion/Marian perhaps comes from French romances -- Simpson/Roud, p. 223, note that Robin and Marion were stock lovers in French tradition starting in the thirteenth century, and Holt1, p. 160, observes that Gower knew this tradition circa 1380. Mustanoja, p. 53, suggests that equivalent native English lovers would be Jankin and Malkin, citing e.g. the thirteenth century "Lutel Soth Sermun." They are, he suggests on p. 54, the names of "'any frivolous young man' and 'any flighty girl.'" (It is perhaps of interest to note that "Malkin" is connected by different scholars variously to the name Mary=Marion and Matilda, both of which are alleged as the true name of Maid Marion; Mustanoja, p. 55.) He also notes on p. 53 an English tradition linking men named Robin with women named Gill. If the link derived from English folktales, we almost certainly would not see Robin and Marian together.
Marian's link to Robin Hood may have been cemented by the May Games, where Marian was queen. This would also explain why there is no Scottish tradition about them (Chambers, p. 121).
In light of their role in the Games, it is interesting to note that Marian was often said to be as good a fighter as Robin himself (see "Robin Hood and Maid Marian" [Child 150]), and in the May Games she was usually played by a man (Benet, p. 675). Child says categorically that she should be linked sexually with Friar Tuck, not Robin (p. 218, in the notes to Child 150). But "Robin Hood and Maid Marian" is the only ballad that is really about her; two others mention her, but in a context such that she might be associated with any of Robin's band, or none.
The first mention of Robin and Marian in the same immediate context, from 1508, actually seems to contrast them, not link them: "Yet would I gladly hear some merry fytte Of Maid Marian, or else of Robin Hood" (Cawthorne, p. 181).
Knight/Ohlgren note on p. 58 (compare Pollard, pp. 26-27) the almost complete absence of women in the early ballads (if you exclude the Virgin Mary). There is the prioress of Kirkless in the "Death," and we briefly see the Knight's wife in the "Gest," but the only woman who is at all a character is the Sheriff's wife in the "Potter," who gives hints of being interested in Robin. Pollard, p. 27, comments that she seems to be drawn from the same sources as the Wife of Bath and Noah's wife (who, in the plays of this period, was usually a shrew).
Pollard, pp. 14-15, suggests that, after the Reformation, Robin's devotion to Mary (which of course is idolatry to Protestants) was diverted to Marian instead.
It is worth noting that in Robin's death scene (in both the "Death" and the "Gest"), Robin makes no mention of a wife, and certainly none of children. There is no early hint that he was married. (To be sure, Munday had Marian die, poisoned by an agent of King John, shortly after Robin's death; Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 426-428. But this is entirely out of Munday's head.)
The many ballads in the Forresters Manuscript mention Marion only once, and not in a love context (Knight, p. xx). This implies that, even as late as the seventeenth century, Robin and Marion were not strongly linked.
Munday's plays invented a love triangle between Robin, Marian, and Prince John (Simpson/Roud, p. 299). This gives me the mad image of Robin courting Marian in English and John in Norman French, but this is patently an accretion. Holt1, p. 162, gives Munday much of the blame for fixing the notion of a date in the reign of Richard I as well as for ennobling Robin -- but it probably comes ultimately from the fact that Fulk FitzWarrene married a woman, Matilda, whom John had sought after (Keen, p. 51; the plot as summarized by Cawthorne, p. 103, is almost identical to the Munday tale). The story of Marian is, to me, the clearest indication of the Robin legend borrowing from the Fulk legend (or, rather, of Munday using the Fulk tale) -- but Marian's entry into the Robin Hood corpus did not occur until both traditions were past their prime.
The case of Friar Tuck is more mysterious. Both as the Curtal Friar and as Friar Tuck (if, indeed, these two are the same), he seems to be a native English figure. But is he truly a part of the Robin Hood saga?
We should keep in mind that public opinion of friars waxed and waned dramatically. One of the main topics of "Pierce the Ploughman's Crede" is the corrupted state of various friars (Barr, p. 6), but in early Lancastrian times friars were given exclusive rights to preach in some settings. Edward I seems to have approved of them, and his queen liked them a lot (Prestwich1, pp. 112-113). But the ballad of the Curtal Friar is not clear enough to tell us whether the friars were "in" or "out" in Robin's time.
Simpson/Roud, p. 135, cautiously declare, "Tuck may have been an independent comic figure based on the medieval stereotype of a disreputable friar -- fond of fighting, hunting, and wenching." Robin Hood's friar may not be a version of this particular figure of fun, but that Tuck originated separately seems very likely -- indeed, Holt1, pp. 58-59, described an actual outlaw of 1417 who called himself Friar Tuck. According to Baldwin, p. 68, he actually was in holy orders; his name was Robert Stafford, and he was chaplain of Linfield in Sussex. Stafford was like Robin in at least one regard: He was good at evading capture. He avoided the authorities for more than a dozen years (Pollard, p. 95).
Holt seems to think (p. 16) that Robin and the Friar were connected from the start, and certainly they were associated in the play which accompanies text f of the "Gest" (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 286; Child, p. 42; this text was printed by Copeland in 1548 or after), The play seems to indicate that Tuck was lusty indeed; it appears that he wore an artificial phallus and made several very coarse jokes (Cawthorne, p. 75). This does not, however, eliminate the likelihood that the outlaw of 1417 was the first "Friar Tuck."
A May game of 1560 actually has Robin Hood offer Friar Tuck a woman as an incentive to join his band (Cawthorne, p. 188).
On this evidence, whatever the age of the ballad of the Curtal Friar, it draws upon tales not integral to the Robin Hood legend. The friar, like Maid Marian, may have come to be associated with Robin via the May Games.
Keen, p. 134, suggests that Marian and Tuck have no analogies in the early ballads because they were "inappropriate" to the natural situation of an outlaw. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 10, suggest that Marian was made a major character by Munday because he made Robin a nobleman, and a nobleman needs a wife so that he can have heirs. McLynn, p. 243, offers the wild suggestion that "Maid Marian underlies the link to fertility cults"!
If Munday helped establish Maid Marian,and retained Friar Tuck, he is even more important in the establishment of Robin as a nobleman. It is little surprise to see this sort of "promotion"; it happened with Hereward the Wake as well. The claim that Robin was well-born was made by Grafton, and was supported by the Gale inscription, paraphrased by Parker in 1598. Dr. William Stukeley, in 1746, combined inaccurate records of the peerage with a good deal of imagination (such as a "marriage" which took place after one of the participants was dead; Cawthorne, p. 47) to convert Robin into "Robert fitz Ooth" (an unattested name; read perhaps Fitzhugh?), third earl of Huntingdon, giving his death date as 1274, just after the accession of Edward I (Holt1, pp. 42-43). This even though the Huntingdon earldom was then in the hand of the Bruce family.
The ballad "Willie and Earl Richard's Daughter" [Child 102] makes Robin the (bastard) grandson of an Earl -- but Child declares the piece to be no part of the Robin Hood legend, and Bronson calls it a rehash of Child 101. It is a late ballad, plus Child's "A" text does not say which earldom Richard held ("B," which makes him Earl of Huntingdon, is patently literary). What's more, the mention of Robin Hood looks like a paraphrase of the proverb of Robin's bow in "Friar Daw Topias." Besides, the bastard descendent of an earl had no claim to nobility in English law. The Bruce claim to the Huntingdon earldom was valid, and Robin's claim, if he made one, would not have been upheld.
Since we don't know how Robin came to be outlawed, we certainly can't say where he was born! The common story that he was from Locksley (presumabed to be near Sheffield, and thus a bit north and a bit west of Nottingham but well south and west of Barnsdale and south and east of Lacashire) is found in "Robin Hood and Queen Katherine" [Child 145] and in one manuscript biography probably based on the ballads (Cawthorne, pp. 42-43), but it is probably best known because Scott used the name in Ivanhoe.
THE PRESUMED HISTORY OF ROBIN HOOD
Cawthorne, p. 46, offers a "shadowy biography" of Robin based on the combined legends: Born in Locksley around 1160, active as a robber around 1193-1194, outlawed again 1225, died 1247. Cawthorne claims this conforms to the 22 years Robin spent away from the court in the "Gest," although I fail to see how Robin could go to the greenwood for fear of King Edward when the King from 1216 to 1272 was Henry III.
This is hardly the only such reconstructed biograply; Cawthorne, p. 46, goes on to describe a biography suggested by Dodsworth in the seventeenth century. In this, Locksley was apparently Robin's surname. He had to flee after wounding his stepfather with a plow, met Little John in Derbyshire -- and suggested that John, not Robin, was the nobleman!
Most of these reconstructions fall down under their own weight, which should perhaps be a warning to me and other modern reconstructors. But these attempts try to reconstruct based on the whole tradition -- as if all of it had equal value. This is clearly hopeless; many of the ballads are just made-up add-ons.
By restricting our aim, we can perhaps produce better results. As Holt1 says on p. 40, even though Robin Hood is essentially fiction, "From the first he was believed to be a real historical person." This means that anyone writing about him would try to create a real world setting. I think there is a historical framework underlying the "Gest." We can, on this basis, create a "biography" of Robin Hood. Please note that I do not claim that what follows is the story of an actual outlaw. I do not believe it is. But most authors, when they write novels, compile mental histories of their major characters. This is my reconstruction of the mental history of Robin as seen by the compiler of the "Gest."
Robin Hood was born in the reign of Edward I, perhaps between 1290 and 1295. He was the son of a yeoman, perhaps in eastern Lancashire, the property of that "rapacious, grasping and cruel landlord," the Earl of Lancaster (Hutchison, p. 115), although we cannot rule out the possibility that he was born in Yorkshire. It was a very unsettled period -- Edward I and his barons had been on the brink of civil war when the Scottish situation forced them to cooperate (Prestwich1, pp. 424-427). At this time, common men were expected to practice the longbow, and Robin took up this weapon at an early age. But Edward took fewer infantry on his later campaigns in Scotland (Prestwich1, p. 513, who argues that this was one reason the campaigns failed), and after the death of Edward I in 1307, the laws about the bow were relaxed. Some gave up the bow; Robin, the best of the local boys, continued to practice, and became better still as he grew older.
The reign of Edward II was a time of unrest. Probably sometime between 1310 and 1315, Robin found himself in trouble with the authorities in Lancashire. Perhaps Robin supported Edward II against the Earl of Lancaster -- dangerous in Lancashire even in normal times, a county where the Earl had palatinate powers even in peacetime. And Lancaster's power increased during the Scots Wars, since he became regional commander after Bannockburn (Phillips, p. 250). The possibility that Robin was one of the rebels against Lancaster is discussed in the notes to Stanza 412.
Another possibility is that the depression that had started in the 1290s forced him off his lands. Maybe it was an effect of the inflation of the period, caused by the appearance of cheap coins designed to look like English pennies but with rather less silver content; Edward I had been unable to prevent the import of these coins -- and later did a reminting allowing him to pick up cash but at the cost of jacking up prices for others (Prestwich, p. 531-532). Maybe it was an after-effect of Edward I's forest laws. Or perhaps it was the result of the 1315 famine, which would explain why his band was so small at the beginning of the "Gest" (see the notes to stanzas 4 and 17). We don't have enough detail to know.
Whatever the reason, Robin fled (over the border) to Yorkshire. Perhaps he went directly to the greenwood; perhaps, given the poor economy of the time, he sought work and only fled society when he could not find it. But by 1316 -- perhaps much earlier -- he was in Barnsdale. He likely joined an existing band of outlaws -- and rose to the top because of his superior leadership skills and ability with the bow. The early events of the "Gest," such as the encounter with Sir Richard atte Lee, happened in the period between 1313 and 1322 -- probably toward the middle ot the period, when Edward II still wanted to go on crusade, with 1316-1317 the most likely dating.
In 1322/1323, Edward II visited Robin during his northern trip. He gave Robin a pardon -- very possibly because Robin had supported Edward against the Earl of Lancaster. But Robin -- a yeoman born and bred -- did not enjoy court life, and especially court life in the corrupt court of Edward II. He returned to the north, and to the greenwood. Possibly he spent some time in Sherwood at this time -- and possibly suffered enough pressure from the Nottinghamshire authorities that he returned to Barnsdale.
If the robbery of the Bishop of Hereford was part of the legend from the beginning, it probably took place in the years after 1327, when Orleton of Hereford had helped depose Edward II. Perhaps some of Robin's exploits in archery contests took place around 1330, when Edward III was starting to revive the practice but before Robin grew too old.
In 1345, Robin -- now well into his fifties -- grew ill. Although he had lived in Yorkshire for most of the last thirty years, his family was in Lancashire or on the border between Lancashire and Yorkshire. He therefore went to Kirklees, near that border, to be treated. But three decades had weakened the family ties, and there he was tricked and died. Many of his men, now leaderless, took the pardon of Edward III; some very likely served at Crecy.
There are a few other historic events which might tie in with this (call this the "hints for the historical novelist" section). For instance, if Robin joined Edward II's court in 1323, then he probably left it in 1324. It is interesting to note that this was a period when Robert Baldock and the Despensers were passing a series of changes in the government. Most of these were good reforms (Hutchison, p. 122), but Robin might not have trusted a change made by Baldock, given his (possible) involvement in the Richard atte Lee situation (see the note on Stanza 93). Or perhaps, with the Despensers sucking up all the available grants, there were no properties left for Robin (see the note on stanza 435).
When Edward II was taken into custody, the Earl of Lancaster (the brother of the man Edward had executed) originally had custody of him, but eventually turned him over to others. Was this because of the conspiracy in early 1327 which arose to free Edward (Doherty, p. 115)?
Given the timing and location, Robin and his band might have been part of the conspiracy. Doherty, p. 121, speaks of a "Dunheved gang," said to be "irrepressible," which tried to rescue Edward. Might this be Robin and his men? It is true that two of their raids were in Berkeley and Cirencester, far from Robin's home, and that Dunheved (or Dunhead) was said to be from the vicinity of Kenilworth in Warwickshire (Phillips, p. 542), but another Dunheved raid was in Chester, which wasn't too far away from Yorkshire (Doherty, p. 122). The counter-argument is that most of the raiders were allegedly captured (Doherty, pp. 124-125) and killed with torture (Hutchison, p. 141). It does appear that Edward was briefly loose, but not long enough to make any difference.
Neither that nor even Edward II's death stopped the rescue attempts, however -- supposedly a "demon-raising friar" said Edward was still alive (Doherty, pp. 147-150). An Italian priest claimed to have talked to Edward II as late as 1340 (Doherty, p. 185). And, if people could believe a dead king alive, they could certainly believe he could be rescued..... (Doherty, p. 217, thinks there is an actual possibility that Edward II escaped. But this section of Doherty is so fantastic that I came away with the idea that maybe, after escaping, Edward II would have gone on to join Robin Hood's band -- maybe, given his height, he was the original version of Little John. And no, I am *not* advancing this hypothesis; I use it to demonstrate how far-fetched Doherty's hypothesis is.) What is certain is that the cause of Edward II inspired great passion -- so much of it that there was a serious attempt to have him canonized (Phillips, pp. 600-604).
We also note that the new Earl of Lancaster died in 1345 (Ormrod, p. 27). Might this have freed Robin to visit his family in Lancaster -- and resulted in his fatal willingness to go to Kirklees?
It is a sad tale. Not only did Robin die by violence, but he failed in his goals. Holt, p. 10, declares that the tale of Robin is "all very satisfying," since Robin brings proper justice -- as well as being true to his word (unlike the sheriff), devout (unlike, seemingly, the established clergy), generous (unlike the abbot), courteous (unlike the cellarer). Holt sees Robin as winning the fight with oppression.
But the actual record is depressing. Edward II ended up deposed and murdered. The church would have to wait two more centuries for reform of the monasteries and the episcopal system -- and, when Henry VIII did all that, he left the episcopal system largely intact and did away with the practice of extreme reverence for Mary shown by Robin. Yeomen did gain in rights after his time -- but that was due to the Black Death, not to the work of outlaws. Robin's story is one of a long, slow defeat. But that was the way of the Middle Ages. If he could not change the world, at least he "dyde pore men moch god."
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117D

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 06

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 07 (File Number C117F)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: NOTES ON THE CONTENT OF THE "GEST"
With the above as background, let us look at the "Gest" itself, looking in detail at the contents. What follows is a sort of "Annotated Gest"; I have noted passages which might help us discover its history, or which need explanation.The notes are assembled under Child's stanza numbers; I have also supplied Knight/Ohlgren's line numbers.
This is not a commentary on the text, although I sometimes have had to make reference to textual issues. The textual commentary follows this section.
I have tried to note instances where the text of the "Gest" makes sense in historical context -- that is, where an event or statement in the "Gest" could be a reference to something which actually happened in history. Let me stress that I do not think that the "Gest" is history. But it is surely based at least in part on historical memories.
The majority of the links are to events in the reign of Edward II. This is perhaps slightly artificial -- once I had enough parallels to the reign of Edward II, I was forced to research Edward II in detail, causing me to find far more parallels. Also, I became convinced that the poem "targets" the reign of Edward II -- that is, that the poet was setting his poem in that reign. The number of Edward II references is, frankly, rather overwhelming. Most of these are probably coincidence. But I include them all because, while most of the details are coincidence, there is no way of knowing *which* of them are coincidence. And I have tried to include links to other reigns as well.
** Stanza 1/Line 1 ** The opening formula, "Lythe and listin, gentilmen..." occurs thrice more, in Stanza 144 (beginning of the third fit), Stanza 282 (second stanza of the fifth fit), and Stanza 317 (beginning of the sixth fit). The latter three mark major transitions in the poem. The break at the start of the third fit is a transition from the story of Robin Hood and the knight to the story of Little John and the sheriff; the break in stanza 282 indicates the start of the archery contest in Nottingham; the break at the start of the sixth fit marks the start of the episodes of the sheriff and King seeking to apprehend Robin.
It is interesting to ask whether these formulae were in the originals combined by the author of the "Gest," or whether he added them himself. They do not represent the most logical break points; on the other hand, those in stanzas 144 and 317 do represent roughly a third of the work. If we assume a typical recitation speed of five verses per minute, that would mean that each break comes after about half an hour. It would not be a surprise for a minstrel to take a halt after that period of time. The use in stanza 282 may have been imported from one of the sources.
The use of such an introductory formula is common, though of course not universal, in minstrelsy. Old English even had a word, "Hwaet," which we might infomally translate as "Listen up and listen good!" It is the first word of "Beowulf" and "The Dream of the Rood" and doubtless much other Anglo-Saxon literature.
In much later folk song, we still find opening formula along the lines of "Come all ye bold (something-or-others) and listen to my song."
It is interesting to note the alliteration of "lythe" (probably the imperative of "lythen," glossed by Knight/Ohlgren as "attend," hence "pay attention"; cf. Langland/KnottFowler, p. 279) and "listen," as well as the relatively strong L sound of "gentilmen." "Lythe" and "listen," although distinct words, are almost redundant; it would have been easy to use another word instead of "lythe" -- except for the alliteration. Although the poem was probably compiled after the peak of the alliterative revival which gave us "Piers Plowman" and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," Benson/Foster, p. 5, notes that the "Stanzaic Morte Arthur" still delighted in alliteration, and this formula may derive from some source which does so also. There are a few other alliterative formulae in the Gest, e.g. Gummere, p. 315, points out "wordes fayre and fre" in stanza 31. Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 59, note that in the Middle English period "Rhymed verse frequently uses alliteration as an ornament of style."
Observe that the word "lythe" as a verb for "pay attention" does not appear to have been used by Chaucer (based on Chaucer/Benson, p. 1265), who rejected alliteration, but is found in "Piers Plowman" (see p. 279 in Langland/KnottFowler; p. 532 in Langland/Schmidt) and in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" (Tolkien/Gordon, p. 196), both alliterative. The word is from Old English hlytha, listen, and appears to have been fairly common in early Middle English, but by the fourteenth century it seems to have been almost completely confined to alliterative works.
This introductory formula survives in some of the later ballads; "Robin Hood and the Beggar, I" [Child 133] opens "Come light and listen, you gentlemen all"; "Robin Hood and the Beggar, II" [Child 134] preserves the form "Lyth and listen, gentlemen."
Compare also the Romance of Gamelyn, which opens "Listeth and lestneth and hearkneth aright" (Sands, p. 156).
"The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle" opens "Lythe and listenythe the lif of a lord riche" (Hahn, p. 47; cf. Sands, p. 326, who uses a slightly different orthography).
The invocation of "gentlemen" would seem to imply an aristocratic audicene. On the other hand, the formula might simply have been imported from some other romance targeting the upper class.
** Stanza 1/Line 3 ** Right from the start we are told that Robin was a "gode yeman," i.e. a "good yeoman." This has inspired some debate. The term "yeoman" is perhaps derived from "yongman," "young man," a usage actually found in stanzas 187-288 (Pollard, p. 33, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 149); this implies the sense "low fellow on the totem pole," and hence the meaning "royal servant."
The word had two meanings in the period around 1400 -- a small freeholder or a household officer. To some extent, this influences the dating of the poem. Keen, p. 140, thinks that the frequent mentions of Robin as a yeoman implies a late date (p. 140), presumably after Edward III, since this was the period when villeins were becoming free yeomen.
There is logic to this. Robin seems to have a significant band (see note on stanza 229) -- and, if the poem really would have us believe that they are all yeomen, that effectively requires that the date be after 1400.
But there were always yeomen in England. It's just that the number increased after the Black Death. Robin and John and a few of the others could be yeomen, with the rest villeins. Indeed, it makes better sense to assume that most of them were villeins, and fled to the greenwood for lack of another choice (a free man could always seek work elsewhere). In the period from Henry II to Edward II, villeins -- peasants -- were bound to the land (there are cases of them being sold; Stenton, pp. 142-143).
The Black Death of 1349 (which took place about halfway through the reign of Edward III) changed that by producing a shortage of workers (Ormrod, p. 29). The nobility tried to halt the exodus of the peasants (Wat Tyler's rebellion of 1381 was largely against these restrictions; Wilkinson, pp. 158-164; Ormrod, p. 30), but more and more peasants were becoming free in the reign of Edward III, and almost all were free by the early fifteenth century. Wilkinson, p. 187, after a catalog of restrictive laws, concludes that "Nothing, in the end, could resist a movement toward greater emancipation of the peasant" -- indeed, the fact that, by the reign of Edward III, they all carried longbows made it difficult for the nobility to suppress them!
Pollard, p. 34, points out the the "Statute of Additions of 1413," which required legal documents to state the class and occupation of those entering into a deal. This in effect made "yeoman" an official legal term. This is minor evidence for the belief that the "Gest" was written after that date.
Holt, however, is convinced that "The legend is... not [about] the yeoman freeholder, but the yeoman servant of the feudal household" (p. 4). This, in a sense, gives us another link to the story of David and Saul, in 1 Samuel 25:10, Nabal complains about David, saying "There are many servants today who are breaking away from their masters."
Some support for Holt's contention comes from the "Monk," where the King makes John and Much yeomen of the crown for bringing the letter about Robin Hood (cf. Holt, p. 29).
Pollard, p. 41, also notes the interesting title of "Yeoman of the Forest," a title for foresters. On p. 43 Pollard notes that both Little John and Robin refer to Robin by the title "yeoman of the forest" (see, e.g., stanza 222). And we do find Robin called a forester's son in stanza 3 of "Robin Hood's Birth, Breeding, Valor and Marriage," as well as in "Robin Hood Was a Forester Bold," which is not included in the Child canon.
But there is no hint in the "Gest" of Robin having ever held the title officially. What's more, a typical forest had only about half a dozen active foresters, according to Pollard, p. 44. If Robin's band truly numbered in the scores, it had to be something different. And foresters had various duties, such as managing the trees, e.g. by trimming, pruning, and cutting, to make the forest yield particular types of wood (Kerr, pp. 148-149). There is no evidence that Robin's men did any of these things.
In stanza 14, Robin orders his men to spare yeomen who walk the greenwood. Pollard, p. 45, suggests that this means Robin intends his men to leave the foresters alone. If I were a forester, I probably wouldn't want to be my life on that, but it's an interesting point. Pollard, pp. 46-47, argues that Robin sees himself as a sort of King of the Foresters, even to the point of trying to employ Little John as his bowbearer (the aid to the Keeper of the Forests) in the "Monk" (stanza 9. This strikes me as a little strong; Robin is simply saying, as he often does, that he needs only Little John as a companion. In any case, this theme does not appear in the "Gest.")
Pollard also argues, p. 50, that Robin's men are fully aware of the terminology of forestry and hunting, but the examples he cites are vague enough that they might have come from the poet, or from second-hand knowledge of forestry.
By the late fifteenth century, a yeoman could be quite well-to-do; at least some earned in excess of the 40 shillings per year required to be permitted to vote in parliament (Pollard, p. 35). It is noteworthy that 40 shillings is far less than the twenty marks which were bandied about as wages at several times in the "Gest" (Stanzas 150, 170-171).
The frequent mentions of yeomen in the "Gest" may be intended to appeal to a yeoman audience (which would be much larger in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, when the poem was probably compiled) -- but this does not mean that it is about a time when yeomen were common.
** Stanza 2/Line 5 ** In addition to being a yeoman, Robin is a "prude (proud) outlaw." This does not mean he was a convicted criminal -- or not exactly. "Outlaw" was a technical term for one who failed to answer a summons for trial (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 149). Robin and his men are several times called outlaws (this being the first time; his men being called outlaws for the last time in stanza 447, when Robin returns to them after his time at King Edward's court; Robin himself is called a "good outlaw" in the very last verse (stanza 456), ironically immediately before he is said to have done much good for poor men.
it is noteworthy that nowhere are we told what Robin's original crime was.
One thing that is worth remembering is that "outlaw" was, at this time, primarily a local term. The King might, of course, send out a warrant to watch for a particular criminal, but most judgments were passed in one particular area. As Pollard notes on p. 105, "Men were frequently hounded for outlawry when they had no knowledge that they had in fact been outlawed, often in another county." It is at least possible that we see a hint of this in Stanzas 331-332 of the "Gest," in the arrest of the knight while hawking.
It is true that the "Monk" calls Robin the "kynggis felon" (stanza 21), and in the "Gest" we will eventually see King Edward intervene in the case. But the King's interest was more in rebellion than in what we would consider ordinary crime.
** Stanza 2/Line 7 ** Robin, we are told, is a "curteyse" -- that is, a courteous -- outlaw. Courtesy in this period is more than manners; it is the specific rules of polite society -- and is one of the most basic elements in the description of a hero. Sir Gawain, the subject of so many romances, "achieved a reputation as the most courteous of Arthur's knights. After the late thirteenth century, courtesy became the hallmark of knighthood" (Hall, p. 4). Chaucer's Knight "loved chivalrie, Trouthe and honouyr, fredom and curteisie" (Prologue, lines 45-46; Chaucer/Benson, p. 24). Of king in "Sir Orfeo" we are told that "Large and curteis was he" (line 4; Sands, p. 187). Examples could be repeated indefinitely. The theme of courtesy will recur many times in the "Gest," as Robin is called "courteous" (implying that he is as good as a knight or member of the gentry), while those of higher station fail of their courtesy. (Observe, e.g., the abbot's treatment of the knight in stanza 103.)
Other examples: In stanza 24, we learn that Little John is courteous. In stanza 29, Robin courteously takes off his hood. In stanza 108, the knight begs the justice for courtesy (and is turned down). In stanzas 115 and 121, the knight calls the abbot uncourteous. In 151, Little John calls the knight (or maybe Robin) courteous. The sheriff's butler is uncourteous in stanza 159. John greets the sheriff courteously in 182. Robin is courteous to the monk in 226; the monk is not so courteous in return. In 256 the monk calls Robin uncourteous. The knight greets Robin courteously in 263, and offers a courtesy gift in 270. In 295, the prize arrow is accepted courteously by Robin. In 312, the knight recalls Robin's courtesy. In 383 Robin addresses the disguised king courteously.
This theme of courtesy gives a fascinating link to the Gawain romances. Robin, as Child said, was a "popular Gawain." And Gawain was the epitome of courtesy -- as Hahn notes on p. 2, even Chaucer's oh-so-particular Squire refers to Gawain as the pinnacle of courtesy (V.95, or F.85; p. 170 in Chaucer/Benson).
in the Gawain legend, courtesy and chivalry have important effects. Hahn, p. 25, declares that "Repeatedly, Gawain exhibits a willing retraint of available force or a refusal of the authority of position, which separates him from non-chivalrous opponents and also from the arbitrary bullying or domineering impertinance of Sir Kay." The result is to maintain and strengthen the social order.
Compare Robin's treatment of his victims in the "Truth or Consequences" game -- and also the contrast between the courteous Robin and the uncourteous monk in Stanza 226. Robin's courtesy, like Gawain's, allows him to sometimes restrain the force he could otherwise use. Which probably allows him to survive longer than he otherwise would, and to bring about better justice. Robin is an exceptional outlaw just as Gawain (in the British tradition) is an exceptional knight.
** Stanza 3/Line 9 ** "Robyn stode in Bernesdale." In the "Gest," there is uncertainty over whether Robin was based in Barnesdale (Yorkshire) or in Nottinghamshire (the "Gest" does not mention Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, but it was the great forest of that county; if Robin indeed worked in Nottinghamshire, Sherwood would surely have been his base). This is a complicated question discussed in the introduction; it is worth remembering that the early ballads tend to say Barnsdale. In the "Gest," the Richard at Lee portions are set in Barnsdale, the rest mostly in Nottingham (Holt1, p. 24); presumably the author combined tales without cleaning up the inconsistencies.
It has also been suggested (Baldwin, p. 44) that "Barnsdale" should be Bryunsdale in Nottinghamshire (near Basford). Tbis would obviously solve many of the problems, but it is a small and obscure place; it seems much more likely that "Bernesdale" means Barnsdale.
There is even some dispute over whether Barnsdale is in Yorkshire or Rutland. (Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 149-150, based on the research of Knight. Rutland, and the town of Huntingdon which is also associated with Robin in some of the late tales, are in east-central England south of the Wash. The one thing going for Rutland is that, according to McLynn, p. 241, and Knight/Ohlgren, p. 40, etc., Rutland's Barnsdale was in the domain of the Earl of Huntingdon, which would make sense if Robin were shadow earl of Huntingdon -- but not otherwise, since Rutland is in the wrong direction from Nottingham (to the southeast). There are some alleged Robin Hood relics in Rutland (Cawthorne, p. 34), but as usual there is no reason to think they are authentic.
The place names in the "Gest" are informative. The following list shows (I believe) every place named in the Gest, with the stanzas where it is mentioned:
Barnsdale: 3, 21, 82, 83, 134, 213, 262, 440, 442
Blythe: 27. 259
Calvary: 57
Doncaster: 27, 259 / In connection with Roger of Doncaster: 452, 455
Holderness: 149
Kirkesly, i.e. presumably Kirklees: 454 / In connection with the Prioress of Kyrkesly: 451
Lancaster or Lancashire: 53, 357
London: 253
Nottingam: 178, 205, 289, 325, 332, 337, 344, 354, 365, 369, 370, 380, 384. The Sheriff of Nottingham is given that full title in 15, 146, 282, 313,317, 329, 422, 423
Plumpton Park: 357
Saylis: 18, 20, 209, 212
St. Mary's Abbey: 55, 84, 233
Verysdale: 126
Watling Street: 18, 209
York: 84
Calvary and London are, of course, not local cities and so do not reflect on the site of the action. Watling Street passes through many counties: Of the other names listed:
- In Yorkshire are: Doncaster, Holderness, Kirklees (near the Lancashire border), St. Mary's Abbey, Saylis, York
- In Yorkshire or Rutland are: Barnsdale
- In Yorkshire or Lancashire are: Plumpton Park
- In Lancashire are: Lancaster, Wryesdale (Verysdale)
- In Nottinghamshire are: Blythe (near the Yorkshire border), Nottingham
Thus we have five sites that are certainly in Yorkshire, and two more that probably are. Two, perhaps three, are in Lancashire. Other than Nottingham itself, the only place name mentioned in Nottinghamhire is Blythe, and it is just across the border from Yorkshire.
Thus we have no *specific* references to places in Nottinghamshire. All references to specific places are found in the Barnsdale section, and all are in or near Yorkshire. The detailed data in the "Gest" all points to Robin being based in Barnsdale, and specifically the Barnsdale in Yorkshire.
Holt says that Barnsdale was known as a haunt of robbers as early as 1306. This hints that there were outlaws on the scene before Robin's arrival.
Holt, pp. 73-75, does make the fascinating observation that, if we break up the material in the "Gest" into Nottingham and Barnsdale portions, the Nottingham parts are all parallels of earlier materials from the legends of Fulk and Hereward and such, while the Barnsdale portions (the tale of the knight, plus the death) are mostly original: "the nearer Robin gets to Nottingham the less authentic he becomes." This may be the best argument for a Barnsdale setting: It looks as if the Sherwood stories took older materials and just inserted Robin's name. But note that this still means that the adaption of these materials to refer to Robin must predate the "Gest" -- and must have had time to travel to Yorkshire to be combined with the Barnsdale stories.
** Stanza 3/Lines 11-12 ** Like Robin Hood, Little John is called a yeoman at the very first mention of his name. This is the only information we have about his origin in the "Gest" (unless we count his story to the sheriff, where he calls himself Robin Greenleaf of Holderness; see the notes on stanza 149). Unlike most of the other outlaws, Robin and John seem to have been connected almost from the start; Wyntoun, the very first chronicler to mention Robin, wrote
Lytill Ihon and Robyne Hode
Waythemen were commendyd gude
(so Chambers, p. 131; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 24, have very different orthography. The version in Holt1, p. 40, is even more distinct, reading "Waichmen" for "Waythemen." This is not as absurd as it sounds; "i" and "y" were interchangeable at this time, and "c" and "t" looked almost identical in scripts of the time -- a problem which also afflicts the manuscript of "Judas" [Child 23]).
Little John has his own folklore -- that he was so-called because he was huge, or because his birth name was John Little (Baldwin, p. 64); another account give his name as John Nailor. The story that he was a giant is the one which has survived. There is, however, little evidence of this in the "Gest," where he often serves as a trickster.
Given that there does not seem to be an early story of his origin, is it possible that, instead of being a giant, he was in fact originally regarded as small, like many jesters? Note that, in stanzas 147-152 of the Gest, there is no hint that Little John is in any way unusual -- surely, if he were really a giant, the Sheriff would have asked more questions! And in Stanza 307, Much carries Little John for a mile -- hard to do if he were exceptionally large. Pollard, p. 13, calls John the "master of disguise," which also seems unlikely for a giant.
One might speculate that the idea of Little John as a giant derives from the romance of "Bevis of Hampton." In this as in many romances, the hero fights a giant -- but it features the interesting twist that Bevis, after defeating the giant, takes him on as a servant (Baugh, pp. 131-132), just as Robin at one time would have John be his bow-bearer. This, obviously, is a romance idea which was not followed by the author of the "Gest."
** Stanza 4/Line 13 ** Since "Will Scarlet," or some such name, came to be one of the standard members of Robin Hood's band, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he is not here called "William" or "Will," but just by his surname (Scarlock is mentioned in 11 stanzas of the "Gest." In stanza 208, he is "Wyllyam Scarlock." Other than that, it's just "Scarlock."). There is a variant in the spelling; see the textual note.
That some such man was early associated with Robin Hood follows from the fact that "Guy of Gisborne," stanza 13, refers to "Scarlett"; the "Monk"has "Wyll Scathlok" in stanza 63, and the Percy text of the "Death" has "Will Scarlett" in stanza 2. In addition, there is a parliamentary roll for Winchester in 1432 which some joker decided to pad out with the names of outlaws. In addition to the genuine citizens, it adds the names of "Adam, Belle, Clyme, Oclaw, Willyam Cloudesle, Robyn, hode, Inne, Grenewode, Stode, Godeman, was, hee, lytel Joon, Muchette Millerson, Scathelock, Reynold" -- that is, "Adam Bell, Clym o' [the] Clough, WIlliam [of] Cloudesly," then a clear line from a Robin Hood ballad, "Robin Hood in the greenwood stood, A goodman was he," then a list of his followers, Muchette the miller's son, Scathelock, Reynold (Holt1, p. 69; cf. Cawthorne, p. 58).
There is also an instance in the Forresters book where a later hand has corrected "Will Stutley" to "Will Scathlock" (Knight, p. xxvi), but the manuscript also has "Scarlett" and (once) "Scarett."
Anthony Munday, who did so much damage to the tradition, made Scathelock and Scarlet into separate characters (see, e.g., the Cast of Characters on p. 303 of Knight/Ohlgren). Obviously both names were known in his time -- but there is no reason to think that they were originally anything but one person.
"Scarlock" and "Scathelock" both imply a man who is good at getting past locks. He is the only one of Robin's band whom we might accuse of an actual crime: The name implies that he was a burglar. It also makes it likely that "Scarlet" was a correction to make him less an obvious criminal.
But there is no obvious reason to prefer either "Scarlock" or "Scathelok." I will generally use "Scarlock" because Child does. For more detail, see the textual note.
** Stanza 4/Line 14 ** Much the Miller's Son, like Scarlock, is found in several of the early ballads; in stanza 8 of the "Monk" we encounter "Moche (th)e mylner sun," who joins Little John in robbing and killing the Monk; and he occasionally turns up in the later ballads. As a personal name, "Much" has not been found elsewhere; it has been suggested that it is a nickname, although from what source is not clear (unless it's the Muchette of the Winchester parliamentary return, but that's not a common name either).
In "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar" [Child 123], he becomes "Midge" (stanza 4 in Child's B text) or "Mitch" in the version in the Forresters manuscript (Knight, p. 72, line14).
In stanza 73, we find Much complaining that Little John is measuring cloth too generously. As a wild speculation, could he have been called some nickname such as "Not So Much," because he was tight-fisted, and could this then have been shortened to "Much"? This also makes sense in light of the famous rapacity of millers expressed in songs such as "The Miller's Will (The Miller's Three Sons)" [Laws Q21].
Much is not named in the plays of Robin Hood prior to Munday's works (see pp. 275-296 of Knight/Ohlgren), but there are parts for unnamed outlaws. Many of plays of this era used had a few types of characters who went under different names but always played much the same part -- as we see clowns in Shakespeare's plays, e.g. I wonder if Much might not have originated in such a play as a penny-pinching cheapskate who became an object of fun. It is noteworthy that Munday made him a clown (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 303).
In this first instance of his name, there is variation in the prints on whose son Much was; see the textual note.
It is interesting to note that Much is called "little Much" on several occasions (stanza 69 in some of the prints; stanza 73; stanza 77). The significance of this is unclear. It is distinctly odd that a tends to spell the word "lytell" wien applied to Much, "Litell" when applied to John. But perhaps the description "Little Much" explains the designation "Midge" used in the "Curtal Friar" -- perhaps it is used because it means a small person.
The next line says that every inch of Much's body was worth a "grome." Is this an indication that Much was short but capable? "Grome" is a difficult word; Knight/Ohlgren in this place gloss it as "man," and Gummere, p. 314, interprets the line as meaning that every inch of him was worth an ordinary man. But grome is also used in stanza 224, and there it might mean "groom" (and is so glossed in Knight/Ohlgren). The word has several meanings in Middle English. One is anger (Emerson, p. 377; "gromful" is "fierce," according to Dickins/Wilson, p. 273). Sands, p. 384, lists "grom" as meaning "man," perhaps derived from "growan," "grow."; and Langland/KnottFowler, p. 272, list "man" as the meaning of "grome"; Langland/Schmidt, p. 526, gives "fellows" as the meaning of "gromes." Turville-Petre, p. 233, suggests "servant, attendant" as a meaning for "grom" (perhaps from "groom"?). The exact meaning thus eludes us; I might suggest that the idea is that every one of Much's (relatively few) inches was worth a (taller but) lesser man -- or, alternately, that Much, being a free man, is worth more than any number of servants. Or just possibly we should emend "grome" to "grote," "groat."
It is interesting to note that, other than Robin and John, plus sundry saints, only seven people are given personal names in the "Gest" (many others, such as the Sheriff of Nottingham, the Abbot of St. Mary's, and the Prioress of Kirklees, have titles -- but no names; they are just placeholders) The list of people with names is as follows:
(King) Edward: Stanzas 353, 384, 450
Gilbert (of the White Hand): Stanzas 292, 401, 404
Much (the Miller's Son): Stanzas 4, 17, 61, 69, 73, 77, 83, 208, 214, 223, 293, 307
Reynold: Stanza 293 (also adopted as an alias by Little John in stanzas 149, 150, 157, 183, 189, but stanza 293 is the only mention of Reynold as a member of Robin's band)
(Sir) Richard at Lee: Stanzas 310, 331, 360, 410, 431
Roger (of Doncaster): Stanzas 452, 455
Scarlock/Scathelock: Stanzas 4, 17, 61, 68, 74, 77, 83, 208, 293, 402, 435
Note that Much is mentioned 12 times, and Scarlock in 11 -- and nine of the mentions of Much's name (including the first eight) are all in immediate context of the mention of Scarlock, and similarly the first nine mentions of Scarlock are in the context of Much. The only exceptions are in stanza 214-223, where Much helps John take the sheriff; stanza 307, where Robin and Much refuse to leave Little John in the hands of the Sheriff; stanza 402, where Scarlock but not Much is involved in the archery contest before the King, and stanza 435, where Scarlock stays with Robin in the King's service when everyone else except Little John abandons him. It would appear that Scarlock was found in the tale of Robin and the King, but Much was not. The rest of the time, it is almost as if they are a comedy team -- e.g. in stanza 73 Much complains about John's generosity with cloth, and Scarlock replies (in effect) "Why not? It didn't cost *us* anything."
It is interesting to note that, although Robin is said to have seven score men (stanza 229), only five of them have speaking roles, and the role of Gilbert is trivial. At this stage, we might speculate, Robin's band is quite small -- perhaps just the four we see here (Robin, John, Scarlock, and Much), or these four plus a few cooks and wiv es and craftsmen. See also the note on Stanza 17.
** Stanzas 6-7/Lines 21-28 ** Robin will not eat until he entertains a guest. Not much of a hint as to dating, but we know that this idea of not eating until something notable happens is common in romances, particularly Arthurian romances. We see it also in the ballad of "The Boy and the Mantle" [Child 29]; Child's notes to that piece list several parallels, although many are French or Latin rather than English.
One romance which contains the idea is, of course, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." The theme is far too common to suggest literary dependence (although see the note on Stanza 185), but it is worth noting that the manuscript of "Sir Gawain" is generally dated to c. 1400 (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xxv), with the poem probably composed not too many decades before that. More interestingly, it is generally accepted, based on the language, that "Sir Gawain" comes from somewhere in the north or north-west of England, quite possibly in Lancashire (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xiii), right in the area where Robin Hood was allegedly active.
The romance of "The Turk and Gawain," which also features the pluck-buffet contest (see stanza 424) at another point sees the Turk ordering Gawain to fast (lines 48-59, 83-88 on pp. 341-343 of Hahn). This romance is also considered northern, although it is probably later than the Green Knght.
Thus we know that this motif was in circulation in the area where Robin supposedly lived, in the time when his legend was coming into being. See the section on "Sources" in the introduction.
The author of the "Gest" would probably not like the comparison, but it is noteworthy that King Saul, who could not save Israel and was overthrown by the Philistines, also had a tendency to fast and even to order his men to fast; see in particular 1 Samuel 13.
Robin will again wait for a guest in stanza 143.
** Stanza 7/Line 25 ** The line that begins Stanza 7 is lacking in all texts; see the textual note.
** Stanza 7/Line 28 ** "That dwelleth here bi west." If this line is correct, it can hardly refer to Nottingham; perhaps West Yorkshire or Lancashire is meant. Perhaps we should understand it as "from the west" -- which might (might!) refer to a follower of the Earl of Lancashire, the enemy of Edward II, and hence possibly of Robin himself.
** Stanza 8/Lines 31-32 ** According to this stanza, Robin heard "thre messis," i.e. three masses, before meals. This is the first indication of Robin's intense religious devotion. The next is in stanza 10, where we hear that he loved "Our dere Lady" above all others.
It is worth asking who officiated at the masses, however. In "Robin Hood and the Monk," we find Robin deciding to go to Nottingham because he has not heard mass for two weeks. Did Robin at some point acqure a priest? How, and who was it? Or does the reference in the "Monk" refer to a high mass (Missa solemnis, featuring deacon and subdeacon and others singing and performing ancilliary tasks), whereas the "Gest" refers to a low mass, requiring only an officiating priest? (Davies, p. 364).
I do note the curious fact that Henry VIII heard three masses a day when he went hunting, and sometimes as many as five on other days (Williams, p. 40). Since Henry VIII did not take the throne until 1509, we know the "Gest" cannot refer to him -- but since Henry played at Robin Hood, could he have been influenced by it?
** Stanza 10/Lines 37-40 ** For love of "Our dear Lady," i.e. the Virgin Mary, Robin will never hurt a woman. We see this paralleled in the "Death"; in stanza 25 of Child's "A" text, from the Percy folio, Robin declares that he will not hurt any widow at his end; in stanzas 15-16 we read, even more explicitly, "I never hurt woman in all my life, Nor men in woman's Company.... I never hurt fair maid in all my time, Nor at mine end shall it be."
The protection of women was a common theme in the period; Mortimer, p. 23, notes that 'Those aaccused of murdering women were noticeably less likely to be acquitted than those accused of killing men -- there seems to have been a strong disapproval of violence by and against women, while that among men was normal."
Reverence of Mary was also frequent; the Virgin was often loved with a desperate, sometimes surprisingly erotic, love. The well-known poem "I Sing of a Maiden That Is Makeless" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 170) is a typical example. Mary is makeless -- both matchess and without a mate (Steven Manning, in Luria/Hoffman, p. 331). There is a strong sense of physical intimacy (Thomas Jemielity, in Luria/Hoffman, p. 326), even if the intimacy is with God. Other poems of this period have lines such as "Upon a lade my love is lente" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 177) and "WIth all my lif I love that may" (Luria/Hoffman, p. 183). Idolatrous, and even perverted, as the idea seems to Protestants, it was (and is) deeply ingrained in many Catholics.
Robin's devotion to the Virgin is even more explicit and significant in "Guy of Gisborne": in stanza 38, Guy succeeds in wounding Robin in the side, and seems to have won their battle. But in stanza 39, Robin invokesthe "deere Lady" who is "both mother and may" -- and goes on to win the fight. This "mother and maid" theme is quite common in Middle English poetry; it occurs explicitly in "I Sing of a Maiden (last stanza) and implicitly in much of the vast quantity of Marian poetry (see pp. 170-189 of Luria/Hoffman)
There is, of course, no basis in the Bible for Mariolatria such as Robin exhibits, and it developed in the Catholic Church only slowly (and was ruthlessly pruned out of most Protestant sects). We see some hints of it in Irenaeus at the end of the second century (WalkerEtAl, p. 192), but the creeds barely mention the Virgin Mary -- both the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds mention her only as the mother of Jesus, and both starting only in about the fifth century (in the case of the Nicene Creed, Mary was introduced when the Council of Chalcedon rewrote it; in the case of the Apostles' Creed, the creed only dates from about the fifth century. See Bettenson, pp. 21-26). But it was not until the time of Duns Scotus, who died in 1308, that we see Mariology become clearly defined (McGrath, p. 52). This brought about a debate over whether Mary was a co-redemptrix along with Jesus -- a view with absolutely no scriptural basis, but which Robin seems to share.
Thus, the later the "Gest," the better the fit for Robin's extreme devotion to the Virgin. Still, the "Gest" shows no hint of (e.g.) the Immaculate Conception, another non-Biblical belief which was popularized by Duns Scotus but which did not become official Catholic doctrine until 1854 (McGrath, pp. 46-47; WalkerEtAl, p. 351). So we cannot absolutely rule out an early date; we can only say that Robin's views are more typical of a late date than an early.
It is interesting to note that there are several sites in Yorkshire with strong Marian associations. St. Mary's Abbey is the most obvious, but Kerr, p. 185, notes a bridge chapel of St. Mary's at Wakefield -- a place which Robin must surely have been tempted to haunt! It was built and consecrated in the reign of Edward III, however.
For more on Robin's piety, see the note on stanza 8. For a further example of Robin's devotion to the Virgin, see the note on stanza 65.
** Stanzas 11-12/Lines 41-48 ** In these stanzas, Little John asks instructions on how to live his life -- an oddity for someone who presumably has been part of Robin's band for some time. The whole business reminds me a bit of the way the disciples questions Jesus in the New Testament (see, e.g., the way in which they ask how to pray in Luke 11:1), but this is probably just a coincidence, the result of people who have heard Catholic preachers read the same lessons over and over again.
** Stanza 14/Line 49 ** Robin disclaims force here, but he will certainly use it, e.g., against the Sheriff; see Stanza 348.
** Stanza 14/Line 56 ** Robin's instructions say not to bother knights or squires who would be "a gode felawe." "Felawe"/"Fellow" is a word which occurs relatively rarely in the "Gest," but, as Pollard points out on p. 144, is extremely common in the "Potter." Pollard, pp. 134-142, extensively discusses Middle English uses of the word "fellow," but his conclusion boils down to the fact that it was even more ambiguous then than it is now. It might mean a servant or low-born person (compare the usage in some texts of the "Edward/Lizie Wan" type in which the mother fears that the son has done "some fallow's deed"), or even a member of a gang of robbers, but typically it means something like a comrade or equal.
On p. 142, Pollard points out the common equation between a fellowship and a meine/meyne, a band of followers -- a word of course used in the title of the "Gest" in some of the prints.
"Felawe" occurs in stanzas 14, 171, and "felaushyp"in 229. "Meyne" is in 31, 95, 97, 262, 419. Pollard, p. 143, appears to suggest that "fellow" refers to someone willing to join Robin's band, but it seems to me that Robin's actual followers are his "meyne," and his "fellows" are allies but not close followers.
** Stanza 15/Line 59 ** It is in this stanza that we first meet the Sheriff of Nottingham, who eventually became the primary bad guy of the cycle.
There is no explanation offered for why the sheriff is Robin's enemy, unless it's just the fact that he is a sheriff. This hardly seems sufficient in a Barnsdale context -- perhaps the Sheriff of Yorkshire, or the Sheriff of Lancashire, might be Robin's enemy, but why Nottingham? Pollard, p. 106, comments that "[W]e are never told why Robin Hood was outlawed. It is implied that he is the victim of malicious litigation by others for personal gain, in which the sheriff has colluded." This certainly would explain the hostility, but I must confess that I fail to see where this is implied.
Holt mentions that Robin might have been outlawed by a group of false jurors, which would have been assembled by the Sheriff. This closely resembles a key element of "The Outlaw's Song of Trailbaston," a piece written c. 1305 and surviving in a unique copy of c. 1341 (Ohlgren, p. 99), copied perhaps in response to Edward III's attempt to use Trailbaston as a source of revenue for his wars (Ohlgren, p. 102).
It is written in French, and is the complaint of a many who claims to have served under the King (presumably Edward I), but who was hauled before the judges allegedly for hitting his servant a few times (Prestwich1, p. 286). Edward I's trailbaston law , promulgated in 1305 (Powicke, pp. 345-346), was designed to control thugs who went around beating and intimidating people (a "baston" is a club), so the idea of trailbaston courts was good (apparently this sort of thing was extremely common in 1304, and the trailbaston courts did a good job of cleaning it up, according to Prestwich1, pp. 285-286) -- but, in the Outlaw's Song, the singer declares that anyone is subject to fine or imprisonment by the courts. Being an archer, he faced a forty shilling fine or imprisonment (Prestwich1, p. 287), and so was forced to the woods instead. He recorded his complaint in writing and tossed it onto a highway so that the wider world might hear it.
The similarity to the conception of Robin Hood is obvious: An archer, probably a yeoman, forced into outlawry without cause, who flees to the woods. (Although he does threaten to kill his judges in stanza 10 -- Ohlgren, p. 103 -- which doesn't exactly make him sound like the image of meekness).
Alternately, the hostility might be a side effect of the tale of Gamelyn, where Gamelyn's older brother becomes sheriff and uses his authority against Gamelyn (Baldwin, p. 178).
Or maybe it's just the idea that a hero must have a worthy adversary (cf. Ohlgren, p. 109). In the early ballads, Robin has only two real adversaries: The sheriff, and Guy of Gisbborne. Guy, while a valiant fighter, is only a yeoman, meaning that he belongs to Robin's social class. Plus he winds up dead. The sheriff winds up dead, too, but since he doesn't have a name, he is replaceable. And he is also probably of the gentry or higher. So he becomes Robin's most available opponent -- even if he is in the wrong county!
The office of Sheriff (Shire-Reeve) went back to Saxon times, and gained in importance under the Normans -- "Norman kings, like Anglo-Saxon rulers, needed a link between the central power and local authorities.... It was upon the sheriff, so similar to the Norman vicecomes on the continent, that the mantle of local power fell.... Usually the strong central authorities appointed outstanding feudal barons in the shires as sheriffs" (Smith, p. 73). Bradbury, p. 128, notes a case in the reign of King Stephen, during which Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, was sheriff of Essex, Hampshire, London, and Middlesex! In the time of William II, many counties did not have a baron or earl; it was the sheriff who ran the county (Barlow, p. 160).
At their peak, they were without doubt the most important royal officials. Barlow, p. 72, believes that in the near-civil-war between William II and his older brother Robert Curthose, it was the support of the sheriffs that allowed William to keep his throne. On p. 190, Barlow describes them as responsible for "Revenue, justice, defence and the execution of many administrative orders.'
After Norman times, the office declined. By the fifteenth century, the rewards were so small that it became a post to be avoided at all costs. The clipping of its powers began with the creation of the Justices of the Peace. These were given broad powers by parliament in 1361 (Prestwich3, p. 234). Sheriffs began to be locally appointed in 1338, and in 1371 Edward III finally gave in to pressure and accepted that sheriffs should be appointed annually (Ormrod, p. 146). There was some backsliding on this (Richard II started appointing his own sheriffs in 1397; Saul, pp. 383-384), but there was no going back to the days of the over-powerful Sheriff.
Smith, p. 75, says that "the golden age of the sheriff was in the early part of the twelfth century. The thirteenth century saw many of his duties distributed among other men or abolished entirely. In still later times, especially under the Tudor monarchs (1485-1603), the lords lieutenant of the counties and the justices of the peace... assumed the main burdens of local government. The once proud sheriffs found that their stepping stones to power were cracked and crumbled by the new forces and new men." Similarly Pollard, p. 103: "By the fifteenthcentury the sheriff's remit was much reduced from earlier times. The great era of sheriff as the king's viceroy had been the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."
Pollard, p. 104, does however note that, even in the fifteenth century, the sheriff's office was important enough that corrupt sheriffs could be a real problem -- this was one of the complaints during Jack Cade's rebellion. But Pollard cannot accept Robin's sheriff as a fifteenth century official: "He is, anachronistically, the king's viceroy, occupying the office at the King's pleasure, and in regular communication with him. He resides, it seems permanently, not as a fifteenth-century sheriff would, but in the royal castle of Nottingham. He displays many of the characteristics of a great lord. He keeps a great household, under the direction of his steward and butler. He retains on a grand scale..." (Pollard, p. 106). Pollard, who wishes to place every attribute of the "Gest" in the fifteenth century, simply rejects the description of the sheriff -- but what he really proves is that the portrayal looks back to an earlier time.
The fact that the sheriff of Nottingham is a powerful official is, therefore, an argument that Robin must date from the reign of Edward III or earlier. However, there is a secondary argument against Robin living in the time of Richard and John or earlier. He could not have lived in Norman times -- if he had, the sheriff of Nottingham would have been called by his feudal title, not "sheriff." Smith, p. 73, implicitly notes that the barons were still sheriffs in the era of the earlier Plantagenets, but that "in John's reign (1199-1216) considerable confusion in the counties resulted when no strong man would take the office of sheriff. After all, many barons in John's day were among the king's enemies."
Another change began in 1236, when the various counties were carefully surveyed and re-valued. This allowed Henry III to force the sheriffs to operate on what we would not call a "percentage basis" -- instead of paying the king a flat fee and then being allowed to collect whatever they could make the county yield, they had to pay the king a fraction of the revenue (Mortimer, p. 43). It took some time for this to become permanent, but this once again made the office of sheriff less popular with the nobility.
Holt, p. 25, notes that we meet the sheriff twice, in fits 3 and 5, and his character seems to change dramatically. This might be an indication of the high turnover of sheriffs which often happened in periods of unrest -- although we should also note that Robin seems to treat the sheriff as the same man (see the notes on stanzas 204 and 287).
Hence the role of the Sheriff, as seen in the "Gest" and elsewhere, argues for a date in the reign of Henry III, Edward I, or Edward II; prior to the reign of Henry III, the sheriff was a noble, and after Edward III, the sheriff simply didn't have the power to act as the sheriff does in the "Gest" and elsewhere.
The fact that the sheriff is, supposedly, a bad official is no argument as to date. Edward I had at one time made a top-to-bottom survey of his officials. We have only partial results, but they are indicative. Prestwich1, p. 95: "The Lincolnshire returns are particularly full. In the wapentake (the local equivalent of the hundred) of Aswardhurn the jurors listed eleven recent sheriffs and eighteen lesser royal officials, along with five seigneurial officials, and accused them of a range of offenses." Prestwich1, pp. 95-96, notes that much of the official misbehavior came as a result of government revaluing of the land to increase revenue (since land worth more was supposed to bring in more tax).
At least some of them were creative. According to Prestwich1, p, 95, one thieving sheriff claimed that he had confiscated chickens to prevent them being used to drop incendiaries on London!
As time passed, the sheriffs became more closely tied to the court. Wolffe, pp. 98, notes that "in 1448 alone fourteen of the thirty-six counties of England had household men as sheriffs." This might explain why the sheriff of Nottingham, in the latter part of the "Gest" and in the "Monk," has such access to the King: Perhaps, after getting rid of the sheriff of the early part of the "Gest" and of the "Potter," the King replaced him with a man who was closer to him.
It is worth noting that, in the year after Bannockburn, King Edward II replaced no fewer than thirty sheriffs -- although, surprisingly, the sheriffs he chose often were not closely tied to him; in 1326-1327, when Isabella and Mortimer were trying to clear out Edward's adherents, they saw need to replace only nine of 24 sheriffs (Phillips, p. 446).
Baldwin, p. 70, says that during some of the period in which we are interested, there was no actual sheriff of Nottingham (compare Pollard, p. 106, who declares that the title should have been "sheriff of Nottingham and Derby"), but on pp. 70-71 he lists a number of officials who might have been treated as the sheriff: Philip Mark, sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire 1209-1224, Brian de Lisle, chief forester of those shires 1209-1217 and with other local posts of importance (including sheriff of Yorkshire) until 1241; Eustace of Lowdham, sherrif or under-sheriff of Yorkshire 1225-1226 and of Nottingham and Derby 1232-1233; Robert of Ingram, of Nottingham and Derby intermittendtly from 1322-1334 and occasional mayor of Nottingham; and Henry de Fauconberg, to whom we shall return.
Of course, the title "sheriff of Nottingham" might be a disguise. I note that, in the second reign of Edward IV, Lord Hastings became Constable of Nottingham Castle and steward and keeper of Sherwood Forest. Close enough to a sheriff for a ballad. And Hastings was also Edward IV's chamberlain -- meaning that he controlled who had access to the king. It is possible that Robin might have been a Lancastrian outlaw -- perhaps even Robin of Redesdale or Robin of Holderness -- whom Edward IV tried to suppress and then offered a pardon. Possible -- but highly unlikely; there just aren't enough specifics in the "Gest" to suggest that the poet was writing about current political controversies.
"A strong argument has linked the fictional sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood stories with the real holder of that office in the 1330s [reign of Edward III], John of Oxford. He was guilty of a long catalogue of acts of arbitrary imprisonment, extortion, fraud and other offenses" (Prestwich3, p. 232). Baldwin, p. 72, refers to him, under the name "John de Oxenford." Holt1, p. 60, also mentions this identification (first made by Maddicott, who thinks the "Gest" referred to events of 1334-1338) with some approval, and Pollard alludes to it on p. 185, although without enthusiasm. But this is more likely to have caused the Robin Hood legend to be transplanted to Nottinghamshire and Sherwood Forest, where it was not native, than to have originated the legend.
If John of Oxford is the actual sheriff of the source story, then Thomas de Multon was probably the Abbot of St. Mary's and Geoffrey Scrope the justice (Baldwin, p. 73; Pollard, p. 185-186, who observes that Ohlgren and Aytoun also thought these events contributed to the legend). But I suspect that this is being too specific; had the author of the "Gest" known all these details, he would have used them. John of Oxford may have been the model of the sheriff, but it is unlikely that he actually was the sheriff.
Pollard, p. 107, proposes that the fifteenth century model for the sheriff might be Ralph, Lord Cromwell of Tattershall, who in 1434 became Constable of Nottingham Castle and Steward of Sherwood Forest. A veteran of Agincourt, he also was Chancellor in 1433 (Kerr, p. 131).
This again strikes me as highly unlikely. Cromwell would have been mostly an absentee landlord; he was for many years treasurer of England (Wolffe, p. 73), and had to deal with the financial disasters of Henry VI's reign. And he had lands far outside Nottinghamshire -- Tattershall is in Lincoln, he built a fine manor at Wingfield in Derbyshire (Kerr, p. 131), and his manors of Wressle and Burwell were in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (Gillingham-Wars, p. 77). It is true that Wolffe, p. 274, calls him acquisitive, which fits, and Wolffe, pp. 121-123, shows how badly justice was distorted in the reign of Henry VI -- but Cromwell lived until 1456, and his death was natural (Wolffe, p. 357). And he would have been a contemporary of the author of the "Gest" -- yet the author of the "Gest" gives us almost no personal details about him. It is, I suppose, possible that the author wanted to slander him and be safe from persecution, but it just doesn't fit.
If we assume that the actual sheriff involved is the man who was sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire in 1323 when Edward II came north, that seems to have been Sir Henry de Faucumberg/Fauconberg, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in 1318-1319 and 1323-1325, and sheriff of Yorkshire 1325-1327, 1328-1330 (Cawthorne, p. 198). Cawthorne speculates that Fauconberg was actually transferred from Nottinghamshire to Yorkshire when Robin left court, in order to keep track of the outlaw. But, of course, he didn't end up dead while fighting Robin. He does appear, based on Cawthorne, p. 199, to have had sticky fingers, and to have been sustained by Edward II because he had fought against Thomas of Lancaster. This, theoretically, might have made him Robin's ally if we think (as I do) that Robin was an enemy of Lancaster. But this isn't really the right sheriff. It appears to me that we want the sheriff of 1317 and 1322, not 1318 and 1323.
It is interesting to learn that Fauconberg came from Holderness (see the note on Stanza 149).
But the bottom like is, I really don't think we should seek too hard for the historical sheriff. Unlike the King, there were few chronicle stories about sheriffs that our poet could use as a reference! The Sheriff probably derives primarily from the poet's imagination.
** Stanza 17/Line 68 ** "And no man abide with me." Robin has just ordered out Little John, Much the Miller's Son, and Scarlock. Does sending forth these three indeed leave him with no other men? Or has Robin sent all the others elsewhere? In Stanza 61, we also find references to Robin, John, Much, and Scarlock as if they are the only ones present. We cannot tell, but this is another indication that Robin's band may at this time have been small; see also the note on Stanza 4/Line 14.
** Stanza 18/Lines 69-70 ** "Saylis" and "Watling Street." "Saylis" is presumed to be Sayles, near Pontrefract, in the Barnsdale area, a holding listed by Baldwin, p. 43, as a tenth of a knight's fee. Other than localizing Robin to Barnsdale rather than Sherwood, it has no evident significance, but Baldwin does say that "its value as a look-out position over the Road is apparent, even today."
It is in teresting that in every use (stanzas 18, 20, 209, 212) it is "the Saylis," not "Saylis." This sounds like it refers to a residence, not a village -- which would make sense if it were someone's holding.
Watling Street was the single most important Roman Road in England, running from London to the north. Its mention is no help as to location, since it runs through both Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Holt1, pp. 84-85, observes that Watling Streetchanged route in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the "Gest" seems to match the situation in the latter. This is more evidence for an Edwardian date, although it might come from the poet rather than the legend.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 151, objects that this section of the Great North Road -- now the A1 -- was properly called Ermine Street. and that Watling Street in fact runs to Chester (a point first noted by Ritson), but the key is probably that it was the Roman Road running from London to Yorkshire. Ermine Street seems to have been informally called "Watling Street."
Robin's men are again ordered to Sayles and Watling Street in stanza 209, and the reach Sayles in 212.
** Stanza 19/Lines 73-74 ** "Erle or ani baron, Abbot, or ani knyght." It may be coincidence, but the list of titles (Earl, Baron, Knight) is interesting. The titles "Earl," "baron," and "knight" went back to Norman times (although it took some time to establish fixed duties and titles). Note the absence of what became the two highest titles of the nobility, Duke and Marquis. Edward III created the first dukes, notably Henry of Grosmont, the nephew of the enemy of Edward II, who became the first Duke of Lancaster -- significant because he had power in the region near Barnsdale and was given palatinate powers (OxfordCompanion, p. 557). York also became a dukedom at an early date. Richard II created the title of marquis in 1385 for the de Vere Earl of Oxford (OxfordCompanion, p. 621).
The failure to mention the titles of duke and marquis does not require us to accept a date prior to the reign of Edward III -- dukes were not common, and marquises were very rare. But the lack of those titles is at least a minor support for a date before Edward III.
We observe in the Tale of Gamelyn a scene where Gamelyn, who is pretending to be a prisoner, is ignored by a number of clergymen. Gamelyn then curses all abbots and priors (Cawthorne, p. 171). Could that passage have influenced this?
The fact that Robin so dislikes the higher clergy is perhaps another slight argument against the king of the "Gest" being Edward IV. Bishops in the middle ages were political figures, and often appointed from noble families -- e.g. the Bishop of York in 1470 was John Neville, the son of the late Earl of Salisbury and the brother of the Earl of Warwick (Wagner, p. 174) and the Archbishop of Canterbury was Thomas Bourchier, brother of the Earl of Essex and half-brother of the late Duke of Buckingham (Wagner, p. 35). But both these two were made bishops before Edward IV came to the throne (George Neville became Bishop of Exeter at the age of 23!). According to Ross-Edward, p. 320, the bishops appointed by Edward were, almost without exception, highly educated, and from gentle rather than noble families. This does not mean that they were saints, but certainly they set a much higher standard than the bishops of previous reigns.
Given Robin's hostility to the clergy, we should perhaps also note that the Catholic church was in rather bad shape in this period. The reigns of Edwrd II and Edward III almost exactly overlapped the so-called "Babylonian Captivity" (1305-1377), when the Popes, instead of being based in Rome, were living at Avignon, and hence unduly influenced by France. (This was in some ways better than being influenced by the Italian mobs, but to an Englishman, the French would presumably be The Enemy, and Rome just some faraway place.) There was also a papal schism in the 1180s, and various schisms in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is easy to imagine an outlaw, who could not possibly know which Pope was actually canonically elected (especially since, in this period, the elections were often anything but honest), thinking something like "a plague on both your episcopal hierarchies."
It is perhaps worth adding that the Black Death decimated the clergy to a greater extent even than the population as a whole (Ormrod, p. 116; Kelly.J., p. 191), dealing a severe blow to monasticism in England and even weakening the bishops. The strong disdain of the higher clergy shown in the "Gest" appears to make more sense in the half century before the Black Death than in the period immediately after (although the hierarchy of course went back to its bad old ways thereafter).
** Stanza 20/Lines 77- 80 ** Note the precise parallel in stanza 212. The parallel continues through the first line of stanza 21 and stanza 213, except for a textual variant; see the note on stanza 213.
** Stanza 21/Line 82 ** John and his companions know a "derne" (hidden) street -- an indication that they know the forest well. This is a curious contrast to Stanzas 11-12, where Robin gives his men their instructions as if for the first time.
Pollard, pp. 58-59, objects that this makes little sense, because the forests of England in the Middle Ages were relatively tame places, often filled with little towns and farms, and easy to travel. This is, of course, true, but that is little help to a traveler who does not live in the forest and know these side paths.
In the parallel in stanza 213, John and his men look down the highway, i.e. Watling Street. Does the difference matter? Perhaps; the knight, who is alone, can travel a path, but the monk of stanza 213, who has a large company, needs to follow the road.
** Stanza 24/Line 94 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 27/Line 108 ** "Blith or Dancaster" -- towns along Watling Street/the Great North Road, now typically spelled "Blythe" and "Doncaster." We will meet Roger of Doncaster at the end of the "Gest," when he is involved in Robin's murder. The two towns are between Nottingham and Yorkshire (Doncaster is now a fairly major town, Blythe a hamlet somewhat to its south), so they are no help on the question of whether Robin is based in Barnsdale or Sherwood -- although, if the knight is truly planning to go on crusade (see the notes on Stanzas 56-57), hewould presumably head south to London to start. If he is indeed headed south, that is additional support for Robin being in Barnsdale, not Sherwood.
We will meet these two places again in Stanza 259, where the implication of a setting in Barnsdale is even stronger.
The mention of Doncaster supplies some vague evidence against the contention (highly unlikely on other grounds) that the King Edward of the song is Edward IV. During the 1470 conflict that led to his temporary deposition, the Marquis of Montague was moving to attack Edward IV at Doncaster when Edward fled the country (Wagner, p. 179). This being Edward's strongest connection to Doncaster, and surely well-known at the time, could a contemporary author have failed to note it were Edward IV the hero of the Gest?
** Stanza 29/Line 113 ** Robin and his men are here described as having a "lodge." Pollard thinks this is the same place as the trystel tree (for which see the note on Stanza 176), which is possible but by no means automatic; indeed, it would make sense for outlaws to have several meeting places in the forest and not bring outsiders to their man base. The existence of a lodge does indicate that Robin and his men have been here for a while (again making stanzas 11-12 seem odd), and also argues against the claim (for which see Stanza 176) that it is always summer at his camp -- a lodge is far more important in winter than summer.
Note also the sheriff's statement in stanza 198 that the life of the outlaws is harder than the requirements of "any" order of anchorites or friars. If it is always summer, it's not a very comfortable summer.
A faint possibility is that the Barnsdale/Sherwood confusion is caused by seasonal change -- Robin lives in one in the summer and the other in winter (probably Barnsdale in summer and Sherwood in winter, since Nottinghamshire would have better weather, and more travellers, in winter). But the much higher likelihood is that the confusion is just that: Confusion.
** Stanza 29/Line 115 ** Note that, although Our Hero is called Robyn Hode/Robin Hood, this is very nearly the only reference to him wearing a hood. Hood is, of course, an English surname, and Hoods did live in the north country in Edwardian times; Hunter located records of several, and even tried to contend that one was "the" Robin Hood (Holt1, pp. 45-46). We really have no evidence whether the author of the "Gest" thought "Hode" a surname, or a name given for Robin's apparel -- or whether he even considered the question. Here, the hood is simply used as a demonstration of manners: Robin is courteous enough to take off his hood. (For "courtesy" see the note on Stanza 2.
We will again see Robin doff his hood to a guest in Stanza 225.
** Stanza 32/Line 125 ** Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 76, 152, suggest that the act of Robin and the knight washing together (paralleled in stanz 231, and also the "Potter," Stanza 41), is a demonstration of "civilized" or courtly behavior: People eating at a communal meal were expected to have clean hands. They add that the custom became increasingly common in the fourteenth century -- in other words, it is a custom from the reign of Edward II or later. It should be kept in mind, however, that washing of hands is a custom which goes back to pre-Christian times -- although one which Jesus declared not necessary from a religious standpoint (see, e.g., the first part of chapter 7 of the Gospel of Mark).
** Stanzas 32-33/Lines 127-132 ** Although outlaws are usually said to poach deer, and indeed the state of the king's deer park becomes an issue in Stanzas 357-358, and Robin admits in 377 to living by the King's deer, note that the menu here consists of bread, wine, "noumbles" of the deer (i.e. probably organ meat), swan, pheasant, and other birds (probably including duck). Mortimer, p. 19, says of the Plantagenet period that "Wild birds were an important component of the diet; the number of species and quantity of bones found archaeologically in medieval contexts is 'considerably greater than in any earlier period since the advent of farming. Species excavated or known to have been sold include swans, cranes, rooks, pipits, larks, crows, jackdaws and plovers, as well as wild ducks and, of course, quantities of blackbirds which were presumably baked in a pie."
On the evidence, the outlaws were not particularly reliant upon deer. It is interesting to note that the no plant matter of any kind is mentioned except bread and wine -- both of which can be stored for long periods (at least, flour and wine can). It sounds like a scurvy-inducing diet (assuming the deer organs are cooked, anyway), and makes me wonder if the meeting really took place in summer (see note to Stanza 176). This is winter food.
We also note that rabbit is not mentioned in this extensive catalog of animals which could be caught in a forest. This is not proof of anything, but rabbits were not brought to England until the thirteen century. Had they been mentioned, it would have been a strong hint of a late date.
** Stanza 37/Lines 145-148 ** Robin, to be blunt, shakes down the knight, on the grounds that a yeoman should not pay for a knight's meal. (Ironic, since, of course, tenant farmers raised the food that the gentry and nobility ate every day.) In Robin's case, this becomes a "truth or consequences" game -- those who admit their wealth are not robbed.
Child, p. 53, notes that in the tale of Eustace the Monk, Eustace too asked, more directly, how much money his victims had. He then searched them, and confiscated everything above the amount they confessed to (e.g. the Abbot of Jumieges claimed to have four marks but turned out to have 30; Baldwin, p. 38). A summary of Eustace's methods is found on Cawthorne, p. 125. Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 2-3, and Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 12, also mention the story of Eustac(h)e the Monk, plus they note something parallel in the tale of Fulk FitzWarren.
We shall see Robin ask this question again in Stanza 243; in that case, he will receive a false answer.
** Stanza 42/Lines 165-166 ** Little John will also spread out his mantle and count in Stanza 247. Might this be an indication that John is the most educated of the band? We don't really have any evidence either way, but it is interesting that he seems to be in charge of calculations.
** Stanza 43/Line 172 ** To the factually correct statement here that the knight is "trewe inowe," compare the ironic statement in stanza 248 that the monk is "trewe ynowe" not because the monk told the truth but because he has brought twice the payment Robin Hood expected from the knight.
** Stanza 45/Line 179 ** In this verse, Robin, trying to understand why the knight is so poor, remarks, "I trowe thou warte made a knyght of force" -- in other words, that the knight was compelled to become a knight.
This is clearly a reference to the phenomenon called "distraint of knighthood" (cf. Child, p. 45), under which the King forced a man with sufficient income to become a knight. (Realize that the picture of a knight from King Arthur television shows bears little relation to reality -- a knight was not a chivalrous soldier; a knight was a person with certain clearly-defined duties within the state.) This was primarily a revenue-raising measure -- during a war, the King could demand feudal service of a knight, or payment in lieu of it. According to OxfordCompanion, p. 298, it was Henry III who first used the proceedure, demanding that those with income of twenty pounds per year become knights (cf. Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 13). The standard soon became 40 pounds (Prestwich3, p. 138; Ormrod, p. 151, says that land valued at 40 pounds was the standard in the reign of Edward III), which better suited the genuine demands of knighthood.
Even as late as 1471-1472, in the reign of Edward IV, an examination of the tax rolls showed that the annual cost of a knight's household was 100 pounds, a baron's 500 pounds, and a viscount's 1000 pounds (Ross-Edward, p. 262).
But it was Edward I, not Henry III, who really made distraint of knighthood common, starting in 1278 (Ohlgren, pp. 316-317, n.13). This was part of a massive housecleaning campaign which Edward embarked upon to regularize the government and improve his revenue; he also replaced almost all the sheriffs (Prestwich1, p. 278) so that he could more easily enforce the changes -- and also better learn who had the money to become a knight.
In 1316, Edward II followed in his father's footsteps: "On 28 February every landholder with land worth [fifty pounds] or more was ordered to take up knighthood" (Phillips, p. 268).
Thus Robin's remark is clear evidence for the reign of Henry III or later -- and probably the reign of Edward I or later. In fact, it is a pretty strong argument for the reigns of Edward I or Edward II, because Edward III didn't bother with making many knights. The evidence of the campaigns in the Hundred Years' War is that the number of knights fell dramatically in his reign (Prestwich3, p. 139).
** Stanza 47/Line 187 ** The knight'sstatement that his family had held his land for "a n hundred wynter" is significant in the context of land tenure (and, perhaps, Robin's outlawry). At first glance, this requires only that the year be 1166 or after (since effectively no Englishmen continued their land tenure after the Norman Conquest; it all was given to Frenchmen). This means the date could be as early as the reign of Henry II. And, indeed, we see proclamations at the beginning of Henry II's reign saying, in effect, that tenants had to prove that they had held their land at the end of Henry I's reign in 1135; changes in the two decades since were illegitimate (Mortimer, p. 7)..
However, William the Conqueror's writ ran only weakly in northern England -- indeed, Cumbria and Northumberland were considered part of Scotland in this period. William just didn't have enough followers to control the area (Barlow, p. 297). A few Normans were established in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but the English kings did not really begin to assert control until the reign of William Rufus beginning in 1087. And Henry II died in 1189. Thus, while not impossible, it is highly unlikely that a knight from Lancashire or Yorkshire could have claimed a century's tenure in the reign of Henry II.
But the hundred year tenure becomes dramaticallysignificant if we assume that the time is that of Edward I or after. Even as Edward I was making new knights, he was also doing his best to regain land for the crown. Edward clawed back land using something called "Quo Warranto" proceedings (Prestwich1 has many pages on this, e.g. p. 347). This required landholders either to show a valid deed *or* to show actual possession of the land for the period from 1189 to 1290 (when the proceedings took place). Edward also made changes to something called "novel disseissin" (Prestwich1, p. 271). Combining what Prestwich1 says with what Smith says on p. 167, it appears that the changes made it easier to update an old writ -- and, hence, use out-of-date charges to dispossess a landowner. Since a deed might have been lost in the interim, the re-issuing of the writ, and the convening of a jury, would make it easier to evict the tenant.
Thus, for the knight to claim a hundred years' possession was to say that he had met the requirements of Edward I's land tenure requirements. An owner might speak with pride of a century's possession before Edward I came along -- but after Edward I's time, he was making a *legal* claim of right.
Edward I's laws were very hard on smallholders. To an illiterate peasant, the papers would easily be lost, and a century of possession was hard to prove. Many tenants must have lost their land. Corrupt officials made this worse; Edward I eventually tried to clean this up in 1298 (Prestwich1, pp. 431-432), but the bad precedent would continue for the rest of his reign and into the next. The victim of this fast dealing might not be a criminal -- but with no land, he had no livelihood. We have no information on how Robin Hood came to be displaced from his property -- but it is quite possible that he lost it due to one of Edward I's land-grabbing tricks. Kelly.J, p. 56, notes a substantial decrease in the area of land being cultivated starting around 1300; land laws and bad weather were driving tenants away.
** Stanza 48/Lines 189-190 ** In effect, the knight declares that he is poor because "time and chance happen to them all" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). There is nothing at all unusual about this view of fate; this was the standard pre-modern attitude. It is the whole theme of the Book of Job; who was a "blameless and upright man... who feared God and turned away from evil' (Job 1:1).
What is noteworthy is not the knight's attitude but the fact that Robin does not say something to the effect that it happened to him, too. This is additional clear evidence, were it needed, that Robin in the "Gest" is not a fallen nobleman. The result also differs from the Book of Job, where Job's three friends start out trying to comfort him and then turn on him when he persists in declaring himself innocent (in 16:20 Job openly declares that "my friends scorn me"). Robin asks pointed questions to get to the heart of the matter -- but, having been satisfied with the answers (as Job's friends were not), he resolves to help the knight.
** Stanza 49/Line 195 ** "Four hundred pound of gode money."
We see large sums of money at several points in the "Gest" -- in stanza 247, the monk carries eight hundred points. In stanza 120, we see that the knight and Little John between them could carry "Four hundred pound" (stanza 120). In stanza 176, John and the cook carry off three hundred pounds plus plate.
But no horse can be expected to carry 800 pounds of silver, even taking into account the fact that the pound sterling is only three-quarters of a pound Avoirdupois. For the weight and volume of a sum of 400 pounds, see the note on Stanza 120.
And, even though the knight in Stanza 121 tells the abbot "have here thi golde," money almost had to be kept in the form of silver. Prior to the reign of Edward III, the only coinage in England was the silver penny, which went back all the way to King Offa in around 770 (Brooke, p. 59). There had been a brief attempt to introduce gold coins in the reign of Henry III, but it was withdrawn due to being undervalued (OxfordComp, p. 224). But to carry value equivalent to 800 pounds would seem to require gold coinage (the exchange rate of silver and gold varied, but it is safe to say that 800 pounds sterling of silver would be no more than 50 pounds avoirdupois of gold).
There is also the problem of counting 400 pounds, or even more extremely, 800 pounds. 800 pounds at 240 silver pence to the pound is 192,000 pennies. Even 20 marks, the amount the monk claimed in stanza 243, is 3200 pence. (Could Little John count that high? If he could, is this the reason why he is always the one who counts the cash?)
It is true that, early in the reign of Edward IV, we hear of travellers being robbed of 200 pounds, 300 pounds -- even, in two unusual cases, of 700 pounds and 1000 pounds (Pollard, p. 92). But even if these reports are accurate, this is almost a century after the death of Edward III, and a century and a half after the reign of Edward II. Given inflation, those amounts appear to be less than is being bandied about here. Plus, by then, there were gold coins.
Odds are that the figures bandied about are simply exaggeration and that most of the money the knight used was actually letters of credit or something equivalent. Otherwise, it would be hard even to find that much coin. Prestwich1, p. 408, estimates that the total currency in *all of England* at only about a million pounds in the 1290s. No one but the crown and a few of the very richest earls could have hundreds of pounds -- even the King had only about 25,000 pounds of revenue in the twelfth century (Barlow, p. 224).
But we need only assume the monk was carrying a substantial amount of money (even the 20 marks, or 13 and a third pounds, he claimed at the outset) for this to be a dating hint. Smith, p. 126, says that "coined money had become more widely available in the twelfth century," leading to more use of coinage in the reigns of Richard and John, but the first real reform of the coinage came under Edward I in 1279-1280, who introduced the farthing and groat and regularized other coinage (OxfordComp, p. 224). And coining was carried out only periodically, meaning that there was often shortage of coin. This was true for much of Henry III's reign, and late in Edward I's reign because of the high taxation for his wars (Prestwich1, p. 405). And Edward I hit the church particularly hard, because that is where the money was (Prestwich1, p. 418). Prestwich3, p. 236, and Ormrod, p. 156, also note currency crises in the early reign of Edward III. Thus, if there really was money being used in Robin Hood's time, the reign of Edward II is a very good bet.
On the other hand, it wasn't a bad rule of thumb to assume that the value of land was ten times the income -- in other words, if the knight had 400 pounds of land, then he would have income of forty pounds a year. Which matches the 40 pounds of income eventually expected of a knight. The knight may even have had a little more than 400 pounds of land, since the abbott (based on his behavior) very likely wanted securities worth more than the amount he was lending.
To put this in perspective, a knight bachelor in Edward III's armies in the Hundred Years' War was paid (according to Ormrod, p. 141) 4 shillings a day (about 70 pounds per year), and a knight bachelor 2 shillings a day (35 pounds per year). Seward, p. 269, gives figures for expected incomes in 1436: 865 pounds for a baron, 208 pounds for a "well-to-do knight," 60 pounds for a lesser knight, 24 pounds for an esquire. Prices had of course inflated substantially in the period since the reign of Edward III; it is safe to assume that these values would have been at least a third less in 1345.
Which makes it curious to see the monk in stanza 92 declares the knight's lands to be worth 400 pounds per year. As the above numbers show, that is the income of a baron (if a rather impoverished one), not a knight. It is probably an error -- either by the monk or the poet.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117E

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 07

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 08 (File Number C117G). This entry contains notes on Stanza 51-Fit II of the "Gest."
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: ** Stanza 52/Lines 205-206 ** Compare the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32, although the Prodigal Son, unlike the knight's son, was not his heir. It is curious to note that, although the story of the knight is the fullest episode in the "Gest," we never find out the youth's fate. Did he flee the country, leaving his father on the hook for his bail?
** Stanzas 52-53/Lines 208-210 ** It is possible that there is a dating hint in stanza 52-53, describing how the knight's son killed a knight and a squire. Stanza 52, line four, states that this took place "In felde wolde iust full fayre." Ohlgren, p. 223, takes this to mean that the boy killed them in a tournament. Others do not read it so (the youth might have killed one man in a tournament, but two?), but if it is true, it is a hint of a date in the reign of Edward I or Edward II. Tournaments (at this stage, not the jousts we see in Malory but just wild scrambles between two teams) were disliked by the Church because they promoted fighting and sometimes killed people. Edward I, as a favor to the Church, banned them (Prestwich3, p. 37). This did not prevent people from organizing them, of course; they were too popular. But the fact that they were illegal made it murder to kill someone at one. That ended in the reign of Edward III, who "was a great patron of tournaments" (Prestwich3, p. 205), and indeed a highly successful competitor.
See also the note on Stanza 116.
** Stanza 53/Line 209 ** Child's text, in line 53.1, says "He slewe a knyght of Lancaster;" so too Knight/Ohlgren. This is one of the most important variants in the "Gest," with various witnesses reading "Lancaster," "Lancashire," "Lancasesshyre," and "Lancastshyre ," which is much more likely to be the original reading than "Lancaster" (see the textual note). The distinction is potentially significant. "Lancashire" is without question a place designation. "Lancaster" might be -- but it is more likely a political designation, referring to a follower of the earl or duke of Lancaster.
** Stanza 54/Line 216 ** Gummere, p. 315, explains the odd form "Saynt Mari Abbey" as a genitive, "Mari" meaning "Mary's." There are few other such inflected forms in the "Gest"; perhaps most of the rest have been modernized. This may be one of the reasons why some scholars have suggested early dates for the "Gest."
St. Mary's Abbey was in York. It was founded by Alan the Red, a close companion of William the Conqueror, who was one of the chief rulers of the north of England (Barlow, p. 313). William Rufus, the Conqueror's son, seems to have been present at the turf-cutting, presumably as part of his campaign to secure the throne he had just taken (Lack, p. 43). Henry I would also endow it (Barlow, p. 432), so it was well-established and well-endowed by Plantagenet times.
After the Reformation, it naturally failed, and the buildings are in ruins; what is left can be seen in the gardens of the York Museum (Kerr, p. 187).
In 1132, according to Kerr, pp. 193-194, a group of monks broke away and abandoned the Benedictine rule for the stricter Cisterian rule. Their new foundation was Fountains Abbey, later to be associated with Friar Tuck.
According to Pollard, p. 123, St. Mary's wasn't particularly popular with the local people: "There had been bitter and much publicised conflict between the abbeys of Bury St Edmunds, St Albans and St Mary's and the townsmen on their doorsteps in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." Pollard in fact reports that the conflict between St. Mary's and York, about who controlled certain lands, was at its height in 1326-1327, at the very end of Edward II's reign.
On p. 128, Pollard adds that "St. Mary's would appear to have been one of the most active of the great Benedictine monasteries in the land and money market in the early fourteenth century."
This wasn't the only time in the reign of Edward II that St. Mary's was "in the headlines." It came to particular prominence when the King's favorite Piers Gaveston was to be housed there in 1312 while the peers decided what to do with him (Phillips, p. 188). People in the north of England would likely have been aware of this, but since no one except Edward liked Gaveston, I'm not sure what significance, if any, the fact might have had.
For the act of borrowing based on land as collateral, and for St. Mary's right to acquire lands whem most abbeys were barred, see the next note.
** Stanza 55/Lines 219-220 ** The knight borrowed 400 pounds from the Abbott of Saint Mary, offering his land and holdings as collateral. The deal the knight struck with the Abbott is typical for the period. In 1093, for instance, we read of an abbott's son-in-law charged with some sort of financial crime. The abbott and others put up sureties worth 500 marks -- and lost them when the fellow fled to Flanders (Barlow, p. 252).
Holt1, p. 75, suggests that the idea of the church gaining the knight's land is the one original theme of the "Gest," not found in any other early romance. He observes that this violates the law of mortmain, passed by Edward I in 1279, which largely forbade the turning over of secular land to monastic organizations. He argues that, because of mortmain, the thirteenth century is a better date for the events of the "Gest" than some later time.
This need not follow. Edward I seems to have proposed mortmain as a curb on Archbishop Pecham of Canterbury (Prestwich1, p. 251). After Edward's time, kings allowed so many exceptions to mortmain that it was almost a dead letter (Powicke, p. 325). According to Smith, p. 186, "The intent of the Statute of Mortmain soon came to be widely evaded. For political and other powerful reasons, kings sometimes granted licences permitting the alienation of lands to the church." Smith also mentions a system known as "uses," where the land was handed over to a secular entity but the church enjoyed its use -- i.e. its income. The law was not rewritten to prevent this until 1391, in the reign of Richard II (Smith, pp. 186-187).
One suspects that most kings would allow the handover -- provided they got their cut. It is also reasonable to assume that a clever lawyer could have gotten around even that requirement.
Pollard, p. 126, seems to suggest that the transfer of land was in fact illegal due to mortmain and that Robin was upholding the actual law. I can see no hint of this in the "Gest," and find it hard to believe that the crafty abbot would not have covered his bases.
There is another point, and an astounding one: St. Mary's Abbey had been given a special exemption to mortmain. Starting in 1301, they were allowed to take up to 200 pounds per year in property (Pollard, p. 128; Baldwin, p. 47). This privilege continued through most of the reign of Edward II, and we have records of the Abbot in the 1330s making loans. To be sure, the knight's lands were worth 400 pounds, which is more than 200 -- but remember that the loan was made in one year and paid in another. Given the legal nature of loans at the time (which were more like corporations pooling property), a good lawyer could certainly write the deed so that half the land was acquired when the loan was made and half when it failed to be paid.
We should also note that, in 1311, Edward II was forced to submit to the Ordinances -- a series of acts meant to control the government (and get the finances in better order). In effect, a committee of overseers -- the Ordainers -- was appointed. One of the Ordinances required "that no gifts of land, revenue, franchies, or wardship and marriages were to be made without the approval of the Ordainers" (Phillips, p. 172). The Ordinances never really worked; they contained some good ideas, but no functional enforsement mechanism (Phillips, pp. 179-180). But in the north of England, where the Earl of Lancaster (a chief sponsor of the Ordinances) had great influence, no doubt the form of the ordinances had to be followed closely.
These laws very likely explain why the "justice" was present: He was to write a transfer which met the requirements of mortmain -- or, perhaps, he would be the one granted the "use" of the land. He might also have been present to grant Ordainer approval.
The passage of mortmain was a part of a war between church hierarchy and king that was characteristic of the reign of Edward I (Prestwich1, p. 253; on p. 256, he lists the clergy's grievances). This fits rather well with the attitude of Robin Hood, who was a friend of the church and of the King but who despised bishops. But this doesn't help with dating. King John had such bad relations with the church that the Pope interdicted England (an argument, in a way, against placing Robin in John's reign -- Robin would largely have agreed with the anti-episcopal John). Henry II's reign saw the murder of Becket, whom Henry had nominated Archhishop because of his trouble with other clergymen. Stephen not only arrested several bishops, he actually tried starving them (Matthew, p. 91). Conflicts between King and bishops were so common that they tell us very little.
** Stanzas 56-57/Lines 223-226 ** There is a hint in these verses that the knight is going on crusade -- he will go "ouer the salte sea And se where Criste was quyke and dede" ("over the salty sea and see where Christ lived and died"). Although Ohlgren, p. 317 n. 18, makes the unlikely suggestion that Sir Richard was going to participate in the Hundred Years' War (see the note on Stanzas 88-89), and even suggests in n. 23 that he was getting money from the crown, the text clearly implies a visit to Palestine (stanza 57 says that the knight is going to "Caluere" =Calvary).
Can we use this as a date peg? Not with certainty -- after all, people had been going on pilgrimage as early as the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine the Great (Runciman1, p. 39), and by the tenth century, pilgrimages were common and were sometimes given as pennances (Runciman1, pp.43-44). But Stanzas 88-89 hint that the knight will not just travel to Jerusalem but fight there. If the knight were going as part of a larger English expedition, this would at first glance seem to point to either the Third Crusade, led by Richard I (hence c. 1190; this is the implication of Holt2, p. 193) or Prince Edward's crusade (c. 1270). Those were the only two occasions on which English royalty went to the Holy Land.
This is not conclusive, however; there were other times when an Englishman might reasonably expect to go crusading There weren't many English involved in the First Crusade, but one of the major leaders was Robert Duke of Normandy (Lack, p. 75), the son of William the Conqueror who arguably should have become King of England in 1087 when the Conqueror died, and who certainly should have become King in 1100 when William Rufus died The Second Crusade, almost purely a French affair, was a washout, but the Third, the Crusade of Kings, was a very large affair. Several other Crusades followed; all were flops, but all attracted at least a few zealous followers.
Although Edward I's Crusade has the advantage of being relatively late, which makes it a better fit than the First and Third Crusades, it isn't really a good candidate. It was a very small expedition. Prestwich1, p. 71, thinks Edward took fewer than 1000 soldiers, and many of those were paid at least partly by the French. Since most of those men were retainers, not knights, the number of knights involved must have been counted only in the hundreds. This out of perhaps 15,000 knights in England at the time. And Prince Edward was not yet Edward I when he set out; Henry III died while Edward was still on his way home (after a valiant but futile trip; the French crusade had bogged down outside Tunis -- Prestwich1, pp. 73-74 -- and while Edward went on to Acre, he had too few men to accomplish anything except rebuild a tower and manage a few raids.)
But although Edward I was the last serious English crusader, that was not the final end of the Crusading impulse; "The crusade was preached again and again" (Powicke, p. 232).
At the end of the reign of Edward I, Clement V -- who was a Gascon and hence a subject of Edward I -- became Pope, and one of his chief goals was to restart the Crusades (the last Crusader cities, Acre and dependencies, had fallen in 1291; Runciman3, pp. 412-423. Edward I had sent a few soldiers, according to Runciman3, p. 413, but they were too few to make a difference and the King was too occupied to come himself).
Clement worked very hard to heal the problems between England and France in hopes of enabling the Crusade (Phillips, p. 108). Clement in fact appointed Anthony Bek, the Bishop of Durham at the beginning of Edward II's reign, titular Catholic patriarch of Jerusalem in 1306 (Phillips, p. 51n.), a title he held until his death in 1311 (Phillips, p. 174). If anyone had an interest in restarting the crusade, it was obviously him! And Durham (just south of Newcastle) was a northern Bishopric, and one with palatinate powers. As a wild hypothesis, what the knight might have meant is that he would have joined the retinue of Bishop Bek (or, more likely, his successor) with the eventual expectation of joining Clement's proposed crusade -- which however never got off the ground.
Edward II was at least theoretically supportive of Clement's attempts; Edward and his father-in-law Philip IV of France took the cross in 1313, as did Edward's wife and Philip's daughter Isabella (Phillips, p. 210; this actually became the subject of a manuscript illustration reproduced as plate 11 in Phillips). Nothing came of this, partly because of tensions between the two and partly because of Bannockburn, but the knight might have been expecting more. Runciman3, p. 434, in fact suggests that Philip's sole purpose in taking the cross was to get his hands on the money that would have gone into the Crusade -- and certainly his plundering of the Templars in this decade (Phillips, p. 211) had been for purposes of getting his hands on their money (Runciman3, pp. 434-438). But Edward was likely sincere.
(I have to note a very folkloric touch here: Philip IV eventually had the Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, burned at the stake, since the Templars were being accused of being heretics. From the flames, de Molay was said to have called Philip IV and Pope Clement V to meet him at God's tribunal, and to have cursed Philip's line; Doherty, p. 58. And, indeed, Philip and Clement both died within a year -- and Philip's three sons all died without male heirs, and there is evidence that they were cuckolded anyway; Phillips, p. 222. Thus the Capetian line died out, except for Isabella the wife of Edward II. The Valois inherited the Kingdom of France -- and as a result had to fight the Hundred Years' War against Edward II's and Isabella's son Edward III and his heirs. This, as I shall argue below, was the backdrop of the latter part of Robin's legend.)
Edward II was formally committed to the crusade from 1313 to 1316. In the latter year, with his reign having been blighted by Bannockburn and crop failures and fights with his barons, he formally asked the Pope to let him put off his crusade (Phillips, p. 284); the postponement was granted in early 1317 (Phillips, p. 287). So the most likely period for a knight to consider crusading was 1313-1317.
Even this is not the last possible date. As late as the reign of Edward III, the King of England talked about going on crusade with the King of France (Perroy, p. 88; Seward, p. 28). Even after that, there were still Crusades; they just didn't go to Palestine. So, for instance, in 1385, Bishop Despenser of Norwich was allowed to use money from crusading indulgences to pay for a cross-channel expedition in Flanders; this war on fellow Catholics was called a crusade because there were two different popes at the time (Saul, pp. 105-106). Again, when Henry of Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV) was exiled by Richard II, he went to fight pagans in northeastern Europe, and was considered to have gone on crusade.
To be sure, there is no hint that the knight is joining a larger expedition. It sounds as if he plans to go on his own. This suggests the possibility that the knight, instead of going on crusade, meant to join one of the crusading orders -- the Templars or the Hospitalars. But the Templars, as noted above, were suppressed during the reign of Edward II -- and Edward II promised to take the cross to fill the void left by their destruction (Doherty, p. 56). The Hospitalars lasted much longer, but after 1291, they had no place in Palestine. Thus the Knight could not reach Calvary by joining the orders -- and besides, the members of the orders were supposed to be unmarried, and we know the knight has a wife.
The most logical guess, adding all this up: The Knight was considering joining an organized crusade (probably Edward II's), but was prepared to go even if there was no crusade.
** Stanza 59/Line 233 ** "Where be thy frendes?"The language here is again vaguely reminiscents of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32, where "no one gave [the prodigal] anything." It is probably not an allusion but just one of those things people heard repeated.
Comnpare also Wisdom of Sirach 12:8-9: "A friend is not known (i.e. shown to be true) in prosperity, nor is an enemy hidden in adversity. One's enemies are friendly when one prospers, but in adversity even a friend disappears."
Finally, Sirach 29:10 advises, "Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend" -- advice which only Robin follows.
** Stanza 61/Lines 241-244 ** Note that only four outlaws are mentioned as hearing the Knight's story: Robin, John, Much, and Scarlock. For the possibility that these are the only members of te band, see the note to Stanza 17.
** Stanza 62/Line 248 ** Although we usually say that Jesus died on the cross, the New Testament contains a number of places where he is said to have died on a tree (Greek xylon, which means both "tree" and "wood"): Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, 1 Peter 2:24.
** Stanza 63/Line 252 ** Robin's refusal to accept Peter, Paul, or John as a guarantor of a loan is rather ironic, although probably not intentionally so. There isn't much mention of commerce or moneylending in the New Testament, but what there is mostly involved with Peter and Paul. Paul, when the slave Onesimus ran away from his owner Philemon, tried to induce Philemon to free Onesimus voluntarily on the grounds that Philemon owed him for bringing salvation, but if Philemon refused, Paul promised, "I will repay it" (Phillemon 19).
The case of Peter is not so explicit, but when the question of the Temple Tax came up, Jesus told Peter to take a hook and catch a fish, which would contain the money to pay the tax (Matthew 17:24-27). And when Ananias and Sapphira tried to cheat the church, it was Peter who called them out, resulting in their deaths (Acts 5:1-11). Thus Peter and Paul, whom Robin disdains, are the primary New Testament examples of financial integrity. Mary -- who as a woman would have had no control over money -- is never mentioned in a financial context.
** Stanza 65/Line 259 ** Having admitted that he has no other securities (a strange statement, since if he could pay his debt to St. Mary's Abbey, he would have his land back, and the land would be security), the Knight offers "Our dear Lady," i.e. the Virgin Mary, as security -- a guarantee which Robin at once accepts. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 82, declare that this must be based on the common motif of Miracles of the Virgin, for which see the introduction, although a precise parallel to this particular tale has not been found. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 153, mention a tale, "The Merchant's Surety," which similar themes although the plot details are rather different.
For more on Robin's devotion to the Virgin, see the note on Stanza 10.
It is just possible that this Miracle of the Virgin is a dating hint. As noted in the section on sources, Miracles of the Virgin were often anti-Semitic. But that theme does not show up here at all -- the "Gest" is anti-church hierarchy, not anti-Jews. This makes sense, because Edward I had expelled the Jews from England in 1290. (For this, see the notes to "Sir Hugh, or, The Jew's Daughter" [Child 155], or Powicke, p. 322, or Prestwich1, p. 346). The absence of Jews in the tale may be because the author lived in a time after the Jews were expelled, but it might also be because the original tale came from a time after the Jews were expelled.
There is also the matter that, at this time, very few people other than clerics and some merchants and nobles were literate. What knowledge of Christianity most people had came partly from sermons and partly from performances such as the mystery plays. This definitely could cause people to develop peculiar notions. And Robin, as an outlaw, might not have much access to the regular clergy (despite the "three masses" of Stanza 8), but probably could see the Mystery Plays.
I mention this because the Mystery Plays seem to have been particularly popular in Yorkshire. Happe, p. 10, notes that we have four cycles of mystery plays plus odds and ends. Two of the cycles are from Yorkshire: The York cycle itself, and the so-called Towneley cycle, which is from Wakefield (a well-known Robin Hood site); this is the cycle which contains the famous Second Shepherd's Play. A third cycle is from Chester, not too far from Robin's haunts (the source of the fourth is uncertain). So Robin might have derived much of his knowledge of theology from this limited source -- one in which the Virgin Mary is one of the few female players to come off well.
(It should probably be noted, however, that we have no evidence of the use of mystery plays before about 1375; Happe, p. 13. Indeed, the plays were associated with the feast of Corpus Christi, and that was not promulgated until 1311 and did not become common in Britain until 1318, according to p. 19 of Happe. Thus the "real" Robin is unlikely to have learned anything from the mystery plays -- but the author of the "Gest" might well have.)
** Stanza 67/Line 268 ** The "modernization" of the "Gest" by Maud Isabel Ebbutt, quoted on p. 176 of Mersey, interprets the phrase "well tolde it be" to mean "well ocunted, with no false or clipped coins therein." This obviously assumes coinage (see the note on Stanza 49). And coin clipping certainly happened in Edwardian times (there were actually pennies that were designed to be cut into quarters!), and there were poor imported coins with less silver content than English pennies. But all Robin says is that John is to be sure the knight gets the right amount.
** Stanza 68/Lines 271-272 ** Here we see the actual loan paid out. The method is curious; see the textual note.
** Stanzas 70-72/Lines 276-286 ** Little John points declares to Robin that they must give the threadbare knight "a lyueray" (livery), suggesting scarlet and green. Robin gives him three yards of "euery colour." Despite this, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 281, suggest that the original reading should be "scarlet in graine," i.e. "scarlet dyed in the grain," a high grade scarlet cloth. There seems little point to this emendation.
A better explanation may come from Finlay, p. 147, who says of scarlet that "A fashin statement in medieval Europe was to wear clothes made of a new cloth, imported from central Acia. The new cloth was called 'scarlet'... vastly popular... but... extremely expensive -- at least four times the price of ordinary cloth. But the curious thing is, scarlet was not always red. Sometimes it was blue or green or occasionally black, and the reason that in English 'scarlet' means 'red' and not 'chic-textile-that-only-socialites-can-afford-but-we-all-aspire-to' is because of kermes [a red dye made from insects]." So perhaps the best explanation is that John suggests scarlet-type cloth dyed green, and Robin says scarlet-type cloth in all colors.
Green cloth will appear as Robin's color in Stanza 422. The reference to scarlet is more interesting, since the standard red dye of this period was kermes, "a red coloring obtained from insects living on evergreen oak trees in lands bordering the Mediterranean," according to Backhouse, p. 32; it is related to carmine and cochineal, and is said to be the origin of the word "crimson." It was expensive even in southern Europe, since harvesting it was labour-intensive, and very expensive in places such as England where it had to be imported. If scarlet is genuinely meant, as opposed to a poorer grade of red, this is an indication that Robin is giving gifts like a nobleman, and perhaps taking the role of a liege lord.
Knight, p. xix, makes the interesting observation that no fewer than nine of the ballads in the Forresters Manuscript refer to Robin's men wearing green; two also refer to Robin himself wearing scarlet.
The gift of cloth hints at the granting of livery (although we note that the knight is not given a livery badge, just cloth). It is interesting to note that, when the knight comes to return Robin's money, he wears white and red (stanza 133). The red might be Robin's color, but the white seemingly is not.
Is this a dating hint? Keen (pp. 137-138), referring to the general greenwood legend, strenuously argues that it must date from the fourteenth or fifteenth century, because of references such as this (as well as in some of the other early ballads) to livery and its misuse. As documentation of the problem he points, e.g., to certain sections in "Richard the Redeless" on this theme. There is no question but that this was a much-discussed issue; Barr, pp. 19-20, says that "Richard the Redeless" goes so far as to identify various characters by their livery badges. Saul, pp. 200-201, says that the commons regularly petitioned about this in the reign of Richard II. One petition asked that "all liveries called badges, whether given by the king or the lords, of which use has begun since the first year of King Edward III (1327), and all lesser liveries, such as hoods, shall henceforth not be given or worn but shall be abolished upon the pain specified in this document."
The attempt at a fix did not work; parliament would still be bugging the crown about abuses of livery in the reign of Edward IV (Ross-Edward, p. 349).
The nature of the petition to Richard II implies that the problem was not believe to go back more than a reign or two. And Robin was legendary by 1377. Thus Keen's argument agrees with the "Gest" in dating Robin to the reign of one of the Edwards -- with Edward II and Edward III being the best bets. Livery was simply not an issue in the reign of Henry III, let alone the earlier kings.
** Stanza 71/Lines 283-284 ** John declares that no merchant in England is as rich as Robin. This screams for an early date, before "bastard feudalism" and the rise of the merchant princes. An obvious example is the de la Pole family of Hull. William de la Pole's wealth was great enough that he became a major financier of Edward III's campaigns in the Hundred Years' War (OxfordCompanion, p. 758) and still had enough left over to found major memorial institutions at his death while leaving his family well-off (Kerre, p. 159); it eventually allowed his son to become Earl of Suffolk in the reign of Richard II (Saul, p. 117).
By 1386, Michael de la Pole was earning more than 400 marks per year (Maxfield/Gillespie, p. 229), and while some of this was from lands Richard had granted him, much was from his merchant activity. The de la Poles were not the only merchants to (in effect) buy their way into the nobility; if John is right and no merchant can compare with Robin, this strongly implies a date before the time of Edward III.
** Stanza 72/Lines 287-288 ** For the use of a "bowe-tree" as a measure, see also the end of the Percy version of "Robin Hood's Death": "Lay my yew bowe by my side, My met-yard [measuring rod] wi..." (Stanza 27 of the A text).
** Stanza 73/Lines 291-292 ** For a (just barely possible) explanation of Much the Miller's Son's complaint about Little John's generosity, see the note to Stanza 4 about Much.
** Stanzas 75-77/Lines 297-308 ** It is interesting to see Robin keeping horses -- fine horses, in fact -- in the greenwood. This may be an indication of date; it was not until the reign of Edward III that it became customary to mount archers. But how could the outlaws keep them fit while living in a forest?
Also, where could Robin have come across such fine beasts as these were said to be (in stanza 100, the porter praises the animals highly)?At this time, even horses were divided into yeoman's horses and gentleman's horses (Pollard, p. 36). One suspects that the animals had recently been taken from some relatively high-ranked person, and that Robin was willing to give them away because he had no good way to keep them.
Note that he gives the knight both a courser and a palfrey. To oversimplify, the courser or destrier was a fighting horse and the palfrey a riding horse (often a woman's riding horse, but a knight when not expecting battle might well ride a palfrey to avoid overburdening his warhorse). We may see this palfrey again in stanza 263.
The fact that the knight apparently lacks a good horse may possibly be an indication of just how hard he has been squeezed by his creditors. Mortimer, p. 26, notes that "When a knight's creditors foreclosed on him and his belongings were sold, he was to be left a horse -- unless he was a figting knight... in which case he was to be left his armour and several horses."
** Stanza 80/Lines 317-320 ** Robin offers Little John as a servant on the grounds that a good knight should have one. This is fair enough -- but why pick his right-hand man, who (if he is indeed a giant) is highly recognizable, a very good fighter, and the man who counts the money? Is it possible that Robin chose John to watch over the knight and make sure he wasn't pulling a fast one?This might explain the curious events of stanzas 151-152.
** Stanza 88/Line 349 ** Ritson, cited by Gummere, p. 88, notes that the prior of an abbeywas the most senior official after the abbot, and hence the one in best position to cross the abbot -- which would explain the abbot's complaint in stanza 91 that the prior is always in his beard.
** Stanzas 88-89/Lines 351-356 ** The last two lines of stanza 88 make nonsense and are likely corrupt; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 154, suggest that the Prior means "*If it were me, I would rather pay the hundred pounds right away." But this must be taken in the light of the next stanza. The knight, according to the Prior, has been beyond the sea -- another hint at a crusade. Or might the Prior -- the one sympathetic person at St. Mary's -- have known that the knight was considering going on crusade? But one of the rules of the crusades was that the Crusader's lands and debts were to be safe while he was on Crusade -- even if he was delayed. So the Prior might be saying, "We have to wait." Alternately, perhaps, "Better to take a hundred pounds than get nothing" -- which might be what happened if the Abbot forced the knight on crusade and he died there.
There is one other interesting possibility: The church generally forbade usurious mortgages -- but was likely to allow them for Crusaders, because it was the only way Crusaders could raise cash quickly (Barlow, p. 363, who points out that William the Conqueror's son Robert of Normandy was one so victimized.) Could it be that the knight claimed he was going on crusade in order to get the loan he had to have, on usurious terms, since he could not raise the money any other way? And then, when he failed to earn the money he needed to pay off the load, did he consider going crusading anyway?
The second line of stanza 89 is also probably troubled, and has caused several editors to emend the text (see textual note). Surprisingly, given the uncertainty of the text, scholars have tried to hang large conclusions on the meaning of this line.
The reading "In Englonde is his ryght," if original, is probably to be understood "fighting for England's cause" (although Pollard, p. 250, thinks it refers to the knight's English estates) This is the one piece of supporting evidence for Ohldgren's claim (for which see Stanzas 56-57) that the knight had been fighting in the Hundred Years' War -- a battle in France was far more a battle on behalf of England than a battle in the Holy Land. And a knight could hardly hope to go to Palestine and back in a year, whereas it was at least possible to make a one year trip to France. But, first, the Knight is in fact in England, not France or Palestine; second, the knight never mentions any fighting in France; third, while a man might bet his land on the proceeds of war (which often had a large payoff in booty), he would never risk a one year loan; there was too much risk that he could not get back in time. Ohlgren's explanation is not quite impossible, but this one conjectured line is not a sufficient basis for an understanding which causes so many difficulties.
** Stanza 91/Line 362 ** The abbott swears by "Saint Richard" (see textual note). Ohlgren, p. 224, expands this to refer to "Saint Richard of Cichester," described in a note as Richard de Wych, 1197-1253.
The only real support for suggestion is the fact that there is no important saint named Richard (see p. 977 of the list of saints in Benet; Gummere, p. 316, observes that Ritson managed to find three Saints Richard, but all are quite obscure). Richard of Chichester is the only Richard likely to have been known in England. He was canonized in 1262 (OxfordCompanion, p. 806). Obviously the use of such an oath implies a date after 1262 (late in the reign of Henry III). This is more evidence for a date in the reign of one of the Edwards. But I have no idea why the abbott would swear by Saint Richard -- he was not a Northern saint, being associated (naturally) with Chichester and Sussex. Maybe it's just that "Richard" is a Southern (indeed, a French) name, and the poet wanted to suggest that the Abbot wasn't a local?
One other possibility that occurs to me is Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury following Becket. Warren-Henry, p. 536, declares that "Richard of Dover was no time-server, and was to be one of the leaders in a remarkable efflorescence of interest in the development of canon law in England... he gave first place to the reform of the clergy." Johnson, p. 211, declares that he "gave first place to the reform of the clergy and cooperation with the State." He of course was not canonized -- but canonization was rarely formal at this time (Richard of Chichester was noteworthy mostly because a real pope canonized him). People were called saints who never made it into the calendar of the church. Richard of Dover seems to have been a reasonably good man -- and it strikes me that the compiler of the "Gest" might have been subtly ironic to have the very unholy Abbott of Saint Mary's swear by a reforming bishop.
** Stanza 92/Line 368 ** "Four hundred pounde by yere." Usually understood as "four hundred pounds per year," i.e. land yielding an income of 400 pounds annually. This is likely an error, perhaps for 40 pounds annually, perhaps for 400 pounds total value of the land. See note on stanza 49.
** Stanza 93/Line 369 ** The "hy selerer," or "high cellarer," was respondible for provisioning the abbey, and for bringing in supplies from outside. This position would vary in importance -- some abbeys raised most of their own food. But, clearly, the abbot of St. Mary's is fond of fine food, meaning that the cellarer would be responsible for getting him what he wants. This doubtless means that he is responsible for a large budget as well. We will meet the cellarer of St. Mary's again in Stanza 233, in very interesting circumstances.
** Stanza 93/Line 371 ** Child's text reads "The [hye] iustyce of Englonde"; the better text is probably to omit "hye," making it the "iustice of Englonde." This is one of the more significant textual problems of the "Gest" (see the textual note), because neither reading makes good sense. In this case, we probably need to consider possible meanings of both readings.
If we omit "high," this fails to explain why this man is called THE "justice of England." To be sure, Knight/Ohlgren, p. 155 (note on line 416) explain that the title "justice," without a descriptive, refers simply to a "professional lawer... the agent of a powerful lord -- the abbot in this case," and note that justices had many functions in local courts. This would also explain why the justice has taken "clothe and fee," i.e. livery, from the abbot (stanza 107) -- the chief justice would never wear another's livery. But that still leaves us with the problem of "the justice of England."
We might speculate that the line is meant to be understood that the abbot had control of justice in England, but this doesn't wash because we see in stanzas 94, 96, etc. that this justice was an actual person.
But "the high justice of England" is no better. There was no such office. The number of courts and jurisdictions was extremely high in the early Plantagenet period -- a side effect of the fact that, until the reign of Edward I, legislation was essentially ad hoc. Edward I finally settled on the statute as a method of imposing laws, but even he had no standard legal format; some statutes were in Latin, some in French (Prestwich1, p. 268. English did not become the standard language of law until the reign of Edward III).
The title Lord Chief Justice did not evolve until later. The King's Bench came into existence in 1268, but did not operate independently of the king until the time of Edward III (OxfordComp, p. 548). What's more, in the reign of Edward IV, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench was paid 215 pounds in a year (Ross-Edward, p. 329). Even allowing for inflation, could the Abbot have taken a big enough cut from the profit of the knight's land to make it worthwhile to bribe such an official? This seems unlikely.
To be sure, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench would have been in the north frequently during the Scottish wars of Edward I and Edward II, so perhaps the Abbot could have borrowed him. But, since the Justice followed the King, the Abbot couldn't count on that. He might give the Justice a fee, but livery?
There was the justiciar in the early Plantagenet period (the office seems to have been made prominent by Henry I, although it may have been established earlier; Barlow, p. 202. Barlow, p. 204, adds that "the post of chief justiciar... hardly ever acquired a certain title," which is interesting). Not all justiciars were honest (Richard I, for instance, immediately after taking the throne deposed Henry II's justiciar Ranulf de Glanville for dishonesty ; Gillingham, p. 129). But Henry III left the office of justiciar vacant after 1234, revived it only under pressure decades later, then let it lapse, never to be revived (Prestwich1, p. 25). There was never a justiciar under a King Edward (even when Edward II appointed his favorite Piers Gaveston as regent, he called him "custos regni" rather than justiciar; Phillips, p. 133), and since in earlier years the purpose of the office was mostly to serve as a viceroy, the justiciar is not likely to have been involved in a legal dispute.
(Edward I did appoint a justiciar of North Wales after he conquered the territory; Prestwich1, p. 206. But the post was specific to Wales; in England, the Welsh justiciar -- initially Otto de Grandson -- seems still to have been known by his English titles. Certainly the justiciars carried none of their Welsh authority in England.)
Pollard, p. 102, thinks the justice might be the chief justice of the forests north of the Trent. This produces a title which fits -- but why would the Abbot need to buy his support? The Abbot is not trying to dispossess Robin Hood, who lives in the greenwood; he is going after the Knight.
In the period between the decline of the justiciar and the independence of the King's Bench, the Lord Chancellor was generally in charge of justice. And some Chancellors were pretty sleazy. Powicke, pp. 335-339, generally praises Edward I's chancellors, but Prestwich1, p. 110, says that one of them,Robert Burnell, was sustained by Edward despite charges of corruption. (Edward, in fact, proposed Burnell for Archbishop of Canterbury in 1278 -- and the Pope turned it down flat; Prestwich1, p. 249. Edward later tried to have Burnell made Bishop of Winchester; that too was shot down; Prestwich, p. 255.) Burnell died in 1292, according to Prestwich1, p. 293, so if he is the corrupt official involved, the Richard at Lee episode would have to have taken place by about 1290.
To give him his due, Powicke, p. 338, thinks Burnell played a major role in shaping Edward's legislation and softening the king's justice. And he seems to have been generally accessible; Prestwich, p. 234, sums him up as "affable, but slippery."
If our criterion is simply a corrupt senior judge, we do see an instance in the reign of Edward I when a justice of the King's Bench, William Bereford, was accused of corruption (Prestwich1, p. 167). Bereford nonetheless continued to serve in various posts until 1326 -- almost the end of the reign of Edward II. That might imply he was honest -- but more likely implies that he knew which side of his bread was buttered. If the Justice of the "Gest" is to be identified with an actual person (a position I would not wish to defend), Bereford is a good candidate. Not the only one, however....
Another possibility in the reign of Edward I was Walter Langton, Keeper of the Wardrobe after 1290. The Wardrobe was responsible for paying for Edward's wars, so it had both financial and judicial responsibilities, and Prestwich1, pp. 139-140, says that Langton was "a man of great ability and little principle" -- a man who, in fact, was accused of killing his mistress's husband with his own hands. Phillips, p. 3, says that he fell "spectacularly" as soon as Edward I was dead, and was accused of "murder, adultery, simony, pluralism, and intercourse with the devil."
As a wild speculation, Langton, in addition to his office of Keeper of the Wardrobe, was Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Obviously the Archbishop of York had jurisdiction over Barnsdale and the Yorkshire area, but Coventry isn't that far south of Nottingham (it's closer to it than is Barnsdale!). Could it have been Langton who forced Robin off his lands? There is absolutely no evidence for this, but it would explain why Robin so disliked high church officials, and why he would approve of Edward II who got rid of Langton.
Not even Edward I could stomach Thomas de Weyland, his chief justice of Common Pleas, who covered up for two murderers (Prestwich1, p. 339). Or what about Ralph Hengham of the King's Bench? Edward deposed him in 1289 and fined him heavily (Prestwich1, p. 293).
Perhaps Edward I's problem was that he didn't pay his officers much, according to Prestwich1, p. 154, so they had to gather money in other ways.
Prestwich1, p. 561, points out that the reign of Edward I saw "the virtual demise of the system of judicial eyres under an ever increasing weight of business, but there was no really effective replacement for them ever devised.... [I]t is clear that the pressures of war from the mid-1290s aggravated an already difficult situation. Few criminals were brought to book, and of those who were, many received pardons for good service on the king's campaigns." This situation continued in the reign of Edward II, and was the perfect situation for abusive justice such as we see in the Richard at Lee story.
Prestwich1 states (p. 294) that starting around 1290 "[t]here was a change coming over the character of the judicial benches." Until that time, most of the judges and judicial officials had been clerics. But "[t]here was an increased secularization of the judicial profession evident by the end if Edward [I]'s reign." In other words, professional clerics -- who would generally have some other income, and no official family to support (although many of course had mistresses) -- were giving way to professional lawyers, who had no other source of income and who did have families. The latter would naturally be more aggressive in trying to crank up their income, often by inflicting harsher punishments. Which increases the odds of a man losing his land.
There is a tale of Edward II's chancellor Robert Baldock that sounds very much like the "Gest." "One favorite technique of the Despensers and their allies the Earl of Arundel and Robert Baldock was to compel men to acknowledge large fictitious debts to them.... William de Boghan lost some lands when payment was demanded after he acknowledged a debt of [4000 pounds]" (Prestwich3, pp. 94-95). There are records of them actually imprisoning Edward II's niece to extort her to give up lands! (Phillips, pp. 446-447, who reports that "the appearance of legaliry hid the reality of fraud, threats of violence and abuse of legal process").
(When Edward fell, in fact, Baldock was taken and tried along with the Despensers. Only the fact that he was a clergyman saved his life -- and even so, he ended up in prison and died soon after; Phillips, p. 516.)
A polemic of the time of Edward II was very upset about the conditions; "The church, from popes and cardinals to parish priest, is corrupt. Money rules in the ecclesiastical courts, the parson has a mistress, abbots and priors ride to hounds, friars fight for the corpses of the rich and leave the poor unburied. Chivalry is in decay; instead of going on crusade, earls, baron and knights war among themselves. Justices, sheriffs, and those who raise taxes for the king are all bribable" (from the "Poem on the Evil Times of Edward II," quoted on pp. 17-18 of Phillips).
J. R. Maddicott proposed (Holt1, p. 59) that the justice involved is Geoffrey le Scrope, Chief Justice of the King's Bench at the end of Edward II's reign and the beginning of Edward III's, whom Prestwich3 (p. 232) called "a remarkable political survivor" and who has the advantage, from our standpoint, of being one of the Scropes of Bolton, a family based in Yorkshire (Ormrod, pp. 99-100). Much Internet searching, however, seems to reveal that Scrope was -- by the standards of the time -- relatively honest.
Another interesting point, made by Prestwich3, p. 105, was that there was an extremely high rate of official turnover in the reign of Edward II -- in twenty years, he had fifteen treasurers and ten keepers of the privy seal. This might explain why the official involved is so vaguely titled -- no one remembered who played what role in Edward II's reign.
** Stanza 97/Lines 387-388 ** Somehow, the knight has acquired a group of followers (meyne) whom he instructs to dress in the clothes they wore over the sea. This hints at a company going on a crusade, but there are several problems:First, how could an impoverished knight maintain a company, and second, when did he have time to go overseas? Plus the meinie is ignored in the next several verses. This looks as if it floated in from somewhere else (but see stanza 125). Perhaps the text is defective; see the next note.
** Stanza 100/Line 399 ** For the surprising quality of the horse Robin gave the knight, see the note on Stanzas 75-77. The word "coresed" is unattested; some glossaries suggest that it means something like "dressed" (perhaps "corseted"), but the more likely meaning is that it is well-built -- i.e. thorougly capable of running a course.
** Stanza 102/Line 405 (and many stanzas following) ** The abbot is at meat. As we shall learn in stanza 122, it is "royal fare." Note that, in Stanza 103, the abbot does not ask the knight to join them, or even greet him; he just asks for his money.
This is not a direct Biblical allusion, but it is reminiscent of a scandal in Corinth that drew a rebuke from Paul (1 Corinthians 11:20-21): "When you gather, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one is hungry and another one is drunk." Of course communal meals had ceased to be part of the church's practice long before Robin's time (the mass was something completely different), but the lack of hospitality is blatant.
** Stanza 103/Lines 411-412 ** Note the abbot's complete lack of courtesy: He says no words of welcome or bring the knight into the feast. For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2; also the knight's request for courtesy in stanza 108, and the note on 102 for the theological implications of this.
** Stanzas 106-109/Lines 423-436 ** This scene makes me think a little of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:26-36). In the parable, the man falls in among thieves; so too the knight is in the presence of a thief (the abbot). The man in the parable appeals, mutely, for the help of a priest and Levite, who are responsible for helping the people. Similarly, the knight appears first to the justice and then to the sheriff, who are supposed to uphold justtice. A second appeal to the abbot also fails. It is Robin, the outlaw, who supplies justice, just as the Samaritan -- a foreigner despised by Jews -- who helped out the Jew betrayed by those who should have rescued him.
For the knight's actions, compare also Proverbs 6:1-3: "My son, if you have stood surety for your friend/neighbour... go, hasten, and importune your neighbour.'
** Stanza 107/Lines 425-426 ** Child, p. 52, notes that the justice is bound to the abbott "with cloth and fee," i.e. by livery and payment, and that to hire someone to help deprive another of property was defined as conspiracy in the reign of Edward I. However, we have no indication that the justice was hired solely for this purpose, so this does not preclude a date after Edward passed his statute. The one firm date we have is that in the reign of Edward III judges were forced to take an oath not to accept livery (Pollard, p. 194). Thus a date before 1346 is strongly indicated -- but it is also possible that the arrangement is illegal, or that the justice in fact was a lawyer or otherwise not bound by the laws preventing judicial corruption. In light of the uncertainty about who the justice really was, this probably cannot be used as a dating hint.
For the whole issue of corrupt judges, see also the note on stanza 93.
** Stanza 108/Line 430 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 109/Lines 433-436 ** Here the knight promises to "trewely serue" the abbot until his debt is paid. This is a tall order. Recall from the note on Stanza 49 that a knight bachelor was paid 35 pounds per year in the reign of Edward III, meaning that it would take 12 years to pay off the debt as a servant being paid a knight's wages. Given the inflation in that era, we can probably assume it would have taken at least 15 years to pay off the Abbot based on wages in the reign of Edward I or Edward II -- and that's if the Abbot accepts the knight's service at the full military rate, which is, obvioucly, unlikely. Odds are that the knight (who, after all, has an adult son) would be dead by the time he could pay off the debt. Our tentative conclusion must be that the knight is nof offering his personal service but his feudal loyalty -- he is offering to be the Abbot's vassal.
** Stanza 112/Lines 447-448 ** "For it is good to assay a frende Or that a man have need." Compare Wisdom of Sirach 6:4: "Gold is tested in the firre, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation." Sirach 9:10 adds a warning not to trade old and trusted friends for new. Sirach is, of course, one of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, but this would not matter to a Catholic.
** Stanza 114/Line 455 ** To the statement here that the knight was never a "false knyght," compare the statement in Stanza 320 that he is "a trewe knyght."
** Stanza 115/Line 460 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 116/Line 461 ** "In ioustes and in tournement." Tournaments, in the sense of mock battles, were quite old, and are not a dating hint. The joust -- the formalized passage of arms -- is altogether another matter. Of course it was well-known by the time the "Gest" was published (imagine Malory without jousts!), and in its more French form "juste" it occurs in Chaucer (Chaucer/Benson, p. 1260) and Langland (Langland/Schmidt, p. 528). But the idea was rare before the reign of Edward III, and the highly organized tournament we think of as a joust flatly did not exist in the early Plantagenet era. If not an anachronism, this is another hint of an Edwardian date, and the later the better.
See also the note on Stanzas 52-53, about the knight's son killing a knight and a squire, perhaps in a tournament.
** Stanzas 117-119/Lines 465-476 ** Although, theoretically, the abbot should own the land if the knight cannot repay, the justice apparently advises him to give the knight some consideration to induce the knight to sign away the land -- or, perhaps, to have him openly sell it to the abbot, since this would make the issue of ownership more certain. (This, at least, is the obvious interpretation of the lines; Mersey, p. 181, thinks that the justice is trying to extort a higher fee from the abbott. But this would not address the danger of the knight being willing to attack his dispossessor.)
The abbot, nettled, offers a hundred pounds; the justice suggests 200 -- a sum which would actually leave the knight fairly well off. Presumably the purpose is to keep the knight from turning outlaw and preying upon the new legal owners of the land (so, implicitly, the last line of stanza 117). But the knight refuses any such offer outright (stanza 119). This is, in one sense, standard knightly defiance. But what would he have done had he not had 400 pounds available to pay off the loan?
The justice's warning is probably wise. Note that, in stanzas 360-361, the King gives away the Knight's land, and in Stanzas 362-363, a counselor warns that no one will be able to enjoy the land while Robin is alive.
** Stanza 120/Lines 479-480 ** Here the knight repays the abbott by shaking four hundred pounds out of a bag. Difficult, if the money is in the form of silver; we are told that 100 pounds sterling of silver pennies filled a barrel (Barlow, p. 365, and see note on Stanza 49). It would probably be a small barrell -- 100 pounds sterling is roughly 35 kilograms, and the density of silver is 10.5 kilograms per litre, so 100 pounds sterling takes up a bit more than three litres, and 400 pounds sterling is just about 13 litres. If melted down, that's a cube about 23 centimeters on a side. But if supplied in the form of coin, it will be much bulkier -- coins cannot be stacked perfectly . My rough calculation is that, in the form of coin, 400 pounds sterling would take up about17 litres (possibly more, if the pile contains coins of different sizes and thicknesses, such as farthings and groats as well as silver pennies).
In all, you're looking at 300 pounds/ 135 kilograms, and a cube 26 centimeters (just over 1 foot) on a side. The man who shakes that out of a bag isn't a middle-aged knight with an adult son, it's the Incredible Hulk. And even if the man could carry such a sack, what sort of cloth made in the Middle Ages could bear the strain?
And isn't it odd that no one counts the coin?
But give the Justice and Sheriff credit: Once the loan is repaid, they follow the law.
** Stanza 120/Line 481 ** "Have here thi golde, sir abbot." Here the poet resolves the problem of the incredible quantity of silver by telling us the knight gave gold. It solves the problem of weight; it leaves the problem of either coming up with enough gold coin (if we are in the late reign of Edward III) or of testing the weight and purity of the gold (if the knight gives raw metal).
The most likely explanation is anachronism: The poet simply did not realize that there were no gold coins prior to the reign of Edward III (see thenote on Stanza 49), and that it was not until roughly the Lancastrian Era that there were enough of them in circulation for a scene like this to be possible. This is strong evidence for dating the composition of the poem relatively late.
** Stanza 121/Lines 483-484 ** The knight declares that, had the abbot been courteous, he would have been rewarded. For the concept of courtesy, see the note on stanza 2. The rest of the verse reflects the church's attitude toward lending, interest, and usury. Exodus 22:25 explicitly forbids the people of Israel to lend at interest to each other. Leviticus 25:36-37 forbids interest and taking advantage of another's poverty. Deuteronomy 23:20 grants that "on loans to a foreigner you may charge interest," but 23:19 forbids charging interest to Israelites.
The church therefore forbid lending at interest. Since lending is sometimes necessary, Thomas Aquinas developed a doctrine of mutual risk, in which both the borrower and the lender were considered to be involved in whatever activity required the loan. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that this attitude began to shift (Bainton, pp. 237-249).
For one who truly needed a loan, this left only two choices. One was to borrow from the Jews, who were allowed to lend to Christians at interest. But Edward I had passed a strict anti-usury law in 1275, and -- having wrung every cent out of the Jews that he could -- expelled them from England in 1290 (Powicke, p. 322; Prestwich, pp. 343-346; Stenton, p. 197). This might be an indication of date: the knight probably could not have borrowed from Jews after 1275, and certainly not after 1290.
After 1290, that left only the possibility of borrowing from Christians. All such borrowing followed informal rules. Officially, the lender simply gave the borrower the money, expecting to be paid back, without interest, at the end of the loan period. Unofficially, it was understood that the lender would receive the money -- and also a gift from the borrower. In law, it was two separate transactions. In practice, the gift was the interest on the loan. In this case, the knight says that he will not pay the gift because of the abbot's vile behavior -- and, under the law, he had every right to do so. Hence his statement in stanza 124 that "shall I haue my londe agayne."
It is not clear how much interest would have been expected. Child, p. 52, points out that in stanza 270 the knight repays Robin with a gift of 20 marks on a 400 pound loan. Since 400 pounds is 600 marks, this is one part in thrirty, which out to three and a third percent interest (with no compounding, of course). But the knight also gave the gift of bows and arrows (see notes on Stanzas 131 and 132).
** Stanza 122/Lines 485-486 ** For the abbot and his fine meal see the note on Stanza 102.
** Stanza 123/Lines489-492 ** The Abbot, having failed to gain the knight's land, demands that the justice repay the fee mentioned in stanza 107. However, the fee is not a contract as we would understand it -- the justice is the Abbot's man, but owes only certain duties. He has done these (presumably by showing up and witnessing the transaction), and sees no need to repay the fee. Perhaps a more honest man might return the fee -- but a more honest man would never have taken it in the first place. It is ironic that the Abbot, who tried to hold to the letter of the law, himself requested more than the letter of the law when the tables turned.
** Stanza 124/Line 495 ** On the knight's right to reclaim his land see the note on Stanza 121.
** Stanza 125/Lines 499-500 ** The knight puts on his good clothing, referring back presumably to the "symple wedes" of stanza 97, although that stanza and this seem to be the only references to what amounts to a disguise. (Could this be a reference to one of the sources? The tales of Fulk and Eustace and such are much taken with disguise, an element largely downplayed in the "Gest.") Note that the fact that he left his poor clothing behind when he changes into his richer attire is a strong argument that the "symple wedes" are not crusading garments.
** Stanza 126/Line 504 ** The knight's home is listed as "Verysdale." Ritson declared that there was a Lancashire forest named "Wierysdale" (Gummere, p. 336), and Mersey, p. 181, offers "Uterysdale" (a reading supported by several online sources but with no attestation in the prints and not found on any map I've seen), but most think that the name refers to Lee in Wyresdale; (Holt2, photo 15 facing p. 97; Ohlgren, p. 316 n. 9).The Wyre river is in Lancashire, somewhat north of the Ribble; Lee is not far from the town of Lancaster, being somewhat to the south and east at the crossing of the Wyre.
This fits with the statement in stanza 53 that the knight's son slew a Lancashire/Lancaster knight; presumably the boy killed someone close to home. Although we also find the knight, in Stanza 310, having a castle somewhere between Nottingham and Robin's home. This may be the result of the "Gest" blending together two different accounts.
It is interesting to note that, in the time of Edward IV, there was an outlaw called "Robin of Redesdale," also known as "Robin Mend-All." As we shall see, he seems to have tried to invoke the spirit of Robin Hood -- and "Redesdale" is rather similar to "Wyresdale." Although the significance of the name "Mend-All" is rather uncertain -- one of the names Jack Cade had used in his 1450 rebellion was "Jack Amendalle" -- "Jack Amend-all" (Wagner, p. 133).
** Stanza 131/Line 521** A hundred bows. It's worth noting that the best bows were made of yew, with the best yew coming from the Iberian peninsula. The knight, who is a legal citizen, could acquire imported yew bowstaves; Robin, as an outlaw, very possibly could not.
** Stanza 132/Lines 525-526 ** The knight gives Robin arrows which are "an elle long." The ell, or "cloth yard" (hence the famous "clothyard arrow") was 45 inches long, or about 1.15 meters.
Holt and others think that Robin's weapon could have been a short bow., and it is true that few of the ballads mention the longbow specifically. Holt1, p. 79, even denies that there is a distinction. Similarly, Bradbury, p. 35, argues that longbows were used at the Battle of the Standard in 1138 -- but by "longbows" he means "non-crossbows." But a short bow could be fired facing forward, while a longbow was fired from the side, with the head over the shoulder and, for a long range shot, the left hand above the head. Some short bows, it's true, were longer than some longbows; the difference is one of technique.
But Robin's exploits imply a weapon of superior range and accuracy (see also Stanza 398). This clearly requires the longbow. What's more, a short bow would not require a clothyard arrow -- and most short bows were too short to be very effective with such a long arrow. The reference to these arrows strongly implies a longbow. And, indeed, the Lettersnijder edition of the "Gest" is illustrated with a picture of a longbowman, although this is canned clip art -- it had in fact been used earlier to illustrate an edition of Chaucer! (Baldwin, plate 40 facing p. 160; the image is also in Ohlgren, plate 21 after p. 222).
We are also told that the arrows were fletched with peacock feathers. Chaucer's yeoman archer also had arrows with peacock feathers (Prologue, line 104; , or see the section quoted above).
This is one of several indications that Robin must date after the time of Richard I and John. Chandler/Beckett, pp. 20-21, note that Richard and John's archers were crossbowmen. Indeed, according to Gillingham, p. 276, Richard suffered his fatal wound because he himself decided to take a turn shooting at the defenders of Chalus-Chabrol -- with a crossbow. This surely comes close to proof positive that Richard and Robin did not know each other -- Richard was too good a soldier to be fiddling around with crossbows if longbows had been available.
** Stanza 132/Line 527 ** The arrows had silver on them -- somewhere (see textual note). It hardly matters where, in practice; the point is, they were fancy and expensive.
** Stanza 133 /Line 529** An escort of "a hundred men." This sounds similar to the indenturing of soldiers, used particularly during the Hundred Years' War. This again implies a date during or after the reign of Edward I, with Edward III using indentures most heavily of all. A force of a hundred men is, we should note, very substantial at the time; it is hard to determine the actual size of armies in this period, but this is quite a few for a mere knight (at the great battle of Crecy, for instance, the ratio of knights to ordinary soldiers seems to have been less than 20:1). This is another hint that our knight had more resources than most.
** Stanza 133/Line 432 ** The knight returns to Robin wearing colors of red and white -- not green (and the red might not be the scarlet of Stanzas 70-72; we cannot tell). Thus he does not seem to be wearing Robin's colors.
** Stanza 135-142/Lines 537-570 ** The story of the "wrestling. Holt1, p. 23, considers the incident of the wresting an incidental insertion, arguing that it is not necessary to the plot. Certainly it seems to interrupt the action. But he offers no reason for the insertion; it seems more likely that such an oddity would be original than that it would be added later on.
Wrestling was considered a rather low-class sport at this time (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 157, note that Chaucer's Miller was a successful wrestler, and that his prize was a ram). The amazingly large prize in stanzas 136-137 (a white bull, a saddled courser with gold trimming, gloves, a gold ring, and a pipe of wine) suggests a special contest -- and yet, there seems to be no one to enforce the rules, forcing the knight to step in. This causes a delay, which is useful in terms of the plot because it allows time for Robin Hood's men to rob the monk of St. Mary's. Perhaps this strange wrestling was included in the Miracle of the Virgin tale that underlies this plot segment.
Alternately, we see Robin himself engaged in wresting in some of the later ballads, including the very first ballad of the Forresters manuscript, where Robin fights the crowd that drives him to turn outlaw (Knight, p. 1). He also wrestles in the play of c. 1475 which parallels "Guy of Gisborn" (Holt1, p. 33).
Another possibility is that this is some sort of side effect of the Tale of Gamelyn, which shares some elements with the "Gest." Gamelyn's story includes a tale of Gamelyn wrestling with a local champion (Baldwin, p. 177).
** Stanza 138/Line 551 ** A yeoman, apparently not a local, wins the wrestling match, and this causes a disturbance. The reason is not clear (see textual note). The likely meaning is something like "And he was far from home and friendless," but the line may be corrupt.
** Stanza 142/Line 565 ** Five marks: As we shall see in Stanza 150, twenty marks per year is an extremely generous allowance for a yeoman. Five marks thus represent at least a 25% bonus on a man's yearly pay, and probably more.
** Stanza 143/Lines 571-572 ** For Robin waiting to dine until a guest arrives, see the note on Stanzas 6-7.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117F

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 08

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 09 (File Number C117H). This entry contains notes on Fits III-V of the "Gest."
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: ** Stanza 144/Lines 573-574 ** Observe the parallel to the first stanza, which also begins "Lyth and listin, gentilmen," and to stanzas 282 and stanza 317. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
This whole fit is about Little John as servant of the Sheriff. Pollard, p. 172, suggests that it is, in a way, a parody of The Book of Nurture, which trains a masterless young man in how to be a proper servant. Little John completely overturns the conventions. The curiosity in that case is that the Sheriff hires John after John competes well at archery. Why would he hire an archer as a domestic servant?
** Stanzas 145-146/ Lines 577-584 ** This archery contest, seen by the Sheriff of Nottingham, is the first of several in the "Gest" (see stanzas 282-283, 397). An archery contest is also a key element of the "Potter," where it gains Robin access to the sheriff (Holt1, p. 34). These contests could have taken place at any time, but it is noteworthy that Edward III, to improve the quality of the archers who would be fighting in France, commanded regular competitions with the bow (Keen, p. 139) .
** Stanza 146/Line 582 ** The "bullseye" type target for archery practice is a modern invention. Later in the "Gest" (stanza 398) we read of a rose garland on a pole (wand). Here we find Little John splitting the wand on which the target rests. This is of course an exceptional -- indeed, a well-nigh impossible -- feat. John surely must have used his own bow and arrows, and they must have been exceptionally well made, although we are given no information about the source of his equipment.
** Stanza 149/Line 593 ** "Holdernes"=Holderness. A small town in eastern Yorkshire, almost on the seacoast, not far north of the Humber. It is so small that it doesn't appear even on my 1 cm.=4 km. map of northern England, but it was well enough remembered that Conan Doyle had a fictitious "Duke of Holderness" in "The Adventure of the Priory School." The nearest significant town, Patrington, lies just to the west. (At least, so the maps I've checked online. Cawthorne, p. 164, says that it adjoins Beverly, north of Kingston-upon-Hull. In either case, it is in eastern Yorkshire north of the Humber, and both locations are far from any of the places associated with Robin Hood-- although closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood or Nottingham, even if you ignore the need to cross the Humber).
Holderness was probably better known in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than now; in hte fourteenth century, one of the most beautiful major churches in the country was built there: Patrington Church, called "The Queen of Holderness" (Kerr, pp. 180-181). Might the pious John have claimed to be from there because of its great church?
John's mention of Holderness has at least two points of interest to Robin Hood scholars. The first is because it was the alleged home of "Robin of Holderness," who led one of many small rebellions against King Edward IV. Second, Henry de Faucumberg, the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in 1318-1319 and 1323-1325, came from a family which had an estate in Holderness (Cawthorne, p. 199). Would John have listed his home as Holderness had he known the Sheriff came from there? Surely not.
Of course, all of this is moot if the Sheriff is not based on a real person -- and he almost certainly is not; see the note on Stanza 15.
I do have to mention one minor conceit of my own. It is well-documented that one of the seminal visions which led J.R.R. Tolkien to produce The Lord of the Rings and his other works. In a glade in Roos, he saw his wife dancing, and it gave him the vision of the tale of Beren and Luthien (Shippey, p. 244), the most beloved of all the tales of Middle-Earth to its author.
Roos happens to be very close to Holderness. Is it possible that this spot inspired two of the three greatest myth-cycles of English history? (Those of Robin Hood and Tolkien's Middle-Earth; obviously the origin of Arthur was elsewhere.)
** Stanza 149/Line 595 ** "Reynold Greenleaf." Later on, in stanza 293, we meet a Reynold who is a member of Robin's band. Why, then, does Little John borrow his name? This is never explained. My personal conjecture is that some lost list said that Reynold was part of Robin's band (Child prints an item from Ravenscroft which might somehow be related), but no tale existed of him, so the creators of two of the component poems of the "Gest" included him in the band in difference guises, and the compiler of the "Gest" never straightened it out. But this is only conjecture.
Knight/Ohlgren suggest on p. 182 that there was a ballad of Reynold serving the sheriff, which the compiler of the "Gest" took over and, presumably, transferred to Little John, leaving a few inconsistencies such as this one.
Cawthorne, p. 163, offers a third suggestion, which is quite interesting: That "Reynold Greenleaf" was rhyming cant for "thief." But has rhyming cant been shown to exist in the North at this time?
Pollard, p. 175, notes the fascinating fact that a man named "Greneleff" was accused of acting like Robin Hood in 1503. But this is surely too late to have influenced the "Gest" -- perhaps Greenleaf took his name based on the same forgotten legend as the one which the Gest's author was using?
** Stanza 149/Line 596 ** "When I am at home." This is one of the few instances of a line where we might see northern dialect inflluence: "dame"in the second line should rhyme with "hame," not "home."
The verse reminds me a little of "The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry" [Child 113], which involves, in a sense, another example of a man incognito, but that song is probably much more recent than the "Gest."
** Stanza 150/LIne 600 ** The Sheriff of Nottingham offers Little John "Twenty marke (20 marks) to thy fee." A mark is two-thirds of a pound, so this is thirteen and a third pounds per year. Recall that, in the reign of Edward III, a knight's fee was forty pounds a year! (See note on Stanza 45.) Hunter said that valets at the court of Edward II received three pence a day (Child, p. 55). This is 1095 pence per year, or not quite seven pounds. Seward, p. 269, says that "minor gentry, merchants, yeomen, and inportant artisans" could expect to earn from 15 to 20 pounds in 1436; a plowman made only 4 pounds per year. But this is after substantial inflation, plus a major increase in wages for the lower classes following the Black Death (a plowman before the plague earned between 10 shillings and a pound per year).
Hence to offer a servant twenty marks, in the period before 1350, was to offer a fee far above the prevailing rate. Wages rose dramatically, and rents fell, after the Black Death (Pollard, p. 20; Kelly.J, pp. 205-206), but the amount still seems excessive even by post-plague standards. (Unless, by some wild chance, the source of this is Scottish, and the reference is to Scottish marks, which were only a fraction of English. But then the amount seems to small.)
The likeliest explanation is an anachronism; at some time in the history of the poem, the pay was adjusted to a fifteenth century rate. But if we assume the reading is old, we note that twenty marks is roughly what a man-at-arms was paid to serve in the foreign armies of Edward III (Ormrod, p. 141, states a man-at-arms as earning a shilling a day). Could the Sheriff of Nottingham be recruiting soldiers? If so, nothing comes of it, since John's brief service is all served in England. Bottom line: such a large fee would imply a late date -- ideally, one after the Black Death, when wages rose.
** Stanzas 151-1522/Lines 601-606 ** "The sherif gate Litell John Twelue monethes of the knight." Could it really be that simple?Would the sheriff, who presumably was the sheriff who was present when the knight and Little John repaid the abbot, not have seen what was going on? Would he hire John under those circumstances -- and would the knight be in position to consent so freely? On the face of it, we might suspect that a stanza or two is missing here.
Of course, there is another possibility, if we assume that Little John was in fact the knight's watchdog (see the note to Stanza 80). The knight might have desired to be rid of his shadow -- or John might have been satisfied that the knight was honest, and they could have agreed that he could go on to other activities.
For "courtesy" see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 152/Line 608 ** The Sheriff gives John a "gode hors." Edward III began to use mounted archers in 1330 (Chandler/Beckett, p. 19)., and used them regularly on his campaigns in France -- this was one of the secrets of his success: He mounted not only the knights but the soldiers who would fight as infantry. This let his army move much faster than one which combined horsemen and infantry. If in fact the Sheriff is recruiting John for an expedition (see note on Stanza 150), he would indeed need a horse.
** Stanza 156/Line 624 ** There is uncertainty about the text here (see textual note), but no question that a cranky Little John demands to be fed. This demand begins the quarrel which eventually causes Little John to fight, and then recruit, the cook.
** Stanza 159/Line 633 ** For courtesy, which the butler does not show, see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 164/Line 654 ** It is not certain wheether the last word of this line should be "hyne" or "hynde"; see the textual note. Knight/Ohlgren gloss "shrewede hynde" as "cursed servant" and do not even note the variant.
There is the faint possibility that "hynde/hinde" should be read as "hind," the female red deer, but this is extremely unlikely. The word intended is probably hyne/hine, a Middle English word not found in Chaucer but fairly common in other thirteenth and fourteenth century texts. It goes back probably to Old English hine, from hiwan, household, or higa, member of the household. The exact sense varies slightly; Sisam interprets it as servant/laborer; Emerson, p. 384, offers servant/domestic; Turville-Petre, p. 236, servant/farm-worker; Sands, p. 385, servant; Langland/KnottFowler, p. 274, peasant/servant; Langland/Schmidt, servant/thing of low worth. Thus the sense might be of a peasant who wasn't up to his job.
Every one of these sources spells it "hyne" or "hine," without a d, but Emerson notes that "hynde" was a dialect version of the word. Thus the usage might tell us a little about the point of origin of the various texts, but this is far from sure.
** Stanza 168/ Lines 669-672 ** Little John and the cook fight for as long as it takes to walk two miles (probably about 40 minutes, although it might be anything between half an hour and an hour depending on the burdens the walkers carried), then "maintained" the fight for an hour. This is a quite exceptional period to be actually engaged in swordplay -- most medieval battles lasted only a couple of hours, usually with pauses. Supposedly the Battle of Evesham in 1265, which Baldwin would have us believe involved Robin, lasted two hours (Burne, p. 170). The Battle of Crecy in 1347, the greatest of Edward III's battles, technically lasted about six hours (Seward, p. 66), but it involved almost no hand-to-hand contact. Ross-War, pp. 123-125, says that the battle of Barnet in 1471, which began at sunrise, was over before the morning mist burned off, and many of the soldiers were not engaged for large parts of the battle.
Thus for two men to fight hand-to-hand for nearly two hours is an astounding feat. It is surprising that we do not hear more of the cook in the rest of the "Gest," given his prowess. It seems evident that this scene floated in from another tale, which presumably ended with the cook joining the band; there was nothing more to say about him.
** Stanzas 170-171/Lines 679-682 ** "Two times in the yere thy clothing chaunged shulde be; And eyery yeare.. Twenty merke to thy fe." In other words, Little John offers the cook, whom he has been battling, twenty marks a year and two changes of livery. For the high fee of twenty marks, see the note on stanza 150; for the idea of livery, the note on stanzas 70-72. In stanza 420, we see Robin expecting to have two changes of clothing per year from the King.
** Stanza 174/ Line 695 ** The comment that the locks were of "good steel" is likely to be misunderstood by moderns. Carbon steels were known at this time, and sometimes someone would turn up an iron deposit with enough nickel or cobalt in it to make a fairly good steel -- but generally medieval steels were not as strong (or as corrosion-resistant) as modern steels. Plus, locks were generally rather primitive. Yes, they had keys, but the keys were not very fancy. Much of the security of medieval locks came from all the leaves and decoration which made it hard to even operate the things. These often produced weak points. It was a lot easier to smash even the best medieval lock than the modern equivalents.
** Stanza 176/Lines 704, 706 ** There is an interesting textual variant here (see textual note), but the correct reading is almost certainly that Little John and the cook took "Three hundred pounde and more" to Robin Hood "Under the grene wode hore," that is, "under the green wood hoar."
"Hore," modern "hoar," is the root word of "hoarfrost," and refers to a grey or white color. Hence, by implication, it means "old." Gummere, p. 317, claims it was a common word for a forest. Did Robin meet the sheriff under an old tree or under a grey tree? If the latter, it implies that the tree is without leaves, which in turn implies that the season is winter. Pollard, p. 57, says that the "Gest" takes place in "perpetual early summer"; Baldwin, p. 33, agrees, and speculates that the band must have scattered in winter. I would not consider this decisive (see the notes to Stanza 29 and 32-33) -- but it is hard to believe that the sheriff would go so far afield in winter. So the word probably means "old" in this context. There are living trees associated with Robin Hood (e.g. Holt prints a photo of the "Major Oak" in Sherwood), but any tree ancient enough to be considered old at the time of the composition of the "Gest" is almost certainly dead by now.
Although Robin's tree is probably gone, there does seem to have been a "trystel tree," mentioned in stanzas 274, 286, 298, 387, 412, in the "Monk" (Stanza 37) and "Guy of Gisborne" and also, apparently, in Henry VIII's 1515 pageant (Pollard, pp. 52-53). Pollard on p. 53 claims that this requires that Robin be understood as an outlawed forester, but this strikes me as going beyond the data -- surely any band of outlaws will have a series of recognized meeting places!
There is the interesting question of just what "trystel" means. fg changed "trystel-tre" to "trusty tree," which is banal but perhaps possible. The word itself is rare, and (given the lack of Middle English spelling conventions) could be from several roots. Is it from "traist," "confidence" (Emerson, p. 450, compare Turville-Petre, p. 257, "traistis," "trust"); "trist," "appointed place, rendezvous" (Emerson, p. 451), whence our "tryst" (a word which we often think of as having sexual connotations, but which simply means a meeting place where secret things happen); or "tryste," "trust" (Emerson, p. 452)="truste," "trust" or "loyalty" (Dickins/Wilson, p. 315)? The essential meaning, however, is clear: A safe place to meet.
** Stanza 185/Lines 737-738 ** "a ryght fayre harte, His coloure is of grene." A green hart? And the sheriff bought this tale? (And from a deserter?) The problem was sufficient that Allingham, without manuscript evidence, proposed emending "of grene" to "full shene" (cf. Gummere, p. 317). But, of course, John is referring obliquely to Robin Hood, while trying to lure the Sheriff with the sight of a wonder; the "sixty... tyndes" -- that is, sixtry tines, or forks in the antlers -- of the next verse are also intended to make the beast seem wondrous
Might the green hart be a hint of another link to "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?" (Again, probably not; Tolkien/Gordon, p. xx, believe the green knight came from the legend of the green man, whereas here, based on stanza 188, Robin is the green hart. Still, it's interesting to see this use of the color green.)
Child, p. 53, notes that Fulk FitzWarren lured King John into a trap using a tale of a long-horned stag. Evidently Little John wanted to go that tale one better. There is a difference in the tales, however, as we see from Cawthorne, p. 113. In the Fulk version, Fulk disguises himself as a peasant -- a charcoal-burner. In the "Gest," John is incognito but does not use a new disguise.
The great hart -- that is, a buck with very large antlers -- was always the most desired trophy for a hunter; Pollard, p. 63, notes that they were becoming hard to find in the Middle Ages. (This, in fact, has happened again in the United States. In the Midwest, white-tailed deer ar so common as to be pests -- but because the rules favor hunting bucks over does, the population never goes down -- yet there are almost no large-antlered bucks left. The old males have been killed off, and the young ones are fathering the children.)
** Stanzas 187-188/Lines 741-746 ** Little John professes to be afraid of the deer in the wood, and the sheriff insists on seeing them. Note that the sheriff, whatever the reasons for his dispute with Robin (reasons which we are never told), does not lack courage.
** Stanzas 188-189/Lines 751-756 ** The capture of the sheriff. Note that Robin also captures the Sheriff in the "Potter" (Holt1, p. 34)
** Stanza 191/Lines 762-764 ** Knight, p. 23, points out that the trick of having the Sheriff eat from his own silver also occurs in the Forresters version of "Robin Hood and the Sheriffe," i.e. "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152].
** Stanza 192/Line 767 ** Robin grants the Sheriff his life "for the love of Little John." This is an interesting change from Stanza 15, where Robin gives specific orders against the Sheriff and John seemingly makes no objection. Could this be a different sheriff? This would likely be an indication of a late date, after it became the norm to change sheriffs regularly.
We see a similar situation in the "Potter," where again the sheriff is captured but spared. There, however, Robin spares the sheriff for the sake of his wife (Holt1, p. 34) rather than for the sake of LIttle John.
** Stanza 202/lLines 805-806 ** Robin makes the Sheriff swear by his "bright brand," i.e. sword. Swearing by the sword is a well-attested phenomenon; some have suggested that it goes back all the way to the time when great men had swords with names and histories. Pickering, p. 281, claims that "an oath made on a sword was onde considered as binding as one made on a Bible." Normally, of course, we would expect a devout Christian like Robin to prefer an oath on the Bible -- but remember that Robin lived in a Catholic England in the era before printing. Even if Robin was literate (unlikely), Bibles were rare, and a complete New Testament (which required hundred of sheets of expensive parchment and months of scribal labor) would generally cost more than a sword. And Bibles were rarely seen outside religious foundations; even if they had been cheap, the Catholic Church didn't like lay people to read the Bible, or to see it translated into the vernacular. So a sword was surely his best bet for an oath.
Gummere, p. 317, observes that an oath upon the sword was still common lore in Shakespeare's day; see Hamlet, Act I, scene v, (lines 147-150 in RiversideShakespeare). Wimberly, p. 94, mentions three instances of swearing by or on swords in versions of other ballads: "Queen Eleanor's Confession" [Child 156], "The Bonnie House o Airlie" [Child 199], and "The Gypsy Laddie" [Child 200], although the motif is not present in all versions of any of those ballads.
Note that when Robin kills the sheriff, it is with this same bright brand (Stanza 348). Robin then calls him untrue (Stanza 349). In stanza 305, however, Little John calls it a "browne swerde."
In the final line of the stanza. Robin declares that the Sheriff shall swear not to harm him "by water ne by lande." Is this a hint that Robin is also a pirate? If so, the hint is not picked up -- although there was a Scottish ship Robin Hood. It's conceivable that this wandered in from the legend of Eustace the Monk, who was a pirate, or some other such story. Odds are, hwoever, that this is simply an oath that rhymes well.
** Stanza 204/Line 813 ** The sheriff swears an oath of friendship -- considered a very strong vow, at least unless one was a a king engaging in international diplomacy. (Some things never change....) For a possible consequence of this oath, see the note on Stanza 287.
** Stanza 204/Lines 815-186 ** The text says that the sheriff was "as full of grene wode As ever was hepe of stone"-- he was as full of (fed up with) the greenwood as was a "hepe" of stone. Knight/Ohlgren interpret "hepe" as "hip," a fruit, so the sheriff was as full as a fruit is with its seed. But the ordinary meaning of "hepe" is "heap," just as you would expect, with a secondary meaning of "crowd, group, host." The more likely reading is that the sheriff was as full of the greenwood as a heap is full of stones.
** Stanza 205/Line 819 ** Althouth we tend to think of Robin leading "merry men," there aren't many references to the merry men in the "Gest"; they are usually young men, yeomen, or Robin's meinie. We do see "mery men" again in Stanzas 281, 316, 382, and the a text of 340; also his "mery meyne" in Stanza 262, and "mery yonge men" in 287.
** Stanza 206/Lines 823-824 ** Robin fears that the Virgin is "wrothe with me, For she sent me nat my pay" (or so most editors; see the textual note).
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 159, say that "commercial interests" are invading Robin and his band, but this does not follow. Robin accepted the Virgin as surety on his loan to the knight; her failure to pay is thus a theological, not a monetary, issue. Robin uses the identical words in Stanza 235. Of course, all will turn out well....
Given the emphasis on the Virgin Mary in this section, I am tempted to suggest that Robin's meeting with the knight, and the repayment, might both have happened on one of the Mariological feast days. Davies, p. 349, lists these as:
2 February -- the Purification of the Blessed Virgin (Candlemass)
25 March -- the Annunciation
July 2 (later moved to 31 May)-- the Visitation
15 August -- the Assumption of Mary
8 September -- the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin ("a very old feast," although the reason for the date is not known)
Of these, 8 September seems the most logical, since the weather in the day would still be fine, but it would be getting chilly at night, explaining the sheriff's uncomfortable night in stanza 200. It would also help explain Robin's three masses in Stanza 8.
I emphasize that this is purest speculation. There are no indications in the text that the events took place on a feast day.
** Stanza 207/Lines 825-828 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 209/Lines 832-833 ** "Sayles"and "Watlynge-Street." See note on stanza 18.
** Stanza 212/Lines 845-848 ** Note the precise parallel in stanza 20 to the language about seeking a victim. The parallel extends to the first line of stanza 213 (but see the next note)
** Stanza 213/Line 850 ** In the parallel in stanza 21, instead of ofserving the highway, John and his men observe a "derne [secret] strete." See the note on Stanza 21.
** Stanza 213/Line 852 ** Here again we see men riding palfreys, as in Stanzas 75-77. Of course, monks were not fighters, so it is less surprising to see them riding a type of horse usually associated with a woman.
** Stanza 213/Line 851 ** Child, p. 53, notes that the "black monks" are Benedictines -- possibly significant, because the Benedictines were "the richest and most worldly" order of monks (Pollard, p. 131). And, yes, St. Mary's was a Benedictine house (Pollard, p. 124). I note in addition that Edward I, his wife Eleanor of Castile, and Edward II had Dominincan confessors; Phillips, p. 65. On p. 73 Phillips tells of a Dominican priory founded by Edward. Phillips, p. 507, notes that the London Dominicans were so close to Edward II that, when London turned against the King, the monks felt it necessary to flee. After Edward's deposition, many Dominicans seem to have been involved in trying to bring him back (Phillips, p. 545). So it's possible that the Dominicans were the pro-Edward friars, which might make the Benedictines the allies of the anti-Edward party. But this is an extremely long stretch. The Benedictines were well established in Yorkshire -- the first Benedictine monasteries in England may well have been those founded at Ripon and Hexham, by Wilfred of York in the late seventh century (OxfordCompanion, p. 95).
It is ironic to note that Eustace the Monk, considered to be a source of the "Gest," was a Benedictine (Cawthorne, p. 121), meaning that Robin was attacking a member of the order to which the hero of one of the source legends belonged.
** Stanza 214/Lines 853-856 ** This stanza is the first clear part of a runnng gag which occupies most of the fourth fit: That this monk of St. Mary's Abbey (stanza 233) has brought the payment of the loan for which the knight offered the Virgin Mary as guarantor. The monk of course would not see it this way, but in in stanza 207, John had told Robin he was sure the knight would pay; in this stanza, John suggests that the monk is bringing it; in stanza 236, John firmly states that "this monke it hath brought"; in 242 Robin agrees that the monk has brought it; and in 248 John counts the monk's money and finds that it is twice what the knight owes; "Our Lady hath doubled your cast." This causes Robin to affirm, in 249-250, that Mary is the truest woman and best security he has found. In 271, the knight shows up to pay the debt, and Robin refuses the gift, because Our Lady brought the payment.
** Stanza 215/Line 858 ** In Child's text, Little John tells his subordinates to "frese your bowes of ewe (yew)." There are several possible variants, but this is the most likely reading. What it means is another question; see the discussion in the textual notes.
** Stanza 216/Lines 861-862 ** The monk's company has seven "somers" -- i.e. sumpters, pack horses. Sumpters generally were not fast but could carry large burdens for a long time. At least two and probably three would be required to carry the eight hundred pounds of silver (stanza 247). That leaves four to carry the baggage of the company -- which would be substantial for a company of 52 guards, two monks, and two servants. This presumably would be mostly food, plus perhaps some spare arrows or such; the soldiers would carry their own clothing and weapons. Unless the company has carts (which are not mentioned), this means that they carried food for only about three days -- evidence that they would need money to buy food along the way.
** Stanza 219/Line 873 ** John orders, "Abyde, chorle monke." This is less an insult than it sounds today -- "churl" derives from Old English "ceorl," who was simply a peasant farmer. In Chaucer, e.g., it means both "common man"and "boor," but the former meaning is more common, in the opinion of Chaucerr/Benson, p. 1228 (under "cherl"). But one thing is certain: it means a person at the bottom of the social scale. Many monks, especially senior monks, were in fact younger sons of aristocrats whose families had purchased them a comfortable position. By calling the lead monk a churl, John (who is said in Stanza 3 to be a yeoman) appears at minimum to be asserting superior social status. A modern equivalent might be something like, "Hold it right there, low--life."
John will use "chorle" again, with stronger force, in Stanza 227.
** Stanza 222/Line 887 ** Note that Little John here calls Robin a "Yeoman of the Forest." This might, of course, mean simply "a yeoman who lives in the forest." But it was also an office in the Edwardian period; see the note on Stanza 1.
** Stanza 223/Line 889 ** Child's text says that Much had a"bolte" ready. There is a variant here (see the textual note); probably because the usage is imprecise; Ritson noted that a "bolt" from a bow was usuallly used to shoot birds (Gummere, p. 318); also, of course, crossbows fired bolts and longbows arrows. The text is probably correct, however, since an arrow could casually be called a bolt.
** Stanza 224/Line 895 ** The word "grome" appears twice in the "Gest," here and in Stanza 4. The meaning in stanza 4 is uncertain; here, it clearly means "groom." "Groom" was the lowest of three levels of servants in noble households in the late fifteenth century, the two above it being gentlemen and yeomen (Pollard, p. 37).
** Stanza 226/Lines 901-904 ** For Robin Hood and his hood, see the note to Stanza 29. Here, as there, the hood is simply used as a demonstration of courtesy (for which see Stanza 2): Robin is mannered enough to take off his hood. But in contrast to the well-mannered knight of Stanza 29, the monk has not the courtesy to remove his hood in response to Robin's gesture. He will call Robin uncourteous in stanza 256.
** Stanza 227/Line 905 ** For John's use of the word "chorle," see the note on stanza 219.
** Stanza 229/Line 915 ** Could Robin really have fed and supplied seven score men in Barnsdale? This is an astonishing number of outlaws -- but the poet will give this number several times (stanzas 288, 342, 389, 416, 448, and by implication in 342, where the reference is to seven score of bows, implying a similar number of bowmen). Possibly the number is derived from the tale of Gamelyn, where Gamelyn encounters seven score men in the forest when he and his brother's steward Adam flee there (Cawthorne, p. 171).
Pollard, pp. 93-94, discusses outlaw bands in the fifteenth century and notes that large bands did not hold together -- men would join and leave in short order. Probably it is just a matter of the poet exaggerating again. But if we take it seriously, the time is obvious: The Scots wars of Edward II, when raiders and robbers were everywhere. At minimum, it must be before the Black Death; if it were after, there would be enough land available that there would be no need for hundreds of men to go off and be outlaws.
It is interesting that none of the references to this large band are in the section of the "Gest" devoted to Robin, the Knight, and St. Mary's abbey; all might derive from the other tales used by the author of the "Gest." In the take of Robin and the Knight, there are hints that Robin's only followers are Little John, Scarlock, and Much (see the notes on Stanzas 4 and 17 ).
** Stanza 230/Line 918 ** There is disagreement as to the meaning of "raye." Ritson suggested undyed cloth; Gummere, p. 318, prefers Halliwell's explanation "striped cloth," which is also accepted by Knight/Ohlgren. We might also consider the possibility of emending to something like "scarlet and ryche arraye."
** Stanza 231/Line 921 ** For Robin's custom of washing before dinner, see the note on Stanza 32.
** Stanza 233/Line 932 ** The "Hye Selerer," or High Cellarer, was present when the knight went to St. Mary's (see the note to Stanza 93). This makes Stanza 239 particularly interesting.
** Stanza 235/Lines 939-940 ** These lines are the same as those at the end of Stanza 206; see the note there.
** Stanza 236/Lines 943-944 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 237/Line 947 ** "A lytell money" -- clearly a joke; 400 pounds was a lot of money. See the note on Stanza 49.
** Stanza 239/Lines 955-956 ** The cellarer denies having heard of Robin's loan guaranteed by the Virgin Mary. Formally and legally, he is absolutely correct; he was not a witness to the meeting between Robin and the knight. But we know from Stanza 93 that the cellarer of St. Mary's was present when the knight paid the abbot. Unless a new cellarer has been appointed in the last year (possible, but unlikely, particularly in a story as well-worked-out as this), he should know about the loan to the knight. To give him his due, he might have no particular reason to recall that that little fiasco happened exactly a year before. But recall that Little John was serving as the knight's yeoman in Fit 2. Might not the cellarer have recognized him? (At least in fiction.)
** Stanza 240/Lines 959-960 ** "For Gode is holde a ryghtwys man" -- perhaps an echo of the Nicene Crede ("one Lord Jesus Christ, who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man") or even John 1:14 ("and the word became flesh and dwelt among us"). The righteousness of God is a very common theme in Paul (see, e.g. Romans 3:25-26). The righteousness of Mary ("his dame") is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, but is vaguely hinted at in the creeds.
The text of these lines is rather messed up; see the textual note.
** Stanza 242/Lines 965-966 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214.
** Stanza 243/Line 969 ** As in Stanza 37, Robin asks his guest to tell how much money he is carrying; see the note on that stanza.
** Stanza 243/Line 971** The monk claims, falsely, to have only "twenty marke" -- 20 marks, or 13 and a third pounds sterling, or 3200 pence. This is, by interesting coincidence, the amount the Sheriff offered Little John in Stanza 150, and which Little John offered the cook (stanza 171). It is a significant sum, which would surely have been enough to take the Monk to London had he travelled with a small company.
But the monk had 52 men in his company (stanza 216), and he did not have enough horses to supply their needs for more than a few days (stanza 216 again). If we assume he is paying each one three pence a day (a suitable rate, and one which would allow them to buy their own food), that's 156 pence per day for the whole company. Even if we assume no expenses other than paying the company, that means that the entire 20 marks would be used up in 21 days. In practice, he would presumably have other expenses -- if nothing else, his own food and lodging, which we can assume would cost more than the guards'. Even if we assume that the monk was very cheap about such things (which would explain why most of the men abandoned him so easily), in practice 20 marks probably would not maintain the company for more than about ten days. To bring so many from Yorkshire to London (stanza 253) really calls for a budget of more than 20 marks; he just doesn't have enough reserve. So he stands convicted by implication from the start.
** Stanza 247/lines 985-986 ** Little John spreads his mantle "As he had done before" -- in stanza 42, when he counted the knight's money.
** Stanza 247/Line 988 ** The monk allegedly carried "eyght [hondred] pounde" -- 800 pounds. For this extremely high total, see the note on stanza 49. See also the textual note.
** Stanza 248/Lines 991-992 ** For the running account of Mary sending Robin his payment via the monk of St. Mary's Abbey, see the note on stanza 214. Here John jokes that the monk is true -- true not in his statement (Stanza 243) that he had twenty marks, but true in his delivery of Robin's pay.
Compare this to the factually accurate statement in Stanza 43 that the knight is "trewe inowe" because he had only the handful of change that he said he had.
Although I doubt that the poet was thinking of this, there is an interesting analogy to the account of Joseph in Egypt in Genesis 40. In that tale, Pharaoh's baker and butler are imprisoned for having displeased Pharaoh, and Joseph interprets their dreams, telling both that Pharaoh will "lift up your head." As John says the knight is true because he is true and the monk is true in a completely different sense, so Joseph tells the butler that Pharaoh will lift up his head and restore him (Genesis 40:13), but he will lift up the baker's head and hang him (Genesis 40:19).
In the final line of the stanza, b says the Virgin Mary has doubled Robin's "cast," fg read "cost." This probably doesn't really mean "cost," since such usage is primarily modern, but even if it did, the reading of b is preferable -- Robin gambled on the knight's honesty (or on the Virgin's, if you will), as he might gamble on dice -- and he has been repaid double, as he might in gambling on dice.
** Stanza 251/Lines 1003-1004 ** Robin here promises to be "a friend" to the Virgin "yf she haue nede." Arguably she calls in this promise in stanza 336, where the knight's wife asks Robin for help "For Our dere Ladyes sake."
** Stanza 252Line 1005 ** Note that here Robin says that he will provide silver, but not gold, if the Virgin needs it. See the note on Stanza 49; it is somewhat curious to see silver promised here but gold paid out there.
** Stanza 253/Lines 1009-1012 ** Apparently the monk is being sent to London to try to get the King to deal with the Knight and give his lands to the abbot. (Something that formally should be done by Parliament with a bill of Pains and Penalties, but that's too complicated to put in a ballad.) This is obviously similar to a portion of the plot of the "Monk," which also involves St. Mary's. Here, as there, the monk is intercepted -- in each case, by John and Much. But here there is no rescue, just a preemptive strike.
That the monk's action is a legal one is proved by the word "mote" in the second line of the stanza. "Mote," or "moot" as we would usually spell it (think of "Entmoot," Tolkien fans), is a term "constantly associated with law," according to Gummere, p. 318.
** Stanza 256/Line 1021 ** The text of this line is troublesome and probably damaged (see textual note); the sense is probably that Robin asks what, or how much money, the monk is carrying on another horse.
** Stanza 256/Line 1024 ** "That were no curteysye." For the importance of courtesy, see the note on Stanza 2; for Robin's courtesy to the Monk, see Stanza 226.
** Stanza 257/Lines 1026-1027 ** Could Shakespeare have known this little bit of casuistry? Compare Falstaff's justification of his less-than-honourable ways: "Why, Hal, 'tis my vocation, Hal, 'tis no sin for a man to labor in his vocation" (1 Henry IV, I.ii, lines 104-105 in RiversideShakespeare).
** Stanzas 259-260/Lines 1035-1040 ** The monk has enough self-possession enough to try a little irony:, saying in effect, "The food is cheaper in Blythe and Doncaster." Robin, not to be outdone, in effect praises the abbot for sending such a profitable victim.
** Stanza 259/Line 1036 ** "Blith or...Dankestre", i.e. Blythe or Doncaster, for which see the note to Stanza 28. In this case, since we are absolutely certain the monk is going to London (stanza 253), this is strong evidence that the scene is Barnsdale, not Sherwood. This reinforces the sense that the knight was heading south in stanza 28.
** Stanza 263/Line 1049 ** Is this the palfrey Robin gave the knight in Stanza 77? We cannot say.
** Stanza 263/Line 1051 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2. The knight again shows courtesy in 270.
** Stanza 265/Lines 1059-1060 ** Robin, having pretended that the monk was bringing the knight's money, perhaps continues the pretense here -- since Robin has been paid, the knight has no necessary reason to show up.
** Stanza 266/Line 1063 ** For the difficult problem of the "hye iustice" see the note on Stanza 93. Here, however, there is no textual variant.
** Stanza 268/Line 1069 ** There are very many problems with the text of this verse; several lines are probably missing. See the textual mote. Kittredge suggests that "a grefe" should be read as "a-grefe," in other words, don't take a grievance, don't hold a grudge.
** Stanza 270/Line 1079 ** Twenty marks of interest. See note on stanza 121.
** Stanza 271/Line1081-1084 ** For the story of Mary's repayment of the knight's loan, see the note on Stanza 214. This particular passage is reminiscent of the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42-44. Jospeh's brothers, jealous of the fact that he was his father's favorite, sold him into Egypt. There Joseph became the vizier. When famine hit Canaan, the brothers had to go down to Egypt for food. They brought money, but Joseph (who knew them although they did not recognize him) played a trick on them, causing the money to be placed in their sacks of grain. The famine was long, and eventually they were forced to come to Egypt again. When they came, they tried to explain, and Joseph declared (Genesis 43:23) "your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you; I received your money." (After some additional testing of his brothers, Joseph finally concluded that they had reformed, and all lived happily every after, but that has no parallel in this tale).
** Stanza 272/Lines 1085-1086 ** Note that Robin, in these lines, refuses to commit usury by accepting more than what he is owed. Admittedly he took the payment from the wrong source -- but he does not collect more than his due. It is a peculiar form of honesty, but considering the behavior of modern bankers (with their careful scheduling of payments to generate overdraft fees, and their concealment of loan terms), perhaps we ought not criticise.
** Stanza 274/Line 1096 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 275/Line1102 ** There is a variant here, probably caused by the fact that "tresure" does not appear to rhyme with "me." " But "treasure" is doubtless to be pronounced "treasury."
** Stanzas 280-281/Lines 1117-1124 ** Although the copies all place the end of the fourth fit after stanza 280, internal evidence clearly indicates that the fits should be divided after stanza 281 (observe the use of the "lythe and listen" formula at the beginning of 282).
Of course, it is a genuine question whether the fits are authorial or editorial. The latter strikes me as more probable, in which case the fits have no authority anyway. My guess would be that the fits were marked by the editor who produced the first printed edition, and all the later printers followed that first ediiton -- and the editor marked "Fyfth Fytte" in the margin of the source manuscript alongside stanza 281, meaning it to follow 281, but hte compositor set it before.
** Stanza 282/Lines 1125-1126 ** Observe the parallel to the first stanza, which also begins "Lyth and listin, gentilmen," and to stanzas 144 and 317. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
** Stanza 282/Lines 1125-1128 ** In Fit 5, as in Fit 3, the Sheriff of Nottingham is Robin's chief opponent, and there is no indication that a new sheriff has been appointed. But the Sheriff of Fit 3 is a relatively incompetent figure of fun. The Sheriff of Fit 5 comes close to destroying Robin (Holt1, p. 25). In Stanza 15, Robin had warned against the Sheriff; one suspects the warning was against the Sheriff of Fit 5, not the one of Fit 3. For more about the status of sheriffs, and why the new sheriff might have been closer to the king than the old, see the notes on Stanza 15.
This is the second archery contest of the "Gest"; for the first, see the note to Stanzas 145-146. Robin and his men will stage their own in stanza 397. But this one is different; it is supposed to bring in all the best archers of the North. Given that Robin's men in Stanza 301 almost fall victim to an ambush, this raises the possibility that the contest was intended to lure Robin into a trap. We see this made explicit in the Forresters version of "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152] (Knight, p. 23).
** Stanza 285/Lines 1137-1140 ** The golden arrow as a prize for an archery contest. This strikes me as a rather strange prize; in a time when life was relatively short and people were poor, mementos like this were not popular; in the absence of another prize, the winner would probably have to melt it down. Nor would it be an effective arrow, since the gold would blunt and the silver break. Nonetheless the idea seems to have inspired "Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow" [Child 152].
Estimating the value of the arrow is difficult, because we don't have its dimensions. It probably wasn't a full "cloth yard." A reasonable assumption is that it would be the length of a war arrow -- about 28 inches (Featherstone, p. 65), or 70 centimeters. The shaft, by implication, had a diameter of about .3 inches, or .75 cm. The point would be a pyramid 2 inches (Featherstone, p. 66), or 5 cm., long and with sides about 75 cm. So the golden arrowhead would have a volume of about 1 cubic centimeter. Add perhaps 50% for the golden feathers and we get 1.5 cc. The density of gold is 19 grams per cubic centimeter. So the weight of gold is 28.5 grams -- a hair over one ounce; the difference is well within our margin of error, which is on the order of 50% even assuming we've guessed the right kind of point for the arrow.
The volume of silver is a little more than 30 cubic centimeters. The density of silver is 10.5 grams per cubic centimeter. So the total mass of silver is about 325 grams, or 11.5 ounces. So the total value, in silver equivalent, is about 30 oz. of silver. That's about 2.5 pounds sterling. It's a substantial sum to a yeoman, but one a royal official could probably afford. This makes rather more financial sense than many of the figures in the "Gest."
** Stanzas 287-288/Lines1145, 1151 ** "Yonge men" may be an archaism, the root form of "yeomen." (Or not; the point is disputed.) For yeomen note on Stanza 1.
** Stanza 287/Lines 1147-1148 ** Robin decides to participate in the Nottingham archery contest, declaring he "wyll wete [test] the shryues fayth, Trewe and yf he be." Ohlgren, p. 282, interprets this to mean that Robin will test whether the sheriff is true to the oath he swore in stanza 204 to be Robin's friend. This raises questions -- for starters, after that embarrassment, would the Sheriff still be sheriff?
But there is another point. The spelling in this line is not ""sherif," as in (for instance) stanzas 204 and 205, nor "sheryfe," as in stanza 282. Terminal e in middle English was often an optional syllable, for rhyme or meter, and i and y were really the same letter, so "sherif" and "sheryfe" were genuine variants. But "shryues"? That's about as close to "shreward," "rogue" (Dickins/Wilson, p. 306) as to "sherif"; also consider "shryn," "shrine" -- perhaps Robin made a pilgrimage and made some sort of conditional vow and wanted to see the effects?
It's just a feeling, but I suspect textual corruption here.
Even if "shryues" means "sherif," there is the possibility that Robin is not testing the Sheriff's oath of friendship but his promise to give the prize to the best archer no matter who it be -- that is, will he give the award to one of Robin's men? As it turns out, he will not -- a hint, it seems to me, that in fact it is a new sheriff.
Note however that in stanzas 296-298, Robin complains that the sheriff is untrue.
These lines give us another, very vague, parallel to the story of David and Saul., this time to 1 Samuel 20. By this time Saul is so jealous of David that he wants David dead. He had tried to have David killed by demanding that he kill a hundred Philistines as a bride-price for his daughter Michal -- but David, instead of dying, produced the hundred Philistine foreskins (the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 18:27 in fact says that David killed two hundred, although the Greek says only one hundred). In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to take David in his bed, but David escapes.
In 1 Samuel 20, David and his friend Jonathan, Saul's son, agree to test Saul. David will be absent from Saul's monthly banquet. Saul will ask where he is. Jonathan will explain that he has gone to a family sacrifice, and has asked Jonathan for permission to do so. If Saul accepts the explanation, then David and Jonathan will know that David is safe; if Saul does not accept the explanation, then David must flee.
As it turns out, in 1 Samuel 20:30, Saul refuses Jonathan's explanation and even reviles Jonathan's mother, Saul's own wife.
Thus David tested Saul just as Robin tests the Sheriff, and just as Saul failed the test, so too does the Sheriff. And, in the end, Saul's lack of faith probably cost him his life (although it is not David who kills him), and certainly the Sheriff's lack of faith results in Robin killing him.
** Stanza 288/Line 1151 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 292/Line1166 ** There is a variant here, over which outlaws hit the target, and whether they sliced or clave it; see the textual note. Knight/Ohlgren suggest, p. 161, that stanza 292 refers to a sort of "tiebreak" between Robin and Gilbert, the winners of the preliminary round, but the description of the contest is too brief for us to really assess what happened.
** Stanza 292/Lines 1167-1168 ** "Gylberte With the whyte hande." Until this point, the only outlaws given any real mention are Little John, Much the Miller's Son, and Scarlock, and John is the only one who has done much of anything. We have no background on Gilbert of the White Hand. (We do note that fg call him Gilbert of the "lylly white" hand.)
It is probably coincidence, but we find an instance in the reign Edward II of the bishop-elect of Durham and two cardinals being robbed by outlaws in the north of England (Hutchison, p. 88) -- a situation quite similar to "Robin Hood and the Bishop of Hereford" [Child 144] as well as to portions of the "Gest." Prestwich3, p. 103, and McNamee, p. 84, say that the crime was committed by Gilbert de Middleton in 1317 -- exactly halfway into the reign of Edward II (and, astonishingly, exactly the time we would have expected Robin to have robbed the Monk if the knight had been talking of going on crusade in 1316). Phillips, p. 299, says that Middleton was one of Edward's household knights, as was one of his fellow robbers, Sir John de Lilburn.
Apparently all of this involved a local resident, John d'Eure, acknowledged a debt of 100 marks to John de Sapy, the keeper of the tenporalities of Durham, an agreement overseen by the Prior of Durham. This debt was only supposed to be paid if Louis de Beaumont was consecrated as Bishop of Durham (Philipps, p. 300). It's not the story of Robin, the Knight, and the Abbot, but it's surprisingly close.
According to Phillips, p. 299, the two cardinals were quickly released, but Bishop Louis of Durham, along with his brother Henry de Beaumont, were held for more than a month. The result was a political crisis, with Edward and the Earl of Lancaster each suspecting the other.
All this causes us to ask, Could "Gilbert de Middleton" have become "Gilbert of the White Hand"?
To be sure, Gilbert de Middleton's story does not end happily. He was captured in 1318, taken to London, tried, and executed (Phillips, p. 302).
As a really, *really* wild additional stretch, I'm going to mention the existence of a royal yeoman listed as "Robert le Ewer." The description on p. 437 of Phillips is astonishing: "One chronicler even described him as 'the prince of thieves'.... He appears to have served in the Scottish campaign but in September 1322 left the king secretly without permission and headed for his home county of Hampshire, where he allegedly acted like a Robin Hood, distributing the good of executed contrairants to the poor as alms for their souls."
As an alternate explanation for the name "white hand," Baldwin, p. 66, notes that Robert Earl of Leicester (1168-1190) was known as "Blanchemains," French for "White Hand." There is no reason to think Gilbert related to the Beaumonts of Leicester, however. Baldwin suggests that the name may have arisen because Earl Robert had vitiligo, which causes a sort of localized albinoism. But if we are getting speculative, we can wonder if there might not be a reason why Gilbert did not have a tan on his hands -- perhaps he had been a clerk or some such.
** Stanza 293/Line 1170 ** Reynold. For Little John's use of the name Reynold Greenleaf, see the notes to Stanza 149. This is the only time in the "Gest" that Reynold is mentioned as an archer separate from Little John. (Although we do find Reynold listed amongh Robin's men in the list in the Winchester parliamentary roll of 1432; see the note on Stanza 4/Line 14). Scholars often treat this as a sign of inconsistency, and it surely is, but I wonder if, in the source, Little John did not compete under the name Reynold, and the compiler of the "Gest" failed to notice this.
** Stanza 295/Line 1179 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanzas 296-298/Lines 1181-1192 ** For Robin's decision to test the value of the Sheriff's oath, see the note on Stanza 287. For the oath itself, see Stanza 204.
The first line of stanza 296, "They cryed out on Robyn Hode," is interesting. Who is doing the crying? The townsfolk of Nottingham? This is the suggestion of Knight/Ohlgren, p. 162, which obviously implies that Robin was not as popular with the townsfolk as some would have us think. It would also explain their fear of Robin and his men in Stanza 428. If it does mean the townsfolk, of course, it relieves the Sheriff of some of his guilt. But see the note on Stanza 301.
** Stanza 298/Line 1190 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 301/Line 1201 ** The fact that an ambush has been laid in would seem to imply that the whole shooting contest was a trap -- not a legitimate contest but a way of luring Robin from the greenwood (see also the note on Stanza 282). This would seem to contradict the passage in stanza 296 implying that the townsfolk, not the sheriff, initiated the attack on Robin.
** Stanza 302/Lines 1205-1206 ** Little John's injury in the knee is similar to an event in the tale of Fulk FitzWarren, where Fulk is wounded in the leg (Baldwin, p. 37); also similar is the fact that both find shelter with a friendly knight.. Note however that in the tale of Fulk it is the hero himself, not his chief lieutenant, who is wounded. There is also a somewhat similar instance where Fulk's brother is wounded (Cawthorne, p. 115).
** Stanzas 303-305/Lines 1209-1220 ** The instances of an injured man pleading not to fall into the hands of an enemy are of course very old. Child, p. 54, has an eastern analogy involving one Giphtakis, but completely ignores the 3000 year old appeal of Saul of Israel, wounded by the Philistines on Gilboa, that his armor-bearer kill him rather than letting the Philistines capture him. This tale is told in 1 Samuel 31 -- the immediate follow-up to the raid on Ziklag., for which see Stanzas 338-339. There is, of course, the difference that there was no one to rescue Saul, who (when his armor-bearer could not bring himself to do the dead) fell on his own sword.
** Stanza 305/Lines1217-1220 ** Little John, if taken by the sheriff, would be tried and surely convicted -- and sentenced to death by torture. Very likely drawing and quartering -- castration, half-hanging, and evisceration, with his dead body cut into parts which would be displayed outside the gates of local towns. Given the sheriff's reasons to dislike John, we can hardly doubt that the punishment would be even more severe than usual. Little wonder that he begged for a quick, clean death!
It is interesting to see John call Robin's blade a "browne swerde"; elsewhere (Stanzas 202, 348) it is a "bright bronde."
** Stanza 309/Lines 1233-1236 ** Robin and his men come to a castle, which we learn in the next stanza belongs to Sir Richard at the Lee. This stanza describes it as a "fair castle, a little within the wood," walled, and with a double ditch. This isn't much of a description -- after the Norman Conquest, the Normans studded England with what were called motte-and-bailey castles, which consisted of a ditch enclosing a palisade (wall), with the dirt used in digging the ditch carried inside to build a hill. Later, many of these had the palisade walls rebuilt in stone, but still, it would be hard to find a castle that didn't have a wall and ditch, and the addition of a second ditch was a cheap additional precaution.
Nonetheless Baldwin, p. 170, makes this description one of the keys to his identification of Sir Richard in the ballad with the historical Richard Foliot and his castle of Fenwick.
** Stanza 310/Line 1238 ** "Syr Rychard at the Lee," or Sir Richard at Lee, as it is usually modermized. Note that, although Sir Richard is linked with the knight of the first four fits, this is the first time he is named -- an indication, presumably, of the composite nature of the "Gest." The poet has combined two tales, and claimed the knight of one is the knight of the other. Nonetheless the tale hints that they are distinct -- Sir Richard is close at hand when Robin and his men flee the Sheriff of Nottingham, which implies that he lived near Barnsdale or Sherwood. But the knight of stanza 126 lives in Verysdale, believed to be in Lancashire.
It is interesting to note that, in "The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148], Robin takes service with a fisherman under the name "Simon over the Lee" (stanza 7 in Child's text) -- the name "Simon" likely being suggested by the fact that Simon Peter was a fisherman, and became a fisher of men (Matthew 4:18-19 and parallels). It is even more interesting to observe that, in the Forresters Manuscript version of this ballad, which in this case seems to preserve an earlier form, Robin becomes "Simon of the Lee," (Knight, p. xvi), exactly paralleling the form in the "g" print of the "Gest." This late ballad would seem to imply that Robin was taking the knight's title.
** Stanza 312/Line 1246 ** For courtesy see the note on Stanza 2.
** Stanza 313/Line 1251 ** For Child's reading "proud[e]" see the note on Stanza 282.
** Stanza 315/Lines 1258-1259 ** Saint Quentin was an early martyr, slain in Gaul. He was not well-known in England; his cult was centered in France. He was not the patron saint of anything in particular. It is curious to find Sir Richard invoking him, unless he was a family saint dating back to the time before the Conquest. This is a strong argument against the idea that Robin Hood was a pro-Saxon rebel; he would not in that case be friends with a guy swearing by Norman saints.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 162, suggest that Sir Richard swears by Saint Quentin because he is promising to spare Robin from Quentin's fate.
The "forty days" of the next line (in Child's text; see the textual note) was the traditional annual period of feudal military service; I have no idea whether this is significant. It might just be an allusion to something such as the forty days and forty nights of rain during Noah's Flood in Genesis 7:4, etc., or the forty days Moses was on the mountain in Exodus 24:18, or the forty days Jesus fasted in the wilderness in Matt. 4:2, etc.
** Stanza 316/Line 1261 ** Gummere, p. 318, interprets "Bordes were layde" to mean that tables were set up by laying boards on trestles, although one might also understand this as meaning that the sideboards were filled (laden).
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117G

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 09

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode� [Child 117]. Entry continues in "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117] --- Part 10 (File Number C117I). This entry contains notes on Fits VI-VIII of the "Gest."
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: ** Stanza 317-318/Lines 1265-1272 ** Here again we have the "Lyth and listin, gentilmen" formula of stanzas 1, 144, and 282. For notes on this introductory formula, see the notes to stanza 1.
These stanzas, however, contain several additional curious readings (see the textual notes). As they currently stand, Stanza 317 ends in mid-sentence. This is unusual although not entirely unknown in the "Gest."
Observe also that, as it is written, we learn that the "proude shyref... full cam to the hye shyref." This on its face implies TWO sheriffs. Possibly the poet is simply using "hye" to refer to any senior official, as some texts refer to the "hye justice" in stanza 93. But this still seems to leave us with two sheriffs. And there is no such office as the "hye shyref." Possibly the poet uses this title to contrast with the under-sheriff.
But this, on its face, would make Robin's enemy the under-sheriff. It was unlikely enough that the sheriff was a lord with a castle and many servants. It is frankly unbelievable that an under-sheriff would have such. Presumably the intent of these lines is that the Sheriff raised some sort of hue and cry.
** Stanza 319/Line 1274 ** "Traytour knight." To charge the knight with treason is formally false; even after Edward III broadened and clarified the statute of treason in 1352, it included only plotting the death of the monarch, levying war against the monarch, raping the King's eldest daugher, killing royal justices in performance of their duties, and importing forged coins (Prestwich3, pp. 230-231). Clearly the knight had done none of these. However, the laws of treason were easily stretched -- Edward I had executed William Wallace on a charge of treason, even though Wallace never acknowleged Edward as his king (Prestwich, p. 503). Edward II, similarly, had a great many men executed on treason charges in 1322 (Phillips, p. 410). Some, like the Earl of Lancaster, were guilty to a degree, but some, like Bartholomew Badlesmere, had merely disagreed with the King until Edward forced him into open rebellion. Edward then arranged that he suffer an unusually harsh execution (Phillips, p. 411).
One suspects that the Sheriff was using the threat of a treason charge to frighten the knight into giving up Robin. The penalty for treason, as suffered by William Wallace, was drawing and quartering, one of the most painful and horrid deaths possible. This was similar to what was suffered by Badlesmere. (And probably why Little John begged for a quick death in Stanza 305.) If the Sir Richard gave up Robin, the likely penalty for harboring a fugitive would have been merely a fine. So the sheriff offered a strong incentive.
If the King is in fact Edward II, and if this in fact takes place about a year before Edward's visit north in 1323, then the charge becomes particularly telling: "Give up Robin Hood, or the King will do to you as he just did to Badlesmere and all the other rebels who fought with Lancaster."
Here again we have a Biblical parallel from the story of David, this one told in 2 Samuel chapter 20. After the rebellion of Absalom failed, Sheba son of Bichri rebelled against David. The rebellion quickly failed, and Sheba fled to Abel-Bethmaacah. David's army, under Joab, demanded the surrender of Sheba, implying that the city would be sacked if Sheba was not surrendered, but spared if Sheba were turned over. The outcome, however, was different: The residents of Abel gave up Sheba, throwing his head over the wall to Joab.
** Stanza 320/Line 1280 ** Sir Richard declares himself "a trewe knyght." Compare Stanza 47, where the knight declares that he is a proper knight; Stanza 109, where he promises to be a true servant if treated properly; Stanza 114, where he says he is not a false knight.
** Stanzas 331-332/Lines 1321-1328 ** If we need proof that the knight was in good financial shape by this time, these stanzas prove it: Hawking was an expensive and aristocratic sport. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, point out that the knight would not be properly armed while hawking (which requires special gloves and such rather than armor), making the sheriff's behavior in arresting him at this time somewhat improper. This is dubious, but the sheriff's decision to bind him hand and foot (stanza 333) is certainly improper behavior toward a member of the gentry who, as far as we can tell, has not been outlawed. Although the King had said in stanza 325 that he would take Robin Hood, that is not by itself a jury finding -- and Magna Carta had guaranteed the right to trial by jury long before Edward I took the throne.
The intent of the last line of 331 is not entirely clear (due in part to a textual variant), but if we are to understand that the sheriff let the hawk(s) fly loose, it means that he has done the knight monetary damage in addition to arresting him.
** Stanza 336/Line 1343 ** Note that knight's wife invokes the Virgin Mary in asking Robin for help. This might be an appeal to Robin's known love for the Virgin -- but it also recalls his promise in Stanza 251 the if Mary has "nede to Robyn Hode," he will be her friend.
** Stanzas 338-339/Lines 1352-1353 ** These lines are missing in all the early prints, making this one of the most important defect in the "Gest"; see the textual notes.
There is a bit of a hint at the career of David here. David, after Saul tried to murder him, entered the service of the Philistines. The Philistines were preparing the the climactic campaign against Saul which ended in the Battle of Mount Gilboa (for which see the note to Stanzas 303-305). David and his company (supposedly 600 men) were preparing to serve on the Philistine side against Israel. But a majority of the Philistine leaders did not want an Israelite serving in their army at the great battle; they feared he would turn on them. They sent David to his home in Ziklag (1 Samuel 29).
When David got home, he found that Amelekites had raided Ziklag, and taken the wives, children, and relatives of David's soldiers prisoner (1 Samuel 30:1-2). David, frightened of his own men (who were brigands, after all), asked an oracle whether he should pursue them, and was told "Pursue, for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue" (1 Samuel 30:9). And, indeed, even as Saul was being killed at Gilboa (very conveniently for David), David overtook the raiders and rescued his wives and his followers' families.
** Stanza 342/Line 1366 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 345/Lines 1379-1380 ** Note that Robin here asks the Sheriff for tidings of the king. This is perhaps an indication that Robin, despite being an outlaw, still is devoted to the King. We will see many more such indications in the seventh fit, where Robin honors the monk who comes from the king.
** Stanza 346/Lines1381-1382 ** Robin says that he has not moved this fast on foot in seven years. Probably this is just a conventional statement -- but it is interesting that it was seven years from 1316, which for various reasons seems to be roughly the time the knight went into debt, to 1323 when Edward II made his trip to the north.
** Stanzas 347-348/Lines 1385-1392 ** Why did not Robin's arrow kill the sheriff itself? The two were within speaking range, and an arrow fired at that range will pierce armor. Probably the sheriff was dead and Robin simply made sure. But there is also a symbolic element: in Stanza 202, the sheriff swore on Robin's "bright brand"; since he broke the oath, the bright brand is used to execute him.
Pollard, pp. 107-108, sees a symbolic element to the whole episode of the sheriff: Killing the corrupt official is one half of restoring true justice (the other half being the receipt of the King's pardon). He adds that there was an "inextricable link between violence and the law in fifteenth century society." This is unquestionably true -- one of the major causes and side effects of the Wars of the Roses was that nobles settled their differences in battle rather than in the courts -- but it was hardly held up as ideal. And fifteenth century, which opened with the overthrow of Richard II and also saw the overthrows of Henry VI (twice), Edward IV (temporarily), and Richard III, was a period when the king's power to grant pardon and justice was hardly taken seriously -- a man pardoned by one king could expect to be subject to severe persecution by the next. In any case, Pollard's case is based on a fifteenth century date.
The cutting off of the head really sounds more like the Robin Hood of "Guy of Gisborne" than the Robin of the rest of the "Gest," however -- and surely he would not have been so crude to a man who supposedly was the husband of the Sheriff's wife of the Potter. Note that Robin accuses the sheriff's body of falsehood in the next stanza.
Child gives the last line of stanza 348 as "With his bright[e] bronde." "Brighte" is the reading of bdfg; a has "bright." In stanza 202, both a and b read "bright." We must at least allow for the possibility that the copyist of a assimilated this verse to that. "Brighte" is also better metrically. Although Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, prefer to read "bright," the case for "brighte" appears slightly better.
Note that this isn't the only time in the early ballads that Robin kills the Sheriff. He does so also in "Guy of Gisborn" (cf. Holt1, pp. 32-33). Does this mean that there were several traditions of how Robin killed the sheriff, or that there were none and that different sources came up with different means? We cannot really say.
** Stanza 351/Line 1402 ** In this stanza Robin cuts... something... in two to free the knight. It may have been his "hoode" or his bonds; see the textual note. Perhaps the the guards could have tied the knight's hood over his eyes to prevent him from seeing. Also, "hode" sometimes seems to be used to refer to the head, or the contents of the hood, but this hardly helps. In practical terms, of course, it does not matter; what counts is that Robin cut the knight free.
If the original reading was "hoode," it is interesting to see that it is spelled with a double o, while Robin's name is spelled "Hode," with only one o.
** Stanza 352/Lines 1405-1406 ** Robin bids the knight to abandon his horse (the horse Robin gave him?) and run with the outlaws. For residents of an actual forest, this is always good advice -- but it makes less sense if Robin inhabits open land that is only nominally forest (which was the case for much of Barnsdale).
This may be a dating hint, sine it was not until the reign of Edward III that archers were mounted. So it makes sense, if we are in the reign of Edward II or earlier, for archers to be unmounted. On the other hand, this seems to contradict the situation in Stanza 152, where the Sheriff offers John a horse.
** Stanza 353/Line 1412 ** "Edwarde, our comly kynge." Although there have been references to the King before this (stanzas 319, 321, 322, 325, 326, 345), this is the first one which gives him a name -- and it isn't William, Henry, Richard, or John, it's Edward.
There were six Kings Edward in English history before the first certain reference to Robin Hood as a figure of folklore: Edward the Elder (reigned c. 899-925), Edward the Martyr (c. 973-978), Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). There was another Edward, Edward IV (reigned 1461-1470 and 1461-1483) who lived before the "Gest" was published, and in some ways he fits the ballad -- but the piece would almost certainly have had to have been rewritten to refer to him, and this would likely have taken place in Tudor times. Not likely when Henry VII was trying to make a claim that he was the legitimate King (which he simply wasn't).
We can instantly reject the first three Edwards (the Elder, the Martyr, and the Confessor), because they lived before the Norman Conquest. The very fact that Our Hero is named "Robin" -- diminutive of "Robert" -- proves that he must be post-Conquest. The name "Robert" is Franko-Norman; William the Conqueror's father was named Robert, as was his eldest son. Checking multiple histories, I can find *no* pre-Conquest Englishmen named Robert; the index in Swanton lists 16 men named Robert -- and only one lived in England pre-conquest, and he was Robert Archbishop of Canterbury, and seems to have been an import from France (this was the period when Edward the Confessor was favoring Normans over Englishmen). Barlow , p. 164, notes that Robert was, after William, the most common name among post-Conquest Norman office-holders.
The introduction discusses the matter of which Edward is meant. The only help we have in this verse is the fact that this Edward is called "comely." (A description also used for the king in line 331 of the "Monk," although this does not necessarily imply dependence; it was probably conventional).
Keen, p. 143, reminds us that Edward IV (reigned 1461-1470 and 1471-1483) was, in his prime, considered the handsomest man in Europe. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, and Pollard, p. 200, point out that Edward III was called "our cumly King" in Laurence Minot's Poem IV; Ohlgren is convinced (and Pollard, p. 201, seems to accept the argument) that this means the "Gest" is about Edward III.
The argument is however neutral; Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III were all tall and majestic, if not quite so handsome as Edward IV. The chronicles call Edward II "Fair of body and great of strength" and "Of a well proportioned and handsome person" (Doherty, p. 35). The anonymous author of the Life of Edward II, in speaking of the new King Edward III, hoped that he would have the traits of his ancestors: The energy of Henry II, the bravery of Richard I, the long life and reign of Henry III, the wisdom of Edward I -- and the good looks of Edward II (Ormrod, p. 47). In any case the phrase "comely king" is probably just a customary description. If we are to figure out which Edward is Robin Hood's king, we shall have to use other arguments.
** Stanza 354/Lines 1413-1414 ** It is extremely unlikely that the King would come all the way to Nottingham simply to deal with an outlaw band and a disobedient knight. Edward I, it is true, spent some time chasing after William Wallace, but that is almost the only instance. Presumably he had other business. Unfortunately, Nottingham was a place English kings visited fairly often -- it was roughly the northern limit of their usual circuit. So this by itself is not a dating hint -- although there are several hints in the following stanzas.
** Stanzas 357-358/Lines 1425-1427 ** "Lancasshyre... Plomton Parke... He fauled many of his dere." In other words, the King went to a hunting reserve in Lancashire, called Plumpton Park, but was upset to find it almost devoid of deer. (A common problem, apparently; by the fifteenth century, red deer were nearly gone throughout the south and midlands, according to Pollard, p. 60, and presumably even the fallow deer were badly threatened in some placed.)
It is interesting to note that Plompton Park is also mentioned in "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth," stanza 38 -- Child's version of the family of ballads referred to above as "King Edward and the Hermit."
There is a good summary of the forest laws in Knight/Ohlgren, pp. 164-165. The forest laws before the Norman Conquest were relatively mild, but William the Conqueror started putting lands into royal forests, eventually including about a quarter of England (meaning that much "forest" was not woodland but merely land designated for the King's purposes). The primary purpose of the laws was to preserve trees and game where they existed.
This hunting episode is by far the strongest dating hint in the "Gest." Almost all kings of England hunted deer, but they rarely went as far as Lancashire to do it; it was too long a trip, and the north of England too unsettled and uncomfortable.
As it turns out, all three Edwards spent time in the north of England -- but Edward I and Edward III were fighting the Scots, not hunting.
Of the kings of England in this period, we know that Richard I liked hunting -- indeed, we know that his one approach to Sherwood Forest was to hunt there (Gillingham, p. 242). John's son Henry was "indifferent to hunting" (Baldwin, p. 114).
In 1852, Joseph Hunter (probably the first quality Robin Hood scholar) showed that the only King Edward who made a progress to northern England which resembled that of the "Gest" was Edward II, who visited Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Nottingham in 1323 (Holt1, p. 45). This was in the aftermath of one of the myriad baronial conflicts of Edward II's reign. He had finally managed to defeat and execute his long-time enemy the Earl of Lancaster (Hutchison, p. 114), and spent a period of months in the north of England trying to deal with the aftermath of the baronial conflict and with Scotland. While this was going on, he naturally spent time hunting and otherwise amusing himself.
Phillips, p. 73, says that Edward II had only an "occasional" interest in hunting, but most of his other biographers seem to think he was very keen for the hunt; his huntsman wrote the first English hunting manual (Hutchison, p. 10), and Edward himself spent great sums upon related activities, importing horses from Lombardy and buying a dead earl's entire stud and delighting in hounds (Doherty, p. 28). Even his wife Isabella is said to have engaged in hunting (Doherty, p. 176). Whereas Prestwich1, p. 115, thinks that Edward I was more interested in falconry (compare Powicke, p. 228).
In any case, even if Edward himself did not hunt, he would need a steady supply of meat for his table --and for the pet lion he kept (Phillips, p. 93). So he would be concerned if a forest had been hunted out even if he did not intend to hunt it himself.
To be sure, Child, p. 55, tartly comments, "Hunter, who could have identified Pigromitus and Quinapallus, if he had given his mind to it, sees in this passage, and in what precedes it of King Edward's trip to Nottingham, a plausible semblence of historical reality. Edward II, as may be shown from Rymer's Foedera, made a progress in the counties of York, Lancaster, and Nottingham, in the latter part of the year 1323. He was in Yorkshire in August and September, in Lancashire in October, at Nottingham November 9-23." (He also visited Nottingham in March/April, Baldwin, p. 57. Baldwin, like Child, does not think Edward's visit the source of the legend, but notes that many were made outlaws in Edward II's time, and thinks the visit might have led to tales of outlawry which contributed to the legend; Baldwin, pp. 58-59.)
Child is surely correct in thinking that Hunter wrang much more out of the historical data than is justified. But *if* the "Gest" is to be linked to any actual historical events, this is the key date. The King Edward of these stanzas is Edward II. Our only hesitation about this conclusion is that the "Gest" is composite. This could be an isolated fragment associated with Edward II, with other parts of the piece deriving from other contexts.
Several locations have been proposed for "Plumpton Park"; Holt lists them on p. 101. Supposedly there was a Plumpton to the west of Bowland Forest in Lancashire in the time of the Edwards; it seems to have vanished from the map, but this is the first possibility cited by Child (pp. 54-55), who located it in Cumbria east of Inglewood. I note that the Plumpton family was still based in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the reign of Edward IV (Ross-Edward, p. 200), and Baldwin, p. 23, is sure that Plumpton Park is near Knaresborough in that county (about halfway between York and Harrowgate, a suggestion which goes back at least to Hunter, and which was the preferred choice of Dobson and Taylor.). Ritson thought it was in Cumberland. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164 are convinced it is in Inglewood Forest. But it hardly matters which one is meant. It is a northern forest which has been hunted out, and Robin Hood is thought to be to blame.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164, point out that Plumpton/Plompton is also mentioned in The Noble Fisherman, or, Robin Hood's Preferment" [Child 148] (stanza 13) -- Simon in that song wishes he were hunting deer in the park. It is not clear whether there is literary dependence.
** Stanza 359/Lines 1433-1434 ** Wild rages were characteristic of all the Plantagenets (except the feeble-minded Henry VI and the forgiving Edward IV and Richard III), and are no key to dating. On p. 94 of McLynn, for instance, we find reports of both Henry II and John biting their fingers when in a rage. Edward I was supposed to have once torn out his son's hair in anger (Phillips, p. 120, who doubts that it actually happened. More significant is the fact that people were willing to believe that it happened.)
There are hints, too, that Edward II's rages grew worse after his triumph over Lancaster in 1322. In 1323, he ordered the execution of Andrew de Harclay, who had won the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322 which gave Edward the win over Lancaster. After Boroughbridge, Edward made Harclay Earl of Carlisle. When word came that Harclay was negotiating with the Scots -- something fairly necessary in his position, although Harclay did go a little far in proposing a draft treaty -- Edward not only had him executed but also degraded from both earldom and knighthood (Phillips, pp. 432-433). A few weeks later, he sent a councilor to prison for disagreeing with him (Phillips, p. 435). The picture we get, in the 1323 period, is of a man who had lost all patience with opposition, even friendly opposition.
But we note that, although Edward vows a particular punishment (confiscation of lands) for the knight, he does not promise anything in particular for Robin. No doubt the implication was clear: Robin would suffer a traitor's death. This of course did not happen. But note the blow the king inflicts upon Robin in stanza 408. If called out to fulfill a vow to punish Robin, the King could say he had done so -- with his own hand!
** Stanza 363//Lines 1449-1452 ** The king is warned that no one will be able to safely occupy the Knight's land because of Robin Hood. This is similar to the situation in Stanza 117 in which the Justice warns the Abbot of the danger of simply confiscating the Knight's lands.
** Stanza 364/Lines 1453-1454 ** The warning to the king continues: The person who occupies the knight's land will lose "the best ball in his hode." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 165, suggest that this is a reference to ancient games which use a human head as a ball. I personally doubt this. It is true that tthere are many accounts of warriors collecting heads as trophies, and the Grimm Brothers story "The Boy Who Set Out to Learn What Fear Was" has a tale of spirits playing ninepins using skulls for balls, and there are various accounts of men being executed after losing some sort of game -- but I do not know of any real uses in British history of a head or skull for a ball. Neither would suit the purpose at all well; the human head is neither round enough to roll well nor consistent enough in its components to bounce well.
I note that Wimberly, who has much discussion of heads and bones in ballad folklore, never mentions this idea.
Gummere, p. 319, explains the phrase as "a jocose expression of old standing" -- but offers no evidence or parallel citation.
I'm reminded a bit of the drawing of lots by pulling colored balls from a hood. But I can see no reason why that would apply here.
The line is in any case over-long. Perhaps we should emend to something like "At honde of Robyn Hode" or similar.
** Stanza 365/LIne 1457 ** The king stays in the north "half a yere." Another indication that this is associated with Edward II's northern trip. Neither Edward I nor Edward III ever stayed at one place in the north for any length of time.
The king's base in Nottingham may be genuine history (Edward II did spend time there), or the author may have placed him there because the story is associated with Sherwood -- but it is interesting to note that Nottingham, until the time of Edward I's northern wars, was generally as far north as a Plantagenet king would go on his regular travels (Mortimer, p. 17).
** Stanza 365/LIne 1458 ** This line reports that the King's stay specifically in Nottingham lasted half a year. This doesn't fit any of the Edwards -- although Edward II was in Nottingham in early 1323 (March or April), and again from November 9-23 (Baldwin, pp. 55, 57), which makes about half a year from the time he first arrived to the time he finally left the area. In any case, the King couldn't visit Plumpoton Park if he never left Nottingham.
If we absolutely have to find a fit for spending a long spell continuously in Nottingham, it was probably Richard III in the period shortly before his death. With his wife and his son dead, and Henry Tudor about to invade, Richard chose Nottingham as the "castle of his care," and stayed there for much of 1485 until Henry Tudor finally landed.
** Stanza 367/Line 1465 ** A forester suggests the king's next act. If had been is a forester in Barnsdale or Sherwood, he might well know Robin (recall that in Stanza 14, Robin told John, Much, and Scarlock not to harm a yeoman who walked "the grene wode shawe," which probably means a forester). Could the whole situation be a set-up?
** Stanza 368/Line 1470 **"Gete you monkes wede," i.e. "disguise yourself as a monk." The motif of a king in disguise is rather common in folklore; we find it in "King Estmere" [Child 60] and in "King William and the Keeper," and in the Robin Hood cycle it occurs also in "The King's Disguise, and Friendship with Robin Hood" [Child 151], plus there were many later tales of James V of Scotland doing this sort of thing. In "Queen Eleanor's Confession" [Child 156], we even find the King and a companion disguised as clergymen, although for a rather different purpose. Indeed, Pollard, p. 201, reminds us that Shakespeare used the gimmick in "Measure for Measure."
It didn't happen often in reality. Interestingly, we do find Richard I trying to disguise himself to cross central Europe on his way home from the Crusade (Gillingham, p. 223). But this did not happen in England, or any land the Plantagenets ruled -- and the disguise was a failure anyway; Richard was taken prisoner and was not released until he had paid a huge ransom. Like most of Richard's ideas that didn't involve fighting, it was a really dumb thing to do. Bonnie Prince Charlie also disguised himself, on his voyage to Skye, but that was long after the "Gest."
One account of the life of Henry VI says that he often dressed as a "townsman" or a "farmer" (Wolffe, p. 10), and it is certain that he was often in disguise in the early 1460s when he had been overthrown and was trying to avoid capture. But the 1460s are a late date for the composition of the "Geste," and in any case Henry at this time had no power, and would not date reveal himself so openly -- and was not forceful enough to play the role of the king in the "Gest."
There is an account of Edward II in disguise reported from about the 1360s, which cannot be true but which might have fostered the idea of the concealed King: In about 1305, when Edward II and his father Edward I were quarrelling, Edward I was supposedly riding along a muddy, dangerous road in winter -- and Edward II, in disguise, came out and led his father's horse through the mud, so that his father did not fall (Phillips, p. 603).
Plus Edward II reportedly liked hanging around with monks and friars (Philipps, p. 602). The idea of dressing as a monk would probably appeal to him.
The idea of adopting a cleric's disguise would be particularly good in 1323, because Edward II had ordered them to gather, separately from parliament, early in that year. He summoned them to Lincoln to discuss a war subsidy (Phillips, p. 432). Thus Robin and his men, in that year, might have been keeping a particularly close watch for high church officials.
Also, there were several tales of Edward II having escaped his execution in 1327 and wandering around Europe. The probability of this is exceptionally low, but the stories usually describe him in the guise of a hermit of some sort (Phillips, pp. 582-592, 612, who doesn't believe it; Doherty, pp. 185-215, who takes one version seriously without being absolutely convinced). The story is in fact extremely implausible -- but it might have influenced the idea of Edward II disguising himself as a monk.
** Stanzas 368-369/Lines 1471-1476 ** The King is told to go from an abbey to Nottingham. This is pretty typical of what happened when Kings stayed in the north. They often stayed in abbeys, which were usually much wealthier than anything else in the vicinity and used to taking in guests. Also, the King could not stay in one place for very long; no place in the north had food and other supplies enough to provide for the king and all his entourage for more than a few days.
The idea that the King wandered about in the north fits far better with the history of Edward II (see Stanza 365) than the idea of him staying in one place for all that time.
** Stanza 369/Line 1473 ** The forester offers to be the king's ledes-man, i.e. guide, leader, but emendations to this line have been proposed; see the textual note.
** Stanza 373/LIne 1490 ** "Forsooth as I you say." This phrase occurs here, in Stanza 375, in and in stanza 424, but nowhere before this (although there are a few other uses of "forsooth"). This is a curious pattern of occurrences which may indicate the use of a source.
** Stanza 373/Line 1491 ** The king is said to have sung as he rode. Sadly, this is not much help with identification. There was a famous early story about Richard I making himself known to his minstrel Blondel by a song he sang (Gillingham, p. 224, although he notes that it can hardly be true). As late as the reign of Richard III, probably the last king to die before the "Gest" was printed, we find bishops complaining that the King was too interested in music and dance (Ross-Richard, pp. 141-142). But we know that Edward II was interested enough in music to send a courtier to the Welsh marches to learn the crwth (Phillips, p. 37), and Hutchison, p. 10, reports that "he was to be a keen patron of musicians and minstrels." Given that he was also fond of "theatricals," it would be no surprise to find him a singer as well as a hearer of music.
** Stanza 373/Line 1492 ** Since the "monks" wear grey, not black, they are not portraying themselves as Benedictines -- incidentally meaning that they are not from St. Mary's. Nor are they Cisterians, the white monks.
** Stanza 375/LIne 1500 ** "For this line see the note on stanza 373.
** Stanza 377/Lines 1505-1507 ** Here Robin in effect admits to living by poaching, despite claiming to be a yeoman of the forest. But see the note on Stanzas 32-33.
** Stanza 378/Line 1512 ** There is a textual variant in the spelling of the worde "saynt"; it is possible that this is a difference between the meanint "saint" and "saintly," but we really cannot tell. There is no well-known saint named "Charity"; the idea here seems to be "for holy charity."
** Stanza 379/Lines 1501-1504, etc. ** Note that the King and Robin speak to each other, seemingly in English, certainly without a translator. This implies a King who speaks English. William the Conqueror could not, nor could most of the kings between William I and Henry III. Richard I certainly could not (OxfordCompanion, p. 802. As Gillingham points out on p. 24, Richard had almost no English blood -- only one of his great-grandparents, Edith the wife of Henry I, could be considered English. The rest were all Normans or French or other "foreigners." Gillingham, p. 33, says Richard could write songs in Norman French and Provencal, and crack jokes in Latin -- but never mentions English. Markale declares on p. 57 that "never has an English king been so French").
The situation changed in the century after that. It is universally agreed that English was the first language of all kings from Henry VI (ascended 1422) on. Henry IV (1399-1413) is often said to be the earliest English King whose first language was English (Burrow/Turville-Petre, p. 17), Richard II (1377-1399) was clearly also fluent, having been able to casually converse with Wat Tyler's rebels while still in his early teens (Saul, p. 68ffff.). Edward III certainly knew English, and Edward I spoke it as a second language (Prestwich1, p. 6); so it is not unreasonable to assume Edward II did also; Hutchison, p. 9, thinks he did. So does Phillips, p. 60, although he finds no English documents at all among Edward II's letters; over 90% were in French, with the rest in Latin.
** Stanza 381/Line 1524 ** The text here is uncertain (see textual note). Child's text "I wolde vouch it safe on the" means that, if the king/abbot had a hundred pounds, he would trust it to Robin Hood. The reading of b is, however, "I vouch it half on the," that is, he would turn half over to Robin if his budget were in better shape.
** Stanza 384/Lines 1533-1536 ** "The greteth Edwarde." For King Edward see note to stanza 353. Actual instances of a King inviting an outlaw to meet him are not unknown -- it happend a lot in Scotland -- but many monarchs could not be trusted to keep their safe conduct.
The royal seal was of course the means of validating official documents -- many of the early Norman and Plantagenet kings could not read or sign their names, and even if they could, the commoners could not read it. Thus developed the custom of sealing official documents. The King might have as many as three seals, and always had two, the Great Seal and the Privy Seal.
The Great Seal was generally kept by the Chancellor; the Privy Seal by the keeper of the Privy Seal, but it tended to move with the King (unless, as was common, he used a third seal to move the privy seal). A complication in the case of Edward II was that he had lost the privy seal at Bannockburn (Phillips, pp. 233-234) -- and, astonishingly, managed to misplace it again a decade later, during his time in the north (although, that time, it was found after a few days; Phillips, p. 320).
The song of course does not make it clear whether the seal was the great or the privy seal. Given the situation, the privy seal seems more likely.
We also see the use of the King's seal in the "Monk" (Holt, p. 29), although there it is not addressed to the outlaws.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, claims that the seal itself was revered. Too much weight probably should not be given to this; the English monarchy had not yet developed, for instance, the Tudor habit of calling the monarch "Your Majesty." The King was not a near-divine being -- as witness the fact that Edward II, and later his great-grandson Richard II, would be deposed....
** Stanza 385/Lines 1537-1540 ** This is a crux (see the textual note). The last word of 385.1 may be "tarpe" or "targe" or possibly "seale" -- the latter the easiest word, but then the other readings would not have arisen. The actual text of b says that the king showed his broad "tarpe." There seems to be no such word in Middle English. Child's suggestion is "targe." The normal meaning of "targe" is "shield." A shield would not bear a seal. A shield might well show the King's colors, to help identify him in battle, but in that case he would not give it to a monk.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, note that the OED lists "targe" as a word for the privy seal in the Edwardian period, based perhaps on the use of a shield in the seal at the time. This raises two difficulties. First, the seals of the Edwards did *not* contain shields -- all were quite similar, with the King mounted and wearing armor on one side, and enthroned on the other. The exchequer seal did have a shield -- but the exchequer seal isn't going to cause anyone to get all excited. Plus the use of "targe" for "seal" was obscure even at that time, and probably effectively vanished by the time the "Gest" was written.
Robin for "curtesy" then gets down on one knee at the sight of whatever-it-is. This, if nothing else, demonstrates his respect for the king.
** Stanza 387/Line 1548 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 389/Line 1555 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
** Stanza 390/Line 1560 ** "Saynt Austyn." This is usually stated to be Augustine of Canterbury, who converted Britain to Catholicism, not the more famous Augustine of Hippo. I am not absolutely convinced, however. The Dominicans (who first came to England in 1221) followed the rule of Augusting of Hippo (OxfordCompanion, p. 301). And Edward II seems to have been fond of the Dominicans (see note to Stanza 213). Might he have picked up this oath from his Dominican confessor? In any case, this cannot he be regarded as an indication of date. Augustine was sent to Kent by Pope Gregory the Great in 597 (Benet, p. 967).
There is a passage in one of Gower's French works (Mirour de l'omme) mentioning Saint Augustine and an unknown "Robyn" in consecutive lines (20886-20887, as given in Mustanoja, p. 64). I doubt that this is significant, however.
** Stanza 391/Lines 1563-1564 ** The king observes that Robin's men are "more at his byddynge" than are the King's own. This again hints at a date in the reign of Edward II. Nobody crossed Edward I -- at least not for long! Edward III had more trouble with his subordinates, especially about taxes, but his soldiers were quite obedient. Whereas orrders from Edward II were quite regularly ignored.
** Stanza 397-398/Lines 1585-1589 ** About an archery contest in which Robin's men shoot at garlands at great distance. This is another indication that Robin's weapon must be the longbow, not a short bow. For another indication, and supporting evidence, see stanza 132.
** Stanza 402/Lines 1606, 1608 ** The rhyme here, in all the prints, is spare... sore. It seems likely that the poet intended the rhymes to be pronounces "spare... sair." This is perhaps a hint of northern origin -- and of editing by a non-northern typesetter.
** Stanza 405/Lines 1619-1620 ** Robin has had each man who loses pay off to his master -- presumably, for others in the competition, another archer who wins a head-to-head contest. But here he treats the king/abbot as his master, for no obvious reason. Is this another hint that Robin actually already knew it was the King?
** Stanza 406/Lines 1621-1622 ** Many religious orders rejected shedding blood, with the interesting effect that we see fighting churchmen inventing weapons such as the mace and the war hammer so they could kill without letting blood. Probably most would not absolutely reject the striking of blows. It's a good bit of disguise, though.
** Stanza 408/Lines 1629-1630 ** The strength of the disguised king fells Robin. All three Edwards were tall and strong (as was Edward IV later on), but Edward II in particular seems to have had a reputation for exception physical strength. Barbour, the author of the Bruce -- obviously no fan of Edward -- wrote that he was "the strongest man of any that you could find in any country" (Phillips, p. 83), although this was written half a century after Edward's reign. And when he was overtaken by the enemy at Bannockburn, every blow he struck was said to have felled its victim (Phillips, p. 233); his strength was regarded as being responsible for his escape.
The king in stanzas 359-360 had been very angry with Robin Hood, without, it seems promising him any particular punishment (he said he would take the knight's lands, but merely wished to see Robin). If he vowed punishment for Robin, he could at least technically use this blow as a basis for saying he had fulfilled the vow. Fulfilled it with his own hand, in fact.
** Stanza 411/Lines 1643-1644 ** "Now I know you well" -- somehow, Robin and Sir Richard recognize the King. Possibly Sir Richard had met him -- but Robin? Was it just by the strength of the King's arm (this is the explanation of Baldwin, p. 24, but is surely inadequate) Or by his face on his seal? Robin saw the seal, but seals are not very detailed. The only likely way for ordinary people to know the king (unless he wore a crown or the like) was coin portraits. This argues for one of the Edwards rather than an earlier King (see note on Stanza 49), and the later the better; it argues very strongly indeed against Richard I and John, who made so little change to the old molds that their coins still used the name of Henry II (OxfordCompanion, p. 224).
** Stanza 412/Lines 1645-1648 ** Note that Child had two versions of the first two lines of this stanza (see the textual note). In his original edition, he printed
'Mercy then, Robyn,' sayd our kynge,'Vnder your trystyll-tre,
In a correction (volume V., p. 297 in the Dover edition) he amended this to follow fg:
'Mercy,' then said Robyn to our kynge,'Vnder this trystyll-tre.'
The former reading, however, is very much to be preferred.
Does the reading really mean what it says? Did the King expect that Robin would attack him if he became known? It sounds like it. Hunter hypothesized that Robin was one of Lancaster's rebels against Edward II. But here we again see evidence that Robin was not a rebel against a king, but an outlaw of some other sort.
Under what context might we find a man who does not consider himself a rebel, but who is regarded as a rebel by the King? It is reasonable to assume that Robin was opposed to one of the King's retainers -- or, in the case of Edward II, one of that king's traitorous vassals. I find myself wondering if Robin might have been one of the followers of Adam Banaster, one of Lancaster's vassals who rebelled against his lord. (Prestwich3, p. 92; Prestwich3, p. 96 refers to a period of "virtual civil war" in Lancashire).
There is in fact a printed item (I hesitate to call it a song, or even a poem; it makes most doggerel look good) called "Robin Hood and the Duke of Lancaster: A Ballad," set to the tune of "The Abbot of Canterbury," which purports to treat of a quarrely between Robin and the Duke of Lancaster. There are several copies in the Bodleian collection (Douce Prints a.49(1), G. Pamph. 1665(8), Johnson c.74; reprinted on p. 398 of GutchII). It apparently was printed in 1727 (GutchII, p. 397). But it is almost beyond belief that it represents an actual tradition; it claims to have taken place in the year 1202, when John was King -- but there was no Duke of Lancaster in 1202; there were no Dukes in England at all. So you don't have to look it up. And, believe me, you don't want to. Gutch suggests that it is a satire about a courtier who wanted a job as a royal forester, presumably in the reign of George I or George II, and this seems not unlikely.
** Stanza 412/Line 1646 ** For Robin's "trystel tre(e)" see the note on Stanza 176.
** Stanza 413/Lines 1651-1652 ** Here Robin formally asks the King's pardon, for himself and his men -- yet we still do not learn what his crime was!
It is interesting to note that, although Edward II seems rarely to have given out pardons as King, when Isabella and her rebels seemed to be in danger of taking over the country, Edward is reported to have given pardon to more than a hundred outlaws if they would join his forces (Phillips, p. 505 n. 307). This did not take place during Edward's northern excursion, but it might have figured into the legend somehow.
** Stanza 414/Lines 1654-1655 ** The king here tells a truth, although an ironic one: He intended to have Robin and his men leave the woods by taking them prisoner; instead he chooses to induce them to leave the woods by pardoning them.
For the effects of the offer of pardon and a place at the court, see the note to Stanza 435.
** Stanza 416/Lines 1661-1664 ** Robin promises to come to court to be the King's servant (parallel, in a small way, toJohn and Much becoming yeomen of the crown in the "Monk"; cf. Holt1, p. 29). But he also promises to bring at least some of his men. To me, this seems to imply either that Robin wants pardon for all his men, or that he is promising to bring them all to be the King's soldiers (or bodyguards? If the year is 1323, Edward II might well have wanted a loyal bodyguard).
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, say however that "The idea of Robin holding an alternative lordship, with his own retinue, is clear." What is not clear is what is meant by an "alternative lordship." Certainly Robin, if were gentrified, would want to keep a retinue, but there is no hint whatsoever that he is being offered any sort of title -- merely a position.
For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229. In this verse we see Robin with "seven score and three" followers. Probably this is just poetry, but it might be that the three are Little John, Scarlock, and Much, and the seven score are all the other unnamed archers who exist mostly to supply "alarums and excursions."
** Stanza 417/Lines 1665-1668 ** Baldwin, p. 41, follows Pollard in pointing out that no outlaw could dictate the conditions of his own pardon. This is true in the sense that it was up to the King to grant the pardon and set the conditions. On the other hand, outlaws could decide whether to take the pardon -- and so could negotiate what it would take for them to give up their rebellion. I would consider this to be a warning by Robin to the King -- and, as it turns out, it was a warning Edward would have been wise to heed.
** Stanzas 417-418/Lines 1668-1669 ** This is marked as the beginning of the eighth and final fit. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, point out that there is no reason for a break here -- there is no scene change, and no break in the action. They suggest that the insertion of the heading is editorial. This seems likely -- unless, perhaps, there was damage either following 417 or preceding 418 (more likely, I suspect, the latter) and the material has been lost which would justify the break between fits.
** Stanza 420/Lines 1677-1680 ** Robin agrees to clothe the King in green, and expects the King to give him clothing in return at Yule (Christmastide and year's-end). In other words, Robin is accepting the King's livery. Since Robin does not expact a change of clothing until then, the date is presumably after midsummer's day (June 25).
** Stanza 421/Lines 1681-1684 ** Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, says that the King's wearing green livery "acknowledges forest values." It also gets the king out of dirty (sweaty? flea-infested?) garments, so he might simply have wanted to change clothes. Nonetheless it does seem symbolic -- a symbol much more likely from Edward II than either his father or son; see the note on Stanza 424.
** Stanza 422/Line 1685 ** "Lyncolne grene," or Lincoln Green, and Kendall Green, were famous colours in the middle ages. The green color was made by mixing the blue of woad (indigo, or modern FD&C blue dye #2) with any of several organic yellows.
Why Lincoln Green? Gummere, p. 319, quotes someone (Ritson?) as explaining that it was good at letting the outlaws hide from the deer. Neither Ritson nor Gummere could know it, but this is rather unlikely. Deer do not see as we do. Human vision is trichromatic -- red, green, and blue. But trichromatic vision, among non-marsupial mammals, is exclusive to primates (Dawkins, pp. 146-150). Deer, and all the other mammals of English forests, have dichromatic vision -- green and blue sensors only. We do know that dichromats can see through various forms of camoflage which fool trichromats (Dawkins, p. 151), and there are certainly concealment schemes which will fool a dichromat and not a trichromat. Without knowing the exact shade of green, we can't say just how a deer or rabbit would perceive a man in Lincoln Green, but based on the way it was made, I don't think it would be ideal camoflage. Brown or black would be better.
Others argue that Lincon Green was camoflage against human intruders. This makes some sense. Lincoln Green is a little too olive to be ideal forest coloration -- but there was no good leaf green available. Paintings typically used copper compounds for greens -- but these were not good dyes.
Still, the likelihood is that Lincoln Green came to be associated with outlaws not because it was good camoflage in the forest but because it was easy to make. At a time when dyes were few and far between, any sort of green was a thing to be valued (woad was widespread and gave a good blue, but the only actual yellow pigments known at this time seem to have been yellow lead, which was poisonous; orpiment, or arsenic sulfate, which was both rare and poisonous; yellow ochre, which was not a good dye; and saffron, which was incredibly expensive).
Nonetheless, Kendall Green is a good symbolic color for outlaws, because Kent was famously considered a rebellious county (Cawthorne, p. 78) -- e.g. most of Wat Tyler's rebels came from there. This is probably somewhat exaggerated; Kentish rebels tended to be noticed more often in London because rebels in Kent could reach the city far more easily than those in, say, Lincolnshire. But Kent did have fewer villeins and more free men (OxfordComp, p. 959), so the people probably were somewhat more rowdy.
Wimberly, p. 178, says that green "is a fairy color and of ill omen," but points out that it is one of the most common colors of clothing in the ballads. Despite all those attempts to link Robin with the Green Man or the like, I doubt that the color has any mystical significance.
For more on cloth offered by Robin, see the notes on Stanzas 70-72.
** Stanza 424/LIne 1694 ** "For this line see the note on stanza 373.
** Stanza 424/Line 1695 ** The plucke-buffet, believed to be a contest in which the players exchange blows as forfeits, is attested in many forms. The extreme form is the beheading game of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." It also occurs in the tale of "The Turk and Gawain," found in the Percy folio, although we cannot tell the exact details because the folio is so damaged at this point (Tolkien/Gordon, p. xix). It also features in two other Gawain romances, the related "Syre Gawene and the Carle of Carlyle" and "The Carle off Carlile" (Lacy, p 154), although the latter of these is almost certainly later than the "Gest" and the former may be.
As a sport, it is sometimes known as an "Irish Stand-Down." Child, in his notes on this stanza (page 55) mentions a romance in which Richard the Lion-Hearted himself engaged in this game, but this is one of those stories (like Richard killing a lion with his bare hands by tearing out its heart -- and then eating it raw; Gillingham, pp. 7-8) which is demonstrably false.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, seem to think that the contest between Robin and the King was also more serious than some casual shooting with the bow, followed by a blow to the loser, but they offer no reason for this hypothesis.
More interesting is the question of whether any English king would engage in such a contest with his subjects.
Holt1, p. 61, argues that the legend of the King being reconciled with Robin is derived from Fulk, or Hereward, or maybe (who knows?) Alfred and the Cakes, all involving an incognito king. This is of course a common theme of folklore (see the note on stanza 368) but the fact that the motif is legendary does not preclude a reconciliation between King and outlaws -- several rebellions ended that way, because it was easier for the King to befriend the rebel than run him down! It does however argue against a date in the reigns of Richard I or Edward I -- they were strong grudge-holders. Prestwich1, p. 202, says explicitly, "Clemency towards his enemy was not in Edward [I]'s character." What's more, Edward I had a strong streak of violence when crossed (Prestwich1, p. 3); he just wasn't the sort to go off and negotiate with rebels.
There is an actual recorded instance of Edward I accidentally ending up in single combat with an enemy because a ditch cut Edward off from his supporters, and Edward did formally forgive the other man -- "but there is no evidence that he was ever regarded with any special favor" (Prestwich1, p. 56, although Baldwin, p. 146, says that "There is nothing to substantiate Nicholas Trivet's story" of this encounter, and Pollard, p. 196, flatly declares it fiction).
Baldwin, p. 95, has a good summary when he says that "Edward [I] was respected b his barons, but he was a man of violent temper far removed from the jovial and understanding 'King Edward' of the ballads."
Richard I was, if anything, worse; he was aloof and generally lacked the common touch; according to Kelly.A, p. 173, "Richard was less affable in crowds than Henry [II], more selective in his friendshps, and less accessible to general company. He lacked the charm that attracted a large personal following... He often ruffled his peers with an overweening brusqueness."
He was such a snob that, when he heard a hawk shriek in a commoner's house, he went in and attacked the owners (even though they were not his subjects) -- and was forced to take to his heels when they fought back (McLynn, p. 144). During the conquest of Cyprus, he insulted the island's inhabitants by shaving off the men's beards just because they were ruled by his enemy (McLynn, p. 157). At Acre, he demeaned the Duke of Austria so badly that he left the crusade -- and Leopold of Austria was a *duke*, almost as high on the social scale as Richard himself. Richard didn't have subjects; he had two kinds of slaves, the chained and the unchained. The notion of him even talking to a commoner, other than one of his soldiers, is absurd.
Henry II had a way with common people, and was relatively accessible to them -- Dahmus, pp. 148-150 -- but even if we can accept such an early date for Robin, Henry was another grudge-holder.
Henry III, according to Baldwin, p. 118, "was often tempermental but he did not bear grudges."
By contrast, Edward II had a strange interest in common tasks and men, according to Hutchison, pp. 148-149 -- he liked woodworking and metalwork, kept company with craftsmen, and worked at thatching. A story tells of him engaged in hedging and ditching when he might have been at mass (Prestwich3, p. 80), and there are records of him ordering plaster so that he might build walls (Prestwich3, p. 81). Phillips, p. 13, quotes his best contemporary biographer as saying, "If he had practiced the use of arms, he would have exceeded the prowess of King Richard. Physically this would have been inevitable, for he was tall and strong, a handsome man with a fine figure.... If only he had given to arms the attention that he expended on rustic pursuits...." After Bannockburn, a member of his household declared that the king could not win battles if he "appl[ied] himself to making ditches and digging and other improper occupations' (Phillips, p. 15).
Even Hutchison, almost his only defender, admits on p. 2 his "rather odd personality." Although most instances of him engaging in a form of common labor are attested by only one source, Phillips, p. 72, mentions four source attesting his love for ordinary men's work, and the reports of him spending time rowing are well-attested. Phillips goes on to note that Edward II "enjoyed the near-presence of the low-born," and mentions an instance in 1325 of sailors and carpenters eating in the royal chamber.
What's more, Edward II liked games, including gambling games, and did not insist upon winning (Phillips, p. 75). This fits the stanza's indication that Robin out-shot the king and so was entitled to beat up his monarch. (Possibly the King felt this to be safer than to have his half dozen men fight all of Robin's band.) The wonder is that the King decided to participate, having seen Robin's prowess. He was probably a good archer with a hunting bow, but a longbow was a different matter.
And where Edward I, for instance, tended to look down his nose even at the higher nobility, Edward II displayed very little snobbishness. In Edward I's last years, there was a quarrel between the King and his son over the size and expense of the Prince's household. According to Phillips, p. 99 and note 131, there were four men the Prince really wanted to keep around him. Two were of gentle blood -- Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare -- but the other two were yeomen.
It is true that Edward II was a man who never changed his mind, and he certainly held grudges. His best early biographer wrote in the Life of Edward II that, in 1322 when Edward finally seemed to have defeated his enemies, "the earl of Lancaster once cut off Piers Gaveston's head, and now by the king's command the earl of Lancaster had lost his head" (quoted by Phillips, p. 409). But Edward's grudges were very specific and pointed. A man who had not directly offended him or joined his enemies was forgivable. (To be sure, Hunter thought that the original Robin Hood served the Earl of Lancaster, and that this was why he needed the King's pardon. But the subtle hints in the "Gest" all point to an outlaw who was loyal to the King all along, as several mentions in the "Gest" demonstrate; Mark Ormrod also apparently pointed this out in an unpublished paper; Pollard, p. 253 n. 58.)
If ever there had been a king likely to meet with outlaws, it was Edward II. Doherty, pp. 23-24, explains this oddity based on the way his father neglected him: "Left to his own devices, bereft of a father and a mother-figure, the young Edward naturally looked for friendship from others, whether they were ditchers, rowers, sailors or boatmen." Doherty, p. 26, also thinks that Edward II had "a desperate yearning to be liked."
Edward's willingness to hang around with common people became so proverbial that, according to pp. 60-61 of Doherty, a pretender actually showed up during this reign claiming to be the real King Edward; he had been swapped with a peasant boy after a nurse had allowed him to be injured and was afraid to reveal the truth. The "proof" of this was that Edward showed tastes such as only a peasant would have, and thus must be an imposter. Naturally this pretender was executed (as was his cat, which obviously was innocent), but the whole story shows what Edward's reputation was like.
The only other Plantagenet I can imagine hanging around with common folks was John. However, we have already read, in stanzas 403-409, tells of an Irish stand-down between Robin and the King, in which the King gives Robin a blow which floors him. The Plantagenets were mostly very tall -- Edward I was called "Longshanks," and when his skeleton was measured, he was found to have been 6'2" (Prestwich, p. 567). Edward III is said to have been 6'3". Richard is said to have been tall, well-built, and with unusually long arms and legs (McLynn, p. 24). The only exceptions were Henry II, who was of average height, and John, who at 5'5" was perhaps the shortest Plantagenet known to us (Warren-John, p. 31). Henry II was strong despite his height. But John does not seem to have been a mighty man.
To be sure, the last King Edward to live before the publication of the "Gest," Edward IV, was so open to commoners that he became the hero of "King Edward the Fourth and a Tanner of Tamworth" [Child 273]. Edward IV's brother Richard III seems to have tried -- seemingly for the first time -- to actually build a government out of men who were not members of the nobility; Cheetham, pp. 161-162. But both of these are almost certainly too late.
In connection with the King's fist-fight with Robin, see the note on Stanzas 429-430 regarding Edward II's fondness for horseplay and practical jokes.
** Stanza 428/Lines 1709-1712 ** Upon seeing what appears to be a mass invasion by Robin Hood's men, the people of Nottingham are very afraid (though without reason, as it turns out). This may very well connect with their hostility to him in Stanzas 296.
** Stanzas 429-430/Lines 1713-1717 ** The king laughs at the rout of the townsfolk, as people try by any means possible to flee the coming of Robin Hood. This too fits well with what we know of Edward II, who seems to have been fond of practical jokes and rough humor (Doherty, pp. 50-51). One can imagine him staging this little scene to see how the folk of Nottingham would respond; indeed. Mersey, p. 188, calls this "a jest on the King's part." For another instance of his fondness for low games and roughhousing, see the note on Stanzas 429-430.
Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, compare this to the story of "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" [Child139], in which the people of Nottingham also fear and attack the outlaw. They see this as a contrast between "forest and urban values," but "Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham" is a later writing and not a source for the "Gest." And while there doubtless is a contrast between town and outlaw morals, the fear of the people of Nottingham more likely derives from the fact that Robin has already had two conflicts with them, one at the time of the archery contest when they attacked him and once when Robin attacked and killed the sheriff.
** Stanza 433/Line 1731 ** It is interesting to observe that Robin, who in Stanza 68 had been able to lend 400 pounds, apparently has only 100 pounds at his disposal here. (For more on the value of this money, see the notes to Stanzas 49 and 120). In stanza 150 we see the sheriff offer Little John 20 marks per year; in Stanzas 170-171, Little John offers the cook 20 marks per year to join Robin's band. Since 100 pounds is 150 marks, Robin's 100 pounds would pay only seven men for a full year at their old wage. If he truly had seven score men (Stanza 416), he could have paid them only one mark each -- or enough for three weeks at their old rate. See also the note on Stanza 435.
The implication, obviously, is that either Robin left much of his money behind, or that he had lost it in the interval between his intervention on the knight's behalf and the time he met the king. The latter seems more likely; traffic would have learned to avoid Barnsdale if Robin became a truly successful robber (note the fear of him shown by the people of Nottingham in Stanza 428), plus his band probably grew in that time, meaning that he had to pay more in wages.
One wonders if Robin might not have accepted the King's offer because he was going broke.
** Stanza 434/Lines 1733-1736 ** Gummere, commenting on Robin's prodigality, says on p. 319, "This liberal expenditure was the proper thing for knights and men of rank...." But his chief expense was likely just paying his men. In stanza 52, we perhaps saw a hint of the Tale of the Prodigal Son. This too mayhave been influenced by that tale (in chapter 15 of Luke); the Prodigal takes his inheritance, spends it on loose living, and then has to go home in disgrace.
It is interesting, although perhaps not very relevant, to note that Grafton declared that Robin went to the greenwood because of excess generosity (Knight, p. 1; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 28).
** Stanza 435/Line1737 ** After a year at the King's court (literally fifteen months, but the author is always adding threes to things), Robin has used up his resources. This is not really unusual. The King's senior officers often did not enjoy actual payment for their work; rather, the King granted them some sort of compensation. A cleric would get a certain number of "livings"; a secular lord would be given an office or the rent from sundry manors. We note that the King's offer of a place at his court (stanzas 414-415) contained no such offer. Perhaps Robin assumed one would be forthcoming (see stanza 420, where he seems to accept the King's livery); perhaps he did not realize the need for such a grant; perhaps the King simply did not live up to his promise.
This would fit well with either Edward I, who was notably stingy with pay for his officials, or with Edward II after his victories of 1322-1323 -- Phillips, p. 421, reports that in this period "Like the archetypal miser Edward [II] not only gathered every penny he could but was remarkably loath to spend any more than he had to." One almost wonders if he mightn't have brought Robin to court to try to get a hand on Robin's treasure.
As mentioned in the notes on Stanza 433, Robin's 100 pounds would pay only seven men for a full year at their old wage -- little wonder they deserted. Even if he paid only the three pence a day expected by valets (see the note on Stanza 150), that would allow him to maintain only about twenty men for a year.
** Stanza 436/Line 1742 ** There is a variant here which perhaps affects Robin's feelings about watching the archers; see the textual note.
** Stanza 437/Lines 1745-1748 ** Robin, in the King's service, recalls being a successful archer. Clearly he is not spending much time practicing with his bow at this time. This, it seems to me, is exceptionally strong evidence that this is not happening during the reign of Edward III. That king won his victories with the bow, and would not put the best bowman in England out to pasture!
One wonders if Robin might not have been disappointed with the court in other ways. This was the period when Edward's favorites the Elder and Younger Hugh Despensers were dominating -- and corrupting -- the government. (For more on them, see the notes on Stanza 93, or on "Hugh Spencer's Feats in France" [Child 158].) It was a period when no one's money or land was safe if the Despensers wanted it. Phillips, p. 448, notes that Edward II was deeply if indirectly involved in their extortion -- it couldn't have happened without his consent. But the attitude at this time seems always to have been "It's not the King, it's his evil counselors." Robin could have been -- would have been! -- disgusted by the Despensers, and might not have blamed the King. But he would doubtless wish to get away.
** Stanza 439/Lines 1753-1756 ** Robin determines to leave the King's service. Pollard, p. 206, sees this as a sort of allegory: He believes that the King is Edward III, considered responsible for restoring justice -- but even this ideal king could not restore justice enough for Robin.
The difficulties with this hypothesis are myriad: First is the internal inconsistency -- if Pollard is going to claim that the "Gest' is set in the reign of Edward III because Edward III is a paragon of justice, then he can't really have it both ways. Nor is there any hint of this sort of allegory anywhere else in the "Gest." Plus Robin doesn't complain of injustice; he complains of being broke and of not being used as an archer.
In any case, Robin had to leave the King's service. Since the "Gest" and the "Death" tell the same general story, the story of Robin's death almost certainly existed before the "Gest" was composed. So Robin had to be in the greenwood in order to die. That means he had to leave the court.
** Stanza 440/Line 1759 ** Robin (claims to have) founded a chapel to Mary Magdalene. Given his piety, his ill management of his money, and his magnanimity, it seems not unlikely that Robin would have endowed a chapel -- it was a common thing to do in this period, when the prayers of the faithful were thought to shorten one's time in purgatory. The dedication to St. Mary Magdalene is interesting -- the first genuinely approprate mention of a saint in the "Gest." Robin would naturally have wanted a female saint, and Mary Magdalene was the saint of penitents (Benet, p. 975).
** Stanza 442/Line 1767 ** "Barefote and wolwarde" -- i.e. barefoot and with wool next to the skin. Walking barefoot was the standard token of a pilgrimage or penitant -- e.g. when Raymond of Toulouse set out to lead the Christian army on the last stage of the journey to Jerusalem in the First Crusade, he walked barefoot (Runciman1, p. 261). When Jane Shore was forced to do penance for her adultery with Edward IV,"on a Sunday, wearing nothing but her kirtle, she was led barefoot through the streets, a taper in her hand" (Jenkins, p. 166). Wearing wool next to the skin -- i.e. presumably a hair shirt -- is an even stronger sign of penitence; a hair shirt irritated the skin, and also held lice, so it was painful -- and it could be worn under other garments so that one could suffer a penance without parading one's piety before men. Becket, for instance, was said to have been wearing a hairshirt when he died (OxfordCompanion, p. 90).
Gummere, p. 120, notes a similar reference in Piers Plowman (B.xviii.1 in Skeat's edition): "Wooleward and wete-shoed went I forth after," which Langland/Schmidt, p. 306 (which spells the third word "weetshoed"), glosses as "With my skin toward the wool [i.e. with no shirt toward my cloak] and with wet feet [with feet shod with wet rather than with wet shoes]." Gummere also finds such a penance in v. 3512f. of "The Pricke of Conscience" by Hampole (that is, Richard Rolle, died 1349, known as the "Hermit of Hampole"; Benet, p. 941 -- although, according to Sisam, pp. 36-37, his authorship of "The Pricke of Conscience" has been strongly questioned. NewCentury, p. 940, calls the "Pricke" the most popular poem of the fourteenth century but notes that there is no evidence that Rolle wrote it).
As Knight/Ohlgren emphasize on p. 168, this is a sign of penance, not poverty.
** Stanza 445/Lines 1777-1780 ** As Robin arrives in the greenwood "on a merry morning," he hears the birds singing. Pollard, p. 72, notes this as an invocation of the legend of the merry greenwood. It does seem to indicate that Robin returned to the forest in late spring or summer.
** Stanza 448/Line 1791 ** For Robin's seven score followers, see the note on Stanza 229.
**Stanza 450/Line 1798 ** Robin spent "Twenty yere and two" in the greenwood after leaving the King. This would seem as if it might be a dating hint -- but it isn't much of one. Edward I reigned 35 years (1272-1307), Edward III reigned for fifty (give or take a few months; his official reign was 1327-1377), and Edward IV, from first to last, reigned just about exactly 22 (1461-1483, although with a hiatus in 1470-1471). Only Edward II fell short of this total -- he reigned twenty years, 1307-1327.
Thus Edward I or Edward III might be meant, or the number might be a later adjustment to the reign of Edward IV. But there is another intriguing possibility, which gives us a prefect chronological dovetail.
The "Gest" says that Robin served the King for about fifteen months, then returned to the greenwood for 22 years before being killed by the prioress at Kirklees. In that tine he presumably assembled a new band, who on his death would need a new leader or job. If the King is Edward II, and the year he met Robin is 1322/1323, then one year plus 22 years later is in the period 1345-1346 -- just in time for Robin's excellent archers to win the Battle of Crecy in 1346! The problem, of course, is that Robin stayed in the greenwood all that time "For all drede of Edwarde our Kinge." If this is read as meaning Edward was king for 22 years and more, Edward II cannot be meant. On the gripping hand, if the 1346 date be accepted, would it not make sense for Edward III to pardon the underlings if their leader was now dead?
** Stanzas 451-455/Lines 1801-1820 ** These five stanzas summarize, or rather hint at, the tale of betrayal which is the theme of "Robin Hood's Death" [Child 120]. Dependence on the same legend (although not on the same actual text) seems sure. Is this an indication of how the author of the "Gest" used his other materials? Probably not; it seems likely that he made fuller use of earlier sources for the cycle of the knight and the abbott, e.g.
The tale of Robin's end as told in the fuller versions of the "Death" has one more parallel to the tale of Fulk FitzWarin, in that Fulk, in one of his innumerable conflicts with King John, finds himself in a fight. Sir Ber(n)ard de Blois attacks him from behind; Fulk spins around and kills him -- nearly cuts him in half, in fact (Cawthorne, p. 145). This is much like what happens with Red Roger in the "Death." But Fulk, unlike Robin, survives (although so severely wounded that he falls into a coma and has to be taken from the field; Cawthorne, p. 146).
It does appear that Munday, in rewriting the legend, knew some relative of the story in the "Gest" but not the full tale in the "Death." Robin is poisoned, not bled to death, by his uncle, the prior of York, and a "Sir Doncaster" (Cawthorne, p. 80; and see the Cast of Characters on p. 303 of Knight/Ohlgren).
Although the "Gest" does not tell the tale of the last arrow found in the "Death," that account is another indication of a date in the reign of Henry III or later. Robin, in his weakness, needs help to fire the last shot. But if his bow were a crossbow, as it would have been in the time of Richard I, then one person could crank it for him and even a dying man could aim and fire it. The last arrow can only have come from a longbow.
Child in his notes on the "Death" suggests a parallel to "Sheath and Knife" [Child 16], where the girl asks her brother to shoot her and bury her at a spot she chooses. It seems to me, however, that this in fact reverses the motifs. In "Sheathe and Knife," she chooses the spot, and the bow is relatively incidental (perhaps he uses the arrow so that he does not have to slay her with his own hand). In the "Death," the bow and arrow is essential and the spot trivial. If anything, the analogy is to something such as "John Henry" [Laws I1], who dies with his hammer in his hand.
** Stanzas 451, 454/Lines 1803, 1815 ** The place where Robin Hood was killed is somewhat uncertain. Child prints "Kyrkesly" in stana 451, "Kyrke[s]ly" in 454; for the evidence, see the textual note. In the "A" (Percy folio) text of the "Death," it is "Churchles" or "Churchlees" ("church Lees" A.1.3, "Churchlees" A.11.3, "Churchlee" A.11.4, "church lees" A.12.1 Churchlee A.24.4), aligning "Church-Lee" with the more northern words for the same thing, "Kirk-Lee." The broadside versions of the "Death" (Child's "B") give "Kirkly" or "Kirkly-Hall" ("Kirkly-hall" broadside title, "Kirkly" B.3.1, "Kirkly-hall" B.4.1, "Kirkly" B.12.1, "Kirkly-hall" B.12.3, "Kirkly-hall" B.14.3, "Kirkleys" B.19.4; also "Kirkleys" and "Kirkley Monastery" in the end matter to B.b), which is also the reading of the Davis text from Virginia. The retelling of this tale in "Robin Hood and the Valiant Knight" [Child 153] has a tail note which reads "Birkslay," perhaps derived from the reading "Bircklies" of Grafton (for which see below).
The region of Kirklees on modern maps is south and somewhat west of Leeds, northeast of Manchester, and west of Wakefield. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 168, following Child, point specifically to the priory of Kirklees in west Yorkshire. According to Holt, pp. 87-88, it is twenty miles west of Barnsdale (far enough west that some might even have thought it to be in Lancashire, which has also been suggested as its location). Or, perhaps, it really is a generic name, "the Lee of the [unnamed] Kirk."
There is also a Kirkby not far north of modern Liverpool (one of quite a few Kirbys scattered about England), but it is rather far west of Robin Hood's usual haunts.
The "Gest" merely says that the prioress of Kirklees "nye was of hys kinne," i.e. a close relative, but stanza 10 of Child's "A" text of the "Death" calls him his aunt's daughter, i.e. first cousin, and in the "B" text of the "Death" he refers to her as his cousin in stanza 2, and she calls him cousin in stanza 5. Davis's text of the death also has him murdered by his cousin, although it is not said that she is the prioress.
In Grafton's Chronicle of 1569, which wemet in the introduction, we find the first dated mention of the claim that Robin was bled to death (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 29). Grafton lists the place as "Bircklies," which I do not find on any map of England (there is a "Birtley" in the Newcastle area, but that's pretty far from Robin's haunts). Knight/Ohlgren suggest that "Bircklies" is a misreading of "Kircklies," which seems likely. Grafton's account does seem to confirm the antiquity of the details in the "Death," although he adds the curious statement that the prioress of the place set up a memorial stone for Robin, "wherein the names of Robert Hood, William of Goldesborough and others were graven" (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 29).
Grafton's explanation for why she set up the stone was so that travellers would no longer fear being robbed by Robin (Baldwin, pp. 74-75). Of course, were that the actual reason, she might well have set up the stone withough possessing Robin's actual body.
Drayton also knew the story that Robin died at Kirkley (Gummere, p. 322).
Hunter suggested that the Prioress of Kirklees was one Elizabeth Staynton, possibly related to the Hoods of Wakefield (Cawthorne, p. 49). But the few details we have about Staynton do not really support the legend of Robin -- e.g. Baldwin, p. 74, says that she was indeed a nun at Kirklees in 1344 (which fits brilliantly with the reconstruction we gave above), but there is no evidence that she was the prioress.
Pollard, p. 120, suggests that the fact Robin is killed by a prioress is significant -- that it is the last token of the conflict between Robin and the church; he compares on p. 121 Chaucer's monk who "loved venerye." And we certainly are told in stanza 452 that the prioress loved Sir Roger, implying unchastity, and in 455 that he lay by her. This is not quite proof that she betrayed her vows (they might have been friends, and she might have allowed him to stay in hiding at the nunnery), but it is a strong indication.
The caution is that the parallel in the "Death" does not show the theme infidelity at all clearly. The prioress's unchastity might be in the missing sections of the Percy version, but Robin's anti-clericalism is not evident. That the Catholic hierarchy was corrupt in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is obvious -- Chaucer's Pardoner is even better proof than his Monk, and "Pierce the Ploughman's Crede" has much to say about the degraded nature of various friars (Barr, p. 6). But condemnation of the Church does not seem to be an essential part of the Robin Hood legend although it is a major theme of the "Gest."
** Stanza 452/Line 1806 ** "Donkesley" is the reading of the prints, but two stanzas later we read "Doncaster," which is a real place; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 168, suggest that Donkesly is a mistaken conflation of "Kirklees" and "Doncaster."
It is interesting to note that that, of the nine characters in the "Gest" to be given a personal name (Robin Hood, Little John, King Edward, Scarlock/Scathelock, Much the Miller's Son, Gilbert of the White Hand, Reynold, Sir Richard, and Roger of Doncaster), only Roger of Doncaster is Robin's enemy. All his other enemies -- the Sheriff, the Abbot of St. Mary's and his associates, the Prioress of Kirklees -- are given titles only. Unfortunately, the name doesn't help, since we have too few details about Roger of Doncaster to offer a secure identification.
Cawthorne, pp. 202-204, mentions several Rogers who are possibilities. There was a Roger of Doncaster at Wakefield in service to the earl Warenne, although this is rather early. There is a Roger son of William of Doncaster who was given eight acres of land at Crigglestone (now a parish in Wakefield) in 1327. Cawthorne on p. 203 sums up the case for one Roger of Doncaster (identified by Hunter) who fits well in the reign of Edward II: "In 1306, he was sent by the Archbishop of York to be priest at the church in Ruddington near Nottingham. According to the records, he was still the parish priest there in 1328.... What's more, Roger the chaplain also seems to have been a knight -- and a knight with a chequered sexual history. In June 1309, a 'Sir Roger de Doncastria' was charged with adultery with Agnes, the wife of Philip de Pavely."
Throw in the fact that, as a chaplain, Roger would have easier access than most to a nunnery, and the fact that there were "scandalous" rumours that the nuns of Kirklees in Yorkshire in 1315 (Cawthorne, p. 203), and we have a surprisingly good fit.
But it is by no means clear that all these mentions in fact describe one man; Holt, p. 61, declares that they in fact refer to at least two distinct Rogers.
** Stanza 454/Lines 1809-1812 ** This verse raises the question, Why was it the concern of the Prioress and Sir Roger of Doncaster to kill Robin? Why not the authorities? One possibility is that there was a reward, another is that Sir Roger was a local under-sheriff or the like. Or maybe he had been robbed by Robin. But I suspect it is a theme we also see in the Jesse James story: "He said there was no man with the law in his hand Who could take Jesse James when alive." Or catch Robin Hood while alive -- note that we saw this in Stanza 365, etc., that no outsider could catch Robin Hood.
** Stanza 455/Line 1818 ** This is the most explicit indication of the prioress's unchastity; see the note on Stanza 452. It is, however, just possible that the statement that Sir Roger lay by the prioress means that he lay in wait.
** Stanza 456/Lines 1823-1824 ** "For he was a good outlawe, And dyde pore men moch god." Pollard, pp. 192-193, compares this with the final stanzas of "The Outlaw's Song of Trailbaston," for which see the note on stanza 15.
The last line of the next-to-last stanza of the "Outlaw's Song" is rendered "Nor a thief out of malice to do people harm" on p. 10 of Ohlgren, and "Nor was I wicked robber to do people harm" on p. 192 of Pollard; this is the line Pollard thinks parallels the "Gest." It seems clear, however, that there is no literary dependence between the two.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117H

Gest of Robyn Hode, A [Child 117] --- Part 10

DESCRIPTION: This concludes of the notes to "A Gest of Robyn Hode" [Child 117]. This contains the textual notes.
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE GEST
As mentioned in the Introduction, there are very many variants among the prints of the "Gest," and some places where the text has been entirely lost. Many scholars have worked on the text, but none of the editions can be considered the last word. Indeed, I think a great deal of additional work needs to be done. This section summarizes most of the major variants, with occasional commentary on why one reading or another might be preferred. I have of course added my own observations where relevant.
The prints are referred to by Child's sigla, a b c d e f g. For discussion, see the section "The Text of the Gest." As in the notes on the content of the "Gest," references are to Child's stanza numbers and Knight/Ohlgren's line numbers.
** Stanza 4/Line 13 ** "Scarlock." There is a variant in the spelling; the a text calls him "Scarlock," while b and f use "Scathelock," which g simplifies to "Scathlock." The fragment d has "Scathelocke" in stanza 293. We find other names in the later ballads, e.g. the first line of "Robin Hood and the Prince of Aragon" [Child 129] calls him "Will Scadlock."
"Guy of Gisborne," stanza 13, refers to "Scarlett"; the "Monk" has "Wyll Scathlok" in stanza 63, and the Percy text of the "Death" has "Will Scarlett" in stanza 2. The parliamentary roll for Winchester in 1432 has the gag line "Robyn, hode, Inne, Grenewode, Stode, Godeman, was, hee, lytel Joon, Muchette Millerson, Scathelock, Reynoldn" (Holt1, p. 69; cf. Cawthorne, p. 58).
The Forresters manuscript version of "Robin Hood's Delight" [Child 136] corrects the "Scarlock" of the broadsides to "Scathlock," which Knight, p. xvii, declares the more traditional form. There is also an instance in the Forresters book where a later hand has corrected "Will Stutley" to "Will Scathlock" in the title of the ballad "Robin Hood Rescuing Will Stutly" [Child 141] (Knight, pp. xxvi, 92), but the manuscript also has "Scarlett" and (once) "Scarett."
There is no obvious reason to prefer either "Scarlock" or "Scathelok." Neither of the latter two, we should point out, appears to be attested as an earlier form of the word scarlet. If one has to choose a reading, "Scarlock" is perhaps the best, since this is the middle reading; both "Scarlet" and "Scathelock" can be derived from it by a single phoneme change. But this is a weak basis for a decision.
The modern preference for "Scarlet" may be the result of Shakespeare, that great distorter of history, who in 2 Henry IV, V.iii, line 103 in RiversideShakespeare, has Silence sing "And Robin Hood, Scarlet, and John." (This is one of three instances of Shakespeare mentioning Robin Hood, according to Cawthorne, pp. 80-81; none of the mentions are substantial enough to tell us anything.)
** Stanza 4/Line 14 ** "Much the Miller's Son." In this first instance of his name, there is variation in the prints on whose son Much was; a calls him a "milser's" son, f and g a "mylner's" son. The first is obviously an error; the second might refer to a milliner, but obviously millers were far more common than milliners -- although note Much complaining about John's willingness to give away extra cloth in stanza 73. Still, "miller" seems to be the usual reading in the other instances; it is probably safe to print "miller" here.
** Stanza 7/Line 25 ** The line that begins Stanza 7 is lacking in all texts; Child prints it as a lacuna. Knight/Ohlgren offer as their line 25 the conjecture "Here shal come a lord or sire." They claim that this is similar to lines in other early ballads. The only merit that I can see to the line is that it rhymes with the third line of the stanza -- but the first and third lines do not normally rhyme in the "Gest." I doubt we can conjecture the original, but a better line might be, "We shal wait (i.e. await) som bold abbot."
** Stanza 7/Line 27 ** Child emended the third line of the stanza to read "Or som knyght or [som] squyer," a reading not attested in this form in any of the manuscripts; a omits "som" before "squyer," while bfg read "some." Knight/Ohlgren omit the word.
** Stanza 39 (also 41, 42)/Lines 155, 163, 168 ** There is a textual variant here regarding the number of shillings. Child in 39.3 and 42.3=Knight/Ohlgren line 155, 163 read "ten." The reading of a is xx, i.e. "twenty"; bc have .x., i.e. "ten" in both places.Obviously either reading is an easy error for the other. Child, followed by Knight/Ohlgren, read "ten shillings" on the basis of Stanza 42, where the knight is found to have wealth totalling half a pound. The reading "ten" also scans better. But I could make a case for "twenty"; it would be easy to understand the knight claiming to have twenty shillings; even in his poverty, he would want to round things up....
** Stanza 49/Lines 194, 196 ** Child's text follows the prints in reading the final word of the line as "knowe." This does not rhyme with "spende" in the final line of the stanza, and Knight/Ohlgren (without adding a note or explanation) emend the text to read "wende." This is a reasonable emendation, but not sure; we might as well emend the final line of the stanza to end (for instance) "goe."
** Stanza 50/Lines 198-199 ** The second line of this stanza does not rhyme with the fourth, and the third line does. This defect occurs in all extant copies of the verse (abcfg). Child's conjecture is that we should swap the second and third lines, although it is possible that we should rewrite the final line to end in a word that rhymes with "wife" (e.g. "lyrfe").
** Stanza 53/Line 209 ** Child's text, in line 53.1, says "He slewe a knyght of Lancaster;" so too Knight/Ohlgren. "Lancaster" is the reading of a. In bf we find "Lancastshyre," which g cleans up as "Lancashire." c has "Lancasesshyre." Child followed a presumably on the grounds that he always followed a. But the reading which best explains the others is surely "Lancastshyre," as in b; anyone confronted with this reading would either convert it to "Lancashire" (as g did, and as c did indirectly) or simplify it to "Lancaster."
** Stanzas 53-54/Lines 212-213 ** Child prints these lines as "My godes both sette and solde / My londes both sette to wede, Robyn." In these lines, a reads both...both; b reads both... beth; c reads bothe....bothe; f reads both...both, g reads both... be. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 153, argue that "both" makes no sense in the second instance, and so adopt "beth" ("be" or "will be") -- and then proceed to emend the first instance to read "beth" also, without manuscript support. But, as any ballad student knows, it is not uncommon for short words to be inserted. "Both" should surely be allowed in stanza 53, and is the better (although not certain) reading in 54 as well.
** Stanza 68/Lines 271-272 ** The counting out of the loan. Child's text reads that John counted it "by eight and twenty score"; Knight/Ohlgren offer "by eightene and two score." None of the prints actually expresses it this way; a reads xxviij score, i.e. 28 score; bfg read with variants �eighteen and twenty score." "Twenty score" of pounds is of course 400 pounds, but then why the 8/18? Gummere, p. 315, suggests that John was paying out "20 score and more," and indeed he showed such generosity with cloth in stanzas 72-73. But a 40% overpayment? Hard to believe -- and not stated at all clearly; even saying "twenty score and eight" would make the surplus more obvious. It is worth noting that 400 pounds is 600 marks, or 30 score of marks; possibly the 28 was supposed to refer to marks rather than pounds. But the best explanation is probably to start from b, accepting the Knight/Ohlgren emendation but reading it as eighteen-and-two score, i.e. twenty score. Or perhaps emend the line to read something like "by counting twenty score." And don't ask why the poet put it in such a confusing way!
** Stanza 69/Line 273 ** Text a reads "sayde Much," but b has "sayde lytell Much," follwed by f and g (which uses the modern spelling "little"). We find "little Much" in stanzas 73 and 77 without variant. The meter works better with "little" than without. Child included "lytell" in [square brackets] as dubious; Knight/Ohlgren print it without indication of doubt although they mention the variant in their notes. Given that short words are more typically dropped than added by scribes, "lytell Much" seems the better reading. See also the note on Stanza 4.
** Stanza 78/Line 310 ** The a and b texts both have Little John suggest giving the knight a "clere" pair of spurs. Child and Knight/Ohlgren both emend this to "clene" on the basis of f and g. But this surely is an emendation by f. Either we should let the reading stand or we should emend to something more meaningful -- perhaps "dere," i.e. costly.
** Stanza 87/Line 345 ** All the extant texts (bfg) omit the first line of this stanza. Child suggested duplicating it from the previous stanza, on the ground that it might have fallen out because the two lines have the same ending (homoioteleuton). This reasonable emendation is adopted by Knight/Ohlgren but is beyond proof.
** Stanza 88/Lines 351-352 ** The last two lines of stanza 88 make nonsense and are likely corrupt, but the prints generally agree on thenonsense text (apart from a minor correction in g, "lay it downe" for "lay downe" in 88.4, a reading followed by Gummere), and no good emendation has been suggested.
** Stanza 89/Line 354 **Corruption is probable in stanza 88; it is almost certain in the second line of 89 (the two problems are most likely related). b reads "In Englonde he is ryght." Child and Dobson/Taylor both follow fg in reading instead "In Englonde is his ryght." This is, however, an utterly obvious conjecture with no real claim to originality. Knight/Ohlgren emend byomitting the words and reading the line "In Englonde ryght." I am not convinced by either emendation, and doubt we can draw any sure conclusion based on the line.
** Stanza 91/Line 362 ** The abbott swears by "Saint Richard." Knight/Ohlgren emend this to "Saint Rychere" for purposes of maintaining the rhyme (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 155), a saint's name also used in "Gamelyn" but not otherwise known. There is little justification for the emendation; there are many instances of bad rhymes in the "Gest," and to replace an unlikely saint with a non-existent saint is not an improvement.
A second possibility is to emend the text, possibly to "Saint Cuthbert," who was a famous Northumbrian saint (the Venerable Bede wrote a life of him) and whose name rhymes fairly well (particularly if it were written, say, "Saint Cuthbere"). Chaucer, in the Reeve's Tale, has northerners still swearing by "Seynt Cutberd" (Chaucer/Benson, p. 81, line 4127; Pollard, p. 69). I also note that the previous line has a reference to the Abbot's beard, which rhymes well with "Saint Richard"; perhaps what we have is two stanzas badly shortened down to one.
One other possibility (and I emphasize that all of these are just speculations) is that the original was some variant (probably anglicized) on "Saint Roch," or "St. Rochur" (the Latin form of the name, which is obviously very similar in sound to "Richard"), which a copyist converted to "Saint Richard" because Roch is such an un-English name.
Roch, or Rocco, or Roque (c. 1295-1327) was a Frenchman famous for his ability to treat the plague. He was also famous for an association with dogs because, in one tale, a dog fed him while he himself suffered plague (Benet, p. 977), Could the abbot, like Friar Tuck in a later form of the Robin Hood legend, have been a keeper of dogs? Alternately, could the day of the knight's visit have been August 16, Saint Roch's day?
It is true that Roch was not canonized until after the death of Edward II, and hence after the likely date of this incident, but Roch was well known during the plague years of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (and largelyforgotten after that); it would be a much more likely name at the time the "Gest" was written than at any timebefore or since.
In the end, though, the reading "Saint Richard" is not nonsensical enough to justify emendation. I am sore tempted by "Saint Rochur," but am content to leave it in the margin.
** Stanza 93/Line 371 ** Child's text reads "The [hye] iustyce of Englonde"; Knight/Ohlgren omit "hye," making it the "iustice of Englonde." This is one of the more significant textual problems of the "Gest." The only witnesses are bfg. b omits the word "hye", which is found in f (g modernizes the spelling to "high"). Ordinarily, of course, a reading supported only by fg would not be considered. Presumably Child includes the word because it makes no sense to refer to one man as "the justice of England"; also, the phrase "hye iustice" is found without variants in stanza 266.
Possibly "high" is just a word the poet uses to fill space before an office? In Stanza 318, he refers to the "hye shyref," and that office doesn't exist either. But why "high"? Probably we should follow b and read "justice," not "high justice."
** Stanza 98/Line 389 ** A line is missing here in all three extant witnesses (bfg). Child conjectured the text "They put on their symple wedes" based on the third line of the previous stanza. Child's emendation is probably the best we can do, but the probability is high that more than one line is damaged; the previous stanza does not fit with what has gone before. Instead of inserting a line here, an alternate proposal might be to omit the last three lines of stanza 97 and combine it with the last three lines of 98, or something similar. So possible readings would be something like
Than bespake that gentyll knyghtAnd with him Lytell Johnn,The porter was redy hymselfe,And welcomed them euerychone.
(emending the second line), or
Than arrived that gentyll knyghtThey came to the gates anone;The porter was redy hymselfe,And welcomed them euerychone.
(emending the first line).
** Stanza 113/Line 450 ** Child and Knight/Ohlgren print this line as "And vylaynesly hym gan call." This is Child's conjectureto rhyme with the last word of the stanza ("hall"); acde are all defective here, fg omit the line, and b -- which is thus our only witness -- reads "And vylaynesly hym gan loke." Child's conjecture is reasonable, but it would be equally reasomable to emend the last line, "Spede the out of my hall!" -- if we could find an acceptable substitute for "hall" that rhymes with "loke."
** Stanza 132/Line 527 ** The arrows had silver on them -- somewhere. b reads "I nocked all with whyte silver," that is "Nocked all with white silver"; fg read "And nocked the(y) were with whyte silver" -- but a has "Worked all with whyte silver." The nock was a groove in the back of an arrow into which the bowstring was placed. This was a weak point of an arrow, and a truly well-made arrow might have a metal cap there. The reading of bfg implies that this cap was made of silver, which, as Knight/Ohlgren confess on p. 156, was "unusually lavish." So lavish as to be silly, since silver was not as structurally strong as iron. The arrows could just as well have been "worked" with silver, as in a, which might mean that the shaft or the point had silver tracings. Child and Knight/Ohlgren, who usually follow a slavishly, here adopt the reading of b (except for reading Inocked, one word, instead of I nocked, two words), but certainly a strong case could be made for "worked." A silver nock, after all, will not be very visible under the feathers!
** Stanza 133 /Line 529** An escort of "a hundred men": so bfg; a is defective for the number.
** Stanza 135/Line 537 ** This line is surely corrupt. Child gives it in full as "But as he went at a brydge ther was a wrastelyng," which is too long and rather nonsensical. This is the reading of b; a is defective, and f and g appear to be attempts to correct the reading of b. Child suggests "at Wentbrydge" as an emendation for "Went at a brydge"; Knight/Ohlgren accept this into the text. This seems logical, since the place near Barnsdale where Watling Street crosses the Went is called, unsurprisingly, "Wentbridge." And Wentbridge ("Went-breg") is mentioned in stanza 6 of the "Potter." But there is no actual textual support for Child's emendation.
** Stanza 138/Line 551 ** The reason for the disturbance in this line is not clea. a reads "And for he was ferre and frembde bested," followed by Child and Knight/Ohlgren; there are a few variants in the other copies, of which the only significant one is that bf(g) fread "frend" for "frembde." This hardly helps. The likely meaning is something like "And he was far from home and friendless," but the line may be corrupt.
** Stanza 147/Line 588 ** There is much uncertainty in the prints; a reads "That ever yet saw I," which (since the line is to rhyme with "tre(e)") is possible only if "I" is pronounced "ee." b reads "That yet saw I me," which is a proper rhyme but is short a syllable. fg read "That yet I did see," which both scans and rhymes, but is a rather modern formation.
Child proposes to emend the line to "That every yet saw I me," a rather otiose reflexive but one which also occurs in stanzas 100 and 184 (Knight/Ohlgren, p. 157). This is probably the best emendation, given the existence of the parallels, but it should be emphasized that this is a conjecture. Another conjecture would be to read "That ever saw I me," or we perhaps "That ever yet saw my ee" (eye).
And it is possible that a's reading is original. Unlikely as it seems, Child has to make the very same emendation in stanza 169, where he gives the last line as "That eyer yit saw I me," to rhyme with "lewte." The fact that the same emendation has to be made twice is an indication that perhaps the text is correct in both cases (which perhaps means that we should indeed read "I" as "ee." Could this be the result of a residual northernism?).
** Stanza 156/Line 624 ** A rough line for a rough demand: a reads "Give me my dinner, said Little John," while b offers "Give me to dine, said Little John" (fg have "Give me meat" for "Give me to dine"). Knight/Ohlgren mention the smoother emendation "Give me my dinner soon," which is also better poetry, but admit that there is no reason to question the text.
** Stanza 157/Line 628 ** Child follows a in reading "My dyner gif me." bfg read, with spelling variations, "My dyner gif thou me." Knight/Ohlgren accept the longer version on metrical grounds, but we could just as well emend to "My dyner gif to me."
** Stanza 160/Lines 637-640 ** The number of variants in the texts of this verse is astonishing. Such variation is often an indication of a damaged and conjecturally restored text, although there is no particular reason to reject Child's text. The most serious variant is in the first line of the stanza, where a says that Little John gave the butler a "tap" while bfg says John gave him a "rap." There is really no grounds for preferring either reading. Similarly, in the third line, a says that the butler would not feel such a blow in a hundred years, while bfg have a hundred winter(s). Interestingly, these two variants occur at the end of the two longest lines of the stanza. Could it be that the manucript which was the last common ancestor of a and b was damaged for the right-hand edge of this verse?
** Stanza 163/Line 650 ** Child gives the line as "The while that he wolde," rhyming with "bolde" at the end of the stanze. But a reads "The while that he wol be," and b has "The while he wolde." Child's reading is from fg. Knight/Ohlgren label Child's reading an emendation, which it is not, quite, but this line is quite uncertain and it and the final line of the stanza must both be considered doubtful.
** Stanza 164/Line 654 ** Both a and b read this line as "Thou arte a shrewede hynde," which would usually be decisive, but fg read the last word as "hyne," and Child thinks this may be correct.
** Stanza 165/Line 659 ** Child gives the text of this line as "'I make myn auowe to God,' sayde Lytell John," on the basis of a (except that a, in one of its frequent typographical inversions, reads "anowe" for "avowe"). bfg, however, omit "to God," and Gummere also leaves out the words. Gummere's text is frequently erratic, but there is much to be said for the short reading in this case; the words "to God" might have floated in from the identical line at the start of stanza 168.
** Stanza 169/Line 675 ** Child gives the text as "That euer yit sawe I [me]," to rhyme with "lewte" (loyalty) two lines earlier. But a reads "That euer yit saw I." For discussion of the emendation "saw I me," see the note on Stanza 147, where Child made the same emendation. Here, however, "saw I me" is supported by bfg, which have divergent readings in stanza 147.
** Stanza 176/Line 701 ** Child reads "Also [they] toke the gode pens" (=pence). "They" is omitted by a; bfg include it. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 158, call the word "not grammatically essential" but follow Child's lead. The choice is difficult; it is easy for copyists to lose a single word like that, but if the change is deliberate, the word is far more likely to be added than omitted. I would be inclined to leave it out.
** Stanza 176/Lines 704, 706 ** The variant here is complex. a says that Little John and the cook took "Three hundred pounde and more" to Robin Hood "Under the grene wode hore," that is, "under the green wood hoar." fg have a different rhyme: The robbers took "Three hundred pounds and three" to Robin "under the green wood tree." b has the unlikely reading "three hundred pounde and more... under the green wode tre.'
Ordinarily, we might prefer the reading of b as best explaining the others: a corrected "tree" to "hore," and fg corrected "more" to "three." In this case, however, it is pretty clear that b mistakenly printed "green wode tre" (a common catchphrase) for "green wode hore" (rather obscure), and that f desperately emended the second line to make it match the fourth. Although it is interesting that, in stanza 179, we are told that John and the cook did in fact bring three hundred pounds and three.
** Stanza 179/Line 714 ** Child emends the line to "And sende[th] the here by me" and offers as a conjecture "sent the" for "sendeth the," citing stanza 384 as a place where the text uses the form "sent." ab read "sende the"; f gives the line as "And he hath send the here by me," which g modernizes as "sent thee..." Child's emendation was intended to make the verb tense match the preceding line. Knight/Ohlgren reject the emendation as unneeded. It should be noted that, although the issue in the prints is whether there reading should be "th" or "thth," in the original manuscript it might have been a single or double letter thorn. Copying two copies of a letter as one, or vice versa, is a very common error.
** Stanza 183/Line 731 ** Knight/Ohlgren emend Child's "shryef," of uncertain meaning but found in all texts, to "shyref," sheriff.
** Stanza 187/Line 741 ** Child reads "Their tyndes" (antlers, from the root for "tine"), with afg; b reads "His tynde." Child's reading points to the antlers of the entire herd of deer John is describing; b's refers presumably to the green hart (i.e. Robin Hood) at their head. Knight/Ohlgren follow Child without even adding a note. It is awkward to see the antlers referred to in the singular, but if they were spoken of as singular, it would invite correction. There is much to be said for the "b" reading.
** Stanza 191/Line 763 ** Child's text says the Sheriff was served "well." This is the reading of a; bfg omit. Knight/Ohlgren follow Child, but the meter is better with "well" than without; I suspect it is an addition for smoothness.
** Stanza 193/Line 771 ** Child's text says Roin "commaunde[d]" Little John. a reads "commaunde"; b has "commanded"; f "commaunded," g "commanded." Knight/Ohlgren follow Child in using the past tense "commaunded," but the present tense is surely the more difficult reading; the text of a is probably preferable.
** Stanza 194/Line 775 ** Child gives the line as "And to[ke] hym a grene mantel." "Toke" is the reading of bf (g has "tooke"); a has 'to." Knight/Ohlgren accept the reading of bfg, but it is hard to imagine why anyone would have changed "toke" to "to," while the reverse change is quite plausible. The shorter reading is probably to be preferred.
** Stanza 201/Line 803 ** Child prints the last three words of this line as "the best[e] frende." a reads "thy best frende"; bfg read "the best frende." "Beste" improves the meter, but probably not enough to justify the emendation (although someone reading the line aloud might well say "beste"). Knight/Ohlgren follow a and read "thy best"; I would follow b and read "the best." Admittedly the reading of a is less smooth, but this is just the sort of error that is typical of a, and any poet good enough to compile the "Gest" could see that "the" would sound better than "thy."
** Stanaza 203/Line 810 ** Child has "By nyght or [by] day"; Knight/Ohlgren omit the second occurence of "by." "By day" is the reading of bf; g has "else by day"; a has simply "day" without "by." The reading of a gives us an extremely short line; the reading of b is still short and gives us two unstressed syllables. I would follow Child and include "by" on the grounds that no editor would add just that one word; someone playing with the text would add two syllables, as g did.
** Stanza 206/Lines 823-824 ** Robin fears that the Virgin is "wrothe with me, For she sent me nat my pay." For "pay" a reads "pray," but no editor has accepted this -- although it would be interesting to read it as "prey," meaning that Robin has not had enough victims to rob. But "pay" makes better sense in light of what follows.
** Stanza 209/Line 835 ** Child's text reads "And wayte after some vnketh (unknown) gest." Child's reading is a conjecture; b reads "And wayte after such vnketh gest," while fg have minor variants on "And looke for some strange gest." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 159, reject Child's emendation on the grounds that the reading of b makes sense, if rather forced sense. An alternate emendation would be "And wayte after such an vnketh gest." See also the next note; this section shows the signs of having been very corrupt and badly corrected.
** Stanza 210/Lines 838-840 ** The a text is defective here, and b does not rhyme (it gives the verse as "Whether he be messengere, Or a man that myrthes can, Or yf he be a pore man, Of my gode he shall haue some'). Child reverses the last two lines, omitting the "or" before "yf he be." This is a reasonable conjecture, but there may be deeper damage -- if we could emend the second line of the stanza to rhyme with "some," the structure would be more logical. Possibly emend the second line to something like "a man of myrthe and song" -- a weak rhyme, but it produces an orderly stanza.
** Stanza 213/Line 849 ** The text of bf reads "But as he loked in Bernysdale." For "he" g reads "they," which is also the reading of the parallel in stanza 21, and Child accepts this emendation, printing [t]he[y]. The plural accords with the plurals in stanza 212 and in the third line of this stanza, and Knight/Ohlgren accept it. But g is derived from bf; the change is clearly editorial. The reading "he" is clearly the earliest preserved, and probably should be preferred.
** Stanza 214/Line 856 ** Child prints the line "That [these] monkes haue brought our pay." The reading of b is "That monkes haue brought our pay." Child's reading follows fg. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 159, propose instead that the scribe of the ancestor of b misread the text; they emend to "The monkes." Another possible emendation would be to read "These monkes" without "That." Personally, I would be inclined to follow b; the fg version is too long in any case.
** Stanza 215/Line 858 ** In Child's text, Little John tells his subordinates to "frese your bowes of ewe (yew)." "Frese" is the verb of b, although it says "our bowes" rather than "your bowes." fg reads "bend we our" -- almost certainly indicating that their exemplar read "frese our" and they did not understand it. Child suggests as emendations "dress" (i.e. "prepare") or "leese" (i.e. "loose.") Knight/Ohlgren accept the emendation "dress" (spelling it "drese") and read "our" instead of "your." Either emendation is possible; neither strikes me as very compelling.
"Frese" could be either of two Middle English words: the verb to freeze (freseth, from Old English freosan; Dickins/Wilson, p. 270; also Sisam under "frese") or the noun "frese/fresse," "danger" (so Sisam under "fresse") or "harm" (Turville-Petre, p. 231). Obviously a verb is required. And "frese" in Middle English would not carry the modern sense "hold still" conveyed by the command "Freeze!" I would be inclined to print "frese" with a notation that the text is corrupt, inviting a better conjecture than those proposed so far. Perhaps we should read "frese" as a noun (with the sense "You're in trouble!") and add a verb, along the lines of "And frese! See our bowes of ewe...."
** Stanza 216/Line 861 ** In Child's text, the monk had 52 men, with [men] in brackets as questionable. b omits 'men' (and writes 53 as lii); the word "men" is found in f, while g has "man." a is defective here. Knight/Ohlgren think "men" can be omitted, and I incline to agree.
** Stanza 218/Line 870 ** In b, John tells his companions (Much and Scarlock) to make "all you prese to stonde" -- that is, to make the approaching press (crowd) to halt. In f(g), John orders "you yonder preste to stonde." "Preste" means "priest" (and is so spelled in g). In the variant "you" versus "you yonder," Child emends to "yon," which is logical. The more significant variant is between "press" and "priest" -- a change of only one letter. All editors appear to read "prese" with b, which is of course the best text, but either reading is possible.
** Stanza 223/Line 889 ** The text of b says that Much had a"bolte" ready. Probably because crossbows fired bolts and longbows arrows, f (followed, of course, by g) amends the line to read "bowe," but since an arrow could casually be called a bolt; there is no need to emend.
** Stanza 240/Lines 959-960 ** For "rightwys man," i.e. "righteous man." b reads "ryghtywysman," i.e. perhaps "right wise man"; f in fact reads "ryght wise man." The reading "dame" is a conjecture based on fg; b reads either "name" (so Child) or "ame" (so Knight/Ohlgren. This disagreement is not as large as it sounds, since an overbar could sometimes indicate a letter n).
** Stanza 247/Line 988 ** The monk allegedly carried "eyght [hondred] pounde" -- 800 pounds. So Child's text, anyway; b omits the word "hundred"; f and g read "hundreth." But since Robin and John claim that the monk paid back twice the 400 pounds borrowed by the knight, the meaning is hardly in doubt.
** Stanza 256/Line 1021 ** The text of b, "'How moch is in yonder other corser?' sayd Robyn," has caused problems since the time of f, which amends Robin's quote to read, "And what is on the other courser?" g goes beyond even that and produces "And what is in the other coffer?" Kittredge suggested emending "corser" to "forcer," another word for "coffer." The line is certainly too long, and far from clear, but, so far, no convincing emendation has been proposed; perhaps we should mark it as having a primitive error. In performance, we should probably give the line as something like "'How much is on the other courser?'" (omitting "said Robin," which is not needed).
** Stanza 262/Line 1048 ** According to Knight/Ohlgren, p. 160, the text of bfg reads "And all they mery meyne," although Child's text prints "And all his mery meyne," and none of his collations show a variant here. The meyne is clearly Robin's, based on the previous line, so Child's emendation (?) "his" makes sense -- but Knight/Ohlgren suggest that "they" ("thy?") is an error for "the." Knight/Ohlgren's argument is reasonable, but the reading of the prints should probably be checked.
** Stanza 268/Line 1069 ** "'But take not a grefe,' sayde the knyght, 'That I heue been so longe..." This is the text printed by Child, on the evidence of b. f prints it as two lines --both of them metrically correct -- making up the line count by combining the last two lines of 270. The line as given by b is patently too long, as the compositor of f recognized. Knight/Ohlgren seek to emend by taking out "sayde the knyght." That emendation is required is clear, but this leaves a line still too long, and there is no reason for this. I very stongly suspect that what we have is not a case of one line that is too long but of three missing lines. The original reading was perhaps something like this:
268. 'But take not a grefe,' sayde the knyght,'That I haue been so long.For as I came to grene wodeI stopped to rite a wrong. (Or "I met a yeman strong", or some such).
268A. "For as I passed WyresbridgI came by wrastelyng...."
And so forth. We of course cannot recreate the missing lines, and so perhaps it is best to retain Child's version, but we should certainly mark this as corrupt.
** Stanza 271/Line 1083 ** Child has the line refer to the "[hye] selerer." b omits the word "hye"; it is found in f (which spells it "high") and g ("hie"). Knight/Ohlgren omit, and I agree. Child perhaps adds the word under the influence of stanza 233.
** Stanza 275/Line1102 ** The text of b here reads "And go to my treasure," which is to rhyme to "me." This confused the publishers of fg, who could not see how "treasure" rhymed with "me." They therefore changed it to the feeble "My wyll done that it be." But "treasure" is doubtless to be pronounced "treasury."
** Stanza 282/Line 1127 ** This marks the first of several instances (also stanza 291/line1163, stanza 300/line 1199, stanza 313/line 1251) where Child prints a text which refers to the "proud[e] sheryf." In each case, the primary text (b) prints "proud" rather than "proude." Both "proud" and "proude" are found in the "Gest" -- but, in Middle English, both forms are correct, and interchangeable; the one which is metrically better is perhaps to be preferred. This is certainly "proude sheriff," since otherwise we have back-to-back stressed syllables. On the other hand, all the instances cited are the third line of a stanza, which is probably the part of the text where the meter is least important. Someone reading the text might well pronounce the word "proude," but on the whole it is probably better to print "proud."
** Stanza 283/Line 1131 ** Child prints the line "And [he] that shoteth allther best."Of the prints, fg read "they" instead of "he" (and read the verb as "shote"/"shoote" and have "all ther" for "allther"); b has no pronoun. Knight/Ohlgren would follow b. It is likely that the line is corrupt.
** Stanza 290/Line 1158 ** Child makes the last word of the line "he[ue]de," i.e. "hevede," to rhyme with "desceyued," "deceived," at the end of the stanza. The text of b, however, is simply "hede." The form "hevede" is based on a legitimate early English form, but does not occur, e.g., in the "Gest." While there may be corruption in this verse (note the number of variants in this and the next two stanzas), Knight/Ohlgren are probably right to follow b.
** Stanza 291/Line 1163 ** For Child's reading "proud[e]" see the textual note on Stanza 282.
** Stanza 291/Line 1164 ** Child gives the last line of the stanza as "All by the but [as] he stode." The word "as" is found in d but omitted by b. Both meanings are sensible; the reading without "as" is better metrically. It is unfortunate that d is so short that we cannot firmly assess its text. Short words like "as" are easily lost, and I can see no reason to add it, since the longer reading damages the meter. Knight/Ohlgren omit "as." I incline to think Child was right to include it.
** Stanza 292/Line1166 ** Child makes the text to read that, during the archery contest, "alway he [Robin] slist the wnd," meaning that his arrows always touched the wand holding the target. However, instead of "he," b reads "they," as does d, which however reads "clyft" (cleft) for "slist" (sliced, slit); f has "he' but changes "slist" to "clefte"; g reads "he claue"(="clave"). Presumably the b text means that either all Robin's archers sliced the wand or, more likely, all his arrows did so. This is unclear enough that fg changed it; Knight/Ohlgren, p. 161, are probably correct in thinking we should read "they slist."
** Stanza 300/Line 1199 ** For Child's reading "proud[e]" see the textual note on Stanza 282.
** Stanza 303/Line 1210 ** Child gives the second line of the stanza as "If euer thou loue[d]st me," but bd gives the verb as "louest." f reads "loues," g reads "loued." The reading of f is impossible; that of g a clear correction. Knight/Ohlgren think, and I agree, that we should read "louest"; the syntax here is complex enough that we need not expect exact verb concord.
** Stanza 305/Line 1220 ** For "No lyfe on me be lefte," the reading of b (d?), fg read, with minor variants "That after I eate no bread." This is so obviously feeble that it is clear their archetype worked from a copy where the last line of the stanza is illegible. We see another instance of this in stanza 400, where two lines were illegible.
** Stanza 310/Line 1238 ** For "Syr Rychard at the Lee," or Sir Richard at Lee, as it is usually modermized, g reads "Sir Richard of the Lee."
** Stanza 312/Line 1245 ** Child's reading is "And moche [I] thank the of thy confort." b omits "I"; f rephrases as "And moche I do the thankes (sic.; g reads "thanke") for thy confort." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 162, accepts Child's emendation, although we note that none of the prints contains Child's reading.
** Stanza 315/Lines 1259 ** Child reads "forty" days based on the reading xl of a, but b reads "twelue," and fg also support the reading "twelve" although they rewrite other parts of the line. d is defective. I personally incline to prefer the reading "twelve"; there are just too many Biblical uses of the phrase "forty days." And the two are easily confused in a lot of scripts, since forty is "xl" and twelve is "xii."
** Stanza 317-318/Lines 1265-1272 ** There are several curious textual features in these verses. Stanza 317 ends in mid-sentence. This is unusual although not entirely unknown in the "Gest." The next few lines imply the existence of two sheriffs. There is no evidence of textual corruption in the prints; abd all agree on the essential words. fg make a minor change to 317, but it does not resolve the problem. Emendation seems required.
To make 317 end on a full sentence, several emendations are possible. The simplest would be to chance "Howe" at the beginning of the third line to "Of" or similar. Alternately, the first word of the fourth line could be emended from "And" to "Called" or "Brought."
In 318, the simplest emendation would be to omit "to" from the first line; in that case, "hye shyref" becomes symply a synonym for "proude shyref."
** Stanza 330/Line 1317 ** The text of a reads "The shyref there fayles of Robyn Hode" bdfg reads "fayled" for "fayles" All editors seem to accept the b reading.
** Stanzas 331/Line 1324 ** This line is given by Child as "And let [his] haukes flee," but a omits the word "his," found in bd (fg have "his hauke"). Knight/Ohlgren omit the word on the basis of a, but the testimony of bd makes it not unreasonable to retain it.
** Stanzas 338-339/Lines 1352-1353 ** Child leaves blank the last line of stanza 338 and the first stanza of 339, which are lacking in all three of the best witnesses, abd. fg have, with minor variations, "The proude shirife than sayd she" for the last line of 338 but omits the second line of 339., leaving a two-verse fragment. Knight/Ohlgren accept the f reading in stanza 338 (since it almost certainly mentioned the sheriff, and had to rhyme with "the"). In stanza 339, they repeat this with a variant, which is possible, but at least two other types of emendation are equally possible, along the lines of: "They taken hym to Nottyngham" (referring to his destination) or "They took him but two hours past" (referring to the time).
** Stanza 343/Line 1370 ** The text of Child, following ad, says that Robin wishes to see and take (i.e. capture) the Sheriff. But bfg say that Robin wishes to see and take (i.e. rescue) the knight. Both readings have substantial merit. Since there is no real reason to prefer one over the other, we should probably follow ad over b.
** Stanzas 348/Line 1392 ** Child gives this line as "With his bright[e] bronde." "Brighte" is the reading of bdfg; a has "bright." In stanza 202, both a and b read "bright." We must at least allow for the possibility that the copyist of a assimilated this verse to that. "Brighte" is also better metrically. Although Knight/Ohlgren, p. 163, prefer to read "bright," the case for "brighte" appears slightly better.
** Stanza 349/Line 1395 ** The a text, which had several lacunae prior to this point, ends after the third line of this stanza and is lacking for the rest of the poem. The d text, which began with stanza 280, ends with stanza 350. Thus for stanza 351 to the end of the poem, except for the few dozen lines of e, we have essentially only one witness, the b text and its inferior relatives fg.
** Stanza 351/Line 1402 ** In this stanza Robin cuts... something... in two to free the knight. What was it? b says his "hoode." Child emends this to "bonde," which certainly Robin must have cut at some point and is in any case a better rhyme. The reading "bonde" is accepted by Knight/Ohlgren, although they note on p. 163 that in stanza 332 the knight was merely bound hand and foot, not hooded. Nonetheless the b reading could have been correct; the guards could have tied the knight's hood over his eyes to prevent him from seeing.
** Sanza 355/Line 1420 ** It is hard to imagine a dialect in which "Hode" (line 2) and "stout" (line 4) rhyme. Possibly we should emend "stout" to "gode," but there is no indication of this in the prints.
** Stanza 357/Line 1425 ** Child's text reads "All the passe of Lancasshyre,"on the basis of b. Gummere, p. 319, explains "passe" as meaning limits, bounds, extant -- i.e. the whole region. This is not the usual meaning of "passe," however. The most suitable meaning in Chaucer, according to Chaucer/Benson p. 1276, is "pace," which is also the meaning that Sisam gives for "pas." Turville-Petrie, p. 245, might suggest "road" as a meaning. None of the noun forms is common, although "pas(s)(e)" is a common verb.
For "passe" fg read "compasse," which Knight/Ohlgren, p. 164, accept; they argue that "passe" makes no sense and suggest that "compasse" is original because of its complexity. But a reading of fg is really no more than a conjecture. We might just as well conjecture "parke" (or "parkes"), which fits the context. For that matter, Lancashire is surrounded by the Pennines to the east and by other hills to the north and south. These are not high hills, but they are rough enough that travellers tended to use the passes between the peaks. Or it might be a mis-reading of "pathes." I would incline to leave the reading alone and let it suggest *all* these meanings, but if we are going to emend, we should emend to "parkes."
** Stanza 361/Line 1442 ** Child says that the King offers a charter which he seals "[with] my honde"; the word "with" is omitted by b although found in fg. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 165, argue that it can be omitted in accord with Middle English usage. One an instrumental without a preposition is a very early form, and would tend to push the poem's date earlier, plus the line scans better with "with." Short words are easily lost by scribes. On purely internal grounds, the reading with "with" might be better, but the extermal evidence is so strong that we sould probably omit the word.
** Stanza 369/Line 1473 ** The forester offers to be the king's ledes-man, i.e. guide, leader, in bf (g spells it "lodesman"), but Knight/Ohlgren emend this to "bedesman" (a "beads-man," hence "one who prays" or uses the rosary; Langland/Schmidt, p. 516.) Knight/Ohlgen, p. 137, would extend it to mean "one who leads in prayer." They argue (p. 165) that "ledesman" is an assimilation to the previous stanza and that "bedesman" heightens the sense of disguise. It is a clever emendation, and is certainly possible, but "bedesman" is a rare word and the line as given makes sense and emendation is not required.
** Stanza 371/Line 1481 ** Child reads the line "hastely" on the basis of f (g has "hastily"), but b reads "hastly," which Knight/Olhgren conside to be correct.
** Stanza 371/Line 1484 ** Child has this line read "And hasted them thyder blyve," i.e. "hastened them there swiftly," but b has "blyth," not "blyve," and f and g also have "blythe," althoughwith different spellings. It might be argued that hasted...blyve is a more reasonable combination (although it is also redundant) -- but the reading of b is perfectly sensible. Although Knight/Ohlgren follow this emendation without comment, there are not sufficient grounds for changing the text.
** Stanza 377/Line 1508 ** The line Child prints here, "Other shyft haue not wee," is lacking in b; he takes it from fg. b instead repeats the text of the second line of the stanza, "Vnder the grene-wode tre." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, accept that the poet meant to repeat the line, but this seems highly dubious -- he could surely have produced some sort of variant. The fourth line is probably lost forever; we must either conjecture it or accept the fg reading (which is itself probably a conjecture because the compositor of f, unlike Knight/Ohlgren, felt a different line was needed). An alternate emendation might be something like "My mynie and me" or "My mery men and me."
** Stanza 378/Line 1512 ** Child emends b's reading "saynt charity" to "saynte charyte"; Knight/Ohlgren accept the reading of b. Child's reading perhaps makes it more clear that the reference is not to a particular saint -- the "Gest" seems to prefer the spelling ""Saynt" for a saint (stanzas 84, 91, 315, 390).
** Stanza 381/Line 1524 ** Child's text is "I wolde vouch it safe on the." The reading of b is, however, "I vouch it half on the/" This confused f enough that it converted it to "I would give it to thee." Knight/Ohlgren, p. 166, argues that the text of b is sensible enough to be retained. The reading of b is indeed strange and possibly corrupt, but Child's emendation does not explain how it came to be corrupt; it is probably better to retain the reading of b until someone proposes a better reading.
** Stanza 385/Lines 1537-1540 ** The reading of the first line is a crux. The text of b says that the king showed his broad "tarpe." There seems to be no such word in Middle English. Certainly it confused the compositors of fg, who change it to "seale." Child, who was more facile with an emendation, instead proposed "targe," followed by most modern editors -- but this is not a great help. A reading such as "charter" or "letter" would fit better, but it is harder to explain the error of b in that case. A possible suggestion would be to emend the second line of 385, replacing "sone" with "seale." Then the "targe" becomes a letter showing the king's shield (so it can be seen at a distance) and sealed with his seal (for detailed examination). This would explain a lot -- if only it weren't pure conjecture.
** Stanza 400/Lines 1597-1598 ** For Child's text, in which Robin tells outlaws who miss the rose garden that, in addition to losing their gear, "And bere a buffet on his hede, I-wys right all bare,'" f and g read "A good buffet on his head bare, For that shal be his fine," which does not even rhyme with the last word of the stanza. Here again it is clear that the copy used by the compositor of f was defective, and he made up two lines, and g followed. We see a similar instance of a lost line in stanza 305.
** Stanza 409/Lines 1635-1636 ** Child reads these lines "Thus our kynge and Robyn Hode, Togeder gan they mete," the latter to rhyme with "shete."This is a sufficiently incompetent line that I rather suspect corruption in the prints.
** Stanza 412/Lines 1645-1646 ** Note that Child had two versions of thse two lines. In his original edition, he follows b and printed
'Mercy then, Robyn,' sayd our kynge,'Vnder your trystyll-tre,
In a correction (volume V., p. 297 in the Dover edition) he amended this to follow fg:
'Mercy,' then said Robyn to our kynge,'Vnder this trystyll-tre.'
If the reading of fg were in a, we might perhaps consider it. But a reading of fg against b has no value -- clearly the transcriber of f was bothered by this reading, presumably because it made the King show fear, and corrected it to an easier reading, in order to make it appear that Robin, not the King, is asking mercy. Child was right the first time, and Dobson/Taylor and Knight/Ohlgren both follow the text of b.
** Stanzas 412-414/Lines 1645-1656 ** It appears that the exemplar used by f was very badly damaged for stanzas 412-414; about half the text of these stanzas is rewritten, usually very badly, as is typical of f when it cannot read its exemplar. And, as usual, g follows f with some stylistic improvements. The most noteworthy change is that described in the previous note, but there are some other smaller alterations.
** Stanza 417/Line 1666 ** In the second line of the stanza, Child prints the text as "I wyll come agayne full soone," but b omits "wyll" (found in fg). Knight/Ohlgren point out that the very "will" is not needed; we should probably omit.
** Stanza 421/Lines 1683-1684 ** The last two lines of this verse have invited many emendations. The text of b is
And euery knyght had so, ywysAnother had full sone.
Child enense "had so, ywys" to "also, i-wys,' meaning that, like the king, each of the knights soon was wearing a green garment. Knight/Ohlgren, p. 167, suggest instead replacing "Another had" in the final line with "Another hode" -- in other words, saying that the knights soon had new hoods.
Both emendations are clever, and both eliminate the problem of the redundant use of "had." Neither reading is compelling, however. Child's reading implies less change of meaning; Knight/Ohlgren's requires a smaller change in the text. But an even smaller change would be to alter the second "had" to "hat." All one can really do is pick one, or even leave the text alone, and perhaps mark a primitive error.
** Stanza 423/Line 1689 ** The text of b here is "Theyr bowes bente, and forth they went." Child emends this to "They bente theyr bowes, and forth they went," on the basis of (f)(g). Perhaps he objected to the internal rhyme, which does have the air of floating in from somewhere else. Knight/Ohlgren prefer the b reading, and indeed there appears to be no real reason to emend.
** Stanza 433/Line 1731 ** There is some textual uncertainty in this line; Child and Knight/Ohlgren both print it as "That he had spend an hondred pounde" on the basis of fg, but b omits "had." I am not convinced that the emendation of fg is correct. Mightn't Robin have incurred debts that came due that day, or some such? Possibly there is an error here, but we have no assurance that the reading of fg is the correct alternative.
** Stanza 436/Line 1742 ** Robin sees young men shooting "full fayre upon a day" according to Child; this is the reading of e (which begins with this stanza) and f (g reads "faire"); b has "ferre," i.e. probably "far." Knight/Ohlgren prefer the reading of b, reading it to mean that the archers are shooting a distant targets rather than that they are a sight worth seeing. There is no strong reason to prefer either variant; it probably comes down to our assessment of the relative values of b and e.
** Stanza 437/Line 1747 ** Editors have generally emended the third line of the verse. b says Robin was "commytted" the best archer in England, and e has comitted. fg, confused by the b reading, have one of their typical monstrosities, "commended for." Child and Knight/Ohlgren are both sure that the word should have been a Middle English form of "counted"; Child emends to "compted," Knight/Ohlgren to "comted." The latter seems more likely, although there are many other possibilities, along the lines of "command to" or "committed to be."
** Stanzas 451, 454/Lines 1803, 1815 ** The place where Robin Hood was killed is somewhat uncertain. Child prints "Kyrkesly" in stana 451, "Kyrke[s]ly" in 454; bfg all read Kyrkesly in the first and Kyrkesly in the second. Knight/Ohlgren are convinced (p. 168) that Child is wrong and both should read "Kyrkely." See also the variants mentioned in the commentary on the text.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C117U

Get Along Home, Cindy

See Cindy (File: LxU028)

Get Along, John, the Day's Work's Done

See Hopalong Peter (File: CSW104)

Get Along, Little Dogies

DESCRIPTION: Characterized by the chorus, "Whoopee ti yi yo, get along, little dogies, It's your misfortune and none of my own. Whoopee ti yi yo, get along, little dogies,You know Wyoming will be your new home." Tells of herding cattle down the trail for slaughter
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1893 (journal of Owen Wister)
KEYWORDS: cowboy animal work
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (14 citations):
Randolph 178, "Little Doogie" (sic) (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Sandburg, pp. 268-270 "Whoopee, Ti Yi Yo, Git Along, Little Dogies" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 76, "Git Along Little Dogies" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSUSA 58, "Git Along Little Dogies" (1 text plus addenda, 1 tune)
Lomax-ABFS, pp. 385-389, "Git Along, Little Dogies" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 189, "Go On, You Little Dogies"; 190, "Run Along, You Little Dogies" (2 texts, 2 tunes, both of which appear to be mixtures of this song with something else; the chorus of 190 derives partly from "Rocking the Cradle (and the Child Not His Own)")
Larkin, pp. 98-104, "Git Along Little Dogies" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Botkin-AmFolklr, pp. 853-854, "Git Along, Little Dogies" (1 text, 1 tune)
LPound-ABS, 80, pp. 174-175, "Whoopee Ti Yi Yo, Git Along Little Dogies" (1 text)
Arnett, pp. 126-127, "Git Along, Little Dogies" (1 text, 1 tune)
Saffel-CowboyP, pp. 174-175, "Whoopee Ti Yi Yo, Git Along Little Dogies" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 109, "Git Along, Little Dogies" (1 text)
Fuld-WFM, p. 244, "Git Along Little Dogies (Whoopee Ti Ti Yo)"
DT, GITDOGIE*
Roud #827
RECORDINGS:
Beverly Hill Billies, "Whoopee Ti Yi Yo Get Along" (Brunswick 598. 1932)
Cartwright Brothers, "Get Along Little Doggies" (Columbia 15410-D, 1929; on WhenIWas2)
Edward L. Crain, "Whoopie Ti-Yi-Yo, Git Along Little Doggies" (Crown 3275, 1932)
Girls of the Golden West, "Whoopie Ti-Yi-Yo, Get Along Little Doggies" (Bluebird B05718, 1934)
George Goebel, "Night Herding Song" (Conqueror 8157, 1933)
Woody Guthrie & Cisco Houston, "Whoopie-Ti-Yi-Yo, Get Along Little Dogies" (on Struggle2, CowFolkCD1)
Beverly Hillbillies, "Whoopie Ti Yi Yo" (Brunswick 598, c. 1931)
Kenneth Houchins, "Get Along Little Doggies" (Champion 16584, 1933)
Harry Jackson, "As I Went Walking One Morning for Pleasure" (on HJackson1)
Harry "Mac" McClintock, "Get Along, Little Doggies" (Victor V-40016, 1929, rec. 1928; Montgomery Ward M-4469 [as Harry "Mac" McClintock and his Haywire Orchestra], 1934)
Harry Stephens, "The Night Herding Song" (AFS, 1940s; on LC28)
John I. White, the Lonesome Cowboy, "Whoopee-Ti-Yi-Yo" (Banner 32179/Perfect 12709//Conqueror 7753/Romeo 1629 [as "Little Doggies"], 1931; on BackSaddle)
Marc Williams, "The Night Herding Song" (Brunswick 497/Supertone S-2263, 1931)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Night Herding Song
File: R178

Get Away Old Maids Get Away

See I Wouldn't Have an Old Man (File: R401)

Get Away, Old Man, Get Away

See I Wouldn't Have an Old Man (File: R401)

Get Me Down My Petticoat

DESCRIPTION: "Get me down my petticoat, get me down my shawl, Get me down my buttoned boots, for I'm off to Linen Hall." The singer goes to seek her love, who may have enlisted to fight the Boers. She asks the British to hold the Dubliners back
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1960 (MacColl & Seeger, _Singing Island_)
KEYWORDS: soldier separation love clothes
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1899-1902 - Boer War
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
DT, PETICOAT*
ADDITIONAL: Frank Harte _Songs of Dublin_, second edition, Ossian, 1993, pp. 64-65, Get Me Down My Petticoat"" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2565
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Hand Me Down My Petticoat
NOTES: For background on the Boer War and the Irish soldiers there, see "John McBride's Brigade"; also "Marching to Pretoria." - RBW
File: Hart065

Get Off the Track

See Clear the Track (File: SCW48)

Get On Board, Little Children

DESCRIPTION: "The gospel train is coming, I hear it just at hand... Get on board, little children (x3), There's room for many a more." The train will carry all who wish to board, and "the fare is cheap."
AUTHOR: possibly John Chamberlain
EARLIEST DATE: 1872 (Seward, _Jubilee Songs_)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad train
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Cohen-LSRail, pp. 619-624, "The Gospel Train Is Coming" (2 text plus a text of "The Gospel Train (IV)"; 1 tune for each of the two songs)
BrownIII 529, "The Gospel Train" (2 texts plus a fragment; the "C" fragment is this piece; "A" and "B" are "The Gospel Train (II) and (III)")
Chappell-FSRA 82, "Get On Board, Little Children" (1 text, 1 tune)
Scarborough-NegroFS, pp. 254-255, "De Gospel Train Am Leabin'" (1 short text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 361, "Get On Board, Little Children" (1 text)
Roud #13948
RECORDINGS:
Alphabetical Four, "Get On Board Little Children" (Decca 7594, 1939; rec. 1938; on AlphabFour01)
Harry C. Brown, "De Gospel Train Am Comin'" (Columbia A-2255, 1917; rec. 1916)
Rev. Clayborn, Guitar Evangelist, "The Gospel Trains Coming" (Vocalion 1082, 1927; rec. 1926)
Rev. Mose Doolittle, "Get On Board" (Victor 20295, 1926)
Dunham Jubilee Singers, "Get On Board" (Columbia 14676-D, 1933; rec. 1931)
Kanawha Singers, "The Gospel Train" (Brunswick 365, 1929)
Moore Spiritual Singers, "Get On Board" (Bluebird B-8095, 1939)
Norfolk Jubilee Quartette, "Get On Board, Little Children, Get On Board" (Paramount Oriole Male Quartette, "Get On Board Little Children" (Oriole 893, 1927)
Clara Smith, "Get On Board" (Columbia 14183-D, 1927; rec. 1926; also issued as E8938, n.d.)
Sons of Israel, "Gospel Train" (Kingsport 901, n.d.)
Southern Plantation Singers, "Get On Board Little Children" (Vocalion 1414, 1929; rec. 1928)
Tuskegee Institute Singers, "Get On Board" (Victor 18446, 1918; rec. 1916)
12268, 1925; Herwin 92009 [as Southland Jubilee Singers], 1926)
T-Bone Walker, "Get On Board, Little Children" (Capitol 133, 1943; rec. 1942)
Williams Jubilee Singers, "Gospel Train is Coming" (Columbia 14457-D, 1929)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cindy" (tune)
cf. "I Want To See Jesus" (lyrics)
NOTES: Gail Greenwood points out that a number of sources credit this (as "The Gospel Train") to John Chamberlain (1821-1893). This includes an old (but undated) printed "ballet." It is not clear whether he was responsible for the music. Cohen mentions this attribution but without comment on its value.
The title in the ballet is "Rail Road Hymn." - RBW
File: FSWB361A

Get Out, Yellowskins, Get Out

DESCRIPTION: "The Yellowskins here in these hills Now know how it appears To have their gold by others stole As we have suffered for years. Get out, Yellowskins, get out (x2), We'll do it again if you don't go. Get out, Yellowskins, get out!"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1958 (Burt)
KEYWORDS: China gold murder
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Burt, p. 157, (no title) (1 short text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Reportedly based on an incident of July 1885, in which eight white men shot up a camp where 32 Chinese were digging for gold. None of the murderers were ever punished. I must say, though, that Burt's finding a song about the incident seems awfully convenient. The flip side being, of course, that the song seems to accurately reflect the vicious and irrational anti-Chinese prejudice of the era.
J. Franklin Jameson, Dictionary of United States History 1492-1895, Puritan Press, 1894, p. 131. says of this event, "In 1885, twenty-eight Chinamen were murdered by miners in Wyoming and $147,000 of property was destroyed."
A period of extreme restrictions on Chinese immigration followed. A series of treaties in 1844, 1858, and 1868 had opened the doors for immigrants from the far east; 105,000 Chinese were identified in the 1880 census. An attempt to restrict immigration was passed by congress in 1879 but vetoed by President Hayes. In 1880, an agreement was reached with China to limit immigration. This also made it harder for those who left the United States for China to return. In 1888, immigration was stopped entirely. In 1892, laws were passed permitting expulsion of the Chinese. The limits were clearly unfair, since Europeans were still permitted to enter the country in large numbers, but what else is new? - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Burt157

Get That Boat

DESCRIPTION: "Get that boat! my lucky little driver, Get that boat, get that boat, I say." The singer orders the crew to overtake the boat ahead of them, even if it means skinning them alive, or crashing into the other vessel if it won't get out of the way
AUTHOR: possibly Pearl R. Nye
EARLIEST DATE: 1971 (OHS)
KEYWORDS: ship racing river
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
ADDITIONAL: [no author listed], Scenes & Songs of the Ohio-Erie Canal, Ohio Historical Society, 1971, "Get That Boat" (1 text, 1 tune, from Pearl R. Nye)
NOTES: According to the notes in the Ohio Historical Society booklet, the Ohio-Erie Canal (not to be confused with the Erie Canal; it ran from Cleveland on Lake Erie to Columbus, Ohio and on down to the Ohio River at Portsmouth) often suffered from traffic jams around towns,where they had to check in with canal officials. This led to intense competitions to move ahead in the line -- and hence to boat races (or maybe we should say battles) like this one. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: OHSGBoa

Get Up and Bar the Door [Child 275]

DESCRIPTION: Old man and old wife must bar the door; neither wants to. They agree that whoever speaks first shall bar the door. Thieves enter the house, and play tricks on the couple. At last the old (man) cries out; the (wife) orders him orders him to bar the door
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1769 (Herd)
KEYWORDS: humorous robbery bargaining contest
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South),Scotland(Aber)) US(Ap,MW,NE,So) Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (24 citations):
Child 275, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (3 texts)
Bronson 275, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (20 versions)
GreigDuncan2 321, "The Barrin' o' the Door" (4 texts, 3 tunes) {A=Bronson's #16, B=#11, C=#12}
BarryEckstormSmyth pp. 318-321, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (2 texts, 2 tunes) {Bronson's #17, #10}
Flanders-Ancient4, pp. 72-75, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 148-150, "The Barrin' o' the Door" (1 text, 1 tune)
Randolph 34, "Get Up and Shut the Door" (2 fragments, 1 tune) {Bronson's #20}
Gardner/Chickering 153, "Arise and Bar the Door" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #5}
BrownII 43, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (2 texts)
Davis-Ballads 44, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 fragment, possibly this song)
Creighton/Senior, pp. 92-93, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #4}
Greenleaf/Mansfield 18, "Joan and John Blount" (1 text)
Peacock, pp. 239-240, "Bar the Door O" (1 text, 1 tune)
Leach, pp. 657-658, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
OBB 172, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
Niles 58, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text, 1 tune)
Combs/Wilgus 38, pp. 128-129, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
JHCox 185, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
Hodgart, p. 77, "Get up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
DBuchan 62, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
TBB 40, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
HarvClass-EP1, pp. 87-88, "Get Up and Bar the Door" (1 text)
DT 275, BARDOOR* BARDOOR2 JHNBLNT BARDOOR4*
ADDITIONAL: James Kinsley, editor, Burns: Complete Poems and Songs (shorter edition, Oxford, 1969) #368, pp. 503-504, "Johnie Blunt" (1 text, 1 tune, from 1792)
Roud #115
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Old Man and the Door
Johnny Blunt
NOTES: Louis Untermeyer, in The Golden Treasury of Poetry, calls this "an old joke with its origins in the Orient." I am guessing that this is a reference to what Child calls "The Arabian tale of Sulayman Bay and the Three STory-Tellers," which is not really Oriental as most of us would mean the term. In any case, there is much dispute over whether this is truly the original of this piece. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: C275

Get Up Goodwife and Shake Your Feathers

DESCRIPTION: "Here comes in a guid new year" The singers come to the back of the house. "Rise up, goodwife and shake your feathers .. gie us oor hogmanay. ... Up stocks, doun steils, Dinna think that we're feils" We're cold. "Gie's a piece an' lat's rin"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1822 (Blackwood's)
KEYWORDS: request begging ritual nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North),Scotland(Aber,Bord))
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Greig 5, p. 1, ("Get up gudewife and shak' your feathers") (1 fragment)
GreigDuncan3 639, "Get Up Gudewife" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Amy Stewart Fraser, The Hills of Home (London, 1973 ("Digitized by Google")), p. 74 ("Rise up, good wife, and shake your feathers")ADDITIONAL: K. M'Gonigle, "Scraps of English Folklore, XI: Northumberland (Ellingham Women's Institute)" in Folklore, Vol. XXXVI, No. 3 (Sep 1925 (available online by JSTOR)), pp. 250-251 ("Get up, auld wife, and shake your feathers") (1 text)
R[obert] Chambers, editor, The Book of Days: A Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with The Calendar (London, 1832 ("Digitized by Google")),Vol. II, p. 788, ("Get up, goodwife, and shake your feathers")
J. Christie in John Bulloch, editor, Scottish Notes and Queries (Aberdeen, 1888 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. I, No. 10, March 1888, p. 163, "[Query ]81. New Year Rhymes" ("Here comes in a guid new year") (1 text with 5 verses, 1 tune)
John Muir, "Notes on Ayrshire Folk-Lore" in John Bulloch, editor, Scottish Notes and Queries (Aberdeen, 1895 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. VIII, No. 3, August 1894, p. 39, ("Get up, Guidwife, and shake your feathers")
"Hogmanay and New-Year's Day" in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (Edinburgh, 1822 ("Digitized by Google")),Vol. XI, January 1822, p. 31, ("Rise up, gudewife, and shake your feathers")
R.C. MacLagan, "Additions to 'The Games of Argyleshire' (Continued)" in Folklore, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (Jun 1905 (available online by JSTOR)), pp. 215-216 ("This night is called Hogmanay") (1 text: four verse epilogue to "The New-Year Mummer's Tale of Golishan" "'as it used to be said, sung, and acted all over Scotland, from Cheviot to Cape Wraith,' ... as communicated to the _Scotsman_ of 31st Dec, 1902.")
Roud #5887
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Ye Gae But to Your Beef-Stan'" (subject)
cf. "Our Feet's Cauld" (one verse, at least in Christie's version)
NOTES: "Hogmanay" is the Scottish New Year's Eve celebration.
Greig: .".. on the last day of the year we used to sally forth to serenade the neighboring houses with [this song]."
Muir, Chambers, M'Gonigle, Blackwood's, and GreigDuncan3 639 have only one verse. Chambers's version is "Get up, goodwife, and shake your feathers, And dinna think that we are beggars; For we are bairns come out to play, Get up and gie's our hogmany." Christie's text is the basis of the description. Christie's last verse is the GreigDuncan 640 fragment; most reporters that I have found separate the two and I have kept "Our Feet's Cauld" separate.
Christie's fourth verse - "Up stocks, doun steils, Dinna think that we're feils, For we're but bairnies come to play, Rise up an' gie 's oor hogmanay" - is also combined with the "shake your feathers" verse by Fraser as "Up sticks! Down stools! Don't think that we are fools."
MacLagan's example combines "shake your feathers" and "our feet's cauld" in a different way than Christie's text. The first verse is an introduction to the holiday and a "bless the master" verse. Then comes another "get up, guid wife" ("get up, guid wife, and binna sweir") that is usually reported as a separate rhyme; it concludes with "shake your feathers" and "our feet's cauld." Possibly, the formality of the mummer's play made combining usually independent verses attractive. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD3639

Get Up Gudewife

See Get up Gudewife (File: GrD3639)

Get up gudewife and shak' your feathers

See Get up Gudewife (File: GrD3639)

Get Up, Jack! John, Sit Down!

DESCRIPTION: A song of the eternal tasks of the sailor, repeated from generation to generation. The sailors all enjoy their rum, find girls in the towns, get drunk, spend their money, and have to return to sea, as their fathers did before him.
AUTHOR: Words: Edward Harrigan / Music: David Braham
EARLIEST DATE: 1885 ("Old Lavender")
KEYWORDS: sailor work drink
FOUND IN: US(MA,NE)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Warner 71, "The Jolly Roving Tar" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 33, "Get Up, Jack" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-ABFS, pp. 493-494, "Get Up, Jack! John, Sit Down!" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Captain John Robinson, "Songs of the Chantey Man," a series published July-August 1917 in the periodical _The Bellman_ (Minneapolis, MN, 1906-1919). "We're Homeward Bound" is in Part 4, 8/4/1917.
DT, GETUPJCK JACKJOHN
Roud #2807
RECORDINGS:
Stanley Baby, "Homeward Bound" (on GreatLakes1)
Lena Bourne Fish, "Jolly Rocing Tar" (on USWarnerColl01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Outward and Homeward Bound"
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Outward Bound
NOTES: Reportedly written by Edward Harrigan and his father-in-law David Braham for the play "Old Lavender," which is listed as premiering September 1, 1885. (Information supplied by Philip Harrigan Sheedy.) The song has since entered oral tradition, as known versions exhibit significant variations. - DGE, RBW
The song has cross-fertilized with "Outward and Homeward Bound"; it may be that that was the inspiration for this song.
For background on Harrigan and Braham, see the notes to "Babies on Our Block." - RBW
File: Wa071

Ghaist o' Fernden, The

DESCRIPTION: A farmer's wife needs a midwife but the men won't fetch one for fear of meeting "the ghaist o' Fern-den." The ghost himself fetches the midwife and, leaving her at the farmer's door, reveals his identity and promises to take her home at midnight.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1853 (Jervise, _The History and Traditions of the Land of the Lindsays in Angus and Mearns_, according to GreigDuncan2)
KEYWORDS: childbirth ghost
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan2 342, "The Ghaist o' Fernden" (2 texts)
Roud #5872
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Brownie of Fernden
NOTES: The sense of "ghost" here seems to be spirit but not of a particular person. One text in GreigDuncan2 refers to a "brownie." - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD2342

Ghost of the Peanut Stand, The

DESCRIPTION: Biddie Magee owns a Jersey City peanut stand. She loves Connie O'Ryan who joins the army. Biddy takes to bed and dies, "the peanut-stand went up the spout," Connie is drummed out. Her house is haunted by the ghosts of Biddy, Connie, and the peanut stand
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1879 (broadside, LOCSinging sb30417a)
KEYWORDS: courting army Civilwar separation death humorous ghost
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 70, "The Ghost of the Peanut Stand" (2 fragments, 1 tune)
Roud #2762
BROADSIDES:
LOCSinging, sb30417a, "The Peanut Stand," H. De Marsan (New York), 1864-1878
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Joe Bowers" (tune, per broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(690))
NOTES: The De Marsan text is more complete than the Creighton-SNewBrunswick fragment, and is the basis for the description. If nothing else, the De Marsan text dates itself to the Civil War: Connie "got in with a parcel of Jersey roughs; they led him around like a toy; So, he joined the New-York Fire-Zoo-Zoos, and he went for a soger-boy."
The Union 11th [New York] Regiment Infantry "1st New York Fire Zouaves" were mustered in May 7, 1861 and mustered out June 2, 1862. (source: The Civil War Archive site); see also "Abraham's Daughter" for a reference to "the fire Zou-Zous." - BS
As the dates above show, the 11th New York was not long in service (a lucky bunch; they enlisted for two years but served only one); its only real battle was First Bull Run, though it was also involved in the early part of the Peninsular campaign. It was called the "Fire Zouaves" because many of the members were New York firemen -- skills which they put to good use in fighting a fire that threatened to consume part of Washington, D.C. Otherwise, its service was noteworthy mostly for the rowdy conduct of the troops.
The regiment was also famous for its first colonel, E. Elmer Ellsworth (1837-1861), who in 1862 led the regiment into Alexandria, Virginia, and proceeded to tear down the Confederate flag flying over the Marshall House hotel. The owner, James T. Jackson, proceeded to murder Ellsworth (and was killed in return by one of Ellsworth's soldiers), making the young soldier an instant martyr.
It will be observed that the odds of an Irish peanut vendor joining that particular regiment were pretty small -- but, of course, the unit was unusually well-known and hence a likely subject for songs. - RBW
Broadside LOCSinging sb30417a: H. De Marsan dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
File: CrSNB070

Ghost of Willie-O

See Willy O! (File: CrMa113)

Ghost So Grim, The

See The Sailor and the Ghost [Laws P34A/B] (File: LP34)

Ghost's Bride, The

DESCRIPTION: John Gordon comes to court Mary, saying her lover, his brother, is long dead. She agrees to marry him. She hears the dead brother speak, saying John stole his land, wife, and life. When John Gordon awakes, Mary is gone, her bones by the brother's grave
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: love courting brother death murder betrayal marriage abandonment reunion
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownII 58, "The Ghost's Bride" (1 text)
ST BrII058 (Full)
Roud #6567
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "A Gentleman of Exeter (The Perjured Maid)" [Laws P32] (plot)
cf. "Susannah Clargy" [Laws P33] (plot)
cf. "Alonzo the Brave and Fair Imogene" (plot)
cf. "An Sgeir-Mhara (The Sea-Tangle, The Jealous Woman)" (theme)
NOTES: This song, "A Gentleman of Exeter," and "Susannah Clargy" are all essentially the same story, and looking at the titles in the Broadside Index, I wonder if they haven't cross-fertilized -- or aren't retellings of some epic original. (Note that the story is almost "Hamlet.")
The notes in Brown describe this as the best of the lot, and it is certainly vividly told. If there is any complaint against it, it is that it is a little *too* perfect, and the Brown copy seems to be the only collection. Perhaps it was composed in the family of the informant? - RBW
File: BrII058

Ghostly Crew, The [Laws D16]

DESCRIPTION: A sailor has endured much without fear -- until the night twelve ghosts board his ship and take stations "as if [they] had a right." They disappear as the ship passes a lighthouse. The singer is sure they are sailors drowned in a collision with his ship
AUTHOR: Harry L. Marcy
EARLIEST DATE: 1874 ("Fisherman's Ballads and Songs of the Sea")
KEYWORDS: sea ship ghost
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Laws D16, "The Ghostly Crew"
Doerflinger, pp. 180-182, "The Ghostly Crew" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Greenleaf/Mansfield 115, "The Spirit Song of George's Bank" (1 text, 1 tune)
Peacock, pp. 873-874, "The Ghostly Sailors" (1 text, 2 tunes)
Leach-Labrador 96, "Ghostly Fishermen" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-NovaScotia 117, "The Ghostly Sailors" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 114, "The Ghostly Sailors" (1 text, 1 tune)
Smith/Hatt, pp. 96-99, "The Ghostly Sailors" (1 text)
Ives-DullCare, pp. 79-80, 245-246, "The Ghostly Fishermen" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 701, GHOSCREW GHOSCRE2
Roud #1822
RECORDINGS:
Morris Houlihan, "The Ghostly Fisherman" (on NFMLeach)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Glen Alone" (theme)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Ghostly Seamen
NOTES: Gordon Bok reports, "The story I heard was that the schooner Haskell, out of Gloucester, was anchored near George's [Bank] when a sudden gale parted her ground tackle and she went charging, bare-poled, down through the fleet. She cut the schooner Johnston almost in two, killing all her men. On every voyage thereafter, a crew would appear on her deck at night and go through the motions of fishing. After a few trips, no crew would even sign on her, and she rotted at the wharf."
Creighton-SNewBrunswick adds more details: On March 7, 1866, the new Charles Haskell rammed the Andrew Jackson, inspiring this song; the Haskell later became known as "the ghost ship."
Some of this may be folklore; after all, we hear a lot of ghost stories about ships sunk by ramming. For example, a story very much like this took place twenty years *after* Marcy's text was published: On June 22, 1893, HMS Camperdown, in a confused practice maneuver involving an admiral showing off, rammed HMS Victoria, causing the latter to sink with the loss of 358 men including the admiral. Camperdown survived, but was put into reserve roles not long after, and was broken up in 1911 although she was only 22 years old.
And there is a ghost associated with the story: According to Peter Underwood's Gazetteer of British, Scottish & Irish Ghosts, p. 135, shortly after the Victoria sank, the ghost of the admiral aboard, George Tryon, was seen at the home of Lady Tryon in London. - RBW
File: LD16

Ghostly Fisherman, The

See The Ghostly Crew [Laws D16] (File: LD16)

Ghostly Lover, The

See Rise Up Quickly and Let Me In (The Ghostly Lover) (File: Ord089)

Ghostly Sailors, The

See The Ghostly Crew [Laws D16] (File: LD16)

Ghostly Seamen, The

See The Ghostly Crew [Laws D16] (File: LD16)

Gideon's Band

See Old Uncle Noah (File: E075)

Giein' the Nowte Their Fother

DESCRIPTION: "As I rode in by yon bonnie waterside... there I spied a weel-faur'd maid, She was gien the nowte their fodder." He asks her to fancy him; she replies that she has no dowry. Next summer, he returns and asks again, and makes her a rich lady
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1876 (Christie)
KEYWORDS: courting marriage money
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Greig #72, pp. 1-2, "Giein' the Knowte Their Fother" (1 text)
GreigDuncan4 839, "Giein' the Knowte Their Fother" (6 texts, 4 tunes)
Ord, pp. 228-229, "Gien the Nowte Their Fodder" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: W. Christie, editor, Traditional Ballad Airs (Edinburgh, 1876 (downloadable pdf by University of Edinburgh, 2007)), Vol I, pp. 90-91, "The Laird of Southland's Courtship" (1 tune)
Roud #3934
NOTES: Christie's text, "improved" or not, at least shows that the ballad existed in some form as early as 1876. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord228

Gien the Nowte Their Fodder

See Giein' the Nowte Their Fother (File: Ord228)

Gigantic, The

DESCRIPTION: The schooner Gigantic, with a crew of six, leaves Newfoundland for Portugal and has a difficult crossing from October 22 until November 13. They land their cargo of fish and take on salt for the trip home.
AUTHOR: William Best (written 1917)
EARLIEST DATE: 1978 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: commerce sea ship ordeal
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 42, "The Gigantic" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: LeBe042

Gight's Ladye

See Geordie [Child 209] (File: C209)

Gil Brenton [Child 5]

DESCRIPTION: A lord is preparing to wed. His bride seeks to conceal the fact that she is not a virgin, but the truth -- that she had once slept with a lord in a wood -- comes out. It is then revealed that the man she slept with was her husband-to-be.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1882 (Child)
KEYWORDS: marriage seduction trick disguise
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Child 5, "Gil Brenton" (8 texts)
Bronson 5, Gil Brenton" (3 versions)
Randolph 13, "The Little Page Boy" (1 fragmentary text, 1 tune, which Randolph places with "Child Waters" though it also has lines from the "Cospatrick" version of "Gil Brenton" and is so short it might go with something else)
Leach, pp. 59-63, "Gil Brenton" (1 text)
OBB 5, "Cospatrick" (1 text)
PBB 42, "Gil Brenton" (1 text)
DBuchan 1, "Gil Brenton" (1 text, 1 tune in appendix) {Bronson's #1}
DT, GILBRENT*
Roud #22
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Willie's Lady" [Child 6] (lyrics)
NOTES: Sir Walter Scott's version of this (Child's B) names the hero "Cospatrick," which Scott lists as the name of the Earl of Dunbar around the time of Edward I of England. The name was still used in Child's time for members of the Dunbar line.
The name, however, is older; there were at least two significant figures named Cospatrick (the spelling of Mitchison, p. 16, Oram, p. 58) or Gospatrick (so Barlow-Edward, p. 137, etc.; Barlow-Rufus, p. 295; Swanton, pp. 202-203) around the time of the Norman Conquest.
The first Cospatrick seems to have been an Anglo-Saxon thegn (thane); he was killed at the court of Edward the Confessor in 1064, although probably not at that king's command (Barlow-Edward, p. 235).
The other Cospatricks were northern Earls; it's not clear how many of them there were. According to Barlow-Edward, p. 235n., an Earl Utrecht of "Northumbria" was murdered in 1016, leaving several sons, Cospatrick being the third. Barlow doubts that this is the same as the preceding, although it is just chronologically possible. The same note mentions another Cospatrick who was with Tostig, the brother of the future King Harold II Godwinson, when Tostig visited Rome in 1061.
There was also a Cospatrick who was Lord of Allerdale and Dalston in the time of Edward the Confessor (Barlow-Edward, p. 137n.). Barlow speculates that this might have been the Cospatrick who was murdered at Edward's court.
Finally, in 1067-1068, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions a Jarl (Earl) Cospatrick who was active in the north of England (Swanton, pp. 202, 204). But, theoretically, the earl of Northumbria at this time was supposed to be Morcar (Morkere), who had been appointed late in the reign of Edward the Confessor.
Northumbria and Cumbria and Lothian were at this time rather debatable properties (England in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest had largely lost control of the north, because William the Conqueror didn't have enough Normans to colonize and control the north; Barlow-William, p. 297). Both Malcolm III King of Scots and the king of England had some claims to these terrotories (the simplest explanation being that Malcolm was their direct overlord but held them as a vassal of the King of England. But Malcolm, who was always fighting the English, probably would not have seen it that way). If this Earl Cospatrick was the same as the preceding, he should perhaps be regarded as Earl of Cumbria rather than Northumberland. Or maybe he was Malcolm's earl, or maybe he ruled the area north of the Tweed. Obviously it is all pretty vague.
Mitchison, p. 16, for instance, mentions a Cospatrick who was apparently a Saxon claimant to one or another northern English earldom in 1069, and whose son held Cumberland until William II of England conquered it in 1092. It was presumably this Cospatrick whose daughter Octreda married Duncan (II), the oldest son of Malcolm III of Scotland (Barlow-Rufus, p. 295; Oram, p. 58). When Malcolm died, he was succeeded by his brother Donald Ban. Duncan in 1094 invaded Scotland and took the throne, but was killed later that year; Octreda and her son William fled to England (Oram, p. 58), where William and descendants later put in an unsuccessful claim to the Scottish throne (the "FitzWilliam" claim).
It seems unlikely that any of this has a genuine connection to the ballad; I mention it mostly to demonstrate the point that there really were a lot of Cospatricks/Gospatricks. It is interesting to note, however, that Cospatrick is said in Child B brought his wife from over the sea. Might this be a sign of the Saxon earl marrying a Norman wife?
Of course, the "Cospatrick" text is Walter Scott's, and seems to be almost unknown in other forms of the ballad. Might this have been Scott's insertion to memorialize a famous local lord?
Again, several instances of the ballad mention violence by the groom against the bride on their wedding night; this sounds much like the Thousand and One Nights, but there is unlikely to be a direct connection. - RBW
Bibliography

Barlow-Edward: Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor (one of the English Monarchs series), University of California Press, 1970.
Barlow-Rufus: Frank Barlow, William Rufus (one of the Yale English Monarchs series), 1983, 1990, 2000 (I use the 2000 Yale paperback edition)
Mitchison: Rosalind Mitchison, A History of Scotland, second edition, Methuen, 1982
Oram: Richard Oram, editor, The Kings & Queens of Scotland, 2001 (I use the 2006 Tempus paperback edition)
Swanton: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, translated and edited by Michael Swanton, 1996 (I use the 1998 Routledge edition)

Last updated in version 2.5
File: C005

Gil Morissy

See Child Maurice [Child 83] (File: C083)

Gila Monster Route, The

DESCRIPTION: A hobo is left behind by the train. The poem recalls his history: He and his pal, given a handout, used it for wine rather than food, got drunk, and were arrested. Set free, the hobo wanders until he catches another train
AUTHOR: L. F. Post and Glenn Norton
EARLIEST DATE: 1934
KEYWORDS: hobo travel prison drink
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lomax-ABFS, pp. 24-26, "The Gila Monster Route" (1 text)
Roud #9924
NOTES: This is not even a song (let alone a traditional song); it is a poem published in Railroad Man's Magazine. I cannot for the life of me tell why the Lomaxes reprinted it; apart from a liberal use of railroad slang, it has very little to commend it. - RBW
File: LxA024

Gilderoy

DESCRIPTION: "Gilderoy was as bonny a boy as e'er cam tae the glen." The singer describes his charms and how lovingly he once cared for her. He taken as an outlaw. He is convicted (falsely, in her mind) and hanged because the laws were so strict
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1725 (an isolated stanza appears in "Westminster Drollery," 1671)
KEYWORDS: love outlaw trial execution
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1636? - execution of "Gilderoy," aka Patrick McGregour, in Edinburgh
FOUND IN: US(So) Britain(Scotland) Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (7 citations):
Percy/Wheatley I, pp. 318-323, "Gilderoy" (1 text)
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 27-31, "Gilderoy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Greenleaf/Mansfield 63, "Gilderoy" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 40-41, "Gilderoy" (1 fragmentary text, 1 tune, connected with the Scottish ballad more by the tune than the text)
BBI, ZN955, "Gilderoy was a bonny boy"; ZN1821, "My love he was as brave a man"
DT, GILDROY
ADDITIONAL: Walter de la Mare, _Come Hither_, revised edition, 1928; #87, "My Handsome Gilderoy" (1 text)
Roud #1486
BROADSIDES:
NLScotland, S.302b.2(020), "Gilderoy," unknown, after 1700
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Salisbury Plain" (theme)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
I Blowed Her with My Horn
NOTES: Claude Simpson, The British Broadside Ballad and Its Music, pp. 252 ff., [notes that Gilderoy] seems to have been so glorified that he appears in historical legends not long after [his execution]. Simpson cites a broadside ballad printed "in the 1690s..." "probably written much earlier," entitled "The Scotch Lover's Lamentation: or, Gilderoy's Last Farewell... To an excellent new Tune, much in request." That ballad begins, "Gilderoy was a bonny boy." It is to be found in Pepys, Craford, Bagford and A Collection of Old Ballads, 1723-1725. - EC
William Rose Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia has this to say:
"Gilderoy. A famous cattle-stealer and highwayman of Perthshire, who is said to have robbed Cardinal Richelieu [died 1642] in the presence of the King, picked Oliver Cromwell's pocket [Cromwell, however, was not of any note in 1636, and had not yet led his armies into Scotland], and hanged a judge. He was hanged in 1636.... Some authorities say there were two robbers by this name."
David Brandon's Stand and Deliver: A History of Highway Robbery (p. 76) gives another version of this, but with a twist: the robber is named "Gilders Roy." Brandon reports that "when he stopped a judge... his gang stripped his two footmen, tied them up and threw them into a pond, whereupon they drowned. Roy himself smashed the judge's carriage, shot the horses, and then hanged his hapless victim." Right. Shoot valuable horses?
Much of this seems to be derived from Percy, but Wheatley adds a much less flattering commentary: "The subject of this ballad was a ruffian totally unworthy of the poetic honours given him.... [H]e was betrayed by his mistress Peg Cunningham, and captured after killing eight of the men sent against him, and stabbing the woman...
"He was one of the proscribed Clan Gregor, and a notorious lifter of cattle in the Highlands of Pethshire for some time before 1636. In February of that year seven of his accomplices were taken, tried, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh.... [I]n July, 1636, [he] was hanged with five accomplices at the Gallowlee."
The National Library of Scotland site, however, lists his death year as 1638.
Ford lists certain others of his exploits; he too is cautious about their veracity.
Sam Hinton notes the most likely source for the robber's name (cf. Ford): "Gilderoy" could be a corruption of Gaelic "Giolla Ruadh" ("Gillie Roy") -- "red-haired boy."
There is another piece called "Gilderoy" in the Scots Musical Museum (#66); this is probably a rewrite based on the traditional tune. I strongly doubt it ever went into tradition itself; it begins "Ah! Chloris, cou'd I now but sit As unconcern'd as when Your infant beauty could beget No happiness, nor pain!" - RBW
File: RL040

Giles Collins

See Lady Alice [Child 85] (File: C085)

Giles Corey

DESCRIPTION: "Come all New England men And hearken unto me And I will tell what did befalle Upon the Gallows tree." "In Salem village was the place." "This Goody Corey was a witch." Wife and husband are accused; he is pressed to death and she is hung
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1958 (Burt)
KEYWORDS: witch execution
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1692 - Salem Witch Trials
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Burt, pp. 105-108, "Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey -- a Ballad of 1692" (1 text)
NOTES: Salem did not invent accusations of witchcraft; Samuel Elliot Morrison reports that there had been 44 witchcraft trials, and three executions, prior to 1692.
But in that year, 14 women and five men were hanged, with Giles Corey, as the broadside states, being pressed to death (i.e. having weights placed on him until he suffocated). Four others died in prison, and hundreds more were awaiting trial when sanity prevailed. - RBW
File: Burt105

Giles Scroggins

DESCRIPTION: "Giles Scroggins courted Molly Brown... If you love me as I love you, No knife can cut our love in two." "But scissors cut as well as knives... For just as they were going to wed, Fate's scissors cut poor Giles's thread." She refuses his ghost in a dream
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1848 (Davidson's Universal Melodist)
KEYWORDS: love courting death ghost humorous
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Davis-Ballads 25, "[Appendix to] Lady Alice" (1 text)
Roud #1620
NOTES: Davis thinks this piece "evidently a burlesque of 'Giles Collins,'" and this is certainly possible. But it is so broad, and the plot so commonplace, that it could easily have arisen independently.
Davis also has notes on the authorship and various places it has appeared, mostly in broadside or songster form. He admits that the attributions are all uncertain. It's not clear if the song ever really went into tradition, but it certainly was printed frequently. - RBW
File: DavB025

Gilgarrah Mountain

See Whisky in the Jar (The Irish Robber A) [Laws L13A]/The Irish Robber B (McCollister) [Laws L13B] (File: LL13)

Gill Morice

See Child Maurice [Child 83] (File: C083)

Gill Morrice

See Child Maurice [Child 83] (File: C083)

Gill Stoup, The

DESCRIPTION: "What a mischief whisky's done ... Brings muckle grief at hame." Jake gets drunk and sets out "owre the ragin' main." Soldier Tam draws his pay but he and Soldier John drink it all. A husband buys meal at the mill but sells the sack to buy whisky.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: drink nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 597, GreigDuncan8 Addenda, "Weary on the Gill Stoup" (3 texts, 2 tunes)
Roud #6047
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 17(109a), "The Gill Stoup" ("O weary on the gill stoup"), Sanderson (Edinburgh), 1830-1910
ALTERNATE TITLES:
What a Mischief Whisky's Done
NOTES: Broadside Bodleian Harding B 17(109a) is the basis for the description. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3597

Gimme de Banjo

DESCRIPTION: Shanty. Characteristic line: "Dance, gal, gimme de banjo!" The singer "was sent to school fer to be a scholar," but had no success and left his books to others. (Now he is at sea picking the banjo)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1951
KEYWORDS: shanty sailor music
FOUND IN: US(MA)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Doerflinger, p. 45, "Gimme de Banjo" (1 text, 1 tune)
Hugill, p. 341, "Gimme de Banjo" (2 texts, 1 tune) [AbEd, pp. 256-257]
ST Doe045 (Partial)
Roud #9437
File: Doe045

Gin Ye See My Lad Kiss Him and Clap Him

DESCRIPTION: "Gin ye see my lad kiss him and clap him, And tell him that I was bookit [registered as betrothed in the session records] the streen."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: courting nonballad marriage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1344, "Gin Ye See My Lad Kiss Him and Clap Him" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #7225
NOTES: The current description is based on the GreigDuncan7 fragment and the GreigDuncan7 [gloss]. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71344

Gin Ye Wed a Bonnie Wife

DESCRIPTION: "Gin ye wed a bonnie wife Little sleep will sair [GreigDuncan8: serve] ye"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: marriage wife
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1920, "Gin Ye Wed a Bonnie Wife" (1 fragment)
Roud #15120
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 fragment.
Scottish proverb: "He that has a bonnie wife needs mair than twa een" (source: Andrew Henderson, Scottish Proverbs (London, 1876 ("Digitized by Google")), p. 61). - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81920

Ginger Blue

DESCRIPTION: Walky, talky, Ginger Blue, White man run, but the nigger he flew." "Wakin' talkin' Jinger Blue, I can tell you might true, I'm just from the Tennessee mountains. Take a drink of beer as sweet as water That flows from the Tennessee fountains."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1926 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: nonballad
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Randolph 298, "Ginger Blue" (1 fragmentary text)
BrownIII 496, "Jinger Blue" (1 fragmentary text)
Roud #11762
RECORDINGS:
Charlie Oaks, "Ginger Blue" (Vocalion 15344, 1926)
Arthur Tanner, "Dr. Ginger Blue" (Columbia 15479-D, 1929)
NOTES: The notes in Brown suggest that his text (the "Jinger Blue" version) might be derived from "Walkin' in the Parlor" as well as the nineteenth century pop song "Ginger Blue." Possible -- but with only a fragment, it's beyond proof. - RBW
File: R298

Gipsies

See The Lost Lady Found [Laws Q31] (File: LQ31)

Gipsy Laddie O

See The Gypsy Laddie [Child 200] (File: C200)

Gipsy's Warning, The

See My Irish Molly-O (File: FSC062)

Girl and the Oysters, The

See The Oyster Girl [Laws Q13] (File: LQ13)

Girl from Clahandine

DESCRIPTION: Before the singer leaves for America he bids his friends adieu and tearfully leaves his girl. He finds no one in America as true or kind as the girl he left behind. When he has enough gold he'll return to marry her and settle in a cottage in Clahandine.
AUTHOR: Tom Flanagan (source: notes to IRClare01)
EARLIEST DATE: 1974 (IRClare01)
KEYWORDS: poverty love parting America Ireland emigration
FOUND IN: Ireland
Roud #18474
RECORDINGS:
Michael Flanagan, "Girl from Clahandine" (on IRClare01)
NOTES: Notes to IRClare01: ."..it has obviously been re-written from the popular 'The Girl I Left Behind' to place its location around North Clare. Saint Bridget's Well [he was born near there] is at Liscannor a few miles south of Luogh."
The verse structure, final line of two verses, and a few other lines follow Laws P1A but the story line does not follow any "The Girl I Left Behind" that I know. - BS
File: RcGiFCla

Girl from Turfahun, The

DESCRIPTION: "Ye bards may sing your sweetest lays In praise of beauty's grace...." The singer went to Ballycastle fair, where he sees a beautiful girl. They meet again at a dance, and during a pause, he asks her name. He learns she is married. He laments
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1933 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: love courting beauty husband wife
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H521, p. 372, "The Girl from Turfahun" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #6887
File: HHH521

Girl I Left Behind (I), The [Laws P1A/B]

DESCRIPTION: Two lovers promise to be faithful. He then sets out on a voyage. Before they can be reunited, one or the other proves unfaithful. (In Laws's "A" texts, the man marries a Scottish girl and his love dies of a broken heart; in "B" texts, the girl is untrue)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1842 (Forget-Me-Not Songster)
KEYWORDS: courting promise infidelity separation
FOUND IN: US(Ap,MA,MW,Ro,SE,So) Canada(Mar,Newf) Britain(Scotland(Aber)) Ireland Australia
REFERENCES (38 citations):
Laws P1A/B "The Girl I Left Behind"
Greig #83, p. 1, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text)
GreigDuncan5 1059, "The Girl I Left Behind" (12 texts, 8 tunes)
Belden, pp. 198-200, "Peggy Walker" (3 texts)
Randolph 283, "The Girl I Left Behind" (4 texts, 1 tune. Laws assigns Randolph's A text to P1A and B, C, and D to P1B)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 101-104, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 64A)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 434-440, "The Girl I Left Behind" (5 texts, 1 tune)
BrownII 145, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (5 texts plus 1 excerpt and mention of 1 more. Laws lists the "A" and B" texts as P1A and "C," "D," "F," and "G" as P1B)
Chappell-FSRA 79, "My Parents Reared Me Tenderly" (1 text)
Doerflinger, pp. 305-206, "The Maid I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Wyman-Brockway I, p. 76, "Peggy Walker" (1 text, 1 tune)
FSCatskills 39, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
SharpAp 96, "My Parents Treated Me Tenderly" (6 texts, 6 tunes)
Cambiaire, pp. 47-49, "The Girl I Left on New River" (1 text)
SHenry H188, p. 401, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Warner 148, "My Parents Raised Me Tenderly" (1 text, 1 tune)
Gardner/Chickering 28, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text plus mention of 1 more, 1 tune)
Dean, p. 10, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text)
Peacock, pp. 449-452, "The Girl I Left Behind" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Creighton-Maritime, pp. 76-77, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 47, "Peggy Walker" (1 text, 1 tune)
Leach-Labrador 134, "Jennie Ferguson" (1 text, 1 tune); 138, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Manny/Wilson 70, "the Girl I Left Behind (Janey Ferguson)" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ryan/Small, p. 134, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text, a single stanza probably of a version rewritten for seal-hunting, but with only four lines, it can hardly be separated from the main song)
McNeil-SFB1, pp. 106-109, "The Broken-hearted Boy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Meredith/Anderson, p. 50, "The Rich Old Farmer" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 165, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Cohen/Seeger/Wood, p. 38, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 62, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (2 texts, 1 tune, with the "A" text, although mixed and westernized, probably belonging here and the "B" text being the lyric piece); 63, "My Parents Raised Me Tenderly" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ohrlin-HBT 84, "The Girl I Left in Missouri" (1 text, 1 tune)
JHCox 85, "My Parents Reared Me Tenderly" (1 text)
SHenry H188, pp. 401-402, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ord, pp. 45-47, "I'll Ne'er Forget the Parting" (1 text, 1 tune)
MacSeegTrav 65, "The Girl I Left Behind" (1 text, 1 tune)
Shay-SeaSongs, pp. 202-203, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text, 1 tune)
Spaeth-ReadWeep, pp. 16-17, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 114, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text)
DT 338, GIRLEFT (GIRLEFT2* -- perhaps a mixed version, with the text of Laws P1 and the tune of the playparty?) GIRLLFT6*
Roud #262
RECORDINGS:
Jules [Verne] Allen, "The Gal I Left Behind" (Victor V-40022, 1929; on WhenIWas2)
Clint Howard et al, "Maggie Walker Blues" (on Ashley02, WatsonAshley01)
Dock Boggs, "Peggy Walker" (on Boggs3, BoggsCD1)
[G. B.] Grayson & [Henry] Whitter, "I've Always Been a Rambler" (Gennett, unissued, 1928) (Victor V-40324, 1928; on GraysonWhitter01, LostProv1, ConstSor1)
Harry Jackson, "The Gal I Left Behind" (on HJackson1)
Billie Maxwell, "The Arizona Girl I Left Behind" (Victor V-40188, 1930; on MakeMe)
Pleaz Mobley, "My Parents Raised Me Tenderly" (AFS; on LC12)
Spencer Moore, "The Girl I Left Behind" (on LomaxCD1700, LomaxCD1702)
New Lost City Ramblers, "I've Always Been a Rambler" (on NLCR13, NLCRCD2)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth b.26(187), "Margaret Walker" ("My parents raised me tenderly having no child but me"), S. Russell (Birmingham), 1840-1851; also Firth b.25(478), "Margaret Walker"; Firth c.26(280), "Girl I Left Behind"; Harding B 11(2237), Firth c.14(210), "The Lover's Lament" or "The Girl I Left Behind Me"
Murray, Mu23-y1:050, "The Girl I Left Behind Me," James Lindsay (Glasgow), 19C, with the unhappy ending left off
NLScotland, L.C.1270(015), "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now for America I am bound, Against my inclination"), unknown, c. 1880, with the unhappy ending left off
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Girl I Left Behind Me (III)" (tune)
SAME TUNE:
The Girl I Left Behind Me (by Thomas Davis) (Kathleen Hoagland, editor, One Thousand Years of Irish Poetry (New York, 1947), pp. 471-472)
NOTES: In addition to this ballad form, there is a song with this title (indexed as "The Girl I Left Behind Me (lyric)"). As the two have cross-fertilized (often, e.g., sharing the latter's tune "Brighton Camp"), the reader is advised to check both songs for completeness. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LP01

Girl I Left Behind Me (II), The (lyric)

DESCRIPTION: The singer recalls the girl he left behind, and now plans to return to her, even if it involves losing his job. He reminisces: "Oh, that girl, that sweet little girl, The girl I left behind me, With rosy cheeks and curly hair, The girl I left behind me."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1825 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 28(66)); (tune "Brighton Camp" dated by Chappell to 1758)
KEYWORDS: separation love return nonballad playparty
FOUND IN: US(NE,So)
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Randolph 546, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Hudson 98, pp. 229-230, "The Gal I Left Behind Me" (1 text)
Lomax-ABFS, pp. 280-282, "The Gal I Left Behind Me," "That Pretty Little Gal" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 62, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (2 texts, 1 tune, with the "B" text belonging here and the "A" text being a Westernized form of Laws P1)
Chappell/Wooldridge II, pp. 187-189, "Brighton Camp, or, The Girl I've Left Behind Me" (1 tune, partial text)
Linscott, pp. 79-80, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 tune plus dance instructions)
Hill-CivWar, pp. 226-227, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text, a Civil War adaption)
Silber-FSWB, p. 281, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (1 text)
Fuld-WFM, pp. 242-244, "The Girl I Left Behind Me"
DT, GIRLLFT4* GIRLLFT5* GRLBHNDZ
Roud #4497
RECORDINGS:
Anonymous singer, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (on Unexp1)
Bull Mountain Moonshiners, "Johnny Goodwin" (Victor 21141, 1927; on TimesAint05)
Vernon Dalhart, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (Columbia 437-D, 1925)
Uncle Dave Macon, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (Vocalion 15034, 1925)
Pete Seeger, "Girl I Left Behind" (on PeteSeeger24) (on PeteSeeger40)
Gid Tanner & his Skillet Lickers, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (Columbia 15170-D, 1927)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 28(66), "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("I am lonesome since I cross'd the hills"), W. Armstrong (Liverpool), 1820-1824; also Harding B 16(330b), Harding B 18(570), Harding B 11(1322), Harding B 26(214), "[The] Girl I Left Behind Me"; Harding B 11(455), Firth c.20(167)[many illegible words], "Brighton Camp" or "The Girl I Left Behind Me"
LOCSinging, cw102000, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("I'm lonesome since I cross'd the hills"), J. Andrews (New York), 1853-1859; also cw102010, as201170, sb20156a, as104460, as107220, as10446a, "The Girl I Left Behind Me"

CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Brighton Camp" (tune)
cf. "The Wayward Boy" (tune)
cf. "The Battle of the Windmill" (tune)
cf. "The Waxies' Dargle" (tune)
cf. "When I Look Back to Bonny Aberdeen" (tune)
NOTES: The tune "Brighton Camp," suitable for playparties, dances, and all sorts of fun occasions, seems to have sustained a variety of texts which then became intermixed. Some may even have cross-fertilized with the ballad "The Girl I Left Behind" [Laws P1]. The reader is advised to check all these sources to get a complete cross-section.
W. Bruce Olson contributed extensive notes to the Digital Tradition regarding the origin of the tune, arguing against Chappell's date.
The Folksinger's Wordbook credits this piece to Samuel Lover, who did indeed publish a set of lyrics in 1855. But it seems likely he just touched up an existing piece, as the tune and the title are older. - RBW
Broadside LOCSinging cw102000: J. Andrews dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: R546

Girl I Left Behind Me (III), The

DESCRIPTION: The singer is bound for Baltimore but still thinks about "the girl I left behind me. My friends they sent me off for fear I'd wed a steam-loom weaver ... Sweet Helen, dear, tho' far from thee,Our hearts will ne'er be parted." He returns to Glasgow.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 19C (broadside, Murray Mu23-y1:050)
KEYWORDS: love emigration separation America
FOUND IN:
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding 2806 c.15(254), "Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now for America I'm bound")," unknown, n.d.; also Harding B 26(215), "Girl I Left Behind Me"; Harding B 19(86), also "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now I am bound for a foreign land"), W. Birmingham (Dublin), c.1867; also 2806 b.10(65), "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now I am bound for a foreign land")
Murray, Mu23-y1:050, "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now for America I'm bound"), James Lindsay (Glasgow), 19C
NLScotland, L.C.1270(015), "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("Now for America I'm bound"), unknown, c.1880
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (tune, per broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(215))
NOTES: The "Now I am bound for a foreign land" broadsides have the singer leave Bantry [Clonmel in Anderson, Farewell to Judges & Juries] rather than Glasgow, head for Sydney instead of Baltimore, and spend his exile in Van Diemen's Land, rather than America.
Broadside NLScotland L.C.1270(015) lacks the happy ending. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: BrTGILB3

Girl I Left Behind Me (IV), The

See The Wicklow Rangers (File: OLoc018)

Girl I Left Behind Me (V), The

DESCRIPTION: The war with France is over and, after ten years, the sailors "now return to embrace The partners of their bosoms." The singer plans to "spend my life to live and love The Girl I left behind me." When their lives are over they'll be together in heaven.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1839 (broadside, Bodleian Firth b.25(83))
KEYWORDS: love war reunion nonballad sailor
FOUND IN:
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth b.25(83), "The Girl I Left Behind Me" ("The wars are o'er, and gentle peace"), J. Catnach (London), 1813-1838; also Firth c.13(244), Firth b.25(36), Harding B 11(2738), "The Girl I Left Behind Me"; Harding B 11(2068), Harding B 15(168a), "The Lass I Left Behind Me"
File: BdGILB5

Girl I Left Behind Me (VI), The

DESCRIPTION: Singer bids farewell to his beloved and departs for the war. He shares "the glory of that fight." He swears that if he does not return, "Dishonor's breath shall never stain/The name I leave behind me." The girl may tell how she will miss him if he dies
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (recording, Lloyd & Howard Massey)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Singer bids farewell to his beloved -- "I breathed the vows that bind me" -- and departs for the war. He shares "the glory of that fight." He looks forward to the day of victory and to being reunited with his love, but swears that if he does not return, "Dishonor's breath shall never stain/The name I leave behind me." In one version the voice then shifts to the girl: "He don't come it'll break my heart/And a-almost run me crazy"
KEYWORDS: virtue love marriage promise army battle Civilwar war farewell parting return reunion separation lover wife soldier
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DT, GIRLLFT7
RECORDINGS:
Dr. Lloyd & Howard Maxey [Massey], "The Girl I Left Behind Me" (OKeh 45150, 1927)
NOTES: The Digital Tradition entry assigns a keyword of "Irish" to this, but they also state that it's from "Songs of the Seventh Cavalry" (published by the Bismarck Tribune); it certainly has the ring of an American Civil War piece to my ears. As the DT entry is undated, I use the Masseys' recording for Earliest Date. - PJS
There are of course two other famous girls left behind: the lyric based on the tune "Brighton Camp," and the Laws P1, which he confusingly gives this title ("I've Always Been a Rambler" might have been a better title). The simple presence of this key line seems to cause some interchange of lyrics; best to check them all if you're looking for all instances. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: DtGLFT7

Girl I Left in Missouri, The

See The Girl I Left Behind [Laws P1A/B] (File: LP01)

Girl I Left in Sunny Tennessee, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer is happily returning home to see the girl he left behind. He recalls the joyful times in Tennessee. Finally the train pulls into his hometown, and he sees his relatives but not Mary. His mother tells him that Mary is dead and in her grave
AUTHOR: Harry Braisted and Stanley Carter
EARLIEST DATE: 1899 (copyright; first recording by Byron Harlan)
KEYWORDS: love separation return death
FOUND IN: US(MW,So)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Dean, pp. 86-86. "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (1 text)
Randolph 810, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (1 text)
Rorrer, p. 69, "The Girl I Left in Sunny Tennessee" (1 text)
Roud #4290
RECORDINGS:
Morgan Denmon, "Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (OKeh 45105, 1927)
[Byron] Harlan & [Frank] Stanley, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (Columbia 257, 1901)
Byron G. Harlan, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (CYL: Edison 5716, c. 1899)
Wade Mainer, "The Girl I Left In Sunny Tennessee" (King 1093, 1952)
Asa Martin & James Roberts, "Sunny Tennessee" (Banner 32306, 1931; Conqueror 7935, 1932; rec. 1931)
Peerless Quartet, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (Victor 19390, 1924)
Charlie Poole and the North Carolina Ramblers, "The Girl I Left in Sunny Tennessee" (Columbia 15043-D, 1925; on CPoole04)
Red Fox Chasers, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (Gennett 6930/Supertone 9497, 1929)
Walter Scanlan, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (Edison 51893, 1927)
Ernest V. Stoneman "The Girl I Left in Sunny Tennessee" (Challenge 151, 1927); "The Girl I Left Behind in Sunny Tennessee" (Challenge 151/Gennett 3368/Herwin 75529, 1926)
Sweet & Zimmerman, "The Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee" (CYL: Edison 7414, 1900)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Bull Dog Down in Tennessee" (tune, subject of parody)
cf. "Down on the Farm (II)" (theme)
cf. "I'll Be There, Mary Dear" (theme)
SAME TUNE:
Bull Dog Down in Tennessee (File: RcBDDITe)
File: R810

Girl I Left on New River, The

See The Girl I Left Behind [Laws P1A/B] (File: LP01)

Girl I Loved in Sunny Tennessee, The

See The Girl I Left in Sunny Tennessee (File: R810)

Girl in Portland Street, The

DESCRIPTION: Sailor meets a girl and they go about courting/seducing each other. Refrain of "Fal-de-lol-day" throughout. This has some of the anatomical progression verses of "Yo Ho, Yo Ho." Harlow's version ends with the sailor discovering the girl has a cork leg.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1961 (Hugill)
KEYWORDS: shanty bawdy humorous
FOUND IN: US Britain
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Harlow, pp. 70-71, "A Fal-De-Lal-Day" (1 text, 1 tune)
Hugill, pp. 54-55, "The Girl In Portland Street" (1 text, 1 tune) [AbEd, pp. 50-51]
Roud #9162
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Fol-de-lol-day
NOTES: Harlow says that the first refrain of this was often whistled rather than sung. - SL
File: Hugi054

Girl in the Army, A

See Bonnie Jean O' Aberdeen, She Lang'd for a Baby (File: OOx2183)

Girl in the Blue Velvet Band, The

See The Black Velvet Band (I) (File: R672)

Girl of Constant Sorrow

DESCRIPTION: Singer tells of leaving her mother (now dead) and her home in Kentucky so that her children could be fed. She then describes the coal miners' poor food, homes and clothing; she is sure "if there's a heaven/That the miners will be there"
AUTHOR: Words: Sara Ogan Gunning / tune "Man of Constant Sorrow" (Emry Arthur?)
EARLIEST DATE: before 1950 (recording by author)
KEYWORDS: separation mining hardtimes poverty family worker derivative
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greenway-AFP, pp. 1168-169, "I Am a Girl of Constant Sorrow" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 128, "Girl of Constant Sorrow" (1 text)
DT, CONSTSR2*
Roud #499
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Man of Constant Sorrow" (structure, tune)
NOTES: Although the source lists a copyright date of 1965, I'm certain [this] was recorded on a Library of Congress field recording in the 1930s or 1940s. - PJS
File: FSWB128B

Girl on the Greenbriar Shore, The

DESCRIPTION: Singer leaves his home, despite his brokenhearted mother's warnings, for the girl on the greenbriar shore. The girl leaves him, and he remembers his mother's words -- "Never trust a girl on the greenbriar shore."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1941 (recording, Carter Family)
KEYWORDS: love warning abandonment
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Cohen/Seeger/Wood, pp. 54-55, "The Girl on the Greenbriar Shore" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 165, "The Girl On The Greenbriar Shore" (1 text)
DT, GRNBRIR3*
RECORDINGS:
The Carter Family, "The Girl On The Greenbriar Shore" (Bluebird B-8947, 1941)
NOTES: For the (fragile) relationship between this piece and "The New River Shore (The Green Brier Shore; The Red River Shore)" [Laws M26], see the notes on that piece. - RBW
File: CSW054

Girl that Wore a Waterfall, The [Laws H26]

DESCRIPTION: The singer sees a pretty girl who "wore a waterfall." Eventually he walks her home, where he encounters her husband. The singer is beaten black and blue and relieved of watch and money. He says he will no longer approach girls with waterfalls!
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: courting hair punishment fight
FOUND IN: US(Ap,SE,So)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Laws H26, "The Girl That Wore a Waterfall"
Randolph 389, "The Girl with the Waterfall" (1 text, 1 tune)
McNeil-SFB2, pp. 44-46, "The Girl That Wore a Waterfall" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 64, "The Girl That Wore a Waterfall" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, WATERFL2
Roud #2189
NOTES: The "waterfall" as a hair style came into vogue in 1845, and continued to be used until shortly after the Civil War. Randolph describes it as "a mass of artificially curled hair, worn at the back of the head, arranged about a nucleus of false hair known as a 'rat.'" The word can also refer to a neck scarf.
The popularity of the song is evidenced by a reference to it in the Canadian song "Hogan's Lake." - RBW
File: LH26

Girl Volunteer, The (The Cruel War Is Raging) [Laws O33]

DESCRIPTION: (Johnny) has been ordered off to war. His sweetheart begs to go with him. He refuses her; military service would fade her beauty. She offers to buy his release; this too fails. (In some versions Johnny relents and allows her to come.)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: war soldier separation love cross-dressing
FOUND IN: US(Ap,SE,So)
REFERENCES (11 citations):
Laws O33, "The Girl Volunteer"
Belden, pp. 177-180, "Lisbon" (3 texts, of which this is the third, to which Belden does not assign a letter; the first two are "William and Nancy (I) (Lisbon; Men's Clothing I'll Put On I)" [Laws N8])
Randolph 44, "Johnny Must Fight" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 94-95, "Johnny Must Fight" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 44B)
BrownII 100, "The Girl Volunteer" (1 text)
SharpAp 113, "The Warfare is Raging" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Combs/Wilgus 109, pp. 178-179, "I'm Going to Join the Army" (1 text)
Fuson, p. 104, "Johnny" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 272, "The Cruel War Is Raging" (1 text)
Darling-NAS, pp. 131-132, "May I Go With You, Johnny?" (1 text)
DT 487, CRUELWAR* CRUELWR2*
Roud #401
RECORDINGS:
Louise Foreacre, "The War Is A-Raging" (on Stonemans01)
Aunt Polly Joines, "The Warfare is A-Raging" (on Persis1)
Pete Steele, "The War Is A-Ragin' For Johnny" (on PSteele01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Manchester Angel"
cf. "Jack Monroe" [Laws N7]
cf. "William and Nancy (I) (Lisbon; Men's Clothing I'll Put On I)" [Laws N8]
cf. "The Banks of the Nile (Men's Clothing I'll Put On II)" [Laws N9]
cf. "High Germany"
cf. "Oh! No, No" (theme: sweetheart tries to convince soldier to let her accompany him)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Cruel War
NOTES: The Combs version of this song contains a reference to Pensacola -- the port from which many American troops set out for Cuba during the Spanish-American war (1898). The song is clearly much older than that, however. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LO33

Girl Who Never Would Wed, The

See The Courting Case (File: R361)

Girl Who Was Drowned at Onslow, The

DESCRIPTION: What mournful news that we did hear." A girl is drowned in an icy stream. After a three day search her body is found. Her true love and parents mourn.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Mackenzie)
KEYWORDS: drowning mourning family river
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Mackenzie 154, "The Girl Who Was Drowned at Onslow" (1 text)
Roud #3287
NOTES: Mackenzie says this "true song" is about an accident in the farming community of Onslow "at the head of Cobequid Bay in Colchester County" Nova Scotia.
This song is item dG42 in Laws's Appendix II. - BS
File: Mack154

Girl with the Black Velvet Band, The

See The Black Velvet Band (I) (File: R672)

Girl with the Blue Velvet Band, The

See The Black Velvet Band (I) (File: R672)

Girl with the Flowing Hair, The

DESCRIPTION: "My heart went pitty pitty patty As she passed me by so beautiful and fair. Oh, she winked at me with her soft blue eye, The girl with the flowing hair."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: hair beauty
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 175-176, "The Girl with the Flowing Hair" (1 tune, fragment of text)
File: MA175

Girl with the Waterfall, The

See The Girl that Wore a Waterfall [Laws H26] (File: LH26)

Girls o' Aiberdeen, The

DESCRIPTION: "I'll sing the flowers o' Don and Dee, The charming girls o' Aiberdeen." The Scottish lasses are better than the fair girls of England, but the girls of Aiberdeen are "far aboon them a'." "I loe the lasses ane and a'," but Aiberdeen girls best of all.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: beauty nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #70, p. 1, "The Girls o' Aiberdeen" (1 text)
GreigDuncan3 519, "The Girls o' Aiberdeen" (1 text)
Roud #6003
NOTES: The Dee and Don are rivers that flow into the North Sea at Aberdeen.
Greig #68 has the contributor say "he used to sing ["The Girls o' Aiberdeen"] in New Zealand in early days." - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3519

Girls of Coleraine, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer talks of "a sweet little spot in the county of Derry." He says there is no such town in all Ireland. He warns against girls of the city, or places like Killarney. But girls and boys of Coleraine never change. He blesses the town
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: home nonballad
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
SHenry H64, pp. 161-162, "The Girls from [of] Coleraine" (1 text, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: Richard Hayward, Ireland Calling (Glasgow,n.d.), p. 20, "The Girls of Coleraine" (text, music and reference to Decca F-2603 recorded Oct 4, 1931)
Roud #13460
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Teddy O'Neill" (tune)
NOTES: The date and master id (GB-3357-1) for Hayward's record is provided by Bill Dean-Myatt, MPhil. compiler of the Scottish National Discography. - BS
File: HHH064

Girls of Newfoundland, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer sailed from "a hot and sunny clime" for Harbour Grace thinking about "those girls from Newfoundland." Now the crew are home and "drink a health to all seamen bold" and enjoy the girls.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1958 (Peacock)
KEYWORDS: homesickness sex sea ship drink sailor
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Peacock, pp. 875-876, "The Girls of Newfoundland" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #9804
File: Pea875

Girls of the Shamrock Shore

DESCRIPTION: "It being in the spring when the small birds sing And the lambs do sport and play, I entered as a passenger To New South Wales sailed o'er...." Sentenced to transportation for fourteen years, the singer bids farewell to the girls of the Shamrock Shore
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: transportation separation parting
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Meredith/Anderson, p. 171, "The Girls of the Shamrock Shore" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 40-41, "The Girls of the Shamrock Shore" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GIRLSHAM*
Roud #3365
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Van Dieman's Land (II -- Young Henry's Downfall)" (floating lyrics)
cf. cf. "Scarborough Settler's Lament" (theme) and references there
cf. "The Shamrock Shore (The Maid of Mullaghmore)" (theme of separation -- not transportation -- and one verse)
File: MA171

Girls of Ulan, The

DESCRIPTION: "The girls from Ulan need no schoolin' For blucher boots are all the go. And how their hobnail boots they rattle On that hard and slippery floor, Like a mob of Queensland cattle On the rush at four...."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: clothes
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 213-214, "The Girls of Ulan" (1 text)
Meredith/Covell/Brown, p. 291, "Ulan Girls" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: It's not entirely clear whether these two songs are the same -- particularly since both are fragmentary. The first insults the Ulan girls, and has no tune; the second praises them. One may be a parody, or they may be complimentary fragments. For the moment, pending fuller versions, I'm lumping them together on the principle that they're about the same subject. - RBW
File: MA213

Girls of Valparaiso, The

See Rounding the Horn (File: VWL090)

Girls Won't Do to Trust, The

See The Boys Won't Do to Trust (File: R461)

Git Along, Josie

See Jim Along Josie (File: R575)

Git Along, Little Dogies

See Get Along, Little Dogies (File: R178)

Git Away, Old Man

See I Wouldn't Have an Old Man (File: R401)

Git Back Blues

See Black, Brown, and White (File: SBoA350)

Give Me a Hut

DESCRIPTION: "Oh, give me a hut in my own native land... I don't care how far in the bush it may be, If there's one faithful heart that will share it with me." The singer praises Australia and the life there, and hopes that someone will be willing to share said life
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1924 (Paterson's _Old Bush Songs_)
KEYWORDS: Australia marriage loneliness
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Meredith/Anderson, p. 137, "Native Mate" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 118-119, "Oh, Give Me a Hut" (1 text, 1 tune)
Manifold-PASB, p. 103, "Oh, Give Me a Hut" (1 text, 1 tune)
Meredith/Covell/Brown, pp. 255-256, "Australia for Me" (1 text, probably deliberately modified, 1 tune)
Paterson/Fahey/Seal, pp. 155-157, "Oh, Give Me a Hut in My Own Native Land" (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "My Gumtree Canoe" (tune)
File: MA137

Give Me That Old Time Religion

See That Old Time Religion (File: R628)

Give Me the Roses While I Live

DESCRIPTION: "Wonderful things of men are said, When they have passed away, Roses adorn the narrow bed, Over the sleeping clay. Give me the roses while I live... Useless are flowers that you give After the soul is gone." Encouraging companionship while still alive
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Sacred Harp, Denson Revision)
KEYWORDS: friend flowers religious nonballad death
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DT, GIVEROSE*
RECORDINGS:
The Carter Family, "Give Me Roses While I Live" (Victor Vi-23821)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "When I Leave These Earthly Shores" (theme of giving roses)
NOTES: In the Sacred Harp, this is given the tune-name Odem, after a friend of editor Thomas Denson. - RBW
File: RcGMTRWL

Give Me Three Grains of Corn, Mother

See Three Grains of Corn (File: San041)

Give the Dutch Room

DESCRIPTION: "Stand back, boys, and give the Dutch room." The singer describes how the Dutch fight hard in the campaign which culminates in the capture of Fort Smith.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1916 (Belden)
KEYWORDS: Civilwar
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
December 1862 - first campaign against Fort Smith, including the battles of Cane Hill (Nov. 28) and Prairie Grove (Dec. 7). The Union troops, though they occupied Fort Smith, could not hold it; they gained control of the town "for keeps" on Sept. 1, 1863
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Belden, pp. 373-374, "Give the Dutch Room" (1 text)
Roud #7762
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Prairie Grove" (subject)
NOTES: This is a strange, and perhaps confused, little song. The first verse refers to a battle at "Cahound." Belden suggests that this is the Battle of Cane Hill (which he misdates to Dec. 5), and I have no better suggestion.
Belden's notes also suggest that the "Lane" of the song was James H. Lane. This seems a little dubious. There were two James H. Lanes in the war: A Unionist Sernator from Kansas (1814-1866) and a Confederate brigadier (1833-1907). The latter served only in the east, however, and the former, although he had fought for "bleeding Kansas," is not listed as a Civil War general.
My own guess is that Lane is Walter P. Lane (1817-1892), a Confederate officer who served in the west throughout the war, though he didn't earn his brigadier's star until March 1865.
The other curiosity is the use of the word "Dutch." The "Dutch" were actually Germans, and the name was used in a derogatory way by non-Germans. But here they are praised. So who wrote the piece?
The purpose may have been somewhat political, to encourage the German soldiers. Their record in the war was not particularly good overall, though through no fault of their own.
At Wilson's Creek, Sigel's "Dutch" brigade had been routed. Troops under Sigel had suffered badly at the hands of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley. And those same troops, now the XI Corps, had been outflanked and routed at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. At no point had the soldiers done wrong; it was the officers' fault. But they had a terrible reputation. This might have been an attempt to perk them up. - RBW
File: Beld373

Give Up the World

DESCRIPTION: "The sun give a light in the heaven all round (x3), Why don't you give up the world?" "My brother, don't you give up the world? (x3) We must leave the world behind."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1867 (Allen/Ware/Garrison)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Allen/Ware/Garrison, pp. 27-28, "Give Up the World" (1 short text, 1 tune)
Roud #11981
File: AWG027B

Give Us a Flag

DESCRIPTION: "Oh, Fremont he told them when the war it first begun How to save the Union and the way it should be done, But... Old Abe he had his fears Till ev'ry hope was lost but the colored volunteers." The war went badly until Black troops were used
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: Civilwar Black(s) battle soldier
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Silber-CivWar, p. 64-65, "Give Us a Flag" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #11631
NOTES: The Union first began enlisting black troops (informally) in 1862. By the end of that year, four regiments were raised, only to have Lincoln shut them down. After the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, however, Lincoln allowed the formation of (segregated) "colored" regiments.
In the end, over a hundred and fifty such regiments were raised. Their performance was mixed -- but this was probably the fault of the (white) officers rather than the black troops. A large fraction of the officers in the "colored" regiments were soldiers who had given up on promotion in the white army, and shifted to the "Colored" troops to get ahead.
The "colored" troops had other reasons for bad morale; their pay was much lower than their white counterparts, and their equipment less good. And soldiers from both sides looked down on them.
Among the references in this song are:
"Fremont he told them when the war was just begun" -- General John C. Fremont was the first theatre commander west of the Mississippi. He was a bad general but a good Free Soiler, and proposed the raising of Black regiments.
"McClellan went to Richmond with two hundred thousand brave" -- refers to McClellan's Peninsular Campaign of 1862. McClellan was a conservative Democrat, and did not want the war to interfere with slavery. The song exaggerates his forces (he had about 120,000 men in the Peninsula), but correctly notes that his campaign failed.
"The 54th" presumably refers to the 54th Massachusetts, perhaps the most distinguished of the "colored" regiments. It fought in the unsuccessful assault on Fort Wagner (outside Charleston; July 18, 1863), and suffered roughly 40% casualties.
The phrase "Give Us a Flag" is a request for a regimental standard. - RBW
File: SCW064

Give Us a Song

DESCRIPTION: "'Give us a song,' the soldier cried, the outer trenches guarding." On the eve of an attack against the Russian forts the soldiers sing 'Annie Laurie' and think about Irish Norah or English Mary. The soldier is killed by mortar fire.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan1)
KEYWORDS: love battle death music Russia
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan1 108, "Give Us a Song" (1 text)
Roud #5786
NOTES: GreigDuncan1: "The song seems most likely to refer to the unsuccessful assault of 18 June 1855 but it could apply to the attack later that year on 8 September immediately before the Russians abandoned Sebastopol." - BS
I would hesitate to attribute it to any particular event; there were so many small clashes in the siege of Sebastopol that the "candidate" attacks must number in the dozens. But it is patently a Crimean War song: Even if you ignore the mentions of the Russians, the description of fortifications and mortars assures that. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD1108

Gladys Kincaid (I)

DESCRIPTION: "Little Gladys Kincaid" is talking with a friend. Her brother finds he rbody, and instantly concludes that Brodus Miller killed her. A reward is offered. The community is outraged that a "Negro beast" could do such a thing causes him to be hunted down
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1932 (Henry, collected from Hazel Winters)
KEYWORDS: abduction rape murder death punishment
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
MHenry-Appalachians, pp. 57-58, "Gladys Kincaid" (1 text)
NOTES: To tell this song from Gladys Kincaid (II), consider this opening stanza:
Little Gladys Kincaird,
A girl we all knew well,
She started back to her home
To where her mother dwell
And on on her way she met a girl
And stopped her for a talk
And while they was a-standing there
Up Brodus Miller walked.
It sounds to me as if this version is based on "The Knoxville Girl" or something like it. Henry's version -- the only one extant -- seems to have lost at least one crucial verse describing her abduction, and presumably her rape. The racism of the text is palpable; in the song, it appears that the only evidence against Brodus Miller was that he was Black.
Although this murder inspired two ballads (this one and one in Brown, neither widespread), the editors of Brown were unable to determine anything about the story behind the ballad.
A correspondent who signs herself "Amanda" tells me the murder took place in Morganton, North Carolina. Her grandmother apparently knew Gladys Kincaid, and sang one of the songs (probably Gladys Kincaid II).
This is item dF41 in Laws's Appendix II (Gladys Kinkaid II is dF42). - RBW
File: MHAp057

Gladys Kincaid (II)

DESCRIPTION: Gladys is on her way gome from work in the hosiery mill when "the negro... did this awful deed Too horrible to tell" (i.e. rape and murder). Miller, the alleged perpetrator, is hunted down and shot; his body is displayed
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: abduction rape murder death punishment
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownII 297, "Gladys Kincaid" (1 text)
ST BrII297 (Full)
Roud #4114
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Gladys Kincaid (I)" (subject)
NOTES: To tell this song from Gladys Kincaid (I), consider this opening stanza:
Come all of you good people
And listen if you will
Of the fate of Gladys Kincaid
Who worked in the hosiery mill.
Although this murder inspired two ballads (this one and one in Henry, neither widespread), the editors of Brown were unable to determine anything about the story behind the ballad.
A correspondent who signs herself "Amanda" tells me the murder took place in Morganton, North Carolina. Her grandmother apparently knew Gladys Kincaid, and sang one of the songs (probably this one).
This is item dF42 in Laws's Appendix II (Gladys Kinkaid I is dF41). - RBW
File: BrII297

Glasgerion [Child 67]

DESCRIPTION: The king's daughter declares her love for Glasgerion and invites him to her bed. He tells his servant of the tryst. The boy sneaks in in his stead. When the lady learns this, she kills herself. Glasgerion kills the lad, (then himself)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c. 1640
KEYWORDS: nightvisit love sex betrayal death suicide murder trick
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland,Wales)
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Child 67, "Glasgerion" (3 texts)
Bronson 67, "Glenkindie" (1 version)
Percy/Wheatley III, pp. 45-49, "Glasgerion" (1 text)
Leach, pp. 222-229, "Glasgerion" (2 texts plus one "analogy")
OBB 40, "Glasgerion" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 71, "Glasgerion" (1 text, 1 fragment)
PBB 41, "Glasgerion" (1 text)
Gummere, pp. 340-342, "Glasgerion" (1 text, printed in the notes to "Lord Randal")
TBB 16, "Glasgerion" (1 text)
DT 67, GLENKIND
Roud #145
RECORDINGS:
A. L. Lloyd, "Jack Orion" (on Lloyd2, Lloyd3, ESFB2)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Jack the Jolly Tar (I) (Tarry Sailor)" [Laws K40] (theme)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Jack O'Ryan
Jack Orion
Jack O'Rion
Glenkindie
NOTES: "Glasgerion" is believed to be an anglicisation of "Glas Keraint," a legendary Welsh harper said to be able to harp "a fish out o' saut water Or water out o' a stane." - RBW
File: C067

Glasgow Barber, The

DESCRIPTION: Pat from Belfast stops at a Glasgow barbershop for a Mayo haircut but is given a Scottish haircut instead. When Pat refuses to pay the barber calls two bobbies. Pat takes down bobbies and barbers with his stick. Enough of Scottish barbers and haircuts.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1970 (Morton-Ulster)
KEYWORDS: fight Ireland Scotland humorous police hair
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Morton-Ulster 30, "The Glasgow Barber" (1 text, 1 tune)
Morton-Maguire 29, pp. 71-72,116,168, "The Glasgow Barber" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2908
File: MorU030

Glasgow Doctor, The

DESCRIPTION: A short Glasgow doctor married a tall woman who did "scratch and tear his eyes." When she caught cold he "gave her such a dose" she died. At the feast "in honour o' her death" he choked on too much gin and was buried with his wife in one coffin.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1856 (broadside, Murray Mu23-y2:014)
KEYWORDS: shrewishness marriage murder funeral medicine drink party humorous husband wife doctor
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1504, "The Glasgow Doctor" (3 texts, 2 tunes)
Roud #7166
BROADSIDES:
Murray, Mu23-y2:014, "Glasgow Doctor," Poet's Box (Glasgow), 1856
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Short Doctor
NOTES: The type of humor is illustrated by a typical verse: "The people came baith far and near To try the doctor's skill And those he knew not how to cure He well knew how to kill." - BS
For which punch line, see also "Kill or Cure." - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71504

Glasgow Fair On the Banks of Clyde

DESCRIPTION: The singer, from Ireland, meets a girl in Glasgow. She says it was well known that he was to be married in Ireland. He seduces her anyway. When she recalls his promise to marry, "I promised to meet her there again, But I forgot and cross'd the Clyde."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1853 (broadside, Bodleian Firth b.26(194))
KEYWORDS: seduction promise parting Ireland Scotland
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1402, "Glasgow Fair on the Banks o' Clyde" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #7256
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth b.26(194), "Banks of the Clyde" ("When I was young and youth did bloom"), John Ross (Newcastle), 1847-1852
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.70(126a), "Glasgow Fair On the Banks of Clyde" ("When I was young and youth did bloom"), Poet's Box (Glasgow), 1869; also L.C.Fol.178.A.2(347), "Banks of Clyde"
File: GrD71402

Glasgow Fair, The

See The Humours of Glasgow Fair (File: GrD4887)

Glasgow Green

See Bonnie Glasgow Green (File: Ord121)

Glasgow Lassie, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer meets his Glasgow lassie at a fair. She rejectts his offer to go to Edinburgh because she is already engaged. He offers barns, etc. She says her love was poor but he'd work. She goes with the singer to the tavern for drink and is seduced.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1825 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 28(33))
KEYWORDS: seduction drink
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1320, "The Glasgow Lassie" (1 text)
Roud #7144
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 28(33), "Glasgow Lassie" ("The first time that I saw my Glasgow lassie"), W. Armstrong (Liverpool), 1820-1824
NOTES: The description follows GreigDuncan7. In the Bodleian broadside the male pursuer does not convince the Glasgow Lassie to go with him and decides that "now my courtship is all in vain. I'll go quickly unto yon tavern" [alone]. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71320

Glasgow Merchant, The

DESCRIPTION: "There was a wealthy merchant In Glasgow town did dwell; He had a lovely shopboy And his mistress loved him well"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: husband wife servant
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1443, "The Glasgow Merchant" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Roud #7274
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan7 fragment excluding the chorus. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71443

Glasgow Peggy [Child 228]

DESCRIPTION: A Highland man comes to Glasgow and falls in love with Peggy. Her parents declare themselves against his suit; they will guard her more than all their other property. But she chooses to go with him, and he reveals that he is a rich nobleman
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1827 (Kinloch)
KEYWORDS: courting disguise
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber,Bord))
REFERENCES (7 citations):
Child 228, "Glasgow Peggy" (7 texts, 1 tune)
Bronson 228, "Glasgow Peggy" (14 versions+1 in addenda)
Greig #44, p. 1, "Glasgow Peggy" (1 text)
GreigDuncan4 850, "Glasgow Peggy" (12 texts, 8 tunes)
Leach, pp. 588-589, "Glasgow Peggy" (1 text)
Montgomerie-ScottishNR 160, "(Oh Sandy is a Highland lad)" (1 short text)
DT 228, GLASGPEG*
Roud #95
RECORDINGS:
Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, "Glasgow Peggy" (on SCMacCollSeeger01) {cf. Bronson's #2, taken from a different recording and with a few lyric variations but mostly the same}
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Bonny Lizie Baillie" [Child 227] (theme)
cf. "The Blaeberry Courtship" [Laws N19] (plot)
cf. "MacDonald of the Isles" (tune and general plot)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Hieland Laddie
Hielan' Lads Are Brisk and Braw
NOTES: Roud lumps this with "MacDonald of the Isles." That there is some sort of interdependence is clear. But they seem to be distinct songs; see the notes to that song. - (BS, RBW)
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C228

Glasgow Ships

DESCRIPTION: "Glasgow ships come sailing in On a fine summer morning." If "she" steps on board John/George will kiss her. Send butter and bread to the Captain's daughter. Her lover's dead. She turns her back, washes her face, wears a ring
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1910 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: ring ship food death nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greig #159, p. 2, "A Glasgow Ship" (1 text)
GreigDuncan8 1581, "Glasgow Ships Come Sailing In" (2 texts)
ADDITIONAL: Robert Ford, Children's Rhymes, Children's Games, Children's Songs, Children's Stories (Paisley, 1904 (2nd edition, "Digitized by Google")), pp. 81-82, "Glasgow Ships"
Roud #12971
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "I Saw Three Ships" (some lines, but not the tune)
cf. "Sheriffmuir" (tune, per Opie-Game)
cf. "The Blacksmith" (one verse) and references there
NOTES: Ford's version of the game includes the verse, familiar -- for example -- from "The Blacksmith" and "Brave Wolfe": "Braw news is come to town, Braw news is carried; Braw news is come to town, [so-and-so's] married." This is also a verse -- one of two -- for Robert Chambers (Edited by Norah and William Montgomerie), Traditional Scottish Nursery Rhymes (1990 selected from Popular Rhymes) #173, p.98, ("Braw news is come tae toon") - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81581

Glasgow, The

DESCRIPTION: John Williams is banished from Coot-hill. "They tore me from the arms of my charming Sally Greer." His friends take him to Liverpool and pay his passage to New York on Glasgow. The mate lets the ship run aground. Twenty-five men are lost.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1937 (Ranson)
KEYWORDS: drowning sea ship wreck sailor emigration separation lover
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ranson, pp. 110-111, "The Glasgow" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #7346
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Sally Greer" (theme, plus the girl's name)
NOTES: February 14, 1837: "... sunk after striking the Barrells .... lost her rudder and drove over the rocks.... Altogether 82 were rescued by the Alacia [under Captain Walsh] at considerable risk" (source: Bourke in Shipwrecks of the Irish Coast v1, p. 44)
Is this "Coot-hill" or Courtown? From Last Name Meanings site re "Coote: (origin: Local) Welsh ,Coed, a wood; Cor. Br., Coit and Cut. Coot-hill or Coit-hayle, the wood on the river." For more on "coot-hill" see notes for "The Champion of Coute Hill."- BS
An even more interesting question is the relationship of this song to "Sally Greer." Both are songs involving an emigrant who is aboard a wrecked ship, and both involve a girl named Sally Greer who is left behind.
On the other hand, the ship is different (Glasgow versus Monatch of Aberdeen), the motivations are slightly different, "Sally Greer" never mentions Liverpool, and this song describes a lesser disaster (in "Sally Greer," over 90% of the people on the ship are lost).
My best guess is that one is a rework of the other, with "Sally Greer" perhaps slightly more likely to be the original, since it's more widespread. - RBW
File: Ran110

Glashen-Glora

DESCRIPTION: The singer describes the mountain stream and thinks of happier days. Wherever he travels he will think about this stream. "Thy course and mine alike have been Both restless, rocky, seldom green"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1824 (_Cork Constitution_, according to Croker-PopularSongs)
KEYWORDS: lyric river
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Croker-PopularSongs, pp. 189-191, "Glashen-Glora" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Edward Hayes, The Ballads of Ireland (Boston, 1859 (reprint of 1855 London edition)), Vol I, pp. 51-52, "Glashen-Glora"
NOTES: Croker-PopularSongs: "This lyric originally appeared with the signature W. .... 'Glashen-glora,' adds the author, 'is a mountain torrent, which finds its way into the Atlantic Ocean through Glengariff, in the west of this count (Cork).' The Editor may add that the name, literally translated, signifies 'the noisy green water:' glas, green; en, water; glorach, noisy." - BS
File: CrPS189

Glass Market, The

DESCRIPTION: "There's been mony a feein' [hiring] market On this side o' the Dee But the like o' the last Glass Market I never chanced to see."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: farming work
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 369, "The Glass Market" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Roud #5912
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan3 fragment excluding the chorus.
GreigDuncan3: "Markethill to the north of Haugh of Glass (see map [see following note]) was 'for centuries the site of Glass market' [quoting Godsman, Glass, Aberdeenshire, The Story of a Parish]."
GreigDuncan3 has a map on p. xxxv, of "places mentioned in songs in volume 3" showing the song number as well as place name; Haugh of Glass (369) is at coordinate (h4,v4) on that map [roughly 40 miles WNW of Aberdeen]. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3369

Glass of Whisky, The

DESCRIPTION: Murrough O'Monaghan, home from the wars minus a leg, begs along a road. He wishes he had been a marine that had retired with a full pay pension. Good whisky gives him strength to face illness and weather. He wishes Merry Christmas and whisky for all.
AUTHOR: William Paulet Carey (source: Croker-PopularSongs)
EARLIEST DATE: 1793 (_The Sentimental and Masonic Magazine_, according to Croker-PopularSongs)
KEYWORDS: drink begging injury disability soldier
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Croker-PopularSongs, pp. 80-82, "The Glass of Whisky" (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "When I Was a Young Man in Sweet Tipperary" (tune, according to Croker-PopularSongs)
NOTES: Croker-PopularSongs details Carey's background, including his turn as witness for the Crown. "Considering the political apostasy of the author -- a crime seldom forgotten or forgiven in Ireland -- it is singular that any song known to have been of his writing should have become popular, which Murrough O'Monaghan's aspiration respecting a glass of whisky certainly did; and it has continued to be so to the present time -- upwards of forty years. This, however, has been accounted for to the Editor by the statement that the character of Murrough O'Monaghan was a sketch from life" of a well known character said "to have been a faithful emissary of the United Irishmen." - BS
File: CrPS080

Glaw, Keser, Ergh Ow-cul Yma

See Let Me In This Ae Nicht (File: DTaenich)

Glead, The

DESCRIPTION: A young glead is abandoned but rescued and well raised by a man. In his greed he ignores the tenth commandment, drives poor women from their farms, and tries to buy the town of Mains. The singer wishes "muckle toil and pains For a' your gread and pains"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: greed farming bird
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 679, "The Glead" (1 text)
Roud #6102
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Greedy Gled o' Mains" (subject?)
NOTES: GreigDuncan3 glossary p. xlii: "gled,glead" is translated as "kite,hawk."
"The Greedy Gled o' Mains" begins "There lives a farmer in this place His name ye nead na speire." GreigDuncan3 says nothing to solve the mystery for that song or for "The Glead." It seems likely to me that both songs are about the same person.
Exodus 20.17: the tenth commandment is "thou shalt not covet ... anything that is thy neighbor's." - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3679

Gleanntan Araglain Aobhinn (Happy Glen of Araglin)

DESCRIPTION: Gaelic. The singer bids farewell, across the waves, to the Glen of Araglin. He recalls the wine and beer, baying hounds, magic music, plough-teams, horses, cattle, birds, deer, "and the beautiful fair-breasted maiden"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1971 (OCanainn)
KEYWORDS: foreignlanguage farewell lyric nonballad animal
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OCanainn, pp. 82-83, "Gleanntan Araglain Aobhinn" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: The description is from O Canainn's translation.
OCanainn: "The Araglin is a river in County Cork." - BS
File: OCan082

Glen Alone, The

DESCRIPTION: The crew lowers a boat to investigate "an ugly form" in the moonlit. It's the Glen Alone, "rugged yards and splintered spars, her mainmast and mizzen gone," six skeletons and a note that food is gone. We row away: "her deck seemed swarmed with shadows"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1983 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: death sea ship sailor ghost food starvation wreck
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 43, "The Glen Alone" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Ghostly Crew" [Laws D16] (theme)
NOTES: See "The Ghostly Crew" [Laws D16] for another Newfoundland ballad of haunting at sea. - BS
File: LeBe043

Glen O'Lee

DESCRIPTION: The exile recalls leaving Donegal. He tells of leaving his friends. He mentions all the things he can no longer do: Play the fiddle at balls, dance the jig with the girls, etc. From ten thousand miles away, he wishes peace and contentment to his old home
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: homesickness emigration
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H672, p. 212, "Glen O'Lee" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Scarborough Settler's Lament" (theme) and references there
File: HHH672

Glenariffe

DESCRIPTION: The singer praises his home in Glenariffe, saying, "The beauty of our lovely glen is straight from God's own hand." He describes the local waterfall, the heights, the hallowed ground at Kilmore. He blesses his home
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: home nonballad
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H801, pp. 164-165, "Glenariffe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #13474
File: HHH801

Glenarm Bay

DESCRIPTION: The singer sees a pretty girl along Glenarm Bay. He asks what she is doing. She answers, in effect, "Looking for boys. What else would I be doing up so early." He asks her if she will marry. Being assured he is serious and will be faithful, she consents
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: love courting marriage beauty
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H102, p. 464, "Glenarm Bay" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #3575
File: HHH102

Glencoe

See MacDonald's Return to Glencoe (The Pride of Glencoe) [Laws N39] (File: LN39)

Glendronach

DESCRIPTION: "O potent ally Glendronach, Thou Prince of the barley bree."
AUTHOR: Rev. James Simmie (source: Greig)
EARLIEST DATE: 1909 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: drink nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #62, pp. 2-3, ("O potent ally Glendronach") (1 fragment)
GreigDuncan3 570, "Glendronach" (1 fragment)
Roud #5896
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan3/Greig fragment.
Greig: The correspondent says this is written by Rv James Simmie, "minister of Rothiemay in the early part of last century, composed on the Glendronach Distillery. She can recall only a part of the refrain."
GreigDuncan3 has a map on p. xxxv, of "places mentioned in songs in volume 3" showing the song number as well as place name; Glendronach (570) is at coordinate (h4-5,v6) on that map [roughly 31 miles NW of Aberdeen]. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3570

Glendy Burk, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer complains, "I can't stay here 'cause they work too hard; I'm bound to leave this town; I'll take my duds and tote 'em on my back when the Glendy Burk comes down." He describes the "funny" boat and promises to take his girl to Louisiana
AUTHOR: Stephen C. Foster
EARLIEST DATE: 1860 (sheet music)
KEYWORDS: ship work hardtimes travel
FOUND IN: US Australia
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 109-110, "When the New York Boat Comes Down" (1 text, 1 tune -- a heavily localized version sung to the tune of "Year of Jubilo"; also fragments of another version)
Saunders/Root-Foster 2, pp. 93-96+427, "The Glendy Burk" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, GLNDYBRK*
ST MA109 (Full)
NOTES: This song, for some reason, seems to have done particularly well in Australia, with several localized versions ("The New York Boat," "The Bundaberg") known. These versions on their faces often bear little resemblance to Foster's song -- but in almost all cases (as the titles show), the errors are simple errors of hearing.
It's also worth noting that the tune I learned for this song (from Debby McClatchy) is not the same as Foster's sheet music. Thus this text has acquired at least two new tunes over the years. Highly unusual, given that Foster is credited with more tunes than texts, and that very many of his texts are in fact quite poor.
I have to suspect, in fact, that this song sat on a shelf somewhere for several years. Note that Saunders/Root firmly date the sheet music to 1860. And yet, there was a real ship, the Glendy Burk which went into service on the Ohio and the lower Mississippi in 1851 (according to scattered Internet sources). But Bruce D. Berman's Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks, p. 245, says that this Glendy Burk was snagged and sunk at Cairo, Illinois in 1855. I find no record of a replacement built in the period after that. The logical conclusion -- though it is obviously not certain -- is that Foster wrote this song prior to the boat's sinking, or at least five years before the song was published. - RBW
File: MA109

Glendy Burke, The

See The Glendy Burk (File: MA109)

Glenelly

DESCRIPTION: "There is no other spot in the land of the Gael Where my young heart the full strains of pleasure could feel." The singer recalls his poor but happy home, his friends, his dreams. He prays that he may return to Glenelly before he dies
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1937 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: home rambling
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H720, p. 165, "Glenelly" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #13475
File: HHH720

Glenkindie

See Glasgerion [Child 67] (File: C067)

Glenlogie, or, Jean o Bethelnie [Child 238]

DESCRIPTION: Jean o Bethelnie is enraptured with handsome Glenlogie; he wants someone richer. Jean takes to her bed; her father's chaplain appeals to Glenlogie. Glenlogie changes his mind and marries Jean
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1768 (Percy collection)
KEYWORDS: love rejection marriage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Child 238, "Glenlogie, or, Jean o Bethelnie" (9 texts)
Bronson 238, "Glenlogie, or, Jean o Bethelnie" (21 versions+1 in addenda)
Ord, pp. 412-415, "Bonnie Jean o' Bethelnie" (1 text)
Greig #58, pp. 1-2, "Glenlogie or Jean o' Bethelnie" (1 text)
GreigDuncan5 973, "Glenlogie" (15 texts plus two fragments on pp. 601-602, 18 tunes)
OBB 85, "Glenlogie" (1 text)
DT 238, GLENLOG GLENLOG2*
ADDITIONAL: Robert Chambers, The Popular Rhymes of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1870 ("Digitized by Google")), pp. 308-309, "Glenlogie"
Roud #101
RECORDINGS:
John Strachan, "Glenlogie" [fragment] (on Lomax43, LomaxCD1743); "Glenlogie (Jean o' Bethelnie)" (on FSB5, FSBBAL2)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "A Rich Irish Lady (The Fair Damsel from London; Sally and Billy; The Sailor from Dover; Pretty Sally; etc.)" [Laws P9] (lyrics in some texts)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Bonnie Jeannie o Bethelnie
NOTES: Reported to be the story of Jean Meldrum and Sir George Gordon of Glenlogie. Meldrum became a servant of Mary Stewart in 1562. Some versions of the song follow the details of the story very closely, implying either that the song is of broadside origin or that the alleged history is just that: Alleged.
(For details, see the notes in Ord, which quote an article by Dr. Shearer in the Huntly Express of January 24, 1882). - RBW
Grafted onto the end of GreigDuncan 973A and 973B is the "ye shine where ye stand" fill-in-the-name verse found in such songs as "Bonny Portmore" (see references there). In this case, "Bethelnie, O Bethelnie, Ye shine where ye stand, May the heather bells around you Shine o'er Fyvie's land." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C238

Glenora, The

DESCRIPTION: Tom Warren is captain of Glenora out of Burgeo. This day Warren stays on shore and Glenora runs into a gale which the crew rides out. After the wind dies Warren came out in a motor boat and gives loud and obvious orders before going to sleep.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1977 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: sea ship storm
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 44, "The Glenora" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Burgeo is on the south coast of Newfoundland, about 70 miles east of Port-aux-Basques by sea. - BS
File: LeBe044

Glenorchy Maid, The

DESCRIPTION: "When spring spread her green velvet claes on the common, When summer wi' flow'rs decks the heather braes," even then, there is nothing "more inviting, to me more delighting" than the Glenorchy maid. The singer expects to live with her in bliss
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1899 (Ford)
KEYWORDS: love beauty nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 135-137, "The Glenorchy Maid" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #13115
File: FVS135

Glenrannel's Plains

See Owenreagh's Banks (File: HHH100b)

Glenshesk Waterside, The

DESCRIPTION: The singer recalls wandering along the Glenshesk water, but now he must sadly depart. He wishes he were still there, "But fate proposes I must go, in foreign lands abide." He describes all the things he won't see again
AUTHOR: P. C. J. McAuley (?)
EARLIEST DATE: 1924 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: emigration homesickness
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H19a, p. 194, "The Glenshesk Waterside" (1 text, 2 tunes, one a corrected version of the other)
Roud #9510
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Scarborough Settler's Lament" (theme) and references there
File: HHH019a

Glenswilly

See The Hills of Glensuili (File: TST097)

GSPLITRBalladIndex.HTMLGSplit Archive&{FCCE7D5C-7BB5-4EC3-B04B-4F0350F5B7B7}�Z�_Z) �

Fy, Let's A to the Bridal

Fye, Stick the Minister

Fylemore

Fyvie Ploughmen, The

Gaberlunyie Man, A

Gaberlunzie Man, The [Child 279A]

Gabriel's Trumpet (Baptist Numbered in God)

Gae Flit the Coo

Gaie-Annee, La

Gairdner and the Plooman, The

Gairdner and the Ploughman, The

Gal I Left Behind Me, The

Galbally Farmer, The

Gale of August '27, The

Gallagher Boys, The

Gallant 69th, The

Gallant Brigantine, The [Laws D25]

Gallant Farmer's Farewell to Ireland, The

Gallant Forty-Twa (II), The

Gallant Forty-Twa, The

Gallant Grahams, The

Gallant Hussar, The (A Damsel Possessed of Great Beauty)

Gallant Ninety-Twa, The

Gallant Shearers, The

Gallant Shoemaker, The

Gallant Soldier (I), The

Gallant Soldier (II), The

Gallant Soldier, The (Mary/Peggy and the Soldier)

Gallant Tommy Boyle, The

Gallant Victory, The

Galloping Randy Dandy O!

Gallowa Hills

Gallows [Laws L11]

Gallows Tree, The

Gals o' Chile, The

Gals O' Dublin Town, The

Galway Bay

Galway Races, The

Galway Shawl, The

Gambler (I), The

Gambler (II), The

Gambler, The (My Father was a Gambler; Hang Me)

Gambler's Blues

Gambler's Dying Words, The

Gambler's Sweetheart, The

Gambling on the Sabbath Day [Laws E14]

Gambling Suitor, The

Gamboling Man, The

Game of Cards (I), The

Game of Cards (II), The

Game of Howsers, The

Game Warden Song

Game-Cock, The

Gamekeepers Lie Sleeping

Gan to the Kye Wi' Me

Ganging Through the Howe, Geordie

Gaol Song (II)

Gaol Song, The

Garbey's Rock

Garden Gate, The

Garden Hymn, The

Garden Where the Praties Grow

Gardener Lad, The

Gardener, The [Child 219]

Gardener's Delight, The

Gardner and the Ploughman, The

Gargal Machree

Garners Gay (Rue; The Sprig of Thyme)

Garnish

Garrawilla (The Shearer's Life)

Garryowen (I)

Garryowen (II)

Garryowen, The

Garvagh Town

Gas Lights

Gaspard Tragedy, The

Gates of Ivory, The

Gates of Londonderry, The

Gatesville Cannonball, The

Gathering Mushrooms