Yuku free message boards

I think the best we can do is look for an *original* Robin Hood, that is, the man after whom the name became synonymous with outlawry: perhaps Hobbehod, perhaps the intriguing Robert de Loxley (who is well worth further investigation). But how far such a person could be called the "real" Robin Hood, when the legend clearly draws on the careers of several men, is debateable.

The Gest, for instance, bears strong resemblance in many places to the career of Roger Godberd: the concordances are more numerous, and more impressive, than for any other candidate. But as well as elements inserted into this from the romances of Fouke FitzWaryn and other already famous outlaws, there are elements which clearly come neither from existing romance nor from Godberd's career. Do they come from other real outlaws, or from imagination? There's also, of course, the fact that the use of the name as a byword for outlaws appears to predate Godberd. Godberd, then, was not the original Robin Hood, but much of Robin Hood's career is probably based on Godberd's. So: if we did find out with whom the name originated, which of them would have the greater claim to be the "real" one?

To play devil's advocate for a bit, Tuck is an established part of the legend by 1475; Marian's first appearance has been dated to 1504, though I must admit I've not seen anything before about 1590. The oldest ballads don't go back much further in their present forms than 1450ish.* It's true that they both appear confined to the dramatic tradition, with little presence in the ballads: but one might as well turn this on its head and point out that Much and Scarlet are confined to the ballads and don't appear in any pre-1590 plays. After all, although only a handful survive, we know that Robin Hood plays were very popular in the late Middle Ages: they aren't reliable historical sources, but, as you point out, neither are the ballads.

Not that I would reject the early ballads outright. There's a difference between treating a source as unreliable and treating it as fiction. Better sources, where they exist, should be given more weight than the ballads, and nothing taken on the ballads' authority: but anything which *does* match with the Gest or other early ballad sources is still going to be a point worth considering. (I'm puzzled as to why you say "particularly the Gest". Are you really suggesting that the likes of "Robin Hood and the Potter" is a *better* source than the Gest?)

* I believe the majority of the text of the Gest was in existence by 1430, but probably as several shorter ballads which were woven together some decades later.

NB Re the Wakefield Robin Hood: The main point in favour of this identification was the existence of King Edward's porter of the same name. Therefore, it was knocked on the head when Robin the porter turned out to have been in the King's service BEFORE Edward went to Nottingham. Furthermore, Robert Hood was still living as a law-abiding citizen in Wakefield many years AFTER the King's jaunt to Nottingham; and the identification of his fellow Wakefield man Henry de Faucumberg with the Sheriff of Nottingham of the same name won't stand up either, as the Wakefield de Faucumberg keeps popping up in the records after the Sheriff's death.

We're left with the name Robert Hood, the likelihood that he fought on the rebel side at Boroughbridge, and the fact that the King's progress does undeniably resemble that described in the Gest. But it's just not enough.