Robin Hood Comes to Life Once Again

The Daily Mail reports that a recent book is claiming to make the case for identifying the historical figure behind the legends of Robin Hood.

Historian David Baldwin’s book, Robin Hood: The English Outlaw Unmasked, was published in 2010 and received much attention from the media when the Russell Crowe “Robin Hood” movie was released. The Daily Mail story follows up with the news that a moss-covered gravestone holds the remains of Baldwin’s Robin Hood candidate.

Of course, Baldwin credits prior work in his own book — he makes no pretentious claims to introducing a new candidate. The name Robert Godberd has been discussed for over 20 years, as a quick search of the Web reveals.

If Roger Godberd did indeed serve as the basis for the Robin Hood legends, Baldwin argues that reality was more selfish than the legend. There is no record of Godberd being as generous with his ill-gotten gains as the legendary outlaw.

Mr. Baldwin is not afraid to challenge historical assumptions. His book The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York argues that Richard Plantagenet may have been the prince supposed by many to have died in the Tower of London. Baldwin’s work seems well-received but it’s not like his arguments turn the world’s opinion much one way or the other.

The story of Robin Hood has intrigued people through the centuries for many reasons. Undoubtedly there is a trace of Anglo-Saxon bitterness in the popularity of a Saxon man who stands up to and defies the Norman kings. But there seems to be a populist element that appeals to the noble families as well — Robin is deemed a nobleman in some versions of the legend.

Politics was rarely the concern of the common people after the 9th or 10th centuries. As warfare became more specialized and subjected to “rules” intended to protect civilians, and as western European armies shrank in size, whole districts might live out their lives with little significant intrusion from their neighbors or foreigners. The Conquest of England — where William of Normandy marched his band of knights and men-at-arms across the landscape burning castles — was an unusual event in England for the 11th century.

It’s not easy to invade the British Isles. Most of the warfare that has been conducted in what is now Great Britain was local between tribes and settlers so it should come as no surprise that rebellions and outlawry might leave a vast imprint in the popular imagination.

The name “Robin Hood”, it is often said, was given to many people throughout English history. Oddly enough, compiling a list of such people seems to have escaped the hobbyists of the Internet — unless all the various candidates for Robin Hoodery are the so-called “Robin Hoods of history”.

Etymology suggests some interesting possible roots for the name. Robin is a nickname for Robert, a French (Norman) name (ultimately of Germanic origin, Hrodberht – “Bright Glory” or “Bright with glory”). Hood derives from the Old English hod, which has various cognates and associations with “protection”.

In fact, we use “hood” (as a suffix) to identify conditions or ranks of office or polity such as priesthood, statehood, neighborhood, and so on.

One of the names associated with a Robin Candidate is HobbesHod, which some people suggest is a derivative form of “Robin Hood”. The name “hob” is associated with Robin Goodfellow, the hobgoblin of English folklore.

More specifically, in old usage “hob” meant “clown” or “prankster”, so calling anyone HobbesHob might be equivalent to calling them “clown guardian” or “prank protector” — a false defender. Another possible meaning is “robin the prankster” or “robin the clown”.

If that is the case, then there must have been periods in English history when it was no honor to be known as “Robin Hood”, but rather a disgrace. We often say that history is written by the victors, but often it is miswritten by people who are ignorant of history’s lessons or who only vaguely recall the source for a legend.

We who deem ourselves enlightened by widespread higher education are no less guilty of misreading the tea leaves of the past than those who came before us.