Robin Hood, whether riding through the glen, robbing the rich to pay the poor or giving the Sheriff of Nottingham his come-uppance, is one of the most captivating and controversial legendary figures. Was there a historical figure behind the legends? Did Robin and his Merry Men rampage through Sherwood Forest? Or did he spend most of his time in Barnsdale Wood in Yorkshire? And is the story of the freedom-loving Saxons refusing to be put under the Norman yoke, as portrayed in the Errol Flynn films, true?Mike Dixon-Kennedy ranges far and wide in his quest to present a complete picture of the exploits of this indestructible hero, drawing on ballads, poems, proverbs, films, novels, folklore, musicals and place-names.
This book is insane! The first part is a retelling of the Robin Hood story, or more precisely a retelling of Henry Gilbert’s 1912 Robin Hood, which is puzzling in and of itself. Why bother writing a less artful version of a book that already exists? The second part is a glossary of “people and places,” which is largely taken up by characters from the Gilbert retelling you just read. This means that you get the same stories as in the first part, only this time organized in alphabetical order by character. Variants and conflicting versions (of which of course a great many exist) get no mention at all. Make no mistake: the glossary is a 116-page guide to the first 113 pages of the book.
(The glossary is padded out with period information, such as a complete translation of the Magna Carta.)
The third part of the book is made up of primary source material, but try looking up some of the characters from these ballads in the glossary. Renett Brown? Clim of the Clugh? Queen Catherine? None of them have entries, simply because they weren’t in the one part of the book the glossary was based on.
I cannot get over how crazy this is. Dixon-Kennedy touts the glossary as covering “all the players and places mentioned in the legends,” but “the legends” doesn’t mean the legends, it means the one retelling of the legends he favors. This leads him to absurdities, such as claiming that Robin Hood only meets the Sheriff of Nottingham three times. Yeah, he only meets him three times in Gilbert! Rome, we are told, “is only mentioned in the legends once,” meaning Dixon-Kennedy only typed it once in his Gilbert rephrasing.
Imagine calling a book “The King Arthur Handbook,” and then providing a list of all the characters from the movie Excalibur. That’s what this book is like.
The old ballads reprinted in part three are pretty cool, though.
Purports to be a type of encyclopedia of all things involved with Robin Hood, but in fact most of the names and terms in the concordance are adapted from the Robin Hood novel by Henry Gilbert as if it was a canonical gospel of Robin Hood rather than one of countless well-written re-tellings of the RH legend. On the redeeming side, the book is well-illustrated and contains some very good maps of "Robin Hood Country".
This was frustrating to read, as the author lets his bias govern the entire book. He firmly believes that Robin Hood was a real man, and has even given him a birth date, and tries to tie real historical events into the Robin Hood story. Which is fine, except he just ignores any evidence that upsets his theory. For instance, he claims Robin lived during the reign of Richard the Lionheart - which many versions of the story, old and new go by - but there are versions, and they're early ones too, that set Robin in the time of Edward II, who is not mentioned once. Nor are alternative names for characters such as Marian, Alan-a-dale's wife, and Little John given. If I'm researching a subject, I want to find all the evidence, all the versions of events, and all theories discussed in one book. Argue against the ones that don't support your Robin-Hood-was-real theory by all means, but don't just ignore them.