What do you think?
Rate this book
Robin Hood
Separates fact from myth in examining the story of Robin Hood and shows how the legend has evolved
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
23 people are currently reading
526 people want to read
About the author
J.C. Holt
24books7followersProfessor Sir James Clarke Holt FBA (born 26 April 1922) is an English medieval historian and was the third Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University.
Educated at Bradford Grammar School, Holt graduated, and subsequently took his DPhil, at the University of Oxford. He held the positions of Professor of Medieval History at the University of Nottingham (1962 - 1965), Professor of History at the University of Reading (1965 - 1978) and Professor of Medieval History at the University of Cambridge from 1978 until his retirement in 1988. From 1981 until 1988 he served as the Master of Fitzwilliam College.
Holt became a Fellow of the British Academy in 1978 and was its Vice President from 1987 - 1989, president of the Royal Historical Society (1981�1985), and was knighted for his work as an historian.
Holt made his fame with the book Magna Carta, which came out in its original edition in 1965. In this work he treated the charter in the context of the political framework of its time. The book has since been fully revised, and is still considered authoritative within its field. He has also published other works on the same period, such as The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John, and Robin Hood.
Educated at Bradford Grammar School, Holt graduated, and subsequently took his DPhil, at the University of Oxford. He held the positions of Professor of Medieval History at the University of Nottingham (1962 - 1965), Professor of History at the University of Reading (1965 - 1978) and Professor of Medieval History at the University of Cambridge from 1978 until his retirement in 1988. From 1981 until 1988 he served as the Master of Fitzwilliam College.
Holt became a Fellow of the British Academy in 1978 and was its Vice President from 1987 - 1989, president of the Royal Historical Society (1981�1985), and was knighted for his work as an historian.
Holt made his fame with the book Magna Carta, which came out in its original edition in 1965. In this work he treated the charter in the context of the political framework of its time. The book has since been fully revised, and is still considered authoritative within its field. He has also published other works on the same period, such as The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John, and Robin Hood.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
February 10, 2016
I love any book that is said to be "the last word" in anything and I love books guaranteed to piss off people who have no better way to spend their time than arguing about fictional characters and how they're really not fictional at all.
This book satisfied me on both counts. It's pretty definitive and straightforward and it probably infuriated the whole Robin-Hood-was-a-real-guy crowd. I'm not ruining anything by saying that Holt is cautiously inconclusive, as any investigation into things like this must be.
There may never be a true "last word" since there simply isn't enough evidence, but Holt does his damndest and it's hard to argue with his conclusions, not matter how wishy-washy they must be by necessity. So, maybe there was a historical basis for Robin Hood? Maybe there were many Robin Hoods? That's the more interesting take-away, that the title was simply an archetype for a particular brand of yeoman bandito.
The only thing that matters here, since a definitive answer will probably never be found, is the journey towards ambiguity. Holt dissects the RH source material, discusses its geographical and historical context, goes very much into the evolution of the myth and, most especially, the audience for these stories, the main impetus for its change over the centuries.
Good shit for the casual historian who knows good and well that "last words" are anything but.
This book satisfied me on both counts. It's pretty definitive and straightforward and it probably infuriated the whole Robin-Hood-was-a-real-guy crowd. I'm not ruining anything by saying that Holt is cautiously inconclusive, as any investigation into things like this must be.
There may never be a true "last word" since there simply isn't enough evidence, but Holt does his damndest and it's hard to argue with his conclusions, not matter how wishy-washy they must be by necessity. So, maybe there was a historical basis for Robin Hood? Maybe there were many Robin Hoods? That's the more interesting take-away, that the title was simply an archetype for a particular brand of yeoman bandito.
The only thing that matters here, since a definitive answer will probably never be found, is the journey towards ambiguity. Holt dissects the RH source material, discusses its geographical and historical context, goes very much into the evolution of the myth and, most especially, the audience for these stories, the main impetus for its change over the centuries.
Good shit for the casual historian who knows good and well that "last words" are anything but.
October 16, 2008
The book gives a in-depth look at the legends surronding Robin Hood. Holt also looks to see if there is any truth behind the legends. He even suggests that Tuck could have had basis in a real person. Holt raises several interesting ideas. If you are fan of the Robin of Sherwood series, you'll like this book, for it seems likely that creators read the earlier edition.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 3, 2022
Very detailed. The author pretty much goes line by line dissecting the old tales. It was interesting because I had only read the modern version by Pyle, but it did get bogged down by details and I can’t say that I enjoyed reading it, but I’m glad I did.
July 16, 2017
Opierając się na różnych źródłach historycznych Holt tropi ślady Robin Hooda, zarówno te literackie, jak i odnoszące się do jego prawdziwej tożsamości. Nie rości sobie przy tym prawa do nieomylności, jednak w precyzyjny sposób obala istniejące teorie oraz snuje własne rozważania. Dla osób ze średniowiecznym bakcylem, Robin Hood z pewnością będzie lekturą satysfakcjonującą. Polecam!
Cała opinia:
Cała opinia:
Read
January 20, 2020I now have half again as much knowledge of the true history of Robin Hood as I did but still less than half the understanding of him that children and criminals have. We see quislings rampant in bright sunlight in Barnsdale (or Nottingham Town, as it were) and if we close our eyes there blooms a ghost of the opposite in woodsy green, maybe all we need to know. Robin McKinley praised this book in the afterward of the Outlaws of Sherwood, so when I came across it at Half Price Books I could not pass it up. Now to read her again, with new eyes.
May 20, 2022
Surely informative, arguably elegant, occasionally dull, frequently biased. And good lord is the man a snob.
January 27, 2019
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH ROBIN HOOD HISTORIANS?!
Okay, overly dramatic, but this is the second Robin Hood history book that almost completely ignores the "rob from the rich give to the poor" aspect of the figure. And granted, even if that is more modern an interpretation, it could at least be mentioned SOMEWHERE. It's like they delight in talking about everything EXCEPT the cool, distinctive part of the legend. Might as well leave out archery too.
To be fair, this author does at least discuss robbing the rich and aiding the poor in the final chapter, but only to dismiss it. Parker's "True Tale of Robin Hood" is brought up, and then declared of no effect. On the other hand, that does mean that Robin was credited with helping the poor HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, as Parker wrote this in 1630. So it's not an entirely modern addition to the tale.
Enough ranting. This is still a good book, and well researched. The best chapter is on the original Robin Hood, in the ballad rather than historical sense; it disects the earliest tales, what's derivative in them, and more importantly what's original to them. The chapter on the audience dragged on a bit, and seemed more general history than related to Robin Hood in particular, but still informative.
Overall, I was conflicted reading the book. On one hand, it was clearly informative, on the other, he almost seemed not to even LIKE Robin Hood. The audience chapter included a lot of bloodthirsty accounts of actual robbers, which seemed to point to his idea of Robin as basically a thug (especially since the help the poor aspect was missing). The epilogue does nothing to disuade this. For history, I'd probably recommend Knight's "Robin Hood" first, although this is good in its own way as well.
Okay, overly dramatic, but this is the second Robin Hood history book that almost completely ignores the "rob from the rich give to the poor" aspect of the figure. And granted, even if that is more modern an interpretation, it could at least be mentioned SOMEWHERE. It's like they delight in talking about everything EXCEPT the cool, distinctive part of the legend. Might as well leave out archery too.
To be fair, this author does at least discuss robbing the rich and aiding the poor in the final chapter, but only to dismiss it. Parker's "True Tale of Robin Hood" is brought up, and then declared of no effect. On the other hand, that does mean that Robin was credited with helping the poor HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, as Parker wrote this in 1630. So it's not an entirely modern addition to the tale.
Enough ranting. This is still a good book, and well researched. The best chapter is on the original Robin Hood, in the ballad rather than historical sense; it disects the earliest tales, what's derivative in them, and more importantly what's original to them. The chapter on the audience dragged on a bit, and seemed more general history than related to Robin Hood in particular, but still informative.
Overall, I was conflicted reading the book. On one hand, it was clearly informative, on the other, he almost seemed not to even LIKE Robin Hood. The audience chapter included a lot of bloodthirsty accounts of actual robbers, which seemed to point to his idea of Robin as basically a thug (especially since the help the poor aspect was missing). The epilogue does nothing to disuade this. For history, I'd probably recommend Knight's "Robin Hood" first, although this is good in its own way as well.
December 23, 2022
Drier than I expected but still interesting.
Holt looks at the birth and development of the Robin Hood legend: what do the earliest stories tell us? Could they have been based on a real person? How did Robin change over time? He concludes the legend goes back further than many scholars credit (13th century at least) and while there might have been a real Robin there's no way to identify him. Many other elements � Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, robbing-from-the-rich, fighting for King Richard, etc. � were added on later.
Holt looks at the birth and development of the Robin Hood legend: what do the earliest stories tell us? Could they have been based on a real person? How did Robin change over time? He concludes the legend goes back further than many scholars credit (13th century at least) and while there might have been a real Robin there's no way to identify him. Many other elements � Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, robbing-from-the-rich, fighting for King Richard, etc. � were added on later.
Read
September 7, 2019If you're looking for a comparison of ALL possible versions of Robin Hood, this isn't the book for you. Holt's focus is on the origins of the Robin Hood legend and what conclusions can be made based on the earliest surviving written versions. What I found most interesting is that whether real or strictly legendary, Robin Hood likely didn't originate in Sherwood or Nottingham despite those being the locations most associated with him and his merry band for hundreds of years.
April 25, 2023
Having read two of J. C. Holt's books, I now realize there is no need to read another. Basically, what I got from both books is "whatever you thought you knew about ___________, you were WRONG".
There is a way to remove the accretions that histories and myths pick up over centuries of retelling that doesn't feel like you are hitting them with a sledgehammer. J. C. Holt has not been made aware of this, apparently. It does not make for a pleasant reading experience.
There is a way to remove the accretions that histories and myths pick up over centuries of retelling that doesn't feel like you are hitting them with a sledgehammer. J. C. Holt has not been made aware of this, apparently. It does not make for a pleasant reading experience.
July 2, 2019
An interesting history of the evolution of the Robin Hood legend, tracing the versions of Robin Hood from the 15th century through the present day. I found it a little dry, but thoughtful and thorough.
July 27, 2024
Folklore and history. Comprehensive, but a bit unorganized, with paragraphs meandering and topics within chapters not further marked. We found it most interesting for the portrayal of ordinary life of certain classes from the 1200s-1600s.
February 15, 2025
I found parts of this really engaging and interesting and other parts difficult to follow because of a lack of knowledge of British History. Still it provides a good over view of how the robin hood mythology developed and grew over time.
May 25, 2018
For anyone wanting a solid, readable and stringently academic examination of the outlaw tradition, then this is a must read - just don't expect to come away knowing who the 'real' Robin Hood was ...
August 20, 2018
Interesting but occasionally bogged down in academic details.
November 11, 2020
Too academic but interesting.
May 27, 2022
Boring but gives historical context to Robin Hood.
November 5, 2022
Tørt som ett knekkebrød, men til tross for det ganske interesant.
April 3, 2016
An extensive look at the sources and development of the legend of Robin Hood. Up to the Romantic Era. The Child ballads are in the chapter "Later Tradition."
Having hit on the first mention, in Piers Plowman, where Sloth says he knows rhymes of Robin Hood, it goes on to the next century, where we have actual tales. It covers the five known medieval ballads -- A Gest of Robyn Hode, Robin Hood and the Monk, Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood his Death, and Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbourne -- and what we can learn. For instance, though they make mention of Sherwood and Nottingham, they make more of Barnsdale, the geographical references to Barnsdale are more detailed, and Barnsdale was a notorious haunt of robbers. Gest is obviously a compendium of tales, you can see the joins where they are not neatly soldered together, and we have, of course, no way of knowing what was left out.
It discusses the history of the claims to historicity for Robin but doesn't think any of them really arguable. Oddly enough, the Victorian folklorist, who, in the grand sweeping inaccurate style in which they so often indulged, tried to turn Robin Hood into a wood spirit on evidence inadequate to hang a dog, went out to debunk the claimed historicity -- because it would of course undermine the mythic origin -- and in the process introduced much more rigor into the claims. His discussion of the obvious sources make it even clear. Such outlaws as Hereward the Wake, Fulk fitz Waren and Eustace the Monk have pre-dating tales that the early Robin Hood ones were clearly based on, and such ones as Adam Bell were part of the same outlaw tradition of tales. Though the tale in the Geste about paying the knight's mortgage is unique to Robin, despite having a motif that appears elsewhere. No robbing from the rich to give to the poor, actually. A lot of violence. The use of pseudonyms by outlaws -- often Robin, but not with Hood. And Friar Tuck. The first appearance of that name as an outlaw listed it as a novelty, so he may be the first.
It also goes into the physical setting and the region of England claimed, and into the audiences that listened and what sort of information we can glean about its original era by the social terms used. The use in the May Games and how Marian and quite possibly a friar joined the legend from there. Marian often had a boyfriend named Robin, and once there was a fad for Robin Hood games at May festivities, it was probably inevitable. The spread of the tale, with Shakespeare citing it in As You Like It, and the introduction of Allan-a-Dale. The Elizabethean tale where he married Clorinda, the Queen of Shepherdess -- she didn't manage to displace Marian, obviously. The Child Ballads and Sir Walter Scott with his introduction of the Saxon/Norman thing. The new uses of it, with Robin as a dispossessed nobleman, and Robin as a social rebel.
It ends before it even gets to Howard Pyle, but there's a lot of Robin Hood history in the earlier ages.
Having hit on the first mention, in Piers Plowman, where Sloth says he knows rhymes of Robin Hood, it goes on to the next century, where we have actual tales. It covers the five known medieval ballads -- A Gest of Robyn Hode, Robin Hood and the Monk, Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood his Death, and Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbourne -- and what we can learn. For instance, though they make mention of Sherwood and Nottingham, they make more of Barnsdale, the geographical references to Barnsdale are more detailed, and Barnsdale was a notorious haunt of robbers. Gest is obviously a compendium of tales, you can see the joins where they are not neatly soldered together, and we have, of course, no way of knowing what was left out.
It discusses the history of the claims to historicity for Robin but doesn't think any of them really arguable. Oddly enough, the Victorian folklorist, who, in the grand sweeping inaccurate style in which they so often indulged, tried to turn Robin Hood into a wood spirit on evidence inadequate to hang a dog, went out to debunk the claimed historicity -- because it would of course undermine the mythic origin -- and in the process introduced much more rigor into the claims. His discussion of the obvious sources make it even clear. Such outlaws as Hereward the Wake, Fulk fitz Waren and Eustace the Monk have pre-dating tales that the early Robin Hood ones were clearly based on, and such ones as Adam Bell were part of the same outlaw tradition of tales. Though the tale in the Geste about paying the knight's mortgage is unique to Robin, despite having a motif that appears elsewhere. No robbing from the rich to give to the poor, actually. A lot of violence. The use of pseudonyms by outlaws -- often Robin, but not with Hood. And Friar Tuck. The first appearance of that name as an outlaw listed it as a novelty, so he may be the first.
It also goes into the physical setting and the region of England claimed, and into the audiences that listened and what sort of information we can glean about its original era by the social terms used. The use in the May Games and how Marian and quite possibly a friar joined the legend from there. Marian often had a boyfriend named Robin, and once there was a fad for Robin Hood games at May festivities, it was probably inevitable. The spread of the tale, with Shakespeare citing it in As You Like It, and the introduction of Allan-a-Dale. The Elizabethean tale where he married Clorinda, the Queen of Shepherdess -- she didn't manage to displace Marian, obviously. The Child Ballads and Sir Walter Scott with his introduction of the Saxon/Norman thing. The new uses of it, with Robin as a dispossessed nobleman, and Robin as a social rebel.
It ends before it even gets to Howard Pyle, but there's a lot of Robin Hood history in the earlier ages.
February 7, 2009
Ah, another non-fiction chestnut from the dusty, inexplicable depths of my To Read list. I’m sure most familiar with the many screen iterations of this legend are happy with the wool firmly secured over their eyes, but I’m pleased to report that you can have the most fancifully Romantic notions of R. Hood (he is my first crush, favorite Disney movie, and earliest bedtime story all rolled up into one very merry man) and still not mind at all Mr. Holt’s basic assertion that everything we think about this man is no more than a violence-condoning, history-falsifying, thoroughly entertaining con. So thorough a debunking is only tolerable, I think, because this is some seriously old-school, non-hip, unselfconsciously Oxbridgian scholarship, reminiscent of those old videos we watched in my high school history classes, recordings of the basset-jowled A.J.P. Taylor standing in front of a sheet, reciting the history of World War I from memory. This is how I imagine J.C. Holt, and it means that while this may not be the most readable book, it is (far more importantly) immensely likeable. It’s also sort of satisfying, is it not, to spend some time with this sort of capital-H History, the kind with folios, yeomanry, and tights-clad heroes. Of course, Robin Hood is no hero, and this book was important for me, a reckoning with one of the first stories I was ever told, with something that, hero or no, will always feel like it is part of my bones. Also, folios!
April 3, 2009
Who was Robin Hood, if the man existed, and how has the lore surrounding him evolved? J.C. Holt traces the legend of Robin Hood back to the area of Wakefield and Barnsdale forest in 1225.
One of the key things that I learned from this book was the distinction between tales taking place in Barnsdale vs. Sherwood forests. I realized that growing up, I heard the Sherwood stories, in which Robin and his Merry Men fight against the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. Whereas the older Barnsdale stories had an abbot and others as enemies.
Holt pieces together evidence of the geography of the legends, the audience they were directed at- originally yeomen, a class of household servants and how they spread and developed later on. He bemoans the obscuring of the older tales and their in his opinion, debasing.
Though it was quite informative, I also found parts of it to be rather dry. I think it's better to read this if you're more familiar with the Robin Hood legends. As I have just begun studying them, I realized I kind of jumped into the deep end of the pool with this one!
One of the key things that I learned from this book was the distinction between tales taking place in Barnsdale vs. Sherwood forests. I realized that growing up, I heard the Sherwood stories, in which Robin and his Merry Men fight against the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. Whereas the older Barnsdale stories had an abbot and others as enemies.
Holt pieces together evidence of the geography of the legends, the audience they were directed at- originally yeomen, a class of household servants and how they spread and developed later on. He bemoans the obscuring of the older tales and their in his opinion, debasing.
Though it was quite informative, I also found parts of it to be rather dry. I think it's better to read this if you're more familiar with the Robin Hood legends. As I have just begun studying them, I realized I kind of jumped into the deep end of the pool with this one!
June 14, 2012
Partendo dalle più antiche fonti letterarie che parlano di Robin Hood, Holt scava tra gli elementi stratificati nei secoli per cercare le eventuali prove dell'esistenza del leggendario fuorilegge. L'analisi parte dall'ambito filologico e si espande includendo storia e geografia dell'Inghilterra medievale, la struttura della società feudale e i suoi cambiamenti dal XII al XIV secolo, l'arte dei menestrelli, l'influenza del tipo di pubblico sull'evoluzione del racconto da tradizione orale a libro popolare.
Lettura affascinante per chi ama le analisi storico-letterarie, può risultare deludente se si cerca un testo divulgativo o di tono narrativo.
Lettura affascinante per chi ama le analisi storico-letterarie, può risultare deludente se si cerca un testo divulgativo o di tono narrativo.
January 22, 2012
Two stars because it does give some of the original poems about Robin Hood, and some of the inspirations for the character. It also clears up his background and how the story evolved throughout the centuries. Then, I don't know what happened. There were chapters tht I finished entirely, and ones that I skipped most of because Holt doesn't form his own opinion, but simply presents facts from other scholar's research. I was expecting him to take a side on the matter, even if it was to refute the existance of Robin Hood.
January 1, 2009
Robin Hood by J. C. Holt was a very dry, very serious academic essay into “Who was the real Robin Hood or was there none?� Unfortunately Professor Holt is not Geoffrey Ashe whose numerous books on King Arthur are far more readable; the first 186 pages could be skipped and the last four pages, the epilogue, could be read and the core of the material could still be gleaned. Although I must admit that I did learn a few new historical facts that I did not know beforehand.
November 3, 2010
One of the most monotnous authors I have ever read. The book is 208 pages and it only has 8 chapters - including prologue and epilogue.
That's about 20-somthing pages per subject, which normally isn't a problem except that these are simple ideas. What information he gives through out the whole book could have been condensed to less than half. Instead he chose to pound on a topic in agonizing length until you wanted to put it out of its misery - or at least, the author.
That's about 20-somthing pages per subject, which normally isn't a problem except that these are simple ideas. What information he gives through out the whole book could have been condensed to less than half. Instead he chose to pound on a topic in agonizing length until you wanted to put it out of its misery - or at least, the author.
January 20, 2012
It was interesting, it was true. But Holt focuses most of his attention on the earliest parts of the legend. He has disdain for "more recent" additions. Anything from 1500 muddies the waters and damages the legend. Um, the fact that the legend is so flexible is one of the reasons I love it so much. Clearly Holt feels differently.
October 7, 2015
This book was pretty good. You can tell that the author did their research into the subject and it was fascinating to read about all the difficulties in pinning down a historical Robin Hood. Also, this book relates some of the Robin Hood story that you never hear, like how he died from a botched blood-letting (that may not have been accidental) at Kirklees.
May 6, 2014
Solo per accademici. Non è la "Storia del ladro gentiluomo" del sottotitolo, bensì un noioso trattato che cerca la verità storica della leggenda di Robin Hood, trovandone ben poca sin dalle prime pagine!
September 8, 2012
This is still the classic work on the subject of Robin Hood: who he may have been, what he really may have done, how the legend sprung up and the influences on the legend that shaped it into the story (we think) we know today. First class historical detection, written in a clear and lucid style.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.