Doncaster and Wakefield, and one in Lancashire, are Robin Hood’s wells; a cave in Nottinghamshire is his stable; a rude natural rock in Hope Dale is his chair; a chasm at Chatsworth is his leap; Blackstone Edge, in Lancashire, is his bed."[20] In fact, his name bids fair to overrun every remarkable object of the sort which has not been already appropriated to King Arthur or the Devil; with the latter of whom, at least, it is presumed, that, however ancient, he will not dispute precedence.

“The legends of the peasantry,” quoth Mr. Wright, “are the shadows of a very remote antiquity.”  This proposition, thus broadly stated, we deny.  Nothing is more deceptive than popular legends; and the “legends” we speak of, if they are to bear that name, have no claim to antiquity at all.  They do not go beyond the ballads.  They are palpably of subsequent and comparatively recent origin.  It was absolutely impossible that they should arise while Robin Hood was a living reality to the people.  The archer of Sherwood who could barely stand King Edward’s buffet, and was felled by the Potter, was no man to be playing with rocking-stones.  This trick of naming must have begun in the decline of his fame; for there was a time when his popularity drooped, and his existence was just not doubted,—­not elaborately maintained by learned historians, and antiquarians deeply read in the Public Records.  And what do these names prove?  The vulgar passion for bestowing them is notorious and universal.  We Americans are too young to be well provided with heroes that might serve this purpose.  We have no imaginative peasantry to invent legends, no ignorant peasantry to believe them.  But we have the good fortune to possess the Devil in common with the rest of the world; and we take it upon us to say, that there is not a mountain district in the land, which has been opened to summer travellers, where a “Devil’s Bridge,” a “Devil’s Punch-bowl,” or some object with the like designation, will not be pointed out.[21]

We have taken no notice of the later fortunes of Robin Hood in his true and original character of a hero of romance.  Towards the end of the sixteenth century Anthony Munday attempted to revive the decaying popularity of this king of good fellows, who had won all his honors as a simple yeoman, by representing him in the play of “The Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntington” as a nobleman in disguise, outlawed by the machinations of his steward.  This pleasing and successful drama is Robin’s sole patent to that title of Earl of Huntington, in confirmation of which Dr. Stukeley fabricated a pedigree that transcends even the absurdities of heraldry, and some unknown forger an epitaph beneath the skill of a Chatterton.  Those who desire a full acquaintance with the fabulous history of Robin Hood will seek it in the well-known volumes of Ritson, or in those of his recent editor, Gutch, who does not make up by superior discrimination for his inferiority in other respects to that industrious antiquary.