What do you think?
Rate this book
Robert Earl of Huntington
The downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon
On spine: Downfall of Robin Hood [by] Chettle & Munday.
92 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1598
About the author
Anthony Munday
71 books8 followersAnthony Munday (or Monday) (baptized 13 October 156 – 10 August 1633) was an English playwright and miscellaneous writer. The chief interest in Munday for the modern reader lies in his work as one of the chief predecessors of Shakespeare in English dramatic composition, as well as his writings on Robin Hood.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 29, 2013
This text is a mess. It appears that Munday wrote a longish Robin Hood play that Henry Chettle was hired to clean up a bit, which was common enough in early modern England. Chettle split Munday's text into two plays and expanded it by writing some new material.
This would, in part, account for the messiness on this text (I have not read THE DEATH OF ROBERT, EARLE OF HVNTINGTON), which gives the character you know as Maid Marion that name at the start, changes it to Matilda, and features a scene where it is declared Matilda will be called Marion when hiding in the forest, so she is Marion, Matilda, Marion, and Matilda again when she meets her father at the end. There are other textual issues, such a character stating that the play will take us through Robin's death, but the play ends long before that.
There is also the fun feature that a company of actors, characters in this play, are putting on a Robin Hood play. The story occasionally leaves the Robin Hood story as the actors bicker about what they do and describe play they are putting on - which accounts for the inaccurate description of how this play will end. This is lamely done early on, but becomes a lot of fun later.
It is hard to know if something this screwed up was presented by the Lord Admiral's Men, which seems unlikely, or if the text was set not from the prompt book, but from diverse materials, possibly pieces of manuscript by Munday and Chettle. This seems more likely, but who can say?
Is this really a 4 star play? Probably not, but I lack a 3 1/2 star option. Chettle's scenes are weak, the first part of the play is weak, but it gains life and skill around line 800 in and builds from there. Munday's work is workman-like, not at all splendid. His scenes are repetitive and depend too much of verbal set pieces, but these are skillfully handled given those flaws. Some scenes are a lot of fun, especially the scene with the Jailer and his dog near the end. I'm not sure that everybody needs to read this play, but it is a must for those who work on early mod English texts and those who enjoy old plays written by people who are not Shakespeare.
This would, in part, account for the messiness on this text (I have not read THE DEATH OF ROBERT, EARLE OF HVNTINGTON), which gives the character you know as Maid Marion that name at the start, changes it to Matilda, and features a scene where it is declared Matilda will be called Marion when hiding in the forest, so she is Marion, Matilda, Marion, and Matilda again when she meets her father at the end. There are other textual issues, such a character stating that the play will take us through Robin's death, but the play ends long before that.
There is also the fun feature that a company of actors, characters in this play, are putting on a Robin Hood play. The story occasionally leaves the Robin Hood story as the actors bicker about what they do and describe play they are putting on - which accounts for the inaccurate description of how this play will end. This is lamely done early on, but becomes a lot of fun later.
It is hard to know if something this screwed up was presented by the Lord Admiral's Men, which seems unlikely, or if the text was set not from the prompt book, but from diverse materials, possibly pieces of manuscript by Munday and Chettle. This seems more likely, but who can say?
Is this really a 4 star play? Probably not, but I lack a 3 1/2 star option. Chettle's scenes are weak, the first part of the play is weak, but it gains life and skill around line 800 in and builds from there. Munday's work is workman-like, not at all splendid. His scenes are repetitive and depend too much of verbal set pieces, but these are skillfully handled given those flaws. Some scenes are a lot of fun, especially the scene with the Jailer and his dog near the end. I'm not sure that everybody needs to read this play, but it is a must for those who work on early mod English texts and those who enjoy old plays written by people who are not Shakespeare.
May 2, 2024
In the oldest Robin Hood stories, Robin is a violent criminal yeoman. The term 'yeoman' is a complicated and wide-ranging one, challenging for people today to understand because Medieval social classes do not directly map across to the present day social classes. For the sake of extreme simplicity, think of a yeoman as one of the Medieval middle classes (if you are a historian reading this, there is no need for you to write a long comment explaining why this simplification is deeply wrong, please relax). The chronological setting of the ballads is ambiguous: the king, if present, is either left unnamed or is one of the Edwards.
In popular culture, Robin Hood is often portrayed as an aristocrat, the Earl of Huntingdon, who has been unjustly outlawed while King Richard the Lionheart is away crusading. Munday's plays are given a lot of credit for this evolution, even if the plays only had a small audience and the characterisation of Robin as an earl was popularised by other later media which may or may not be directly inspired by the Munday plays. Downfall is Part 1 of Munday's 2-part Robin Hood epic, originally written as one play by Munday but revised and split into two uneven parts by Henry Chettle.
The play itself isn't particularly entertaining, but if you are interested in the history and evolution of the Robin Hood legends then it is worthwhile. Looking at Munday's innovations in their historical context and in comparison to earlier Robin Hood tales makes for a fascinating exercise.
Munday was writing at a time when the upper classes were increasingly scared of the lower orders, due to riots, rebellions, and increased urban criminality. In this context, the violent yeoman was an inappropriate hero for Munday's upper class target audience, so Robin Hood needed to be gentrified into a respectable upper class hero who was just going through some temporary difficulties.
Munday built his play on previous innovations to the story. Robin's time period had already been moved to Richard I's reign by John Major in his 'History of Greater Britain' (1520). This time period neutralises Robin's potential radicalism: the rightful king is out of the country and in his absence everything is rubbish and Prince John is trying to take over.
After Richard’s death, King John became very unpopular and England’s barons were annoyed enough with him that they got him to sign the Magna Carta, which limited his powers and laid the foundations for a lot of later developments in English law. So even when he was the legitimate king, John was deeply unpopular with the upper classes, which made him fair game for Robin to rebel against, especially when he was still Prince John trying to usurp the throne from the rightful king.
A few decades after Major, another historian claimed to have found new information about Robin, expanding on Major's version by elevating the outlaw’s social class, but with a bit of ambiguity:
‘In an old and ancient pamphlet I find this written of Robert Hood. This man descended of a noble parentage; or rather being of a base stock and lineage, was for his manhood and chivalry advanced to the noble dignity of an Earl… But afterwards he so prodigally exceeded in charges and expenses that he fell into great debt… that by order of law he was outlawed.’ - 'Chronicle at Large' by Richard Grafton, 1569
And then we come to the Munday plays. Munday's Robert Hood, Earl of Huntingdon, is heavily in debt (because his servant Warman has been mismanaging Robert's finances), and is the victim of a conspiracy to outlaw him. Robert is engaged to Mathilda Fitzwalter, who Prince John fancies, while John's mother Eleanor fancies Robert. They bribe Warman to help them get Robert arrested/outlawed, in the hope that the engagement will end, Mathilda will end up with John and Robert with Eleanor (because Eleanor will rescue him financially). Instead, Robert and Mathilda flee into forest and declare that they will now be known as Robin Hood and Maid Marian.
Thus, Munday's Robin is a blameless aristocrat, laid low by a treacherous servant (John makes Warman the Sheriff of Nottingham as reward for betraying his master). When the rightful king returns from the crusades, Robert gets his land back and everyone is happy.
Munday's Robin is extremely respectable and honourable. His criminality is extremely downplayed, and Robin declares that the Merry Men shall be chaste and expel all lustful thoughts. Medieval celebrations of Robin Hood, at the May festivals, were often associated with fornication; Munday is deliberately rejecting this uncouth association to further make Robin palatable to a genteel audience. Prince John is the only violent character, attacking Marian's father and then later both Scathlock and Friar Tuck at once. The outlaws are unable to beat John because 'in his high heart there dwells the blood of kings' - even if Munday is anti-John, he is decidedly not anti-royal.
In making Robert the Earl of Huntingdon, Munday may have been inspired by the real life David, Earl of Huntington, who lost his earldom after participating in a failed rebellion against Henry II, but had it restored by Richard; fought against Prince John's forces while Richard was away; got into a lot of debt; had a wife called Mathilda; and was accused of a conspiracy to kill King John. But it wasn't David conspiring against John, it was actually Robert Fitzwalter, who is Mathilda/Marian's father in Munday's play!
I wouldn't recommend the Munday plays to a casual reader, but as I said earlier, if you are interested in the development of the Robin Hood legend then they are a vital source credited with plenty of innovation.
In popular culture, Robin Hood is often portrayed as an aristocrat, the Earl of Huntingdon, who has been unjustly outlawed while King Richard the Lionheart is away crusading. Munday's plays are given a lot of credit for this evolution, even if the plays only had a small audience and the characterisation of Robin as an earl was popularised by other later media which may or may not be directly inspired by the Munday plays. Downfall is Part 1 of Munday's 2-part Robin Hood epic, originally written as one play by Munday but revised and split into two uneven parts by Henry Chettle.
The play itself isn't particularly entertaining, but if you are interested in the history and evolution of the Robin Hood legends then it is worthwhile. Looking at Munday's innovations in their historical context and in comparison to earlier Robin Hood tales makes for a fascinating exercise.
Munday was writing at a time when the upper classes were increasingly scared of the lower orders, due to riots, rebellions, and increased urban criminality. In this context, the violent yeoman was an inappropriate hero for Munday's upper class target audience, so Robin Hood needed to be gentrified into a respectable upper class hero who was just going through some temporary difficulties.
Munday built his play on previous innovations to the story. Robin's time period had already been moved to Richard I's reign by John Major in his 'History of Greater Britain' (1520). This time period neutralises Robin's potential radicalism: the rightful king is out of the country and in his absence everything is rubbish and Prince John is trying to take over.
After Richard’s death, King John became very unpopular and England’s barons were annoyed enough with him that they got him to sign the Magna Carta, which limited his powers and laid the foundations for a lot of later developments in English law. So even when he was the legitimate king, John was deeply unpopular with the upper classes, which made him fair game for Robin to rebel against, especially when he was still Prince John trying to usurp the throne from the rightful king.
A few decades after Major, another historian claimed to have found new information about Robin, expanding on Major's version by elevating the outlaw’s social class, but with a bit of ambiguity:
‘In an old and ancient pamphlet I find this written of Robert Hood. This man descended of a noble parentage; or rather being of a base stock and lineage, was for his manhood and chivalry advanced to the noble dignity of an Earl… But afterwards he so prodigally exceeded in charges and expenses that he fell into great debt… that by order of law he was outlawed.’ - 'Chronicle at Large' by Richard Grafton, 1569
And then we come to the Munday plays. Munday's Robert Hood, Earl of Huntingdon, is heavily in debt (because his servant Warman has been mismanaging Robert's finances), and is the victim of a conspiracy to outlaw him. Robert is engaged to Mathilda Fitzwalter, who Prince John fancies, while John's mother Eleanor fancies Robert. They bribe Warman to help them get Robert arrested/outlawed, in the hope that the engagement will end, Mathilda will end up with John and Robert with Eleanor (because Eleanor will rescue him financially). Instead, Robert and Mathilda flee into forest and declare that they will now be known as Robin Hood and Maid Marian.
Thus, Munday's Robin is a blameless aristocrat, laid low by a treacherous servant (John makes Warman the Sheriff of Nottingham as reward for betraying his master). When the rightful king returns from the crusades, Robert gets his land back and everyone is happy.
Munday's Robin is extremely respectable and honourable. His criminality is extremely downplayed, and Robin declares that the Merry Men shall be chaste and expel all lustful thoughts. Medieval celebrations of Robin Hood, at the May festivals, were often associated with fornication; Munday is deliberately rejecting this uncouth association to further make Robin palatable to a genteel audience. Prince John is the only violent character, attacking Marian's father and then later both Scathlock and Friar Tuck at once. The outlaws are unable to beat John because 'in his high heart there dwells the blood of kings' - even if Munday is anti-John, he is decidedly not anti-royal.
In making Robert the Earl of Huntingdon, Munday may have been inspired by the real life David, Earl of Huntington, who lost his earldom after participating in a failed rebellion against Henry II, but had it restored by Richard; fought against Prince John's forces while Richard was away; got into a lot of debt; had a wife called Mathilda; and was accused of a conspiracy to kill King John. But it wasn't David conspiring against John, it was actually Robert Fitzwalter, who is Mathilda/Marian's father in Munday's play!
I wouldn't recommend the Munday plays to a casual reader, but as I said earlier, if you are interested in the development of the Robin Hood legend then they are a vital source credited with plenty of innovation.
September 10, 2023
Better than its sequel, though with a certain tedium of its own. Interesting to see how much of the Errol Flynn/Disney story already existed at that point. Apparently this is the first play to give Robin Hood an aristocratic alter ego. Bits of it are a textual mess, including characters changing names without warning.
December 28, 2019
NICE BOOK.
March 24, 2026
Read as part of Shake Scene Shakespeare's Online Cue-scripts only Renaissance pastoral season, and one can see exactly why this play was so popular in its time.
Read live it is a much more fun play than merely reading the script. Yeah, Robin and Marian are too saintly, but there's lots of cross-dressing, dressing as a pedlar, and evil, louche Prince John behaving badly.
Also, there are some great bits where John Skelton goes OTT with the skeltonic rhymes (precursor to Macbeth or the Fool in Lear) and has to be reined in by Sir John Eltham. The whole play-within-a-play thing preceding Moliere by 60 years and Brecht by centuries.
It does, however, need cutting. It is as long as some Ben Jonson, and there's lots of faff in here.
****
Well, it is pretty clear from this play why there isn't a Royal Munday Company, or an annual performance of the complete works of Munday in Ontario. This is a piece of fluff, where the saintly Robin Hood and Maid Marian (possibly her first appearance in the Robin Hood story) are exiled, and then forgive everyone.
Dramatic? Not particularly? Moving? Not unless you're really into forgiveness. Funny? There's a character called Much, who will never use a one syllable word when five three syllable words will do just as well.
But it drives forward, and there are way worse plays written around this time. Taming of A Shrew, anyone? Selimus much? True Tragedy of Richard III? Thyestes? No, this is way better than them.
And it works as a play-within-a-play: Sir John Eltham and John Skelton break out of character to discuss where the story should go next, and Skelton (who is playing Friar Tuck) can't resist breaking into Skeltonics (basically like an early rap rhythm).
So, good fun, but no masterpiece.
Read live it is a much more fun play than merely reading the script. Yeah, Robin and Marian are too saintly, but there's lots of cross-dressing, dressing as a pedlar, and evil, louche Prince John behaving badly.
Also, there are some great bits where John Skelton goes OTT with the skeltonic rhymes (precursor to Macbeth or the Fool in Lear) and has to be reined in by Sir John Eltham. The whole play-within-a-play thing preceding Moliere by 60 years and Brecht by centuries.
It does, however, need cutting. It is as long as some Ben Jonson, and there's lots of faff in here.
****
Well, it is pretty clear from this play why there isn't a Royal Munday Company, or an annual performance of the complete works of Munday in Ontario. This is a piece of fluff, where the saintly Robin Hood and Maid Marian (possibly her first appearance in the Robin Hood story) are exiled, and then forgive everyone.
Dramatic? Not particularly? Moving? Not unless you're really into forgiveness. Funny? There's a character called Much, who will never use a one syllable word when five three syllable words will do just as well.
But it drives forward, and there are way worse plays written around this time. Taming of A Shrew, anyone? Selimus much? True Tragedy of Richard III? Thyestes? No, this is way better than them.
And it works as a play-within-a-play: Sir John Eltham and John Skelton break out of character to discuss where the story should go next, and Skelton (who is playing Friar Tuck) can't resist breaking into Skeltonics (basically like an early rap rhythm).
So, good fun, but no masterpiece.
August 14, 2012
An interesting historical read for all those looking into the origins of the Robin Hood legends. Munday's play is a bit too long, with a completely unnecessary framing device of a play within a play, and his overly complicated plot results in a number of small, interchangeable characters, many of whom never seem very developed. Still, there is a certain period charm, and one really standout scene towards the end when the Earl of Lester takes Prince John to task about the betrayal of King Richard. The rest is more or less fluff, but the right director and editor could make this into an enjoyable piece of entertainment, methinks. Certainly worth reading to see an early attempt at organizing and giving structure to the Robin Hood legends and its ever changing details and cast of characters.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews