'Adam Bell' is licensed to John Kynge in the Stationers' Registers, 19 July, 1557 - 9 July, 1558. Again, among copies which were Sampson Awdeley's, to John Charlewood, 15 January, 1582; and, among copies which were John Charlwoode's, to James Robertes, 31 May, 1594. Seven reprints of the seventeenth century, later than d, are noted in Mr. W.C. Hazlitt's Handbook, p. 35.
The rescue of Robin Hood by Little John and Much in No. 119, sts. 61-82, has a general resemblance to the rescue of Cloudesly by Adam and Clim in this ballad, sts. 52 ff . The rescue of Will Stutly (No. 141) has also some slight similarity, sts. 26-33.
The shooting of an apple from a boy's head (sts. 151-162) is, as is well known, a trait in several German and Norse traditions, and these particular feats, as well as everything resembling them, have been a subject of eager discussion in connection with the apocryphal history of William Tell. The story is not remarkably widespread. The seven versions agree in two points: the shot is compulsory; the archer meditates revenge in case he harms the person on whose head the mark is placed. These features are wanting in the English ballad. William of Cloudesly offers of his own free motion to shoot an apple from his son's head, and this after the king had declared him the best archer he had ever seen, for splitting a hazel-rod at twenty score paces; so that the act was done purely for glory. To be sure, the king threatens him with death if he does not achieve what he has undertaken, as death is also threatened in four of the seven German-Scandinavian stories for refusal to try the shot or for missing; but the threats in sts. 154 f. of the English ballad are a revival of the vow in sts. 119 f. The shooting of the apple from the boy's head, isolated from any particular connection, is perhaps all of the German-Scandinavian story that was known to the English ballad-maker, and all minor resemblances may well be fortuitous.
If the shooting of an apple by somebody from somebody's head is to be regarded as the kernel of the story, its area may then he considerably extended. For various remoter parallels of this kind, see Child, in, 19 ff., where a full discussion will be found. Professor Child is opposed to the mythical explanation and takes particularly strong ground against making a sun-god out of William of Cloudesly. He sums up in the following sentence: "A story long current in Europe, a mythical story if you please, could certainly be taken up by an English ballad-maker without prejudice to the substantial and simply romantic character of his hero."
This page most recently updated on 09-Dec-2010, 17:41:41. Return to main index
