[9] _Alias_ R. G., the scurrilous and malignant editor of that degraded publication. [10] The authority cited by Grafton in 1569 as then “olde and auncient” must have been at least of equal antiquity with the most ancient poems that Dr. P. is acquainted with. [11] Stukeley’s Palæographia Britannica, No. II. p. 115. In an interleaved copy of Robin Hood’s Garland formerly belonging to Dr. Stukeley, and now in the possession of Francis Douce, esquire, opposite the second page of the first song, is the following note in his own hand: “Guy earl of Warwick. George Gamwell Joanna = of Gamwell hall _magna_ │ Fitz Odoth esq. │ │ +─────────────────────+ │ Robin Fitz Odoth Gamwell the king’s forester in Yorkshire, mentioned in Camden. See my answer, No. II. of Lady Roisia, where is Robin Hood’s true pedigree.” The Doctor seems, by this pedigree, to have founded our hero’s pretensions on his descent from Roisia, sister of Robert Fitzgilbert, husband of Alice, youngest daughter of Judith, Countess of Huntingdon, which, whatever it might do in those times, would scarcely be thought sufficient to support such a claim at present. Beside, though John the Scot died without issue, he left three sisters, all married to powerful barons, either in Scotland or in England, none of whom, however, assumed the title. It is, therefore, probable, after all, that Robin Hood derived his earldom by some other channel. Dr. Stukeley, whose learned labours are sufficiently known and esteemed, was a professed antiquary, and a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England. He has not, it is true, thought it necessary to cite any ancient or other authority in support of the above representations; nor is it in the editor’s power to supply the deficiency. Perhaps, indeed, the Doctor might think himself entitled to expect that his own authority would be deemed sufficient: upon that, however, they must be content to rest. _Sit fides penes auctorem!_ Mr. Parkin, who published “A reply to the peevish, weak, and malevolent objections brought by Dr. Stukeley in his Origines Roystonianæ, No. 2” (Norwich, 1748, 4to), terms “his pedigree of Robin Hood, quite jocose, an original indeed!” (See pp. 27, 32.) Otho and Fitz-Otho, it must be confessed, were common names among the Anglo-Normans,* but no such name as Othes, Ooth, Fitz-Othes, or Fitz-Ooth, has been elsewhere met with. Philip de Kime, also, was certainly a considerable landholder in the county of Lincoln in the time of King Henry II., but it nowhere appears, except from Dr. Stukeley, that his surname was Fitz-Ooth. The Doctor likewise informs us that the arms of Ralph Fitz-Ooth, and consequently of our hero, were “g. two bendlets engrailed, o.”