He told him that when he was rich, people like the Bishop, or the Sheriff of Nottingham were around him all the time. Unfortunately, a misfortune happened to his son and he borrowed money from the wrong people. As a result, he was about to lose everything he owned (Pyle). The same people treat him in a very awful way when he was simulating pardon for not to have the money to pay back. This character added more qualities to Robin Hood’s heroism, he changed his mind and his persona as soon as Robin Hood notice that there were others conceptions about him coming from rich people “one men calleth me kind, another calleth me cruel; this one calleth me good, honest fellow, and that one vile thief” (Pyle, 176). Sir Richard of the Lea is special because he was the one that he taught to Robin Hood about respect, honor, to be humble, and grateful. On the other hand, we have the Bishop of Hereford, that plays an authoritative figure in the book and is on a high social status as well. When Robin Hood met the Bishop of Hereford he was dressed with gold and silver, very fancy to celebrate the wedding of Ellen with the old man with …show more content…
Also, he is the representation of corruption in the whole extension of the word. For example, he was the one that played the devil when he was advising the king of get Robin Hood on the shooting match when the King had promised to his Queen that he will let him go for a time. These actions give a twisted characteristic to the character because he was representing the evil. All the gold, silver, and sulk he was wearing, was from people that were on the bottom of the social status. This character gives to Robin Hood points in favor because people like him do not deserve what they have. The comparison of these two characters gives away the two representations of Robin Hood, from one side he’s a good man as Sir Richard of the Lea described