Robin Hood in parallel text edition?

Feb 2017
Devon, UK
In a word, no. If there is one I'm afraid it's passed me by. That said the oldest RH texts are late medieval/early modern English and (mostly) perfectly understandable (with a glossary).

The best overall survey of early(ish) RH texts, which also reprints the material, is still Dobson & Taylor's 'Rymes of Robin Hood' originally published in 1976 but fairly regularly reprinted

The best (and probably superior) alternative is the University of Rochester's Robin Hood Project
Camelot Project - Robbins Library Digital Projects
Here's their page on 'A Gest of Robyn Hode' with glossary and notes by Steven Knight and Tom Ohlgren (who are currently the most respected scholars of RH texts).
A Gest of Robyn Hode | Robbins Library Digital Projects

There is a modern English version of the 'Gest' here
Gest of Robin Hood in modern English - HumBox
and I have occasionally come across other modern renditions of other RH ballads but these tend to be loose adaptations designed for performance.

For a general introduction to all things RH from the earliest ballads up to last year's film(s) (and including the eternal 'was he a real person?' debate) the best site is still
Robin Hood -- Bold Outlaw of Barnsdale and Sherwood
Likes: Tulius
Thanks; this is a big help. I just started Holt's study. You consider Dobson & Taylor's superior? Anyway, Holt reprints the Gest as an appendix. I find it just far enough out of reach to be frustrating. Now I'll have the modern translation you suggested above to be able to read along.
Best regards,
Feb 2017
Devon, UK
Hi, glad it's of use.
To my mind the 'best' overall study of the legend is Stephen Knight's 'Robin Hood: A Complete Study of the English Outlaw' which came out some years after both Dobson & Taylor and Holt. Knight pretty much kick started RH studies as an academic discipline in the 90s.

It depends what you are looking for, Holt's book was really the first modern serious study from a historicist viewpoint (the version with the Gest included in the back is its most recent iteration but otherwise unchanged since the second edition of 1989). Dobson & Taylor start from and pretty much stick with the literature, reprinting many of the texts featured on the Rochester site I linked to. Knight covers both, but very much from a perspective that what really matters is the legend (in all its manifestations) rather than its (possibly) historical source.

Needless to say there are countless websites and other books which cover similar territory with varying degrees of accuracy and sanity. Some of the 'fringe' theorists can be frankly completely bonkers.

Similar History Discussions