The Siege of Thebes

by John Lydgate, Robert R. Edwards (Editor)

John Lydgate's The Siege of Thebes, written c. 1421-22, is the only Middle English poetic text that recounts the fratricidal struggle between Oedipus's sons Eteocles and Polynices as they contend for the lordship of Thebes. The text reflects the problem of poetic authority and the political and ethical themes of Lydgate's poetic career in the 1420s, when he was writing as a Lancastrian propagandist and as unofficial royal poet.

Genres: Poetry, Grad School, Medieval

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1422

About the author

John Lydgate of Bury (c. 1370 – c. 1451) was a monk and poet. He was admitted to the Benedictine monastery of Bury St. Edmunds at fifteen and became a monk there a year later. Having literary ambitions (he was an admirer of Geoffrey Chaucer and a friend to his son, Thomas) he sought and obtained patronage for his literary work at the courts of Henry IV of England, Henry V of England and Henry VI of England. Other patrons included the mayor and aldermen of London, the chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral, Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, however his main supporter from 1422 was Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.

In 1423 John was made prior of Hatfield Broad Oak, Essex but soon resigned the office to concentrate on his travels and writing. He was a prolific writer of poems, allegories, fables and romances, yet his most famous works were his longer and more moralistic Troy Book, Siege of Thebes and The Fall of Princes. The Troy Book was a translation of the Latin prose narrative by Guido delle Colonne, Historia destructionis Troiae.

Lydgate was also believed to have written London Lickpenny, a well-known satirical work; however, his authorship of this piece has been heavily discredited. He also translated the poems of Guillaume de Deguileville into English. In his later years he lived and probably died at the monastery of Bury St. Edmunds.

Reviews

[Vanessa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lydgate is just a critical Chaucer fanboy

[abby]

canterbury tales fanfiction

[Yorgos · Rating 3 out of 5]

In sum, I concur with Skelton's assessment of Lydgate:

> Also John Lydgate / wryteth after an hyer rate / It is dyffuse to fynde / The sentence of his mynde / Yet wryteth he in his kynd / No man that can amend / Those maters that he hath pende / Yet some men fynde a faute / And say he wryteth to[o] haute / wherfore hold me excused / If I have not well perused

Lydgate is writing himself into the Canterbury tales but, since he's both narrator and tale-teller, we lose a lot of the complexity of Chaucer's work. Here, that complexity is substituted for the much less interesting function of this text as a politics manual for Henry V. As a rewriting of Statius, it isn't; actually its a pretty faithful retelling of the medieval adaptations of Statius that had come before. The contributions he makes (substituting mercy for compassion, e.g.) don't seem to improve the work for me. And I also don't think he shares the Ancient's vision of tragedy, so he dosen't really commit to the "cursed by fate to do evil to bring evil upon yourself" thing. It's more sin/sin's consequence type beat. He also cuts out the canibalism. The introduction offers that scholars are divided as to whether the moral history here presented is coherent or self-contradictory; whatever it is, it's unconvincing. I think Lydgate is at his best when writing ethereal, flawless king's daughters to save his bland chivalraic heroes, not because he has something interesting to say but because he tells it really well for what it is.

Lydgate's verse is competent, but unvarying and, eventually, monotonous. Sentences never end, syntax becomes confused, the overused apophasis is as bad as in the Squire's tale. Lines 4628-30 are I think maybe the only lines in the whole play where emotion is conveyed through the poetry itself; kind of sad. Linguistically, it's pretty clean late Middle English. Easier than Chaucer, yet, because of its more French vocabulary, also easier than Skelton. The two pages of glossary were more than adequate.

Obviouly, I love the TEAMS Middle English Texts Series; no complaints there. Notes were on the whole okay--too much comparison and source-hunting for my taste; not enough analysis. Introduction fine, poem fine, three stars.

[Toon Pepermans · Rating 2 out of 5]

(I only read the Oedipus part)

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was rather enjoyable, and quite easy to follow (for a Lydgate text)

[Lulu]

c. 1421-22