John Page’s ‘The Siege of Rouen’

John Page’s account of Henry V’s siege of Rouen of 1418–19 is an extremely important source for historians and for scholars of literature. In just over 1,300 lines, the Middle English poem is stylistically sophisticated and historically fascinating as what claims to be an eyewitness account of warfare. Joanna Bellis’s thorough introduction to both the text and its manuscripts and her helpful glossary should ensure that the text receives the attention it deserves and help both students and researchers engage in greater study of the poem. As Bellis notes, the Siege, like the Brut, has fallen into the gaps between history and literature, making the ‘historical context’ here, as well as the literary criticism, all the more valuable. In setting out the historical context, a decision has been made to set out the narrative as clearly as possible without entering into historical debates. This approach will no doubt help to orientate undergraduate readers into the text, but researchers of warfare, identity, alliteration and other areas might have liked a little more on how far Page’s account helps to strengthen interpretations where there are disagreements. In considering authorship, various John Pages who served in military and non-military capacities are discussed, but no firm conclusions are reached (indeed can be reached) as the name is simply too common. Bellis’s survey of the date and audience, its language, verse and literary background and reception are similarly very clear and well written, setting out an impressive amount of detail helping any reader to orientate themselves in this text and in the early fifteenth century. Having many relatively short subheadings is a nice way to help readers find relevant information, but does compartmentalise the summary and explanation a little rather than helping to build up a cohesive account of the Siege and poetry in the early fifteenth century. Each of the fourteen surviving manuscripts is analysed with an impressive eye for detail and an effort to consider variant additions and textual transmission that is unusual in its depth and eloquence. The reproductions of Huscher’s 1927 images are a little harder to follow (not least as X and χ look far too similar!), but the discussion of editorial practice is well handled and makes a reading of Page’s text easier to follow

Art · Battle · Context (archaeology · Criticism · Glossary · Linguistics · Literature · Media studies · Narrative · Poetry · Siege · Sociology · Classics · History · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy