RI3TE CUNDE: NATURE AND PREFERMENT IN

THE OWL AND THE NIGHTINGALE

by

LOLA JANELL SIMMONS, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

ENGLISH

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

August. 1986

7 ^ ,

O op' ---- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Charles

Wright whose patience, guidance and knowledge enabled me to complete

this thesis.

I would also like to thank Dr. Joseph Mogan who first introduced

me to medieval literature and whose instruction in both Old and

Middle English enabled me to enjoy it in the original languages.

Additional thanks go to Dr. George Robert whose instruction in

the history of the Middle Ages has provided so many insights into

the literature as well.

Very special thanks go to Norman and Kathy Looney and to my fel­

low graduate students, particularly Durrell Dew, for their constant «

encouragement, assistance and tolerance.

Finally, I would like most of all to thank my parents, husband,

and children for patiently enduring a great deal of neglect.

11

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . ii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

PREFACE V

I. THE OWL AND THE NIGHTINGALE AND MEDIEVAL POETICS: GENRE, STRUCTURE AND STYLE 1

The Debate Genre and the Structure Of The Owl and the Nightingale 2

The Beast-Fable and the Satiric Mode

Of The Owl and the Nightingale 16

II. THE TOPIC OF DEBATE 28

III. THE BISHOPS AND THE BIRDS 45

WORKS CONSULTED 55

111

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Emboitement Structure in

PAGE

The Owl and the Nightingale 15

IV

PREFACE

Interpretations of The Owl and the Nightingale have generally

fallen into two categories: those which read it as an allegory of

either political, religious or intellectual issues, and those which

read it as a burlesque of some aspect of human nature. The nearest

consensus among recent analyses seems to be that the poem is a sat­

ire involving debate and birdlore motifs; that, unlike other debate

poems, allegorical interpretations are difficult to substantiate be­

cause the poem makes no extended allusions to contemporary issues;

and that the most likely purpose of the poem is an appeal for the

preferment of Nicolas of Guildford. Critical argument over theme,

however, has been nearly as vitriolic as the debate between the two

birds, partly because of the poem's apparent lack of thematic unity.

Hume, who has provided a convenient review of previous interpreta­

tions and of weaknesses associated with each, summarizes the prob­

lem caused by this lack of unity: "No one, in fact, has been able

to extract from the birds' squabbles a single issue which would give

the poem a plausible raison d'etre. This state of affairs exists

because there is no meaningful subject; the birds' debate is point­

less" (127).

Unfortunately, this assumption also forces Hume to conclude

that "the author bungled" in not clearly identifying his subject

early within the poem, ". . . an admission [which] damages all in­

terpretations alike" (106). Such a conclusion is objectionable on

two grounds: bungling is inconsistent with the adeptness evident in

every other aspect of the poem, and failing to identify a subject

for debate would ill suit an appeal for preferment, if such indeed

is the purpose of the poem. Thus, as Lumiansky has noted, two key

interpretive problems remain unresolved: identification of a single

issue which unifies all the particulars of the birds' quarrel, and

explanation of how the poem functions as an appeal for either secu­

lar or religious advancement (413).

The present study suggests a solution to both problems. Chap­

ter I analyzes the poem's structure in light of the conventions of

the debate genre, and relates the poem's satiric mode to the ethos

of the bestiary and beast-fable traditions. Chapter II identifies a

unifying issue in the idea of "kind" or nature, signalled by the re­

currence of the term "cunde," which emerges as the consistent stand­

ard of judgment in the birds' charges and countercharges. Chapter

III then demonstrates how the prejudice exposed by the birds' ob­

session with "kind" serves as a satiric counterpart to the nepotism

and poor judgment of the bishops who have failed to promote the

worthy Nicolas of Guildford.

VI

CHAPTER I

THE OWL AND THE NIGHTINGALE AND MEDIEVAL POETICS:

GENRE, STRUCTURE AND STYLE

Medieval literary theory was notoriously concerned with form,

definition and classification, including a hierarchy of "proper" or

"fitting" styles. As Leclercq describes this phenomenon, "In the

Middle Ages, as in antiquity, no writing is done without 'composi­

tion': the stylistic material is arranged in a certain order. Au­

thors conform to ways of writing and types of composition, each of

which has its own rules" (187). The Poetria Nova, Geoffrey of

Vinsauf's influential textbook on medieval poetics, advised:

. . . let the poet's hand not be swift to take up the pen,

nor his tongue be impatient to speak; trust neither hand

nor tongue to the guidance of fortune. To ensure greater

success for the work, let the discriminating mind, as a

prelude to action, defer the operation of hand and tongue,

and ponder long of the subject matter. . . . Let a defin­

ite order chart in advance at what point the pen will take

up its course, or where it will fix its Cadiz. As a pru­

dent workman, construct the whole fabric within the mind's

citadel; let it exist in the mind before it is on the

lips. (17)

It is reasonable to assume, then, that the debate form of The Owl

and the Nightingale (identified as a conflictus or altercatio in the

manuscripts) was deliberately chosen because that genre could more

1

effectively achieve the poet's preconceived purpose than could any

other. This chapter traces the development of the literary debate

in the Middle Ages and describes contemporary university debate

practice in order to uncover the system of expectations that in­

formed the poem's conception and its final form. It then examines

the poem's satiric mode in relation to the beast-fable and literary

traditions. The ultimate goal of this chapter, then, is to deter­

mine what the poem's genre and mode can tell us about its raison

d'etre.

The Debate Genre and the Structure of The Owl and the Nightingale

As Hanford has demonstrated, the medieval conflictus began as a

modification of the classical eclogue. The primary characteristics

of the eclogue are a pastoral setting and a contest of wit between

two singers. In the eclogue, the dispute between the singers does

not concern a single issue, but shifts from one subject to another;

the argument is highly vituperative; and the characters embody the

issues being debated (19-21). During the Middle Ages, the pastoral

setting became a mere formality as interest increasingly centered on

the content of the debate, and the dialogue began to concentrate on

a single issue; the characters then became allegorical embodiments

of two extreme positions concerning the disputed topic (22-23).

The standard pattern of the conflictus is exhibited in one of

its earliest examples, the Conflictus Veris et Hiemis, attributed to

Alcuin. Nine lines of introduction establish the setting and the

occasion of dispute: shepherds. Daphne, Palaemon, Spring and Winter

have all assembled in a bucolic setting to praise the cuckoo, herald

of spring. The debate, eleven three-line stanzas of alternating ar­

gument, begins with Spring speaking in favor of the lightness and

mirth of the cuckoo's song, which brings warmth and renewal of life;

she charges Winter with being turpid and lazy. Winter counters that

the cuckoo's song always causes turmoil, and she claims her own su­

premacy over both Spring and Summer. At this point. Daphne and

Palaemon end the dispute, ruling in favor of Spring. This poem thus

exhibits the conventional debate format: a brief introduction iden­

tifies both the topic and participants in a debate; then comes an

argument between personified figures who frequently resort to per­

sonal insult; finally, a human figure, with or without symbolic sig­

nificance, renders judgment. The pastoral setting is of minimal

importance, though it may retain some of the metaphorical value of

the eclogue.

Godman points out the significance of the relationship between

this early example of the genre and deliberative rhetoric:

Emphasis may also be placed on the contribution of rhe­

toric to the form and character of this work . . . the

poem is indivisible from this rhetorical context. Its

origins lie in the classroom, and its form is influenced

both by the style of exchange in which instruction was

conducted and by the authors, particularly Virgil, of pas­

toral eclogue. . , . What mattered in such a context was

less the subject being debated than the way in which it

was presented; Winter and Spring are not so much two op­

posing principles as two contending personifications and

interest is focussed on the cut and thrust of argument

rather than on its resolution. Not even the different

attitudes to life which the two seasons so effortlessly

represent are at issue in the Conflictus: attention is

engaged instead by the pace and wit of the verbal repar­

tee. Exemplifying the importance attached to style and

presentation of argument in the rhetorical debates of

Alcuin and his circle, Conflictus Veris et Hiemis is a

striking poetic testimony to their influence and success.

(21)

The disputants in debate poems follow the precepts of deliberative

rhetoric in developing their arguments, and in analyzing specific

examples of the genre, we need to remember that the argument itself

is often.as significant, if not more so, than the arguers. Debate

poems are, almost literally, arguments for the sake of argument.

Later developments, as seen in the dispute between the Rhine

and the Vosges rivers embedded in the Carmen Nigelli Ermoldi Exulis

in Laudem Gloriosissimi Pippine Regis, include not granting a clear

victory to either disputant and changing the earlier balanced alter­

nation of speeches into extended arguments of irregular length in

accord with university dialectic practice (Hanford 27-30). In the

still later Ecloga Theoduli, the two disputants are allegorical

champions for Christianity and paganism, the purpose is blatantly

5

didactic, and we see added to the conventional pattern a formal

challenge and selection of a judge before the debate (129-31).

A fourth early example of the genre is the "Rosae Liliique

Certamen" by Sedulius Scottus. The lines of this poem are arranged

primarily in four-line stanzas of alternating argument. The narra­

tive introduction is a bare four lines, two describing the spring

setting, the third naming the two disputants and the nature of the

dispute, and the fourth stating that the rose begins the quarrel.

The argument progresses as a contrast of personal qualities, and the

degree of personal insult is much greater than in previous examples;

the rose even calls the lily an "occata vetustas/old hag" (1.21).

Also significant is the fact that each claims precedence over the

other because she is preferred by others, Apollo for the lily and

Phoebus for the rose. Furthermore, narrative commentary is inserted

between the last statement of the argument and the final decisive

stanza where Spring chastises both disputants for excessive pride,

insisting that both are of equal though different merit (11. 33-42);

the poem then closes with a narrative description of the restoration

of peace and goodwill between the quarrelers.

From the late ninth through the mid-eleventh centuries there

exist no clear examples of the genre, and only a few are found from

the middle of the eleventh century; then, during the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries, the genre resurged in popularity, partially in

response to the concurrent emphasis on dialetic in the universities.

Abelard's Sic et Non is frequently cited as a major influence on

this resurrection (Atkins, xlviii). Some of the most frequently

read works included debates between the Soul and Body, Summer and

Winter, and Water and Wine; debates were composed both in Latin and

2 in the vernacular, the latter including Chardry's "Petit Plet,"

which is found in the same manuscripts as The Owl and the

Nightingale.

Altogether, then, we can identify six primary characteristics

of the genre. First, an introduction briefly describes the setting,

the topic of debate and the participants. Second, the pastoral ele­

ments are reduced in significance but remain as part of the poem's

symbolism. Third, the participants are limited to either humans,

animals and plants, or personified abstractions, and the kinds are

rarely mixed within the same poem. Fourth, the narrator who over-

3 hears and reports the debate is usually uninvolved and impartial.

Fifth, the judge does not always render a final judgment in favor of

one or the other disputant. Finally, the argument is normally a

formal exchange, frequently degenerating into personal invective but

always patterned after rhetorical models of debate.

Some noteworthy Latin examples include "Altercatio Ganymedis et Helenae," "Conflictus Ovis et Lini," "Goliae Dialogus Inter Aquam et Vinum," "Phillis et Flora," and "Disputatio Inter Cor et Oculum."

These include the later English examples, Clanvowe's Cuckoo and the Nightingale, Chaucer's Parliament of Fowls, Lydgate's Horse, Goose and Sheep, and the Parliament of the Three Ages.

o

Clanvowe's poem is a notable exception; cf. Lampe, "Debate Poems," 55 ff.

7

These six characteristics are reflected in the structure of The

Owl and the Nightingale. To begin with, the first stanza, twelve

lines divisible into three four-line groups, conforms to the conven­

tional debate introduction but is rather more elaborate than earlier

examples. The first four lines introduce the narrator, give the

setting ["one sumere dale,/In one supe dijele hale"], state that a

debate occurs ["iherde ich holde grete tale"], and identify the com­

batants ["an Hule and one Ni3tingale"]. None of this is especially

noteworthy: in debate poems, the narrator is usually anonymous and

rarely directly involved in the subsequent argument; summer is the

usual time, though spring is sometimes substituted; the setting is

typical of later examples of the genre where the elaborate bucolic

setting of the eclogue is collapsed for the sake of extra emphasis

on the debate itself; and the disputants are rarely described by the

narrator in any great detail. What is distinctive is the subsequent

expansion of detail in the second group of four lines (5-8), which

expands on the first, describing the tone of the "grete tale" men­

tioned in line 3 ["ji at plait was stif & stare & strong,/Sum wile

softe & lud among"] and the attitudes of the arguers ["]pat vvole

mod"] in line 4; lines 9 to 12, the third group, give still more

detail, specifically naming the topic of debate, each bird's

"custe," most especially each other's song.

All quotations from the poem are taken from Stanley's edition of the C text, unless specified otherwise.

8

This expanded introduction sets a pattern for the development

of the poem: with few exceptions, the second line of each couplet

expands on the meaning of the first line, and the second couplet

within each group expands on the meaning of the first. Subsequent

groups then expand on those immediately preceding until a new topic

is introduced; most frequently, these groups are either four-line or

six-line combinations. In fact, very few new topics are ever intro­

duced after the initial contact between the birds, most shifts in

the immediate topic of discussion being reversions to one brought up

much earlier, and all topics relate ultimately to the one question

of the relative merit of the two birds.

Following this expanded narrative introduction, in standard

poetic debate fashion, the narrator identifies the initiator of the

quarrel: "]3e Nijtingale bigon ie speche" (1.13). However, where

earlier poems follow immediately with the disputative dialogue, The

Owl and the Nightingale inserts an apparently digressive detailed

description of the physical location of each bird (11. 14-28). The

obvious place for such a description would have been earlier in the

first stanza, as an expansion of lines 1-2, ". . . one sumere dale,/

In one snbe dijele hale," in the same pattern as the earlier expan­

sions of lines 3 and 4. Since this description seems digressive and

goes beyond the normal scope of pastoral descriptions in debate

poems, we can reasonably suppose that the poet intended to stress

the symbolic value of the physical location of each bird. As Lampe

notes, this setting is referred to several times in the process of

the debate and helps establish the subsequent characterization of

the birds ("Debate Poems" 8-10).

By the end of the third stanza, then, we can see that the poet

has modified the traditional pattern of the conflictus to serve his

own purposes. I suggest that lines 29-214 represent an even greater

modification than the descriptive insertion of lines 14-28 into the

introductory section. While this second section is an argumentative

dialogue, it is not a formal rhetorical debate. In the first place,

there is no formal exchange of assertions, refutations and proofs;

of the 144 lines, the nightingale speaks 111, the narrator 21, and

the owl a mere 12, nor does the owl attempt to refute the nightin­

gale's charges. Nor can this initial section be considered the

nightingale's opening assertion, since this section is followed by

another long speech by the same disputant; the nightingale would

have two assertive speeches before the owl had one of refutation.

That this section is not a formal debate but a mere quarrel is con­

firmed at the end of the section when the nightingale says: "Ac

For the purposes of this study, it is enough to note that the nightingale is pointedly linked to spring, which symbolically asso­ciates her with temporal joy, rebirth and fecundity. The owl is linked with winter, symbol of death and decay, and with ivy, a sym­bol of eternal spiritual values. The setting thus "establishes an initial contrast between the two birds—a contrast that is essential to the rest of the poem and is more fully developed there" (Lampe, "Debate Poems" 10, 11).

10

lete we awei^os cheste,/Vor suiche wordes hop unwerste;/& fo we on

mid ri^te dome,/Mid faire worde & mid ysome." The contrast between

"strife" and "futile" words (cheste/wordes . . . unwerste) and

"right judgment" with "fair" and "friendly" words (rigte dome/faire

worde & . . . ysome) is pointed. Atkins effectively translates the

entire passage, including the four lines immediately following:

But let us now stop this squabbling, for such talking

serves no purpose: and let us get on with a proper trial,

using fair and friendly words. For though we may not be

agreed, we can conduct this case in better fashion, by ob­

serving decency and law, and with friendly argument, free

from strife and violence: so that each may say whatever

he will, with due regard to law and reason.

The birds are involved in an emotional quarrel that almost dis­

solves into physical violence. The owl in lines 49-54 wishes she

could get her claws on the insulting nightingale:

Home jju dest me grame,

& seist me hdhe tone & schame.

3if ich ie holde on mine note—

So hit bitide iat ich mote!—

& iu were vt of 2)ine rise,

]Pu sholdest singe an a6er wise!

This violence is only averted by the decision in lines 177-214 to

debate the issue formally and to let Nicolas of Guildford, a wise

and worthy man, decide the final outcome.

11

Section three, the core of the poem, is the formal debate and

begins in line 215, after the conventional appointment of a judge,

when the narrator says the nightingale was "al are,/Ho hadde

ilorned wel aivvare." Since, under the influence of university dia­

lectics, formal rhetoric had become so significant in debate poems,

I suspect that "she had learned well everywhere" is an allusion to

the training required by the quodlibet, the dialectic debate prac­

tised at every university in medieval Europe:

The medieval disputation . . . was a major formative agent

in the university training process. The student entering

the university was obliged to learn the methods of dialec­

tical argument and the method was used in turn for class­

room demonstration by the master and for the examination

of the student. Since the university-trained writer or

speaker emerged with an extensive experience in this

method, it had an effect on medieval thinking about vari­

ous kinds of writing and speaking. (Murphy, Medieval

Rhetoric 82)

Unfortunately, extant accounts of the exact procedure in these

disputations are vague (Pelligrini 16). However, one of the most

popular textbooks on rhetoric distinguishes between three parts of

an argument: the kataphasis or assertion; the apophasis or refuta­

tion; and the krinomenon, the "point concerning which judgment must

be given." The krinomenon is derived from the aetion, the cause of

the charge. The synekon is the strategy whereby the defense tries

12

to disprove the aetion (Fortunatianus 26). During the debate, the

kataphasis was represented by the Respondent, and the apophasis was

represented by a team of four Opponents; the Moderator maintained

order and summed up the krinomenon after the dispute (Pellegrini

17). The formal debate was conducted in two stages, the disputatio

and the determinatio, sometimes separated by several days. The dis­

putatio was an improvised discussion of extremely diverse questions,

frequently not related to a single topic, between the Respondent and

the Opponents, beginning with the kataphasis (Lampe, "Debate Poems"

99-100).

The determination, or krinomenon, was a reprise of the disputa­

tion, requiring the master to find some vv/ay of logically integrating

all the diverse issues brought up in the disputation and to discuss

any objections and responses missed by the debaters (Lampe, "Debate

Poems" 109). Furthermore, although there was a noticeable decline

in the seriousness of debate topics as the disputation moved into

the 15th and 16th centuries (Pellegrini 18), the arguments continued

to be hotly prosecuted, frequently leading to violent disorder in a

practice called "coursing" (Smith, "Extracurricular Disputations"

474-75). This accords well with the fact that debate poems empha­

size the debate itself, becoming an exercise in wit as much as an

investigation of serious philosophic questions, and with the fact

These same divisions of an argument into kataphasis and apo­phasis are discussed in the pseudo-Augustinian "De Rhetorica Quae Supersunt," pp. 16-17.

13

that the argument often seems disjointed in topic, trite, and unduly

vehement.

It is quite likely, I believe, that these university practices

would have influenced both the structure of debate poems and the

roles of the participants. Thus, the task proposed for Master

Nicolas would be, in view of university practice, to keep the argu­

ment from dissolving into a physical riot between supporters of the

two birds, to find a logical connection between the points brought

up during the debate (to restate the krinomenon), and to give an

additional explication of the issue, as well as to decide the vic­

tor. The nightingale may be labeled the Respondent, her initial

statements the kataphasis or accusation, and her subsequent remarks

the aetion or supportive proofs. The owl is then the Opponent, her

initial statements are the apophasis, and her subsequent remarks are

the synekon of the debate.

Section three, the formal debate, ends in lines 1635-66, when

the nightingale claims victory based on a rhetorical technicality.

Section four of the poem, lines 1667-1788, another modification of

the earlier debate format, is an insertion between the closing words

of the formal argument and what would normally be a judgmental con­

clusion. The topic of this section reverts to the earlier quarrel

in section two (11. 29-214), demonstrating in even greater detail

just how easily this dispute could dissolve into open warfare, this

time involving the entire bird kingdom, not just the two birds.

Again, violence is averted by reference to Nicolas of Guildford.

14

Still another significant variation on the debate conventions is the

fact that the selected judge is not himself actually present during

the debate, which forces the owl to assume one of the duties of the

Moderator, the recitation of the disputation. The nightingale asks,

"Ah wa schal unker speche rede,/An telle touore unker deme?" (11.

1782-83), and the owl responds:

}Darof ich schal e wel icweme,

. . . for al, ende of orde.

Telle ich con, word after worde.

An Jef ^e pinch i6at ich misrempe

]DU stond a^ein & do me crempe.

Section five of the poem, the last six lines, then moves to a rapid,

if not abrupt, conclusion, stating that the narrator cannot relate

which of the two birds actually won the argument.

The conventions of the debate genre, together with the techni­

ques of scholastic debate, thus indicate that the poem is divisible

into five distinct sections structured somewhat like a Chinese box

A

(Figure 1). As Patterson has demonstrated, such an emboitement or

chiastic organization is common in medieval literature and often has

thematic value (669-71). In this particular case, the most external

layer of the poem, sections one and five, is merely an organiza­

tional unit, that is, it establishes the poem as a debate, identi­

fies the disputants, and as Chapter II will demonstrate, identifes

both the potential violence of the quarrel, effusively praising

Nicolas and bluntly condemning the bishops. Thus, the middle layer

15

(1) Lines 1-28 Lines 1789-94 (5)

( 2) Lines 29-214 Lines 1667-1788 (4

(3) Lines 215-1666

)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Introduction Informal Quarrel Formal Debate Informal Quarrel Conclusion

Figure 1: Emboitement Structure In The Owl and the Nightingale

16

helps interpret the center, much of which would be otherwise ob­

scure. Section three (11. 215-1666), the formal debate, is the

structural core of the poem; as Chapter III will demonstrate, this

section is a satiric picture of the behaviors and beliefs of the

bishops mentioned in lines 1761-63.

The Beast-Fable and the Satiric Mode Of The Owl and the Nightingale

Perhaps one of the most striking characteristics of the poem is

the comedy of the argument between the birds, a "spirit of jest and

fiction which pervades the whole," to use Hanford's description of

later developments in the genre, which included a freer style,

greater liveliness resulting from rhythmic verse, and an increased

use of parody and satire (Hanford 131, 138). In The Owl and the

Nightingale, the potential for satire present in the debate genre is

fully realized through the influence of the beast-fable genre with

its own satiric potential. Since debate poems often feature the per­

sonification of animals, we should not be surprised to find in The

Owl and the Nightingale close associations with both satiric carica­

ture and beast-fable conventions.

Several critics have noted the close parallels between speci­fic passages in The Owl and the Nightingale and the fables of Marie de France and Odo of Cheriton, most notably in the falcon's nest anecdote (11. 101-26) and in the story of the knight's lady (11. 1049-66). The Appendix of Stanley's edition includes a chart of specific points of correlation between the poem and contemporary beast-fables.

17

Priscian the Grammarian defines a fable as "a composition made

up to resemble life, projecting an image of truth in its structure,"

and states as a chief principle for the genre that "This technique

applies to the needs of life and becomes realistic if the things

which happen to the subject are then related to the experiences of

real men." He then discusses the need to match the human character­

istic being described with the presumed characteristics of an ani­

mal: the peacock's pride with human pride, the fox's cleverness

with human cleverness, and the imitative nature of the ape with the

imitative nature of men (53).

This system of representation is based on the idea that human

types have their correlaries within the animal kingdom, and that all

the poet need do is search for the appropriate correlative species

and describe its behavior in a fictional situation; thus he simul­

taneously describes the behavior of men. Lady Philosophy explains

the analogy in depth in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy:

You will say that the man who is driven by avarice to

seize what belongs to others is like a wolf; the restless,

angry man who spends his life in quarrels you VN?ill compare

to a dog. The treacherous conspirator who steals by fraud

may be likened to a fox; the man who is ruled by

intemperate anger is thought to have the soul of a lion.

The fearful and timid man who trembles without reason is

like a deer; the lazy, stupid fellow is like an ass. The

volatile, inconstant man who continually changes direction

18

is like a bird; the man who is sunk in foul lust is trap­

ped in the pleasures of a filthy sow. In this way, anyone

who abandons virtue ceases to be a man, since he cannot

share in the divine nature, and instead becomes a beast.

Jacobs has called this correlation between human and animal realms a

"correspondence theory of truth" (27), based on a perception of the

universe as hierarchically ordered with man between the purely spir­

itual realm of God and angels and the purely physical realm of ani­

mals. In this median position, man has both a spiritual and a

physical nature, and he is capable of rising or falling in the scale

of beings, depending upon his behavior.

We have only to turn to the bestiaries to see how this system

of correspondences worked. Animals were perceived as having person­

ality and character divinely instilled into their natures so that

man, observing those natures, might perceive moral truth and the di­

vine nature of the Creator who is the referent point for moral

truth. Moreover, visible images of the same invisibilia could be

seen at every level in the hierarchical cosmic scale. For example,

the sin of pride could be seen at the angelic level in the figure of

Satan, at the human level in various persons, and at the animal

level in the peacock. This idea, which Curley calls the "analogic

structure of nature," furnished "a ready set of divinely provided

symbols to bridge the otherwise impassable gulf between the visi-

bilis of this world and the invisibilia of the other" (Phvsiologus

X ii-iv). If animals were seen to have human characteristics, it was

19

not because of personification, i.e., the deliberate and conscious

attribution of human traits to an entirely different nature, but

because of the divinely appointed system of images and likenesses.

Animals, in and of their own natures, have characteristics which

mirror the same moral truth as man, and the two natures are alike in

those mirror images.

This theory of correspondences and mirror imagery throughout

the cosmic hierarchy underlay the form of the widely disseminated

bestiaries. For instance, an anonymous twelfth-century bestiary

says that the fox is "a fraudulent and ingenious animal," demon­

strated in the way the fox fakes death in order to trap birds for

food (White 53); the fox is, thus, an appropriate representative for

fraudulent human behaviors because he is himself devious. The lion

reflects the resurrection in that the lioness gives birth to a dead

whelp which the father awakens by breathing into its face on the

third day (Phvsiologus 4). The swordfish, because he emulates sail­

ing ships but grows tired and quits after three or four miles, is

similar to a man who does not persevere in emulating the prophets

and apostles (6).

According to Priscian, this same system of correspondences

functions in the beast fable. If a fabulist wishes to satirize

human pride, he has merely to create a tale about a peacock, which

is itself guilty of pride. He can then control the length of his

tale by either telling a simple narration or by "giving speech to

the participants," and he can make his tale serve a moral purpose by

20

incorporating an epimythion, "a statement which points out the moral

of the fable," either at the beginning or, more normally, at the end

of the work (53). Jacobs, in speaking of this moralistic aspect in

the fables of Odo of Cheriton, states that while many of his stories

are simply "cautionary," many are ". . . properly (if loosely) to be

termed 'satiric'—that is, they are fictions designed primarily to

attack" (26); they are "fictive commentaries on the abuses and abu­

sers of his age . . . attacks which seek to transform the way men

see themselves and their world and, therefore, the way they act"

(26-27). In essence, then, the beast fable functions through a sys­

tem of correspondences, and, when its corrective method is satiri­

cal, its moral involves the idea that a true man would not act as

these lesser creatures are seen to act.

As Hume and others have noted, in The Owl and the Nightingale

the two birds are most definitely birds; they retain distinctly

bird-like characteristics which prevent total allegorical identifi­

cation with human concerns. In fact, the natural lore contained

within the poem has caused a great deal of investigation into folk­

lore concerning the two birds and identification of parallels with

scientific works such as Alexander Neckam's De naturis rerum. In

Hinckley's words, "A salient point of interest in The Owl and the

Nightingale is the amount of knowledge, expressed or implied in the

poem, concerning animal life which is correct and possibly due to

direct personal obvservation" ("Science and Folk-Lore" 303). In

this respect, the poem does no more than comply with the principle

21

of natural realism, which Charles Baldwin discusses, quoting a pass­

age from John of Salisbury's Metalogicon (c. 1159):

In other things, too, grammatica imitates nature; for the

precepts of poetica set forth the habits of nature and ex­

act of the craftsman in this art that he follow nature—

to that degree, indeed, that the poet shall not depart

from the footprints of nature, but apply himself to stick

to them in manner, gesture, even word. Moreover, the the­

ory is to be kept not only in feet or tenses, but in ages,

places, seasons, and other details beyond our present pur­

pose, for all these come from the workshop of nature.

(Charles Baldwin 157-159)

However, it is equally obvious that both birds also represent

humans: they quarrel as men do, resorting to the rules of formal

rhetorical debate; they are governed as men are governed; and they

constantly relate their concerns to human issues. In short, there

is a man behind each of the two birds. This has never been a point

of critical contention; what has been hotly argued is exactly which

human issues the birds are supposed to represent. Hume succinctly

summarizes the situation:

In 1948 Albert C. Baugh denied that the poem was "anything

more than a lively altercation between two birds," and al­

most every critic since has gone out of his way to protest

this assessment. And it ±s_ difficult to believe that a

poem of such length and quality should be merely a jeu

22

d'esprit. Failure to see its meaning has driven critics

to try explaining the poem by means of external contexts;

in other words, to reading it allegorically. (51)

I suggest that the problem has been trying to find an allegorical

context outside of the poem, when the poem is using instead the same

system of analogical correspondences at work in the bestiary and the

beast-fable. The birds, while thev remain birds, exhibit behaviors

which are blameworthy behaviors and become comic descriptors of the

same behaviors in human beings. Thus the birds are a satirical pic­

ture of human nature.

Here, Tucker's analysis of satiric conventions can help us

grasp the satiric functioning of the poem. In the first place, he

defines the "satirical spirit" as the "spirit of adverse or negative

criticism, the spirit that prompts attack" (7). This satiric spirit

is characterized by exaggeration and ridicule of human beliefs and

behaviors and by a reformatory purpose which is a by-product of the

more direct purpose of destructive criticism. Also, while satiric

humor is similar to comedy, which seeks merely to amuse, in that

both depend on a perception of incongruities, it is dissimilar "in

that it must attack these absurdities made evident by humor and

reduce them to harmony" (Tucker 8). This sense of the ridiculous

results in exaggeration, an attempt to increase the sense of incon­

gruity (9). Essentially, then, the difference between humor and

satire is the ratio of amusement to invective contained within the

ridicule of the incongruous, as well as satire's corrective purpose.

23

Dramatic satire attacks the incongruous by creating an exaggerated

fictional situation in which the audience sees beliefs and behaviors

functioning in such a way that they reject those beliefs and behav­

iors, resulting in the transformation of a particular case into an

archetype of contemptible human behavior (18, 30). This type of sa­

tire is best exemplified in the Middle Ages, according to Tucker, by

the beast-fables in which "the beast . . . always concealed a man"

(26-27). It is my belief that this same type of satire is at work

in the argument between the birds and that we must look at their be­

haviors and beliefs as exaggerations of human patterns.

The satiric mode of The Owl and the Nightingale is reflected

in its tone and style. Medieval poetics distinguished between two

styles, the "high" style for tragedy and panegyric and the "low"

style for comedy and satire, a distinction which Judson Allen char­

acterizes as "both a sense of social hierarchy and an answering

sense of a hierarchy of styles" (21). Minnis cites an accessus com­

mentary on Persius in which the author's low style is defended as

appropriate to satiric comedy with reference to the etymology of the

term "satire," supposedly named after the goat-like satyrs:

The satyrs are depicted naked; similarly satire employs a

plain and unembellished style. In its use of vulgar words

it differs from tragedy, which always uses elevated lang­

uage. Moreover, a satire jumps about, in the fashion of a

goat, because it has neither a circumscribed theme nor a

flowing rhythm. The goat is a stinking animal, and satire

24

employs pungent and unpleasant words. By such drastic

methods, the satirist made manifest his moral, outrage and

censured the vices of men.

Thus, the scatalogical references (scitwordes) which Atkins felt ob­

liged to omit from his translation of The Owl and the Nightingale

(for example, cp. 11. 585-596 with p. 161) are actually quite appro­

priate to satiric comedy and even an integral part of the poem's

style. So also is its non-sequential development (supra 8) and the

obvious game of rhetorical one-up-manship, so to speak, revealed by

narrative description of the birds' thoughts as they plan their at­

tacks and counter-attacks. All of these elements combined help to

create within the debate itself a relatively light tone based on

simple amusement over the birds' foibles.

The tone changes, however, in the fourth section, lines 1667-

1788, moving away from light amusement and toward invective aroused

by the author's personal animus against the bishops who have failed

to promote Nicolas. This is Tucker's "direct" satire, stimulated by

"a sense of injury, or a feeling of dislike or hatred toward an in­

dividual, institution, or class" (Tucker 10-11). Lines 1761-1778

are a blatant attack on those responsible for not promoting Nicolas

of Guildford: "pat his bischopen muchel schame,/An alle pan p^t of

his nome/Habbeyb ihert, & of his dede" (11. 1761-63). Even more se­

vere is the criticism in lines 1770-78:

peos riche men wel muche misdoyO

]9at lete^ y6ane gode mon.

25

pat of so feole ijinge con.

An 7iuei6 rente wel misliche.

An of him lete^ wel lihtliche;

Wi^ heore cunne heo hedh mildre,

An 'zexiep rente litle childre:

Swo heore wit hi demi a dwole,

pat euer abid Maistre Nichole.

The severity of these strictures is increased by juxtapostion with

the panegyric concerning the neglected Nicolas in lines 1752-1768.

Earlier, in lines 191-214, Nicolas had been described as a man "wis

an war of worde," "of dome suhe gleu," and as a man to whom is "loyb

eurich unlbeu." Furthermore, "He wot insist in eche songe,/Wo singet

wel, wo singet wronge:/& he can schede vrom e ri^te/pat woje, yOat

Ibuster from-oe li7te." Thus, although Nicolas in youth had been

"breme" and overly devoted to the nightingale, the owl is willing to

trust him to render true judgment: "He is him ripe & fastrede,/Ne

lust him nu to none unrede:/Nu him ne lust na more pleie,/He wile

gon a rijte weie."

This encomium is then expanded in lines 1755-58: "par he dem^

manie rijte dom,/An diht & writ mani wisdom,/An^urh his mu^e &^urh

his honde/Hit is j?)e betere into Scotlonde." The birds do not under­

stand why the bishops and others do not recognize this great wisdom,

and there is certainly a sense of injury and bitter irony in the no­

tion that, instead of giving Nicolas those "rente a uale stude" (1.

1767) which would enable him to join their councils "for teche heom

26

of his wisdome" (1. 1766), the bishops give the rents to children.

Thus, the poem captializes on the contrasts between direct satire

and panegyric to create a highly effective statement about the

preferment issue.

Actually, in The Owl and the Nightingale, we can identify three

distinct modes of development: in the argument between the birds,

the mode is that of indirect satire; in discussion of those bishops

who overlooked Nicolas, the mode shifts from indirect to direct sa­

tiric condemnation; and in referring to Nicolas of Guildford (11.

177-215 and 1745-80), the poem shifts to panegyric. The contrasts

between the three modes and their related tonal shifts then enhances

the effectiveness of each.

Ultimately, I have to agree with Hume that it is difficult to

accept The Owl and the Nightingale as merely a jeu d'esprit. The

debate genre, the beast-fable and satire all include a didactic pur­

pose, and this purpose logically has to be embodied in the direct

contrast between the praise of Nicolas and the satiric condemnation

of the bishops. It is relatively easy to recognize that this

contrast serves as a condemnation of abuses in the preferment system

(this will be discussed further in Chapter III). The remaining pro­

blem is to relate the satirical argument between the two birds,

which is by far the greatest portion of the poem, to this more ex­

terior and obvious purpose. The solution to this problem lies in

recognizing that the situation within the bird-kingdom is a satiric

counterpart to that in the human realm, Nicolas serving as the

27

single common element of both. However, it is impossible to define

precisely the nature of this correspondence without first identify­

ing an issue which unifies the seemingly diverse argument between

the birds and serves as the point of correspondence between the two

realms. In other words, just as the owl is forced by the physical

absence of the chosen moderator to review the specific points of the

argument, the reader of the poem is forced to find the krinomenon,

the real issue at stake in the debate.

CHAPTER II

THE TOPIC OF DEBATE

As Chapter I established. The Owl and the Nightingale contains

a fairly conventional narrative introduction which progresses by a

gradual expansion of details concerning topics introduced in earlier

couplets. The first stanza of the introduction is divisible into

three four-line groups; the third four-line group is an expansion on

the second, which was itself an expansion on the first. "& elper

seide of o^eres custe/pat aire worste^at hi wuste" adds detail to

"an aiyber a*en o^er sval,/& let^at vvole mod ut al." "& hure &

hure of oheres songe/Hi holde plaiding su e stronge" (11. 11-12) ex­

pands on the preceeding couplet, and all four lines together specif­

ically identify the topic of the debate, each other's "custe," most

especially each other's song. As Peterson has pointed out, the

topic of debate must be contained within the meaning of "custe" (15)

which the Middle English Dictionary defines as "excellence of char­

acter or virtue, character or character trait"; in respect to ac-

o

tions or events, "custe" also means "manner or way." Thus, the

poem explicitly states that the argument is an exchange of insults

concerning each bird's character, inherent nature, and behavior.

The MED lists parallel uses in the Bodley Homilies, La amon's Brut, Floris and Blancheflour, and the Proverbs of Alfred, from which the birds draw most of the adages used to validate their ar­guments.

28

29

Now, "custe" as the central topic of debate conforms to medie­

val poetic theory. Averroes' version of Aristotle's Poetics lists

six aspects of tragic poetry: fictional descriptions ["sermones

fabulares representativi"], customs ["consuetudines"], formalism of

language ["metrum seu pondus"], beliefs ["credulitates"], meaning

["consideratio"] and expressive power ["thonus"]. What is repre­

sented are "consuetudines," "credulitates" and "consideratio"—

customs, beliefs and the "proof of the rightfulness of a belief or a

deed, not by persuasive speech, since this does not pertain to the

art of poetry nor does it fit it, but rather by description"; the

other three are the means of representation. The most important of

the six are beliefs and customs, including both actions and manners

(Judson Allen 22-25). Comedic poetry contains the same six ele­

ments; the only difference is that, while tragedy proceeds by af­

firmation of customs and beliefs, comedy proceeds by repudiation,

which is the basis of the medieval definition of tragedy as the art

of praising and comedy as the art of blaming. As Allen notes, "the

act of assent to the normative which is expressed by laughter is,

with regard to the norm itself, exactly the same as the quieter but

no less definitive assent generated by well-deserved praise—that

is, by the effective description of the admirable" (31). In other

words, both comedy and tragedy center on human behaviors, assuming

that certain actions and beliefs are normative and praiseworthy

while deviations are to be repudiated.

30

Chapter II of this study first identifies the aetion and kata­

phasis, the nightingale's charge and proof, and the apophasis and

synekon, the owl's refutation and defensive strategy, within the de­

bate. It then addresses the primary interpretive problem by identi­

fying "kind" or nature as the unifying issue, the krinomenon on

which judgment must be passed, cued by the repeated use of the word

"cunde" and its related forms. Once we recognize "cunde" as the un­

ifying issue and make the requisite judgment of the relative merits

of each bird's argument, we can recognize the customs and beliefs,

the consuetudines and credulitates, which are being satirized within

the poem. We can then identify the theme or consideratio of the de­

bate, which can be related directly to the preferment issue.

In lines 13-14, the nightingale initiates the quarrel, calling

the owl an "ynwi^^t"; throughout the poem, this word and "wrecche" in

combination with "ful" are primary terms of insult between the birds

as each tries to demonstrate that her opponent is a foul being unfit

to associate with other birds. This combination of "foul" with a

word that literally means "uncreature" seems to be an allusion to

the lists of clean and unclean animals by specific "kinds" or genera

in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. A comparison of these lists in the

Vulgate with yElfric's Heptateuch is enlightening. Whereas the

Vulgate in Lev.11:13-14 specifically names the eagle, ossifrage, os-

prey, falcon, and vulture as unclean birds, yElfric condenses these

into the hafoccynn [hawk-tribe] and earncynn [eagle-tribe]. The

Vulgate ban on the raven in verse 15 is translated into English as

31

Ne ulan [owl], ne nan^inge hrefncynnes [raven-tribe]." The rest

of the list, which the Heptateuch does not translate, also includes

the noctua [night-hawk], bubo [white owl], and the ibis [horned or

9 great owl]. The nightingale obviously identifies the owl as one of

these unclean birds, contact with which makes a man also unclean.

If the owl is unclean in the Mosaic sense, there is some justifica­

tion for the nightingale's attempt to drive her away, and in her

subsequent attacks on the owl, the nightingale attempts to substan­

tiate her classification of the owl as an "unwiijt."

Thus the formal debate begins with the rhetorical question in

line 217, "seie me so^,/Wi dostu y6at unwijtis doy6?" Most of the

nightingale's assertions during the debate are a reprise of state­

ments made in the second section, the informal quarrel, and can be

reduced to six specific points concerning the owl's foul nature.

First, the owl is violent by nature, attacking other birds (11. 63-

70). Second, the owl deviates in her physical appearance (11. 71-

84). Third, the owl is nocturnal (11. 89-90, 227-52). Fourth, she

has filthy nesting habits (11. 91-126). Fifth, her song is more a

horrid screech than music and bodes only of evil to come (11. 224-

27, 411-32, and 1169-74). Finally, the owl is useless, except in

death, and hated by all men (11. 1111-74).

Part of the problem in tracing Latin influences in The Owl and the Nightingale is the fact that the Vulgate recognizes more than one type of owl, especially the noctua, the bubo and the nycticorax or nightraven, all of which may be translated by the one English word, ule.

32

Peterson notes that this attack is based on the doctrine of

evil as deprivation or deviation from nature; the nightingale in

effect accuses the owl of being a natural deviate, and she repeat­

edly uses the word "cunde." Since the owl is herself a fowl, yet

attacks other creatures which have the nature or inherent qualities

of fowls, she betrays her own kind and hence is unnatural, an "vn-

wizt"; therefore, all other birds are justified in driving the owl

from their midst (11. 66-70). The word is even more significant

in lines 85-88, a comparison of the owl with obviously unclean crea­

tures: "pe were icundur to one frogge/[pat sit at mulne vnder

cogge: ]/Snailes, mus, & fule wi7te/Bo%^ine cunde &^ine rijte."

Among the possible meanings listed in the Middle English Dictionary

for "icundur" is "more natural, more characteristic; related by kin­

ship, more akin," giving us the translation, "a frog that sits under

the cogstone at the mill would be more akin to you: snails, mice

12 and foul creatures are your kind and your proper order."

Concerning the owl's nocturnal habits, the nightingale claims

that only evil creatures prefer the night to day, and says, "So do^

1)at boi of 2>ine cunde:/Of lijte nabbe^ hi none imunde" (11. 251-52).

^^Peterson cites Augustine's Confessions, VII, 11-17, and Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, II, 10-13, in The Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, ed. and trans. Anton C. Pegis.

^^Martin along with Atkins sees parallels of the owl's charac­terization in Alexander Neckam's De laudibus divinae sapientiae. He also identifies a metaphorical use of the owl mobbed by smaller birds in the Liber de similitudinibus (PL 159, col. 699-700).

33

Another form of the same word is paired with "custe" in lines 114-

15, the falcon's nest episode, where the adjective "icunde" clearly

signifies "natural": "Segget me, wo hauety6is ido?/Ov nas neuer

icunde^arto:/Hit was idon ov a lope custe." When the young falcons

accuse the owlet, pointing out his deviant appearance ("pe ond,

y{)at haued y&at grete heued"), as a justifiable punishment for its

loathsome nature, the falcon throws the owlet from the nest for mag­

pies and crows to tear apart. The proverbs about the "ungode" who

knows always that he came "of fule brode" (11. 127-134) and the

apple that, however far it may roll from the parent tree, knows

"whonene he is icume" (11. 135-38) seem to signify that the owl her­

self knows that she comes from a foul brood and cannot escape her

inherent nature.

The word "kind" is also used repeatedly in the nightingale's

defense against the owl's countercharges. In lines 713-14, she

claims that one of her songs is better than all '"jat eure i kun

kuie," and in line 1099 she claims that the cuckolded knight had

been punished by King Henri, which was "wr6sipe al mine kunne." The

question of "kind" or "nature" even appears in the long, apparently

digressive argument over whether the nightingale causes sexual

misconduct, when, in lines 1395-98, the nightingale distinguishes

12 Hirsh traces the association between owls, jackdaws and frogs

in Plato, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and Aeneas of Gaza, among oth­ers, commenting on these lines in The Owl and the Nightingale that the nightingale is obviously associating the owl "with the very low­est forms of life" (146-47).

34

between two kinds of sin and claims that at least the erring woman

sins through natural instinct instead of through pride (11. 1423-

24).

In her own defense, the owl also resorts to the idea of kinds,

especially to natural law for birds of prey, in order to prove that

she is not an unclean creature. To the first two charges, that she

attacks smaller fowls and that she is physically ugly, the owl an­

swers that this is part of her inherent nature as one of the hawk

family (269-76):

Ich habbe bile stif & stronge,

& gode cliuers scharp & longe.

So hit bicumei to hauekes cunne.

Hit is min hi2te, hit is mi wnne

pat ich me draffe to mine cunde,

Ne mai no man^areuore schende:

On me hit is wel isene

Vor ri7te cunde ich am so kene.

Atkins' translation of this passage is loose but effective, convey­

ing its emphasis on natural law:

"I have a strong and sturdy beak, good claws as well both

sharp and long, as befits one of the hawk-tribe. It is my

joy, my delight as well, that I live in accord with Na­

ture: and for this no man can blame me. In me it is

plainly seen that by Nature's laws I am so fierce . . . "

(225)

35

Because of the idea that evil is a deviation from natural law, the

owl must establish the fact that she does no more than is natural to

her own kind within the natural order of the universe (Peterson 16).

No man can blame the owl for either her violence or her appearance,

since both are determined by the divinely appointed laws of kind or

genus.

To refute the charge that owls have filthy nesting habits, she

mentions similar habits among other creatures (11. 605-54), each of

which is "clean" by Mosaic law, so this cannot count as proof that

the owl is an "unwi7t." In defense of her nocturnal, winterish hab­

its and her singing, the owl alludes to the nycticorax allegory.

Augustine in his Enarrationes in Psalmos developed a special signif­

icance for this one particular type of owl, based on its metaphori­

cal association with David in Psalm 101:7-8. Thus, the owl had a

double metaphorical value; while the bubo and the noctua symbolized

sinful man avoiding the light of Christ and blind to the true faith,

as well as the prophet of doom, the nycticorax, or nightraven, sym­

bolized both Christ and the selfless Christian voluntarily living in

the darkness of the world in order to save those who were not total-

13 ly irreclaimable (Donovan 207-8). This defense is, thus, based on

a distinction between two kinds of owls.

Finally, when she thinks she is about to be mobbed by the

nightingale's supporters, the owl makes one more claim on her kin­

ship with the "hauekes cunne":

36

pe schule wite, ar e fleo heonne,

Hwuch is >6e stren^ of mine kunne,

For eo pe haue^ bile ihoked,

An cliures charpe & wel icroked,

Alle heo beoS of mine kunrede.

An walde come jif ich bede.

(11. 1673-78)

Thus, we can define the kataphasis of the debate as the night­

ingale s charge that the owl is by nature unclean and deserving of

the animosity of all other creatures; the aetion or proof of the

charge is six specific examples of the owl's unclean "custes." The

owl's defensive strategy, the synekon of the debate, is her claim

that those six behaviors are not unclean but are, in actuality, the

natural characteristics of her own kind, the hawk family, combined

with her countercharges that the nightingale is guilty of equally

offensive behaviors:

Go so hit go, at eche fenge

pu fallest mid ybine ahene swenge;

Al at u seist for me to schende.

Hit is mi wur2)schipe at an ende.

1 3 Donovan also cites Cassiodorus (PL 37, 1298-1300), the

Pseudo-Bede (PL 93, 994-95), Honorius of Autun (PL 172, 300), Peter Lombard (PL 191, 908-9), St. Isidore (PL 82, 464-65), Rabanus Maurus (PL H I , 251) and Hugh of St. Victor (PL. 177, 30-31).

37

Bute ^u wille bet aginne,

Ne shaltu bute schame iwinne.

(11. 1285-90)

The owl claims superiority for herself and her own kind over the

nightingale and her kind.

'Kind," then, must be the krinomenon of the debate, the single

point which unifies through constant repetition. Just as the owl

claims that she is keenly in favor of "ri'zte cunde" (1.276), the

nightingale also firmly establishes herself as the proponent of

"rihte ikunde," cursing all who violate "proper nature" (11. 1382-

83). Also, both birds speak of their deaths as past events, apply­

ing to themselves qualities and actions which strictly speaking can

only pertain to some other member of their species. Obviously, the

issue of the relative merits of each bird includes not only the par­

ticular birds speaking in the poem, but extends to their entire spe­

cies. As C.S. Lewis's study of the word "kind" reveals, although

the word, deriving from the Anglo-Saxon cynd, certainly can mean

"type" or sort of thing, it can also mean "nature." From another

meaning, "progeny," derives the meaning "family," "stock" or "kin­

dred" (26- 33). In The Owl and the Nightingale, the word "cunde" is

used in all these ways as the birds argue over the relative merits

of each other's "kind," or family.

In lines 1653-1738, this quarrel nearly becomes open warfare,

14 not just between the two birds but within the entire bird kingdom.

An uneasy peace is maintained only through the wren's intervention.

38

when she urges both to keep their agreement to abide by the judgment

of Nicolas and warns,

Hwat! wulle^ey6is pes tobreke.

An do an kinge swuch schame?

3e! nis he nou^er ded ne lame.

Hunke schal itide harm & schonde

3ef pe ^op gri^bruche on his londe.

(11. 1730-34)

Although much has been made of this particular passage in an effort

to correlate the phrase "this peace" with a specific historical in­

cident, it is possible to read it as simply a general reference to

the ancient Anglo-Saxon principle known as "the king's peace."

Based on the idea that fighting or violence by strangers in the

King's house was a serious offense, and that this peace temporarily

included any area where he happened to be, the concept gradually

came to include places where he was present in theory, local courts,

roads and rivers, and churches and monasteries. After the Norman

Conquest, this concept of the King's peace was extended to include

An interesting analogue to this idea of a gigantic battle be­tween the supporters of the nightingale and the owl occurs in a Carolingian poem by Theodulf called "The Battle of the Birds." After a highly graphic description of the battle, the poem ends with the ironic note that the people who came to see the mass of corpses covering the earth after the battle took the once-gallant vvrarriors home for food.

Huganir suggests the reign of Henry II, Tupper suggests the Edict of 1195, and Anne Baldwin argues for the peace established between Henry II and the Church after Becket's death.

39

the entire realm (Willson 37). The significance of these lines in

The Owl and the Nightingale, immediately followed as they are by the

praise of Nicolas, seems to be that well-trained clerics able to

judge wisely in disputes like that between the birds are necessary

for maintaining the King's peace and preventing social violence,

which, notably, is also one of the tasks of the moderator of the

university quodlibet.

The final task of the moderator, after he had summarized the

arguments presented during the disputatio and identified a krino­

menon, a central issue (in The Owl and the Nightingale, as I have

suggested, the relative natural merits of each bird's "kind" or fam­

ily) was to decide the winner of the debate. The sheer number of

the studies which have attempted to establish either the owl or the

nightingale as the victor is itself evidence of how unsatisfactory

the efforts have been. The nightingale declares herself the winner

because the owl admits that she is hateful to men and that "every

creature is angry" with her, gloating "Me unc^ Xat^u forleosty6at

game:/Pu julpest of ire oje schame;/Me unc^ at y6u me gest an

honde:/pu 3ulpest of ;6ire o»ene schonde" (11. 1638-52); however,

the claim is based on a rhetorical technicality, and, for every

point in favor of the nightngale, there is an equally convincing one

in favor of the owl.

Again, the precepts of unversity dialectics can help solve the

dilemma. The pseudo-Augustine identifies four kinds of

40

controversiae asystatae," which he calls "irrational mouthings,"

The second type is the "kat' isoteta":

When the very same things can be said on both sides and

there is not the slightest shade of difference to be dis­

cerned, then this kind of plegma befouls the status; the

two parties are equally guilty. . . . There is absolutely

no way to distinguish between the two; so if either of

them accuses the other he automatically incriminates

himself, and if he defends himself, he also removes all

suspicion from the very neighbor he wants to accuse.

(17-18)

This characterizes the whole argument between the owl and the night­

ingale, and in such an asystata there can be no victory for either

disputant; neither bird has proven that she and her kind are inher­

ently more worthy than the other. But, if the poem does not clearly

demonstrate the superiority of either bird, we must conclude that

victory in the debate is insignificant to the poem's raison d'etre;

so also are the specific points which each makes concerning the oth­

er's "custe." Thus, the significance of the debate must be the fact

that it occurs at all, that certain attitudes, customs and beliefs

led to the argument in the first place and resulted in the consider­

able venom of the specific charges each makes about her opponent.

This leads us back to the very first stanza, "An ai^er ajen o^r

sval/& let ybat vvole mod ut al" (11. 7-8).

41

Exactly what is the nature of this "vvole mod?" Kinneavy, cit­

ing the owl's claim to foreknowledge (11. 1187-90), says.

The statement, then, if not strongly supported with evi­

dence in the debate, becomes evidence of the Owl's pride

or of an intended misrepresentation of truth—or of both

. . . the Owl—through pride or in the heat of her attempt

to win an argument or, again, of both—lays claim on more

than her nature (either as bird or as representative of

man) allows" (658-59).

The owl is unduly proud of her own inherent qualities and natural

gifts, and this pride blinds her to true merit. A traditional alle­

gorical interpretation of the owl, transmitted by St. Ambrose, sees

in the owl a lesson about those who are blind to spiritual truth:

I speak of the eyes of the mind which the wise in

this world have and see not. . . . They open their mouths

as if in possession of all knowledge. To subjects of

little value their minds are acute, but to the eternal

verities they are blind. In the prolixities of prolonged

disputation they reveal the obscurity of their own know­

ledge. Therefore, while they flit around in subtle dis­

course, they act like the night owl by vanishing at the

approach of the light of day. (222-23)

Furthermore, the verb used in line 7 of the poem, "swelled"

(sval), is reminiscent of the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 8:1,

"Scientia inflat, charitas vero aedificat." In lines 41-45 the owl

42

is described as so swollen with anger that she could barely breathe.

Finkelstein, discussing the poem's references to heart and emotions

in light of medieval physiology, notes that anger was thought to un­

naturally restrict the blood supply of the heart, the seat of the

soul and the discerning faulty, causing the heart to hold nothing

but useless air (623). Again, in lines 145-46, the owl is so swol­

len with anger that she looks as if she's swallowed a frog. Thus,

the owl is so puffed up by both pride and anger that she has lost

the ability to discern true merit; knowledgeable about things "of

little merit," she is blind to "eternal verities."

The same can be equally said of the nightingale. She exagger­

ates repeatedly, for example when she refutes the owl's charge of

uselessness by exaggerating the spirituality of her song (11. 715-

42) and when she claims that her song v /arns women about the short­

lived quality of physical love (11. 1331-1406). She deliberately

resorts to principles of rhetoric to overcome her opponent not by

logic but by argumentative trickery. She herself becomes so angry

when she is accused of sitting "bihinde pe bure, among pe vvede,/

par men goA to here neode" (11. 937-38) that she has to think for

some time about Alfred's advice that anger robs a man of wisdom:

"Selde erendeyb wely6e loy$e.

An selde plaide^ wel y6e wro^e;"

For \iraj) pe melnp ^ horte blod

pat hit floweyb so wilde flod

An al ^e heorte ouergeA

43

]Oat heo naue^ no ing bute bre^.

An so forleost al hire liht

pat heo ne siZ> sop ne riht.

(11. 943-50)

The nightingale is just as proud, as angry and as blind to the owl's

real worth as the owl is toward her, so much so that she does not

see the parallels between the owl's death and the crucifixion of

Christ.

Thus, the birds argue over the relative merits of their customs

and of their families, their "kinds" of birds, and both are equally

guilty of excessive pride which blinds them to true worth. Theirs is

a hierarchically structured universe, and, if the nightingale can

prove that owls are naturally, inherently, and inescapably unclean

creatures, "vnwi^tes," she herself will take social precedence over

the owl and can justifiably demand sole occupancy of the spinney in

which she has taken such delight. The owl is equally determined to

prove herself the better of the two creatures, and the argument be­

tween them becomes a struggle for the supremacy of each other's

"kind" or family. As Gordon notes concerning the "lawe of kynde" in

Chaucer's Parlement of Foules, "'Kynde' is a being's essential na­

ture, which puts it in its proper species in the hierarchy of being,

and since it is God himself who determines their natures and the

laws of their development, everything is subject to his laws, and

therefore to the laws of its own kynde. It is God's love, working

through nature within these beings, that causes them to achieve

44

perfection of (conformity to) their kinds . . . " (68). In judging

between them, we can say that both are masters of rhetorical

disputation, but, just as Spring chastizes both the rose and the

lily in "Certamen Rosae Lilique," both the owl and the nightingale

are wrong in failing to realize that all birds, regardless of their

minor natural differences, are of equal quality. This point of

excessive familial pride and blindness to true merit is then the

basis of the analogic correspondence between the birds and the

bishops and the preferment issue brought up in section four of the

poem.

CHAPTER III

THE BISHOPS AND THE BIRDS

Once we realize that neither bird can win the debate because

each is equally blind to true values and equally guilty of excessive

pride in her own "kind," and that the real issue in the debate is

not the individual arguments but the attitudes, the "vvole mod" that

causes the quarrel in the first place, we can see in the fourth sec­

tion of the poem (11. 1667-1788) exactly how this relates to the

preferment issue. The key lines are 1769-78, when the owl says,

. . . at is soyb,

peos riche men wel muche misdo^

pat lete^ i ane gode mon,

pat of so feoley^inge con.

An 7iuei rente wel misliche.

An of him letep wel lihtliche;

Wil> heore cunne heo beo^ mildre

An aeuei rente litle childre:

Swo heore wit hi dem^ a dwole,

pat euer abid Maistre Nichole.

"These rich men, who think very lightly of this good man and abandon

him, who knows so many things, very much misdo and give rents very

irregularly; with their own kind they are more generous and give

rents to little children." Again, the word "kind" is significant,

indicating continuity between the arguments of the birds and the is­

sue of preferment for Nicolas. Ironically, the owl, herself guilty

45

46

of such strong familial prejudice that she is blind to the nightin­

gale's merits, condemns the bishops for not recognizing Nicolas'

merit. "Kind" or physical kinship dominates the values of the bis­

hops as much as it does the birds', and the bishops are as guilty of

the same "vvole mod," the same irrational pride.

In order to understand this section of the poem, we must look

at the system of patronage within the medieval Church. In the first

place, as Pantin notes, every Church position could be regarded as

either an office with attendant duties and responsibilities, or as a

benefice, "a mass of rights and emoluments to be received, tithes,

fees, rents, and so forth, to be reckoned in pounds, shillings and

pence." As a result. Church officials frequently collected a large

stipend and paid someone else a much smaller fee to do the actual

work of the office; for example, a parish rector might be an absen­

tee government official, a university student, or even an institu­

tion such as a monastery or college while the work was done by a

resident vicar or chaplain (35-36). Furthermore, these offices were

sometimes considered more as an estate to be used for personal gain

than as a spiritual obligation, and blatant, irresponsible favorit­

ism became as severe a problem as pluralism and absenteeism, as

those who held the power of appointment increasingly used Church of­

fices to reward their supporters and to repay favors done for them

by others (Moorman 5).

This was, of course, a favorite ploy of the Crown, which exer­

cised patronage through the right of pleno iure over livings perma­

nently within its control, through the right of wardship during the

47

minority of some other patron, through the "regalian right" during

the vacancy of a bishopric, and simply through unofficial pressure

which it could exert on someone else who nominally held the right of

patronage (Pantin 30-32). The baronial class also exerted consider­

able influence on Church appointments; out of approximately 9,500

parishes, at least 9,000 were country parishes controlled by a local

lord who claimed the right to appoint the local priest, "a privilege

which might be distinctly advantageous if he had a son or relative

whom he wished to set up in life" (Moorman 5).

Bishops and abbots had even more influence, and some religious

houses had in residence a group of "pensionary clerks" waiting for

preferment who served the house in some capacity such as legal coun­

sel. A late thirteenth-century formula for the oath of fidelity be­

tween such clerks and Durham Cathedral is enlightening:

Know that we have granted and confirmed by this pre­

sent charter to our beloved and faithful clerk N. by way

of charity a rent of ten marks to be received yearly out

of our chamber at such terms, until it shall please us to

provide him more richly with an ecclesiastical benefice.

The said N. has sworn to us on the Gospels that he will

keep fealty to us in all things, and that he will faith­

fully see to the forwarding of our business, both beyond

the seas and at home, and that he will not reveal our

counsel to our harm, nor will he seek any art or device,

whereby we may in anything be the losers. (Pantin 33)

48

Some of these pensioned counselors were of high birth and enjoyed,

through the practice of pluralism, astonishingly high incomes. For

example, Bogo de Clare, son of the Earl of Gloucester and Hereford,

is included on a Durham list c. 1265-72 at a fee of 66 Lbs.; by

1291, he held livings in Yorkshire and nineteen other shires, as

well as the treasurership of York and five cathedral and collegiate

dignities, for a total income of nearly 150,000 Lbs. in modern cur­

rency. The same list includes a future Chancellor, Robert Burnel,

and two archdeacons. A similar list c. 1291 for Christ Church,

Canterbury, includes two royal justices and three royal clerks,

along with future bishops of Chichester (Gilbert of St. Liffard) and

Worcester (Thomas of Cobham), and a cardinal at the Court of Rome

(Moorman 26-27, Pantin 33).

Obviously, appointment to one of these episcopal "counsels"

meant at least immediate economic security if not eventual wealth

and power within the Church, which may be the basis for the refer­

ence in The Owl and the Nightingale to the bishops' counsel:

Hwi nulle^ hi nimen heom to rede

pat he were mid heom ilome.

For teche heom of his wisdome.

An Jiue him rente a uale stude

pat he mi^te heom ilome be mide?

(11. 1764-68)

Moorman, describing the potential for advancement within the Church,

states.

49

. . . the Church gave one of the few opportunities for a

man of real ability to rise to the top. . . . In an age

when class distinctions were infinitely more rigid than

they are today the Church opened its doors to men of all

ranks of society, for preferment was by no means limited

to men of the upper and middle classes . . . so far as

real preferment was concerned no man of outstanding abil­

ity need despair. (158)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority of new ordinations

were the sons of small landowners and yeomen (24-25). Although many

of these were motivated by a strong sense of vocation, others were

attracted by the economic security, by the social prestige, and by

privileges like the "benefit of clergy" which exempted clerics from

trial by the civil courts (154-57).

However, as Moorman also notes, for a clerk not related to one

of the powerful families of Europe to rise within his profession,

his abilities had to be truly outstanding. "Most of those who were

ordained remained all their lives as assistant clergy with no hope

of preferment and never expecting to have more than about 3 Lbs. a

year." Thus the archdeacons of Lincoln in 1230 felt obliged to

check on the number of clergy within their diocese who were not able

to live on their wages (154-57). This latter group was the basis

for Chaucer's "poor parson"; a real-life example, William of Pagula,

a noted theologian, remained a working parish priest and penitenti­

ary. In addition to such beneficed but comparatively poor resident

50

clergy, there were large numbers of salaried assistants and depu­

ties. Thus, the structure of the Church was actually quite heter­

ogeneous, ranging from men described by canon law as "sublime and

literate persons," to important and wealthy officials, to the aver­

age parish clerk surviving, at best, on a single, barely-sufficient

benefice. Pluralism and non-residency were "the great dividing line

in the Church and State on the one hand, and the rank and file of

the clergy on the other" (Pantin 28-29).

Unfortunately, acquiring multiple benefices was not possible

unless a man attracted the attention of some powerful patron, and

the patronage system had become highly corrupt through both nepotism

and favoritism; an especially blatant abuse involved the appointment

of underaged and unordained members of important families. For ex­

ample, in 1311, an underaged and unordained member of the Berkeley

family was given a canonry at Wells (Moorman 6). In 1292, Peter de

Sabaudia, a young kinsman of the Pope who already held the treasur­

ership of Llandaff and positions at York, Salisbury and Hereford,

was given an additional post at Lincoln. In 1298, Aymon, son of the

Count of Savoy, underaged, not in holy orders and already possessed

of benefices valued at 1,000 marks, was given a canonry at York.

John, the twelve-year-old son of Octavian Brunforte of the Pope's

household, received a canonry at Lichfield and the Archdeaconry of

Stafford in 1301 (9). "Children of ten years old and upwards were

constantly presented and instituted to livings; and though many of

51

them were already in minor orders, they were obviously incapable of

serving the churches, since most of them were still at school"

(6-7).

In an effort to check irresponsible patronage, the Church in­

stituted seven penalties for simony, a sin ranked above even homi­

cide, sacrilege and incest, and no man presented to a living could

draw his income without the bishop's sanction (Moorman 6). While a

number of bishops, like Giraldus Cambrensis of Saint David's, Robert

Grossetest, Adam Marsh, and John Pecham, did make an effort to cur­

tail simony, nepotism and pluralism (213-16), it was difficult to

resist pressure from wealthy and powerfully connected families that

wanted their relatives to have lucrative positions, and abuses con­

tinued:

However anxious bishops might be not to allow special pri­

vileges to men of high rank, they would find it very dif­

ficult to resist the demands of those who belonged to the

most powerful families in the land, in spite of the fact

that, as our records show, to many of these men the taking

of holy orders was more an opportunity for acquiring a se­

cure and substantial income than the response to a call to

pastoral ministration. . . . Many of these men, having

provided themselves with the necessary dispensation, re­

lied upon the influence of their families to provide them

with enough benefices to insure a comfortable income.

Since many of them took very little interest in the

52

parishes from which they drew their money, they were

enabled to live handsomely if not luxuriously, and to

engage in such pursuits as interested them most, whether

political, forensic or sporting. (26)

All of this, of course, explains the owl's remark that rich men

are kinder to their own kin and give rents to little children: "Wi^

heore cunne heo beo^ mildre/An 7eue^ rente litle childre" (11. 1775-

76). While the poem does not condemn pluralism or absenteeism—the

birds actuallv want to see Nicolas given several benefices so that

he can leave his one dwelling to attend the episcopal council—it

very strongly repudiates the practice of preferring child-relatives.

The bishops who do so are every bit as guilty of favoritism and are

as blind to real worthiness as the birds are in relationship to each

other.

Historical records also indicate that these bishops were capa­

ble of "swelling up" with the same kind of violent anger against

each other. In the first place, benefices could be and were occa­

sionally stolen, "for who was to prevent a member of some powerful

family from intruding himself into a benefice and collecting his

revenue by force of arms?" Against such actions, the papal legates

Otto and Ottobon both passed regulations permitting the use of force

to dislodge usurpers, which enabled Archbishop Wickwayn of York to

use the king's army in ejecting one Richard de Vesci from a stolen

living (Moorman 7). Geoffrey, the illegitimate son of Henry II who

was Archbishop of York between 1181 and 1212, was noted for his

53

violent quarrels with any who opposed him, as was Aymer de Lusignan,

half-brother to Henry III, who held office at Winchester beginning

in 1250. Boniface of Savoy, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1240, was

reputed to have knocked another priest unconscious (165-166). There

were so many like cases that one of the issues which reformers men­

tioned repeatedly was the need to stop the endless litigation and

quarreling over rights, privileges and precedence (217-18).

Actually, then, we have no need to seek an allegorical point of

reference for the birds outside of the poem itself; they are a sa­

tiric counterpart of the bishops and others who controlled the pre­

ferment system. Lines 29-176 are both a satirical picture of these

men and an encomium of worthy but neglected clerics. Lines 1667-

1788 continue with more of the same satire on the bishops' conten­

tiousness and praise for the worthy clerks, all of which is capped

by the blunt condemnation in lines 1761-1778. Under prevailing pre­

ferment conditions, clerics like Nicolas of Guildford, unrelated to

some influential family but of real ability and with a reasonable

sense of the responsibilities of office, had little hope of prefer­

ment unless they could attract the attention of a powerful sponsor;

resentment, even bitterness, over their imposed stagnation within

the lesser positions would be almost impossible to prevent. Thus,

The Owl and the Nightingale makes a significant statement about a

real problem in the English Church. The debate functions as a sa­

tiric caricature of the bishops' wrangling over benefices and abuse

of preferment. The birds quarrel as bishops quarreled, seeking

54

dominance over each other, blinded by their pride in "kind" or

family, and they try all the tricks of eloquent rhetoric to estab­

lish that dominance. The one thing they do not do is ignore the

merits of Nicolas of Guildford; in this one respect, the bishops are

even more blind than the birds, and "Swo heore wit he demjb a

dwole,/pat euer abid Maistre Nichole" (11. 1777-78): "their wit

judges them to have grown stupid in that Master Nicolas ever

awaits." Thus, far from being irrelevant to the poem's overt

concern with the preferment of Master Nicolas, the debate between

the birds exposes, humorously but pointedly, the very attitudes and

beliefs that have caused him to be passed over.

WORKS CONSULTED

Alberic of Monte Cassino. "Flores Rhetorici." Trans. Joseph M.

^ille^- Readings in Medieval Rhetoric. Eds. Joseph M. Miller,

Michael Prosser and Thomas Benson. Bloomington: Indiana Uni­

versity Press, 1973. 131-161.

Alcuin (attributed to). "Conflictus Veris et Hiemis." Poetry of

the Carolingian Renaissance. Ed. Peter Godman. Norman: Uni­

versity of Oklahoma Press, 1985. 144-49.

Allen, Judson B. The Ethical Poetic of the Later Middle Ages: A

Decorum of Convenient Distinction. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 1982.

Allen, Richard E. "The Voices of The Owl and the Nightingale."

Studies in Medieval Culture 3 (1970): 52-58.

Ambrose. The Six Days of Creation. Trans. John J. Savage, The

Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy J. Deferrari. Vol. 42: Saint

Ambrose: Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. New York:

Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1961. 3-283.

Atkins, J.W.H., ed. The Owl and the Nightingale. London:

Cambridge University Press, 1922.

Augustine (Pseudo-). "De Rhetorica Quae Supersunt." Trans. Joseph

M. Miller. Readings in Medieval Rhetoric. Eds. Joseph M.

Miller, Michael Prosser and Thomas Benson. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1973. 6-24.

Baldwin, Anne W. "Henry II and The Owl and the Nightingale."

Journal of English and Germanic Philology 66 (1967): 207-29.

55

56

Baldwin, Charles Sears. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, Interpreted

From Representative Works. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith,

1959.

Baugh, Albert C., ed. A Literary History of England. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

Bloomfield, Morton W. "Personification-Metaphors." Chaucer

Review 14 (1980): 287-97.

Bruten, A. "The Cessation of the Nightingale's Song: 'The Owl

and the Nightingale.'" Notes and Queries n.s. 13 (1966): 408.

Carson, M. Angela. "Rhetorical Structure in The Owl and the

Nightingale." Speculum 42 (1967): 92-103.

Cawley, A.C. "Astrology in 'The Owl and the Nightingale.'"

Modern Language Review 46 (1951): 161-74.

Chapman, Raymond. "'Noreweie' and 'Galeweie' in 'The Owl and

the Nightingale.'" Modern Language Review 41 (1946): 408-409.

Chenu, M.D. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century. Ed.

and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little. Chicago: Uni­

versity of Chicago Press, 1957.

Colgrave, Bertram. "The Owl and the Nightingale and the 'Good

Man From Rome." English Language Notes 4 (1966): 1-4.

Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin

Middle Ages. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1973.

d'Ardenne, S.R.T.O. "'Ine so gode kinges londe.'" English

Studies 30 (1949): 159-64.

57

"Smithes in The Owl and the Nightingale." Review of

English Studies n.s. 9 (1958): 41-43.

de Vries, F.C. "A Note on 'The Owl and the Nightingale.'"

Notes and Queries n.s. 16 (1969): 442-43.

Donovan, Mortimer J. "The Owl as Religious Altruist in The Owl

and the Nightingale." Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956): 207-14.

Finkelstein, Dorothee. "On the Motion of the 'Heart' in 'The

Owl and the Nightingale'." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 71

(1970): 621-35.

Fortunatianus, C. Chirius. "Artis rhetoricae libri tres, I."

Trans. Joseph M. Miller. Readings in Medieval Rhetoric. Eds.

Joseph M. Miller, Michael Prosser and Thomas Benson.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. 25-32.

Gardner, John. "The Owl and the Nightingale: a Burlesque."

Papers on Language and Literature 2 (1966): 3-12.

Gellinek-Schellekens, Josepha E. The Voice of the Nightingale In

Middle Engllish Poems and Bird Debates. New York: Peter Lang

Publishing, Inc., 1984.

Geoffrey of Vinsauf. Poetria Nova. Trans. Margaret F. Nims.

Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1967.

Godman, Peter, ed. PnPtrv of the Carolingian Renaissance. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1985.

Gordon, Ida L. The Double Sorrow of Troilus: A Study of Ambigui­

ties in Troilus and Criseyde. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1970.

58

Gottschalk, Jane. "The Owl and the Nightingale: Lay Preachers

to a Lay Audience." Philological Quarterly 45 (1966): 657-67.

Gummere, Francis B. The Beginnings of Poetry. New York:

Macmillan Co., 1901.

Hanford, James Holly. "Classical Eclogue and Medieval Debate."

Romantic Review 2 (1911): 16-31, 129-43.

Hartung, Albert E., ed. A Manual of the Writings in Middle

English, 1050-1500. vol. 3. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of

Arts and Sciences, 1972.

Henderson, Arnold C. "Medieval Beasts and Modern Cages: the

Making of Meaning in Fables and Bestiaries." Publications of

the Modern Language Association 97 (1982): 40-49.

Hieatt, Constance. "The Subject of the Mock-Debate Between the

Owl and the Nightingale." Studia Neophilologica 40 (1968):

155-60.

Hinckley, Henry B. "The Date, Author, and Sources of The Owl

and the Nightingale." Publications of the Modern Language

Association 44 (1929): 329-59.

"Science and Folk-lore in The Owl and the Nightingale."

Publications of the Modern Language Association 47 (1932):

303-14.

Hirsh, John C. "Classical Tradition and The Owl and the

Nightingale." The Chaucer Review 9 (1980): 145-52.

59

Honorius Augustodinensis. De Animae Exsilio et Patria: Alias, de

Artibus. Trans. Joseph M. Miller. Readings in Medieval

Rhetoric. Eds. Joseph M. Miller, Michael Prosser and Thomas

Benson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. 198-206.

Huganir, Kathryn. "Further Notes on the Date of The Owl and the

Nightingale." Anglia 63 (1939): 113-34.

Hume, Kathryn. The Owl and the Nightingale: The Poem and Its

Critics. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1975.

Jacobs, John C., ed. and trans. The Fables of Odo of Cheriton.

Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1985.

Kinneavy, Gerald B. "Fortune, Providence and the Owl." Studies

in Philology 64 (1967): 655-64.

Knowlton, Edgar C. "The Goddess Nature in Early Periods."

Journal of English and Germanic Philology 19 (1918): 224-53.

Kunstmann, John G. "The Bird That Fouls Its Nest." Southern

Folklore Quarterly 3 (1939): 75-91.

Lampe, David. "Law as Order in The Owl and the Nightingale."

The High Middle Ages. Ed. Penelope Mayo. ACTA, vol. 7, 1980.

. "Middle English Debate Poems: A Genre Study." Diss. U of

Nebraska, 1969.

Leclercq, Jean, O.S.B. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God:

A Study of Monastic Culture. New York: Fordham University

Press, 1961.

Lewis, C.S. Studies in Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1967.

60

Lumiansky, R.M. "Concerning The Owl and the Nightingale."

Philological Quarterly 32 (1953): 411-17.

Martin, B.K. "Notes on "The Owl and the Nightingale.'" Notes

and Queries n.s. 18 (1971): 407-408.

Minnis, A.J. Medieval Theory of Authorship. London: Scolar

Press,1984.

Moorman, John R.H. Church Life in England In the Thirteenth

Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.

Murphy, James J. "Cicero's Rhetoric in the Middle Ages." Quarterly

Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 334-41.

. Medieval Rhetoric: A Select Bibliography. Toronto: Universitiy

of Toronto Press, 1971.

Pantin, W.A. The English Church In the Fourteenth Century.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.

Patterson, Lee. "'For the Wyves love of Bathe': Feminine Rhetoric

and Poetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the

Canterbury Tales." Speculum 58 (1983): 656-95.

Pellegrini, Angelo M. "Renaissance and Medieval Antecedents of

Debate." Quarterly Journal of Speech 28 (1942): 14-9.

Peterson, Douglas L. "The Owl and the Nightingale and Christian

Dialectic." Journal of English and Germanic Philology 55

(1956): 33-26.

Phvsiologus. Trans. Michael J. Curley. Austin: University of Texas

Press, 1979.

61

Priscian the Grammarian. "Praeexercitamina Prisciani Grammatici ex

Hermogene versa." Trans. Joseph M. Miller. Readings in Medi-

.eval Rhetoric. Eds. Joseph M. Miller, Michael Prosser and

Thomas Benson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.

52-68.

Russell, J.C. "The Patrons of The Owl and the Nightingale."

Philological Quarterly 48 (1969): 178-85.

Saville, Jonathan. The Medieval Erotic Alba: Structure As Meaning.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1972.

Schleusener, Jav. "The Owl and the Nightingale: A Matter of

Judgment." Modern Philology 70 (1973): 185-89.

Sedulius Scottus. "Rosae Liliique Certamen." Poetry of the

Carolingian Renaissance. Ed. Peter Godman. Norman: University

of Oklahoma Press, 1985. 282-86.

Shapiro, Norman R., trans. Fables From Old French: Aesop's Beasts

and Bumpkins. Howard Needier, Intro. Middletown, Conn.:

Wesleyan University Press, 1982.

Shippey, Thomas Alan. "Listening to the Nightingale."

Comparative Literature 22 (1970): 46-60.

Smith, Bromley. "Extracurricular Disputations: 1400-1650."

Quarterly Journal of Speech 34 (1948): 473-6.

, and Douglas Ehninger. "The Terrafilial Disputations at

Oxford." Quarterly Journal of Speech 36 (1950): 333-9.

62

Theodulf. "The Battle of the Birds." Poetry of the Carolingian

Renaissance. Ed. Peter Godman. Norman: University of Oklahoma

Press, 1985. 172-75.

Tucker, Samuel M. Verse Satire in England Before the Renaissance.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1908.

Tupper, Frederick. "The Date and Historical Background of The

Owl and the Nightingale." Publications of the Modern Language

Association 49 (1934): 406-27.

Tuve, Rosemond. Seasons and Months: Studies In a Tradition of

Middle English Poetry. Paris: Librairie Universitaire, 1933.

Wells, John E. The Owl and the Nightingale. Boston: D.C. Heath

and Co., 1907.

White, T.H., ed. and trans. The Bestiary: A Book of Beasts. New

York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1960.

Whiting, B.J. "Ac He Kan Hongi Bipe Boge." Anglia 58 (1934):

368-73.

Willson, David H. A History of England. Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden

Press, Inc., 1972.

Witt, Michael A. "The Owl and the Nightingale and English Law

Court Procedure of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries."

Chaucer Review 16 (1982): 282-92.

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University, I agree

that the Library and my major department shall make it freely avail­

able for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for

scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or

my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication

of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

further written permission and that any user may be liable for copy­

right infringement.

Disagree (Permission not granted) Agree (Permission granted)

Student's signature Student^s signature

Date

"?, /ffC )ate