Who, Who Won the Debate?

(1)

Who, Who Won the Debate?

Judging the Dispute in “The Owl and the Nightingale”

By

Jeannet van Dalen

s1480839

Supervisor: Dr K.E.E. Olsen

June 14, 2010

(2)

Acknowledgements

There are several people that helped me shape and finish this dissertation. Firstly I would like to thank my supervisor Dr K.E.E. Olsen for her help. Not only did she help me find the right sources of information, she also showed much patience during the long time it took for me to finish this dissertation. I would also like to thank Sarah van Steenderen for reading my dissertation, helping me study, and being a good friend while I was writing. And lastly, I would like to thank my family and my partner Jeroen Zwanenburg for their support and patience.

Jeannet van Dalen June 2010

Cover illustration:"De arte venandi cum avibus" Codex Ms. Pal. Lat. 1071, ca. 1260. As portrayed on:

(3)

And so the debate between the Owl and the Nightingale begins. It will be a long debate covering a range of subjects, which both combatants try their very best to win. However, the question that starts this debate, i.e. which one of them has the best singing voice, is never really answered in the poem “The Owl and the Nightingale.” The poem ends when the birds fly off to Master Nicholas of Guildford in order to receive judgment, but the discussions about the poem are still going on. Almost everything about this poem has invoked a heated dispute amongst scholars; neither the date, the author nor the interpretation have been established with certainty. Critics are also still arguing about which of the birds won the debate and whether there really is a winner or a loser in the debate. There are critics who believe the Owl won, those who think the Nightingale won, another group who regard the birds as equally good, and a last group who regard them as equally flawed. This dissertation will illustrate that for a medieval audience it was the Owl that prevailed in the debate. By looking at parameters like the reputation of the birds in other literary sources and folklore and analyzing the poem‟s structure and the birds‟ arguments, the Owl can be appointed winner. Before doing so, however, it is best to examine some of the more basic elements of the poem, like the date, author and some interpretations of the poem, since each of these elements have provoked a heated debate among scholars and knowledge of these elements creates a better understanding of the poem as a whole.

(5)

has not been established, or at least not precisely. Dates range between late twelfth to the second half of the thirteenth century. Most critics have taken the lines “þat underyat þe king Henri – Iesus his soule do merci!” (1091-1092)1 as a point of reference for the date. E.G. Stanley thinks this King Henry is Henry II and that the poem must have been written after his death in 1189. He notes in his introduction that “[s]ince King Henry is not referred to as „old King Henry‟, or by some similar distinguishing mark, it is clear that the poem must have been written before the accession of Henry III in 1216” (19). Thus, according to Stanley, “The Owl and the Nightingale” was written between 1189 and 1216. Atkins agrees with this argument; he also mentions that lines 1091-1092 “can only allude to a departed monarch, the form of benediction being one that was used in connection with the dead” (xxxv). He rules out Henry III as a possible candidate because that “would throw the poem into the last quarter of the 13th

century” (xxxv). Atkins states that such a late date would be impossible as the handwriting and orthography of the poem suggest that it was written in the period 1190-1210.

There are also critics, most notably Henry B. Hinckley and Kathryn Huganir, who believe that lines 1091-1092 refer to a living King Henry II. In his article “The Date, Author and Sources of „The Owl and the Nightingale, ‟” Hinckley proposes that the prayer is a prayer for the soul and can also be uttered for people during their lifetime. He supports his argument with several medieval examples in which the subject of the prayer is still alive. For instance, “[i]t is recorded that masses and other services were appointed to be performed in the University of Oxford for the benefit of King Henry the Fourth and of his son „Prince Hal,‟ both during their lives and after their deaths in recognition of their benefactions to the University” (333).

Other scholars believe that the poem has a later date than 1216. In 1963 N.R. Ker proposed that both manuscripts of “The Owl and the Nightingale”

seem to have been written in the second half of the thirteenth century. This date is the generally accepted date for Jesus and was the date assigned to ff. 195-261 of Cotton by Sir Frederic Madden. Later writers, except Wright, have placed Cotton in the first half of the thirteenth century. Wright‟s dating „probably a little after A.D. 1250‟ seems to me on the early side. The difference between the hands is a difference of kind, not of date. (ix)

1

All quotations from “The Owl and the Nightingale” are taken from E.G. Stanley, ed. The Owl and the

(6)

Neil Cartlidge takes this argument and expands on it in his 1996 article “The Date of „The Owl and the Nightingale.‟” He argues that the poem was probably not written long before the manuscripts and that the “Henri” might be taken as King Henry III.

There is one more method of dating the poem that needs mentioning and that is astrological dating. A.C. Cawley explores the use of astrological allusions in “The Owl and the Nightingale.” Cawley proposes that the astrological allusions can help in fixing a new terminus a quo for the date of composition of the poem. He uses the passage in lines 1330, where the Owl‟s ability to make prophecies is discussed. If, and only if, lines 1145-1330 “are tacitly concerned with astrological predictions” (174), there is an allusion to the planetary conjunction in 1186. According to Cawley the allusion suggests that the poem was probably written close to this date and certainly not in the second half of the thirteenth century. All in all, several methods have been used to date the poem, but none of them has been able to give an exact date. Even if only one method is used for dating, as for instance the dating with help of lines 1091-1092, the opinions are still very divided.

Closely tied to the debate concerning the date of the poem is the debate about the identity of the author. How can an author be identified if the date of the literary work is not known and how can the date of a poem be established if the author is unknown? Despite this problem, two names have been mentioned, John of Guildford and Nicholas of Guildford. The latter one is named in the poem. Both birds consider him to be wise and honest enough to be able to arbitrate in the debate and at the end of the poem the birds fly to his home in Portesham. It has been argued that he is either the author or that the poem was written in honour of him. Atkins discusses the first possibility in depth, as “there seems to be no definite reason why the authorship may not be attributed to Nicholas: while on the other hand there are certain considerations which render that theory not all that unlikely” (xliv). After discussing the pros and cons, Atkins concludes that Nicholas‟ authorship is most probable but that absolute certainty about this subject is not possible. Stanley, on the other hand, believes that the poem was written by an anonymous poet who was a friend of Nicholas. Even if Nicholas of Guildford is the right name of the poet, the person behind the name can still not be identified because there were several people known as Nicholas of Guildford in the time period in which “The Owl and the Nightingale” was written.

(7)

Mayster Iohan eu greteþ. Of Guldeuorde þo. And sendeþ eu to Seggen. Þat synge nul he no. Ac on þisse wise he wille endy his song: God Louerd of Heuene. Beo vs alle among.

Amen. (Stanley 4)

This leaf is now lost and Stanley refutes any connection between John of Guildford and the authorship of “The Owl and the Nightingale”:

there is no reason for connecting the prayer with O&N [see pp. 4f]. The metre of the prayer is not that of O&N, and the pitiful rhyme þo/no (where þo exists merely to supply a rhyme for no) is feebler than any in O&N. Only the wish to find an author for the poem has led to the speculation that the author might be John of Guildford. (20)

Nowadays most critics agree that Nicholas of Guildford is the author of “The Owl and the Nightingale.” Still, as there were several Nicholas of Guildfords in the timeframe in which “The Owl and the Nightingale” was written, the precise identity of this Nicholas of Guildford is still something scholars are not sure about.

Another controversy concerns the meaning of “The Owl and the Nightingale.2 Usually three different aspects have guided scholarly interpretations: the place of the Owl and the Nightingale in bird lore, the poem‟s historical context, and its debate form. These three aspects have given rise to three different approaches: the intellectual and religious interpretations, the historical and political interpretations, and Kathryn Hume‟s burlesque-satire interpretation, which in turn has inspired newer interpretations. In intellectual and religious interpretations the poem is treated as an allegory for the dichotomies in natural or religious issues, for instance, old age versus youth and the Old versus the New Testament. In the historical and political interpretations the poem is treated as an allegory for real historical and political events, for instance, fights between English noblemen. In Hume‟s burlesque-satire interpretation the poem is regarded as a cynical comedy, which should in no way be taken too seriously.

2

For a detailed account of several interpretations and how they work see Kathryn Hume, “The Owl and the

(8)

Although in the intellectual and religious interpretations “The Owl and the Nightingale” is treated as an allegory, the nature of the allegory is highly debated. One possibility is that the birds‟ outlook on life is allegorized. The Owl can then stand for the more serious aspects of life and the Nightingale for the more pleasurable. The avian nature of the Owl and the Nightingale has inspired another allegorical interpretation: since birds are creatures known for singing, the poem can also be seen as a musical allegory. According to this interpretation, the Owl can represent Gregorian chant and the Nightingale troubadour music. A last allegorical interpretation to be mentioned is the religious allegorical interpretation. Hume mentions that

Herbert Hässler identifies the Nightingale with the philosophical stance he labels „natural man,‟ comprising elements of Ailred of Rievaulx‟s neoplatonism, elements of high courtliness, courtly love, and courtly poetry. The Owl he equates with a religious ascetic stance. (60)

The historical and political interpretation are equally complex. Again, there are several possibilities as to whom the Owl and Nightingale can represent. One possibility is that they represent Thomas Becket and Henry II respectively, but then again a case can be made that the Owl and Nightingale represent any couple of arguing persons of nobility. Thus a conclusive historical or political interpretation cannot be made. Lastly, Hume‟s own burlesque-satire interpretation can be summarized with her statement that “[t]he best explanation is not, as some have argued, that the debate display [Nicholas of Guildford‟s] interests, but rather that it shows up the pointlessness and ugly results of quarrelling, and it forms a tribute to a man who can eliminate such altercations” (Hume 117). Although this opinion has not received much support, it has influenced the ways critics nowadays look at the poem. Since Hume‟s research in 1976, most critics look at the poem as an eloquent commentary on the subject of debates. R. Barton Palmer states: “it is a poem which transforms the task of its own reading into an aspect of content. Metafictional structures in the poem deliberately undermine, by establishing different stances to the understanding of the birds‟ debate, any attempt at a transcendent interpretation” (305).

(9)

burlesque satire does not immediately mean that a verdict cannot be made, and she apparently forgets that the debaters are still birds and that it can therefore not be expected of them to be as proficient in debating as humans. Jay Schleusener, in contrast, believes that the Nightingale won the debate. He is right by saying “both [birds] cannot be right and both cannot be wrong” (185), but his reasoning that the Nightingale won is not properly explained; he only discusses passages spoken by the Nightingale and the narrator, while ignoring the Owl‟s arguments. Nevertheless, several critics favour the Owl. Michael A. Witt states that the Nightingale “is a rabble-rouser who picks a fight with the owl out of pettiness and finds that she is bested almost immediately” (290). Another critic who sees the Owl as the winner of the debate is Douglas L. Peterson. He comes to this conclusion by looking at the Christian logics in the debate. This dissertation will also prove that the Owl won the debate by using the parameters mentioned before, i.e. reputation of the birds, behaviour in the debate and arguments used by the birds.

(10)

Chapter 1: The Medieval Debate Poem

The debate form was a favourite form of poetry in the late Middle Ages. This preference can be attributed to an interest in dichotomies. John W. Conlee states that “[a] preoccupation with the interaction of opposites is perhaps nowhere more evident than during the Middle Ages” (xi). Many dichotomies were interesting for people in medieval times: spiritual dichotomies like those between the Old and the New Testament, vices and virtues and body and soul, but also natural dichotomies like those between sun and moon, the seasons, the two genders, and young and old age. All of these issues are represented in medieval debate poems, and so this particular interest in oppositions at least partly explains the popularity of medieval debate poetry. In addition, the popularity of the debate itself also peaked at the time “The Owl and the Nightingale” was written. Debates had a firm position in the educational system of the Middle Ages. Students were trained in the art of disputation as debating taught them how to use logic to reach a conclusion in a problem. The object of these disputations was to get one‟s opponent into a position which no argument could get him out of. On a higher level the rules were more complicated. One could then use tricks to win an argument. If one contestant accidently used one of his opponent‟s arguments, he would automatically forfeit the whole of the debate. The practice of debating was mostly popular at law schools, where the student needed to be prepared for how to argue for a living and should always remain calm and composed during the argument in order to win the debate with pure logic.

(11)

counterarguments yet, but there is definitely some sort of competition between two naturally opposite characters. The other classical form that is recognized by many scholars (for example by Atkins, Conlee, Hume) as a great influence on the medieval debate poem is the eclogue, a classical poem with pastoral elements. Significant eclogues are “those Virgilian eclogues consisting of a contest between two singers and concluding with a judgement pronounced by a third party” (Atkins xlvii). Like the fables, the eclogues contain a competition between two characters, but there is the added element of a judge.

(12)

while distinctly present, is somewhat muted; and they achieve a resolution” (xiv). “Conflictus Veris et Hiemis” shares the element of bird lore with “The Owl and the Nightingale” and in “De Rosae Liliique” the debaters use personal and heated arguments, just as the Owl and the Nightingale do.

(13)

solution on his own by listening to the arguments that the debaters use to prove their point. Debate poems can thus not only be seen as entertainment, but also as scholarly devices to teach people how they can find the right solution.

Although it seems that Sic et Non influenced “The Owl and the Nightingale, there has been some controversy about this idea. For instance, Katherine Hume argues that any influence of Sic et Non “is indirect, not based on fundamental similarities” (46). Peterson, on the other hand, is

convinced that the intentions embodied in “The Owl and the Nightingale” are expressly didactic - that the debate is, as an exercise in dialectics, similar in both purpose and method to Abelard‟s Sic et Non, and that by applying dialectic to the arguments advanced by the debaters, the reader is expected to arrive at a final verdict in accord with the poet‟s sympathies. (13)

Hume vehemently disagrees with Peterson‟s point of view and dismisses any direct influence of Sic et Non on the poem. Nevertheless, on the whole Hume‟s arguments can easily be dismissed. Her first argument is that “The Owl and the Nightingale” has a different structure than Sic et Non. She claims that, unlike Sic et Non, “there is no clear statement of what the issue is, an omission which markedly differentiates from Sic et Non” (46). True, the birds sometimes seem to stray from the original issue, as for instance when they talk about infidelity and witchcraft, digressions which might make it look as if there is no clearly defined issue. However, the key issue in “The Owl and the Nightingale” is stated twice at the beginning, i.e. in the first few lines of the poem and when the birds decide to have Nicholas of Guildford as their judge:

& eiþer seide of oþeres custe Þat alre worste þat hi wuste. & hure & hure of oþere[s] songe Hi holde plaiding suþe stronge. (9-12)

and

(14)

& he can schede vrom þe riʒte

Þat woʒe, þat þuster from þe liʒte. (195-199)

It is explicitly expressed even before the debate starts that the birds are mainly concerned with who is the better bird and can sing better. The birds indeed sometimes slightly digress to the contents of their songs and the effect it has on mankind, but the main issue as stated in the aforementioned lines remains the same throughout the poem.

Hume also claims that Peterson‟s interpretation - the Nightingale and Owl respectively stand for “sensuality, love, and fertility… [and] asceticism, wisdom, and melancholy” (Peterson 14) - does not create a “Sic et Non style of exercise, for as Peterson defines the two sides, the right answer is self-evident and offers no challenge at all” (46). While at first glance this interpretation seems self-evident, this is not necessarily true. The author might have thought differently about these concepts and might have tried to make the reader think about them in a Sic and Non way. The reader is supposed to think about the standpoints of the Owl and the Nightingale. While this leads to a judgment by the reader, the exercise of analysing the debate is still very important, so it can be called a Sic et Non style of exercise.

(15)

Chapter 2: The Portrayal of Birds in Medieval Literature and Folklore

2.1 Owls and Nightingales in Folklore, the Physiologus and the Bestiaries

The first step in deciding who wins the debate between the Owl and the Nightingale according to a medieval audience is to establish the reputations of the two birds in other medieval works and in folklore. The investigation will show what prejudices people already had before reading or hearing the poem. First the portrayal of owls and nightingales in folklore, the Physiologus, and the bestiaries will be analysed, then the portrayal of owls and nightingales in other medieval bird-debate poetry will be examined, and lastly the portrayal of owls and nightingales in “The Owl and the Nightingale” and the author‟s use of their reputations they gained in folklore and literature will be discussed.

According to folklore, owls were known as birds of ill omen in Britain. They were seen as birds of doom, death and ominous predictions. It was believed that owls could predict bad weather, and because of this supposed ability people used to hammer an owl to their door to prevent the lightening from striking their houses. However, owls were also known for a more positive trait. “An English writer, Swan, in Speculum Mundi, which appeared in 1643, gave a remedy for dipsomania. He stated that if owls‟ eggs are broken, placed in a cup and given to a drunkard „he will suddenly lothe his good liquor‟” (Armstrong 117). This belief originated from ancient times. The owl was the bird of the goddess Athena, the goddess of wisdom. As she was the opposite of the god Dionysus, the god of inebriation, the eggs of owls were thought to counter affect the effects of alcohol. Owls were also known as birds of wisdom because of this particular bond with Athena. These positive qualities made the reputation of owls a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, owls had the aforementioned bad reputation originating in folklore, but on the other hand, owls were also known for wisdom and hangover cures. Still, in daily use owls were mostly known as frightening beings and, as even the Owl admits (“Ich do heom god mid mine deaþe,” line 1617), owls were useful not only when alive but also when dead.

(16)

audience, a medieval audience would understand that songs and love can also be a distraction. For instance, in the story of Edward the Confessor, the king of England who was annoyed by the songs that interrupted his devotional prayers, prayed that nightingales would never sing again at Havering atte Bower in Essex. Thus the nightingale had a mixed reputation: the bird had a positive association with spring, but its song could distract people from more important duties.

Aside from folklore, popular texts also affected the reputations of birds. One of these popular texts was the Physiologus, an originally Greek text composed by an anonymous author probably somewhere between the second and fourth century. It is a set of texts about animals, both real and mythological, infused with Christian moral teachings. The Greek Physiologus was a source of inspiration for the Latin bestiaries and “translations of the text appeared in virtually every European vernacular, including Old English and Icelandic, providing the widest possible audience for this model par excellence of the allegorical method of interpreting natural history” (Curley x). Therefore it is not unthinkable that the Physiologus influenced the author of “The Owl and the Nightingale.” The Physiologus did not look upon nature scientifically, but rather in a Christian way:

[t]he anonymous author of Physiologus infused these venerable pagan tales with the spirit of Christian moral and mystical teaching, and thereafter they occupied a place of special importance in the symbolism of the Christian world. (Curley ix)

The Physiologus3 compares owls to Jews, for the Jews too loved darkness more than light when they rejected Jesus Christ: “This beast is the figure of the Jewish people who, when our Lord and Savior came to save them, rejected him, saying, „We have no king but Caesar, we know not who this man is‟ [John 19:15]. Thus, they loved the darkness more than the light” (Curley 11). The bestiaries copied this likeness and added a comparison with sinners in general. It should be noted that the bestiaries made distinctions between several kinds of owls: nycticorax, noctua, bubo and ulula. The nycticorax or night-raven is the one mentioned in the Physiologus, the noctua or night-owl is usually likened to the nycticorax, the bubo or eagle-owl is a larger type of eagle-owl, and the ulula or screech eagle-owl attained its name because of its

3

(17)

screeching. The nycticorax, and the noctua are described in the bestiaries4 as darkness loving birds that lose their strength when they see sunlight. Bubo is a kind of bird known for its foulness and idleness and in this way is symbolical for sinners. The screech owl is described as “a bird associated with death, burdened with feathers, but bound by a heavy laziness, hovering around graves by day and night, and living in caves ... [it] is the symbol of all sinners” (Barber 148-149). The screech owl is associated with sin because it is lazy, lives in a dirty nest and keeps away from the light. Furthermore, its screeching is a symbol for the sounds that sinners make in hell and it was believed that when the screech owl lamented, disaster was about to strike. Even the treatment of the screech owl by other birds is likened to the treatment of sinners: “[i]f other birds see it, they set up a great clamour, and it is vexed by their fierce onslaughts. So when a sinner is recognised in full daylight he becomes an object of mockery for the righteous” (Barber 149).

All these Physiologus and bestiary entries are negative about owls. However, there is one medieval book of birds in which owls are likened to Jesus Christ and that is the work of Hugh the Fouilloy called the Aviarium:5

The nycticorax lives in the ruins of the walls, because Christ chose to be born of the Jewish people ... <The bird> shuns light, because <Christ> abominates and hates vainglory ... While flying by night <the nycticorax> seeks food, because <Christ> converts sinners into the body of the Church through preaching. (Clark 173,175)

Even though this is a positive description of owls, it is unlikely that it had much influence on the audience of “The Owl and the Nightingale,” since “[t]he works which can with certainty be assigned to Hugh are all for a monastic audience” (Clark 7). Indeed, all of the manuscripts of Hugh the Fouilloy‟s Aviarium appear in combination with other theological and spiritual texts. So it is safe to assume that the negative descriptions of owls had a greater impact on the audience of “The Owl and the Nightingale” than the Aviarium. In other words, the starting position of the Owl in the discussion is not very good, as the general consensus was that owls were lazy, dirty, sinful birds.

4_{For quotations of the bestiaries two translations have been used: Richard Barber, Bestiary (Woodbridge: The} Boydel Press, 1993) and T.H. White, The Book of Beasts (Stroud: Sutton, 1992).

5

Quotations from the Aviarium are taken from the translation by Willene B. Clark, ed. The Medieval Book of

(18)

Does that mean that the audience favoured the nightingale on account of its reputation in the bestiaries? The nightingale is a far less famous bird in bestiaries; it does not even appear in the Physiologus or Hugh of Fouilloys‟s Aviarium and the entries in the bestiaries are but short, as the following translation of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 764 version shows:

The nightingale gets its name because its song signals the end of night. It is a very alert watchman: if it is keeping its eggs warm with the heat of its body, it comforts itself in the sleepless toil by singing sweetly. At least, this seems to me to be its intention, because it can hatch its young no less with sweet melodies than with the warmth of its body. The weak yet virtuous woman who carried a heavy stone lest her children should lack bread and nourishment, and tried to soften the harsh lot of her poverty by her nightly songs, imitated the nightingale: even if she could not rival the sweetness of its song, she equalled its maternal devotion. (Barber 158)

Short though this entry may be, it is completely positive about nightingales. Nightingales are represented as “poor but lovely mother[s]” (White 246), who suffer for the benefit of their children. Their song has a sweet uplifting melody. This reputation gives the nightingale a much better starting position than the owl.

2.2 Owls and Nightingales in Other Medieval Bird-debate Poems

(19)

nightingales in medieval poems is the complete opposite of that in the Physiologus and bestiaries. Owls are hardly ever mentioned, whereas nightingales are the most popular of all kinds of birds in bird-debate poetry. The only true bird debate in which an owl competes is “The Owl and the Nightingale.” Therefore, “The Parliament of Fowls,” which is not strictly speaking a bird-debate poem, shall be considered next to four other bird-debate poems: “The Thrush and the Nightingale,” “The Cuckoo and the Nightingale,” “The Merle and the Nightingale,” and “The Clerk and the Nightingale.”

“The Thrush and the Nightingale” is a short bird debate of 180 lines. It was written by an unknown author not too long after “The Owl and the Nightingale” somewhere around 1272-1307. “The Thrush and the Nightingale” concentrates on only one issue: the value of women. In this debate the Thrush argues that women are “simply masters of deceit and that the man who is foolish enough to trust a woman will suffer the fate of Adam, Samson, Gawain, and other heroes who were betrayed by women” (Conlee 237). The Nightingale tries to stand up for women; she argues that women are good companions because they are so gentle and sweet. During the debate the Thrush seems to have the upper hand, since he has the most substantial arguments. Despite the Thrush‟s arguments, the Nightingale still manages to win the debate in the end by reminding the Thrush of the virtue of the Virgin Mary. After this remark the Thrush immediately admits defeat and this is where the poem ends.

Before the debate starts the reader is already presented with a portrayal of nightingales in general: “For longing of þe niʒttegale / þis foweles murie singeþ” (5-6).6

These lines makes it appropriate for the Nightingale to be an advocate for love in general and, in this particular debate, for women. The lines also reflect the aforementioned ideas in folklore about nightingales. At the beginning of the debate the Nightingale takes the side of women in the discussion. This reaction of the Nightingale is appropriate as nightingales represent love in folklore and are compared to hard working mothers in bestiaries. If the descriptions of nightingales in bestiaries are considered, the ending of the debate also seems completely logical. As a hardworking mother it seems only natural that the nightingale takes another mother as an example of good women, and the best known mother in medieval times is of course the Virgin Mary. Taking everything into account, it seems as if the author of “The Thrush and the Nightingale” was well aware of the contemporary ideas surrounding nightingales.

6

(20)

The next bird debate is “The Cuckoo and the Nightingale.” This poem was originally attributed to Geoffrey Chaucer, and only in the nineteenth century scholars decided to remove it from the list of Chaucer‟s works. The person who is most likely the author of “The Cuckoo and the Nightingale” is Sir John Clanvowe, a close friend of Chaucer‟s. Evidence for the authorship of John Clanvowe can be found in the Cambridge University Library, MS Ff.1.6 version, which ends with „Explicit Clanvowe.‟ The Clanvowe in this clause is usually interpreted as John Clanvowe. The poem was probably written during the late 1380s. It begins with a narrator who cannot sleep and goes out to hear the Nightingale sing. While the narrator is sitting and listening to birds, he falls asleep and then the altercation between the Nightingale and the Cuckoo starts. It begins as a debate as to who has a better singing voice, but soon the debate turns into one about love. The Nightingale takes the side of love, and the Cuckoo is more cynical about love, saying that love only leads to misery. The Cuckoo appears to be winning the quarrel, overwhelming the Nightingale with his arguments. When the Nightingale begins to pray to the god of love for help, the narrator dreams that he wakes up and throws a stone at the Cuckoo. This ends the debate, although there is no real resolution yet.

As in “The Thrush and the Nightingale,” the Nightingale is the bird assigned to defend love. So traces of folklore can be found in the description of the Nightingale. However, no traces of bestiary descriptions can be found. There is no definitive connection between the Nightingale in “The Cuckoo and the Nightingale” and hardworking mothers.

“The Clerk and the Nightingale” is different from the aforementioned debate poems. Firstly, it is not strictly speaking a bird-debate, as the debate is between a bird and a human. Secondly, it gives a somewhat different picture of a nightingale. Following Conlee, the two separate fragments “The Clerk and the Nightingale I” and “The Clerk and the Nightingale II” will be considered as one poem since the fragments seem to belong together as one poem; both have the same contestants, same subject and

(21)

The poem was probably written in the second half of the fifteenth century by an unknown author. Like “The Thrush and the Nightingale,” the poem deals with the issue of a women‟s worth. However, whereas the Nightingale sticks up for women in “The Thrush and the Nightingale,” in “The Clerk and the Nightingale” she plays the part of the misogynist. The Clerk tries to reason for love, but the Nightingale tells him that women are bad and bases this sentiment on Christian lore. As in “The Thrush and the Nightingale,” the champion for women raises the point of the Virgin Mary. Nonetheless, the Nightingale does not admit defeat; at the end of the poem she just flies away, giving the final advice “I rede þou to my wordys tak hede” (86).7

The only connection that can be made with folklore in this particular poem is that it is set on a May morning, thus connecting the Nightingale with spring. Any other connection that the Nightingale may have with the nightingales from folklore, on the other hand, is brutally dissolved by letting her argue against women. The bestiary connection of hardworking mothers and nightingales cannot be traced either. Why the author made such a radical departure from folklore remains a puzzle, but one answer could be that by upsetting traditional beliefs in such a way, the poem and the message had a much greater impact. If that is true, then the author was still very aware of nightingales in popular lore and played with it to make a point.

The last true bird-debate between just two debaters that will be mentioned here is “The Merle and the Nightingale.” This poem was written by William Dunbar at the end of the fifteenth century. This poem has a much softer tone than other bird-debate poetry. The debate even ends in a decision which both birds accept. The issue in this debate is which kind of love is better, earthly love or love of god. The Merle is on the side of romantic earthly love and the Nightingale argues for spiritual love. At the end of the debate, the Nightingale wins the Merle over with her arguments and before they fly away together, both of them start singing:

The merle sang, “Man lufe God þat hes the wrocht”; The nychtingall sang, “Man, lufe the Lord most deir, That the and all this warld maid of nocht.”

The merle said, “Luve him þat thy lufe hes socht Fra hevin to erd, and heir tuk flesche and bone.” The nychtingall sang, “And with his deid the bocht:

(22)

All luve is lost bot vpone Him alone.” (106-112)8

Like the other poems, this poem is set in springtime: “In May as that Aurora did vspring” (1). It connects the Nightingale to spring and to love; this time, however, it is not just any love, but a higher kind of love, namely the love of God. So it appears that Dunbar also used the reputation of nightingales as birds of spring but focuses on a different aspect of love.

The last medieval bird poem that will be discussed is “The Parliament of Fowls” written by Geoffrey Chaucer. According to Brewer, “[a] very reasonable, if not certain, date for the Parlement is that it was begun in May 1382, and was ready for St Valentine‟s Day, 14 February 1383” (3). “The Parliament of Fowls” is not primarily a bird-debate poem. It is firstly known as a dream vision and secondly as a bird parliament poem, which features more than two contesting birds. The main debate is about who will be the mate of a female eagle. At first the debate is among three tercels, but when they cannot come to an agreement, other birds join the debate. The Owl and the Nightingale are not among these birds, so that only the description of the birds, which occurs at the beginning of the debate part, can be analysed. The Owl is introduced as “[t]he oule ek, that of deth the bode bryngeth” (343),9 while the Nightingale is “the nyghtyngale, that clepeth forth the grene leves newe” (351-352). Both of these descriptions match the descriptions of folklore, i.e. the Owl as a bringer of death and the Nightingale as bringer of spring. Of course, these descriptions are only short, but they reflect a preference of the birds‟ reputations in folklore to those in the bestiaries. Later on in the poem there is another reference to the reputation of owls:

Thow farst by love as oules don by light: The day hem blent, ful wel they se by nyght. Thy kynde is of so low a wrechednesse

That what love is, thow canst nouther seen ne gesse. (599-602)

As in the bestiaries, this passage also mentions the notion that owls lose their strength in daylight.

8_{Quotations from “The Merle and the Nightingale” are taken from John W. Conlee, ed., “The Merle and the} Nightingale” Middle English Debate Poetry, pp. 279-85.

(23)

2.3 Owls and Nightingales in “The Owl and the Nightingale”

A medieval audience familiar with bird lore would probably have favoured the Nightingale at the beginning of “The Owl and the Nightingale.” The author probably knew this, but the question remains whether he adhered to the old beliefs or tried to modify them. Surely he could not ignore the lore, so he had to use it in one way or another in the poem. All the other medieval bird debates show influences of lore and beast literature and give positive pictures of nightingales and negative ones of owls. This part of the dissertation will identify the use of lore in “The Owl and the Nightingale,” starting with the prejudices against owls before moving on to the prejudices against nightingales.

The place where the owl sits in the beginning of the poem is already reminiscent of bird lore: “þo stod on old stoc þarbiside, / þar þo Vle song hire tide, / & was mid iui al bigrowe. (25-28). The stock might be a reference to the kind of owl this Owl is; eagle owls are also known as stock owls, because they have the habit of pressing themselves against the stem of a tree. Ivy is also connected to owls in lore since “[a] bush of ivy was supposed to be a favourite place for the owl to rest in” (Swainson 124). Finally, the Owl mentions in lines 615-620 that trees with ivy are her dwelling.

As in bird lore, the Owl is a bird of ill omen. In lines 1150-1152 the Nightingale explains why people dislike the Owl: “Men boþ of þe wel sore ofdrad, / þu singst þar sum man shal be ded: / Euer þu bodest sumne qued.” The Nightingale proceeds with giving examples of the bad things that happen to people when they have heard an owl. There are also references to bestiary lore in “The Owl and the Nightingale.” The first one concerns the behaviour of other birds towards owls. The Nightingale says: “Vorþi þu art loþ al fuelkunne, / & alle ho þe driueþ hone, / & þe bischricheþ & bigredet / & vvel narewe þe biledet” (65-68). As in the bestiaries, all little birds attack the Owl when they get a chance. The next reference focuses on the dirty nest of the owl: “þu art lodlich & unclene - / Bi þine neste ich hit mene,” (91-92). The blindness of owls also comes up in line 241: “Bi daie þu art stareblind.”

(24)

be an allusion to the work of Fouilloy, in which case the positive trait of dying to help mankind is stressed.

There are no clear references to nightingales as they are described in bestiaries in “The Owl and the Nightingale,” but references to bird lore can be found on several occasions. For example, the Nightingale is sitting “In ore uaste þicke hegge” (17). There is a belief that nightingales sleep with their breast against a thorn. The placing of her nest in a thick hedge might protect it against snakes and other predators. The Owl also comments on nightingales and thorns in lines 585-587: “Wane þu comest to manne haʒe, / þar þornes boþ & ris idraʒe / Bi hegge & bi þicke wode.” The Owl turns the Nightingale‟s preference of nesting in hedges into something bad by connecting bushes with toilets, but the connection is still there. The more obvious associations between nightingales and love, songs and spring also occur on several occasions. The Nightingale claims that her arrival brings joy and spring:

Ac ich alle blisse mid me bringe, Ech wiʒt is glad for mine þinge. & blisseþ hit wane ich cume, & hiʒteþ aʒen mine kume.

Þe blostme ginneþ springe & sprede, Boþe ine tro & ek on mede. (433-438)

Surprisingly, the Nightingale turns matters around; she does not return in spring, but spring arrives because the Nightingale arrives. This is a rather bold claim of the Nightingale to make, which could possibly affect her reliability, as she now changes a well known fact for her own good. The Nightingale also talks about her song at several points, as for example in lines 735-742. She claims that her singing is of help to clerks, monks and canons and that

Ich warni men to here gode Þat hi bon bliþe on hore mode, An bidde þat hi moten iseche

Þan ilke song þat euer is eche. (739-742)

(25)

depending on the audience, but it is still remarkable that she changes the content and value of her song during the debate. The connection of nightingales with songs, however, is still very obvious during the debate.

(26)

Chapter 3: Analysing the Birds’ Debating Skills and the Content of the Poem.

As has been illustrated in chapter 2, it appears that the Nightingale has a small advantage in the debate. However, this does not necessarily mean that the author wants the Nightingale to win. The winner is still the bird that has the best arguments and knows how to use them. In fact, it is the Owl that is victorious, as a close examination of three aspects of the debate will illustrate: the structure of the debate and its legal aspects, the birds‟ use of fables and proverbs, most prominently the proverbs of Alfred, and the way the debate ends.

3.1 The Structure of the Debate and Basic Debating Skills

There are some indications that “The Owl and the Nightingale” was influenced by the contemporary legal debate. Such influence can be seen in some of the jargon that is used, such as „plait‟ and „dom,‟ meaning „lawsuit‟ and „judgement‟ respectively. Stanley points out that the legal terms in the poem are mostly Old English legal terms, as for example:10

Speche, „law-suit, plea,‟ (13, etc); tale, „charge‟, or merely „discourse‟ (140); mid riʒte dome, „with just judgement‟, (179) ... fals dom, „improper decision‟ (210); bare worde, „an assertion by the plaintiff, unsupported by witnesses and not requiring a reply from the defendant.‟

The influence of contemporary lawsuits can also be seen in the way the debate is structured. The poem can be divided into four parts: the prologue and decision to have a debate following proper procedure (lines 1-214), the first part of the debate where the Nightingale is on the offence and the Owl on the defence (lines 215-548), the second part of the debate in which the Owl is mostly on the offence and the Nightingale on the defence and which ends with the self-proclaimed victory of the Nightingale (lines 549-1652), and the last part of the poem in which the Wren intervenes in the chaos that breaks out and the birds decide to go to Nicholas of Guildford (lines 1653-1794). The first two parts closely resemble the structure of a twelfth-century lawsuit. The plaintiff seizes the opportunity to make a case and attacks the defendant, as does the Nightingale in the first part of the debate. If the defendant disagrees with the

(27)

plaintiff, he can make a point of it, an exception, which is what the Owl does in the second part of the debate. When the defendant excepts, he “must, like a plaintiff, offer to prove his case” (Pollock and Maitland 616). However, this is not the end of the debate as

[t]he exception may be met by a replication, the replication by a triplication and so on ad infinitum. We may occasionally find long debates between the parties. Not only are they long, but, if judged by the standard of a later time, they are loose and irregular. (Pollock and Maitland 615)

When both parties have put forth their arguments the court will pass a judgement. So, basically the birds follow the rules of a lawsuit, but it should not be forgotten that the debaters are still birds. While they can apparently speak like humans, raise issues like humans and debate like humans, they should always be seen as birds. This explains why there are some mistakes and inconsistencies in the structure of the debate. Nevertheless, the debate can still be taken seriously, as long as one takes into account that the debate is the birds‟ version of a contemporary lawsuit. Thus it is still possible to pick a winner in what is a slightly flawed debate according to human rules. As a side effect the use of birds as debaters also makes the poem more agreeable to read; there is the comic effect of using birds as debaters, yet the issues involved are important, and the reader has to read very carefully to fully understand which mistakes are made and what can be used as an argument to pick a winner.

The Nightingale is the one who starts the debate in the poem and could therefore be named plaintiff. It would seem logical that, as a plaintiff, she is on the offence more than the Owl. However, an analysis of the debate presents a different picture. The Nightingale is only really strong in the first part; after this point she loses her confidence and the Owl takes the upper hand. The structure of the debate can be outlined as follows:

Table 1. Structure of “The Owl and the Nightingale.” lines content

part 1 215-252 First formal attack of Nightingale 253-390 First rebuttal of Owl

391-466 Second more elaborate attack of Nightingale 467-542 Second rebuttal of Owl

543-548 Nightingale tries to make another attack

(28)

837-932 Rebuttal and second attack of Owl 933-1042 Second rebuttal of Nightingale 1043-1066 Third attack of Owl

1067-1174 Rebuttal of Nightingale

1175-1290 Rebuttal and fourth attack of Owl 1291-1510 Rebuttal and attack of Nightingale 1511-1634 Rebuttal and attack of Owl

1635-1652 Self proclaimed victory of Nightingale

The structure of the debate suggests that the Owl is winning. She launches more attacks and knows how to defend herself according to the rules of a lawsuit.

The Owl‟s confidence and strength as a debater can also be seen if we take a closer look at what exactly the birds say about the debate itself. There are a few points in the debate where the birds‟ feelings and thoughts about the debate are mentioned. The Owl has four of those moments, the first being in lines 467-472:

Þos Hule luste & leide an hord Al þis mot, word after word, An after þoʒte hu ne miʒte Ansvere uinde best mid riʒte: Vor he mot hine ful wel biþenche Þat is aferd of plaites wrenche.

This fragment shows that the Owl can think calmly and rationally about the Nightingale‟s arguments in order to make a rebuttal. The Owl is not always this calm though; she has her moments in which she becomes emotional, too. This happens in line 1043: “þe Hule was wroþ, to cheste rad.” On the whole, however, the Owl remains confident when she hears the Nightingale‟s arguments; “Þe Hule was glad of swuche tale” (1511). In addition, the Owl knows the rules of debating, as the following lines show:

(29)

Also þu speke toward me,

An þu ansuare ʒif þu miʒt. (549-555)

The Owl interrupts the Nightingale, saying that it is her turn to argue against the Nightingale. By doing so the Owl makes the exception to the Nightingale‟s initial accusation, thus displaying her knowledge of the various debate rules. In other words, the Owl mostly shows that she is strong and confident.

The Nightingale has more doubts during the debate. The reader gets a first glimpse of the Nightingale‟s thoughts during the debate in lines 391-410, of which the following passages are the most telling:

Vor ho ne miʒte noʒt alegge Þat þe Hule hadde hire ised, Vor he spac boþe riʒt an red. An hire ofþuʒte þat ho hadde Þe speche so for uorþ iladde; An was oferd þat hire answare Ne wrþe noʒt ariʒt ifare. (394-400)

& forþi, þeʒ þe Niʒtingale

Were aferd, ho spac bolde tale (409-410)

The Nightingale clearly feels intimidated by the Owl‟s arguments. Some critics (for example Peterson) have argued the Owl is therefore winning the debate. However, not everybody agrees. Neil Cartlidge supports John Gardner‟s claim that “the Nightingale was so competent in [the] debate that she could find something to say even in the most difficult of situations” (Cartlidge 57). Even if this claim is true, the Owl is still a better debater since she is able to put the Nightingale in the difficult position in the first place.

The passage just discussed is not the only passage that shows the Nightingale‟s doubts about the debate. The same happens in lines 659-706, 933-954 and 1291-1296.11 Therefore these passages will not be analysed in depth as they give the same results: the Owl intimidates the Nightingale with her arguments and the Nightingale has to think long and hard to make a

(30)

comeback, thus making it look as if the Owl is the stronger debater. It is therefore more important to discuss three other passages: lines 543-548 and 1067-1071 and, most importantly, lines 1635-1652. In the first two passages the Nightingale is not always as calm as in the passage already discussed; she can sometimes be overcome with emotions, which is an awkward position from which to enter a debate:

„Nay, nay,‟ sede þe Niʒtingale, „þu shalt ihere an oþer tale. ʒet nis þos speche ibroʒt to dome. Ac bo wel stille & lust nu to me! Ich shal mid one bare worde

Do þat þi speche wrþ forworþe.‟ (543-548)

Þe Niʒtingale at þisse worde Mid sworde an mid speres orde, ʒif ho mon were, wolde fiʒte; Ac þo ho bet do ne miʒte

Ho uaʒt mid hire wise tunge. (1067-1071)

(31)

Up to this point, the Owl is definitely on the winning side. Nevertheless, after the Owl‟s speech in lines 1511-1634, the Nightingale stops the debate, declaring that she has won because the Owl boasted of her own dishonor:

„Hule,‟ heo seide, „beo nu wear! Nulle ich wiþ þe plaidi na more, For her þe mist þi rihte lore: Þu ʒulpest þat þ art manne loþ An euereuch with is wið þe worþ; An mid ʒulinge & mid igrede Þu wanst wel þat þu art unlede. Þu seist þat gromes þe ifoð An heie on rodde þe anhoð, An þe totwichet & toschakeð An summe of þu schawles makeð Me þuncþ þat þu forleost þat game: Þu ʒulpest of þire oʒe schame; Me þuncþ þat þu me gest an honde:

Þu ʒulpest of þire oʒene schonde.‟ (1638-1652)

This particular passage has been of interest to many readers and researchers of the poem, for it is a bold statement of the Nightingale. To the unsuspecting reader it might seem as if this passage is proof that the Nightingale has won the debate, which ends at this point. However, things are not that straightforward. The Nightingale specifies that the Owl loses the debate because she boasts of being useful when dead and thus admits that she is not as useful when alive. By doing so, the Owl also admits that there is some truth in the allegations made against her and it could be said that she has forfeited the debate. Akins thinks that the Nightingale accuses the Owl of making a stultiloquium (lv). The effect of a stultiloquium is described by Pollock and Maitland:

(32)

amercement must have been a sanguine man; for he was playing a game of forfeits. (519)

Not only does the Nightingale appear to have the legal rules on her side when she accuses the Owl of making a mistake in her pleading, but Atkins also asserts that “[t]his claim, advanced by the Nightingale, is not without its importance: it is endorsed by the neighbouring birds, who rejoice that a decision has at length been reached” (lv).

Nevertheless, the Nightingale‟s claim is not necessarily valid. For instance, it is only logical that the other birds rejoice at the Nightingale‟s claim and immediately celebrate this victory since they are all song birds and have been in hiding until now. They were probably afraid of the Owl and thus already had an antipathy against her. As a result they want to believe the Nightingale‟s claim and thus they do believe it. As for the stultiloquium, the rules are clear. If the Owl indeed made a mistake in her pleading, then she has automatically forfeited the debate. Yet it is not certain that the Nightingale‟s accusation is correct. Although the Owl admits that it is true that people sometimes kill her kind to hang them on poles, the Nightingale overlooks that even in this way owls can help mankind, something that nightingales can never do, dead or alive (1607-1634).

Finally, two other aspects of the Nightingale‟s accusation need to be discussed. Let us for a moment return to the original issue of the debate, namely which bird is the better bird and can sing better, an issue which Nicholas of Guildford is to decide because he can hear who sings better and knows right from wrong and dark from light (195-199). The issue of being helpful to mankind falls into the category of which bird is the better bird. With her explanation that owls are even useful while dead, the Owl makes a valid point for her case. She has taken an argument of the Nightingale and has made it her own. This is not an admission of error, but a clever trick to eventually win the debate. Furthermore, the bird that actually made an error here is the Nightingale. By accusing the Owl of forfeiting the debate and claiming victory for herself, the Nightingale has assumed the role of judge. It is not her place to make this judgment; both birds agreed to let Nicholas of Guildford judge before the debate started. The Nightingale shows that she might be acquainted with a few basic rules of a lawsuit, but she does not know how to use them well and speaks out of turn in this particular case.

(33)

the most important elements of a good argument is that the debater has witnesses to support the case. As the birds do not have corporeal witnesses, they choose to use proverbs, mostly those of Alfred, and fables to support their arguments.

3.2 References to Proverbs and Fables

Since a medieval audience regarded birds as creatures inferior to humans, the strongest supporting evidence for the birds‟ arguments would of course come from human sources. This would also be logical for a medieval audience since birds are regarded as lower creatures than humans. The best way for the birds to incorporate humans or human knowledge is to use the proverbs, fables and other tales that they could have heard when they were near humans. As both the Owl and the Nightingale claim to be near humans often, they have had ample opportunity to learn from humans and their conversations. It has been argued that the use of proverbs only shows that the birds are not very adept at debating: “[i]ndeed, the birds‟ naïve confidence in the effectiveness of citing proverbial wisdom is one aspect of their ineptness in disputation” (Cartlidge XXXIV). Hume also thinks that the use of proverbs in the poem shows that the birds are unimaginative in their arguments:

the first time [King Alfred] appears, we may be tempted to admire the Nightingale‟s learning, but at the occurrences mount, the invocation gets funnier each time ... Whether they cite King Alfred, Confucius, Chairman Mao, their bishop, their husband, or an idolized friend who knows everything, the result is the same: the mental stature of the debater is reduced, especially when, as here, only one authority is cited. (120)

(34)

mostly because they have respect for him as a judge. It does not necessarily mean that a medieval audience would judge the debaters according to human standards. Furthermore, a human judge is more likely to be impartial than another bird, as can clearly be seen at the end of the poem where all the small birds happily accept the Nightingale‟s self-proclaimed victory even though there has not been a formal judgement yet. Lastly, the birds might also have chosen a human judge because they probably think they can debate as well as humans. That being said, it is still proper to examine how the birds use the proverbs. To the birds the use of proverbs really means something and establishes the truthfulness of their arguments. Since proverbs constitute such an important part of the debate, they could also indicate who wins the debate.

In total there are fifteen indicated occurrences of a proverb in the debate,12 twelve of which are attributed to King Alfred. Not all of these can be traced back to The Proverbs of Alfred, but this does not necessarily mean that they are not authentic, as a lot of medieval books are now lost. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the proverbs really were by Alfred, the birds themselves probably believe wholeheartedly that they are quoting King Alfred. There are more proverbs or possible proverbs in the poem; however, those are not indicated or presented properly by the birds as support for their arguments, which is the point that is discussed in this chapter. All the indicated uses of proverbs are shown in table 2:

Table 2. Use of proverbs in “The Owl and the Nightingale”

Nightingale Owl

lines claimed origin of proverb lines claimed origin of proverb

235-236 Alfred 289-292 Wise men

685-688* Alfred 294-297 Alfred

761-762 Alfred 349-356 Alfred

1037-1042 Ancient decrees 637-638 Ancient proverb 1072-1074* Alfred 1223-1226 Alfred

1269-1272 Alfred

* = Proverb not used in debate to prove an argument, but as a tool to gain confidence in the debate.

(35)

At first glance both birds seem to use an equal amount of proverbs to support their arguments. However, in four of the seven instances in which the Nightingale uses a proverb, she does not use them as supporting evidence; instead, she uses them to gain confidence for the debate, as she is quite intimidated by the Owl‟s words (to be discussed in more detail below). Furthermore, in two of those four cases, i.e. in lines 685-688 and 697-700 respectively, the Nightingale uses the same proverb. As a result, the Nightingale uses proverbs to back up her arguments only three times, whereas the Owl uses proverbs a total of eight times. Again, the odds are in favour of the Owl. Still, in a debate quality means more than quantity. The number of the used proverbs might indicate that the Owl knows more proverbs of Alfred‟s, and thus stress the reputation of owls as creatures of wisdom, but it does not make the Owl win the debate.

It should also be considered how relevant the proverbs are and whether the birds adhere to the advice given in the proverbs. To begin with, the proverbs the Nightingale uses to boost her confidence in the debate will be looked at. The Nightingale uses Alfred‟s proverbs to gain confidence first in line 687. In this part of the debate the Owl is taking the offence and the Nightingale is almost at a loss of words, because she feels that the Owl has spoken truthfully. In this case the proverb that she uses, “Wone þe bale is alre hecst, / þonne is þebote alre necst” (687-688 and 699-700), is very appropriate and indeed it helps her find the courage to go on with the debate. However, the use of this proverb also indicates that until then the Owl seems to be winning, or at least the Nightingale feels that way. Had the Nightingale not thought of Alfred‟s proverb, she might have given up the debate right there and then. The Nightingale does not remain confident for very long and once more is hindered by her emotions after a rebuttal by the Owl. This time the emotions are not feelings of fear but feelings of annoyance, embarrassment and anger. Again, she gains control of her confidence by thinking of a proverb of Alfred, “Selde erendeð wel þe loþe / An selde plaideð wel þe wroþe” (943-944). This proverb helps her to wait with her reply until her anger subsides. The last time that the Nightingale uses a proverb to gain confidence in the debate is in line 1072 and 1074: “„Wel fiʒt þat wel specþ,‟ seide Alured.” (1074). Enraged by the words spoken by the Owl, the Nightingale calms herself down with this proverb. So the use of proverbs by the Nightingale to gain confidence and control of herself in the debate is in all cases appropriate and it seems to work.

(36)

logical error. True, foul things shun the light, but does that mean that everything that is active at night is foul? That would be the same as to say, for instance, an owl is a bird, so all birds must be owls, and that is clearly wrong. Therefore the proverb is incorrectly applied. The Nightingale‟s next cited proverb is “Ne mai no strengþe aʒen red” (762), the point here being that the Nightingale‟s cleverness is better than the Owl‟s strength. However, this comes right after the passage where the Nightingale claims that her only talent singing is better than all of the abilities of the Owl: “betere is min on þan alle þine” (712). Intelligence is superior to strength, but the Nightingale claimed to have only one real talent just a few lines earlier. By citing the proverb and declaring that she is cunning and a good singer, the Nightingale contradicts herself. The use of this proverb is also odd, since the Nightingale thought the Owl to speak correctly and truthfully, and thus intelligently, before: “An hit is suþe strong to fiʒt / Aʒen soþ & aʒen riʒte” (667-668). Finally, the Nightingale‟s last proverb is not one of Alfred‟s but an ancient decree:

Þat man shal erien an sowe Þar he wenþ after sum god mowe: For he is wod þat soweþ his sed

Þar neuer gras ne sprinþ ne bled. (1039-1042)

The Nightingale has chosen this ancient decree to explain why she does not go to the countries of the north, which she claims are a wasteland with barbarous people who cannot be converted to the church. This would seem a valid reason for the Nightingale not to go there, except that the priests and monks who go there prove otherwise. From a Christian point of view it is right for clergymen to go north, as it is Christian to show people the right way. It appears that the Nightingale chooses her proverbs well in order to steady her emotions during the debate, but she is less successful when she uses them in support of her arguments.

As said before, the Owl resorts to more proverbs than the Nightingale as a means to back up her arguments. The first three proverbs she quotes are to defend her actions and behaviour around other small birds:

Þat me ne chide wit þe gidie,

Ne wit þan ofne me ne ʒonie. (291-292)

(37)

Þar chaulig boþ & cheste ʒare;

Lat sottes chide & uorþ þu go!” (295-297) “þat wit þe fule haueþ imene,

Ne cumeþ he neuer from him cleine.” (301-302)

The Owl suggests that there is a reason why she mostly flies at night, namely to avoid the smaller birds that would attack her during the day. In this context the proverbs are appropriate: the Owl claims to avoid the birds as she deems them not worthy of a response. Any response of the Owl towards the little birds would only incriminate her; it is better to just go away and avoid the fight than to degrade herself. However, if the Owl had thought of this before, she should also not have entered the debate with the Nightingale. The Nightingale is, of course, one of the smaller birds mentioned in this debate. In other words, even though the proverbs makes sense in its immediate context, the Owl does not follow her own advice in this case. There is one other proverb which the Owl does not seem to use that well. When the Owl addresses the Nightingale‟s accusation that her chicks foul their own nest, she defends them by saying “þat node makeþ old wif urne” (638). Nevertheless, she follows this defence up by denying that her chicks foul the nest. She says that she creates a privy outside of her nest, just as humans do, so the chicks will not have to do their business in the nest. Once more, the Owl immediately contradicts herself.

The Owl‟s other proverbs are a lot more convincing. The fourth proverb occurs, as do the first three, in the first rebuttal to the Nightingale‟s accusations. She accuses the Nightingale of singing too much and thinks that by singing so often the Nightingale devaluates her song, for as Alfred said: “Eurich þing mai losen his godhead / Mid unmeþe & mid ouerdede” (351-352). This point makes sense and is good advice for the Nightingale. The Owl also explains that she herself adheres to the proverb and only sings at the right times. Next, the Owl accuses the Nightingale of having only one talent, singing. The Owl claims that when the Nightingale is done with singing, she cannot do anything else; according to Alfred,

Nis no man for is bare songe Lof ne wrþ noʒt suþe longe Vor þat is a forworþe man

Who, Who Won the Debate?