The Owl and the Nightingale (Latin: Altercatio inter filomenam et bubonem) is a twelfth- or thirteenth-century Middle English poem detailing a debate between an owl and a nightingale as overheard by the poem's narrator. It is the earliest example in Middle English of a literary form known as debate poetry (or verse contest).[1]
| The Owl and the Nightingale | |
|---|---|
| Altercatio inter filomenam et bubonem | |
 Opening page of The Owl and the Nightingale: Oxford, Jesus College, MS. 29, fol. 156r | |
| Also known as | Hule and the Nightingale |
| Date | 12th or 13th century |
| Manuscript(s) | (1) British Library Cotton MS Caligula A IX; (2) Oxford, Jesus College, MS 29. Written in the 2nd half of the 13th century |
Verse contests from this time period were usually written in Anglo-Norman or Latin. This poem shows the influence of French linguistic, literary, and rhetorical techniques. After the Norman conquest, French became a predominant language in England, but English was still widespread and recognized as an acceptable language for poetry, if only burlesque debates.
The dating of the poem is uncertain. The poem includes a prayer for the soul of the "king Henri", but it is unclear from the context if the deceased monarch mentioned in the prayer is Henry II of England (who died in 1189) or his grandson Henry III of England (who died in 1272). According to one scholarly theory, the nightingale of the poem specifically represents Henry II, which could mean that the rival character of the poem (the owl) represents one of Henry's political rivals, Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Date, authorship and provenance
editThere is no certain information about the poem's author, date of composition or origin.
Nicholas of Guildford is mentioned several times in the text as the man best suited to judge which bird presents the strongest argument. His character never actually makes an appearance, and the poem ends with the debate unresolved and the owl and nightingale flying off in search of Nicholas. Some critics speculate that the most likely reason for the mention of Nicholas of Guildford in the poem is because he is the author. However, in the introduction to the latest translation on the text, Neil Cartlidge reminds the reader that despite the general acceptance of Nicholas as author "... there is no firm evidence to support such an identification and no certain trace of the existence of any Nicholas of Guildford, priest of Portesham, beyond the text itself".[2] Additionally, there has been academic discussion on whether The Owl and the Nightingale could have been written by a religious group of nuns with other religious women as their target audience.[3]
It is equally difficult to establish an exact date when The Owl and the Nightingale was first written. The two surviving manuscripts are thought to be copied from one exemplar, and they are dated to the second half of the 13th century. In lines 1091–2, the nightingale prays for the soul of "king Henri", which is thought to reference "either the death of Henry II of England in 1189 or of Henry III of England in 1272".[2] Scholars see no evidence that the poem predates the surviving manuscripts by many years. It is possible that the poem was written in the 12th or 13th century; Cartlidge argues that it is from after the death of Henry III in 1272.[4]
Linguistic evidence suggests the poem's origins lie in Kent or a neighbouring region, but there is little evidence to support this theory. Because The Owl and the Nightingale cannot be accurately dated, it is nearly impossible to properly reconstruct the original dialect. Recent scholarship also acknowledges that provenance could be anywhere in Wessex, the Home Counties or the south-west Midlands.[2]
Manuscripts
edit
There are two known manuscripts of The Owl and the Nightingale: ff. 156–68 of Jesus College, Oxford, MS. 29 and ff. 233–46 of British Library, Cotton MS. Caligula A. ix.[5] Both are bound together in collections of other works. They are both estimated to be written in the latter half of the 13th century and copied from one exemplar which is now lost [6]
Jesus College, Oxford, MS. 29:
This manuscript, given to Jesus College between 1684 and 1697 by rector Thomas Wilkins, contains 33 texts in English, Anglo Norman, and Latin. All of the script is in one hand and written in a plain, amateurish style.[6] The Owl and Nightingale is written in two columns with some capital letters in blue and red but no illumination.
Cotton Caligula A.IX:
This manuscript contains 13 texts in English and Anglo Norman, most of which were probably bound together from the beginning despite Cotton’s method of organizing disparate manuscripts into collections. The text, written by at least two different scribes, is in two columns with some capital letters in red and no illumination. The script is a professional, gothic bookhand. This manuscript has a 19th-century binding and shows no evidence of whom the previous owner(s) may have been.[6]
Summary
editThe poem revolves around a heated argument between the owl and the nightingale, observed by an unnamed narrator. Initially, the nightingale is seen perched on a branch adorned with blossoms, while the owl sits on an ivy-covered bough above. The nightingale starts the debate by commenting on the owl's appearance, describing her as unsightly and unclean. The owl suggests a civil and rational approach to their discussion, proposing they consult Nicholas of Guildford, known for his fairness despite a frivolous youth. However, the nightingale quickly criticizes the owl for her screeches and shrieks, associating her nocturnal activity with vice and malice. In response, the owl argues that the nightingale's incessant singing is excessive and tedious.
The Nightingale replies that the song of the Owl brings unwanted gloom, while her own is joyous and reflects the beauty of the world. The Owl is quick to reply that Nightingales only sing in summer, when men's minds are filled with lechery. Furthermore, singing is the Nightingale's only talent. The Owl has more valuable skills, like servicing churches by ridding them of rats. The Nightingale claims she too is helpful to the Church, since her songs invoke the glories of Heaven, and encourage churchgoers to be more devout. The Owl counters that before people can reach Heaven, they must repent their sins. Her mournful, haunting song makes them reconsider their decisions. She further states that the Nightingale's gay melodies can entice women to adultery and promiscuity. It is the nature of women to be frail, the Nightingale claims, and any sins they might commit in maidenhood are forgiven once they are married. It is rather the fault of men, for taking advantage of this weakness in maidens.
The Nightingale, not to be outdone, claims that the Owl is of no use except when dead, since farmers use her corpse as a scarecrow. The Owl gives a positive slant to this charge by inferring that she helps men even after death. This is not seen as a sufficient refutation to the Nightingale, and she calls other birds to jeer at the Owl. The Owl threatens to assemble her predatory friends, but before the tension can escalate further, the Wren descends to quiet the quarrel. The birds ultimately decide to defer judgment of their case to Nicholas of Guildford, who lives at Portesham in Dorset.
There is a brief digression about the merits of Nicholas and how unfortunate it is that he is unappreciated and underpaid by bishops and wealthy men. The Owl and Nightingale agree to find the wise man and the Owl claims that her memory is so excellent that she can repeat every word of the argument when they arrive. However, the reader never learns which bird bests her opponent at the debate; the poem ends with the two flying off in search of Nicholas.
Structure
editStyle and form
editThe text is composed of rhyming octosyllabic couplets, generally following the poetic construction of iambic tetrameter.
[lines 437–442] |
|
Iambic tetrameter, while commonly used to create flowing lyricism and ease of reading, can quickly become monotonous, with the repetitive pattern distracting from the subject matter. The poet avoids this by including variety in his meter, occasionally adding or omitting syllables. The poem is also rife with imagery, alliteration, and assonance.
[lines 13–18] |
|
The poem's language is not superfluously dense or grandiloquent. The birds' dialogue is colloquial, and their insults are scathing. The analogies employed are also rural, equating the Nightingale's song to the barbarous speech of an Irish priest ("Þu chatereſt ſo doþ on Yris preſt" [322]),[7] referring to fox hunts, and commenting on the use and practicality of scarecrows.
Genre
editMedieval debate poetry was popular in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and this poem draws on their structure, mimicking legal suits of the time. Each bird charges the other with an accusation, and brings forth evidence to support her claim.[8] Proverbs are cited as a rhetorical argument from authority. However, the birds' rhetorical techniques are highly flawed. The birds' attack strategies rely on belittlement, condescension, and analogising their opponent's habits to unsavoury people or things.[9]
[lines 71–74] |
|
The animals' defence is founded on self-praise, as each bird justifies her behaviours and attempts to show the benefits in her own actions. However, the Owl berates the Nightingale for a quality she herself possesses, and the Nightingale's self-defence argument follows the same logic as offered by the Owl.[10] Both use their song as a way to encourage proper religious thought and behaviour. The Nightingale simulates the auditory pleasures of heaven,
[lines 736–742] |
|
while the Owl coerces people to repent, and warns them of what awaits them should they sin.
[lines 927–932] |
|
References and context
edit- Alfred
- At many points in the poem, the birds cite King Alfred as a source of wise dicta. Although there was a medieval compendium of sayings attributed to Alfred, the birds in the poem are not actually quoting it. These references do acknowledge his wisdom and authority, but are little more than appeals to Alfred's generic image as a wise, just, and learned ruler from England's past.
- Bestiary
- The animals' characteristics follow heavily on the tradition of a bestiary, a concise catalogue where animals are listed, and their characteristics are described, along with the symbolic and allegorical associations and morally significant qualities they represent.[11] One of the birds' goals through their debate is to assign meaning and purpose to their own characteristics. According to Genesis 1:26, all creatures were made by God to serve man, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26, King James Bible) Given this view, it makes sense the birds see their value as directly proportional to their usefulness to mankind.
- Clergy
- Near the end of the poem, the bishops of Portesham are condemned for prohibiting Master Nicholas to live with them. They bestow higher jobs to unintelligent men and display nepotism. Since the housing of bishops is hardly a concern of birds, scholars have interpreted this reference as a contention the author had with the institution. Nicholas himself is speculated to be the author, although directly pointing out irritation at his superiors would be unlikely to win him any advancement.
- Christ
- Both animals are presumptuous in their claims of value, but the Owl goes so far as to imply she displays Christ-like sacrifice and compassion. With imagery reminiscent of the crucifixion of Jesus, she remarks on how useful she is even after death:
|
|
Interpretation, criticism, and analysis
editMost scholars in the past have defined the work as an allegory, yet the difficulty of sustaining this method of analysis throughout the poem remains a challenge. These interpretations tend to characterise each principal figure in polar opposition to the other, and since scholar Kathryn Hume's work on the text has encouraged other scholars to turn to format and structure rather than symbolic characterisation.[12]
Scholars have also discussed The Owl and the Nightingale and its connection to themes of antisemitism due to the negative medieval association of owls with Jewish people.[13]
Disregarding an allegorical interpretation, critics have taken the position that the two figures of the text do represent symbolic depictions of people, institutions, and other forces. The question of date and authorship make any certainty about the text a challenge to interpretation. The most consistent theme in the piece is the determination of the birds to trounce their opponent no matter the lengths to which their argument must stretch.[2]
It has also been suggested that the owl and nightingale represent historical figures, which necessarily grounds these arguments in a very specific time. Scholar Anne Baldwin posits that the poem was written between 1174 and 1175, and that the nightingale represents King Henry II and the owl is Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.[14]
Several scholars have focused on comparisons between the structures in the medieval legal system and that of the poem itself. The birds take turns presenting their arguments as they would have done in a contemporary court, while also structuring their arguments as legal defences and providing the opinions of authorities to strengthen their cases.[15] While the unknown date of creation yet again foils any certain comparison, analyses have ranged from imitations of 12th- or 13th-century court mechanisms to no actual comparison, with acknowledgement that the author was indeed acquainted with judicial proceedings.[15] In 1994, Monica Potkay also proposed that the legal system on which the poem is based is that of natural rather than English "common" law, a legal framework predicated on God's power over the Earth and its inhabitants.
In short, there remains no consensus regarding the ultimate analysis of this enigmatic work. Without a definite provenance and authorship, the possibility of a positive identification of the symbolism within the text is limited.
Editions and translations
edit- The Owl and the Nightingale: A New Verse Translation. Translated by Armitage, Simon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2022. ISBN 9780691202167.
- "The Owl and the Nightingale". Wessex Parallel WebTexts. University of Southampton. 2003.
- Cartlidge, Neil, ed. (2001). The Owl and the Nightingale. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
- Stone, Brian, tr. (1988). The Owl and the Nightingale, Cleanness, St Erkenwald (2nd ed.). London: Penguin Classics.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Ker, N. R., ed. (1963). The Owl and the Nightingale: Facsimile of the Jesus and Cotton Manuscripts. EETS o.s. 251. London: Oxford UP. Facsimile edition
- Stanley, E. G., ed. (1960). The Owl and the Nightingale. Nelson's Medieval and Renaissance Library. London.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Atkins, J. W. H., ed. and tr. (1922). The Owl and the Nightingale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Also available here. - Wells, John Edwin, ed. (1907). The Owl and the Nightingale. Boston and London.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Also available here, here, here and here
References
edit- ^ English Language and Literature Timeline: 1090s: The Owl and the Nightingale, British Library's "Evolving Language" Archived 2011-02-20 at the Wayback Machine expedition (online and at the museum), 2011.
- ^ a b c d Cartlidge, Neil (2001). The owl and the nightingale: Text and translation. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. ISBN 0-85989-690-0. OCLC 47356230.
- ^ Barratt, Alexandra (1987). "Flying in the face of tradition: a new view of The Owl and the Nightingale". University of Toronto Quarterly. 56 (4): 471-485. doi:10.3138/utq.56.4.471. S2CID 170138375.
- ^ Cartlidge (1996). "The date of The owl and the nightingale". Medium Ævum. 65 (2): 230–247. doi:10.2307/43629849. JSTOR 43629849.
- ^ Dunning, Andrew (2022). "Jesus College MS. 29". Medieval Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries.
- ^ a b c Ker, N. R., ed. (1963). The Owl and the Nightingale: Reproduced in Facsimile. London: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Cannon, Christopher (2004). The Grounds of English Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927082-8.
- ^ Wilson, R. M. 'VII The Owl and the Nightingale.' Early Middle English Literature. [London]: Methuen &, 1968. 149-69.
- ^ Treharne, Elaine M., and Greg Walker. The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Literature in English. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.
- ^ Gardner, John. The Alliterative Morte Arthure, The Owl and the Nightingale and Five Other Middle English Poems. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1979.
- ^ Mann, Jill. From Aesop to Reynard: Beast Literature in Medieval Britain. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.
- ^ Matlock, Wendy A. (October 2010). "Law and violence in The owl and the nightingale". The Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 109 (4): 446–467. doi:10.5406/jenglgermphil.109.4.0446. ISSN 0363-6941.
- ^ Goodrich, Micah James (2020). "The Flyting of The Owl and the Nightingale: Animacy, Antisemitism, and Species Division". Early Middle English. 2 (1): 1-31. ISSN 2516-9092. Retrieved 22 March 2023.
- ^ Baldwin, Anne W. (April 1967). "Henry II and The Owl and the Nightingale". The Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 66 (2): 207–229. JSTOR 27705311.
- ^ a b Potkay, Monica Brzezinski (June 1994). "Natural law in the Owl and the Nightingale". Chaucer Review. 28 (4): 368–383. JSTOR 25095860.
Further reading
edit- Barratt, Alexandra (1987). "Flying in the face of tradition: a new view of The Owl and the Nightingale". University of Toronto Quarterly. 56 (4): 471–485. doi:10.3138/utq.56.4.471. S2CID 170138375.
- Cartlidge, Neil (1997). Medieval Marriage: Literary Approaches, 1100-1300. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
- Coleman, Janet (1987). "The Owl and the Nightingale and Papal Theories of Marriage". Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 38 (4): 517–67. doi:10.1017/s0022046900023630. S2CID 161185251.
- Huganir, Kathryn (1931). The Owl and the Nightingale: Sources, Date, Author. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Hume, Kathryn (1975). The Owl and the Nightingale: The Poem and its Critics. Toronto: Toronto UP.
External links
edit
- London, British Library, Cotton MS Caligula A IX: digitized manuscript
- British Library summary of the poem
- Oxford, Jesus College, MS. 29: digitized manuscript
- Online text
- Stanley 1972 text with gloss
- [1]