The Parsed Corpus of
Middle English Poetry (PCMEP)
PCMEP Text Information
The Owl and the Nightingale
Back to PCMEP texts
About the text:
About the edition and manuscript base:
About the file:
Other:
| Text name: | The Owl and the Nightingale |
| Alternative names: | Hule and the Nightingale; I was in an summery dale |
| Content: | The Owl and the Nightingale is the most substantial Middle English animal debate poem. It is considered a masterpiece of English medieval literature and is one of the best-known Middle English texts. For example, Wells (1916: 420) praises the poem thusly: "Of striking vigor and originality of mind, possessing a sane critical judgment founded on a considerable culture, and endowed with astonishing poetical gifts for his time and environment, the poet produced a work that seems the earliest and, from many points of view, the best, original long poem of a wholly imaginative character written in English before the time of Chaucer." Summary: In a valley, the poet overhears a debate between an Owl and a Nightingale (ll. 1-12). The Nightingale scornfully insults the Owl for her dreadful song (ll. 13-40). At nightfall the Owl replies and threatens the Nightingale with her sharp claws (ll. 41-50). The Nightingale claims that the Owl is loathed by all birds, that she eats revolting food, and that her offspring defile their nest (ll. 51-142). Furious, the Owl tries to persuade her rival to leave her safe shelter, intending to attack her. But the Nightingale suggests instead that they engage in a debate, judged by Master Nicholas of Guildford, to which the Owl agrees (ll. 143-214). The Nightingale alleges that the Owl is a creature of the dark and is therefore evil (ll. 215-252). The Owl defends herself by stating that she is wise and related to the family of the hawks, which is why she ignores baseless insults. Further, she praises her voice for its confidence, its usefulness, calling people to action, and its restraint. Finally she defends her habit of hunting at night, which has nothing to do with poor eyesight, but with keeping hard-working men company (ll. 253-390). The Nightingale feels hard-pressed for an answer. Eventually, she presents herself as a creature that brings joy and delight to people and contrasts the Owl as a creature of woe (ll. 391-466). The Owl replies that she sings in winter, especially at Christmas, to hearten the distressed. She accuses her opponent of being a chatterbox, singing for lust. While she herself benefits men by hunting mice in barns and churches, the Nightingale sings on dirty perches and where people often go to relieve themselves. Lastly, she defends her children, which, in contrast to the Nightingale’s earlier accusation, are not any dirtier than other chicks (ll. 467-542). The Nightingale is concerned that she might not be able to give an appropriate answer to the Owl’s excellent response. She confidently exclaims that she sings merrily to remind people of the bliss of Heaven, which is one art that is more useful than all of the Owl’s benefits put together (ll. 543-836). The Owl retorts that it is not singing but repentance and concern for others that leads to Heaven. If the Nightingale really cared about the salvation of souls, she should sing in desolate places like Galway or Ireland (ll. 837-932). The Nightingale defends her noble singing as a celebration of romantic love and also as a means of worship in church. She maintains that her song would just be wasted in Galway or Ireland (ll. 933-1042). The Owl blames the Nightingale for encouraging lechery. A lord who found his lady caught in an illicit affair even killed another nightingale for this behavior (ll. 1043-1066). The Nightingale cries that the man who did this paid dearly for his crime, as King Henry punished him severely. She then accuses the Owl of being a harbinger of disaster and of being loathsome to all men, who use her dead body as a scarecrow (ll. 1067-1175). The Owl maintains she knows the future and benefits people by forewarning them (ll. 1176-1290). The Nightingale accuses her opponent of witchcraft. Further, she insists that she does not encourage spouse-breaking, but lawful love, and that she is an understanding confidante of women (ll. 1291-1510). The Owl claims that it is her, and not her rival, that ladies turn to in distress. She admits that her dead body is often used as a scarecrow. However, she claims that this further shows how beneficial she is to men (ll. 1511-1634). Having heard this, the Nightingale believes herself victorious since the Owl supposedly confessed that it boasts of her own shame (ll. 1635-1652). A host of other song-birds assemble around the Nightingale and chant in mockery of the Owl (ll. 1653-1666). The Owl declares she would summon all the hook-billed and sharp-clawed birds. War threatens to break out (ll. 1667-1716). A wren mediates between the two rivals. She bids preserve the king's peace. All fly off to submit to the judge they chose earlier, Nicholas at Portishom in Dorset. The poet does not know which bird ultimately won the debate (ll. 1717-1794). The poem seems to be an unmediated English composition. A direct source for the whole or a part of the text (except the proverbs cited by the two bids) has not been identified. |
| Genre/subjects: | debate, animal debate, birds, dialogue, philosophy, love |
| Dialect of original composition: | Southern The majority opinion seems to be that the The Owl and the Nightingale was originally composed somewhere in the South. This opinion is based at least in part on the fact that the text mentions two Southern place names, Guildford in Surrey (Southeast) and Portisham in Dorset (Southwest). There may be "Kentish peculiarities" and "the poem may therefore have been originally written in that particular dialect" (Atkins 1922: xl) or in a South-Eastern dialect sufficiently close to it. "hi, nom. sg. fem. 'she'; hi as nom. is only SE [...] the form of the verbal noun wnienge is SE [...]. [...] [A] rhyme, perfect in the original dialect, may be spoilt by translation [=manuscript copying]. Extreme cases of that occur in the rhymes wise/ire 1029, singing/auinde 855, worse/mershe 303 [...]; all these rhymes confirm the evidence of SE origin provided by hi and wnienge." There are also "[p]ossible dialect words pointing to SE origin [...]. Whenever there is unambiguous rhyme evidence, it points to the South East" (Stanley 1960: 17-18). "[T]here is nothing known to make it impossible that the original dialect of O&N was that of Guildford. This is the view which most recent commentators have held : H.C. Wyld, W.A. Craigie, J. W. H Atkins, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. L. Wrenn, C. T. Onions, J. W. H. Grattan, S. T. R. O. d’Ardenne, B. Sundby, and others" (Stanley 1960: 18). "[T]he poem was written in a south-eastern dialect" (Freeborn 1998: 123) |
| Date of original composition: | 1175-1285 Opinions regarding the date of the archetype of The Owl and the Nightingale differ widely. The different views can be put into one of the following three groups: (i) Very early composition: One group of scholars assigns the text to an early period, between c. 1175 and 1200. - The major argument for this view revolves around possible historical characters that fit the description of "Maister Nichole of Guldeforde," who is mentioned in the poem in ll. 191 and 1746 as the arbiter between the two birds. There are very many historical figures that could correspond to this name (e.g., "'Nicholaus submonitor capituli de Gudeford' in 1220, and a 'Nicholaus capellanus archidiaconi' testator of a document at Salisbury in 1209" (Wells 1916: 418), for discussion and lists of possible historical characters, see Stanley (1960: 20-2), Cartlidge (2001: 101-2)). The poem may have been written "1177 or 1178, or at least not later than 1180" (Hinckley 1919: 258). "The earliest editor, Stevenson, followed Warton in connecting it with the reign of Richard I (1189-99)" (Atkins 1922: xxxiv). It is possible that "the peace" (ll. 1730-34) is an allusion to peaceful conditions under Henry II between 1170-81. The Nichole of Guldeforde mentioned in the poem may refer to "Nicholaus filius Thoraldi" who is named in several chronicles as one of the king's justices in 1179-82 for Dorset and Devon. Thus, the poem may date from c. 1182-3 (Huganir 1931). "[T]he poem can be fairly accurately dated to the 1190s" (Freeborn 1998: 123). - The first and most important argument concerns the appearance of the name "King Henry" in l. 1091 of the poem. This could plausibly refer either to Henry II (ruled 1154-1189) or Henry III (ruled 1216-1272). Lines 1091-2 read "King Henry understood this // May Jesus have mercy on his soul," which suggests that the king is dead at the time of writing. If the reference is to Henry II, this would place the date of composition of the poem before 1216, the year of accession of Henry III, since a reference to "King Henry" would not have been unambiguous anymore after that time. - Linguistic evidence may suggest that the text originates from before roughly the middle of the thirteenth century. Parts of the language of the poem seem to be too archaic to fit well with a considerably later period: There are several word forms that are predominantly or exclusively attested in texts from before the middle of the thirteenth century. These include the genitive of the numeral "two" in tweire kunne salue (l. 888) "balm of two kinds" (e.g. MED citations: Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) l. 8767, Ancr.(Corp-C 402) l. 208/12), hortative uten in ute we ... fare (l. 1779), an archaic remnant from Old English uton (MED), and the dual pronoun unker (e.g., l. 151) (MED). "[R]eviewing the evidence as a whole [...], a case would seem to be established for placing the poem in the early part of the 13th century, and for pointing to the reign of King John (1199-1217) as the period in which the poem was most probably written" (Atkins 1922: xxxviii). All "evidence agrees with a date of composition between 1189 and 1216" (Stanley 1960: 19). The online version of the Middle English Dictionary lists the date of composition as ?a1216. "[T]en Brink, Morris and Skeat placed it about the middle of the 13th century, and (according to Skeat) 'certainly not later than the time of Henry III' (1216-72) [...] [.] Börsch suggested 1218-25, Morsbach and Hall c. 1220, Welsh 1216-25" (Atkins 1922: xxxiv). The poem dates from "not later than 1220-1230" (Wells 1907: xviii, for extensive discussion of the date, see ibid. xvii-xxv). The poem dates "from about 1220" (Wells 1916: 418). The poem dates from the second or third decade of the thirteenth century (Gadow 1909: 13). "The Owl and the Nightingale was written in the early thirteenth century, for or by a religious community of women" (Barratt 1987: 471). - The assumption of late composition has likely been inspired by the fact that both manuscript witnesses of the text, Caligula A.9 and Jesus College 29 date from the late thirteenth century, but the former had previously been assumed to be older. This older date had previously made late composition of the text impossible. But now the manuscript basis makes it at least theoretically possible that the poem may not be much older than the late 13th century manuscript witnesses. - The deceased "king Henry", mentioned in l. 1091, may refer to Henry III, and thus likely to a date after his death in 1272, or to a fictitious king. - To counter the argument from French loan words, one must assume that it is impossible "to correlate the proportion of French vocabulary with any particular dates" (Cartlidge 1996: 237) or even with a higher probability for early over late composition. The linguistic forms used to distinguish between early vs. late thirteenth century texts may be regarded as "so specialized that it is impossible to assess the frequency of their forms in early Middle English" (ibid.). Other conservative linguistic features, like grammatical gender, or retention of certain inflectional categories still occur in the late thirteenth century and cannot be used as criteria to distinguish early from late thirteenth century texts (ibid.: 237-8). - The history of the manuscript transmission does not provide any evidence for intervening copies between the common exemplar of the two remaining manuscripts and the original. In fact, scholars have argued that the stemma may have been a relatively short one (e.g., Cartlidge 1996: 234). Hence, it is at least theoretically possible that two surviving manuscripts are "copies made very soon indeed after the event of the poem's composition" (Fletcher 1999: 13). "The Owl and the Nightingale could lie virtually anywhere in the thirteenth century, but probably not all that far from the date of its copies. [...] [T]he case for dating the poem 1189-1216 is certainly not compelling enough to rule out 1272 as the earliest date at which it could have been placed in circulation" (Cartlidge 1996: 239). "[T]he composition date of The Owl and the Nightingale [...] had currently been finding favor, 1189-1216" but "c. 1282" is "a late, but not impossible, date" (Fletcher 1999: 1, 13). "[T]here is a serious possibility that the poem was composed after the death of Henry in 1272" (Cartlidge 2001: xv). |
| Suggested date: | 1250 |
| PCMEP period: | 1b (1200-1250) |
| Versification: | couplets, two-line, aa "897 short couplets" (Wells 1916: 418) for details on the meter, see e.g. Gadow (1909: 21-33) |
| Index of ME Verse: | 1384 (IMEV), 1384 (NIMEV) |
| Digital Index of ME Verse: | 2307 |
| Wells: | 9.8 |
| MEC HyperBibliography: | Owl & N. |
About the edition and manuscript base:
| Edition: | Atkins, John William H. 1922. The Owl and the Nightingale: Edited with Introduction, Texts, Notes, Translation and Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-150. |
| Manuscript used for edition: | London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A.9 ff. 233r-246r |
| Online manuscript description: | LAEME, entry 1 LAEME, entry 2 British Library: Archives and Manuscripts Descriptions |
| Manuscript dialect: | West-Midlands The manuscript displays two different spelling systems for The Owl and the Nightingale, which is usually explained as the result of truthful ("literatim") copying from an exemplar that had itself been copied by two different scribes with two different writing systems (e.g. Atkins 1922: xxv-xxvii). The first spelling system is found roughly in lines 1-901 and 961-1183, the second in 902-960 and 1184-1794 (ibid.: xxix, similarly Breier 1910: 49-52). Both spelling systems appear to be from the South(-West) or (South-)West-Midlands: "The dialect of C[otton A.9] is, as emerges from an analysis of its sounds, SW, or SW Midlands. […] But there are in C two spelling-systems, and in some ways Cii seems closer to West Midland dialect forms than Ci : thus Cii’s þah is not found in southern dialects, Ci þeȝ is." (Stanley 1960: 17, see also Atkins 1922: 187-194, Appendix A). LAEME places the language of the first scribe (LAEME item 2) in "Central Worc[ester]s[hire]" and the language of the second (LAEME item 3) in "N[orth]W[est] Worc[ester]s[hire]." |
| Manuscript date: | s. xiii-ex The manuscript was previously believed to date from before 1250 (e.g. Wells 1916: 418, Atkins 1922: xxxiv) but is now dated later, to the end of the thirteenth century (Ker 1963, and subsequent scholars, e.g. Cartlidge 1996, 2001). The online version of the Middle English Dictionary lists the date of the manuscript as c1275. |
About the file:
| File name: | M1b.OwlNight |
| ID: | OwlNight,x.y.z: x=page, y=line, z=token |
| Word count: | 10,941 |
| Token count: | 965 |
| Line count: | 1,794 |
Other:
| General notes: | The Owl and the Nightingale is a very well-studied poem and lots of secondary literature is available. The bibliography in Atkins (1922: 182-6) summarizes the most important studies written up to 1922. Stanley (1960: 41-46) lists 103 works concerned with the poem's text, meter, linguistic structure, date, manuscript sources, interpretation and literary background, which can be regarded as a comprehensive review up to the year 1960. The bibliography in Cartlidge 2001 can be used as a list of the scholarship done up to the end of the 20th century. There are two manuscript wittnesses of the poem: Caligula A.9 and Ms. Oxford, Jesus College 29, Part II, ff. 156r-168v (c. 1275). Atkins' 1922 edition prints Caligula A.9 and Jesus College 29 on facing pages. The Caligula A.9 version, used for the electronic text file, is found on the even page numbers. For another bird debate poem, see The Thrush and the Nightingale, which is also included in the PCMEP. |
| Remarks on parses: | Lines 86, 770-1 and 1246 are taken from Ms. Jesus College 29. The specific substitutions are indicated as CODE in the relevant tokens. The poem includes a first-person narrator as well as speech by the owl, the nightingale and, towards the end of the poem, a wren. The utterances by the three birds are tagged as direct speech (-SPE). Emendations are indicated as CODE in the tokens. Splits of contracted forms of a modal and subject pronoun are particularly frequent (e.g. nauestu > naues + tu "you have not" l. 1670). The line count of the poem is standardized. All editions of the poem use the same line counts. The line counts follow the rhyming scheme as in Atkins (1922) edition. ll. 609-610: Vor me is lof to Cristes huse, // To clansi hit wiþ fule muse. The structure is parsed with a non-finite clause that includes an empty non-finite marker and an empty non-finite verb ((TO *) (VB *)), meaning "to Christ's house TO GO, (and) to cleanse it of foul mice." l. 680: Her is to red wo hine kon. The syntax of the idiom be to red is not entirely clear (see Atkins 1922: 58, footnote for l. 680). (Noteworthy is the preservation of the Old English masculine grammatical gender on rad as it is picked up by hine.) Since the expression has the form of a prepositional phrase, it cannot function as the subject or an associate of an empty expletive. The structure is parsed with (NP-SBJ *exp*) as the subject but without a nominal associate. An existential construction is the intended interpretation but the object of existence is not expressed. The sentence could be paraphrased as "Here, there exists [something] as a remedy for him who knows it." l. 1632: Ah þu neure mon to gode // Liues ne deaþes stal ne stode: The word stal has been annotated as the direct object of ne stode. The meaning is "were of no use." l. 1779: ute we ... fare The hortative expression is annotated as an imperative IP-IMP with an overt subject we. |
References
Atkins, John William H. 1922. The Owl and the Nightingale: Edited with Introduction, Texts, Notes, Translation and Glossary. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. (available online)
Baldwin, Anne W. 1967. 'Henry II and "The Owl and the Nightingale."' The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 66.2. 207-229.
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.
Breier, Willi. 1910. Eule und Nachtigall: eine Untersuchung der Überlieferung und der Sprache, der örtlichen und der zeitlichen Entstehung des me. Gedichts. Studien zur englischen Philologie 39. Halle a.S.: Niemeyer.
Cartlidge, Neil. 1996. 'The Date of The Owl and the Nightingale.' Medium Aevum 65. 230-47
Cartlidge, Neil. 1998. 'The Linguistic Evidence for the Provenance of The Owl and the Nightingale.' Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 99.3. 249-68.
Cartlidge, Neil. 2001. The Owl and the Nightingale. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Fletcher, Alan J. 1999. 'The Genesis of The Owl and the Nightingale: A new Hypothesis.' The Chaucer Review 34.1. 1-17.
Freeborn, Dennis. 1998. From Old English to Standard English: A Coursebook in Language Variation across Time. Ottawa. University of Ottawa Press.
Gadow, Whilhelm. 1909. Das Mittelenglische Streitgedicht Eule und Nachtigall. Berlin: Mayer und Müller.
Hinckley, Henry B. 1919. 'The Date of the Owl and the Nightingale.' Modern Philology 17.5. 247-258. (available online)
Huganir, Kathryn. 1931. The Owl and the Nightingale: Sources, Date, Author. PhD thesis University of Philadelphia.
Ker, Neil R. 1963. The Owl and the Nightingale: Facsimile of the Jesus and Cotton Manuscripts. EETS o.s. 251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stanley, Eric G. 1960. The Owl and the Nightingale. London: Nelson's Medieval and Renaissance Library.
Wells, John E. 1907. The Owl and the Nightingale. London: Heath and Co. Publishers. (available online)
Wells, John E. 1916. Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050-1400. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. (available online)