An Altercation Most Fowl

Rhetoric and Satire in The Owl and the Nightingale

Keije van der Steen

Group 3 Research Reports

Prior mfs taln bout this

In recent scholarship, the debate between the Owl and the Nightingale has reframed their argument in

countless ways, some authors (J.W.H Atkins, Eric Gerald Stanley, J.E Wells) describe an allegory, yet

others approach the text more mundanely (Bertram Colgrave, i’m gonna spend a full day trying to

access all their papers and write them in; keyword: ‘trying’). These disputes are often centered around

specifying the speakers and nailing them down to more precise individuals. I intend not to define the

text as a clash between different-minded individuals, but instead to reframe the story as a clash

between different schools of thought, or rather, the criticism of a regnant doctrine and sentiment.

Generally, The different attitudes toward conversation. One of which concerned with proper

argumentative procedure, the other with practical oratory.

Historical context

In medieval times, the art of rhetoric and dialectics was often a study of historical sequence. Medieval

schools, when discussing and teaching rhetoric and its adjacent pursuits, had a very rigid basis of

classical works on which they based their teaching. Including authors like Aristotle and Cicero, whose

works pertaining to the medieval studies of rhetoric were referred to as the “old logic”, other authors

like Cicero reinforced the historical sequences of the medieval study of rhetoric. According to Richard

McKeon, the dominance of this school emphasized logic in dialectics. Aristotle’s work in his

foundational rhetorical work “the organon” mentions proper procedure for rhetoric and dialectics. The

chapter “sophistical refutations” additionally mentions logical fallacies and their instructed

consequent responses. Martin Camargo mentions that by 1300, the medieval schools of thought

pertaining to rhetoric had either fully matured or expired. Rita Copeland, in The Encyclopedia of

Rhetoric mentions that rhetoric was studied continuously in the middle ages with reference to the

“Trivium”. These rhetoric and dialectic studies had survived as a foundational aspect of the study of

arts since antiquity. Copeland adds that through translations made in late antiquity by authors such as

Boethius, many foundational texts were translated into Latin, made their way into the medieval canon

and became a foundational element of the Trivium. Copeland writes: “We owe to the Late Antique
Latin commentators the survival into the Middle Ages of classical (Ciceronian) rhetorical doctrine,

and for these commentators and teachers rhetoric was more an intellectual discipline, allied closely

with the terms and system of dialectic, than a practical art of oratory”. This opposition to oratory or

more specifically, ‘Speaking’ lies in stark contrast to the sentiment found in The Owl and the

Nightingale. This work’s authorship is disputed and scholarly dispute places it somewhere in the

twelfth or thirteenth century but it is nevertheless a product based on the pre-existing medieval canon

pertaining to rhetoric.

introduction

The Owl and the Nightingale is a text peculiarly occupied with practical oratory and its opposition to

theoretical interpretations around it. In this text, two oratory strategies are presented, one concerned

with theoretic doctrine, and the other with practical execution. This poem challenges contemporary

schools of thought concerning rhetoric and dialectics. The reality of the situation is revealed by

observing closely the Owl’s reaction to this unconventional strategy by the Nightingale, the

Nightingale’s strategy is dismissed by the Owl’s, and by extension, the educated medieval

demographics’ understanding of medieval rhetoric. By satirizing the dialectical strategies of the Owl,

the Nightingale’s logical fallacies’ chronic and noticeable effect on the Owl, the ubiquitous presence

of humor and the unresolved ending all help to reveal a different reading of The Owl and the

Nightingale; one where the birds are not either representative of the side of dialectical logic and

logical fallacy, but instead satirize the Owl’s absurd reality in which she believes any conversation

about irrational emotionally charged subjects can be resolved with the medieval school of rhetoric and

logic. The satire of the regnant rhetoric style is revealed through The ineffectiveness of the Owl’s

contemporary dialectical strategy against the Nightingale, The Owl’s indulgement in vulgarity by

provocation of the Nightingale and the comical and practical effects of the use of anthropomorphic

animals.
Paragraph 1 The ineffectiveness of the Owl’s contemporary dialectical strategy against the

Nightingale

The Owl’s inability to employ her rhetorical doctrine effectively is noticeable very early on. It must

be noted that the nightingale talks first and that it is significant because it allows the Nightingale the

dictation of the debate, this dynamic is part of the practical oratory the Nightingale exercises. the Owl

spends most of her respondent speech “correcting” the nightingale. However, the Owl is in actuality,

just “responding” to the logical fallacies and has no actual effect on their usage or effect. The Owl is

following the protocol of the “Sophistical Refutations” against logical fallacies futilely. More

revealing However, is the fact that the Owl is vocal about her anger only later during the debate,

suggesting it is angry at her own rhetoric’s ineffectiveness against the nightingale, rather than what

the nightingale is actually saying. This doubt the Owl notices in its own doctrine is echoed in the

audience and adds to the sense of humorous incongruity in the text.. On line 950-955, the Nightingale

is confronted with an internal feeling of embarrassment inflicted by the Owl’s words prior, however,

the Nightingale, unlike the Owl, immediately manages to calm herself before continuing. “The

nightingale hi understood and overgan lette hire mod. Hö mihte bet speken a sele than mid wraththe

wordes deale”. This reaction is quite uncharacteristic for the Nightingale. It contradicts the general

characteristics of the Nightingale to emphasize the incongruity between the Owl’s Sanctimoniousness.

In addition, In proximity to these lines, the Owl also expresses her rage explicitly without such an

introspection. This showcases a humorous incongruity; The Owl’s stern and enlightened demeanor is

quickly dismantled and reduced to unrepentant rage, while conversely the brazen and spiteful

Nightingale shows an unexpected amount of composure. Medieval rhetoric, not so much emphasis is

given toward the order of speakers. It is a matter of the practicality around rhetoric that authors like

Cicero were unconcerned with addressing. It is nevertheless important in the dynamics of

conversation, a small detail such as having the first word, can have a large impact on the entire

conversation because it can emotionally affect the interlocutor. This conversational influence over the

Owl the Nightingale exercises is substantial over the course of the entire debate. It is the style of

rhetoric which leaves the Owl unable to respond, the Owl politely, as a proper classically trained

rhetorician and debater, waits for the Nightingale to finish speaking. The Nightingale is allowed by
the Owl’s sensibilities regarding rhetoric, to insult her with logical fallacies of which only a scant few

are actually addressed, after which the Nightingale continues to attack the Owl with the very same

logical fallacies, unperturbed by the preachings of Sophistical Refutations or any such medieval

rhetorical strategy. Instead of the Owl’s stratagems bearing any fruit, the Owl’s efforts to win the

debate are reduced to an evidently pointless exercise, to humorous effect. If the poet writing The Owl

and the Nightingale was making an actual defense or promotion of these strategies, conversational

dynamic and logical fallacies would be less clearly effective and would be promptly countered by the

Owl’s clear and expansive rhetorical knowledge. However, The Nightingale remains strong in her

own practical convictions and does not change her strategy throughout the debate. This leaves the

reader with the conclusion that the Owl’s rhetoric must not be effective to the clearly antagonistic

Nightingale. Thus, it is not a story of rhetorical combat with a clear hero and villain, but instead an

abject and constant failure of the Owl to succeed in her style of rhetoric, showing the audience the

ineffectiveness of such a style of speaking. This illuminates the point of the poem, in the debate, the

Owl’s rhetoric is established as inherently less effective against the Nightingale. It is through this

establishment the audience will notice the satire of the Owl’s attempts at maintaining her absurd

reality. The Owl fails to keep her anger in check and abandons the accepted and lauded style of

medieval rhetoric. This incongruity between the Owl’s and the contemporary audience’s expectation

of the debate, and the way it is made ineffective, is a large component of the humor that constitutes

the satire in The Owl and the Nightingale.

In The Owl and the Nightingale, the Owl quickly indulges in the fallacies of the oratory and she

stoops down to the Nightingale’s level at her first opportunity. It is clear that there is an established

animosity between the two and according to John Gardner, “The Owl and the Nightingale are not

interested in getting at the truth but merely in winning” however it is the Nightingale who seems pre-

adapted to this. Her vulgarity and brashness naturally suits and compliments the animosity between

the two debaters. The Owl’s style is oddly ill-fitting here, evidenced by the Owl’s growing frustration

and eventual indulgence in the very same vulgarity that the Nightingale employs. The Owl’s chronic

frustration with the Nightingale’s antics are palpable and referenced explicitly.
“The hule was wroth, to cheste rad;/mid thisse worde hire eyen abrad” Note that this quote refers

specifically to the Owl’s ireful reaction as being drawn from the words of the Nightingale; “Mid

thisse worde” The Owl’s indulgence in rage is accumulated through the Nightingale’s words and it is

immediately evident that the Owl follows the Nightingale in employing the same logical fallacies.

The Owl, in her first response to the Nightingale, uses an ad hominem attack to similarly insult the

Nightingale, in opposition to the proper theoretical doctrine, saying: “Thu hattest nightingale. Thu

mightest bet goten galegale” The Owl calls the Nightingale a ‘Tattletale’ before continuing with an

actual showcase of argumentation skills the Owl has learned. Conversely, the Nightingale allocates

much less time to responding to the Owl’s inferences and opinions about her than the Owl and

although she does express her frustration as well, she is much better suited to obfuscate her anger

within her more vulgar style of rhetoric. The Nightingale, unlike the Owl, does not change her style

when she feels her arguments are deconstructed and undermined. The Owl’s hypocrisy and variance

in style betrays her belief in the theoretic doctrine and casts doubt at its legitimacy as a practical

debating tool to the audience which, in turn, further reinforces the satire present.

The Owl and the Nightingale employs anthropomorphism to comical and practical effect. Commonly

in medieval literature, animal tales were used didactically in order to reduce specificity and teach a

general lesson. Similarly, The Owl and the Nightingale makes use of anthropomorphism for practical

effect. It uses the presence of animals and their details discussed as topics for the debate to not have to

use dialectics and rhetoric on topics the author would have experience debating with frequently,

instead being able to focus on the method of their arguments, rather than their topical content. The

emphasis on the method and the use of animals reinforces the notion that it is a commentary on the

particular methods of rhetoric the debaters employ. The use of animals suggests and foregrounds the

reader that the debate is a parody, a burlesque of the debate, rather than a serious one where the

arguments will be significant. The ironic tone of the whole affair is noticeable from the whimsical

conceit. (the two “debaters” are sitting on a rose bush and a bough overgrown with ivy, and are also

animals. Just regular academic stuff.) The whimsical tone suggests to the reader that this debate is not

actually meant to be considered by the audience, or more specifically, the topic of the debate is not
meant to be considered. Instead, the focus of the audience is pulled towards the method in which their

ideas are conveyed.

To conclude, The Owl and the Nightingale satirizes the usage of the rhetorical doctrine thought

conventional in the medieval canon surrounding the study of rhetoric and dialectics. A large

incongruence between the Owl’s characteristic style and the practical execution of the debate is

present. The debate stands as a strong statement against the incumbent argumentative strategies. The

Owl’s style of rhetoric, which is representative of this school of thought, evidently struggles against

the practical and simple oratory skills of the Nightingale. The Nightingale is unperturbed by the Owl’s

attempts at employing proper argumentation and is similarly nonplussed by the Owl’s addressal of

The Nightingale’s logical fallacies. The Nightingale consistently outperforms the Owl in matters of

speech. The Owl is also quick to abandon her strategy, sinking to the stage of employing the

Nightingale’s own methods of logical fallacy against her interlocutor and quickly degrades the debate

into a hurling of insults, nullifying any promotion in favor of the dominant rhetorical style of the

medieval period and further supporting the notion of parody. The presence of anthropomorphic

animals provides the text with a didactic distance to clarify and reinforce the debate as parody or

burlesque, it additionally implements comical elements essential to any satirical work. It is possible

the Owl is simply a bad rhetorician or that the Nightingale is no less an example of ineffective

rhetoric as is the Owl. future studies might focus more on placing the Owl and the Nightingale in

more allegorical positions relating to their rhetorical style and discovering what that could result in.