Introduction
Geoffrey Chaucer's work, 'The Parliament of Fowls', is a long poem about a dream that the narrator had. It entails various species of birds that assemble annually on St. Valentine's Day to choose their mates (Untermeyer 22). The birds are grouped into their suitable classes of social hierarchy. However, three male eagles, who are of a higher social order than the other birds, dominate the entire parliamentary proceedings, oblivious to the long time they take to deliver their speeches in an attempt to woo the female eagle. The other birds are asked to give their verdict on whom among the three eagles is most deserving of the love of the female eagle, but their deliberations degenerate into chaos. Nature comes to their rescue, and in her summary of their findings, rules that the female eagle, le who is the subject of admiration by the three eagles, reserves the final say in the matter. Accordingly, Nature asks the female eagle to choose who among the three eagles ought to be her suitor. The female eagle seeks to postpone her choice for another year, to which Nature concedes. Nature then proceeds to match the other birds embroiled in the parliamentary debate with their mates. The birds celebrate in welcoming the coming spring, at which point the dream ends. While the Parliament of Fowls assumes the tone of a love vision, it is more than that. The Poem assumes the form of a social critique of the Medieval Age and the importance that it attached to nobility and rank. The protracted speeches made by each of the three eagles shed light on societal attachment to high social standing as depicted by the different social classes represented by each of these eagles.
Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls illustrates the diverse ideations of love as exemplified by various birds to mirror an increasingly diverse society (Lester 111). It is interesting to note that even though the Parliament of Fowls is a depiction of social hierarchy (Boitani and Mann 16), the female eagle, who is the reason for the assembly, is not actually part of the inner circle of the social hierarchy. Each of the three eagles gets an opportunity to profess their love for the female eagle and appear inconsiderate to the plight of the other eagles or, indeed, their right to speak.
The speech by the first eagle is a clear indication that this particular eagle views himself to be of a higher social standing than the other eagles (Scott-Robinson). Consequently, the first eagle makes a statement to the effect that he is the most experienced of the three, as far as courtly love is concerned. He hits at the high-ranking social position he occupies as he requests “merci and … grace”. These virtues constitute the two most basic attributes of courtly love. The first eagle assures the female eagle of his loyalty and disposition. He further assures his lady of his unending devotion to her (Powrie 369). The second eagle demonstrates aspects of coarseness in his speech, which is conspicuously different from that of the first eagle. The speech is laden with colloquialisms and comes across as disputable. The speech is thus deficient in the social graces linked to the courtly love tradition, which were evident in the first speech. This is a clear indication that the first eagle belongs to a higher social order compared to the second eagle. The second eagle demands that the female eagle ought to choose him over the other two eagles because he has been of service longer than them (Urban 112). This insistence on reciprocity reflects a bourgeois outlook on things that associates service with reward. Like his predecessor, the third eagle makes a speech that is more matter-of-fact and succinct, and lacks the common fanfare of courtly love. He submits to the parliament that their courtship should be settled quickly (Hansen 122).
The three eagles abuse their position in the social hierarchy to the point of dominating the proceedings. Consequently, birds in the lower social hierarchy feel intimidated, especially on the issue of mating. This is because Nature has planned for the mating of species to happen in order. As such, birds in the lower hierarchy cannot mate before their counterparts in the higher social standing. Moreover, the parliamentary proceedings must be concluded on this Valentine’s Day (Urban 112). The lower birds are aware of the imminent threat imposed by the three eagles’ dominant behaviour on parliamentary proceedings, especially to their own procreation. Consequently, the lower birds question the authority of the three eagles in reference to their exploitation of their positions, in reference to their exploitation of their positions to make lengthy speeches, oblivious to the plight of the other birds. Social unrest is imminent, and the only way to avoid it is if the goddess Nature intervenes.
Although Nature could have also exploited her authority to surmount this social unrest, she instead chooses a different strategy of passing an order requiring birds of all classes to elect their speaker as a means of realizing a judgment that works for all (Rossignol 2008). The lower birds have different ideations of love compared to the aristocratic birds. For this reason, it is highly unlikely from the very beginning that the eagles would be inclined to accept the ruling of birds who are beneath them in the social hierarchy (Lambdin and Lambdin 33). Once the birds have issued their individual verdicts, Nature proceeds to summarize the findings. Nature rules that the female eagle, who was at the center of attention, should make her own choice of mate. By so doing, the female eagle will have granted an opportunity to the lower birds to also choose their individual mates. Nonetheless, the female eagle opts not to choose any of her three suitors and instead seeks ‘respite, for to avysen me, I And after that to have my choyse al fre’ (Chaucer 24).
The Parliament is meant to mirror the medieval social order, and as such, it has been divided into different classes (Daston and Vidal 210). Chaucer has classified birds into four main groups according to the food that they eat. They include: the forms that feed on worms, birds of prey, waterfowl, and the seedfowls. Such grouping is not aimed at reflecting the actual parliamentary setting but is aimed at revealing ranks in social structures. As such, the different groupings hold their appointed positions out of their own volition in what can only be seen as a form of submission to Nature's decrees. In this case, Nature represents the cosmic order and is mainly concerned with ensuring the existence of harmony in the different classes of birds.
In a bid to draw parallels between human society and the Parliament, Chaucer associates each bird with certain characteristics typical of humans. Consequently, the Parliament assumes the form of an intricate society by depicting widespread human vices and virtues (Cooney 71). Chaucer's choice of "order" words like "governance", "mesure", and "statum", among others, could be an indication that he seeks to avow social hierarchy as it exists in natural order as a remedy to the challenges that the narrator is faced with (Padgett 230).
The presence of nature in parliament brings stability to the social structure by way of establishing the governing rules and structure of discourse. In this poem, Chaucer calls to mind the birds' bliss at the prospect of partaking in love as established by Nature. It signifies their own redemption (Robinson 8). Nature signifies a sovereign ruler in society. Seeing as Nature acts as the custodian of God's law, he will not condone any violation of such law. Nature also acts as the procreative and creative principle by way of providing an inspiration and occasion that allows creatures to mate. While Nature issues the decree of the right of female consent from the outset, the parliament overlooks it till the deliberations are concluded, even though birds from other social hierarchies have already joined the debate (St. John 124). Therefore, after the Parliament has exhausted all options available to them and they still cannot establish which of the three male eagles wooing the female eagle is most deserving of her love, Nature comes to their rescue by re-establishing the rule of female election (Fowler 165). Nonetheless, Nature alters what she initially suggested as a basic regulation to come across as a “favour” to the female eagle.
The fowls are cognizant of the position occupied by Nature, which is why they are obliged to obey Nature’s laws, even though they are complex, not to mention that birds in the lower social structure feel oppressed by those occupying higher positions in the social order. Nature anticipates the fowls' society to question the hierarchical structure, evidenced by the dominance of the eagle in parliamentary proceedings owing to their higher social standing relative to the other birds. Social status also played a crucial role in influencing the fowls' debate regarding the issue of love and how it should be defined. The royal birds, as represented by the eagles, support courtly love in a bid to safeguard their chivalric rituals.
On the other hand, the lower birds fail to understand the motivation for protracted wooing. For the lower birds, love is only a gateway to procreation, and nothing more. Here, Chaucer uses contrast to show the varying nature of human perspectives and experience. In this case, the Parliament sheds light on the flaws that characterise human experience. The disruptive nature of varying personal styles and personalities could result in a disruption in communication and social order.
The birds' submissiveness, evidenced by their decision to obey Nature’s law, is sufficient evidence of the existence of a hierarchical status quo. The lower birds represent the dissenting voices, which are excluded by the existence of a hierarchical status quo, a position that they are only too well aware of, seeing as they are ready to render their support to the authoritative discourse. The lower birds are thus aware of and have accepted their lower status in the social ladder. For instance, the turtle does not shy away from reminding the water birds and worms of their limited roles and lower status in the hierarchical status quo. The lower fowls do not comment on the statement made by the turtle, and while he could have acted on a position of individual authority, he chooses to remain silent. The turtle's recommendations act as a stark reminder of the need to acknowledge one's place in society (Urban 113). We have to embrace culture with all its imperfections at a collective and individual level, including being conscious of the limitations that it puts on our individual lives, those of others in society. This is the only way to sustain culture. If we instead disregard culture and choose to act based on experience, we cannot be able to internalise knowledge into belief. Opting for experiences as grounds for action is likely to trigger chaos and social order, especially if this occurs at a personal level. However, experience fails to bring understanding among the birds, and Nature steps in to save the situation. The fowls' individual experiences, varying perspectives, and self-interest are a real threat to social order and stability. However, they also act as a source of encouragement to the birds to partake in group investment and public articulation in available social settings.
There are defined rituals and systems in place in the Parliament whose role is to safeguard the integrity of verifiable debate by limiting the input of experiential knowledge. The birds join their mates in celebrating peacefully and praising Nature while partaking in a roundel (Rothschild 166). As the birds partake in the roundel along their mates, this helps to suppress their conflicting perspectives and diverse points of view. It also cushions their self-interests. This harmonious reinvestment of stability, awareness, community, and agreement in the social good reigns supreme over individuality, at which point Chaucer awakens from his dream. The newfound sense of harmony replaces dissonance, thereby encouraging the birds to prioritize the integrating attributes of social structure, fortified by Nature along with the authority that she exerts.
Patriarchal authority and male hegemony confer success on a chosen few at the expense of mortality and temporality. This draws parallels with the dream of Scipio, in which a female lover and ruler conquers the city. The vision of Parliament, therefore, appears to revive in the dreamer what Scipio both repressed and conquered. In this case, the dreamer wakes up to find himself in a garden of love under the rule of a very powerful ruler and lover. The dreamer thereafter witnesses the proceedings of the Parliament where Nature asserts her authoritarian control in a quest for the realisation of “commune profyt.” However, Parliament proceedings are disrupted by the three aristocratic eagles who seek to woo the alluring female eagle. However, Nature also decrees that birds of different ranks may not all enjoy orderly mating after all. She realises that some birds, regardless of their social standing, shall emerge losers, even as others win. However, Nature, by virtue of her benediction, retains the power to reward the birds based on the level of desire. Nevertheless, female consent remains a real obstacle even to Nature's quest to reward birds of varying social orders.
The female eagle holds the key to finding a lasting solution to the issue at hand. By stating her preference, the former would also help to restore social order. However, she declines to make a choice and is allowed to defer her choice for another year. While Chaucer does not give a reason as to why the formel decides to postpone her decision, which Nature seems to endorse, her choice is neither indeterminable nor ambiguous. The evidence of the poem appears to suggest that the female declines to make her choice known since female desire runs contrary to the courtly and feudal matrimonial models.
Conclusion
The Parliament of Fowls remains one of Chaucer’s major dream visions. The narrator loves reading and ends up dreaming about what he has been reading. The basis of the dream is a debate in which various species of birds have assembled to choose their mates, but it is dominated by three eagles who are trying to outdo each other in wooing a female eagle. All this happens under the governance of Nature. The other species of birds, who are at a lower social standing than the eaglethee long time taken by the three eagles to give their speeches. Chaos degenerates as Nature requests the other species of birds to give their verdict on which of the three male eagles is most deserving of the love of the female eagle. The male eagles are not happy as they consider themselves to be of a higher social standing than the other birds. However, the female eagle must choose her mate first before the other birds can do it. She is reluctant to do so and requests to postpone her selection for another area, to which Nature agrees. However, her refusal to choose a mate is in keeping with the courtly and feudal; matrimonial models dominate female desire in a patriarchal society.
Works Cited
Boitani, Pierr, O, and Jill Mann. The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Chaucer Geoffrey. Publications. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1967. Print.
Cooney Helen. Writings on Love in the English Middle Ages. Dublin: Springer, 2006. Print.
Daston Lorraine and Fernando Vidal. ‘The Moral Authority of Nature.’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.
Fowler David C. The Bible in Middle English Literature. Washington, D.C.: University of Washington Press, 2017. Print.
Lambdin, Laura, C, and Robert Lambdin, T. A Companion to Old and Middle English Literature. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Print.
Lester, Geoffrey. ‘Chaucer in Perspective: Middle English Essays in Honour of Norman Blake.’ London: A&C Black, 1999. Print.
Hansen Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. California: University of California Press, 1992. Print.
Padgett Ron. World Poets: Guillaume Apollinaire-Homer. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2000. Print.
Powrie Sarah. 'Knowing and Willing in Chaucer's Parliament of Fowls.' The Chaucer Review 50.34(2015): 368-392. Print.
Robinson Gavin. Horses, People and Parliament in the English Civil War: Extracting Resources and Constructing Allegiance. London: Routledge, 2016. Print.
Rossignol Rosalyn. Critical Companion to Chaucer: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008. Print.
Rothschild Victoria. ‘The Parliament of Fowls: Chaucer's Mirror up to Nature?’ The Review of English Studies, 35.138(1984): 164-184. Print.
Scott-Robinson Richard. DreamThee Parliament of Fowls. 2016. Web. 18 October 2017. St. John Michael. Chaucer's Dream Visions: Courtliness and Individual Identity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000. Print.
Untermeyer Louis. The Paths of Poetry: 25 Poets & Their Poems. Bloomington, Indiana: IUniverse. Urban Malte. Fragments: Past and Present in Chaucer and Gower. Oxford: Urban Peter Lang, 2009. Print.
