Izzy De Rosario414/03/06
What role does scholarship play and how significant is interpretation in “Speke, Parrot”?
All though both scholarship and interpretation are themes which permeate “Speke, Parrot”, scholarship, and the knowledge it implies is often needed in order to understand Skelton’s poem because it is so heavily steeped in context. The heavy exophoric reference obscures interpretation for a modern reader, but in “Speke, Parrot”, with it’s use of multiple languages, and satire, a contemporary reader would have to have access to some degree of education, as well as a developed cultural awareness. A sense of the exclusivity of the nature of the information being revealed in the poem is created by the richness of Parrot’s surroundings and his own exoticism, his linguistic ability, as well as his extensive biblical, and political knowledge.
The poem’s structure is a rhyme royal, but with an altered metre from that adopted by Chaucer. In this way Skelton appears to be presenting something simple, that a reader can recognise, but what is actually being revealed is not as clear as the reader might imagine – the meaning is obscured. Skelton is playing with our expectations by manipulating the rhyme royal in this way. It is also clear by using this rhyme scheme that Skelton admires Chaucer, which is also evident in “The Boke Of Phyllyp Sparowe”.
“In Chauser I am aped,
His tales I have red:
His mater is delectable,
Solacious and commendable;
His English well alowed,…”
The syntactical repetition of “his mater is...” puts the “mater” of Gower and Chaucer directly in contrast. When compared to attitude to Gower who’s “mater” may be worth “gold” but is not “delectable” – the attitude of the narrator Jane to Chaucer seems to be echoed in “Speke, Parrot”, as the subject matter of “Speke, Parrot” is often “delectable” because Skelton criticizes the status quo. But Skelton often disguises this, in a manner as subtle as altering the metre of Chaucer’s rhyme royal.
Similarly, whilst it was not unusual to write poetry about animals exploring human social issues (like “The Parliament of Foules, or “The Owl…”), Skelton is not only writing about a creature – his creature is exotic and unusual.
“a byrd of paradise,
Dyentely dyeted with dyvers dylycate spyce”
Alliterative poetry was a familiar form during the Medieval period, and the “y” sounds within “dyentely dieted” and “dyvers dylycate spyce”, give the line assonance too, emphasising not only Parrot’s exotic nature, but refinement.
This refinement is one reason why Parrot seems to be presented as part courtier, part jester.
“And sende me to greate ladyes of estate:
Then Parot must have an almon or a date;”
Parot is sent to these “ladyes of estate”, these women within the higher echelons of society, to entertain, as they command, “Speke, Parot”. But the tone of the second of the above lines is gently mocking in it’s mimicry; “..Parot must have an almon or a date” has the tone of free indirect discourse, and sounds as though Parot is repeating the words of the ladies. The modal auxiliary “must” is what creates this tone alongside the shift into the third person – in this way Parot distances himself from what he says, and sounds as though he is imitating someone else, in this case the ladies he is beholden to. Skelton uses this method at other points in the poem to suggest mockery. Parot presents himself as treading the fine line between the fool and the wit,
“Now Pandez mory, wax frantycke, som men saye;”
It is this perception, that Parot is one of the “Pandez mory”, that allows her to chatter in the way that she does later in the poem – touching on polemical matters. His chatter is perceived by “som men” as nonsense, because the meaning is kept obscured.
The method that is most often and most recognisably used to obscure Parot’s meaning, as in the above quotation, is language – Parot is a polyglot, and borrows from other languages, which also renders Parot all the more exotic.
“Lyke your pus-cate can mute, and cry
In Lattyn, in Ebrew, Araby, and Caldey;”
All these languages, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, are languages used in the Bible, which means they are languages that only scholars would know, but they are also taken from the area surrounding Jerusalem, which simply emphasises how exotic Parrot is. But his ability with languages is also likened to being able to mimic a “pus-cate” – it is simply imitating another kind of animal on a more sophisticated level, to Parrot. Parrot goes on to demonstrate and perform; the next six stanzas are sprinkled with phrases. But these phrases, as the poem progresses, become increasingly aphoristic, such as Ne trope sanno, ne tropo mato, and Pawbe un e arver. It requires a knowledge of language, or at the very least a kind of cultural knowledge, an awareness of language, in order to interpret the meaning here.
“Suche shredis of sentence, strowed in the shop”
Like Parot, the reader has to have gathered up these “shredis” of knowledge. But all this knowledge is knowledge that can be overheard – from the set phrases of different languages, to current affairs, which are later satirised by Skelton. At any rate, what is being celebrated here is both listening and being aware of others, as well as scholasticism, and the pursuit of learning and knowledge.
Her “lady maystres, dame Philology”, is the reason given for Parot’s linguistic aptitude and knowledge. But Parot’s love of learning extends beyond language, as he demonstrates an extensive awareness of political issues and knowledge of the Bible.
It is this heavy contextual reference that is likely to be most difficult for a modern reader to process. But whilst the contextual information carries significant meaning alone within the poem, what is far more significant is the way in which it is revealed. The level of interpretation required of the reader, when dealing with this kind of contextual knowledge, reveals far more about the significance of the information. The references to “The red rose” of King Henry VIII and “that pereles pomegarnet”, Katherine of Aragon, his Queen at the time, are references to their coats of arms – these emblems would have been common knowledge at the time, requiring little interpretation as they were almost synonymous with the names they represented. But even the Biblical references to the Old Testament in stanzas nine and ten, though the majority of people must have been quite familiar with the Bible because they were legally required to attend the Mass, still require a keen awareness of the Old Testament. The references are not to characters like Abraham, or Solomon, or Jacob; they are not to men or women who played vital roles in the Old Testament. To recognise these names the reader must have a detailed knowledge of the Old Testament. It is also quite a jerky shift of subject matter, which is part of the reason why Parrot is perceived to be a “prety foole” by those around him. It is an effective method of undermining what he is saying, which helps to disguise the criticism later levelled against Wolsey and the changes to the education system. It is often in parts which superficially do not seem to make much sense that the more subversive elements of the poem are disguised. The reference to “Moryshe”, the Irish, and to the Welsh in stanza thirteen, also includes the line,
“In flattryng fables men fynde byt lyttyl fayth”
These areas were subject to the English king, but were areas of discontent and revolt, and the line here undermines sycophancy, or any attempts to disguise the less attractive aspects life, the disguise being an indication of “lyttyl fayth”. The line itself doesn’t appear to cohere with the rest of the stanza, but as it is alliterative it is emphasises, and indeed, on considering the importance and state of relations between England, and Wales and Ireland, the meaning, or rather the link between the two ideas becomes clearer. It does, however, require quite specific contextual knowledge, though not as much as the satire on Wolsey as the “og”, and critique of the introduction of Greek into the education system. Wolsey is presented as a “fat hog” and a “crafty coistronus”, who is aligned with Judas Iscariot, and breaks the sanctuary of the church. These comment, though veiled, are scathing, as are the criticisms about the teaching of Greek in schools. The uselessness of the practice is highlighted in the quotation below.
“That they cannot say in Greke, rydynge by the way,
How, hosteler, fetche my hors a botell of hay!”
These lessons are pointless for two reasons. The standard it is taught to is no where near fluent – it cannot be used in everyday speech. Furthermore, it is a ridiculous model that is put forth for consideration; what would be the merit in being able to ask your “hosteler” to fetch the hay in Greek – it serves no purpose in daily life
These scholars are not taught well enough and “mare all” the beauty of the language. Instead, Parrot makes many references in Latin, the language of the Mass and therefore a more useful language to know. But Parrot is not restricted to the familiar responses of the Mass, but demonstrates his fluency and ease with the language. Indeed, “metaphora, allegoria” “Shall be his protectyon, his pavvys, his wall”. For Parrot, these rhetorical techniques allow him to criticise, safely, from a distance, and these lines highlight the importance of interpretation and scholarship in the poem. As Skelton says, “Parrot is myne owne dere harte” – the poem gives Skelton a context in which he can air his views. These final verses, peppered with Latin, also link the poem back to a Christian context, as Parrot urges the reader to remember to relinquish all worldly things (which is reminiscent of the mocking tone Parrot adopts for those that own him in the earlier stanzas).
To a great extent, Parrot is a mouthpiece for Skelton’s dissatisfaction with his society. By making the critic into an animal, it detaches the critic from the social order, as well as justifying the obscurity of the text at times. It is far easier to dismiss a narrative voice that makes people uncomfortable with their own social context when the narrator is not human, and also allows for an indulgent kind of humour. But Skelton also uses a veil of learning to obscure the meaning of the poem; borrowing other languages, indirectly referring to people with biblical references, and shifting subject matter in a way that is jerky and difficult to follow. However, this obscurity, alongside the mocking tone of Parrot, is also an incentive, to provoke the reader to interpret the poem carefully, and, in sifting through the rhetorical devices Skelton employs, considering the issues which Skelton criticises in “Speke, Parrot”.