Talk:Parlement of Foules

[Untitled]
that's all very scholarly, but can we get a little bit more about the actual content of the poem? :o)

-Unsigned

Yes, I agree. I had so little understanding of its content from this article, that I had to go out and actually read it. (In the end, it was a good thing because it's a really cool poem, but the situation should still be remedied.) I'm not a "Wikiregular," so I'd rather somebody else do it, but if it isn't updated for a while, I'll do my best.

Rdr0 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As of late September 07, the external link to the prose English version is a 403.

-anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.41.178 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, um, the article has a lot of words that don't say much, and an image with utterly no context. Thanks, no wonder I love Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.46.19 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC) JUne 18 2011 -- I added the first 105 lines of the poem with line numbers; the original; and a nice translation. I'll do some more day by day. -- Pete Wilson (pete142@yahoo.com).

Parlement of Fowls; a sense of Plagarism?
Fariduddin Attar "Conference of the Birds". Perhaps it was OK to rework poems during the medieval era. The reference to Attar's poem should be included in the Wiki article though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.106.107 (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * OK? It was positively expected. I have not, however, seen any critic suggest that Chaucer knew of or read a translation of the Conference of Birds; also, the subject matter is very different (courtly love for Chaucer, questing for Attar). Hadrian89 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, as many scholars have noted, birds were a common poetic device at the time, particularly in debate poetry, which some suggest Parliament could be classified as.129.171.249.138 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The confusion is by convention. Birds are as common a device as roses, and The Conference of Birds has an extremely distinct allegory in no way similar to Chaucer. However, Edward FitzGerald once titled an english translation The Parliament of Birds, and the title stuck. I added a note on top to avoid the confusion.--Artimaean (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Macrobius
I did a couple of edits on attributing the poem to Cicero. Although Chaucer does mention Cicero (as Tullyus) as the author of the book he read, he seems more concerned with Macrobius' commentaries on the Dream of Scipio than the text itself. In fact, in the Book of the Duchess he writes about

Macrobeus (He that wrot al th' avysyoun That he mette, kyng Scipioun, The noble man, the Affrikan -- Suche marvayles fortuned than)

I eventually left the page as it was, but someone might wish to look into this and change it.

February or May
Should there be some discussion concerning whether or not the poem's Valentine's Day refers to Feb 14 or May 3? There is some thought that it may reference a St. Valentine of Genoa. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day#Chaucer.27s_love_birds

Gavroche42 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Birds parliament
Here nature Debate on who will win the formel female eagles heart Three tercels male eagle presented their suits 143.44.165.74 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)