Priapus and the Parlement of Foulys

Emerson Brown, Jr. "Priapus and the Parlement of Foulys." Studies in Philology. V. 72. 1975. pp. 258-74.

Brown begins by addressing criticism of Chaucer's borrowings from Ovid, Boccaccio, and other source texts in an attempt to validate Chaucer's adaptation and treatment of the material to his dream vision the Parliament of Fowls. Brown proposes that, although the stanzas in Boccaccio and in Chaucer allude to the story from Ovid (the phallic god Priapus is near to penetrating a Naiad when an ass intrudes), Chaucer's incorporation of the event into Parliament presents "a more bawdy possibility, created by the syntactical unity of the last phrase," which is more suited to the theme of Love. Brown objects that these three lines, which, as he reads them, depict men trying to crown Priapus's phallus with garland of flowers, are padding; and suggests that they symoblize a lack of sexual gratification. Brown goes on to engage other criticisms which purport that the presence of Priapus shuts down any theories that Chaucer is "subordinationg" sensuality. Brown illustrates his claim by conflating the intrusion of the ass witht the lack of success in the men's attempt to crown the phallus: "the voluptuousness of Priapus is inhibited," and therefore comical (Brown's italics). Brown also seems determined to address another extreme of criticism of Priapus, which reads the phallic god "as representing everything the interpreter finds opposed to the moral center of the poem," by reading the actual parliament of birds as adhering to the code of courtly love. Brown, however, finds the scene of the parliament as another instance of delayed sexual gratification, claiming the act of choosing is in anticipation of the sex act. He concludes the article by stating that readers are not asking the right questions when trying to see Priapus in a good or bad light: they should consider that Chaucer "may have seen some aspects of life and art in a less morally absolute way," and that Priapus might be just an object of folly "softened by the recognition that what is so amusing and ridiculous in others may be within our own hearts."

This was a frustrating read because Brown has a very vague thesis, in which he basically states that he will examine Priapus' role in the poem. He does not slant it in any way, which was confusing when reading what at first seemed generalizations throughout the article. However, it does maintain a consistent discussion on whether Priapus should be viewed as a positive representation of sexuality or a negative one. In the end, Brown opts for a compromised reading, as can be seen from the quotes above. On the other hand, there are next to no articles devoted to the subject of Priapus, so Brown's essay is valuable in that respect.

Interesting if one is focusing on the the topic of sexuality in the Parliament.