Assessing Mankind’s Propensity to Dominate: How Robert Burns uses Literary Elements to Compare Humanity and Waterfowl

In 1787 Robert Burns, a renowned man considered the national poet of Scotland, wrote "On Scaring Some Waterfowl in Loch Turit" as a commentary on humanity’s relationship with nature. This is a common theme in his poetry as he typically glorifies the common man who absorbs the lessons of nature and life. Burns uses juxtaposition primarily through rhyming couplets and rhetorical questions to convey that although the waterfowl have a more harmonious relationship with nature and are its intended inhabitants, humanity still supersedes them in power and they subvert themselves to humankind.

​

Burns primarily uses the juxtaposition of certain words to highlight the discrepancy in his comparison of waterfowl and humans. He argues that terfowl are the natural and rightful inhabitants of nature while humans are cruel and tyrannical, however the waterfowl still make themselves a slave to humans since they fly away when a human arrives. This whole poem can be seen as a comparison or juxtaposition between humanity and the waterfowl. In line 1, Burns refers to the waterfowl as the "tenants of the lake." The word tenants here has a double meaning. It not only says that the waterfowl are the rightful inhabitants of the lake, but it also says that their residence in the lake is temporary because when humans arrive the waterfowl yield themselves to them and flee. This word being used to describe the waterfowl in line 1 already sets up Burn's complex comparison that the waterfowl are deserving of the gift of nature yet they give it up to the humans. This description of the waterfowl contrasts with the word he uses to describe humans in line 18: "Tyrant." This word indicates that the humans force their way into their position in nature and are not the natural deserving inhabitants. The word highlights that humans have an arbitrary amount of power and they exert that on those below them like the waterfowl in order to be the dominant power. The contrast between tenant and tyrant highlights Burns' comparison that although the waterfowl exist more naturally and harmoniously with nature, they still subvert themselves to the power and tyranny of humans.

​

With that message being established in his descriptions of both parties, Burns uses specific juxtapositions within his rhyme scheme to further highlight the discrepancy in his comparison. He uses words tightly linked in a rhyming couplet to display a contrast which highlights his message. In lines 25-26 the rhyming couplet is "Glories in his heart humane And creatures for his pleasure slain." The juxtaposition here is between the humane and caring human heart and the slaying of creatures for the pleasure of humans. By using the word humane to describe the human heart, Burns intends to pose a question of whether humans are actually humane if they are killing creatures for their own pleasure. Perhaps then, the waterfowl are truly humane as they do not kill for fun and exist more harmoniously with nature. This juxtaposition as a whole serves to elevate the perception of the waterfowl and further drive in the point that they have value and are the intended recipients of the gifts of nature. This couplet occurs in a larger metaphor comparing an eagle to humans, which was meant to show that the eagles kill when "strong necessity compels" while humans kill out of pleasure. This further highlights the more harmonious relationship that animals have with nature and also displays humanity's lack of that relationship. In lines 33-34 the rhyming couplet, "or, if man's superior might dare invade your native right," juxtaposes man's strength and power with the waterfowl's natural right to be in nature. In this couplet, Burns directly states that the waterfowl have a native right to exist in nature which man invades upon. This further displays humanity as an arbitrary unnatural inhabitant in nature and implies that our relationship with it is thus less natural and harmonious. However, Burns describes man's might as being "superior" which is him claiming that the power of man will triumph over the "native right" of the waterfowl. This highlights the discrepancy that Burns' comparison was meant to illuminate, that for some reason these waterfowl who are worthy of respect and have a native right to nature, subvert themselves to the power of mankind. In the last couplet of the poem he juxtaposes the words "brave" and "slave" in reference to the waterfowl's inability to brave humanity so instead they submit themselves and make themselves essentially slaves. This again highlights how the waterfowl do subjugate themselves to humanity.

​

This whole poem can be seen as questioning why the waterfowl do this when they have that "native right" and taken as a whole, it can be seen as commentating on humanity's relationship with nature as a whole. His juxtapositions raise and highlight the idea in the readers' mind that it makes no sense why the waterfowl run away and let themselves be subject to humans. This can be taken as a criticism of humanity's dominance over nature. Burn's may be implying here that humans shouldn't be dominant over nature and shouldn't be constantly exerting their power over it. Additionally, this hierarchy that Burns illuminates where the waterfowl are more humane than humans yet are still subjugated to them can be taken as a criticism on any social structure of the sort. A pertinent example may be talking about the subjugation of native americans who had a much more harmonious relationship to nature, yet were subjugated to the more brutal Europeans. Overall Burns' juxtapositions illuminate his complex comparison between the intrinsic value of the waterfowl and the power that in reality humans exert over them.

​

Burn's also uses rhetorical questions at the start of the poem to further expand upon his comparison somewhat indirectly. His questions from lines 1-6 do not have a clear answer and are also being addressed to animals. The waterfowl can't give him an answer and they cannot even comprehend what he is asking. In a way this glorifies the simplicity and harmonious nature of the waterfowl's existence which bolsters his comparison that waterfowls coexist better with nature than humans do. Burns' poem seems like a stressed examination of the natural world, while in reality the waterfowl had probably flown off and settled peacefully in a new area, not being concerned by Burns' moral introspection. In a way Burns might envy the water fowl because they do not have to concern themselves with questions of this nature. This shows how the waterfowl live simply and in harmony with nature, not concerned with the human imposed self-examination. However, despite this blissfully ignorant lifestyle they do flee when they see a human. Overall, the fact that he addresses his questions to an audience that will not answer has implications for those questions. In lines 2-4 he asks why the "fellow creatures" fly "at my presence." By referring to the waterfowl as fellow creatures he is personifying them in a way which intends to give value to the waterfowl. This question is really the question being asked throughout the whole poem and the important fact is that we won't know the answer nor do the waterfowl care about the answer. It is just an event of nature. Though, when taken together with Burn's elevation of the waterfowl and his statement of their natural right in nature it puts humans and the waterfowl in direct comparison and implies that humans may not be so deserving of so much power over nature, although they do possess it. He is using his overall comparison that humans have power over the waterfowl even though the waterfowl coexist better with nature, to call into question why the humans have this power and implying that it is undeserved.

​

However, this may be interpreted in a different way. Burns may be implicitly answering these big questions with his rhetorical questions. By asking these questions to an audience that is not answering he highlights that humans have intellect which is a real power. That may be the reason he is positing for why we have such power over nature. In this interpretation, humans' dominance may be justified by the fact that they have a unique ability: intellect. This would explain the discrepancy and justify the might of humanity over nature. Though, being that he is a romantic poet, it is more likely that he is using these questions as a critique of humanity's tendency to dominate nature.

​

Summarily, Burns uses juxtaposition to highlight his complex comparison between humans and waterfowl. Humans do have such great power over them and nature, yet the waterfowl are the natural receiver of the gifts of nature and are the real humane ones. His use of rhetorical questions serve to highlight the nature of the poem itself which is to ponder why humans have this dominance over nature, and why the waterfowl flee from his presence.