This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Wordsworth translated the poem, although he never printed it. It seems some of his friends objected to its morality, objections which Wordsworth did not share. He defended the poem in a letter as follows: “The main lesson, and the most important one, is inculcated as a Poet ought to inculcate his lessons, not formally, but by implication; as when Phoebus in a transport of passion slays a wife whom he loved so dearly. How could the mischief of telling truth, merely because itis truth, be more feelingly exemplified?” (The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, ed. E. de Selincourt and Helen Darbishire, Oxford, 1947, IV, 471).
James A. Work, “The Manciple's Tale” inSources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster, Chicago, 1941, p. 700.
References toThe Manciple's Tale, and other works of Chaucer are to F. N. Robinson,The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, second ed., Cambridge, Mass., pp. 225ff.
J. Burke Severs, “Is theManciple's Tale a Success?”,JEGP, 51 (1952), 1–16.
“The formal prosing at the end and the selfishness that pervades it flows from the genius of Chaucer, mainly as characteristic of the narrator whom he describes in the Prologue as eminent for shrewdness and clever worldly Prudence” (Poetical Works, IV, 471).
Thus, with differing degrees of emphasis in the following accounts: Earle Birney, “Chaucer's ‘ Gentil’ Manciple and his ‘Gentil’ Tale”,NM, 61 (1960) 257–67; William Cadbury, “Manipulation of Sources and the Meaning of theManciple's Tale”,PQ, 43 (1964), 538–48; Morton Donner, “The Unity of Chaucer's Manciple Fragment”,MLN, 70 (1955), 245–59; J. D. Elliott, “The Moral of theManciple's Tale”,N&Q, 199 (1954) 511–12; John P. McCall,Chaucer among the Gods: The Poetics of Classical Myth, University Park, Pennsylvania and London, 1979, ch. 5; Jackson J. Campbell, “Polonius among the Pilgrims”,Chaucer Review, 7 (1972) 140–46.
Richard Hazelton, “TheManciple's Tale: Parody and Critique”,JEGP, 62 (1963), 1–31.
John Gardner,The Poetry of Chaucer, Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1977, p. 332.
Ovid Metamorphoses, with an English translation by Frank Justus Miller, (The Loeb Classical Library), I. p. 101.
Ibid. p. 103.
Ibid.
Lines 2344ff. The line numbers and all further references to Chaucer's analogues are toSources and Analogues. See above note 2.
The phrase “in tokne and remembrance” recalls Machaut's “En signe de memoire”, line 8089, and may suggest that Gower had recourse to Machaut'sVoir Dit, which, in its turn, is indebted, though not in this detail, to theOvide Moralisé. Chaucer's “in tokenynge” (302) does not simplify matters. My feeling is that he took it not from Gower but from Machaut.
See Hazelton, pp.22ff. If one looks closely at the features of Chaucer's style that Hazelton adduces to suggest Chaucer's parodying of Gower's style one finds that they are all features that Chaucer used elsewhere as well, where any relevance to Gower's practice is out of the question.
Cf. C. de Boer, “Guillaume de Machaut et l'Ovide moralisé, inOvide moralisé, poème du commencement du quatorzième siècle, publié d'après tous les manuscrits connus, I, pp. 28–43 (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks, deel XV), Amsterdam, 1915.
There is also the larger context of Machaut'sVoir Dit to be considered. The story of Phoebus argues against tattlers. Yet the application to the case in hand is fraught with complications. Thelosengiers who feature in theVoir Dit as “slanderers” of the lady are all nobles of high repute, whose opinion is not to be dismissed out of hand. The lady, Toute-belle, has much freer ideas about the fragility of her reputation than her conventional suitor. Is the gossip true after all? The implications of the myth of Phoebus and Coronis also tell against Toute-belle since in Ovid's tale Coronis was indeed guilty of deception. See William Calin,A Poet at the Fountain: Essays on the Narrative Verse of Guillaume de Machaut, Lexington, 1974, pp. 183ff.
Geo. F. Black, ed.,The Sevin Seages. Translatit out of prois in Scottis meter be Iohne Rolland in Dalkeith, STS, Third Series, 3, Edinburgh and London, 1932, lines 3479f.
It is not essential to my argument that there should be direct influence (which I cannot prove anyway). I am only comparing differences in narrative emphasis.
Theodore Silverstein, “Allegory and Literary Form”,PMLA, 82 (1967), 31. On Chaucer's treatment of traditional material see also my article “Chaucer's Way with his Sources: Accident into Substance and Substance into Accident”,English Studies, 62 (1981), 215-36.
P. M. Kean,Chaucer and the Making of English Poetry, vol. II:The Art of Narrative, London, 1972, p. 128.
E. A. Block, “Originality, Controlling Purpose, and Craftsmanship in Chaucer'sMan of Law's Tale”,PMLA, 68 (1953), 616.
Nevill Coghill, “Chaucer's Narrative Art inThe Canterbury Tales”, in D. S. Brewer, ed.,Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature, London, 1966, p. 126.
Hazelton's suggestion that Phoebus is reduced to the size of Sir Thopas, though intriguing, should not be pressed too far; the verbal and contextual hints do not warrant this. The style of the opening is a fine example of Chaucer's narrative fluency and of the simplifying tendency I have mentioned. By arguing from a contrast with other accounts of classical mythology Hazelton abuses theargumentum a silentio; if his suggestions are followed up, many paragons of excellence in Chaucer's works would be Sir Thopases. Nor do I think that the mention of the bow is a bit of sly irony suggesting that it turns Phoebus into a yeoman. See Hazelton, p. 9. See also McCall, pp. 129ff., who, following Hazelton, argues that the Manciple through his unwitting stupidity turns Phoebus into the Sir Thopas of the gods.
Le Roman de la Rose, ed. E. Langlois, 5 vols, Paris, 1914-24 (SATF), IV, lines 13875–14280.
J. J. Jusserand praised the digression as typically English humour worthy of Swift and Fielding. SeeA Literary History of the English People, London, 1895, p. 336. Wordsworth, too, was impressed by this and the preceding digression. See above, note 1.
The Young Children's Book, line 101, inEarly English Meals and Manners, ed. F. J. Furnivall, EETS OS 32, p. 272. In the same collection, pp. 244–46 is found the poemWhate-ever thow seye, avyse thee welle, which contains the lines “The kocke seyth wysly on his songe / ‘hyre and see, and hold the stylle’ .” This is a reference to a story in theGesta Romanorum that might well be regarded as another analogue of theManciple's Tale. It is the story of the three cocks, two of which are killed for their betrayal of the mistress's secret affair, but the third is spared since he sings: “Audi, vide, tace, si tu vis vivere in pace!”. See Hermann Oesterley, ed.,Gesta Romanorum, Berlin 1872, cap. 68 “De non subticenda veritate usque ad mortem”, pp. 380–81. See also EETS ES 33, p. 175 for the ME version. Themoralizatio manages to give a surprising slant to the gist of the narrative. There can be no doubt that in origin the tale purported the exact opposite of what the moraliser made of it. The first cock is now interpreted as Christ, who raised his voice against vice, the second cock signifies martyrs who died for truth, the third cock is the preacher who does not speak up for fear of displeasing the people.
For a survey and discussion of these see the introduction to T. F. Mustanoja, ed.,The Good Wife Taught her Daughter, The Good Wyfe Wold a Pylgremage, The Thewis of Gud Women, Helsinki, 1948, pp. 29–78. Though some of these are later than Chaucer, they obviously represent a widespread type.
I don't think the phrase “my sone” is intended to remind us specifically of Gower'sConfessio Amantis, nor ofCato's Distichs or of theBook of Proverbs, though the latter may be the ultimate origin. The form of address is common to the majority of books of parental instruction. See Furnivall's collection (above, note 26).
Ars Am. I, 101–34. Cf. John M. Fyler,Chaucer and Ovid, New Haven and London, 1979, p. 125.
Le Roman de la Rose, lines 14161ff.
Ibid., lines 15751ff.
J. J. Campbell, p. 143.
John Norton Smith,Geoffrey Chaucer, London, 1974, p. 153.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Diekstra, F.N.M. Chaucer's digressive mode and the moral of theManciple's Tale . Neophilologus 67, 131–148 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956996
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956996