喬叟《伙食司的故事》之語境的流動(dòng)性

肖恩·諾曼丁

（韓國(guó)成均館大學(xué)）

喬叟《伙食司的故事》之語境的流動(dòng)性

肖恩·諾曼丁

（韓國(guó)成均館大學(xué)）

本文旨在通過分析《伙食司的故事》所體現(xiàn)的以言忘言之難，揭示該詩(shī)長(zhǎng)期被忽視的特征——不確定性。喬叟不僅暗示了但丁對(duì)阿波羅基督教式的貶損，還指出奧維德詩(shī)歌中情色描寫的靈感并非出自阿波羅；前者認(rèn)為阿波羅不足以引導(dǎo)人進(jìn)入天堂，后者則否定了神成為世俗情人的資格。在“伙食司對(duì)神的輕蔑”以及“神毀壞自己的樂器”雙重線索的配合下，引出伙食司的母親對(duì)其兒子“沉默是金”的教導(dǎo)。她的訓(xùn)誡在這樣一個(gè)歡快的奧維德式寓言故事中聽來頗覺絮叨得幾近偽善。盡管母親以詭譎的方式講述了這個(gè)給一個(gè)成年朝圣者聽的故事，但這并未妨礙文本所指向的教導(dǎo)意圖。而依據(jù)模仿或反諷解讀詩(shī)歌，會(huì)出現(xiàn)兩個(gè)截然不同的結(jié)局。多數(shù)評(píng)論傾向前者，認(rèn)為《伙食司的故事》是《牧師的故事》的提喻，誠(chéng)如牧師在其開場(chǎng)語中所說的——是“荒謬的言語，沒半點(diǎn)道理”。盡管兩者被類比，但事實(shí)上，喬叟將前者設(shè)定為后者所要駁斥的對(duì)象，《伙食司的故事》中所體現(xiàn)的正是牧師所面臨的修辭的困境，換而言之，牧師與伙食經(jīng)理的母親之間“對(duì)語言的放棄”這一共同點(diǎn)才是詩(shī)人想要竭力凸顯的部分——兩個(gè)言語者都打破了一般的敘事規(guī)范。本文引證了但丁的《天堂》、奧維德的《愛經(jīng)》和《變形記》、喬叟的《特洛伊羅斯與克麗西達(dá)》和《自由農(nóng)的故事》、拉丁武加大圣經(jīng)、《女隱士指南》。

喬叟；《伙食司的故事》；但??；奧維德；解構(gòu)

Notes on Author：Shawn Normandin received his Ph．D．in English Literature from Boston University．His articles on Chaucer have appeared in

Exemplaria

and

The Explicator

．Other articles are forthcoming in

ANQ

and

Texas Studies in Literature and Language

．He teaches in the English Department of Sungkyunkwan University，Seoul．The

Manciple's Tale

features hostility to utterance：the protagonist，Phebus（Apollo），renounces music by destroying his instruments，and the tale ends with an address supposedly delivered to the Manciple by his mother，in which she urges him to renounce excessive speech，a renunciation anticipated by Phebus's removal of his pet crow's ability to talk．This hostility is doubly equivocal．The gesture of degrading Apollo，the god of poetry，alludes to competing traditions：one is Christian，mystical，and sublime，while the other is pagan，worldly，and comic．The mother's advice produces two hopelessly conflicting readings．The mother tells her son to keep silent，but the

Manciple's

Prologue

establishes that the Manciple，who slanders the drunken Cook，is incapable of keeping silent．The incongruity of a blabbermouth counseling tact encourages an ironic reading：his mother's argument is exaggerated and even hypocritical，since her condemnation of speech，as many critics contend，is itself verbose．Comparing the tale，however，to literary analogues challenges the ironic reading of the mother's speech．Although it seems too long for such a short tale，it is not particularly long compared to other moments of amplified discourse in Chaucer's work．Compared to some non-Chaucerian condemnations of excessive speech，the tale's moral appears modest in length and tone，so it is not an obvious parody of such discourse．Situated in a broader homiletic context，the mother's prolixity can seem downright restrained．The tale enacts the aporia that homiletic discourse is bound to generate when it endeavors to restrain speech．More often than not，speech can only be restrained by speech．A quantitative question arises：how much speech against speech is too much？The tale puts this question into play，preparing readers for the most explicitly homiletic moment of the

Canterbury Tales

：the Parson's penitential treatise，which immediately follows the

Manciple's Tale

．The mother's speech is both ironic and potentially sincere，hypocritical and earnest，a travesty of pastoral instruction and a model of it．The tale's concern with silencing music and speech is related to the most basic rhetorical decision facing medieval poets：whether to abbreviate or amplify．Near the end of the

Canterbury Tales

，Chaucer teases himself and his audience with one of poetry's（and life's）thorniest problems：how do you know when to stop？Michael Kensak has made major contributions to recent scholarship on the

Manciple's Tale

．He proposes that the debasement of Apollo is an instance of the“ineffable arrival topos．”Michael Kensak，“Apollo Exterminans：the God of Poetry in Chaucer's，”98，no．2（2001）：157．Both Dante and Alain of Lille invoke an inept Apollo who“proves unable to narrate the pilgrim's entrance into heaven．Each author must abandon Apollo and invoke the Christian God before poet and pilgrim can reach their destinations．”Kensak reviews Dante's invocation of Apollo in Canto I of the

Paradiso

；the poet goes so far as to urge the god：

Entra nel petto mio，e spira tue

sìcome quando Mars?a traesti

de Ia vagina de Ie membra sue．

（1．19 21）

［Enter into my breast and breathe there as when you drew Marsyas from the sheath of his Iimbs．］ Dante，，trans．Charles S．Singleton（Princeton：Princeton University Press，1981），4 5．

Yet in Canto 23，Dante finds the power of the Muses inadequate to describe Beatrice's smile；he concludes that

figurando iI paradiso，

convien saItar Io sacrato poema，

come chi trova suo cammin riciso．

（23．61 63）

［depicting Paradise，the sacred poem must needs make a Ieap，even as one who finds his way cut off］．Ibid．，，260 261．

Kensak regards Dante's leap as an abandonment of classical inspiration：“Though visions diviner still await the pilgrim，the poet chooses this point to cast overboard the useless Muses and Apollo the god of poetry．”So too Alain of Lille，who invokes Apollo in the preface to the

Anticlaudianus

，finds him insufficient to narrate the approach of Phronesis to God：a heavenly muse must take over．Kensak demonstrates that Chaucer's debasement of Apollo begins early in the

Manciple's Tale

，at the point where the narrator describes the unheroic god killing Python while the snake is asleep．Cuckoldry further dims Phebus's divine aura．The god's subsequent killing of his wife and the destruction of his musical instruments complete Chaucer's anti-invocation of Apollo．Kensak concludes that“just as Apollo yields to God near the end of Alain and Dante's pilgrimages，the Manciple's Phebus yields to the Parson's Christ at the culmination of Chaucer's

Canterbury Tales

．”For Kensak，Apollo contaminates the

Manciple's Tale

，and this contamination casts the superior sanctity of the

Parson's Tale

into relief：the Manciple and his mother advocate profane and morally dubious expediency—unlike the

Parson's Tale

， “which silences its audience to teach them the redeemed language of penance．” Kensak，“The Silences of Pilgrimage：，，，”34，no．2（1999）：192．But the literary tradition of renouncing Apollo is richer than Kensak acknowledges．He represents the ineffable arrival topos as a response of Christian poets to the limitations of classical culture．But the non-Christian Ovid also disparages Phoebus．Ovid distances himself from the god of poetry at the beginning of the

Ars amatoria

：

Quo me fixit Amor，quo me vioIentius ussit，

Hoc meIior facti vuIneris uItor ero：

Non ego，Phoebe，datas a te mihi mentiar artes，

Nec nos a?riae voce monemur avis，

Nec mihi sunt visae CIio CIiusque sorores

Servanti pecudes vaIIibus，Ascra，tuis：

U

sus opus movet hoc：vati parete perito；

Vera canam：coeptis，mater Amoris，ades！

（1．23 30）

［The more vioIentIy Love has pierced and branded me，the better shaII I avenge the wound that he has made：I wiII not faIseIy cIaim that my art is thy gift，O Phoebus，nor am I prompted by the voice of a bird of the air，neither did CIio and CIio's sisters appear to me whiIe I kept fIocks in thy vaIe，O Ascra：experience inspires this work：give ear to an experienced bard；true wiII be my song：favour my enterprise，O mother of Love．］

Prefiguring the Wife of Bath，Ovid champions experience in defiance of authority—here the legitimizing seal of Apollonian inspiration．In Book II，Apollo suddenly appears with the poetic devices of laurel and a golden lyre（“vates ille videndus adit”［2．496］）．He advises Ovid and his pupils to come to his temple and learn to know themselves．The god also gives some practical advice：the beautiful should let themselves be seen，pleasing speakers should break the silence，good singers should sing，good drinkers should drink，

Sed neque declament medio sermone diserti，

Nec sua non sanus scripta poeta legat！

（2．503 508）

［But neither let the eloquent declaim in the midst of talk，nor the frenzied poet recite his verses?。荩?/p>

Here the god discourages poetry（at least the frenzied variety），and Ovid has more urgent concerns than self-knowledge：“Ad propriora vocor”（2．511）．In Book III the poet fantasizes that his works will join those of Callimachus，Philitas，Anacreon，Sappho，Menander，Propertius，Gallus，Tibullus，and Virgil in the esteem of posterity；he exclaims：“O ita，Phoebe，velis！” ［“So grant it，O Phoebus！”］（3．347）． Ovid，，trans．J．H．Mozley and G．P．Goold（Cambridge：Harvard University Press，1979），142．Ovid's attitude toward Apollo seems to improve slightly over the course of the three books，though his later appeals to the god are casual if not facetious．Ovid rejects his inspiration，but invokes him to assist his canonization．The poet comically asserts his independence f rom Apollo．

It is not surprising that Chaucer's debt to Ovid in the

Manciple's Tale

has caught the attention of critics，since the stories of Apollo and his pet bird told by Machaut，Gower，Chaucer，and the

Ovide moralise

all ultimately derive from Ovid's

Metamorphoses

． For the Ovidian qualities of the，see Jamie Fumo，“Thinking upon the Crow：Theand Ovidian Mythography，”38，no．4（2004）；Brian Striar，“The‘Manciple's Tale’and Chaucer's Apolline Poetics，”33，no．2（1991）；John Norton-Smith，（Boston：Routledge&Kegan Paul，1974），150 151．Briar Striar does not refer to the explicit rejection of Apollo at the beginning of the

Ars amatoria

，but he locates a negative pattern in the

Metamorphoses

：“although Apollo appears heroic in Book I with the slaying of Python，he declines in moral and divine stature throughout the rest of that book and the rest of the poem．”In fact，this decline begins immediately after the god's defeat of Python．He foolishly taunts Amor：“tu face nescio quos esto contentus amores/inritare tua，nec laudes adsere nostras！”［Do thou be content with thy torch to light the hidden fires of love，and lay not claim to my honors］（I．461 462）．Ovid，，trans．Frank Justus Miller and G．P．Goold（Cambridge：Harvard University Press，2004），34 35．Ignorance of the arts oflove seems to be the flip-side of Apollo's mastery of all other forms of knowledge．Amor retorts：“figat tuus omnia，Phoebe，/te meus arcus”［Thy dart may pierce all things else，Apollo，but mine shall pierce thee］（1．463 464）． Ovid，，trans．Frank Justus Miller and G．P．Goold（Cambridge：Harvard University Press，2004），34 35．Amor wounds him，compelling Apollo's famous and futile courtship of Daphne．This is the poem's first disclosure of his weakness．The progressively unflattering depiction of Apollo in the

Metamorphoses

was a model for Chaucer's disparagement of the god in the

Manciple's Tale

．If abjecting Apollo is a topos，it is by no means an exclusively Christian one．According to Kensak，Dante rejects Apollo because the god's powers are incommensurate to the most sublime otherworldly experience．By contrast，Ovid rejects Apollo because his powers are inadequate for describing his worldly experience of love．The most salient reason for Apollo's inadequacy is the fact that he himself is a failed lover．His unsuccessful pursuit of Daphne is exemplary．He boasts of his high status and extensive knowledge，especially of medicine；he concedes，however， “ei mihi，quod nullis amor est sanabilis herbis/nec prosunt domino，quae prosunt omnibus，artes！”［Alas，that love is curable by no herbs，and the arts which heal all others cannot heal their lord！］（

Metamorphoses

I．523 524）．Ovid，，39．Since he is himself a victim of love，he has little authority as a guide to successful love．Chaucer makes note of his amatory ineptitude in

Troilus and Criseyde

．Pandarus tells the hero about O?none's letter to Paris（

Heroides

5）：

“Phebus，that first fond art of medicine，”

Quod she，“and couthe in every wightes care

Remedye and reed，by herbes he knew fine，

Yet to himself his konnyng was ful bare，

For love hadde hym so bounden in a snare，

Al for the doughter of the kyng Amete，

That al his craft ne koude his sorwes bete．”

（1．659 665）All citations and quotations of Chaucer refer to or derive from The Riverside Chaucer，3rd ed．，ed．Larry D．Benson（Boston：Houghton Mifflin，1987）；is cited parenthetically by book and line number；the，by fragment and line number．Similarly，in the

Franklin's Tale

，Aurelius prays to Apollo to convince the god's sister，“Lucina the sheene，”to produce a great flood，enabling him to capture Dorigen's love（V 1031 1079）．The prayer fails，and Aurelius remains incapacitated for two miserable years until his brother thinks of consulting a magician．It is odd that Aurelius should call upon Phebus，rather than appealing directly to his sister，who“of the see is chief goddesse and queene”（V 1046）．But Aurelius's prayer is a Chaucerian joke that alludes to Apollo's Ovidian reputation for erotic incompetence：Aurelius seeks aid from the wrong god． See Andrea Rossi-Reder，“Male Movement and Female Fixity in theand，”in，ed．Peter G．Beidler（Cambridge：D．S．Brewer，1998），113．The

Manciple's Tale

discloses at least two opposing tendencies：1）a Dantean desire to transcend the limits of secular subject matter and classical poetics in order to approach the ineffable mystery of God；2）an Ovidian playfulness that jeopardizes the Dantean urge toward the ineffable．Kensak aptly describes the first tendency but neglects the second．The debasement or renunciation of Apollo is a potent literary gesture，but its significance is equivocal．It may indicate the need to transcend worldly knowledge，or it may affirm the priority of worldly expertise（Ovidian erotic experience，for example）．If Chaucer followed Dante's lead，perhaps Kensak is right to interpret the

Manciple's Tale

as profane text that the Parson will transcend，establishing a realm of holy silence．But if Chaucer follows Ovid，then the mockery of Apollo may indicate Chaucer's dissatisfaction with the discourse of religious silence and transcendence．The penultimate position of the

Manciple Tale

in Chaucer's book，the fact that it is the last narrative before the Parson's treatise—the most thoroughly doctrinal of the

Canterbury Tales

—may prompt certain readers to associate the poet's debasement of Apollo with Dante's Christian surrender of classical inspiration．The first line of the（“By that the Maunciple hadde his tale al ended”）solidly establishes the penultimate position of the．Stephen Powell，in an essay challenging the tradition of dividing thefrom theas a separate fragment，points out that“this one line provides a more explicit marker of the narrative link between Fragments IX and X than do any of the other well-attested lines between other fragments or groups of tales”；“Game Over：Defragmenting the End of the，”37，no．1（2002）：43．Since Chaucer also channels Dante in the closing stanzas of，some readers coming to the end of themight expect Dante's influence to resurface here．But the Ovidianprovenance of the

Manciple's Tale

and its playful tone may cause others to recall Ovid's rejection of divine inspiration in favor of his own experience．The

Manciple's Tale

dramatizes a poetic meltdown in which Chaucer's most important precursors，Ovid and Dante，expose their hitherto elided incompatibilities．Ovid's influence was a major problem for Dante．As Peter S．Hawkins has shown，the

Commedia

marks a major shift in Dante's attitude．Although his Limbo reserves a place for Ovid among the supreme poets，“in the mysterious period between the

Convivio

and the

Commedia

，when Dante seems to have been discovering the significance of Virgil as his‘master and author，’he was also parting company from Ovid as‘maestro．’”Hawkins speculates that Dante stopped reading the

Metamorphoses

allegorically and began to read it literally．As a result，he discovered“a pagan master who would provide not a meditation on the cosmic power of providence but a sustained nightmare of rage，rape，and human loss．”Peter S．Hawkins，（Stanford，CA：Stanford University Press，1999），148．Ovid's poetry remains a model for the grotesque transformations of the

Inferno

，but Dante comes to find it inadequate for the stages of his poem concerned with grace．Chaucer's

Manciple's Tale

—drawing upon Dante and Ovid—exhibits the rift between Dante's two Ovids（allegorical and literal）：is the tale an allegory about the failure of poetry，or is it a sordid anecdote about sexual transgression and domestic violence？The exposure of the rift by Chaucer constitutes，among other things，a cunning act of literary criticism．But Chaucer's ultimate attitude toward Apollo is opaque：it is unclear whether the

Manciple's Tale

renounces classical inspiration in favor of Christian consolation or in favor of profane experience．Although Chaucer's first-person narrators are notoriously devious，some of the difficulty of interpreting the tale's debasement of Apollo might dissipate if Chaucer spoke

in propria persona

，as Ovid and Dante do in their invocations and anti-invocations of the god．The tale is told，however，by the Manciple，whose obvious non-identity with Chaucer compromises the narrative's persuasiveness both as a religious gesture in the Dantean tradition and as an Ovidian tribute，however grotesque，to worldly experience．

But Chaucer's relationship to his precursors is not the only cause for undecidability in the tale．In his concluding remarks，the Manciple repeats theadvice his mother gave him about the importance of keeping silent．I will quote the mother's speech at length because its length is among the major concerns of this essay：

My sone，thenk on the crowe，a Goddes name！

My sone，keep weIthy tonge，and keep thy freend．

A wikked tonge is worse than a feend；

My sone，God of his endeIees goodnesse

WaIIed a tonge with teeth and Iippes eke，

For man shoIde hym avyse what he speeke．

My sone，fuIofte，for to muche speche

Hath many a man been spiIt，as cIerkes teche，

But for IiteIspeche avyseIy

Is no man shent，to speke generaIIy．

My sone，thy tonge shoIdestow restreyne

At aIIe tymes，but whan thou doost thy peyne

To speke of God，in honour and preyere．

The firste vertu，sone，if thou woIt Ieere，

Is to restreyne and kepe weI thy tonge；

Thus Ierne chiIdren whan that they been yonge．

My sone，of mucheI spekyng yveIe avysed，

Ther Iasse spekyng hadde ynough suffised，

Comth mucheI harm；thus was me tooId and taught．

In mucheIspeche synne wanteth naught．

Wostow whereof a rakeI tonge serveth？

Right as a swerd forkutteth and forkerveth

An arm a-two，my deere sone，right so

A tonge kutteth freendshipe aI a-two．

A jangIer is to God abhomynabIe．

Reed SaIomon，so wys and honorabIe；

Reed David in his psaIms；reed Senekke．

My sone，spek nat，but with thyn heed thou bekke．

DissimuIe as thou were deef，if that thou heere

A jangIer speke of periIous mateere．

The FIemyng seith，and Ierne it if thee Ieste，

That litel jangling causeth muchel reste．

My sone，if thou no wikked word hast seyd，

Thee thar nat drede for to be biwreyd；

But he that hath misseyd，I dar wel sayn，

He may by no wey clepe his word again．

Thyng that is seyd is seyd，and forth it gooth，

Though hym repente，or be hym nevere so looth．

He is his thrall to whom that he hath sayd

A tale of which he is now yvele apayd．

My sone，be war，and be noon auctour newe

Of tidynges，wheither they been false or trewe．

Whereso thou come，amonges hye or lowe，

Kepe wel thy tonge and thenk upon the crowe．

（IX 318 362）

A clear consensus has emerged that the mother's speech is too long．Yet the speech demonstrates figurative self-knowledge of its garrulity：God's“endelees goodnesse”produces anatomical limits（teeth and lips）that literally produce what they should metaphorically abridge（IX 321 322）．While recent critics disagree about the purpose of the

Manciple's Tale

and its relation to the rest of the

Canterbury Tales

，they seem unanimous in their disapproval of the mother's repetitiveness，rigidity，and monotony．Michael Kensak，“The Silences of Pilgrimage，”198；Alcuin Blamires，，，（New York：Oxford University Press，2006），225；Louise Fradenburg， “The Manciple's Servant Tongue：Politics and Poetry in，”52，no．1（1985）：109 110；Striar，“The‘Manciple's Tale，’”181；Edwin Craun，，，（Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1997），209 210；Richard Hazelton，“The：Parody and Critique，”62（1963）：20．Many critics are particularly agitated by the fact that mother speaks at length about the importance of brevity．The irony of the mother's speech coincides with the hypocrisy of the Manciple，who recommends prudential silence only after having，in his prologue，slandered the Cook—an aggressive and unnecessary speech act．Yet the critical consensus warrants scrutiny．Although the mother's

moralitas

is hardly succinct，it is not，as many critics casually proclaim，endless，and its reference to God's“endelees goodnesse”indicates that it isaware of the inevitable incongruity of linguistic efforts to resist language．Ironically enough，the rhetorical excess of her speech has inspired more than its share of hyperbole among critics．But it is easy to understand the critical appeal of the mother's apparent long-windedness：it gives genetic confirmation of the Manciple's hypocrisy and prefigures Chaucer's attempt to police his own language in the

Retraction

．Nonetheless，the preoccupation with the mother's rhetorical failure has caused critics to underestimate Chaucer's interest in the difficulties of didactic rhetoric．The Manciple's mother is not the only Chaucerian character to test the patience of modern readers with a lengthy oration．In

Troilus and Criseyde

，the poem's hero stretches out a single stanza from the

Filostrato

into a psychologically improbable monologue on predestination that takes up 132 lines（IV 953 1085）．See Stephen A．Barney，notes toin，1048 n 953 1085．Roughly one fourth of the

Wife of Bath's Tale

is devoted to the hag's bedside lecture（III 1105 1218）．In the

Franklin's Tale

，Dorigen produces a lament featuring a list of female suicides（V 1355 1456），a speech that is twice as long as the mother's

moralitas

．The

Knight's Tale

includes a 43-line sentence，an

occupatio

describing Arcite's funeral（I 2919 2962）．This last example is particularly relevant because the Manciple's mother's speech is，at 44 lines，almost the same size and，just as she incurs prolixity by warning against jangling，so the Knight ends up talking at length about what he claims he will not discuss．The Manciple's mother echoes the Knight's protracted fictions of brevity；the last narrative of the

Canterbury Tales

of fers a rhetorical critique of the first narrative，the

Knight's Tale

，the longest tale besides the Parson's（which is not actually a tale）．Perhaps the lengthiness of these speeches indicates the moral or aesthetic inadequacies of their speakers．But critics bored by lengthy passages too easily invoke irony to relieve the poet of the charge of aesthetic failure：rather than blame the poet for being tedious，they consider the tedium a consequence of the narrator's flawed personality or ethics．Chaucer seems to have periodically indulged a love of digression and amplification，and his contemporaries had a greater tolerance for prolixity than many modern scholars．Critics who insist on the tedium and long-windedness of the Manciple's mother should account for the

Tale of Melibee

．If Chaucer's audience could abide this vast collection of proverbs，why would they find the mother's

moralitas

indigestible？If Chaucer's audience could

not

tolerate

Melibee

，they may have found relief in the relatively concise

moralitas

of the

Manciple's Tale

．Still，the garrulous impression made by the mother is not a mere mistake that critics could have avoided．The mother's speech is genuinely verbose within the context of the

Manciple's Tale

—a brisk Ovidian fable，in which Phebus kills his adulterous wife without stopping to question the credibility of his informant，in which the wife has time neither to speak nor to be named，in which the crow's metamorphosis f rom white to black—the focus of most of the analogues—is dispatched by the Manciple almost as an afterthought．Chaucer's audience，however，inured to

amplificatio

not only by digressive poets but by long-winded preachers，might have been less quick than modern readers to blame the mother or her

moralitas

itself for the imbalance of the Manciple's discourse．At the very least，the ludicrousness of the

moralitas

is not selfevident．One critic who believes that the

moralitas

is too long distinguishes himself from other impatient readers by acknowledging the complexity of the mother's rhetorical task．Gregory Roper observes that the Manciple“counsels silence，but of course does so at such great length as to show unconsciously both the limitations and inevitability（as well as the inevitable limitations）of language：one must use language itself to defeat language．”Gregory Roper，“Dropping the Personae and Reforming the Self：and the End of，”inThe Canterbury TalesThe Parson's Tale，eds．Raybin and Holley（Kalamazoo：Western Michigan University，2000），165．Almost all of the ironic readings of the

moralitas

tacitly presuppose that there is some short and sweet method of persuading an interlocutor that silence is golden，that the method is readily available，and that the mother's inability or unwillingness to avail herself of it is a remarkable failure or perversion．It is by no means obvious that such a method exists．In many cases，silence can only be encouraged by breaking it at length．Although the mother's past disapproval of jangling bears an undeniably ironic relation to her son's undeterred jangling，the prolixity of the mother's speech would not violate decorum in the ancillary context the Mancipleestablishes for it，the context of parental instruction． For the relationship between theand education，see Fradenburg，“The Manciple's Servant Tongue，”111；Warren Ginsberg，“：Response，”25（2003）：336，337；Craun，，209．An abusive parent may silence a child by yelling“Shut up！”or hitting him．It is much more difficult，however，to persuade a child that silence has moral and practical benefits．A parent who attempts this persuasion must have recourse to certain rhetorical expedients（chiefly，repetition，simplification，and exaggeration）．The mother's speech makes an incongruous ending to the lurid fable of Phebus and the crow，a fable addressed to an adult audience of pilgrims，but it appears less strange as a representation of a parent's heavy-handed attempt to instruct her unruly child．If the condescending tone adopted by the mother is not an absolute rhetorical necessity，it is nonetheless plausible：many mothers adopt it，not without good reason．Mimesis and irony pull the end of the

Manciple's Tale

in two different directions．The mimetic plausibility of the mother's speech threatens to disarticulate ironic readings of the tale that would establish clear epistemological hierarchies（Chaucer and his critics are concise and smart；the Manciple and his mother are long-winded and stupid）．

A long tradition of authoritative discourse subtends the mother's speech．The Epistle of James，one of its sources，Sheila Delany，“Doer of the Word：the Epistle of St．James as a Source for Chaucer's，”17，no．3（1983）．not only promotes silence：it also registers the difficulty of teaching．James warns that few should imitate him and become teachers because teachers are held to a higher standard than ordinary people：

noIite pIures magistri fieri fratres mei scientes quoniam maius iudicium sumitis in muItis enim offendimus omnes si quis in verbo non offendit hic perfectus est vir potens etiam freno circumducere totum corpus．（James 3．1 2；Latin VuIgate）

［Be ye not many masters，my brethren，knowing that you receive the greater judgment．For in many things we aII offend．If any man offend not in word，the same is a perfect man．He is abIe aIso with a bridIe to Iead about the whoIe body；Douay-Rheims］．

James laments both the urgency and the futility of regulating speech：

et lingua ignis est universitas iniquitatis lingua constituitur in membris nostris quae maculat totum corpus et inflammat rotam nativitatis nostrae inflammata a gehenna．Omnis enim natura bestiarum et volucrum et serpentium etiam ceterorum domantur et domita sunt a natura humana．Linguam autem nullus hominum domare potest inquietum malum plena veneno mortifero．（James 3．6 8）

［And the tongue is a fire，a world of iniquity．The tongue is placed among our members，which defileth the whole body，and inflameth the wheel of our nativity，being set on fire by hell．For every nature of beasts，and of birds，and of serpents，and of the rest，is tamed，and hath been tamed，by the nature of man：But the tongue no man can tame，an unquiet evil，full of deadly poison］．

If an authority such as James is capable of this kind of linguistic pessimism，the failure of a mother to tame her child's overactive tongue should come as less of a surprise and should provoke less indignation．What critics perceive as the selfnullifying effect of the mother's discourse is not simply a byproduct of the Manciple's personal nihilism：James，the New Testament forbearer of the late medieval campaign against sins of the tongue，expresses dire reservations about the feasibility of taming speech．The Manciple and his mother are working，however strangely，in a long and orthodox tradition of linguistic pessimism．

The mother's speech is less extravagant than the counsels to silence in the twelfth-century guide for anchoresses，

Ancrene Wisse

．Some commentators have claimed that the Manciple's mother privileges worldly expediency over religious or moral concerns． In an earlier，unironic reading of the tale，J．B．Severs argues that it is dramatically appropriate for the Manciple to value expediency at the expense of ethics；“Is thea Success？”51，no．1（1952）．According to Kensak，the mother's speech“considers not virtue and vice but social obligations and self-preservation”；“Silences，”199．According to one critic，the mother“claims that restraint should only be laid aside for God-directed prayer and praise（IX．329 331），but she abandons it in speech directed to a very different use：prudential advice．”Craun，，209．Yet the

Ancrene Wisse

shows that the border between expediency and morality，the social world and the world of ascetic perfectibility，is porous．J．R．R．Tolkien，ed．，（London：Oxford University Press，1962），35 48．The text's bid for silence dwarfs the wholeand，like that，it is fond of aviary exempla：ibid．，35 36，45．The author advises anchoresses not to speak to a priest at great length because he might go away thinking poorly of them：“Icnawen ha is．for turh p ilke p ha weneeto beo wis ihalden．he understont p ha is sot．for ha hunteeefter pris．7 kecheelastunge．for ed te alre leaste hwen he is awei iwent．p eos ancre he wule seggen is of muche speche．” J．R．R．Tolkien，ed．，（London：Oxford University Press，1962），35 48．The text's bid for silence dwarfs the wholeand，like that，it is fond of aviary exempla：ibid．，35．It is in prayer that worldly concerns and transcendent devotion meet：the believer calls upon God to advance her desires or assuage her fears，and the

Ancrene Wisse

points out that worldly speech inter feres with prayer：“for p i is p we 3ei3eeup on him ofte．7 he firseehim awei frommard ure steuene．ne nule nawt iheren hire．for ha stinkeeto him al of p e worldes meaeelunge 7 of hire chafle．”In this context，the mother's warnings about the bad consequences of worldly speech serve a prophylactic function，hindering chatter from contaminating prayer．Although the guide for anchorites provides a more leisurely and rhetorically sumptuous exposition of the dangers of speech than the Manciple's mother，it is not free of the asperities of her discourse．Craun claims that the mother's“similitudes are so over-controlled，so emphatic，and so stripped down（like the whole discourse）that they lack any detestatory force and seem crude or grotesque．”Craun，，209．He cites as an example her comparison of the tongue that destroys friendship to the sword that“forkutteth and forkerveth/An arm a-two”（IX 340 341）．Yet the

Ancrene Wisse

makes a more emphatic and no less abrupt claim：“Ma sleaeword ten sweord．”Tolkien，Ancrene Wisse，39．Consider also the following Biblical precedents：the Book of Proverbs mentions“generatio quae pro dentibus gladios habet”（30：14［Latin Vulgate］），and the Psalmist recalls the“ferocientium filii hominum dentes eorum lancea et sagittae et lingua eorum gladius acutus”（56：5）．F．N．M．Diekstra observes how William Peraldus，a major source for the，elaborates these proverbs by comparing“the detractor to a monster with swords sticking from its mouth．He develops it further by describing the detractor as the beast from Daniel 7：5，a bear-like，flesh-eating monster with three rows of teeth．This beast，though it resembles man，is not human．Neither is the detractor human，since he feeds on human blood，which signifies other people's sins．The detractor is even worse in that he eats raw flesh as well as meat gone bad，as ravens do，and even during Lent when other people fast”；“The Art of Denunciation：Medieval Moralists on Envy and Detraction，”in，ed．Richard Newhauser（Toronto：Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Press，2005），443．Compared to the dental weaponry of the Bible and Peraldus's cannibalistic vision，the sword imagery of the Manciple's mother is subdued，hardly grotesque．It seems to occupy the middle ground between Peraldus's extravagance and the gnomic brevity of the．Kensak argues that the mother's anti-linguistic demands conflict with the Christian tradition—well-represented by Dante—that learned men should

not

remain silent：“The Manciple's call for silence flies in the face of this tradition，abrogating the divinely established functions of language and interrupting the linguistic process of salvation．”But the Manciple，a glorified caterer，is only a learned man in the unrealistic sense that all of Chaucer's speakers，benefitting from the poet's knowledge and prosodic elegance，are learned（a set of academic eminences that would include the Miller，the Reeve，the Shipman，and the Cook）．Furthermore，the

Ancrene Wisse

suggests that a preoccupation with restraining speech is not incompatible with the sacrament of confession．The guide for anchoresses includes both an extended plea for silence and an exposition of penance without feeling a need to reconcile these discourses．Though silence and confession are logically incompatible，each has its place in an ascetic education．The forms of linguistic restraint commended by the author of the

Ancrene Wisse

are severe：he observes that Mary，the ultimate model for anchoresses，spoke so infrequently that the Gospels only mention four times when she opened her mouth．Tolkien，，41．The author is so enamored of this（possibly chauvinistic）observation that he repeats it later in a different context；ibid．84．Although the

Ancrene Wisse

treats the topic of wayward speech on a considerably larger scale，it shares many features of the Manciple's

moralitas

，including parataxis，proverbial content，reliance on the authority of Seneca and Solomon，and an intermittently epigrammatic style that some consider pareddown or even“crude．”While Chaucer probably modeled the mother's speech on treatises concerning sins of the tongue like that included in the

Ancrene Wisse

，it is not a caricature of such treatises．Indeed，the ending of the

Manciple's Tale

seems comparatively low-key．The

Ancrene Wisse

also helps us to read the

Manciple's Tale

by reminding us that controlling speech is not easy—something that should be obvious but which critics of the tale rarely acknowledge：“Ofte we tencheehwen we foeon to speoken．forte speoke lutel 7 wel isette wordes．a(chǎn)h p e tunge is slubbri for ha wadeei wete．7 slit lihtliche forefrom lut word in to monie．a(chǎn)nt tenne as Salomon seie．In multiloquio non deerit peccatum．ne mei nawt mulche spechene ginne hit neauer se wel．beo wieute sunne．for f rom soehit slit to fals．ut of god in to sum uuel．from measure in to unimete．7 of a drope waxeein to a muche flod te adrencheep e sawle．” Tolkien，，41．The author is so enamored of this（possibly chauvinistic）observation that he repeats it later in a different context；ibid．，40 41．If extended speech，however wellintentioned，is never without sin，even the discourse that attempts to restrain speech falls prey to

multiloquium

．The mother's inability to tame the young Manciple might win sympathy as well as scorn from critics．Although she does not cite James'pessimistic assertion that man can master all beasts but not his own venomous tongue，she does represent the irreversible consequences of jangling：

But he that hath misseyd，I dar wel sayn，

He may by no wey clepe his word agayn．

Thyng that is seyd is seyd，and forth it gooth，

Though hym repente，or be hym nevere so looth．

（IX 353 356）

While they differ in tone，both the

Manciple's

and the

Parson's Tale

conf ront similar problems．Though Chaucer may have desired to set up the Manciple as a strawman for the Parson to knock down，the

Manciple's Tale

nonetheless reveals much about the rhetorical difficulties faced by the Parson as he concludes the

Canterbury Tales

．Indeed，the similarities between the Parson and the Manciple's mother—both advocates of renunciation（of sin，of speech） —may be as important as their differences．Both speakers upset generic expectations．The friction between the norms of everyday parental instruction and the Manciple's mythographic fabliau is analogous to the friction between the Parson's discourse and the conventions of the preceding fables from which it breaks．As a penitential treatise，the

Parson's Tale

is efficiently constructed：Lee Patterson has shown how Chaucer abbreviates his sources，abstaining f rom the theological digressions perpetrated by many other penitential writers．Lee Patterson，“The‘Parson's Tale’and the Quitting of the‘Canterbury Tales’，”34（1978）：339．But the

Parson's Tale

is also by far the longest of the

Canterbury Tales

．Compared to many other penitential tracts，the

Parson's Tale

is succinct；compared to the other

Canterbury Tales

，the Parson's tale is gigantic．In the context of the genre，the tale appears one way；in the context of Chaucer's book，it appears another．Likewise，the ending of the

Manciple's Tale

seems too long for the brief fable that precedes it，but，compared to non-Chaucerian discourse on restraining speech，the mother's call for the renunciation of jangling is not unusually prolix．The Manciple's mother is both a foil to the Parson and a collaborator in his project of encouraging renunciation．The ending of the

Manciple's Tale

is equivocal．Although Chaucer permits an ironic reading of the

moralitas

that exposes the hypocrisy of its speaker，the poet also makes room for a rebuttal to this ironic reading．We could interpret the linguistic pessimism of the

Manciple's Tale

as a valedictory report on the ethical failure of poetry． The most important representative of this reading is James Dean's“Dismantling the Canterbury Book，”100（1985）．Yet the ethical significance of the story of Apollo is opaque，and the Manciple's mother is closer to the Parson than many moralizing critics acknowledge．The kinship between these would-be edifying speakers suggests that instead of viewing the Parson's doctrinal certitude as a retrospective condemnation of the mother's insufficiently pious jangling，we should recognize that the Parson shares her rhetorical precariousness．We might profit from reading the mother's speech as Chaucer's commentary on the task of ending the unfinished

Canterbury Tales

，a book whose projected length（a hundred and twenty stories，give or take）renders it both practically unendable and vulnerable to accusations of

multiloquium

．In any case，the tale vividly enacts the following problem：“meaning is context-bound，so intentions do not in fact suffice to determine meaning；context must be mobilized．But context is boundless，so accounts of context never provide full determinations of meaning．Against any set of formulations，one can imagine further possibilities of context．”Jonathan Culler，（Ithaca，NY：Cornell University Press，1982），128．Soliciting opposed contexts（Dantean，Ovidian；ironic，mimetic；practical，penitential），the tale performs the“endelees”dissatisfaction of contextual mobility．

Bibliography參考文獻(xiàn)

Blamires，Alcuin．

Chaucer

，

Ethics

，

and Gender

．New York：Oxford University Press，2006．Print．Chaucer，Geoffrey．

The Riverside Chaucer

．Ed．Larry D．Benson．Boston：Houghton Mifflin，1987．Print．Craun，Edwin D．

Lies

，

Slander

，

and Obscenity in Medieval English Literature

．Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1997．Print．Culler，Jonathan．

On Deconstruction

．Ithaca：Cornell University Press，1982．Print．Dante Alighieri．

The Divine Comedy:Paradiso 1

．Trans．Charles S．Singleton．Princeton：Princeton University Press，1981．Print．Dean，James．“Dismantling the Canterbury Book．”

PMLA

100．5（1985）：746 762．Print．Delany，Sheila．“Doer of the Word：The Epistle of St．James as a Source for Chaucer's

Manciple's Tale

．”

Chaucer Review

17．3（1983）：250 254．Print．Diekstra，F(xiàn)．N．M． “The Art of Denunciation：Medieval Moralists on Envy and Detraction．”

In the Garden of Evil:The Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages

．Ed．Richard Newhauser．Toronto：Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies P，2005．431 454．Print．

Douay-Rheims Bible

＋

Challoner Notes

．DRBO．ORG，2014．Web．14 Sep．2014．Fradenburg，Louise． “The Manciple's Servant Tongue：Politics and Poetry in

The Canterbury Tales

．”

ELH

52．1（1985）：85 118．Print．Ginsberg，Warren．“The Manciple's Tale：Response．”

Studies in the Age of Chaucer

25（2003）：331 337．Print．Hawkins，Peter S．

Dante's Testaments:Essays in Scriptural Imagination

．Stanford：Stanford University Press，1999．Print．Hazelton，Richard．“The

Manciple's Tale

：Parody and Critique．”

Journal of English and Germanic Philology

62（1963）：1 31．Print．Kensak，Michael．“Apollo

exterminans

：The God of Poetry in Chaucer's

Manciple's Tale

．”

Studies in Philology

98．2（2001）：143 157．Print．—．“The Silences of Pilgrimage：

Manciple's Tale

，

Paradiso

，

Anticlaudianus

．”

Chaucer Review

34．2（1999）：190 206．Print．

Latin Vulgate Bible

（

Clementine

）．DRBO．ORG，2014．Web．14 Sep．2014．Ovid．

The Art of Love and Other Poems

．Trans．J．H．Mozley and G．P．Goold．Cambridge，MA：Loeb-Harvard University Press，1979．Print．—．

Metamorphoses I-VIII

．Trans．Frank Justus Miller and G．P．Goold．Cambridge：Loeb-Harvard University Press，2004．Print．Patterson，Lee．“The‘Parson's Tale’and the Quitting of the‘Canterbury Tales’．”

Traditio

34（1978）：331 380．Print．Powell，Stephen D．“Game Over：Defragmenting the End of the

Canterbury Tales

．”

Chaucer Review

37．1（2002）：40 58．Print．Roper，Gregory．“Dropping the Personae and Reforming the Self：

The Parson's Tale

and the End of

The Canterbury Tales

．”

Closure in

The Canterbury Tales：

The Role of

The Parson's Tale．Eds．David Raybin and Linda Tarte Holley．Kalamazoo：Medieval，Institute Publications，2000．151 175．Print．Rossi-Reder，Andrea．“Male Movement and Female Fixity in the

Franklin's Tale

and

Il Filocolo

．”

Masculinities in Chaucer:Approaches to Maleness in the Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Criseyde

．Ed．Peter G．Beidler．Cambridge：D．S．Brewer，1998．105 116．Print．Severs，J．B．“Is the

Manciple's Tale

a Success？”

Journal of English and Germanic Philology

51．1（1952）：1 16．Print．Striar，Brian．“The‘Manciple's Tale’and Chaucer's Apolline Poetics．”

Criticism:A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts

33．2（1991）：173 204．Print．Tolkien，J．R．R，ed．

Ancrene Wisse

．London：Oxford University Press，1962．Print．

The ContextuaI MobiIity of Chaucer's Manciple's Tale

Shawn Normandin

（Sungkyunkwan University）The essay demonstrates the undecidability of the

Manciple's Tale

，a poem that exhibits the supreme difficulty of restraining speech through speech，a dif ficulty that other commentators have underestimated．Chaucer alludes not only to Dante's Christian debasement of Apollo，but also to the effort made by Ovid's poetry to celebrate erotic experience without the supplement of Apollo's inspiration．While Dante rejects Apollo because he turns out to be an inadequate guide to the Christian paradise，Ovid rejects him in part because of the god's inadequacy as a worldly lover．The Manciple's disparagementof the god of poetry and the god's destruction of his musical instruments dovetail with the discourse of the Manciple's mother，who tries to teach her son the value of silence．Her speech sounds hypocritically verbose within the context of the

Manciple's Tale

—a brisk Ovidian fable．Yet the prolixity of this speech would not violate decorum in the ancillary context the Manciple provides for it，the context of parental instruction．The mother's speech is an odd way of concluding the lurid story of Apollo and the crow，a story addressed to an adult audience of pilgrims，but it is less strange as a representation of a parent's attempt to instruct her son．Mimesis and irony pull the ending of the

Manciple's Tale

in two different directions．Recognition of this mimetic aspect might deter readers f rom insisting—as much criticism does—that the

Manciple's Tale

stands as a synecdoche for the whole storytelling contest preceding the

Parson's Prologue

，for the“fables and swich wrecchednesse”the Parson scorns．While they differ greatly in tone，both the

Manciple's

and the

Parson's Tale

labor under analogous rhetorical burdens．While Chaucer may have desired to set up the Manciple as a straw man for the Parson to knock down，the

Manciple's Tale

nonetheless reveals much about the rhetorical difficulties faced by the Parson—or by anyone who uses language to restrain an audience's（speech）acts．Indeed，the similarities between the Parson and the Manciple's mother—both advocates of renunciation（of sin，of speech）—may be more important than their differences．Both speakers upset generic expectations．The friction between the norms of everyday parental instruction and the Manciple's mythographic fabliau is analogous to the friction between the Parson's penitential tract and the narrative conventions of the preceding tales f rom which it breaks．This essay draws evidence from Dante's

Paradiso

，Ovid's

Ars amatoria

and

Metamorphoses

，Chaucer's

Troilus and Criseyde

and

Franklin's Tale

，the Latin Vulgate Bible，and the

Ancrene Wisse

．Chaucer；

Manciple's Tale

；Dante；Ovid；deconstruction

肖恩· 諾曼丁，波士頓大學(xué)英語文學(xué)博士，曾在《樣本》和《詮釋者》上發(fā)表若干喬叟研究論文，另有文章見于《美國(guó)文學(xué)短文與問答》和《得克薩斯文學(xué)與語言研究》。現(xiàn)任教于首爾成均館大學(xué)英文系。