Based on the text, what do you think the moral of the Manciple’s Tale is? The narrator himself quotes his mother who says, “The first virtue, son, if though will learn, / Is to restrain and guard well thy tongue;” (332-333), suggesting that the takeaway is supposed to be to stay silent or be silenced. However, Phoebus’s wife, who never spoke, remained silent and was still silenced. Which message was your greater overall takeaway? Do you think that was intended to be the greatest takeaway? Or is this message intentionally left unclear and up to interpretation?
Medieval Feminism
ENGL 361 and WGST 322 | Spring 2020 | Dr. Myra Seaman
I think that the theme of silence can be applied to each character. Obviously, we never hear a word from Phoebus’s wife however we know what people are saying about her. I think that after the murder we are supposed to think that the crow should have minded his own business because it resulted in Phoebus acting out of anger even though he apparently loved his wife very much. I think that (clearly) Phoebus is majorly at fault and so is the crow. Through everything we have read this semester, affairs are a common plot line and were common during this time period. For modern readers, this is definitely a misogynistic tale. If the crow had “restrain[ed] and guard[ed] well thy tongue” things would have definitely gone better.
In The Manciple’s Tale who is the third person that is called an anti hero including Phoebus .
I actually agree with the idea that the takeaway was intended to be to stay silent or to be silenced. I think Chaucer wanted his readers to notice that the only voices heard from in The Manciple’s Tale were that of Phoebus and the bird. He intended for Phoebus’ wife to not have speaking lines or to be heard from herself in order to point out the difference in WHO should be stay silenced or stay silenced. While it is more evident why Phoebus’ wife is silenced, the way she is silenced is significant. At first, she may be silenced since she is his wife, thus not an individual, but belonging under his name. “O dear wife! O gem of delight! Who were to me so stable and also so true, Now liest thou dead, with face pale of hue, Full guiltless, that dare I swear, indeed!” (l. 274-277). Then she is obviously purposely silenced when Phoebus murders her out of rage. I think this message is one that is pretty hard to ignore, however, the extent of it can be up to interpretation and can be viewed many ways the deeper you look into who silenced and how/why.
Initially, I thought that there may have been theme that got lost in interpretation, or skewed along the way. However, after reading Rileys blog post- I do agree that Chaucer’s intent may have been bringing awareness to whose voices we are hearing. This is a theme that overlaps with society today because the voices that are the most prevalent are the voices of men. For example, during the Stormi Daniels “scandal,” the voices being primarily heard were that of Donald Trump, and the the attorneys who were interpreting the situation. While this is not an identical scenario it still draws attention to the silencing of women in reference to their prior actions.
I think Chaucer left us a few ways to interpret this tale, but I think the Manciple’s intended moral is represented through what he shares from his mother: “My son, think on the crow, in God’s name! My son, hold well thy tongue, and keep thy friend” (lines 318-319). The surface level understanding of his tale warns us to hold our tongues to keep ourselves safe, especially when we know something that could be potentially hurtful like the wife’s affair. Still, the obvious lack of voice given to the wife leads me to another kind of reading. For women as well as other marginalized people, this advice can be considered useless because people of power (ex: Phoebus) have proven to exercise their power over them regardless if they remain silent or choose to defend themselves. Maybe the wife’s character wasn’t really developed in the first place to recognize the futileness/helplessness of these situations (domestic violence, jealous/toxic husbands) for women. I’m not sure if the tale can completely support this reading but it’s just something I was considering.
I have to say that I disagree with the idea that the moral of the story is ‘stay silent or be silenced’. It is definitely true that the character of the wife is silenced, however, I believe that the theme is more along the lines of ‘watch what you say, because you can’t take it back’. Additionally, ‘words can hurt’. The male characters are the only ones who get to speak, and they cause immense harm towards the silenced woman. It is Apollo’s intense distrust of his loyal wife that leads him to believe the crow’s words without any evidence, thus killing his innocent wife.
In a twist, the female narrator voice comes in at the end, warning her son (the initial narrator) of what harm careless words can cause. Despite how harmful it seems to have the only woman in the story silenced, I do not think that was the motive of the story. It seems to be that the motive is to warn men of how their carelessness and distrust of women can harm them, and that the wife was simply a way to tell that story.
I agree with this as the moral of the story. I think the fact that the wife never has a voice in the story in the first place means this overall idea of silence does not apply to her as much as it does to the bird. I think it’s a tough call to relate the bird and the wife to each other, as the bird is a character in the story with action and dialogue and the wife is not. In that sense, I agree that the moral is to watch what you say and maybe even who you say it to; and to think before you speak. I also think that is the moral that was intended to be displayed in the story, and while I think the argument of the moral being, “silence or be silenced” does fit and is easy to fall into, it is not enforced enough outwardly and was very unlikely to be the intended moral of the story. I also agree with the female narrator’s voice supporting that the main sense of this story is not that women should be silenced.
I think it’s interesting that the wife is punished with death but then the crow is sort of blamed and framed as the real wrong-doer. If the wife had never been unfaithful, then the crow wouldn’t have had anything to say about her, and wouldn’t have been punished. The text wants to sell itself as a “snitches get stitches” narrative, but really leads us to overlook the wife who is given the death penalty for her “lechery.” Also Apollo faces loss due to his brash actions. He is punished in the story as well for being so impulsive and rage-filled.
All the characters in the story face some sort of punishment for their crimes, except maybe the lady’s lover, we never see this individual.
I think that interpretations of any text are left up in the air based on how it relates to the reader, and what evidence can be provided to argue a perspective. While I agree that the wife is silenced and that this can be interpreted as an act of misogyny, I don’t believe that the punishment fits the crime in regards to Phoebus killing his wife. I also think that here, still, women are portrayed as scandalous, lustful beings who are also associated with sexual promiscuity—if this were not the case, I do not think she would have been killed so quickly, or at all. The women in this story, however, are silenced. So I definitely see why this can be argued as a misogynist narrative.
As several other people mentioned, the theme of the story seems to be that of silence and holding your tongue. This seems to be the most obvious theme since Phoebus warns people to hold their tongue and be mindful of what they say. He wants people to learn from his mistakes and recognize how detrimental spilling secrets can be to all those involved. It’s definitely a misogynistic story because the wife has most likely been told by her husband to remain silent.
I believe the moral of the tale is to watch what you say before you speak because there are consequences. With the case of the wife, women weren’t held to a higher power, and in the tale, the wife was equivalent to the bird who was caged and controlled. I agree with Eris when she says that it was advising others to “watch what you say because you can’t take it back.” I think by the mother at the end having a voice and warning her child backs up the idea that it’s not whether you are silenced or stay silenced, but what you say can cost you. I do believe that this narrative is misogynistic, but it may not be saying that all women should be silenced.
I don’t think the moral of the tale changes from what it’s intent was. The wife’s silence isn’t going against that virtue, but I don’t think it was intended to be something she could control that would harm her. The message is to the crow who learns the secrets. The same message would apply if the crow caused Phoebus to murder someone else for what he was told. I don’t think anything would change if the woman wasn’t the reason why. It’s not a lesson on that, it’s one on holding ones tongue.
I agree with silence being a big theme throughout this text. It seems like each character has a little bit of silence within each other then that is portrayed differently between the characters.
A lot of that can be from the murders that continue to happen throughout the story. We are under the assumption that the crow should keep to herself, or that’s what we’re supposed to think but it didn’t work out very well since Phoebus is angered.
You can get cheap d4 item and gold at https://www.d4golds.com/