The signifier and the prologue to the "Tale of Melibee"

“When Chaucer excuses himself, something suspicious is always happening.”

In this case, we can suspect Chaucer in his prologue and “Tale of Melibee” of taking liberties with language, mocking allegory and reliance on textual authority, separating signifier from the signified and exposing the unreliability and elusiveness of language by manipulating his translation of a translation of a collection of quotes. In this post, I’ll focus on the prologue to the tale, and throw out a bit of graduate student, Derridaean gobbledygook.

Chaucer’s play with language begins in the precursor to the “Tale of Melibee,” when he claims that the same story told by different people and in different ways are basically the same “sentence,” or their substance and essential meaning are the same (see footnote for line 947). He plays with the meaning of the word “sentence,” confusing the reader as to whether he means substance or essential meaning, or even wise saying or maxim. Does he mean the content (words) or meaning (message) of his tale, the elusive signified, remains the same, whether the verbal expression, or the signifiers, change? This issue evoked in my mind an image of the signified as an arrow, the signifiers on a partitioned, spinning wheel and Chaucer as Pat Sajak, spinning and choosing words arbitrarily and telling us that every word earns the same amount of money. (Maybe a bad allegory, but you get the idea.)

This arbitrary declaration becomes even more so when Chaucer uses the example of the four gospels to argue that “hir sentence is al sooth, / and alle acorden as in hire sentence, / al be ther in hir telling difference … douteless hir sentence is al oon” (946-48, 952). Basically, according to Chaucer, even though the apostles tell the story of Jesus differently, the substance is all the same. However, the gospels are told differently, with different anecdotes and using different words, which forces the reader to determine whether these differences alter the gospels’ substance or their general meaning. This echoes Chaucer’s treatment of “Tale of Melibee,” in which he translates from the French translation of a Latin treatise, arbitrarily choosing which English words to use. Despite his denials — “blameth me nat; for, as in my sentence, / Shul ye nowher fynden difference / Fro the sentence of this tretys lyte / After the which this murye tale I write” — Chaucer’s choice of words decidedly influences the ‘sentence’ or substance of the tale (961-64).

Thus, before he launches into the long-winded, rambling “Tale of Melibee,” Chaucer declares the premise that whatever his arbitrary word choices in translating, the substance/meaning/message of his tale is identical to the Dominican friar Reynaud de Louens’ translation of Albertanus’ Liber consolationis et consilii, a collection of wise sayings, or “sentences.” I don’t know about contemporary readers, but modern readers are well aware of the errors and mistranslations that can occur, as well as mistakes in transcription when copying manuscripts. Chaucer’s adamant (but sarcastic) avowal about sameness places the issue on the table for us readers to judge, and we would do well to keep in mind Helen Cooper’s statement that “when Chaucer excuses himself, something suspicious is always happening” (311). Chaucer tells us he’s not distorting or changing anything in the tale, but as we will see in the Tale, he then goes on to manipulate language, playing at will with sign and signifier, creating anxiety in the reader about his meaning and intentions.

Cooper, Helen. "The Tale of Melibee." Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. 310-322.