So
in class Dr. MB set out the idea that the combination of Thopas and Melibee is
to point out how stories turn out when they are either all form or all content.
I thought it was an interesting idea and it seems to make sense. However, thinking
back over the tales I am starting to see some points that don’t appear to fit.
For example, for being a tale that stresses form way too far, “Sir Thopas” is a
pretty ramshackle construction. The rhyme changes without reason. The stanzas
go on for so long with six lines and then at seemingly random places jump to
seven then back down again. Plus, as Dr. MB pointed out, the length of fits is
based on an untenable pattern. So if “Sir
Thopas” is supposed to be the tale with all shell and no insides why is the
shell so deformed?
Pondering
over this I looked back over the “Tale of Melibee.” When Melibee is first
gathering advice from the mob of people he invited over, he got some interesting
advice from the surgeons. They said “that right as maladies ben cured by hir
contraries, right so shal men warisshe were by vengeaunce” (1017). When I read
that I thought they were saying that the cure for war was vengeance because vengeance
is war’s opposite. I didn’t understand why they were opposites but I let it be
and moved on. Later on we learn that Melibee was also confused by their statement.
He said “right as they han doon me a contrarye, right so should I doon he
another… and thane I have cured oon contrararye by another” (1280-1282). After
this, Prudence tells him he is wrong, quotes Paul, and proves that what they
really meant was that “for good and wikkednesse ben two contraries, and pees
and werre…” (1289). She goes on that you have to heal things with their opposite;
so to heal war you use peace. Having recently heard a good presentation on medieval
medicine (again, good job with that), I can see that what she is saying and
that she is probably right. Still, I would have never have got so much from
what the surgeons actually said.
Ok,
I am going to answer questions before they are asked. Yes that is all outside
what we were supposed to read. Let me say that I was feeling adventurous, which
may have actually been a touch of stupidity, when I sat down to read this tale
and I went ahead and read the whole thing. I can say now that it doesn’t get
any better in the middle. Back to the tale…
Maybe
I am being nitpicky, but it seems that some of the arguments prudence makes are
of the kind I would be proud to pull off in a close reading paper. Some of the
things she works with (what the surgeons said is my best example) don’t seem as
clear and sturdy as she makes them out to be. It seems that the logic of this
story is not only tedious but shaky in places. I think that the “Tale of
Melibee” has the same sort of problems with its content that “Sir Thopas” has
with its form. Perhaps what Chaucer is getting at is that when your take once piece
of storytelling and not the other not only do you get bad tales, but also the
very element that you isolate breaks down. Form starts to break down when it
has nothing on the inside, and content becomes illogical with nothing to put it
in shape.
