The narrator contradicts himself glaringly on two occasions in the Manciple's Tale. First, he claims that he is "a man noght textuel" and "wol not telle of textes never a del" immediately after citing a variety of sources in order to rationalize the irrationality of Phebus's measures to restrict his wife's freedom and ensure her fidelity (cf. 162 - 187). The absence of such allusions in the more traditional sources of the tale, amplifies the significance of the narrator's attempt to cover his tracks and downplay his knowledge of external sources. It is quizzical why he doing this when the elucidation of the woman's actions adds realism and logical justification to his tale.

The narrator again contradicts himself when he indicts men - "Alle thise ensamples speke I by thise men/ that ben untrewe, and nothing by wommen./ For men han evere a likerous appetit" - only to present a tale of a woman's adultery (187-189). Again, the narrator's interjections seem incongruous with his tale.

It seems that the narrator is trying to adopt a persona and stance that directly oppose that of the tale's ostensible teller and its narrative. The tale-teller demonstrates learnedness and sophistication, and establishes credility through his multiple allusions; the narrator tries to portray himself as a simple-minded and "boistous" (211) relayer of folklore. The tale recounts the a woman's betrayal of her husband; the narrator is adamant that only males are guilty of extra-marital affairs. I wonder what the purpose establishing dual and duelling narrator identities through this paradoxical set-up could be.