A major difference between the Manciple’s Tale and the story depicted in the Metamorphoses is the emphasis on social status. The Manciple takes great pains to establish Phebus’s high social worth. He then goes on to say: “This Phebus, which that thoghte upon no gile/ Deceived was, for al his jolitee/ For under him another hadde she/ A man of litel reputacioun/ Nat worth to Phebus in comparisoun” (196-200). In Ovid’s story, on the other hand, the narrator does not stress Phebus’s high status and refers to the lover simply as “the youth of Thessaly” (103). As a result of Chaucer’s alterations, the wife commits two transgressions: she is unfaithful to her husband and she crosses clearly defined class lines. Her act thus threatens to disrupt the social order. Since the figure of Phebus is associated with order, the murder of his wife could be read as an attempt to reestablish order. But his subsequent irrational behavior toward the bird makes such a reading impossible. The figure normally associated with order thus comes to be associated with chaos. A similar reversal takes place in the Manciple’s Prologue when the figure associated with disorder gains the capacity to bring harmony: “I se wel, it is necessarye/ Where that we goon, good drinke we with us carye/ For that wol turne rancour and disese/ T’acord and love, and many a wrong appese/ O Bacus, yblessed be thy name/ That so kanst turnen ernest into game” (95-100). I am curious to find out what other people make of this reversal.