I actually had a lot of fun reading the General Prologue in the Middle English. Although it was difficult and at times undecipherable, somehow the Middle English brought out more of the texture and wit in Chaucer’s writing. His rhymes gave a regular swing and punch to his lines which often served as a platform for a humorous jab; I could almost hear the rise and fall of his voice and the comical emphasis as he explained that “hir over-lippe she wiped so clene/ that in hir coppe ther was no ferthying sene.” Ostensibly he is praising her etiquette, yet the tone facilitated by the rhyme structure, by the somewhat disturbing rapaciousness implied by the absence of even a “ferthying,” even by the word “over-lip,” which seems to hint at appetite and its concealment, alerts us to the irony embedded in his treatment.

Like Christen, I noticed that his treatment of some characters seemed to be much less critical and even approving. The clerk, parson, and plowman stood out to me amongst the sea of other extremely flawed characters. Perhaps I missed the subtlety of Chaucer’s critique of these characters, but, in contrast to the others, they seemed superior, at least with respect to morality and avoiding hypocrisy. I couldn’t figure out what Chaucer might be trying to say with such an arrangement; are clerks, parsons, and plowmen more naturally inclined to honesty and moral goodness than others? Are they random choices because who is good among humanity has less to do with their class and position in life than their individual character? Or is it perhaps because each of them represents one of the lowest members of the hierarchy in their respective estates, and the less privileged are less inclined to corruption? Or he is in fact criticizing their naiveté, or lack of ambition, or some other flaw, hiding it under a veil of approval as he does with each of his other characters?