Chaucer Both Shakespeare's Hamlet and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales do offer universal truths. As Volve states about Chaucer's work in particular: "The tale is firmly anchored in one specific period of history…but it seeks as well to represent other periods and other lives," (300-301). Likewise, Shakespeare's plays like Hamlet have endured precisely because there are few cultural, geographic, or temporal barriers that would prevent universal understanding and interpretation. Texts like these lend themselves towards literary regurgitation; allowing for the recycling of themes, characters, and conflicts.

However, within the texts, reality is skewed, distorted, and ambiguous. This is especially notable in Hamlet, because of the play-within-the-play. Chaucer accomplishes a similar goal by cloaking themes in the garb of ancient Greece. For Shakespeare, reality and the truth are absolute. There is no moment in the play at which the audience is led to doubt the guilt of Claudius. The truth might not be easy,...

For Chaucer, universal truth is less apparent. Upon his death, Arcite becomes suddenly humble: testimony that he might indeed love Emelye. Morality is even more ambiguous in The Knight's Tale than it is in Hamlet, in which there are clear evils as those represented by Claudius. Chaucer gives Emelye a voice, empowering her beyond the passive feminine role she might have been offered. Yet there is no overarching ethical value in the tale. The Miller's Tale is even more morally ambiguous: given the tendency to sympathize with Alisoun and her suitors more than for the poor carpenter. The audience cares little for the real motivations and feelings of the main characters. For instance, what does Alisoun really want? There are no universal moral prescriptions that would hold back the story from being told, and re-told. The Miller's Tale is especially suitable for literary perpetuity. Its fart jokes and lighthearted view of love are akin to modern tales such as those told in…