Alceste has a list of excuses to offer the God of Love which may be applicable to Chaucer's crime:

In spite of Alceste's concern for justice, she expresses no high regard for Chaucer's abilities and in fact believes him guilty of the crime of enditing ‘despit of love’. Having put the notion of wrongful accusation to one side she broaches the possibility of mitigating circumstances or diminished responsibility. It is not easy to gauge how seriously the audience might have regarded a defence which depends on Chaucer's mental capacity or lack of it. Was he, as Alceste says, too ‘nyce’ (ignorant or foolish) to know what he was doing, and therefore ‘innocent’ of the implications of what his translations were saying? In this context, being innocent and thus free of ‘malice’ or evil intent has no very flattering connotation.