been seen, he represents himself as prone to the habit of casting his eyes
on the ground; and we may feel tolerably sure that to this external manner
corresponded a quiet, observant disposition, such as that which may be
held to have distinguished the greatest of Chaucer's successors among
English poets. To us, of course, this quality of modesty in Chaucer makes
itself principally manifest in the opinion which he incidentally shows
himself to entertain concerning his own rank and claims as an author.
Herein, as in many other points, a contrast is noticeable between him and
the great Italian masters, who were so sensitive as to the esteem in which
they and their poetry were held. Who could fancy Chaucer crowned with
laurel, like Petrarch, or even, like Dante, speaking with proud humility
of "the beautiful style that has done honour to him," while acknowledging
his obligation for it to a great predecessor? Chaucer again and again
disclaims all boasts of perfection, or pretensions to pre-eminence, as a
poet. His Canterbury Pilgrims have in his name to disavow, like Persius,
having slept on Mount Parnassus, or possessing "rhetoric" enough to
describe a heroine's beauty; and he openly allows that his spirit grows
dull as he grows older, and that he finds a difficulty as a translator in
matching his rhymes to his French original. He acknowledges as
incontestable the superiority of the poets of classical antiquity:--

--Little book, no writing thou envy,
But subject be to all true poesy,
And kiss the steps, where'er thou seest space
Of Virgil, Ovid, Homer, Lucan, Stace (Statius).

But more than this. In the "House of Fame" he expressly disclaims having
in his light and imperfect verse sought to pretend to "mastery" in the art
poetical; and in a charmingly expressed passage of the "Prologue" to the
"Legend of Good Women" he describes himself as merely following in the