We must not, however, omit to take notice that, whilst Chaucer owes but little to Boccaccio as regards his subject-matter, it was from him, in particular, that he took his _general plan_. This is well shewn in the excellent and careful essay by M. Bech, printed in 'Anglia,' vol. v. pp. 313-382, with the title--'Quellen und Plan der _Legende of Goode Women_ und ihr Verhältniss zur _Confessio Amantis_.' At p. 381, Bech compares Chaucer's work with Boccaccio's, and finds the following points of resemblance. 1. Both works treat exclusively of women; one of them speaks particularly of 'Gode Women,' whilst the other is written 'De Claris Mulieribus.' 2. Both works relate chiefly to tales of olden time. 3. In both, the tales follow each other without any intermediate matter. 4. Both are compacted into a whole by means of an introductory Prologue. 5. Both writers wish to dedicate their works to a queen, but effect this modestly and indirectly. Boccaccio addresses his Prologue to a countess, telling her that he wishes to dedicate his book to Joanna, queen of Jerusalem and Sicily; whilst Chaucer veils his address to queen Anne under the guise of allegory. 6. Both record the fact of their writing in a time of comparative leisure. Boccaccio uses the words: 'paululum ab inerti uulgo semotus et a ceteris fere solutus curis.' 7. Had Chaucer finished his work, his last Legend would have related to Alcestis, i.e. to the queen herself. Boccaccio actually concludes his work with a chapter 'De Iohanna Hierusalem et Sicilie regina.' See further in Bech, who quotes Boccaccio's 'Prologue' in full. To this comparison should be added (as Bech remarks) an accidental coincidence which is even more striking, viz. that the work 'De Claris Mulieribus' bears much the same relation to the more famous one entitled 'Il Decamerone,' that the Legend of Good Women does to the Canterbury Tales.