Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The tenth and final day belongs to Panfilo, who sets as the theme "liberality or magnifience, whether in matters of love or otherwise." His purpose in choosing this theme is to "enflame" the group and inspire them to worthy deeds.

And thus our lives, which cannot help but be brief in these mortal bodies of ours, will be preserved through the fame of our praiseworthy achievements -- a goal that those who do not serve their bellies, like brute beasts, should not only desire, but zealously pursue and make every effort to attain.

Many, if not most, of the stories in the Decameron feature characters who are driven by appetites and simple sensual desires. The book itself has been called "la commedia umana," in contrast to Dante's "commedia divina," precisely because it celebrates the earthly aspect of human nature. So the stories told on the final day are a departure from this. Is this because they are preparing to return to the world? Maybe just returning to a world wracked by plague and mortality requires some magnanimity.

Why do they return to a filthy infested Florence when they have safe country palaces at their disposal?

The stories told on the last day are almost inverse images of the stories told throughout the rest of the book. Chivalry and selflessness run through many of the stories, in an almost fantastical way, just as sensuality runs through the rest of the book. In Story 5, for example, where Ansaldo hires a magician to perform an impossible task so that he can have Gilberto's wife, Dianora. Gilberto lets Dianora go, but then Ansaldo is "so moved by Gilberto's liberality that his ardor gradually turned to compassion" and all carnal desire is extinguished in his heart. How does this sentiment compare to the stories told on other days? Is sensuality no longer to be acknowledged?

What strikes me about Story 8 -- the one about Titus and Gisippus wrangling over Sophronia -- is that after all the plot twists, Sophronia is strangely indifferent to who she ends up with. She simply switches her affections to Titus. "Being a sensible woman, she quickly made a virtue of necessity by bestowing on him the love she had once felt for Gisippus, after whcih she accompanied him to Rome..." The story is a celebration of friendship, but what about poor Sophronia?

The Decameron starts with a moral shock in the story of Ceparello, and it ends with another in the story of Griselda, but it's shocking in almost the opposite way. Ceparello is outrageous, hubristic to the point of hilarity, while Griselda is a figure of immense pity and sadness. She's almost like a Job character, but it's one thing to be tested like that by God and another to be tortured by a spouse.

Is the placement of this tale intentional? Is there a reason that the first and last tales are positioned the way they are? Is there a reason the stories on the first day are transgressive and the last day's are idealistic or exemplary?

The Author's Conclusion is almost entirely a defense against accusations of unseemliness, and once again he insists that he is writing for ladies. Is this perhaps tongue in cheek? (What would Sophronia say?)

And finally, I have to ask this: Is the Decameron worthy of inclusion in the Western Canon? Is it truly a masterpiece worthy of a place next to the Divine Comedy or The Canterbury Tales? If so, why?

I got an outro pointing some things out in the text.
First of all the goal of the Decamerone might have been less allegorical than you might think. It claims that, as the intro and interlude by Bocaccio both claim the goal was to re-create, in the more literal sense of the word.

Intertwined with the school of Galenus and the four humours there was the believe that your mind had influence on your fysicial well-being. To counter the Pest one had to 'remake' himself with leisurely things. (This would put the melancholy of day 4 in antoher light now, wouldn't it?)


Then the return to the city can be seen as an end to the process of recreation. But I also think they want to be ahead of both rumours that could harm their status and be ahead of quarrels. Already in this last day there seems to be a sort of contest (who can tell a story in which the main character is more to praise)

What my outro also pointed out was that in his conclusion Bocaccio is quite sure of himself that he created something rather great that's quite different from other literature of his time (although his claim for it to be for women with too much time on their hands and writing in vernicular might've been to avoid criticism).
A couple of years later though, after he met Petrarca and put on a new frame of thought, he kind of denounces the whole thing. He even takes the first steps to become a part of the clergy.

Thomas wrote: "... while Griselda is a figure of immense pity and sadness. She's almost like a Job character, but it's one thing to be tested like that by God and another to be tortured by a spouse. ..."

This story was painful to read, Griselda is simultaneously winning the prize for "the best wife" and "the worst mother". The story is almost as cruel as the Book of Job, at least her husband was "kind" enough not to kill the children.

On the other hand, I really liked the 9th story, it reminded me a lot of the Odyssey. The 8th story is a pleasant tale of true friendship, but the way Sophronia is treated as a prized horse is indeed troubling for the 21st-century reader.


Thomas wrote: "And finally, I have to ask this: Is the Decameron worthy of inclusion in the Western Canon? Is it truly a masterpiece worthy of a place next to the Divine Comedy or The Canterbury Tales? If so, why? ..."

Many stories are dull and pointless, others are just cruel. Most characters are static (with some exceptions like the revengeful student). Excepting Pampinea and Dioneo, the storytellers are also static and not well developed. Many stories are funny or clever, but I don't think Boccaccio had in mind a master plan or grand-scale allegory. Nevertheless, I think the Decameron has its place in the Western Cannon because:

1. Boccacio explored new narrative techniques and it was hugely influential on later authors. Shakespeare used the Decameron as inspiration for many of his plays like "All's Well That Ends Well" or "The Winter's Tale".
2. It provides a sample of life and morality during the Late Middle Ages, not only in the Italian city-states but also in Western Europe and Eastern Mediterranean.

I also found Dioneo's story (#10) horrifying. There's certainly no generosity in it. It's really beyond belief that a husband would torment his wife for a decade in this way--it's a magical fantasy to teach a lesson, I guess. I can't escape the feeling that it's a lesson to the young ladies on what true feminine virtue is, given just before they return to society. It kind of poisoned the whole book for me.

Roger wrote: "I also found Dioneo's story (#10) horrifying. There's certainly no generosity in it. It's really beyond belief that a husband would torment his wife for a decade in this way--it's a magical fantasy..."

He himself does remark that the husband gets out of it too easily. (Petrarca however did rewrite is as some devotion themed phabel, where the harsh judgment about the husband is left out)

Thomas wrote: "She's almost like a Job character, but it's one thing to be tested like that by God and another to be tortured by a spouse. ..."
It reminded me of Job's story, too. Could Boccaccio be making an objection towards the cruel, random fate or God himself in the times of the plague? or is it an attack on the blind devotion of people?
I didn't know he later tries to join the clergy, but could he have had some doubts about the Judo-Christian faith at this time?

Marieke wrote: "I got an outro pointing some things out in the text.
First of all the goal of the Decamerone might have been less allegorical than you might think. It claims that, as the intro and interlude by Bocaccio both claim the goal was to re-create, in the more literal sense of the word..."

In the author's conclusion, he said "I had an obligation to write down-what was actually said, which means that the speakers should have made their stories truly beautiful, and then I could have written them down that way." and "I am not shamed if some of them were less than beautiful, because there is no craftsman other than God who has made everything perfect and complete." This might just be self-defense but isn't he saying something like what Dioneo said about his story, "Hey, I tell it like it is. I don't approve of it though."? By invoking God as the craftsman of everything perfect, whereas the reality isn't so perfect, is he being humble as a mere human or storyteller or mocking God as the whole root of all these 'less than beautiful' stories that tell it like it is?

If I'm not mistaken, the abbot in Elissa's tale (#2) is the first upright churchman (or churchwoman) we've encountered. Other than maybe the holy friar in the first story of the first day (by Pamphilo), who is merely preposterously gullible.

Was Griselda's suffering in the last story supposed to be an illustration of how a woman from a poor background could be the ideal obedient wife? So more of a class commentary than a gender one?

If it is of interest to anyone, my friend randomly knew the translator of the version I read and said that many of The Decameron's tales reflect the more liberal view of marriage in Italy where affairs were commonplace and accepted, which was a contrast to how I read many of the stories where the women seem like men's properties? Maybe they're an exploration of how women have the right to extramarital fun as much as men?

Borum wrote: "It reminded me of Job's story, too. Could Boccaccio be making an objection towards the cruel, random fate or God himself in the times of the plague? or is it an attack on the blind devotion of people? ..."

The characters of Ceparello and Griselda are so extreme, but in opposite ways, that I think they point to the need for moderation. Boccaccio starts the book by talking about how he was enflamed by love and how his friends helped him to regain his equilibrium. He intends for these stories to serve the same purpose, to help readers recover from an imbalance of "humors" and to regulate their appetites.

Do stories like this help us to do that?

Clarissa wrote: "Was Griselda's suffering in the last story supposed to be an illustration of how a woman from a poor background could be the ideal obedient wife? So more of a class commentary than a gender one?

I..."

Day 7 (under Dioneo) was devoted to the ways women fooled their husbands and carried on affairs.

Does anyone have any theories on which of the women the men are in love with?

Roger wrote: "Does anyone have any theories on which of the women the men are in love with?"

Filostrato and Elissa seem to be involved in some kind of tragic, one-sided love.. (as their names and songs suggest), and something of her name and song (coming from Virgil's Dido) suggests that Elissa may be the sole Ghibelling in the story. Neifile is one of the girls that has an admirer as well as perhaps Filomena and Fiammetta. Fiammetta's name meaning little flame might be suggestive of her assertive and outgoing manner in storytelling and perhaps she is more outgoing in her love affair as well, unlike Neifile, who is a bit coy and bashful. Panfilo might be after the girls, but due to his playful and light-hearted manner, it's hard to tell which one he's really trying to woo. Dioneo doesn't seem to be going after just one girl and is perhaps just in for the fun or joined in as he was Pampinea's relative.

Thomas wrote: "Borum wrote: "It reminded me of Job's story, too. Could Boccaccio be making an objection towards the cruel, random fate or God himself in the times of the plague? or is it an attack on the blind de..."

Yes, the prologue mentions how the people reacted to the plague in two extreme ways and I think one of the messages was to find moderation and reason (perhaps the stories that overcome misfortune by wit)

There are some poorly told stories, and a fair number of mediocre tales in the Decameron. Judging from the reaction of the characters, which Boccaccio almost always gives us, it's probable that Boccaccio knew that not all of these stories were great. I wonder if he intentionally wrote his stories with a varying degree of narrative skill to demonstrate how a good story should be told, or conversely, how not to tell one,

Do we learn anything about the art of telling a story from the stories in the Decameron?

Thomas wrote: "Do we learn anything about the art of telling a story from the stories in the Decameron? "

I think this is such a hard question to answer about a translated story from a different time period as it would require a lot of knowledge about the nuances of languages and what the archetypes were when Boccaccio was writing to answer with any authority.

From a layperson's view, I was interested in how the power of stories is presented as a force that can make people feel alive and happy within the unbelievable trauma of a plague. By having the brigata rather than just presenting it as a collection of tales, he shows how he expects stories to create intellectual debate, possibly without a need for agreement about how the characters and stories are judged, the important thing being that lively discussion is promoted. The characters often respond with laughter, blushes and even tears, displaying a complete immersion in the stories being told. Also the framing device, sets out Boccaccio's intention that the stories should distract people from broken hearts, which again shows a belief in the power of the creative mind to free us from the pain of real life.

On another note is the fact that the genders are not balanced, 7 women, 3 men, rather than 5 of each, a sign that in real life people do not get perfectly matched up in love and there are always people left alone or ignored?

Clarissa wrote: "On another note is the fact that the genders are not balanced, 7 women, 3 men, rather than 5 of each, a sign that in real life people do not get perfectly matched up in love and there are always people left alone or ignored?"

Interesting. I would never imagine that this could be a reason.

Clarissa wrote: "I think this is such a hard question to answer about a translated story from a different time period as it would require a lot of knowledge about the nuances of languages and what the archetypes were when Boccaccio was writing to answer with any authority.."

This is a great point, and totally valid, but it raises the question of whether the book is really "timeless" or not. This is a perennial subject of discussion in this group: what makes a book a "classic"? We can ask this of the Decameron too: does it still speak to us today in a relevant way? Does it reveal anything about the human spirit in the 14th century that remains unchanged to today?

Clarissa wrote: "On another note is the fact that the genders are not balanced, 7 women, 3 men, rather than 5 of each, a sign that in real life people do not get perfectly matched up in love and there are always people left alone or ignored? "

He says a number of times that he is writing for women. I'm not sure if he means this seriously or not, especially since he says in the Preface that the impetus for his writing was his own enflamed heart. He says that men can escape their heartbreak by going hunting or riding or gambling... and since women don't have these outlets, he has written these tales. This could be merely sexist, by modern standards anyway, or it could be simply disingenuous.

Thomas wrote: "This is a perennial subject of discussion in this group: what makes a book a "classic"? We can ask this of the Decameron too: does it still speak to us today in a relevant way? Does it reveal anything about the human spirit in the 14th century that remains unchanged to today?"

Personally, today, (it'll be a different answer on another day!), I think there are the works of art that speak to us without having to know anything else about them, and any further knowledge we gain just enhances our appreciation. And then there are the classics that are important and significant because of the part they play in history, but they require a lot of work from us to mine anything from them.
For me Decameron falls into the latter category, I enjoyed it well enough, but it didn't move my spirit or enlighten me. I was ashamed in front of my Italian friend who was very excited that I was reading it, but truly i can't think of anything that interesting to say about it, above say a standard collection of folk tales. Sometimes reading it, I did actually begin to tire of the repetition of 'cheating' stories. I do probably have a modern preferences for stories which are more interested in exploring the psychology of its characters. But although a weak comparison, I find some of the ancient Greek and Rome works much more thought provoking, even though they aren't obviously writing with a modernist or realistic focus.

Borum wrote: "By invoking God as the craftsman of everything perfect, whereas the reality isn't so perfect, is he being humble as a mere human or storyteller or mocking God as the whole root of all these 'less than beautiful' stories that tell it like it is?"


We repeatedly get tales of people [mis]using faith, religion, rhetorics about God etc, to prey on others in order to fulfill their twisted, selfish desires for social climbing, wealth, sex, food, teeth, birds … Whatever “God” stands for up there, down here, under Boccaccio’s pen, it seems like a dangerous trap designed to fleece the gullible. (Reminds me of the scholar’s boast about his capability to hurt the widow with his pen. Maybe God wasn’t careful and Boccaccio-the-scholar is now punishing His creation with his pen?)

Pardon me if I can’t take anything Boccaccio says at face value. This is someone who thinks fools can be talked into losing teeth and canonizing the devil gladly. If he tells me God is responsible for X, my inner BS-detector stars flashing.

On Day 4, Bocaccio also invades the Decameron himself and told a story of his own, making it 101 tales (kind of like the Thousand and One Nights), instead of the “perfect” 100 (like in Dante’s Comedy.) Maybe the imperfection itself IS what he’s trying to make literature out of, as opposed to the lofty, divine subjects Dante chose for his vernacular project.

Thomas wrote: "He says a number of times that he is writing for women… He says that men can escape their heartbreak by going hunting or riding or gambling... and since women don't have these outlets, he has written these tales."

Boccaccio did say that, but that thing about women not having outlets seems obviously “borrowed” from Ovid’s Heroides 19:

"All delays of joy are too long; forgive me,
I cannot wait patiently for love.
We burn with the same blaze but I am weaker
than you, for men have a greater strength.
Like our bodies, women’s spirits too are frail;
any more delay and I will die.
Men like you are now caught up in the chase or
now caring for a pleasant acreage,
you spend long hours in your many affairs.
Either the market holds your interest,
or the contests of the wrestling mat, or you
turn the neck of a fine, well-trained horse.
You snare a bird or hook a fish and relax
at day’s end with a cup of fine wine.
For me, denied these pastimes, even if I
were not so enflamed, I could but love."

Maybe it’s just a shout out to Ovid? This reminds me of our little quarrel about Nietzsche’s supposed misogyny or sexism when he opened BGE with “SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman [Weib] —what then? … venerable wenches!” The actual statement is sexist, but how much is deployed merely to signal genre convention? (or to signal he's in dialogue with Ovid [Boccaccio] / Kant [Nietzsche].)

On Day 4, Bocaccio intrudes to give a defense of his own writings, and he complained about being attacked by envy despite writing in vernacular and with humble style:

"Dearest ladies, both from what I have heard wise men say as well as from everything I have often read and seen for myself, I have always thought that the fierce, scorching wind of envy assaulted only lofty towers and the highest treetops. I have found myself deceived in this judgment, however. For whenever I fled—and I have always done my best to flee—the wild buffetings of this furious storm, I have tried to go about my affairs quietly and unobtrusively, not just staying on the plains, but seeking out the deepest valleys. This should be patently clear to anyone who casts an eye on these little stories of mine, which lack a title and were written in the Florentine vernacular, in prose, and in the homeliest and lowest style possible.2 Yet in spite of all this, I have not been able to avoid being violently shaken and almost uprooted by that wind and practically torn to pieces by the fangs of envy . "

That, again, is almost certainly adapted from Ovid’s playful defense of his stylistic choice and subject matter in Remedia:

"Recently some have torn my books, and criticized my Muse as impudent. . . . Envy attacks the heights: its winds hit the peaks, the bolts launched by Jove hit the heights. But you, whoever you are, harmed by my license, if you are wise, know that everything has its rules. Bloody wars are narrated in the Maeonian meter: What place can that have for the allures of love? Tragedy has a grand style: ire has the tragic buskin; the comic slipper sports a medium style and tone. The iambus is free to attack the enemy camp, either quick, or dragging the last foot. Let suave Elegy sing of Cupid’s arrows, and play the fickle mistress if she so wants."

Rebhorn’s footnote also says the “lack a title” thing is another nod to Ovid’s Amores.


I wonder if Boccaccio was attacked at all, or was he also saying this (and the love sick ladies sympathy gambit) to imitate Ovid programatically.

Thomas wrote: "Does it reveal anything about the human spirit in the 14th century that remains unchanged to today?..."

And what does it reveal has changed?

Lia wrote: "Maybe the imperfection itself IS what he’s trying to make literature out of, as opposed to the lofty, divine subjects Dante chose for his vernacular project...."

I have always found it interesting that The Inferno is reputedly the most widely read (and studied?) of Dante's Commedia.

Boccaccio does seem to be demonstrating that the Italian language Dante apparently virtually created can be used for a still wider range of human stories than the Commedia, and he lent his storytelling to ensuring that language's place in human literature. Now, one of the questions I have is what was the relative place of French literature in the mid-1300's, i.e., to what extent was Boccaccio challenging French even as he "led" movement from Latin.

Clarissa wrote: "And then there are the classics that are important and significant because of the part they play in history, but they require a lot of work from us to mine anything from them.
For me Decameron falls into the latter category, I enjoyed it well enough, but it didn't move my spirit or enlighten me.."

I'm with you there. We do miss quite a bit in translation, but I still feel like I'm missing something here. It feels like the first time I read Don Quixote, when I felt like it was a long slog to no particular end. That said, a second reading of Quixote completely changed my mind. Maybe a second glance at the Decameron in a few years will reveal it for the masterpiece I'm missing right now.

Lia wrote: "Boccaccio did say that, but that thing about women not having outlets seems obviously “borrowed” from Ovid’s Heroides 19:"

Boccaccio borrowing from Ovid certainly seems possible, but hardly necessary. He borrowed from a lot of sources. And I would guess a lot of later writers borrowed from him. Perhaps his greatest source of inspiration was the age he lived in. The plague. The heartache he complains about. These phenomena were all familiar to his readers as common experiences. The Ovidian shadows lend a resonance and depth to Boccaccio's material for scholars, but I don't think they make it or break it for people reading these ribald tales in the vernacular. I'd like to think that these stories stand up on their own without academic or historical crutches -- and I think at least some of them do. The rest, the mediocre and the tawdry, remain a mystery to me

Susanna wrote: " Laughter and blushes were pretty much the only reactions.''

I think on a few occasions he mentions that the brigata are discussing the merits of the story and which characters they empathise with, and one of the storytellers begins her story saying that she will choose a story that will create concord after so much debate.

Thomas wrote: "...It feels like the first time I read Don Quixote, when I felt like it was a long slog to no particular end. That said, a second reading of Quixote completely changed my mind. ..."

Thanks for writing those words, Thomas. I gave up on my "second try." You tell me that maybe I shouldn't necessarily leave Cervantes on my "try again only if...." stack and perhaps even should hope the archives stay around here.

I'm not sure what changed for me the second time around, except maybe I needed to be familiar with the tone of the novel before I could appreciate Cervantes' art. Sometimes reading a novel is like listenting to a piece of music: we're comfortable with our "cultural residue" and we tend to reject a new piece if it doensn't conform to our expectations. That's why tropes are so prevalent in our art, and they're all over the place in Boccaccio., e.g., the "bed switching" story of Pinuccio and Adriano (9.6) and the scene in DQ where Maritornes accidentally ends up in DQ's bed. That trope is present in Chaucer as well, and Shakespeare, and even in Genesis in the story of Rachel and Leah. It's like hearing a quote from an old song in a new one.

My suspicion is that if Boccaccio has something everlasting to teach us, it has something to do with the art of storytelling. But what that "something" is exactly, I'm not sure. Maybe a second pass through it would clarify it for me. Or maybe not. :)

Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion! I"m happy that so many came through to the end. I was hoping that we would have ten still standing by the end. I don't think we quite made that goal, but it was close!

I’m lagging, but seeing that I’m on Tale 7 of week 10, I hope to finish by the end of the week. My feeling is that I’ll be glad to have made the journey through the hundred tales, especially in such good company. What I keep debating is whether it is the stories themselves or their framework or somehow the interaction of the two that carries the most meaning here. That interplay seems like a key to the book, but one that I haven’t quite figured out yet. Thanks for guiding us along the trail, Thomas!

Susan wrote: "I’m lagging, but seeing that I’m on Tale 7 of week 10, I hope to finish by the end of the week. My feeling is that I’ll be glad to have made the journey through the hundred tales, especially in suc..."

You're almost there, Susan!
I found that it was actually quite an 'easy' read, considering its age and the fact it is basically lots of disjointed short stories.

And just to second the thanks to Thomas for keeping the conversation flowing

Thanks, Clarissa! I did finish and loved his ending “defense” of his work. I’d met Griselda before in Chaucer and might like the story better here where it’s consistently pointed out that her husband is behaving badly. Maybe this is a place where the ideal (wifely obedience, Christian acceptance) meets the workaday world, just as the beginning contrasts the ideal priestly behavior with the less than ideal reality.

I read an interesting essay by C. S. Lewis on the importance of story where he says —
“It is astonishing how little attention critics have paid to Story considered in itself. Granted the story, the style in which it should be told, the order in which it should be disposed, and (above all) the delineation of the characters, have been abundantly discussed. But the Story itself, the series of imagined events, is nearly always passed over in silence, or else treated exclusively as affording opportunities for the delineation of character. There are indeed three notable exceptions. Aristotle in the Poetics constructed a theory of Greek tragedy which puts Story in the centre and relegates character to a strictly subordinate place. In the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance, Boccaccio and others developed an allegorical theory of Story to explain the ancient myths. And in our own time Jung and his followers have produced their doctrine of Archtypes. Apart from these three attempts the subject has been left almost untouched, and this has had a curious result. Those forms of literature in which Story exists merely as a means to something else--for example, the novel of manners where the story is there for the sake of the characters, or the criticism of social conditions--have had full justice done to them; but those forms in which everything else is there for the sake of the story have been given little serious attention.”

This does seem a book where the stories are the focus. I don’t see the allegory here unless it is there sometimes in the behavior of the brigada (that magical valley they discovered?).

Susan wrote: "Thanks, Clarissa! I did finish and loved his ending “defense” of his work. I’d met Griselda before in Chaucer and might like the story better here where it’s consistently pointed out that her husba..."

That's a very interesting quote about the little critical attention given to 'story'. Do you think it's about just revelling in the joy of creativity rather than needing to extract any morality from it?