Decameron 3

3.3

I found this story to be one of the most interesting in that it appears to demonstrate how the clergy can be the catalyst for the sins that they preach against. By using the friar as a means enabling her love affair, she demonstrates a view of the clergy that replaces innocence with ignorance. The church is often, within the story, described as greedy and not at all pervasive, the latter of which harkens back to the first story in the Decameron, in which the holy man was tricked by the hollow words of a sinner. This could perhaps illustrate the idea that the clergy does not truly understand the sins against which they preach, nor the virtues.

I found it interesting that the narrator of this story decided not to give the names of any of the characters. She explains that doing so would bring shame to the people in the story. However, though the narrator acknowledges the shame that the lovers would suffer if their names were revealed, much more criticism is aimed towards the friar, whom I believe did nothing wrong and was acting on much better intentions than either of the lovers. The narrator states, “most of the clergy are very stupid men with strange manners and habits who consider themselves more worthy and knowledgeable than everybody in everything, when they are in fact, far inferior” (206). I find this ironic since, though the lady claims that she is too noble for her husband, she doesn’t act in a noble way at all by looking for another lover. Her affair is different from others that we have read in that she did not fall in love with someone else unwittingly; rather, she made a point of looking for someone to have an affair with for the sake of having an affair.

3.6

Ricciardo uses Catella’s jealousy against her so that she does not act according to her best judgment (Ricciardo realizes that her paranoia makes her susceptible to believing him). What I find ironic here is that, of all the things Ricciardo uses to turn Catella against her husband is the devotion she feels towards him.

Elissa begins her story by saying that she will “tell you about how one of those prudes who pretended to be so disgusted with love was through ingenuity of her lover first made to taste the fruits of love before she had known its blossoms” (228). Catella is, of course, this “prude” that Elissa alludes to, her lover Ricciardo. From this introduction, it would appear that Catella does not experience actual love in her marriage to Filippello. However, the narrator later states that “Catella loved no one except Filippello, of whom she was very jealous that she believed every bird flying through the air was about to steal him away from her” (229). I find it interesting that, at the end of the story, Catella only “changed her harshness towards Ricciardo into sweet love” because she realized “how much more tasty the kisses of a lover were than those of a husband” (236). Does this mean that Catella’s love is based on shallow physical pleasure or is the story pointing out the idea that one is more likely to be loved by a lover than by their own spouse. In this light, this story can be seen as a criticism on the principles of marriage at the time that it was written. But Catella’s situation stretches beyond that of finding love outside of a loveless marriage, as it was explained that she loved her husband more than anyone else to the point where she became paranoid.

Stepping back a bit in the story, Ricciardo points out two important facts in an attempt to stop Catella from telling anyone what he did. First, he says that she will lose her honor and good reputation if she tells anyone that he tricked her, because he will assert that he promised her money and gifts. He also points out that a feud would arise between himself and her husband that probably wouldn’t end until one of them died, in which case Catella would never be happy again. I was surprised when Ricciardo brought up these points of suasion, because to me it indicates a relationship based completely on deceit and fear as opposed to openness and understanding. Also, I find it interesting that while much of the emphasis here is focused on Catella’s reputation in society, Ricciardo is completely open about that fact that he is courting other ladies even though he has a wife. This contradiction is never brought to the forefront, which would suggest to me that is was more disgrace was placed on a lady if she cheated than a man (a long history of double standards like this, ie Hammurabi’s code of law, backs up this theory). Similarly, in the story about the sanctimonious friar and the clever lovers, the woman had to be cautious of her reputation (“she dared not declare hr love… fearing the dangers this might entail”), while all the man has to fear is a few harsh chastisements.