So far, I’m not a big fan of Petrarch’s. In the letter, he seemed to slap Boccaccio with some indirect-but-backhanded comments, ie: suggesting that Petrarch has much more serious work to attend to than to be writing in the vernacular as Boccaccio has. And he eventually goes on to completely (I believe) misinterpret Boccaccio’s story.

In reading the notes at the end of our edition, you find that many Biblical allusions are made within the story. At one point, Griselda is likened to the Virgin Mary, and at another Job. Of course! That’s exactly what this was– a sort of retelling of Job. A woman is, after all, supposed to love and support her husband as part of her service to God.

The kicker is when, upon completing the story, Dioneo denounces Gualtieri for his behavior. So… if Gualtieri’s actions are representative (albeit on a small scale) of God’s (ie: Job), and Griselda’s patience, faith and constancy was being tested… yet Gualtieri is a big butthead…? In a way I want to read this as a Boccaccio-angry-with-God story, but I can’t. As Kathryn pointed out yesterday, Boccaccio’s disillusionment seems aimed at the clergy, though Boccaccio doesn’t seem to have difficulty in separating the actions of the clergy with faith in God.

So this leads me to believe that this story is in the same vein: Boccaccio is not saying that God is a butthead– I don’t think– but rather that this sort of reasoning is ridiculous, the sort of reasoning used by the clergy.

And Kennedy arrives…

She is god-like and yet she barely even gives him a second glance. I can understand why there is a sudden relief for him when she dies. I mean, he needed those chains broken. I also don’t understand why he lavishes these poems with gushy imagery and what not but then has these incredibly simplistic and plain explanations. Is there some sort of greater significance involved here?

I’m no real romantic. I’m too skewed by modern notions of love. So overall, I found his love for her a little over the top. I get that he is basing his poetry on Medieval Lyric poetry and creating a number of different levels with each verse is cool. But why her? Why now after so many years?

Inferno also touches base with his lady love, who now is not only a holy object but also the reason for why Dante is able to go through hell and not be too messed up afterwards. I get the religious undertones. I’m not that dense. But I feel that there was something else within this work that I couln’t quite grasp. Looking at the different levels and the specific names he presents in the work (political figures) I feel that there may be some political significance. I think tha tthis was the period where Italy was n political and economic turmoil but I’m not sure. Honestly, class is going to be a big help today.

To get back to my inspiration for my paper, as rough of an idea as it is, I want to look into how women would trick men, be it disguising themselves as men and all of the benefits this provided or adultery. The obvious reason for dressing as a man would be to put oneself on an even playing field with other men – no more sexual discrimination. But Irwin talks about this disguise in relation to male homosexuality. The Arab women were having to compete with young boys for the affection of their husbands, which is a popular motivation for dressing as a man/boy. Irwin mentions Ali al-Baghdadi’s The Book of the Delicate Flowers Regarding the Kiss and the Embrace, which I think would have a lot of information for the type of topic I am interested in. There is also the ever prevalent topic of adultery, which Irwin says was simply a “plot mover” (161). While this may be true and makes sense, it is also an example of female power, which ties in with the womens’ decisions to disguise themselves as males.

One of the most memorable parts of this chapter is when Irwin mentions that the superstitious of the day would be wary for a male to sit in the same place a woman had recently been sitting in for fear that some sort of “illicit sexual pleasure might be derived therefrom” (167). The idea that the behind was a super-sexual part of the body is not a foreign or archaic concept, but this seems to be an ancient concern.

Irwin speaks of the “ghunj” as a term to refer to a distinctive waggling gait especially during sex. He first mentions the “ghunj” in reference to women and the fascination with their behinds, but two pages later he characterizes a typical homosexual as having hairy ankles, wearing long robes, and when he walks, his legs sway. This reminded me of the “ghunj,” which could further complicate the identification of sex if a woman is disguising herself as a man to attract men, but those around her could mistake her for a homosexual man. Maybe there is a distinction between a female’s “ghunj” and a male’s swagger.

And another thing, in both the Tale of Kamar Al-Zaman and about three or four stories in the Decameron, women are dressing up and parading around as men. I mean, I know Boccaccio is trying to create this blended world of unknown Greek and exotic Arabic, but really? How believable is it that women could dress up as men, hide their completely different body types and mannerisms, and become kings, sultans, advisers, husbands, etc. I especially liked that the daughter of the King of England is traveling as a male Abbott. I really think the royal family may have had a problem with this.