It took me a solid two-and-a-half months, but I finally finished reading Giovanni Boccaccio's "The Decameron." This was a collection of short stories from the early-to-mid 1300's. The premise is that ten wealthy folks, seven women and three men, go to a resort with their staff to get away from the Black Death for a little while. The book takes place over a little bit more than two weeks - the title alludes to each of the ten folks telling a short story on each of ten days. The group does take off Fridays and weekends, though, from this exercise. Mostly they were just passing time and visiting, but the premise works well and lays the groundwork for a hundred short stories embracing around five hundred characters throughout the book.
I read a gorgeous copy that was part of Easton Press' hundred greatest books series. It was actually - true story - the last of the hundred books for me to receive and the last of the hundred books for me to read. There were tons of illustrations throughout.
Boccaccio was an ardent admirer of Dantes and, I understand, wrote a biography about him and helped get Dante's principal work of "The Divine Comedy" to be known as 'divine.' I saw some comparisons online as I was reading "The Decameron" of parallels between the book and "The Divine Comedy." I think that is a bit of a stretch though...sure the Black Death could be characterized as 'hell' in some ways, but, ultimately, Dante's work is a walkthrough of the afterlife from a Christian perspective submerged in insight about the overall human experience. That's a dastardly oversimplification but am just noting to make my own comparison. "The Decameron," which I've seen referred to as 'The Human Comedy' doesn't have a similar arc. There are enriching stories interlaced with tragic ones throughout the tome. That's not a bad thing, at all. Indeed, I think it is a positive thing for a collection of short stories. But it does contrast with Dante's work in that regard pretty markedly.
A couple of the hundred stories were censured out of early publications of "The Decameron." One of them, which was about a monk taking advantage of a minor under a pretense of religious fulfillment, was disturbing in my view even by today's standards. In the book, the rest of the group found it humorous. There were a number of other stories that were disturbing as well, though perhaps not in the same ways, which, therefore, didn't lead to censorship. "The Decameron" has way too much domestic violence in it for my tastes, for one thing. I don't know how its prevalence in its contemporary society of the 1300s compared with its prevalence in the book, but I don't personally enjoy reading about it.
Boccaccio's prose is well-written and the stories generally unique and engaging. This is truly a great book and would be a contender for the ten best short story collection were it not for some content issues that I am averse to. The bulk of the translation I read was quite old, though, dating from the early 1600s. I couldn't help but wonder how people in the 1300s actually spoke. Quotes are presented in the same voice as the prose...did people have that much formality in how they spoke at the time? Or was there a writing voice that was culturally acceptable and expected, which contrasted with a spoken voice, which would therefore not be documented in the literature of the time or perhaps not at all? I'm sure there are scholars that know the answer to that question, but it struck me as I read that I was unsure about that and admittedly curious how they really spoke, if it differed at all from this presentation.
My autocorrect "AI" is going to make this arduous for me, but I'd like to share a randomly selected paragraph from the book to show how my copy was written and translated.
Much did shee pitty her Husbands perplexity, devising by what good and warrantable meanes she might make knowne her innocency to him; wherein her place and authority did greatly sted her, and she wrought with divers gallant Merchants of Geneway that then remained in Alexandria, and by vertue of the Soldans friendly letters beside, to bring him thither upon an especiall occasion. Come he did, albeit in poore and meane order, which soone was better altered by her appointment, and he verie honourably (though in private) entertained by divers of her woorthie friends, till time did favour what she further intended.
It's readable but requires some deliberation and care while going through it. "The Decameron" isn't a quick and easy read and obviously did not prove so to me. But I enjoyed the heck out of it, to be honest.
This brings me to yet another observation, though. Although there were ten storytellers, there was little to distinguish them besides their names. The voice of the stories and, to tell the truth, of the storytellers themselves didn't appear to vary. Neither did the content or themes of the stories. I can't help but consider Chaucer's magnificent "The Canterbury Tales" written some fifty or so years later, which, incomplete though it may be, the stories included were more carefully linked to the storytellers. In "The Canterbury Tales," storytellers weren't just vessels to tell stories, but actual characters that had stories to tell. That book made my ten greatest short story compilations list as a result. It adds another dimension of what to think about as one makes one's way through reading it. It's more fun.
I recommend "The Decameron" to anyone who likes literature from the fourteenth century. It has an abundance of different stories, and, as noted above, it is engaging, and almost all of the stories are individually worth reading on their own. It was an ambitious work for Boccaccio, and he pulled it off adroitly. I can't help but wonder how long it actually took him to write this much content at this level of quality. Good times, though....good times...
Comments