[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: John van Hezewyk
Date: 9/14/2003
Time: 10:27:07 PM
Remote Name: 199.44.215.199
I don't think Boccaccio can be credited as having anything to with women's liberation, or with demeaning and belittling women. True, many of his charcaters are women, and most of the storytellers are female, but is that really a social revolution? In the Plumb book, it is made clear that the women of the Renaissance were already "liberated" in certain spheres. I see the Decameron as a statement of social reality in Boccaccio's time. With regard to Caitlin's comment that he depicts weak, trivial women; absolutely true. Boccaccio does include a number of those, but I look at that as part of the social reality. Women in the Renaissance were not a uniform group any more than women today are. Look around, and you will find weak-minded women in the here and now. The truth is, Boccaccio depicted a range of female characters, echoing the diversity he saw in the world around him. Boccaccio the women's liberator? I don't think so. Maybe Boccaccio, the lifestyles columnist in the Tribune.