guyome wrote:kanewai wrote:And while both wrote from the perspective of an extremely gendered society, the gender roles seem much freer than what you find in English and French literature.
Interesting. Do you mean it as opposed to contemporary (20/21st c.) English and French literature or medieval English and French literature? If the latter, what difference would you see between Boccaccio and French
fabliaux for instance?
The
fabliaux are new to me, so it's hard to compare. Boccaccio's stories always have little lessons at the end, but they're not exactly "moral" lessons (usually it's about how you can get out of trouble by being clever.) I am a bit more familiar with the Arthurian legends and the French chansons.
Here's a few examples of what I meant:
One of the knights in
Orlando furioso is Bradamante. Her lover, the saracen knight Ruggerio, is kidnapped by the wizard Atalante. She challenges Atalante to a duel and rescues the dude-in-distress.
In another section, one of the princesses (I forget which) is facing the death penalty in Scotland for having an affair. A prince comes to fight for her honor, and challenges her accuser to a duel. The princess is so disgusted by the whole situation that she quits them all, moves to Denmark, and joins a convent.
- What stood out for me about Bradamante is that there was no side commentary along the lines of
ooh a female knight, nor any critique of her doing un-womanly things or "acting like a man." She never had to disguise herself as a man to go into battle. Nobody comments on her gender. Bradamante was just a kick-ass warrior. I'm not aware of anyone like her in other stories from the time. Or even now, actually
- The princess story could never be told today in the US. Our modern rules seem to state that the princess must either always find true love, or die a tragic death. You can't end a story with a princess joining a convent.
- ------------------------
Back to Boccaccio. There was one story in the
Decameron about a husband and wife who both lust after a hot young man. After a bit of conflict and drama they decide to share him. It's a happy ending for all.
In another story, a husband catches his wife with another man. He turns her over to the authorities.
Her friends and family advise her to flee. She refuses, and is arrested.
She faces the death penalty. At the trial her friends and family advise her to deny everything. Instead she admits everything.
When she takes the stand, she asks her husband if she has ever denied him, or ever left him unsatisfied.
No, he says. I have always been satisfied.
The woman's closing argument revolves around the fact that men are satiated more quickly than women. Women have more to give. She asks:
If I cook a big feast and there is food left over, should I throw it away? Or give it to someone who is hungry?You should give it to someone who is hungry, everyone agrees.
And why not the same with her sexuality? she asks. I have a lover who is hungry. Why can't I share with him, once my husband has had his fill?
- And everyone is so impressed with her reasoning that the law is changed. Women will no longer be punished for adultery, as long as they take care of their husband first, and don't take any money from the lover.
--- On one hand, these stories still reflect a sexist world. But on the other hand, men and women who have guilt-free affairs are
never the heroines in American stories. In Boccaccio everyone admires how clever they are.
