Day 1, Story 2: Abraham the Jew, at the instigation of Jehannot de Chevigne, goeth to the court of Rome ...
The theme of this tale is to show how God's continued goodwill towards those who sin repeatedly serves to strongly reinforce his benevolence. Because one might logically expect God to rain down punishments on bad boys and girls, the fact that he doesn't goes to show just how "benign" he is. When Abraham returns from his trip to Rome, where he saw that all the Papal clergy behaved in ways totally unsuitable to their stations, he states that nonetheless that "your religion [Christianity] continually increaseth and waxeth still brighter and more glorious," so "meseemeth I manifestly discern that the Holy Spirit is verily the foundation and support thereof, as of that which is true and holy over any other." This seems to me such an ironic thing to say. Why abandon your religion because another one is more corrupt? It would be illogical to do so. However, when Abraham argues his point - that a religion so corrupt at its core can still maintain a geographically impressive hold on so many pious citizens - I had to admit that he had a point.
But as a Jew myself, I still would have been happier if he didn't convert. It's funny to me that this little fable almost corrupts the Jewish commandment to study Torah. The idea of "Talmud Torah" (studying the teachings of the Torah) is not just to study the stories, but to debate and discuss them in order to truly understand what happened, why, and how to apply those moral lessons to your own life. It's ironic that Abraham uses this intrinsically ethical and logical principle of Talmud Torah in order to basically abandon the roots of this way of thinking - and in doing so, he is showing his Jewish-ness more than ever (although in a flawed way, because he's taking the logical argument too far). He's using the tools of one ideology to sway himself in the direction of another ideology. It's like getting from one tree to the next by climbing from one branch to the next, until the branches intertwine and you are no longer in the tree where you started - but how would you have gotten to the second tree without the support from the branches of the first?
Within the tale, Abraham's conversion is meant to show how that despite the Papacy's terrible reputation, God's benevolence on the Vatican's sinners allows them to still make a positive impression on a good man, and ultimately convert him to their cause. However, I also believe that Abraham's conversion is meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Because the Church is shown in such an ugly light not only in this tale but throughout the entire Decameron, readers are not supposed to feel that Abraham is better off Christian. Rather, they might get a chuckle out of his twisted logical arguments. So in the end, could it be that Abraham - who is not a sinner except by dint of his religion - gets the short end of the stick because God is busy giving a break to those who sin more than him?
Day 2, Story 3: Three young men squander their substance and become poor; but a nephew of theirs ...
On day two, the seven ladies and three men tell stories of wild success despite difficult burdens. Pampinea goes further with this story to show the important role of luck in making this transition from threadbare to throned. But it seems to me that fortune's whims, however benevolent they may turn out to be, still manifest themselves initially in this story through sinful lust and misleading disguise. During the course of the trip from England to Rome, the abbot "called to Alessandro in a low voice and bade him come couch with him. Alessandro, after many excuses, put off his clothes and laid himself beside the abbot, who put his hand on his breast and fell to touching him no otherwise than amorous damsels use to do with their lovers; whereat Alessandro marvelled exceedingly and misdoubted him the abbot was moved by unnatural love to handle him on that wise." Eventually the abbot strips down to show that he is actually a she, with nice perky breasts to show for it. How could such standard no-no's as lust, sodomy, and concealment of true identity be the very elements that ultimately lead Alessandro to glory?
It seems to me that the theme of sight (and the lack thereof) within this tale - the three brothers eyes being opened by poverty and, conversely, their obliviousness to finances when they are in wealth; seeing the abbot's true identity versus not knowing who she is - all go to show that luck is blind, and so the decisions that might seem so bad are actually the ones that will pay off for the better. After all, isn't Lady Fortune traditionally depicted with a blindfold on?
No comments:
Post a Comment