The following stories were identified as censored or problematic. Details on each will be added below.
Although much of this story was left the same, there are some distinct passages that were subtly changed in order to distance the crude behavior of the Abbot from the moral righteousness of the Catholic Church. One such example of these changes are the passage in paragraphs 2 and 3 which describe the monk discovering the young girl and taking her to his bedchamber.
In Boccaccio’s original, the description is relatively neutral and only makes moral comment on the actions in an appropriately ironic tone for the subject matter: “Wherefore, accosting her, he entered into parley with her and so led on from one thing to another that he came to an accord with her and brought her to his cell, unperceived of any.” Very obviously, there is a certain disregard for the supposed moral authority of the Clergy, and the Monk is treated as an unfortunately, but not surprisingly, sinful fool.
Florio’s censored version from 1620 explicitly moralizes this passage. In a somewhat clumsy manner, a substantial preamble is made to emphasize the aberrant behavior of this particular monk: “Lascivious desire, and no religious devotion, made him draw neere her, and whether under shrift … or some other as close conference, to as pernicious and vile a purpose, I know not: but so farre he prevailed upon her frailety, and such a bargaine passed betweene them, that … he wonne her to his Chamber, before any person could perceive it.”
In another section of the story, (paragraph 6) an obvious edit is made to the description of the Abbot’s transgressions. Where Boccaccio provides a (mildly) scandalous description of sexual acts, Florio omits most of the suggestiveness and instead simply says: “ The Maide … was easily wonne to the Abbots will, which caused him to embrace and kisse her often.”
This story seems to violate numbers 7 and 8 in the Church’s rules of censorship. Parts of the work are “obscene” or “immoral”, and Florio treats these passages as “isolated heresies” that are then corrected.
Remarkably, there is little to be noted in the censored text for this particular story. Though Boccaccio blatantly paints the nuns and abbess as sinful in their pursuit of Masetto for sexual gratification, in the 1620 version there is no real effort made to change the narrative. While this was surprising at first, it makes more sense when compared to other stories that were heavily altered in the interest of removing sexual misconduct by clergy.
In the places where Boccaccio used male Church officials (like the monk and the abbot in the First Day, Fourth Story), it is deemed unacceptable by the later version of the text to portray them in a bad light. The women who behave badly in this story do not get the same treatment. This is possibly a case where women were not seen to represent the church’s authority and so were not as much of a threat when pained in this lewd way. Many young women of the late medieval period were sent to become nuns by family who could not afford a marriage dowry. Then during the Catholic counter-reformation, which occurred between the two editions of the text examined here, many women were recruited to the convent to be reformed from a life of sin (usually prostitution).
Although there were likely many women who chose the cloister for true religious devotion, there was less importance placed on their connection to the true political powers of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it may not be seen as intensely damaging to the Church’s reputation when women, even holy women, have “indecent” sexual encounters in these stories. The most noticeable change is in the title of the story, where the original describes the women “who all flock to lie with him [Masetto]”, the more discreet title in Florio’s version simply says that “he had familiar conversation with them all.” An addition was made to the title in the 1620 edition as well, which reads “Wherein is declared, that virginity is very hardly to be kept, in all places.” This is in keeping with the structure of all of the censored stories, where a sort of moral summary is added to direct the reader in their interpretation of the content, even if it is left in its original form.
Possibly the most egregious example of censorship and editing is displayed in this story. The original seems to have been so offensive that it was not deemed salvageable by the Church’s standards, and so an entirely different story was put in its place. This new story has a very deliberate and reactionary moral overtone that seeks to undo the influence of the original.
The replacement story tells a saccharine tale of a princess so dutiful and pure that she will not look a man in the eye. This is a far cry from the original in which another young girl is manipulated into performing sexual acts with a monk who she believes is teaching her how to serve God. It is not at all surprising that this change was made, seeing as there is almost no way to redeem the clergy depicted in the original. However, one aspect of the changed version is interesting for a different reason.
While the original story depicts a young girl supposedly pursuing Christianity (even in a satirical way), the revision is set in Denmark and mentions the Norse Gods without relying on Christianity as a moral compass. Given the precarious position the Catholic Church was in during the ongoing Reformation, it is surprising that the revisions they implemented favored a “pagan” tale taken from a French Renaissance author: François de Belleforest. This implies that it was seen as more important to omit the obscene depictions of the clergy, even if the more modest story failed to promote the Church outright.
Heavily violating the 7th rule of censorship, this story was always destined to be changed if not fully removed in any Church-approved revisions.
Florio’s censored version of this story makes a seemingly small change: replacing the figure of the Angel Gabriel with the classical god of love and desire, Cupid. Based on the events of the story, this change does not omit the bad behavior of the characters, but refrains from the blasphemy of invoking a Biblical figure in an indecent manner.
The inclusion of classical mythology in this replacement is interesting, but not all that surprising. The Renaissance, recently in the cultural imagination, had brought new focus to the pantheon of Roman gods and challenged the Church’s hegemonic influence surrounding devotional imagery. It is strategically savvy to portray the characters as heretical in their involvement with “pagan” gods, and hang the moral corruption on that proclivity, rather than attempt to explain away the plausibility of an angel behaving thus.
It is significant that Cupid is specifically influential in the realm of desire and erotic love, providing a corrupting influence to the story, even if the presence of the god is fabricated by the deceitful Friar Albert. The overall impression a reader might glean is that undue familiarity with pagan deities is a recipe for disaster, as the friar meets a rather unfortunate end for his troubles.
Strangely, this story potentially violates numbers 7, 8 of the censorship guidelines but only seems to address number 8 in the correction of “isolated heresy.” The immoral behavior is left alone, and it could be argued that the addition of a pagan god creates a new violation of number 9 which prohibits “superstition” and “occult” works.
Though Shakespeare would not write his famous star-crossed lovers into history until the 1590s, Boccaccio tells a romantic tale that hits on many of the same themes in this story. With an altogether happier ending, the secret tryst of the young lovers is a bit scandalous in its description of pre-marital sex, but is overall very tame for the likes of the Decameron.
Florio’s version very closely resembles the original, but chooses to leave the manner of the physical relationship between the lovers up for creative interpretation. There is no overt mention of nudity, as in Boccaccio’s tale, and the moral addendum to the title promotes the virtue of the parents who encourage marriage before “they doe proceede too farre.”
This is not one of the more dramatic changes, but a slight shift in tone and an addition of ambiguous language to describe the intimacy between the two serve to impart good morals while maintaining the overall structure of the story.
With only a slight violation of number 7, the possibly “obscene” parts of this story are sanitized.
This story became a target of Catholic Church censorship predominantly because of the triumph of vice that is displayed throughout the story. The story depicts a woman cheating on her husband and successfully tricking him without facing any punishment or divine justice, directly in violation of the seventh rule of the Tridentine Index.
The first major change comes with the description of the main female character in the story, Peronella. The censored version seemingly attempts to place more of the blame for the future events of the story on Peronella, describing her in the third paragraph as a “fayre and lustie young Woman.” The corresponding text in Boccaccio’s original describes her more tastefully as, “a fair and lovesome damsel.” By describing her in this manner, Florio’s translation places the blame on Peronella’s lust rather than those same qualities found in the men of the story.
The largest changes come during the climax of the story. Boccaccio’s signature satirical style comes into play when describing the affair of Peronella and Gianello. He describes the comical happenings of the affair in an overly dramatic fashion, writing, “ on such wise as in the ample plains the unbridled stallions, afire with love, assail the mares of Parthia, he satisfied his juvenile ardour.” This dramatization of the quick final encounter of the lovers into something of Greek mythology works to make a joke out of the entire situation. Florio’s censored version forgoes almost an entire paragraph of description, choosing rather to boil the entire final encounter down to, “To be breefe, the Brewing Fat was neatly cleansed, Peronella and Striguario both well pleased, the money paide, and honest meaning Lazaro not discontented.” There are small bits of thinly veiled sexual innuendo leading up to this final line, but nothing as blatant as Boccaccio.
The censored version of this story begins, interestingly, with a substantial addition to the original text. Florio uses his entire third paragraph to provide an incredibly detailed account of the actions of the story's antagonist, a young Priest named Varulungo. He is given the nickname “sweet Sir Simon”, a title that is nowhere to be found in the original. The playful nature of this nickname goes along with his description as, “lustie, gallant, and proper of person (especially for Womens service),” thus making the gracious acts that follow in the paragraph seem performative in context. Florio is seemingly jumping out ahead of the criticism of Varulungo as a member of clergy by making it clear that his behavior is an exception, not the norm.
Florio continues with additions throughout this story, sprinkling in small bits of flowery description throughout the piece. For example, the woman of focus in this story, Monna Belcolore, is described in the original as a, “buxom country wench.” Alternatively, Florio paints her as, “more fresh and lovely of complexion, although not admirable for beauty, yet sweete Sir Simon thought her a Saint.”
On a macro level, this change is consistent with the ornate language changes made throughout the censored version of this particular story, ultimately serving to distract from the improper conduct of the Clergy. This specific change however functions as an attempt to make Varulungo’s actions seem at the very least reasonable, due to Belcolore’s “saintly” nature.
This particular story stands out as one of Boccaccio’s more violent stories throughout the entire book. Rule eight of the Tridentine Index comes into play in this story, as the story is based on the concept of “magical” invisibility stones. The church, however, did not feel the need to censor or ban that aspect of the story as it becomes obvious that the stones have no magical abilities whatsoever. This fact goes over the head of our main character, thus leading to the more censorable portion of the story.
After returning home, Calandrino begins viciously beating his wife. The reason behind this aggression is not revealed for almost two entire paragraphs. According to the original, Calandrino was so upset when his wife saw him despite his “invisibility stones”. Boccaccio uses those two entire paragraphs to make Calandrino look like a violent fool, with his friends being rightfully shocked by his actions.
The censored version of the text continues a trend that has now been set in a number of the stories we have taken a closer look at. While Florio’s version does not excuse the actions of Calandrino, rightfully portraying him as angry and unreasonable, he does subtly shift some of the blame onto the wife. Florio sets the stage for the assault by describing the wife as, “somewhat angry for his so long absence.” It is implied that the wife even perhaps egged him on by saying, “I thought that the divell would never let thee come home, all the whole Citie have dined, and yet wee must remaine without our dinner,” as he walked in the door. This detail is nowhere to be found in the original, further providing evidence that the church attempted to vilify women throughout these stories.
This story is arguably the most comical of the passages we have examined so far. That being said, it still is in violation, as most of these stories are, of the seventh rule of the Tridentine Index.
An interesting change that we see at the very beginning of the story comes with the naming of the characters. In the original version the two main characters are named Pinuccio and Niccolosa, whereas the censored translation names the same characters Panuccio and Nicholetta. This was possibly changed in order to avoid the preservation of Boccaccio’s “vernacular” that was more accessible to the common man. The change made it much more accessible for an English speaking audience, especially with the change of “Nicholetta” being similar to French name endings such as “-ette” or “-ie”.
The raunchier scenes of the story have some blatant censorship in Florio’s version of the story. In the original, the scene in which the wife gets into bed with one of the guests includes a line that reads, “Adriano, who was not yet asleep, feeling this, received her well and joyously and laying her aboard in a trice, clapped on all sail, to the no small contentment of the lady.” The use of metaphor by Boccaccio makes it clear what happened between the two characters. The censored version leaves the details of their encounter up in the air saying, “feeling the hostesse in bed with him: tooke advantage of so faire an occasion offered, and what he did, is no businesse of mine.” The reader can make a safe guess about what happened between the two of them, but it is clear the Church wanted to maintain plausible deniability when it came to this particular passage.
This story follows along the same lines as many of the previous stories we have analyzed, being in direct violation of the seventh rule of the Tridentine Index.
There is a clear instance of censorship when it comes to the climax of this story. The main character, Dom Gianni, explains to the couple of the story that he knows of a ritual that will turn the wife into a mule. However, the most difficult act of this ritual would be the “putting on of the tail.” This hidden sexual innuendo goes over the head of the husband until it comes time for Gianni to actually perform this action. Gianni goes through with the ritual, touching the wife inappropriately, ultimately culminating in this final act where the husband finally has had enough and is horrified by Gianni’s actions. The censored version follows along with the main story until the final action, where the husband is able to stop him from performing this final act saying, “Forbeare Gossippe John, my Mule shal have no taile at all, I am contented to have her without a taile.” This prevents the church version from walking the reader through the most immoral act of the story.
One interesting thing that you might have noticed is the name change in the censored version, from Dom Gianni to John De Barolo. Not only are the characters names changed, their roles are as well. In Boccaccio’s original, Dom Gianni is a priest. This was obviously not acceptable for the church, so in the censored version they changed John De Barolo into a, “an honest man.” This change gives the church another layer of deniability for the immoral actions of this character. By making this change and not following through with the final action, the censored version makes enough changes to follow along with their seventh rule.