Throughout the past six day rotation we’ve spent a significant amount of time thoroughly dissecting some of the stories in Boccaccio’s Decameron. A common thread in all 4 of the stories discussed in class was the presence of religion – specifically, the Catholic church. I’m interested in spending more time discussing exactly how church doctrines factor into the various experiences of characters in the stories. It seems like the negative and potentially humorous aspects of the Catholic church are well documented – sometimes even mocked outright. In various stories we see a man known for his abundant sins canonized, a woman who gets taken advantage of sexually by a man she believes to be a spiritual mentor, and countless people losing money to a friar who presents fake artifacts that supposedly have religious significance.
Given that information, can we draw any conclusions about the role of religion while the plague ravaged Florence? It should also be noted that religion wasn’t seen as an entirely negative establishment during the time, although it did lose a significant amount of influence as a direct result of the plague. There were still some priests who selflessly treated plague victims and continued to follow their faith. From reading Boccaccio and our other plague readings, is it possible to assert whether or not religion was an asset or a liability for Florentines when dealing with the plague?
The plague is also notable because its influence extends beyond those considered to be sinful; members of the clergy, especially those who treated people with the plague, often became afflicted with the disease themselves. How does this also add to/change perceptions of the plague as it relates to the church? Also, how does the church construct their own narrative about the plague and how does that narrative relate to what we know now about the nature of the disease itself?
In a time where it seems like the world is ending, the religious will often turn to their God for guidance and salvation. The Decameron was a book written in the vernacular so the common folk could understand. The common folk were mostly illiterate, which meant that most of the information they were able to hear was through the church and its sermons. I think religion during the plague was both an asset and a liability. The wealthy ladies fled the city. It was probably "cool" or culturally appropriate to be religious, but these ladies and lads did not seem like the most religious group. For those who were not as wealthy or capable of fleeing to the countryside, they relied on the church for salvation. I would imagine that after seeing so many pious people die from the plague, people would start to doubt the effectiveness of religion and the church. However, a completely different approach was also taken. On page 245 in the plague selections, Richard Barker writes "according to the last weeks of Bill of Mortality there died know more about seven out of it, and all the time before but four; which I do not doubt but that by the help of God they might have also escaped" (245). Barker suggests that the presence of God, and therefore religion, was crucial to the population's belief that everything was going to be okay.
ReplyDeleteWhen analyzing the Decameron and other plague-related works, I found that religion was a way for people to express themselves in this time period: a concrete manifestation of how people turned to atypical or extreme behavior when the Black Death hit. So far, in this class, we have explored that the fear of the unknown is a huge factor when it comes to dealing with disease in general, and oftentimes, people depart from their normal habits in order to confront or as a result of this fear. As we see in the Decameron, people express this departure from the norm through either rejecting religion (partying, drinking poking fun at the Church etc.) or fully embracing it to the extreme (flagellants, clergy member selflessly helping the sick etc.) It seems that there is no real neutral area for the plague: there is either a sense of hopelessness through the spurning of the divine or a sense of hopefulness through embracing/fearing the divine. In this way, the use of religion can be seen as a reflection of how people's behavior is tweaked by the sudden arrival of something they have never seen before. After all, whether people ended up rejecting religion or not, many still believed that the plague itself was a form of divine retribution and "was visited upon the human race by God's righteous anger as a punishment for our sins" (Bocaccio 7). Again, religion was a coping mechanism and method of shedding light on the unknown in an era with little scientific advancement, and it could also exist as a cathartic form of personal rebellion during these difficult times.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a lot of people during that time would have been confused by the idea of religion. If I was in that position, I would be wondering why God would have abandoned me/put this curse on me. At the same time, I would also be begging and praying for him to save me. No one had the technology to figure out that it was a disease that was causing all the death and sickness, so many believed that it was a punishment from God. Although many lost faith and thought that God had left them, some also looked towards the Church in hope for salvation. In terms of how the plague changed the way the Church looked, I think it made everyone look a lot more vulnerable. People believed that the priests were doing God's work and that they were holy, but seeing them becoming sick really showed that no one was safe. People thought that the plague was "God's righteous anger as a punishment for our sins" (7) and after seeing the priests become sick, I think that idea became solidified in the minds of the people still praying.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReligion proved to be a blessing (haha) and a curse for Florence. It was a blessing in that it consoled many as everyone around them died; when they died, they could go to heaven and at least have an afterlife. However, religion was also something that people could blame for their misfortune “as if the wrath of God would punish the iniquities of men with this plague” (Boccaccio 10). But at the same time some took this punishment and tried to be more pious, though many also felt that God had forsaken them. People seemed to either turn toward religion or away from it in dire times, which is both understandable and somewhat expected. Religion was a liability for many in Florence, as it could have caused people to repent rather than seek treatment, like the flagellants that flogged themselves and prayed openly, possibly exposing themselves to more illness. The perception that the plague as a divine punishment changed as time wore on, since so many holy people died, and in the Decameron we see Religion and the clergy satirised, demonstrating the decrease in respect and fear of punishment. We see that Boccaccio was willing to portray clergy members as corrupt or religion used as a means of committing a “sinful” act like sex.
ReplyDeleteI think religion was a double-edged sword for many. While some may have turned toward religion for salvation, many may have turned away because they felt betrayed by God. We saw in the four selections from the Decameron a recognition of biblical stories and figures, but they weren't necessarily the main points. Whether it was a man lying to be buried as a saint or a man telling a woman that sex was just putting the "Devil back in Hell," we see that religion still had a strong cultural influence, but did not affect people's actions the same way that it had had before. Religion became less of a way of life and more of presence.
ReplyDeleteI’m still not too clear on the role of religion during the plague as depicted in the Decameron. I feel like religion was trivialized in the sense that the people from the stories used it as a means to progress. Ser Cepparello, a life-long sinner, falsely confessed all these sins to the friar upon becoming ill so God could have mercy on him and send him to heaven as a saint. I think religion was used here to signify that no matter whether or not someone was religious, the plague still ravaged the town, and people responded by turning either towards or away from religion in hopes of alleviating their suffering. As Boccaccio stated, “Despite even the humble entreaties so frequently made to God by pious people, in processions and in other ways, its extraordinarily grievous effects were apparent” (Boccaccio 8).
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAlthough religion is a big part of the Decameron, and found within most of the short stories told, I believe that the role religion played during the time of the plague in Florence depended on the person. For example, if a someone was extremely religious before the plague attacked their city and ended up contracting the plague anyways, which happened to many people, they would have had the option of taking two different paths. Either developing an even stronger sense of faith to ask for forgiveness of their sins, or abandoning religion altogether. It is difficult to say whether or not religion really did loose its value during the time of the plague because people reacted in different ways. Although many religious people fled, others such as priest stayed to treat those infected, and in the process showed their dedication to their faith.
I think arguments can be made that through the era of the plague people became less religious, but they can also become more religious. For the most part, I think it's purely circumstantial. Obviously, for the most part people were raised Roman Catholic or another religion and in good and pleasant times followed their religion as they pleased. However, when the plague came about people started to panic, many people turned to religion, especially those who did not have the means to flee the city and the filth. I think Kamy made a good point that poorer men and women, who were mostly illiterate, were forced to seek salvation from the church. This was not only because it was their only way of understanding the pandemonium around them, and their only way of attempting to protect themselves from the plague. On the contrary it is likely that some lost religion or lost their trust in their God because he/she was not showing any mercy, giving any answers, or answering any prayers. The chaos whether it was restrained or riled up by religion. I'm not sure, but I am sure that through all classes it was maintained by a common fear.
ReplyDeleteLike Erica said, I think religion could have been a double-edged sword. For some it was a valuable asset in that it offered an explanation of the plague or a coping mechanism. I think we cannot underestimate the fear and horror for the people of the time in seeing everyone around them perish in a revolting way, knowing that they too could easily perish. However, punishment from God could cause some to turn against their God or to physically punish themselves as in the case of the flagellants. Overtime, though, I think religion lost some of its meaning for people as it became clear that those who were religious and non-religious and those who led both pure and sinful lifestyles (according to religious laws) both became infected by the plague. In the story of Ser Cepperello, the people determine that this highly sinful man will become a Saint: “It was thus, then, that Ser Cepperello of Prato lived and died, becoming a Saint in the way you have heard…For albeit he led a wicked, sinful life, it is possible that at the eleventh hour he was so sincerely repentant that God had mercy upon him and received him into His kingdom.” I think Boccaccio demonstrates in The Decameron that religion was no matter to the disease itself. It infected anyone and everyone. I think he even makes fun of the people in the stories who were on the receiving end of the trick–the girl who was able to be convinced that she was putting the “Devil back in Hell,” the clergyman who met with Ser Cepperello on his death bed, the people who gladly paid money to see fake artifacts. He criticizes the Roman Catholic Church and illustrates the corruption and hypocrisy of the clergy.
ReplyDeleteHaving most of the continent be illiterate was a huge asset to the church. Sermons allowed the Church to spread what they believed what was going on with the plague. Many people thought it was the ned of the world and went to the extremes of the spectrum. We read accounts of huge orgies in the middle of the streets while other turned to spend the rest of their days in the pews of a church praying for safety. The Church created a narrative of that the plague was a punishment from God. I believe the Decameron was a satire on this. The stories in the Decameron clearly have references to the Church, however, all the stories were amoral, probably a subtle jab to the all-powerful Church. I think in the end it was an asset and a liability depending on the person. For one who saw clergy and high church members fall ill their faith in God might fail, however those who were hopeless it was an asset towards their mentality during what seemed like the end of the world.
ReplyDelete