MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598654574 · doi:10.1353/mln.2017.0012

The Ethical Dimension of the Decameron by Marilyn Migiel

2017· article· en· W2598654574 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMLN · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Dimension (graph theory)Reading (process)Character (mathematics)IntentionalitySet (abstract data type)DistancingOrder (exchange)Key (lock)SociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsComputer scienceMathematicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Ethical Dimension of the Decameron by Marilyn Migiel Alyssa Falcone Marilyn Migiel. The Ethical Dimension of the Decameron. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2015. Marilyn Migiel’s The Ethical Dimension of the Decameron is a new investigation of the varied relationships between the Decameron and its readers, between the Author and his characters, and between translators and the intentionality of the text. Adding to the work of numerous Boccaccio scholars and translators of the past century, Migiel carefully reconsiders key passages of some of the Decameron’s most famous stories (and other, lesser-studied ones) in order to present inherent problems in modern readers’ methods of interpretation. Although she examines how every individual reading of the text is colored by personal biases and assumptions, Migiel denies taking a prescriptive approach to the ethics of Decameron; “Rather,” she writes, “I examine how Boccaccio’s narrators, translators, and readers establish the ethical questions about how we ought to live, and I ask readers to consider the implications of such choices” (5). Over the course of eight chapters, Migiel demonstrates—mostly through close comparisons of translations by John Florio, W. K. Kelly, J. M. Rigg, and Mark Musa and Peter Bondanella, among others—how the misperception of even one word can set off a chain reaction of misinterpretations, leading readers to believe, in more than one case, that the wrong character is culpable of a crime when another could be found guilty instead. Distancing herself a bit from the tale of Griselda, which is usually the “linchpin” of ethical studies of the Decameron, Migiel considers stories such as that of Ferondo in Purgatory and of Maestro Alberto in order to show to readers minute aspects of the stories they may have initially missed, which could ultimately change the way they understand the narration. By attempting to tease out every possible shade of meaning in the words that Boccaccio chooses, Migiel opens ample room for newer, more nuanced conversation regarding our connections to the characters in the Decameron and to the text itself. Migiel’s first chapter, “Wanted: Translators of the Decameron’s Moral and Ethical Complexities,” focuses on the tendencies of readers to cling to now-outdated, “deeply entrenched ideological views of the Decameron that hinder an accurate understanding of its ethical project” (18-19). These views, such as the idea that the Decameron’s sole objective is that of entertainment, or that every speech act has a singular purpose, or even considerations of the fixity of gender roles within the text, should all be re-examined, she says. When [End Page 244] readers become too focused on the same way of reading the Decameron, they miss the didactic benefits of the text and lose out on lessons on how to live well. The Decameron is constantly testing us—often so subtly that we do not know we are being tested—and Migiel claims that we would be wise to notice the ways in which Boccaccio forces us to rethink our preconceived notions of the text and constantly fine-tune them as much as possible. Throughout the following chapters Migiel draws both from other critics and from her seminal 2003 work, A Rhetoric of the Decameron, to draw attention to the “sex wars” that the Decameron wages and to problems in the moral analyses of many of its tales. Importantly, she notes that many readers, anxious to judge the motivations of a female character, tend to see her needs as purely sexual and discount any other ones, instead of looking more carefully at the evidence that her words convey. Migiel reminds us that, as modern readers, we must act more like lawyers, taking into account both “questionable logic” and “inexact evidence,” both on the part of the storytellers and of the characters themselves, but also on the part of translators—especially when suspicion regarding a female character’s motives comes into play. We must be careful not to fall into the same trap as pre-modern readers who, for example, “were predisposed to notice female imperfection, particularly if falsehood and fraudulence were involved” (74). Another trap Migiel says we should take care to avoid is that of misinterpreting Boccaccio’s...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it