ommended by impurity.

The true source of the outcry against Boccaccio, which began at a very
early period, was the choice of his scandalous personages in the
cloisters as well as the courts; but the princes only laughed at the
gallant adventures so unjustly charged upon queen Theodelinda, whilst
the priesthood cried shame upon the debauches drawn from the convent and
the hermitage; and most probably for the opposite reason, namely, that
the picture was faithful to the life. Two of the novels are allowed to
be facts usefully turned into tales to deride the canonisation of rogues
and laymen. Ser Ciappelletto and Marcellinus are cited with applause
even by the decent Muratori.[614] The great Arnaud, as he is quoted in
Bayle, states, that a new edition of the novels was proposed, of which
the expurgation consisted in omitting the words "monk" and "nun," and
tacking the immoralities to other names. The literary history of Italy
particularises no such edition; but it was not long before the whole of
Europe had but one opinion of the _Decameron_; and the absolution of the
author seems to have been a point settled at least a hundred years ago:
"On se feroit siffler si l' on pretendoit convaincre Boccace de n'avoir
pas ete honnete homme, puis qu'il a fait le Decameron." So said one of
the best men, and perhaps the best critic that ever lived--the very
martyr to impartiality.[615] But as this information, that in the
beginning of the last century one would have been hooted at for
pretending that Boccaccio was not a good man, may seem to come from one
of those enemies who are to be suspected, even when they make us a
present of truth, a more acceptable contrast with the proscription of
the body, soul, and muse of Boccaccio may be found in a few words from
the virtuous, the patriotic contemporary, who thought one of the tales
of this impure writer worthy a Latin version from his own pen. "I have
remarked elsewhere," says Petrarch, writing to Boccaccio, "that the book
itself has been worried by certain dogs, but stoutly defended by your
staff and voice. Nor was I astonished, for I have had proof of the
vigour of your mind, and I know you have fallen on that unaccommodating
incapable race of mortals, who, whatever they either like not, or know
not, or cannot do, are sure to reprehend in others; and on those
occasions only put on a show of learning and eloquence, but otherwise
are entirely dumb."[616]

It is satisfactory to find tha