(Reply) [S. Worthen

If Boccaccio's work is a proto-encyclopedia, what does that make Isidore's?

The "snarky sentences" on womanly idleness may relate to the portrayal of women as iconographically idle, btw.

I'm pondering your use of the word "iconographically" here. Did you mean symbolically? Abstractly, according to type? For all the evil women included in DMC, none of them can really be fundamentally accused of slothfulness in the modern sense, for all B. does so. They're in the collection in the first place because they have major accomplishments. My favorite major accomplishment of the moment from it is Semiramis' purported invention of the chastity belt. Then again, perhaps I need to read up on just what slothfulness actually means in the medieval sense, since clearly it's possible to be very productive (literally! children! inventions!) while still being slothful.

Of course they're types - Boccaccio (and Christine too) are all about types. Sure, they focus on different selections of types (Christine's are all virtuous), but it's all about exemplarity. I wonder how much of a modern conception it is to look for an emphasis on individuality when defining virtue (and saintliness) and vice in anyone is about matching them to exempla.

Obviously, we moderns are far too sophisticated to ever class people by types.

You Are Pumpkin Pie