In Dante’s Inferno, Montaigne’s Essays, and Boccaccio’s Decameron, it seems that storytelling functions for entirely different purposes. Dante curiously prods for stories to add to his "notes" or remembrances of his trip to hell, making storytelling a method of entertainment in the depths of hell. Each of Montaigne’s stories are meant to leave his family and friends with an accurate memory of himself and his values, not an attempt to gain fame. The seven women and three men in Boccaccio’s work recount stories to sustain themselves by distracting their minds from the plague, a method of survival. These purposes may appear radically different but actually share a common theme. In all three works the authors seek to blur conventional distinctions between opposing realms, such as the world of the living and that of the dead, imagination and reality, civilization and barbarism, and religious morality and fallible human tendencies. Though the obviousness with which the authors presents their commentaries vary, the purpose of introducing these ambiguities is to question the reader’s assumptions and understandings of traditionally polar spheres.

Dante offers the most subtle commentary, and for this reason it can be difficult to view the character Dante as someone other than a curious intruder of Hell if one does not pay careful attention to detail. Consider his visit to the lustful circle of hell and his questioning of Francesca. Dante tearfully asks Francesca to recount her dooming story and she hesitates by responding: "There is no greater sorrow than thinking back upon a happy time in misery" (Canto V, 121-123). Clearly both characters find the present fate upsetting, so why does the conversation continue? Each character must have a purpose for prolonging discussion or the interchange of painful information would abruptly cease. It is faulty to conclude that only Dante benefits from the conversation by satisfying his curiosity since Francesca is not compelled to respond; she acts on her own free will. Francesca concedes by saying "...if you long so much to understand the first root of our love, then I shall tell my tale to you..." (V, 124-125). She accepts Dante’s request in an effort to help him "understand" her plight and clearly feels no guilt or embarrassment of her "happy time". This lack of remorse illustrates that Francesca wants Dante to identify with a natural human tendency which she describes as "love" not lust, and realize that her grievous fate is a matter of bad luck, not justified punishment. Dante faints at the end of this story, a sign of approbation of Francesca’s conclusion. Francesca’s tale, therefore, is meant to bridge the gap between earth and hell blurring the lines of humanity and questioning the righteousness of such a distinction.

Another example which illustrates the blending of these two worlds is Dante’s reaction to Boca degli Abati’s refusal to give Dante a story. Instead of respecting Boca’s decision not to share his misfortune in its entirety, Dante physically attacks Boca by grabbing his neck and pulling his hair. This evil behavior provokes the reader into considering that maybe Dante should be in Hell and Boca should not, especially since all he does in response is squeal rather than fight. Again, the distinction between earth and hell is questionable. The behavior of individuals in these two realms illustrates the interchangeability of evil and good in both spheres, suggesting that conventional distinctions may be artificial in significance. Though earth and hell differ in physical location (clearly Dante can leave hell and return to earth), the morality of both places can be quite similar. The reason this critique is more subtle than those of Montaigne and Boccaccio is that Dante does not explicitly state his disapproval of his own behavior, he simply illustrates it and allows his reader to assess. Some may consider Dante’s aggression to be in accordance with God’s wishes, meaning that Dante’s evil tendencies correspond to God’s relative placement of his victims in Hell. Interpreting this story in light of Francesca’s, however, leads one to believe that Dante is following the pattern of linking two seemingly polar realms of existence and making his reader question the validity of such a moral distinction.

Montaigne also introduces ambiguity in traditional distinctions, one of them being the separation between imagination and reality. Through both realistic and fantastical examples, Montaigne illustrates the power of imagination to infringe upon reality. He recounts a story of someone who executes himself by power of imagination in expectation of the executioner’s blow. Excessive visualization in the mind causes the event to actually occur. In another example Montaigne explains how a man catches impotence from his imagination out of fear of performing poorly. In blurring the distinction between reality and imagination by uniting mere thoughts with tangible outcomes, Montaigne makes his reader reconsider the association of fiction with imagination, and non-fiction with reality. The presentation of the interchangeablility of these ideas plants a seed of doubt in the readers’ minds about the ability to control their actions. Perhaps the presentation of these stories are a reflection of Montaigne’s own insecurities since he claims that he borrows stories yet "the inferences are my own" (46). Montaigne’s undermining of the conventional separation between imagination and reality is much more obvious than Dante’s undermining of morality between earth and hell. Each account of Montaigne’s is directly aimed at illustrating the power of imagination as apparent from the title of this essay, unlike Dante’s stories in which the reader cannot readily identify one purpose for each story.

In his essay on cannibalism, Montaigne again blurs the distinction between two seemingly distinct realms, the realm of civilization and the realm of barbarism. This particular blending is even more powerful than the example of imagination because rather than reflect a personal insecurity, this essay seeks to challenge an established hierarchy. Who would dare to suggest that cannibals, men who consume other men, are better in many respects to the civilized races of the world? Montaigne does by clearly asserting his disapproval of the traditional distinction between the two classes of people: "We are justified therefore in calling these people barbarians by reference to the laws of reason, but not in comparison with ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity" (114). Similar to the essay on the power of imagination, this essay illustrates the limits of reason and importance of relativity. Often what seems like a rational conclusion or outcome is overruled when juxtaposed with its supposedly opposite form. Recall the imagination essay; how can a woman who believes a pin is stuck in her throat, find any relief when nothing is dislodged? Reason supposes that an irritation of this sort cannot be alleviated if no physical change occurs. Introducing imagination into the scenario illustrates that there is a feeling of relief when the woman sees a pin, and supposes that the object of her pain is gone. In both essays, Montaigne overlaps conventional opposites forcing his readers to reconsider the necessity of such distinctions, and the limits of pure reason.

Boccaccio’s association of conventionally opposite spheres is undoubtedly the most powerful critique of the three authors because Boccaccio does not limit himself to an association, rather he entirely reverses an accepted order. Ministers of Catholicism are meant to be models of religious morality, surpassing the conduct of fallible laymen. In Boccaccio’s stories, however, nuns and friars commit the worst of sins. Consider, for example, the story of the nuns and the gardener. One nun convinces another that both must decide whether or not the sexual act is the greatest of all experiences using the gardener to prove or disprove the assumption. Clearly nuns are not meant to indulge in the testing of the great experiences of this world; their service to God takes the form of service to humanity not to themselves. Furthermore, nuns strictly vow to preserve their chastity, one of the most sacred promises between a nun and the Father. The gardener, on the contrary, is an ordinary "dumb fellow" who would not surprise Boccaccio’s audience by consenting to amoral behavior. Boccaccio completely reverses these roles by making the nuns self-consumed, disobedient women: "We are constantly making Him promises that we never keep! What does it matter if we fail to keep this one? He can always find other girls to preserve their virginity for Him" (196). The nuns’ completely disregard their obligation to God, and it is the gardener who must finally end their inappropriate behavior by refusing to collaborate with them any longer. Boccaccio inserts fallible and sick human tendencies into one of the supposedly holiest of living beings, and gives the ordinary gardener a bit of common sense and more of a moral conscience than the nuns.

In a similar reversal, Boccaccio presents his reader with a friar who disguises himself as the angel Gabriel in an attempt to sleep with the woman of his fancies. He is quite successful and visits her on numerous occasions, but his luck does not last indefinitely. He is ultimately captured and punished for his evil actions, thereby asserting Boccaccio’s disapproval of such behavior. Boccaccio’s storytelling reverses the ideally opposing ideas of religious morality and fallible human tendencies in order to reveal the unacceptable conduct of religious role models. By bringing humor to the stories Boccaccio suggests the futility of viewing such a situation in a gravely serious light. Perhaps the best way to approach this reversal is to acknowledge its prevalent existence, and retain a good disposition despite a horrifying outlook.

In Inferno, Essays, and The Decameron storytelling functions to bring together traditionally distinct realms such as the world of the living and that of the dead, imagination and reality, civilization and barbarism, and lastly religious morality and fallible human tendencies. The joining of these realms functions as a religious or social commentary intended to challenge the reader’s prized beliefs, and introduce misperceptions and distinctions that should be questioned, not blindly accepted. Though Dante, Montaigne, and Boccaccio do not specifically suggest the means of change, they seem to believe acknowledgment, in the form of stories, as the first step to transformation. The degree to which they make this acknowledgment apparent to their audience is related to their confidence in conveying atypical and offensive perspectives. Boccaccio, in this case, takes the boldest step; it is too difficult to ignore so blatant a message. For this reason his stories are the most lively and entertaining. Montaigne does not use quite the same level of exaggeration in his storytelling, yet his examples are still clear. Most subtle of all is Dante, who merely presents rather than chastises his behavior in Hell. From entirely different plots and styles, storytelling still serve as the authors’ means of critiquing the accepted norms around them, and the works in their entirety function to arouse complacent minds into a frenzy of questions and natural confusion, only then will a more accurate clarity of beliefs evolve.