Do as we say and not as we do

The expression “Do as we say and not as we do” condenses the Decameron’s criticism of clerical hypocrisy: religious authorities demand virtue from others while excusing their own failure to practice it. Its force comes not only from the contradiction it identifies but from the material advantages the passage says that contradiction protects. Across other tales, fraudulent or corrupt churchmen make the same gap between holy office and unholy conduct visible in action.

The Expression and Its Immediate Argument

In a discussion of false friars, the phrase is presented as their stock reply when challenged over misconduct. The passage rejects it as no adequate answer: it is unreasonable to expect the sheep to resist temptation more steadfastly than their shepherds. The image turns clerical authority into an obligation. Those who guide others cannot plausibly excuse themselves by admitting, in effect, that they do not follow the rules they impose.

The criticism also exposes the practical interest behind the moral instruction. The monks urge laypeople to give them money, confide their secrets, remain chaste, forgive injuries, and avoid evil speech. The passage argues that this advice preserves the conditions in which friars can live comfortably and intrude into households. Their teaching may recommend good conduct, but the account presents self-interest as the reason they insist on it. The expression therefore describes more than personal inconsistency: it points to a system in which moral rules are enforced selectively, to the advantage of those who preach them.

Conduct Against Religious Authority

The tale of Abraham offers a revealing contrast between corrupt clergy and the religion they represent. After visiting the court of Rome, Abraham reports that he saw churchmen devoted to lust, greed, and gluttony, and describes the buying and selling of sacred offices and things. He says that religious leaders seem intent on destroying Christianity. Yet the faith continues to grow. Rather than taking this as proof against Christianity, Abraham concludes that the religion must be sustained by the Holy Spirit, asks to be baptized, and is named Giovanni at the Church of Our Lady of Paris. Clerical failure, in this episode, becomes the unexpected cause of conversion: the leaders’ conduct discredits them, while the faith’s endurance persuades Abraham of its truth.

The story of Ser Ciappelletto frames another distinction between outward reputation and inward character. At the start of the first day, the narrator reflects that human beings may appeal to an intercessor who is in fact condemned, without knowing the truth of that person’s standing. The account carefully distinguishes the judgment of people from the judgment of God, who attends to the petitioner’s intent. This is not the friars’ excuse in another form; rather, it complicates the moral landscape by showing that outward appearances and human understanding can fail, while exposing the danger of confusing public holiness with actual virtue.

False Miracles and Public Exposure

The abbot who deceives Ferondo turns religious authority into an instrument for sustaining a fraud. When Ferondo emerges from the tomb, believing himself restored from purgatory through the prayers of the abbot, Saint Benedict, and his wife, the abbot publicly performs astonishment and has the monks sing the Miserere. Ferondo then tells the villagers elaborate tales about the afterlife and returns home, believing his wife’s child to be his own. The abbot’s religious performance gives the deception a communal and miraculous appearance; the episode shows how a claim to spiritual authority can conceal private manipulation.

Fra Alberto’s exposure makes the contradiction between professed holiness and misconduct brutally public. After pretending to be the angel Gabriel to deceive Lisetta, he is presented to a crowd in Venice disguised as a wild man, his body smeared with honey. When his mask is removed, the crowd recognizes him, insults him, and pelts him with filth. His fellow friars eventually take him back to the convent, where he is believed to have died in prison. The scene converts hidden hypocrisy into visible disgrace: the man who impersonated a holy messenger ends up displayed as a grotesque spectacle.

Significance Across the Tales

The expression supplies a concise name for a recurring contrast, but the tales do not reduce every case to the same moral outcome. Abraham’s encounter with corrupt churchmen strengthens his belief in Christianity; Ferondo’s supposed return from purgatory enables an abbot’s deception; Fra Alberto’s fraud ends in public humiliation. Together, these episodes distinguish religious belief from the conduct of religious officials while showing how claims to sanctity can be used to influence, mislead, or exploit others. The phrase’s enduring sting lies in its reversal of pastoral responsibility: those who demand exemplary conduct from the flock are judged by whether they themselves live by their teaching.