Is this book more about women, or more about fame? In Boccaccio's writing, he seems to take this stance: Women should be remembered by history, because just as people gain wisdom by studying the stories of heroes and kings, so also, Boccaccio feels that by remembering women and their stories, perhaps a more plenary wisdom could be attained. Notice that the argument is perfectly obvious in the modern day, but back when he wrote it, absolutely no one had written anything like it before.
In an effort to remember powerful women, he also remembers the mythologies about women goddesses and ancient queens. He mentions Egypt frequently, where it was not as unusual to have a woman sovereign as it was in Europe. Also, notice that, because the legend of Isis was so well-known in the Egyptian and even Greek worlds, there were more women leaders to follow, like Dido and Cleopatra. They are archetypal reminders to the European world that the patriarchy can easily accommodate women in leadership.
By increasing the volume of the narrative about women in the West, Boccaccio undermines a false and regressive idea that women are somehow inferior. But in other ways, his words often imply ideas that would be strikingly misogynistic today, but one must view his writing as the product of his times, and of course the book's historical controversy is evidence that Boccaccio was forward thinking for his times. Perhaps the most forward-thinking aspect of the conversation is that Boccaccio clearly demonstrates using historical example that women are equally able to lead and govern.
