Table Of ContentFAVOLE, PARABOLE, ISTORIE: THE GENEALOGY OF BOCCACCIO’S THEORY
OF ALLEGORY
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of Notre Dame
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
James C. Kriesel
Martin Bloomer, Director
Christian Moevs, Director
Graduate Program in Medieval Studies
Notre Dame, Indiana
May 2008
UMI Number: 3309176
Copyright 2008 by
Kriesel, James C.
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform3309176
Copyright2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Copyright 2008
James C. Kriesel
FAVOLE, PARABOLE, ISTORIE: THE GENEALOGY OF BOCCACCIO’S THEORY
OF ALLEGORY
Abstract
by
James C. Kriesel
This study maintains that allegory is the key to understanding Boccaccio’s poetics
and literary theory. Boccaccio either composed allegorical fictions such as the Ameto,
Amorosa visione, or Buccolicum carmen, or he theorized allegory’s role in literature’s
semiotics, for example in his Trattatello on Dante and in the Genealogie deorum
gentilium. Despite Boccaccio’s interest in allegory, it has not been understood that
allegory is foundational for Boccaccio’s conception of literature. Traditionally, scholars
have considered Boccaccio to be the first Italian “realist” author, who criticized simplistic
notions of God, theology, and medieval allegory. This thesis reevaluates Boccaccio’s
understanding of allegory in the wake of proto-Humanist defenses of classical literature
and Dante’s valorization of vernacular fiction.
Chapters 1-2 contextualize allegory within medieval literary theory. Medieval debates
about allegory turned on two questions: what texts are allegorical and how are they
allegorical? Chapter 3 suggests that Boccaccio represents the culmination of medieval
literary theory because he develops a theory of allegory universally applicable to all texts.
Rather than prioritize the historical and figural semiotics of the Bible over fiction,
James C. Kriesel
Boccaccio suggests that all texts and literatures are equally allegorical, and thus
communicate similar truths and have similar value. Boccaccio’s allegorical literary
theory allows him to justify the coherence of his own diverse writings, synthesize the
Italian and Latin cultural projects of Dante and Petrarch, and valorize secular fiction.
Chapter 4 treats Boccaccio’s allegorical use of the erotic in the Ameto and
Amorosa visione. Boccaccio’s early fictions experiment with literary semiotics as a
system in their own right, without being justified by theology or philosophy. In polemic
with Dante, whose fiction signifies in relation to Biblical prefiguration and metaphysics,
symbolized by the ideal erotic, Boccaccio’s signify in relation to the real and the
physical, symbolized by the mundane erotic. Chapter 5 suggests that Boccaccio’s
Corbaccio functions as an Ovidian remedium for readers who do not read allegorically.
Based on elegy’s connection, as developed in Ovid’s amatory writings, between loving,
reading, and writing, the Corbaccio uses hatred as a metaphor for the literal reading of
women and literature. The Conclusion briefly discusses allegory in the Decameron.
For my family, the American and the Italian
ii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Introduction Boccaccio and Allegory: the Historiographical Context..............1
Chapter 2: Allegory and Medieval Literary Theory.........................................................17
2.1. Introduction....................................................................................................17
2.2. The Historical Development of Allegory......................................................19
2.3. Conclusion.....................................................................................................39
Chapter 3: The Genealogy of Boccaccio’s Theory of Allegory.......................................42
3.1. Introduction....................................................................................................42
3.2. The Study of Boccaccio’s Literary Theory....................................................44
3.3. The Trattatello in laude di Dante: Allegory and Poetry, Fiction and Scripture
.......................................................................................................................50
3.4. The Genealogie deorum gentilium: Fiction, Allegory, and Syncretic Poetics
.......................................................................................................................63
3.5. The Genealogies of Literature: Boccaccio’s Literary History.......................85
3.6. Conclusion...................................................................................................103
Chapter 4: Reading and Writing the Erotic: Boccaccio’s Early Allegorical Poetry.......106
4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................106
4.2. Dante and Allegory in the Ameto and Amorosa visione..............................109
4.3. Re-Embodying the Erotic: Boccaccio and Neoplatonism...........................118
4.4. Re-Envisioning the Erotic: Boccaccio’s Redemption of Erotic Poetics......134
4.5. Re-Reading the Erotic: Boccaccio and Ulysses...........................................165
4.6. Re-Narrating the Real: Boccaccio and the Narrative of Creation................187
4.7. Conclusion...................................................................................................204
Chapter 5: Hating the Corpus: the Corbaccio and Misinterpretation.............................208
5.1. Introduction..................................................................................................208
5.2. Ovid’s Literary Love: Writing, Interpretation, and Textual Intercourse.....213
5.2.1. The Love of Art: Ovid’s Ars amatoria and Failed Lovers.................218
5.2.2. The Love of Art: Ovid’s Ars amatoria and Fiction............................244
5.2.3. The Hatred of Fiction: Ovid’s Remedia and Misreading....................259
iii
5.3. Misreading: from Fortune to Shipwreck......................................................268
5.3.1. The Literal Reading of Women..........................................................268
5.3.2. The Literal Reading of Literature.......................................................276
5.4. Literal Misreading: the Hatred of Literature................................................296
5.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................321
Chapter 6: Conclusion Allegory and the Decameron.....................................................325
Bibliography...................................................................................................................345
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During an extended period of research, professional training, and personal
growth, it is inevitable that one’s advisors become friends and that one’s friends become
advisors. “If anyone ever needed or held dear or received enjoyment from” advisors and
friends, “I am certainly to be numbered among those.” While I cannot thank properly the
people who have influenced me and my work, I hope that this dissertation may be a sign
of the love and the care that I feel towards all who have supported me.
It has been an honor to have worked with the exceptional scholars and more
importantly the exceptional people that served on my dissertation committee. Profs.
Martin Bloomer and Zygmunt Barański have tirelessly guided my intuitions about the
originality and significance of Boccaccio’s literary theory, and are responsible for my
thinking about Boccaccio’s relationship to Dante and to the classics. Thank you both for
your friendship, expertise, and generosity. Profs. Theodore Cachey Jr. and Christian
Moevs have commented extensively on drafts of this manuscript, and are responsible for
my formation as an Italian scholar and teacher, as well as my love of Italian literature.
Thank you for believing that I had something original to contribute, and for showing me
how say it. Thank you for your kindness and your guidance.
Due to its unique resources and staff, the Medieval Institute at Notre Dame was
the only place where this research could have been completed. First and foremost, my
deepest gratitude goes to Prof. Thomas Noble, who has influenced this project in
v
everyway. From my first year in the Institute, Prof. Noble made it possible for me to
pursue a sui generis academic formation that included two extended periods of study in
Italy. Without his institutional and financial support, as well as his contributions to my
understanding of medieval history, neither my degree nor this research would have been
possible. It is also a pleasure to thank Margaret Cinninger, Roberta Baranowski, Linda
Major, and Marina Smyth for their friendship and for their help with all the challenges
that a PhD program offers. Other faculty who have contributed to my understanding of
the Middle Ages and Italy, and who have my sincerest thanks include Profs. John Welle,
Michael Lapidge, Frank Mantello, Colleen Ryan-Scheutz, Margaret Meserve, and Daniel
Sheerin. A special note of thanks goes to Profs. Jerry Reedy and Martin Gunderson of
Macalester College, who fostered my love of literature and intellectual curiosity during
my undergraduate degree.
My research has also had the generous financial support of numerous institutions
and persons. In addition to the University of Notre Dame, I would like to thank the US
Fulbright Commission for supporting a year of research in Italy. I am also grateful to the
William Devers and Albert Ravarino families, who not only finance many aspects of
Italian studies at Notre Dame, but have also funded my own research and training in Italy
for multiple years, support and opportunities that are unimaginable anywhere else but
Notre Dame. As a result of their generosity, I was able to collaborate with and study at
two Italian research institutions, whom I thank for their warm welcome and the assistance
they gave me. At the Accademia della Crusca in Florence, thanks go to the director of
the Opera del Vocabolario Italiano, Prof. Pietro Beltrami, both for writing in support of
my Fulbright application and for hosting me during my Fulbright year. Thanks are also
vi
Description:This study maintains that allegory is the key to understanding Boccaccio’s poetics and literary theory. Boccaccio either composed allegorical fictions such as the Ameto, Amorosa visione, or Buccolicum carmen, or he theorized allegory’s role in literature’s semiotics, for example in his Trattat
