225 / 298
Vico’s Ring
225
of Ideas», 50, 1989, 1, pp. 71-93, p. 73). Preus’ treatment has the merit of be-
ing systematic rather than
ad hoc
, on the premise that Spinoza’s and Vico’s
idea(s) of “imagination” is/are coextensive. While this argument cannot be
examined more closely here, it seems to engender its own problematics in re-
lation to results of specialized Vico studies, such as by Spinoza and Vico
scholar M. Sanna: «La teoria vichiana dell’immaginazione si distanzia profon-
damente dalle proposte di Descartes, Spinoza o Leibniz […] (Vico’s theory of
imagination differs fundamentally from the proposals of Descartes, Spinoza
or Leibniz […])» (Id.,
Il sapere dell’immaginazione e le sue forme di conoscenza
, in
Giambattista Vico e l’enciclopedia dei saperi
, cit., pp. 283-295, p. 289).
410
Pages 86-104 in the Shirley translation of
TTP
which we are using as
source text.
411
The reading of
TTP
can be enriched by familiarity with its subtext at
various levels; at one level,
TTP
is a rejoinder to his friend L. Meyer’s book
Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres
(
Philosophy the Interpreter of Sacred Scripture
), 1666,
that argued for the philosophical status and value of the Bible (see M. Wal-
ther,
Biblische Hermeneutik und historische Erklärung
,
cit., pp. 227-252; J. S. Preus,
Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority
, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2001, pp. 7-17, published in Italian as
Spinoza e la Bibbia. L’irrilevanza
dell’autorità della Bibbia,
trans. by F. Bassani, Brescia, Paideia, 2015); at another,
though not unrelated, level, it was motivated by Spinoza’s desire to make a
contribution to society: «Spinoza’s mode of textualization, then, was irenic
because it embedded the Bible in ancient history, where it would no longer be
able to trouble modern life», by «prevent[ing] religious and political leaders
from manipulating the Bible and curtailing intellectual freedom by using the
authority of the Bible to sanction superstitious or self-serving behaviors» (M.
C. Legaspi,
The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies
, Oxford-New
York, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 24). We are, however, restricting our
reading to the hermeneutical aspects as such, and intend to take them serious-
ly in their own right.
412
Due to our chosen defined objective and purview, the introduction
(
TTP
,
p. 86, first and second paragraphs, ending on p. 87), and conclusion (p.
99, from second paragraph to p. 103, third paragraph (inclusive), ending on p.
104, comprising the last 10 paragraphs of the chapter in the Shirley transla-
tion) are not included in this discussion.
413
TTP
, p. 87, first, second, and third paragraph, ending on p. 88.
414
S. Nadler reduced it to a workmanlike approach: «[…] for Maimonides
that reading [the true reading of any Biblical verse] is to be found through an
appeal to reason and philosophy, whereas for Spinoza it is to be found in the
proper textual/historical/linguistic study
of the book itself» (Id.,
The Jewish Spinoza
,