251 / 298
Vico’s Ring
251
within natural science of what meanings are for hermeneutic science» (Id.,
A
Book Forged in Hell
, cit., p. 133).
525
It is no coincidence that Gabbey can cite the programmatic
TTP
pas-
sage (p. 87) as template for Spinoza’s scientific method, rather than the other
way around (Id.,
Spinoza’s natural science and methodology
, cit., p. 170), and unsur-
prising that in both cases, analogous outcomes are reached: with respect to
Scripture, «this method […] teaches […] not what they [the prophets] intend-
ed to signify or represent by the symbols in question. The latter we can only
guess at, not infer with certainty from the basis of Scripture» (
TTP
, p. 93); for
physical/chemical phenomena, «I [Spinoza] deny that these things follow from
the said experiment more clearly and evidently than from many other common-
place experiments, which do not, however, provide definite proof» (
Letter 13
).
526
To use an elementary mathematical illustration, in the study of the struc-
ture of a cylinder (in topology), that is, the 2-dimensional surface of a cylinder, it
is possible to identify two fundamental components, a circle and a line, but their
study in isolation is not commensurate with correctly describing the nature of
the cylinder as a “product” of both, a very simple kind of “interaction”, none-
theless an interaction rather than merely a disjunctive “sum”; mathematical illus-
trations of “interaction” can be found at any desired level of complexity.
527
As stated by Simonutti: «“Interpretare la Scrittura per se stessa” […],
procedendo secondo una metodica e una critica, strumenti che l’ermeneutica
biblica condivide con la matematica e le scienze della natura, e in questo con-
siste la grande intuizione di Spinoza (“Interpreting Scripture through itself”
[…], proceeding according to a methodology and a criticism, tools which bi-
blical hermeneutics shares with mathematics and the natural sciences, and this
constitutes the great intuition of Spinoza)» (Id.,
Dalle “sensate esperienze”
all’ermeneutica biblica
, cit., p. 327).
528
We are following Montag,
Bodies
,
Masses
,
Power
,
cit., p. 5, who, to a par-
ticular extent and depth, has developed these implications. He calls Spinoza
«the first philosopher explicitly to consider Scripture, that is, writing as a part
of nature in its materiality, as irreducible to anything outside of itself, […] a
repetition or emanation of something posited as primary. For Spinoza, nature
is a surface without depth; Scripture as part of nature conceals nothing, holds
nothing in reserve».
529
Ibid.
, pp. 4, 5; Garrett, in a different context, also expressed the funda-
mental state of affairs: «For Spinoza […], nature and man form only one
impe-
rium
[…]» (Id.,
Meaning in Spinoza’s Method
,
cit., p. 81).
530
Tosel commented: «La comparaison entre la Nature et l’Écriture doit se
lire dans le sens d’une reconduction de celle-ci à celle-là. […] C’est l’Écriture
qui est une réalité naturelle que l‘on doit décrire à partir de ses données consti-