Horst Steinke
262
to light in the process and progress of their works, and can thus
be related both to methodology and ultimate outcome of their
treatment of the material, Homer’s poems and Scripture, respec-
tively. In Spinoza’s case, it is the position of all things “language”
at the bottom of his epistemic pyramid that results in casting a
pall over the value of biblical studies; for Vico, however, his
model of the development of human civilization places high val-
ue on the “originary” processes which, for him, find expression
in the very language with which Spinoza takes issue
571
. In the
light of these fundamental incongruities, it would therefore seem
problematic to link Vico with Spinoza in his (Vico’s) hermeneu-
tical practice without complex qualifications
572
.
The fourth area introduced above, the question of authorship
of the Homeric poems, and the related question of the existence
of Homer, or rather Vico’s views of his existence, fits into, and
in fact needs to be studied in relation to, the overall framework
of Vico’s work on the poems; it also provides a platform for
consideration of the oft-posited thesis that Vico’s rejection of
the 8
th
century BC Homer as author of the poems echoed Spino-
za’s denial of Moses as author of the Pentateuch.
10.1
Vico and the “Homeric question”
As observed above, Vico frames his exposition in Book III of
the content of the Homeric poems (with its multiple strata) in
contradistinction to “philosophy”: «Homer the greatest of poets,
we denied that he was ever a philosopher» (§§ 836, 896). This as-
sertion goes to the heart of Vico’s engagement with the Homeric
poems: the poems (both the
Iliad
and
Odyssey
)
are not, as Vico
repeatedly claims
–
more extensively than any other point or line
of argument
–
the product of a mind or minds of an age indulg-
ing in philosophical reflection or highly intellectual registers. The
“Homeric question”, therefore, assumes a different complexion
for Vico than for other readers of the early modern age
573
, or the
modern age, for that matter. In spite of the “corruption”