271 / 298
Vico’s Ring
271
for example) of having no real conception of history, or at least no interest in
it» (
ibid.
, p. 119). Spinoza’s ultimate evaluation(s) and use(s) notwithstanding,
TTP
consists of an extensive review, and reconstruction, of biblical history,
perhaps even to a greater degree and extent than philosophers have undertak-
en post-Spinoza. More important, still, is the fact that history/historiography
is integrated in his epistemic system; as indicated in the quoted text above,
«historical narratives» are part of the second kind of knowledge. As such they
serve as a valuable, if not indispensable, foil for the third kind of knowledge.
537
P. Cristofolini,
La scienza intuitiva di Spinoza,
cit., pp. 188-190, p. 189
esp.: «In altri termini, la scienza politica è un’altra esplicazione della scienza
intuitiva (In other words, rational political discourse is another expression of
intuitive knowledge)».
538
We assume the correctness of the view held in Vico studies that he
knew
TTP
; G. Costa, for example pointed out that Spinoza’s works were in
the Valetta library, and he could also have had access to the
Dictionnaire his-
torique et critique
, and its entry on Spinoza by Pierre Bayle (Id., Review of G.
Bedani,
Vico Revisited
,
cit., in «NVS», 8, 1990, pp. 90-92, p. 91). Another sec-
ondary, indirect source of Vico’s familiarity with Spinozan hermeneutics, by
all indications, was fellow Neapolitan Biagio Garofalo (1677-1762) whose
book
Considerazioni intorno alla poesia degli ebrei e dei greci
(1707) was a work of
Spinozist reception (see P. Totaro,
«Il lezzo di ser Benedetto»
:
Motivi spinoziani
nell’opera di Biagio Garofalo
, in «BCSV», XXX, 2000, pp. 61-76; F. Bregoli,
Bibli-
cal Poetry, Spinozist Hermeneutics, and Critical Scholarship
, in «Journal of Modern
Jewish Studies», 8, 2009, 2, pp. 173-198, pp. 177-180). Garofalo’s work has
been re-issued, (ed. by M. Sanna, with cooperation of A. Lissa, Milan, Franco
Angeli, 2014), with an extensive introduction by M. Sanna, in which Sanna
points out the interest Garofalo’s views on the Hebrew and Greek languages
would have held for Vico. From this perspective, one cannot help but share
puzzlement over the fact that Vico in a letter to Garofalo of late 1721, ne-
glected to interact with Garofalo on these matters; as M. Sanna and S. Caian-
iello commented: «[…] non è facile spiegare como mai né nella lettera che qui
se presenta, in cui pure si tratta di temi contigui, né altrove Vico non vi si
riferisca mai in modo esplicito ([…] it is not easy to explain that neither in the
letter before us, although in it related topics are dealt with, or elsewhere, does
Vico ever refer to it explicitly)» (Id.,
Una lettera inedita di G. B. Vico a B. Garofalo
del 4 ottobre 1721
, in «BCSV», XXVI-XXVII, 1996-1997, pp. 325-331, p. 328).
539
B. A. Haddock,
Vico’s “Discovery of the true Homer
”, cit., p. 591.
540
Vico stays focused on the contrast throughout Book III, including ad-
ditional references to “philosopher(s), philosophy” in §§ 784, 785, 786, 806,
807, 825, 828, 829, 831, 836, 837, 838, 845, 896, 897. This usage of “philoso-