Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  282 / 298 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 282 / 298 Next Page
Page Background

Horst Steinke


but overall, Troy and the Trojan War are right where they should be, in

northwestern Anatolia and firmly ensconced in the world of the Late Bronze

Age, as we now know from archaeology and Hittite records, in addition to the

Greek literary evidence from both Homer and the

Epic Cycle

» (Id.,

The Trojan


, cit., pp. 45, 49, 68, 104, 110).

For more detailed historical studies, see the following contributions in


New Companion to Homer

, cit.: I. Morris,

Homer and the Iron Age,

pp. 535-559; S.


Homer and the Near East

, pp. 599-623; W. Donlan,

The Homeric Economy


pp. 649-667; A. W. H. Adkins,

Homeric Ethics

, pp. 694-713; the following con-

tributions in

The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000 - 1000 BC)


ed. by E. H. Cline, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2010: D.

Nakassis - M. L. Galaty - W. A. Parkinson,

State and Society

, pp. 239-250; S.


Minoan Religion

, pp. 251-262; id.,

Mycenaean Religion

, pp. 263-276; Ch.


Death and Burial

, pp. 277-290; B. E. Burns,


, pp. 291-304; T. Bryce,

The Trojan War,

pp. 475-482; as well as R. Osborne,

Homer’s society

, in

The Cam-

bridge Companion to Homer

, ed. by R. Fowler, Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 2004, pp. 206-219.


Lollini points out the contentious issue surrounding connections be-

tween “myth” and “history”: «La corruzione dei miti rende estremamente ar-

duo il tentativo di stabilire una linea diretta di continuità tra mito e storia (The

corruption of the myths makes it extremely arduous to try to establish a direct

link between myth and history)» (Id.,

Il mito come precomprensione storica aperta

nella Scienza nuova di Giambattista Vico

, cit., p. 45).


Morrison came to similar conclusions: «[…] while Spinoza emphatically

denies that historical knowledge is necessary for either understanding or judg-

ing scientific or philosophical books, Vico asserts that historical knowledge is

essential for understanding and judging


books. […] Spinoza’s history of

Scripture shows that it is only confused and inconsistent opinion produced by

the imagination. […] For Vico, historical knowledge about the products of the

human mind is the only possible knowledge for man» (Id.,

Vico and Spinoza


cit., pp. 67, 68; italics original).


In this light, the historical assessment by Israel would therefore seem to

be overstating matters: «Even those modern commentators who insist that

Vico was a philosophical opponent of Naturalism and Spinozism are obliged

to concede that Spinoza exerted a significant influence on many of Vico’s key

formulations, on his critical philological method […], on his ethical philoso-

phy, and finally, especially on his approach to the interaction of religion and

society. For the evidence for this is unanswerable» (Id.,

Radical Enlightenment:

Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750

, cit., p. 668).