quired for creating a poetic text naturally is not […] due to an internal pro-
Was ist und was will “Heldenepik”?
, cit., p. 282).
G. Danek refers to the oral epic tradition received by the 8
Homer, somewhat oxymoronically, as “hypo-text”: «The Homeric epics were
hyper-texts at the time when they were composed. Their hypo-text was the
whole epic tradition. […] this hypotext as it was has disappeared for us pre-
cisely because it was wiped out and replaced by the monumental texts which
Homer composed […]. But if we take into account the hypertextual nature of
the Homeric epics, they become richer and more meaningful» (Id.,
ic epics as palimpsests
In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near
Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and its Reflections in Medieval Literature
ed. by Ph. S. Alexander, A. Lange, R. J. Pillinger, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 123-
136, p. 135). On certain literary aspects of the two works, see I. J. E. de Jong,
Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in
Ancient Greek Narrative, Volume One,
ed. by I. de Jong, R. Nünlist, A. Bowie,
Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 13-24). See also V. Hösle,
, cit., p.
With respect to the voluminous history of reception of Vico’s intended
stance, it is still important to cite B. Croce and F. Nicolini (without engaging
here with their lines of reasoning, or with the historically interesting responses
to their interpretations): B. Croce,
The Philosophy of Giambattista Vico
, cit., pp.
Saggio sullo Hegel, seguito da altri scritti,
Bari, Laterza, 1913, pp. 269-
282; F. Nicolini,
, cit., pp. 181-209, on the subject “La semi-
negazione della personalità storica di Omero (The halfway denial of the histo-
ricity of Homer)”.
The first half consists of a single, convoluted sentence giving effusive
praise to unnamed «men of acute minds and excelling in scholarship» and «the
most judicious critics» for raising questions concerning «the Homer believed
in up to now», thus introducing the key issue. Nicolini suggests these were
Francesco Spinelli, prince of Scalea (1686-1752), Matteo Egizio (1671-1745),
Francesco Bianchini (1661-1729) (Id.,
, cit., pp. 182, 186). For Vi-
co’s intellectual debt to Bianchini, see also C. Lucci,
Vico lettore e interprete dei
poemi omerici nella Scienza nuova
, cit., pp. 49-51.
The paragraph in its entirety is discussed in detail in G. Cerri,
G. B. Vico e
l’interpretazione oralistica di Omero
Oralità. Cultura, letteratura, discorso. Atti del
Urbino 21-25 luglio 1980
, ed. by B. Gentili and G. Paioni,
Rome, Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1985, pp. 233-258; R. Ruggiero,
Nova Scientia Ten-
, cit., pp. 191-195; the same material also appeared in Id.,
La “volgar tradi-
, cit., pp. 237-245.
La Scienza nuova. Le tre edizioni
, cit., p. 1158.