Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  288 / 298 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 288 / 298 Next Page
Page Background

Horst Steinke


ended up denying «half» of Homer, namely, acknowledging him as «a heroic

character»[…])» (Id.,

La mancata edizione veneziana della Scienza nuova

, in

Vico e


, cit., pp. 143-182, p. 171, 172); F. Valagussa: «Omero non è un aedo

realmente esistito […]; Vico intende considerare Omero come universale fan-

tastico […] (Homer is not an actually existing poet […]; Vico intends to con-

sider Homer as an imaginative universal […])» (Id.,

Vico. Gesto e poesia

, cit., p.

108); S. Mazzarino: «[…] ma già per Omero la precisazione vichiana ch’egli

fosse “carattere eroico” non consente di affermare senz’altro ch’egli “non fu

particolar uomo in natura” […] ([…] but already in the case of Homer, Vico’s

designation of him as “a heroic character” does not mean anything but that he

“never existed as a particular man in the world of nature” […])» (Id.,


l’annalistica e il diritto,

Naples, Alfredo Guida, 1971, p. 42).


As in V. Hösle: «Und zweitens


jenes Zur-Hälfte-Behaupten dur-

chaus auch dahingehend verstanden werden, Homer sei nichts als ein poeti-

scher Charakter: Denn auch in diesem Fall wäre er keine bloße Fiktion, son-

dern es läge ihm etwas Reales zugrunde – nämlich die Volksdichtung der

Griechen (And secondly, the half-affirmation


be understand arguably in

the sense that Homer was nothing but a poetic character: since in this case

also, he would not be merely fictional, but rather based on something real –

namely the folk poetry of the Greeks)» (Id.,


, cit., p. CCXXXVI; ita-

lics original; see also Amerio’s similar argument,


Croce, in Id.,


ne allo studio di G. B. Vico

, cit., p. 495, footnote 1, with reference to B. Croce


Saggio sullo Hegel,

cit., p. 280, who allowed for the existence of Homer as an



E. Kleinert,

Studien zur Mathematik und Philosophie

, cit., pp. 19-21.



, Chapter 8, pp. 105-115.


S. Nadler,

A Book Forged in Hell

, cit., p. 112.



, pp. 112, 113.


Vico also places Moses at the (relative) beginning of the history of the

Hebrews; this leads to a further problem with respect to Spinozan influence

on Vico’s reconstruction of early civilization, identified by L. Amoroso: «Così,

se per Vico Mosè fu poeta e fu teologo, lo deve essere stato però in un modo

abissalmente diverso da quello dei “poeti teologi” delle nazioni gentili (Thus,

if according to Vico, Moses was a poet and a theologian, he must have been

such in a profoundly different way from the “theological poets” of the gentile

nations)» (Id.,

Mosè fu un poeta teologo?,


Il sapere poetico e gli universali fantastici


cit., pp. 211-225, p. 220).


Bringing Ezra as writer of the Pentateuch into the picture and argu-

ment would have made the parallel(s) between Moses and Homer even more

problematic. Only by glossing over (Spinoza’s) Ezra, Mali, for example, could