292 / 298
Horst Steinke
292
onymic for failsafe logico-deductive reasoning on Spinoza’s part,
but conceptual creativity on Vico’s part. This philosophical bi-
furcation at the incipient phase of
Scienza nuova
seems to set the
stage for divergences to come, whether in connection with their
theory of knowledge, philosophy of language, or the hermeneu-
tics of ancient texts.
While the side-by-side comparison of Vico and Spinoza pre-
sented here consistently seems to suggest, and point to, a wide
intellectual and philosophical gulf between these thinkers, the
discussion dealt only with certain specific, restricted points and
levels of analysis. A more adequate assessment of their bodies of
thought, or rather Vico’s body of thought in relation to Spino-
za’s, would need to take place at a more fundamental level of
their philosophies
606
. Irrespective of how such an evaluation may
turn out, the differences in specific areas seem undeniable, and
add to the testimony of the early modern age as a period of intel-
lectual ferment and pluralism
607
, perhaps its most lasting legacy
for the modern age.
Notes to the Conclusion
604
This point of emphasis, however, is not meant to imply exclusion of
other types of resources playing a role in Vico’s investigations; in fact, Lucci
has argued convincingly Vico’s interest in, and use of, archaeological artefacts,
especially under the influence of Francesco Bianchini (Id.,
Vico lettore e inter-
prete dei poemi omerici nella Scienza nuova,
cit., pp. 49, 60, 73). This is a welcome
corrective to the view that «er sich andererseits für die zu seiner Zeit in An-
sätzen beginnende Archäologie und Epigraphik nicht interessierte […] (on the
other hand, he had no interest in archaeology and epigraphy, the rudiments of
which started to develop in his time […])» (V. Hösle,
Einleitung
, cit., p.
CLXXX).
605
Vico wrote a very short “chapter” entitled “Reprehension of the meta-
physics of René Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, and John Locke”, to be part of
Book II of
Scienza nuova
, but it was finally not made part of the work. For in-
depth discussion, see «NVS», 8, 1990, pp. 2-18, with commentary by D. Ph.
Verene, and also Id.,
Vico’s Reprehension of the Metaphysics of René Descartes, Bene-