giambattista vico’s “anthropodicy” between ethics ... · giambattista vico, opere...

PreliminaryCommunicationUDC111:141.319.8Vico,G.ReceivedJanuary5th,2015

Claudia MegaleUniversityofNaplesFedericoII,CorsoUmbertoI,IT–80138Naples

[email protected]

Giambattista Vico’s “Anthropodicy” between Ethics, Metaphysics, and History

AbstractInsisting upon the differentiations of lemmas animus and anima in Deantiquissima, we can attribute to Vico a theory able to reassess sense, memory, fantasy, and other faculties very closely related to animusimmortale and foreign to the Cartesian conception which states the inferiority of those subordinate faculties to rescogitans. This is the starting point of a complex elaboration that in latter writings, the ones dedicated to the universal right, will allow theorizing of this sense of certum and auctoritas, distinct but not separated from the verum of human reason – which becomes history and stands at the very center of an uni-versal human theodicy. This theodicy – far away from a classic ontological interpretation – could be defined as “anthropodicy”, hiding in its vis both assimilation and reassessment of the problem of Vichian time, seen through a Leibnizian matrix.

KeywordsGiambattistaVico,anima,animus,anthropology,philosophy,philology,history,metaphysics

1.

Therecentanastaticreprintof the textDe antiquissima italorum sapientia,anditsrelatedItaliantranslation,1bringbacktotheattentivereader’smindthechapternamed“Deanimisede”,soveryrepresentativeofbothpsycho-logyandanthropologyinVico,butatthesametimeacauseofproblemsandtranslationissuesforthevariableusesofthelemmasanimusandanima.Wewilltakeasastartingpointpage92oftheeditio princeps(1710),whereitis ascertained that “animi sedemet domiciliumantiqua Italiae philosophiacoresseopinataest”;2ithastobeconsideredthat,inafirsttranslation,theonepublishedbySilvestrediMilanoin1816,thesubjectofthechapterwasrenderedinthefeminine:“L’anticafilosofiaitalianatennelasededell’animaessereilcuore”;3asimilarversionwasalsogivenintheeditionsbyNicola

1

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,in-troductionbyF.Lomonaco,afterwordbyC.Megale,Diogeneedizioni,Naples2013.

2

Giambattista Vico, “De antiquissima ita-lorumsapientiaexLinguaeLatinaeOrigini-buseruenda.LibritresJoh.BaptistaeaVicoNeapolitani Regii Eloquentiae Professoris”

(1710), in: Giambattista Vico, Opere filo-sofiche, ed.by P.Cristofolini,introductionbyN.Badaloni,Sansoni,Florence1971,p.107.

3

Giambattista Vico, Della antichissima sa-pienza degli italiani tratta da’ latini parlari. Opera di Giambattista Vico dalla latina nell’italiana favella recata, Silvestre,Milan1816 (reprint, dalla tipografia di N. Pasca,Naples1817),p.82.

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA60(2/2015)pp.(251–265)

C.Megale,GiambattistaVico’s“Anthropo-dicy”betweenEthics,Metaphysics…252

Corcía (1834)andby theNeapolitanpublisher Jovene, in1840.4Then thetranslationchanges in the textproposed in1858byFrancescoSaverioPo-modoro,saying:“L’anticafilosofiaitalianafud’opinionelasedeedomiciliodell’animoessereilcuore”.5TheeditionbyCarloSarchidated1870bringsbackthislastversion,lateronalsoacceptedbyFaustoNicoliniinthewell-knownvolumeof1953:“L’anticafilosofiaitalicaritenevachesedeedomi-ciliodell’animofosseilcuore”.6The‘feminine’translationisbackagainwithCristofolini,thatin1971publishesadraftboundtoconditionalltheherme-neuticsofthesoulandofitsfacultates:“L’anticafilosofiaitalicaharitenutocheilcuoresialasedeeladimoradell’anima”.Themarginnotetothetitletranslatestheoriginalsaying(“Ansedesanimaeinglandulapineale”)with“sededell’animo sarà la glandolapineale?”.7 In2005 thevolumeeditoredbyManuelaSannaretrievesNicolini’stranslationanditstickstotheVichiantext:Animi sedem.8

This double translation is surely inspired by some theoretical uncertaintydocumentedbythechoicesofVicohimself,who,speakingofmind(animo)inthreedifferentplacesoftheDe antiquissima,alternatesfeminineandmas-culinegender.Atpage93,inamarginalheader,wefind:An sedes animae in glandula pineali, but otherwise happens in the corresponding textual part:“Quareinglanulapinealianimumhumanum”.Atpage97,theinconsistencyoccursagain:inthesideheaderhewritesMens anima,andinthecorrespond-ingtextanimi motum retulerint.Intheparagraphdedicatedtothefacoltà thesayingiseventrickierwhen,praisingscholasticismphilosophy, theAuthorbeginsobservingthatthefacoltàbelongtothesoul.9Twoyearslater,com-mentingagainuponfacultiesandvenueofthesoulintheRisposta I(1712)tothe“Giornalede’Letteratid’Italia”,hewillfeel theexigenceofmakingclearthat:

“Ragionatodella‘sostanzadistesa’edel‘moto’,passoalla‘cogitante’,etrattodell’anima’odellavita,dell’animo’odelsenso,edell’ariaoetere,dettada’latini‘anima’;epruovochel’aeredelsangueèilveicolodellavita,queldeinervidelsenso;echenongià(comeragguagliate)ilmotodeinervisidebbaalsangue,mailmotodelsanguea’nervi,dovendosialcuore,cheèunintieromuscoloeun’operareticolata,moltiformed’innumerabilinervicciuoli.(…)Ragionodellasededell’animo,cioèdoveprincipalmentefacciaisuoiuffici,el’allogonelcuore.(…)Comeappendicidiquestecosemisiofferisconolefacultàdell’animo;edessendolafacultàunaprontezzadioperare,neraccolgochel’animoconciascunafacultàsifacciailsuopropriosog-getto:comeicoloricolvedere,gliodoricolfiutare,isuoniconl’udire,ecosìdellealtre.”10

The animaislife,theanimoissense;thearia iscalledbytheLatinsanima anditisvehicleoflife,whereasnervesaremovedbysense–whosemove-mentisnottoduetoblood,sincenervesarethesourceofthemotionofblood,andtheheartitselfisadevicefullofuncountable“nervicciuoli”thereforeatthesametimethevenue,theplaceoftheoperatingfacoltà dell’animo.IntheLiber MetaphysicusVicohadmadeclear that thesede dell’animo is in theheartandthatthemotionofbloodisduetothenerves(whichstartfromtheheart);immortalityistobeattributedtotheanimo,andnottotheanima.Asingleandsimpleexamplemakesclearhowtheseatoftheanimoistobesetintheheart:

“Eppureèstatospessevolteosservatocheuominiaventilesionicerebralihannocontinuatoavivere,amuoversi,asentireedausarefelicementelaragione.Alcontrariononsembracredi-bileeverosimilechel’animorisiedanellapartepiùgrassaepiùottusadelcorpo,essendovipiùmucosaemenosangue.”11

Inhisautobiographythephilosopher,manyyearslater,willmakeadistinc-tionbetweenanimusandanima:



“Eilatinil’aria’dissero‘anima’,comeprincipioondel’universoabbiailmotoelavita,sopracui,comefemmina,opericomemaschiol’etere,che,insinuatonell’animale,da’latinifudetto‘animus’;ondeèquellavolgardifferenzadilatinepropietà:‘anima vivimus, animo sentimus’;talchél’anima,ol’aria,insinuatanelsanguesianell’uomoprincipiodellavita,l’etereinsinuatone’nervisiaprincipiodelsenso;edaquellaproporzionechel’etereèpiùattivodell’aria,cosìglispiritianimalisienopiùmobiliepresticheivitali;ecomesopral’animaoperal’animo,cosìsopral’animooperiquellacheda’latinisidice‘mens’,chetantovalequanto‘pensiero’,onderestòa’latinidetta‘mens animi’,eche‘lpensieroomentesiaagliuominimandatodaGiove,cheèlamentedell’etere”.12

ItisprettyclearhowItaliantranslationsmighthavehaddifficultiesinmanag-ingtheversion–behindwhichtheVichianphilosophyrevealsitself–since,ascommentedbyanacutemanof lettersof1900“themythbehindwhich

4

GiambattistaVico,Opere di Giambattista Vico precedute da un discorso di giulio Michelet sul sistema dell’Autore, dalla tipografiadel-la Sibilla, 1834, vol. II, p. 48; GiambattistaVico,Opuscoli varj di Giambattista Vico (…),pressoGiuseppe Jovene librajo editore,Na-ples1840,p.87.

5

Cf.GiambattistaVico,Autobiografia;Della antichissima sapienza degl’Italiani; Orazioni accademiche di Giambattista Vico (…) di Francesco Sav. Pomodoro, Stamperia de’classicilatini,Naples1858, p. 114.SeeBene-dettoCroce,Bibliografia vichiana (1904),re-printwithaPremisebyR.Franchini,Morano,Naples1987,pp.10–11.

6

Giambattista Vico, Dell’antica sapienza degl’ Italiani riposta nelle origini della lingua lati-na di Giovan Battista Vico,translationbyC.Sarchi,Tip.GiàD.Salvi&C.,Milan1870,p.92;GiambattistaVico,“DeantiquissimaeRisposte”, in: Fausto Nicolini (ed.),Opere,Ricciardi,Milan–Naples 1953, p. 287.Onthiseditionisbasedalsothenewtranslationby Ciro Greco in Andrea Murari, ClaudioFaschilli, Ciro Greco (eds.), Giambattista Vico. Metafisica e metodo, afterword byM.Cacciari,Bompiani,Milan2008,p.271.

7

GiambattistaVico,Opere filosofiche, pp.107,106.

8

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia, translationbyM.Sanna,EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,Rome2005,p.101.

9

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,pp.180,181,188,198,199.Onpage97seeVin-cenzoPlacella,‘Menshominibusadiisdari,indi,immittidicebatur’.TentativodirestaurodiunluogodelDe antiquissima Italorum sa-pientia”, in: Vincenzo Placella (ed.), Dalla “cortesia” alla “discoverta del vero Omero”.

Studi di critica e filologia italiana e umanistica (con un inedito di G.B. Vico), a.c. grafiche,CittàdiCastello1979,pp.135–140;andVin-cenzoPlacella,“Questioniecdoticherelativeal De antiquissima e alle due Risposte delVico al ‘Giornale de’ letterati d’Italia’”, in:GiuseppeCacciatore,AlessandroStile(eds.), L’edizione critica di Vico: bilanci e prospet-tive, A. Guida, Naples 1997, pp. 104–105.The scarcityof references toVico’s thoughtin the itemsanima/animus is surprising.Cf.MartaFattori,MassimoLuigiBianchi(eds.),Lessico filosofico dei secoli XVII e XVIII, sezione latina,Olschki,Florence1994,vol.I,2,p.810andff.,vol.I,3(1997),p.898andff.Useful,however,isGiambattistaVico,De an-tiquissima italorum sapientia di Giambattista Vico. Indici e ristampa anastatica,ed.byG.Adamo, Olschki, Florence 1998, ad vocem(cf.pp.14,15).

10

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,pp.271–272. See Gianni Cerchiai, “La ‘naturaintegrale’dell’uomo.Coscienzae facoltànelDe antiquissimaitalorummsapientia”,Bollet-tino del Centro di studi vichiani,XL(1/2010),pp.93–113,butalso the importantessaysofRosarioDiana,“Depotenziamentodelcogitoe‘disappartenenza’dell’io.InmarginealDe antiquissima”,ibid.,pp.115–124andManue-laSanna,“Dalloscirealconscire:unmodernoitinerariovichiano”,ibid.,pp.79–91.

11

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico, p.181.

12

GiambattistaVico,Vita di Giambattista Vico scritta da se medesimo (1723–1728), thenwith thereprintonfirsteditionandFubini’straduction, edited (with introduction) by F.Lomonaco, afterword byR.Diana and bib-liography by S. Principe, Diogene edizioni,Naples2012,p.61.



VicopresentsthemetaphysicsoftheDe antiquissima, this to say the analysis of the hidden knowledge of Ions and Etruscan is not to be taken seriously, and the implicit metaphysics of Latin language is of course the Vichian meta-physics”.13The translatorswhooffered the feminineversionwanted to tie,oncemore,theexegesisofVicotothescholasticismstream,maybebecausetheyweretrickedbythepraisecomingdirectlyfromhim:“Animaefacultateseleganter in scholis dictae”.14Intranslating,aswellasbetrayingthethoughtofVico,thescholarstowhomwehavetotributethetranslationofthewordasfeminine,madearealalterationoftheoriginaltext–clearlysaying“animisedem”,andspecifiyingthatthefaculties(facoltà)areofthemind(animo),neverofthesoul(anima),since“quodanimavivamus,animosentiamus”.15 Uponcloserreading,itisself-evidenthowinscholasticism–andespeciallyintheThomisticreconstructions–thereisnodifferencebetweenanimus andanima.IntheSumma contra Gentiles,whereAquinasdealswiththereadingoftheAristotle’sDe Anima,thereisnomentionwhatsoeverofapossiblegen-derissueinthetranslationoftheterm,alsobecauseofthenecessityofscho-lasticismtotakedistancefromapagantradition,inheritedsinceEpicureandappearedagaininLucretius(thelatterbeingresponsible,alongwithVico’sthought,fortheolddistinction–traceableintheworksofAccius,Verrone,PlautuseCatullus).Lucretiusdefined theanimusas thebaseofrationality(sapere)andoftheemotions(gaudere)–thismarkingadifferencewithAc-cius(inAcciustheexpressionfrui isanequivalentofgaudere).Totheanimus wasattributed rational thoughtonly,thereforetheemotionallifeendedupinthelemmaanima.TryingtoreconcilehisowngnoseologicaltheorywithAri-stotle’s thought,Aquinas intendedtodemonstrate–againstanyAverroisticinterpretations–theimmortalityofsoul:“Theagent’sintellectisnotasepa-ratesubstance,butpotentialoftheSoul”.16AndVico–fromhispointofview–couldhavefoundinthemetaphysicsofAquinasadoctrinetoassimilate,foritsaptitudetospeakintermsofpowerofthesoul.ParaphrasingAristotle:“Thesoulasefficientcause,istheintellectwhereallthingsaredone,there-foretheagentintellect”.IncommonwithAquinas,healsohadtheconvictionthat“thesoulsofthebrutishanimalsaren’timmortal”andthetheoryoftheseed:“Theseedand thefruithave life inpotential, so toexclude thesoul.This tosay that theyaredeprivedofsoul;whereas thesubjectwhosesoulistheact,hasvirtueinpotential,withoutexcludingthesoul”.17IntheLiber Metaphysicusweread:“Laformametafisicarassomigliaaquelladelvasaio,laformafisicaaquelladelseme.Laformadelseme,nelsuocontinuosviluppo,mutaesiperfeziona:sicchéleformefisichesonoformatedallemetafisiche.”18

Herecomesthetheoreticalneedtoaddressthosewho–likeAquinas–pros-pectedtheintellectasafacultyofthesoul:“Theagentintellectisnotsomeseparatesubstance,butafacultyofthesoul.”19AquinasrepresentsforVicothethinkerwho,intheframeofthequerelle betweenAugustiniansandAver-roists,madeapointnotonlybycreatinganewontologicalground,butalsoopeningaparticularreflectionuponthedatacomingfromexperience:“ThebasicsoftheThomisticpositionare:spiritualityandimmortalityoftheindividualsoulasaprincipleofknowledgeandfreedom,thereforeabasicallypersonalisticposition;butatthesametimesubstantialunityofthesoulwithitsbody,whosethesoulisformorfirstact;reconnec-tion,therefore,tothesoul,ofanyphysicalactivity,andpositionoftheintrinsicbeingoneandindividualofeverysingleman.”20

This exigence of interpreting physiological and psychological phenomenain the light of generic ontological principleswas one of the basic reasons



for scholasticism to be quoted in theDe antiquissima.Man, forAquinas,is“rationalisnaturaeindividuaesubstantia”wheresensitiveandpassionac-tivitiesareintertwined,bothbeingintellectualandvolitivedimensionoftheconscience,withinaneffectiveunityofthepersona,combiningreasonandfaith–thetheologianwillingtograntaprivilegetofaith.Hisradicallyop-timisticpositioncannotbesharedbyVico,whowasanimatedbythewilltounderstandhowthehumankindarrivedtoitsdeterminationsbygoingback,throughtheetymologicalanalysisofthetermanima,totheorigins;showinghow,intheancientitalicpopulations,couldcoexisttwotermsabletoexpresswhatwaslaterunifiedinjustoneword–anima,asvitalprincipleofthebody,andanimo, asfreeprincipleoflife.Intheframeofsuchadualisticconcep-tion,wecanindividuatetwodifferentstreams:thehylozoisticoneoftheIonicschools takingplace inaperspectivewhere theprerogativesof thehumansoulcannotbeseparatedfromreality;theother,comingfromtherefusaltoassimilatehumannaturetothenaturalrealityandgeneratingananthropologi-calconception:

“Epicureismisaclearrestatementoftheextraneousnessofnatureinfrontofthehumanaspira-tionstothesense–whichendsinLucretius’worktoanimportantterminologicaldistinctionbetweenanimuseanima:thefirstoneisthesuperiorrationalpart,sittinginthechest;thesecondoneisirrationalornotrational,andspreadinallofthebody.”21

ThisEpicurean-Lucretianconception,presentingfunctionalfeaturesandap-pointinganunprecedentedrelationshipbetweenthesoulandthebody,isverymuchaconcernfortheNeapolitanphilosopher–stillcommittedtohiscriti-cismtoDescartes.Insistinguponthedifferentiationsoflemma,wecanattributetoVicoatheoryabletoreassesssense,memory,fantasyandotherfacultiesverycloselyrelatedtotheanimus immortale andforeigntotheCartesianconception,statingtheinferiorityofthosesubordinatefacultiestotheres cogitans.ForDescartes,thedoctrineofthesouldoesnotbelongtothesciencesofnature,buttoanextra-sensitivereality.Thenatureofthesoulfoundsthepossibilityofeveryscience,permittingthereforetomantopushhislookbeyondthelimitsofsci-enceitself,towardsmetaphysicalproblems.“TheCartesianlayoutalsofacestheproblemofthedualismanima/spiritoandmatter,dualismwhichispurelydeclinedinthelightofthenewtheoryofknowledge.”22IntheDiscours de

13

Enzo Paci, Ingens Sylva,Mondadori,Milan1949(reprintbyV.Vitiello,Bompiani,Milan1994),p.85.

14

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico, p.198(titletothelateralborder).

15

Ibid.,p.170.

16

Tommasod’Aquino,Summa contra Gentiles,editedbyT.S.Centi,Mondadori,Milan2009,p.463.

17

Ibid.,pp.464,479,508.

18

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,p.73.

19

Tommasod’Aquino,Summa contra Gentiles,p.455.

20

Luca Vanzago, Breve storia dell’anima, ilMulino,Bologna2009,p.67.

21

Ibid.,p.45.

22

Ibid.,p.79.



la méthode, theFrenchphilosopherhadfacedtheproblemoftheexistenceofGodandofthehumansoulbyassertingthatthethinkingsubstanceistheone

“lacuiessenzatutta,onatura,nonstachenelpensareeche,peressere,nonnecessitadiluogoalcunonédipendedaalcunacosamateriale.Intalmodoquestoio,cioèanima,percuisonociòchesonoèassolutamentedistintadalcorpoedèanchepiùfaciledaconoscerediesso,eancheseilcorpononfosse,l’animanoncesserebbediesseretuttoquelcheè.”23

Itisthereforeevenmoreclearthattheinterpreters,willingtodistortthetrans-lation,diditonthestrengthofthescholasticsourcesofthetheoryofthesoul,withnoconsiderationofthefactthat–asawhole–thetextDe antiquissima is,firstofall,adisputewiththepredominantCartesianismoftheNeapolitanacademiesof1600and1700,startingfromtheintroductionofanewdefini-tionoftherelationsbetweenverumandfactum.Thisisthestartingpointofacomplexelaborationthatinlatterwritings,theonesdedicatedtotheuniversalright,willallowtheorizingofthissenseofcertumandauctoritas,distinctbutnotseparatedfromtheverumofhumanreason–whichbecomeshistoryandstandsattheverycenterofanuniversalhumantheodicy.Thistheodicy–farawayfromaclassicontologicalinterpretation–couldbedefinedas“anthro-podicy”,hidinginitsvisbothassimilationandreassessmentoftheproblemofVichiantime,seenthroughaLeibnizianmatrix:

“Insensolatoanimaèlostessodivitaoprincipiovitale,cioèilprincipiodell’azioneinternaesistente nella sostanza semplice omonade, al quale corrisponde l’azione esterna. E questacorrispondenzadiinternoediesterno(…)costituisceveramentelapercezione.Inquestosensol’animasaràattribuitanonsoloaglianimalimaa tuttigliesseripercepienti. Insensostrettol’animaèconsideratacomeunaspeciedivitapiùnobile,ovitasensitiva,incuinonc’èlafacoltànudadipercepire,maanchequelladisentire,allorchéallapercezionesiaggiungepercezioneememoria.Allostessomodolamenteèlaspeciepiùnobiledianima,cioèlamenteèanimarazionale,incuiallasensazionesiaggiungelaragioneoconsequenziarietàdellauniversalitàdeiveri.Comelamenteèanimarazionale,così l’animaèvitasensitivae lavitaèprincipiopercettivo.”24

Allthesouls,accordingtoLeibniz, are“potential”;theyaresensitivesoulsabletobecomehumanonlyifdevelopedinthatsense.Inthisway,theGer-manphilosophercanpreservethehumancorruptionderivingfromtheorigi-nal sin, andexplainhowhumanbecoming– throughout theacquisitionofthereason–canrepresentakindofperfection,tendingtoredeemanoriginalconditionofscantiness.EvenifheisnotexplicitlyquotedintheDe antiquis-sima,LeibnizisVico’sauttore–involvedinapersonalre-elaborationofthethoughtofMalebranche.Thephilosopherofthe“pre-establishedharmony”,rejoicingatthecriticalobservationmovedtoDescartesandhisfellowsabouttheexistingrelationsbetweenthesoulandthebody,invitestheFrenchtogoonthatroughpath.25VicoshalldedicatetoMalebrancheaharshcriticism,allfocusedonhisCartesianism,andtowhathethinkstobeacontradictionofhisthought:

“Sel’acutissimoMalebranchesiaffaticaadimostrarelaveritàdiunataledottrina,mimeravi-gliocheegliaccettilaprimaveritàdiRenatoDescartes:cogito, ergo sum, quando,considerandoDiocomecreatorenell’uomodelleidee,dovrebbepiuttostocosìconcludere:“Qualcosainmepensa,dunquequalcosaè;manelpensieronontrovoalcunaideadicorpo,dunqueciòcheinmepensaèpurissimopensiero,èappuntoDio.”26

TheresumptionofMalebrancheintheLiber Metaphysicus,beyondanyres-ervations,doesdeserveapeculiarandcloserexamination,notlimitedtothepagesof1710.TheFrenchphilosopher,reformer,inhisownwayofCarte-



sianism,enteredinhisownrightNeapolitanacademiesaswellasscientificand cultural debates of the years of theVico’s intellectual growth,with aparticular reference to the experiences of human history.Of course, thoseinterestsarenotmeanttobesettogethernecessarily,buttheattentionoftheoratoriotothe“analysisofthepaganmind”isnotfarfromtheinterestoftheNeapolitanphilosopherforthehistoryofthenaturalrightofpeople,throughbothmythsandprimitivementality.ThismakespossiblethestudyofmannotwithreferencetoGodbuttohimselfonly,farfromallthetraditionalissuesoftheology.HereisoneofthereasonsofVico’schoicetodistinguishtheevolutionofthesacredhistoryfromthepa-ganone,inharmonywiththemodernanthropologyofMalebranche,focusedontheanalysisofthehumanmind,inordertostudyimagination,andalongwithitsuperstition,idolatry,andheresyfromanentirelypsychologicalpointofview.Thisconsentstomodifythecentreofgravityofthetraditionalan-thropologies,preferringsensitivityasstartingpointofthesearch,andnotanabstractreason.Themindisnotaneternalpresent;itproceedsfromsensitiv-itytoimagination,andhencetowardsreason,provokingprejudices,beliefs,andsuperstitionschangingfromtimeandthroughtime.27

“ButthebackgroundofthethoughtofMalebranche,incomparisontotheoneofVico–thishasbeenmadeclear–showsahugedifference.Inthefirstone,theimageofthesoulisstillcom-pressed,andfindsitswayintheawarepresenceofpassiondrivestyingittoGod,butstayingfreefromafactualplanningendeavor.ForVico,thetopofthereason,theplaceofmaximumunionwithGod,isoutsideofthesoul:andtobemoreprecise–initsrevelation.Herereallyoc-curs,togetherwiththemetaphysicaluniverse,theendofamystiquereachingitsfinaloutcomewhendenyingitself;inthefailureofthatpassivityofthesoulthatwasconsideredtheveryfirstinstrumenttonullifyoneselfinfrontofGod,atthispointgivingfreecoursetothathistorymadebymensupportedbytheprovidenceitself.”28

Atruevia cruciswhereVico,under the shieldofametafisica della mentecoming from Malebranche, makes it in demonstrating how metaphysics,methodandanthropologyareconnectedunderasolevoice:themanthat“nonconoscelimitiallatristezzadell’animo”.29

23

R.Cartesio,“Discorsosulmetodo”,in:EttoreLojacono (ed.),Opere filosofiche,UTET,Tu-rin1994,vol.I,p.522.

24

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Lettera a Ro-dolfoCristianoWagnersullaforzaattivadeicorpi, sull’anima dell’uomo e sulle bestie”,in: Domenico Omero Bianca (ed.), Scritti filosofici,UTET,Turin1968,vol.II,p.776.

25

“Credo che abbiate percorso solo metà delcammino e che si possano trarre ancora al-treconseguenzeoltreaquelleattuali”:so inNicolasdeMalebranche,“CorrespondanceetActs, 1638–1689”, in:André Robinet (ed.),Oeuvres complètes,J.Vrin,Paris1961,p.135;seeAlessandroStile,“Anatomiadell’anima:daMalebrancheaVico”,in:ManuelaSanna,Alessandro Stile (eds.), Vico tra l’Italia e la Francia,A. Guida, Naples 2000, p. 276. Inthe extensive literature seeEmanuelaScrib-

ano,“Malebranche:visionediDioevisionein Dio”, Rivista di storia della filosofia LI(3/1996),pp.519–554.

26

GiambattistaVico,De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,pp.189,191.

27

Cf. PaoloFabiani,La filosofia dell’immagi-nazione in Vico e Malebranche, UniversityPress,Florence2002,pp.9–12.28Alessandro Stile, “Anatomia dell’anima: daMalebrancheaVico”,p.286.

29




2.

Thefigureofmens/animaispresentintheOrazione Iof1699:“Essa(anima)èladivinafacoltàdelpensiero(…)quantovariediverseemolteplicisonolesuefunzioni,quantograndelasuaduttilitàelasuaforzacreatrice.”30

Thesoul–thuspresented–hasintellectualcapacityandvitalenergy;itisavis that,intheOrazione II,hastobecontrolledassourceofpassionsaswell,asoulsomehowsuspendedbetweengreatnessandmisery.TheOrazione VI,exhortingtoconquerknowledge,madre dell’umana felicità,willputtogetherknowledgeandsoulassessingthat“chidunquenonabbiaindirizzatoglistudiletterarialconseguimentodellasapienzasiliberaforsedellepenedellinguag-gioodiquelledelpensiero,manonsiliberadellepenedell’anima”.31InthepassagetotheDe ratione,theconfusionbetweenanimus, anima, and mensdoesnotappeartobesolvedyet,asshownbythetextwhereeloquenceistiedtotheanimo inoppositionwiththe mente:“Machefarci,sel’eloquenzahadafaretutta,nonconlamente,maconl’animo?Lamentesilasciapiegaredaisottiliragionamenti,mal’animononsilasciavincerenédebellaresenondaquestecorpulentissimemacchineoratorie.”

Andrightafterhewillnothesitatetoadmitthat“ilvolgoèvoltoetravoltodallabramosia,cheètumultuosaeturbolenta,comeunmarchiodell’anima”.Ifthementeismisleadbymistakes,theanimoistornbypassions,generatinganykindofunhappiness:

“Only twothingsdrive towardsagooduse theunrestof thesoul(woesof the interiorman,allhavingbirthfromtheappetite,assolesource):philosophy,moderatingtheminthemenofknowledgesototurnthemintovirtue,andeloquence,cultivatingthemamongpeoplesotoleadeveryonetowardsthepracticeofvirtue.”32

When in1720Vicocommissions to thepublisherFeliceMosca themanu-scriptoftheLatinworkontheDiritto Universale,madeinthreebooks(De uno universi juris principio et fine uno,De Constantia jurisprudentis andNotae),“travagliadistabilireunprincipionelqualetuttal’erudizionedivinaeumanacostìdimostrata”.33Inordertoadvancethecomplexprojectofmerg-ingphilosophyandphilology,heneededtodeepentheinquiryofthenatureofhumanityprovidedinthebiblicaltexts.Anditisinthisinvestigation–whichshallfinditsarticulationsinthehistoryofthefourpunishments:chasteness,infamy,curiosityandhardwork–thatthephilosopherwillagaincomeacrossthepairanimusandmens:“Lamenteèstata ingannatadaglierrorie l’animodilaniatodallepassioni;daglierroridellamentenascono lepassionidell’animoedentrambigeneranoogni tipodi infelicitàall’uomo.Anchenell’uomocorrottoètuttaviapresenteilconatodellamenteintesaalvero.Mapoichéèdaunachiaraconoscenzadelverochenascelavolontàdigiustizia,ciòequivaleadirechelaveritàdellamenterecasecorettitudined’animo.”34

TenyearsaftertheDe antiquissima,theneedofredefiningthenatureoftheanimusand mens isback:ifin 1710theyresultedtobethesamething(Mens animi,mindoftheanimo,l’animusisGodthinkinginme),intheDe Con-stantia jurisprudentis, they are separated in intellect (mens) andwill (ani-mus),andtheanimus issubjectedtothemens,thesightandseatoftheeternaltruths:“Animussithumanaementissubiectum,etmenshumanasitaeterno-rumverorumdomiciliumetsedes”.Vico’sadherencetothePlatonicdoctrineofimmortalityofthemindisfranklyexpressedinthisworkinordertodemo-nstratehowmuchPlatonismcangetalongwithChristianreligion.Thisposi-



tionfindsanevolutioninthesecondpart(De Constantia philologiae),where,in thenewanthropology, themind is subjected to theanimus. Introducingthe themeofpudore, towhich theoriginofhumanity is reconnected,VicoovercomesnotonlyPlatonism,butalso,andonceforall,Cartesianismwiththeprimacyoftheanimus overthemensandbody,statingthat“Dioottimomassimoattribuìall’uomo,dall’animo,ilconato(cheabbiamogiàdimostratoesserepropriodell’animo)perchéunavoltacaduto,l’uomopotessetuttaviasentirequestaforzadell’animo,affinchél’animopotesseavereimperiosullamenteesulcorpo.”35 It looksmoreevident,at thispoint, thereasonpush-inghimtowritetheAggiuntatotheautobiography,theoneMuratoriaskedfor:wearein1731andtheNeapolitanphilosopherhasalreadypublishedtheScienza Nuovaof1725,andheisworkingtotheCorrezioni, Miglioramenti e Aggiunteofthework:“GlidispiaccionoilibridelDiritto universale,perchéinquellidallamentediPlatoneedaltrichiari filosofi tentava di scendere nellementi balorde e scempie degli autori della gentilità,quando doveva tener il cammino tutto contrario; onde ivi prese errore in alquantematerie.NellaScienza nuova prima,senonnellematerie,erròcertamentenell’ordine,perchétrattòde’princìpidell’ideedivisamenteda’princìpidellelingue,ch’eranopernaturatraloruniti,epurdivisamentedagliuniedaglialtri ragionòdelmetodoconcui siconducessero lemateriediquestaScienza,lequali,conaltrometodo,dovevanofilfilousciredaentrambiidettiprincìpi:ondeviavvenneromoltierrorinell’ordine.”36

The“Anthropodicy”ofVicodevelopsintheyearsofintense,“continova”and“aspra”meditation,goingonbetweentheLiber MetaphysicusandtheDiritto Universale.Thecontradictionintherelationanimus–mens ispresentintwopartsoftheDiritto Universale(intheDe Constantia jurisprudentis,wherehedeclareshimselfasPlatonic.Vicogivesaprivilegetotheposition/functionofthemens;intheDe Constantia philologiaeandintheAggiuntaof1731,heraisestheanimustothelevelofaprotagonist),andcanbemadeclearjustfromtheDe antiquissimathatoncemoreappears,morethanlikeatransitiontext,thetrueturningpointofhisworks.Thetransitionfroma“metafisicacommisu-

30

Giambattista Vico, Le Orazioni inaugurali. I–VI,editedbyG.G.Visconti,ilMulino,Bo-logna1982,Oratio I,pp.78–79.

31

Ibid.,Oratio VI,p.207.

32

Giambattista Vico, De nostri temporis stu-diorum ratione (…) (1709), introduction byF.Lomonaco.ScriptaWeb,Naples2010(re-print, Diogene edizioni, Naples 2014), pp.131,133.

33

GiambattistaVico,“SinopsidelDirittoUni-versale”(1720),in:GiambattistaVico,Opere giuridiche, ed. by P. Cristofolini, Sansoni,Florence1974, p. 5 (reprint inFabrizioLo-monaco[ed.],GiambattistaVico,De universi juris uno principio, et fine uno,ms.XIIIB62, preface by F.Tessitore, Liguori, Naples2007).

34

GiambattistaVico, “DeConstantia jurispru-dentis”(1721),in:GiambattistaVico,Opere

giuridiche, p. 348 (reprint in GiambattistaVico, De Constantia jurisprudentis, ed. byF.Lomonaco,ms.XIIIB62,Liguori,Naples2013):“Hominisauteminteriorissuntpartesduae,mensetanimus,quaevulgoscholarum‘intellectus’ et ‘voluntas’ dicuntur. Originisautem vicio demonstravimus utramque cor-ruptam, mentem erroribus illusam, animumcupiditatibuslaniatum,etexerroribusmentisnascianimicupiditates,eosqueesseparentesomnis infelicitatis humanae. Atqui demon-stravimusquoque inhominecorrupto inesseconatum mentis ad verum, et ex perspicuaveri cognitione existere iusti voluntatem:quod tantundem est exmente vera animumrectuminduci”(ibid.,p.349).

35

Ibid.,pp.367,406.

36

GiambattistaVico,Vita di Giambattista Vico scritta da se medesimo,p.92.



rataalladebolezzadelpensieroumano”37toa“pudoresuscitatoredivirtù”38issosmallthatweareallowedtoformulateaninterpretativehypothesis:allwelookforinVico,wecanfindinanexpressionof1710–libido,thefacultyofdesiring.Theanimus/mensforVicocannotbeseparatedfromitsownnatura–whichisaction,desire,ingeniousness,celebrationofhumanity.

3.

ItisinthechapteroftheDe antiquissimadedicatedtothestudyofthedif-ferencebetweenanimus andanima,thatgrowsanew“metafisicacommisu-rataalladebolezzadelpensieroumano”andthattheelaborationiscarriedonbythetheoreticalrelationsbetweenmetaphysicsandhistory;prodromestotheideaofthenewconceptofhistoryshapedinthePrincipi di una Scienza nuova intorno alla natura delle nazioni per la quale si ritruovano i principi di altro sistema del Diritto naturale delle Genti(1725).Throughthis,apathis designed – betraying at the origins theVico’s awareness of an intrinsicimpossibleknowledgeof theanimo.Andeven if thechapterDe Animo, et Anima hasbeenproperly considered theanthropological sectionof theDe antiquissima,39a“holistic”visionoftheVichianthoughtcannotbeavoided.Notrandomly,intheLiber Metaphysicus,thedistinctionanimus/anima,farfrombeingonlyarevivalof themainstreamNeapolitanEpicureanism,ex-presses,aboveall, the finaldeprature fromscholasticism,emphasized,andnotbychance,intheautobiographicalreconstruction.40

Thisbraveanti-dogmatictheoreticalpositionisexplicitlyconfirmedbythe“RispostaII” to theGiornale de’ LetteratiwhereVicoexplainshissharingofHerbertofCherbury’sthesis,whoseDe Veritatewasintheindexin1707:“Cheèlaviachetienl’HerbertonellasuaRicerca della verità,cheveramentealtrononècheunatopicatrasportataagliusideifisicisperimentali”.41Thisquick and effective judgment is the expression of an intellectualTitanismthatshallconsent,accordingtotheNeapolitanphilosopher,toovercomethematerialismoftheDe rerum naturainordertosupport,instead,throughtheimmortalityof theanimo, thethemeoffreedom.Theanimomovesaroundfreely, desires the infinite, and therefore immortality: “Quia libere animusmovetur,infinitumdesiderat,acproindeimmortalitatem”.42NicolaBadaloni,wantingtounderlinehowHerbertisticwereVico’sintuitions,sawintheDe antiquissimaaclearresemblancebetweenthosetwophilosophers:“Thethe-sisisveryclosetotheoneofHerbert,andoneshouldn’tbetrickedbythefactthattheLatins,speakingofbrutishanimals,definedthem‘immobile’,confer-ringthismeaningtothebrutishexpression”.43Hence,thesearchofthemesandproblemsaboutthefreedomofthesoul,as“technologicalgenius”,con-sideringthedescriptionsthatVicohimselfgivesofthebloodcirculation,inordertoprove–againstDescartes–thattheseatoftheanimowouldbeintheheart,andnotinthebrains.Farfromwantingtoconsiderthechapterdedicatedtothesoul,withinVico’sdiscourse, it isnecessary todetect thecontinuum in relationwithpreviousproblemsinphysics.Puntoandconatoare,ofcourse,metaphysicalvirtuesofthenature.Ifthe“conatuseniminterquietem&motumeastmedius”,44Vicoputsitatthecentreofhisallhumanmetaphysics.Thenon-existentreferencetoZenoandhisfellows,besidesunderliningthecontinuouscontroversywithDescartesandthechoiceoftheEuclideangeometryincontrasttotheanalyti-caloneoftheFrench,isarenewedpositionofanti-dogmatism:“Zenone,chemeditòsulmondodellesolidecoserealicreatodaDio,appoggiandosisuquel



mondodiformechel’uomosicostruiscesinteticamenteconipunti.”45Vico’sproblemisbasicallythewilltodealwithmetaphysicsbyrejectingtraditional(Aristotle)andmodern(Descartes)metaphysics,withoutrisksofruptures.Hisprojectisidentificationofa“structure,”abletoquerythemodernin-dividual-universal,expressing itself,notsurprisingly, in thehistoryofna-tions.Hence,thetaskofquestioningthehumanbeingashumanbeingand,together, combiningphysical, human, anddivinepower, at the same timeconfuting theontologicalproof (AnselmandDescartes)andanalyticgeo-metry,despiteanytheoreticalcomplicationswhichthephilosopherhimselfisnotalwaysabletosolve.Forsure,ifpuntoandconatoaretheessenze,thistosaythevirtutesofphysicalnature,thesoulistheessenzaofthebody;theanima virtus46 is tiedandgrowsfromtheanimo,athisowntimerealizedinthemens. The anima,atthesametimephysical(animam quoque aerem appellasse),biological(vitae vehiculum),andpsychological(sensus autem vehiculum),ismortal–butmaterializesinanimmortalanimus,whoseseatisintheheart.Firstquestion:howcanavirtuebemortal?Secondquestion:“Animisedemedomiciliumcoresseopinataest”–is themind,forVico,locatedintheheart?Wefacethreeterms–animus, anima, and mens–andtheneedtoestablishamiddletermbetweenindividualanduniversal,aplaceof critical foundation, far frommodules and the classical schemes of thehistoria magistra vitae:“Vico–Piovaniwrites–isverysensitivetotheproblem.Oneofthemoresolidfoundationsofhisspeculativegreatnessistobefoundinthewaysheaddressedtheissueofhistoricizingofthereason”.47

AnditisintheLiber Metaphysicus,theturningpointofVico’sphilosophy,thattheneedtohumanizemetaphysicsismostevident;whichisfinallysatis-fiedintheScienza Nuova,wherethepathofhumanizationwillturnintohis-toricizing.Theretheauthor,animatedbythedesiretounderstandhowhumanracehascometoitsdeterminations,theorizesateologia civile ragionata.

37


38

Giambattista Vico, “De Constantia juris-prudentis”(1721),p.406.

39

“Esaurito il tema dellametafisica della nat-ura,siapreoraquellodell’antropologia”:soNicolaBadaloni,Laici credenti all’alba del moderno. La linea Herbert-Vico,LeMonnier,Florence1995,p.132.

40

GiambattistaVico,Vita di Giambattista Vico scritta da se medesimo,p.43.

41

Giambattista Vico, “Risposta di GiambattistaVicoall’articoloXdel tomoVIIIdel ‘Giornalede’Letteratid’Italia’”(1712), inGiambattistaVico, De antiquissima italorum sapientia con gli articoli del “Giornale de’ Letterati d’Italia” e le Risposte del Vico,p.310.

42


43

So Nicola Badaloni, Laici credenti all’alba del moderno. La linea Herbert-Vico,p.132.

44


45

Ibid.,pp.70,135.

46

Ibid.,pp.102,199.

47

Pietro Piovani, La filosofia nuova di Vico,ed.byF.Tessitore,Morano,Naples1990,pp.324,401–402.



WiththeDe antiquissima, wehappentobeintheprocessofhumanization,explorationofnatureandman, insearchof thatessence thatdistinguishesmanfromthebrute,andwillingtodefinemetaphysicsassomethingentire-ly human, since “tratta dell’indubitabile verità, perché esamina una ques-tione della quale l’uomo acquista certezza anche se dubita, anche se errae sbaglia”.48Thus, “la libido, cioè la facoltà di desiderare è per ciascunounapropriadivinità”;49 theseatof theanimus is in theheart,and it is themens, for itsbeingdesireandappetite.Vico’sGodis themetaphysicales-senceofadeficientmanthatdoesnotmatchthemetaphysicsoftheeternalandunchanging,anddoesnotbetraytheAffetti di un disperato:“Noncono-scolimitiallatristezzadell’animocognizionequestaindefinitaecometaledegnadell’uomo”.50

TheproblemthatVico individuates in libidopresents itscore issuealso inOrazione VI.Whenpresenting thequestionof theodicy,he tries toexplainitbyintroducingalibido–voluptasissue,strictlytiedtohumannature.Thismightgeneratesomemisunderstandings–forinstance,takingforgoodsome-thingthatisbad.LaterBadalonijumpedinwiththeinterpretationofapanthe-istVico:

“God,thereforenature,notonlydraws,butdrawsvoluptate,thismeansthattheman,forhisbeingimmersedinanature-God,isnotimmersedinwoe.Thegoodnessofnatureisnotdem-onstratedbythefactthatGoddoesn’twanttodrawustherewherenaturewantstodrawus(…)andthewholeidentitybetweenGodandNatureisthereforere-stated.”51

TheIntroduzione a G.B. Vicogivesaninterpretationofthepluralityofreasonsandsourcesreconstructingtherouteasfranticsearchofanordine,providingsomedegreeofinternalizationofthenature.Tyinglibidotodeity,asinDe antiquissima,opensupapossibilityofdoublereading.FollowingBadaloni,weneedtoadmitaformofpantheisticnaturalismandaPlatonicpathinVico,confirmedbythetheoriesofthepunti metafisiciandoftheconato,soasbythefacultates animiwhich,intheframeoftheverum-factum,doreinforcethecapacityofthefacereanditmakesmanlikeGod,aswellasthefullintegra-tionofthemindinnature.Thatsamescholarhastodealwiththefantasia,which is forVico “risalto di reminescenza”, just as the ingegnowould be“lavorod’intornoacosechesiricordano”.Justthesamewouldhappenforspontaneity,whichmakesyouaskif

“…philosophyoftheminddoesn’tmeanphilosophyofspontaneity,andthroughitphilosophyoftheunconscious?(…)Andtherevelationoftherationalbaseoftheepoqueofthesenseandoftheoneofthefantasyisn’tactuallysubmersedbytheunconsciousnatureofrationality?”52

Rightafter,hetakesthetimetolistthepointswhere“themainthemeoftheunconsciousjumpsaway”,53asaproofofthefactthattheaimwouldbepush-ingVicotowardsSpinoza,insistingonsomemetaphysics of the mindbeyondanycomparisonwithhistory.

“PerfinoincospettodiunaragionetuttaspiegatanellaScienza Nuova,–asPiovaniread–questainterpretazioneètentatadimettersiascavarepertrovare‘unateoriadelleidee,odelleforme plastaeanalogaaquelladelDe antiquissima’ (p.XLIX):tentazionechefapensarealpropositodichivolessesradicareunaquerciapertrovareleirripetibiliremotelinfechenealimentanoleradici.”54

ThisperspectiveisconfirmedintheessaythatPiovanisignificantlyentitledVico e la filosofia senza natura,showingVico’sphilosophyasafirstattempttounderstand theconnate tensionofanyhumanbeing, tending throughanefforttofilltheessenceofitsinessential existence.InVico’sphilosophyPio-



vanicanseethefoundationsofagenuine,renewedreflectionuponexistence,abletopermanentlybreakupwithanyphilosophyofnature:“Oneofthemostsolidbasesofhisgreatnesshastobefoundinthewayshefacedtheissueofhistoricizationofthereason.”55

TryingtoanalyseVico’sthoughtinternally,andtryingtocombinehisspecu-lativepathwiththehistoricalcontextinNaplesatthetime,fullyawareofthebehaviourroleimposedtoavoidbothheterodoxyandthedangerofcensor-ship,wecannotevadethepossibleexistence–behindametaphysicaldis-course–ofasortofanthropologicalinterest,freefromany‘ontologization’ofphilosophy.Moreover,thesameVico,indeliveringcopiesofhiswritingstofriendsandcorrespondents,didnothesitatetomakecorrectionsortoomitpiecesoftext,ofteneliminatingthereferencestocensoredauthors.ItshouldbeborneinmindthattheNeapolitanculture,initiallydominatedbyliterary,philosophical, theological, religious,artistic,andastrological interestsandmedicine– after the revoltofMasaniello and theplagueof1656–madea very fortunate change of track towardsmathematical sciences, physics,andbotanyandthen,intheeighteenthcentury,historicalstudiesandlegalmatter,most probably due to an accentuation of the controversy betweenthechurchandthestate.IntheevidenturgencyofagreateropennesstoEu-ropeannews,astrongculturalrenewalwaspromotedbytheAcademiesofInvestigantiandPalatineaswellasintheprivateroomsofJosephVallettaandinhislibrary–theplacesofdiscussionanddebate.Yet,despitethecen-sorshipwasmuchmilderinNaplesthaninotherItalianandEuropeancities,many texts of the Illuminismo failed to avoid prescriptive lists of bannedbooks,asevidencedbythefuryoftheInquisitionagainstPietroGiannone’sHistoria civile del Regno di Napoli,dated1723.AllthisworriedVico, thatatthebeginningofthetwentieshadpublishedtheDiritto Universaleand hadbeenconcernedforthe Scienza Nuova duetoaprocessofcensorship,whichstoppedthankstothejudgmentofPadreFortunatoTamburin.Accordingtohim,“anothereditionoftheScienza Nuovacouldnotbeprevented”.56Inthelightofthiscontext,itisnecessarymorethanevertofreetheDe antiquissi-

48


49

Ibid.,pp.97,189.

50

Ibid.,pp.72,139.

51

NicolaBadaloni, Introduzione a G. B. Vico,Feltrinelli,Milan1961,p.350.

52

Nicola Badaloni, “Introduction”, in: Giam-battista Vico, Opere filosofiche, pp. XLVI,XLIV.

53

Ibid.,p.XLIV.

54

PietroPiovani,“Review of PaoloCristofolini(ed.), GiambattistaVico,Opere filosofiche”,

Bollettino del Centro di studi vichiani II(1972),p.91.

55

PietroPiovani,La filosofia nuova di Vico,pp.401–402.

56

Cf. József Nagy, “Vico e il Sant’Uffizio”,Información Filosófica VIII (17/2011), p.19. For the new documentation in relationto censorship around the Vico see GustavoCosta, “Vico e l’Inquisizione”, Nouvelles de la République des Lettres II (1999), pp.93–124. Cf. also Gustavo Costa, “Consid-erazioni filologico-filosofiche in una nuovaedizionedelDe antiquissima”,Bollettino del Centro di studi vichiani XLIII (1–2/2013),pp.157–166.Foranupdatedbibliographyonthesubject seenowDavidArmando,“Vico,Giambattista”, in:AdrianoProsperi,Vincen-zo Lavenia, John Tedeschi (eds.), Dizion-ario storico dell’Inquisizione, EdizionidellaScuolaNormaleSuperiore,Pisa2010,vol.I,pp.1686–1687.



mafromallthosepracticesthattheInquisitionwouldhaveimposed,helpingtolandattheshoresofexistencewherenatureandspiritcanfinallymergeinhistory: “In the relationbetweenanimo andanima it is celebrated thatmagicalmatchbetweennature and spirit, nature andpsyche,unconsciousandconscience”.57TheonecontainedintheLiber Metaphysicusisareflec-tionuponthemysteryofthe“existencethatismetaphysicaljustbecauseitisneverconcluded”,58withavirtus,thistosayenergy,libido,tensiontowardsanordo,whichshallnolongerproceedinviewofthetheodicy,becauseofitsopennesstoanew“Anthropodicy”whereall“lecosedalnullavengonorealmenteall’esistenza,epercuitantolepiccolissimequantolegrandidis-tanougualmentedalnulla”.59

Claudia Megale

“Antropodiceja”GiambattistaVicaizmeđuetike,metafizikeipovijesti

SažetakInzistirajući na razlikovanju lema animus i anima u djelu Deantiquissima, Vicu možemo pri-pisati teoriju koja je u mogućnosti razmotriti osjet, memoriju, fantaziju, te druge sposobnosti blisko vezane uz animusimmortale i koje su strane kartezijanskoj koncepciji koja tvrdi da su te sposobnosti podređene rescogitansu. Ovo je polazišna točka kompleksne elaboracije koja će u kasnijim radovima, posvećenima univerzalnom pravu, omogućiti teoretiziranje tog smisla poj-mova certum i auctoritas, koji su različiti no ne i odvojeni od veruma ljudskog uma – što postaje poviješću i stoji u samom središtu univerzalne ljudske teodiceje. Ova teodiceja – daleko od neke klasične ontološke interpretacije – može se definirati kao »antropodiceja«, koja u svojemu visu skriva i asimilaciju i preispitivanje problema vikovskog vremena, promatrano kroz lajbnicovsku matricu.

KljučneriječiGiambattistaVico,anima,animus,antropologija,filozofija,filologija,povijest,metafizika

Claudia Megale

Giambattista Vicos „Anthropodizee“ zwischen Ethik, Metaphysik und Geschichte

ZusammenfassungIndem wir auf Differenzierungen zwischen den Lemmata Animus und Anima in Deantiquissima beharren, können wir Vico die Theorie zuschreiben, die in der Lage ist, Sinn, Gedächtnis, Fanta-sie neu zu bewerten, sowie andere, mit dem Animusimmortale sehr eng verwandte Fähigkeiten, die der kartesianischen Vorstellung fremd sind, welche die Inferiorität dieser untergeordneten Fähigkeiten gegenüber der Rescogitans zum Ausdruck bringt. Dies ist der Ansatzpunkt einer komplexen Ausarbeitung, die in späteren, dem universellen Recht gewidmeten Schriften, die Theoretisierung dieses Sinns von certum und auctoritas ermöglichen wird, die unterschiedlich, jedoch vom verum der menschlichen Vernunft nicht getrennt sind – was zur Geschichte wird und direkt im Zentrum einer universellen menschlichen Theodizee steht. Diese Theodizee – weit ent-fernt von der klassischen ontologischen Interpretation – könnte als „Anthropodizee“ definiert werden, die in ihrer vis Assimilation wie auch Neubewertung des Problems der vicoschen Zeit verbirgt, betrachtet durch die leibnizsche Matrix.

SchlüsselwörterGiambattistaVico,Anima,Animus,Anthropologie,Philosophie,Philologie,Geschichte,Metaphysik



Claudia Megale

L’« anthropodicée » de Giambattista Vico entre éthique, métaphysique et histoire

RésuméEn insistant sur les différenciations des lèmes animus et anima dans l’oeuvre Deantiquissima, nous pouvons attribuer à Vico une théorie capable de reconsidérer les sens, la mémoire, l’ima-gination et d’autres facultés étroitement liées à l’animus immortale, facultés étrangères à la conception cartésienne selon laquelle elles sont inférieures et subordonnées aux facultés du rescongitans. C’est le point de départ d’une élaboration complexe, qui, dans les écrits tardifs consacrés au droit universel, permettra la théorisation du sens des concepts certum i auctoritas, distincts et non séparés du verum de la raison humaine – le verum qui devient l’histoire et se situe au centre même d’une théodicée universelle humaine. Cette théodicée – éloignée de certai-nes interprétations classiques ontologiques – peut se définir comme une « anthropodicée » qui cache dans son vis l’assimilation mais aussi la réévaluation du problème du temps chez Vico, considéré à travers la matrice leibnizienne.

Mots-clésGiambattistaVico,anima,animus,anthropologie,philosophie,philologie,histoire,métaphysique

57

EnzoPaci,Ingens Sylva,p.107.

58

Ibid.,p.VI.

59


giambattista vico’s “anthropodicy” between ethics ... · giambattista vico, opere...

Documents