Re: Vico e l'antica Roma (& On the divinity of fathers)

On Aug 12 2012, J. L. Speranza wrote:

> Most studies on Vico seem to go straight to his
> original contributions rather than deal with his large antiquarian
> interests (I use 'antiquarian' purposefully in lieu of 'classicist').

I am not aware of any sense in which the word 'antiquarian' applies to 
Vico. Momigliano once suggested that Vico had been Italy's foremost 
philologist. He may very well have been right, but Vico brought philology 
under the guidance of philosophy. Vico presents himself as a political 
philosopher in the tradition of Plato, Cicero, and Dante. Why, Vico invites 
his reader to see him as a new Socrates, a new Dante, and--why not!--even a 
true Hercules; even a new Apollo.

Vico set out to unearth, to resurrect the best of classical antiquity, 
rather than to enshrine it a second time (if only in the empyreus).

He was as critical of ancient imperial Rome as he was of monastic 
Platonists such as Porphyry and Jambilicus.

On the question of the deification of the 'fathers' 
(patricians/aristocrats), I must limit myself to a few terse indications: 
in Vico the divinity of men is presupposed by the 'humanization' of the 
gods. We are first (false) gods (through fear), and only subsequently or 
derivatively merely or all-too human. Yes, our true personae are false. As 
Dante's "vero che ha faccia di menzogna."

Somehow, prior to false and deceiving gods (Dante's "dei falsi e bugiardi") 
as masks of men, there are men as masks of gods--men concealing their 
divinity. Concealment of wisdom precedes the exposition or vulgarizing of