Narrative, the Scienza Nuova, and the Barbarism of Reflection

Narrative,theScienzaNuova,andthe BarbarismofReflection ROBERTP.CREASE GiambattistaVico(1688-1744)standsatthecrossroadsoftwoformidable butconflictingintellectualtraditions:Renaissancehumanismandthe Enlightenment,whichpartlyexplainswhyheisanambiguousfigureamid eighteenth-centurythinkers.HecanbereadeitherasanEnlightenment(or atleastproto-Enlightenment)thinkerattemptingtodevelopanepistemo-logica!responsetoDescartesthatvalidatesascienceofhistoryand philology—andthusassomeonewhoattemptstoextendandelaborate modernism—orhecanbereadasattemptingtosubverttheEnlightenment preoccupationwithacertainmodelofscience,andthusasincipiently postmodern.1Thisambiguityappearsmostclearlyinexplicitlyopposed interpretationsofVico'sconceptionofthepossibilityofprogress. OneofVico'smostfamousdoctrinesisthatofthecorsiandricorsi,the cyclicalpathchartingtheriseandfallofallnationsorcivilizations. AccordingtoVico,anationorcivilizationtravelsthroughthreeages—of gods,heroes,andmen—whosenaturesare,respectively,divine,heroic,and human;2followingthedevelopmentofrationality,whatVicocallsthe "barbarismofreflection"bringsaboutadissolutioninthenationor civilization,resultinginaslidebacktobarbarism,afterwhichthecycle beginsanew.ButwhatistherelationshipofVico'sNewSciencetothose corsiandricorsi?DoestheNewSciencemerelydescribethishistorical path,whichVicocallsthe"idealeternalhistory"[349],assomething externaltoitsownworkingasatext,adiagnosisofaconditionwhichitis impossibletocure?OrdoestheNewScienceservetoawakenusto impendingdangerslatentin,forinstance,thepresentcourseofwestern civilizationsothatwemayattempttoforestallorevenpreventthem;isita diagnosisthatisanindispensablepartofapossiblecure? 107 108/CREASE Theissue,thoughseldomaddressedintheliterature,wouldseemtobea crucialoneinVichianscholarship.Onereasonisthatitbearsimmediately andprofoundlyuponVico'spositionontheideaofprogress,andthusupon hisultimateroleineighteenth-centurydiscussionsofitbyFontenelle, Perrault,Turgot,Condorcet,Kant,andothers.Accordingtothetraditional view,Vicohasvirtuallynonotionofcontinuousprogress.RobertNisbet, forinstance,claimsthatVico'sinterestinprogresswasrestrictedtothe problemofprogress,or"theconditionsunderwhichdistinctintellectual advancementoccursinhumanhistory,assessed,however,againstconditions underwhichdeclineanddegenerationtakeplace."Indeed,Nisbetsees possibleVichianinfluenceononeofTurgot'sfewessays,"Researchesinto theCausesoftheProgressandDeclineoftheSciencesandArts,"a discussionthatdoesnotclaimuniversalandnecessaryprogressformankind. Vico,Nisbetfinds,cannotbeincludedinthat"distinguishedsuccessionof mindsinthemodernWest"enthralledandanimatedbytheideaofprogress, asuccessionwhichcontinuedintothenextcenturyintheworksofComte, Hegel,Spencerandothers.3A.RobertCaponigriandAlphons'tHart, however,seeVicoaspointingtowardsaradicallynewconceptionof progress,thoughonemuchdifferentfromhiscontemporaries.Theythus viewhimasaneighteenth-centurymaverick,butonewhoseposition essentiallylieswithintheabove-mentionedtraditionofthinkersinspiredby theideaofcontinuousprogress.4 AsecondreasonwhythisissueisacrucialoneinVichianscholarshipis thatitthreatenstounderminethecoherenceofthedoctrineoftheScienza Nuovaitself.If,inaccordwiththeviewsofthosewhodenyanaccountof progressinVico,theNewScienceistobeunderstoodasmerelydescribing ahistoricalpath,thatwouldseemtoviolateVico'sinsistenceonthe functionoftextsandtheircharacterasinstitutions.Ontheotherhand,if theNewScienceistobetakenasacriticalsteptowardsforestallingthe slidebacktobarbarism—thepositionofthosewhoseeVicoasanadvocate ofpossibleprogress—thatwouldseemtobeinconflictwiththedoctrineofcorsiandricorsi. Torestatetheissue:doestheNewScienceprovideadescriptionofa deterministicprocessinsuchawaythattheworkisexternaltowhatit describes(thusresemblinga"scientific"treatise),assometextualevidence suggests,oristheNewSciencefullyandself-consciouslyapartofthe processitdescribesandatoolleadingtoincreasingsynthesisratherthan dissolution(asothertextualevidencesuggests,includingtheveryexistence oftheNewScienceitself)?Toputthematterstillmoresharply:ifVico believedthattheNewSciencecouldhelptoavoidthedissolutionoftheage, thisconflictswithhisowntheoryofricorsi;ifhebelieveditcouldnot,this conflictswithpassageswhichsuggestthatthiswashispurposeinwriting. IdonotclaimtobeabletomakeVico'sownintentionanyclearer.Ido think,however,thatexaminingthepeculiarnatureandfunctionofnarrative withintheNewScienceshedsconsiderablelightonthisissue,anddrawsour TheScienzaNuova/109 attentiontothefactthattheworkmustbereadinadifferentinterpretive framefromtheCartesianoneinwhichtheissueofdeterminismorprogress isposedasan"either-or"proposition.Vico'sposition,thatistosay,is simplytoorichtobeadequatelycapturedinthatalternative.Moreover,I believe(thoughthetopicisbeyondthescopeofthisessay)thattheissueof narrativeintheNewSciencealsobearscentrallyuponotherimportant issuesinVichianscholarshipbesidesthatofhispositiononprogress,such asthemergingofphilosophyandphilology,theconvertabilityofverum andfactum,thecritiqueofCartesianism,andothers. TheNewSciencebeginswithanallegoricalpictureforafrontispiece, followedbyanintroductionclaimingtoexplaintheallegoricalpicture, followedbyfivebooksandaconclusion.Bookonebeginswithachrono- logicaltableschematizingthehistoriesofsevencivilizations,followedby onesectionexplainingthetable,andthreemoreoutliningVico'selements, principles,andmethod.Inthem,Vicoexpresseshisopposition,ontheone hand,totheviewthatchancerulesthecourseofhumaninstitutions,asper Epicurus,Hobbes,andMachiavelli,butalso,ontheotherhand,totheview thatfateruleshumaninstitutions,asperZenoandSpinoza(130,179). Rather,Vicoargues,thesimilaritiesbetweenthecourseofnationsresult fromsimilaritiesinthecourseofthematurativeprocessofwhathecalls "theindefinitenatureofthehumanmind"(121).Thoughindefinite,this natureisarticulatedinhumaninstitutions;theseinstitutionsbothshape humannatureandareshapedbyitinturn,viaaprocessforwhichtheideal eternalhistoryservesasachart.Thereciprocallymaturingrelationbetween institutionsandhumannatureisoneofthemostfundamentalandinfluential ofVichianinsights. Thekeypointisthathumanmotivesprovidethedynamismforthis maturativeprocess.Humanchoices,whilebynature"mostuncertain," becomedeterminedashumanneedsandutilitiessuchasself-love,ferocity, avarice,lust,andambitioncometobeexpressedinaparticularinstitutional context(141).Inthiswaythematurativeprocessisnotageneticunfolding ormetaphysicallydeterminedorlogicallydeducibleontheonehand,nor arbitraryorchance-governedontheother.Rather,thismaturativeprocessis aself-creation,aself-unfolding.Humannaturedoesnotpassthroughtime, butproducesitselfintime."Thatwhichdidallthiswasmind,formendid itwithintelligence,"Vicosays;"itwasnotfate,fortheydiditbychoice; notchance,fortheresultsoftheiralwayssoactingareperpetuallythesame"(1108).Theidealeternalhistorythusdoesnotamounttoa transcendenthistory,butratheranaccountofhumanself-development,forit showsthatonlyincertainsocialconditionsandcontextscanhumanbeings acquirecertaincapacities,suchasrationality,andthatsuchacquisitionisa 110/CREASE conditionforfurtherdevelopments.Onlybygoingthroughearlierstages canonegettothelaterstages. ThethirdofVico'strioofstages—thehumanage,whichfollowsthe heroicandthedivineages—thushasaspecialstature.Onemustbecareful withtheadjective"human"here,whichVicousesinseveralsenses.Inone, itqualifiesallthreestages,asforinstancewhenhesaysthathisscience beginsatthebeginningofthedivineagewhen"thesecreaturesbeganto thinkhumanly"(338;also447).Elsewhere,though,hequalifiesthesecond andthirdstagesashumanasopposedtothefirst(629),whileinstillother sectionshedescribesthethirdstagealoneasproperlyhuman(1088).Here, hemeansthathumannatureistuttaspiegata,orfullyunfolded;whatever capacitieshumanbeingshavepotentiallyhavebeenrealized.Moreover,he clearlyviewsthisstageasthemostprogressive;ingovernment,for instance,itismarkedbythebreakingofthehegemonyofpatriciansandthe establishmentofformalequalityinthedemocraticormonarchicalstate. Butthisstagealsocontainstheseedsofitsowndissolution.Inreflection theminddetachesitselffromitsobjects,puttingthematadistance. Overrelianceonreflectionandthecriticalfacultiesleadshumanbeingsto withdrawfromtheprereflectivelevelinwhichwelivecommunally.We fancyourselvesabletolivewithoutthiscommunalbelonging—as Descartes,forinstance,wasabletodo.Thefabricofsociallifebeginsto pullapart,andhumanbeingsbecomeincreasinglyisolatedfromeachother andmotivatedbyself-interest.ThisiswhatVicocallsthe"barbarismof reflection,"whichhefindsevenmoreterriblethanthebarbarismofsense becausethemotiveofself-interestiscloaked.Thebarbarismofreflection producesabestializationofhumanbeings,ultimatelyleadingthecycletostartoveragain.HerearisestheissuewithwhichIbegan:whatistheroleoftheNew Scienceinthisstage?Isitmerelyanobservationofthiscourseinhistory, andasaproductofreflectiondetachedfromitssubject?Evidencethatitis includesVico'sreferencestoitasmetaphysics,hisinsistenceonthe scientificmethodologyofhisproject,hisviewofhumanbehavioraslaw- governed,andhisinsistencethattheidealeternalhistoryisanecessarypath. Consider: ThedecisivesortofproofinourScienceisthereforethis:that,since theseinstitutionshavebeenestablishedbydivineprovidence,the courseoftheinstitutionsofthenationshadtobe,mustnowbe,and willhavetobesuchasourSciencedemonstrates,evenifinfiniteworldswerebomfromtimetotimethrougheternity....OurSciencethereforecomestodescribeatthesametimeanidealeternalhistory traversedintimebythehistoryofeverynationinitsrise, development,maturity,decline,andfall.Indeed,wemakeboldto affirmthathewhomeditatesthisSciencenarratestohimselfthisideal eternalhistorysofarashehimselfmakesitforhimselfbythatproof "ithad,has,andwillhavetobe."(348-49;1096) TheScienzaNuova/111 Ontheotherhand,Vicoalsorepeatedlyargues,againstSpinoza,thatthe paththatcivilizationstraverseisnotadeterminedone.Inseveralprevious works,includingOnTheStudyMethodsofOurTime,Vicourgesthe practicalvalueofphilosophyforgovernmentandeducation.Foronething, asaphilosophicaltextitbelongstotheinstitutionsofitsage,which,Vico repeatedlystresses,arewhatshapehumannature.Moreover,theNew Sciencereferstoinstitutionsasservingthepreservationofthehumanrace orthehighestgood(344,364),andoccasionallypromotesmoredirectlythe practicalvalueofphilosophy,eveninawayseeminglyaddressedto preciselythosethingsthatcausetheslideintobarbarism.Consider:"Tobe usefultothehumanrace,philosophymustraiseanddirectweakandfallen man,notrendhisnatureorabandonhiminhiscorruption"(129).Later,in anaccountofRome,philosophyissaidtohaveinflamedpeople"to commandgoodlaws"(1101).Anditseemsperversethattheverywork whichclaimsforthefirsttimetoprovideatrueunderstandingofthereal natureofhumanity,writtenjustatthetimewhenhumanity'spowersare fullydeployed,shouldbythatactmarkthemomentoftheonsetof decadenceandbeintheserviceofsocialdissolution. Anadditional,thoughmysteriouspiecetothispuzzleisthePratica, composedbyVicofortheconclusionofthethirdeditionoftheNew Science,butneverincludedinthatwork.5Addressingthequestionofthe practicalvalueoftheNewScience,VicosaysinthePraticathat,whilethe NewScienceseemspurelycontemplativeandofnohelptoprudenceor actionindelayingifnotpreventingtheruinofnations,thatisnotthecase. Theproperlyeducatedyoung,alongwith"wisemenandprincesofour commonwealths,"willbe"instructed"bythecontemplationofthecourse thenationsrunprovidedbythebook,and,thankstothewayphilosophy informstheirpractice,becomeable,"throughgoodinstitutions,laws,and examples,torecallthepeoplestotheiracmeorperfectstate"(1406).This presentsaclearandplausiblestatementconcerningthepracticalvalueofthe NewScience—yetVicoleftitout.Why? VariousscholarshaveaddressedtheproblemofthePractica.Onepartisan ofthepositionthattheattributionofapracticalvaluetotheNewScienceis inconsistentwiththeviewsexpressedthereinisStephenTaylorHolmes. NotingVico'scharacterizationofthoughtintheearlypartofeachcorsoas pre-reflectiveandinthelaterpartasreflective,aswellasVico'sown descriptionoftheNewScienceasscientificandreflectiveinnature,Holmes posesthefollowingquestion:"InwhatwaydidVicoconsiderhimselfto havesuccessfullyturnedreflectionagainstreflection,andthustohave postponed(nottosayprevented)theotherwiseinevitabledisintegrationand decayofadvancedsociety?"Holmesconsiderstwopossiblestrategiesfor handlingsuchaquestion.OnewouldviewtheNewScienceaspartofa revivalofpoeticlanguageandthought,theotherwouldseetheNewScience asfullof"noblelies"suchasthatofdivineprovidence,whichconceals 112/CREASE fromhumanbeingsthattheythemselvesaretheauthorsoftheirown actionsandthusunderminesreflectiveawarenessofotherpossibilities. HolmesrejectsbothoftheseviewsasrunningcontrarytoVico'srepeated insistenceonthescientificandreflectivecharacteroftheNewScience, leadinghimtoconcludethattheproblem"remainsyetunanswered."6 AnotherpartisanoftheviewthatthePraticawassuppressedbecauseitran countertothedeterministicprinciplesoftheNewScienceisLeonPompa. Pompa,too,ispuzzledbytheapparentcontradictionbetweentheoptimistic spiritofthePraticaaswellaspreviouswritingsandtheapparentpessimism anddeterminismoftheNewScience.ButhefindsindicationsintheNew Sciencethatcouldbecitedindefenseofsuchpessimism.Oneisthatitis preciselyatthetimeofthebarbarismofreflectionthatinstitutionsceaseto appropriatelyreflectthesocialnaturesoftheindividualsinsocietyandthus topromotecohesivesociallife.AnotherisVico'sassumptionthatthe humancapacityforreasonandforimaginationaremutuallyexclusive(185, 218-19).Whilehumanbeings,then,losethecapacityforacceptingfalse beliefswhichnonethelesspreventsocialdissolution,theyalsoseem preventedfromacceptingothersociallysupportivecharacteristicsintheir stead.Inthelightofthesetwoviews,Pompasays,onemustconcludethat thereasonforVico'sfailuretopublishthePraticais"hisrealizationthatits moreoptimisticprescriptionsareincompatiblewiththebasically deterministiccharacteroftherestoftheScienzaNuova."1Pompafinds bothoftheseassumptions,however,unnecessaryandevenmistaken,and claimstheycouldbeexcisedwithoutaffectingtheremainderoftheNew Science. A.RobertCaponigri,ontheotherhand,takesforgrantedthatthe practicalambitionsexpressedinthePraticaareinfactfulfilledbytheNew Scienceasitstands.Caponigriasserts,"Itisthepurposeofthe'New Science'todiscoverthelawoftheorigin,growth,anddeclineofthesocial economy,thatis,ofthecomplexofinstitutionsinwhichthesocial consciousnessofhumanityisincorporatedandeffected;evenmore,the'New Science'seeks,throughthedeterminationofthislaw,toplaceinthehands ofthenations,sotosay,thepowerofrecapturingthesourcesoftheirlife and,eveninthemomentofdeclineof,initiatinganewtheirmovement towardidealityandvigorouslife."8Butthisclaimleavesunexplainedthe meansofrecapturingthispower,especiallygiventheantinomyofreason andimaginationdescribedbyPompa. MorepersuasiveisAlphonse'tHart,whoadvancesthreereasonsfor thinkingthatthecyclicalconceptionofhistorydoesnotimplyinevitability ofrepetitionandincompatibilitywithprogress.Oneistheprogressive characterofthesuccessionofpoliticalsystems,thesecondistherelative freedomwithinthe"idealeternalhistory"fordiversifiedroutes,andthethird, onceagain,isthepracticalambitionsexpressedinthefirsteditionof theNewScience.IncounteringtheargumentthatthereasonthatVicoleft thePraticaoutoftheNewSciencehadtodowithhisrecognitionofits TheScienzaNuova/113 inconsistencywiththepositionadvancedbythattext,'tHartelaborateson theexplanationgivenbyBenedettoCroceandMaxFisch.ThePratica, 'tHartsays,assumesanessentiallyAristotelianviewoftherelation betweencontemplation,praxis,andproduction.Butbythetimethethird editionwasready,'tHartclaims,VicorealizedthattheNewSciencecould notbedescribedinAristoteliancategories,sinceitwasjustaspracticaland productiveascontemplative—thetripártatedivisionisnolongerapplicable whereknowingandmakingareconvertible.VicowithheldthePratica, neitherbecausehehadgivenupthepracticalambitionsoftheNewScience norbecausesuchpracticalambitionsconflictedwiththepessimistic doctrinesofthatwork,butratheroutofadeeperreflectiononthenatureof hisscience,andtherewithontheinseparabilityofverumanafactum? ThissuggestioncontainsimplicationsfortheroleofnarrativeintheNew Scienceandalsobearsonthequestionwehavebeenconsideringconcerning thework'sstatuswithrespecttothecorsi.BynarrativeImeanheresimply theorganizationofmaterialaboutasubjectintoasingledescriptiveepisode followingroughlychronologicalorder.Therawmaterialforthenew scientistincludesindividualnationalhistoriesconsideredasthelarge-scale metabolismof"notablemenandmostpertinentdeeds...throughwhom andbywhichthedecisivechangesinhumaninstitutionshavecomeabout" (43).Butthenewscientisttreatsthismetabolisticprocessasbutoneexem- plarofauniversalhistoryandnarratesthatprocessinpresentingtheideal eternalhistory.Bynarratingthatprocess—orsorunstheimplication—the newscientistbecomespartoftheveryhistoricalprocesswhichisstudied, effectinganidentitybetweenhistorianandhistoricalagent,observingas wellasproducingandpracticinghistory.10 Severalquestionsshouldbeconsideredatthispoint.Doesitmakessense toclaimthattheNewSciencecontainsanarrativeoftheidealeternal history?Ifso,whatistherealsubjectofthatnarrative?Finally,whatis entailedbytheclaimthatanarrativeisjustasmuchpracticalandproductive ascontemplative? Regardingthefirstquestion,theNewSciencedoesinsistthatitmakes visibletheidealeternalhistoryintheformofasingledescriptiveand completeepisodewhosestructureunfoldsovertime.Indeed...