Pagina 130 - BCSV, XL, 2

stratigraphic problems of additions and rectification of thought performed by
Vico in his writings on the margins of each copy of these works, «which could
give an image of the chronological and progressive order with which ideas
became alive in the thought of Vico».
The Ur-codex must be the richest codex for showing the largest number of
autograph corrections made of printing-errors, some of which are listed in the
autograph Mendorum … Emendationes document, and repeated partly in
Insigniora Priorum duum Librorum Menda Emendata at page six of the
unnumbered pages of the introduction to Notae (Vico’s letter to Giambattista
Filomarino). In the Ur-codex margins, the most numerous autograph com-
ments exist, which were included in Notae together with those written in the
Vienna codex. We can safely state that no individual who received the two
books, Du and De const., in one volume or only one of the two before 13
August 1722, received also the third (Notae). Why? Because, after September
1722, any sale or complimentary or gift copy of this work would have been of
one single volume containing all three books (Du, De const., ad Notae). This
assumption can very well explain why no surviving exemplar of a complete
codex has been found, with the understandable exception of the Ur-codex in
the private possession of the author. Consequently, the most valuable and
interesting codices of these works for the people interested in Vico studies
would be those given freely or sold after the autumn of 1720 for Du , and after
the autumn of 1721 for the Du and De const., in one volume. Those given or
sold after the fall of 1722 including Du, De const., and Notae, all in one vol-
ume, needed personal and demanding interventions of Vico, beside the per-
sonalization of the volume with an autograph dedication. After the publication
of Notae, Vico still could, if he wanted, when giving copies of the volume (with
the three books) out, correct the errors of grammar, syntax, and spelling that
for many reasons were also due to Felice Mosca. We will be very fortunate, if
we could find one of these copies. Vico corrected only a part of all the errors
of this kind that can be found in these three books and we have listed them in
our Tables A and B. Furthermore, he did not keep record in Du, De const., and
Notae of the Gervasi Codex of having done several other corrections that he
simply listed in Notae, in the sixth unnumbered page, Insigniora Priorum
duum Librorum menda emendata. Another list of printing errors, the
Mendorum ab Typis Literariis Emendationes, in nine single sheets that he kept
within the Gervasi Exemplar is certainly prior in time and importance to the
printed one in Notae; it lists the Insigniora with several others that, too, have
not been corrected by Vico in his copy. Vico left that job for his readers.
Placella knew of no other exemplars and did not mention the possibility of
finding one in the future. This is why we are urged to introduce known con-
temporary surviving exemplars of these works of Vico (Table A), and then will
focus on the one Vico donated to Count Maximilian of Wildenstein (Table B).
GIORGIO A. PINTON 130