Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machiavelli’s ‘Discorso o dialogo intorno alla nostra lingua’ (c. 1515) is not one of the major treatises on the ‘questione della lingua’. Critics even doubt that the author is Machiavelli since the work contains injurious attacks on Dante that are believed unlikely from someone who wrote highly of him in his other works. Machiavelli scholars have tried to justify his position toward Dante in the treatise as an attempt to make a case for Italian unity. The work has also been read from the perspective of the received ideas on Dante in the Renaissance, which are echoed in Machiavelli’s slanderous criticism. In my article, I would like to approach the treatise from Dante’s point of view to weigh the extent to which Machiavelli’s claims can be said to be valid and justified. Although Machiavelli seems to have had a limited knowledge of Dante’s linguistic treatise, De vulgari eloquentia, he certainly knew the Inferno well enough to parody it in his L’Asino and to take Dante to task for his attitude toward the Florentine language, the Florentines and Florence. My aim is to show that Machiavelli’s unstated objective in the treatise, and the reason for his critique of Dante, is to ingratiate himself with the Medici and be accepted into their service.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".