Dialogic Construction and Interaction in Lodovico Domenichi’s <i>La nobiltà delle donne</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lodovico Domenichi (1515–64), one of the major polymaths of sixteenth-century Italy, is currently enjoying a marked revival in the critical literature. Although he has been studied in the context of his contemporary printing and publishing activities, the dissemination of works in the vernacular, the promotion of women’s writings, and the religious crisis of that time, little attention has been devoted to him as a writer. In 1549 Domenichi published a dialogue on and for women, La nobiltà delle donne (The nobility of women). This work allowed him to contribute to the advancement of the women’s cause in Italy. This article investigates how Domenichi modelled the speakers, facilitated their dialogic interaction, and delivered his defence of women. Finally, it sheds light on the role that the female moderator, Violante Bentivoglia, played during the five-day conversations and how she influenced the intellectual and cultural environment dominated by men.
 Lodovico Domenichi (1515–1564), un des plus grands humanistes italiens et reçoit actuellement un intérêt renouvelé parmi la littérature critique. Bien que son œuvre ait été étudiée dans le contexte de ses activités simultanées d’impression et d’édition, de la circulation de ses ouvrages en langue vernaculaire, de la promotion des écrits féminins et de la crise religieuse de l’époque, très peu de chercheurs se sont penchés sur son travail d’écrivain. En 1549, Domenichi a publié un dialogue sur les femmes et à leur intention, intitulé La nobilità delle donne (La Noblesse des Femmes). Cet ouvrage lui a permis de faire avancer la cause de femmes en Italie. Cet article explore comment Domenichi a construit ses protagonistes et facilité leur dialogue, tout en présentant sa défense des femmes. Enfin, on y met en lumière le rôle modérateur que tient Violante Bentivoglia pendant ces cinq jours de conversation et comment elle influence un environnement intellectuel et culturel dominé par les hommes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".