Two Hungarian Jesuits and the Qur'an: Understanding, Misunderstanding, and Polemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two Hungarian Jesuits active in the early seventeenth century, Stephanus Arator and Peter Pázmány, wrote polemical pieces drawing on the Qur'an. Arator's work, Confutatio alcorani (1610) relies on the 1543 Bibliander edition of the translation made by Robert of Ketton and on Juan Andrés’ Confusión o confutación de la secta Mahomética y del Alcorán. Pázmány, in his Az mostan tamat uy tvdomaniok hamissaganak (1605) also draws on Bibliander, while presenting his own translations of, and commentaries on, Bibliander into Hungarian, the language of Pázmány's work. Both Arator and Pázmány were influenced more by the political and confessional dynamics surrounding them than by any apparent desire to grasp the meaning of the Qur'an. The crisis that both Catholicism and, more broadly, European Christianity, faced in the early seventeenth century overshadows these Jesuits’ efforts to explore the Qur'an. Pázmány, in particular, uses the Qur'an to make a case against Protestant sects and Unitarians, whose influence and numbers had greatly increased in Hungary. However further study of the Jesuit Austrian Province, in which both men worked, is needed to understand more fully the factors shaping these two examples of anti-Qur'anic literature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".