Thomistic Logic in Renaissance Italy: Girolamo Savonarola, Paolo Barbò, Crisostomo Javelli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is devoted to the formation of a ‘Thomist logic’ in Renaissance Italy. After having expounded the principles that should inspire any logic ad mentem Divi Thomae, the article focuses on three textbooks of ‘Thomist logic’: Girolamo Savonarola’s Compendium Logicae, Paolo Barbò’s Expositio in Artem veterem, and Crisostomo Javelli’s Compendium Logicae. I show that these textbooks display common features, such as the presentation of logic according to the order of the books traditionally included in the Organon.Savonarola maintained that propositions can only be in the present tense and cannot generate insolubilia. Barbò’s contributions to philosophy of logic are conspicuous and include an original discussion of the subiectum of logic and of the doctrine expounded in the Categories. Under the possible influence of Renaissance humanism, Javelli’s textbook includes a history of logic and historical and philological analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".