Pius II and the Andreis (1462): Textual Circulation, Crusade Promotion and Papal Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the Andreis, an account of the 1462 Roman adventus of St Andrew’s head relic. While the text is most commonly known from Book VIII of Pope Pius II’s Commentaries (1462‐64), it appeared in discrete parts and circulated independently from 1462. The Andreis is revealed as a compilation of texts by several authors, undermining Pius’ traditional role as the sole author of the Andreis and later Commentaries. Additionally, the Andreis is identified as an early festival book, with similar norms of circulation, impact, and elite presentation. Recreating the adventus through texts written for the event, the Andreis reflects contemporary expectations for festival books, while also encouraging support for an Ottoman crusade. Thus, circulating separately and later as part of the Commentaries, the Andreis contributed to Pius’ crusade campaign and reputation, arguing for the pope’s authority as Peter’s heir, his popularity as a leader, and his rightful role as the protector of Eastern Christians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".