Lexical Choice and Rhetorical Expression in Ignazio Lomellini’s 1622 Translation of and Commentary on the Qur’an
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animadversiones, Notae ac Disputationes in Pestilentem Alcoranum is a unique document housed in the University of Genoa library and consisting of the entire text of the Qur’ān in Arabic, a Latin translation of same, and extensive commentaries and marginalia in Latin, with a few short passages in Arabic and Hebrew. The document is dated 1622 and has heretofore received little attention from scholars. Although Animadversiones had none of the impact of other early Latin translations of the Qur’ān, this text is of considerable value as an example of how early Western Christian scholars of the Qur’ān grappled with lexical, syntactical and exegetical problems. This article examines a series of lexical choices made by Lomellini and touches on some of his exegetical discourses, his intended audiences, and possible sources and informants. Special attention is given to the tension between Lomellini’s mission to propagate the Catholic faith and his desire to produce a translation faithful to the meaning of the original.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".