Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonetheless": any reader familiar with Niccolò Machiavelli's Prince knows this adverb to be a mark of his style and his method of reasoning.From the sea of possibilities, the prince has to pick the exception necessary for his purpose.Nondimanco (to wit, "nonetheless") thus provides the title for Carlo Ginzburg's new book, a collection of nine of his published and unpublished essays on Machiavelli plus an appendix devoted to Il Gattopardo ("The Leopard"), the mid-twentieth-century novel by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa.Ginzburg reads Machiavelli's masterpiece "between the lines" so as to unveil the hidden meanings and the structure of its prose.One of Ginzburg's premises is the inapplicability of the "dichotomy Middle Ages/Renaissance" to Machiavelli's oeuvre (88).A close analysis of the books Machiavelli could access in his father's library reveals that there were many typically medieval works.Ginzburg dwells, in particular, on commentaries and translations of Aristotle that provided Machiavelli with not only the nucleus of theories that he later developed, but also the language to express them.An example of this productive reading of Aristotle in Latin is offered by the distinction between simpliciter (that is, "absolutely, generally speaking") and secundum quid ("in a specific historical context or circumstance"), a distinction that constitutes one of the foundations of the theoretical framework used by Machiavelli to formulate his views on the prince's agency and his analysis of political states in general-not the perfect one, such as the ideal republic delineated by Plato (simpliciter), but those that existed in human history and concrete circumstances (secundum quid).Ginzburg notes a similar tension in the discussions that took place at the time of Galileo Galilei's trial in the first half of the seventeenth century.The same personalities that defended or censored Machiavelli's works for their apparent impiety-German humanist Kaspar Schoppe (a name that appears often in the book) and Dominican theologian Niccolò Riccardi, respectivelyresorted to the ideas of "absolutely" or "in a particular context"/"hypothetically." Galileo's theories were thus evaluated on a delicate scale that measured reality and hypothesis.Whereas in the end the Inquisition refused the "hypothetical"
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".