Girolamo Camerata and the Querelle des Femmes between Discourse and Paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I focus on the rhetoric of the querelle des femmes in the only book by Girolamo Camerata, Trattato dell’honor vero, et del vero dishonore (1567), offering a critical analysis of the chapter entitled “Questione dove si tratta chi più meriti honore o la donna, o l’huomo di M. Girolamo Camerata da Randazzo, Siciliano Dottor dell’Arti” (Question where it is discussed who merits more honour, woman or man, by Girolamo Camerata of Randazo, Sicilian Doctor of Arts). The main aim is to show how Camerata, in line with the prevalent rhetoric of the time and the other authors of the querelle des femmes, relies on androcentric literary codes (rhetoric within the androcentric cultural environment) and socially and culturally prescribed gender roles in order to provide reasons why women should be considered worthier of honour and more perfect than men. His work is an example of how arguments once used in reproach can paradoxically be reversed and serve the opposite aim (e.g., when the humoral theory is invoked to show that women are cold and therefore inferior, and then later to show that they are hot and therefore superior). Similarly, arguments citing bodily weakness as proof of mental inferiority can easily be turned to women’s advantage, connecting the body’s tenderness with greater mental activity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".