Civic Religion after Trent: Confraternities and Medici State Building in Early Modern Livorno
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When building the new city of Livorno, the Medici were concerned as much with social and religious life as with buildings, walls, and warehouses. They drew on traditional civic religious forms, and above all confraternities, in order to advance Catholic worship while also seeking to limit Roman intervention and maintain sufficient local agency so as to allow some degree of Jewish, Muslim, and Orthodox worship in the city. We can distinguish three groups of brotherhoods by origin and function in the first century of Livorno’s expansion from the late sixteenth to the late seventeenth centuries: i) Older and existing confraternities that had gathered the local fishermen and the earliest settlers until about 1590; ii) Confraternities founded between the 1590s and the 1630s, often with direct Medici or more general Florentine influence, and focused on meeting cultic and charitable needs; and iii) Confraternities established from the 1630s to the 1670s to fulfill these needs while also organizing activities that responded to challenges and opportunities of Livorno’s particular location. Florentine civic religious models allowed the Medici to build a vibrant Catholic social framework in Livorno while keeping Tridentine ecclesiastical forces at bay, at least until the coming of the more traditionally pious Grand Duke Cosimo III in 1670.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".