From Greek to Latin Europe and back: recovering and interpreting Theophrastus’ <i>De odoribus</i> in the early modern age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article traces the reception history of Theophrastus’ De odoribus in the early modern period. It first examines the recovery and circulation of the earliest manuscript witnesses of the work in fifteenth-century Italy and the publication in print of the Greek text (Venice, 1497). As a work devoted to the preparation and usages of unguents and powders, the De odoribus provided a useful repertoire of recipes for botanists and other practitioners of the life sciences. The work, however, was transmitted very poorly, so that early modern scholars had to engage in meticulous philological analyses in order to restore the text’s readability. The second part of the article focuses on the Latin translations of and philological commentaries on the work produced between the mid-sixteenth and the early seventeenth century. These were made by Adrian Turnèbe (1556), Jacques Daléchamps (ca. 1575), and Daniel Fourlanos (printed in 1605, but completed before), the last being a Greek scholar who, after years of activity spent in Padua, eventually returned to his native Crete to bring his work on Theophrastus to completion. The article shows that, while Turnèbe remained the standard authority for the interpretation of Theophrastus’ De odoribus, both Daléchamps and Fourlanos contributed to the further improvement of the text and paid special attention to the medical framework of the work.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".