Na temelju provedenih istraživanja moguće je drukčije periodizirati pa i ocijeniti odnos Federica Grisogona prema misaonom nasljeđu Ivana Duns Škota. Prvu fazu određuje sâm četverostih Ad lectorem na naslovnici Duns Škotovih Questiones quolibetales (1506), u kojem Zadranin, student filozofije i medicine u Padovi, upozorava čitatelja na pet Duns Škotovih knjiga koje je irski franjevac Maurice O’Fihely, profesor škotističke teologije Padovanskoga sveučilišta i zaređeni nadbiskup Tuama, priredio za tisak 1506. godine u mletačkih tiskara Andree Torresanija i Simonea de Luere. U poanti četverostiha »Moći ćeš njedra napuniti cvijetom« ( poteris flore implere sinus ) Grisogono se služi Mauricijevim pridjevkom Flos mundi da bi pohvalio trud i prinose priređivača pri objavljivanju dvaju povezanih Duns Škotovih djela Scriptum Oxoniense i Questiones quolibetales . Taj je Grisogonov četverostih otisnut bar još jednom – na dekorativnoj naslovnici pariškoga izdanja Duns Škotovih Questiones quolibetales 1513. godine.Samo godinu dana nakon prvoga objavljivanja Grisogonova četverostiha Ad lectorem , u svom prvom zborniku Speculum astronomicum (1507), koji je tiskao 38 dana nakon svoje promocije za doktora filozofije i medicine ( artium et medicinae doctor ) Padovanskoga sveučilišta, Grisogono se poziva na Duns Škota u dvama svojim spisima. U raspravi »o plemenitosti i izvrsnosti astrologije« ( de nobilitate et excellentia astrologiae ), četvrtoj u sastavu spisa Speculum astronomicum , Zadranin ističe tri važna Duns Škotova filozofema: ograničenje u Božjem nužnom djelovanju, slobodu čovjekove volje i Božje predznanje. Pri proučavanju aksiomatskoga sustava Euklidove geometrije prema izdanju Liber elementorum Euclidis (1482) koje je priredio Campano da Novara, Grisogono upućuje na Duns Škota kad prigovara dvjema Euklidovim definicijama: u dokazu da točka ne postoji i pri logičkom osporavanju definicije kruga. Grisogonova ocjena Duns Škotova umovanja bitno se mijenja u 1520-im uz jednu prirodnofilozofsku temu – tumačenje morskih mijena. U svom drugom zborniku iz 1528 godine, i to u uvodu rasprave Tractatus de occulta causa fluxus et refluxus maris , Grisogono se ruga Duns Škotovu opisu morskih mijena u Secundum scripti Oxoniensis super secundum Sententiarum (1506) istodobno kad i Plinijevu prikazu u drugoj knjizi Historia naturalis (1513): »kao miševi koji skakuću po brašnu« ( ut mures super farinam saltantes ). Zadranin obojici prigovara da su »prešutjeli« rješenja za tri glavna problema u tumačenju morskih mijena, ali time zapravo nudi popis otvorenih problema s kojima će se suočiti u vlastitoj raspravi i za koje će ponuditi valstita rješenja. U svojim ocjenama Plinijeva i Duns Škotova prikaza morskih mijena Grisogono očito pretjeruje, dapače ne priznaje im ni ono što izrijekom stoji u njihovim tekstovima. A kad Grisogono u uvodu u raspravu o morskim mijenama drugi put spominje Plinija i Duns Škota, pristupa im različito. Plinija prikazuje kao okretna kompilatora nedorasla ostvariti sintezu o temi koju obrađuje, a u svojoj konačnoj ocjeni Duns Škota pribjegava alegoriji koja povezuje Škotov redovnički poziv i novozavjetni prizor s Genezaretskoga jezera (Mt 14, 22–36) u kojem je vjera ribara Petra na kušnji. Izričajem »budući da nije imao cipela« Zadranin podsjeća da je Duns Škot bosonogi franjevac. S pomoću metafore »bose noge«, koje mogu i gaziti i osjetiti drače, opisuje dvojaki Duns Škotov odnos prema astrologiji – pokušaj suprotstavljanja astrologiji i odustanak od toga pokušaja. S pomoću metafore »suhom nogom« Zadranin dodjeljuje Duns Škotu neočekivanu novozavjetnu ulogu – ulogu Petra koji hoda površinom Genezaretskoga jezera prema Isusu dok vjeruje, a počinje tonuti čim posumnja, da bi je primijenio, ni manje ni više, nego na teme o moru u Duns Škotovu komentaru drugoga sveska Sentencija . Napokon, Grisogono znamenitomu Škotu pridjeljuje nadimak »otac logike« i tako ga odvaja od rimskoga prirodoslovca Plinija. Razdjelnica između Plinija i Duns Škota, kako to shvaća Zadranin školovan u Padovi i poučen o dometima škotizma, leži zapravo u području logike: Plinije je neznalica u logici, a Duns Škot »otac logike«. The reception of Duns Scotus’s thought, confined to the reception of his two works Scriptum Oxoniense and Quęstiones quodlibetales edited by the Irish Franciscan and Paduan Professor Maurice O’Fihely in 1506, should, on the basis of the conducted research, be placed in the following three years: 1506, 1507 and 1528, which enables a clear periodization of that reception. In addition, Grisogono’s attitude towards the philosophical legacy of Duns Scotus features in three different forms. The first phase is determined alone by tetrastich Ad lectorem on the title page of Duns Scotus’s Quęstiones quodlibetales (1506), in which the Zadar-born student of philosophy and medicine at the University of Padua warns the reader about Duns Scotus’s five books which Maurice O’Fihely, professor of Scotistic theology at the Padua University and already a consecrated archbishop of Tuam, prepared for print in 1506 with the Venice printers Andrea Torresani and Simone de Luere. In the gist of the tetrastich, “You will fulfil the bosom with flowers” (poteris flore implere sinus), Grisogono alludes to O’Fihely’s nickname Flos mundi, in order to commend the endeavour and contributions of the editor. Grisogono’s tetrastich was published at least one more time – on a decorative page of the 1513 Paris edition of Duns Scotus’s Questiones quolibetales. In his first book Speculum astronomicum (1507), published 38 days after his promotion as Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine (artium et medicinae doctor) of the University of Padua, Grisogono refers to Duns Scotus in two of his writings. In the treatise “on the nobility and excellence of astrology” (de nobilitate et excellentia astrologiae), fourth within his Speculum astronomicum, the nobleman of Zadar emphasizes three important philosophemes of Duns Scotus: limitation in God’s necessary action, free will, and God’s preknowledge. While examining the axiomatic system of Euclides’s geometry according to the Liber elementorum Euclidis (1482), edited by Campano of Novara, Grisogono refers to Duns Scotus in his objections to Euclides’s two definitions: in the proof that the point does not exist and in logical disputing of the definition of circle. In the 1520s, Grisogono’s assessment of Duns Scotus’s philosophy changed fundamentally regarding a topic from natural philosophy – explanation of tides. In his second book published in 1528, in the introduction to the Tractatus de occulta causa fluxus et refluxus maris, Grisogono ridicules Duns Scotus’s account of tides expounded in Secundus scripti Oxoniensis super Sententias (1506), at the same time as Pliny’s discussion in Book Two of the Historia naturalis (1513): “like mice jumping in flour” (ut mures super farinam saltantes). The nobleman of Zadar objects that both scholars neglected to focus on the three main problems in the explanation of tides, and in so doing actually offers a catalogue of open problems which he tackled in his own treatise and for which he submitted his own solutions. In his assessments of Pliny’s and Duns Scotus’s accounts of tides, Grisogono evidently exaggerates, as he refuses to acknowledge even what is being explicitly stated in their texts. In the introduction to his treatise on tides, Grisogono once again mentions Pliny and Duns Scotus, but he takes a different approach to each of them. Pliny is unjustly presented as skilful compiler, incompetent to develop a synthetic approach to a relevant topic, and in his final assessment of Duns Scotus he resorts to allegory, which links Scotus’s religious vocation with the New Testament pericope at the Lake of Gennesaret (Mt. 14, 22–36), in which the faith of Peter the fisherman is being tempted. By employing a syntagm “for he had no shoes,” Grisogono reminds that Duns Scotus is a barefoot Franciscan. With the metaphor of “bare foot,” treading and feeling the thorns, Grisogono describes Duns Scotus’s dual relationship towards astrology – an attempt to challenge astrology as opposed to the abandonment of this attempt. With the “dry foot” metaphor, the nobleman of Zadar attributed an unexpected New Testament role to Duns Scotus – the role of Peter who walks on the water of the Lake of Gennesaret towards Jesus, fearless and in faith, and sinks the minute he begins to doubt it, in order to apply it, no more or no less, to the topics on the sea in Duns Scotus’s commentary of the second book of Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Finally, Grisogono nicknames the famous Scot “the father of logic,” and thus separates him from the Roman natural philosopher Pliny. A clear-cut line between Pliny and Duns Scotus, according to the understanding of the Zadar nobleman educated in Padua and taught about Scotism on the lectures of Maurice O’Fihely, apparently lies in the field of logic: Pliny is ignorant in logic, while Duns Scotus is “the father of logic.”