Invectives in the Renaissance scholarly debates: dialogue, polemics, or something else?

Mikhail Shumilin ()
Additional contact information
Mikhail Shumilin: Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia). Department of the History of Ideas and Methods of Historical Research;

HSE Working papers from National Research University Higher School of Economics

Abstract: Renaissance scholarly debates often look like personal invectives devoid of any real scientific content. The present paper examines this impression, considers several particular cases (Raffaele Reggio’s invectives against Johannes Calphurnius, Francesco Robortello’s polemics against Marc-Antoine Muret and Carlo Sigonio, Angelo Poliziano’s criticism of Domizio Calderini’s work) and proposes a more specified view on the problem.

Keywords: Renaissance scholarship; polemics; dialogue; history of textual criticism and classical scholarship; humanists. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Z (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 16 pages
Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in WP BRP Series: Humanities / HUM, November 2012, pages 1-16

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.hse.ru/data/2012/11/08/1249886404/07HUM2012.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hig:wpaper:07hum2012

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in HSE Working papers from National Research University Higher School of Economics
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Shamil Abdulaev () and Shamil Abdulaev ().