Invectives in the Renaissance Scholarly Debates: Dialogue, Polemics, or Something Else?

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.