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.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
