
handle: 11336/243537
Este artículo tiene por objeto mostrar que los dos diálogos de controversia religiosa escritos por Gilberto Crispino, esto es, la Disputatio iudei et christiani y la Disputatio christiani cum gentili, deben contarse como uno de los más acabados ejemplos de conciliación entre argumentación racional y diálogo tolerante durante la Edad Media; y que, de hecho, el autor fue pionero en ello. Para cumplir acabadamente esta empresa, en primer lugar, haremos algunas consideraciones historiográficas sobre diálogos del mismo tenor, así como ejemplos concretos de modo que quede de manifiesto el contraste que existe entre estos dos textos crispinianos y otros de la misma época. En segundo lugar, nos detendremos en las fuentes centrales, para cuyo examen creí conveniente atender, por una parte, a la estructura de cada una de ellas y a sus respectivas particularidades y, por otra, a las vías retóricas que eligió Crispino para hacer relacionar ficcionalmente a sus personajes. Así pues, prestaremos especial atención a las reglas autoimpuestas por ellos para llevar a cabo sus debates, así como a los términos en los que estos se tratan. Todo ello conducirá a las reflexiones finales que harán foco en la importancia de las trazas metadoctrinales del género, que en este caso se presentan como ejemplares.
This article aims to demonstrate that the two religious controversy dialogues written by Gilbert Crispin, namely, “Disputatio iudei et christiani” and “Disputatio christiani cum gentili”, should be regarded as one of the most accomplished examples of reconciliation between rational argumentation and tolerant dialogue during the Middle Ages; and that, in fact, the author was a pioneer in this regard. To fully accomplish this task, firstly, I will present some historiographical considerations about dialogues of the same nature, along with concrete examples, in order to highlight the contrast between these two Crispinian texts and others from the same period. Secondly, I will explore the central sources, for which examination I deemed it appropriate to pay attention, on one hand, to the structure of each of them and their respective peculiarities, and on the other hand, to the rhetorical methods chosen by Crispin to create fictional interactions among his characters. Thus, I will particularly focus on the self-imposed rules they follow to conduct their debates, as well as the terms they employ in their discussions. All of this will lead to final reflections that will emphasize the importance of the meta-doctrinal features of the genre, which, in this case, are presented as exemplary.
Fil: Jakubecki, Natalia Graciela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Universidad del Salvador; Argentina
DIÁLOGO, https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3, https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6, TOLERANCIA, CRISPINO, OTREDAD
DIÁLOGO, https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3, https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6, TOLERANCIA, CRISPINO, OTREDAD
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
