Base de données des manuscrits démembrés
Archivum Codicum Manuscriptorum Disiectorum (XIV-XVI) 

Voici un extrait du troisième volume de la collection "Dismembered Medieval Manuscripts: Biblioclasm and Digital Reconstructions" éditée par Cambridge Scholars Publishing (https://www.cambridgescholars.com/pages/book-series?series_id=144), intitulé THE MADRUZZO BOOK OF HOURS: A DISMEMBERED MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATED BY MARIE VRELAND, par Jordi Puig. Nous citons des pages 35-37.

The so-called “Receptiogate”: A Fabricated Scandal and Character Assassination to Discredit a Scholar Exposing Biblioclast Dealers

As previously noted, the events surrounding this matter began in the summer of 2022 when Prof. Carla Rossi filed a formal complaint with the Italian TPC (Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Heritage). Her complaint exposed a criminal network of 26 art dealers and their collaborators, including Swiss university professors and British consultants working with auction houses, who were implicated in the illegal acquisition, dismemberment, and sale of medieval illuminated manuscripts. These practices, which pose significant threats to cultural heritage, were highlighted in her detailed submission.

Many of the medieval manuscripts in question were found to have been stolen in Italy following events such as earthquakes or thefts from churches. A piece signed by Rossi appeared in the online journal AboutArt[i] and brought to light the destructive practices employed by this criminal network. The detailed findings of this article are supported by extensive documentation.[ii]

Prof. Rossi has emphasised in numerous publications, including her article in Studj Romanzi[iii] and her book on Isabelle Boursier’s Book of Hours,[iv] that the practice of dismembering medieval manuscripts is both illegal and unethical. Additionally, this activity violates Policy 22 of the ILAB (International League of Antiquarian Booksellers), which explicitly prohibits members from dismembering intact manuscripts and books for profit.

The impact of her complaint became particularly evident after 22 December 2022, when a coordinated campaign of hate and defamation was launched against her and extended to her colleagues, students and collaborators. This campaign, which lasted for at least two years, employed a combination of online and offline tactics to discredit her work and professional reputation. A significant feature of the campaign was the dissemination of defamatory articles, allegedly commissioned by parties with vested interests to spread falsehoods about Prof. Rossi, her research centre (the Research Centre for European Philological Tradition, a.k.a. RECEPTIO), and her scholarly activities. These articles appeared in various outlets and were further amplified through digital platforms, ensuring widespread circulation.

Ironically (though perhaps not surprisingly), around Christmas 2022, the first online outlet to parrot, word for word, the accusations of one Peter Kidd — a consultant with rather questionable connections to various auction houses and antique art dealers — was none other than Kath.ch, a small online publication linked to the Catholic Church. Following a defamation complaint filed against the journalist, Raphael Rauch, who was responsible for the article and a thorough examination by the editorial team of the falsehoods underpinning the claims, the newspaper removed it.[v]

The truly intriguing aspect is that thorough legal investigations have revealed Kidd’s involvement in the resale of illuminated folios from a Book of Hours reconstructed by Rossi and renamed by her as The Book of Hours of Louis de Roucy, based on the attribution of a coat of arms that appears repeatedly in the manuscript’s miniatures. Kidd, who had promoted these sales on his blog, perhaps fearing that his actions would soon be uncovered (as indeed they were), began accusing Rossi of stealing two images and some information from his blog. In reality, the scholar had sourced this material from elsewhere, namely public auction catalogues from various dealers of the excised folios.

In parallel, numerous fake social media profiles were created to propagate fabricated allegations and malicious commentary — one of the anonymous accounts highly active in the defamation operated under the handle https://x.com/WhiteKnightti.[vi] On one hand, they contacted journalists to instigate the publication of online articles against Rossi and her research centre; on the other, they privately sent threatening emails to Rossi’s colleagues. Following a complaint filed in Italy, and with the access IP address collected, the individual managing the account promptly closed it.

Fake digital files purporting to be a reconstruction of Rossi’s work were fabricated and circulated across various online platforms, accompanied by accusations that she had stolen two images from Kidd’s blog. This claim is not only entirely false but also ironic, as the images in question had been sourced by Kidd himself from online catalogues. They are neither his property nor protected by any copyright he holds.

Adding to the irony, Kidd, in his attempts to discredit Rossi, uploaded entire pages of her book to his blog. When reported for copyright infringement, he defended his actions under the guise of “fair use”. However, his intentions were undeniably defamatory, and his actions even involved the unauthorised use of specific logos.

This coordinated campaign of disinformation relied heavily on accounts that amplified baseless claims and launched targeted attacks on Rossi’s credibility. The deliberate and systematic nature of these efforts suggests a calculated attempt to perpetuate and intensify the narrative over an extended period.

The Extent of the Issue

In August 2022 Professor Rossi also filed reports with the foreign division of the TPC (Tutela Patrimonio Culturale) concerning the destruction of manuscripts originating from France and Germany. A case of particular relevance involved none other than the Book of Hours of Louis de Roucy, which was dismembered in Germany in 2009. The leaves of this manuscript were sold at exorbitant prices on the antiquarian market, deceitfully presented as mere “fragments”.

Prof. Rossi has strongly argued against using the term “fragments” to describe leaves recently and deliberately excised from intact manuscripts. This mislabelling serves to obscure the culpability of those profiting from these illegal acts and misleads the scholarly community.

In manuscript studies, the term “fragment” refers to a part of a codex that has sustained various types of damage over time. These damages can include natural wear and tear, deterioration, or intentional acts such as the reuse of the parchment.

A “fragment” is typically a piece of a larger manuscript, preserving some of its original content. These pieces can range from small sections of a single leaf to larger segments containing multiple pages or parts of a text. They offer valuable insights into the historical, cultural, and textual aspects of the original manuscript. Studying these pieces is crucial for understanding lost or separated works, tracing the transmission and circulation of texts, and shedding light on historical manuscript production, scribal practices, and intellectual traditions of different eras.[vii]

The website Fragmentarium.ms serves as a striking example of how academic platforms can, whether intentionally or inadvertently, enable biblioclastic practices. It lacks scholarly rigour, frequently demonstrating a limited understanding of Latin texts, and repeatedly displays a troubling complicity with antiquarian dealers. Crucially, it avoids acknowledging that the leaves showcased are not fragments in the true sense but pages deliberately excised from intact manuscripts for profit by unscrupulous dealers. Furthermore, it consistently fails to provide the accurate provenance of these leaves. Rossi and the OProM have extensively documented these poor scholarly practices, offering numerous examples, including video evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2S1wtp9v-U and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-dtT4aU5I), to highlight the problematic methods employed by Fragmentarium’s collaborators.

A similar case in Fragmentarium concerns, for example, the Madruzzo Hours. The platform (link: https://fragmentarium.ms/overview/F-uz3q), culpably, not only fails to recognise the origin of the leaf but also omits to cite our reconstruction, available at: https://www.oprom. eu/acmd and www.oprom.eu/fac-similes).

As Rossi and Martin highlighted in their book, it is paradoxical that the website Fragmentarium, openly at odds with us and both futile and detrimental to the advancement of academic studies, fails to acknowledge either the origin of a leaf torn from the Madruzzo Hours — now held at the University of Cincinnati — or our reconstruction, in which the leaf is easily identifiable (Fig. 7).[viii] It is, therefore, no coincidence that certain individuals, whose academic credentials are questionable at best, and who are associated with the so-called “Fragmentarium project”, have actively participated in the hate campaign against Prof. Rossi. Among them are a North American “fragments” scholar, who coined the defamatory term “Receptiogate”, and a Swiss independent researcher,[ix] who contributed to spreading false accusations against Rossi and her research centre in Switzerland.

The former, who in Europe would likely have been ridiculed for her studies on the so-called Voynich manuscript,[x] has built her career on the leaves excised by Otto Ege (1888–1951), a notorious biblioclast.

In recent years, some opportunistic cliques have attempted to legitimise biblioclasm, taking inspiration precisely from the controversial actions of Otto Ege, an American art dealer, collector, and biblioclast, who gained notoriety for cutting apart complete manuscripts and selling individual pages to collectors and institutions across North America. He justified his dismemberment of manuscripts by claiming that distributing individual folios allowed less wealthy institutions and individuals to appreciate manuscript artistry that would otherwise be inaccessible. However, on closer examination, his motives appear primarily financial rather than altruistic.

Today, some American scholars actively defend manuscript dismemberment, turning the study of scattered leaves from the Ege collection into a profitable enterprise. These projects, however, would likely be dismissed as academically unsound in European countries with strong traditions of historical and philological research. They often lack rigorous analysis of the texts on the leaves and are conducted by researchers with limited knowledge of Latin. Moreover, these scholars frequently demonstrate little understanding of the history and techniques of mediaeval manuscript production.

These individuals persist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in asserting that the dismemberment of manuscripts is not an illegal practice. In doing so, they perpetuate a narrative that not only undermines efforts to preserve cultural heritage but also tacitly enables the destruction of these invaluable historical artefacts for profit.

Among the documented actions targeting Rossi are defamatory blog posts and social media attacks accusing her of plagiarism and professional misconduct, despite clear evidence disproving these claims. False obituaries announcing her death were published on the website of a Zurich funeral service, while her Wikipedia page was tampered with, including the insertion of a fabricated date of death, prompting Wikipedia to protect the page from further edits. Her family was also harassed, with photos of her daughters shared online, and she received threats via email and anonymous calls, ultimately forcing her to change both her phone number and residence. These actions have been reported to authorities in Italy, where legal proceedings are underway. Further complaints have been filed in France regarding these defamatory actions.

Prof. Rossi’s work, however, remains steadfast. Since 2006, she has dedicated herself to preserving medieval manuscripts, advocating against their destruction for profit, and raising awareness of the ethical responsibilities of scholars and antiquarian markets alike.

Despite the evidence provided to the contrary, Kidd escalated his claims, alleging that the Research Centre RECEPTIO itself was a fraudulent institution.

Allegations Against RECEPTIO

The so-called “ReceptioGate” accusations revolve around claims that:

1. The Research Center Does Not Exist: The blogger Peter Kidd alleged that the research centre was a fictitious organisation and that its staff, including board members, were fabricated. Interestingly, questions have been raised about Mr. Kidd’s own professional activities.

2. Misuse of Public Funds: Claims were made that RECEPTIO received illicit funding.

3. Use of Stock Images: It was alleged that the photographs on RECEPTIO’s website, including those of its secretary and board members, were stock images.

4. False Affiliations: Kidd claimed that deceased scholars, such as the musicologist Antoni Rosell, were listed as active members of the centre.

These allegations gained traction when echoed by anonymous commenters on Kidd’s blog and social media, as well as through articles in sensationalist online outlets.

Addressing the Absurd Claims

The sheer weight of evidence supporting RECEPTIO’s activities makes any contrary assertions almost comical in their implausibility. At this centre, the team I also became part of was working on the reconstruction of many dismembered manuscripts and published a special issue of the journal Theory and Criticism of Literature and Arts[xi] dedicated to biblioclasm. The focus of the issue was on the reconstruction of manuscripts destroyed by some of the 26 dealers reported by Rossi.

Since 2019, the research centre has made its work abundantly visible, sharing event videos on YouTube,[xii] publishing numerous scholarly works, and organising congresses and workshops. Prof. Rossi, driven by an extraordinary commitment to cultural preservation, invested her savings to establish a federally recognised cultural foundation under the oversight of Bernese authorities, the International Receptio Foundation.[xiii] Unfortunately, the Foundation was dissolved during the pandemic, but the organisation continues to function as a recognised academic research centre based in Barcelona and Lugano. Despite facing challenges, including attacks from biblioclasts, RECEPTIO has maintained its reputation for excellence and hosted numerous scholarly events. Among these was a high-profile conference on Dante Alighieri in December 2023, which brought together international scholars for in-person discussions and presentations. Established in 2016, RECEPTIO began its journey as a cultural association before evolving into the International RECEPTIO Foundation. The centre’s credibility is bolstered by its scientific committee, comprising a roster of experts from leading European universities. This distinguished panel includes philologists, art historians, and musicologists whose collective expertise guarantees the intellectual rigour of RECEPTIO’s initiatives.

On the matter of funding, it must be pointed out—yet again—that the project “Biblioclasm & Digital Reconstruction” has been financed entirely through private means since its inception in 2006. Public coffers can rest easy.

And as for the much-discussed website imagery, the suggestion that RECEPTIO employed stock photos is as imaginative as it is incorrect. The photographs in question were placeholders, part of a temporary site template during the pandemic. This minor administrative oversight was swiftly addressed once noticed. However, some particularly diligent (or desperate) individuals appear to have scoured archive.org for evidence to concoct a scandal, presumably to undermine both the research centre and Professor Rossi. Their efforts even extended to contacting the publishers of Rossi’s works, an endeavour that reportedly yielded polite rejections—except, perhaps, from those who found the situation too absurd to entertain further.

Scientific Board Membership Allegations

One of the most absurd accusations in the campaign against RECEPTIO was the false claim that Prof. Antoni Rossell (from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), a musicologist and long-standing member of the RECEPTIO scientific board, had passed away. In response to this blatant misinformation, Prof. Rossell was compelled to publicly disprove the rumour by recording a video confirming that he was alive and actively contributing to academia. The video was widely circulated within academic circles to counter these falsehoods, which were aimed at undermining RECEPTIO’s credibility.

This incident exemplifies the reckless and malicious tactics employed by those orchestrating the campaign, distorting even the most basic facts to serve defamatory aims. It also highlights the resilience of individuals like Prof. Rossell, who stood firm against such baseless attacks, preserving their integrity and the reputation of their institution. Furthermore, he repeatedly invited his colleague Rossi, to deliver lectures and host conferences at his university, demonstrating his unwavering support and commitment to academic collaboration.

Another aspect of the defamatory campaign focused on the involvement of Prof. Dr. h.c. Paolo Bernasconi, who is a highly regarded Swiss legal expert.[xiv] Allegations were made by certain individuals claiming that Bernasconi, identified as a key advisor to RECEPTIO, was either a fictitious figure or a “drug lawyer”— an accusation entirely without basis and quite perplexing.

Attorney Paolo Bernasconi, a prominent lawyer and professor renowned for his expertise in international law, had advised the RECEPTIO Foundation on its establishment and legal framework. These defamatory claims against him were part of a broader effort to delegitimise the centre and its activities. However, this attempt ultimately failed, as in 2024 the centre received international recognition and funding to continue its mission. This aspect of the controversy underscores the lengths to which individuals linked to the antiquarian trade and manuscript dismemberment practices will go to silence critics and avoid scrutiny of their actions. The integrity and reputation of individuals like Bernasconi stand as a testament to the robustness of RECEPTIO’s centre and the baseless nature of the campaign against it.

Broader Implications

As previously mentioned, the campaign against Rossi extended into deeply personal territory. Photos of her daughters were published online, along with images of her home, research centre, and even her mailbox. These invasions of privacy were accompanied by threats directed not only at her but also at her family and colleagues. Many of her colleagues were contacted by individuals involved in the campaign. These actions—including death threats, the publication of two obituaries online, and a Wikipedia entry falsely listing her date of death—are illegal and constitute serious violations of personal rights and privacy.

Harassment, defamation, and the dissemination of personal information without consent violate privacy laws and lead to criminal charges. Death threats are considered a severe criminal offence. Moreover, targeting individuals who are committed to preserving cultural heritage undermines the academic community’s integrity and discourages scholarly collaboration.

By engaging in these illicit actions, the perpetrators not only harm the immediate victims but also contribute to a broader atmosphere of fear and intimidation. It is essential to recognise and condemn such behaviour to protect the rights of scholars and to promote a safe and respectful environment for academic discourse and cultural preservation.

The defamatory campaign against Prof. Rossi underscores the broader issue of the commodification of cultural heritage.

The campaign has also raised concerns about the role of social media and digital platforms in amplifying unverified claims. Comments and posts on Kidd’s blog frequently included anonymous contributions, often characterised by unsubstantiated allegations and ad personam attacks. This environment has fostered a climate of hostility that extends beyond academic critique into personal harassment.

The accusations against RECEPTIO and Prof. Rossi have been thoroughly disproven in court in Italy, where the centre and Prof. Rossi filed formal complaints. This legal vindication has exposed a campaign rooted in misinformation and personal vendettas rather than genuine academic critique. The fact that certain journalists or institutions, perhaps acting in good faith, were drawn into this defamatory effort is a troubling reflection of the times.

An especially concerning aspect of this controversy is the involvement of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), which appears to have been influenced by the network of art dealers exposed by Rossi. Whether motivated by a desire to protect its Fragmentarium project or by a lack of competence in assessing the claims, the SNSF accused Rossi of plagiarism on scientifically untenable grounds. These allegations centred on her use of terms such as “Annunciation”, “Deposition”, “Visitation”, or “Annunciation to the Shepherds” which are universally recognised in academic and art historical discourse as standard nomenclature for biblical episodes and religious subjects.

A thorough verification of the terms cited as evidence of plagiarism or misconduct highlights their widespread and generic usage. A straightforward search using common internet tools (e.g., Google), limited to the “books” section, reveals over 500 instances for each term. These examples span diverse sources, including academic works on iconography, legal texts, chronicles, yearbooks, and exhibition catalogues. I, too, use these terms in this book to describe specific themes in the miniatures of the Madruzzo Book of Hours. Suggesting that such established nomenclature constitutes plagiarism is not only absurd but reflects ignorance and bad faith.

These are terms in general use, not only within academic contexts but also in non-specialist language. In this specific case, they represent standardised terminology used to describe religious iconographies. To underscore the obvious, these terms are not subject to copyright protection as they lack the minimum level of creativity or originality required for intellectual property claims. Consequently, their use does not constitute a violation of any intellectual property laws.

The absurdity of these claims has been widely criticised by the academic community, which openly wrote to the SNSF[xv] to highlight the baseless nature of its accusations. The inclusion of such generic and traditional terms as evidence of plagiarism not only undermines the credibility of the allegations but also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scholarly conventions. Following the bizarre accusations published online, the SNSF has (perhaps deliberately?) confused the first and second editions of the so-called “Roucy Book of Hours”, reconstructed by Rossi, referring to two different “versions”—as if a major institution like the Swiss one does not understand the difference between a first and a second edition of a book. Moreover, the SNSF went so far as to accuse Rossi of self-plagiarism, further casting doubt on the seriousness and integrity of its claims. In scholarly work, self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author republishing their own previously published material without proper citation. However, academics often build upon their prior research, and reiterating one’s own findings or theories is acceptable when it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and is appropriately referenced.

In Rossi’s case, if her work consistently offers original insights and properly cites her previous publications, the allegation of self-plagiarism lacks merit. Such a claim overlooks the iterative nature of academic research, where ideas are developed and refined over time. Accusing her of self-plagiarism, despite the evident references in the footnotes —which the SNSF appears to have overlooked — casts doubt on the credibility and integrity of the accuser’s assertions. This suggests a misunderstanding of academic norms and may be seen as an attempt to discredit her contributions to the field without valid justification. Each accusation, when examined in detail, reveals itself to be baseless and misguided — attempts to portray Rossi’s three decades of work as tainted by some ill intent. Yet it was immediately evident to all serious scholars that this was an effort to silence a researcher who had devoted herself wholeheartedly, using her private financial resources, to the preservation of our shared manuscript heritage.

The evident bad faith of the so-called journalists who published malicious articles on this matter became unmistakable with the appearance, a few months ago, of a disparaging piece in the gossip magazine Private Eye. This article, rife with unfounded accusations and insults, targeted the Organisation pour la Protection des Manuscrits Médiévaux, the publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing, and, predictably, Rossi herself. Particularly notable was the attack on the first book in the series (Rossi, 2024) to which this contribution also belongs, where the magazine even went so far as to provide an incorrect title, evidently to deny it proper publicity.

Rossi’s detractors employed a cunning and deceptive tactic, presenting themselves as victims who were supposedly “plagiarised” by a well-known and powerful university professor. They even went so far as to depict themselves as David in a battle against Goliath. However, it is clear that Rossi is far from being a powerful academic. The accusations of plagiarism were nothing more than a calculated attempt to discredit her and distract from her legitimate claims. In reality, if there is a David versus Goliath situation, it is Rossi who is standing against a powerful lobby. This lobby had the financial resources to orchestrate an entirely fabricated online scandal, built on false accusations and personal attacks.

It is essential to highlight that both RECEPTIO and the Organisation pour la Protection des Manuscrits Médiévaux (OProM) are supported by distinguished members and scholars of the highest calibre. RECEPTIO includes, among others, Roberto Antonelli, the President of the Accademia dei Lincei, Italy’s most prestigious academy and one of the oldest scientific institutions in Europe. The OProM is no less illustrious, with members such as Martin Aurell of the Université de Poitiers; Romeo Bufalo of the Università della Calabria; Saverio Guida of the Università di Messina; Franco Langher, formerly an anti-mafia prosecutor in Messina and currently a professor of economic law at the same university; Lucia Lazzerini of the Università di Firenze; Raffaele Pinto of the Universitat de Barcelona; Antoni Rossell of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Lucinia Speciale of the Università del Salento; and Malinka Velinova of the Université de Sofia. Furthermore, it collaborates with the Associazione per la Protezione dei Manoscritti Medievali.

Its honorary committee is equally impressive, including Christopher Prescott, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Institute in Rome; Leena Löfstedt, emeritus professor at the Universities of Jyväskylä and Helsinki in Finland; and Patrick Labarthe, emeritus professor at the University of Zurich’s Romanisches Seminar. The organisation also draws on the expertise of numerous other scholars, librarians, legal experts, collectors, and manuscript enthusiasts who share a profound commitment to the preservation of medieval cultural heritage. This breadth of expertise and dedication underscores the seriousness and credibility of its mission, which has been unjustly attacked through groundless insinuations.

What becomes evident from this brief overview of the issue of biblioclasm and the attacks against Rossi is that, on one side, there exists a high culture represented by members of the research centre and the association established to defend mediaeval manuscripts — individuals engaged in academic work and, due to generational factors, largely detached from the dynamics of the internet and social media. On the other side are the biblioclasts, who have exploited the mob mentality fostered by the anonymity of the web. These are individuals of limited education, willing to go to any lengths to protect their interests, who have managed to rally others of similarly limited intellectual backgrounds. These recruits readily become online haters and even engage in illegal activities.

Despite these challenges, RECEPTIO and its founder remain steadfast in their mission to safeguard cultural heritage from commercial exploitation, highlighting the importance of scholarship in preserving historical artefacts. This controversy underscores the pressing need for greater accountability within the antiquarian book trade and for academic institutions to defend researchers who expose unethical practices. Moving forward, fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration will be essential in addressing these complex and deeply entrenched issues.

Rossi’s dedication has garnered significant support from various quarters: numerous publishers have approached her with offers to publish her reconstructions of dismembered manuscripts, and many colleagues have expressed their solidarity, inviting her to deliver lectures and teach courses on manuscript reconstruction.

This groundswell of support has led to the creation of the present dedicated series with Cambridge Scholars Publishing, co-directed by Prof. Rossi alongside her colleagues Lucinia Speciale and Antoni Rossell. The series focuses on studies in digital reconstructions of dismembered manuscripts. Furthermore, in Paris, the Organisation pour la Protection des Manuscrits Médiévaux was established, which now oversees the publication of the database compiled by Prof. Rossi over three decades. This database, known as the Archivum Codicum Manuscriptorum Disiectorum (14th–16th centuries), serves as a vital resource for the study and preservation of dismembered manuscripts.

Notes

[i]https://www.aboutartonline.com/manoscritti-medievali-europei-a-prezzi-stracciati-sul-web-un-appello-per-la-tutela-di-beni-culturali-tra-i-piu-preziosi/

[ii] which includes the following links (accessed on 28 November 2024):

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_980173ef80a8406f8c0712a14aaf8cfd.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_ff1cf61ab5be47099babe6c4dcf1a67f.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_e889e662137f440ab74525e42c2f62f2.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_aaf3aa2e464d4716907d2c2a07352334.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_b000be8886124bfa896bfa01544df979.pdf https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_8539f1034042444e81b64f5721097d31.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_0ac08d7ea84145dc8cda380275694815.pdf

https://www.carlarossi.info/_files/ugd/494184_7328d0981e0a4c47a6969d36180907d9.pdf

[iii] See Rossi, 2022, pp. 161-196.

[iv] See Rossi, 2024.

[v]https://www.kath.ch/newsd/carla-rossi-ist-nach-wie-vor-titularprofessorin-uni-zuerich-kuendigt-untersuchung-an/.

[vi] Regarding this account, after various investigations, the police are fully aware of the identity and the motives behind their actions against Rossi. Another account that became frightened after receiving a legal warning was https://x.com/Marphorious highly active in the hate campaign while protected by anonymity, but a coward when it came to responding to legal accusations. The following accounts have also been very active, and it is evident that they have nothing to do with the field of philology:

Jeremy Levy (@jeremyblevy), who describes himself as: "Kidney doctor, Professor, educator, clinical academic training at Imperial College, cyclist, cook, skier, allotmenteer"; Sanne Wellen (@sanne_wellen); Axel Folio (@ISASaxonists), describes themselves as: “gif lover | racist magnet | abolitionist | yarn dyer | not Eddie Murphy (she/hers)”. A profile that has also threatened Rossi with death via email was a certain “Dr. M.R. Geldof @DrViolentiae”, who describes himself as: “Underemployed historian of violence, low-effort podcaster, neurodivergent (He/Him) patreon dot com/dr_violence”; John Ma (@Nakhthor), who describes himself as: “Chinese-American ancient historian @Columbia, Antiochos III & the Cities of W Asia Minor (1999)”; There has been no shortage of frustrated individuals who participated because they have no work to do, such as a certain Sanne Wellen from Fiesole, or the Swiss Sylvie Vullioud (@SylvieVullioud). Then there’s another coward who, after insulting, protected her posts — a certain Dorothy King (@DLVLK), who writes: “As the French philosopher L'Oréal said … because I’m worth it”. This short list serves to illustrate the individuals who have participated in this social media hate campaign.

[vii] Martin & Rossi, 2024, p. 8.

[viii] Ibidem, p. 18.

[ix] Both collaborate on the Fragmentarium project.

[x] The Voynich manuscript is unequivocally a forgery, written in invented characters in a non-existent language, and composed in Italy during the Italian Renaissance. Despite numerous claims, the manuscript has never been demonstrably deciphered, and no proposed hypotheses have been independently verified, precisely because of its fraudulent nature. Gordon Rugg analysed the manuscript and concluded that it is a 16th-century hoax, likely created by the Elizabethan adventurer Edward Kelley. For further information, see “An Elegant Hoax? A Possible Solution to the Voynich Manuscript”, January 2004, Cryptologia 28(1):31-46, DOI:10.1080/0161-110491892755.

[xi] Vol. 6, No. 1, August 2022, “Special Issue: Biblioclasm & Digital Reconstruction. Eleven Scattered Manuscripts Digitally Reassembled Through the Wayback Recovery Method”. Digital version ISSN: 2297-1874; Printed version ISSN: 2504-2238.

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/@receptio/videos

[xiii] https://www.moneyhouse.ch/it/company/fondazione-internazionale-receptio-21292751641

[xiv] http://pblaw.ch/Prof-Paolo-Bernasconi.html

[xv] These letters can be found online: https://www.oprom.eu/fns