Embedded Files
Peter Kidd: A Documented Case of Defamation and Concealment – From Giovanni Mazzarelli to #ReceptioGate
Peter Kidd: A Documented Case of Defamation and Concealment – From Giovanni Mazzarelli to #ReceptioGate
The Mazzarelli Case: Eleven Years of Defamation and Legal Vindication
The Mazzarelli Case: Eleven Years of Defamation and Legal Vindication
In 1979, Italian entrepreneur Giovanni Mazzarelli purchased several illuminated manuscripts through a private sale arranged by Sotheby’s London. These manuscripts had been deposited by the Swiss Bank Corporation as collateral for a loan and were evaluated and sold in good faith—according to Mazzarelli’s account, on the basis of expert advice provided by Sotheby’s, including that of Dr Christopher de Hamel.
Over two decades later, in 2000, Mazzarelli contacted Sotheby’s to request a valuation for export purposes. He was encouraged to consign the manuscripts to auction, but shortly thereafter, he was informed that the volumes were suspected to have been looted from Italian libraries. What followed was a decade-long ordeal during which Mazzarelli was publicly portrayed — not by judicial authorities, but through persistent narrative suggestions — as the alleged source of the theft. As documented on Mazzarelli’s own website, one figure played a key role in these developments: Peter Kidd, then acting as a cataloguing consultant for Sotheby’s, who appears repeatedly in the timeline of internal communications and assessments that contributed to shaping the accusations.
Over two decades later, in 2000, Mazzarelli contacted Sotheby’s to request a valuation for export purposes. He was encouraged to consign the manuscripts to auction, but shortly thereafter, he was informed that the volumes were suspected to have been looted from Italian libraries. What followed was a decade-long ordeal during which Mazzarelli was publicly portrayed — not by judicial authorities, but through persistent narrative suggestions — as the alleged source of the theft. As documented on Mazzarelli’s own website, one figure played a key role in these developments: Peter Kidd, then acting as a cataloguing consultant for Sotheby’s, who appears repeatedly in the timeline of internal communications and assessments that contributed to shaping the accusations.
Documents available on Mazzarelli’s personal website https://mazzarelligiovanni.jimdofree.com show that from 2001 to 2012, he was the subject of ongoing insinuations, reputational attacks, and obstruction, especially when attempting to clarify the origin of the sale. His offers to return the manuscripts to Italy in exchange for indemnity were rejected, and public commentary often omitted key facts, such as the private nature of the 1979 sale, and his spontaneous cooperation with the Italian Carabinieri and judiciary.
A notable figure involved in this context was a manuscript consultant and cataloguer who, at the time, collaborated with Sotheby’s and had access to the relevant documentation. This individual later became known for maintaining a blog on manuscript provenance, where similar patterns of selective disclosure and reputational targeting would appear in other cases.
A notable figure involved in this context was a manuscript consultant and cataloguer who, at the time, collaborated with Sotheby’s and had access to the relevant documentation. This individual later became known for maintaining a blog on manuscript provenance, where similar patterns of selective disclosure and reputational targeting would appear in other cases.
In the early 2010s, Mazzarelli finally prevailed in civil litigation and succeeded in having defamatory content removed from the internet. Before his death, he personally oversaw the restitution of the manuscripts to the Italian libraries from which they had been stolen—without compensation, and with full archival transparency.
The Mazzarelli case illustrates not only the vulnerabilities of good-faith buyers in the antiquarian market, but also how narrative control by insiders can inflict long-term damage, often outside any judicial context. The parallel with later attacks against scholars like Prof. Carla Rossi is striking—not in legal terms, but in rhetorical strategy, persistence, and alignment with the defence of market interests.
Beginning in December 2022—just days after Prof. Carla Rossi publicly denounced the dismemberment of medieval manuscripts and filed a formal report with the Carabinieri's Art Crimes Unit—a coordinated smear campaign emerged targeting her personally, her research, and the institutions she represents. At the centre of this campaign stood the same Peter Kidd, now operating as an unaffiliated blogger with a long-standing involvement in the commercial circulation of detached manuscript leaves.
Kidd, through his personal blog Medieval Manuscripts Provenance, published over twenty entries that misrepresented Prof. Rossi’s publications, questioned her institutional affiliations, and attacked her collaborators and even her legal counsel. These posts consistently avoided engagement with the actual content of Rossi’s scholarly work. Instead, they relied on insinuations, omissions, and rhetorical manipulation—strategies designed to erode academic credibility while avoiding direct falsifiability.
What followed was an escalation far beyond scholarly disagreement. Anonymous death threats were received. Falsified obituaries announcing Prof. Rossi’s death were published online. Entire mailing lists of academic societies were used—without proper authorisation—to circulate defamatory emails. Journalists were contacted and encouraged to repeat distorted or wholly fabricated claims. Public visibility was weaponised through search engine saturation, burying Rossi’s publications under layers of malicious content.
Although Kidd never explicitly claimed responsibility for every facet of this campaign, the timing, volume, and thematic continuity of his posts form a coherent thread that correlates with each wave of public attack. The language used in anonymous online posts often echoed terminology found on his blog. False accusations of plagiarism were followed by blog entries reinforcing those claims, and later by social media activity from accounts aligned with his network.
The intention behind these actions appears not only to discredit a scholar, but also to protect a lucrative market from public scrutiny. Prof. Rossi’s work—particularly her digital reconstructions of dismembered codices—posed a direct challenge to the practices Kidd has long been associated with, including the promotion of detached leaves from dispersed manuscripts he once catalogued for auction.
Peter Kidd has not responded publicly to requests for clarification nor has he corrected demonstrably false information circulated through his blog. Meanwhile, Rossi’s work has been validated through peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, and documented support from legal authorities and academic institutions.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse