What became known online as "ReceptioGate" was never merely a dispute about academic research.
The documented chronology shows that the campaign emerged after Prof. Carla Rossi reported cases involving stolen and dismembered medieval manuscripts and transmitted documentation to the Italian Carabinieri Command for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (TPC).
Among the cases documented were three illuminated leaves removed in 1979 from manuscript E.V.5 of the Biblioteca Universitaria di Torino and later offered for sale through Sotheby's London under catalogue descriptions prepared by Peter Kidd.
A second case concerned a leaf removed from the Antiphonary D of Castelfiorentino and subsequently circulated through the international antiquarian market with an expert opinion issued by Gaudenz Freuler.
Both cases later became the subject of recovery actions by the Italian Carabinieri TPC.
The significance of these facts extends beyond the manuscripts themselves.
The two individuals who would later become central figures in the campaign against Prof. Rossi were directly connected to the cataloguing, authentication, or commercial circulation of the very leaves whose provenance and legality she had documented and reported to the authorities.
The reports came first.
The campaign followed.
Understanding this chronology is essential to understanding ReceptioGate.
The reconstruction of the Book of Hours of Louis de Roucy is a documented scholarly project based on codicological, textual, historical, liturgical, and provenance research.
The project forms part of a broader programme dedicated to the reconstruction of dismembered medieval manuscripts and the study of manuscript dispersal.
Its findings have been published in academic venues and supported by extensive documentary evidence.
Despite the availability of primary sources and scholarly documentation, Peter Kidd repeatedly published accusations and allegations concerning the project through blog posts and social-media platforms.
These allegations were subsequently amplified by third parties and gradually evolved into a broader campaign directed not only against the book itself but also against Prof. Rossi, her institutions, her collaborators, and her research activities.
The resulting narrative attempted to portray a documented scholarly project as evidence of misconduct.
However, this narrative was ultimately subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Following an appeal lodged by Prof. Rossi, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court examined the case in detail.
The Court concluded that decisions affecting research funding could not be based on unverified online allegations, blog posts, or accusations circulating on the internet.
The judgment established that such materials could not substitute for an independent institutional investigation and could not provide an adequate evidentiary basis for administrative decisions.
As a consequence, the demand for the restitution of publication funding was annulled.
The ruling substantially weakened the narrative that had circulated online for several years.
Most importantly, no court found that Prof. Rossi had committed scholarly misconduct in relation to the Book of Hours of Louis de Roucy.
The judicial outcome therefore stands in sharp contrast to the claims repeatedly disseminated through blogs, social media, and coordinated online campaigns.
Yet the story did not end there.
Even after the Court's findings, allegations continued to circulate online, often repeating arguments that had already been examined and rejected within the judicial process.
This persistence is one of the defining features of ReceptioGate.
The affair ceased to be a discussion about a manuscript.
It became a campaign directed against the scholar who had reconstructed it.
The Court examined the administrative decision concerning publication funding.
It did not investigate a second and equally important question:
Why did the campaign begin when it did?
The chronology remains striking.
In August and October 2022, Prof. Rossi submitted reports concerning stolen manuscript leaves, manuscript dismemberment, and provenance issues to the Italian Carabinieri TPC.
Among the documented cases were the Turin leaves and the Castelfiorentino leaf.
On 20 December 2022, information concerning these reports became public.
Within days, attacks began.
The individuals who emerged as the most active participants in the campaign were also individuals directly connected to the commercial history of the manuscript leaves documented in those reports.
This chronology remains one of the central facts of the ReceptioGate affair.
ReceptioGate is not simply a story about one book.
It raises broader questions concerning:
• manuscript dismemberment;
• provenance research;
• cultural heritage crime;
• conflicts of interest;
• academic freedom;
• institutional responsibility;
• the relationship between scholarship and the manuscript trade.
It also demonstrates how online campaigns can be used to target researchers whose work affects powerful professional and commercial interests.
The affair therefore concerns the protection of cultural heritage as much as it concerns academic integrity.
The manuscripts are real.
The recovered leaves are real.
The reports submitted to the Italian authorities are real.
The judicial decisions are real.
The documentation is public.
The chronology is documented.
And the campaign that followed is preserved in hundreds of pages of correspondence, publications, screenshots, legal documents, and archived webpages.
The evidence remains available for anyone willing to examine it.
📘 Read the full story
ReceptioGate: Academic Defamation and the Dismemberment of Manuscripts – Expanded Edition
Jordi Puig
https://books.google.ch/books?id=ek5ZEQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false
🎥 Video Overview
ReceptioGate: From Stolen Manuscript Leaves to Character Assassination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuQiuG0IQE
📅 Documented Timeline
https://www.receptiogate.info/timeline
📄 Evidence Archive
https://www.receptiogate.info/evidence
The story of ReceptioGate is not the story of a failed research project.
It is the story of what happened after reports concerning stolen manuscript leaves entered the public record.