Talk:Anonimo Gaddiano

771 views at DYK Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bouk Weirda
This is admittedly a very interesting name, as the Anonimo Gaddiano could certainly be described as a Weird Book. It would, however, have to be an ultra-elaborate hoax (it's a wonderful paper (I'm not saying it IS a hoax)). What do you guys think? Professor Weirda has a Twitter Account, an entry on the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome website and another, more content-rich entry on the independent.academia.edu website.

The paper is written in English - so presumably we could send the author a little note, in English, asking them to maybe take a look at the entry and make some suggestions for improving it) - and then notify any interested parties on the Italian Wiki that a reference needs to be added (and maybe the author could authorize a translation into Italian, as it appears to be the only reference out there to what appears to be a very up and coming hot topic. Given especially that the renowned Walter Isaacson is about to publish a new biography of Leonardo da Vinci (17 October 2017) - which, weirdly?, is already a #1 Bestseller on amazon.

Fb2ts (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Before accusing things of being a hoax, you should try a [google search. This is a perfectly well-known source among specialists, also with an article on Italian WP. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anything of being a hoax. Did I not clearly do said Google search? If Italian WP is a reference to the Italian Wikipedia, that's where I got the article in the first place. At the time it did not have a citation. I just added it this morning.
 * If you think we should remove the perhaps inappropriate humor about the "interesting name" before contacting the author to see if there's been an Italian translation of the article, I'll gladly remove it, no problem. The last thing I want to do is offend anybody.
 * Also, Anonimo Gaddiano is a reference to the text. Not an author. I came across it in Robert Payne's Leonardo (pp. 5, 13, 48, 49, 54, 55, 105, 141, 214, 223). The family that commissioned the research was the Gaddi family and you can see from the names listed that what they wanted to do is surround artists in their family with the names of Italy's greatest artist.
 * As far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong, even though Weirda mentions Vasari on numerous occassions, they do not come right out and say that Vasari relied on it extensively -- that's a direct translation from the Italian WP entry.
 * Fb2ts (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Anonimo Gaddiano" is how sources describe the author, and by so extension the work, in the same way they might say "in Pliny" etc. Look at the google uses. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * btw, Werda gets a mention here. I don't see any need to check credentials. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * note that there's an "i" after "e" in Weirda.
 * I am not finding any statement explicitly stating that Vasari relied heavily on the Anonimo on pages 165-166, please just grab that bit - my pdf must be different from your pdf.
 * From the opening paragraph in Weirda's wonderful paper: "The Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence holds the sixteenth-century manuscript known as the “Codice dell’Anonimo Magliabechiano”
 * Robert Payne cites the work as follows, "The Anonimo Gaddiano was compiled at a time when there were many people still living who knew the name of . . ." (page 5).
 * Perhaps we should mention, in the opening paragraph, that the original manuscript is in Italian - as are the copies at Princeton and Yale -- then we won't have to add a line at the bottom of the article implying that the original was in some other language.
 * Exhibit 3 supporting the Anonimo Gaddiano as object, from the Zollner article you reference above: "(Vasari's) account is contradicted by at least one early source, the so-called Anonimo Gaddiano" (p. 115)
 * ON ANOTHER NOTE: Weirda states that we think Bernardo Vecchietti is the anonymous author because the two authors appear to have the same handwriting. Do you think we should add that?

Fb2ts (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually its "WIERDA" - check the PDF! Her article is called "The True Identity Of The Anonimo Magliabechiano".  Do books have a "true identity"? The first publication is called "Il Codice Magliabechiano by Anonimo Fiorentino" (check the actual Italian title page too). Whichever Robert Payne you mean doesn't seem to be any sort of art historian. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wierda it is! You seem to be enjoying the article. I agree, it is a very interesting topic. Are you a Leonardo fan?

Fb2ts (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. Here's one I came across: "The identity of the anonymous author (“Anonimo Gaddiano or Magliabechiano”) of this manuscript containing biographies of Florentine painters has been the subject of debate. See Annamaria Ficarra, ed., L'Anonimo Magliabechiano (Naples, ..." at here. Anyway, thanks for starting it - we had a few references to him/it already, which I've linked here. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Who/what is "him/it" (them/it?)? What references where? References to the Anonimo Gaddiano? There is such a list at Wikipedia? Can you link to it? I'd love to see it.
 * ALSO: see Anonymous Florentine, "The Augustinian known to history only as the Anonymous Florentine is credited with composing the earliest extant history of the Order of Saint Augustine. This person was definitely an Augustinian friar, and should not be confused with other persons when the same term, Anonymous Florentine, on other occasions refers to unidentifiable musicians and painters, etc."

Fb2ts (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - the usual "what links here?. What is this wierd documentation box? Does it serve any purpose? Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What is this wierd documentation box? :-)
 * I was wondering about that documentation box myself. No idea what it's for - it came with the template, so I figured you'd know. That's the first time I ever used one of those things.
 * Thanks for the WhatLinksHere tip. Very interesting.
 * Niente! See also this, using Anonimo+Magliabechiano on a WP search. Lots on IT WP. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sept 2017 : Adding Images
It seems like your area of expertise is Art History (is that correct?), but I am coming from the perspective of a Manuscripts geek. Wierda's thesis is really based entirely on the striking resemblance between the two hands of two separate manuscripts. We should emphasize that and add the two main samples Wierda gives to support their argument in the paper, don't you think?

If the article has only two images, those should definitely be it.

One of the samples is apparently from a volume of letters by Bernardo Vecchietti. Wierda specifically mentions a volume, but I can't find it cited. Where did they find the letters? They must be in a volume somewhere, we should at least have the citation in the footnotes. I wonder also if the original manuscript is online somewhere - that would be better than having just those two much later printed books. The more verifiable the provenance, the better.

Fb2ts (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Astounding Developments
Unfortunately, the English language Anonima Gaddiano article is currently sporting egregious inaccuracies that are pending resolution (aka a Third Opinion)-- most notably two in the very first sentence.

1. Anonimo was used to refer to the text's alleged author by the author who is primarily quoted, one might even say paraphrased at length, in the Wikipedia entry. Said author (Bouk Wierda) acknowledges that they have done this, in footnote [6] of their paper, but by the end of the same paper, said author goes ahead and accepts their own hypothesis -- as solid fact -- based on two handwriting samples (ie, the "scholarship" is a bit goofy). Meanwhile, all other texts, and indeed in the Wierda text itself, Anonimo Gaddiano is universally referred to as a manuscript.

See also the entries for Anonimo Gaddiano in both the Italian and French versions.

2. Furthermore, attempts to locate the use of Anonima Fiorentina as an alternative name for the Anonimo Gaddiano manuscript comes up with only one mention (on the internet, at least), and that mention clearly states that Anonima Fiorentino is an "Augustinian".

Not only is Anonimo Gaddiano not a person, it would appear not to be a manuscript commonly referred to as Anonimo Fiorentino either. Fb2ts (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought we had settled this. You obviously haven't looked at the other main ref, the very reputable Dictionary of Art Historians:


 * "Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo)  "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS"
 * Date born: fl. 1537-42


 * Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541"

Anybody who was already familiar with the subject area knows that the name describes the author not the MS, though it may be used for both. YOU are the one who added Anonimo Fiorentino (not Anonima Fiorentina), but I think I saw uses of it! Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes! The first publication of the text, by Frey in 1892, which YOU linked to, called the author Anonimo Fiorentino! That took all of 10 seconds to find on google, and now I see I have already mentioned it above here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

More Astounding Developments
Google has gone ahead and given precedence to the incorrect wikipedia entry, under the false assumption that if it's in English, it's somehow automatically better. Fb2ts (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How right they are! Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Anonimo ... names clearly referring to the author

 * Wierda, Bouk (2009). "The True Identity Of The Anonimo Magliabechiano" - the main reference used. Manuscripts do not have identities, people do.
 * "A biography of Leonardo .... is attributed to an Anonimo Magliabechiano or Anonimo Gaddiano..." - already used as a ref. Early Printed Books as Material Objects, Proceedings of the Conference Organized by the IFLA Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Munich, 19-21 August 2009, Editors: Bettina Wagner, Marcia Reed, 2010, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110253240, 783110253245,
 * Dictionary of Art Historians, "Magliabechiano, Anonimo (or Anonymo), "anonymous author of the Magliabechiano MS""- already used as a ref.
 * "The Anonimo Gaddiano, writing about 1540, states ...." (p. 116 on the PDF) - Frank Zöllner, "Leonardo's Portrait of Lisa del Giocondo", p. 245, in Leonardo Da Vinci, Selected Scholarship: Leonardo's projects, c. 1500-1519, edited by Claire J. Farago, 1999, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0815329350, 9780815329350; also Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 121 (1993), S. 1., PDF - already used as a ref.
 * The two translations, already given as ELs, are (bolding relevant point):

Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Il Codice Magliabechiano by Anonimo Fiorentino, 16th century. [digitized from a collection at Harvard University]; Frey, Karl, 1857-1917. Publication date 1892. archive.org.
 * Codice dell'anonimo Gaddiano ("Manuscript of the Anonimo Gaddiano") (cod. Magliabechiano XVII, 17) nella Biblioteca Nazionale de Firenze. [digitized from a collection at Princeton University) Firenze, tip. M. Cellini e C., 1893. hathitrust.org.


 * so in fact ALMOST ALL THE REFERENCES USED unmistakably refer to the author as the Anonimo whatever, as one would expect. People are anonymous, not pieces of parchment or paper. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am working on this, I promise.
 * In the meantime, especially for third or fourth editors who may or may not be arriving on the scene, note that European languages (not including English) assign a gender to their nouns. For the word "the", in German, this will be "Das" in the German neuter language while it will become "Der" in masculine and "Die" in feminine. This may or may not have been a source of confusion in the wording of an article being translated from the German by a third party more familiar with translating German into English than with the manuscript in question. Fb2ts (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Manuscript != Printed

 * NB. A codex (pl. codices) is a book of handwritten pages. Both the above digitized "originals", from the 19th century, are printed. Not handwritten.
 * Indeed, as the article makes clear. Is there a point here? Also please sign your contributions. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Some direct quotes in support of Anonimo Gaddiano as a Manuscript
Frank Zollner's Paper (1993)

I do not find any reference to the translator of Zollner's paper, but all his books published in English have a translator attached to them. Neither the translations, nor the translators are noted in the wikipedia Zollner entry, but they're featured prominently in my local library's catalog.

Page 115
 * 1. ... at least one early source, the so-called Anonimo Gaddiano ...
 * 2. ... since the reliability of his major sources, the Anonimo Gaddiano, Antonio de Beatis and Ernea Irpino ... (not the Anonimo Gaddiano, the Antonio de Beatis and the Ernea Irpino).

page 116
 * 1... the so-called Anonimo Gaddiano, Giorgio Vasari ... (not the Giorgio Vasari)
 * 2. The Anonimo Gaddiano, writing around 1540 (typo? confused translator? should read "written"?) ...
 * 3. ...the Anonimo Gaddiano is taken to undermine Vasari's reliability. On the other hand, others give the Anonimo Gaddiano's report less credence.
 * 4. This scepticism towards the Anonimo Gaddiano is strengthened by our second source, Giorgio Vasari (not the Giorgio Vasari)

Bouk Wierda's Paper (2009)

First sentence:
 * The Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence holds the sixteenth-century manuscript known as the “Codice dell’Anonimo Magliabechiano”, containing 128 pages of text and comprising two parts.1

Jump ahead to footnote no. 6 where the author notes
 * "Hereafter I will refer to the anonymous author as the Anonimo." In other words, the author is doing something that is generally not done, and therefore has footnoted the anomaly, so they can use the liberty in their title.

See also Goodreads list of books by Anonymous (not The Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fb2ts (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) A basic point: "Anonimo", meaning "anonymous" is an adjective, even when used as part of a name, and therefore requires the definite article: "the Anonimo Gaddiano", "the mysterious stranger", "the Red Knight", "the tall blonde". This is of course irrespective of whether a book or a person is being talked about.
 * 2) Wierda is simply signalling that she will drop the "Magliabechiano" or "Gaddiano" in future references, very sensibly.

Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Redirect
Johnbod acknowledged that Anonimo Fiorentino is used to refer to "a 14th-century diarist known as the "Anonimo Fiorentino", as well as other figures" (a statement that belongs in an article on Anonimo Fiorentino, not in an article on Anonimo Gaddiano, the Manuscript). At the very least, the redirect should be to a disambiguation page. I have come across reference to an Augustinian, who may or may not be the 14th century diarist. I do not know if they are one and the same - but Johnbod mentions others, in addition to their diarist and the anonymous author of the Anonimo Gaddiano. I, for one, would be interested to know more about both the diarist and the Augustinian. Unfortunately, there was no citation (perhaps because the caveat itself was in a citation).Fb2ts (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Write it all up, then. Meanwhile the present treatment is appropriate. But nb that a disam page with only one redirect (here) and redlinks may well not survive. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see, personally, any need for a disam page. Just restore the starter page and I'll add the Augustinian. What are your sources for the "14th-century diarist known as the "Anonimo Fiorentino", as well as other figures"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fb2ts (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
If additional pages have been hypothesized, that's very interesting. A paragraph, with its own heading, would not be inappropriate.
 * This could definitely be a much more interesting article. I second the motion to give it more time to gestate. Fb2ts (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All articles have all the time in the world to gestate. Good luck with finding more sources - there may well be stuff in the intros to the printed versions. But what text we have will always be more interesting than what we don't have. What do you mean "I second the motion" - you proposed it! Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The original request was made by Yoninah Fb2ts (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional source: Walter Isaacson's New Book
Isaacson, Walter. Leonardo da Vinci. Simon & Schuster (Published 17 October 2017).

From page 7:


 * "An anonymous manuscript written in the 1540s, known as "Anonimo Gaddiano" after the family that once owned it, contains colorful details about Leonardo and some other Florentines."

See also pp 8, 91, 116, 130. Fb2ts (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So? There is an enormous literature on Leonardo, much of it at least mentioning the AG. This is a pop bio, by a writer whose previous subjects include Steve Jobs, Einstein and Benj. Franklin. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Granted, it's a tough call. A Simon & Schuster hardcover from a CEO graduate of Harvard and Oxford University) vs. a Ph.D. Thesis from a Research Assistant at Groningen University. Hmmmmm. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fb2ts (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That being said, I have not read Isaacson's book, except to get the quote (true confessions) and I enjoyed Wierda's paper immensely. Fb2ts (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look around the other scholarly references by art historians, you will see the recent ones all refer to Wierda, and many take her identification seriously. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Editions Heading
The German entry is quite well done. They have given pride of place (top billing) to a section for Editions - I propose that we move the External Links to the top of the stack of 3 and entitle it Editions, emphasizing the published books and putting the digital editions at their respective library locations and archives and see also as part of the Editions entry. Like so:


 * Editions


 * Carl Frey (Ed.): Il Codice Magliabechiano cl. XVII. 17 contenente notizie sopra l'arte degli antichi e quella de Fiorentini da Cimabue a Michelangelo Buonarroti. Edited and with a summary of the Florentine art historiography up to G. Vasari by Carl Frey. Grote'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin, 1892. See also: digitized copy from the Collections at Harvard University.


 * Cornelius of Fabriczy (Ed.): Il codice dell'Anonimo Gaddiano (Cod. Magliabechiano XVII, 17) nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze. Coi tipi di M. Cellini and C. alla Galileiana, Florence, 1893. See also digitized copy from the Collections at Princeton University.


 * Annamaria Ficarra: L'anonimo magliabechiano. Fiorentino, Naples 1968.

And then instead of References, would it be too heretical to change that to Further Reading?

Thoughts?

It seems somehow that we should be able to add a citation for the actual original in the Florentine Library. Fb2ts (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * no objections to "Editions", but FR means stuff that has not been consulted, as opposed to "References" that have. See Further reading. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Manuscript Mystery
It's possible that the original manuscript was among the volumes lost forever during the 1966 flood. That would be a coup, if we could confirm that status either way. Fb2ts (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, Bouk Wierda has some images of the original handwriting in their paper. Surely a DYK article should have at least one image -- and if there is only one image, surely it should be at the top. Perhaps a close up of a handwritten page? Fb2ts (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That will have copyright issues I think. A close-up of one of the printed transcript would be good, showing what the notes actually are. Eg pp 116-117 here, trimed so it's legible. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice! At least one image definitely adds to the gravitas of a wiki article, wouldn't you agree? Well done! Fb2ts (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)