The Case of the De Roucy Hours: How Peter Kidd (aka “mssprovenance”) Contributed to the Dismemberment and Trade of a Medieval Book of Hours

The Book of Hours now known as the De Roucy Hours—formerly labelled the Courtanvaux-Elmhirst Hours—is a telling case of modern biblioclasm disguised as scholarship. Its dismemberment began in 2009 through the German auction house Hartung & Hartung. Pages from this 15th-century manuscript, originally unified and intact, were dispersed across the art market and sold separately in subsequent years, including through Sotheby’s, with the direct involvement of Peter Kidd, a freelance consultant and author of the blog Medieval Manuscripts Provenance, operating under the alias “mssprovenance.”

What distinguishes this case is the dual role played by Kidd. On one hand, he publicly documented the appearance of the manuscript’s leaves in his blog; on the other, he privately acted as an intermediary, advising auction houses and preparing descriptions that would facilitate the commercialisation of the very leaves he pretended to “trace.” He thereby profited from the trade, while building a scholarly façade that allowed him to deflect criticism and frame himself as a neutral expert.

In her book The Book of Hours of Louis de Roucy (1st ed. 2022, SNSF-funded; 2nd ed. 2023), Prof. Carla Rossi identified the original patron of the manuscript as Louis de Roucy, a member of the French aristocracy and ancestor of the Count of Montmirail de Courtanvaux. She reconstructed the manuscript digitally, placing each surviving leaf in its proper codicological and iconographic sequence, and revealing the depth of its historical and artistic value—a value that was willfully destroyed by its dismemberment.

The book's second edition exposed the conflict of interest between Kidd’s online persona as a “manuscript provenance researcher” and his real-world activity as a consultant for Sotheby’s and other commercial actors. These findings led Prof. Rossi to file an official report with the Carabinieri TPC (Cultural Heritage Protection Unit), naming Peter Kidd and denouncing the broader network of academic and commercial figures who profit from the breakup of manuscripts.

Kidd’s blog, mssprovenance, is widely cited by manuscript dealers and auction houses. Yet it functions as a marketing platform, not an academic resource. His entries routinely highlight dismembered leaves—often without condemning the act of dismemberment—while praising private collectors and helping them trace the market value of their acquisitions. In several cases, including that of the De Roucy Hours, his blog coincides suspiciously with the circulation of leaves on the market. In at least two instances, he authored catalogue entries for leaves later appearing at Sotheby’s.

This creates a clear pattern:

• Kidd helps promote the visibility and prestige of individual leaves;

• his expertise is then monetised by auction houses;

• the blog serves to legitimise the practice while hiding the names of dealers and intermediaries.

As OProM, we denounce this pattern of behaviour and call for transparency and accountability in the field of manuscript studies. We particularly condemn the use of academic credibility to facilitate illicit or unethical trade, and we invite institutions to reassess collaborations with individuals who benefit from the dismemberment of cultural heritage.

Future posts will further expose the mechanisms of this system and publish evidence submitted to law enforcement.

#ReceptioGate #Biblioclasm #PeterKidd #mssprovenance #ManuscriptDismemberment #DeRoucyHours #AuctionEthics #ManuscriptTrade #IllicitHeritageTrade

In this tweet, Lisa Fagin Davis—Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America—publicly defends Peter Kidd, asserting that dismantling a manuscript and selling its individual leaves is “not illegal.” This claim, frequently repeated in manuscript trade circles, is explicitly refuted by Prof. Carla Rossi in her article Biblioclasm for Profit, forthcoming in the Harvard Art Law Journal (May 2025). There, Rossi demonstrates that such practices may indeed breach cultural heritage laws, particularly when manuscripts have identifiable provenance and national significance. It is worth noting that Lisa Fagin Davis has herself financially benefited from the aftermath of manuscript dismemberment, directing publicly funded projects whose very existence depends on the prior destruction of codices. These initiatives, often promoted as academic contributions, raise serious concerns about conflicts of interest and the ethical implications of legitimising the fragmentation of cultural heritage.