Simone Assemani nella polemica Schiepati-Castiglioni (1818-1820) e la sua numismatica islamica
| Autor: | Callegher, Bruno |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Bruno Callegher & Arianna D'Ottone Rambach, Callegher, Bruno |
| Jazyk: | italština |
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
Cattaneo
Schiepati islamic coins Mainoni (de) Stefano Oriental Studies (Eastern languages and literature) Schiepati Giuseppe Gaetano Welzl de Wellenheim Oriental Numismatic Studies Assemani Simone Castiglioni Carlo Ottavio Cattaneo Gaetano Welzl de Wellenheim Leopold arabo-byzantine coins Simone Leopold Carlo Ottavio Assemani Giuseppe islamic coin Castiglioni Mainoni (de) Oriental Numismatic Studie Stefano |
| Popis: | This paper aims at shedding light on Simone Assemani’s approach to Islamic numismatics, and therefore we examine a group of letters (2 by Assemani and 2 by Gaetano Cattaneo written in 1811 & 5 by Assemani and 10 by Stefano de Majnoni written between 1818 and 1820 after the publication of Assemani’s pamphlet entitled Spiegazione di due rarissime medaglie cufiche della famiglia degli Ommiadi appartenenti al Museo Majnoni in Milano, Milan 1818). After this publication, he asked Assemani’s assistance to identify at first 40 coins from the collection of Leopold Welzl de Wellenheim and 40 coins from his own personal collection, and some time later 22 more coins. A publication project was revealed at the end of 1820, when Mainoni asked the “distinguished professor” to check the manuscript catalogue written by Joseph Schiepati, and within a few months Schiepati published a volume entitled Descrizione di alcune monete cufiche del Museo di Stefano de Mainoni, Milan 1820. Without acknowledgements, Schiepati’s work includes many contributions by Assemani, and numerous pages from his Museum Cuficum Nanianum too. As far as Schiepati’s historical comments, they relied – not to say summarised – Carlo Ottavio Castiglioni’s book Monete Cufiche dell’I.R. Museo di Milano, Milan 1819. A controversy arose, and Schiepati was explicitly accused of plagiarism. Though Assemani had died April 7, 1821, he is central to this controversy, and his role as "the highest authority" on Kufic coins raises some questions about his actual approach to Islamic coins. Assemani practiced Islamic numismatics from an epigraphic and linguistic perspective, if we consider his contributions to the field: the Museum Cuficum Nanianum, the expertise on the Vella case, his published essays, his unpublished memoirs, and his correspondence (in particular with O.G. Tychsen). Assemani did not possess a deep knowledge of history, and was not always able to establish connections between coins and other documentary sources. This is reflected in his prudence (should we say reticence?) about formulating hypotheses, when he had to fill gaps between how the inscriptions read and how the coinage data had to be interpreted or contextualised. By limiting his study to the epigraphy of coins, by focusing on the translation of their inscriptions, Simone Assemani had in fact a general approach to numismatics, but not much different than other Islamic numismatics of the late eighteenth century period |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|