Abstract
The investigation of Ghiberti's Third Commentary by Julius Schlosser in 19121 was extended in 1940 by G. Ten Doesschate,2 who concluded that the Third Commentary consisted almost entirely of notes and extracts from various ancient and medieval authorities. Where the text is concerned with optics, the sources are Alhazen, Avicenna, Witelo, John Peckham, and Roger Bacon.3 The problem with Ten Doesschate's investigation of Ghiberti's book is that the author fails to evaluate Ghiberti's relation to his sources. Stating repeatedly that “Ghiberti has not said anything new in the field of optics,”4 Ten Doesschate makes no attempt to discuss the significance of Ghiberti's interest in earlier optical theories or to relate the theories Ghiberti discusses to the contemporary writing of Alberti; instead, he outlines briefly the major theories of those writers from whom Ghiberti quotes.5 In defense of Ten Doesschate's approach to the problem, one can argue that it is impossible to attempt to evaluate Ghiberti's relati...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
