Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages

@article{citeulike:2353131, author = {Constable, Giles }, citeulike-article-id = {2353131}, comment = {Widespread forgery in the Middle Ages can be attributed to belief in truth as reposing not in terrestrial phenomena but in the mind of God; and to a paucity of means for detecting forgeries. Scorn, amusement, fascination, and admiration are the commonplace responses toward previous generations' deceits. Successful forgers and plagiarists make sure that their secrets outlive them (1). "Forgeries and plagiarisms . . . follow rather than create fashion and can without paradox be considered among the most authentic products of their time. They therefore deserve attention not only in order to distinguish them from those works which are considered original and authentic but also to assess their own value as historical sources" (2). Forgery fulfills social needs (3). "The original meaning of to forge was simply to make or fabricate, but already in Middle English it took on the pejorative implication (which to fabricate now also has) of making something up, that is, of imitating falsely. To plagiarize is a more recent term in English, though it derives from the Latin word for a kidnapper or seducer, and refers to taking some one else's ideas or words and passing them off as one's own. In both terms the intention to deceive is as central as the actual deception" (3). Medieval forgery and plagiarism occurred at the intersection of a personal idea of truth and an attribution of intention to the forger or plagiarist. Forgery = "fabrication of documents"; plagiarism = "stealing of words and ideas" (26). Bernard of Clairhand was one of the medieval writers who endeavored for a personal style that would preclude forgery (16), and Guigo of La Chartreuse considered "style, content, and anachronism" in determining the authenticity of texts (18). Samuel Johnson differentiates two types of truth: "Physical truth is, when you tell a thing as it actually is. Moral truth, is, when you tell a thing sincerely and precisely as it appears to you." The distinction he is making is that of objective and subjective truth. Wilfred Smith says that until the Scientific Revolution truth and morality were not separate, whereas now truth reposes in propositions (4). William James says that for pragmatists, "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify," whereas for rationalists, "Truth is a system of propositions which have an unconditional claim to be recognized as valid" (4 n. 13). Flaubert would substitute perception for truth (6). Dante takes a particularly dim view of fraud (1); he "puts all types of defrauders in the two lowest circles of Hell, with falsifiers at the bottom of the eighth circle" (20). Lives of saints and relics were regarded with suspicion in the Middle Ages (17), by, among others, Abelard (18). Medieval forgery can also be explained by what is variously called conservatism, traditionalism, or mythomania, in which the past is pulled into the present to serve the needs of the present (20-1), rejecting "the truth of change and development" (22). "Even written constitutions are made by interpretation to uphold principles and serve ends that were far from the minds of the framers." One way in which traditionalism works is to justify present practices, "which are depicted as renewals or revivals" (21). The concept of forgery as "intrinsic in things" is a correlate of the modern propositional concept of truth (10). Positivist historians who believe in the "identity of human nature and behavior" think that only the law prevents forgery; hence medieval forgery is attributed to a lax judiciary or to indifference (16). Instead of positivism, though, we should adopt the perspective of historical relativity (20). "Rather than apply to the past our own definitions and criteria, we should try to enter into the world in which these works were created and to understand them in the light of the standards of truth and falsity at that time" (39). In the Middle Ages, truth was what should be, even if it wasn't (5); therefore, it was commonplace for writers to make things up in order to advance the cause of Truth (6, 26), although there was never any official approval of the practice. Many medieval forgeries were designed to advance God's plan on earth and thus to establish, or reestablish, things in their proper order. . . . [F]orgers were thus asserting and protecting rather than deforming truth and justice" (20). A tremendous number of medieval documents contained fictional elements (11). Tolerance for this type of forgery might be explained by how often the forger accrued no personal gain, as in the cases of the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (7). Ecclesiastical forgeries were typically "concerned with privileges and property rights" (8), and theological forgeries with a whole range of issues, from "the orthodoxy of a text to the reattribution of works in order to give them antiquity and authority" (9). Another reason for widespread medieval forgery is the paucity of means for detecting forgery (22). Prior to the 12th century, documents were an aid to memory, which was given primacy (22-3). When veracity began to be attributed to documents rather than memory, "truth started on its development away from people and toward propositions" (23). According to Morey \& Brooke, forgery flourished during the 12th-century renaissance because of the appeal of tradition but also because it was a period in which the oral tradition was declining, with a commensurate increase in the importance of written evidence (12-13). At the same time, though, means for detecting forgery were being developed (13). "Faith" and "trust" were both entailed in the Old English "truth" (6). Truth in the Middle Ages was often measured by the faith of the reporter. Truth reposed in the word of God, and the word of God was always present in true faith (24-5). "Truth depends on intention, not simply on factual accuracy" (33). Abelard and his followers went so far as to judge "all actions as deriving their moral value from the intention of the doer" (25). One contemporary carryover from the medieval personal idea of truth (as compared to the modern impersonal idea) is the necessity of intentionality in the definition of plagiarist or forger. This criterion is problematized, however, by the recent scientific evidence "that the distinction between what we desire and what we believe to be true is less clear than was once thought" (23). Eyewitness accounts have been demonstrated reliable only "in serving our need to create structure out of experience" (24). St. Bonaventura theorized four methods of composition; completely original work was not among the four possibilities (28). Peter of Blois: "We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants . . . by whose kindness we see further than they do, when we adhere to the works of the ancients and arouse into some newness of being their more elegant sentences, which age and human neglect have let decay and become almost lifeless" (34). Peter's metaphor might attribute superiority to the dwarves, who can see further; or to the giants, who are larger and stronger; "but in the Middle Ages it meant . . . that modern people must be more perspicacious than people of Antiquity precisely because they are further from the fountain of truth" (37). "It is no accident that the term plagiarism first appeared in English in the seventeenth century, since it depends upon the distinctively modern concept of creativity and originality as the personal property of individuals" (26). "The term plagiarism should indeed probably be dropped in reference to the Middle Ages, since it expresses a concept of literary individualism and property that is distinctively modern" (39). "Today, plagiarism far more than forgery threatens our most cherished values. . . (26). In the Middle Ages, however, copying the words of others was a way of lending authority to the text (27), and it was also an expression of humility (30). The anonymity of medieval art, however, was on the decline by the 12th century (31); a sense of "literary individuality" in the 12th and 13th centuries is evidenced in the increasing numbers of accusations of stealing (32). But in the 14th century lawyers were still offering fictitious data "known to be incorrect but needed for the discussion in court." Still, by the 14th century "the relation between writers and their sources had taken on many of the implications it has today," as evidence in Petrarch's correspondence to Boccaccio (35). Petrarch acknowledged that all writers must imitate but that assimilation is necessary. Castiglione affirmed this point of view by publishing it in the 16th century, "when the concept of originality and creativity as personal attributes was commonly accepted" (36). Yet it was Petrarch who urged Philip of Cabasoles to include fiction in the service of truth (41). In the 13th and 14th centuries, Latin culture was see as derivative of and a decay of Greek culture (37), and the writing of the Ancients as superior to contemporary writing. "The standard by which a writer's works was judged was not one of originality but of truth as established by antiquity and orthodoxy" (38). Historians will regard the 20th century, like the 12th, as a fruitful time of forgery—not only the Piltdown Man and art forgeries, but also advertisements (15). The modern innovation of footnoted attribution is a form of "licensed plagiarism" (27). }, journal = {." Archiv f\"{u}r Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel-und Wappenkunde}, keywords = {authorship, forgery, history, plagiarism}, pages = {1--41}, posted-at = {2008-02-08 11:56:09}, priority = {0}, title = {Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages}, volume = {29}, year = {1983} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2353131 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2353131 TI - Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages JF - ." Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel-und Wappenkunde VL - 29 SP - 1 EP - 41 KW - authorship KW - forgery KW - history KW - plagiarism N1 - Widespread forgery in the Middle Ages can be attributed to belief in truth as reposing not in terrestrial phenomena but in the mind of God; and to a paucity of means for detecting forgeries. Scorn, amusement, fascination, and admiration are the commonplace responses toward previous generations' deceits. Successful forgers and plagiarists make sure that their secrets outlive them (1). "Forgeries and plagiarisms . . . follow rather than create fashion and can without paradox be considered among the most authentic products of their time. They therefore deserve attention not only in order to distinguish them from those works which are considered original and authentic but also to assess their own value as historical sources" (2). Forgery fulfills social needs (3). "The original meaning of to forge was simply to make or fabricate, but already in Middle English it took on the pejorative implication (which to fabricate now also has) of making something up, that is, of imitating falsely. To plagiarize is a more recent term in English, though it derives from the Latin word for a kidnapper or seducer, and refers to taking some one else's ideas or words and passing them off as one's own. In both terms the intention to deceive is as central as the actual deception" (3). Medieval forgery and plagiarism occurred at the intersection of a personal idea of truth and an attribution of intention to the forger or plagiarist. Forgery = "fabrication of documents"; plagiarism = "stealing of words and ideas" (26). Bernard of Clairhand was one of the medieval writers who endeavored for a personal style that would preclude forgery (16), and Guigo of La Chartreuse considered "style, content, and anachronism" in determining the authenticity of texts (18). Samuel Johnson differentiates two types of truth: "Physical truth is, when you tell a thing as it actually is. Moral truth, is, when you tell a thing sincerely and precisely as it appears to you." The distinction he is making is that of objective and subjective truth. Wilfred Smith says that until the Scientific Revolution truth and morality were not separate, whereas now truth reposes in propositions (4). William James says that for pragmatists, "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify," whereas for rationalists, "Truth is a system of propositions which have an unconditional claim to be recognized as valid" (4 n. 13). Flaubert would substitute perception for truth (6). Dante takes a particularly dim view of fraud (1); he "puts all types of defrauders in the two lowest circles of Hell, with falsifiers at the bottom of the eighth circle" (20). Lives of saints and relics were regarded with suspicion in the Middle Ages (17), by, among others, Abelard (18). Medieval forgery can also be explained by what is variously called conservatism, traditionalism, or mythomania, in which the past is pulled into the present to serve the needs of the present (20-1), rejecting "the truth of change and development" (22). "Even written constitutions are made by interpretation to uphold principles and serve ends that were far from the minds of the framers." One way in which traditionalism works is to justify present practices, "which are depicted as renewals or revivals" (21). The concept of forgery as "intrinsic in things" is a correlate of the modern propositional concept of truth (10). Positivist historians who believe in the "identity of human nature and behavior" think that only the law prevents forgery; hence medieval forgery is attributed to a lax judiciary or to indifference (16). Instead of positivism, though, we should adopt the perspective of historical relativity (20). "Rather than apply to the past our own definitions and criteria, we should try to enter into the world in which these works were created and to understand them in the light of the standards of truth and falsity at that time" (39). In the Middle Ages, truth was what should be, even if it wasn't (5); therefore, it was commonplace for writers to make things up in order to advance the cause of Truth (6, 26), although there was never any official approval of the practice. Many medieval forgeries were designed to advance God's plan on earth and thus to establish, or reestablish, things in their proper order. . . . [F]orgers were thus asserting and protecting rather than deforming truth and justice" (20). A tremendous number of medieval documents contained fictional elements (11). Tolerance for this type of forgery might be explained by how often the forger accrued no personal gain, as in the cases of the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (7). Ecclesiastical forgeries were typically "concerned with privileges and property rights" (8), and theological forgeries with a whole range of issues, from "the orthodoxy of a text to the reattribution of works in order to give them antiquity and authority" (9). Another reason for widespread medieval forgery is the paucity of means for detecting forgery (22). Prior to the 12th century, documents were an aid to memory, which was given primacy (22-3). When veracity began to be attributed to documents rather than memory, "truth started on its development away from people and toward propositions" (23). According to Morey & Brooke, forgery flourished during the 12th-century renaissance because of the appeal of tradition but also because it was a period in which the oral tradition was declining, with a commensurate increase in the importance of written evidence (12-13). At the same time, though, means for detecting forgery were being developed (13). "Faith" and "trust" were both entailed in the Old English "truth" (6). Truth in the Middle Ages was often measured by the faith of the reporter. Truth reposed in the word of God, and the word of God was always present in true faith (24-5). "Truth depends on intention, not simply on factual accuracy" (33). Abelard and his followers went so far as to judge "all actions as deriving their moral value from the intention of the doer" (25). One contemporary carryover from the medieval personal idea of truth (as compared to the modern impersonal idea) is the necessity of intentionality in the definition of plagiarist or forger. This criterion is problematized, however, by the recent scientific evidence "that the distinction between what we desire and what we believe to be true is less clear than was once thought" (23). Eyewitness accounts have been demonstrated reliable only "in serving our need to create structure out of experience" (24). St. Bonaventura theorized four methods of composition; completely original work was not among the four possibilities (28). Peter of Blois: "We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants . . . by whose kindness we see further than they do, when we adhere to the works of the ancients and arouse into some newness of being their more elegant sentences, which age and human neglect have let decay and become almost lifeless" (34). Peter's metaphor might attribute superiority to the dwarves, who can see further; or to the giants, who are larger and stronger; "but in the Middle Ages it meant . . . that modern people must be more perspicacious than people of Antiquity precisely because they are further from the fountain of truth" (37). "It is no accident that the term plagiarism first appeared in English in the seventeenth century, since it depends upon the distinctively modern concept of creativity and originality as the personal property of individuals" (26). "The term plagiarism should indeed probably be dropped in reference to the Middle Ages, since it expresses a concept of literary individualism and property that is distinctively modern" (39). "Today, plagiarism far more than forgery threatens our most cherished values. . . (26). In the Middle Ages, however, copying the words of others was a way of lending authority to the text (27), and it was also an expression of humility (30). The anonymity of medieval art, however, was on the decline by the 12th century (31); a sense of "literary individuality" in the 12th and 13th centuries is evidenced in the increasing numbers of accusations of stealing (32). But in the 14th century lawyers were still offering fictitious data "known to be incorrect but needed for the discussion in court." Still, by the 14th century "the relation between writers and their sources had taken on many of the implications it has today," as evidence in Petrarch's correspondence to Boccaccio (35). Petrarch acknowledged that all writers must imitate but that assimilation is necessary. Castiglione affirmed this point of view by publishing it in the 16th century, "when the concept of originality and creativity as personal attributes was commonly accepted" (36). Yet it was Petrarch who urged Philip of Cabasoles to include fiction in the service of truth (41). In the 13th and 14th centuries, Latin culture was see as derivative of and a decay of Greek culture (37), and the writing of the Ancients as superior to contemporary writing. "The standard by which a writer's works was judged was not one of originality but of truth as established by antiquity and orthodoxy" (38). Historians will regard the 20th century, like the 12th, as a fruitful time of forgery—not only the Piltdown Man and art forgeries, but also advertisements (15). The modern innovation of footnoted attribution is a form of "licensed plagiarism" (27). AU - Constable, Giles PY - 1983/// ER -