Forging Philosophy

Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature Falsificaciones y falsarios de la Literatura Clásica, 2011

As textual criticism of the Greek and Roman classics began to assert itself as a discipline (or at times even as a science) in the Renaissance and thereafter, questions of authenticity began to surface with increasing frequency in discussions of classical literature. Anthony Grafton‘s article on ―Forgery (2010) gives a relatively solid and sober account of the various fakes and forgeries that were uncovered in what may now seem like a golden age of Classical Philology, yet the frustrating thing about Grafton‘s account here (especially when he has been so illuminating elsewhere about the history of Renaissance scholarship) is that Grafton tells a relatively sedate detective story without ever really talking about the crime.

Fakes and Forgeries of Written Artefacts from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern China (Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 20) , 269-285, 2020

This article addresses the question of how to judge the authenticity of different types of written artefacts with different analytical methods. After discussing the reception history of a highly disputed inscribed object, the Praeneste Fibula, the case of hitherto unpublished leather 'cigarillos' from the Near East that are inscribed in an unknown script and language is presented as an example of the interplay of linguistic and philological methods and those of the natural sciences. The third topic is a slate sherd from Dagestan bearing the alphabet of the Caucasian Albanian script, which may be taken as a classic example of a self-revealing fake. Written artefacts are the most important material basis of all for comparative linguistics , given that they bear the 'tangible' manifestations of historical states of languages and language change that may otherwise only be hypothesised or reconstructed theoretically. Under these premises, the authenticity of such artefacts is of extreme importance when it comes to their scholarly exploitation, and faked witnesses to the past may have a disastrous impact, not only on linguistic reasoning, but also beyond. Three different sample cases with which I have personally been confronted during my career as a comparative linguist will be sufficient to show how methods from different disciplines can yield different results that need to be balanced and aligned with each other to obtain a clearer picture of the historical 'truth'.

Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature · Ergo decipiatur!, 2014

The studies conducted over the last few decades by authors such as Speyer, Grafton (his Forgers and Critics published in 1990 in particular), and more recently, Ruthven, have created an extremely favourable academic setting for the study of textual and literary — as opposed to traditional — forgery. The new era of postmodernism has also encouraged a difference of feeling towards the work of the forger. Until relatively recently, this “creative activity” was condemned, criticised and even criminalised when the deceit was uncovered. However, many of these ignored and discarded works have captured the curiosity of academics interested in recovering their hidden values for some time now. It is not only their literary value that intrigues researchers; these texts can also provide information on the particular political, social and cultural circumstances that led to their creation. Forged texts can, and in many cases should, become fully-fledged members of a literary tradition and be studied with sensitivity in keeping with modern times and the new approaches of philology and literary criticism.

2011

Since the beginning, classical literature has involved questions of authenticity, manuscripts, copies, fakes, forgeries and frauds. Issues of dubious authorship, forgery, and contested authority confront philologists, critics and publishers today as surely as they did in the classical era itself. Recent scholarship, however, has invited an interdisciplinary approach, including both sociological and philosophical analysis, which goes beyond the conventional academic analysis of classical fakery. Rather than be content with the exposure of forgery and the scientifically-minded pursuit of textual “truth”, this new scholarship presents a host of new questions, some intended purely for the sake of debate: Ought we to consider any particular genre, or author, to have a monopoly on some form of legitimate authenticity? Must we grant credence to any philosopher, historian, or legislator claiming the authority to distinguish true from false? Each fake text must have a real context, which requires asking under what cultural circumstances were these forgeries made? Each text has its own parallel history of fakes and forgeries, but what paths have they taken? Which epistemological prejudices have often led scholars to dismiss them as unauthentic?

http://www.barkhuis.nl/product_info.php?products_id=211, 2016

Scholars for centuries have regarded fakes and forgeries chiefly as an opportunity for exposing and denouncing deceit, rather than appreciating the creative activity necessary for such textual imposture. But shouldn’t we be more curious about what’s spurious? Many of these long-neglected texts merit serious reappraisal, when considered as artifacts with a value beyond mere authenticity. We do not have to be fooled by a forgery to find it fascinating, when even the intention to deceive can remind us how easy it is form beliefs about texts. The greater difficulty is that once beliefs have been formed by one text, it is impossible to approach the next without preconceptions potentially disastrous for scholarship. The exposure of fraud and the pursuit of truth may still be valid scholarly goals, but they implicitly demand that we confront the status of any text as a focal point for matters of belief and conviction. Recent approaches to forgery have begun to ask new questions, some intended purely for the sake of debate: Ought we to consider any author to have some inherent authenticity that precludes the possibility of a forger's successful parody? If every fake text has a real context, what can be learned about the cultural circumstances which give rise to forgeries? If every real text can potentially engender a parallel history of fakes, what can this alternative narrative teach us? What epistemological prejudices can lead us to swear a fake is genuine, or dismiss the real thing as inauthentic? Many new and fruitful avenues of investigation open up when scholars consider forgery as a creative act rather than a crime. We invited authors to contribute work without imposing any restrictions beyond a willingness to consider new approaches to the subject of ancient fakes and forgeries,. The result is this volume, in which our aim is to display some of the many possibilities available to scholarship when the forger is regarded as “splendide mendax”— splendidly untruthful.

UntitledBooks.com, 2010

The studies conducted over the last few decades by authors such as Speyer, Grafton (his Forgers and Critics published in 1990 in particular), and more recently, Ruthven, have created an extremely favourable academic setting for the study of textual and literary — as opposed to traditional — forgery. The new era of postmodernism has also encouraged a difference of feeling towards the work of the forger. Until relatively recently, this “creative activity” was condemned, criticised and even criminalised when the deceit was uncovered. However, many of these ignored and discarded works have captured the curiosity of academics interested in recovering their hidden values for some time now. It is not only their literary value that intrigues researchers; these texts can also provide information on the particular political, social and cultural circumstances that led to their creation. Forged texts can, and in many cases should, become fully-fledged members of a literary tradition and be studied with sensitivity in keeping with modern times and the new approaches of philology and literary criticism.

Verleugnete Rezeption: Fälschungen antiker Texte (Paradeigmata 7), 2017

The history of literary forgery is one with great social and cultural implications. Far from simply being a question of authorial authenticity, the concept of forgery helped to give rise to the idea of a separate »authority«, the expert, upon whose opinion the veracity of any text could and should be judged. This has often been used in a subversive fashion, to manipulate social power relations in such a way as to reinforce hegemony, either through the willful misinterpretation of works through expert testimony, or through the deliberate creation of expert-backed legal, moral, and religious forgeries in order to pursue a specific agenda.

https://www.barkhuis.nl/product_info.php?products_id=240, 2018

any new and fruitful avenues of investigation open up when scholars consider forgery as a creative act rather than a crime. We invited authors to contribute work without imposing any restrictions beyond a willingness to consider new approaches to the subject of ancient fakes, forgeries and questions of authenticity. The result is this volume, in which our aim is to display some of the many possibilities available to scholarship. The exposure of fraud and the pursuit of truth may still be valid scholarly goals, but they implicitly demand that we confront the status of any text as a focal point for matters of belief and conviction. Recent approaches to forgery have begun to ask new questions, some intended purely for the sake of debate: Ought we to consider any author to have some inherent authenticity that precludes the possibility of a forger's successful parody? If every fake text has a real context, what can be learned about the cultural circumstances which give rise to forgeries? If every real text can potentially engender a parallel history of fakes, what can this alternative narrative teach us? What epistemological prejudices can lead us to swear a fake is genuine, or dismiss the real thing as inauthentic? Following Splendide Mendax, this is the latest installment of an ongoing inquiry, conducted by scholars in numerous countries, into how the ancient world-its literature and culture, its history and art-appears when viewed through the lens of fakes and forgeries, sincerities and authenticities, genuine signatures and pseudepigrapha. How does scholarship tell the truth if evidence doesn't? As the Cyclops is munching on the comrades of Odysseus, is he lulled into thinking that any creatures so easily deceived must be too stupid to accomplish meaningful deception themselves? Sentimental tradition reads the Odyssey and identifies the blind bard Demodokos, singing his tales at the court of Alkinoos, to be Homer's own self-portrait. But what if we thought about the blind Cyclops in the same way? How does scholarship evaluate the truth con

https://www.barkhuis.nl/product_info.php?products_id=276, 2021

Following Splendide Mendax and Animo Decipiendi?, this is the latest installment of an ongoing inquiry, conducted by scholars in numerous countries, into how the ancient world-its literature and culture, its history and art-appears when viewed through the lens of fakes and forgeries, sincerities and authenticities, genuine signatures and pseudepigrapha. How does scholarship tell the truth if evidence doesn't? But fabula docet: The falsum does not simply make the great, annoying stone before the door of the truth (otherwise this here would really be a "council of antiquarians and paleographers"). The falsum makes a delicate, fine tissue. It allows the verum to shine through, in nuances and reliefs that were less noticeable without its counterpart, really tied at the head. And, treated differentiated, it becomes even itself perlucidum, shines out with "hidden values."