This collected volume on fakes and forgeries in ancient literature contains some very good, even excellent, chapters and some chapters that could benefit from further development. One of the issues that makes this collection uneven is the inclusiveness in its approaches to the topic. What counts as a forgery or fake? This question is not addressed at the outset, and the editors’ openness to different interpretations weakens the impact of the book. For instance, forgery is represented as variably as incidents of dishonesty in literature, the vocabulary of lying, the lectio facilior, pastiche, the deliberate misreporting of fact and suffering, in so far as suffering can be defined as the opposite of truth. So that readers of this review will know what I mean when I use the term forgery, I will give my definition: a text that passes itself off as belonging to an author, a particular time period or a particular literary genre when in actuality it is not and often dates to a later time period.
With that said, there are some gems to be found. The book is organised chronologically, with an introduction followed by sections on ‘Classical Works’ (encompassing Hebrew, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek and Latin texts), ‘Greek Literature’, ‘Latin Literature’, ‘Late Antique Works’ and ‘Early Christian Works’, plus an index locorum as well as a general index. In M.’s marvellous and engaging introduction he begins to unpack how forgery works. I found his assessment to be quite compelling and wish that the following chapters had an opportunity to respond to it. [Personal] belief, M. proposes, is the lynchpin that often determines [scholarly] readers’ reactions to suspected forgeries. As forgeries turn on convincing the reader to believe in them, the forgeries that gain the most traction are the ones that appeal to the reader's belief system, which often but not always involves religion. Belief is critical, especially the reader's willingness to believe, but the believability of the text is also necessary (discussed by V. Prosperi); perhaps it is a nexus of both? Textual evidence, M. suggests, ought to be the criterion for judging potential forgeries. It is in this spirit that the rest of the book proceeds.
‘Classical Works’ opens with an excellent chapter by B. Doak exploring vaticinia ex eventu, that is, prophecies that are written after the events that they predict, in Mesopotamian and Hebrew texts. While not directly engaging with M.’s assessment, Doak characterises scholarly reaction to these vaticinia, especially the Hebrew ones, as motivated by a religious viewpoint. That is, scholars either deny their existence because it challenges their own notions of biblical truthfulness or denounce them as propaganda. Doak instead seeks to understand these vaticinia on their own terms and suggests that they reflect an understanding of time that differs from ours, a time that is non-linear and wherein the present and the past are connected. Doak deals with the most obvious critique of his interpretation, that it elides the question of the author's intent to deceive the reader (see E. Yamuza, p. 113), by suggesting that the ancient authors might not have thought about their work as fraudulent or even conceived of history in the same way that we do.
The other contribution to this section, by G. Stern, lists some impostors from the ancient world. Its treatment of sources leaves something to be desired. Stern implies that he will consider historical sources, and most of his examples are indeed chosen from historical writers (Herodotus, Suetonius etc.). But examples from Plautus and Apuleius also strangely crop up. Furthermore, ‘Persia’ appears in the title of the chapter, but as far as the footnotes indicate, it is unclear whether Stern used anything but Greek sources for the Persian examples, though Persian sources clearly exist. Is it ironic, then, or perhaps due to editorial oversight, that Stern's institution is listed as ‘Berkeley University’ rather than UC Berkeley?
The ‘Greek Literature’ section touches on several genres (epic, history, philosophy, drama, novel), but the most compelling piece by far is the one on impiety trials. J. Filonik's excellent investigation of evidence for famous impiety trials in fifth-century Athens (Aspasia, Protagoras, Euripides, Phryne) concludes that they were more fiction than fact, due both to lack of contemporary evidence, and that most evidence comes from fictional writings. Writers perpetuated these stories to extract moral lessons from them, Filonik judges, likening them to tabloids, full of Schadenfreude for ancient celebrities. This article illustrates M.’s opening points, about personal belief driving acceptance of forgery, and textual evidence as the superior approach to evaluate disputed texts.
Other pieces that contribute to the meta-discussion of forgery include those by Prosperi and Yamuza. Prosperi's useful chapter investigates why Dictys’ and Dares’ works on the Trojan War were successful forgeries, finding that they seem sensible, appeal to a sense of the real and offer explanations at the human level. We could then build on M.’s notions of belief; i.e. that Dictys’ and Dares’ readers may have wanted to believe in the romance of the Trojan War and that, in addition to the technical finesse of their writing, contributed to their reception as true histories. Yamuza weighs in on the long-standing debate whether the myth in Plato's Protagoras is a pastiche, forgery or reproduction, arguing on the pastiche side that enough elements of Platonic style are present to call the work an imitation of Protagoras, not a forgery or direct copying. Scholarly debate aside, the distinction between pastiche and forgery is a modern one, for the difference between the two hinges on authorial intent. That is, does Plato consciously write in the style of Protagoras or is he trying to pass off his own work as Protagoras’? Due to the fact that ancient authors freely quoted and paraphrased other authors without citation, expecting their readers to recognise the sources, I doubt whether an ancient author would parse the difference between imitation and invention.
The other three chapters in this section are philological in nature. R. Bertolín pursues the semantic connection between truth (‘what is not forgotten’) and fame in Odyssey 4. Suffering opposes truth, he argues, because it is subjective and induces forgetfulness; thus Nestor's account of Odysseus is superior to Menelaus’ and Helen's stories of suffering. The connection with forgery in this provocative essay is allusive. M. Labiano presents new philological evidence that points towards the authenticity of the Aristophanic play Niobe. C.’s piece catalogues the vocabulary of lying and deception in the Greek novels and sorts his findings into a convenient chart. This thorough collection of data is ripe for analysis.
The ‘Latin Literature’ section is a bit more diverse. The most engaging piece belongs to A. Sillett. He reads an agenda behind the Commentariolum attributed to Quintus Tullius Cicero that promotes the idea that his brother Marcus Tullius Cicero won the election for 63 b.c.e. through technē (skill) and not dunamis (relying on the influence of his associates, namely Pompey). Sillett suggests that Marcus was the ghostwriter for his brother, obscuring his identity so that his message would seem, as it were, more objective. I wonder, apropos of M.’s theory of forgery, whether this is a less successful instance, if indeed Sillett is correct, precisely because the readership was probably far from as invested in Marcus’ prestige as Marcus himself was.
The other chapters in this section offer oblique takes on forgery. K. Lennartz deals with a locus vexatissimus in Ovid, which the manuscript tradition cannot solve, whether Daphne calls upon Peneus or Tellus for help. Internal evidence suggests that the Tellus version is the forgery, Lennartz argues, because Ovid does not signpost the connection with Daphne, whereas he does so with Peneus. M. Meckler's contribution outlines three innovative comparative approaches to the Historia Augusta that explore its pseudepigraphic nature.
The ‘Late Antique Works’ section has two chapters well worth reading, the first of which is more properly topical. A.-C. Baudoin examines a certain text purportedly written by Pontius Pilate and finds not only suggestions of influence from later authors like Eusebius but also Byzantine vocabulary, which would render it a pure forgery. C. Tolsa suggests that Olympiodorus’ commentary on Plato's Phaedo passes on a false story about Ptolemy originating from his Neoplatonic school in Alexandria.
Of the other two contributions, only one is technically Late Antique. L. Pedroni aims to reconstruct the original Latin of John Lydus’ source for his Greek work on Roman festivals and contains many perceptive readings. K. Eastin's chapter, a lush description of an antiquarian eighteenth-century book that illustrates Virgil's works with images of ancient artefacts, has a somewhat tangential connection to forgery; the author misrepresents the source of one of the book's illustrations as being ancient when it is actually Renaissance.
The ‘Early Christian Works’ section features a wonderful piece by S. Brown, in which he debunks the main criticisms scholars have had regarding the authenticity of the Mar Saba text of Clement, which refers to a different version of Mark's gospel. Brown takes scholars to task for everything from misreading and misunderstanding to faulty methodologies and false reasoning. Once again, M.’s observation on the power of belief guiding readers’ reactions to suspected forgeries pertains, in this case, in the opposite way: because the text challenges a more orthodox understanding of Christianity, some scholars would like to believe it is a forgery.
In the last two contributions to this section, A. Karanasiou asserts that Clement quotes Euripides in the Stromateis not to elucidate the dramatist's views but to promulgate Christian ones by showing that they were already present in the ancient author. M. Mülke argues against the communis opinio favouring Rufinus’ allegation that certain heretics inserted a work by Tertullian into Cyprian's Epistulae. In addition to bringing ancient critical testimony to bear, he points out that the purported publication of this material in Constantinople would have necessitated translation into Greek, a feature that is not supported by any of the testimonia.
There is much of interest in this volume, and plenty of room for further explorations of the topic.
