3 ms·

This theory sounds highly implausible. Among other things, it would have to explain the cross-referencing among ancient authors, where author X alludes to or d

This theory sounds highly implausible. Among other things, it would have to explain the cross-referencing among ancient authors, where author X alludes to or directly mentions a work by author Y, which has also survived. Unless there was a single central factory manufacturing these frauds, that would be almost impossible to achieve. Renaissance scholars were in fact very good at sniffing out actual frauds from textual analysis, e.g. the debunking of the donation of Constantine.

saalweachter 8y ago
Not necessarily - author X writes a forgery which, both to make it seem more authentic and to pad out the verbage, quotes extensively from authentic sources A, B and C. Unrelated author Y does the same thing, but quoting B, C and X (why wouldn't he? He doesn't know it's fake). Repeat repeatedly.
- cfmcdonald 8y ago
  Then the whole cloth would unravel as soon as one careless author made a historical error or used anachronistic language. All the other works that cite this work, and any that cite those, etc., would all be proved frauds. Yet this has not happened. Moreover, new ancient works and new physical evdience (coins, letters, inscriptions in stone) have continued to be found, yet somehow they have all remained consistent with the tremendous fraud that was perpetrated 500-600 years ago. To explain this requires a vast, multi-century conspiracy.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    Oh, I’m not saying this is LIKELY. I’m just spitballing how it could happen. Honestly, this sort of organic conspiracy could be robust. Suppose a particular work A - which is referenced by other works X, Y, Z - is shown to be counterfeit. Does that mean works X, Y, Z are counterfeit? Not necessarily - A could be a counterfeit version of a work that was lost! That would, indeed, be the most valuable work to counterfeit. Take a work that is referenced by other works, find all the references in other works you can, and use that as the skeleton of your counterfeit work. People will eat it up, because they’ve been waiting for it. New physical evidence, yeah, you’re screwed on that. Especially if you recover an original version of a work that was later counterfeited.

saalweachter 8y ago

Not necessarily - author X writes a forgery which, both to make it seem more authentic and to pad out the verbage, quotes extensively from authentic sources A, B and C. Unrelated author Y does the same thing, but quoting B, C and X (why wouldn't he? He doesn't know it's fake). Repeat repeatedly.

cfmcdonald 8y ago
Then the whole cloth would unravel as soon as one careless author made a historical error or used anachronistic language. All the other works that cite this work, and any that cite those, etc., would all be proved frauds. Yet this has not happened. Moreover, new ancient works and new physical evdience (coins, letters, inscriptions in stone) have continued to be found, yet somehow they have all remained consistent with the tremendous fraud that was perpetrated 500-600 years ago. To explain this requires a vast, multi-century conspiracy.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  Oh, I’m not saying this is LIKELY. I’m just spitballing how it could happen. Honestly, this sort of organic conspiracy could be robust. Suppose a particular work A - which is referenced by other works X, Y, Z - is shown to be counterfeit. Does that mean works X, Y, Z are counterfeit? Not necessarily - A could be a counterfeit version of a work that was lost! That would, indeed, be the most valuable work to counterfeit. Take a work that is referenced by other works, find all the references in other works you can, and use that as the skeleton of your counterfeit work. People will eat it up, because they’ve been waiting for it. New physical evidence, yeah, you’re screwed on that. Especially if you recover an original version of a work that was later counterfeited.