Table Of ContentFakes and Forgers of Classical Literature
Metaforms
Studies in the Reception of
Classical Antiquity
Editors-in-Chief
Almut-Barbara Renger, Freie Universität Berlin
Jon Solomon, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
John T. Hamilton, Harvard University
Editorial Board
Kyriakos Demetriou, University of Cyprus
Constanze Güthenke, Princeton University
Miriam Leonard, University College London
Mira Seo, University of Michigan
VOLUME 2
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/srca
Fakes and Forgers of
Classical Literature
Ergo decipiatur!
Edited by
Javier Martínez
LEIDEn • BOSTOn
2014
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature : Ergo decipiatur! / edited by Javier Martinez.
pages cm. — (Studies in the Reception of Classical Antiquity ; 2)
ISBn 978-90-04-26641-4 (hardback : acid-free paper) — ISBn 978-90-04-26642-1 (e-book)
1. Literary forgeries and mystifications—History—To 1800. 2. Classical literature—History and
criticism. I. Martínez García, Francisco Javier, 196—editor of compilation.
PA3014.F6F35 2014
880.9’001—dc23
2013046700
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSn 2212-9405
ISBn 978-90-04-26641-4 (hardback)
ISBn 978-90-04-26642-1 (e-book)
Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nV, Leiden, The netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill nV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill nijhoff, Global Oriental and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material used
in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes
communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in
future editions, and to settle other permission matters.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
COnTEnTS
Foreword ........................................................................................................... vii
Javier Martínez
Prologue / Volume Retrospect: Ergo decipiatur .................................... xv
John Henderson
Libertine Erudition: José Marchena’s Fragmentum Petronii and the
Power of the False ....................................................................................... 1
Joaquín Álvarez Barrientos
Lucretius auctus? The Question of Interpolation in
De rerum natura .......................................................................................... 15
David Butterfield
Authorless Authority in Plato’s Theaetetus ............................................. 43
Zina Giannopoulou
The Poet and the Forger: On nonnus’ False Biography by
Constantine Simonides ............................................................................ 59
David Hernández de la Fuente
“Genuine” and “Bastard” Dialogues in the Platonic Corpus:
An Inquiry into the Origins and Meaning of a Concept ............... 73
Mark Joyal
Female Voice, Authorship, and Authority in Eudocia’s
Homeric Centos .......................................................................................... 95
Andromache Karanika
The Surgical Treatises of the Corpus Hippocraticum:
Statistical Linguistics and Authorship ................................................. 109
Mikel Labiano
True Plautus, False Plautus. Pellio restitutus – uxor excisa.
Annotations to Plautus’ Bacchides ....................................................... 125
Klaus Lennartz
vi contents
Athena and Pallas, Image, Copies, Fakes, and Doubles ...................... 143
Françoise Létoublon
Hippias of Elis: Lessons from One Master Forger ................................. 163
Javier Martínez
Reading the Fraudulent Text: Thessalus of Tralles and the Book of
Nechepso ...................................................................................................... 179
Karen Ní Mheallaigh
Hapax Legomena in the “Speeches of Apollodoros” and their
Relation to the Corpus Demosthenicum ............................................ 187
Felipe G. Hernández Muñoz
Language and (in-)Authenticity: The Case of the
(Ps.-)Lucianic Onos .................................................................................... 195
Heinz-Günther Nesselrath
SH 906 and the Apollo of Simias of Rhodes: Some Issues of
(mis-)Attribution ........................................................................................ 207
Marco Perale
Order, Ambiguity, and Authority in Venantius Fortunatus,
Carm. 3.26 .................................................................................................... 219
Joseph Pucci
Authors Pseudonyms in the Seventeenth Century: The Case of
Gaspar Scioppio .......................................................................................... 231
Eustaquio Sánchez Salor
Pseudepigraphy and Magic .......................................................................... 243
Emilio Suárez de la Torre
The Sophists’ Place in the Greek Wisdom Tradition ........................... 263
Håkan Tell
Forging Ancient Greek Words in Modern Times ................................. 283
Onofrio Vox
Index: Names and Subjects .......................................................................... 291
FOREWORD
In the end, forgery is a sort of crime. Let us then exam-
ine the three circumstances that need clarification
when any crime, human or literary, is to be investi-
gated: motive, means, and opportunity.
A. Grafton 1990: 37
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,1 have created an extremely favourable academic set-
ting 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, for some time now many of these
ignored and discarded works have captured the curiosity of academics
interested in recovering their hidden values. 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 full-
fledged members of a literary tradition studied with sensitivity in keep-
ing with modern times and the new approaches of philology and literary
criticism.
In light of the quotation cited at the beginning of this introduction, we
might consider forgery as “a type” of crime in itself with a view to promot-
ing detailed research into the circumstances that motivated its creation in
the first place. Our aim as scholars, far from making any moral judgement,
is not to stigmatise this genre, demand punitive damages, or dismiss it
entirely from literature as a whole for extra-literary reasons. Treating
1 W. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: ein Ver-
such ihrer Deutung, München 1971; A. Grafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplic-
ity in Western Scholarship, Princeton/new Jersey 1990; “Fälschungen” in Der Neue Pauly 4
(1998): 394/97, “Correctores corruptores? notes on the Social History of Editing” in Editing
Texts – Texte edieren, ed. G.W. Most, Göttingen 1998 (= Aporemata 2): 54–76; “Forgery”
in The Classical Tradition, ed. A. Grafton / G.W. Most / S. Settis, Harvard 2010: 361–364;
K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature, Cambridge 2001. See also A. Guzmán Guerra, “Pseudo-
literatura, falsificación y canon: una perspectiva programática” in Actas del XI Congreso
Español de Estudios Clásicos, ed. A. Alvar, Madrid 2005: 1:177–216.
viii foreword
forgery as a crime in our analysis of this genre does not mean that we actu-
ally consider it to be a crime in any way.2 Our aim should be to focus our
attention on the different aspects that influence forgery in order to glean
information about the circumstances surrounding these works themselves
and understand the motives for the “crime.” This kind of anticanonical or
secondary text that tradition has deemed worthy of transmission is not a
kind of second-rate literature. These works have managed to survive the
tension that exists between what tradition grants authority, that is, the
canon, and the freedom that comes with all literary creation.
Attempts were made from early on to categorise the different reasons
that lead an author to present his own literary invention as another’s
(which is ultimately what forgery is), to renounce his own creation
(sc. authorship) and to ascribe his work to another writer. A attempt par-
ticularly interesting for its conciseness and simplicity is one of the earliest:
the analysis of David, a little-known commentator from the sixth century,
who in his remarks on Porphyry’s Isagoge3 divides the forged works into
four types γίνεται δὲ νόθον σύγγραμμα κατὰ τέσσαρας τρόπους. The first kind
arises through homonymy δι’ ὁμωνυμίαν, and could be due to a coinci-
dence with the author’s name δι’ ὁμωνυμίαν τῶν συγγραψαμένων or the
titles of the works δι’ ὁμωνυμίαν τῶν συγγραμμάτων. The second kind is the
result of ambition or vanity διὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἤτοι κενοδοξίαν, whilst the third
is down to a sordid love of gain δι’ αἰσχροκέρδειαν. Finally, the fourth kind
of work is down to the affection of a writer’s disciple δι’ εὔνοιαν τοῦ οἰκείου
διδασκάλου. David explains at this point that many ascribe their own work
to their master, giving as an example Pythagoras’ followers καὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ
ποιοῦσι συγγράμματα καὶ διὰ τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν διδάσκαλον τὸ ὄνομα
τοῦ οἰκείου διδασκάλου ἐπιγράφουσιν, ὅπερ καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἐποίησαν καὶ
γὰρ οὗτοι ἐποίησαν τὰ Χρυσᾶ ἔπη καὶ πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ οἰκείου διδασκάλου
ἐπέγραψαν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. His final words could not be more appropriate
and highlight the fact that it is common knowledge that a large amount
of forged literature is in circulation throughout the world ἐπειδὴ οὖν, ὡς
εἴρηται, πολλά εἰσι νόθα συγγράμματα . . .
2 The quasi-inquisitorial stance that Robert S. Lopez adopts when he recommends that
his colleagues in the area of medieval studies follow a similar strategy is interesting here.
As opposed to in dubio pro reo, Lopez suggests that such an unprovenanced document
should always be regarded “as guilty until proved innocent”; see “The Case Is not Settled,”
in The Proceedings of the Vinland Map Conference (PVMC), ed. W.E. Washburn, Chicago,
1971: 31.
3 Dav., in Isag. 81ff.
foreword ix
Of these four categories of forged works, one of the most difficult to
identify is the fourth kind due to the nature of the inside knowledge that
it requires. The first kind is also relatively difficult to pinpoint and can
often be impossible to detect, as in the case of the various Philostratuses.4
The other two kinds of text are the most predominant in literature. In the
third category, the motive and efforts that have influenced the forger are
purely economic, while behind the fourth kind there is always a desire
for honour and respect. From a strictly literary perspective, the motiva-
tion is the same as that of the cuckoo in the natural world: the survival of
one’s own creations under another’s protective wing. From a forger’s per-
spective, an author’s literary status and respected position are a means of
endorsing his work since the higher status represents a protective blanket
for the survival of the forger’s “progeny” for generations to come. With this
in mind, we should regard the relationship between genuine and spuri-
ous texts as a necessary one, as almost a dialectical pairing, since it is
most probably the quest to stand out from the rest that attracts a writer
to take advantage of the privileged situation of another’s work that has
already achieved this goal. In this sense, we agree with Mülke’s dictum
that “Verfälschung negiert nicht die Autorschaft, sondern setzt sie voraus
und stärkt sie”5 and extend it to the notion of forgery, “Fälschung,” not
restricting it to adulteration, “Verfälschung.”
Anecdotes and examples of textual forgery are numerous throughout
classical literature and appear as early as the archaic period, coinciding
(not by chance) with the introduction of writing and the subsequent gen-
eralisation of literacy, at a time when authors began to acquire conscious-
ness of their identity and were openly proud of their creations. One of
the first examples of this new sentiment is to be found in the Hymn to
Apollo 3.170 ss., where the author uses some of his verses to highlight the
“incomparable” quality of his work and offers an unmistakeable hint at
his identity:
ὦ κοῦραι, τίς δ᾽ ὔμμιν ἀνὴρ ἥδιστος ἀοιδῶν
170 ἐνθάδε πωλεῖται, καὶ τέῳ τέρπεσθε μάλιστα;
ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εὖ μάλα πᾶσαι ὑποκρίνασθαι ἀφήμως:
τυφλὸς ἀνήρ, οἰκεῖ δὲ Χίῳ ἔνι παιπαλοέσσῃ
τοῦ μᾶσαι μετόπισθεν ἀριστεύσουσιν ἀοιδαί.
4 Or v.gr. similarity of the names, cf. below nesselrath’s conclusion (regarding the name
confusion of Lucius and Lucian) and his n. 74.
5 M. Mülke, Der Autor und sein Text. Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker
Autoren, Berlin/new York 2008, 263.
