< previous page page_174 next page >

Page 174
12
Fakes and Forgeries
It seems that in terms of natural language everybody knows what a fake, a forgery, or a false document is. At most, one admits that it is frequently difficult to recognize a forgery as such, but one relies on experts, that is, on those who are able to recognize forgeries simply because they know how to tell the difference between a fake and its original.
As a matter of fact, the definitions of such terms as "fake," "forgery," "pseudepigrapha," ''falsification," "facsimile," "counterfeiting," "spurious," "pseudo," "apocryphal," and others are rather controversial. It is reasonable to suspect that many difficulties in defining these terms are due to the difficulty in defining the very notion of "original" or of "real object."
1. Preliminary Definitions
1.1. Current Definitions
Here follow some definitions from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:
15a618ec9e7a226e83a3ec91f2bb0396.gif 15a618ec9e7a226e83a3ec91f2bb0396.gif
The first version of this chapter was presented in September 1986 as the Opening Speech at the Congress on Fälschungen im Mittelalter, organized in Munich by Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Fälschungen im Mittelalter, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften, Bd. 33, 1 [Hanover: Hahnsche, 1988). The present version, published in VS 46 (1987), takes into account the discussion that followed in the course of a seminar on the semiotics of fakes held at the University of Bologna, 198687. The present version was already written when I had the chance to see Faking It: Art and the Politics of Forgery, by Ian Haywood (New York: Saint Martin's Press, 1987); references to this book are introduced into the notes.

 
< previous page page_174 next page >