< previous page page_185 next page >

Page 185
stones; but the remaining ones areallegedlythe same that the original builders set up. The Parthenon of Nashville, Tennessee, was built according to the Greek model as it looked at the time of its splendor; it is formally complete and probably colored as the original was intended to be. From the point of view of a purely formal and aesthetic criterion, the Greek Parthenon should be considered an alteration or a forgery of the Nashville one. Nevertheless, the half-temple standing on the Acropolis in Athens is considered both more ''authentic" and more "beautiful" than the American structure. 5
4.2. Moderate Forgery
As for Downright Forgery, we assume that Oa exists, or existed in the past, and that the Claimant knows something about it. The addressees know that Oa exists, or existed, but do not necessarily have clear ideas about it. The Claimant knows that Oa and Ob are different but decides that in particular circumstances and for particular purposes they are of equal value. The Claimant does not claim that they are identical but claims that they are interchangeable, since for both the Claimant and the addressees the lines between identity and interchangeability are very flexible.
4.2.1. Confusional Enthusiasm
The Claimant knows that Oa is not identical with Ob, the latter having been produced later as a copy, but is not sensitive to questions of authenticity. The Claimant thinks that the two objects are interchangeable as regards their value and their function and uses or enjoys Ob as if it were Oa, thus implicitly advocating their identity.
Roman patricians were aesthetically satisfied with a copy of a Greek statue and asked for a forged signature of the original author. Some tourists in Florence admire the copy of Michelangelo's David without being bothered by the fact that it is not the original. At the Getty, Museum in Malibu, California, original statues and paintings are inserted in very well reproduced "original" environments, and many visitors are uninterested in knowing which are the originals and which the copies (see Eco 1986b).
4.2.2. Blatant Claim of Interchangeability
This is generally the case with translations, at least from the point of view of the common reader. It was also the case with medieval copies from manuscript to manuscript, where the copyist frequently made deliberate alterations by abbreviating or censoring the original text (still in

 
< previous page page_185 next page >