|
|
|
|
|
|
the original Oa represented a sort of unchallengeable parameter. In case (ii) there is no parameter. However, let us further consider case (i). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Judge can know beyond doubt that Oa and Ob are not identical only if someone shows a perfect copylet us sayof the Mona Lisa while standing in front of the original in the Louvre and claims (crazily) that the two objects are indiscernibly identical. But even in this implausible case there would be a shadow of doubt remaining: perhaps Ob is the genuine original and Oa is a forgery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus here we are facing a curious situation. Forgeries are cases of false identification. If the Judge proves that the objects are two and challenges the false claim of identification, the Judge has certainly proved that there was a case of forgery. But the Judge has not yet proved which one of the two objects is the original one. It is not sufficient to prove that the identification is impossible. The Judge must provide a proof of authentication for the supposed original. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first glance case (ii) looked more difficult because, in the absence of the presumed original, one should demonstrate that the suspected fake is the original. In fact, case (i) is far more difficult: when the original is present, one must still demonstrate that the original is the original. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not sufficient to say that the Ob is a fake because it does not possess all the features of the Oa. The method by which the Judge identifies the features of any Ob is the same as that with which the Judge makes a decision about the authenticity of the Oa. In other words, in order to say that a reproduction is not the genuine Mona Lisa, one must have examined the genuine Mona Lisa and confirmed its authenticity with the same techniques as one uses to say that the reproduction differs from the original. Modern philology is not content with the testimony that, let us say, the Mona Lisa was hung in the Louvre by Leonardo as soon as he had completed it. This claim would have to be proved by documents, and this in turn would raise the question of the documents' authenticity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to prove that an Ob is a fake, a Judge must prove that the corresponding Oa is authentic. Thus the Judge must examine the presumably genuine painting as if it were a document, in order to decide whether its material and formal features allow the assumption that it was authentically painted by Leonardo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modern scholarship proceeds, therefore, from the following assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) A document confirms a traditional belief, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
|