This was the case in general in the Middle Ages for all translations. The translation was the only text that supplied information about the original, and it was considered a substitute for the original, even though it was known to be a version from another language (usually unknown). This was also the case for transcription from one codex to another. From the point of view of modern philology these translations and transcriptions were all unfaithful, in addition to which translator and transcriber would consciously alter the text, amputating it or censuring it. To this category we may also assign the various kinds of hidden censure that translations and copies were subject to, and even certain cases of aberrant decoding produced by an annotation that led the copyist to interpret one expression as if it was the same as another.
The Middle Ages was very flexible in its attitude toward translations. In paragraph IV, v, 7, 134, of the De divinis nominibus of Pseudo-Dionysius, Hilduin’s first version translated kalon as bonum and kallos as bonitas. Eriugena translates the first term as bonum but the second as pulchrum; and lastly John the Saracen renders both with pulchritudo and pulchrum. These are substantial differences that reveal, as De Bruyne (1946: 1:5, 2) points out, a profound cultural transformation. But the Saracen himself, in a letter to John of Salisbury (PL 193, 2599), will claim that he translated according to the meaning, not according to the letter. The Saracen was lexically correct, but probably for the wrong reasons, at least in terms of the official lexicography of his day, since, in the following century, Albertus Magnus will continue to debate the two terms and to assert that kalos with one “l” means goodness, not beauty.10
5.3.3. Pseudo-Identification
This is the case of apocryphal or pseudoepigraphical objects. It is asserted that an object Ob is identical to (or coincides with) an object Oa, except for the fact that Oa no longer exists, or never existed, and in any case has never been seen by anyone. Oa is qualified as exceptional, either because of the name of its author or because in reality the tradition has handed down inaccurate information about its supposed existence. To lend credence to a pseudo-identification we have to be somehow familiar with a set of objects a (Oa1, Oa2, Oa3, etc.), all produced by a well-known and famous author A. From set a an abstract type is extracted which does not take into consideration the features of objects a but instead the supposed specifications according to which they were formed, or the way in which A apparently produced them (style, type of materials used, etc.). Ob was produced according to these specifications, and it therefore is asserted that Ob is a previously unknown product by A.
FIRST CASE. Someone is aware that Oa does not exist and is familiar only with Ob. He therefore knows that they cannot be identified with each other. But he believes in good faith that Ob may serve all the purposes that Oa would have served, and as such he presents it in place of Oa, whereas Ob is merely an ersatz of Oa. This is the typical case of the diplomatic forgery (reine formale Falschung). While the historical forgery (reine Falschung) concerns a formally genuine document that contains inexact or invented information (such as the authentic confirmation of false privileges), the diplomatic forgery is a document expressly created to assert privileges that may in fact have really been conceded but whose original documentation has been lost. Examples are the false documents produced by monks to backdate or extend the possessions of their abbeys, where we may suppose that the monks, on the basis of tradition, were convinced that they had truly obtained the privileges in question and were simply attempting to affirm them in a public manner.
SECOND CASE. Someone knows that Oa does not exist, and does not believe that Ob is equivalent and interchangeable with Oa. Nevertheless, in bad faith, he insists on declaring the two objects (one real, the other virtual) to be identical, or on the authenticity of Ob, with intent to deceive. This is the case of the modern diplomatic forgery, of fake genealogical trees produced to confirm otherwise unattested pedigrees, of apocryphal documents produced with malicious intent. This is probably the case of the poem De vetula, produced in the thirteenth century, but immediately attributed to Ovid. We may suppose that the person or persons who placed the Corpus Dionysianum into circulation in the eighth century, attributing it to a disciple of Saint Paul, were instead aware that the work had been fabricated much later, but they nonetheless decided to attribute it to an uncontestable auctoritas. To this category there also belong the cases of attribution to an author by no means well-known and famous, but who becomes so when he is presented as ancient and when characteristics are attributed to him that make him an authority. This is the case with a number of nonexistent chroniclers to whom the Abbot Trithemius attributed spurious works.11
In all of these cases, in addition to the documentary forgery, a historical falsification is also committed, in other words, lies are circulated regarding events of the past. The pseudo-identification is invoked to subrogate the historical lie.
THIRD CASE. Someone is unaware that Oa does not exist and does not know that it is not identifiable with Ob. Therefore that someone has no problem considering them identical. Independently of whether or not he believes in the interchangeability of the two objects, he claims in any case that they are identical, thereby affirming the authenticity of Ob. This appears to have been the case with those who thought the Corpus Dionysianum was the work of a disciple of Saint Paul, unaware that it had been produced at a later date, and those who considered the De causis to be a work by Aristotle and not by an Arabic follower of Proclus. It is certainly the case with all those who believed and continue to believe in the authenticity of the book of Enoch, and to the men of the Renaissance who attributed the Corpus Hermeticum not to Hellenistic authors but to a mythical Hermes Trismegistus who supposedly lived before Plato at the time of the Egyptians and could probably be identified with Moses. In the modern period, we have the case of Heidegger (1915) who writes a commentary on a Grammatica Speculativa believing it to be the work of Duns Scotus, while a few years later it will be proven to be the work of Thomas of Erfurt. It goes without saying that a false attribution of this kind also leads to aberrant decoding.
A variant of this case of pseudo-identification is attribution to a pseudo-author: we have only one text Ob, whose author is unknown, and it is decided to attribute it to an author A, information about whom is uncertain. This seems to have been the case with the attribution of the treatise On the Sublime to a certain Pseudo-Longinus.
5.4. What Do We Mean by “Knowing That”?
In sketching this semiotics of falsification we have implicitly made use of an epistemic operator like “knows that” which poses a number of problems. What does it mean to say that someone knows that Oa and Ob are not identical? The only case of false attribution in which we can know that Oa and Ob are not identical is the one in which someone presents us, for example, with a perfect reproduction Ob of the Mona Lisa, when we are standing in front of the original Oa exhibited in the Louvre, and affirms that the two objects are indiscernibly the same object. This is of course an improbable event, but even if was to occur the doubt would remain whether Ob was the authentic Mona Lisa and Oa a fake maliciously (or erroneously) hung on the gallery wall. And what does it mean to know that Oa never existed? Except for the case in which there are irrefutable proofs that Oa once existed and has been destroyed (as is probably true of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the temple of Diana at Ephesus), usually the assertion “Oa does not exist” is understood simply to mean “there are no proofs of its existence.”
Modern philology has developed techniques of identification to establish whether an Ob is identical to an Oa, but these procedures presuppose that we know the properties Oa has or should have. Now, the techniques by which we establish the characteristics of Oa are the same as those by which we identify Ob. In other words, in order to say that a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is not authentic, somebody has to have analyzed and authenticated the original Mona Lisa using the same techniques used to decide that the reproduction of it is different. For modern philology the traditional evidence that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre was put there, let’s say, by Leonardo right after painting it is not enough. This fact must be proven by means of documents, but for these documents too the question of their authentication must be posed. And if there is any doubt about the documents, the presumed original of the Mona Lisa is analyzed to decide whether its material and morphological attributes lead us to conclude that it was painted by Leonardo.
Our modern culture, therefore, must assume that (i) a document authenticates traditional information and not vice versa; (ii) authenticity means historical primitivity and authorial originality (this is the only way to establish the priority of Oa over Ob); and
