Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (30 page)

Arrian to Lucius Gellius, greeting: I have not composed these Words of Epictetus as one might be said to “compose” books of this kind, nor have I of my own act published them to the world; indeed, I acknowledge that I have not “composed” them at all. But whatever I heard him say I used to write down, word for word, as best I could, endeavoring to preserve it as a memorial, for my own future use, of his way of thinking and the frankness of his speech.
⁷³

In short, it was perfectly acceptable to publish the notes of a teacher in his name; but to publish them in one’s own name, as if they were one’s own teachings, was seen as plagiarism. This is quite different, however, from writing one’s own treatise and claiming that it was someone else’s, even a beloved teacher’s. If the words did not go back to the teacher himself, this would be forgery.
⁷⁴

Much the same can be said about the ancient medical schools. Here again there are no indications that it was an accepted practice to publish one’s own writing under the name of a beloved teacher as an act of humility or for the sake of giving credit where credit was due. Critics were, on the contrary, intent on knowing who actually produced the work. Nowhere is that clearer than in the one case we are best informed about, the Galenic evaluation of the Hippocratic corpus.
⁷⁵

We have in excess of one hundred Greek and more than thirty Latin writings in the name of Hippocrates. In such books as “Concerning the Genuine and Forged (
v
óθ
α
) Writings of Hippocrates,” Galen was particularly intent, as the title indicates, on determining which of the writings were genuinely those of the great physician himself and which were produced instead by his sons and students in his name. The latter writings he labeled as

There were many possibilities. Some works, in his opinion, were authentically by Hippocrates. Others, such as
De victu acutorum
, were essentially authentic but were published posthumously by someone else, as shown by its disorderly train of thought and the occasional interpolation.
⁷⁶
In some instances Galen ventured to indicate who the actual authors of the inauthentic works were, for example, Hippocrates’ sons Dracon and Thessalus, his son-in-law Polybus, and others of his students. In other instances Galen had to resort to indicating that a work was not authentic, without suggesting the name of an author. Sometimes the more complicated works, such as
De natura hominis
, were said to have multiple authors, one of whom might have been Hippocrates.

As we have seen, Armin Baum has recently maintained that ancient authors considered books authentic so long as the contents could be attributed to the named author, whether or not he actually produced the book. To this end he sees as most significant Galen’s views of the seven books on Epidemics. Books 1 and 3, Galen indicates, were actually by Hippocrates. Books 2 and 6, however, were composed by Thessalus after his father’s death, on the basis of papers that he left behind. Galen does not suggest that these two books be deprived of Hippocratic authorship, but that they be entitled instead
“Books 1 and 2 of the Notes of Hippocrates” On Epidemics
. Since they are not to be attributed to their real author (Thessalus), in Baum’s view, this shows that what matters is not the composer of the work, but the ideas in it. If these are Hippocratic, then the books are rightly attributed to him.
⁷⁷

To an extent Baum is right about this, but not for the reason he thinks. It is not simply that the thoughts and ideas happen to be those of Hippocrates. What is important to note is that the books were written on the basis of papers that Hippocrates left behind. In other words, this is analogous to a student publishing the lecture notes of his teacher. The words really are the teacher’s, and so should be attributed to him. To publish them under one’s own name would be plagiarism. This is different altogether from publishing one’s own views and claiming that they are someone else’s. Galen labeled Hippocratic writings of that sort
For Galen it was extremely important to know which books were
Books not giving the words of Hippocrates himself were inauthentic.

Galen was not the only one interested in such matters. From much later comes the clear statement of Augustine, who expresses well the general sentiment of antiquity:

But even in worldly writings there were well-known authors under whose names many works were produced later, and they were repudiated either because they did not agree with the writings that were certainly theirs or because, at the time when those authors wrote, these writings did not merit to be recognized and to be handed on and commended to posterity by them or their friends. Not to mention others, were not certain books that were produced under the name Hippocrates, the highly renowned physician, rejected as authoritative by physicians? Nor did a certain similarity of topics and language offer them any help. For, compared to the books that it was clear were really Hippocrates’ books, they were judged inferior, and they were not known at the same time at which the rest of his writings were recognized as truly his. (
Contra Faust
. 33.6)

Note carefully: determining the actual author mattered, not just to Augustine but to the critics that he references as writing before him. If a book is not authored by its alleged author, it lacks the authority that the imputed author bore. It is, on those grounds, “rejected.”

One passage in Tertullian is sometimes cited to support the idea that it was an acceptable practice in antiquity for a disciple to publish a book in the name of his teacher.
⁷⁸
This, however, is a complete misreading of Tertullian’s point. What he says is this: “That which Mark produced is stated to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke’s narrative also they usually attribute to Paul. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters.”
⁷⁹

Contrary to the common interpretation of this passage, Tertullian is not referring to pseudepigraphic practices, but to the authority that lay behind the canonical Gospels. That is to say, Tertullian is not indicating that Mark published his Gospel by calling it the Gospel of Peter, or that Luke published the Gospel of Paul. Each Evangelist wrote—in Tertullian’s view—in his own name, but with the authority of another. The passage is thus of no relevance to the question of pseudepigraphy, let alone to the pseudepigraphic practices of the philosophical schools.

So too, Baum claims that since Justin Martyr refers to the Gospel of Mark as the Memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3), he considered it acceptable to publish under the name of one’s teacher: the book’s contents go back to Peter and are authoritative on those grounds.
⁸⁰
This too is flawed reasoning. For one thing, P. Pilhofer has made a convincing case that Justin is not referring to canonical Mark at all, but to the Gospel of Peter (Justin never refers to the Gospel of Mark by name).
⁸¹
Beyond that, we have no evidence to suggest that the Second Gospel was ever circulated under Peter’s name. If Justin is referring to it, he is describing it, not naming it. This is not at all the same as a writing claiming to be written by Socrates that was instead produced by a later follower. So too Origen’s comment that Hebrews can be accepted as Pauline by those who want to do so, even though it was not written by Paul, because its views are consonant with Paul’s. Here again we are not dealing with a book that
claims
to be written by Paul which can be accepted as Pauline, even though Paul did not write it. Hebrews is anonymous.

Forgery involves false authorial claims. Contrary to what is often said, the practice was not accepted, so far as we can tell, even within the philosophical schools—except, perhaps, by the people who practiced it, to whom we will return at the end of this chapter. Critics of the ancient world, however, found the practice objectionable. That is why they are so invested in knowing who actually wrote what. If it did not matter whether the book was written by a follower of Pythagoras or of Hippocrates or of Socrates, there would have been no reason for critics to invest so much effort in engaging in their critical investigations.

We know how falsifiers of philosophical texts were sometimes treated, as they tried to put their own words on the pens of their revered teachers: Athenodorus was removed from his duties in the Pergamum Library for “correcting” the writings of Zeno.
⁸²
And we know how plagiarists were sometimes treated in the schools: Empedocles was forbidden access to the lectures of Pythagoras.
⁸³
The reason for these attitudes is patent. Ancient readers of texts were widely concerned to know
who the actual authors were. That, as Speyer repeatedly reminds us, was the entire reason for the extensive practice of Echtheitskritik.

It was, to be sure, acceptable to publish lecture notes in the name of the teacher who gave the lectures. This is what Arian did with the Discourses of Epictetus, and what some of the followers of both Hippocrates and Pythagoras did. But to write one’s own work and to claim that it was the work of another—even a beloved teacher—was not acceptable. Such works were classified as

There is one factor that ties together most of the motivations discussed so far, and I give it here as a final category even though in fact it appears to have broad application. Forgers typically produced writings in the name of others in order to establish the validity of their own views. As discussed earlier, the name of an author could carry authority. An author whose name carried no authority would sometimes claim a name that did.

This understanding of a forger’s motivation comes to be clearly stated both within our period and afterward, never more so than in the sixth-century Christian Neoplatonist David in his comments on the writings of Porphyry: “When someone is unimportant and insignificant, and he wants his writing to be read, he writes in the name of an ancient and influential person, so that through that one’s influence he can get his writing accepted.”
⁸⁴
Porphyry himself, as we have seen, indicated that this was what motivated the authors of the pseudo-Pythagorean writings. Aulus Gellius concurred with respect to a different instance: “Many fictions of this kind seem to have been attached to the name of Democritus by ignorant men, who sheltered themselves under his reputation and authority.”
⁸⁵