FREDA BEDI CONT'D (#4)

[admin]

Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art
directed by Barry Avrich
Documentary Trailer Now on Netflix
Feb 23, 2021



Filmmaker Barry Avrich (David Foster: Off the Record, Prosecuting Evil) explores how one of the most respected art galleries in New York City became the center of the largest art fraud in American history and was ultimately forced to close after 165 years. Knoedler & Company, under its president, Ann Freedman, made millions selling previously unseen works by Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Robert Motherwell, and others that had supposedly come from a secret collection. But when her prestigious clients discovered they had purchased fakes, the scandal rocked the art world. Avrich secured unprecedented access to Freedman, her clients and other key players for the documentary.

*****************************

Pei-Shen Qian Now: Where Is the Accused Knoedler Gallery Art Forger Today in 2021?
by Alyssa Choiniere
heavy.com
Updated Feb 26, 2021 at 9:57am

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Pei-Shen Qian was accused of forging art by famous artists including Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.

Pei-Shen Qian was a struggling Times Square artist when he was approached by Jose Carlos in the late 1980s, asking him if he could replicate Jackson Pollock. He said he could, and soon found himself at the center of an $80.7 million art scandal.

Qian was indicted, but moved back to China where he remains today and escaped prosecution. In 2014, he was indicted on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and lying to the FBI, according to his indictment. He was 75 at the time of his indictment. He could face up to 45 years in prison if he was convicted of the charges. Now in his early 80s, he continues to paint in a small studio outside Shanghai, but no longer sells his art, his wife told documentary filmmakers.

Qian was one of the multifaceted characters at the center of Director Barry Avrich’s “Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art.” It’s release was delayed due to COVID-19 and it was released on Netflix Tuesday, February 23, 2021.

Here’s what you need to know:

Qian Claims He Had No Plans to Con Anyone & Did Not Make Significant Money in the Art Fraud Scheme

Elizabeth Klinck
@eklinck·Follow
Good Review: 'Made You Look: A True Story about Fake Art,' a fascinating $80 million con....proud to have worked on this one with a terrific team ! Now on @Netflix @melbarentgroup #documentary
latimes.com
Review: 'Made You Look: A True Story about Fake Art,' a fascinating $80 million con
The Netflix documentary “Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art” depicts those involved in the largest art fraud in American history.
9:21 PM · Feb 23, 2021

In China, Qian was a successful and classically trained artist and a professor. In the United States, he tried to make ends meet painting on Manhattan street corners and through construction work. He thoroughly studied the works of famous artists in art class and beyond. His friend, Hongtu Zhang, told filmmakers on “Made You Look” that replicating famous works of art is a common practice in Chinese art.

“Nothing from your heart. You only copy others art,” he said.

“He is good. He had some talent,” he added.

Qian claimed innocence in a December 2013 interview with Bloomberg News in Shanghai, China. He said he was an innocent victim of a “very big misunderstanding” and had no intention to pass off his imitations for genuine works of art by famous painters.

“I made a knife to cut fruit,” he said at the time. “But if others use it to kill, blaming me is unfair.”

Prosecutors said in his charging documents that Qian was aware of the scheme, and participated in it with art dealers Jose Carlos and Jesus Angel Bergantinos Diaz, who were brothers, and Diaz’s girlfriend at the time, Glafira Rosales. The indictment said he would use processes to age the paintings such as dyeing them with tea bags, using a blow dryer on them or exposing them to the elements. It further said he would forge the signatures of famous artists on the canvases.

Qian was initially paid a few hundred dollars for each painting, but after learning his paintings were selling for much more, he demanded a higher price and received about $7,000 per painting.

Qian Is Now Laying Low in Shanghai, Avoiding Media Attention & Continues to Paint in a Small Studio But No Longer Sells His Art



“Made You Look” filmmakers tracked down Qian in China. He had aged and walked with a cane. He identified himself, but was not interviewed on film.

His wife politely declined an interview.

“He is old now. He doesn’t want to be interviewed,” she said in a translation. “He is painting for himself and not selling his art anymore.”

Qian moved to a neighborhood outside Shanghai and opened a small art studio. There, he spoke to ABC News in 2014 and said he was not a knowing participant in the fraud scheme.

“My intent wasn’t for my fake paintings to be sold as the real thing,” he said in a translated interview. “They were just copies that can be put up in your home if you like it.”

Dr. Colette Loll
@ArtFraudInsight·Follow
Made You Look, a documentary about the Knoedler scandal is now available on Netflix! I am incredibly amused to see the film producers have used an image of me taken with a fake Knoedler Rothko as a film promo #RealorFake
7:33 AM · Feb 24, 2021

He further pointed to his small fee received for paintings that often sold for millions of dollars apiece.

“If you look at my bank account, you’ll see there’s no income. I’m still a poor artist. You think I could be involved with this?” he said.

“These copies were just supposed to mimic them at a basic level, so I was very shocked that people mixed them up,” he said.

The Guardian reported shortly after Qian’s indictment in 2014 there was little chance of extraditing him from China to face prosecution. He has dual citizenship in both China and the United States.

“There is almost no chance that China would turn their own citizen over,” Professor Julian Ku, an expert on China and international law at Hofstra University, told The Guardian. “They generally don’t have a policy of co-operating, and don’t have any reason to turn anyone over, because the US won’t turn anyone over to China.”

*****************************

What Puts Soul in a Masterpiece?
by Ken Johnson
The New York Times
Dec. 30, 2013

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A painting by Pei-Shen Qian shown in a 2006 retrospective in China. Credit...BB Gallery, Shanghai

Recently, The Art Newspaper reported that Pei-Shen Qian had some of his paintings included in a group exhibition in a Shanghai gallery last spring. Scandal-following readers will recognize the name as that of a Chinese artist, once living in Queens, whose imitations of paintings by Pollock, de Kooning and other Abstract Expressionists were sold as real for millions of dollars by the New York gallery Knoedler & Company, now defunct.

In China, where he regularly returned for extended visits after moving to New York in 1981, Mr. Qian, 73, is known for his own paintings. He first emerged as an artist in the late 1970s, one of a group producing and exhibiting abstract work, which Cultural Revolution authorities deemed bourgeois and decadent. In 2006, he had a 25-year retrospective at the BB Gallery in Shanghai. Some of his works are posted on various websites. Naturally, you wonder, are Mr. Qian’s own paintings any good? Would I like to review them, my editor asked?

I can’t, in good conscience, review works I’m able to see only online. But I can say, provisionally, that I’m struck by the absence of any singular vision among his pieces. My laptop screen shows earnestly made, colorful landscapes and cityscapes that evoke early Post-Impressionist paintings by Matisse and André Derain. Some mixed-media works represent faceless women in a style that hybridizes classical Chinese painting and early-20th-century Cubism, made on what appear to be surfaces of patched-together burlap.

A picture of a horse including stenciled white letters spelling “This is not a horse” echoes Magritte’s painting of a pipe captioned “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”). Several paintings are of large, generalized heads rendered in a soupy, Expressionist manner.


Personal works by Pei-Shen Qian were shown at the BB Gallery in Shanghai in 2006 as part of a 25-year retrospective of his artistic career. Pictured is an example from that show. Credit...BB Gallery, Shanghai

Nostalgia seems to be the unifying mood of Mr. Qian’s paintings. That, alone, is remarkable, because the European works that evidently inspired him were revolutionary in their time. The kind of painting he emulates in his own work and the Abstract Expressionist paintings on which he has based his imitations both depended on originality and expressive authenticity, as opposed to academic tradition and technical polish. Yet Mr. Qian seems to be the opposite of original.

I suppose he works in styles he loves without worrying about whether they’re outmoded. Unless there’s something going on that can’t be seen in online images, it seems unlikely that Mr. Qian’s personal paintings will cause anything like the stir his imitations have.

That is disappointing but not surprising. I like the fantasy of the unjustly neglected genius who gets revenge on the art world by making expert-fooling works that mimic the style of famous painters. (Mr. Qian has not been charged with any crime related to the scandal.) But I think it more likely that the typical copyist will be relatively lacking in originality. Copyists need to be able to muffle their own creative selves, and if those creative selves are weak, all the better.

What they need in abundance are technical knowledge and skill. It’s not easy to make forgeries. However hard it was for Barnett Newman to produce one of his zip paintings, making a convincing fake Newman — reverse-engineering it, in effect, as well as making it look appropriately aged — surely will be more demanding technically, if not spiritually.


A painting by Pei-Shen Qian. Credit...BB Gallery, Shanghai

Mr. Qian’s creations, which were not copies of actual works but in the style of famous artists, intrigue me more than his personal work, but not for technical reasons. They raise interesting philosophical questions: Why should we value a painting known to be made by a certain esteemed artist more than a painting that is phony but is nevertheless practically indistinguishable from the authentic work? Why is a real Motherwell worth millions of dollars more than a fake one that looks just as good?

The dynamics of supply and demand are what make any artwork worth its price. Real things are worth more than fake ones simply because they are more rare.

Demand is more fluid and variable than supply because it’s influenced by vagaries of taste and fashion; it’s less rational. Demand is partly animated by some quasi-magical beliefs about art and artists, like the idea that there’s a sort of organic connection between artists and the things they make. The artist’s soul is somehow in the work, and because great artists are supposed to have great souls, there’s more soul in their creations than there is in mediocre efforts.

From there, it’s a short leap of faith to the belief that market valuation reflects soul value — not perfectly, but at least roughly and in the long term. The most expensive works have the most soul. That’s why, if you can afford it, you buy the real Motherwell. There’s no magic, no soul, in fake artworks, so they are worth less, if not completely worthless.


A work by Pei-Shen Qian. Credit...BB Gallery, Shanghai

Mr. Qian told Bloomberg Businessweek that he thought he was being commissioned to make paintings for art lovers who could not afford the genuine works but were willing to buy imitations. I don’t know if such people really exist, but Mr. Qian seems to have thought they did. He didn’t imagine that there was anything ethically or legally wrong with what he was doing. He was a copyist but not a forger, if intention to deceive is part of the definition of a forger.

Mr. Qian told a reporter that he was shocked to learn what art dealers actually did with his simulations, for which they paid him a few thousand dollars per piece. He also said that he thought that it was impossible to make fakes that would be undetectable as such. Apparently, he didn’t even try: Signs of age and forged signatures, prosecutors say, were added by the man who ordered the paintings, the art dealer Jose Carlos Bergantiños Diaz.

The art market depends on the belief, expressed by Mr. Qian, that fakes can always be detected. Collective wisdom supposes that the forgery must, at some level, betray itself, and much connoisseurial scrutiny and forensic investigation goes into ensuring that as many deceptions as possible are ultimately exposed. Forgeries flooding the market unchecked would throw relations between supply and demand out of whack, causing economic chaos.

That’s what makes stories like that of Mr. Qian and the people he worked for so compelling. They are players in contemporary morality tales, myth-saturated chronicles about the upset and the restoration of order in the capitalist universe. It would make a more thrilling story if Mr. Qian turned out to be a great artist in his own right. Judging from what we can see online, however, that happy ending isn’t going to happen.

Wouldn’t it be great, however, if we could see an exhibition of all his fake paintings?

Correction: Jan. 2, 2014: A critic’s notebook article on Tuesday about Pei-Shen Qian, a Chinese artist whose imitations of paintings by Abstract Expressionists were sold as real for millions of dollars, referred incorrectly to him at several points. He is Mr. Qian, not Mr. Pei-Shen. (He has not been charged with any crime in connection with the case.)

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 31, 2013, Section C, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: What Puts Soul in a Masterpiece?

Inside the World of Forgery and Fake Art

• Archival detective work helped prove that “one of the great treasures” in the University of Michigan Library — a Galileo manuscript — is the work of a prolific early-20th-century forger.
• An art collector paid $90,000 for a Marc Chagall painting at a Sotheby’s auction in 1994. Now an expert panel in France wants to destroy it as a fake.
• For decades, the owner of a Manhattan gallery mass-produced objects that he passed off as ancient artifacts. Then he sold his fake antiquities to undercover federal investigators.
• What happens when a work of art is discredited? Experts say many have second lives that resemble their first, as they resurface on the market again and again.
• With high-tech instruments and the periodic table, a Sotheby’s “detective” digs deep to discover what’s real and what’s not.

***********************

New York Art Con Busted
by Ana Bambic
Widewalls
May 2, 2014



After he was accused by the US authorities of having gained around $33million after forging artwork by such luminaries as Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, Pei-Shen Qian fled to his homeland, China, avoiding the anticipated imprisonment of 45 years. This Chinese painter was indicted on Monday, as the creative link in the wire deception organized by two brothers - gallerists from Spain, who sold the bogus works Qian was producing for enormous prices to American and European art collectors. Apparently, the trio had an elaborated scheme functioning for years, through which they accumulated an incredible wealth, at the expense of galleries and art aficionados they swindled.


Robert Motherwell, a work Qian allegedly forged

The International Art Swindle

Although the two Spanish gallerists, Jose Carlos and Jesus Angel Bergantinos Diaz, are arrested and waiting extradition to Spain, Pei-Shen Qian is likely to escape the American judicial system, since China is not likely to cooperate in extradition process. Glafira Rosales, an art dealer and a former girlfriend of one of the Diaz brothers, participated in the international scheme as well, helping the party place their forged pieces in Europe.


Wilem de Kooning - Excavation

Pei-Shen Qian: The Art Forger

In an interview of last year, Qian claimed he was the victim of the fraud as well, stating that even if he painted the works, he did not participate in the sales, which, according to him, is enough to have him exempted from the indictment. However, the case documentation clearly points he participated willingly in the entire con.

Qian was a painter in China, where he worked creating portraits of Mao Tse Tung for Chinese schools and offices. He came to the USA in 1981 as a student, and remained in the country. He lived in New York, and was “discovered” by Jose Carlos later in the 1980s while he was easel painting on a Manhattan street corner. He started making copies of Keith Haring and Jean Michel Basquiat.

The Chinese foger was very active in the production of signed fakes in the early 1990s, painted on old canvases and with old paint, supplied by the gallerists, or staining newer canvases with tea bags to make them appear older. The range of artists Qian forged slowly expanded to Modernists and Abstract Expressionists.

At first, the fraudulent gallerists paid Qian several hundred dollars per painting, but soon he started demanding more money and in the late 2000s, he was receiving as much as $7,000 per painting, for regular “work”. When the more complex deceits against acclaimed New York galleries were planned, much higher sums, up to several million dollars per painting, were in question.



Justice for All?

The Bergantinos Diaz brothers and Rosales were all arrested, and Rosales pleaded guilty to nine criminal charges last September, facing up to 99 years of confinement.

Jose Carlos is facing around 114 years in prison, and his brother is looking at a sentence of as much as 80 years. Their illegally gained property was forfeited to the authorities, while their criminal careers were rightfully stopped. The only figure who seems to have escaped, perhaps permanently, is Pei-Shen Qian, due to China’s and the US unwillingness to cooperate on this (and similar) matter. Qian has dual citizenship and neither of the countries was ever known to handover their citizens to be persecuted abroad. He will not be able to travel to any countries with which the United States have signed the extradition treaty, which is the Americas, most of Europe and Hong Kong, but there is still a large chunk of the planet for this Chinese conman to move freely through.

In the light of the evidence offered against Qian and his collaborators, the true talent of this Chinese artist remains in the shadow. It’s a pity he never turned to original painting, which could have made him a respectable career.

It remains for the damaged to have faith in the US justice system, and for the rest of the bystanders to hope this kind of criminal behavior will come to some kind of just closure.

**********************

A good question. Are paintings by Pollock, Malevich and Rothko that easy to fake?
by Natalya Azarenko
arthive.com
October 29, 2019

Paintings of the 20th century are truly a great temptation for fraudsters specializing in fake art. The canvases, frames and paints of the period are easier to find than those of the paintings by old masters. It is often technically easier to copy directly the image itself — due to the features of avant-garde styles. The question is, rather, if it is possible to sell the fake subsequently at the price of the original.


Cover illustration: Kazimir Severinovich Malevich. Composition, 1932

Good chance comes at once

Regarding the Russian avant-garde, this branch of painting has a rather deplorable status in the art market. On the one hand, the high demand for Soviet modernists among the Western public led to the fact that they began to be faked on an industrial scale. And due to the fact that no one carefully monitored provenance, that is, the direct history of the canvases moving from one hand to another, during the times of the USSR (due to the specifics of the then art market, or rather, its legal absence, it was impossible), the authentication is problematic. After all, it is impeccable provenance that traditionally plays a decisive role in the attribution of paintings in the West.

Since it wasn’t customary to officially record transactions for the sale of works of art in all of the USSR, in order to restore the history of a picture, one does not have to study archives, but contact relatives who could confirm or deny its authorship. However, even in such cases, it is difficult to accurately determine the authenticity of the work.


Composition. Nikolai Suetin. 1920-th , 65×48 cm

The architect Nina Suetina, the daughter of Nikolai Suetin, one of Malevich's colleagues in Suprematist experiments, recalled how she once had failed to establish the truth: "Now they sometimes come and bring me works: ‘Sign that this is Suetin.' They tell me absolutely ridiculous stories of these works, there are a lot of fakes. In America, they showed me one work with a signature; I looked at it — it seemed to be the authentic Suetin, and I signed the authentication, and then it turned out that it was a fake, so now I’m more careful."

Very often all that experts have in store to authenticate artworks is a flair of style. Having worked with the pieces by a particular artist for a long time (compiling catalogues or writing monographs), experts begin to see distinctive features that help to notice fakes: they understand whether the well-known to him/her artist could paint in such a manner or not.


Aristarkh Vasilyevich Lentulov. Portrait of Artist's Wife and Daughter, 1915


Ivan Vasilievich Kliun. Self-Portrait with Saw, 1914

It comes to funny things. So, in 2014, Italy hosted the exhibition "Russian Avant-Garde: from Cubo-Futurism to Suprematism", where, according to the organizers, the works by Malevich, Goncharova, Lentulov and Kliun from private collections, many of which have never been exhibited before, were presented. Russian experts, such as art critic Andrey Sarabyanov, one of the authors of the Encyclopedia of Russian Avant-Garde, and Tatyana Goryacheva from the Tretyakov Gallery questioned the authenticity of the paintings at the exhibition. And although the curators claimed that it was confirmed by the laboratories of the Polytechnic Institute of Milan, they delicately glossed over the origin of certain works.


Aristarkh Lentulov. Woman with Harmonica, 1913


Forest. Red-green. Natalia Goncharova. 1914

Natalia Goncharova is especially liked by forgers. In 2011, a catalogue raisonné of the Russian artist was published in France; according to Andrey Sarabyanov, more than 400 paintings claim the title of fakes. Whatever it be, there are so many fake works of Russian avant-garde that serious auction houses only accept paintings by Russian modernists if there is a strong provenance that leaves no doubt about their authenticity.


Cats. Natalia Goncharova. 1913, 85.1×85.7 cm

One Chagall, two Chagalls

Fraudsters don’t usually risk making copies of famous paintings, the location of which is well known — for sure, no one will take a direct offer to buy, say, the original "Black Square" for serious. But some run the risk of duplicating less known works, hoping that they would never hit the market from a private collection, and the copy would not be exposed.



That’s what Ely Sakhai, a US dealer, did. He made copies of the paintings he acquired and sold them to Japanese collectors, attaching a real certificate of authenticity to them. He hoped that the fakes would settle in the Far East and would never intersect with the original. So he bought the The Purple Tablecloth by Marc Chagall for 312 thousand dollars, sold its copy to a Japanese collector for more than half a million, and then got rid of the original by selling it several years later for 626 thousand dollars.

The businessman got burned with Gauguin. In 2000, Christie’s and Sotheby’s suddenly put up two same pictures of the Frenchman at the auction. One of them, the fake, was exhibited for sale by the Japanese client of Sakhai, and the second one, the original, was put up by Sakhai himself. So he came to the attention of the FBI with all the ensuing consequences: he returned 11 paintings to his fraud victims, paid 12.5 million dollars and spent several years in prison.

Made by Chinese

One of the most grandiose scams in the art world turned out to be lucky from 1994 to 2009 for the former art dealer Glafira Rosales. She managed to sell fake paintings by Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko and other artists through the infamous Knoedler Gallery. When the truth surfaced, it led to the closure of the gallery and the arrest of the go-getter lady. However, by that time, she sold 31 works worth more than $ 80 million.

The real author of the works was the Chinese Pei-Shen Qian, who lived in New York. He copied the originals so skilfully that his paintings were borrowed for exhibitions by curators from the National Gallery of Art and the Guggenheim Museum. In their defence, we can only note that the Knoedler gallery at that time had a one and a half centuries history and an impeccable reputation, which contributed the possibility of such frauds.


Detail of the picture, which was said to be Jackson Pollock’s. Source: apnews.com

Auction houses Christie’s and Sotheby’s, who refused to accept Pollock’s work in 2011, that had been acquired by a London collector Pierre Lagrange from the Knoedler gallery for $ 17 million, exposed the fake. The results of the examination showed that the pigments used in the painting did not exist at the time of Pollock. Pei-Shen Qian managed to escape to his home in China, but Glafira Rosales faced the trial.

There is another extravagant way to determine the authenticity of Pollock’s paintings or other pictures that have the properties of fractal painting. According to the research of the American scientist Richard Taylor, such a parameter as the coefficient of fractal dimension of a pattern can help to identify a fake with an accuracy of more than 90 percent.

The producers of fake masterpieces sometimes turn out to be so talented that their paintings occupy places in special exhibition halls intended for the best fakes, and individual museums are engaged in their collecting.

One of the works by Pei-Shen Qian, performed "à la Rothko", was honoured to open the exhibition "Treasures on Trial: The Art and Science of Detecting Fakes" at the Winterthur Museum (Delaware, USA). Thus, for some artists, the path to their 15 minutes of fame goes through deception.


Photo of the Pei-Shen Qian painting in the manner of Mark Rothko: winterthur.org

*************************

Knoedler case forger protests innocence in interview
by phaidon.com
July 21, 2014


A fake Jackson Pollock, painted by Pei-Shen Qian

Pei-Shen Qian tells ABC’s Nightline he was surprised anyone fell for his abstract expressionist forgeries

If you painted a canvas with dripped paint, signed it 'Jackson Pollok' rather than Pollock and received a few thousand dollars in return, are you guilty of forgery? The FBI certainly believe so, and charged septuagenarian Chinese-born artist Pei-Shen Qian with a number of offences relating to the abstract expressionist canvases Qian created, some of which were sold via the Knoedler gallery in New York.

Qian moved back to China just before the FBI’s charges were brought last April, and is unlikely to return to the US to face justice. However, he has just given this interview to ABC’s Nightline, wherein he protests his innocence.

The channel’s investigative team, headed by reporter Brian Ross, tracked the artist down to a suburb outside Shanghai, where Qian now lives. “My intent was not for paintings to be sold as the real thing,” he claims. “They were just copies to be put up in your home if you liked them.”


Pei-Shen Qian speaking to ABC's Nightline

Moreover, the painter thinks the sums he was paid – about $6000 per canvas - indicate that he was never part of a larger conspiracy to sell the works as genuine works, often for many millions of dollars. “Look at my bank account,” he says. “ I’m still a poor artist.”

Qian also tells the reporters that he was shocked that his versions of Pollock, Rothko and others ever fooled anyone. “These copies were supposed to mimic them on a very basic level,” he claims. “I was very surprised people mixed them up.”

The footage, shot in what looks like a modest Chinese apartment, doesn’t portray Qian as a masterful art criminal, but rather a minor player in a larger scandal, designed to pass off 60 or so works as paintings by 20th century artists including Robert Motherwell and Willem de Kooning.


One of Pei-Shen Qian's original works, Shanghai Landscape no. 4 (2000)

Qian was part of Shanghai’s avant-garde art scene in the 1970s before relocating to New York in an attempt to make it within the gallery system. Though he's returned to China, he continues to paint; however, Nightline notes, the artist no longer adds anyone else’s name to his canvases.

***

Accused Master Art Forger Tracked Down in Shanghai: U.S. says artist created fake Rothkos and Pollocks that fooled art experts.
by Megan Chuchmach and Brian Ross
ABC News
July 15, 2014, 7:28 AM

In his first television interview, the elderly artist whose look-alike paintings in the styles of Abstract Expressionists including Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock fooled experts and sent shock waves through the art world claims he was ”shocked” to learn that his works were sold as newly discovered masterpieces to wealthy collectors for tens of millions of dollars.

“When I made these paintings, I had no idea they would represent them as the real thing to sell,” said Pei Shen Qian in an interview to be broadcast Tuesday on “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline” as part of an ABC News investigation of the fake art industry and the Long Island fraud ring that flooded the market with over $80 million in forged work.

Now under federal indictment in New York on charges of fraud, Qian has moved from his studio in the New York borough of Queens to a small apartment on the outskirts of Shanghai where ABC News found him.

“My intent wasn’t for my fake paintings to be sold as the real thing,” Qian said. “They were just copies to put up in your home if you like it.”

But according to the federal grand jury indictment, Qian created some 63 look-alike versions of the abstract work of Rothko and Pollock and others and lied to FBI agents about his role in the fraud.


Authorities said this is work, purportedly by Mark Rothko, is actually a fake, used in an art fraud ring.
Obtained by ABC News

The indictment charges that Qian claimed he was unfamiliar with the names of certain artists “whose names Qian had repeatedly and fraudulently signed on paintings Qian created.”

Federal authorities say Qian was recruited to create the paintings by a Long Island, New York couple who began the fraud scheme in the early 1990s. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, of the Southern District of New York, called the defendants “modern masters of forgery and deceit” and said they “tricked victims into paying more than $33 million for worthless paintings, which they fabricated in the names of world-famous artists.”

One of those charged, Glafira Rosales, pleaded guilty to fraud, tax and money laundering charges last year and is reported to be cooperating with authorities in the ongoing investigation.

Her boyfriend and alleged partner, Jose Carlos Bergantinos Diaz, was arrested in Spain earlier this year on federal charges and the U.S. has asked for his extradition.

Authorities say Diaz discovered Qian’s talent as he painted on a Manhattan street corner in the early 1990s and began commissioning his works.

But Qian remains beyond the reach of American law because the U.S. has no extradition treaty with China.

When ABC News found him in Shanghai late last year, prior to the federal indictment, he said he was paid much less than the Long Island art dealers who hired him. They made millions off the paintings by telling galleries they represented a mystery man who had inherited a treasure trove of masterpieces and wished to remain anonymous. The indictment says Qian was often paid between $5,000 to $8,000 for a look-alike work.

“If you look at my bank account, you’ll see there is no income,” Qian said.

Painting a work in the style of a particular artist and signing a signature is not in itself a crime, however passing it off as an authentic work is illegal.

Qian says he no longer creates look-alike works and spends his time in a small, one bedroom apartment surrounded by hundreds of paintings signed in his own name. He was a well-known artist in China years before the Long Island ring was revealed, with frequent exhibitions and even a hardcover book published devoted to his life and work. Now, that work continues.

“Painting. Painting. Painting,” Qian said of how he spends his days. “Everything is done for painting.”

[admin]

How to Make a Fake: The Story of Ely Sakhai

“We should all realize that we can only talk about the bad forgeries, the ones that have been detected; the good ones are still hanging on the walls.”

- Theodore Rousseau.

Saiko. (2017). Vase de fleurs (Lilas) by Paul Gauguin [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ,_1896.jpg

The art world revolves around the concept of authenticity to a large extent. In art transactions, fakes, forgeries and misattributions are perceived as a major risk for buyers; a fake artwork or one whose authenticity is difficult or impossible to establish with a high degree of certainty will lose its commercial value and could represent a total loss for its buyer. Determining authenticity is a complex task. Usually, when doubt arises, three areas should be explored to give an overall picture of authenticity. First of all, someone should consider the experts' opinions, including artists' foundations, authentication boards, and the catalogues raisonnés. Also, the provenance documents should be examined while an art historical research is in progress. The final step is the scientific tests of the artwork. Nowadays, with the technology development, scientific tests would be a reliable source for the verification of the authentication of artworks while saving time. The best practice is to gather information from all these three areas and not just rely on one source alone. In practice, it is a process of asking the right questions, obtaining and verifying information and, applying common sense. However, what happens when not even an experienced eye can tell the difference between an original and a fake work? How someone can deceive the whole art world for years?


Source: (2018). Art Forgery: Why Do We Care So Much for Originals? [Photograph]. Art Acacia Level. https://inna-13021.medium.com/art-forge ... c4d88fd241

Back in May 2000, Christie’s and Sotheby’s launched their spring catalogues for their auctions when they discovered that they were offering the same painting: Vase de fleurs (Lilas) by Paul Gauguin. As it was expected, both auction houses thought that they had the original painting, so they began the proceedings to prove the authentication of the work they owned. The auction houses flew both paintings to Sylvie Crussard, a Gauguin expert at the Wildenstein Institution in Paris. She put them side by side and in a few minutes saw that the Christie's version “was not right.” However, the peculiar part is that, as Crussard said, “This was a unique case of resemblance. You never see two works that are that similar." Christie’s version was the best Gauguin counterfeit she had ever seen.

The great man theory is a 19th-century approach to the study of history according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes: highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect. The theory is primarily attributed to the Scottish essayist, historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle who gave a series of lectures on heroism in 1840, later published as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History, in which he states:

Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realisation and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these.

This theory is usually contrasted with "history from below", which emphasizes the life of the masses creating overwhelming waves of smaller events which carry leaders along with them.

-- Great Man Theory, by Wikipedia

Vase de fleurs is a middle-market painting which means it changes hands usually for only a few hundred thousand dollars. It may seem like an extraordinary amount of money but for the art market, it is considered a middle price. So, the whole auction process usually takes place without much fanfare. A reality that makes the painting the perfect "victim" for a forger. Christie's broke the news to the owners of their version at the gallery Muse in Tokyo. The owners, totally in shock, claimed that they had no idea it was a forgery. On the other hand, Sotheby’s version was successfully auctioned for $310,000. The owner of the painting was a New York dealer named Ely Sakhai. The most interesting part of that forgery case came up some years later when the FBI's six-year investigation showed surprisingly that the original source of the fake work was none other than Ely Sakhai himself.

The story of Ely Sakhai goes back to his childhood when he emigrated from Iran to New York and started working with his brother at an antique shop, where they realized that if they made good fakes, people would pay a big amount of money in order to get one. The more real they looked the more money they could get. In this way, he created a small fortune and decided to follow a more risky plan. So, he started to buy original middle-market paintings, from artists like Monet, Gauguin and Chagall. He basically chose paintings that were not that well known and hired someone in order to make copies of them. Sakhai often sold the copies in Asia with either their original certificates of authenticity or with copies of the original ones and waited a couple of years to sell the original paintings in the Western market. This activity continued from 1985 until 2003. In our case, following his motive, he sold the fake copy to a Tokyo collector and after some years he put the original painting up for auction. It was a risky attempt to double his profits, with the existence of twin paintings. It was totally a coincidence that the Tokyo owner decided to resell his copy at the same time. But if this didn’t happen, the forgery might never have been detected.

Today, there is still something mysterious about that case, simply because we still don’t know who is the person who created the fakes. We have some clues in order to create his profile, but we should still face the elements carefully. It is believed that the forger is unlikely to have been American; American art schools now rarely teach traditional oil techniques. In contrast, they suggest China as a more likely place, because there were plenty of laborers with people using that specific technique. Our third and last clue comes from Sylvie Crussard who claimed that the painter must have been young. She doesn’t feel like an old person could have painted something like that. We still don’t know; all we can do is just speculate. It was a tough case for the FBI who had to cooperate with police from several countries, and also the need to translate in many cases. So, naturally that fact might have impeded the process. The success of his plan lies in the fact that Sakhai chooses to avoid the New York market, and that’s not a random move. First of all, he wants to avoid the local heat, but most importantly, he prefers a market which doesn’t have easy access to experts who can spot a fake. So, they give big attention to the certificates of authenticity. A forger who can transfer a real certificate to a counterfeit, like Sakhai, has a lot of chances not to be spotted. And even more, if we are talking for middle-market paintings. In 2005, Sakhai pleaded guilty and was fined $12.5 million to collectors who bought from him 11 fake artworks. Also, he was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

References:

Adam, G. (2004, March 31). New York art dealer Ely Sakhai accused of forgery scam as he sells masterpieces twice. The Art Newspaper. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/archive ... rgery-scam

Art & Beyond. (2020, July 3). Art and Authenticity. https://artandbeyond.gallery/blog/29-art-authenticity/

Subramanian, S. (2018, June 15). How to spot a perfect Fake: the world’s top art forgery detective. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/j ... -detective

Thomas, K. (2005, July 19). Update: Gallerist goes to prison on Art forgery charges. ARTnews.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/u ... rges-1959/

Thompson, C. (2004, May 20). How to make a fake. New York
https://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/features/9179/

United States v. Sakhai, No.04-cr-583, (D.N.Y. 2005, July 6)
https://www.ifar.org/case_summary.php?docid=1179739975

****************

Brazen forgery was art world's "most brilliant" con
by Rob Beschizza
Mon AUG 3, 2015 8:42 AM



To make sure he couldn't be caught, Ely Sakhai bought the original first—a Rembrandt of enormous value. This "incredibly brazen" con almost worked, writes Anthony M. Amore.

The authenticity of his Rembrandt, The Apostle James, was not questioned. Nor was the fact that it was purchased by Ely Sakhai from a reputable source. So when he would offer what he purported to be the painting for sale, it didn't raise questions about authenticity, if only because those interested in the painting perhaps failed to imagine the nefarious scheme of the seller. Thanks in large measure to his travels in the Far East with his wife, Sakhai made it his mission to establish a steady clientele in Tokyo and Taiwan too. and in June 1997, he sold his Rembrandt to the Japanese businessman and art collector Yoichi Takeuchi.

A key thing is that the forgeries -- and those sold to Sakhai's later victims -- were immediately debunked when inspected by experts. It's easy to get fooled and get wise again. For forgers, the message is still the medium, but only the forger knows which medium.

*******************

Ely Sakhai
by alchetron.com
April 11, 2022



Ely Sakhai (born 1952) is a United States art dealer and civil engineer who owned Lower Manhattan art galleries The Art Collection and Exclusive Art. He was later charged and convicted for selling forged art and was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for fraud. After his release he continued to operate The Art Collection in Great Neck, New York.



Sakhai emigrated from Iran to the United States in 1962 and gained a civil engineering degree from Columbia University. He later developed an interest in art and opened a number of small art galleries in the 1970s and 80s. In the 1980s, Sakhai purchased a range of impressionist and post-impressionist works by artists including Marc Chagall, Paul Gauguin, Marie Laurencin, Monet, Auguste Renoir and Paul Klee.

He and his wife became well-respected members of the Long Island community where they donated significant amounts of money to Jewish organisations and established a Torah study centre.

Art forgery allegations

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, Sakhai bought lesser-known works and had the paintings copied by Chinese immigrants working in the upstairs area of his gallery.

Sakhai then took the genuine certificates of authenticity and attached them to copies to sell. Months or years later he would obtain a new certificate of authenticity for the original and then sell it. In several instances he sold the forgeries to Asian collectors and real works to New York and London galleries. According to reports, Japanese collectors trusted the certificates and would not subsequently commission European experts to authenticate the paintings. Sakhai would also buy relatively worthless paintings to reuse the canvases for new forgeries. Sakhai denied involvement and suggested that he often consigned paintings to other dealers which put them out of his control.

Charges and conviction

In May 2000, both Christie's and Sotheby's realized they were both offering Paul Gauguin's Vase de Fleurs (also known as Lilas), both supposedly original. Both auction houses took the paintings to Gauguin expert Sylvie Crussard at the Wildenstein Institute in Paris. She confirmed that the Christie's painting was a forgery; Christie's had to withdraw their catalogue from the printers. They also informed the owners, Gallery Muse in Tokyo. The original painting was auctioned at Sotheby's and Ely Sakhai received $310,000 which was traced by the FBI.

On March 9, 2000, the FBI arrested Sakhai at his gallery on Broadway and charged him with eight counts of wire and mail fraud and estimated Sakhai had made $3.5 million from the deals. He was later released on bail.

On March 4, 2004, Sakhai was charged with eight counts of fraud, and again released on bail. Later in 2004 he pleaded guilty to, according to his lawyer, "resolve his difficulties with the government and get this behind him". In July 2005 he was sentenced to 41 months in prison, fined $12.5 million, and ordered to forfeit eleven works of art. Both before and after charges were laid, Sakhai maintained he was innocent and openly discussed the case and his other business ventures with journalists.

Other business ventures

After charges were laid against him, Sakhai closed his Manhattan galleries and opened a new gallery, The Art Collection, in Great Neck, New York, which he continued to operate after his imprisonment. In 2009, Sakhai cooperated with ICE agents seeking to return a copy of Anto-Carte's Young Girl in a Blue Dress [Jeune Fille a la Robe Bleue] stolen by the Nazis during World War II.



Sakhai remains a resident of New York.

References: Ely Sakhai Wikipedia

[admin]

A Fake Chagall Painting? Attribution and Authenticity in the Auction World
by Liz Catalano
Auction Daily
Published on Jul 15, 22

What happens when art experts change their minds? For one collector, that could result in the loss of a major asset: a painting formerly attributed to Marc Chagall. The piece was worth USD 100,000 until an expert panel weighed in.


A painting, formerly attributed to Marc Chagall, owned by Stephanie Clegg. Image courtesy of Stephanie Clegg via The New York Times.

Stephanie Clegg purchased a painting attributed to Marc Chagall at a Sotheby’s auction in 1994. At the time, she paid $90,000 for the work. Experts reappraised the watercolor painting at a value of $100,000 in 2008. But when Clegg prepared to sell her Chagall painting with Sotheby’s in 2020, a panel of French art experts declared that the work is inauthentic. The allegedly fake Chagall painting may now be destroyed by the artist’s heirs.

Clegg claims that Sotheby’s bears some responsibility for the situation. The watercolor piece was listed in the original 1994 auction catalog as a Marc Chagall painting, and when Clegg returned to Sotheby’s to sell the work, the auction house assured her that the authenticity panel review was merely a formality. This was not necessarily the case. Authenticity committees hold significant power over the auction world, and this issue of the fake Chagall painting is hardly an isolated incident.

“You could have a photograph of Chagall painting this,” said art market lawyer Thomas C. Danziger, “and have his own written testimony that he did, but if the [Chagall authenticity] Comité says it’s not by the artist then, for the purposes of the art market, it’s not by the artist.”

For its part, Sotheby’s has offered Clegg a credit of $18,500 toward any fees on future art purchases. To Clegg, the offered sum is a far cry from the original price she paid for the fake Chagall painting and the loss of a significant asset.


A page from a 1994 Sotheby’s auction catalog, picturing the allegedly fake Chagall painting. Image courtesy of The New York Times.

The case raises old debates about the responsibilities of auction houses to establish and regulate authenticity. In-house experts can add attributions and track a work’s history, and big-ticket items are often vetted by individuals or committees of experts. And in the auction world, it is difficult to overstate the importance of well-documented provenance.

Yet beyond paintings and furniture and decorative art, companies like Sotheby’s and Christie’s mostly deal with perceived value. A change in attribution can turn a thrift shop find into a multi-million-dollar treasure. Such stories more frequently appear in the headlines. Changing expert opinions can also sink the value of a work beyond recognition. Limited authenticity warranties provide a buffer against this issue, but some argue that this is not enough to protect collectors against disaster.


Portrait of a Man, an allegedly fake painting attributed to Frans Hals. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

There is little tolerance for deliberate hoaxes in the art world. In the case of a fake Frans Hals painting that changed hands in a Sotheby’s private sale, the auction house moved swiftly to reimburse the painting’s owner and take a disgraced art dealer to court. There is no such mastermind in the recent case of the fake Chagall painting, or at least not yet. However, the questions that the auction world asked after the Frans Hals forgery are still unanswered. The influence of unofficial “connoisseurs” in the auction attribution process is not fully known. The handling of changed attributions remains contentious. And for collectors looking to invest or appreciate a work of art, there is still a risk of being burned.

Find the latest auction world news, previews of upcoming events, and more on Auction Daily.

[admin]

Thrasyllus of Mendes
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/9/22

Thrasyllus was a key figure; for a while he was a key influence. His visible influence declined with Neoplatonism, but his unseen influence continues today unseen, perhaps, because we cannot adequately distinguish Thrasyllus from Plato. That was always his intention -- that Thrasyllus' Plato should be our Plato too. This was no game that he was playing, but a mission; the same sort of mission that Platonists regularly embark upon. He should not be criticized. With these remarks my own mission must end too. I require only that the reader reflect upon the issues raised. I do not require that my Thrasyllus be your Thrasyllus, let alone that my Plato be yours. Let this be my cock for Asclepius.

-- Thrassyllan Platonism, by Harold Tarrant, © 1993 by Cornell University

This article is about the Egyptian Greek astrologer and philosopher. For the Athenian general, see Thrasyllus. For the phasmids genus, see Thrasyllus (phasmid).

Thrasyllus of Mendes (/θrəˈsɪləs/; Greek: Θράσυλλος Thrasyllos), also known as Thrasyllus of Alexandria[1] and by his Roman name Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus[2] (fl. second half of the 1st century BC and first half of the 1st century – died 36,[3][4]), was an Egyptian Greek grammarian and literary commentator. Thrasyllus was an astrologer and a personal friend of the Roman emperor Tiberius,[4] as mentioned in the Annals by Tacitus and The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius.

Background

Thrasyllus[5] was an Egyptian of Greek descent from unknown origins, as his family and ancestors were contemporaries that lived under the rule of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. He originally was either from Mendes or Alexandria. Thrasyllus is often mentioned in various secondary sources as coming from Alexandria (as mentioned in the Oxford Classical Dictionary) as no primary source confirms his origins.

Tiberius

Thrasyllus encountered Tiberius during the period of Tiberius' voluntary exile on the Greek island of Rhodes, some time between 1 BC and 4 AD.[1] Thrasyllus became the intimate and celebrated servant of Tiberius, and Tiberius developed an interest in Stoicism and Astrology from Thrasyllus.[1]

He predicted that Tiberius would be recalled to Rome and officially named the successor to Augustus. When Tiberius returned to Rome, Thrasyllus accompanied him and remained close to him.[6] During the reign of the emperor Tiberius, Thrasyllus served as his skilled Court Astrologer both in Rome and, later, in Capri.[4] As Tiberius held Thrasyllus in the highest honor, he rewarded him for his friendship by giving Roman citizenship to him and his family.[1]

The daughter-in-law of Tiberius, his niece Livilla, reportedly consulted Thrasyllus during her affair with Sejanus, Tiberius' chief minister. Thrasyllus persuaded Tiberius to leave Rome for Capri while clandestinely supporting Sejanus. The grandson-in-law of Thrasyllus, Naevius Sutorius Macro, carried out orders that destroyed Sejanus, whether with Thrasyllus’ knowledge is unknown. He remained on Capri with Tiberius, advising the Emperor on his relationship with the various claimants to his succession. Thrasyllus was an ally[7] who favored Tiberius’ great-nephew Caligula, who was having an affair with his granddaughter, Ennia Thrasylla.[2]

In 36 AD, Thrasyllus is said to have made Tiberius believe he would survive another ten years.[7] With this false prediction, Thrasyllus saved the lives of a number of Roman nobles who would be suspected in falsely plotting against Tiberius. Tiberius, believing in Thrasyllus, was confident that he would outlive any plotters, and so failed to act against them. Thrasyllus predeceased Tiberius, so did not live to see the realization of his prediction that Caligula would succeed Tiberius.

Academic work

Thrasyllus by profession was a grammarian (i.e. literary scholar).[4] He edited the written works of Plato and Democritus. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, he wrote that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt took place in 1690 BC. The sections include, Dedumose I, Ipuwer Papyrus and Shiphrah.

He was the author of an astrological text titled Pinax or Table,[4] which is lost but has been summarized in later sources, such as: CCAG - Catalogue of the Codices of the Greek astrologers (8/3: 99–101) which borrows the astrological notions found in Nechepso/Petosiris (see article on Hellenistic astrology) and in Hermes Trismegistus, an early pseudepigraphical source of astrology. Pinax was known and cited by the later following astrological writers: Vettius Valens, Porphyry and Hephaistio.[4]

Family and issue

Thrasyllus may have married a member of the royal family of Commagene (whose name is sometimes given as "Aka"), though this has been questioned recently.[8] He had two known children:

• an unnamed daughter[9] who married the Eques Lucius Ennius.[9] She bore Ennius, a daughter called Ennia Thrasylla,[9] who became the wife of Praetorian prefect Naevius Sutorius Macro, and perhaps a son called Lucius Ennius who was the father of Lucius Ennius Ferox, a Roman Soldier who served during the reign of the Roman emperor Vespasian[10] from 69 until 79
• a son called Tiberius Claudius Balbilus,[11][8] through whom he had further descendants

In fiction

Thrasyllus is a character in the novel series, written by Robert Graves, I, Claudius and Claudius the God. Thrasyllus' predictions are always correct, and his prophecies are equally far-reaching. Thrasyllus predicts Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion and that his religion shall overtake the Roman Pagan Religion. Similarly towards the end of his life it is explained that his final prophecy was misinterpreted by Tiberius. Thrasyllus states that "Tiberius Claudius will be emperor in 10 years," leading Tiberius to brashly criticize and mock Caligula, whereas his prophecy is correct as Claudius' name is "Tiberius Claudius".

In the TV miniseries adaptation of the novels, Thrasyllus was played by Kevin Stoney, who had previously played him in the 1968 ITV series The Caesars.

In contrast, Thrasyllus and his descendants are presented as power-hungry charlatans in the novel series Romanike.[12]

References

1. Levick, Tiberius: The Politician, p. 7
2. Levick, Tiberius: The Politician, p. 137
3. Thrasyllus’ article at ancient library Archived 2012-10-20 at the Wayback Machine
4. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, p. 26
5. The name Thrasyllus is an ancient Greek name which derives from the Greek thrasy – meaning bold
6. Thrasyllus’ article at ancient library Archived 2012-10-20 at the Wayback Machine
7. Levick, Tiberius: The Politician, p. 167
8. Beck, Beck on Mithraism: Collected Works With New Essays, pp. 42-3
9. Levick, Tiberius: The Politician, pp. 137, 230
10. Coleman-Norton, Ancient Roman Statutes, p.151-2
11. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, p. 29
12. The Romanike series, Codex Regius (2006-2014) Archived 2016-08-06 at the Wayback Machine

Sources

• Encyclopaedia Judaica
• Thrasyllus’ article at ancient library
• F.H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1954
• P. Robinson Coleman-Norton and F. Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, The Lawbook Exchange Limited, 1961
• B. Levick, Tiberius: The Politician, Routledge, 1999
• M. Zimmerman, G. Schmeling, H. Hofmann, S. Harrison and C. Panayotakis (eds.), Ancient Narrative, Barkhuis, 2002
• R. Beck, Beck on Mithraism: Collected Works With New Essays, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004
• J. H. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, American Federation of Astrology, 2006
• Royal genealogy of Mithradates III of Commagene at rootsweb
• Royal genealogy of Aka II of Commagene at rootsweb
• Genealogy of daughter of Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus and Aka II of Commagene at rootsweb

External links

• Article on the life, works, and legacy of Thrasyllus
• Article on how Tiberius tested Thrasyllus by Shyamasundara Dasa

[admin]

Arcadio Huang [Arcadius Hoang]
by Wikipedia
Accessed 8/6/2022

Fourmont's Dirty Little Secret

When Joseph DE GUIGNES (1721-1800) at the young age of fifteen was placed with Etienne FOURMONT (1683-1745), Fourmont enjoyed a great reputation as one of Europe's foremost specialists of classical as well as oriental languages. As an associate of Abbe Bignon (the man so eager to stock the Royal Library with Oriental texts), Fourmont had met a Chinese scholar called Arcadius HOANG (1679-1716) and had for a short while studied Chinese with him (Elisseeff 1985:133ff.; Abel-Remusat 1829:1.260). In 1715 the thirty-two-year-old Fourmont was elected to the chair of Arabic at the College Royal. Hoang's death in 1716 did not diminish Fourmont's desire to learn Chinese, and in 1719 he followed Nicolas FRERET (1688-1749) in introducing Europe to the 214 Chinese radicals. This is one of the systems used by the Chinese to classify Chinese characters and to make finding them, be it in a dictionary or a printer's shop, easier and quicker.

Thanks to royal funding for his projected grammar and dictionaries, Fourmont had produced more than 100,000 Chinese character types. But in Fourmont's eyes the 214 radicals were far more than just a classification method. Naming them "clefs" (keys), he was convinced that they were meaningful building blocks that the ancient Chinese had used in constructing characters. For example, Fourmont thought that the first radical (-) is "the key of unity, or priority, and perfection" and that the second radical (׀) signifies "growth" (Klaproth 1828:234). Starting with the 214 basic "keys," so Fourmont imagined, the ancient Chinese had combined them to form the tens of thousands of characters of the Chinese writing system. However, as Klaproth and others later pointed out, the Chinese writing system was not "formed from its origin after a general system"; rather, it had evolved gradually from "the necessity of inventing a sign to express some thing or some idea." The idea of classifying characters according to certain elements arose only much later and resulted in several systems with widely different numbers of radicals ranging from a few dozen to over 700 (Klaproth 1828:233-36).

Like many students of Chinese or Japanese, Fourmont had probably memorized characters by associating their elements with specific meanings. A German junior world champion in the memory sport, Christiane Stenger, employs a similar technique for remembering mathematical equations. Each element is assigned a concrete meaning; for example, the minus sign signifies "go backward" or "vomit," the letter A stands for "apple," the letter B for "bear," the letter C for "cirrus fruit," and the mathematical root symbol for a root. Thus, "B minus C" is memorized by imagining a bear vomiting a citrus fruit, and "minus B plus the root of A square" may be pictured as a receding bear who stumbles over a root in which a square apple is embedded.

Stenger's technique, of course, has no connection whatsoever to understanding mathematical formulae, but Fourmont's "keys" can indeed be of help in understanding the meaning of some characters. While such infusion of meaning certainly helped Fourmont and his students Michel-Ange-Andre le Roux DESHAUTERAYES (1724-95) and de Guignes in their study of complicated Chinese characters, it also involved a serious misunderstanding. Stenger understood that bears and fruit were her imaginative creation in order to memorize mathematical formulae and would certainly not have graduated from high school if she had thought that her mathematics teacher wanted to tell her stories about apples and bears.

But mutatis mutandis, this was exactly Fourmont's mistake. Instead of simply accepting the 214 radicals as an artificial system for classifying Chinese characters and as a mnemonic aide, he was convinced that the radicals are a collection of primeval ideas that the Chinese used as a toolset to assemble ideograms representing objects and complex ideas. Fourmont thought that the ancient Chinese had embedded a little story in each character. As he and his disciples happily juggled with "keys," spun stories, and memorized their daily dose of Chinese characters, they did not have any inkling that this fundamentally mistaken view of the genesis of Chinese characters would one day form the root for a mistake of such proportions that it would put de Guignes's entire reputation in jeopardy.

Apart from a series of dictionaries that never came to fruition, Fourmont was also working on a Chinese grammar. He announced its completion in 1728, eight years before the arrival of de Guignes. The first part of this Grammatica sinica with Fourmont's presentation of the 214 "keys" and elements of pronunciation appeared in 1737. The second part, prepared for publication while de Guignes sat at his teacher's feet, contained the grammar proper as well as Fourmont's catalog of Chinese works in the Bibliotheque Royale and was published in 1742. When Fourmont presented the result to the king of France, he had de Guignes accompany him, and the king was so impressed by the twenty-one-year-old linguistic prodigy that he endowed him on the spot with a pension (Michaud 1857:18.126).

But de Guignes's teacher Fourmont had a dirty little secret. He had focused on learning and accumulating data about single Chinese characters, but his knowledge of the Chinese classical and vernacular language was simply not adequate for writing a grammar. By consequence, the man who had let the world know that a genius residing in Europe could master Chinese just as well as the China missionaries decided to plagiarize -- what else? -- the work of a missionary. No one found out about this until Jean-Pierre Abel-Remusat in 1825 carefully compared the manuscript of the Arte de La lengua mandarina by the Spanish Franciscan Francisco Varo with Fourmont's Latin translation and found to his astonishment that Fourmont's ground-breaking Grammatica sinica was a translation of Varo's work (Abel-Remusat 1829:2.298). In an "act of puerile vanity," Abel-Remusat sadly concluded, Fourmont had appropriated Varo's entire text "almost without any change" while claiming that he had never seen it (1826:2.109).2

While de Guignes helped prepare this grammar for publication, Fourmont continued his research on chronology and the history of ancient peoples. During the seventeenth century, ancient Chinese historical sources had become an increasingly virulent threat to biblical chronology and, by extension, to biblical authority. As Fourmont's rival Freret was busy butchering Isaac Newton's lovingly calculated chronology, de Guignes's teacher turned his full attention to the Chinese annals. These annals were in general regarded either as untrustworthy and thus inconsequential or as trustworthy and a threat to biblical authority. However, in a paper read on May 18, 1734, at the Royal Academy of Inscriptions, Fourmont declared with conviction that he could square the circle: the Chinese annals were trustworthy just because they confirmed the Bible.

Dismissing Freret's and Newton's nonbiblical Middle Eastern sources as "scattered scraps," he praised the Chinese annals to the sky as the only ancient record worth studying apart from the Bible (Fourmont 1740:507-8).

But Fourmont's lack of critical acumen is as evident in this paper as in his Critical reflections on the histories of ancient peoples of 1735 and the Meditationes sinicae of 1737. In the "avertissement" to the first volume of the Critical reflections, Fourmont mentions the question of an India traveler, Chevalier Didier, who had conversed with Brahmins and missionaries and came in frustration to Paris to seek Fourmont's opinion about an important question of origins: had Indian idolatry influenced Egyptian idolatry or vice versa? Fourmont delivered his answer after nearly a thousand tedious pages full of chronological juggling:

With regard to customs in general, since India is entirely Egyptian and Osiris led several descendants of Abraham there, we have the first cause of that resemblance of mores in those two nations; but with regard to the religion of the Indians, they only received it subsequently through commerce and through the colonies coming from Egypt. (Fourmont 1735:2-499)

For Fourmont the Old Testament was the sole reliable testimony of antediluvian times, and he argued that the reliability of other accounts decreases with increasing distance from the landing spot of Noah's ark. Only the Chinese, whose "language is the oldest of the universe," remain a riddle, as their antiquity "somehow rivals that of Genesis and has caused the most famous chronologists to change their system" (1735:1.lii). But would not China's "hieroglyphic" writing system also indicate Egyptian origins? Though Fourmont suspected an Egyptian origin of Chinese writing, he could not quite figure out the exact mechanism and transmission. He suspected that "Hermes, who passed for the inventor of letters" had not invented hieroglyphs but rather "on one hand more perfect hieroglyphic letters, which were brought to the Chinese who in turn repeatedly perfected theirs; and on the other hand alphabetic letters" (Fourmont 1735:2.500). These "more perfect hieroglyphs" that "seemingly existed with the Egyptian priests" are "quite similar to the Chinese characters of today" (p. 500).

Fourmont was studying whether there was any support for Kircher's hypothesis that the letters transmitted from Egypt to the Chinese were related to Coptic monosyllables (p. 503); but though he apparently did not find conclusive answers to such questions, the problem itself and Fourmont's basic direction (transmission from Egypt to China, some kind of more perfect hieroglyphs) must have been so firmly planted in his student de Guignes's mind that it could grow into the root over which he later stumbled. Fourmont's often repeated view that Egypt's culture was not as old as that of countries closer to the landing spot of Noah's ark made it clear that those who regarded Egypt as the womb of all human culture were dead wrong and that China, in spite of its ancient culture, was a significant step removed from the true origins.

Though the Chinese had received their writing system and probably also the twin ideas that in his view "properly constitute Egyptianism" -- the idea of metempsychosis and the adoration of animals and plants (p. 492) -- Fourmont credited the Chinese with subsequent improvements also in this respect: "My studies have thus taught me that the Chinese were a wise people, the most ancient of all peoples, but the first also, though idolatrous, that rid itself of the mythological spirit" (Fourmont 1735:2.liv). This accounted for their excellent historiography and voluminous literature:

I said that the Chinese Annals can be regarded as a respectable work. First of all, as everybody admits, for more than 3,500 years China has been populated, cultivated, and literate. Secondly, has it lacked authors as its people still read books, though few in number, written before Abraham? Thirdly, since few scholars know the Chinese books, let me here point out that the Chinese Annals are not bits and pieces of histories scattered here and there like the Latin and Greek histories which must be stitched together: they consist of at least 150 volumes that, without hiatus and the slightest interruption, present a sequence of 22 families which all reigned for 3, 4, 8, 10 centuries. (p. liv)

While Fourmont cobbled together hypotheses and conjectures, the Bible always formed the backdrop for his speculations about ancient history. A telling example is his critique of the Chinese historian OUYANG Xiu (1007-72), who argued that from the remote past, humans had always enjoyed roughly similar life spans. Lambasting this view as that of a "skeptic," Fourmont furnished the following argument as "proof" of the reliability of ancient Chinese histories:

We who possess the sacred writ: must we not on the contrary admire the Chinese annals when they, just in the time period of Arphaxad, Saleh, Heber, Phaleg, Rea, Sarug, Nachor, Abraham, etc., present us with men who lived precisely the same number of years? Now if someone told us that Seth at the age of 550 years married one of his grand-grand-nieces in the fourteenth generation: who of us would express the slightest astonishment? ... It is thus clear that all such objections are frivolous, and furthermore, that attacks against the Chinese annals on account of a circumstance [i.e., excessive longevity] which distinguishes them from all other books will actually tie them even more to Scripture and will be a sure means to increase their authority. (Fourmont 1740:514)

No comment is needed here.

Immediately after Fourmont's death in 1745, the twenty-four-year-old Joseph de Guignes replaced his master as secretary interpreter of oriental languages at the Royal Library. It was the beginning of an illustrious career: royal censor and attache to the journal des Scavans in 1752, member of the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1753, chair of Syriac at the College Royal from 1757 to 1773, garde des antiques at the Louvre in 1769, editor of the Journal des Savants, and other honors (Michaud 1857:18.(27). De Guignes had, like his master Fourmont, a little problem. The pioneer Sinologists in Paris were simply unable to hold a candle to the China missionaries. Since 1727 Fourmont had been corresponding with the figurist China missionary Joseph Henry PREMARE (1666-1736), who, unlike Fourmont, was an accomplished Sinologist (see Chapter 5). Premare was very liberal with his advice and sent, apart from numerous letters, his Notitia Linguae sinicae to Fourmont in 1728. This was, in the words of Abel-Remusat,

neither a simple grammar, as the author too modestly calls it, nor a rhetoric, as Fourmont intimated; it is an almost complete treatise of literature in which Father Premare not only included everything that he had collected about the usage of particles and grammatical rules of the Chinese but also a great number of observations about the style, particular expressions in ancient and common idiom, proverbs, most frequent patterns -- and everything supported by a mass of examples cited from texts, translated and commented when necessary. (Abel-Remusat 1829:2.269)

Premare thus sent Fourmont his "most remarkable and important work," which was "without any doubt the best of all those that Europeans have hitherto composed on these matters" (p. 269).

But instead of publishing this vastly superior work and making the life of European students of Chinese considerably easier, Fourmont compared it unfavorably to his own (partly plagiarized) product and had Premare's masterpiece buried in the Royal Library, where it slept until Abel-Remusat rediscovered it in the nineteenth century (pp. 269-73). However, Fourmont's two disciples Deshauterayes and de Guignes could profit from such works since Fourmont for years kept the entire China-related collection of the Royal Library at his home where the two disciples had their rooms; thus Premare was naturally one of the Sinologists who influenced de Guignes.4 So was Antoine GAUBIL (1689-1759), whose reputation as a Sinologist was deservedly great.

But there is a third, extremely competent Jesuit Sinologist who remained in the shadows, though his knowledge of Chinese far surpassed that of de Guignes and all other Europe-based early Sinologists (and, one might add, even many modern ones). His works suffered a fate resembling that of the man who was in many ways his predecessor, Joao Rodrigues (see Chapter 1) in that they were used but rarely credited. The man in question was Claude de VISDELOU (1656-1737), who spent twenty-four years in China (1685-1709) and twenty-eight years in India (1709-37). One can say without exaggeration that the famous Professor de Guignes owed this little-known missionary a substantial part of his fame -- and this was his dirty little secret.

-- The Birth of Orientalism, by Urs App

Arcadio Huang
Traditional Chinese 黃嘉略
Simplified Chinese 黄嘉略

Arcadio Huang (Chinese: 黃嘉略, born in Xinghua, modern Putian, in Fujian, 15 November 1679, died on 1 October 1716 in Paris)[1][2] was a Chinese Christian convert, brought to Paris by the Missions étrangères [Paris Foreign Missions Society]. He took a pioneering role in the teaching of the Chinese language in France around 1715. He was preceded in France by his compatriot Michael Shen Fu-Tsung, who visited the country in 1684.

His main works, conducted with the assistance of young Nicolas Fréret, are the first Chinese-French lexicon, the first Chinese grammar of the Chinese, and the diffusion in France of the Kangxi system with two hundred fourteen radicals, which was used in the preparation of his lexicon.

His early death in 1716 prevented him from finishing his work, however, and Étienne Fourmont, who received the task of sorting his papers, assumed all the credit for their publication.

Only the insistence of Nicolas Fréret, as well as the rediscovery of the memories of Huang Arcadio have re-established the pioneering work of Huang, as the basis which enabled French linguists to address more seriously the Chinese language.

Origins

Here is the genealogy of Arcadio Huang (originally spelled Hoange) according to Stephen Fourmont:

"Paul Huang, of the Mount of the Eagle, son of Kian-khin (Kiam-kim) Huang, Imperial assistant of the provinces of Nâne-kin (Nanjing) and Shan-ton (Shandong), and lord of the Mount of the Eagle, was born in the city of Hin-houa (Xinghua), in the province of Fò-kién (Fujian), Feb. 12, 1638; was baptized by the Jesuit Father Antonio de Govea, Portuguese, and was married in 1670 with the Miss Apollonie la Saule, named Léou-sien-yâm (Leù-sièn-yam) in the local language, daughter of Mr. Yâm, nicknamed Lou-ooue (Lû-ve), lord Doctor of Leôu-sièn (Leû-sièn) and governor of the city of Couan-sine (Guangxin), in the province of Kiam-si (Jiangxi). Arcadio Huang, interpreter of the King of France, son of Paul Huang, was born in the same city of Hin-Houa, on November 15, 1679, and was christened on November 21 of that year by the Jacobin Father Arcadio of ..., of Spanish nationality. Through his marriage, he had a daughter who is still alive; he added to his genealogy Marie-Claude Huang, of the Eagle Mountain, daughter of Mr. Huang, interpreter to the king, and so on.; She was born March 4, 1715."

He received the education of a Chinese literatus under the protection of French missionaries. The French missionaries saw in Arcadio an opportunity to create a "literate Chinese Christian" in the service of the evangelization of China. In these pioneer years (1690–1700), it was urgent to present to Rome examples of perfectly Christianized Chinese, in order to reinforce the Jesuits' position in the [Chinese] Rites controversy.

Journey to the West


Artus de Lionne (1655–1713), here in 1686, brought Arcadio Huang to Europe and France in 1702.

On 17 February 1702, under the protection of Artus de Lionne, Bishop of Rosalie,[3] Arcadio embarked on a ship of the English East India Company in order to reach London. By September or October 1702, Mr. de Rosalie and Arcadio left England for France, in order to travel to Rome.

On the verge of being ordained a priest in Rome and being presented to the pope to demonstrate the reality of Chinese Christianity, Arcadio Huang apparently renounced and declined ordination. Rosalie preferred to return to Paris to further his education, and wait for a better answer.

Installation in Paris

According to his memoirs, Arcadio moved to Paris in 1704 or 1705 at the home of the Foreign Missions [Paris Foreign Missions Society]. There, his protectors continued his religious and cultural training, with plans to ordain him for work in China. But Arcadio preferred life as a layman. He settled permanently in Paris as a "Chinese interpreter to the Sun King" and began working under the guidance and protection of abbot Jean-Paul Bignon.[3] It is alleged that he also became the king's librarian in charge of cataloging Chinese books in the Royal library.[2]

Huang encountered Montesquieu, with whom he had many discussions about Chinese customs.[4] Huang is said to have been Montesquieu's inspiration for the narrative device in his Persian Letters, an Asian who discusses the customs of the West.[5]

Huang became very well-known in Parisian salons. In 1713 Huang married a Parisian woman named Marie-Claude Regnier.[2] In 1715 she gave birth to a healthy daughter, also named Marie-Claude, but the mother died a few days later. Discouraged, Huang himself died a year and a half later, and their daughter died a few months after that.[2]

Work on the Chinese language

Helped by the young Nicolas Fréret (1688–1749), he began the hard work of pioneering a Chinese-French dictionary, a Chinese grammar, employing the Kangxi system of 214 character keys.

In this work, they were joined by Nicolas Joseph Delisle (1683–1745), a friend of Fréret, who gave a more cultural and geographical tone to their work and discussions. Deslisle's brother, Guillaume Delisle, was already a renowned geographer. Delisle encouraged Arcadio Huang to read Europe's best known and popular writings dealing with the Chinese Empire. Huang was surprised by the ethnocentric approach of these texts, reducing the merits of the Chinese people and stressing the civilizing role of the European peoples.

A third apprentice, by the name of Étienne Fourmont (imposed by Abbé Bignon), arrived and profoundly disturbed the team. One day, Fourmont was surprised copying Huang's work.[6]

Debate after his death


The Chinese grammar published by Étienne Fourmont in 1742

After the death of Huang on 1 October 1716, Fourmont became officially responsible for classifying papers of the deceased. He made a very negative report on the contents of these documents and continued to criticize the work of Huang. Continuing his work on the languages of Europe and Asia (and therefore the Chinese), he took all the credit for the dissemination of the 214 key system in France, and finally published a French-Chinese lexicon and a Chinese grammar, without acknowledging the work of Huang, whom he was continuing to denigrate publicly.

Meanwhile, Fréret, also an Academician, and above all a friend and first student of Arcadio Huang, wrote a thesis on the work and role of Arcadio in the dissemination of knowledge about China in France. Documents saved by Nicolas-Joseph Delisle, Arcadio's second student, also helped to publicize the role of the Chinese subject of the king of France.

Since then, other researchers and historians investigated his role, including Danielle Elisseeff who compiled Moi, Arcade interprète chinois du Roi Soleil in 1985.

See also

• Shen Fo-tsung, another Chinese person who visited France in 1684.
• Fan Shouyi, yet another Chinese person who lived in Europe in the early eighteenth century.
• Chinese diaspora in France
• China–France relations
• Jesuit China missions

Notes

1. First name also given as Arcadius (Latin) or Arcade (French); family name as Hoange, Ouange, Houange, etc...
2. Mungello, p.125
3. Barnes, p.82
4. Barnes, p.85
5. Conn, p.394
6. Danielle Elisseeff, Moi Arcade, interprète du roi-soleil, édition Arthaud, Paris, 1985.

References

• Barnes, Linda L. (2005) Needles, Herbs, Gods, and Ghosts: China, Healing, and the West to 1848 Harvard University Press ISBN 0-674-01872-9
• Conn, Peter (1996) Pearl S. Buck: A Cultural Biography Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-56080-2
• Elisseeff, Danielle, Moi, Arcade, interprète chinois du Roi Soleil, Arthaud Publishing, Paris, 1985, ISBN 2-7003-0474-8 (Main source for this article, 189 pages)
• Fourmont, Etienne (1683–1745), Note on Arcadius Hoang.
• Mungello, David E. (2005) The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800 Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 0-7425-3815-X
• Spence, Jonathan D. (1993). "The Paris Years of Arcadio Huang". Chinese Roundabout: Essays in History and Culture. W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-30994-2.
• Xu Minglong (2004) 许明龙 Huang Jialüe yu zao qi Faguo Han xue 黃嘉略与早期法囯汉学, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

[admin]

Forgery
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 7/31/22

-- Noble lie [Pious Fiction] [Pious Fraud] [Pious Invention], by Wikipedia
-- Outline of forgery, by Wikipedia
-- Literary forgery, by Wikipedia
-- False document, by Wikipedia
-- Pseudepigrapha, by Wikipedia
-- Donation of Constantine, by Wikipedia
-- A treasured manuscript in a college library that was believed to have been written by Galileo is a forgery, university says, by Aya Elamroussi
-- The Artist Who Got Rich Forging Picasso & Matisse: Real Fake: Elmyr de Hory, by Perspective
-- Forgery, by Wikipedia

When D. P. Walker wrote about "ancient theology" or prisca theologia, he firmly linked it to Christianity and Platonism (Walker 1972). On the first page of his book, Walker defined the term as follows:

By the term "Ancient Theology" I mean a certain tradition of Christian apologetic theology which rests on misdated texts. Many of the early Fathers, in particular Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, in their apologetic works directed against pagan philosophers, made use of supposedly very ancient texts: Hermetica, Orphica, Sibylline Prophecies, Pythagorean Carmina Aurea, etc., most of which in fact date from the first four centuries of our era. [100-400 A.D.] These texts, written by the Ancient Theologians hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Pythagoras, were shown to contain vestiges of the true religion: monotheism, the Trinity, the creation of the world out of nothing through the Word, and so forth. It was from these that Plato [428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC)] took the religious truths to be found in his writings. [???!!!] (Walker 1972:1)

Walker described A revival of such "ancient theology" in the Renaissance and in "platonizing theologians from Ficino to Cudworth" who wanted to "integrate Platonism and Neoplatonism into Christianity, so that their own religious and philosophical beliefs might coincide" [!!!](p. 2). After the debunking of the genuineness and antiquity of the texts favored by these ancient theologians, the movement ought to have died; but Walker detected "a few isolated survivals" such as Athanasius Kircher, Pierre-Daniel Huet, and the Jesuit figurists of the French China mission (p. 194). For Walker the last Mohican of this movement, so to say, is Chevalier Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686-1743), whose views are described in the final chapter of The Ancient Theology. But seen through the lens of our concerns here, one could easily extend this line to various figures in this book, for example, Jean Calmette, John Zephaniah Holwell, Abbe Vincent Mignot, Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, Guillaume Sainte-Croix, and also to William Jones (App 2009).

-- The Birth of Orientalism, by Urs App

On the right, the real sheet of a theatre surimono by Kunisada, on the left with a faked signature of Hokkei, c. 1825

Forgery is a white-collar crime that generally refers to the false making or material alteration of a legal instrument with the specific intent to defraud anyone (other than themself).[1][2] Tampering with a certain legal instrument may be forbidden by law in some jurisdictions but such an offense is not related to forgery unless the tampered legal instrument was actually used in the course of the crime to defraud another person or entity. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful misrepresentations.

Forging money or currency is more often called counterfeiting. But consumer goods may also be counterfeits if they are not manufactured or produced by the designated manufacturer or producer given on the label or flagged by the trademark symbol. When the object forged is a record or document it is often called a false document.

This usage of "forgery" does not derive from metalwork done at a blacksmith's forge, but it has a parallel history. A sense of "to counterfeit" is already in the Anglo-French verb forger, meaning "falsify".

A forgery is essentially concerned with a produced or altered object. Where the prime concern of a forgery is less focused on the object itself – what it is worth or what it "proves" – than on a tacit statement of criticism that is revealed by the reactions the object provokes in others, then the larger process is a hoax. In a hoax, a rumor or a genuine object planted in a concocted situation, may substitute for a forged physical object.

The similar crime of fraud is the crime of deceiving another, including through the use of objects obtained through forgery. Forgery is one of the techniques of fraud, including identity theft. Forgery is one of the threats addressed by security engineering.

In the 16th century, imitators of Albrecht Dürer's style of printmaking improved the market for their own prints by signing them "AD", making them forgeries. In the 20th century the art market made forgeries highly profitable. There are widespread forgeries of especially valued artists, such as drawings originally by Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, and Henri Matisse.

A special case of double forgery is the forging of Vermeer's paintings by Han van Meegeren, and in its turn the forging of Van Meegeren's work by his son Jacques van Meegeren.[3]

Criminal law


A forged police identification card used by a convicted terrorist.

England and Wales and Northern Ireland

In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, forgery is an offence under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which provides:

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.[4]

"Instrument" is defined by section 8, "makes" and "false" by section 9, and "induce" and "prejudice" by section 10.

Forgery is triable either way. A person guilty of forgery is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.[5]

For offences akin to forgery, see English criminal law#Forgery, personation, and cheating.

The common law offence of forgery is abolished for all purposes not relating to offences committed before the commencement of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.[6]

Scotland

Forgery is not an official offence under the law of Scotland, except in cases where statute provides otherwise.[7][8]

The Forgery of Foreign Bills Act 1803 was repealed in 2013.

Republic of Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland, forgery is an offence under section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 which provides:

A person is guilty of forgery if he or she makes a false instrument with the intention that it shall be used to induce another person to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, to the prejudice of that person or any other person.[9]

A person guilty of forgery is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.[10]

Any offence at common law of forgery is abolished. The abolition of a common law offence of forgery does not affect proceedings for any such offence committed before its abolition.[11]

Except as regards offences committed before the commencement of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 and except where the context otherwise requires, without prejudice to section 65(4)(a) of that Act, references to forgery must be construed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.[12]

Canada

Forgery is an offence under sections 366, 367 and 368 of the Canadian Criminal Code. The offence is a hybrid offence, subject to a maximum prison sentence of:

• if tried summarily: 6 months
• if tried on indictment: 10 years

United States

Further information: Crimes Act of 1790

Forgery is a crime in all jurisdictions within the United States, both state and federal.[1][2] Most states, including California, describe forgery as occurring when a person alters a written document "with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so."[13] The written document usually has to be an instrument of legal significance. Punishments for forgery vary widely. In California, forgery for an amount under $950[14] can result in misdemeanor charges and no jail time, while a forgery involving a loss of over $500,000 can result in three years in prison for the forgery plus a five-year "conduct enhancement" for the amount of the loss, yielding eight years in prison.[15] In Connecticut, forgery in the Third Degree, which is a class B misdemeanor[16] is punishable by up to 6 months in jail, a $1000 fine, and probation; forgery in the First Degree, which is a class C felony,[17] is punishable by a maximum 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 fine, or both.[18]

Civil law

As to the effect, in the United Kingdom, of a forged signature on a bill of exchange, see section 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

In popular culture

• The 1839 novel by Honoré de Balzac, Pierre Grassou, concerns an artist who lives off forgeries.[19]
• The Orson Welles documentary F for Fake concerns both art and literary forgery. For the movie, Welles intercut footage of Elmyr de Hory, an art forger, and Clifford Irving, who wrote an "authorized" autobiography of Howard Hughes that had been revealed to be a hoax. While forgery is the ostensible subject of the film, it also concerns art, film making, storytelling and the creative process.[20]
• The 1966 heist comedy film How to Steal a Million centers around Nicole Bonnet (Audrey Hepburn) attempting to steal a fake Cellini made by her grandfather.[21]
• The 1964 children's book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory written by Roald Dahl revealed the "golden ticket" in Japan was a forgery.
• The 1972 novel by Irving Wallace, The Word concerns archaeological forgery, the finding and translation of a supposed lost gospel by James the Just, close relative of Jesus Christ, as part of a large project to be published as a new Bible that would inspire a Christian revival, but which is possibly a forged document.[22]
• The 2002 film Catch Me If You Can, directed by Steven Spielberg, is based on the claims of Frank Abagnale, a con man who allegedly stole over $2.5 million through forgery, imposture and other frauds, which are dramatized in the film. His career in crime lasted six years from 1963 to 1969.[23] The veracity of most of Abagnale's claims has been questioned.[24]
• The graphic art novel The Last Coiner, authored by Peter M. Kershaw, is based on the exploits of the 18th century counterfeiters, the Cragg Vale Coiners, who were sentenced to execution by hanging at Tyburn.[25]

See also

Main article: Outline of forgery

• Art forgery
• Authentication
• J. S. G. Boggs American artist
• Counterfeiting
o coins
o currency
o medicine
• Digital signature forgery
o watches
o postage stamps
• Epigraphy
• False document
• Phishing
• Questioned document examination
• Replica
• Signature forgery
• United States Secret Service
• White-collar crime

References

1. United States v. Hunt, 456 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2006) ("Historically, forgery was defined as the false making, with the intent to defraud, of a document which is not what it purports to be, as distinct from a document which is genuine but nevertheless contains a term or representation known to be false.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); see generally, 10 U.S.C. § 923 ("Forgery"); 18 U.S.C. §§ 470–514 (counterfeiting and forgery-related federal offenses); 18 U.S.C. § 1543 ("Forgery or false use of passport").
2. "§ 19.71 S. Forgery". The Law Offices of Norton Tooby. Retrieved 2018-11-15.
3. Davies, Serena (2006-08-04). "The forger who fooled the world". The Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12. Retrieved 2019-04-29.
4. Legislation.gov.uk. Digitised copy of section 1.
5. The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, sections 6(1) to (3)(a)
6. The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 13
7. W J Stewart and Robert Burgess. Collins Dictionary of Law. HarperCollins Publishers. 1996. ISBN 0 00 470009 0. Pages 176 and 398.
8. Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia
9. Irish Statute Book. Digitised copy of section 25.
10. The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, section 25(2)
11. The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, sections 3(2) and (3)
12. The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, section 65(4)(b)
13. "California Legislative Information, Penal Code section 470". Retrieved 20 July 2017.
14. Brady, Katherine (November 2014). "California Prop 47 and SB 1310: Representing Immigrants" (PDF). Immigrant Legal Resource Center1. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
15. Couzens, J. Richard; Bigelow, Tricia A. (May 2017). "Felony Sentencing After Realignment" (PDF). California Courts. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
16. "Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses". http://www.cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
17. "Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses". http://www.cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
18. Norman-Eady, Sandra; Coppolo, George; Reinhart, Christopher (1 December 2006). "Crimes and Their Maximum Penalties". Office of Legislative Research. Connecticut General Assembly. Retrieved 9 August 2017.
19. Yeazell, Ruth Bernard (2008). Art of the Everyday: Dutch Painting and the Realist Novel. Princeton University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0691127262.
20. McBride, Joseph (2006). What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 245–250. ISBN 0813124107.
21. Casper, Drew (2011). Hollywood Film 1963-1976: Years of Revolution and Reaction. John Wiley & Sons. p. 1972. ISBN 978-1405188272.
22. Cawelti, John G. (1977). Adventure, Mystery, and Romance: Formula Stories as Art and Popular Culture. University of Chicago Press. p. 281. ISBN 0226098672.
23. Wight, Douglas (2012). "Owning December". Leonardo DiCaprio: The Biography. John Blake Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1857829570.
24. Lopez, Xavier (23 April 2021). "Could this famous con man be lying about his story? A new book suggests he is". WHYY. WHYY. PBS. Retrieved 26 June 2022.
25. "Telling the Coiners' story". BBC North Yorkshire. 3 June 2008.

Sources

• Cohon, Robert. Discovery & Deceit: archaeology & the forger's craft Kansas: Nelson-Atkins Museum, 1996
• Muscarella, Oscar. The Lie Became Great: the forgery of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, 2000
• "Imaginary Images" in Detecting the Truth: Fakes, Forgeries and Trickery at Library and Archives Canada

External links

• Bibliographies of archaeological forgeries, art forgeries etc
• Museum security mnetwork: sources of information on art forgery; with encyclopedic links
• Fakes and Forgeries on the Trafficking Culture website, University of Glasgow
• Academic Classification of Levels of Forgery on The Authentication in Art Foundation Website
• List of Caught Art Forgers on The Authentication in Art Foundation Website

[admin]

New York Files Charges Against Disgraced Art Dealer Subhash Kapoor in $145 Million Smuggling Ring: Subhash Kapoor will be extradited to the US following the completion of his long-running trial in India.
by Sarah Cascone
artnetnews
July 11, 2019


This Ganesha statue purchased by the Toledo Museum of Art from Subhash Kapoor in 2006 was looted, and was returned to India. Photo courtesy of the Toledo Museum of Art.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has filed criminal charges against Indian art dealer Subhash Kapoor and seven coconspirators, charging them with operating a $145 million smuggling ring that dealt with thousands of looted antiquities over a period of 30 years. The arrest warrants for the eight men were filed Monday in New York City criminal court. It is the latest chapter of an ongoing international legal saga that has been getting knottier over the course of almost a decade.

Kapoor’s alleged wrongdoings were first made public in 2011, when he was arrested in Germany on suspicion of dealing in looted artworks after a years-long investigation codenamed Operation Hidden Idol. He is currently on trial in India, where he has been behind bars since July 2012. The new charges include 86 counts, from grand larceny to criminal possession of stolen property.

“It’s a fairly robust and complex complaint,” Kapoor’s lawyer, Georges Lederman of Pearlstein McCullough & Lederman LLP, told artnet News. He notes that at least one of the charges in the complaint filed in New York duplicates a crime for which Kapoor is on trial in India—an issue that will have to be sorted out by a judge.

Now age 70, Kapoor was a respected member of New York’s art community, helping museums around the world acquire important antiquities from Afghanistan, Cambodia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Thailand, sometimes through high-profile donations. But he has also been described as “one of the most prolific commodities smugglers in the world,” as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent James T. Hayes told looted antiquities blog Chasing Aphrodite.

In 2012, authorities revealed that they had seized $100 million in stolen ancient art from the dealer’s storage facilities. More than 2,600 ancient statues, artworks, and other artifacts have been recovered to date, some as recently as 2016.


Subhash Kapoor.

Kapoor duped many museums over the years, both by loaning them illicit artworks to make them seem more legitimate to prospective buyers, and by selling them the stolen objects. “These are, in many instances, priceless works that represent the culture and history of the countries from which they were stolen,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. told the Associated Press. “They are of enormous value.”

The National Gallery of Australia filed a lawsuit against the disgraced dealer in 2014 over a $5.6 million Chola-era bronze, titled Shiva as Lord of the Dance, and returned the looted statue to India, one of at least two turned over by the Australian government in connection with the case. Later that year, Ohio’s Toledo Museum of Art followed suit, repatriating an Indian antiquity purchased from Kapoor, as did the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts, and the Honolulu Museum of Art.


A sandstone stele of Rishabhanata from the 10th century, believed looted, seized in a raid of Christie’s as part of an international investigation into former dealer Subhash Kapoor. Photo courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security.

According to the new criminal complaint against Kapoor, 36 looted objects worth an estimated $36 million are yet to be recovered, having been hidden by family members and trusted associates immediately following his 2011 arrest. Investigators based the charges on records seized from the Art of the Past, Kapoor’s former New York gallery, which included false import licenses, provenance records, and invoices.

Some of the alleged coconspirators are art restorers, believed to have cleaned the dirt off freshly unearthed antiquities to prepare them for sale, allowing Kapoor to present them as legally obtained treasures. Among them, according to the complaint, is British antiquities restorer Neil Perry Smith and Brooklyn-based restorer Richard Salmon. The authorities have asked Interpol for international arrest warrants for the suspects, who reside in India, London, and New York.

Meanwhile, US officials are requesting Kapoor’s extradition following the completion of his trial, presumably within a year, according to Lederman. “The trial is taking a very long time,” he said. “We should be guided by the prospect of extradition to the United States within a year.”

****************************

A Former Top Manhattan Art Dealer Has Been Charged in an Antiquities Smuggling Racket
by Jim Mustian
AP 11:35 PM EDT

NEW YORK (AP) — An art dealer who authorities called one of the most prolific smugglers in the world and seven others were charged with trafficking more than $140 million in stolen antiquities, prosecutors said Wednesday. Authorities described the case as one of the largest of its kind, saying the conspiracy began more than three decades ago and involved more than 2,600 recovered artifacts, including statues and ancient masterworks.

A criminal complaint filed in Manhattan state court said the smuggling was orchestrated by Subhash Kapoor, a New York art gallery owner who was arrested in Germany in 2011 and later extradited to India, where he faces similar charges.

An email seeking comment was sent to Kapoor’s defense attorney.

The prosecution involves artifacts stolen from Afghanistan, Cambodia, India, Pakistan and other countries that were sold for profit to dealers and collectors around the world. Some of the items appeared in world-renowned museums without officials realizing they were ill-gotten gains.

“These are, in many instances, priceless works that represent the culture and history of the countries from which they were stolen,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. told The Associated Press in an interview. “They are of enormous value.”

In all, authorities said, the network trafficked more than $143 million worth of antiquities. The international investigation was called “Operation Hidden Idol.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has described Kapoor as “one of the most prolific art smugglers in the world.” He faces 86 counts in the criminal complaint, including grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property.

The lead prosecutor, Matthew Bogdanos, told the AP that none of the defendants is believed to be in the United States. He said the authorities asked Interpol to issue international warrants for their arrest.

Kapoor, 70, owned the Art of the Past gallery on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, which authorities raided in early 2012.

The criminal complaint says Kapoor went to extraordinary lengths to acquire the artifacts, many of them statues of Hindu deities, and then falsified their provenance with forged documents.

It says Kapoor traveled the world seeking out antiquities that had been looted from temples, homes and archaeological sites.

Some of the artifacts were recovered from Kapoor’s storage units in New York.

Prosecutors said Kapoor had the items cleansed and repaired to remove any damage from illegal excavation, and then illegally exported them to the United States from their countries of origin.

“Kapoor would also loan stolen antiquities to major museums and institutions,” the complaint says, “creating yet another false veneer of legitimacy by its mere presence in otherwise reputable museums and institutions.”

The other defendants in the case include suppliers and restorers accused of conspiring with Kapoor.

****************************

National Gallery of Australia Sues Dealer Over Stolen Antiquities
by Sarah Cascone
February 16, 2014


"Shiva as Lord of the Dance or Nataraja." Cica 11th century, Indian bronze statue.

The National Gallery of Australia is suing art dealer Subhash Kapoor, who sold the museum an allegedly stolen 11th-century Indian statue in 2008. The Chola-era bronze, titled Shiva as Lord of the Dance, or Nataraja, was purchased at Kapoor’s Art of the Past in New York for $5 million.

The lawsuit, filed with New York’s Supreme Court, accuses the gallery of fraud and seeks to reclaim the $5 million purchase price plus legal fees. The statue was allegedly stolen between January and November of 2006 from the Sivan Temple in the Ariyalur District of Tamil Nadu in southern India. All Indian antiquities are legally the property of the Indian government.

The artwork’s provenance came under question last year, when Aaron M. Freedman, office manager at Art of the Past, pleaded guilty on six counts of criminal possession of stolen property. Court documents for the case listed the Nataraja as having been illegally exported from India via a smuggling ring. The statue is one of 14 items that Australia’s National Gallery purchased from Art of the Past.

Kapoor was first detained on suspicion of stocking his gallery with antiques looted from historic sites in India in 2011. He is currently being held on charges of criminal looting in India.

******************************

Assistant to Accused Antiquities Smuggler Pleads Guilty to Possessing Looted Items
by Tom Mashberg
ArtsBeat
December 4, 2013 10:09 PM December 4, 2013 10:09 pm 2


A statue of Yakshi, a female deity. Credit Manhattan District Attorney's Office

Aaron M. Freedman spent nearly 20 years managing the fine details of life at Subhash Kapoor’s art gallery on Madison Avenue in Manhattan. Over that period, ending in 2012, the two men became good friends, shared an expertise in rare Indian artifacts and co-wrote several scholarly works.

On Wednesday, Mr. Freedman, 41, of Princeton, N.J., admitted in New York Supreme Court that he also helped Mr. Kapoor manage the shipment and sale of more than 150 items of looted Indian statuary, items in many cases dating back some 2,000 years.

Mr. Freedman pleaded guilty on Wednesday to six counts of criminal possession of stolen property valued at $35 million and agreed, under his plea, to help Manhattan and federal investigators with their prosecution of Mr. Kapoor, who is accused of smuggling more than $100 million in antiquities from India into the United States.

Mr. Kapoor, 64, is in prison in India but is expected to be extradited for trial in the United States next year.

Investigators are still hunting for dozens of the bronze and sandstone images of Hindu and Buddhist deities that they say were looted and sold over three decades under the supervision of Mr. Kapoor and his confederates.

Storage facilities associated with Mr. Kapoor were raided in 2012 by federal agents, and his gallery, Art of the Past, on Madison Avenue at 89th Street, is no longer operating.

“He is by far the biggest smuggler, in terms of numbers of antiquities stolen and their market value, that we have seen,” said James T. Hayes Jr., the special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in New York.

The authorities said that Mr. Freedman handled the day-to-day details of the gallery for Mr. Kapoor, while also helping to pay off smugglers, concoct false shipping and ownership papers, and arranging for sales to often unsuspecting collectors and museums.

Mr. Freedman’s guilty plea had immediate repercussions for the National Gallery of Australia, which had bought statues and other antiquities from Mr. Kapoor since 2006. For months the museum rejected calls from India to negotiate for the return of some of those artifacts, among them a rare $5 million bronze statuette of the god Shiva performing a dance. It was stolen from the Sivan Temple in India’s Ariyular district in 2006, India officials say.

But in his plea, Mr. Freedman admitted that he and Mr. Kapoor knew the three-foot-high Shiva was stolen when, in 2007, they created a false ownership history for the piece, including forged provenance papers and letters of authenticity. They then imported it illegally into the United States, sold it the museum, and arranged to have it shipped to Canberra, the site of the gallery.

In a statement on Thursday, the museum’s director, Ronald Radford, who approved the purchase, said prosecutors in New York had made him aware of the Freedman plea. He said his attorneys immediately asked the Indian government to “discuss avenues for restitution” and that the gallery will sue Mr. Kapoor.

On Wednesday, Mr. Freedman had told State Supreme Court Acting Justice Charles H. Solomon that his multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2005 and that his condition worsened while he worked with Mr. Kapoor.

“I say this not to excuse my involvement with Mr. Kapoor’s criminal activities,” Mr. Freedman said, “but to state that in 2005, after the onset of my disease, obtaining employment at a reputable gallery or auction house was virtually impossible.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is working with federal officials on the case, agreed to release Mr. Freedman on personal recognizance while his cooperation continues.

“We take these crimes very seriously, and as the office manager for Mr. Kapoor, he was the one who made much of it happen,” said an assistant district attorney, Matthew Bogdanos. “On the other hand, Mr. Freedman, I believe, is sincerely and genuinely remorseful and repentant and he has taken significant steps toward making amends.”

Under India’s Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, no art object more than 100 years old may be removed from the country. But since the law was instituted in 1972, antiquities from many Indian temples and heritage sites described as “newly discovered” have been auctioned in New York and London. In four raids at separate sites controlled by Mr. Kapoor in 2012, federal agents say they seized about 90 items worth, in total, more than $100 million, all of them having come out of India after 1972. Another 50 or so items valued at more than $40 million remain missing, and investigators are asking the public to help locate them.

One of the items Mr. Freedman is accused of helping steal and conceal is valued at $15 million and is among the rarest and most cherished statues missing from India. It is identified as the sandstone statue of a Yakshi, or female deity, from a stupa temple site in Bharhut, in Madhya Pradesh Province in central India. It is more than seven feet tall and weighs about 500 pounds. Indian scholars say the stupa of Bharhut is one of the most important Buddhist sites in the world.

In a sales brochure for the statue that was sent by Mr. Kapoor to private buyers, Mr. Freedman wrote: “This sculpture is the most significant example of Indian sculpture known to exist outside of India. It is of pivotal importance to the understanding of the Bharhut stupa, and to the entire development of Indian art.”

Indian officials said that they hoped the relic would be repatriated early next year. It is now being held in New York.

Paul B. Bergman, Mr. Freedman’s lawyer, said his client was eager to “take concrete steps to rectify his serious mistakes.”

A version of this article appears in print on 12/06/2013, on page C2 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Guilty Plea in Case Of Indian Antiquities.

**************************

Australian PM Tony Abbott Returns Stolen Statues to India: The Prime Minister seeks improved Australian-Indian relations ahead of uranium deal.
by Lorena Muñoz-Alonso
artnetmews
September 5, 2014


"Shiva as Lord of the Dance or Nataraja." Circa 11th century, Indian bronze statue.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott will return two looted statues to India during an official visit to the country, the Guardian reports. The statues were allegedly sold to Australian galleries by an Indian dealer accused of smuggling crimes. Abbott will hand back the statues during his meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, where a deal to supply Australian uranium to India is expected to be signed. The uranium is to be used to fuel India’s nuclear power grid.

The stolen statues have been a sore spot in Australian-Indian relations. The Indian government say they were taken from its territory without permission by a trafficker of cultural artifacts. Subhash Kapoor, the antiques dealer who sold the sculptures, ­was arrested in 2011 and extradited to India, accused of organizing a $100 million smuggling ring, the Guardian reported.

The most valuable statue, a $5.6 million bronze “dancing Shiva” was sold by Kapoor to the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) in 2008. A $300,000 stone sculpture of the Hindu god Ardhanariswara, also linked to Kapoor, ended up in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney. Both the Shiva Narajara, which dates back to the 11th or 12th century, and the Ardhanariswara were removed from display earlier this year amid allegations they were stolen from temples in southern India.

The pieces’ return will end an uncomfortable diplomatic battle. As late as last November, NGA’s lawyers suggested no “conclusive evidence” had emerged to demonstrate the statue was stolen or illegally exported. Kapoor, who is in prison in India, claimed the statue had been sold to him by the wife of a diplomat, according to the institution. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

But in December, Kapoor’s office manager, Aaron Freedman, pleaded guilty in the New York Supreme Court to six counts of criminal possession of stolen property. The Shiva Nataraja was among the items listed as being illegally exported from India.


The Ardhanariswara sculpture smuggled by Subhash Kapoor. Photo via: The Telegraph

“This information represents a significant and concrete development in the available information regarding the Kapoor case,” the NGA statement said. The Indian authorities made a formal request for the statues to be returned last March, to which Australia immediately agreed.

Returning the objects “is testimony to Australia’s good citizenship on such matters and the importance with which Australia views its relationship with India,” Abbott’s office said.

[admin]

New evidence for Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue revealed by multispectral imaging
by Victor Gysembergh, CNRS, UMR 8061, France
Peter J. Williams, Tyndale House, UK
Emanuel Zingg, Sorbonne Université, France
Journal for the History of Astronomy 2022, Vol. 53(4) 383–393
© The Author(s) 2022
Corresponding author: Victor Gysembergh, CNRS, Centre Léon Robin (UMR 8061), 1 rue Victor Cousin, Paris 75005, France. Email: victor.gysembergh@gmail.com

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Angelo Mai (Latin Angelus Maius; 7 March 1782 – 8 September 1854) was an Italian Cardinal and philologist. He won a European reputation for publishing for the first time a series of previously unknown ancient texts. These he was able to discover and publish, first while in charge of the Ambrosian Library in Milan and then in the same role at the Vatican Library. The texts were often in parchment manuscripts that had been washed off and reused; he was able to read the lower text using chemicals. [NO CITATIONS!]

In particular he was able to locate a substantial portion of the much sought-after De republica of Cicero and the complete works of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus.

-- by Angelo Mai, by Wikipedia

This year marks twenty years since the first significant efforts were made to use multispectral imaging (MSI) to reveal hidden writing within a parchment manuscript (the book in question contained the lost works of ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes). This noninvasive technology is especially suited for work with parchment, a unique sheet material made from animal skin whose surface can be written upon and then miraculously ‘erased’ by scraping for reuse by a later scribe. In the ancient and medieval Mediterranean world this recycling was common. Texts came and went, but parchment was expensive and always valuable to scribes. Books no longer deemed necessary or desirable were sometimes unbound, and the parchment scraped down and reused to create what is called a palimpsest. Even when the earlier writing was not visible to the naked eye, traces of the ink remained embedded in the parchment sheet, bonded to the collagen and proteins in the skin. Multispectral imaging can reveal traces of this hidden writing.

-- Seeing the Invisible — Multispectral Imaging of Ancient and Medieval Manuscripts, by Dr. Melissa Moreton, Assistant Director for Strategic Initiatives at HMML [2018 to 2020]

Abstract

New evidence for ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus’ lost Star Catalogue has come to light thanks to multispectral imaging of a palimpsest manuscript and subsequent decipherment and interpretation. This new evidence is the most authoritative to date and allows major progress in the reconstruction of Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue. In particular, it confirms that the Star Catalogue was originally composed in equatorial coordinates. It also confirms that Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue was not based solely on data from Hipparchus’ Catalogue. Finally, the available numerical evidence is consistent with an accuracy within 1° of the real stellar coordinates, which would make Hipparchus’ Catalogue significantly more accurate than his successor Claudius Ptolemy’s.

Keywords

Aratus Latinus, Hipparchus, palimpsest, Ptolemy, star catalogues

Introduction

Hipparchus’ lost Star Catalogue is famous in the history of science as the earliest known attempt to record accurate coordinates of many celestial objects observable with the naked eye.1 However, contrary to Ptolemy’s later Star Catalogue as preserved in the Almagest and Handy Tables, direct evidence for the content of Hipparchus’ is scarce. His only extant work is the Commentary on the Phaenomena, a discussion of earlier writings on positional astronomy by Eudoxus of Cnidus and Aratus of Soli.2 Only a few references in later authors reflect stellar coordinates going back to Hipparchus – these are found mainly in the Aratus Latinus, a Latin translation of Aratus’ astronomical poem Phaenomena and related material. As noted by Neugebauer, the stellar coordinates in the Aratus Latinus agree with Hipparchus’ time, and the codeclination of α UMi in the Aratus Latinus agrees exactly with the value ascribed to Hipparchus by Ptolemy (Geography I, 7, 4).3

Multispectral imaging of the ancient Greek palimpsest known as the Codex Climaci Rescriptus (henceforth CCR) has revealed new evidence for Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue.4 Jamie Klair, then an undergraduate student at the University of Cambridge, first noticed the astronomical nature of the undertext on some folios in 2012, and Peter Williams first observed the presence of astronomical measurements in 2021. Indeed, some of the folios in this manuscript (ff. 47–54 and f. 64) stem from what was originally an ancient codex containing Aratus’ Phaenomena and related material, datable on palaeographic grounds to the fifth or sixth century CE.

Whereas the Aratus Latinus reflects only the Hipparchan boundaries of three circumpolar constellations (UMa, UMi and Dra), the dismembered Aratus codex of which several leaves made their way into CCR appears to have contained similar entries for all constellations. At present, the Hipparchan boundaries of the constellation Corona Borealis can therefore be recovered from the undertext of CCR (which was erased by the 9th or 10th c., when it was re-used to write Syriac translations of texts by John Climacus). No further material reflecting Hipparchan constellation boundaries has yet come to light from CCR; however, although pages stemming from the same codex (i.e. 47v, 49r, 52v and 53r) have not yet revealed legible text, it is possible that more will be recovered in the future.5 It is also possible that folios from the ancient codex are extant in some of the other palimpsests at Saint Catherine’s Monastery of the Sinai.6

Figures 1 to 3 show images of folio 53v at three stages in the multispectral process. Colour versions of the images are available in the online version of the Journal.


Figure 1. Detail of f. 53v, beginning of the first column of undertext (Syriac overtext in dark brown, and faint traces of a few letters of the undertext). Courtesy Museum of the Bible Collection. All rights reserved. © Museum of the Bible, 2021.


Figure 2. Detail of f. 53v (multispectral image, by the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library and the Lazarus Project of the University of Rochester processed by Keith T. Knox: the enhanced Greek undertext appears in red below the Syriac overtext in black). Courtesy Museum of the Bible Collection. All rights reserved. © Museum of the Bible, 2021.


Figure 3. Detail of f. 53v (yellow tracings based on full set of multispectral images). Courtesy Museum of the Bible Collection. All rights reserved. © Museum of the Bible, 2021.

The new evidence for Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue in CCR

We give here a simplified transcription and translation of the relevant sections of the text from 48r and 53v, with our clarifications in parentheses7:

Ὁ στέφανος ἐν τῷ βορείῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ κείμενος κατὰ μῆκος μὲν ἐπέχει μ̊ θ̅ καὶ δ̅ ́ ἀπὸ τῆς α̅ μ̊ τοῦ σκορπίου ἕως ι̅ <καὶ> δ̅ ́ μ̊ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ζῳδίου. Κατὰ πλάτος δ᾽ ἐπέχει μ̊ ς̅ C καὶ δ̅ ́ ἀπὸ μ̅θ̅ μ̊ ἀπὸ τοῦ βορείου πόλου ἕως μ̊ ν̅ε̅ C καὶ δ̅ ́.

Προηγεῖται μὲν γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ ἐχόμενος τοῦ λαμπροῦ ὡς πρὸς δύσιν ἐπέχων τοῦ σκορπίου τῆς α̅ μ̊ τὸ ἥμισυ. Ἔσχατος δὲ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς κεῖται ὁ δ′ ἐχόμενος ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς τοῦ λαμπροῦ ἀστέρος [. . .] τοῦ βορείου πόλου μ̊ μ̅θ̅· νοτιώτατος δὲ ὁ γ′ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαμπροῦ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἀριθμούμενος ὃς ἀπέχει τοῦ πόλου μ̊ ν̅ε̅ C καὶ δ̅ ́.

Corona Borealis, lying in the northern hemisphere, in length spans 9°¼ from the first degree of Scorpius to 10°¼8 in the same zodiacal sign (i.e. in Scorpius). In breadth it spans 6°¾ from 49° from the North Pole to 55°¾.

Within it, the star (β CrB) to the West next to the bright one (α CrB) leads (i.e. is the first to rise), being at Scorpius 0.5°. The fourth9 star (ι CrB) to the East of the bright one (α CrB) is the last (i.e. to rise) [. . .]10 49° from the North Pole. Southernmost (δ CrB) is the third counting from the bright one (α CrB) towards the East, which is 55°¾ from the North Pole.

The first section states the extension of the constellation in μῆκος (‘length’) and πλάτος (‘breadth’), expressed for each as a value in degrees equal to the difference by two extremal coordinates. The second section names the stars at each extremity and repeats their extremal coordinates, thus mapping out the smallest spherical rectangle containing all the stars considered part of the constellation. Thus, it seems likely that the numerical data in the first section were originally derived from the coordinates in the second section. The concept of constellation boundaries underlying both sections is both similar to and different from its present-day analogue: these boundaries are drawn along vertical lines of right ascension and horizontal parallels, like today, but they make up simple rectangles instead of the intricate shapes introduced by Eugène Delporte (1882–1955).

Let us now discuss the numerical values given in the text. First, we need to explain the text’s unusual terminology. The term ‘length’ expresses the East-West extension of a constellation, while ‘breadth’ expresses its North-South extension. Position on a North- South axis is expressed as an angle ‘from the North Pole’ (like codeclination in an equatorial coordinate system). Position on an East-West axis is expressed by the combination of a zodiacal sign, which refers to a 30° arc (e.g. Scorpius for 210°–240°), and of a figure in degrees and fractions of degrees, which specifies the position within this arc. Thus, ‘the first degree of Scorpius’, which in principle refers to the interval between 0° exclusive and 1° inclusive, is equivalent here to the modern notation 211° (yielding a total East-West extension of 9°¼, as stated in the Greek text).

The northernmost and southernmost boundaries of CrB are stated twice in no uncertain terms. The easternmost and westernmost boundaries are more problematic. The corrupt passage about the easternmost boundary contains the numerals for 10 (ι) and 4 (δ), and can easily have derived from an original 10°¼. Indeed, in ancient Greek numerical notation, the confusion of a number and its reciprocal was frequent, because the sign denoting the fraction, the keraia, was slight: thus, δ′ (=¼) and δ (=4) were easily confused. The westernmost boundary is indicated first as being at 211°, then as being at 210°½. The first figure is consistent with an East-West extension of 9°¼ (assuming the correction 10°¼ mentioned above), and seems preferable at first glance. However, 210°30′ is the value indicated in Hipparchus’ Commentary (III, 5, 8, p. 274 Manitius) for the right ascension of β CrB, and must therefore be preferred. The figure 211° may easily have arisen through a copying error; and ensuingly, the East-West extension may have been corrected from an original 9°¾ to restore consistency with the position of the westernmost boundary. Assuming this interpretation of the discrepancy regarding the westernmost boundary, the boundaries of CrB are summarised in Table 1.

These coordinates are accurate to within 1° for the epoch of Hipparchus’ star catalogue (ca. 129 BCE),11 as can be verified with planetarium software such as Stellarium or by checking against Dennis Duke’s and Gerd Graßhoff’s lists of equatorial coordinates for the time of Hipparchus.12 Furthermore, they confirm that Hipparchus’ star catalogue was composed in equatorial, not ecliptical, coordinates, which has long been a matter of contention.13 It should be noted that the terminology of μῆκος (‘length’) and πλάτος (‘breadth’) is unusual for astronomical coordinates in an equatorial, not ecliptical, frame of reference. The practice of expressing right ascension with the combination of an artificial zodiac sign and a number of degrees is also highly unusual, and attested only in Hipparchus’ Commentary.14 The matching astronomical epoch and terminology provide strong evidence that the coordinates in CCR originated with Hipparchus.

Reassessing the evidence for Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue in Aratus Latinus

By providing comparative material, the Greek text also allows a better understanding of the related sections in the Aratus Latinus (henceforth also AL). AL is an early medieval translation into Latin, made in Northern France (most probably in Corbie Abbey) in the 8th c., of a Greek codex containing the Phenomena of Aratus and related material.15 In particular, AL contains sections on the boundaries of the circumpolar constellations, the Greek original of which now appears to have followed the same structure and terminology as the section on Corona Borealis in the CCR text.16

Hipparchus had already been identified as the ultimate source of the coordinates in these sections of AL over a century ago by Georg Dittmann, based on the observation that the codeclination of β UMi matches the figure quoted by Ptolemy in his Geography (I, 7, 4).17 Emanuel Gürkoff and Otto Neugebauer further discussed the philological issues at hand.18 However, evidence from AL has only received passing mention in scholarly discussion of Hipparchus’ and Ptolemy’s Star Catalogues.19 It would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss at length the philological issues in these passages, where the vagaries of textual transmission are compounded by the translator’s imperfect knowledge of Greek.20 But it is of interest to summarise the numerical information about the boundaries of the circumpolar constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor and Draco according to Hipparchus that can be recovered from the Aratus Latinus.

Table 1. Boundaries of Corona Borealis according to CCR.

-- / α (right ascension) / Δ (codeclination)

β CrB / 210°30′ / --
π CrB / -- / 49°
δ CrB / -- / 55°45′
ι CrB / 220°15′ / --

Ursa Major

The text of Aratus Latinus indicates a North-South extension of 23° for Ursa Major, where 21°½ is expected, as shown by Table 2.

Ursa Minor

The text of Aratus Latinus indicates an East-West extension of 97°, presumably due to a scribal error for 107°; and a North-South extension of 1°½, presumably due to a common uncial error in the Greek text for 4°½. See Table 3.

Draco

The text of Aratus Latinus indicates a North-South extension of 27° (following manuscript P), which is consistent with the figures for γ and κ Dra. See Table 4.

In order to recover coordinates in Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue, the Aratus Latinus material is possibly more reliable than Hipparchus’ Commentary, as it comes from manuscripts that are earlier than the earliest known manuscript of the Commentary (11th c.). Recent study of the indications about the number of stars per constellation has shown that numerals in Aratus Latinus are highly reliable, agreeing in 28 of 34 cases (i.e. over 82% of the time) with the original number of stars per constellation in the Hipparchan catalogue, where this number can be reconstructed.21 At any rate, AL and CCR provide evidence for Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue that is independent from Hipparchus’ Commentary.

Table 2. Boundaries of Ursa Major according to Aratus Latinus.

-- / α / Δ

ο / W / 78°30′ / --
α / N / -- / 18°30′
μ / S / -- / 40°
η / E / 180° or 185° / --

Table 3. Boundaries of Ursa Minor according to Aratus Latinus.

-- / α / Δ
α / E/S / 347° / 12°24′
β N / -- / 8°
γ / W / 240° / --

Comparison with coordinates from Hipparchus’ Commentary

For eight of the stars figuring in CCR and AL, either right ascension, codeclination or both are also indicated in Hipparchus’ Commentary (noted αComm and Δcomm in Table 5). Remarkably, the values indicated for these stars in the Commentary mostly agree with those given in CCR and Aratus Latinus (values given in the Commentary were collected by Marx 202022 and checked by the present authors; bold font indicates values present both in the Commentary and in CCR/AL).

Out of seven cases where the same coordinate is indicated in the Commentary and CCR/AL, perfect agreement is observed in four cases. In two of the three cases where a discrepancy is observed, the text in Aratus Latinus is so corrupt that it is impossible to decide what the original figure was. Finally, in one case, concerning the right ascension of α UMi, a discrepancy of one degree is observed. This high rate of consistency suggests that both the Commentary and the CCR/AL material ultimately go back to the same source text, and thus confirms the common assumption23 that Hipparchus’ Commentary was written after his Star Catalogue.

In two cases, the CCR/AL material contains the codeclination of a star for which the Commentary material only provides the right ascension. In these two cases (β UMi and α UMa), we can thus form coordinate pairs. We therefore have two further test cases for the hypothesis that Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue was obtained by systematically adding a precession constant to each star’s ecliptic coordinates according to Hipparchus. If this hypothesis is correct, we should expect Hipparchus’ coordinates for β UMi and α UMa to be possibly rounded numbers near (α = 238°; Δ = 8°25′) and (α = 121°46′; Δ = 18°49′).24 Thus, in the case of β UMi, Ptolemy clearly didn’t merely add a precession constant to Hipparchus’ coordinates, but either made his own observations or used sources independent from Hipparchus. In the case of α UMa, on the other hand, Ptolemy may well have been dependent upon Hipparchus’ star catalogue.

Table 4. Boundaries of Draco according to Aratus Latinus.[/ ]

-- / -- / α / Δ

γ / S / -- 37°
ε / E / 298°/ --
κ / N / -- / 10°
λ / W / 121°? 124°? / --

Table 5. Star coordinates given in both Hipparchus’ Commentary and CCR or Aratus Latinus.

-- / αComm / ΔComm / α / Δ

α UMi / 348° / 12°24′ / 347° / 12°24′
β UMi / 240° / – / – / 8°
γ UMi / 240° / – / 240° / –
α UMa / 122° / – / – / 18° / 30′
η UMa / 184° / – / 180° or 185° / –
γ Dra / – / 37° / – / 37°
λ Dra / 123° / – / 121°? 124°?/ –
β CrB / 210°30′ / - / 210°30′ / -

The accuracy of Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue and its relationship with Ptolemy’s

In the above tables, where two possible figures have been indicated due to textual difficulties, at least one of these figures is accurate to within 1° for Hipparchus’ time; elsewhere, all coordinates are accurate to this extent. This level of accuracy is remarkable, because, by analogy with Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue, one would expect some large errors, that is, larger than 1°.25 Incidentally, such a high level of accuracy may have contributed to the survival of material from Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue long after Ptolemy’s Almagest became the standard handbook of mathematical astronomy in the Greek world. However, the sample size being relatively small, it is also possible that there were large errors in parts of Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue that were not preserved by CCR and Aratus Latinus.

It is also remarkable that the coordinates from CCR and Aratus Latinus are not consistent with the hypothesis that the data in Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue were arrived at simply by applying a precession constant to Hipparchus’ data. This can be shown by Table 6, where Hipparchus’ data are compared with the Almagest coordinates adjusted for precession to 129 BCE, denoted αAlm and ΔAlm.26 (Figures in italics are not attested in Hipparchus’ Commentary.)

If Ptolemy had converted Hipparchus’ equatorial coordinates to ecliptic coordinates and then added 2°40′ to the longitudes, we would expect columns 2 and 3 of Table 6 to be reasonably close to columns 4 and 5. Of course, Ptolemy rounds his coordinates to intervals of 1/6° or ¼°. Thus, discrepancies of up to 10′ or 15′ would not be inconsistent with such a direct use of Hipparchus’ data. But, as can be seen from the last two columns of the table, many of the differences are substantially greater than this. These observations are consistent with the view that Ptolemy composed his Star Catalogue by combining various sources, including Hipparchus’ Catalogue, his own observations and, possibly, those of other authors. Indeed, it would follow from this that Hipparchus’ Catalogue may have been considerably more accurate than Ptolemy’s, that is, with a significantly higher rate of coordinates accurate to within less than 1°. This would be consistent with the evidence from CCR and Aratus Latinus, where potentially 100% of coordinates are accurate to within less than 1°.

The comparatively small sample size and the philological issues in both CCR and Aratus Latinus prevent us from analysing the distribution of errors in Hipparchus’ catalogue. Therefore, we cannot draw any further conclusions about the methods and instruments used by Hipparchus to observe the firmament. Considering the equatorial coordinate format, it seems safe to assume nevertheless that, if his observations were conducted with an armillary sphere, this must have been an equatorial armillary sphere, and not an ecliptic armillary sphere like Ptolemy’s; however, it is also possible that the measurements were taken with a dioptra, which may have been easier to operate.27

Table 6. Comparison of star coordinates from Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue and Ptolemy’s.

-- / α / Δ / αAlm / ΔAlm / |α−αAlm| / |Δ−ΔAlm|

α UMi / 347° / 12°24′ / 345°41′ / 13°02′ / 1°19′ / 38′
β UMi / -- / 8° / -- / 8°25′ / -- / 25′
γ UMi / 240° / -- / 238°36′ / -- / 1°24′ / --
ο UMa / 78°30′ / -- / 77°22′ / -- / 1°8′ / --
α UMa / -- / 18°30′ / -- / 18°49′ / -- / 19′
μ UMa / -- / 40° / -- / 40°09′ / -- / 9′
η UMa 180° or 185° / -- / 184°8′ / -- / (4°)52′ / --
γ Dra / -- / 37° / -- / 36°49′ / -- / 11′
ε Dra / 298° / -- / 296°50′ / -- / 1°10′ / --
κ Dra / 10° / -- / 8°46′ / -- / 1°14′
λ Dra / 121°? 124°? / -- / 121°47′ / -- /47′ or 2°13′ / --
β CrB / 210°30′ / -- / 209°58′ / -- /32′ / --
π CrB / -- / 49° / -- / 48°58′/ -- / 2′
δ CrB / -- / 55°45′ / -- / 55°43′ / -- / 2′
ι CrB / 220°15′ / -- / 219°6′ / -- / 9′ / --

ORCID iD

Victor Gysembergh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1633-9212

Notes on Contributors

Victor Gysembergh is a CNRS research professor at the Centre Léon Robin (Sorbonne Université). He is currently working on an edition of the fragments of Eudoxus of Cnidus, as well as on editions of Claudius Ptolemy’s treatise On the Analemma and his recently discovered treatise on the Meteoroscope.

Peter J. Williams is Principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge, and is a biblical philologist who has been leading the research team investigating the Aramaic and Greek underwriting of Codex Climaci Rescriptus.

Emanuel Zingg is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre Léon Robin (Sorbonne Université) in Paris. He is currently working on editions of Ptolemy’s treatise On the Analemma and his recently discovered treatise on the Meteoroscope.

Notes

1. G.J. Toomer, “Hipparchus,” in C.C. Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Supplement I (New York, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1978), pp. 207–24.

2. K. Manitius, Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena Commentariorum libri tres (Leipzig, 1894).

3. O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Vol. 1 (Berlin-Heidelberg; New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1975), pp. 288–91.

4. CCR consists of 146 folios, one of which is part of the Mingana Collection, Birmingham, under shelfmark MSyr637, and eight of which are kept at St Catherine’s Monastery of the Sinai under shelfmark Syriac NF 38. The remaining 137 folios, including those with undertext from an ancient codex of Aratus’ Phaenomena, were given by Agnes Smith Lewis, who acquired them in Egypt between 1895 and 1906, to Westminster College, Cambridge, which sold them to the Green Collection in 2010. In 2012, the Green Collection donated these folios to the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., where they are now kept under shelfmark MS.000149.

After several stages of imaging, the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library and the Lazarus Project captured the most recent multispectral data in July 2017 and provided processed images that contributed decisively to decipherment. They used a MegaVision spectral system that featured an E7 50MP digital back, a 120mm macro lens that is apochromatic across all captured wavelengths, and, for transmissive imaging, a multispectral light sheet. They took 42 shots of each page: 16 shots capturing the reflection of light emitted at 365 nm, 420 nm, 450 nm, 470 nm, 505 nm, 530 nm, 560 nm, 590 nm, 615 nm, 630 nm, 655 nm, 700 nm, 735 nm, 780 nm, 870 nm and 940 nm; 4 shots capturing the transmission through the parchment of light emitted at 500 nm, 580 nm, 735 nm and 940 nm; and 22 shots capturing fluorescence caused by light emitted at 365 nm, 385 nm, 400 nm and 450 nm (at the first three wavelengths, six different filters were used, i.e. blue, green, orange, red, UV pass and UV block; at 450 nm, the same were used except UV pass and UV block). Additional bands were captured of a small number of folios for experimental purposes.

For further details on this manuscript and its imaging, see P.J. Williams et al., “Newly- Discovered Illustrated Texts of Aratus and Eratosthenes Within Codex Climaci Recriptus,” The Classical Quarterly 72 (2022), forthcoming.

5. For a full publication of the astronomical undertexts recovered until now, see Williams et al., op. cit. (Note 4).

6. Saint Catherine’s Monastery of Mount Sinai is the home of over 160 palimpsests, which also underwent multispectral imaging by the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library; the processed images are available at https://sinai.library.ucla.edu/.

7. For philological discussion, see Williams et al., op. cit. (Note 4).

8. Here the text in the manuscript is corrupt, but it is possible to reconstruct the original numeral 10¼ on paleographic grounds (see below). In this passage we also correct the transmitted text μέ̣σ̣η̣ς̣ (‘half’) after the numeral to μ̊ (abbreviation for ‘degree’), because all other numerals in the text are followed by the indication of units.

9. The Greek has the particle δέ, but this does not make sense. The corrupt text can easily be restored by correcting δέ to δ′, the ordinal numeral “fourth”; the text counts inclusively, as shown further down by the ordinal number “third” for the southernmost star δ CrB.

10. The text here (end of folio 53v col. i) is too damaged to be deciphered. Based on the structure of the section, it is clear that it contained the extremal coordinate associated with ι CrB, which should be Scorpius 10°1/4 as in the first section, and the designation of the northernmost star in the constellation, which should be π CrB.

11. The epoch of Hipparchus’ star catalogue is commonly determined as approximately 129 BCE = −128 because Ptolemy (Almagest VII, 2) states that about 265 years elapsed between Hipparchus’ measurement of the position of Regulus and the beginning of the reign of Antoninus (137 CE), which would place Hipparchus’ observation in about 137 – 265 = −128.

12. Stellarium is a planetarium freeware available at https://stellarium.org/. Dennis Duke’s table of equatorial coordinates for 129 BCE is available at https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/ asc129bc-eq.xlsx, accessed 4 July 2022. Gerd Graßhoff’s table of coordinates for 129 BCE is published in G. Graßhoff, The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue (Berlin-Heidelberg; New York, NY: Springer, 1990), Appendix B, pp. 275–316.

13. See D.W. Duke, “Hipparchus’ Coordinate System,” Archive for the History of Exact Sciences, 56 (2002), 427–33 (with references to earlier literature).

14. See Duke, op. cit. (Note 13), p. 428 and n. 9.

15. See H. Le Bourdellès, L'Aratus Latinus (Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 1985), esp. 251–63.

16. The relevant sections in Aratus Latinus were edited by E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae (Berlin, 1898), pp. 183–9.

17. G. Dittmann, De Hygino Arati interprete (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1900), p. 51, n. 47.

18. E. Gürkoff, Die Katasterismen des Eratosthenes (Sofia: Saglasie, 1931), pp. 47–56; Neugebauer, op. cit. (Note 3), pp. 288–91.

19. Toomer, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 217b.

20. On the translator’s knowledge of Greek and Latin, see Le Bourdellès, op. cit. (Note 15), pp. 136–47.

21. V. Gysembergh, “A Synoptic Study of the Number of Stars in the Constellations of Hipparchus’ Star Catalogue,” in A. Hadravová, P. Hadrava and K. Lippincott (eds), The Stars in the Classical and Medieval Traditions (Prague: Scriptorium, 2019), pp. 19–20, Table 5.

22. C. Marx, “On the Making of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 75 (2020), 21–42.

23. Toomer, op. cit. (Note 1), p. 217a.

24. Coordinates rounded from D.W. Duke’s adjustment of the Almagest coordinates to 129 BCE (see table quoted above, Note 12). All relevant coordinates in Duke’s table were verified by subtracting 2°40ʹ from the longitude indicated in Almagest VII to adjust for precession to 129 BCE, and applying the formulae for conversion between ecliptical and equatorial coordinates (assuming ε = 23°51ʹ20ʺ, Ptolemy’s value for the obliquity of the ecliptic). See the formulae given e.g. in J. Evans, Histoire et pratique de l'astronomie ancienne (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2016), pp. 113–4, which is an augmented French translation of The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 105. Interestingly, it was noticed during this verification that computing coordinates with ε = 23°30ʹ causes many significant changes (i.e. more than a quarter of a degree) in right ascension, and can cause changes of over two degrees for stars at high declinations; in this sense, it is possible that a small discrepancy in ε could have been an error factor in some of Ptolemy’s conversions from his earlier sources but this must remain a subject for further study.

25. See D.W. Duke, “Associations Between the Ancient Star Catalogues,” Archive for the History of Exact Sciences, 56 (2002), 435–50.

26. Values for Ptolemy are based on Duke’s table quoted above (Notes 12 and 24). We converted the decimals to the nearest arcminute.

27. On this possibility see G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest (London: Duckworth, 1984), p. 227, n. 20.

[admin]

Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research
M J Müller, B Landsberg & J Ried
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 68, pages 411–415 (2014)
Published: 02 April 2014

Highlights:

German philosopher Karl Jaspers described science as methodical insight that is mandatorily certain and universal. It is the ethos of modern science to want to reliably know on the basis of unbiased research and critique....

Misconduct and fraud in science do not only offend against its inherent norms and rules summed up in the ‘scientific ethos’ but also make a mockery of its goals—namely gaining knowledge as profound as possible, which again motivates further research and can be practically applied. Scientists depend on cooperation with each other as well as on productive, constructive and trusting relationships with possible investors, users of scientific results—especially patients—and the general public. Trust and honesty is vital for any kind of successful research. Violations of good scientific practice do not only affect those directly concerned but also science and society in general, and, if permitted, we run the risk of undermining the public’s trust in scientific practice as a whole.

Despite numerous cases of research misconduct being made public, this issue is still a taboo topic among the scientific community....

It would be too narrow-minded to question only the individual integrity of the scientist. Very often, if we look into these seemingly isolated cases of research misconduct further, structures can be identified in scientific practice, which benefit such misconduct if not promote it....

A study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) proves that retractions of already published articles have become more frequent in the past 30 years. Between 1977 and 2011, 2047 articles were retracted in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences, with research misconduct being the most frequent reason for retraction. Twenty-one percent of the cases claimed unintentional errors as a reason for retraction, whereas 43% of the articles were retracted owing to ‘fraud’ or ‘suspected fraud’, which has increased 10-fold since 1975....

The average period between publication and retraction of articles was 33 months in all cases; it was highest in cases of ‘fraud’, reaching 47 months....Before retraction, many articles are frequently cited. Concerning articles published in highly prestigious journals (such as the Lancet, Nature Medicine, Cell, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine) and later retracted, between 234 and 758 quotations were counted for the period between 2002 and 2010. Thus, it can be assumed that the misconduct of the respective researchers has caused considerable harm to the scientific community....

Possible mistakes have to be differentiated from misconduct with intent and fraud. Characteristics of fraud range from plagiarism to the violation or assumption of the intellectual property of other authors and data forgery. What is considered as fraud is data misuse, the manipulation of results and their presentation, the independent invention of data, the concealment of undesired results, the disposal of original data, submission of false data, disturbance of the research of other scientists and deception. Fraud also encompasses active participation in misconduct of other researchers, joint knowledge of the forgeries of other authors, coauthorship of forged publications and the gross neglect of responsibility.

In 1998 the DFG published a memorandum on safeguarding good scientific practice. Good scientific practice implies to work ‘lege artis’, to always entertain doubt and self-criticism, to mutually check and examine results, to be accurate when securing quality, to be honest and to document and store primary data to ensure reproducibility. In research institutes and research groups, transparency of the organisational structure, unambiguous responsibilities, information, on-going training and supervision of staff and colleagues are part and prerequisite of good scientific practice. This also includes regulations for storing data, for the allocation of authorship, accountability and responsibility for observing the guidelines and regulations of dealing with possible misconduct....

Good scientific practice is first of all subject to the self-control of scientists within their community. Self-control seems to be reasonable, especially because, respectively, qualified scientists can themselves judge best, which results are plausible and which appear rather suspicious. However, the principle of self-control presumes that a scientific community is able and willing to control itself sufficiently. Especially in highly interconnected research—nationally and internationally—concerning complex questions and problems, trust is a crucial but fragile principle. In general, between cooperating scientists, research misconduct is considered impossible, and mistrust, a poor partner. Yet, the recently disclosed cases of research misconduct make it very obvious that self-control, if taken seriously, is a high demand placed on authors, which is very often limited by personal factors or by pressures linked to their university, institution and/or funding body....

The possible consequences of a violation against good scientific practice comprise labour law-related sanctions (e.g. warning, dismissal), academic sanctions (e.g. the revocation of an academic degree), sanctions according to civil law (e.g. compensation) and criminal sanctions (e.g. due to forgery). A revocation must be made and the subject matter must be set right. Violations against good scientific practice must be communicated to all cooperating partners, research communities, professional associations and to the public....

Considering the principles of science and the many cases of fraud recognised over recent years, the question of reasons for research misconduct is becoming increasingly topical. Misconduct does not simply result from poor character or the misjudgement of individual scientists. Although personal factors are certainly not irrelevant, the manner in which research institutions are organised must also be taken into consideration. No scientist can be a priori certain that he or she does not commit errors one way or another—even though unintentionally—or that he or she is not affected by the misconduct of others; however, prevention of research misconduct is becoming ever critical. The following arguments are addressed to explain possible reasons for research misconduct....

When wishing to make a personal career as a scientist and to increase the ‘success’ of one’s institution, one has to publish regularly, quickly and in high-ranking journals. Hence, scientific research is subject to high pressure, which is increased by financial incentives. If there is little success (i.e. only few publications or numerous publications but in lesser-ranked journals), it is unlikely that the career of the scientist will continue long term. One’s own research has to be successful in the sense of ‘publish or perish’ to guarantee a job and income in the future....

High competition for limited funds is generating more pressure on scientists to be the ‘best’, judged by the number of publications and the journals in which they are published....

Research not only fulfils one’s own ambitions as a scientist but also exterior demands for solving important questions for the future of our society. It also establishes and stabilises the so-called ‘research sites’.

The insights of science do not only have value within the field but also in a further reaching way for society and the economy. This is generally held true for countries like Germany, which is rather poor in natural resources but whose know-how is their most important resource in the globalised world....

The impetus for researching may go beyond interest in scientific knowledge; research also serves as a means of self-fulfilment, self-representation and not least the vanity of the agents. For the scientist, this development involves the danger of failing oneself and one’s own aspirations, since despite any highly specialised knowledge: Scientists are no better people.

Presently, we feel that communication between scientists is ‘disturbed’; self-control does not really work. High research activity and great dependency on external funding influence the culture of communication. This has had an effect on scientific journals over recent years, with an exponential increase in the number of publications, and also in the creation of new peer-reviewed journals.

Publication of articles is subject to the self-control of scientists. An article submitted for publication is usually assessed in the form of an anonymous review, normally by two independent scientists....The number of experts who are qualified for reviewing is limited, their time is limited, and in addition, regarding the present national and international research networks, their independence can no longer be guaranteed.

Despite there being a number of strategies and programmes for detecting plagiarism, their usage often exceeds the effort reasonable for those reviewing in an honorary capacity, which may result in a degree of unintentional incompleteness when reviewing....

A loss of a critical discussion culture harms the quality of research. Adverse factors conditioning misconduct can be observed at conferences and congresses....One can do nothing else but congratulate. Hardly ever are negative results or one’s own mistakes addressed. Our ‘togetherness’ finds itself in a rather care-free and positive atmosphere; arguments on a matter can seldom be found. What is thus not promoted is dealing critically with research results....

The appreciation of authors whose effective part in the respective article is limited or minor becomes a disadvantage if they become unaware accomplices, even in individual cases of research misconduct. Being accepted in the context of many experts promotes one’s reputation and career; however, this way of thinking might be damageable for the integrity of science. Networks can also obstruct the clarification of research misconduct: If one ‘falls’, many others will ‘fall’ too. Who would really want that?...

The very successful scientists of today (sometimes called ‘heroes of science’ or ‘giants in medicine’) generally have such a high number of publications that outsiders may feel ‘dizzy’.... Publishing more and more and better each time increases the danger of losing control over the content and of not fulfilling a researcher’s responsibility....

Taking part in many activities eventually makes us reach the limits of our possibilities. The genuine interests of a scientist must not be dominated by ‘always wanting’ and ‘always participating’.

Thus, it is not honest to ‘devote oneself’ to a research project, unless the project is an exact fit with one’s own interests and qualifications, just to get the money. A researcher’s capacity and productivity is limited and cannot be stretched infinitely by external funds. If the expectations are not fulfilled and the necessary honesty is missing, money can become a disadvantage for research....

[T]hose who already have a lot are persuasive and are therefore more likely to receive future funding and perhaps higher volumes. The result of this is thematically and methodically concentrated, and nowadays highly upgraded centres, or ‘research factories’, which show high productivity and growth rates and secure futures. These centres suppress smaller work groups that struggle to compete.

The concentration of research in the name of ‘success’ creates power structures and endangers the breadth and quality of research.... high profit (i.e. high scientific output) means everything.

Consequently, a publication in a prestigious journal demands a further publication in an also prestigious journal and so on: Scientific growth is seemingly continued to infinity....

Failure is not provided for: Those who receive high funds are doomed to be successful (i.e. there has to be a result); however, this is obviously a case of positivism misunderstood. Research funding is beneficial, but at the present height, it also means a risk to research, because ‘more’ money does not automatically mean ‘more’ knowledge. This (at least felt, if not always admitted) discrepancy may affect scientists behaviour in a negative way....'

Discussing problems, our mistakes and causes in an open and self-critical way should serve to raise awareness and warn researchers of the potential dangers and consequences of misconduct. In cases of fraud or plagiarism, the agents are not just ‘black sheep’. Individual responsibility shall not be denied and must not be downplayed. However, we have to be aware that generally all researchers bear the risk of research misconduct, violations of good scientific practice are possible for each of us and each scientist is liable to the pressures that fuel such behaviour or, indeed, help disguise it.

Academic work requires transparency. Researchers should be subject to internal and external assessment that verifies their research and relates it to respective control mechanisms. It has to be discussed—not only within the research system, but in a wider context. On the one hand, freedom of research must be ensured, but on the other hand, research responsibility must be realised. Without doing away with self-control, it however becomes apparent that self-control alone is not sufficient and that concepts of external control must be developed and evaluated....

Scientific work also demands modesty; overestimating oneself and one’s own thematic coverage will backfire....

Even though external control may be effective, scientists should still be obliged to self-control. Acting as a researcher does not only serve the purpose of furthering knowledge and progressing personally, but relationships with others must also be considered. Rules of good scientific practice have to be accepted by all of us and embedded into attitudes and personalities....

The pressure to succeed imposed by highly financed research institutions and groups has to be reduced. The fundamental values of science must self-evidently and always have priority; they are honesty, decency, objectivity, credibility, doubt, responsibility and openness.

What increases the risk of research misconduct is working only for profit (i.e. the number of publications and the height of the IFs) and growth (i.e. more and more publications). Thus, research that is libertarian and at the same time only oriented towards the market contradicts the idea of science. Research institutes should overcome the temptation of only seeing themselves as players of the market.

The volume of research fraud that has become known begins to demand a quality offensive to be produced. It could imply proactive controls and random samples, the vocation of quality assurance commissioners, the central filing of data and documents, the obligation to take part in regular self-trainings or even workshops on ‘error learning culture’.

Researchers of today are voluntarily or involuntarily part of a media-marketed academic life. It is not only about the secrets of nature, discoveries and problems that have to be solved effectively; science ‘charms’. Results affect researchers (who gain an impetus for their work out of this) and academic journals (which ‘sell’ well if the stories are ‘good’), and also the ‘world’ (which wants to be helped and entertained by scientific knowledge). The scientist should know the inherent risk of this ‘charm’; the limitations of science itself and, of course, also the personal limits of the scientist are always present.

-- Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research, by M J Müller, B Landsberg & J Ried

German philosopher Karl Jaspers described science as methodical insight that is mandatorily certain and universal.1 It is the ethos of modern science to want to reliably know on the basis of unbiased research and critique.1 This claim is not always fulfilled by scientists.

Currently, there are numerous and partly publicly discussed cases of research misconduct and fraud. These cases span various sciences, but are particularly common in biomedical research. Misconduct and fraud in science do not only offend against its inherent norms and rules summed up in the ‘scientific ethos’ but also make a mockery of its goals—namely gaining knowledge as profound as possible, which again motivates further research and can be practically applied. Scientists depend on cooperation with each other as well as on productive, constructive and trusting relationships with possible investors, users of scientific results—especially patients—and the general public. Trust and honesty is vital for any kind of successful research. Violations of good scientific practice do not only affect those directly concerned but also science and society in general, and, if permitted, we run the risk of undermining the public’s trust in scientific practice as a whole.

Despite numerous cases of research misconduct being made public, this issue is still a taboo topic among the scientific community. The following may be considered as isolated cases: Complete frauds, sometimes staged as a sensation by the media, like those of the South Korean clone scientist Hwang Woo-suk,2 cases of manipulated data of researchers, for which there was furthermore no sufficient ethic vote—as in the case of the anaesthesia scientist Joachim Boldt,3 plagiarism in theses of politicians and studies with obvious deficiencies like those of the French molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini.4

It would be too narrow-minded to question only the individual integrity of the scientist. Very often, if we look into these seemingly isolated cases of research misconduct further, structures can be identified in scientific practice, which benefit such misconduct if not promote it.

How frequent is research misconduct?

Cases of research misconduct frequently become public, sometimes even in quick succession. Exact numbers concerning research misconduct are not available; however, according to the report of the German ombudsman for science (formerly the ombudsman of the DFG, German Research Foundation), in 2011 a total of 20 new proceedings were initiated, while 24 proceedings from previous years were continued.5 More than half of these proceedings came from the biomedical field. At present, there are not even somewhat plausible estimations of the dark figure of (so far) unknown cases of violation and fraud.

A study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)6 proves that retractions of already published articles have become more frequent in the past 30 years. Between 1977 and 2011, 2047 articles were retracted in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences, with research misconduct being the most frequent reason for retraction. Twenty-one percent of the cases claimed unintentional errors as a reason for retraction, whereas 43% of the articles were retracted owing to ‘fraud’ or ‘suspected fraud’, which has increased 10-fold since 1975. ‘Plagiarism’ and ‘duplication’ (the so-called ‘self-plagiarism’) make up the remains of the retracted articles in almost equal quantities.

When comparing the origin of the authors concerned, three-quarters of the cases of ‘fraud’ or ‘suspected fraud’ came from the United States, Germany and Japan. Concerning ‘plagiarism’ and ‘duplication’, no unambiguous allocation could be made; however, authors from the United States and China were most commonly involved.

Journals with a higher impact factor (IF) are more frequently affected by ‘fraud’ or ‘suspected fraud’ and ‘errors’ than lesser-ranked journals, whereas ‘plagiarism’ and ‘duplication’ are more commonly found in journals with a lower IF. The list of journals with the greatest number of retracted articles is headed by Science (IF: 32.45), PNAS (IF: 10.47) and The Journal of Biological Chemistry (IF: 5.12). Regarding retractions due to ‘fraud’, The Journal of Biological Chemistry tops the list, followed by Anesthesia & Analgesia (IF: 3.07) and Science. Concerning proven ‘errors’, Science leads, followed by PNAS and Nature (IF: 36.24). ‘Plagiarism’ and ‘duplication’ were similarly frequent in all journals. What is striking is that numerous prestigious journals are also affected by such cases (e.g. The New England Journal of Medicine, IF: 50.08).

The average period between publication and retraction of articles was 33 months in all cases; it was highest in cases of ‘fraud’, reaching 47 months. Regarding ‘plagiarism’ and ‘duplication’, it took an average of 26 months for an article to be retracted. Before retraction, many articles are frequently cited. Concerning articles published in highly prestigious journals (such as the Lancet, Nature Medicine, Cell, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine) and later retracted, between 234 and 758 quotations were counted for the period between 2002 and 2010. Thus, it can be assumed that the misconduct of the respective researchers has caused considerable harm to the scientific community.

What is research misconduct?

Possible mistakes have to be differentiated from misconduct with intent and fraud. Characteristics of fraud range from plagiarism to the violation or assumption of the intellectual property of other authors and data forgery. What is considered as fraud is data misuse, the manipulation of results and their presentation, the independent invention of data, the concealment of undesired results, the disposal of original data, submission of false data, disturbance of the research of other scientists and deception. Fraud also encompasses active participation in misconduct of other researchers, joint knowledge of the forgeries of other authors, coauthorship of forged publications and the gross neglect of responsibility.

Good scientific practice

In 1998 the DFG published a memorandum on safeguarding good scientific practice.7 Good scientific practice implies to work ‘lege artis’, to always entertain doubt and self-criticism, to mutually check and examine results, to be accurate when securing quality, to be honest and to document and store primary data to ensure reproducibility.7 In research institutes and research groups, transparency of the organisational structure, unambiguous responsibilities, information, on-going training and supervision of staff and colleagues are part and prerequisite of good scientific practice. This also includes regulations for storing data, for the allocation of authorship, accountability and responsibility for observing the guidelines and regulations of dealing with possible misconduct.

These fundamental rules have to be applied when using DFG funds. Guidelines for good scientific practice were also published by the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft and the Max Planck-Gesellschaft.8,9 All university and non-university research institutions in Germany have implemented respective guidelines. In light of recent events (a reaction to the case of ‘von und zu Guttenberg’ in media, politics and science), in 2011 the DFG held a symposium of the alliance of research associations (i.e. the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the Research Council.) with the title ‘Good scientific practice’, and thus remains active in dealing with the issue.10

Control

Good scientific practice is first of all subject to the self-control of scientists within their community. Self-control seems to be reasonable, especially because, respectively, qualified scientists can themselves judge best, which results are plausible and which appear rather suspicious. However, the principle of self-control presumes that a scientific community is able and willing to control itself sufficiently. Especially in highly interconnected research—nationally and internationally—concerning complex questions and problems, trust is a crucial but fragile principle. In general, between cooperating scientists, research misconduct is considered impossible, and mistrust, a poor partner. Yet, the recently disclosed cases of research misconduct make it very obvious that self-control, if taken seriously, is a high demand placed on authors, which is very often limited by personal factors or by pressures linked to their university, institution and/or funding body. In how far alternative or complementary concepts of external control are necessary and what format they may take has not yet been extensively discussed.

Consequences

The possible consequences of a violation against good scientific practice comprise labour law-related sanctions (e.g. warning, dismissal), academic sanctions (e.g. the revocation of an academic degree), sanctions according to civil law (e.g. compensation) and criminal sanctions (e.g. due to forgery). A revocation must be made and the subject matter must be set right. Violations against good scientific practice must be communicated to all cooperating partners, research communities, professional associations and to the public. Here, the rights of those affected must not be curtailed.

Each research institute has an ombudsman for science, who is elected from the circle of scientists; scientists in an executive position are not electable.7,11 The nominated ombudsman for science is challenged with the prevention of research misconduct, informing his or her colleagues about ethical principles of research, examining possible allegations of misconduct and following the appropriate course to solve such matters.

The ombudsman analyses the meaning and the motives of such violations; here, confidentiality has to be ensured and those affected have to be saved from rash harm. It is also part of the duties of the ombudsman to inform the administration, the Dean and project sponsors. He or she should be independent and free of conflict of interest.cf. 11

Reasons for research misconduct

Considering the principles of science and the many cases of fraud recognised over recent years, the question of reasons for research misconduct is becoming increasingly topical. Misconduct does not simply result from poor character or the misjudgement of individual scientists. Although personal factors are certainly not irrelevant, the manner in which research institutions are organised must also be taken into consideration. No scientist can be a priori certain that he or she does not commit errors one way or another—even though unintentionally—or that he or she is not affected by the misconduct of others; however, prevention of research misconduct is becoming ever critical. The following arguments are addressed to explain possible reasons for research misconduct.

‘Publish or perish’

Success and an academic career are the result of numerous publications. In Germany there are many universities, academies and research institutes, which employ ca. 40 000 professors and numerous assistants.

Science not only serves to further the knowledge and interests of an individual but also to build their own academic profile. Both the ‘success’ and the ‘failure’ of individual researchers and research groups immediately result in effects on the reputation of their respective institutions and associations.

When wishing to make a personal career as a scientist and to increase the ‘success’ of one’s institution, one has to publish regularly, quickly and in high-ranking journals. Hence, scientific research is subject to high pressure, which is increased by financial incentives. If there is little success (i.e. only few publications or numerous publications but in lesser-ranked journals), it is unlikely that the career of the scientist will continue long term. One’s own research has to be successful in the sense of ‘publish or perish’ to guarantee a job and income in the future.

Uncertain research structures

Younger scientists, especially, are often dependent on subsidies limited in time. Social uncertainty is a very adverse condition for research. In recent decades, it was possible to support excellent and large-scale research projects by financial means offered by the state and the EU, and ambitious research projects were realised. Nowadays, the volume of funding available has decreased and research institutes, universities and their employees are competing for funds that ultimately determine the feasibility and scale of projects undertaken.

The existence of such projects, as well as jobs in research, is also limited by the respective period of funding leading to a high degree of instability. High competition for limited funds is generating more pressure on scientists to be the ‘best’, judged by the number of publications and the journals in which they are published.

The dimensions of research

The dimensions of research supersede the scientist’s daily life. At the moment biomedical research has a high reputation within our society and thus enjoys a certain kind of advantage of trust, which is not least fuelled by the patients’ hope for (more) effective therapies and further medical concepts. Research not only fulfils one’s own ambitions as a scientist but also exterior demands for solving important questions for the future of our society. It also establishes and stabilises the so-called ‘research sites’.

The insights of science do not only have value within the field but also in a further reaching way for society and the economy. This is generally held true for countries like Germany, which is rather poor in natural resources but whose know-how is their most important resource in the globalised world.

Regarding methodical and technological progresses, today scientists are under the impression that they live in times of great discoveries and essential biomedical progress, leading to biomedical research being characterised by a spirit of optimism. Modern biomedicine has taken up an immense rise, creating an almost ‘revolutionary’ enthusiasm in medicine and also arousing the public’s interest. Discoveries and sensations from science have become part of our everyday life.

We want to believe that complex medical problems can be solved within a relatively short period of time, and diseases that have previously been deemed fatal, can be prevented or successfully treated. To achieve that, great joint efforts are necessary as well as more and more financial means for ever bigger ‘mega’-projects. There is a vision that the time until the next breakthrough can be shortened by bigger investments. The position and ambition of a scientist thus succeeds his or her daily life and genuine workspace, his or her responsibility reaches far into far future and society, whether the individual scientist, the work group or the institute may or may not want this.

The ‘hype’, which is nowadays regularly created for medical applications that are only envisaged or that seem to be almost visionary, is fuelled by researchers and the public in a complex interaction with each other, no matter if they like it or not. The impetus for researching may go beyond interest in scientific knowledge; research also serves as a means of self-fulfilment, self-representation and not least the vanity of the agents. For the scientist, this development involves the danger of failing oneself and one’s own aspirations, since despite any highly specialised knowledge: Scientists are no better people.

Dysfunctional communication

Presently, we feel that communication between scientists is ‘disturbed’; self-control does not really work. High research activity and great dependency on external funding influence the culture of communication. This has had an effect on scientific journals over recent years, with an exponential increase in the number of publications, and also in the creation of new peer-reviewed journals.

Publication of articles is subject to the self-control of scientists. An article submitted for publication is usually assessed in the form of an anonymous review, normally by two independent scientists. If the reviews are contradictory, the Editor may seek the opinion of further experts in the field. This form of self-control is, however, stretched to its limits. The number of experts who are qualified for reviewing is limited, their time is limited, and in addition, regarding the present national and international research networks, their independence can no longer be guaranteed.

Despite there being a number of strategies and programmes for detecting plagiarism,cf. 12 their usage often exceeds the effort reasonable for those reviewing in an honorary capacity, which may result in a degree of unintentional incompleteness when reviewing. Publishers of professional journals and their editors strive for effective strategies against research fraud; however; there are obviously limits to self-control and at present successful alternative or complementary forms of external control have not yet been established.

The loss of a critical discussion culture

A loss of a critical discussion culture harms the quality of research. Adverse factors conditioning misconduct can be observed at conferences and congresses. Here we are overwhelmed with data and almost exclusively see ‘successful’ presentations; projects seem stringent, and results are very often ‘perfect’. One can do nothing else but congratulate. Hardly ever are negative results or one’s own mistakes addressed. Our ‘togetherness’ finds itself in a rather care-free and positive atmosphere; arguments on a matter can seldom be found. What is thus not promoted is dealing critically with research results.

Networks increase ‘productivity’ and create dependencies

Networks of research institutions and scientists serve the purpose of science, but they also have a ‘multiplier effect’. A broad and partly global cooperation of scientists requires common values and responsibility. Results of ‘successful’ networking include, for example, multiple authorship of publications, multiple evaluations of the same data and redundancies or overlapping of scientific publications.

The responsibilities are not always set clearly within networks and among the authors of publications (in spite of the regulations of academic journalscf. 11), and in practice are not really transparent. It is possible that many coauthors are not conscious of their responsibility. If numerous authors bore common responsibility for a publication, this could serve the function of self-control.

The appreciation of authors whose effective part in the respective article is limited or minor becomes a disadvantage if they become unaware accomplices, even in individual cases of research misconduct. Being accepted in the context of many experts promotes one’s reputation and career; however, this way of thinking might be damageable for the integrity of science. Networks can also obstruct the clarification of research misconduct: If one ‘falls’, many others will ‘fall’ too. Who would really want that?

Hierarchies create disquieting pressure

Research institutions and great associations, such as clusters of excellence and collaborative research centres, not only have democratic but also partly hierarchical governance structures. They may promote one’s success or affect it negatively. In the worst case, they promote inequality in research and use relationships of subordination and dependency and hamper critical discussions.

Running research associations and deciding on applications and external funds implies power on the one hand, but on the other hand, it also entails responsibility. The maintenance of power is an obvious strategy (and taken for itself not objectionable) of those who want to achieve this power and keep it. The balance of power and responsibility decides on how ‘successes’, which are necessary for establishing or continuing a group or project, are achieved. If power is favoured over responsibility, inequality and dependencies can affect the quality of the academic work by putting the individual scientist under pressure to produce results in a certain way. Researching and publishing under pressure increases the danger of mistakes and therefore research misconduct.

Too much is published

The very successful scientists of today (sometimes called ‘heroes of science’ or ‘giants in medicine’) generally have such a high number of publications that outsiders may feel ‘dizzy’: Top researchers seldom publish more than 20 articles a year, and usually in the so-called ‘top journals’ (i.e. journals with a high IF). If a certain number of publications within a certain period of time is exceeded (with due respect), doubts concerning the responsibility and integrity of the respective scientist may arise. Publishing more and more and better each time increases the danger of losing control over the content and of not fulfilling a researcher’s responsibility.

Money may ‘spoil’ researchers

Considering the high number of calls for attractive research projects, submitters as well as reviewers and counsellors are overburdened and also partly overcharged. Taking part in many activities eventually makes us reach the limits of our possibilities. The genuine interests of a scientist must not be dominated by ‘always wanting’ and ‘always participating’.

Thus, it is not honest to ‘devote oneself’ to a research project, unless the project is an exact fit with one’s own interests and qualifications, just to get the money. A researcher’s capacity and productivity is limited and cannot be stretched infinitely by external funds. If the expectations are not fulfilled and the necessary honesty is missing, money can become a disadvantage for research. Who would admit that he or she is not really interested in a certain project for which he or she has received money and that he or she has possibly spent part of the money elsewhere?

‘Libertarian’ research mentality and ‘research factories’ impede thinking against the tide

A ‘libertarian’ research mentality and ‘research factories’ impede thinking against the tide and force ‘success’. The placing of external funds takes place is influenced by research structure; those who already have a lot are persuasive and are therefore more likely to receive future funding and perhaps higher volumes. The result of this is thematically and methodically concentrated, and nowadays highly upgraded centres, or ‘research factories’, which show high productivity and growth rates and secure futures. These centres suppress smaller work groups that struggle to compete.

The concentration of research in the name of ‘success’ creates power structures and endangers the breadth and quality of research. Thinking against the tide has become hard and rather seldom considering the thematic conformity in research centres. Today libertarian principles (known from economics) determine the success and the future of biomedical research; high profit (i.e. high scientific output) means everything.

Consequently, a publication in a prestigious journal demands a further publication in an also prestigious journal and so on: Scientific growth is seemingly continued to infinity. The ‘real’ gain of scientific knowledge does not necessarily grow with the number of publications; the ‘surplus value’ of research (i.e. in the sense of creating knowledge) has yet to be proven.

However, this view contradicts the calls and the expectations of those funding the projects and the promises of those receiving the funds. Failure is not provided for: Those who receive high funds are doomed to be successful (i.e. there has to be a result); however, this is obviously a case of positivism misunderstood. Research funding is beneficial, but at the present height, it also means a risk to research, because ‘more’ money does not automatically mean ‘more’ knowledge. This (at least felt, if not always admitted) discrepancy may affect scientists behaviour in a negative way.

Possible ways out

Considering the rather disillusioning diagnosis concerning the complex network of individual, social, economic and structural factors conditioning forgery, fraud, plagiarism and other forms of research misconduct, the question of what format effective prevention and constructive processes dealing with discovered misconduct could take arises.

Openness

Discussing problems, our mistakes and causes in an open and self-critical way should serve to raise awareness and warn researchers of the potential dangers and consequences of misconduct. In cases of fraud or plagiarism, the agents are not just ‘black sheep’. Individual responsibility shall not be denied and must not be downplayed. However, we have to be aware that generally all researchers bear the risk of research misconduct, violations of good scientific practice are possible for each of us and each scientist is liable to the pressures that fuel such behaviour or, indeed, help disguise it.

Transparency

Academic work requires transparency. Researchers should be subject to internal and external assessment that verifies their research and relates it to respective control mechanisms. It has to be discussed—not only within the research system, but in a wider context. On the one hand, freedom of research must be ensured, but on the other hand, research responsibility must be realised. Without doing away with self-control, it however becomes apparent that self-control alone is not sufficient and that concepts of external control must be developed and evaluated.

Culture

Self-control has to be credible, but under the given circumstances of scientific work, this is not always possible; multiple charges, diverse networking and the diverse interests of researchers, reviewers and counsellors subvert the principle of self-control and our credibility. High research activity demands for a discourse on how much ‘self-control’ a ‘booming’ science can afford. This discussion cannot only be led by those with ‘power’ (who are themselves part of the problem because of their high amount of external funds). It is essential to think against the tide.

Restrictions

Voluntary restrictions on researchers (e.g. in the number of doctoral candidates, in the amount of attracted funds, in the number of publications each year) and the establishment of a responsible relationship between supervisors and assistants are prerequisites for good scientific practice. Scientific work also demands modesty; overestimating oneself and one’s own thematic coverage will backfire. This is especially true in times of ‘data- and tool-driven’ research, which demands responsibility and discipline when dealing with results.13

Basic understanding

Even though external control may be effective, scientists should still be obliged to self-control. Acting as a researcher does not only serve the purpose of furthering knowledge and progressing personally, but relationships with others must also be considered. Rules of good scientific practice have to be accepted by all of us and embedded into attitudes and personalities.14 Academic training (e.g. in research training groups or in ‘young research groups’) should account for that.

Less pressure

The pressure to succeed imposed by highly financed research institutions and groups has to be reduced. The fundamental values of science must self-evidently and always have priority; they are honesty, decency, objectivity, credibility, doubt, responsibility and openness.

What increases the risk of research misconduct is working only for profit (i.e. the number of publications and the height of the IFs) and growth (i.e. more and more publications). Thus, research that is libertarian and at the same time only oriented towards the market contradicts the idea of science. Research institutes should overcome the temptation of only seeing themselves as players of the market.

Quality offensive

The volume of research fraud that has become known begins to demand a quality offensive to be produced. It could imply proactive controls and random samples, the vocation of quality assurance commissioners, the central filing of data and documents, the obligation to take part in regular self-trainings or even workshops on ‘error learning culture’.

Critical distance

Researchers of today are voluntarily or involuntarily part of a media-marketed academic life. It is not only about the secrets of nature, discoveries and problems that have to be solved effectively; science ‘charms’. Results affect researchers (who gain an impetus for their work out of this) and academic journals (which ‘sell’ well if the stories are ‘good’), and also the ‘world’ (which wants to be helped and entertained by scientific knowledge). The scientist should know the inherent risk of this ‘charm’; the limitations of science itself and, of course, also the personal limits of the scientist are always present.

Prospect

The problem of research misconduct has to be offensively addressed in all its diverse shades within universities, research institutions, institutes and work groups. Guidelines of good scientific practice are already part of the daily work at many places, but they are just a first step towards a transparent and diverse research culture. Interaction of research, public and politics15 is in specific need of more attention to keep up the still high credit of trust in science and to encourage and support scientists to meet this trust by an appropriate scientific ethos. In September and October of 2012, the Global Network of Science Academies (IAP), together with the InterAcademy Council and the European Research Council (ERC), formulated strategies and parameters of actions against research misconduct.16,17 They again stress the personal responsibility of scientists and institutions, as well as the principle of self-control in science. Here, academic journals, academies and associations are assigned a special role. However, these arguments and recommendations are conform to the discussion so far; they remain within the realm of science itself, do not go further and do not reach any new quality—at least until now.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This contribution was made in the context of the BMBF Kompetenznetz Adipositas (Junges Netzwerk, FKZ 01GI1123 and EPI Germany, FKZ 01GI1121A). MJ Müller1, B Landsberg1 and J Ried2 1Institute for Human Nutrition and Food Science, Christian-Albrechts- Universität, Kiel, Germany and 2Fachbereich Theologie, Lehrstuhl Systematische Theologie (Ethik), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany E-mail: mmueller@nutrfoodsc.uni-kiel.de

REFERENCES

1 Jaspers K. Grundzüge der modernen Wissenschaft. Jaspers K. Was ist der Mensch? Piper: München, Germany, 2000, pp 93–95.

2 Zeit Die. http://pdf.zeit.de/online/2006/01/hwang_total.pdf. Accessed on 29 December 2005.

3 Zeitung Ärzte. http://www.aerztezeitung.de/praxis_wirt ... 819197/stu diengefaelscht-bericht-belastet-anaesthesisten.html. Accessed on 08 August 2012.

4 Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natu ... -abschluss bewertung-zu-seralini-studie-vor-a-869844.html. Accessed on 28 November 2012.

5 Ombudsmann für die Wissenschaft, Jahresbericht 2011. http://www.ombudsman-fuerdie- wissenschaft.de/fileadmin/Ombudsman/Dokumente/Downloads/Berichte/ Jahresbericht_2011_Ombudsman.pdf. Accessed on 21 March 2012.

6 Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 17028–17033.

7 DFG—Deutsch Forschungsgemeinschaft. Gute wissenschaftliche Praxis. http:// http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/rechtliche ... ndex.html; http:// http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_p ... /download/ empfehlung_ wiss_praxis_0198.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2010.

8 Leibniz-Gemeinschaft. http://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/. Accessed on 24 February 2014.

9 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. http://www.mpg.de/pdf/procedures/regelnWissPraxis.pdf. Accessed on 24 February 2014.

10 ‘Gute wissenschaftliche Praxis’—Symposium der Allianz der Wissenschafts organisationen. Berlin http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingun gen/gwp/111129_symposium/index.jsp. Accessed on 29 November 2011.

11 DIW—Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. Forschungsethische Prinzipien am DIW Berlin und Verfahren im Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten. http://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentena ... rinzipien_ 20121025.pdf. Accessed on 4 November 2012.

12 COPE, Committee of Publication Ethics. Promoting integrity in research publication. http://publicationethics.org. Accessed on 30 September 2012.

13 Dyson FJ. Is science mostly driven by ideas or by tools? Science 2012; 338: 1426–1427.

14 Dörner, K. ‘Ich darf nicht denken’. Das medizinische Selbstverständnis der Angeklagten . Ebbinghaus, A, Dörner, K, Hrsg. Vernichten, Heilen. Aufbau: Berlin, Germany, 2001. Der Nürnberger Ärzteprozeß und seine Folgen?

15 Wissenschaft und Demokratie. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: Suhrkamp, 2012.

16 IAP—The Global Network of Science Academies and InterAcademy Council. Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise. A Policy Report. http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id = 28253. Accessed on 2 February 2014.

17 ERC—European Research Council. ERC Scientific Misconduct Strategy. http://erc. europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Scientific_misconduct_strategy.pdf. Accessed on 11 October 2012.

[admin]

Some Spurious Inscriptions and Their Authors
by Frank Frost Abbott
Classical Philology III
January, 1908

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Several scholars in modern times have written chapters on literary forgery, but no one seems to have studied in a comprehensive way epigraphical forgery and the methods which are employed in detecting it, although there is no field of classical study in which dishonesty has brought such confusion, as in epigraphy, and, on the other hand, in no investigations have scholars displayed more acuteness than they have shown in detecting spurious inscriptions. This paper, however, does not aim to give a complete survey of the subject. Its purpose is merely to bring together a sufficient body of facts from the notes in the Corpus and from the reports of scholars in the epigraphical journals to show the development of the art, and to illustrate the methods of some of its most famous, or infamous, promoters.

It was so easy two or three centuries ago to compose an important inscription, and to win distinction by publishing it to the world, and so difficult to detect its spurious character, that many scholars yielded to the temptation. Furthermore, the opportune publication of a forged inscription might save a weary search in establishing a point, furnish a missing link in a chain of evidence, or administer a coup de grace to a stubborn opponent. In view of this situation we are not surprised to find that the number of spurious or suspected inscriptions mounts up to 10,576 in a total of 144,044, corresponding to a ratio of about one spurious to thirteen authentic inscriptions. The condition of things in the several volumes of the Corpus varies greatly. Against Vol. VII, with only 24 spurious and 1,355 authentic inscriptions, stand [size=1 10]Vols. IX and X, which cover the old kingdom of Naples, with totals for the two volumes of 1,854*1 and 14,841, which stand to each other in the ratio of one to eight. [/size]These differences between the several volumes in the matter of forged inscriptions, of which the cases just cited are characteristic, tempt one to an estimate of the comparative honesty of the Spanish, Roman, Neapolitan, French, or English epigraphist and antiquarian. Two or three independent facts also seem to indicate that the national standards in this matter among the several European peoples have not been the same. Thus, for instance, Donius in the seventeenth century, fresh from the chagrin which his deceitful amanuensis Grata had caused him, writes to a friend expressing a desire for a Belgian to fill the position of secretary for him "cum Itali plerique huic officio parum idonei sint" [Google translate: whereas most Italians are unfit for this duty] (cf. CIL, VI. 5, p. 228*). and Borghesi was so indignant at the large number of forgeries from Naples that he was inclined to hold all Neapolitan inscriptions under suspicion. On the other hand, the Englishman may feel some national pride in the fact that only 24 spurious inscriptions are found in the collection from Britain. But conclusions based on national or geographical considerations must be drawn with great care, for, in point of fact, all the principal continental peoples of Europe -- the Italians, the Germans, the French, and the Spanish -- have had representatives in the art of forgery, and an examination of the spurious inscriptions shows that the composition of them is characteristic of a particular period rather than of a given region. The publication of fictitious inscriptions goes back to the fifteenth century and was practiced as late as the middle of the last century, but its Augustan age runs from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century. Since Italy furnished the most fruitful field for epigraphical study at that time, as it does today, and since, consequently, Italians out-numbered others in cultivating it, it is not strange that Italian forgeries are more numerous than those from other sources. It is also true, as we shall have occasion to notice, that two or three Italian scholars were very prolific in this field and, therefore, have brought up the national average. Turning from the geographical factor to the time-element, perhaps we should not boast too much, at the expense of our predecessors, of the higher standard of epigraphical morals which prevails now, because the certainty of detection exerts a most salutary deterrent influence upon those who might be inclined to sin in this matter today. We have now a systematic collection of inscriptions; critical principles are well established, and interest in classical antiquities is so general and all parts of the Roman world are reached today with such comparative ease, that a forgery, or the attribution of a forged inscription to a particular place, would be readily detected.

Felix Felicianus of Verona, of the fifteenth century, who is perhaps best known for an interesting little treatise upon the letters of the alphabet and the best methods of drawing them (cf. R. Schone in Eph. Epigr. I, p. 255 if.), may perhaps be regarded as the father of epigraphical forgery. The art did not appear in its completed form at once, and the earliest practice of it was comparatively naive and harmless. Felicianus and his immediate successors never, or rarely, forged inscriptions outright, but they pretended to find in some ruin an inscription mentioned by an ancient author, or their fictitious finds were based upon some statement found in literature. Thus Michael Ferrarinus reports as one of his discoveries the epitaph of Ennius, obviously taking the text from Cic. Tusc. i. 34:, and Mazochius in his Epigrammata antiqua urbis, published in 1521, reports the following inscription: Divo Gordiano victori Persarum, victori Gothorum, victori Sarmatarum, depulsori Romanorum seditionum, victori Germanorum, sed non victori Philipporum [Google translate: To the god Gordianus the conqueror of the Persians, the conqueror of the Goths, the conqueror of the Sarmatians, the repulsor of the Roman rebellions, the conqueror of the Germans, but not the conqueror of the Philippi](CIL. VI. 5.1* S). This is of course taken bodily from the life of the three Gordians (chap. 34:) by Julius Capitolinus. The latest known forgeries are those of Chabassiere, a French engineer who in 1866 published through the Academy of Constantine several African inscriptions, one of which, an inscription of king Hiempsal, was recognized as a forgery by both Mommsen and Wilmanns (cf. CIL. VIII, p. 489), and cast discredit upon all the other inscriptions reported by Chabassiere alone.

If the Berlin Academy had persisted in following up the plan, which it had adopted in 1850 at Zumpt's suggestion, of basing the Corpus mainly upon the epigraphical texts given in manuscript and printed collections, probably most of the spurious inscriptions which have been composed during the four centuries which intervene between Felicianus and Chabassiere, and which now languish under the dreaded star, would never have been thus stigmatized. Fortunately, Mommsen, before publishing an inscription, insisted upon examining the stone, whenever it was in existence, and demonstrated the feasibility of his plan and the correctness of his method in his Inscriptiones regni Neapolitani [Google translate: Inscriptions of the kingdom of Naples], which appeared in 1852. Fortunately, too, Mommsen had, perhaps unwittingly, selected for this first scientific collection a field, viz. the kingdom of Naples, where forgers, as we noticed above, had been most active. The attention of the editors of the Corpus was thus drawn at the outset to the importance of detecting forged and interpolated inscriptions, and many of the critical principles upon which the science rests today were formulated and applied by Mommsen in this preliminary work (cf., e. g., CIL. IX, p. xi). From this early period comes, for instance, the well-known classification of all previous collectors in three categories: (1) the honest and careful, (2) the dishonest, and (3) the negligent, credulous, or ignorant. The principle of classification adopted for the second group is Calvinistic in its severity. One demonstrated lapse from honesty on the part of a collector condemns every inscription for which the scholar in question is our only direct source of information. The sweeping character of this critical rule is probably responsible for putting many authentic inscriptions in the suspected list, and some cases of this sort have already come to light (cf. CIL. VI. 5, pp. 253*-55*). It would seem desirable soon to examine these lists in the several volumes systematically in the light of new discoveries and of our increased knowledge, in the hope of rescuing authentic inscriptions from their present position among the suspected or condemned. That the principle underlying the second grouping of collectors does not lean toward lenity seems to be indicated also by the fact that no inscription regarded by the editors of the Corpus as authentic has been condemned later.

The most prolific forgers in the period from Felicianus to Chabassiere were Boissard, Gutenstein, Ligorio, Lupoli, Roselli, and Trigueros. The names -- French, German, Italian, and Spanish -- indicate, as observed above, that scholars of all the principal continental countries were guilty of this offense. The devious methods of Francisco Roselli are especially hard to follow because he at the same time forged some inscriptions and copied many other authentic ones, but copied them carelessly. His collection, which was made up partly of inscriptions from Grumentum, was published in 1790, and Mommsen, finding it very difficult to make a correct estimate of his work from the published collection, went to Grumentum in 1S46 to study his method of procedure. He found that the people of Grumentum regarded Roselli as their most distinguished citizen, and they gave their visitor all the help they could to make the fame of their fellow-townsman known as widely as possible. Mommsen's embarrassment when he discovered the true character of Roselli and had to publish the facts is best indicated in his own words (CIL. X, p. 28): "Grumenti autem qui studia mea adiuverunt viri optimi, quorum memoriam grato et pio animo recolo, nolint mihi irasci, quod libere de Rosellio locutus sum et verus magis esse volui quam gratiosus." [Google translate: But the Grumenti, who have aided my studies, the good men, whose memory I remember with a grateful and pious heart, do not want to be angry with me, because I spoke freely about Roselli and wanted to be true rather than popular.] Among other peculiarities Roselli's MS shows some very interesting afterthoughts. In one case (CIL. X. 43*) he forged an inscription in honor of a certain Q. Attius in which the people of his native town were characterized as Bruttii, but, finding later that they were really of Lucanian origin, he revised his inscription by dropping out the line in which the Bruttian origin was mentioned.

Roselli's purpose was apparently to bring distinction to himself and his native town. Gutenstein's motive was more altruistic. He was Gruter's amanuensis and not only reported authentic inscriptions to his master but also forged others to gratify Gruter's intense desire for additions to his collection. Many of his inscriptions he pretended to have found in the collections of Metellus and Smetius. His dishonesty was discovered when these collections were examined and Gutenstein's inscriptions were not found among them (cf. CIL. VI. 5.3226*-3239*; Bormann Eph. Epigr. III, p. 72). His epigraphical style is well illustrated by Mommsen in Eph. Epigr, I, pp. 67-75. One of the inscriptions there quoted is in honor of Septimius Severus. Another reads as follows: DDD. nnn. | Valentiniano Valenti et | Gratiano Auggg | piis felicibus ac | semper triumfator. | signum Herculi vict. | ob prov .... | rect .... | ampli .... | votis X | .... is xx. [Google translate: DDD nnn | Valentinian Valenti and | Gratiano Auggg | to the pious and happy always triumphant | sign of Hercules defeated | for prov... | right .... | wide .... | wish X | .... it is xx.] On these two Mommsen remarks (p. 68): "primae honores honorumque iterationes tam facile explanabis quam Geryoni aptabis petasum; in secunda imperatores tres intemeratae Christianitatis signumque Herculis victoris simul splendent tamquam in eodem caelo Sol et Luna." [Google translate: You will explain the first honors and the repetitions of honors as easily as you fit Geryon's hat; in the second, the three emperors of undefiled Christianity and the symbol of Hercules the victor shine together as if the Sun and the Moon were in the same sky.]

The method of Lupoli, a bishop at Venusia, was to take inscriptions from the collections of Gruter and Fabretti, add a few genuine ones of his own, and forge others to complete his collection. His work is characterized by the stern indignation which he expresses at the inaccuracy and dishonesty of other epigraphists.

In the Rh. Mus. XVII (1862), pp. 228 ff., Hubner tells in a graphic way how he unmasked Trigueros. The conduct of the Spanish epigraphist was peculiarly and ingeniously perfidious, because he attributed his own forged inscriptions to a scholar of a previous generation who was' probably a creation of his own imagination. He had already taken a similar course in the case of a piece of literature forged by him, so that this method of procedure must have appealed to his malicious sense of humor.

But the prince of forgers was the Neapolitan Pirro Ligorio of the sixteenth century. In a burst of indignant admiration de Rossi characterizes him (Inscr. Chr. urbis Romae, p. xvii * [Google translate: Inscr. Chr. of the city of Rome, p. xvii *]) as "magnus ille fallaciarum opifex et parens." [Google translate: He is a great maker and parent of deceptions.] Ligorio held a very distinguished position among the scholars and artists of his day, was the friend of Smetius, Pighius, and Panvinius, and succeeded Michelangelo in supervising the work at St. Peter's. The Vatican library has twelve manuscript volumes from his hand, the Barberini ten, and the library at Turin, at least up to the time of the late injury to that collection by fire, thirty more. Of the 3,643 spurious inscriptions which CIL. VI, pt. 5, contains, 2,995 emanate from Ligorio. His audacity is incredible. Many of his forgeries he pretended to have found in the gardens or libraries of well-known houses in Rome (cf. CIL. VI, pt. 1, p. lii, col. 1), and as a rule he mentions the exact location, e. g., he locates VI. 1460* "dentro la chiesa di San Nicola di Cavalieri in via Florida presso della Calcare." [Google translate: inside the church of San Nicola di Cavalieri in via Florida at della Calcare.] Sometimes he gives an airy description of the supposed monument, as in VI. 1463*, "in essa si vede la imagine della Gorgona et pare che gli volano a destra et a sinistra due farfalle. Con un festone di frutti." [Google translate: in it we see the image of the Gorgona and it seems that two butterflies fly to the right and to the left. With a festoon of fruit.] Sometimes he based his productions on a single authentic inscription (cf. VI. 1819* and VI. 1409); sometimes he combined two authentic inscriptions (cf. VI. 1866* and VI. 1739, 1764)" but more frequently he forged outright. His versatility in the matter of content and form is extraordinary. He treats a great variety of subjects, combines Greek and Latin (e. g., VI. 1653*), composes a fragmentary inscription (e. g., VI. 1665 *), imitates the illiterate, as in using the form ongentarius (VI. 2066*), and indulges in such, paleographical novelties as ligatures (e.g., VI. 1657*) or heart-shaped separation points (e.g., VI. 2079*). He carried his work even to the point of carving more than one hundred of his forgeries on stone, most of them for the museum of his patron the Cardinal of Carpi. Some of these have been discussed by Henzen in the Comm. in hon. Mommseni, p. 627 ff. His inscriptions had been suspected by a number of scholars, but their spurious character was first clearly shown by Olivieri at a meeting of a learned society in Ravenna in 1764 (cf. Inscr. Lat. sel., ed. Orelli, I, pp.43-54).

Most of the prolific epigraphical forgers have some idiosyncrasies or some stylistic peculiarities, or they are ignorant in some specific field of the Latin language or of Roman life, and these weaknesses not infrequently betray them. Gutenstein, for instance, in copying an inscription from a previous collector, had the strange habit of making some slight change in a title or a date, as Mommsen has shown in Eph. Epigr. I, p. 71. Thus, for example, he changes pietatis Imperatoris Caesaris [Google translate: the mercy of the Emperor Caesar] to pietati et felieitati imp. Caes., [Google translate: to piety and happiness imp. You kill] and III idus Maias [Google translate: May 3rd] appears in his copy as VI id. Febr., [Google translate: 6 February] although it is impossible to see why he made the alteration. Ligorio's tendencies and the points at which he is ignorant are brought out very clearly by Henzen in Comm. in hon. Mommseni, pp. 627 if. He is weak in the syntax of the cases and not infrequently puts the accusative after the preposition a or ab; he is not familiar with the Roman system of nomenclature and, consequently, confuses nomina and cognomina, gives a slave a nomen, or adds servus to the name of a freedman. His two fads are to put an apex over the preposition a, and to coin titles of the type a potione, to which he is prone to add a word that changes altogether the meaning of these stereotyped expressions; cases in point are faber a Corinthis [Google translate: a carpenter from Corinth], and a balnea custos [Google translate: a bath keeper]. The editors of the Corpus have studied the stylistic characteristics of these two men with such care that Mommsen (op. cit., p. 75) can say with truth: "a Ligorianis autem Gutensteniana qui artem callet non minus certo nec difficilius separabit quam qui poetis Latinis operam dederunt Vergiliana ab Ovidianis distinguunt." [Google translate: But he who is skilled in the art will no less certainly and no more difficultly separate the Gutenstians from the Ligorians than those who have paid attention to the Latin poets distinguish the Virgils from the Ovids.]

The true character of most of the forgeries was not discovered until long after they had been made. In the meantime they were copied into new collections by scholars all over the world, who often failed to indicate the source from which they had borrowed, and one of the most laborious tasks which the editors of the Corpus have had to perform is in tracing an inscription back through manuscript and printed collections to a Lupoli or a Ligorio. Thus VI. 2942*, forged by Ligorio, was borrowed by Panvinius, taken from him by Donius, and finally found its way into Muratori. Not infrequently forgers have been deceived by the inventions of other forgers. Ruggieri published IX. 180* from Mirabella. In the fourth line of Ruggieri's copy stood provo apuliae [Google translate: I stood to try Apulia]. The unscrupulous Pratilli took the inscription from Ruggieri, but changed the two words mentioned to proc. apuliae [Google translate: process Apulia], and finally Lupoli in his collection edited proc. apuliae, but later without comment changed the reading to corr. apuliae [Google translate: corr. Apulia]. The motive which actuated most forgers was a desire to win distinction by the number or importance of their discoveries; some of them wished to prove a point, or to establish the antiquity of their own families. This last motive accounts for Lupoli's invention of IX. 157*: C. Baebius Lu | pulus. et C. Baebius Lupul. f | Silvano. deo | vot. s. 1. m. [Google translate: C. Baebius Lu | flea and C. Baebius Lupul. f | Silvanus god vot s. 1. m.]

It may not be out of place to give a few of the spurious inscriptions which are most interesting in themselves or show a feeling for the picturesque or a sense of. humor on the part of the forger. In VI. 3439* we have the epitaph of Mithradates which reads: Haec est effigies regis | magni Mithradatis divi | tis et summi pauperis et | tenui hic positum horarum | rationes reddere cogit | post obitum nullum | tempus habere doces. [Google translate: This is the portrait of the king the god of the great Mithradates | tis and the most poor and | here is a thin set of hours | compels him to pay his bills after death no | You have time to teach.] The monument which Hannibal set up on the field of Cannae for Paulus Aemilius bore this epitaph: Annibal Pauli Aemilii Romanorum consulis apud Cannas trucidati conquisitum corpus inhumatum iacere passus non est; summo cum honore Romanis militibus mandavit sub hoc marmore reponendum et ossa eius ad urbem deportanda, IX. 99*. [Google translate: Hannibal did not suffer Paulus Aemilius, the Roman consuls at Cannae, to slay the body of the captured body inhumed; with the highest honor he ordered the Roman soldiers to be placed under this marble and his bones to be carried to the city, 9. 99*.] This is the passport which Caesar gave Cicero: C. Caesar M. T. Ciceronem ob egregias eius virtutes singularesque animi dotes per universum orbem virtute nostra armisque perdomitum salvum et incolumem esse iubemus, VI. 81*. [Google translate: C. Caesar M. T. Cicero, because of his excellent virtues and unique gifts of mind, we command to be safe and secure throughout the whole world by our power and weapons, tamed, 6. 81*.] We should have no hesitation in assigning this inscription to Sept. 47 B.C., and we owe its anonymous composer a debt of gratitude for bringing up in so concrete a way the memory of that dramatic meeting of the conqueror and the conquered at Tarentum or Brundisium, at the close of a long year of anxious and frightened waiting -- a meeting of which no other record has survived. The inscription, however, whose spurious character we admit with the greatest reluctance is VI. 3403*, which purports to contain fragments, eleven in all, from the Acta diurna [Google translate: Daily newspaper] of the second and first centuries before our era. The composition seems to go back to the close of the sixteenth century, and is perhaps to be traced to Ludovicus Vives (cf. Heinze De spuriis actorum diurnorum fragmentis) [Google translate: (see Heinze On spurious fragments of newspaper articles)]. It passed unquestioned through the hands of a number of distinguished scholars, Lipsius, Pighius, Camerarius, Graevius, and Vossius, and its authenticity was vigorously defended as late as the middle of the last century. It aroused the special interest of British scholars. John Locke called the attention of Graevius to it about the end of the seventeenth century, and Dodwell devoted himself particularly to its explanation and defense. How cleverly it was composed, so far as content goes, and how valuable it would be, were it authentic, may be illustrated by an extract from the year 586 A.U.C.: IV K. Aprileis fasceis penes Licinium | fulguravit tonuit et quercus tacta in | summa Velia paullum a meridie | rixa ad Ianum infimum in caupona et | caupo ad ursum galeatum graviter | sauciatus | C. Titinius aed. pl. mulcavit lanios | quod carnem vendidissent populo | non inspectam | de pecunia mulcatitia cella exstructa | ad Telluris Lavernae. [Google translate: 4 K. Aprileis fasces near Licinium | it flashed and thundered and the oak touched in | the summa of Velia a little to the south | Argued with Janus at the bottom of the restaurant and | keeper to the helmeted bear heavily | sauciatus | C. Titinius aed. pl. mulcavit lanios | that they had sold the flesh to the people I will not inspect a cell was built with fines to the land of Lavernae.] This whole composition, in fact, is the chef d'oeuvre of the epigraphical forger's art, and reminds one of the missing chapters of Petronius which Nodot cleverly composed and gave to the world a century later.

_______________

Notes:

1 These numbers represent the inscriptions published up to the present time in Vols. II-XIV of the CIL. Vol. I is not included because the inscriptions contained in it are republished elsewhere, and Vol. XV is excluded from the calculation because the spurious inscriptions have not yet been published for that volume. For our purpose it is also unnecessary to take into consideration the published inscriptions which have not yet been included in the CIL.