In the end, the connections between monastic forgeries and historical writings in the tenth through twelfth centuries were close: both sought to rewrite the past. Creatively rewritten documents supported partisan interpretations of the past. Furthermore, forgeries (and other modifications) were deployed to meet specific needs within a story. They could make stories fit together with local traditions of the community. It helped, but was not required, to have older models to imitate to make claims to antiquity and, therefore, to authenticity. Forgeries had to appear genuine, but their content also had to be credible. Monastic notions of “reform” provided rhetoric (especially key words) and, above all, an inherently revisionist viewpoint which gave monastic composers goals for their stories, such as affirming regular foundation or greater freedom from diocesan jurisdiction. Such motives help explain why monks were unusually keen to rewrite their communal pasts over the course of the eleventh century. This rewriting could involve what modern historians call “forgery” or other inventions to achieve more useable pasts.

While the latitude to invent supporting documents or texts may seem potentially wide, in practice it was constrained by several factors. Most importantly, monks distinguished truth from lying – and history from fable. Indeed, they inherited such categories from Saint Augustine and Isidore of Seville and elaborated them further. Moreover, monks such as Eadmer were very aware of these ideas – indeed he had copied Augustine's dictum “it is at no time whatsoever right to tell a lie,” during his youth. However, between these poles there existed a large middle ground of compositional tactics, which were used to convey varying degrees of authority and authenticity. Much found in monastic cartularies or texts relating the past can be described using the medieval notion of argumentum: plausible narration. But being plausible and being convincing, especially to authorities, was not the same. In “Twice Told Tales,” I explored how three different monastic “stories” from the early, middle, and later eleventh century managed to convince authorities to favor the houses where they were composed. These monastic stories could be contested, especially by rivals who they were designed to de-privilege (sometimes literally).