Although lying was thought to be wrong throughout the Middle Ages, it is unclear if such blanket condemnation extended to forgery. Furthermore, modern historians’ thinking has been shaped by presumptions about – and preoccupations with – forgeries. Consequently, this chapter explores forgeries from a broad perspective because previous analyses have been potentially confusing. It begins by considering problems scholars have had in defining “forgery” of texts and objects and why such definitions matter. Then, it treats patterns of medieval forgeries which help delineate the bounds of this study, including situating the three monastic centers analyzed in part II. The final section analyzes connections between forgeries and histories in the Middle Ages, raising key issues for understanding medieval monastic attempts to rewrite the past.

DEFINING MEDIEVAL FORGERY

For modern medievalists, the term “forgery” has broad meaning: it includes not just frauds and fakes intended to deceive but potentially any artifact containing unoriginal elements or later modifications regardless of the reason. It has become a technical term, referring to a text or object which is not what it claims to be. Yet, “forgery” has defied clearer definition – even in relation to its opposites “authentic,” “genuine,” or “original.” When it comes to reading medieval sources, there are many intermediate gradations to consider, including copying, imitation, revision, interpolation, and fabrications which preserve traces of “original” text. Diplomatists, who specialize in studying charters, have devoted the most time and energy to analyzing these differences. They have been trying to create usable categories ever since the early modern period, when a desire to separate true from false documents became central to the discipline. In particular, Jean Mabillon (1632–1707) developed methods to discern “legitimate instruments from spurious, certain and genuine from uncertain and suspect.” In the late nineteenth century, different national traditions produced diplomatic handbooks which elaborated rules for distinguishing forgeries from genuine charters in the quest for “original” (and, thus, reliable) sources. Attempts by the International Committee on Diplomatic (formed 1970) to adopt consistent terms, and, more importantly, attempts to develop uniform fields for coding charters digitally beginning in the 1990s, have caused some convergence of definitions of forgery, though linguistic and national differences remain.