thing new, or to maintain a reputation for keenness, has sometimes led to the rejection of genuine historical documents. This may not be a portentous evil, and probably is not so destructive as a captious skepticism which holds everything under suspicion. This may come from a pessimistic view of human nature, or from the prejudice of a preconceived theory which is easier to assert than to prove by careful inquiry. The personal equation has to be taken into account in critics as well as in chroniclers and historical actors.

Errors of statement and conception have also been handed down for which the older writers are not fairly responsible. New materials have been continually accumulating, the knowledge of archæology, of diplomatics, of languages, and of all other auxiliaries of history has been increasing from year to year. Previous judgments, therefore, must come up for review. Taken with the fact that each generation demands a wider view of history, the correction of the inevitable errors of the predecessors furnishes a necessary portion of the occupation of the historical student. At this point we are concerned only with errors about the document.

In general it may be said that it is not the object Object of Ext of external criticism to find out and catalogue all of ternal Criti-\ the mistakes that have been made about a document,

but, at the same time, it may be necessary to trace out a long series of misapprehensions in order to get back to the true origin. The source itself when pruned of its excrescences can then be estimated at its true value. It is not necessary to be awed or over

cism.

Textual Difficulties.

whelmed by the prospects of errors to be met. There has been a great deal of fraud and a large amount of error encountered in the course of ages. Critics are wont to spend much time in discussing the variations and corruptions of texts while the sound material is left to take care of itself. Speaking of externals only, a vast body of undoubtedly genuine historical sources has been handed down to this generation. The value of the contents is the chief matter for discussion. The fact of transmission can be safely proved. Isaac Taylor, writing of ancient literature, and possibly to comfort any who might be alarmed about the Scriptures, said in regard to textual difficulties:

"The actual amount and the importance of these corruptions of the text of ancient authors is likely to be overrated by general readers. . . . By far the greater number of all 'various readings'-perhaps nineteen out of twenty-are purely of a verbal kind, and they are such as can claim the attention of none but philologists and grammarians: a few may deserve the notice of every reader of ancient literature; and a few demand the consideration of the student of history. But, taken in the mass, the light in which they should be regarded is that of their furnishing a significant and conclusive proof of the care, fidelity, and exactness with which the business of copying was ordinarily conducted."1

This commendation applies to the middle ages at whose hands we receive by transmission the literature of the ancients. At the same time we are obliged to take note of a great amount of fraudulent matter

1 Taylor, Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times, 20.

emanating from the writers of that very period itself. The presence of both good and bad is not strange, for that is also a characteristic of this modern so-called scientific age. The situation calls simply for alertness of mind for the distinguishing of the two. Some classes of material were more susceptible to falsification than others because the rewards of fraud were more seductive.

Assuming that we have a work or document before Order of Prous for criticism, the order of procedure is logical and cedure. plain. If the matter in question purports to be a mediæval manuscript the investigator appeals first to the tests of palæography. The chirography of every epoch of European history has been so carefully studied that it is possible to identify at least the period in which a genuine manuscript originated. The standard works upon palæography and diplomatics explain the forms of letters used at various times and in various countries. The materials employed, the form of the manuscript, the ink, the seals, the wrapper, and all other external facts have been so exhaustively classified that the expert can determine with considerable assurance the source of a written document. If it is a forgery, it is more than likely to contain slips in the imitation which will hardly escape detection in due time. The difficulty of discovery increases in proportion to the nearness of the forgery to the time or place of alleged origin, for the counterfeiter is then able to enter more fully into the spirit of the period.1 The invention of printing did not destroy the possibility of fraud in 1 See below, p. 44.

Forgery.

History of
Croyland.

manuscript, for many public and private documents remain permanently written. The increasing rarity of ancient manuscripts, on the one hand, has furnished temptation to fabricate them for purposes of gain, and, on the other hand, the inducements to forge legal documents are so great that the act has to be repressed by the criminal laws of every country today.

The fabrication en bloc of an extensive historical work has not been common. One is more likely to meet with shorter portions of history, memoirs, biographies, or letters which are doubtful. Furthermore, a large amount of the material now known to be false does not pretend to be original handwriting, but rather copied from manuscripts said to be no longer extant. The risk of immediate discovery is much less when the writer alleges that he had access to originals now lost or destroyed. Whether the document assumes to be original or not the proof of genuineness is not limited to the palæographical data, but the textual evidence of language, of formalities, and of statement must also be employed.

A pertinent example of the forgery of local annals is found in the history of Croyland Abbey. This purports to be a chronicle of that monastery by a Norman abbot named Ingulphus, covering about the period 625-1089, and embellished with numerous charters and privileges. Although exception had been taken earlier to certain parts, the work as a whole was accepted as authentic history up to the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Since that time the earlier part of the chronicle has been

proved to be a forgery of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The method used in reaching this conclusion is interesting and instructive.1

Of this history no manuscript earlier than the sixteenth century is in existence, and no original manuscript can be proved to have existed at any time, although writers of the seventeenth century claimed to have seen an autograph, which was afterward destroyed by fire. Consequently, no palæographic tests could be used in modern times and the external facts about the document had to be proved by study of the contents. Suspicion first laid hold of the charters quoted in the work. It was observed that Latin terms were frequently employed which came into use one or two centuries later than the alleged dates of the documents. Closer analysis showed that there were attributed to the AngloSaxons not only words, but institutions, which are otherwise known to have been first introduced by the Normans. The writers made use of feudal terms unknown in Britain before the conquest, and these words, moreover, were placed in charters alleged to be of an early Saxon period. In most cases the documents were brought forward by the author to show the great antiquity of the property rights and privileges of the monastery, but they contained

1

Descriptio compilata per Dominum Ingulphum Abbatem monasterii Croyland, natione Anglicum, quondam Monachum Fonta. Hardy, Catalogue of Materials, II, 58–64, 128-129 (Rolls Series), London, 1865.

H. T. Riley, The History and Charters of Ingulphus. Royal Archæol. Inst. of Great Britain, Archæol. Journal, XIX, 32– 49, 114-133, London, 1862. Dictionary of National Biography "Ingulf."