About forgery of art in Rome
Forgery of art before the renaissance. Dealing in counterfeit art is said to have originated in the more advanced societies of the ancient world, with Rome taking center stage, although claims about Egypt, Phoenicia, Babylonia, and Greece lack substantial evidence. The recognition of individual artists for their achievements and distinctive styles in Rome was inherited from Greece, where the practice of signing artworks began in the sixth century BC.
Esteemed Greek artists like Phidias, Myron, and Praxiteles gained public admiration for their unique creations. After Roman victories over the Greeks in the third and second centuries BC, artworks were frequently confiscated and transported to Rome, exposing the population to cultural treasures superior to anything they had seen before. This led to a reverence for the "Old Masters," and aristocrats eagerly established private collections. Prominent figures like Caesar, Lucullus, and Lucius Crassus became avid collectors, contributing to the development of a market with specialized art dealers and dedicated auctions.
Roman authors documented the styles of great artists, and art criticism, often presented through ekphrastic poetry, became popular. The demand for Greek works surpassed the available supply, prompting artisans to produce numerous copies after Greek masters. Historians suggest that some copies were passed off as originals, supported by Roman authors' comments on forgery in the style of Greek artists. Satirical writers mocked the notion that historical works popular with Roman art enthusiasts were all genuine.
Physical evidence from the Roman period includes artworks bearing the inscribed signatures of famous Greek artists, raising suspicions due to the sheer volume and the inconsistent stylistic features. The compatibility issues extend to gems with names like Pheidias, Skopas, and Polykleitos, suggesting potential fraud.
Scholars have debated the authenticity of ancient Roman art, with a skeptical view cautioning against modern interpretations. The inscribed "old master" names on Roman sculptural copies are considered by some not to mimic originals but to designate the specific artists being copied. This alternative view posits a complex system of patronymics or the continuation of famous workshops through multiple generations.
The challenge to the assumption of fraud notes that Roman law had no provisions for art forgery, while specific prohibitions existed against counterfeit documents and currency. The literature of the time, though offering fictional examples and sarcastic statements about phony artworks, lacks reported real-life instances.
Considering the skeptical view, it remains reasonable to conclude that art forgery was present in ancient Rome, although the extent is speculative. An art industry abundant in legitimate copying does not rule out the creation or marketing of certain works as forgeries. Whether "old master" names were inscribed as labels or legitimate signatures, the demand for originals likely led to the presentation of some newly made works as genuine antiques.
The theory of patronymics does not fully address the attachment of famous artists' names to styles and mediums they never worked in. The absence of recorded instances of forgery could be attributed to the scarcity of documents after two thousand years and the lack of detection means available today.
