Even if "old master" names
Taking account of the skeptical view, it is still reasonable to conclude that art forgery was present in ancient Rome, although the extent of that presence is a matter for speculation. An art industry abundant in legitimate copying does not preclude the creation or marketing of certain works as forgeries. Even if "old master" names were inscribed on certain works merely as labels, or if they were the legitimate signatures of multiple artists with the same name, the demand for originals (evident in the enormous sums collectors sometimes paid) encouraged the presentation of at least some newly made works as genuine antiques. And having famous artists’ names attached to styles and mediums they never worked in is not answered by the theory of patronymics. The absence of recorded instances of forgery may be due to the scarcity of documents remaining after two thousand years, as well as the Romans’ lack of means for detection available today through scientific testing and an advanced level of connoisseurship.
Regarding Roman law's absence of provisions for art forgery, it's worth noting that even in modern highly developed legal systems like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, art forgery is not explicitly designated as a crime. Instead, art forgers are typically prosecuted for offenses such as fraud and, in the United States, even tax evasion, as discussed in part II of this text.
The overarching takeaway from this observation is that Roman society expressed a genuine concern about false artworks, a concern challenging to explain without the tangible presence of such forgeries. Statements from various Roman writers about the existence of forgeries in their midst, combined with the identifiable social and economic conditions, indicate that art forgery was indeed a notable feature of the cultural landscape.
In addition to outright forgery, the Roman milieu featured another dubious tradition that foreshadowed attitudes toward art restoration in the future, specifically addressing questions of authenticity. Artworks were repurposed and reused, sometimes with restoration efforts, constituting what is now considered a form of spolia. While the reuse of building materials like foundations and pillars was generally accepted, the reuse of artworks posed more significant challenges.
Artistic spolia often manifested as portraits, predominantly sculptures and occasionally paintings. Instances include Emperor Claudius having the faces of two portrait paintings of Alexander the Great redone as Augustus, the Colossus of Nero undergoing facial alterations three times, and Mark Antony relabeling two large statues in his own name. In private homes, likenesses of family members were frequently recycled through reconfiguration, renaming, or both.
The use of spolia for portraits garnered mixed reactions among Romans. Cicero expressed disdain, stating, "I detest deceitful inscriptions on other people’s statues," while Livy suggested that history had been corrupted by false inscriptions on statues. Although the practice was not illegal and didn't devalue the commercial worth of an art object, it was considered offensive due to its deceptive nature.
The significance of this use of spolia lies in the attitude it reflects about authenticity, allowing for alterations to images beyond merely restoring their original appearance. As the transition from Roman times to the medieval era unfolded, appropriating spolia for use in artworks became commonplace.
Existing works, abundant and esteemed for their beauty and craftsmanship, were subject to modification depending on their imagery, with some considered pagan being destroyed, others displayed, and many refashioned. This practice, akin to their predecessors in the ancient world, reflects a prevalent feature of changing existing artworks liberally, a characteristic that persisted into the Middle Ages.
