Have I missed some discussion on another list?
Why should it be a fake? People have been preparing sales particulars of
various kinds since the early 17th century, though early ones are usually
only in manuscript. An example for the manor of Chebsey in Staffordshire
about 1608 springs to mind and several in Kinver in Staffordshire in the
1670s. These tend to list the fields belonging to a property or the
tenants and their rents, so that a buyer could assess what he was buying.
Eighteenth century newspapers are full of for sale (and to let) notices,
which are a valuable source on local history if indexed.
Certainly there are documents that are fakes, but the forger generally had
some purpose in mind in creating a forgery. This is certainly the case for
the Llandaff Charters (cited in another reply) and also those of Evesham
Abbey. However even forgeries of that kind have some historical value, as
they at least reflect what the forger believed ought to be the case in his
time.
Fakes are of course well-known in the antique trade, but there a good
imitation passed off as the real thing earns its maker something like the
value of the real thing. If your letting particulars are a fake, where is
the motive for their creation?
Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Hudson <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 31 March 2000 15:53
Subject: fake document?
>
>
> Sussex County Magazine volume 9 (1935) publishes what purports to be an
> advertisement for letting Lyminster Court near Littlehampton; no date is
given,
> but by deduction it would be circa 1800-10. The author of the article, L T
> Powell, says he found the document among his father's papers. Since it
describes
> the house, and gives many other details of the Littlehampton area, it's an
> important source - unless it's a fake.
>
> Why a fake? First, there's no clue as to the whereabouts of the document,
or
> even whether it's manuscript or printed. Secondly, the whole thing seems
very
> over-written for its purpose. Third, although the details don't seem to be
> inaccurate as far as I can see, they are all very vague, without eg
personal
> names one could check up on.
>
> But the chief reason is that something about it seems to indicate
pastiche.
> Though several words which I felt were anachronistic (striking, roomy,
string
> (of offices), modernized, catches (meaning glimpses), insulated, outfence,
> lightsome, seascape) are all vouched for by the OED in earlier usage, that
> doesn't preclude some pasticheur with a very good knowledge of
contemporary
> prose. The only expression I can't parallel in the OED (but I haven't seen
the
> latest edition) is 'proximate publicities'.
>
> Does anyone with access to the volume share my misgivings? Or does anyone
know a
> specialist in the literature of the period I could contact who would be
> qualified to judge?
>
> I'd be very great indeed for any help.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|