© 2002 by British Society of Aesthetics
Intentional Forgeries and Accidental Versions: A Response to John Dilworth
1 Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
In my article, How to Forge a Musical Work, I argue that the best way to view an attempted forgery of a lost autograph that accidentally duplicates the lost original is as a version, not a forgery, although I acknowledge the plausibility of Jerrold Levinson's alternate view, that it remains a forgery nevertheless. John Dilworth, in his article, A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks, defends Levinson's intuition against mine. In the present article I argue that our intuitions here are divided, as they are in the case of fictional literary works that accidentally turn out to be true, where some would say that what we have is still fiction, others that it is accidental history.