A medieval charter can make a useful claim without being genuine. Its date, script, formulae, witnesses and seal have to be consistent with the circumstances in which it purports to have been issued. A later copy raises another question: whether it transmits an earlier act accurately. These distinctions protect historical inquiry from treating convenient content as proof of authenticity.
Jean Mabillon’s De re diplomatica, published in 1681, organised the comparison of documentary features. The Maurist Benedictine setting supplied collections, collaborators and sustained time for scholarship. The work’s significance extended beyond disputes about religious property. Its tests could expose a document supporting an ecclesiastical claim as well as defend a genuine witness attacked without sufficient reason.
Bernard de Montfaucon’s Palaeographia graeca of 1708 compared Greek scripts and reproduced specimens. The appearance of writing could help locate a manuscript within a historical sequence. This required comparison across witnesses rather than reliance on the prestige of a supposed author. Published examples made the judgment available for examination by other scholars.
Both achievements contradict the assertion that religious libraries were only passive stores of unquestioned tradition. Their contents became evidence to be tested through disciplined methods. The Christian duty to truth did not require the preservation of a false attribution; careful criticism could instead identify the actual age and character of an inherited text.