One question is often asked in connection with forgeries: Why should a once-admired object be disregarded or condemned on being proved a forgery, seeing that it is still the same object? One reason is human snobbery; another, and more important, is that when an object is proved to be a forgery, it is to us no longer the same object that it was. After the discovery, human knowledge about the positive and negative qualities of the object has increased, and a new judgment has to be made upon it. Exactly the same thing happens with a genuine work. As familiarity with it grows, it becomes another thing to the spectator’s eyes and mind, and so it may rise or fall in his esteem. Conceivably, the characteristics which proclaim something to be a forgery might, when discovered, cause it to be more highly regarded; but that kind of forgery is not yet known, though it may perhaps exist. [Illustration: _W. G. CONSTABLE_] William George Constable was born in Derby, England, in 1887 and educated at Cambridge University and the Slade School of the University of London. He was formerly Assistant Director of the National Gallery, London; Director of the Courtauld Institute (University of London); and Slade Professor of Fine Art at Cambridge University. Since 1938, he has been Curator of Paintings at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The author of numerous books and magazine articles, Mr. Constable has devoted himself particularly to the study of English and Italian paintings and drawings. This is reflected in his more recent publications: _Venetian Painting_ (1950); a monograph on the English artist Richard Wilson (1953); and _The Painter’s Workshop_ (1954). [Illustration: BACK COVER: A forgery of a Greek bronze statuette.] Transcriber’s Notes —Silently corrected a few typos. —Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication. —In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.