[78] To realise this it is enough to compare what has hitherto been done by the most active societies, such as the Society of the _Monumenta Germaniæ historica_ and the _Istituto storico italiano_, with what still remains for them to do. The greater part of the most ancient documents and the hardest to restore, which have long taxed the ingenuity of scholars, have now been placed in a relatively satisfactory condition. But an immense amount of mechanical work has still to be done. [79] R. de Gourmont, _Le Latin mystique_ (Paris, 1891, 8vo), p. 258. [80] See these alleged autographs in the _Bibliothèque nationale_, nouv. acq. fr., No. 709. [81] F. Blass has enumerated the chief of these motives with reference to the pseudepigraphic literature of antiquity (pp. 269 _sqq._ in the work already quoted). [82] E. Bernheim (_Lehrbuch_, pp. 243 _sqq._) gives a somewhat lengthy list of spurious documents, now recognised as such. Here it will be enough to recall a few famous hoaxes: Sarchoniathon, Clotilde de Surville, Ossian. Since the publication of Bernheim's book several celebrated documents, hitherto exempt from suspicion, have been struck off the list of authorities. See especially A. Piaget, _La Chronique des chanoines de Neuchâtel_ (Neuchâtel, 1896, 8vo). [83] When the modifications of the primitive text are the work of the author himself, they are "alterations." Internal analysis, and the comparison of different editions, bring them to light. [84] See F. Blass, ibid., pp. 254 _sqq._ [85] As a rule it matters little whether the _name_ of the author has or has not been discovered. We read, however, in the _Histoire_ _littéraire de la France_ (xxvi. p. 388): "We have ignored anonymous sermons: writings of this facile character are of no importance for literary history when their authors are unknown." Are they of any more importance when we know the authors' names? [86] In very favourable cases the examination of the plagiarist's mistakes has made it possible to determine even this style of handwriting, the size, and the manner of arrangement of the manuscript source. The deductions of the investigation of sources, like those of textual criticism, are sometimes supported by obvious palæographical considerations. [87] The Investigations of Julien Havet (_Questions mérovingiennes_, Paris, 1896, 8vo) are regarded as models. Very difficult problems are there solved with faultless elegance. It is also well worth while to read the memoirs in which M. L. Delisle has discussed questions of origin. It is in the treatment of these questions that the most accomplished scholars win their triumphs. [88] See the edition of H. R. Luard (vol. i., London, 1890, 8vo) in the _Rerum Britannicarum medii ævi scriptores_. Matthew of Westminster's _Flores historiarum_ figure in the Roman "Index," because of the passages borrowed from the _Chronica majora_ of Matthew of Paris, while the _Chronica majora_ themselves have escaped censure.