The Constitutum Silvestri is one of five fictitious stories known collectively as the Symmachian forgeries, that arose between 501 and 502 at the time of the political battle for the papacy between Pope Symmachus (498–514) and antipope Laurentius.
The other four, the first two with similar themes to the Constitutum Silvestri, are: Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino Gesta de Xysti purgation Gesta de Polychronii episcopi Hierosolynitani accusation Gesta Liberii papae
The Constitutum Silvestri (Council of Sylvester), alternately known as one of the Synods of Rome (Mansi refers to it as the Third Council of Rome), was a contrived meeting of Church bishops reported to have been convened by Pope Sylvester I (314–35) to deal with the issues of calculating the date for observing Easter each year and establishing canons for administering the trials of clerics up to and including the pope.
There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the Constitutum Silvestri as there is more than one version, with significant differences, and multiple date references in the different versions and surviving manuscripts; these dating discrepancies are dealt with separately below, but the original version of the story most likely points to 324.
Disambiguation
Adding to the confusion, the opponents of Symmachus reappropriated the Constitutum Silvestri and amended it in the service of their own political agenda, and is referred to by scholars as the Council of 275 Bishops. The most recent thorough scholarship on the Symmachian forgeries was done in German more than twenty-five years ago by Professor Eckhard Wirbelauer, who classifies the original pro-Symmachian version of the Constitutum Silvestri as SK1 (Silvester Konzil). The second revision, designated SK2, borrows elements from both SK1 and the pro-Laurentian Council of 275 Bishops, classified as LK (Laurentian Konzil). For example, the Laurentians forged two letters from the Council of Nicaea to Sylvester: the letter from the council (LB) and Sylvester's answer (LA), which the Symmachian side then, stealing a page from the Laurentian playbook, appropriated for their revised version (SK2) by creating their own Symmachian versions, SB and SA.
Details on the Symmachian forgeries, including those which are not a part of the Constitutum Silvestri, can be found in Townsend and Wirbelauer. Townsend gives a brief summary in English, and Wirbelauer a detailed deconstruction of each in German: + Townsend Wirbelauer Symmachian Forgeries Constitutum Silvestri Group 1 p. 169 SD1 SK1 p. 228 Gesta Liberius 169 SL 248 Gesta Xystus (Sixtus) 168 SX 262 Gesta Polychronius 168 SP 272 Gesta Marcellino 170 SM 284 Letter from the Council Fathers in Nicaea n/a SDII SB 304 Answer from Sylvester to the Council Fathers in Nicaea SA 306 Constitutum Silvestri (revised) SK2 308 Laurentian Forgeries Letter from the Council Fathers in Nicaea (Quoniam omnia) Group 2 171 LDIII LB 318 Answer from Sylvester to the Council Fathers in Nicaea (Gaudeo promtam) 171 LA 320 Council of 275 Bishops 171 LK 324
Conflicting References Conflicting references in the Constitutum Silvestri, such as how many bishops attended, add to the conflation of the Constitutum Silvestri with the Council of 275 Bishops. The body of the text states 284 bishops (ducentos octoginta quattuor episcopos) attended the Constitutum Silvestri, but then the text goes on to list the attendees, which totals 275. The Council of 275 Bishops doesn't mention 284 in the text, nor does it list the attendees, it just states that 275 attended.
A comparison of the three versions and related errors: SK1 LK SK2 Errors Location Baths of Domitian (text) Baths of Trajan (date) Baths of Domitian Baths of Domitian (text) Baths of Trajan (date) Wrongly called Domitian's bath by early Christians; changing usage in different sections of text Bishops 284 stated, 275 listed 275 284 stated, 260 listed Topic Easter, Clerical Trials Easter, Promulgation of Canon from Nicaea Easter, Clerical Trials Date‡ 3 June Constantine & Prisco (Crispus) in their 3rd terms 20 September Paulinus & Julianus consuls 3 June Constantine 4th term & Prisco SK1: Crispus & Constantine II in their 3rd terms SK2: 4th term of Constantine & Licinius = 315, 1st term for Crispus = 318 Related Forgeries SM, SX LB, LA SB, SA - Constantine 8th & Constantius 4th terms Constantius's 1st consulship = 326 Constantine's 8th & Constantine II's 4th = 329
See also notes for Mansi/Hefele ‡ See Dates in the Constitutum Silvestri section below for a further discussion.
More conflicting references began appearing as scholars started documenting the forgeries, which depended on what manuscript version they were working from and what access they had to clarifying information in their era. Presumably, Coustant (1654–1721) in his Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (1721) started using the title of Council of 275 Bishops based on the number listed, and he was followed by Mansi (1692–1769) in his extensive chronicling of the Councils, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Vol.2, 1759), Hefele (1809–93) in his Conciliengeschichte (History of the Councils of the Church) which derived from Mansi, Duchesne (1843–1922) in his updated analysis of the Liber Pontificalis (1887), and Townsend.
Mansi and Hefele perpetuate the confusion in discussing Sylvester's reply to the letter from the Council of Nicaea (SA), the Symmachian version that corresponds to the Laurentian Gaudeo promtam (LA). The dating clause refers to the supposed date the letter was written, rather than the date the council was held, which still would put it several years after Nicaea in 325.
SA Errors Mansi Constantine's 8th, Constantii's 4th supposedly 329 Binii's note: 'Sylvester's letter in reply (SA) to that same synod (Nicaea, 325) would be most firmly confirmed, if it weren't considered to be extremely erroneous and almost fabricated on account of the 4th consulship of Constantii (Constantine II or Constantius?) & 8th of Constantine wrongly arranged in it'. Hefele Constantine's 7th, Constantine II's 4th supposedly 329 Constantine's 7th term was in 326, when the co-consul, Constantius's II, was in his first term; 329 corresponds to Constantine's 8th and Constantine II's 4th terms, as Binii above notes, which would put it 4 years too late
Content
The five Symmachian forgeries dealt with issues confronting Symmachus during a series of trials, as detailed in the entries on the papacy of Symmachus regarding the ongoing dispute with Laurentius, and each forgery was meant to provide historical precedents to vindicate the pope during his current troubles. The initial two trials proved inconclusive, with the first being held in 501 in Ariminum—modern Rimini. The Symmachian forgeries were written by the pro-Symmachus faction, and therefore are favorable to the charges Symmachus was facing.
Townsend sums up the nature and intent of forgeries:
Symmachus was accused of celebrating Easter on the wrong date ('Symmachus had celebrated that festival in 501 on March 25, following the old Roman calendar'), misappropriation of Church property, and improper relations with women; it is debatable whether the charges were real or concocted by the Laurentian faction, but each of these three issues were covered independently in the forgeries covering Marcellino (SM), Sixtus (SX), and Sylvester (CS).
Briefly, on the two other forgeries that directly relate to the Constitutum Silvestri:
Acts/Deeds of Marcellino at the Council of Sinuessa (303): Pope Marcellinus (Marcellino, 296–304) supposedly admitted to making pagan sacrifices on the orders of Emperor Diocletian, but the Council 'declared that the pope had condemned himself, since no one had ever judged the pontiff, because the first see will not be judged by anyone.' This is the first instance (retroactively attributed by the Symmachian forgeries) of the Vatican doctrine 'the first See is judged by none' (prima sedes a nemine iudicatur).
Acts/Deeds in the Purification of Xystus (after 443): Pope Sixtus III (Xystus, 432–40) was denounced to Emperor Valentinian III (425–55) in a property dispute and accused of debasing a consecrated virgin. Valentinian called an assembly at which a former Roman consul named Maximus—potentially Petronius Maximus who served his second consulship in 443 and the only Maximus listed for the period overlapping Sixtus and Valentinian—claimed 'it was illegal to pass sentence on a pope.'
The other two forgeries reference issues unrelated to material contained within the Constitutum Silvestri. The Acts/Deeds of the Accusation against Polychronius, Bishop of Jerusalem narrate a story that this fictional bishop had dared to claim that Jerusalem was the first See with himself as the bishop holding primacy over the others. The Acts/Deeds of Pope Liberius (after being exiled circa 355) dealt with the issues of baptism.
Constitutum Silvestri
The Constitutum Silvestri opens with a reference to Constantine's leprosy which had been cured by Sylvester with baptism, a story that builds upon the legends contained within the Acts of Sylvester. Given that the story of Constantine being cured of leprosy by baptism do not emerge until decades after his death in 337, it would be impossible for this to be an accurate description of an actual event which occurred in his lifetime; further evidence of its fraudulent creation in the early sixth century.
The Constitutum Silvestri issued eighteen canons—some sources state twenty given the text is divided into twenty chapters in most manuscripts, but the first two chapters are only narrative. As with the charges brought against Symmachus, two of the canons resolved the issues that dealt with Easter (canon 2) and accusations against a pope (canon 3), known as the Sylvestrian Accusatorial Canon: '. . . the supreme bishop should not be judged by anyone, since it is written (Luke 6:40; Mathew 10:24): "No student is above his teacher".'
At the fourth trial, the Synod of Palmaris, held on October 23, 502, a decision echoing the precedents created in the forgeries of Marcellino, Sixtus and Sylvester—'the first See is judged by none'—was made, and the bishops concluded that a pope can only be judged by God. This judgment would have long-lasting impacts on papal relations, both within the church to other clerics and with European monarchs, discussed below in the Aftermath section.
Wirbelauer gives a summary of the contextual background on the Symmachian forgeries from pages 66–72, a summary of SK1 on pages 73–78, and the full text of SK1 from pages 228–247 in Latin (even) and German (odd).
The first See is judged by none
The concept utilized in the Symmachian forgeries in 501–02, that the pope is above judgment, was retroactively attributed to 303 and the trial of Pope Marcellinus. However, this idea made its first appearance only a few years before the Symmachian affair, in the letters of Pope Gelasius. Professor Demacopoulos documents the concepts expressed in Epistle 10 ('the most assertive claim to Roman privilege in all of late antiquity!'), Epistle 26 ('most detailed articulation of Roman authority vis-à-vis other episcopal centers'), and to a lesser degree Epistle 27 ('only the Apostolic See has the authority to absolve another bishop') that fueled the principles put forth in SM, CS, and SX: the pope is above all others and therefore cannot himself be judged.
Further, Wirbelauer also writes that 'SD II reformulates the rule already known from Gelasius (Ep. 15).
Council of 275 Bishops Townsend notes that the three pro-Laurentian forgeries, Quoniam omnia [LB – Wirbelauer classification], Gaudeo promtam [LA], and the Council (Assembly) of 275 Bishops [LK] are 'shorter and written in much better Latin' than the Symmachian forgeries, and while also focused on Sylvester, they are 'not favorable to Symmachus but to his accusers.'