Kathryn A. Langenfeld (Clemson University)
This paper investigates the creation and promulgation of forged correspondence amidst the court factionalism of the reign of Constantius II. Interest in ancient literary fakes and religious forgeries has had a recent renaissance (Peirano, Ehrman, Hopkins and McGill), but less attention has been granted to the creation, promulgation, or consequences of documentary forgeries (i.e. wills, diplomas, loan agreements, and correspondence). As this paper illustrates, numerous provisions within the Theodosian Code delineate the legal frameworks and penalties for those who falsified official documents or correspondence (e.g. CTh 2.27.1, 7.18.11, 9.35.1, 11.1.2, 12.6.27). Despite legal recognition of the phenomenon, few ancient accounts outline the motivations of the forger, the methods undertaken to create a forgery, and the steps that led to the discovery of falsified texts by Roman authorities.
One notable exception is Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the political conspiracy behind Claudius Silvanus’ short-lived 28-day rebellion against Constantius II in 354 C.E. According to Ammianus, Silvanus’ rebellion was fomented by co-conspirators within the imperial court who had doctored letters bearing Silvanus’ signature to accuse him of treachery and a clandestine attempt to oust Constantius II (Amm. 15.5-6). Though several have noted inconsistencies in Ammianus’ account (Nutt, Weisweiler), former studies have primarily considered the Silvanus affair as evidence of the disfunction and increasing court factionalism within Constantius II’s reign (Kulikowski, Hunt, Drinkwater). In contrast, this paper analyzes the significance of the fraudulent letters at the heart of the whole affair and the mechanisms of their creation.
As this paper illustrates, Ammianus describes the creation of this forgery at great length, recounting the conspirators’ efforts to obtain letters bearing Silvanus’ authentic signature, the selective erasure and rewriting of the letters’ content to bear newly incriminating messages, and the procedure by which these incriminating letters were “revealed” to Constantius as proof of Silvanus’ treachery. Despite the conspirators’ carefully laid plans, the letters are later unmasked as counterfeit in a court trial before the Consistorium, when the magister officorum, or head of the agentes in rebus, examines the letters and detects evidence of tampering in the letters (Amm. 15.5.1-14). This revelation comes too late to forestall investigations into Silvanus and his supporters, who rebel in protest over the accusations (Amm. 15.5.15-15.6.4).
By analyzing the steps involved in the creation, detection, and prosecution of the forged documents at the heart of the conspiracy, this paper illuminates the safeguards devised by the imperial courts to adjudicate the authenticity and veracity of documents within the burgeoning imperial intelligence gathering apparatus (Sheldon, Sinnigen, Mann, Rankov). Despite these safeguards, this paper concludes that the Silvanus affair demonstrates the vulnerabilities inherent in methods of communication and the possibility for correspondence to be weaponized by political rivals in the factionalism of the Late Empire. Therefore, this paper not only adds to our understanding of the mechanics and the ease with which forgeries could be perpetrated, but this paper also contributes to discussions of legal frameworks for documentary falsification in the Late Empire.