472 Lizzi Testa
of Volterra. But the means used were unlawful and for this he was accused.
He had entrusted a large sum of gold to the defensor ecclesiae Faustus, in order
for him to pay for the accommodation of curiales of Volterra in Rome. They were
supposed to support his candidacy, thus silencing the rumours that stained his
reputation, as it was said that the aspiring bishop was a parricide and (by his
own admission) a counterfeiter.102 When the operation proved unsuccessful,
Eucaristus demanded reimbursement for the sum, accusing Faustus of having
taken possession of the money. However, Faustus was unable to go to Rome
while Eucaristus was there, and so took his turn as accuser before the Roman
bishop, raising the issue of those crimes that he earlier had defended Eucaristus
from during the election. Pope Gelasius dealt with the controversy—not the
crimes of Eucaristus, but rather the sum contested between Eucaristus and
Faustus. Having proved that Faustus had already returned the sum that had
been entrusted to him, Gelasius condemned Eucaristus, stripping him of his
prerogatives as administrator of the assets.103
Gelasius did not arrogate authority in issuing judgements in criminal cases;
this remained the responsibility of secular courts. It is known that the comes
Teia had attempted to transfer Eucaristus’ case from the papal judgement to
a provincial synod.104 The pope then threatened to refer the suit to Theoderic
(ne nos compellas... ad domnum filium meum regem haec omnia missa rela-
tione referre... ), not because he was certain that the Gothic king was inclined
to extend papal jurisdiction to criminal cases, but because he suspected that
Teia was acting in collusion with Eucaristus and was sure he himself would
have the support of Theoderic in obtaining justice.105
It was also the king and the secular courts that tried secular and religious
crimes in Ostrogothic Italy. In this sense, the provision given by Theoderic to the
bishop Eustorgius now becomes clear.106 It has been assumed that Theoderic
had entrusted Eustorgius with jurisdiction over the case, thus recognizing the
bishop of Milan with an exclusive authority over members of the clergy, even
in criminal cases.107 Rather, just as Gelasius, Theoderic preferred to be inspired
102 Gelasius, Ep. Coll. Brit. 45, ed. Löwenfeld, p. 22, lines 11–12.
103 Gelasius, Ep. Fragm. 23, ed. Thiel, pp. 496–7.
104 Gelasius, Ep. Coll. Brit. 2, ed. Mommsen (MGH AA 12), p. 389, lines 22–5: “quia de nostro
iudicio causa deberet auferri, et ad episcopos intra provinciam positos pro Eucharisti et
sociorum voluntate transferri.”
105 Vismara, Episcopalis Audientia, pp. 125–6, n. 3.
106 Cass., Va r. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 20, lines 16–20: cf. supra, n. 6.
107 Biondi, Il diritto romano cristiano, p. 382.