Letter 22: Tit. Uincentio Neapolitano: Uiuentio praeferendum it seems Uincentii name, that prostat in Gesta of the bishops...

To Vincentius of Naples; to Geminus of Puteoli and Constantius of Misenum. 1. [...] was being turned against the church of Pari [Patria], we recall that we appointed a hearing, and those who, in accordance with the document of our instruction, sat as judges took cognizance of all the matters that came into question; but they took care only to settle by word of mouth the things that seemed fit, and did not also issue a sentence set forth in writing. This circumstance forced disputes to be stirred up afresh from the same cause, and has thus far allowed no obedience to be rendered to matters that had been settled. 2. On account of this, now once again, by a written communication dispatched by our son the glorious man, the patrician Dulcitius, it is read that a judgment is requested to be decreed anew, so that at long last the confusion of the long-standing complaint may be cut away. 3. And therefore, by the tenor of the present decrees, we charge your charity that, with Constantinus, the defender of our see, carrying it out, you cause the clergy and citizens of the church of Pari and, on the opposing side, those of the church of Volturnum and of the village of Feniculum [Vico di Pantano], to come together before your judgment; and that, when the things established among them previously by the appointed judges have been ascertained, you frame in writing the sentence that is to be observed and bring it forth in the presence of the parties, the aforesaid defender of our see carrying it out in every way, so that the things which shall have been established may be put into effect.

Tit. Uincentio Neapolitano: Uiuentio praeferendum videtur Uin- centii nomen, quod prostat in Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, pars I (G. Waitz, MGH., 55. ver. Langob., p. 411-412) et in Catalogo episcoporum Neapolitanorum (ibid., p. 437, XXIII). Quoad urbem, sedem et archi- dioecesim Neapolitanam, cf. F. Lanzoni, o. c., p. 213-228; P. Kehr, o. c., t.VIII, p. 415-418; 430-450; H. bBCl^ERCQ, Naples,TiA.C'L,., t. XII, 1, c. 691- 776; D. MaeBARDO, Napoli, in Enc. Cattol., t. VIII, c. 1631-1641. H. Le- clercq has litteras errore tribuit Gelasio I (ibid., c. 697). Gemino Puteolano et Constantio Miseno; Alia de his episcopis non constant. Quod vero adtinet ad . eorum sedes, nunc Pozzuoli et Miseno, in Campania, cf. F. lyANZONi, o. c., p. 210-213; P. Kehr, o. c., t. VIII, p. 466- 468; 471-473; H. bECEERCQ, Pouzzoles et Cumes, DACL., t. XV, 2, c. 1673- 1683; G. Auietta-P. Testini, Pozzuoli, mEnc. Cattol., t. IX, c. 1874-1877, ubi tamen desideratur album antistitum antiquorum; K. Josi, Miseno, ibid., t. VIII, c. 1081, breve compendium earum, quae scripsit F. Lanzoni, 0 . c., ibid. 1. Uulturninam; Olim sedes episcopalis, in Campania, in oppido nostris diebus Castel Volturno nominato. Cf. Th. MommsEn, Clb., t. X, p. 357: F. lyANZONi, o. c., p. 205-206; P. Kehr, o. c., ibid., p. 236-237. Quamvis ecclesia fuerit antea, saltem c. aa. 499-502, episcopali dignitate insignita, uti docet subscriptio praesulis Paschalis in synodis Romanis huius temporis (Mansi, t. VIII, c. 234 D; 252 C; 269 A; Th. MommSEn, Actasynho- peiagii i papae riensem ecclesiam uertebatur, audientiam nos deputasse recolimus, qui ex praeceptionis nostrae pagina residentes uniuersa in quaestio¬ nem uenientia cognouerunt, et tantum quae uisa sunt uerbo d^f[f]i- nire, non etiam ex scripto prolata sententia curauerunt; quae res recidiua coegit ex eadem causa suscitari litigia, et nullam hactenus rebus drfinitis oboedientiam commodari permisit. Propter quod, 2 denuo filii nostri gloriosi uiri patricii Dulcitii directis apicibus, ut tandem aliquando diuturnae querelae confusio ualeat amputari, decernendum rursus iudicium legitur postulatum. Et ideo prae- 3 sentium decretorum tenore caritati uestrae mandamus, ut exe- questionem (pro more; alia id genus non noto) B 6 uerbo] ex morbo (?) B diffi¬ nire B 8 -diua] ex -dua B 9 difinitis B 12 et ideo] om. 12-13 caritati ues¬ trae praesent. decret. tenore D doYum ..., l. c., p. 400, 30; 408,35; 435,40; 453,32), epistula nostra innuere potius videtur, tempore Pelagii iam nullum antistitem ibi sedisse. Idem valet de ecclesia Pariensi, si fuit olim re vera sedes episcopi. Pariensem: Pari hanc fuisse ecclesiam male coniecit P. Bwaed, 0 . c., l. c.y p. 540. Recte autem ponitur Patriae, ubi antiquum Bitemum Bintemumve exstitit, in Campania, ad hodiernum Foce di Patria, iuxta Lago di Patria. Utrum illic olim fuerit necne sedes episcopi (cf. Th. Mom- MSEN, Acta synhodorum ..., L c., p. 436,61) merito dubitatur. Cf. F. Lanzoni, 0 . c., p. 206. Huic ecclesiae item Par ensis, P atriensis et Parisiensis nomina ab aliis data fuerunt. Cf. Th. MommsEn, CIU., t. X, p. 356; Idem, Bemerkun- gen z. d. Papstbrief. d. Britisch. Samml., NA., t. XV, 1890, p. 188; P. Kehr, 0 . c., t. VIII, p. 295-296; G. UuGEi, Literno, in Enc. ItaL, t. XXI, p. 276. 2. gloriosi uiri patrici^: Patriciis, in summo honoris gradu constitu¬ tis, titulus concedebatur inlustris, et, quatenus senatores, gloriosi. His titulis honoris excellentissimi praeterea addebatur. Cf. Th. MommsEn, Ostgotische Studien, l. c., p. 483-484; P. KocH, o. c., p. 38; 66; 95. Zeno imperator lege sancivit, ut ad patricios honores eveherentur consules et qui muneribus magistri militum, magistri officiorum, praefecti praetorio aut urhi denique functi fuissent. Cf. U. M. Hartmann, Untersuchungen ..., p. 28; 35. Impe¬ rator autem lustinianus, ut vacantes in Senatu, quae Belli Gothici causa evenerant, expleret, plures adhuc ad ordinem patricium evexit, nam in- lustrihus omnibus illum concessum est. Cf. B. Stein, La disparition dii Sinat..., l. c., p, 316, n. 1; Idem, Histoire ..., p. 430-432; 117, n. 2. Dulcitii: Quem inadvertenter P. Kehr, o. c., ihid., fecit defen¬ sorem. Differt autem a Dulcitio ep. 12, defensore, et a presbytero Dulcitio ep. 14,3. Cf. ibid., p. 41 et 45. directis apicibus: Apices pro litteris et his similibus (decreta, res¬ cripta) saepe occurrit apud serioris latinitatis scriptores. Cf. Du Cange, Glossarium ..., t. I, p. 310; 311; Thesaurus ..., t. II, p. 227, 1. 81-228, 1. 10. F. MesserSCHMXDT, Apex, in Reallex. f. antike u. Christ., t. I, c. 492-493. EPISl^UEA 22,1-3 quente Constantino, sedis nostrae defensore, clerum uel ciues ecclesiae Pariensis et e diuerso ecclesiae Uulturninae uel uici Fe- niculensis ad uestrum faciatis conuenire iudicium, et cognitis quae deputatis pridem iudicibus inter eos statuta sunt, seruandam formetis ex scripto sententiam et coram partibus proferatis, ante- dicto sedis nostrae defensore modis omnibus exequente, ut quae statuta fuerint effectui mancipentur. ultraninae 17 sunt] add. B 2 (?) 16-18 cognitis quae... formetis] om. D 3. Constantino ... defensore: Bst probabilius idem defensor patri¬ monii Campaniae ad quem ep. 54 fuit directa. Cf, p. 143. deputatis pridem iudicibus: Bcclesiastici viri, nam in sano tem¬ poris illius iure, ecclesiae homines et causae apud Bcclesiae iudices duce¬ bantur; hi iudices erant communiter sive episcopi sive defensores. Cf. epp. 81,2-4 et 91,2 et adnotationes illuc adpositas, p. 198 et 217. Cf. praeterea B. M. Hartmann, Untersuchungen..., p. 48-50; B. Stein, Histoire ..., p. 400-401. uici Feniculensis: Prope Castel Volturno, in loco nunc temporis Vico di Panfano vocato. Cf. Th. MommsEn, Bemerkungen NA., t. XV, 1890, p. 188; P, KEhr, o. c., ihid., p, 296. f»BI,AGII I PAPAE Post episcopi Catinae electionem, quam Eucarpo, Messanae epi- scopo, commen^verat. Pelagius, clerum Catinensem rogat, ut decretum signatum mittant una cum epistula visitatoris et Laconi Elpidii, episcopi electi, ut procedi ad consecrationem possit. Elpidio quam diligentissime admonet, ne electorum voluntates inlicita largitione corrumpere conetur.