Note 82 — Chapter III · THE CATHARI.
Reading edition
Ademari S. Cibardi Hist. Lib. III. c. 49, 59.—Pauli Carnot. Vet. Aganon. Lib. VI. c. 3.—Frag. Hist. Aquitan. et Frag. Hist. Franc. (Pithœi Hist. Franc. Scriptt. xi. pp. 82, 84).—Radulf. Glabri Hist. III. 8, IV. 2.—Gesta Synod. Aurel. circa 1017 (D’Achery I. 604-6).—Chron. S. Petri Vivi.—Synod. Atrebat. ann. 1025 (Labbe et Coleti XI. 1177, 1178; Hartzheim. Concil. German. III. 68).—Landulf. Sen. Mediol. Hist. II. 27.—Gesta Episcop. Leodiens. cap. 60, 61.—Hermann. Contract. ann. 1052.—Lambert. Hersfeldens. Annal. ann. 1053.—Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares, I. 37.—Radulf. Ardent. T.I.P. ii. Hom. 19.
Bishop Wazo’s complaint that pallor was considered a positive proof of heresy was by no means a new one. In the fourth century it was regarded as sufficient to betray the Gnostic and Manichæan asceticism of the Priscillianists (Sulpic. Severi Dial. III. cap. xi.), and Jerome tells us that the orthodox who were pale with fasting and maceration were stigmatized as Manichæans (Hieron. Epist. ad Eustoch. c. 5). To the end of the twelfth century pallor continued to be regarded as a diagnostic symptom of Catharism (P. Cantor. Verb. abbrev. c. 78).