[310] Capitul. add. IV. cap. clx. (Baluze, I. 1227).
[311] Bonifacii Epist. 19.
[312] Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 817, c. xi.—Chavard, Célibat des Prêtres, Genève, 1874, p. 35.
[313] Quia, instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter perpetratum invenitur, aut etiam in pedissequis earum. Nec igitur matrem, neque amitam, neque sororem permittimus ultra habitare in domo una cum sacerdote.—Theodulf. Aurelian. Capit. Secund. (Baluz. et Mansi II. 99.)
He had previously (Epist. c. 12) promulgated the prohibition, assigning for it the more decent reason, in imitation of St. Augustin, of the danger arising from female attendants. In this he was imitated, about 850, by Rodolf of Bourges (Capit. Rodulf. Bituricens. c. 16), and about 871 by Walter of Orleans (Capit. Walteri Aurelian. c. 3).
In 889, however, Riculfus of Soissons declares the lamentable truth without reserve: “Nos vero etiam a matribus, amitis, sororibus vel propinquis cavendum dicimus, ne forte illud eveniat quod in sancta scriptura legitur de Thamar sorore Absalon ... de Loth etiam ... Quod si aliquis vestrum matrem, sororem vel amitam ad convescendum vocaverit, expleto convivio ad domos suas vel ad hospitia a domo presbyteri remota, cum luce diei eas faciat remeare; periculosum quippe est ut vobiscum habitent.”—Riculfi Suess. Const. c. 14.
[314] Thus the council of Mainz in 888—“Quod multum dolendum est, sæpe audivimus per illam concessionem plurima scelera esse commissa, ita ut quidam sacerdotum, cum propriis sororibus concumbentes, filios ex eis generassent, et idcirco constituit hæc sancta synodus, ut nullus presbyter ullam feminam secum in domo propria permittat quatenus occasio malæ suspicionis vel facti iniqui penitus auferatur” (Concil. Mogunt. ann. 888 c. 10). In the same year the third canon of the council of Metz repeats the prohibition; while in 895 the council of Nantes declares—“Sed neque illas quas canones concedunt; quia instigante diabolo, etiam in illis scelus frequenter perpetratum reperitur, aut etiam in pedissequis illarum, scilicet matrem, amitam, sororem.”—Concil. Namnetens. ann. 895 c. 3.
It is true that some authorities, including the great name of Pagi, attribute to this council of Nantes the date of 660, but this is unimportant as regards the canon in question, for its necessity during the period under consideration is shown by its insertion in the Capitularies of Benedict the Levite (Lib. VII. c. 376), and in the collection of Regino of Pruhm (Lib. I. c. 104).
[315] Capit. Carol. Calvi Tit. III. cap. 4, 5.
[316] Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 151.