The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Religion pope joan con more Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: nicolaa@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Female Pope UL: Isn't the FAQ one-sided?
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:13:42 GMT

In article <73c3ap$rc1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, elcaro@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I've read through the urban legend FAQ with great interest and came across
> the UL concerning the Female Pople. Although the FAQ says that this legend is
> false, isn't it really basing its conclusion on a document that is blatantly
> one-sided? If that is the case how can we be so sure that it is false?

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a doctoral student in medieval history, with a concentration in studies of medieval religion, particularly Catholicism. I defend my thesis, an edition of a thirteenth century basic theology text, next spring.

I can state with some degree of confidence that I have yet to meet a medieval historian who has examined the evidence concerning "Pope Joan" and concluded that she actually was Pope. There actually was a woman in the tenth century of a powerful Roman aristocratic family by the name of Marozia who effectively ruled Rome, deposed one Pope, and managed to get her son installed as Pope John XI. This story is recorded by the chronicler Liutprand of Cremona.

> But for a period of more than eight centuries - from the middle of the ninth
> to the 17th century - Joan's papacy was widely known and accepted as historic
> truth.

The legend is first mentioned in the thirteenth century by opponents of the Papacy's attempt to claim supremacy over both temporal and spiritual matters. There is no evidence that it was "widely known and accepted" before then.

> The first main argument of the church, that there is hardly any contemporary
> evidence of the Popess, is inconclusive if we consider the amount of time the
> church was able to spare on its efforts to eradicate Joan's memory - and how
> much energy it spent to do so. Add to that the fact that Joan lived in the
> ninth century - one of the darkest in the early "Dark Ages".

The ninth century was *not* one of the "darkest of the early "Dark Ages." Most historians, if they still even use this outdated term, tend to use it to refer to the period directly after the fall of Rome in the West, before the advent of Charlemagne. Charlemagne came to power in the late eighth century, culminating in his coronation as Emperor in 800. Charlemagne's reign is described by many medieval historians as an intellectual "renaissance." Add that to the fact that in Italy, Latin literacy and commerce never completely declined as they did in other parts of the former Roman empire. Early Middle Ages? Sure. Early dark ages? By no means.

>The entry has been inserted at a later date,
> but that doesn't necessarily mean it is false.

As a person who studies manuscripts extensively, later entries usually point to some sort of later interpretation of a passage.

It would be interesting to
> analyse this entry as to its date - an examination that has not been
> attempted as of today.

Could it be that the entry is obviously so much later than the actual book that it would deflate the argument? The world is full of palaeographers--those who study writing and its development. It should be fairly easy to establish a date for the addition, simply by checking the type of script it's written in. The "liber pontificalis" has been edited by scholars, and I'm sure any variant readings which were interesting were noted.=09I think I might just have a look while I'm down at the library today.

> It is not surprising that Joan is missing from contemporary sources. The
> clerics of the time would have used any means to hide an episode so
> embarrassing for them - they would even have considered it their duty to do
> so.

Yet the same clerics often wrote lavishly about the misdoings of various other popes and bishops and the like. The aforementioned Liutprand of Cremona was a cleric, and he makes it clear that while Marozia was not actually Pope, she certainly controled the Papacy for a time. Why would this be any less embarassing for the Papacy? It may interest you to know that clerics were often some of the Church's biggest critics.

> There are in fact no less than 500 old manuscripts mentioning Joan's papacy;
> even Petrarca and Bocaccio rank among the authors.

Yes, Petrarch and Boccaccio were very good storytellers--in the fourteenth century. All their mention of Pope Joan proves is that the legend was alive in that century. The age of a document is no proof that it is "true"--after all, were we to believe that, we could also believe that Brutus, after assassinating Caesar, came to Britain and founded a nation there--after all, a medieval historian wrote it, so it must be true.

> Nowadays the Catholic Church regards Joan an "invention" of Protestant
> reformists - but Joan's story had been written down centuries before Martin
> Luther's birth. In addition, many chroniclers were Catholics holding high
> offices within the Church. In the cathedral in Siena her statue stood next to
> the ones of other popes - until 1601, when Clemens VIII "transformed" her
> into a statue of Pope Zacharias. But in 1276, after a thorough review of the
> papal archives, Pope John XX changed his name into John XXI - thereby
> acknowledging Joan's papacy as John VIII.

So why haven't modern historians accepted this as the reason? In actual fact, the last Pope before this to take the name of John had reigned some 2 1/2 centuries before. It's quite possible he simply goofed. Otherwise, two contradictory things are going on: the papacy is actually accepting Joan at the same time it's trying to refute stories about her. Which is it?

> All his arguments were rejected and deemed heretic, except when he said:
> "Popes have erred many times, for example when Joan was elected pope although
> she was a woman". None of the clerics accused Hus of blasphemy or lying.

Again, at the very most what this proves is that the legend was believed in the 16th century, when Hus was tried.

> The second main argument of the church, that there wasn't enough time for
> Joan's papacy between Leo IV and Benedict III is equally inconclusive. A
> review of the earliest papal documents reveals a tale-telling omission: Leo's
> date of death is noted as July 17 - but the year is missing! This omission
> would have made it easy for later chroniclers to predate Leo's year of death
> from 853 to 855 -

She means "postdate," doesn't she? In fact, if the author knew more about these papal documents, she'd know that years--that is, A.D. years--are often omitted. There's nothing odd about it.

thereby creating the impression that Benedict III was the > immediate successor of Leo IV. (History offers more than one similar account
> of such deliberate falsification of records).

And so we conclude that this fairly common method of dating is a "deliberate falsification"? Careful historians usually avoid such sweeping generalizations.

> In addition there is indirect proof - certain objects and measures - which
> are hard to explain had there never been a female pope. One example is the
> so-called "Sessel=FCberpr=FCfung" ("chair examination") which was part of the
> medieval papal election for more than 600 years, well into the 16th century.
> The Catholic Church claims that the "sella stercoraria" was only used because
> of its beautiful and impressive design, and that the hole in its seat has no
> further meaning. This claim is absurd.

Why?
The chair at one time obviously served
> as a toilet, maybe as a delivery chair. Can one truly believe that an object
> that once served such a "secular" purpose was used as a papal throne unless
> there was good reason for it?

Yes, because there are plenty of other examples of secular objects being adapted for ecclesiastical use, especially ornate or beautiful ones.

There is even an eyewitness account of this
> "examination": In 1404 the Welshman Adam of Usk travelled to Rome and lived
> in the city for two years; in his diary he wrote of his observations at the
> celebrations of the election of Innocence VII

That would be "Innocent VII".
>and describes the
> "examination".

Even if they *did* do such an examination, does this prove there was a female Pope? (I'm going to have to check out this source....)

> Another important piece of evidence is the "avoided road". Since the papal
> palace is located opposite of Saint Peter's Dome, papal processions often
> moved between the two sites. Via Sacra (nowadays Via San Giovanni) is the
> shortest and most direct connection between the two locations; and indeed it
> has been used for centuries by the popes - hence its name, "holy road". Via
> Sacra is also the place where Popess Joan died after giving birth.

According to legend, that is.

Shortly
> after the popes began avoiding Via Sacra for "disgust at this incident".

Where's her citation for this? She mentions earlier that the Church was careful to expunge all evidence of Joan. So how does she know that "shortly after" Popes began avoiding the spot? Sounds like more legend to me.

>The
> Catholic Church maintains that the detour was taken due to the narrowness of
> the street, until the 16th century when Pope Sixtus V. broadened it. This
> explanation is not truthful. In 1486 Johannes Burckhardt, bishop of Horta,
> describes in his diary what happened when a papal procession broke with
> tradition and used Via Sacra. He tells us that the pope was reprimanded for
> his actions by the archbishop of Florence, the bishop of Massano and Hugo de
> Bencii, the apostolic subdeacon. One hundred years before the street was made
> wider the papal procession evidently was able to move through the street with
> no difficulty. In addition Burckhardt's narrative shows that in his time,
> even high officials within the Church had no doubt about the papacy of
> Johanna Papissa.

So the fact that a Pope was reprimanded for breaking tradition in 1486 proves that there was a Pope Joan. Excuse me if I don't buy it.

What this author fails to prove is that the existence of legend (which is often widely believed) points to the actual historical existence of a female Pope. Even if, in the above example, Popes kept to the tradition because of the legend of Pope Joan, it doesn't prove there actually was one. A lot of folks from the same period believed there was a King Arthur who ruled in Britain at a place called Camelot, with his "round table" of Knights, each with their own stories. Historians have argued that there might be a kernel of truth in the story--an early medieval warleader who might have been able to unite Britons against the Saxons--but this does not "prove" he was Arthur, nor does it prove the existence of the other knights. Likewise, the story of Marozia, who controlled Rome and the papacy itself, might have been translated into the legend of a female Pope over a couple of centuries of telling and retelling.

Susan Carroll-Clark