Posted on 12/03/2007 8:37:11 PM PST by Alex Murphy
The story is as enduring as it is dubious: A millennium or so ago in Rome, the pope was riding in a procession when suddenly she–that's right, she–went into labor and had a baby.
Nonsense? Europeans in the Middle Ages didn't think so. The story of a pope named Joan, writes historian J.N.D. Kelly in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "was accepted without question in Catholic circles for centuries." Only after the Reformation, when Protestants used the story to poke fun at Roman Catholics, did the Vatican begin to deny that one of its Holy Fathers had become an unholy mother.
The tale faded in the 17th century but never died. While most Americans apparently have never heard of the story, it continues to fascinate people in Europe. In the last three years, 2 million Germans–and about 100,000 Americans–have bought copies of Pope Joan, a historical novel by Donna Woolfolk Cross, a New York writer who suggests that a 400-year clerical coverup kept her hero from being recognized as one of history's most famous women. Legions of Americans likely will become believers, too, if Hollywood's Harry Ufland, producer of The Last Temptation of Christ and Snow Falling on Cedars, shoots the Pope Joan movie he hopes to make next year.
During the Middle Ages, many versions of the "popess" affair appeared. Most accounts came from friars compiling church histories, though the Vatican later would argue that Protestant forgers tinkered with the text. A few medieval chronicles said Joan's great deception occurred in the 10th or 11th century. The report that gained the widest acceptance, written in 1265 by a Dominican friar from Poland named Martin of Troppau, set the unblessed event in the ninth century.
Papal momma. According to most versions, spectators watched in horror as the pope, trying to mount a horse, went into labor and gave birth to a son. Moments later, some reports said, the crowd tied her feet to the horse's tail, then stoned her to death as she was dragged along a street. Still other records showed her banished to a convent and living in penance as her son rose to become a bishop.
The female pope reportedly was born in Germany of English missionary parents and grew up unusually bright in an era when learned women were considered unnatural and dangerous. To break the glass ceiling, it was said, she pretended to be male. At 12, she was taken in masculine attire to Athens by a "learned man," a monk described as her teacher and lover.
Disguised in the sexless garb of a cleric, she "made such progress in various sciences," Martin of Troppau wrote, "that there was nobody equal to her." Eventually, it was said, she became a cardinal in Rome, where her knowledge of the scriptures led to her election as Pope John Anglicus. Martin of Troppau's account had her ruling male-dominated Christendom from 855 till 858, specifically two years, seven months, and four days. Her original name, according to some, was Agnes. Others called her Gilberta and Jutta. Many years after she died–assuming she ever lived–scribes began calling her Joan, the feminine form of John.
But by no name would she win a place in the Vatican's official catalog of popes. The church insists that its papal line, dating back to St. Peter, is an unbroken string of men. Scholars tend to agree. An array of reference books, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica to the Oxford Dictionary of Popes, dismiss Pope Joan as a mythical or legendary figure, no more real than Paul Bunyan or Old King Cole. (Another Joan, the 15th-century martyr Joan of Arc, is honored by the church as a saint.)
The chief weakness of the Pope Joan story is the absence of any contemporary evidence of a female pope during the dates suggested for her reign. In each instance, clerical records show someone else holding the papacy and doing deeds that are transcribed in church history.
Another problem is the gap between the alleged event and the news of it. Not until the 13th century–400 years after Joan, by the most accepted accounts, ruled–does any mention of a female pope appear in any documents. That's akin to word breaking out just now that England in 1600 had a queen named Elizabeth.
The historical gap, some Joanites suggest, was deliberately created. Cross, the novelist, argues that clerics of the day were so appalled by Joan's trickery that they went to great lengths to avoid and eliminate any written report of it.
Busted. Once the story started, there was no stopping it. Some writers, including the 14th-century poet Petrarch, scorned Joan. But she also had backers. In Tuscany around 1400, her face was carved among the papal busts in the cathedral at Siena. It remained there, travelers said, until its replacement by the bust of a male pope two centuries later. God used her elevation, claimed one Renaissance writer, to demonstrate that women were equal to men.
Medieval accounts show the Vatican striving to avoid a repeat of its Joan episode. For several centuries, popes shunned the street where Joan allegedly gave birth. The pontiffs were said to regard the route as a scene of shame. The Vatican later would argue that the street was simply too narrow for a procession. In his 1999 book, The Legend of Pope Joan, British writer Peter Stanford reports visiting the Vatican and inspecting an unusual chair inspired by the trouble with Joan. The wooden throne, with a potty-style hole in the seat, is said to have been used until the 16th century in the ceremony of papal consecration. According to medieval accounts, each prospective pope would sit on the hole while an examining cleric felt under the seat. A moment later, the examiner would withdraw his hand and solemnly declare: "Our nominee is a man." Stanford, a former editor of London's Catholic Herald, argues that Pope Joan was a historical figure, although he doubts some of the story's details. Donna Cross agrees. "Where there's that much historical smoke, there must have been a fire," she says. "Something happened."
So, if a woman didn't become pope, what did happen? Joan's detractors can only guess, but a favorite hunch is that somebody a long time ago tried to be funny.
On the narrow Roman street in question–the Vicus Papissa–records from the 10th century show the well-to-do family of Giovanni Pape owning a home and a chapel. Years after the Papes were gone, it's suggested, a visitor joked that Vicus Papissa meant "the street of the woman pope." Over time, the wisecrack was embellished to include the outcome of a papal pregnancy, a tale riveting enough to become part of the church chronicles.
What Vicus Papissa really means, the skeptics say, is "the street of Mrs. Pape."
While some ignorant Catholics may have believed in this legend, it has never been accepted by the Church or by educated Catholics. Scholars certainly don't accept it. The fact that some novelist wants to make money off of it only means that there are still people today who are ignorant enough to believe such nonsense.
I see that the quality of your topics has remained consistent. :)
Same hate-mongering, different century. I see no reason why it isn't.
I suspect this entire posting is in response to the thread from yesterday. (Link to a relevant post I made on the thread.)
I gree that it should be banned. It’s right up there with 1918 KKK tracts ending with the college of Cardinals murdering the Joan woman when she gave birth during a Papal procession.
Maybe - I see your point about it being Anti-Catholic, as USN&WR is usually anti-Christian, but it’s not exactly in the same league as Jack Chick. It’s a legitimate mainstream news magazine, whether you like it or not.
I agree...I’m talking here specifically of the Pope Joan nonsense.
Have you gone insane? What is that picture?
Apparently I'm not here enough anymore. What is that?
Indeed. But all five that you cite are in response to then-ongoing discussions on television about this issue (a Jeopardy question and a Diane Sawyer TV program), and all of them have as their object the direct rebuttal of the myth of Pope Joan. It is for those reasons that all of these threads were posted by Catholics. Are you implying that those Catholic posters were trivially “perpetuating” this issue on FR? I would say that they were merely refuting it.
Does your posting of a 7 year-old article have the same aim of refuting a currently ongoing discussion in the MSM? If not, then why bring it up afresh now? Since the massively overwhelming opinion of historians is that the story is bogus and leads to nothing good, one can only wonder what prompts this article’s presence here. While the article does, in fact, get around to citing the usual denials of authenticity for the legend, its first third is murky enough to plant a seed of doubt on the scholars’ findings. Is that, in fact, the goal of of posting such sensationalist nonsense now?
How can it be maligning your church when the history has been written by people of your church???
Besides, isn't there a history of some of your popes as being homosexual??? And some that fathered children???
I'd much rather admit to a female pope than a homosexual pope...But that's just me...
What is Jack Chick? I don’t want to step on any toes, but I have never heard of him.
Is this a different Catholic thread list than the one NYer has??
Thank you
A rather insane cartoonist who spreads vicious lies about Catholicism: the Holy Eucharist is some kind of “death cookie,” thinks like that.
Just in time for Christmas we have US Snews and World Distort bashing Catholics over the head with fairy tales.
Why would you "admit" to a falsehood?
That's just stupid.
Wikipedia has what seems to be a fair (and also pretty respectful) biography of him.
Does your posting of a 7 year-old article have the same aim of refuting a currently ongoing discussion in the MSM? If not, then why bring it up afresh now? Since the massively overwhelming opinion of historians is that the story is bogus and leads to nothing good, one can only wonder what prompts this article’s presence here. While the article does, in fact, get around to citing the usual denials of authenticity for the legend, its first third is murky enough to plant a seed of doubt on the scholars’ findings. Is that, in fact, the goal of of posting such sensationalist nonsense now?
This whole paragraph is just a backhanded way of attributing motives to a poster by questioning the motives of the poster.
"Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.""
Everything we write says a little about who we are, I believe.
When one frequents a forum such as this on a daily basis and reads multiple postings by the same author per day, I'd contend that it is impossible not to a) get to know the poster's personality and b) develop an understanding of his/her motives. Unless of course, one has no critical faculties nor intelligence. It's not judgment. One simply reads what is put out by the individual in question.
You can protest somebody's judgment about a poster but it's usually been made as the result of deja vu. On any given day, there may be nothing remarkable about a person's behavior. However, over the course of months and years, certain patterns appear. The same things are repeated, the same issues are returned to. The same reactions occur. A picture begins to emerge.
Of course, we're not allowed to voice what we've seen and learned but that's OK. We all know how the game is played by now and most of us understand what's happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.