POPE JOAN.
(Vol. iii., p. 265.)
In reply to your correspondent Nemo's Query, whether any such personage as Pope Joan ever held the keys of St. Peter, and wore the tiara? and if so, at what period, and for what time, and what is known of her personal history? I would remark that the story runs thus: that between the pontificates of Leo IV., who died in the year 855, and of Benedict III., who died in 858, a female of the name of Joan found means to cause herself to be elected Pope, which post she held for a term of upwards of two years, under the title of Joannes VII., according to Sabellicus, or, according to Platina, of Joannes VIII. She is generally said to have been an Englishwoman, the daughter of a priest, who in her youth became acquainted with an English monk belonging to the Abbey of Fulda, with whom she travelled, habited as a man, to many universities, but finally settled at Athens, where she remained until the death of her companion, and attained to a great proficiency in the learning common to the time. After this she proceeded to Rome, and having by the talent she displayed in several disputes obtained the reputation of a learned divine, was, on the death of Leo IV., elected to fill the pontifical chair. This position she held for upwards of two years, but soon after the expiration of that time was delivered of a child (but died during parturition), while proceeding in a procession between the Coliseum and the Church of St. Clemente.
The first mention of this story appears to have been made by Marianus Scotus, who compiled a chronicle at Mayence, about two hundred years after the event is said to have occurred, viz. about 1083. He was followed by Sigebert de Gemblours, who wrote about 1112; and also by Martino di Cistello, or Polonus, who wrote about 1277; since when the story has been repeated by numberless authors, all of whom have, more or less, made some absurd additions.
After the satisfactory proofs of the fictitious character of the story, which have been produced by the most eminent writers, both Catholic and Protestant, it may appear a work of supererogation to add anything on the point; yet it may perhaps be permitted to observe, that in the most ancient and esteemed manuscripts of the works of the authors above quoted, no mention whatever is made of the Papissa Giovanna, and its introduction must therefore have been the work of some later copyist.
The contemporary writers, moreover, some of whom were ocular witnesses of the elections both of Leo IV. and Benedict III., make no mention whatever of the circumstance; and it is well known that at Athens, where she is stated to have studied, no such school as the one alluded to existed in the ninth century.
The fact will not, I think, be denied that it was the practice of the chroniclers of the early ages to note down the greater portion of what they heard, without examining critically as to the credibility of the report; and the mention of a fact once made, was amply sufficient for all succeeding authors to copy the statement, and make such additions thereto as best suited their respective fancies, without making any examination as to the truth or probability of the original statement. And this appears to have been the case with the point in question: Marianus Scotus first stated, or rather some later copyist stated for him, the fact of a female Pope; and subsequent writers added, at a later period, the additional facts which now render the tale so evidently an invention.
R. R. M.
Pope Joan (Vol. iii., p. 265.).—You have referred to Sir Thomas Browne, and might have added the opinion of his able editor (Works, iii. 360.), who says, "Her very existence itself seems now to be universally rejected by the best authorities as a fabrication from beginning to end." On the other hand, old Coryat, in his Crudities (vol. ii. p. 443.), has the boldness to speak with "certainty of her birth at a particular place,—viz. at Mentz." Mosheim tells us (vol. ii. p. 300.) that during the five centuries succeeding 855, "the event was generally believed." He quotes some distinguished names, as well among those who maintained the truth of the story as amongst those who rejected it as a fable. Bayle may be included amongst the latter, who, in the third volume of his Dictionary (Article Papesse), has gone deeply into the question. Mosheim himself seems to leave it where Sir Roger de Coverley would have done,—"much may be said on both sides."
J. H. M.