129 ([return])
[ The time of Pope Joan (papissa Joanna) is placed somewhat earlier than Theodora or Marozia; and the two years of her imaginary reign are forcibly inserted between Leo IV. and Benedict III. But the contemporary Anastasius indissolubly links the death of Leo and the elevation of Benedict, (illico, mox, p. 247;) and the accurate chronology of Pagi, Muratori, and Leibnitz, fixes both events to the year 857.]
130 ([return])
[ The advocates for Pope Joan produce one hundred and fifty witnesses, or rather echoes, of the xivth, xvth, and xvith centuries. They bear testimony against themselves and the legend, by multiplying the proof that so curious a story must have been repeated by writers of every description to whom it was known. On those of the ixth and xth centuries, the recent event would have flashed with a double force. Would Photius have spared such a reproach? Could Liutprand have missed such scandal? It is scarcely worth while to discuss the various readings of Martinus Polonus, Sigeber of Gamblours, or even Marianus Scotus; but a most palpable forgery is the passage of Pope Joan, which has been foisted into some Mss. and editions of the Roman Anastasius.]
131 ([return])
[ As false, it deserves that name; but I would not pronounce it incredible. Suppose a famous French chevalier of our own times to have been born in Italy, and educated in the church, instead of the army: her merit or fortune might have raised her to St. Peter’s chair; her amours would have been natural: her delivery in the streets unlucky, but not improbable.]
132 ([return])
[ Till the reformation the tale was repeated and believed without offence: and Joan’s female statue long occupied her place among the popes in the cathedral of Sienna, (Pagi, Critica, tom. iii. p. 624-626.) She has been annihilated by two learned Protestants, Blondel and Bayle, (Dictionnaire Critique, Papesse, Polonus, Blondel;) but their brethren were scandalized by this equitable and generous criticism. Spanheim and Lenfant attempt to save this poor engine of controversy, and even Mosheim condescends to cherish some doubt and suspicion, (p. 289.)]
1321 ([return])
[ John XI. was the son of her husband Alberic, not of her lover, Pope Sergius III., as Muratori has distinctly proved, Ann. ad ann. 911, tom. p. 268. Her grandson Octavian, otherwise called John XII., was pope; but a great-grandson cannot be discovered in any of the succeeding popes; nor does our historian himself, in his subsequent narration, (p. 202,) seem to know of one. Hobhouse, Illustrations of Childe Harold, p. 309.—M.]