Jump to content

Talk:Pope Joan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This article represents official Roman Catholic POV

Later on in the Middle Ages, and certainly up to the time of the Reformation, it seems to have been universally accepted as a fact that there was at one time a female pope (papissa) who disguised herself as a man. John Huss even took the female pope as an example that there really didn't need to be a pope at all. The article leaves me with a feeling that the Roman Catholic Church (with Blondel's help et al.) rewrote history to deny Pope Joan, and indeed most of the sources quoted in the article are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church and/or express anti-Reformation rhetoric. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that it was EVER accepted as fact, even at all in the middle ages, nor during the reformation, nor even now. This article reflects the scholarly POV, as it is supposed to, which also happens to be the same as the Catholic POV. But if you can find some WP:RS that would upset the apple cart, I'm willing to be proven wrong.Farsight001 (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hus, Jan and David S. Schaff, De Ecclesia, The Church Scribner, New York, 1915 https://archive.org/details/deecclesiachurch00husjuoft p. xvi
"But the case on which Huss laid most stress was the papissa Agnes who, according to the universal opinion of his time, occupied under the name of John VIII the papal office for more than two years. Gerson used her as proof that it is possible for the church to err. It was monstrous, so Huss thought, for a female to rule Christendom, and such a female—a woman of unsavory repute before she was made pope and revealing her sex by the sudden birth of a child on one of the streets of the holy city." [emphasis mine] 75.164.223.230 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, WP:RS, please. Jan Hus is not exactly a credible source. Also, wikipedia prefers secondary sources anyway. Jan Hus lived at the time. The fact that its a translation does not stop it from being a primary, not secondary, source.Farsight001 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As to Jan Hus' not being a credible source, it is well documented that he held fast to the truth till he died. Nor is he a primary source; he lived long after the time of Pope Joan, and everything Hus writes about her he quotes sources for. My quote was clearly not the words of Jan Hus anyway; those are the words of David Schley Schaff in his introduction to (and commentary on) his translation of Hus' work. Schaff doesn't anyway maintain that the story has not been discredited at his time, (only a hundred years ago,) but he insists it was "fully believed in his [Hus'] time." (See also the footnotes on p. 127 of the book I cited.) 75.164.223.230 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea that he "held fast to the truth" is a matter of opinion, and one not held by the majority of historians who cover this time period. Also, he is a primary source. He lived a mere century or two after the issue, quite close enough historically to be considered a primary source. On top of all that, one source against dozens upon dozens that say otherwise is not going to overturn the consensus. Like the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you simply don't have that.Farsight001 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hus lived about 1369–1415, whereas Joan was said to have been pope around 853–855 AD. That did indeed become a big issue and was much written about from the 1100's to the 1300's (the time you are talking about.) There were at that time dozens upon dozens of sources (which you would call primary today) attesting to Joan's brief papacy. Papal superstitions arose—popes avoided the way where she was said to have given birth in the street, and there was the toilet seat throne where they checked the sex of each new pope. Even a bust was made of her. Hus used Pope Joan (or Papissa Agnes) as an example to argue against the doctrine of papal infallibility and none of his detractors at the time even attempted to argue that there had never been a female pope, even though they argued vociferously against almost every other point of his. If this was a hoax, it was certainly a wildly successful one—and for hundreds of years at that—and I'm inclined to doubt it was entirely a hoax, even though all the Catholics nowadays say so. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me re-phrase, because I don't think you're getting it. We need a whole slew of modern historians that say Joan was real for this article to also say that Joan was real - enough modern historians to upset the current consensus that she did not exist. Without that, per policy, this article CANNOT suggest that the story is real. We report what the consensus of reliable sources say on wikipedia. If the consensus among experts is that the sky is brown, we report that the sky is brown, even if we know for a fact that its blue. That's just how it works here. And unless you can find some really good sources for the claims here (I've seen them before, and I can find no merit in them. They appear to be little more than anti-Catholic mythology.), then they just cannot be in the article, plain and simple.Farsight001 (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no such current consensus, certainly not dozens upon dozens of modern sources. The few modern scholars that have researched the matter are divided. You sit here accusing me of a blue-sky belief, yet you've got your own preconceived notion and you dismiss out of hand any sources that don't agree with the latest papal bull. The only real evidence against Pope Joan is that it seems absurd on the face of it that there was ever a female pope, yet medieval historical records showed that she did exist and reign as pope for a short time. The Roman Catholic Church has done a lot of absurd things in its time, from the Crusades to the Inquisition with its unconscionably horrible tortures conducted in secret chambers. Electing a female pope was the least of it. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you other than that you are simply incorrect. And even if you were right, without copious sources to overturn the ones in this article, we can't do anything about it anyway. Also, your anti-Catholic bigotry is showing. "you dismiss out of hand any sources that don't agree with the latest papal bull"? Provide sources that qualify as WP:RS or stop wasting our time. Without the necessary sources, there is no point in your posting here.Farsight001 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Many of the sources are already listed in the article. The article incorporates text from the Catholic Encyclopedia which according to that article may be a bit biased and is definitely from the Catholic point of view. Peter Stanford, whose book is also mentioned in the article, "concludes there is some truth to the legend of Pope Joan", and he mentions some 500 medieval sources concerning her. I haven't read Clement Wood's book (1931), also listed in the article's bibliography, but I believe he ascribes truth to the legend as well. Even ABC News: "In a medieval mystery of the Catholic Church lies evidence of a woman pope, ... " 75.164.223.230 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
When I give you the link WP:RS, you really should read it so that you can understand what does and does not qualify as a valid source. You keep providing sources that are not up to proper standards. Clement Wood, for example, is no sort of expert on history. He was mostly a fiction and poetry writer, which should give you a sign right there regarding the validity of the story of pope Joan. Beliefnet is also not a valid source either. I'm sorry, but you just have no leg to stand on. Whatever amazing research you think you have done, far, FAR more has actually been done by real experts. The pope Joan story really does have no actual merit, despite its popularity on the internet.
I will also point out that a female pope is, in actuality, as impossible as a male mother anyways. Every Catholic sacrament requires a specific set of participants. Without it, the sacrament was just empty words. Marriage, for example, requires one willing female and one willing male. If there are two of the same gender, or either is not willing, any "marriage" they have in a Catholic church was never real and would be declared annulled automatically. Likewise, for holy orders, it requires one willing male. If a male is not being ordained, then there is no real ordination. The woman would never have been a priest, nor a bishop, nor a pope. That's they way its been taught in the Catholic Church for 2000 years. It literally is not possible.
Lastly, I will point out that wikipedia does not care about the religious affiliation of it sources. It is not allowed to. It cares only about their expertise and knowledge on the subject.Farsight001 (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS mentions that a source may be biased religiously, and an explicit attribution that makes readers aware of the possible bias should be considered.--I'm paraphrasing--"Catholic historian so-and-so said [or concluded etc.] that ....." Beliefnet simply had an article about a book that was written---the real source would be the book in that case. As to your other comments, it is perfectly reasonable to say in the article that the ordination of a female would never be considered valid in the Catholic Church. By the way, your definition of marriage is reasonable, but when Pope Gregory VII forbade clergy from marrying, he went against the Scripture, because St. Paul (1 Tim. 3:2,12) says that a bishop or deacon should be the husband of one wife, and (4:1-3) that forbidding to marry is a departure from the faith.
And this is why I don't edit Wikipedia much anymore or put too much stock in it for matters that touch a sensitive area for some people, especially when there is a strong official position on the part of a powerful group that must be maintained no matter what. I don't think it's my place or intention here either to hold myself up as an expert or do original research, as you seem to imply. I have my own doubts about Pope Joan anyway; I just don't think there is evidence to justify an unequivocal denial. The article ought to be presented more neutrally than the Catholic Encyclopedia put it. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the article is of pretty weak quality. It needs to be based on the many up-to-date academic sources that are available. However, the most cursory review of what's available shows that essentially no modern scholar gives credence to this myth. A brief search in my university library turned up sources such as:

  • Boureau, Alain, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (2001), The Myth of Pope Joan. University of Chicago Press. As implied by the title, Boureau unequivocally rejects the notion that Joan was historical. "Did this pontificate really exist? Certainly not!" (p. 8)
  • Rustici, Craig M. (2006), The Afterlife of Pope Joan: Deploying the Popess Legend in Early Modern England. University of Michigan Press. Rustici says, "Is the story true? Probably not," and explains why (p. 2)
  • Hotchkiss, Valerie (1996), Clothes Make the Man: Female Cross Dressing in Medieval Europe. Psychology Press. Hotchkiss evidently notes that the scholarly consensus rejects the legend.
  • Tinsley, Barbara Sher, "Pope Joan Polemic in Early Modern France: The Use and Disabuse of Myth". The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 381-398. This one's of interest as it's about some of the more careful thinkers have been debunking the story since at least the 16th century.
  • Noble, Thomas F. X. Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 99 Issue 2 (April 2013), pp. 219-238. Interesting take on the legend from a Catholic-affiliated publication; unsurprisingly, it rejects the historical reality of a female pope.

I found a number of other academic journals discussing some element of the legend, and they virtually all take it for granted that there wasn't really a Pope Joan. All of the sources fall back on essentially the same historiography, noting that the first known mention is Jean de Mailly in the 13th century, that subsequent versions trace back to his but contain incongruous details, and that even Jean and other early authors expressed skepticism about the story. At any rate, there's a gap of 100 to 400 years (depending on the date given for Joan) between Joan's life and the first mention of her. Modern scholars seem to consider this an insurmountable gap for arguments that she actually existed.
There are a few modern sources that argue for a historical Joan, but they're all pretty dodgy. Notably, Peter Stanford's book "The Legend of Pope Joan" seems to have gotten pretty harsh reviews from historians for its scholarship (for instance John C. Moore in Speculum). It shouldn't be treated as a reliable source for this topic.
The bottom line is, yes, this article needs work, and there are plenty of good sources available. However, it should not be made to appear that there's some question as to whether the legend is true; the consensus seems pretty clear that it's not.--Cúchullain t/c 21:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain seems to have handled things pretty will. I will only add, IP75, that you should look up "married Catholic priests" and discover that there are many of them out there. You are misinformed. Fr. Gregory Lockwood of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, for example, has a wife and four kids. No one is forbidden to marry. They choose not to of their own volition, which both Paul and Christ praise.Farsight001 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It also needs to be said that this talk page isn't the place for religious debates or general discussion of the topic, it's for discussing improvements to the articles; please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Additionally, criticizing other editors based on their religion is extremely uncool; some of the above comments veer towards personal attacks. Let's dial it back.--Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A primary citation: Blondel, David. Familier Esclaircissement de la Qvestion si une Femme a esté assise au Siege Papal de Rome entre Leon IV et Benoist III (A Familiar Clarification of the Question whether a Woman was Seated on the Papal Seat of Rome between Leo IV and Benedict III), 2nd ed. Jean Blaev, Amsterdam, 1649. 75.164.223.230 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, we're going to need a LOT of sources to over throw the current consensus of scholars against the validity of the story. Also, sources in English, because this is the English wikipedia, are preferred. (we can't use the source until we can confirm that it says what is claimed, and we can't confirm this until we can find someone fluent in the language.Farsight001 (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
David Blondel lived in the 17th century and thus his work isn't particularly useful as a source in and of itself, but his dissertation was certainly notable to this subject (and it's already mentioned here). It's worth pointing out that he was a Protestant who came to the same conclusion as modern scholars that the female pope was a myth.--Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it's notable, and that's already pointed out in the article. That thesis is in rather archaic French and those long s's are hard to distinguish from f's. But whatever your opinion, the article has a hodgepodge of citation styles that needs to be cleaned up---some are inline in the article, some are footnoted in the "references" section, and some are in the "bibliography". Also a rebuttal to Blondel's thesis by Samuel Maresius: Joanna Papissa Restituta (Pope Joan Restored) (in Latin) 1658, which is notable to document the controversy at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.223.230 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
An extensive bibliography: [1]67.5.172.205 (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to fall back on up-to-date secondary sources (such as the ones I listed above) to determine what's really significant in the development of this legend and how much weight it should receive.--Cúchullain t/c 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More sources

One primary source I find very interesting is Martin le Franc's Le Champion des Dames, a very long French poem—some 24,000 verses—from the 1400s. It is in the form of a dialog between the champion (of the ladies) who lauds women's accomplishments throughout history, and an antagonist. The antagonist brings up Pope Joan—here is just one verse:

Several of Le Franc's verses concerning Pope Joan, including this one, are quoted in his entry in Pierre Bayle's Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, Paris 1820, vol. 6, pp. 538-540, and in La Papesse Jeanne: Étude Historique et Littéraire Jules Gay, Paris 1862 by Pierre Gustave Brunet (writing under the pseudonym of Philomneste Junior), pp. 19-20. 67.5.172.205 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, UP TO DATE secondary sources are needed.Farsight001 (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bullough, Vern L. "Transvestites in the middle ages." American Journal of Sociology (1974): 1381-1394. ---The legend was fully believed until the end of the Middle Ages.
New, Maria I., and Elizabeth S. Kitzinger. "Pope Joan: a recognizable syndrome." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 76.1 (1993): 3-13. (The authors put forth the idea that Pope Joan was a female pseudohermaphrodite afflicted with "classical 21-hydroxylase deficiency".)
http://popejoan.com/faqs.htm "Given the obscurity and confusion of the times, it is impossible to determine with certainty whether Joan existed or not."
http://realite-histoire.over-blog.com/article-23627139.html "La vie de la papesse Jeanne est-elle un mythe ou une réalité ? Il est aujourd'hui difficile de répondre à cette question. Une chose est certaine, l'Eglise s'est mystérieusement contredite à ce sujet." (Is the life of the Popess Joan a myth or reality? It is today difficult to answer this question. One thing is certain, the Church has mysteriously contradicted itself on the subject.)
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/rc-3.htm
I don't suggest that all of these sources are appropriate to include in the article, but I think it would be very difficult to write a good article on any historical subject at this date using only 21st-century sources. 67.5.172.205 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I apparently wasn't clear enough. UP TO DATE secondary sources that qualify as WP:RS. You seem to have a tendency to rely on blogs, personal websites, and outdated documents. How about a recognized and respected modern scholar of antiquity?Farsight001 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Peter Stanford takes a balanced approach, and he's Catholic himself, but you don't like him. As to blogs and personal websites, I agree that they shouldn't be cited as such in the article, but oftentimes they lead to sources that can be cited. Also to attest that one of the popes "—Pope Joan—was probably a woman": John Charles Carrick, Wycliffe and the Lollards, Scribner, New York, 1908, p. 77. It's just not politically correct to say so, because it goes against the doctrine of papal infallibility. And your insistence on UP TO DATE sources is akin to putting all those "outdated documents" down the memory tube of Orwell's 1984 so they could alter history to say "we've always been at war with Eastasia." The writers of the 19th and earlier 20th centuries I've referred to (even the writers of the Reformation for that matter) all had access to the same primary sources today's scholars do today, and they all had the same critical critical thinking skills that today's writers have. And one thing that modern scholars are in agreement on, and you apparently are not, is that the legend of Pope Joan was universally believed in its time—right up until the Counter-Reformation—the article mentions that Florimond de Raemond first denied the legend in 1587 and then in 1601 Pope Clement VIII simply declared it to be untrue (I suppose by virtue and force of his papal infallibility.)
Alastair Minnis, "John Wyclif – All Women's Friend?" in Bonnie Wheeler, ed. Mindful Spirit in Late Medieval Literature: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth D. Kirk" Palgrave Macmillan, May 2006 doesn't afford any discreditation of Pope Joan. Wyclif, too, used her to argue against the infallibility of the Pope. 67.5.177.232 (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Peter Standford's and anyone else's religious persuasion is 100% irrelevant. Also, its got nothing to do with me simply not liking him. You linked to beliefnet, a NON WP:RS. Its got everything to do with you not reading what I wrote. I told you this already. Beliefnet is akin to a blog.
You're not getting it, so I'll repeat some things. We need MODERN. SCHOLARS. We need WP:RS. Every link, every source you have tried to provide has been deficient in AT LEAST one requirement. Its not about altering history. Its about standards. Modern scholars have MORE information to work with, and therefore can understand the issue better and come to a more accurate conclusion. Don't like it? Well those are the rules around here. You don't want them to be? Go make your own damn wiki. Just QUIT WASTING OUR TIME for pete's sake. This is ridiculous. Extraordinary claims (and yours most certainly is) require extraordinary evidence, and you don't have it - not even remotely close.Farsight001 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Anon, the goal of Wikipedia articles (good ones, anyway) is to accurately summarize the viewpoints of the best available sources for a topic. In some cases older sources are perfectly fine, but there's the risk their interpretations will be superseded by later work. For Pope Joan, there's so much top-quality recent work that we don't need to rely on potentially outdated sources. My cursory search turned up no fewer than three books devoted largely or exclusively to this legend, on top of various articles dealing with various aspects. If we really want to make substantial improvements here, we really should be checking out Boureau's and Rustici's books and similar sources and determining how to best represent them.

Some of the sources you've found are good. Others are not. The Vern L. Bullough and Alastair Minnis articles should be fine. The New & Kitzinger article from the medical journal is strange, but it could probably be used (it does not argue that Joan was real, however). But books from the 19th or early 20th century (or older) are simply too old to use when standard works like Boureau are now available. As I said, Peter Stamford's book doesn't pass muster, either. He's a journalist, not a historian, and it seems to have gotten a pretty harsh reception from scholars (John C. Moore's review in Speculum is quite critical.) None of those websites cut it considering the amount of indisputably quality sources available to us.
To answer some of the other points, it's accurate to say the legend was widely believed from the early 13th century into the 16th century (though some versions reproducing it express a measure of skepticism). The article already indicates this. Starting in the 16th century, the more critical thinkers began scrutinizing the story. However, contrary to your earlier statements, it seems quite clear that the scholars reject the idea that Pope Joan was real, and the article can't be made to suggest otherwise.--Cúchullain t/c 03:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. I think it would make the article less confusing to more explicitly attribute the refutation of this legend to "the consensus of modern scholars" (with a bunch of citations) or the like, especially to differentiate this from a time when the legend was in fact generally believed to be true. (Such wording would have made me a lot less likely to think something was being covered up in the article.) I also think that the development of the legend over time should be the main focus of the article, rather than a not-very-well-referenced Snopes-style "debunking". Moreover, the rhetoric of the Reformation deserves its own section in the article---they tried to outdo each other at the time---that old French encyclopedia I was reading mentioned that Blondel's Familier Éclaircissement referenced some sixty or seventy sources, but Samuel Maresius' rebuttal to it, Joanna Papissa Restituta referenced over 130 sources. Surely these sources can be cited in the context of the controversy of that time. 71.222.65.28 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The modern sources will contain a lot more references than that, and they concur that the story is a myth. We don't really need to directly cite Blondel or Maresius, or any other primary source. The modern secondary sources will assuredly cover all the important developments in the legend and provide their interpretations of who's convincing, noteworthy, or some combination of the two.--Cúchullain t/c 01:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Alain Boureau, at least in 1984, "Communication: La papesse Jeanne: Formes et fonctions d'une légende au Moyen Âge" Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Volume 128, Issue 3, pp. 446-464, remains agnostic as to the event of the pontificate of Joan. In a footnote at the end of the introduction, he says "Nous proposons ici l'analyse non d'un événement, le pontificat de Jeanne (sur lequel nous resterons agnostique), mais d'un processus culturel, la diffusion et l'utilisation d'un récit." The guy admits he doesn't know, then four years later he thinks he's going to authoritatively and absolutely "demolish" the "myth" of Pope Joan in a later work. I have a hard time taking him seriously. 71.222.64.4 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, it doesn't much matter whether you personally take him seriously; scholars in the field consider this one of the standard works on the topic, so our article is deficient by not using it enough. It's certainly much better than blogs and a pop history book written by a non-historian.
I don't speak French so I have no idea if that paper is at odds the The Myth of Pope Joan, but from what I've read of Boureau, he's primarily interested in the development and impact of the legend, rather than the possibility of a historical Joan (which he rejects out of hand at least by the time of The Myth of Pope Joan). Either way, the purpose of The Myth of Pope Joan is not the "demolish" anything, it's to track the evolution of the legend. If you're going to dismiss Boureau, I doubt you'll find many if any other historians you do accept, since every single one I've found considers this story a myth.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What you say of Boureau seems true of the brief article I just referenced---to translate that quote from the French: "We propose here an analysis, not of an event, the pontificate of Joan (on which we remain agnostic,) but of a cultural process, the diffusion and utilization of a story." Notwithstanding, he calls it a myth---une fable---all along in that article, (in a way I find brusque and off-putting.) And it is certainly true, regardless of whether there really was a Pope Joan or not, that the story took on a life of its own and became a legend. If you want to use Boureau as as source, he does (even in that article) touch most of what we want to cover in this article. And a new article I found: Olivier Donneau, "«Sa Sainteté femelle», ou les réincarnations discrètes du mythe historiographique de la papesse Jeanne au Refuge huguenot" Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme Français, n° 153 (2007) pp. 197-230 about the belief in Pope Joan among Huguenot refugees until the middle of the 18th century. 71.222.64.4 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Joan/Archive_3&oldid=644032322"