Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Relative Prevalence of the Two Numberings)

Jerzy said, in part:

_ _ Of course, Šv may be convinced that no user will come here under the mistaken impression that there is such a person as Pope Stephen X. I decided i had the perfect concrete counter-example, because the only paper encyclopedia i own (and the one i consult most of the time) is an ancient one. I couldn't remember how old, so i was disappointed that the copyright date of both the Shak-Supr and P-Porg volumes is 1963. Determined to make lemonade, i was curious to see whether they covered what sound to me like obscure popes. An entry begins (emphasis added)

STEPHEN, name of ten popes.

Two years later. Now i am curious. It lists all 10 with dates to distinguish them. The article headed POPE is interrupted by a two-page table. It lists

Stephanus II as reigning 752-757

which corresponds to my proposed Pope Stephen (II or III), but only three unrelated names between him and Stephanus IV [reigned] 768-772, corrsponding to Pope Stephen (III or IV)]]. In other words, they dumped Steven II and renumbered Stephen III to II, and stopped there; they also left alone the article under S.

--Jerzy•t 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svitrigaila answered:

I'll just answer about what you call "your personal opinion about what is common".

I've checked all the dictionaries and books I have at home about the subject. All are in French. Here are the results:

The most commonly used dictionary used here for a century is "Le Petit Larousse illutré" (The little illustrated Larousse), it's a 1784-page encyclopedic dictionary with a half for proper names. I have three editions of it: 1938, 1995 and 2006. The last two ones have a list of popes, which is not the Vatican's one (Pope Benedict V is called an antipope, Pope Benedict IX's second reign is omitted and the popes of the great western schism are called "popes of Rome", "popes of Avignon" and "popes of Pisa" without the "anti-" prefix). On this list, the ephemeral Stephen is omitted and further Stephens are called "Stephen III (II)" to "Stephen IX (X)" without any explaination. In the dictionary's articles, only Pope Stephen III has a separate article, and he's called "Stephen II", without any remark about his name.
The 1938 edition gives a surprising result. There is no list of popes in it, but a seperate article for each pope. The Stephens are numbered from Stephen I to Stephen IX, with no remark about the numbers.
I have a 1910 edition of "Le Larousse pour tous" (The Larousse for all). It's a two volume encyclopediac dictionary made by the same publishing compagny. There is no list of popes, but an article for each Stephen. They are numbered from Stephen I to Stephen IX without the ephemeral and without remark about that choice. Those two exemples show me (but that may be a personal opinion) that the status of pope of the ephemeral Stephen was already contested by historians far before 1961...
Another featured dictionary in France is "Le Petit Robert" (the little Robert). There are two volumes, the first one is a language and grammatical dictionary and the second one a proper names encyclopedia. The second volume has a list of popes, which is not the Annuario pontificio's one. In fact, it's the same than the Larousses's one: Pope Benedict V is an antipope and Pope Benedict IX has reigned only twice. Every pope has a separate article with a number of rank. The Stephens are numberd from Stephen I (23th pope) to Stephen IX (152th pope) without any mention to the ephemeral and no remark about their numbers. Pope John Paul II is numbered as the 262th pope.
A third well known dictionary here is "Le dictionnaire Hachette" (the Hachette dictionnary), but I don't have it at home. It has a bad reputation (it's far cheaper than the others and the editor was accused of plagiate). I just remember having consulted it in a shop and I laughed when I saw Antipope Alexander V and Antipope John XXIII where called "popes of Pisa" and Antipope Felix V was called "antipope of Pisa"!
There is a kind of general purpose non-alphabetic 2000 page encyclopedia called "Quid". I have the 1993 edition. It's full of mistakes (at least one per page!) and the mistakes are never corrected from a year to another. The given list of popes is exactly the Annuario pontificio's one, with John Paul II as the 264th. Popes Stephen are numbered up to IX. There is a note about the ephemeral Stephen and a complete explaination about his case.
I have the full edition of Michel Mourre's "Le Dictionaire encyclopédique d'Histoire" (The encyclopedical dictionary of History), often just called "Le Mourre". It's a very complete eight volume 5000 page historical encyclopedia published in 1978, a very great work. There is no list of popes, but on the article "Étienne" (Stephen), it's written: Name borne by nine popes. Only Pope Stephen III has a separate article and he's called Stephen II, with no remark about the number.
And finally, I have Philippe Levillain's "Dictionaire historique de la Papauté" (Historical Dictionary of Papacy), a very well documented one volume 1776 pages encyclopedical dictionary published in 1994 and entirely devoted to the subject of popes from Peter to John Paul II. It has been translated in engish and you can find its references here. On the general list of popes, the ephemeral is indicated in parenthesis under the name "Stephen II" and the phrase "dead three days after his election before having been consacreted a bishop, then not considered a pope". The next Stephens are simply called "Stephen II" to "Stephen IX" with no further explaination.
In the same dictionary, each pope has a separate article. The ephemeral is called "Stephen (II)" with parenthesis and has a very short article. The further Stephens are called "Stephen II (III)" to "Stephen IX (X)" with no explaination about the double number. The real explaination is given in the article "Onomastic (papal)". By chance, the english version of this article is on-line here.

And those are all the sources I have to establish "my personal opinion about what is common". I have no other. I have absolutely no source at home saying the ephemeral Stephen was a legitimate pope or Stephen IX is more often called "Stephen X". Now, I'm waiting for the sources you can give that will say the contrary.

I have not decided to change the popes Stephen articles by a sudden mania. This moves seems to me as justified as the renaming of Leningrad into Saint Petersburg. It's not for me the occasion of expressing a personal taste for controversies. Be sure I'm waiting for your answer.
Švitrigaila 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]