The Pope with the Biggest Balls of All Was A... Woman?

Pope Joan - Bibliotheque nationale de france 1560 illustrated manuscript

"Duos habet et bene pendentes"

Translation (for those of us not fluent in Latin):  "He has two and they dangle nicely”

This was allegedly declared by cardinals in the Vatican following the ‘sexing test’ upon the investiture of a new pope. Said pope was sat on a papal throne with a hole underneath. A lucky cardinal would reach up to ‘check’ he had the correct unmentionables for a male, by copping a good feel.

An ego massage for the new Head of the Church or just a bit of gratuitous groping? Nay. As it turned out, this ‘check’ was necessary as there once had been an accidental female pope, who had managed to outwit them all! Enter the legend of Pope Joan -  the subject of this month’s Herstory.

The Popess tarot card (Or High Priestess) from the Visconti-Sforza Tarot deck (1450-1480) inspired by Pope Joan?

An (unnamed) Legend is Born…

The story of a female pope is first mentioned in the Chronicles of a 13th Century French Dominican Jean de Mailly. According to his account, in 1099 a woman, disguised as a man, managed to bag a job in the Vatican as a curial secretary and then was promoted to cardinal and finally, pope. Two years later, when she gave birth and revealed her secret, she was cruelly executed for her deception by stoning.

Later 13th century chronicler Martin of Opava told a slightly revised story of the “woman pope”.  In his (most popular) version of the story, the woman pope was known as Pope John Anglicus VIII and was English, but born in what is now Mainz, Germany. She had first been disguised as a man by a lover and taken to Athens, where she excelled in languages and arts and eventually became a highly learned scholar and teacher and moved to Rome.

As a result of her fame, she was elected pope around 850, but became pregnant by her lover. She gave birth during a Papal procession on Via Sacra between the Colosseum and St Clements church. She died (unclear how - childbirth?) and was buried in that same street. Subsequent popes avoided that particular lane during processions and it became known as the “shunned street”. The female pope was not included in the list of Pontiffs,  - not just because of her sex but also due to the ‘disgrace’ brought upon the papacy.

There are some less tragic versions of this tale. In one, the (as yet unnamed) popess didn’t die or was killed,  but deposed and forced to do penance for many years after her exposure. Her illegitimate son lived, and became the Bishop of Ostia, eventually moving his mother’s body to his cathedral mausoleum.

In another (attributed to Petrarch, 1300’s) The popess’s ‘big reveal’ set off a chain of ominous happenings all over Europe:  apocalyptic floods, plagues of demonic locusts. In yet another variation, she gives birth to a demon, fathered by the Devil itself  - tales that are reminiscent of the later allegations in the witch trials.

Several versions of the legend then add the aforementioned testes examination- which they say was performed for every pope afterward to double check no wily women had managed to sneak into the Vatican!  From the 16th century onwards, she started to gain a female name - but it varied according to the version of the story from Agnes to Giliberta to Joan. Joan was the one that stuck!

1675 engraving protestant propaganda - Alexander Cooke

Fact or Fiction?

Until the late 1500s, the existence of Pope Joan was taken as fact and recounted many times by various top scholars of the age. There was a bust of Joan at St Peters, and tapestries and paintings were made of her.

But then in 1587, French antiquary and magistrate Florimond de Raemond published a book claiming the story was a myth. In 1601, Pope Clement VIII declared that Pope Joan had never existed. Her bust was destroyed and replaced by a male pope. David Blondel, a 17th Century protestant historian further demolished the story by pointing out timeline inaccuracies.  In the 850’s, the two popes she was said to have ‘slotted’  in-between  followed each other immediately in succession. Coins and Charters from this period clearly prove this. So there would have been no room for an ‘interim’ female pope.

Blondel’s analysis paved the way for 19th and 20th century historians and it is now widely accepted that the Pope Joan story is myth and legend. Moreover, even the contemporary enemies of the papacy during the 800’s make no mention of a female pope. Anastasius the Librarian, writing in the 800’s and a contemporary of Joan, records no such mention of her.  But then suddenly one manuscript of his turns up with a suspiciously identical passage to the later Martin of Opava’s, but in a different hand. This suggests it was added later, to ‘prove’ the existence of Joan.

But could this be down to an elaborate cover-up? Similar scandals that the Church tried hard to erase from the record still exist. So the idea of a conspiracy or ‘cover up’ seems far-fetched. What’s more, the very fact that records of Joan don’t begin until a good 300 years after her supposed lifetime suggests fantasy rather than fact.

Sexism, or a Smear Campaign?

So if Joan never existed, where does the legend come from? And why was it so popular? Some theories have been suggested:

A dig at a Courtesan ruler?

Blondel argued that the legend of Pope Joan was invented as a biting satire against Pope John XI in the 900’s -  whose mother Marozia (the “Senatrix”) was the ‘true’ ruler of Rome and a former courtesan. John XI died young and his reign was not seen as the greatest moment for the Catholic Church. Plus, how humiliating - his mother had more influence than him!

A dig at a powerful mistress?

In a similar vein, 16th century Italian historian Onofrio Panvinio theorised that Pope Joan may have been inspired by tales of the notorious Pope John XII’s mistresses - one was called Joan, and was said to have been very powerful in Rome in the 900’s.

A weapon during the reformation?

Was the pope Joan story simply a weapon against rival religious factions? It has been suggested that protestant scholars used the story to smear the papists, presenting it as real and damning example of the immoral legacy of Rome. This for me is one of the most compelling psychologies behind the enduring popularity of the Pope Joan tale amongst writers of the period.

Human error?

The most boring (but probably most likely) explanation as to how this whole story started is plain old human error. One of the Pope Johns was actually counted as two Popes, causing confusion with the numbering of Pope Johns in the 11th century and the possible creation of an imaginary ‘extra’ Pope. Plus, there was a real Pope John VIII, who reigned in the 870s. Could there just have been a bit of confusion with the dates and names?

Fevered imaginations of bored Friars?

The medieval mind was fascinated with the idea of women passing themselves off as men and this theme was frequently visited in the imagined lives of female saints. These stories were the equivalent of ‘viral memes’ nowadays and would be widely copied and shared. Joan’s story could simply be borrowed from these.

Maybe some of the details are wrong but she still existed?

There may not have been a Pope Joan in the 850’s.  But what about the earliest version of the story - John de Mailly’s -  who claims that Joan was Pope later,  in 1099? Some writers have claimed that this is more likely. This period was characterised by upheaval in the Church and possible ‘anti-popes’ stepped in to hold  power temporarily. Could there have been a female Pope then? Possibly. But again, she would’ve been recorded somewhere in those intervening 300 years. Some suggest maybe her true gender was kept secret to only a couple of individuals, and that publicly she was assumed to be male and therefore recorded as such. But we know quite a bit about the existing Pope Johns -  and its highly unlikely any of them were secretly women.   

Romantic depiction of Marozia, 1861, by Mistrali (Wikipedia)

What about the ‘sexing’ chair and the shunned street?

It is factual that ‘thrones with holes (sedia curules) were used ceremoniously by popes in the medieval Vatican, because they exist in museums and are known to date back to at least 1099. But their use has been disputed. It’s thought that they might’ve been Roman imperial birthing stools and were therefore used by pontiffs to ritualistically assert their imperialistic ambtions and/or remind them of their humble humanity. There’s no evidence they were used to test the ‘sex’ of the new pope.

Also the ‘Via sacra’ was indeed avoided by Popes from the 13th century onwards, but theres no evidence it dates back further than that- nor is there any clear reason given as to why. It’s more likely than not that the tradition of avoiding that particular street was based on the enduring legend of the Pope Joan tale. Once a ritual becomes a ritual, it’s often hard to trace the what and the why.

A breakthrough…?

So it seemed the evidence was strongly skewed against Pope Joan’s veracity  but then…a possible breakthrough that turns everything onto its head!

In 2018 archaeologist Michael Habicht claims to have found that papal monograms on medieval coins from the period show two different signatures for Pope John VIII - suggesting that there were two Pope John VIII’s! The disputed coins also date from the reputed reign of Pope Joan (850s).

Compelling - but there are some issues. Firstly, the coins could be medieval forgeries. That sort of thing was not uncommon. Secondly, other historians have debunked the idea that the monograms are from two different people. They are both, they claim- from Pope John VIII.

A Roman Sedia - was it used for sexing popes? Vatican museum collection

Popess: a Feminist icon of the Imagination

No doubt more supposed evidence of her existence will be unearthed by future historians. Because despite the likelihood that she is little more than a fanciful medieval fable - politically motivated or otherwise - she represents a feminist icon of the imagination that many of us want to believe. The idea that once a brilliant woman managed to mysteriously and cleverly occupy the most powerful position in the patriarchal world - even if briefly - is compelling and thrilling to consider.

Rihanna as 'Popess' at the Met Gala

Her story and its variations also expose the misogyny of the times, and not least the patrician Church itself. Joan is a brilliant and learned woman, but in many versions of the story she ‘brings the Church down’ when her femaleness (and immorality) betrays her- and is punished with violent death and ignominy for daring to take a man’s place. Look at this passage from Stephen de Bourbon in 1261:

“…under the Devil's direction, she was made a cardinal and finally pope… Behold how such rash presumptuousness leads to so vile an end.”

How dare a woman take on the role of a man- it can only end in dishonour, and be orchestrated by the Devil Himself. Though what can one expect from women eh?

Today, more than a 1000 years after Pope Joan’s supposed reign, women still cannot be popes, or even ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. There are movements to welcome women into the priesthood, and some fringe groups do ordain women as priests, although they are'nt recognised by the Vatican officially.(See the image below of Sinead O'Connor being a famous example!)

Will we ever see a female pope? I like to think that even if Pope Joan is historical fiction, perhaps she could be an auspicious future truth -  we may one day have a woman in charge of the most patriarchal institution in the world. And maybe then we’ll say:

"Duas magnas habet"

(She has big balls) :-)

Sinead O'Connor ordained as a Priest in 2014 (AP) (not recognised by the Vatican)

Check out my upcoming tours and events for more feminist explorations of history!