Pope Joan interpreted as myth

The first tradition of interpretation sees Johanna as a legend that eventually became a myth, but does not represent any historically verifiable truth: A woman's supposed pontificate was scheduled in the middle or second half of the 9th century: Maybe she was identical with Pope John VIII (872-882) or she reigned after Pope Leo IV. Later, according to certain theories, the church invented a fictitious pope named Benedict III to cover her up. She is said to have ruled for a little more than two years as John VII or VIII (856-858). Or her two- or two-and-a-half-year lasting pontificate was between Leo IV and Benedict III, occasionally she also placed after Pope Benedict III (Morris 1985). The interpretation that she actually was Pope John VIII (872-882) is quite unlikely, since his pontificate is quite well documented. Nevertheless, the name John VIII plays an important role in the disguise tactics and misinterpretation. In official papal chronicles of the Baroque era, still used to the present day, she is considered a fictional character that never existed [25,33,34]. She is therefore not mentioned at all or only briefly [33,35]. Between the lines it is explained to the reader, that she is a fiction and therefore the topic should not be followed up. Please don't think about it and certainly don't look for it is the message between the lines.

Today there are two basic interpretations of the myth: On the one hand, the story is interpreted as fiction, which has become a necessary story due to social and political developments (a kind of ‘fake news’ of the Middle Ages). Alternatively it is concealed truth that has become a myth and has been enriched and developed over time. A myth is rarely completely real, often has only a small core of truth and is nevertheless of the greatest importance for humanity. Mythical stories can indeed become so important that they have a lasting influence on real history and art and inspire the imagination [24,25,36]. The history of Pope Joan could also be such a myth that has had a lasting effect on the history of the Church and is more important today than ever, since the Catholic Church is once again debating the admission of women to the priesthood. Pope Joan is an idea with tremendous impact.

The female Pope seen as an urban legend

This position is held by many scientists and church historians based on historical sources and is accepted ‘truth’ in science by many. However, the significance of Pope Joan is by no means diminished in this interpretation, since the myth is of eminent importance for the understanding of church history. From today's perspective, the (allegedly) fictitious popess is the only really interesting papal figure of the Middle Ages. All of the other popes from this era have faded into obscurity.

The origin and development of the myth can be divided into different phases and shows how a collectively shared ‘fictitious truth’ may have emerged from a Roman local legend in the course of the Middle Ages, which served as an argument and sharp weapon for church politics at the time.

The breakdown of the myth was presented by the church researcher and theologian Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890). The monastery provost cannot be accused of political bias, for he was excommunicated in 1871 for his criticism of the papal universal primacy of 1870. Von Döllinger had proved that the new dogma of the pope's infallibility was ultimately derived from forgeries in the 9th century [25]. Conversely, it can also be proven, that numerous documents of the church were falsified and manipulated in the 9th century, which will later serve as a line of argumentation for the second tradition of interpretation of Popess Joan. Von Döllinger's work «Papst-Fabeln des Mittelaltes» (1863 and reprinted in 1890) dealt with the legend of Johanna [24]. He claimed that there are no sources on Joan before the 13th century from the writings available. (This statement is probably no longer valid today). Entries in earlier chroniclers of the High Middle Ages such as Marianus Scotus (died 1082) or Sigebert von Gembloux (about 1100) mentioned her, but they are later additions with other, later calligraphy (in the Middle Ages valuable chronicles were provided with additions to keep them up to date). Von Döllinger distinguished between the 9th century, where history supposedly took place, and literary tradition in the 13th century. The creation of the legend was created in several phases, which will now be briefly outlined. The Dominican Jean de Mailly of the Lorraine region and Étienne de Bourbon's dependent manual of preachers pass on a grave inscription [25,36]:

Require de quodam papa vel potius papissa, quia femina erat, et simnlas se esse virum, probitate ingenii factus notarius curie, deinde cardinalis et tandem papa. Quadam die cum ascenderet equum, perperit puerum, et statim Romana iusticia, ligatus pedibus eius, ad caudam equi tractus est et a populo lapidatus per dimidiam leugam, et ubi obiit, ibi sepultus fuit, et ibi scriptum est: Petre, pater patrum, papisse prodito partum. Sub ipso institutum fuit ieiunium quatuor temporum, et dicitur ieiunium papisse.

Jean de Mailly marked the paragraph with the remark ‘require’ that this story had to be reviewed. The reading of the inscription: Petre Pater Patrum P. P. P. dissolved Jean de Mailly the abbreviations as «Petre, pater patrum, papisse prodito partum» (Petrus, father of the fathers, tell us about the birth of the popess) [25]. The inscription is not preserved to us as archaeological object, but only passed down as a quotation by de Mailly. Shortly afterwards, the Franciscans took up history, and in the chronicle of the unknown Erfurt Minorite and in the likewise anonymous «Flores temporum» the inscription was even associated with the devil. Von Döllinger argued that the interpretation still varied at this early stage, for the Erfurt chronicle understood the inscription as the demon's request to the pope to disclose her birth in the papal consistory, while the source «Flores temporum» saw in the inscription a promise not to leave a possessed person until the popess carried out this exorcism, namely to announce the birth of her child [25]. So, a connection with the devil was established very early on, which became important in later phases.

The inscription seems to originate from pagan times, probably from the Mithras cult. The term «patrer patrum» was a frequent title of the highest priests of Mithras [37] Von Döllinger suspected that the name of the priest might have been Papirius or similar, but the name was no longer fully legible. In ancient texts the following P. P. P. often mean «propria penuncia posuit» (built with his own money). If a text is not written out in full, it must be an abbreviation that was common and easy to break down at the time. Why Jean de Mailly interpreted the inscription as «papisse prodito partum» is not known. It is also unclear how the transformation process came about: local tourist guides or an already circulating local myth about the popess are suspected, who then interpreted this interpretation into this tomb inscription [25].

The Dominican Martin von Troppau (born around 1220/30-after 1278), also known under his Latin name Martinus Polonus, created the «Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum», a universal chronicle of great importance and distribution [38]. His work has been translated into numerous languages and has great influence on the historiography of the Middle Ages. He wrote the papal and imperial list in 1277 and also included the Popess Johanna in the list. According to Troppau, Leo IV was followed by Popess Johanna as Pope John VIII and then Benedict III. Martin von Troppau reported on Pope Johannes Anglicus:

Post hunc Leonem Johannes Anglicus natione Maguntinus sedit annis II, mensibus V, diebus IIII or, et mortuus est Rome, et cessavit papatus mense I. Hic, ut asseritur, femina fuit, et in puellari etate a quodam suo amasio in habitu virili Athenis ducta, sic in diversis scientiis profecit, ut nullus sibi par inveniretur, adeo ut post Rome trivium legens magnos magistros discipulos et auditores haberet. Et cum in Urbe, ubi vita et scientia magne opinionis esset, in papam concorditer eligitur. Sed in papatu per suum familiarem impregnatur. Verum tempus partus ignorans, cum de Sancto Petro in Lateranum tenderet, angariata inter Colisseum et Sancti Clementis ecclesiam peperit, et post mortua ibidem, ut dicitur, sepulta fuit. Et quia papa eandem viam semper obliquat, creditur a plerisque, quod ob detestationem facti hoc faciat. Nec ponitur in catalogo sanctorum pontificum propter muliebris sexum quantum ad hoc deformitatem.

[38,39]

Direct link: http://www.mgh.de/ext/epub/mt/mvt017v018r.htm 

According to this, the popess held a pontificate of two years, five months and four days. Von Troppau explicitly mentions that the popess was a woman (femina fuit) and was educated in Athens. She was very learned and was unanimously elected as new pope. She became pregnant and since she did not know when she would give birth, she died and was buried on the processional way between the Colosseum and the Lateran Church near the church of St. Clementis. Because of the deformity of being a woman, she was not included in the list of popes.

Martin von Troppau does not mention the inscription, he probably did not know it and tells the story in much more detail, he even knows the length of her pontificate to the day. It is not known from which source his information comes. Von Troppau is not absolutely certain about the truth of the story, however, as he noted «creditur a plerisque« (is believed by most), thus reporting a story widely...