Talk:Pope Joan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Platina

I moved this here:"It is also tempting to speculate that he was the "paramour" reported by Platina to have accompanied her to Athens." There is no previous mention of Platina, nothing on the "report" no reason given to speculate. This is a tender topic; it needs to be treated with care. --Wetman 20:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article badly needs cleanup because:

• It contains contradictions.
• Some places need rephrasing.
• Links to relevant historical persons should be added.
• Can the word "assassination" be used in this case?

What I've done:

• Deleted 2 POV passages: one about "serving God while being female", the other about "a lowly woman" and Pope Benedict XVI.
• Deleted the reference to an earlier version of the article – the article namespace is not a place for discussions. If anyone can quote sources of the statement that the Papess was "sexually promiscuous", please do so.
• Added some links.

Lev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benedict III

There is a problem with Benedict III. According to this article he was elected in September 858. According the list of popes on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#From_750) he was elected at 855 and he was dead at 7 april 858.

Added to 'Unusual Articles'

Added this to the brilliant Wikipedia:Unusual_articles. More than deserving.(Anon.)

The intro is, well, garbage

Why is this excerpt in the intro

"Keep in mind that even in the 15th century, scholars like Aeneas Silvius (Epistles) and Platina (Vitae Pontificum), using historical-critical methods, discredited the story. In the 16th century, scholars like Onofrio Panvinio (Vitae Pontificum), Aventinus (Annales Boiorum), Baronius (Annales) and others corroborated these findings. Even Protestant scholars found the fable untenable: Blondel (Joanna papissa) and Leibniz (Flores sparsae in tumulum Papissae). However, some Protestants, especially in America, have continued to use the fable to discredit the papacy, even though the fable is truly a fable. (The Fable of Pope Joan, Fr. William Saunders)"?

It is CLEARLY, IRREFUTABLY POV and, even if it weren't, it's not appropriate to put it in the intro. I'm taking the whole section out. --blappo (talk)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

Analysis section, paragraph three, sentence two says "For example, we possess letters by Hincmar of Reims which confirm that Benedict III became..." Who is we? It would appear from the context to mean the Wikipedia foundation but I assume that it's really someone else. It needs fixing. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Berlin Manuscript?

Does anyoe have any further source information on what is referred to in the body text as only the "Berlin Manuscript"? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mainz ?

Shouldn't that be Metz instead? Mainz would be "Moguntiacum". OTOH in the middle ages Metz was called "Mettis" according to the German Wikipedia ([| List of latin city names]. So Mettensis sounds about right. Metz was also mentioned in the entry on Pope Joan in the "Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche". -- Uliwitness 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Shouldn't there be a spoiler warning before the section of arts and film? I mean, it does give insight on the books, movies, and plays it mentions. This could potentially upset users who have not seen/read this pieces of literature. (Anon.)

How about that Spoiler Warning! Applicable to Cinderella and the Iliad alike! --Wetman 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Is "rubbished" a word? RickK 05:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very encyclopedic does it? Changed to "discredited". Hypernovean 05:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I left in Kadett's other changes but deleted the story about popes relieving themselves during ceremonies. I have no knowledge of this subject, but that story is just too weird for me to believe unless a reference can be cited. JamesMLane 11:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Analysis

"The legend of Pope Joan was initially discredited by David Blondel, a mid-17th century Protestant historian, who suggested that Pope Joan's tale may have originated in a satire against Pope John XI, who upon his death was in his early 20s." This needs fleshing out. Why is John's age mentioned here? Did his young age suggest femininity? Unclear.--Zerobot 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Confusion

The image used for this page states that it is an image of Pope Joan. It is in fact an image of The Whore of Babylon on the The Beast of Revelation ([[1]]). Should it not state that this and that it could also be Pope Joan? FAT DAN 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)FAT DAN

Older Readers/Editors

Might remember that it think it was Lawrence Durrell who did a novel/book about this, I'm suprised considering the erudite article, there is no mention at all here? User:SatuSuro 08:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

His work is a translation of the book by Emmanouel Rhoides, which is mentioned. 172.162.89.69 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)RKH

Anti Catholic bigotry exposed on this page

Pope Joan is a malacious rumor used to slander the Catholic Church and Catholics, this entry should be edited to reflect the malicous intent of Pope Joan. This entry borders on the satanic with the inclusion of tarot card.

I may just come back and eliminte this entry completely.--Pauljoseph 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you blank an article, you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. We are not saying that Wikipedia endorses this story, we are only saying that there is such a story. I fail to see how this rumour could hurt the Catholic Church, many people would love to see the institution have a female leader. Is the female gender not as holy as the male? -- user:zanimum

Pope Joan is mentioned (as an unproven rumour, just like it is here) in many catholic encyclopediae (like in my copy of "Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche"). So why shouldn't Wikipedia mention it as well? Don't jump at everything that just mentions something that isn't part of Catholicism, you'll just give us a bad face in public. Feel free to add a mention of how Luther and Jan Hus used this story for their goals, though. I don't have enough data to back it up here. -- Uliwitness 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is completely ridiculous. Certainly the rumour has not been proven to be true for sure, but desperate attempts to cover up the story don't help anyone. It was said that the story was a rumour that was used to slander the Catholic Church. Okay... that might be believable, but then how does Pope Joan have malicious intent? You just said that there was no Pope Joan! Sort your facts out before you try to impose your opinion on everyone else.

Oh and wasn't it the Catholic Church that said it was a rumor in the first place, and they wouldn't want everyone to know that they elected a woman as a pope now would they? (and don't try to make the Catholic Church sound good because their wrongdoings, and autracities (for example The CRUSADES!) far outweigh the good they have done)

There are plenty of anti-Catholic things on the web to get made about, but this isn't one of them. If anything, this supports Catholic history, as the article blasts the idea of "Pope Joan" apart. --76.193.20.17 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Support needed for statement

The following statement, factually correct, has been suppressed by someone. It needs to have a reference applied to it and to be returned to the article:

" On the contrary, all the evidence of tampering in relation to the Pope Joan story indicates that books from before the thirteenth century were altered to put her in, not leave her out"

_Wetman 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it because it does not have a reference. I did a quick search and couldn't find one. If someone could find how it is we know it to be "factually correct," it can certainly be added back. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just come upon this "quick search". In the article a more alert reader would have found the following text: Versions of the story appear in sources earlier than Martin; the one most commonly cited is Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. 886) a compiler of Liber Pontificalis, who would have been a contemporary of the female Pope. However, the story is not found in reliable manuscripts of Anastasius. In fact, only one manuscript of Anastasius' Liber Pontificalis' contains a reference to the female Pope. This manuscript, in the Vatican Library, bears the relevant passage inserted as a footnote at the bottom of a page, out of sequence, and in a different hand, one that certainly dates from after the time of Martin von Trappau. In other words, this "witness" to the female Pope is likely to be based upon Martin's account, and certainly not a possible source for it. Responsible editors are even more careful about what they delete that what they add: I have left correcting this pointless deletion to someone with more patience than I: that should include most of you. --Wetman (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Lost History-Medieval MysteriesTokarski21 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is a B class, and might be made into a GA relatively easily.

Note that Pope Joan is legendary—Legendary figures are not automatically excluded from being listed with WikiProject Biography, as long as there is some possibility they are based on a real person. Ælle of Sussex is a notable precedent and benchmark.

Is Pope Joan the rumor of a true story, or a mediaeval fictional character? Feel free to discuss...

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

I replaced this from the opening paragraph: "Pope Joan is regarded by most serious historians as fictious because in the Papal Order there is no room for a pope between Benedict III and Nicholas I (this is confirmed by the existence of coins celebrating Nicholas I election to the throne of Saint Peter.)"

While the papal order information is true, it seems too detailed for an opening paragraph. The papal order information still exists in the body of the article.

I've reverted to a sentence based on an earlier version.

Pabtm1 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is inaccurate. You say the Church no longer recognizes Pope Joan. They NEVER recognized Pope Joan. Saying they no longer implies that they at one point did. Kanepam (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article

This article tells many reasons why Pope Joan could not have lived for reasons like "oh well, there are no records of this", or "this would have to come up in records." But then when the author finally discusses the church's destroying all records of Pope Joan, he/she automatically refutes this possiblity by saying this is very unlikely. Actually it isn't unlikely at all. The Catholic Church could exercise their power to completely cover up anything they wanted to. Therefore, it's not very unlikely, and a female Pope would be a huge stain on a far from perfect record of mistakes and "oops's".

-→ I have to say that I agree - when I first read the article I got the distinct impression that:
1) It had been written by a Roman Catholic;
2) The reader was supposed to believe that Joan did not exist.
Since no evidence is offered to decisively prove whether Joan did or did not exist, the reader should not be particularly guided to one or the other point of view. 212.32.72.152 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) FC

-→ I agree as well.

-→ In conjunction with the issue here the neutrality of the article on John VII, which does not as yet link to this article, but mentions the topic of this page with some POV issues, it would be nice if these two pages could be linked up better.64.3.45.46 19:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)MKB

I also agree, the fact that the first section is 'the legend of pope joan...' is absolutely ridiculous. I will work on changing this soon (maybe next five days), as far as I am concerned, this article should have the story first, replaceing the aformentioned section title with 'history', and then possibly the analysis section should be broken up to show arguments for/against existenceDaniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree the facts are simple that Pope Joan could not have existed because we know for a fact that Nicholas I was Pope when Joan supposedly reigned (this is confirmed by coins celebrating his investure)so it is no biased to refer to the legend of Pope Joan as a legend because that is what it is.

ChrisLamb 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for pointing out that your username is Chris(t?)Lamb. Just kidding. There are multiple theories, some will say it's impossible, some will saythat the coins are, idk, part of a cover up (there are better explanations than that - it's for example). The fact that you disagree is irrevelant - the fact is that 2 theories exist - and both must be presented. By the way - I know I said I would start this in 5 days like, a month ago - but I was switching to an new internet provider - and some complications arose that prevented me from accessing this. I will start work tonight or tommorow, and I will put the 'major rewrite in progress' template up.danielfolsom ©23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm sorry guys I can't get to a place where I can spend a while researching - my internet provider is again screwing up.danielfolsom © 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Coins don't prove anything. Very few people (if any) outside the Vatican at that time even knew what the pope looked like, so a cover-up would have been incredibly easy.

I'm not saying all the posters who argue that "this is a legend, because we have no solid proof - period" are Catholics unwilling to open their eyes, but...well... --dllu 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Danelfolsom -- Part of disputing the neutrality of the article is to show a reliable source which disputes the evidence in this article. Is there a reliable source which talks about a cover up? You suggested that you would conduct research to dispute the article's neutrality a month and a half ago. Please add this research to the article so that we can remove the NPOV tag. As far as I know, no serious scholar of Catholicism believes that Pope Joan existed. As someone who has worked in the archives and library of the Vatican, I find the possibility that they'd have their act together enough to destroy all records of a pope pretty far fetched. There's no one there who can tell you what's in just about any box or manuscript you order up. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are conspiracy theories out there it doesn't mean that they have to be reported in full especially when there are absolutely no records of a Pope Joan and no records of a cover up if the facts say there is no Pope Joan (as they do) then the article should be written that way the conspiracy theories should be left out or given there own article. ChrisLamb 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of editors whose sacred cattle are being gored here. For the sake of some belated balance in this discussion, I'll quote Donna Woolfolk Cross, in her author's note to her novel about Pope Joan:

"Pope Joan is one of the most fascinating, extraordinary characters in Western history -- and one of the least well known. Most people have never heard of Joan the Pope, and those who have regard her story as legend. Yet for hundreds of years -- up to the middle of the seventeenth century -- Joan’s papacy was universally known and accepted as truth. In the seventeenth century, the Catholic Church, under increasing attack from rising Protestantism, began a concerted effort to destroy the embarrassing historical records on Joan. Hundreds of manuscripts and books were seized by the Vatican. Joan’s virtual disappearance from modern consciousness attests to the effectiveness of these measures. Today the Catholic Church offers two principal arguments against Joan’s papacy: the absence of any reference to her in contemporary documents, and the lack of a sufficient period of time for her papacy to have taken place between the end of the reign of her predecessor, Leo IV, and the beginning of the reign of her successor, Benedict III. These arguments are not, however, conclusive.

It is scarcely surprising that Joan does not appear in contemporary records, given the time and energy the Church has, by its own admission, devoted to expunging her from them. The fact that she lived in the ninth century, the darkest of the dark ages, would have made the job of obliterating her papacy easy. The ninth century was a time of widespread illiteracy, marked by an extraordinary dearth of record keeping. Today, scholarly research into the period relies on scattered, incomplete, contradictory, and unreliable documents. There are no court records, land surveys, farming accounts, or diaries of daily life. Except for one questionable history, the Liber pontificalis (which scholars have called a "propagandist document"), there is no continuous record of the ninth-century Popes -- who they were, when the reigned, what they did. Apart from the Liber pontificalis, scarcely a mention can be found of Joan’s successor, Pope Benedict III -- and he was not the target of an extermination campaign. Joan’s absence from contemporary church records is only to be expected. The Roman clergymen of the day, appalled by the great deception visited upon them, would have gone to great lengths to bury all written reports of the embarrassing episode. Indeed, they would have felt it their duty to do so. Even the great theologian Alcuin was not above tampering with the truth; in one of his letters he admits destroying a report on Pope Leo III’s adultery and simony. One need only look to the recent examples of Nicaragua and El Salvador to see how a determined and well-coordinated state effort can make embarrassing evidence "disappear." It is only after the distancing effect of time that truth, kept alive by unquenchable popular report, gradually begins to emerge. And, indeed, there is no shortage of documentation for Joan’s papacy in later centuries. Frederick Spanheim, the learned German historian who conducted and extensive study of the matter, cites no fewer than five hundred ancient manuscripts containing accounts of Joan’s papacy, including those of such acclaimed authors as Petrarch and Boccaccio.

Today, the church position on Joan is that she was an invention of Protestant reformers eager to expose papist corruption. Yet Joan’s story first appeared hundreds of years before Martin Luther was born. Most of her chroniclers were Catholics, often highly placed in the church hierarchy. Joan’s story was accepted even in official histories dedicated to Popes. Her statue stood undisputed alongside those of the other Popes in the Cathedral of Siena until 1601, when, by command of Pope Clement VIII, it suddenly "metamorphosed" into a bust of Pope Zacharias. In 1276, after ordering a thorough search of the papal records, Pope John XX changed his title to John XXI in official recognition of Joan’s reign as Pope John VIII. Joan’s story was included in the official church guidebook to Rome used by pilgrims for over three hundred years. Another striking piece of historical evidence is found in the well-documented 1413 trial of Jan Hus for heresy. Hus was condemned for preaching the heretical doctrine that the Pope is fallible. In his defense Hus cited, during the trial, many examples of Popes who had sinned and committed crimes against the Church. To each of these charges his judges, all churchmen, replied in minute detail, denying Hus’s accusations and labeling them blasphemy. Only one of Hus’s statements went unchallenged: "Many times have the Popes fallen into sin and error, for instance when Joan was elected Pope, who was a woman." No one of the 28 cardinals, four patriarchs, 30 metropolitans, 206 bishops, and 440 theologians present charged Hus with lying or blaspheming in this statement. There is also circumstantial evidence difficult to explain if there was never a female Pope. One example is the so-called chair exam, part of the medieval papal consecration ceremony for almost six hundred years. Each newly elected Pope after Joan sat on the sella stercoraria (literally, "dung seat"), pierced in the middle like a toilet, where his genitals were examined to give proof of his manhood. Afterward the examiner solemnly informed the gathered people, "Mas nobis nominus est" -- "Our nominee is a man." Only then was the Pope handed the keys of St. Peter. This ceremony continued until the sixteenth century.

Another interesting piece of circumstantial evidence is the "shunned street." The Patriarchium, the Pope’s residence and episcopal cathedral (now St. John Lateran) is located on the opposite side of Rome from St. Peter’s Basilica; papal processions therefore frequently traveled between them. A quick perusal of any map of Rome will show that the Via Sacra (now the Via S. Giovanni) is by far the shortest and most direct route between these two locations -- and so in fact it was used for centuries (hence the name Via Sacra, or "sacred road"). This is the street on which Joan reportedly gave birth to her stillborn child. Soon afterward, papal processions deliberately began to turn aside from the Via Sacra.

As for the Church’s second argument, that there was not sufficient time between the papacies of Leo IV and Benedict III for Joan to have reigned -- this too is questionable. The Liber pontificalis is notoriously inaccurate with regard to the times of papal accessions and deaths; many of the dates cited are known to be wholly invented. Given the strong motivation of a contemporary chronicler to conceal Joan’s papacy, it would be no great surprise if the date of Leo’s death was moved forward from 853 to 855 -- through the time of Joan’s reported two-year reign -- in order to make it appear that Pope Leo was immediately succeeded by Pope Benedict III."

W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Doesn't the last paragraph of overview and the first of analyis contradict eachother (both dealing with the testicle stuff)? 143.50.217.29 23:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And, by the way, as far as I know, a newly elected pope is not consecrated as the last paragraph of overview suggests. 143.50.217.29 23:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to the Novem Diales (Nine Days). There is a 9-day interregnum after the death of each Pope. This interregnum, however, is completed before the election starts, not after the new Pope is elected but before he is consecrated and crowned. Once elected, the new Pope is consecrated and crowned very shortly thereafter. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.150.198 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could one of the 'sources' for the legend be the 'actual ruling abbesses' and similar (such as those mentioned on Women as theological figures? 'Urban legend based on a reworked fragment of fact'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Medieval authors would have been well aware of powerful women in the church, but I doubt it will ever be known if any of them were an inspiration for the legend. One point that should be remembered is that while the figure of Joan, being intelligent, anti-authoritarian, and somewhat sexually liberated, is attractive to the sensibilities of the modern West, those same qualities would have made her abhorrent to medieval readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Worth considering (along with things such as the Lord of Misrule and boy bishops: the world as is reversed. 'Category of possible inputs to such stories which do not meet Occam's Razor standards' (being fun speculations). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the two films?

OK so this is a learned article and the films do not require discussion as they are clearly entertainment. ...But to omit them completely as though they do not exist is just silly and capricious surely? Every time they are shown Wikipedia will get hits on this page from the curious only to see no menton of what sent them here.

Other have similarly commented on non-learned infotainment books on the subject.

A "Pope Joan in the Media" section maybe? Very odd that there is none. With respect - this seems almost in denial of the way knowledge and entertainment cross in modern life?

1972 film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069110/ 2009 film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458455/

Ah... I see from 3. above on spoilers that there was such a section. Will the intellectual bigot who removed it please put it back. THANKS. I have a university degree also but I would like to see the film mentioned as I don't personally live down a hole unaffected by the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you won't get very far calling other editors "bigots". There was such a section, but it was removed as it contained nothing but unsourced pop culture trivia. Such sections are deprecated on Wikipedia and there was no way to retain the content as it was unverified. If you have solid reliable sources for the films, I'm sure we can work them in, but we do not need a random list of every time Pope Joan has been mentioned in modern ephemera.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The links are IMDB as given in my first comment. I would not go further than that as I agree with you Cúchullain that the films should be referenced only and not chattered about. E.g. Good though Liv Ullman's performance was and terrible teh post production was, these are not things to be mentioned here. Despite this it's still my view that I should not edit the main page directly and leave mention of the films as a suggestion made on the discussion page only, for someone else to implement. To me it is very odd that a subject can have two feature films and not a mention of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Legend may be based on Marozia, the mother of Pope John XI

I had added the following plausible origin of the legend, but it was deleted as Dr.K. as "Uncited." The Pope Joan legend may be based on Marozia, the mother of Pope John XI. Marozia was the ruler of Rome at the time, and she allegedly exerted complete control over the Pope. Italus (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to our core policy of verifiability WP:V everything we submit here must be supported by reliable sources WP:RS. Otherwise anyone could write any rumour they want and they wouldn't have to support it. I hope this helps. And please do not mention my screen name in connection to the revert. Let's not get personal. Any experienced user would have done exactly as I did. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Pope Joan legend is the rumor, and Marozia is a very plausible basis for this rumor. Italus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

You said: ... and Marozia is a very plausible basis for this rumor. Now you have to find a reliable source which verifies what you said. Your own conclusion is not enough. No reliable source, no edit is allowed into the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Legend may be based on a mistress of Pope John XII

The "Later development" section of the article contains Bartolomeo Platina's account of Pope Joan. The editors should consider adding a reference to the elaborate note added by Onofrio Panvinio to the revised edition of Platina's book. The entry for Joan at http://books.google.com/books?id=lQwMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA923&lpg=PA923 contains the following: Panvinius, Platina's continuator, seems to have been more critical: he subjoins a very elaborate note, in which he shows the absurdity of the tale, and proves it to have been an invention. The entry for Pope John XII at http://books.google.com/books?id=lX4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA980&lpg=PA980 contains the following: Panvinius, in a note to Platina's account of pope Joan, suggests that the licentiousness of John XII, who, among his numerous mistresses, had one called Joan, who exercised the chief influence at Rome during his pontificate, may have given rise to the story of "pope Joan." Italus (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the latter is found here not on the link you provided. If no one else objects you can add it to the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The latter also starts at the end of Page 980 at the URL that I provided. Since you are a more experienced editor, I would appreciate it if you would determine which source is more reliable and add the quotation to the article. Italus (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I stand corrected. I saw the passage at the end of p. 980 of your citation as you mentioned. Both citations seem equally valid. The citation I found predates the other citation by 21 years so I think the latter is a reprint of the former. I'll wait for some additional input and then I'll add them in the article using both. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthwhile addition to me. Thanks, both of you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt feedback. I will add it then. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you both. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Change The Intro?

The article begins: "It was widely believed for centuries, though modern historians and religious scholars[who?] consider it fictitious[vague]."

There is some clarification to these statements later, but maybe we can create a new intro that's a bit more specific?

Also, it might be worth mentioning that the time between her first mention (early 1200's) and the date of that account (1099) are roughly equivalent to the time it took for the Gospels to be written after the date of Jesus' death. Both are secondary sources written after the fact, and might be mentioned as a reference point?

Actually there are no contemporary or near-contemporary accounts of the female pope; she isn't mentioned at all until the 13th century. The accounts even differ by centuries on when she was supposed to have lived, with some saying the 11th century and some saying the 9th century. Either way, it's hundreds of years before the first written accounts. Several scholars arguing that it's a myth are cited. This could be improved, but it's no reason to start claiming Pope Joan might have been real.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My fault, I mistyped. What I meant was that the article might be misleading in that most of the evidence listed here seems to support her existence, even after the intro correctly states she is widely considered a myth, and no contemporary proof of her existence has been found (though, if the first documentation of her existence was in the early 1200's, and the account takes place in 1099, that timeframe is roughly equivalent to the Gospels' temporal relation to the widely-held date of Jesus' death, and may be considered of similar veracity as a secondary source.) I was mainly suggesting that a "reformat" might be in order since the passages regarding scholars who disagree with her existence are not as thoroughly sourced as the arguments for her existence. But after re-reading, I'm not certain how this would be done, since the majority of the "she is not real" content is based on the lack of contemporary evidence (which obviously doesn't need a lot of room to explain.) I changed the tone and shortened the suggestion to reflect my actual intentions to see a more well-sourced intro. Sorry for the confusion! --JTronman

No problem. The article can certainly stand some improvement, and there are a number of sources that could be used. On a side note, comparing the dating of Joan's historiography and Jesus' would be original research, unless this was discussed in a reliable source somewhere. It would be better if any changes to the article were based on the standard works on the subject.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to "judge" whether she is fictitious or real. Any discussion regarding this issue is irrelevant and inappropriate.--79.244.9.157 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is certainly the place to judge how best to include the views of the scholars who have written on the subject.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarot Card

The Marseilles tarot has a Papesse card. This symbol is common in French criticisms of the Church. I don't think it shows Pope Joan per se, but I don't know it doesn't. I know it shows a female Pope. I changed the text for NPoV. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption now reading It is not known whether or not the person depicted is supposed to be Pope Joan, thanks to the critical eye of Dominick, is incomplete: the caption should read It is not known whether or not the person depicted is supposed to be Pope Joan, among the numerous examples of female popes. Or, perhaps we can make this moderately obvious connection after all— unless some editor can come up with another Papess. Anyone? --Wetman 07:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is a detail from the famous colored woodcut of the whore of Babylon riding the beast of the apocalypse originally commissioned from the studio of Lucas Cranach the Elder for the 1534 edition of the Luther Bible. Any association with Pope Joan must have arisen afterward. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)