Prime Time and Pope Joan.
Dec. 29th, 2005 10:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
litheraWe're half way through and they haven't said anything that I don't know. (It amuses me when they say - repeatedly - "Why has no one heard of this...?") Admittedly, I have read a /lot/ on the subject. (A note about me - I have a thing about Joan of Arc and Pope Joan. I also have a thing about androgyny.)
So. Yes, there were well recorded women who were bishops and priests and monks. There were a number of women who were sainted for having served the Catholic church as monks and so on and so forth. One of them was so convincing, she was even put on trial for having fathered a child. She had to clear herself by revealing herself. During the time period it was almost a tradition for women to do this sort of thing and if not a tradition, it happened often enough that it was known.
There are many 'official' documents all over place. Most of them, however, show up much, much after Joan. And most of them are acknowledges that it needs confirmation. The Protestants made a big deal out of it. A large number come from different sources around the time of the Luther and after. Hundreds of years later. And there is a chair. And I don't know why and it is the weirdest piece of 'evidence'. The idea is that this chair, with a hole in the middle of it, was used to examine popes to make sure that they were male before coronation. I have no idea why you would have a chair like this and that seems as reasonable of an explanation as anything else to me.
While it is possible that Joan existed and a part of me /wants/ her to have existed, it truly seems unlikley to me. I have another book here that I need to read that might manage to change my mind on that. I don't know.
This Primetime investigation frustrates me. The sources aren't that great. They used the woman who turned it into a novel. They're using Bernnini carvings who was born 500+ years later. They're using tarot cards which was much much later as well. There was potentially a sculpture of her in the Duomo that was scraped off to be used for Zachary. It also annoys me that all of the people who they have found to come out in favor are women. Could we have made it not so gender split?
They're spending the last half of the reporting tearing all of the possibilities down. And they aknowledge that the 9th century was a time that they needed to pull women under the control of the church. Women made quite a few moves of power in the time period. There were women marrying they and influencing situations. There were many female mystics who gained all sorts of followers. The story might have been invented to bring them under control, or to ward off influence. Ther are some mysteries that just aren't likely to ever be solved.
So. Yes, there were well recorded women who were bishops and priests and monks. There were a number of women who were sainted for having served the Catholic church as monks and so on and so forth. One of them was so convincing, she was even put on trial for having fathered a child. She had to clear herself by revealing herself. During the time period it was almost a tradition for women to do this sort of thing and if not a tradition, it happened often enough that it was known.
There are many 'official' documents all over place. Most of them, however, show up much, much after Joan. And most of them are acknowledges that it needs confirmation. The Protestants made a big deal out of it. A large number come from different sources around the time of the Luther and after. Hundreds of years later. And there is a chair. And I don't know why and it is the weirdest piece of 'evidence'. The idea is that this chair, with a hole in the middle of it, was used to examine popes to make sure that they were male before coronation. I have no idea why you would have a chair like this and that seems as reasonable of an explanation as anything else to me.
While it is possible that Joan existed and a part of me /wants/ her to have existed, it truly seems unlikley to me. I have another book here that I need to read that might manage to change my mind on that. I don't know.
This Primetime investigation frustrates me. The sources aren't that great. They used the woman who turned it into a novel. They're using Bernnini carvings who was born 500+ years later. They're using tarot cards which was much much later as well. There was potentially a sculpture of her in the Duomo that was scraped off to be used for Zachary. It also annoys me that all of the people who they have found to come out in favor are women. Could we have made it not so gender split?
They're spending the last half of the reporting tearing all of the possibilities down. And they aknowledge that the 9th century was a time that they needed to pull women under the control of the church. Women made quite a few moves of power in the time period. There were women marrying they and influencing situations. There were many female mystics who gained all sorts of followers. The story might have been invented to bring them under control, or to ward off influence. Ther are some mysteries that just aren't likely to ever be solved.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-30 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-30 04:53 pm (UTC)*sad face*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 09:58 pm (UTC)One thing about the book, is it doesn't attempt to establish that Joan was Pope. In fact, he is a strong skeptic that she ever existed. He focuses his work on the notes of a 19th Century scholar. The book focuses more on how the story came into existance.
Its not a fantastic read and its more of a scholarly work so if you get bored reading history books you have been warned.
Still, if the subject matter is interesting to you, I would recommend it.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 10:01 pm (UTC)It is a very good book. Thank you! It just reminds me that I need to see if I own it or not.