Talk:Marozia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the article already says, "Marozia had the great misfortune of having eloquent detractors". Unfortunately, at least a couple of the unattributed statements (about Theodora being the real power in Rome and Marozia being the mistress of Pope Sergius III) seem to derive entirely from the detractors (notably Liutprand and the Liber Pontificalis).

Unless someone with more historical expertise comes along in the meanwhile, I'll cross-reference some of the secondary sources and try some more detailed revisions, probably in a week or two. PWilkinson 20:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's a good secondary reference now at Pope Sergius III, with solid information about these real powers in Rome: think of the mere word "senatrix". Just say it a couple of times: "senatrix". Utterly extraordinary! The only two somewhat contemporary sources are those mentioned above. Rehabilitating Marozia might be one of the most challenging tweaks to medieval history one could set oneself! Even Papal apologists shrink from the task! Of course her greatest flaw, in the eyes of her clerical detractors, was the scandalous fact that she was a woman! None of her actions would have been the least shocking— in a man of her class... Liutprand of Cremona was repeating mean-spirited gossip, to be sure: true or not, it was current and believable, however; otherwise it would not have been recorded. Beyond that, what do we know of anyone's sexlife, even Henry James'? I shall put this on my Watchlist to stay tuned! I expect to be entertained ;) --Wetman 02:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And you rewrote that reference yourself, didn't you? Oh well, it is good - I've got queries on some points of detail, but I'll comment on them on the talk page there when I've got a bit more time. I'm not sure on your point about "senatrix" - was Theodora called "senatrix" in her own right (as Marozia certainly seems to have been at the height of her power) or because she was Theophylactus's wife? Either seems arguable (even if Liutprand assumed the first). And I suspect that I'll only be able to rehabilitate Marozia just so far - even discounting the sexual innuendo, she seems to have been as ruthless and unscrupulous as any of her male relatives, by blood or marriage. Talking of which, I'd welcome comments on my interpretation of Hugh of Arles. PWilkinson 20:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Rewriting" a reference is possibly a more serious slur in my slice of the world than in PWilkinson's. Not the kind of stone I'd so lightly sling. My quote of Gibbon is from vol V, part xlix, but the brief Liutprand quote was here when I began editing this last July (see Page history), and I can't vouch for it. User:PWilkinson should set things straight, especially if points of fact are misrepresented. I haven't seen the original documents where senatrix and patricia are recorded. So, are there any other examples of a senatrix? If it is simply a courtesy title of the wife of a senator they should be common... --Wetman 04:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, nothing more than a very slight jibe intended - I was intending to refer only to your improvements to the Pope Sergius III article, not to your work on this one (the Gibbon quote is indeed attributed clearly enough). I realise I expressed myself badly. Senatrix does indeed seem to be a rare title - a preliminary look on Google shows just two more 10th century Roman examples (both later, both also listed by Brooks), Hillary Clinton and a few other recent American Senators. However, also note what Brooks mentions and quotes about contemporary references to Theodora - senatrix may not have been just a courtesy title, but it looks likely it didn't have quite the sense to Theodora's generation that Marozia gave it. PWilkinson 20:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are we all presuming that there is absolutely no doubt that Liudprand was wrong? 70.16.23.207 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)