The Strange Tale of Pope Formosus

 

This is another post from the soon-to-be deleted Hubpages site.

History IS Stranger than Fiction

People often wonder why history is required in school. Isn't it just a bunch of dates and dead people, they think? To some degree, this could be an accurate statement. However, history is interesting. At times, the truth is stranger than fiction. I will confess that I'm a church history nut. I love learning about the history of Christianity. I'm not a Catholic, but I find medieval Catholicism very interesting.

One of the most interesting accounts from medieval church history is the sad tale of Pope Formosus.

The Cadaver Synod

Pope Formosus and Stephen VII by Jean Paul Laurens

Wikimedia Commons (PD-1923)

Formosus: The Early Years

Pope Formosus was the only Pope Formosus ever. Hence, there is no I, II, V, or XIV after his name. The year of Formosus' birth is not certain, but it is estimated around 816. He served as a Cardinal Bishop as early as 864 and first became a candidate for the papacy in 872.

Political machinations in Rome frequently determined who would become pope in these days, so Formosus was passed over. After leaving Rome, John VIII placed an excommunication on the head of the Cardinal. In 878, John removed the excommunication after Formosus reportedly agreed never to return to Rome or perform his priestly duties (although the documents are questionable). In 891, Formosus was elected to succeed Stephen V as pope.

Pope Formosus: The Papal Years

Pope Formosus actually became Pope Formosus on October 6, 891. His pontificate was not terribly memorable. Political wranglings dominated this period in European history. Not much on the ecclesiastical side happened of major note. Therefore, it could be argued that the papacy of Pope Formosus was rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Pope Formosus: The Dead Years

Although being a pope who was elected pope after previously being excommunicated puts Formosus into a pretty rare category, this is not what truly set him apart in history. Formosus is most interesting because of what happened after his death.

Boniface VI immediately succeeded Formosus, but he only lasted 15 days as pope. 15 days is not a long enough time for most people to accomplish much, so we must move to the successor of Boniface VI. In 897, Pope Stephen VI (or VII, depending upon the date of the record being read) brought Formosus to trial. Stephen was influenced by a man named Lambert and his mother Agiltrude, who were apparently mad that Formosus crowned a rival named Arnulf, who invaded Rome. After Lambert and Agiltrude regained power, Agiltrude wanted to get revenge on Formosus, who was already dead.

Stephen convened a gruesome trial now known widely as the Cadaver Synod in early 897. Formosus had been dead for months, but that did not stop the exhumation of his decaying corpse. The trial was held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran with Formosus dressed in all of the papal finery. After some questioning and arguments, Formosus unsurprisingly sat silent. A deacon was appointed to answer for the dead corpse. The court deemed Formosus guilty and his papacy was basically declared null and void. The poor corpse of Pope Formosus was stripped of the papal vestments, three fingers used for giving blessings were cut off, and the body was chucked into the Tiber River (only to be retrieved). 

However, the ordeal of Formosus was not quite over. After the death of Stephen VI, Formosus' body was re-buried in St. Peters. Sergius III re-affirmed the judgement against hi and demanded that all bishops consecrated by Formosus be re-consecrated, despite two previous popes viewing Formosus as legitimate. Later rulings found in favor of Formosus because of the political nature of the Cadaver Synod trial. 

Review of Mark Kishlansky: A Monarchy Transformed

 I wrote this review for a class in grad school several years ago. I published it on Hubpages, which is about to go kaput. Here it is: 

Kishlansky, Mark. A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714. New York:

Penguin, 1996.

Some works of history are groundbreaking studies that investigate new sources or look at old sources in a new way, while others tend to synthesize the body of scholarly literature that already exists. Mark Kishlansky’s A Monarchy Transformed belongs to the latter category.Kishlansky wrote A Monarchy Transformed as the volume on the Stuart period in the Penguin History of Britain series.Kishlansky argued that the Stuart period saw major changes to the British monarchy including: 1) the monarch’s “constitutional position” was far different at the end of the Stuart period than it had been at the outset of the dynasty, 2) the period saw a “continual mutation” because the methods that worked for one monarch quickly became outdated, and 3) “the estate that the Stuarts had inherited was far different from the one they bequeathed.”[1]There is no real novelty to Kishlansky’s thesis, and the themes that he emphasized correspond well to current historical understanding of the Stuart era.Therefore, this book should not be considered a groundbreaking work rather it is a work of synthesis.

Kishlansky focused A Monarchy Transformed upon important people and events.There were chapters on both the political and social milieu of the Stuart period at the beginning of the book.However, from Chapter 3 onward, the work was concentrated upon a general narrative of the Stuart era and emphasized the reigns of the monarchs themselves and the crises that dominated their dynasty.Kishlansky stated that his goal was to provide a general narrative of the Stuart era for those unfamiliar with the period.The book examined the reign of each Stuart monarch from James I to Anne.Kishlansky investigated the English Revolution and the events that led up to it, the Interregnum, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution with an interesting, yet unoriginal, narrative.

There is good evidence that Britain was in better fiscal shape when the Stuart dynasty ended than when it began with the accession of King James I. There was an important change in the way kings raised money during the Stuart era.The early Stuarts had to live off of what their possessions could provide, but this was hardly enough to support the royal family and court under normal circumstances.During time of war, the fiscal situation only became worse.The budget could not absorb the extra costs, and Parliament would force the monarch to grovel for a subsidy to pay for any wars. By the end of the Stuart monarchy, these occasional Parliamentary subsidies changed to annual taxes on land and products that were spread more evenly amongst the population.The monarch was no longer expected to “live of his (or her) own.”Instead, Parliament gave what amounted to an annual budget from the revenue of the state to support the crown.The creation of the Bank of England allowed for the use of the national debt to fund expansion of the British Empire.Military disbursements were funneled through the bank and the new financial institution began to issue notes to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.[2]These changes in government financing were very beneficial to the growth of the empire.

Queen Anne presided over a much larger empire at her death than James I held at his accession.While the coronation of James I in 1603 unified England and Scotland in theory, the passage of the Act of Union in 1707 established the empire of Great Britain officially.The British also took over sizable landholdings in North America during the Stuart era, beginning with the founding of Jamestown in 1607.While Ireland continued to cause problems for England during the Stuart Era, it still remained under English control.In spite of the instability of the Stuart Era, Great Britain emerged as one of the leading European powers by the end of the seventeenth century.

During the Stuart Era, the crown transformed from a divine right absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy that existed by Parliamentary grant.James I and Charles I viewed themselves as God’s representatives on earth, and thus theoretically above any questioning by their subjects.The end of the English Revolution saw the execution of Charles for treason and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate.The English people quickly became disillusioned with Cromwell and restored the monarchy under Charles II.However, the Restoration changed the way that the English viewed the source of the king’s power, and after the coronation of Charles II, the king served by consent of Parliament rather than divine right.The removal of James II for Catholicism and the subsequent coronation of William and Mary cemented the prerogative of Parliament in the establishment of the English monarchs.These changes show that the Stuart Era saw the transformation of the monarchy in multiple ways.

A Monarchy Transformed was a decent introduction to the Stuart era, but that is really all that Kishlansky attempted to accomplish.This work was primarily a political history that focused upon the leading figures in seventeenth-century England.Particularly prominent were the monarchs themselves, although Kishlansky paid substantial attention to George Villiers (Duke of Buckingham under James I and Charles I) and Oliver Cromwell because of their significance to the political narrative.The book emphasized the struggle for power between the king and Parliament, especially during the reigns of Charles I and the Restoration monarchs.By the reigns of William and Mary and Anne, such struggles were largely in the past as it became obvious that Parliament largely controlled the actions of the ruler.Many historians have emphasized the economic, social, and religious components of the Stuart era.Prominent Marxist historians produced important economic and social studies that focused the period of the English Revolution in the 1640s.Christopher Hill was a notable example.Scholars such as Nicholas Tyacke have investigated the religious undercurrents of prominent Parliamentarians like John Pym and Oliver St. John. Kishlansky largely ignored these issues in his work.He only emphasized them when they were specifically tied to the political narrative.

Kishlansky pointed out that this book was intended as a very general introductory narrative, and it served that purpose reasonably well.However, this was also A Monarchy Transformed’s biggest weakness.There was nothing terribly novel about the author’s arguments nor was there any new interpretation.There was no real analysis or of primary sources.In fact, there was no evidence that Kishlansky used primary sources at all.He compiled the book entirely from the secondary literature that he had available, and he admitted as much in the preface.Furthermore, Kishlansky admitted that he referred to the leading scholars from each reign in the writing of his work for advice, almost shifting the blame of any errors to those authors, which also belies the lack of originality in the book.The recommendations for further reading section at the end of the book gave a very short historiographical essay for each of the chapters in the book, most of which, except for the two chapters on politics and society, looked at a specific chronological time period from the Stuart period that had important political events or the death of a monarch as the dividing line between them.This section gave examples of the works that Kishlansky used in arriving at his narrative and interpretations and provided a good resource for his readers to investigate the Stuart era in more depth.In the final analysis, A Monarchy Transformed was a good introductory narrative that should be useful to novices wanting to learn more about the political milieu of seventeenth-century England.Those with a general understanding of the narrative would be better served to read specialized books that make more serious contributions to the historiography of the Stuart period.

[1] Mark Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714 (New York:

Penguin, 1996), xi..

[2] Ibid, 310.

Late Labor Day Post with Thoughts on the No.9 Mine

This Monday, many in the United States celebrated Labor Day. The organized labor movement is controversial with many in the US, given its siding (for the most part) with labor over capital. I recently read a sobering book on the No.9 Mine in Farmington, West Virginia, the site of a major occupational disaster on November 20, 1968, that killed 78 miners. The events in Farmington provide a clear example as to why the labor movement arose, and it provided the impetus for more serious regulation of the mining industry at the federal level. 

Bonnie Stewart was the author of the book on No.9: The 1968 Farmington Mine Disaster, and she relied partially on interviews with survivors and the families of the dead, along with official reports from government investigations and the company records. The events of November 20, 1968, were not the first time that the mine exploded. A similar event occurred in 1954, but the number of deaths was much lower (16) because of a smaller Sunday workforce. However, it was clear that the company (Consol) ignored safety precautions because slowdowns or shutdowns of production hurt the bottom line. Indeed, there were concerns in the days leading up to the explosion that dust and gas levels in the mine were dangerous. Additionally, the company rigged breakers to keep production up when gas levels supposed to cut power to the mine. 

Some of the final miners removed from No. 9 in a bucket (Wikimedia Commons)

There is sometimes a belief that companies will do the right thing, and some (perhaps many) will. However, Consol did not. Safe levels of methane and coal dust were a known factor, and the company decided not to follow safety recommendations in the pursuit of more profits. There was also some evidence that people with ties to the company might have forged some of the log books related to fire boss inspections on the night of the disaster. Because the company would not regulate itself, the US government stepped in with the 1969 Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. 

The actions of the company reminded me of an article I read on Don Blankenship and the Upper Big Branch disaster at the Massey Energy mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, in 2010. Blankenship's mine attempted to dodge federal inspectors, and bosses told men to "run coal" despite dangerous conditions, which shows that the love of money can lead to many evil outcomes. For his part, Blankenship served a year in jail before running for the US Senate in 2018. Disasters like those at Farmington and Upper Big Branch provide clear evidence that labor organizations and governmental regulators are necessary to protect the interests of laborers from the desire to make another dollar at any cost.  

I Submitted a Manuscript

One of my last posts on this blog looked at how long it takes to write a book. The idea I tried to put out into the Interwebs was tied to the belief that small efforts over a relatively long period of time can lead to productivity and completed projects. Near the end of last month, I completed a draft manuscript for a project I'd been addressing on and off for about seven years. The topic is a West Virginia senator from the last century who is not named Robert C. Byrd, although Byrd shows up fairly frequently in the text. 

The final manuscript draft was about 110,000 words, counting all notes and a bibliography. I received a confirmation that the editor I'd previously contacted had received the draft, along with a note that it would take a while to review. I fully anticipated that this would be the case. My hope is that he will be able to bring it up at his next board meeting so that the proposed book can be out within the next 18 months or so.

Of course, there is the possibility that the reviewers and the editor decide not to proceed, which would be disappointing. I have to say that I was pretty satisfied with the draft, although I'm absolutely sure that there will be revisions regardless. 

I have a few ideas for the next project I'll submit, and I've started thinking/researching a couple of them. One is more theoretical, while the other would focus on the Spanish flu and resemble (at least to a degree) my previous book Big Pandemic on the Prairie. You can buy that book here. (Not an affiliate link.) Both of those would probably be about half the length of the most recent manuscript, so writing 500 words per day on those would lead to about 100 days of writing, although it's likely to take quite a bit longer for me to research and write them. However, looking it in those terms regarding words per day can make the process of writing a book seem much more manageable. 

I'll be sure to update the progress of the submitted manuscript, and I may provide updates as to the progress on the other projects I'm looking into. 

Thoughts on The Jamestown Brides

 In early November, my daughter's class took a four-day field trip to Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown (along with an evening at Busch Gardens--both I and my daughter dig roller coasters, so that was a fun stop). Being a history nerd, I was more than happy to accompany the group. It was a very interesting trip, and I learned things at each stop. Of course, no stop was complete without a visit to the book section in the gift shop. 

One book that caught my eye was Jennifer Potter's work, The Jamestown Brides, published by Oxford University Press. 

This book was quite interesting on a number of levels. I'd long found it fascinating that men in early Virginia could purchase brides for the cost of 150 lbs. worth of tobacco. This might seem like a small expense, but each pound of tobacco was worth 3 shillings, so this was more than £20, which at the time was no small expense.

This was a well-reasearched book, and it was fairly amazing that Potter was able to craft such an engaging narrative on such a narrow base of information. Most of the brides who came to the New World in this scheme had few better options in England, which was a major reason for their willingness to cross the pond (or the encouragment they received to do so). Most show up only sporadically before seemingly falling off the face of the earth. The date or reason of their deaths were frequently unknown. Whether some ever married was unclear. Of course, there is the occasional record that shows a maid found a mate and had a child. 

These facts show the difficulty inherent in researching and writing about the pre-modern era, especially when looking at people from the lower or middling sort. A baptismal record at a local parish, an occasional court case, a marriage record, and a probate record at death might be all that's available to trace the lives of most people. From the social and cultural milieu surrounding such lives, a narrative can emerge. 

This differs from the "big" people in history. For example, I remember having to write a short paper from the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII in my master's program. This particular source included many volumes on microfilm. Today, most, if not all, of those records are available online. 

One has to wonder how much will be available regarding many of our lives in four hundred years. Will anyone care to look? 

How Long Does It Take to Write a Book?

How long does it take to write a book? I remember back to my senior seminar class in my undergrade program--Seminar in History. This class required the production of a 20- to 25-page paper, theoretically based upon primary research. I worked all semester for a paper that was, if truth be told, quite mediocre. I knew how to remember random facts at the time, but I did not really understand how to connect the dots to create a historical narrative that was backed up by primary research. Setting research questions and a solid thesis were not really in my repertoire at that point. 

I liked the idea of going to graduate school, but the thought of writing a master's thesis approximating 100 pages, not to mention a doctoral dissertation seemed a daunting task. In my DA program in history, I wrote a dissertation that was in the area of 140 pages. My recent book Big Pandemic on The Prairie is listed at 191 pages. I'm currently in the process of writing my next book, which I anticipate will come in around the 100,000-120,000 range. It's a biography of a senator from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph. I've been working at it on and off for the past six years, and I'm currently just north of 150 pages, or about 50,000 words. 

I no longer have the view that my younger self did that a book was nigh impossible. I knew that it was not impossible. After all, many people had written books, some series of books that encompassed several volumes. Popular nonfiction authors come out with books every few years (or even more frequently). I thought that this was beyond my ability. However, I should have been thinking about the idea of eating an elephant. 

The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. The way to write a book is one word at a time. My initial draft of my book on the Spanish flu took nearly three years to write. There was a delay tied to a cross-country move and setting up classes at a new institution, which took up quite a bit of my time. Otherwise, it would have been completed a bit earlier. The initial draft came in around 50,000 words or 150 pages. The final draft was 197 pages in Microsoft Word, which came to about 63,000 words. From concept to publication, The book took about 4.5 years. 

I've written about 70-80 pages since the beginning of summer on my latest project. It's been a little bit here, a little bit there. However, I was just doing some math yesterday. If I wanted to write a 300-page book over the course of a year, It would take a little more than 250 words per day. Writing an average of 250 words per day for 365 days in a year would produce around 90,000 words over the course of a year. That's a good length for a nonfiction book. Of course, there's research, which I could only undertake a day or two at a time for several years because of my distance from the archive. That takes quite a bit of time, but once you have an idea of the direction the research is going to go and the sources that will answer your research questions, the actual writing of a book of a decent length should not be as daunting as it might seem.  

Big Pandemic on the Prairie: My New Book on Spanish Flu Published

Back during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the spring of 2020, I started thinking about possible parallels between that pandemic and the nation's experience with a previous deadly outbreak. I had only a passing interest in the history of medicine at that point, but I knew that claims that lockdowns and masks were unprecedented were completely erroneous. 

I started with a new lecture on the Spanish flu, which looked at that pandemic on a nationwide level. It only scratched the surface and looked at the broad contours of what happened in 1918 and 1919. I then wondered how states in which I'd lived dealt with the Spanish flu. Lo and behold, the Library of Congress has a database that has a database of digitized historic newspapers, Chronicling America. I found that the three major dailies in North Dakota were available for the time frame I needed to investigate. 

This led to the idea that I could compose a scholarly research article on how newspapers in North Dakota reported on the flu, including the restrictions the state and local governments promulgated. That article came out in North Dakota History in 2021. After finishing up that piece, I still had questions, and I pitched a book on the Spanish flu in North Dakota to Bill Caraher, who was a former professor of mine at the University of North Dakota. Dr. Caraher runs the Digital Press at The University of North Dakota, and this small press sometimes publishes books on local history. He expressed serious interest in such a work, and after I sent a proposal of what I intended to do, he said to send a manuscript when I was done. 

On Tuesday of this week (Oct. 15), the fruit of my labor officially hit the market. Here's a link to the Digital Press's post on the topic, along with options for accessing the book (including in a FREE, open-access digital format), titled Big Pandemic on the Prairie: The Spanish Flu in North Dakota. It looks at a general overview of American medicine, provides a narrative of how the flu progressed through North Dakota, and analyzes how the flu impacted religious bodies, Native Americans, and the North Dakota election in 1918. I'm happy with how the book has turned out, and I hope any readers might find it interesting, educational, and accessible.