h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Three Popes - or the Great Schism - A273061
Author: Alighieri - U111943

I found this this afternoon and loved it. Highly entertaining and informative. If anyone thinks it ought to be Edited Guide material I'd agree but I don't think it would get in unamended (particularly the footnotes which made me laugh out loud on what hasn't been a particularly good day) and that would be a shame. Well it would criminal actually. I hope you all enjoy this as much as I did. Here goes, I haven't done this before...

Very funny I smell a whiff of '1066 And All That'

Note to author or subeditor: I suggest a little touch-up on the sentence near the top -- "The Archbishop of Bordeaux had recently become Pope and he noticed that Italy of the day displayed the sort of political stability today associated with Sierra Leone."

I had to read that twice to figure out "of the day" versus "today". It would read more clearly if "of the day" were taken out or replaced with "of that time", "of the time." Something like that, or maybe moving "today" to the end of the sentence after "Sierra Leone."

This could be an interesting test case for the Underguide. With enough changes, this could work in the Edited Guide. But since they probably wouldn't take it in present condition, and since UG probably would, it doesn't feel like we're stealing anything from the Edited Guide by using it.

Yeah - am I right that the key here is that the author has gone Elvis? If the author was around to make the changes, then it could get into the EG, since they aren't and in the lack of a Flea-Marketeer, it does look like the UG to me.



Ben

Your Guide Entry has been picked from the Alternative Writing Workshop by two of our miners, and is now heading off for inclusion in the UnderGuide. It would be a great help to move this conversation thread back to the entry itself by clicking on the 'X' or 'Remove' on the Alternative Writing Workshop page. For more information on the UnderGuide, see A1103329.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at A1096544. We hope this explains everything. Soon a helpful friendly Gem Polisher should be dropping by your personal space.

Thanks for contributing to the UnderGuide!

Even though (s)he isn't around anymore, for Alighieri

Three Popes is a fascinating and very droll bit of Church history, but there is one serious error before it gets formerly accepted anywhere, Pope John XXIII was a 20th century Pope, the last really significant holder of the Papal throne,responsible for Vatican Council II, ecumenism, and all that, but he was the first Pope John since the days of the Avignon Schism, who had been Pope John XXII.

hmm, well, firstly, i ed!

and i like the style, interesting subject treated in a fun way.

top marks so far...

but Chaiwallah's comment (did you see the link to the John XXIII entry, btw?) brings up an important question...

is anyone here qualified to say whether the facts presented here (however humourously) are accurate?

just wundrin
spiff

to Alighieri. Perhaps the email from this, (the author gets an email at some point doesn't s/he Jodan?) will bring him/her back.

Thanks for spotting that, Chaiwallah.

You raise a good point Spiff, I don't think there are enough 'peers' here for that sort of checking yet. I've raised this on the miner's egroup. Do you belong to it Spiff? I know Ashley accidently missed a few miners out when he sent the invitation emails.
Waz

I don't think we've given thought to fact checking because most entries aren't factual

I'll instruct the polisher...

Oh wait, The UG Editors are the polisher. I forgot...

Chaiwallah- I'm working on the Three Popes entry now at A1117324 and I want to change the error

What exactly is wrong with it? How should I change it?

I'll get back to you on this point after I've gone and checked the facts about Pope John XXII and the Avignon schism. ( It's a long time since I did that bit of history.)

But, btw, it's interesting to note that the Avignon Papacy coincided with a really way-out period of very inventive medieval music composition, known as the "Avignon Avant-garde." Stuff that's so weird as to be almost unperformable. They had just discovered how to annotate rhythm accurately, and went berserk writing really complex syncopated rhythms, the like of which simply didn't recur in western composed music for hundreds of years.

That is interesting

I'll hold this entry until you've gotten the chance to checked the facts

Well, well, well, turns out Alighieri was absolutely right after all, with one proviso, she should have specified that John XXIII was one of the Pisan Popes, so maybe this should be a footnote. At the time of the three Popes, there were Popes in Rome - Boniface IX, Innocent VII and Gregory XII, two in Avignon - Clement VII and Benedict XIII, and two in Pisa Alexander V and John XXIII!

The Pisan College of Cardinals, fed up with the schism, had denounced the Popes of Rome and Avignon and elected their own, Alexander V,1409-1410, and then John XXIII, 1410-1415. The whole mess was not sorted out until the Council of Constance, 1414 -1418, and even then it took a few years to settle, after the election of Pope Martin V, 1417 -1431.

The reason the Popes left Rome for Avignon in the first place, back in 1305, was because of the local politics and the chaos in Rome.

Avignon was chosen ( a point Alighieri didn't make ) because it was NOT part of France at that time, but over the border in the independent Kingdom of Provence, which was officially a Papal state.

Pisan Pope John XXIII was eventually obliged to abdicate in 1415, and died two years later. Roman Pope Gregory XII agreed to resign to end the schism in 1415, and after much political manoeuvering, eventually did so. Avignon Pope Benedict XIII hung in there until he died in 1423. But by that time the new Roman Pope Martin V had taken control by astute political footwork, and eventually managed to re-settle in Rome itself, though not until 1420.

So, Alighieri was right that there was a Pisan Pope John XXIII in the 1400's, but as he was not a Roman Pope, and abdicated, that might explain why the 20th Century John XXIII felt free to re-use the title. Which is a bit surprising.

Okay. I'll make some changes later today

so the 20th Century John XXIII is John XXIII II then? His re-use of the title looks like a deliberate non recognition of the Pisan Popes.

btw Alighieri is a he, I followed their link to their web site.

I'd just like to say that this is a great piece, and this thread is also vvv interesting.

So thanks all!

It is quite strange that C20 Pope John XXIII chose that name and number. The Vatican historians are presumably very well informed on the precedent of names, and the Popes generally choose the names to suit their style. A bit of research into John XXIII 1 and 2 should be revealing.

An apparent breach of ettiquette you might say .

"Popes generally choose the names to suit their style" I didn't know that. Are you thinking of researching this Chaiwallah? If so, would you mind posting the results?

Waz (intrigued)