Gone Medieval - Cadaver Synod: Trial of a Dead Pope

Episode Date: May 5, 2026

What could drive a pope to put a corpse on trial?In 897, Rome staged one of the Middle Ages’ strangest spectacles: the Cadaver Synod, where Pope Stephen VI exhumed his predecessor and put his body on trial. Dr. Eleanor Janega is joined by Jessica Wärnberg to unpack the violent politics behind the outrage, the rival factions at stake, and why this gruesome event still fascinates today.MOREConclave: Picking PopesListen on AppleListen on SpotifyCharles IV, Holy Roman EmperorListen on AppleListen on SpotifyGone Medieval is presented by Dr. Eleanor Janega. It was edited by Amy Haddow, the producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world,

to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Eleanorianaga and welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We uncover the greatest mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and the latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the Normans, from kings to popes, to the Crusades. We delve into the rebellions, plots, and murders that tell us who we really were. And how we got here.

In the year 897, a shocking spectacle unfolded in the Holy City of Rome, bastion of the burgeoning medieval church. A pope named Stephen the 6th, a man of, let's say, notorious reputation. put one of his predecessors on trial. There's just one problem. His defendant, Pope Formosis, was already dead. Not to be put off by that small inconvenience, Stephen had Formosis's decaying and putrified body,

assumed, dressed in resplendent papal vestments, and shakily propped up on a hastily erected throne to face a barrage of accusations. Yep, that's right. A corpse, dragged from its grave, put on trial, and condemned by its successor in one of the most extraordinary episodes in papal history. Digging up dead bodies to facilitate post-humist reputational hit jobs is certainly a choice.

I'm Dr. Eleanor Yanaga. This is gone medieval and strap yourselves in as we explore one of the most bizarre, chaotic, and nacob moments of the Middle Ages. The cadaver signet. Today I'm joined by Jessica Varnberg, papal historian and author of City of Echoes, a new history of Rome, its popes, and its people. She is here to help us unpick what on earth was going on.

What could possibly drive a pope to put a corpse on trial. How was it tied to the ruthless and cut-throat politics of early medieval Europe? And most importantly, did they put the body back? Jessica, it is great to have you back on Gone Medieval. Great to be back on. Thank you for having me. I am delighted to have you back and more particularly delighted because we're going to talk about one of my favorite things. I think one of many medievalists' favorite thing, which is the cadaver synod. Sinad, depends on how you pronounce it. I'm a synod girl, personally. I'm synod, so we can cover all bases. Great. Okay. No one can get mad at us this way. This is perfect.

All right. But I think we have to begin at the beginning with this and just answer the basic question. What was the cadaver synod? When did it happen? And why do we care about it other than the fact that it's got kind of a metal name? So the name is great and the event definitely delivered. It happened in 8, 9, 7, sometime early in the year, and it's the trial of one Pope by another Pope, but the Pope on trial has been dead for nine months, so he's a cadaver. He's taken from his tomb, his name is Formosis, who's dressed investments. He's propped up on a throne at the Lateran, which is the Pope's Basilica. So he's given every honour, but then he is charged for crimes to discredit him, perjury,

seeking another Bishop Rickwell, he was Bishop. but being ambitious, seeking the papacy, and he's accused of these crimes by the current Pope Stephen VI. And although he has a deacon to defend him, he's found guilty. I didn't think it was a rigorous defence, given that he's standing in front of the current Pope. He's trying the dead Pope. All of his acts and ordinations are nullified. He's stripped of all the trappings of the papacy again.

And even his fingers that he would have blessed the people with when he was Pope are cut off. So he's sort of erased all of his honours and eventually he's tossed into the river Tiber. So it really is an event that deserves a dramatic name. And it is also an event that lives up to the name, the cadaverson, literally a corpse on trial. Okay. Listen, you would be forgiven if you heard this story and you thought that's not true. They're making that up. Because let's also be honest, around this point in time historically, you do. get interesting stories, let's just say, that kind of trickled down to us, very dramatic things.

But we have quite a few sources for something that happened this long ago on this, don't we? Yeah. I remember when I first heard about the cadaver simit when I was an undergraduate, and I thought, yeah, it's one of these stories, it's all those black legends that, you know, around the medieval church. And I think this actually is one of the reasons why we care about it, because it taps into this idea of the corruption of a supposedly sacred power or a power derived from St Peter and the idea of something that's so corporeal, so medieval, the potency of a body on trial. But you're absolutely right.

When one goes looking, there are sources from the time. And I think this is precisely because they found it weird. So it pops up in annals, like the animals of folder, the annals Alamachi. It also pops up in one of my favorite medieval sources. the chronicles of Lutrapand of Cremona, who is a bishop of Cremona, and lives a few decades after the cadaver Synod, but says that he hears these stories from people who were, you know, around at the time. He's got a great sense of drama.

He adds in a lot of detail. He's highly partisan, and he's even a kind of main actor in some of the later things in his chronicle. But this, he wasn't personally involved, but he does tell us about it. So I think that the sources are not only very helpful for understanding. what happened, but they're also helpful for understanding that people at the time were also freaked out and fascinated by this. I mean, let's be so honest. If I was there, you'd probably never hear anything from me ever again other than this story. I would just repeat it until the ends of the earth. So I can completely understand why everyone else is so obsessed with it as well.

And it is. I think you're right. It's really playing on these ideas about the church and the power that lies there. But I think also really interesting in this story is this particular thing about throwing the cadaver of Formosa into the tiber. Because there's a specific kind of ancient Roman precedent to that, no? Yeah. So there's an ancient Roman precedent of Damnazia Memorial where you would erase the memory of somebody, your enemy. It could even be somebody who's a very high up in the political system. And it was the greatest dishonor you. could give somebody because your memory, your legacy is something that's crucially important. So it definitely has this classical precedent. The worst thing that can happen to your body is to be

chucked into the fetid waters of the tiber and having lived in Rome, I can understand that. But it then gets a sort of medieval Christian element tacked on to it, I think, because bodies are important in medieval Christianity. This is the age of pilgrimage, of relics, of miracle-working relics. So bodies become objects of veneration, objects of honour in a different way, and in even perhaps a more potent way. Then add to that that this is the body of a pope, who's internment in St. Peter's Basilica with all of the honours of a Pope, places him in that petrine line of succession from St. Peter. All of the honours that go with a papal funeral and then the subsequent ceremonies around that, people visiting the tomb, are so steep demeaning, the idea of dragging Formosis from that series of popes and then slinging him into the tiber or a pauper's grave,

is potent perhaps even beyond Damnatsu Memorialite? It's saying something about his legitimacy as Pope. And that's what was meant by it, absolutely. And I mean, I think that we can infer from the fact that we're taking such an incredibly drastic step here. You know, as you say, when you become pope and you enter this sort of almost pantheon, right, of individuals, that's one of the easiest ways, for example, to become a saint, right? You know, one of the ways that you can really make it and get all the way up the rungs of holiness is to become a pope because popes are a dime a dozen when they're saints as well. So you're really taking him out of that and saying that you're not in this sacred and political legacy. more. And in fact, we don't, we don't even want to know you. You know, that that has a real resonance. And I think it actually does, to an extent, also reflect the political circumstances

all the time because I think we have to talk a little bit about what's going on here, right? You know, why are we digging popes up in order to do this? What's the political context in Rome at the time? Yeah. So the political context in Rome is one in which the papacy has become highly politicized. This starts much earlier on, not to wrench us too far back in history, but it's remarkable that it starts pretty much in the fourth century when Christianity becomes legitimised by Constantine. Very soon after you get fights over the papacy, the Pope now has palaces. The Pope now has connections. One of the early Pope's Damasus from this time is called the Earpick of Great Ladies. He's in all the best social circles in Rome.

Roman patricians are saying, I'll become Christian if I have as much power and influence as the Pope. So this starts early on where you get these worldly trappings tied to the papacy, it gets a cachet, and then people start going after it. By the 9th century when this is happening, the aristocratic families who essentially run Rome, people like the crescenti, later on you get the Tiofolati, they become quite notorious. they run Rome by occupying offices of the church. So the church has got a lot of land and the Pope gives that land to churches and the churches then lease that out. The aristocrats are seeking to occupy the clerical offices

of the major churches, so they have influence that way to become bishops of major seas, but also to have judicial roles, military, that are all tied into this power structure, administrative structure, which the Pope is sort of at the top. So they've also tried to get their candidates on the papal throne who are going to be favourable or even from their families. And Formosus and Stephen, who tries him, the cadaver Synod, are part of that picture. So Formosus is from the area. He's Bishop of Porto, which is a really important sea that's involved in that people

administration, people election. Stephen is from a similar background, from a kind of ecclesiastical family because you get priests, you then have children, who then become bishops and popes of that sort of thing. They're both really entrenched in this aristocratic, political network in Rome that is directly involved in trying to influence who is on the papal throne.

And they do so for worldly reasons, and they do so with worldly means. Violence, fighting, murder, politicking, rivalries. It's everything we imagine that's kind of corrupt about politics and certainly medieval politics and also sadly the medieval church. And so this is the political context in Rome that they're operating and volatile, violent, instable. I think that's a really important point. And also to an extent it kind of mirrors what we're seeing politically in the rest of Europe as well, because this is a time we're sort of coming up creeping along to the end of what we call.

the Carolingian Empire. And that experiment is also a big part, I would argue, indeed have argued, of lifting the popes up to the level that they are. You know, Charlemagne's decision to be crowned by the Pope will cause a lot of problems down the line later, but it is also really saying, yes, we are acknowledging that the Bishop of Rome is the guy. We're going with this particular platistibility. And here we are sort of seeing this huge political. political project falling apart. And so what that means for the papacy has to be slightly existential at the very least. Yeah, I think it's a time when you see that fracturing of the Carolingian Empire, that

lack of stability and centralization that you've gotten a figure like Charlemagne. You're Charlemagne and his father Pepin, they were the ideal allies for the Pope because the popes needed protectors. They needed people to defend them from people encroaching on the land around Rome. So they needed somebody who was strong and stable. But they also needed somebody who needed them. And they needed, you know, the Carolingians, they needed legitimacy. So in many ways, it seemed like a match made in heaven, excuse the pun. And whilst the Carolingian Empire was sort of centralized and strong, it seemed to work well. It was also at a nice distance from Rome. When that fractures, yes, legitimacy becomes perhaps even more important,

because you can't just inherit it. You kind of have to cobble it together if you're the king of East Franchion, you want to go for the imperial crown. But at the same time, it becomes more precarious. And that preciousness can force people, or maybe not force people, but encourage people to coerce the popes

with violence to legitimize them. So that power that the pope has to legitimize political power is a blessing and a curse, as you say. it puts the popes in a dangerous position where they're really valuable allies. But that means that maybe if they're not so loyal to an imperial candidate, a replacement might be sought by quite dastardly means. And again, yeah, this is definitely the environment in which Formosis and then Stephen are operating in. And also, this is a really turbulent time

for the papacy itself, right? Because I think between 896 and 904, we're getting about a new pope every year on average. Do you have some insight onto why that is happening at this point? It really is exactly what we've been talking about. Popes are getting assassinated for the first time. John the 8th, I think, has that dubious honour and he's assassinated by people within his own faction.

So if you are a useful Pope, then you have a value for a time. But if, say, the power dynamics shift and you're not in favour, then maybe they're going to try and get rid of you. It also means that there are some very elderly popes elected. We see this in other kind of political systems that are not falling apart, but fragile, if you think about even geracrisies,

we look at sort of the Soviet Union, this period of very elderly weaker leaders. And so some popes are dying, it seems, of natural means, but they're elected when they're very old. So this high turnover is really a reflection of this volatile political environment where people aren't necessarily seeking popes that are going to last for a long time and where popes start to be deposed and even murdered in order to be eliminated from the political landscape. I mean, you can completely understand why things would be getting a little bit desperate. I mean, granted, this is a bit beyond that, isn't it? It's just fully weird. But you do have a situation where it is possible to be killed really easily where you are the Pope. You are dependent for better or worse on an imperial system that is breaking up all around you.

You also need those guys in order to make sure the papal states are left below. You know, you need to make sure that you are administering your lands correctly. And basically, the Cardinals are a nest of vipers at the time. It is pretty intense. I think we could agree on that as a minimum. Can we talk a little bit about Pope Formosis? Because how is it that he gets himself into this giant mess, right? You know, it's one thing that he is dug up and he's dead. Why is he someone who is a target for this level of ire?

I mean, okay, oh, was he seeking the papacy as opposed to every single other pope? Right. It just doesn't seem like very much of an ineffective slander given the circumstances. It's an interesting question. I think I feel sad for Pope Formosis, not only because he's dug up and tried as a cadaver and not allowed to rest in peace, but because that's how most people know him. He was actually an incredibly talented papal missionary and delegates, so a papal diplomat. He's Bishop of Portus, which is a really important sea. And he's supposedly, according to the sources, quite saintly and erudite and certainly very talented. I mean, popes who are nervous about his ambition send him a really important diplomatic missions just because he's such a great sort of negotiator.

He's very erudite. And there are accusations that he's very ambitious, but we don't have any sources from him. So we don't know how much that reflects the assumptions and fears around this very talented churchman and how much that reflects the truth. He probably really did want to become Pope, who wouldn't have you had a good ecclesiastal career, if you're part of these Arab Screcic circles. But there are episodes early on in his life where it seems more actually that other people are trying to advance him. So, for instance, he's sent to the king of the Bulgars, Boris I, by Nicholas

the First. And it's a really, really important mission. This is about bringing a whole people over to allegiance with the Roman Church. And it's Formosis that's sent. He's so good that Boris wants to keep him and have him be Archbishop of the Bolgars in a really important position. And I mention this not as a sort of flattering tangential anecdote on Formosis's life, but it does illustrate how talented he was and how he might become a victim of his own talents, but also because it's key to the accusations that are thrown against him. One of the reasons or the main reason why the Pope, so successive Pope, say, no Boris, we're sorry, but you can't have Formosus as your archbishop, is that at this time, you can't be bishop of two places.

So it's a bit weird for us because almost everybody that becomes a pope nowadays, you know, has been bishop of somewhere. But at this time, it's seen as like having two wives. It's seen as episcopal bigamy. And it's against canon law. You could only make an exception if it was for the good of the church. So if Formosus does want to become archbishop of Bulgaria, even worse, while he's bishop of Portus, then he's a potential bigamist and breaker of canon law. who's doing so for ambition. And this is what's thrown at him at the cadaver Synod.

Now, whether or not that was because of a concern for canon law, we can talk about, but that is the heart of the threat. And there are other popes before Stephen, who also accused for Mosef of ambition and breaking canon law. And so these are accusations of the throne at him throughout his life by people sometimes on the opposite. side of factional rivalries and also popes concerned about his talent and perhaps his personal ambitions.

Listen, there are haters everywhere, obviously. He's a victim of his own success, right? He's simply too good in his mission to Bulgaria. So he's sort of hinted at this, right, because he gets himself into trouble at times as well, because he's hit with excommunication at a point, is he not? Yeah, exactly. So John Leight, who I just referred to, excommunicates him, deposes him from the ranks of the clergy, he's actually out of the church, no longer a bishop.

And this is a perfect example, actually, of Formosis being so useful, but also so useful, he's dangerous. Because it happens after John Leake sends him on a really important diplomatic mission to convey to Charles the Bold that the Pope would be very happy to make him the emperor. Formosis goes on that mission and then he doesn't come back. It's a bit murky as to why. Some people say that he didn't support the election of Charles the Bold. Some say that he was fleeing because he was involved in some crimes in Rome or his faction was. It's quite unclear. But what is clear is that Fomacist didn't come back.

And John said, come back or you will be excommunicated. I want to try you for these charges. He didn't come back. And so he's charged with deserting his diocese. leaving porters, so without having papal permission, of having aspired to the position of Archbishop of Bulgaria. So there's the ambition again. But then also that's the charge of aspiring to break canon law as well. So he's deposed, he's excommunicated. Some sources say that this is later mitigated to a banishment and a promise to never carry out any ecclesiastical duties again. But if your

job is as a churchman with your clique and network in Rome, I don't really see how it's so much better. Obviously, excommunication is very great for sure. You're a Christian. But even that mitigation was very great. So the fact that he becomes Pope later is a remarkable comeback. And actually, I think a real testament to just how well connected he is. I have to completely agree with that. Because fundamentally, if you are someone who has managed to get yourself excommunicated, it kind of tells us that you have a lot of power because otherwise the Pope isn't going to be paying attention to you anyway. You know, only incredibly powerful people are the targets of these sorts of excommunications. But then to claw your way back from that, it does just go to show that this is a man who's

incredibly talented. I mean, how do you do that? How do you negotiate yourself out of that hole? Here's someone who clearly, clearly knows how to play his hand, right? And I think that is very telling in and of itself. Yeah, I think in a way, Formosus might be helped not to play down his own talent and his connections, but he might also be helped partially by the instability in Rome, because John the 8th is murdered. Some historians think that Formosus might have been involved, but in this unstable and volatile and violent context of factional Rome, these things happen. And that means that somebody who's more favourable to Formosis is elected and almost immediately restores him, maybe to quell noble factions, maybe because he's genuinely an ally of Formosus.

But there's a way in which instability creates threats, but also opportunities. You can make a comeback if things are changing all the time. And Formosus definitely makes a comeback. He's really quite old when he becomes Pope. And we have to think this has got to be kind of that. his ambition or his hope throughout his career. So it's quite the comeback indeed. And I think it's partially, as we say, to do with his own talent and network, but also this broader context where really anything is up for grabs. Well, and speaking of, the papacy at the time, it's really quite

tied also to an ability to win over the nobility of Rome, right? So if you're in this sort of chaotic period, Is this a case where you can kind of glad hand your way to the throne of Peter, or is that an oversimplification? I think because the structures of power, of land ownership, of land leasing, of money, are so tied to the papacy. We can't really get away from the idea that there's worldly benefit from having your contender on the papal throne, which means that if you want to become Pope, then you could make promises about what you would give to people in the city.

I think it's also important to remember that the aristocratic families who run Rome, whose candidates are going onto the people's throne and being forced out of the competition, are also connected to lower families as well. So where you've got an aristocratic bishop or priest in one of the titular churches, they'll have subordinate priests. They'll be administrators. So there's a trickle-down effect, which means that whoever's on the papal throne, whoever's around the Pope, also influences the lower classes in Rome.

So the whole city is involved. And that kind of encapsulates also the environs, the early papal states. So when we read about there being depositions and riots and mass uprisings, sometimes it's tempting and it is important to remember there are these aristocratic elites at the center of it. But actually, there are much broader groups engaged in pushing people onto the papal throne and getting them off to speak bluntly. I think that I think is interesting is that there is all of this sort of behind the scenes tit for tat that goes into papal elections. But because of what happens to Formosis,

we don't really know how it is he gained his seat, right? You know, we know what the accusations against him are, that he's kind of involved in some kind of corruption and he's bribed his way into it. But we don't actually know who decided that this was a good candidate, do we? Exactly. And even pro-formosians, as we get after the Cadabas Senate, because this debate goes on for a long time because it affects the people that he ordained and people to keep writing about this, even they exaggerate and talk about his election. I think one of them says he so didn't wanted, that he was gripping onto the altar classes. They kind of dragged him to the throne. So he becomes such an important figure for those who want to degrade his memory, but also

those who want to restore it, that even later, when we might expect sources to be less partisan, they actually remain partisan, because there are people who need for Moses to have been a legitimate pope, for them to be legitimate bishop or legitimate priest. So he, he, he, Yeah, he's become a figure about which it's difficult to say how he got power and, as we said earlier, how much he wanted it. Like, he gets it, though, I guess one way or another. And he gets to be Pope for about five years, which doesn't sound like a lot to us now, but I guess given the circumstances, that's a pretty good innings. It's pretty good innings for popes at the time. And in the middle of this, right, he's involved in a super bitter conflict between some of the imperial. contenders, right? Is that, I think it's Guy of Spiletto and Arnold's of Corinthia. Can you tell us a little bit about how that plays out? Yeah, absolutely. So the Spelatans, so Guy and his son Lambert are

closer to the papacy, being in Spelato, and really ambitious for the imperial crown. And Guy gets it from Formosus's predecessor, and Formosus inherits this. But there's another candidate that some people say, actually Formosius's predecessor wanted Arnold for Corinthia. He was further away. Guy had his military presence in Italy. You know, the pressure was on to support Guy and the Spelatins.

So Formosus inherits Guy, but he's uncomfortable. The Spelatins are ambitious. They've got a strong military presence. That could be good for the papacy in terms of protecting it. But they don't seem so reliable. They seem like more of a threat. So Formos puts feelers out to, or

messengers to ask Arnolf and to make it clear to Arnulf that he would be willing to crown him emperor instead. Guy seems to get a sense that the papacy is shifting allegiances. And so he asks Formosus to make his son Lambert co-emperor. Now this is smart, right, because it's Formosus's predecessor who crowned Guy. And now he's going to get Formosus to legitimize that by crowning his son. So he can say, aha, two popes have said that we are the emperors. Formis doesn't like this, because it's more evidence that Guy is going to try and coerce him, try to compel him. So he invites Onov of Corinthia into Italy, essentially to invade, given that the Spalachians have claimed the power, and to take the imperial crown.

Arnos armies come. Guy dies. He retreats and then dies. But then Lambert, his son and Guy's wife, Egeltrude, go to Rome and essentially try to compel Formosus again with an army to recognise Lambert. So this hunger for legitimacy through military force is terrifying for Formos. And he manages to hold out. He refuses to recognise Lambert and Armoth himself comes to Italy eventually and is crowned by Formos. But the fragile nature of all of this and how dependent it is on individuals is evident in the end of this story. Not the cadaver synod, but the end of the kind of Arnolf and Guy story or Arnauf and Lambert story. Because Arnold gets sick and he retreats, he's got the crown.

With him not in Italy, Lambert takes the power. Formosus dies and it's Lambert that's the emperor. So despite all this warring, despite Arnold's, winning, despite Arnaud coming, despite on of getting the papal legitimacy, when Formosus dies and Arnolf goes away, that legitimacy crumbles and Lambert's left and he's recognized by Formatis's successor,

Stephen. Oh, surprise, surprise, right? I mean, I love this story because it is just the most holy Roman imperial thing you can think of. I love it, you know, because there is supposed to be, in theory, this easy succession through a particular line, right? always supposed to be up for grabs. It's always supposed to be possible that we can have varying contenders for the throne. But what happens in practice is a lot of this power brokering, these ideas that, you know, I'll just get my son to do it. And, you know, it's quite clever, actually, on the part of Guy,

I think, to say, oh, just crown my son co-umper, will you? Because then that means after you die, then your son's the emperor, right? So you are guaranteeing a succession in theory this way. And, you know, Yeah, I haven't thought about it like that. Yeah, it's, you know, I've seen it before. Well, later, I guess. It definitely happens in the 14th century, rather, a lot as well. But it is quite interesting to see what is going on power-wise, because, yes, the emperors are needing the legitimacy of the Pope. I mean, obviously, you know, Guy and Lambert aren't going to be leaning on the papacy quite so heavily if they don't think it's important.

But it is a two-way street. the popes are just as dependent on emperors just for protection really and they're also just as disposable that's the weird thing about the papacy in one way it's got such deep roots its roots are eternal right the power goes back to Christ through St Peter so you can never be sort of

erased it can't be taken away it's not tied to riches or even a place it does end up being very tied to Rome, but that's, you know, only part of it. That's sort of incidental to Peter dying there. The claim is something that's intangible and just so great that it can't be robbed. But the person who's sitting on that throne is changeable. It's not an inherited office, even if many families act, as though it is particularly later in the 10th century. And so that means that it is up for grabs.

in a way that maybe traditional dynasties aren't. And we see this carrying on into the early modern period when people are trying to, political leaders are trying to influence conclates for that very reason. Every conclave is an opportunity for influence, because who knows who it's going to be? So traditionally, we do tend to say that part of what happens as a result of all of this is the cadaver sign on, right?

Because you have Arnold of Corinthia theoretically as emperor, but what's he going to do about it? You know, march back down here. And you have this ascendant Spiletto dynasty who are able to kind of lean on people. Is that an oversimplication? Or can we really see that there is Speletto fingerprints all over this corpse?

Traditionally, that's the explanation that who's going to benefit from Formasus being discredited, the Spelaitens. If he's discredited, if all his actions are not a fire, the crowning of Arnulf of Corinthiery is nullified. And we know the Spelaitans really want that imperial legitimacy. So it made sense to have this very political explanation of the clavisillid. Likewise, as you've stressed and it keeps coming up in our conversation,

the dependency of the papacy for the protection of the person with imperial liturial legitimacy, which in this case is Lambert, is the Spillatins, would suggest that Stephen would be willing to do this. And whilst it's very weird, it's very extreme, it's a ceremony that shows us legitimacy is important. He couldn't just say, Stephen couldn't just say, oh no, Formosis, he wanted to be Pope, he was too ambitious, he broke Camin law, nullify his actions. They had to do something. They had to have a ritual. There had to be some semblance of due process.

You know, it was very important to try to secure that legitimacy somehow. And I think that there is a high likelihood that Lambert might have supported this. But there are also other interpretations that I think perhaps a little bit more convincing. Stephen, who's the person who led this, and everybody else afterwards does seem to be quite appalled. I mean, it's quite refreshing, actually, to realize that when you're, you read the Chronicles, they really did think this was very weird and strange and bad. It wasn't just another day in the medieval church. So he does seem a bit isolated. Also, Lambert is at the synod of one of Stephen's successors that overturns the cadaver synod. So there are several of these

synods overturning the Canaver Synod, which is a testament to how the debate continued, right, if there wasn't debate over, you know, but was Fomis guilty? You wouldn't have to keep overturning it. But one of the most famous ones, Lambert's presence. So why would he be there? Now, one explanation could be, maybe he wants to distance himself from what Stephen has done,

which has freaked everybody out and people think is too extreme and has discredited the papacy. Maybe he wants to be pragmatic. Or maybe Stephen had other motivations for discrediting Formosis. Formosis is

thought to be very saintly in many ways, very erudite, he's very powerful. His body is said to what, miracles afterwards. Lufran said that when it was finally restored to St. Peter's Basilica, the images of saints greeted it. They were so happy who was back in his rightful place. So Formosis is a powerful predecessor to have been on an opposing faction. So maybe he wants to undermine him. To me, that seems it's an extreme way of undermining a threatening predecessor. However, there might be another reason why Stephen wanted to undermine him, and it all comes back to this idea of not being able to be bishop of two places. Formosus is discredited because he was bishop of Portus or Porto and Rome, i.e. Pope. You can't be bishop of two places, so he can't have been Pope. You know, he broke canon law because he was already bishop of Forto.

Stephen was Bishop of Anyani, another Italian suit, who was made Bishop of Anyani by Formosis. Apparently, some sorts of say against his will, for this reason. You know, it's a way of ruling something out from being Pope. There aren't many precedents, you know, of people becoming Pope whilst already being Bishop. How can Stephen, who's in this extremely volatile political and ecclesiastical climate where maybe he could be pushed off the papal throne, solve this problem? he could discredit Formosis and get all of his acts nullified, which would nullify the fact that he was Bishop of Anyani, meaning that he was only other bishop of Rome,

and nobody's got a leg to stand on if they want to try and depose him. And I think that's quite a convincing explanation. And maybe, you know, Lambert was willing to go along with this at the time because of that and then shifted allegiances. So I think the fact that it was probably a number of factors It's driven by Stephen's own sense of instability and the precariousness of his own legitimacy and power. Maybe might have been more of a driving factor. I think that that is fairly convincing.

And also quite interesting because I think that what it posits is, you know, we've got this world where Stephen is kind of only thinking about how it benefits him. If Formosa's decrees go off the boil, right? there's going to be a whole heap of people who are like, but I am the bishop, right? You know, okay, you don't want the bishopric that you were assigned to because now you're the pope and you want to be the pope. But there's going to be bishops.

There's going to be all sorts of priests all the way down the hierarchy, as you said, who are now worried about their own position. So you're going to get pushback against that, I would argue. And I do also think that it is quite possible that Lambert sort of takes a look at this, takes a look at everybody's reaction to it and says, oh, never mind. Because, I mean, let's be so for real.

You didn't actually have to dig his body up and put it on the... I mean, you could have done this whole thing. You know, you could have gone and got his regalia, right? Go get his papal regalia, one of the robes that he is associated with. Do it outside his tomb, right? There was not really a need to go whole hog and put his body in a chair and scream at it, right? That did not go down well, as you point out.

People think that it's actually really quite horrid. And you might be thinking to yourself if your Lambert, oh, this is great because we're going to discredit this guy who didn't make me the emperor. But then when everyone is like, God, that was weird. Wasn't it? Wasn't that odd? You know, then you're like, yeah, I thought it was weird too. And I said that to the puppy.

You just got to like backing away slowly. And I mean, I think that that reads really. easily. It makes perfect sense, you know. Yeah. And also weird things start happening that show divine displeasure. The Lateran starts crumbling. Some people say that there was an earthquake, but then that's disputed. Some of the annals say that the latteran had been an absurd bad repair for a long time, but then it starts actually falling down. The place where this happens starts shaking and falling down. And yeah, even if we just look at the annals, if we look at Ludpran, And they really described this with a sense of horror.

You know, his body was then dragged from the people thrown. Blood started coming out of his mouth again. It's like he's kind of dying again. And then you contrast this to Ludhprand, who's writing in the aftermath decades down the line, but as you indicate, like this debate goes on for a long time with people fighting for their ordinations. People are horrified. And equally, Formosa is described really in positive terms, saintly or stuble.

dear, man of great learning, whereas Stephen is described as somebody who was completely ignorant of the teachings of God. So he's not somebody you want to ally with if you're seeking legitimacy. And he's quickly deposed. He's poked for much shorter time than Formasas. Summer after the cadaver Synod or the summer following the cadaver Synod, he's deposed, put in the castle, San Angelae, and he's strangled. So it doesn't work because, you know, he might be legitimate by his own weird cadaver trial, but his actions are completely overturned very quickly and his own memory is appalling and totally tainted by this act of seeking legitimacy, of seeking stability. I mean, honestly, would someone who has a very, very good claim that you don't need to

worry about at all go around digging up his predecessor? Let's just be honest. It's a weird thing to do. It's odd. It's just kind of like over the top. It's too much. And it's fundamentally very gross, right? Like, this is a gross thing to do at the very, very least. And I just, I often wonder about Stephen. Let's just put it that way. You know, I think that he kind of thinks that he's doing this, like, really interesting kind of political play, essentially. But it ends up just completely backfiring.

I mean, you and I, you know, here we are talking about it. I will talk trash about, perhaps even until the day I die. An idiot, at the very least, right? Like, I'm completely unable to read the room, as it were. And it's very difficult not to feel bad for Formosis, right? It's very, very difficult in these circumstances to look at this and say, oh, yeah, this guy had it coming. You know, at the very least, you have to begin to question the actions of whoever would do this to him, I think. Yeah, definitely.

And it lives long in the memory, even as we get down to the early modern sources, this is seen as a real nadir, a real low point in papal history. And yeah, something that is not a typical of a time in which popes were politicking, being assassinated, murdering other popes, but definitely an extreme act even amongst this quite murky political landscape in the church of the time. It gets a real shadow, doesn't it? This is the sort of thing that we see get brought up a lot during the point of the Reformation for example, you know, when the Protestants really want to discredit the concept of the church, they point to this, you know, that that's something that you can kind of look back very easily pluck it out and say, does this look like a bunch of people who are blessed by God to you? Which fair enough. And I do think that it is difficult, though, because it makes us look at this early medieval papacy as particularly corrupt and violent. And I'm not saying that it isn't corrupt. I'm not saying. I'm not saying.

saying that there isn't obvious violence here. I mean, even Stephen is murdered in the end. But I do think to extent this is such an outlier. You know, of course we're going to talk about it. We've got a dead body on trial here. It's very odd, right? But we're talking about it because it's an outlier, right? You know, sure, there are politics happening. Yes, people are being murdered. Is that necessarily different to the political situation writ large? I'm not sure that it is. Yeah, and I think that, you know, the very fact I know I keep repeating it that people are shocked at the time is indicative that this was not normal. This was not, you know, something that people were expecting. The political entrenchment of sort of political figures in the church, of political figures trying to influence who was the Pope and Pope seeking alliances amongst political figures continues. We get weird things happening in Rome in the 10th century. You get that period of the pornography. You know, a Pope. allied with an emperor, parades, a prefect who tries to overthrow him around the city on a donkey, completely naked, with a bell around the donkey's neck. So everybody comes out, looks, you know, things don't get better in terms of popes doing things that you don't really want poets to be doing.

But there's nothing that's quite as macabre as this. And the very fact that people keep referring back to it as this kind of emblematic low point, even to the pope, you know, where in, the writings of the humanist, Matolomeo Platina, he talks about how a later pope, a 15th century pope wanted to call himself for Moses, and everybody said, no, no, no, no, no.

You know, what happened to him might happen to you. And posts later on are fearful of being deposed. You know, they're worried if they've got illegitimate birth, for example, Clement the 7th, who see this in the early 16th century. He's worried that maybe the emperor's going to depose him or, you. But they're worried they're going to do it through a church council, not of a dead body, an ecumenical church council that's going to say, you know, you have to be of legitimate birth or, you know, you couldn't have done this. So I think that one of the reasons why it is so powerful as a story to contribute to this kind of black legend around the Catholic Church and also the medieval church, particularly, is because it has elements of things that always shock us and upset us about the church.

the idea that sinful people can legitimately do holy acts. This is a belief in Catholic Christianity that even a priest who's got a sinful life can absolve you of your sins. It doesn't require, you know, rely on the vessel. I think this is something that a lot of people find really hard to get their head round. We want these people quite rightly to be moral and ethical. But also, you know, we can't rely on people to be tired of. Now, of course, trying a dead body, you know, going against all the values you made, these are not good things. So it takes it to its extreme. But at the heart of the Kadavas Synod is something I think we find difficult, you know, in the way that the church buns in general. So it's definitely that. And it's also this corporeality. You know, we nowadays we sort of sanitize the body, sanitize, you know, death. We don't engage with dead bodies. People tend to find relics a little bit strange. And, you know, we, nowadays, we sort of sanitize the body, sanitize, you know, death. We don't engage with dead bodies. People tend to find relics a little bit strange. And,

and spooky, whilst I think that Stephen was very weird, very disturbed and very wrong, the idea of having a ceremony, a ritual around a dead body in order to prove some truth is not as weird as we might think in the medieval world, right? We've got relics, you know, people touching relics and being cured. There's an acceptance of the kind of potency of the body for good or for ill. So none of this is to obviously excuse that corruption, but I think that the reason why this remains so fascinating and why it, you know, it's talked about so much is because it taps into things that make us really uncomfortable about some Christian beliefs and about some ways in which the, you know, the church has operated. But it is a really, really, really extreme,

strange, outlying example of those things. I think that these are all brilliant. points. One of the things that I often think about with medieval people is they are just a lot more comfortable with dead bodies and, you know, the dairy toss involved in that. You know, for example, most people are just buried in their local churchyard and those churchyards very easily become what we very calmly refer to as oversubscribed, right? But, you know, it wouldn't be strange to go into your local church and see a skull on the way and because it's just become disturbed. And And, you know, then you pick them up and you put them in a charnel house and that's somewhere that people will go in and pray. They're just a lot more comfortable around bodies than we are, which, you know, I don't think that's a problem necessarily.

I'm perfectly happy, not spending a lot of time around corpses myself. But it is one of those things that, as you say, we can't necessarily discount. But I do think that this is quite interesting because, as you mentioned, there is this huge debate around what is it. that clergy members can and cannot do irrespective of their sinfulness. And that's a big part of the debate of things that's going on in the 11th century when we have this big reform movement. So you think the cadaver, Sina, does that play into it, do you think? Or is that just kind of part and parcel of the whole problem?

I think it's part and parcel of the whole problem. So it's definitely a memorable and pointed example. But it's one that was certainly not the last example, the most recent example, when that sort of reform movement is growing in the 11th century. We get the pornography is yet to come. You know, this period in which those aristocratic families, so like the Tiofalati, control the papacy, are apparently, according to Lupano Cremona, so we can take it perhaps with a pinch of salt. You know, having affairs with popes, giving birth to people, love children that then become popes, you know, in many ways. the worst is yet to come in some respects. And all of this is to do with the extreme politicisation of the papacy,

which is what we see in the Kadabah Synod. But there are many, many more examples. And the interesting thing about that, you know, that later reform movement is it covers both sides, doesn't it? There's the idea of reforming religious figures, so churchmen, that there's going to be a greater ecclesiastical discipline, that they're going to be more saintly, more holy, more befitting of their office. But there's also this idea of extricating political influence.

So making the papacy more independent, making the papacy the kind of supreme ecclesiastical power, even in local territories, can sometimes even infringe on secular powers. You see in the late medieval periods that there are conflicts. In that, the papacy becomes incredibly powerful. And you get these ideas like papal monarchy, which mean that they then clash with political leaders. So, you know, in some ways, it's not until the papacy becomes much less significant for temporal leaders getting into the modern period that it can really extricate itself from these influences, from political leaders trying to have an influence over who's the Pope, trying to wrestle

influence from the Pope in their own territories. So definitely, I think this is a prime example of the kind of incident that drove the reform movement. And I think the reform movement you know, is also evidence that this was not something that was going to be accepted as typical. So for a long period, this period of kind of politicking and violence of extreme level over the 9th and 10th centuries, it's something that's very actively addressed as a major problem. It's not something that should be part of the kind of system of the church. And it gives a long way to addressing it, but causes some other issues and certainly doesn't extricate the papacy from the world of politics altogether.

Well, I mean, I think that that just sums up the entire episode incredibly well. Is this weird and interesting? Yes and yes. Is it typical? Absolutely not. But that still doesn't mean that it is an emblematic of a problem that we are seeing at the time. Definitely. Jessica, an unmitigated delight having you back again.

Thank you so much for coming to talk to me about one of my favorite things in the world. Thank you for having me. It was so fun. Thank you so much to Jessica once again for joining me. And thank you for listening to Gone Medieval from History Hit. If you were interested in some of the topics we mentioned in this episode, you might want to go back and check out our past episodes on the Investiture Contest. Remember, you can enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries,

including my recent documentary on The Trials of Joan of Arc, and ad-free podcasts by signing up at History Hit, dot com forward slash subscription. You can follow Gone Medieval on Spotify, where you can leave us comments and suggestions, or wherever you get your podcasts. And tell all your friends and family that you've Gone Medieval. Until next time.