This is an automated archive.
The original was posted on /r/askhistorians by /u/uhluhtc666 on 2023-08-17 21:53:59+00:00.
I recently learned about the Saeculum obscurum, a period during the 10th century that was known for incredible corruption and vice in the Papacy. While the details are quite saucy, I'm left wondering how true all of this is considered by historians today.
I've only read the Wikipedia article, but it indicates much of our information comes from Liutprand of Cremona. He was aggressively opposed to the influence that Roman nobles held over the Papacy of the era and his writings seem to be quite...colorful. Additionally, the two people that are indicated to have had the most power are two women, Theodora and her daughter Marozia. In my amateur historical knowledge, when women gain leadership in male dominated areas the rumors about them tend to be very harsh. Lastly, the quote from Lindsay Brook seems to indicate the period had good administration and reforms.
Ultimately, I'm left with a couple questions. First, how bad was this era for the Papacy? Was it as corrupt as sources indicate, or is it considered exaggeration? Was this more personal corruption, while having successful governance?
Second, if this is exaggerated or invented by our primary sources, what was their motive? Why did they have such an axe to grind about the current situation? What were they trying to change? Thank you for your time!