Marozia assumed the headship of the family with the titles senatrix et patricia Romanorum —“senator and patrician of the Romans.” An extraordinary woman, her importance lies not in her paramours, but in the fact that she continued the tradition of the Theophylact clan in maintaining stability in Rome and the Patrimonium. Chris Wickham points out that she was “the only independent female ruler in her own right” for four centuries in the [Latin] West.
— Paul Collins, The Birth of the West / Chris Wickham, "Rome in Italy in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries", Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West
She did have to resort to protective expedients that males did not need, notably the legitimation produced by marriage to other Italian powers, Guy of Tuscany, and then, fatally, King Hugh of Italy, a revolt against whom, led by her son Alberic, brought her down. She was nevertheless strong enough to destroy John X, who was setting his own family up in rivalry to her, and to initiate a new step in Theophylact dynastic ascendancy by not only choosing popes but installing her own son as one of them, John XI (931–35).
Marozia, born Maria and also known as Mariuccia or Mariozza (c. 890 – 937), was a Roman noblewoman who was the alleged mistress of Pope Sergius III and was given the unprecedented titles senatrix ("senatoress") and Patricia of Rome by Pope John X.
Edward Gibbon wrote of her that the "influence of two sister prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues: the most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman tiara, and their reign may have suggested to darker ages the fable of a female pope. The bastard son, two grandsons, two great grandsons, and one great great grandson of Marozia—a rare genealogy—were seated in the Chair of St. Peter." Pope John XIII was her nephew, the offspring of her younger sister Theodora. From this description, the term "pornocracy" has become associated with the effective rule in Rome of Theodora and her daughter Marozia through male surrogates.
"She was the daughter of the Roman aristocrat Theophylact and of his wife Theodora, a “shameless harlot”, as Liudprand calls her, who taught the “exercise of Venus” to her two daughters. Theophylact controlled the Roman nobility and was able to influence papal elections. Women played a very significant role in the rise of his family. At the beginning of the tenth century his daughter Maria, better known as Marozia, made her appearance on the political scene. Liudprand’s portrait of this lady, her sister and her mother, who controlled Roman politics through their sexual relationships, has become so famous that it has led to the creation of the term “pornocracy”.
After having an affair with Pope Sergius III at a very young age, Marozia married three times. Her first husband was Alberic of Spoleto, by whom she had a son, Alberic. Around 926-927 she married Guy of Tuscany, Hugh’s brother. Theophylact and Theodora both died around 915, leaving Rome in the hands of Marozia. This did not please everyone. A conflict arose in the 910s between Marozia – later supported by her second husband Guy - and Pope John X. The pope had established an alliance with King Hugh of Provence, who threatened Marozia’s interests in Rome and in the nearby territories. The dispute divided Romans into two factions, but Marozia managed to get rid of the Pope and his powerful brother, the marchio Peter. At this point she made sure that her young son John - whom she had had from her relationship with Sergius III - was elected pope.
After the death of Guy, Marozia started to negotiate a political alliance with Hugh, which culminated with the marriage; however it is not certain whether the union was lawful. According to Liudprand, the marriage was an aberration for several reasons. Marozia tried to become queen by selling the city of Rome as if it was her own property; she did not have the necessary qualities to be a queen. The union between an effeminatus king - because he was not able to control his sexual desire - and a woman that was nothing more than a “shameless harlot” could not end well. Hugh had to leave the city because of a revolt against him led by Alberic II, Marozia’s son, who felt threatened by the king’s arrival and by his arrogance.
[...] Further evidence on Marozia and her infamous attempt to become a queen is offered by a late tenth-century text, composed between 972 and 1000, the Chronicon of Benedict, a monk of Sant’Andrea in Soratte (near Ponzano, Latium). This text is mainly the history of the monastery, but also reports Roman political events. Benedict shows a patchy knowledge of the history of Carolingian Europe, and seems not to know many contemporary authors. Nonetheless, he is a precious source for Roman politics, in which he was particularly interested as he greatly admired Alberic II – Marozia’s son - who had patronized his monastery. Because he deals with Roman politics, Benedict has something to say about Theophylact’s family. Even if he is less aggressive than Liudprand – he does not mention the infamous affair between Marozia and the Pope - he is not very partial to Marozia either. He introduces her when mentioning her relationship with her first husband, the margrave of Spoleto, Alberic. According to Benedict the union was not a lawful marriage, but rather a “wicked affair”. Benedict never mentions Marozia’s name. He introduces her as “the daughter of Theophylact”, adding the cryptic sentence “whose name survives” This passage presents significant implications. It is possible that the manuscript’s copyist committed a mistake, omitting the word “non”. In this case, Benedict would have implied that he did not actually know Marozia’s name. However, it is also possible that the sentence was not a mistake, and that Benedict omitted Marozia’s name on purpose, and decided to make his audience aware of that. Marozia’s name was well known in Europe: Liudprand was familiar with these events and even the West Frankish writer Flodoard of Rheims mentions her, reporting that by 933 Marozia was kept prisoner by her son. Therefore it seems quite unlikely that Benedict, who was familiar with Roman political events, had never heard her name.
Even if one assumes that Benedict’s omission was a way to deny visibility to a very controversial lady, he did not avoid recognizing her political influence. He mentioned the conflict that had arisen in the 910s between Marozia and John X. He also defines Marozia as “domna senatrix”, acknowledging her part in Roman politics. However, Benedict sees her success as a political catastrophe: “Rome was subjected to the powerful hand of a woman”. Benedict quotes Isaiah’s prophecy, which foresees the punishment of Jerusalem’s inhabitants for their sins: “And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them”. According to Benedict Rome has become a new Jerusalem, in which moral and political decay has produced the distortion of the natural system. This perspective is shared by Liudprand. In his account of the diplomatic mission to Byzantium, the Relatio de Legatione Costantinopolitana, Liudprand reports a dialogue between himself and the Byzantine emperor. In this conversation Nicephoros accuses Liudprand’s patron, Otto I, of having taken “Rome by force” and killed many noble people. In his answer, Liudprand refers to the same biblical quotation: “My Lord did not invade the Roman city by force or in a tyrannical way, but rather he freed it from the yoke of the tyrant, or tyrants. Were not effeminates lording it over Rome, and, what is more serious and sordid, were not whores doing the same?”
Benedict’s version of Marozia’s story is somewhat different from that of Liudprand. Benedict attributes the marriage between Marozia and Hugh to political reasons rather than to Marozia’s sexual appetite. Hugh needed support in Rome in order to become emperor, and Marozia needed external allies as opposition against her was growing. Benedict presents Marozia as the initiator of the negotiations that led to the wedding, and although he does not express an explicit opinion about these facts, he seems to imply that this is an aberration. Benedict and Liudprand share a view according to which female power – or power held by unmanly men - means tyranny. Both their accounts show Marozia’s failure as a wife and a mother, as she puts her sexual appetite and her personal ambition above the interests of her own son. Her shameful behaviour is allowed by the lack of male authority. However, their opinion of Hugh is slightly different. According to Liudprand, Hugh was ruined by his sexual incontinence, whereas Benedict considered him as an evil man, who plotted to blind Alberic, the true hero of the narrative. Moreover, Benedict implicitly condemned the Roman nobility that allowed a woman to take control.
Most importantly, unlike Liudprand Benedict acknowledges Marozia as a queen, as he calls her regina twice; thus presenting her as Hugh’s lawful wife. However, the title does not seem to imply any political prerogatives, at least not through her marriage with Hugh. Benedict only acknowledged Marozia’s influence in Rome, but he portrayed it in a negative way. In other words, according to Benedict power and femininity are ill-suited. His idea recalls that expressed by another Carolingian text, the Annals of Lorsch, which use the same words (“femineum imperium”) to identify and condemn female authority. In describing Charlemagne’s coronation the annalist states that at the time “the name of the emperor was lacking among the Greeks, who were subject to the female imperial rule of Irene”. This does not seem to be the case for Liudprand. He prefers to underline the moral aspect of this degeneration: Roman disorder has to do with the power held by immoral women, meretrices, rather than with female power itself. These differences also reflect the diverse understanding of the two authors with regard to queenship."
— Roberta Cimino, Italian Queens in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (PHD Thesis, University of St Andrews, 2014)
"In order to counter the influence of Pope John X (whom the hostile chronicler Liutprand of Cremona alleges was one of Marozia's lovers), Marozia subsequently married his opponent Guy of Tuscany, who loved his beautiful wife as much as he loved power. Together they attacked Rome, arrested Pope John X in the Lateran, and jailed him in the Castel Sant'Angelo. Either Guy had him smothered with a pillow in 928 or he simply died, perhaps from neglect or ill treatment. Marozia seized power in Rome in a coup d'état. Guy died on 3 February 929." (X)
Nothing but respect for MY tenth-century power couple <3
