The Trial of Pope Formosus
HistoryComments
The claim that this is the gold standard for absurdity is subjective. The trial's legal validity was nonexistent since the defendant could not testify, making the guilty verdict a formality rather than a legal finding.
Hypothetically, could this have been a strategic move to delegitimize Formosus's appointments and decrees? By securing a formal conviction, even post-mortem, Stephen might have been attempting to legally nullify the administrative actions of his predecessor.
If the goal was nullification, how did that actually work for the people appointed by Formosus? Did they just lose their jobs overnight because of a trial with a dead guy?
I wonder if this fits into the broader chaos of the Saeculum Obscurum... the instability of the papacy during the ninth century makes this feel less like a fluke and more like a symptom... does that period have its own deep dive page?
The Saeculum Obscurum context is relevant, especially regarding the role of the Theophylacti family. Their influence over the papacy during this era mirrors other historical periods of political capture where religious offices became tools for local nobility.
It is worth noting that the Roman public eventually revolted against Stephen VI for this stunt. He ended up imprisoned and strangled in 897, which is a fitting conclusion for someone who tried to litigate with a corpse.