We (as did Gibbon) are currently exploring a time and place (as so often) when records were scarce and the chroniclers (as so often) had their own agendæ. Much of what I am about to tell you comes from Liudprand of Cremona. Bishop Liudprand (c.920 - 972) was around for the actions of Theophylact and his descendants, but was certainly personally and politically opposed to them.
Theodora the mother (c. 870 – 916) was so influential that she was given the titles senatrix and patricia of Rome. Their daughters Marozia and Theodora II were also titled senatrix omnium Romanorum ("senators of all Romans"). This was a time in Rome that is called the Saeculum obscurum ("the dark age/century"), also known as the Rule of the Harlots. Liudprand called Theodora a "shameless harlot" and claimed that Pope John X (914 - 928) was appointed pope because he was her lover.
Theophylact and Alberic I of Spoleto were instrumental in the overthrow of the antipope Christopher and putting Sergius III (possibly Theophylact's cousin) on the Chair of Peter. Alberic I married Theophylact's daughter Marozia and had five children (Alberic II among them). It is suggested by Liudprand that Marozia's eldest, who became Pope John XI, was actually the son of Marozia and Pope Sergius. Gibbon wrote that Jophn's birth coming after Marozia's marriage to Alberic I indicates that Alberic was the father. Was Gibbon being naive or was Liudprand simply too ready to create a reason to condemn?
(Gibbon also points out that it may be the influence of Theodora and her daughters over Rome in the 9th century that led to the story—not created until the 11th century—that there was a female pope in the 9th century. This makes much more sense than believing that a woman rose to become pope within two years and was discovered when she gave birth during a procession.)
Tomorrow we'll take a closer look at the next generation, specifically Marozia, who retained the power in Rome after the death of her husband.
