What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bad Popes
Let yourself be swept up by this colorful, panoramic story of seven men who ruled the Church of Rome at seven critical periods in the 600 years leading up to the Reformation. During this age of grandeur & corruption, popes led armies, made love & war, conspired for power, & armed themselves with the techniques of assassination & seduction while clothed with the authority of the Church. Dramatic accounts of these papal bad boys include: Urban VI, the wild man from Naples, whose grotesque savageries widened & maintained the scandalous gap of the Great Schism; Alexander VI, who brought to the See of Peter the intrigues of the Borgia; & Clement VII, the unskillful fox, whose fall brought down Rome itself. Profusely illustrated with architectural photos & contemporary art from both Catholic & Protestant sources, this absorbing work vividly depicts the ecclesiastical corruptions which changed the course of history.
322 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
745 people are currently reading
1246 people want to read
About the author
E.R. Chamberlin
41 books29 followersEric Russell Chamberlin (1926-2006)
Historian and author. Chamberlin was the author of numerous popular history books ranging from ancient Rome to twentieth-century Britain. Although he was born in Jamaica, he returned to England with his father during the Great Depression. Chamberlin dropped out of school when he was fourteen and became an apprentice leather dresser.
When he was old enough, he eagerly left this work behind to enlist in the Royal Navy in 1944. He served in the military until 1947 and then found work at the Norwich Public Library. It was here that his real education began, and Chamberlin took advantage of his vocation by reading history texts avidly. He later also worked at the Holborn Public Library and then for the book division at Readers’ Digest.
His first book, The Count of Virtue: Giangaleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan, was released in 1965. This would be followed by thirty more books over the next three decades. Among these are The Bad Popes (1969), The Sack of Rome (1979), The Nineteenth Century (1983), The Emperor, Charlemagne (1986), and The Tower of London: An Illustrated History (1989). Also active in historical preservation projects, Chamberlin helped rescue the Guildford Institute building from destruction in 1982 and had a monument to Admiral Horatio Nelson constructed on Mt. Etna in Italy.
For the former endeavor, Chamberlin was recognized with an honorary degree from the University of Surrey in 1982.
Historian and author. Chamberlin was the author of numerous popular history books ranging from ancient Rome to twentieth-century Britain. Although he was born in Jamaica, he returned to England with his father during the Great Depression. Chamberlin dropped out of school when he was fourteen and became an apprentice leather dresser.
When he was old enough, he eagerly left this work behind to enlist in the Royal Navy in 1944. He served in the military until 1947 and then found work at the Norwich Public Library. It was here that his real education began, and Chamberlin took advantage of his vocation by reading history texts avidly. He later also worked at the Holborn Public Library and then for the book division at Readers’ Digest.
His first book, The Count of Virtue: Giangaleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan, was released in 1965. This would be followed by thirty more books over the next three decades. Among these are The Bad Popes (1969), The Sack of Rome (1979), The Nineteenth Century (1983), The Emperor, Charlemagne (1986), and The Tower of London: An Illustrated History (1989). Also active in historical preservation projects, Chamberlin helped rescue the Guildford Institute building from destruction in 1982 and had a monument to Admiral Horatio Nelson constructed on Mt. Etna in Italy.
For the former endeavor, Chamberlin was recognized with an honorary degree from the University of Surrey in 1982.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews
March 2, 2018
I started reading this over two years ago, and put it down for a very long time before deciding to pick it up again. That isn't necessarily a reflection on the quality of the book, which is -- at least -- well-written on the sentence level and told with an appropriately wry sense of humor. But it is a reflection on my unexpectedly low level of interest in the subject matter. Or, anyway, in the aspects of his subject matter that Chamberlin focuses on, to the notable exclusion of others.
What I was not prepared for, when I picked up this book, was its exclusive focus on the temporal aspect of the papacy as opposed to its spiritual aspect. Large stretches of the text could be read and productively understood by someone who had no idea that the pope was a religious leader -- someone who was under the impression that the pope was merely the king of a certain group of medieval territories called the Papal States. The pages are full of military maneuvers and political scheming, and much of the bad behavior of these bad popes is the kind of power-hungry bad behavior we'd expect from a monarch -- stuff like screwing everyone else over to support the military campaigns and/or political ambition of a favored relative.
A title like "The Bad Popes" has, to me, certain connotations that, I dunno, "Horrible Kings of Medieval Europe" would not. Few people in the modern world have any strong attachment to the divine right of kings, but there are over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, and apostolic succession is still Catholic doctrine. The very acknowledgement that there were "bad popes" raises questions about the continuity of the church that still arouse strong feelings, and one might hope that any inquiry into "bad popes" would at least address such tensions. But while Chamberlin occasionally touches on them -- it would be hard not to -- he is almost entirely in the business of telling stories about the Game of Thrones stuff going on in the temporal sphere.
To some extent, I think I just hadn't realized how much the papacy was like any other medieval monarchy in this period, and on that score this book was a helpful corrective. I also get the sense, from some comments at the very start and end of the book, that Chamberlin sees the temporal ambitions of the papacy as part-and-parcel of the "badness," so that the corruption of a spiritual leadership role by that ambition is the frame for his story, even though the story is entirely concerned with how the ambition went and not with what spiritual matters were occurring (or not occurring) in parallel. So, on the third-to-last page, he writes
But if this angle is at all important, then this is far too little, far too late: the preceding 283 pages have told us nothing about this "vast body of Christians" and how it reacted to each development. Or even to how the popes themselves, and their close associates, conceived of the relation between their worldly activities and the conditions of their souls. Chamberlin tells us many facts about those activities and their depravity, but throughout, his very standard of depravity is a secular one. One gets the sense that he sees these popes as "bad" because -- and only because -- they behaved in ways that would make a king a bad king.
Knowing little else about the church in this period, I find myself unable to judge how much I should trust Chamberlin, even on matters that lie within his selected purview. His treatment of Luther strikes me as odd, for example. Noting Leo X's sanguine indifference to Luther, Chamberlin remarks that after all there had been many notable heretics over the centuries who had not presented a real material challenge to the church -- and then explains that Leo ought to have realized that a German heretic would be a serious threat, because Germans had always had a unique attitude toward the Roman church:
For all I know, this is a mainstream or even dominant theory among historians. But if it can explain the initial qualities of Luther's movement, something else is needed to explain why that movement caught on further, among non-Germans -- and then one wonders whether that second explanatory factor could just as well explain the first part, too. What I'm getting at, here, is that this seems like exactly the kind of idea Chamberlin would seize on even if it didn't fit the facts, being (as he seems to be) more comfortable with political and blood loyalties than with religion itself. So I am left with a feeling of not entirely trusting my narrator.
Nonetheless, this is an action-packed, intrigue-filled account of a slightly unusual medieval kingdom called the Papal States under the rulership of some of its worse monarchs, if you're into that sort of thing. Just not quite what I thought I was getting into.
What I was not prepared for, when I picked up this book, was its exclusive focus on the temporal aspect of the papacy as opposed to its spiritual aspect. Large stretches of the text could be read and productively understood by someone who had no idea that the pope was a religious leader -- someone who was under the impression that the pope was merely the king of a certain group of medieval territories called the Papal States. The pages are full of military maneuvers and political scheming, and much of the bad behavior of these bad popes is the kind of power-hungry bad behavior we'd expect from a monarch -- stuff like screwing everyone else over to support the military campaigns and/or political ambition of a favored relative.
A title like "The Bad Popes" has, to me, certain connotations that, I dunno, "Horrible Kings of Medieval Europe" would not. Few people in the modern world have any strong attachment to the divine right of kings, but there are over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, and apostolic succession is still Catholic doctrine. The very acknowledgement that there were "bad popes" raises questions about the continuity of the church that still arouse strong feelings, and one might hope that any inquiry into "bad popes" would at least address such tensions. But while Chamberlin occasionally touches on them -- it would be hard not to -- he is almost entirely in the business of telling stories about the Game of Thrones stuff going on in the temporal sphere.
To some extent, I think I just hadn't realized how much the papacy was like any other medieval monarchy in this period, and on that score this book was a helpful corrective. I also get the sense, from some comments at the very start and end of the book, that Chamberlin sees the temporal ambitions of the papacy as part-and-parcel of the "badness," so that the corruption of a spiritual leadership role by that ambition is the frame for his story, even though the story is entirely concerned with how the ambition went and not with what spiritual matters were occurring (or not occurring) in parallel. So, on the third-to-last page, he writes
In all but his personal attributes, Clement VII was the protagonist in a Greek tragedy, the victim called upon to endure the results of actions committed long before. Each temporal claim of his predecessors had entangled the Papacy just a little more in the lethal game of politics; even while each moral debasement divorced it just a little more from the vast body of Christians from whom it ultimately drew its strength. Its supernatural role for centuries had buttressed its temporal claims. So Dante could excoriate the men who had attacked Pope Boniface VIII, even though Boniface as a man had been his most hated enemy. So Cesare Borgia's victim could plead for absolution from his murderer's father -- and neither victim, murderer, nor father was aware of the inherent irony.
But the buttress was being eroded at its base as the faith of Christians was weakened by the more bizarre activities of those who claimed to hold the sword as well as the keys.
But if this angle is at all important, then this is far too little, far too late: the preceding 283 pages have told us nothing about this "vast body of Christians" and how it reacted to each development. Or even to how the popes themselves, and their close associates, conceived of the relation between their worldly activities and the conditions of their souls. Chamberlin tells us many facts about those activities and their depravity, but throughout, his very standard of depravity is a secular one. One gets the sense that he sees these popes as "bad" because -- and only because -- they behaved in ways that would make a king a bad king.
Knowing little else about the church in this period, I find myself unable to judge how much I should trust Chamberlin, even on matters that lie within his selected purview. His treatment of Luther strikes me as odd, for example. Noting Leo X's sanguine indifference to Luther, Chamberlin remarks that after all there had been many notable heretics over the centuries who had not presented a real material challenge to the church -- and then explains that Leo ought to have realized that a German heretic would be a serious threat, because Germans had always had a unique attitude toward the Roman church:
But Leo had forgotten that Savonarola's supporters had been drawn from the most volatile citizens of a volatile race; while Luther's supporters were those same earnest, dedicated Germans who again and again through the centuries had taken upon themselves the task of cleansing the stables of Rome. Otto the Great, who had descended from Germany six hundred years earlier to establish the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, share more than a common Saxon ancestry with Martin Luther: The supporters of both saw them as divine instruments and were prepared to back their belief with gold or steel.
For all I know, this is a mainstream or even dominant theory among historians. But if it can explain the initial qualities of Luther's movement, something else is needed to explain why that movement caught on further, among non-Germans -- and then one wonders whether that second explanatory factor could just as well explain the first part, too. What I'm getting at, here, is that this seems like exactly the kind of idea Chamberlin would seize on even if it didn't fit the facts, being (as he seems to be) more comfortable with political and blood loyalties than with religion itself. So I am left with a feeling of not entirely trusting my narrator.
Nonetheless, this is an action-packed, intrigue-filled account of a slightly unusual medieval kingdom called the Papal States under the rulership of some of its worse monarchs, if you're into that sort of thing. Just not quite what I thought I was getting into.
August 2, 2025
”The Vicar of Christ and the Papal Monarch were two distinct beings. The fact that it was impossible to whittle down one to size without offending the other was the paradox that lay at the heart of papal power, and from which it drew its temporal strength, so long as the greater body of Europeans acknowledged its spiritual supremacy.”
A theme runs through E.R. Chamberlin’s The Bad Popes which transforms this work from just a collection of scandalous, tragic, sometimes salacious stories into something more. That theme is the fatal flaw of temporal power which early on infected the papacy, making the Roman Pontiff not only spiritual father but ruling prince, holding both the spiritual Keys of Heaven’s Kingdom, and the Sword of Earthly power.
Chamberlin sets the stage by first detailing The Donation of Constantine, that forged document (likely from the 8th century) that purportedly transferred temporal authority over Rome to the Pope. This forgery became the rationale for transforming the spiritual office of the Papacy into one of the most powerful and coveted of medieval kingdoms to be contested, fought over, used and abused by powerful princes and great families.
The reader is then unceremoniously plunged into the horror show of The Synod Horrenda, or Cadaver Synod. This grotesque farce was
the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, then seven months dead, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The dead pope was disinterred, dressed in robes of office, and railed against for his supposed crimes. Condemned, the pontiff’s corpse was then stripped, the three fingers of benediction severed from its dead hand, was dragged through the palace and streets, and was finally hurled by mob into the Tiber. Conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the purpose of this macabre exercise was to demoralize opposing factions that were still fighting over possession of the Papacy. Pope Stephen himself was later seized and strangled in the continuing warfare over the papal throne.
Chamberlin’s history covers 600 years and profiles seven popes whose actions and failings were pivotal. Pope Boniface VIII, Dante’s hated foe, Pope Clement VI, whom Petrarch called ”This ecclesiastical Dionysius, obscene and infamous”, Pope Alexander VI of the infamous and powerful Borgia’s, and the Medici Popes, Leo X and Clement VII, who fumbled the Reformation, are among the most fascinating of the profiles.
The Bad Popes is well written, yet still sometimes feels disjointed despite Chamberlin’s attempt at an overarching theme. It is entertaining, but not essential history. Three and a half stars.
A theme runs through E.R. Chamberlin’s The Bad Popes which transforms this work from just a collection of scandalous, tragic, sometimes salacious stories into something more. That theme is the fatal flaw of temporal power which early on infected the papacy, making the Roman Pontiff not only spiritual father but ruling prince, holding both the spiritual Keys of Heaven’s Kingdom, and the Sword of Earthly power.
Chamberlin sets the stage by first detailing The Donation of Constantine, that forged document (likely from the 8th century) that purportedly transferred temporal authority over Rome to the Pope. This forgery became the rationale for transforming the spiritual office of the Papacy into one of the most powerful and coveted of medieval kingdoms to be contested, fought over, used and abused by powerful princes and great families.
The reader is then unceremoniously plunged into the horror show of The Synod Horrenda, or Cadaver Synod. This grotesque farce was
the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, then seven months dead, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The dead pope was disinterred, dressed in robes of office, and railed against for his supposed crimes. Condemned, the pontiff’s corpse was then stripped, the three fingers of benediction severed from its dead hand, was dragged through the palace and streets, and was finally hurled by mob into the Tiber. Conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the purpose of this macabre exercise was to demoralize opposing factions that were still fighting over possession of the Papacy. Pope Stephen himself was later seized and strangled in the continuing warfare over the papal throne.
Chamberlin’s history covers 600 years and profiles seven popes whose actions and failings were pivotal. Pope Boniface VIII, Dante’s hated foe, Pope Clement VI, whom Petrarch called ”This ecclesiastical Dionysius, obscene and infamous”, Pope Alexander VI of the infamous and powerful Borgia’s, and the Medici Popes, Leo X and Clement VII, who fumbled the Reformation, are among the most fascinating of the profiles.
The Bad Popes is well written, yet still sometimes feels disjointed despite Chamberlin’s attempt at an overarching theme. It is entertaining, but not essential history. Three and a half stars.
Read
January 4, 2024I just could not finish this. I didn’t even get to 50%. It took me about three weeks to get to 37%
April 22, 2009
What makes a Pope a bad Pope? That, of course, is a question open to debate; but the author of this work (published in 1969, several Popes ago) makes it fairly obvious that power and spirit do not go well together, and that it was when a given Pope was acting both as the Spiritual Leader of Christendom and as the Temporal Monarch of the Papal States of Italy (with heavy emphasis on the latter role) that the Papacy and Rome would run into significant problems. (And, I loved this book, and I am glad that I own it, having picked it up somewhere or other.)
Essentially, in the fourth century the Emperor Constantine had made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire. This was under the pontificate of Pope Sylvester, of whom not much is known. Four hundred years later, a document appeared known as the Donation of Constantine, in which Constantine (the Emperor) ceded all spiritual power in the Empire, plus the temporal possession of Rome and Italy, to the Papacy. (Although this document was shown several hundred years later to be a forgery, this was long after the Popes became the rulers of the Papal States of Italy.)
The book takes us through the history of Rome and the Papacy, from the ninth century (when Rome and Italy split from the Eastern Roman Empire, and became independent) to 1534, some seven years after the Sack of Rome by unrestrained troops of the Emperor (Charles V of Spain).
Seven Popes in particular are singled out for study in this very readable book. We have John XII (Octavian, 955 - 963), who was the son of the Prince of Rome and became spiritual and temporal ruler of Rome at the age of eighteen (he was alleged to have been killed by an outraged husband, who caught the Pope having intimate relations with his wife). Next is Benedict IX (Theophylact, 1031 - 1046), the grand-nephew of John XII, who obtained the office via his family connections at the age of fourteen (he abdicated at one point, allegedly because he wished to marry, and sold the office of Pope to his godfather, but then he changed his mind). Then we have Boniface VIII (Benedict Gaetani, 1294 - 1303), who, after advising Celestine V (Peter of Morone) how to abdicate the office, became Pope himself and locked up the former Pope; he appropriated lands belonging to other Roman families, used the power and wealth of the Papacy to wage holy war upon the Colonna family, and was captured when the Colonna took revenge for the destruction of the city of Palestrina).
The next four Popes are more familiar to casual readers of history. We have Urban VI (Bartolomeo Prignano, 1378 - 1389), who had spent his prior life as a dour underappreciated church functionary; once he became Pope, he seemed to lose his grip on sanity, going so far as to arrest and torture several Cardinals accused of plotting against him (it was under his watch that the Schism occured; the cardinals finally elected another Pope, but Urban VI excommunicated the lot of them; after yet a third Pope was elected, it took a Church council to straighten things out). Next is Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia, 1492 - 1503), whose only concern was to use the power and the wealth of Rome to advance the Borgia family, which mainly consisted of his children Cesare, Giovanni, Lucrezia, and Joffré (Cesare especially was noted for casual murders of opponents, and for being absolved by his indulgent father). Finally, we have Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici, 1513 - 1521), who spent the revenues of Rome on art, building projects, and just about everything else (needing money, at one point he sold 31 cardinal’s hats for a total of half a million ducats, most of which went to finance his nephew’s war against the Duchy of Urbino, when that principality refused to let his nephew come in and take over; and, needing money to finance the building of the new St. Peter’s, he authorized the selling of indulgences in Germany, which attracted the attention of Martin Luther). The half-brother of Leo X was Clement VII (Guilio de’ Medici, 1523 - 1534), who enraged both the French King and the Emperor by making innumerable treaties with both of them against the other (he then backed the wrong one; he barely escaped to safety when the unrestrained troops of the Emperor sacked Rome in 1527 with such ferocity that in one month two thousand murdered citizens had been thrown into the Tiber).
Although the Popes regarded the loss of the Papal States during the unification of Italy a major disaster (Pope Pius XI ever after lived as a self-proclaimed prisoner in the Vatican), it seems that ceasing to be a monarch of temporal estates was good for the Papacy; for those who live by the sword of rule will die by that same sword, and that the absolute power of rule of great estates is absolutely corrupting.
Essentially, in the fourth century the Emperor Constantine had made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire. This was under the pontificate of Pope Sylvester, of whom not much is known. Four hundred years later, a document appeared known as the Donation of Constantine, in which Constantine (the Emperor) ceded all spiritual power in the Empire, plus the temporal possession of Rome and Italy, to the Papacy. (Although this document was shown several hundred years later to be a forgery, this was long after the Popes became the rulers of the Papal States of Italy.)
The book takes us through the history of Rome and the Papacy, from the ninth century (when Rome and Italy split from the Eastern Roman Empire, and became independent) to 1534, some seven years after the Sack of Rome by unrestrained troops of the Emperor (Charles V of Spain).
Seven Popes in particular are singled out for study in this very readable book. We have John XII (Octavian, 955 - 963), who was the son of the Prince of Rome and became spiritual and temporal ruler of Rome at the age of eighteen (he was alleged to have been killed by an outraged husband, who caught the Pope having intimate relations with his wife). Next is Benedict IX (Theophylact, 1031 - 1046), the grand-nephew of John XII, who obtained the office via his family connections at the age of fourteen (he abdicated at one point, allegedly because he wished to marry, and sold the office of Pope to his godfather, but then he changed his mind). Then we have Boniface VIII (Benedict Gaetani, 1294 - 1303), who, after advising Celestine V (Peter of Morone) how to abdicate the office, became Pope himself and locked up the former Pope; he appropriated lands belonging to other Roman families, used the power and wealth of the Papacy to wage holy war upon the Colonna family, and was captured when the Colonna took revenge for the destruction of the city of Palestrina).
The next four Popes are more familiar to casual readers of history. We have Urban VI (Bartolomeo Prignano, 1378 - 1389), who had spent his prior life as a dour underappreciated church functionary; once he became Pope, he seemed to lose his grip on sanity, going so far as to arrest and torture several Cardinals accused of plotting against him (it was under his watch that the Schism occured; the cardinals finally elected another Pope, but Urban VI excommunicated the lot of them; after yet a third Pope was elected, it took a Church council to straighten things out). Next is Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia, 1492 - 1503), whose only concern was to use the power and the wealth of Rome to advance the Borgia family, which mainly consisted of his children Cesare, Giovanni, Lucrezia, and Joffré (Cesare especially was noted for casual murders of opponents, and for being absolved by his indulgent father). Finally, we have Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici, 1513 - 1521), who spent the revenues of Rome on art, building projects, and just about everything else (needing money, at one point he sold 31 cardinal’s hats for a total of half a million ducats, most of which went to finance his nephew’s war against the Duchy of Urbino, when that principality refused to let his nephew come in and take over; and, needing money to finance the building of the new St. Peter’s, he authorized the selling of indulgences in Germany, which attracted the attention of Martin Luther). The half-brother of Leo X was Clement VII (Guilio de’ Medici, 1523 - 1534), who enraged both the French King and the Emperor by making innumerable treaties with both of them against the other (he then backed the wrong one; he barely escaped to safety when the unrestrained troops of the Emperor sacked Rome in 1527 with such ferocity that in one month two thousand murdered citizens had been thrown into the Tiber).
Although the Popes regarded the loss of the Papal States during the unification of Italy a major disaster (Pope Pius XI ever after lived as a self-proclaimed prisoner in the Vatican), it seems that ceasing to be a monarch of temporal estates was good for the Papacy; for those who live by the sword of rule will die by that same sword, and that the absolute power of rule of great estates is absolutely corrupting.
January 4, 2024
Thanks go to all for the book that I am reviewing.
I hate to say this but I’ve been reading this for probably 6 weeks or so and I’m only at 37%. As a cradle Catholic as well as an ex catholic school teacher I thought I’d find this book quite interesting and informative. Alas, it is far from my expectations. I’m not certain if I find this ancient topic not written to my liking or if it is a layout and information issue I have no idea. I just cannot get into this book at all. With capital letters at all. I’m almost certain there was much more corruption and nepotism as well as simony and sex that far back. Ummm where is all of that hellacious story telling?
Sorry. I gave it a try. I just can’t keep pushing myself to finish.
I hate to say this but I’ve been reading this for probably 6 weeks or so and I’m only at 37%. As a cradle Catholic as well as an ex catholic school teacher I thought I’d find this book quite interesting and informative. Alas, it is far from my expectations. I’m not certain if I find this ancient topic not written to my liking or if it is a layout and information issue I have no idea. I just cannot get into this book at all. With capital letters at all. I’m almost certain there was much more corruption and nepotism as well as simony and sex that far back. Ummm where is all of that hellacious story telling?
Sorry. I gave it a try. I just can’t keep pushing myself to finish.
October 17, 2021
I picked this up because I greatly enjoyed the same author’s book on Charlemagne. This is excellent too – a very elegantly written and absorbing account of seven popes who were all, in intriguingly different ways, “bad”.
I had not fully appreciated how the House of Theophylact dominated the papacy for about 150 years up until Benedict IX in the 1030’s. Their power hungry and dissolute antics are jaw droppingly colourful. Later, the account of Boniface VIII was one of my favourite chapters – the tale of this venal and vengeful prelate is enthrallingly written.
It’s interesting how quickly this book has dated, though. The style is much more elegant and congenial (at least to me) than any contemporary history writing. The author isn’t very interested in homosexuality and barely mentions it, which seems strange when there is a chapter on Leo X, for example. (On the other hand, the absence of that very contemporary obsession – paedo hysteria – is something of a relief).
I was also struck that almost all of the popes here considered had some redeeming features. To me, the colourful and scandalous careers of so many pontiffs is proof that the papacy is no Divine institution. Ah but, I hear the pious papist say, surely the continued existence of the Roman Catholic church, despite all these wicked popes, is the surest indication that the entire institution is in fact under the special guidance of God? Chamberlin steps away from any debate about this, but he does give us a fascinating insight into the lives of seven fascinating popes.
I had not fully appreciated how the House of Theophylact dominated the papacy for about 150 years up until Benedict IX in the 1030’s. Their power hungry and dissolute antics are jaw droppingly colourful. Later, the account of Boniface VIII was one of my favourite chapters – the tale of this venal and vengeful prelate is enthrallingly written.
It’s interesting how quickly this book has dated, though. The style is much more elegant and congenial (at least to me) than any contemporary history writing. The author isn’t very interested in homosexuality and barely mentions it, which seems strange when there is a chapter on Leo X, for example. (On the other hand, the absence of that very contemporary obsession – paedo hysteria – is something of a relief).
I was also struck that almost all of the popes here considered had some redeeming features. To me, the colourful and scandalous careers of so many pontiffs is proof that the papacy is no Divine institution. Ah but, I hear the pious papist say, surely the continued existence of the Roman Catholic church, despite all these wicked popes, is the surest indication that the entire institution is in fact under the special guidance of God? Chamberlin steps away from any debate about this, but he does give us a fascinating insight into the lives of seven fascinating popes.
August 23, 2020
A graphic illustration of the ways matters can go awry when power—temporal and spiritual—intersects with greed, moral weakness and other personality defects, The Bad Popes harks back to a traditional style of historical writing. While entertaining, it thus explains many events by invoking regional or cultural characteristics that are invariably negative as well as mythical. Still, there are few subjects as entertaining as the bad choices and poor judgment of our fellow humans, especially when they clothe themselves in the mantle of righteousness. For me, the best chapter was the final one, about Clement VII. Having read a great deal about Henry VIII, it was fascinating to learn more about his counterpart on the papal throne. It added to my understanding of the personalities and politics in play.
September 26, 2008
Why did I take such perverse pleasure in reading this book! I'm not even Catholic - ex, recovering or otherwise. Maybe it's just my dislike of all organized religion. This book is all about power politics of the nasty kind engaged in by the so-called spiritual elite of the church. These leaders put personal advancement, greed and nepotism foremost and use the power of church office to do so. Now I truly understand the significance of excommunication, which for someone raised Protestant, never made sense (guess it was that old nailing of the proclamations to the church door that caused that). Selfish, ruthless to the point of murdering opponents, these leaders just confirm that the church's own worst enemy has always been itself and its morally bankrupt leadership. The history of the church itself does not demonstrate a solid foundation for exerting and sustaining moral authority in the world. No wonder it needs to manufacture phantom enemies, like feminists, faggots and godless secularists. It's the old magician's trick of "don't look here, look over there." Sad and pathetic. And, no amount of donning little red Prada-like shoes and moth eaten ermine collars and robes, as the current self-serving leader does, will restore a moral authority that the institution never had. The reality of the early church as an institution and its leaders' appallingly pornographic (because that's what it amounts to) behavior always make for an interesting read.
August 7, 2013
Nobody is more disappointed to be forced to give an one-star review than I am. I almost never pick up a book that I think I might not enjoy -- reading time is just to precious to squander on duds! -- but due to my high interest in this topic I soldiered on through prose so disjointed and obtuse that it nearly broke my brain.
Hoping that someone more well-read than I am in such matters can recommend a book along the same lines that might be a bit easier to digest.
Anyone?
(On a completely unrelated note, I found that I can no longer stumble across the word verisimilitude without thinking of The LBD. So at least something positive came out of this experience after all.)
Hoping that someone more well-read than I am in such matters can recommend a book along the same lines that might be a bit easier to digest.
Anyone?
(On a completely unrelated note, I found that I can no longer stumble across the word verisimilitude without thinking of The LBD. So at least something positive came out of this experience after all.)
May 16, 2024
An interesting book. Chamberlain discusses some of the worst Pope’s that we’ve had in the church. From a recluse pope and Synodus Horrenda to the infamous Rodrigo Borgia, and later Martin Luther. ER Chamberlain gives a historic and unbiased account.
There was one thing that he repeated that got under my skin, stating that St Peter’s tomb is the most sacred spot in Christendom. Overall though very good
There was one thing that he repeated that got under my skin, stating that St Peter’s tomb is the most sacred spot in Christendom. Overall though very good
May 2, 2023
Closer to 3.5. Picks up once you hit the 15th and 16th centuries and is much easier to follow
September 1, 2020
I’ve read a few biographies of the popes and histories of the church (including Absolute Monarchs by John Julius Norwich) and I believe that this history focuses in on what makes the papal seat so interesting through history. I thought going in that the book was going to focus primarily on the notorious bad popes like Stephen VI (who put his predecessor’s body on trial) or the legendary Borgias, both of which are segments of the book but not really the focus. Instead this book focused on the political power behind the papal throne. Which families felt control of the papacy important to their futures? How did the early nation states use the papacy to further their claims and their power? As a result, the book is more interesting than its title suggests. I think a salacious book on the worst popes wouldn’t have been as interesting.
Chamberlin goes into greater detail and writes with a grander narrative than most histories of the time period. It isn’t a short book but it feels easy to read and to contemplate. It brings up a lot of interesting ideas about temporal power and spiritual authority. It ends with 16th century and I wonder if later papal authority wouldn’t have been interesting to consider in light of the family and national struggles of the early modern people. I think that would have been fraught using the theme of “bad popes” with more recent office holders. It could have been interesting though.
Really well written and interesting.
Chamberlin goes into greater detail and writes with a grander narrative than most histories of the time period. It isn’t a short book but it feels easy to read and to contemplate. It brings up a lot of interesting ideas about temporal power and spiritual authority. It ends with 16th century and I wonder if later papal authority wouldn’t have been interesting to consider in light of the family and national struggles of the early modern people. I think that would have been fraught using the theme of “bad popes” with more recent office holders. It could have been interesting though.
Really well written and interesting.
January 16, 2015
Those lying, corrupted rascals! Oooooh, if my hardcore Catholic mother knew about all the shenanigans these guys, AND GIRL, were up to! Reminds me of the time I took her to see The Godfather part 3 and she kept saying over and over that it was the devil who made the film makers portray the Vatican in such a bad light.
November 29, 2020
An interesting look at some Popes in history that behaved badly. It's told in a good way but I wasn't invested and super hooked about the fact as I would wish, just a decent non fiction.
May 30, 2025
This is a review of the 1969 edition.
I don't know much about the history of Europe at the times mentioned here (900 CE - 1534 CE) so this rating isn't based on how historically reliable this book is. It's based on how readable the book is.
It's a book I looked forward to continuing a bit a day, and I was sorry when it was over. It's a bit like Lytton Strachy in there's quite a bit of dark humor and some personal observations, but it does rely heavily on letters and documents written by people who lived at the times. The exception is for the Dark Ages, when only one source could be found.
I've read quite a bit about the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. I even have a shelf devoted to those books here on Goodreads. I decided to put this book on that shelf because Rome under the bad popes was really just another version of the Roman Empire. Mary Beard claims in one of her delightful documentaries that Christianity is how the Roman Empire survived to this day -- and she's got a good point. The point was also made, somewhat, in Carl J. Richard's Why We're All Romans: The Roman Contribution to the Western World. I loved the direct comparisons and references to the Roman Empire that Chamberlin interwove throughout the text.
However, I did have a major problem with one quirk of Chamberlin's writing style -- he'd refer to the same person by two different names, nicknames, and the person's title (if applicable.) Since this book has a very large cast (so to speak), referring to them in three or more different names made it difficult for me to follow the text.
Another problem I had (albeit a minor one) was with the illustrations. They were black and white illustrations of paintings, drawings and sculptures. Some of the paintings were so detailed and intricate that the small black and white reproductions just didn't do them justice.
I don't know much about the history of Europe at the times mentioned here (900 CE - 1534 CE) so this rating isn't based on how historically reliable this book is. It's based on how readable the book is.
It's a book I looked forward to continuing a bit a day, and I was sorry when it was over. It's a bit like Lytton Strachy in there's quite a bit of dark humor and some personal observations, but it does rely heavily on letters and documents written by people who lived at the times. The exception is for the Dark Ages, when only one source could be found.
I've read quite a bit about the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. I even have a shelf devoted to those books here on Goodreads. I decided to put this book on that shelf because Rome under the bad popes was really just another version of the Roman Empire. Mary Beard claims in one of her delightful documentaries that Christianity is how the Roman Empire survived to this day -- and she's got a good point. The point was also made, somewhat, in Carl J. Richard's Why We're All Romans: The Roman Contribution to the Western World. I loved the direct comparisons and references to the Roman Empire that Chamberlin interwove throughout the text.
However, I did have a major problem with one quirk of Chamberlin's writing style -- he'd refer to the same person by two different names, nicknames, and the person's title (if applicable.) Since this book has a very large cast (so to speak), referring to them in three or more different names made it difficult for me to follow the text.
Another problem I had (albeit a minor one) was with the illustrations. They were black and white illustrations of paintings, drawings and sculptures. Some of the paintings were so detailed and intricate that the small black and white reproductions just didn't do them justice.
February 1, 2020
This book for me is a 3.5 stars.
Another fascinating history book. Did you know that at one point they were three popes reigning at the same time? Or, that for a brief time there was a female pope? I didn't.
Going through the family clans of the Orsini's, Medici's, Borgia's, whom they assumed the Papacy thru treachery, nepotism, or just plainly bought in gold their way in into The Vatican.
The scariest of them all, Pope Boniface and Pius II. adulterous lifestyle, murder, bribery and despot ways to inflict among the masses. Rodrigo Borgia (pope Alexander VI) is not far behind.
This book was first published in 1969, which got me thinking... what about now? I'm sure we can fill another two or three books of scandals at the Vatican.
Another fascinating history book. Did you know that at one point they were three popes reigning at the same time? Or, that for a brief time there was a female pope? I didn't.
Going through the family clans of the Orsini's, Medici's, Borgia's, whom they assumed the Papacy thru treachery, nepotism, or just plainly bought in gold their way in into The Vatican.
The scariest of them all, Pope Boniface and Pius II. adulterous lifestyle, murder, bribery and despot ways to inflict among the masses. Rodrigo Borgia (pope Alexander VI) is not far behind.
This book was first published in 1969, which got me thinking... what about now? I'm sure we can fill another two or three books of scandals at the Vatican.
July 30, 2023
I'd expected there'd be more of a focus on the spiritual aspect of the papacy as opposed to the book's almost pure focus on its temporal one. Chamberlin is much more occupied with the Game of Thrones stuff going on in the temporal sphere. Given that papal primacy is Catholic doctrine, acknowledgement of the existence of "bad popes" raises specific questions which would, eventually, lead to the protestant reformation. The fact that said questions were almost entirely ignored and that any discussions about the contemporary Popes' (Leo X and Clement VII) misjudgement of the effects of Luther's views on the papacy were ascribed entirely to racial reasons lowers the overall rating of the books.
July 31, 2025
It wasn’t until I reached page 92 did I start to appreciate this book. The author does a great job throughout the entire work, honestly. The primary reason I didn’t appreciate the pages prior to reaching page 92 is completely my own fault. I’m not familiar with the period. Again, it’s totally my own ignorance influencing my rating. Otherwise, I would’ve given this book 4 stars.
Read
December 27, 2024No real linking thread and besides early papacy none of this is very new
April 30, 2025
Reading this book made me appreciate Pope Francis even more, so it kinda sucked that he died half way through reading it. Also, I really enjoyed how the premise of the book is popes who sucked, and he preceded to talk about almost all of the popes up to the 1600s.
November 24, 2020
They don't write 'em like this anymore! A must read for papalphiles and papalphiliacs alike!
October 29, 2020
I had a lot of fun with this book and also glad to get to know a lot of popes and learnt some new words like Simony , Nepotism.
I don't think these popes are that bad and its more like some of them are cutthroat brutal . This book failed to mention more bad things like pedophile popes, child sexual abuse. But nevertheless its still a great read and give me Game of Thrones vibes. The author did a good job of making this read like a fictional story instead of throwing off facts at you in a monotone way
I don't think these popes are that bad and its more like some of them are cutthroat brutal . This book failed to mention more bad things like pedophile popes, child sexual abuse. But nevertheless its still a great read and give me Game of Thrones vibes. The author did a good job of making this read like a fictional story instead of throwing off facts at you in a monotone way
July 28, 2019
There is a series out now under the umbrella title of Dark Histories (A Dark History: The Popes, A Dark History: The Kings and Queens of Europe, Dark History of the Tudors, and so on) that seems to me (without investigating them) to be intent on cashing in on the sensational side of history. Nothing wrong with that, I don't think--it's not really what I want to read, but different strokes and so on.
The Bad Popes strikes me as the same vein, except it precedes the Dark History series by about 40 years--and so even though I think E.R. Chamberlin was cashing in a bit himself on the sensational, it seems pretty restrained to me. I bought this book off the Barnes & Noble bargain shelf over a dozen years ago, but I'd never cracked it open till now. What got me to finally read it was a desperate desire to find more room on my bookshelves, and I'd come to suspect that The Bad Popes, while probably entertaining, wouldn't be a keeper. Now that I'm done, I see I was right in both respects.
Chamberlin decides to focus on seven popes who were not only bad per se, but were present at junctures when the papacy went through critical junctures. For those looking for licentious details, I think you'll be disappointed. Bad in Chamberlin's case means ineffective as much as corrupted--though there is definitely that too.
I think Chamberlin does well enough with the larger picture of European history (in which the Popes played such a huge role) so that readers with only a slight knowledge of these times won't feel lost. But in the end, it's a superficial picture. It works better, perhaps, as supplemental reading on the times, but as a single source it's limited. Entertaining though.
The Bad Popes strikes me as the same vein, except it precedes the Dark History series by about 40 years--and so even though I think E.R. Chamberlin was cashing in a bit himself on the sensational, it seems pretty restrained to me. I bought this book off the Barnes & Noble bargain shelf over a dozen years ago, but I'd never cracked it open till now. What got me to finally read it was a desperate desire to find more room on my bookshelves, and I'd come to suspect that The Bad Popes, while probably entertaining, wouldn't be a keeper. Now that I'm done, I see I was right in both respects.
Chamberlin decides to focus on seven popes who were not only bad per se, but were present at junctures when the papacy went through critical junctures. For those looking for licentious details, I think you'll be disappointed. Bad in Chamberlin's case means ineffective as much as corrupted--though there is definitely that too.
I think Chamberlin does well enough with the larger picture of European history (in which the Popes played such a huge role) so that readers with only a slight knowledge of these times won't feel lost. But in the end, it's a superficial picture. It works better, perhaps, as supplemental reading on the times, but as a single source it's limited. Entertaining though.
July 30, 2019
Gives a really good grasp of the deadly internal politics in a completely exotericized and deadened shell of a religion by that time. Though Catholicism started even higher than my own Eastern Orthodox roots they fell much further when they were co-opted by morally unsavory, sadistic and severe elements as one comes across in this work. By the period this book covers only the lay people, a few priests, the ritual and the beauty were all that was left of a once greater period centuries before that was even more experientially metaphysical than the Platonists. Such was the original character of the Toulousite Heruli Goths that were the epicenter of western early hidden Christianity long before the nicene council and for hundreds of years after it. They were more spiritual and moral on a practical level than even the Neo-Platonists, not less like the wolf pack aristotelian scavengers that came in with a manic formatory rationality of pecking each other down and a gross love of power and petty control by the times this book covers.
March 13, 2013
I found this book a decade ago at a musty used book store. When Pope Benedict retired I pulled the book back off the shelf and read it over again. A decade of medieval study have passed since my first reading, and in many ways the book not only holds up, but has improved for me. While the sections on the Borgia Pope, Alexander and the Gaetani Pope Boniface were still the most thorough (due to the prevalence of primary source material I should think), Chamberlin's psychological picture of Emperor Otto the first was interesting and sensitive, a rare thing in profiles of early medieval figures. These profiles, while some of the most successful aspects of the work, also provide the book's weakest scholarly links. Chamberlin makes assumptions of motive that tend to prompt further assumptions and so on until the conclusions are hopelessly extenuating. Don't read it as a work of pure scholarship. Read it because a frightfully arcane subject is brought to vivid and memorable life.
September 15, 2008
Sex, sin, greed, a bit of the 'ol ultra-violence, and that's just before 1400! Read The Bad Popes and learn of historical figures such as Marozia and her sister Theodora, the Roman women whom Pope Joan is most likely based upon (created as political satire). In the opening chapters of The Bad Popes Russel Chamberlin traces similarities to the Joan story and the real life Theophylact ladies, it is a deliciously scandalous story. Case in point: their rivals invented the lovely term "Pornocracy", a political system dominated by prostitutes (it was fashionable at that time, as it often is in ours, to label powerful women with such epithets). I love these nasty little tales, they remind me how tumultuous and earthy historical study can be.
November 14, 2015
Interesting history, though the author spares no time with any pomp and circumstance. The subject matter is spicy, but bring your own background knowledge in Catholicism, a pot of coffee, and sheer determination because he spits the facts out rapid-fire and with no particular fanfare for the first part of the book.
As the history references become easier to find for the author, so does the writing become more entertaining. In other words, hang in there through the first few chapters.
By Pope Boniface VIII you'll feel like you've gotten the hang of it, but really the author has extra details to make the stories nuanced, layered, and interesting. And the Popes just get more and more "bad!"
As the history references become easier to find for the author, so does the writing become more entertaining. In other words, hang in there through the first few chapters.
By Pope Boniface VIII you'll feel like you've gotten the hang of it, but really the author has extra details to make the stories nuanced, layered, and interesting. And the Popes just get more and more "bad!"
August 16, 2012
This is a huge, unwieldy subject, the Popes and their naughtiness, and this book has a heroic go at covering it. Man, they was baaaad. Cash for honours, nepotism, orgies, incest, deceptions, murder are among the milder things these wicked pontiffs get up to. I deduct half a star for the perhaps inevitable need to compress chunks of background information preceding the gritty detail. Mitres off to ER Chamberlin.
January 14, 2009
I enjoyed the subject but did not enjoy the author.
February 7, 2023
It had some good information but I just didn’t like the author’s narrative style. I have read other books with a style I preferred with basically the same info.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews