User:Ridiculus mus/sandbox/Leo X

= Leo X =

= Executive summary = No reliable source claims that Leo X was sexually attracted to males, still less that he ever engaged in genital activity with them.

How, then, can it be that the article opens (as it has done for several years, subject to aimless fluctuations in the first and fifth words) with this breath-takingly false claim : "Several modern historians have concluded that Leo was homosexual"? Two sources are cited at this point: Paul Strathern, The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance and Carlo Falconi's Italian biography, Leone X.

A page reference is given for Strathern (p.277) and the curious reader (among whom one cannot count the wiki-editor who perpetrated that edit) might be - as, indeed he ought to be - surprised, mystified and even indignant upon reading that page and finding there precisely nothing about Leo's sexual proclivities or behaviour. Nor will he be edified by reading the entirety of what Strathern wrote about Leo X in his book, for nowhere in it does he make any claim or advance any suggestion whatever about Leo's sexuality. Nor can this omission be attributed to prudery or anti-gay prejudice because Strathern liberally accuses Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci, Poliziano, and sundry others as "homosexual" (Strathern being oblivious of his anachronistic use of a technical term coined in 1897 to describe a morbid sexual pathology).

Falconi, I dare to assert without having access to that book (save what is quoted from it on an Italian gay web site - a partisan source whose impartial presentation of the tepid evidence is itself a damning indictment of the futile attempt to colonise Leo X as a "homosexual"), is equally innocent of any such perversion of the historical art. Sparing in his hostages to fortune, the wiki-editor forbore to give a page reference for Falconi.

Two writers who might be thought to be most heavily invested in the desire to claim or tar Leo as "homosexual" are notably reticent. The earlier of the two is Joseph McCabe, a failed Catholic priest turned South Place Ethical Society "freethinker", and unremittingly hostile to Catholicism in his A History of the Popes. He only got as far (p.409) as claiming that Giovio and Guicciardini "seem to share" (bold emphasis mine) the "belief that [Leo] began to indulge in unnatural vice after he became Pope . ." (italic emphasis in the original). Giovanni Dall'Orto, a self-confessed militant activist Italian homosexual, who wrote the article on Leo in the Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History (2000), concedes (p.264) that the material he serves up constitutes no more than "indications point[ing] to Leo's homosexuality" and that "the existence of other unpublished material suggests that the question of Leo's homosexuality may in future be discussed on the basis of firmer evidence".

It is only in the lurid imagination of a wiki-editor that Leo was "infatuated" with Marcantonio Flaminio. It is only someone with a debased understanding of what counts as a reliable source who would cite the scurrilous libels known as pasquinades. Falconi and every other modern historian who has examined the case has scorned to credit what is presented in simpering particularity in a wikipedia article all coyly draped over with your weasel "implying" and your weasel "allegedly" and your weasel "suggestions". It is only someone lacking in essential skills (or virtues) who could attribute to McCabe a claim that Giovio and Guicciardini "shared a belief that Leo engaged in unnatural vice". What is such rubbish doing in a pretended encyclopedia?

The existing sub-section "Sexuality" (in all its permutations) is a mess, has always been a mess, and (if corrected) will most probably revert to a mess because of editors who (to be charitable) clearly have no grasp of the sources they cite in support of unsupportable claims. This whole wretched story originates in a plagiarising edit, and ever since that gross transgression was committed, the sub-section has lurched from one error into another in a brazen attempt to defend the indefensible.

Comment
= Presentation = Lack of balance


 * Currently, the sub-topic "Sexuality" comprises 5 sentences reporting views as to Leo's sexual morals held by 7 named writers from the 16th to the 21st centuries (not to mention the reference to anonymous "suggestions" and "numerous [anonymous] pasquinades"). The manifest bias of the current presentation is evidenced by, inter alia :-
 * (1) The fact that 6 writers (as well as the "suggestions" and "numerous pasquinades") are pro whereas only one (Roscoe) is cited contra - in a context designed to devalidate his opinion UPDATE: but made in ignorance, perhaps, of the fact that Strathern, in his note on sources (p.426), cited Roscoe as his only source for his treatment of Leo X;
 * (2) The views of credible sources such as Von Pastor, Gregorovius and Henry Millichamp Vaughan – all contra – have been deleted from the article from time to time;
 * (3) No citation has ever been given for the "suggestions"; and
 * (4) The views of one writer who is unquestionably contra has been presented in such a way to appear that he is pro.

Reliance on rumour, inference and speculation


 * In addition, we see in the sub-section the following indicators of the strength of opinion expressed on the topic in hand:-
 * (a) "have concluded" (in the original edit introducing this matter, the verb was "suggested", no reason was given for the upgrade nor was any change made to the founding citation);
 * (b) "implying" and "allegedly";
 * (c) "shared a belief";
 * (d) "suggesting";
 * (e) "there were suggestions" (no source ever given); and
 * (f) "suspicions of Leo's motives seem to have led (etc)".

Puffing cited sources


 * As for the characterisations of the writers whose opinions are presented in the sub-article:-
 * Paolo Giovio and Francesco Guicciardini are described as "two of the leading papal historians of the time" – a description which is in itself open to question and is, in any case, made redundant by the closer identification of these two writers given later in the same sentence. By no stretch can Guicciardini be called a "papal historian" and Giovio deserves the epithet only in as much as he wrote biographies of two popes.


 * As recently as a year ago (19 December 2013) the sub-section opened with these words:- "Several modern historians have concluded". Contrary to what such a flourish might have induced a reader to believe, only one author was cited, Paul Strathern, a novelist and writer of popular works (including history) whose approach to the topic (and whose intended audience) can be gauged from the title of the cited book The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance.  Over time a second writer was added and the qualifications of these two were then given as "A[n] academic writer and a modern biographer".  Whether Strathern deserves the accolade of "academic" at all may be doubted (the fact that he was formerly a lecturer on philosophy and mathematics at a minor British university is not, on its own, sufficient), but that would make him at best "a former academic and writer".  UPDATE: More to the point it is undeniable that he is not an academic historian and "Godfathers", specifically, is not an academic work - as he himself concedes, introducing his notes on sources with this remark (p.413): "Because this is intended as a popular book, I have not included a comprehensive list of sources.".

I trust this non-exhaustive review of the more problematic aspects sufficiently demonstrates the necessity of a full critical examination of the acceptability of the sub-section as it now stands; accordingly, I shall present for scrutiny and comment each of the existing 5 sentences in turn. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment

 * Are really Von Pastor, Gregorovius and Henry Millichamp Vaughan "independent sources" and if so "credible" ? I add they are not very recent sources : in their days, scholars denied homosexuality of everybody except criminals on principle. Frimoussou (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Contaldo80 made that point. It is the nub of the edit dispute.  You claim it is proven that Leo was "homosexual", meaning either (a) that the man engaged in sexual activity with other males and/or (b) that he was sexually attracted to males. As currently written, the sub-section states that Strathern and Falconi concluded he was "homosexual" – but in which sense?  It seems they assert (b) but not (a) – something I have yet to check.


 * Others (me included) want to cite historians (Roscoe, Vaughan) who reject all accusations against Leo of sexual impropriety. That's a third point of view, (c).  But you want to exclude them because of (you claim) a historical bias against admitting "homosexuality" – excluding view (c) because it doesn't fit the narrative.  That looks like  confirmation bias and is contrary to wiki-policy.  All views must be represented in a balanced way.  Even those which (for whatever reason) discuss the topic without reference to "homosexuality". Among these I include :-


 * Hayes (article on Leo in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, the basis of the wiki-article) who ignores Leo's sexual morals ; Gregorovius, who dismisses the topic out of hand ("The sensual pleasures of the Borgias were not congenial to his nature") ; and Marco Pellegrini (long article in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 2005) who says Leo's reputation " . . was adversely affected by the vices imputed to him.  Attached to worldly pastimes he made no distinction between those unsuited to a pope [e.g. gambling, hunting, banqueting, chess] and those which were indecorous, including buffoonery and intimate relationships with his domestic attendants". Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC).  Not forgetting the extensive treatment by von Pastor (whose vols on Leo I have now accessed) who holds view (c). Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Having recently obtained a copy of his book I add most tellingly that Strathern's omission to claim that Leo X was "homosexual", was not motivated by any cultural or other prejudice to suppress the fact (had it been true) since he freely asserts (without offering any substantive evidence) that Donatello (pp. 52, 108f., and 111), Poliziano (p.178), Leonardo da Vinci (p.188), Concino Concini (p.354), and, from the late 17th c., the two sons of Duke Cosimo III (p.397) were "homosexual". Silence is sometimes just silence because there is nothing to be said. Strathern seeems oblivious of his anachronistic use of a term not coined until the end of the 19th c. Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= First sentence = A[n] academic writer and a modern biographer of Leo have concluded that he was homosexual.

The cited sources are Strathern (p.277) and Falconi. No page ref. is given for Falconi, but the substance of his treatment can be read on | Dall'Orto's website where there is a quotation from pp.456f of Falconi's book. The only reference to morals occurs at the end of that quotation which, itself, is basically a quotation from Roscoe:- "Un rifiuto, come ha cautamente osservato il Roscoe, che "può indurre in qualche sospetto: che o il padre o il figlio non approvassero la morale, e le pratiche della romana corte, o non fossero pienamente soddisfatti della condotta del pontefice""

Given the tendentious nature of Dall'Orto's website (headlined La gaya scienza) we can assume that this is as close as Falconi gets to "conclud[ing] that [Leo] was homosexual." I translate: "A refusal [sc. of the offer to take up an influential post in Rome], as Roscoe cautiously noted, that 'can raise the suspicion: that either the father or the son did not approve the morals and manners of the Roman Court, or were not fully satisfied as to the conduct of the Pope." Very far from a "conclusion".

On my reading, the problems with this first sentence in the sub-section are:
 * (1) The loaded description of the two sources (on Strathern, see above, under "Puffing cited sources", 2nd bullet);
 * (2) The suspicion that "concluded" is WP:SYNTH by over-describing the content of the cited sources (the term implies a prior exhaustive review of all relevant material, which may not have been the case with Strathern who was, after all, writing about the Medici family and its interaction with leading figures of the Italian Renaissance). It is clear that the term is not apt to describe what is expressed on p.457 of Falconi's book;
 * (3) (i) The inherent vagueness of the term "homosexual" (Strathern, so we are told, allowed that Leo did not engage in sexual activity). According to the OED "homosexual" means "A. adj. involving, related to, or characterized by a sexual propensity for one's own sex; of or involving sexual activity with a member of one's own sex, or between individuals of the same sex", and (ii) The dubious validity of attaching this term to historical persons;
 * (4) The prioritising of these accounts by placing them in the first and (for Falconi) last sentence, whereas a more logical treatment would be to progress from the earliest accounts to the latest - not least because (as must be the case) Strathern and Falconi rely on earlier accounts anyway.
 * (5) The level of credibility which can be assigned to Strathern and Falconi as historians - partly a function of their qualifications, partly a function of how much space their books devote to the question at issue, and partly a function of the attention paid to their work by academic historians (issues not yet fully resolved, although the outlines seem clear enough).

I have not yet been able to check what Strathern actually wrote on p.277. Has anyone else? Something more can be said about Falconi too (a Catholic priest who abandoned his priestly ministry as early as 1949 - for what reason I do not know - and then took up journalism, reporting for L'Espresso on the Second Vatican Council). On his death he merited a 4-page notice in the Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol.52 (1998), but the reviewer in La Civiltà Cattolica (1989, vol.4, pp.199f., a Jesuit journal) didn't think much of his Leone X ("a rather hazardous attempt to penetrate deeply the psychology, the inner inclinations (noble and less noble)"); accusing it of lacking historical rigour and accusing the author, in his quest to plumb the interior feelings of Leo, of making too much out of the scarce objective facts. The reviewer (Marcello Fois) considered the reconstruction was unconvincing, based as it was on suppositions (part 1, childhood) and inferences (the rest). All in all, it seems to me that Strathern and Falconi do not deserve to be put first and foremost. Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC). UPDATE I have now had the dubious advantage over most if not all editors of the relevant section of Leo X of having actually read Strathern on Leo X. See Comments below, and elsewhere as required. Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments (including motivated objections and corrections)
(comments are most welcome) Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"All in all, it seems to me that Strathern and Falconi do not deserve to be put first and foremost". It's a point of view I don't share personally (see above on Gregoriovius, von Pastor, etc), but I assume the first sentence could be something like : "It has been assumed that Leo X was homosexual" or "the question of his sexuality or of his homosexuality has been examined by, by and by... who concluded that, that and that...", or whatever. Frimoussou (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This opens the possibility of agreement between us.  I have created a new sandbox to examine what a re-write would look like. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have now accessed Strathern's book. The cited source is page 277, situated midway in his treatment of the pope (pp.266-289, and see mention of:- Giovanni de' Medici as a boy tutored by Poliziano, p.176; as a young cardinal, pp.244-248; and his military experience, pp.259-262).   The editor who included this reference in support of the assertion that Strathern either "suggested" (first version) or "concluded" (second version) that Leo "was homosexual" must have been either gullible in accepting someone else's say-so as to what Strathern wrote, or, if he had actually read the source himself, mischievous and mendacious.


 * There is no reference of any kind (whether occult, discreet, implied, or indirect) to Leo's sexual inclinations or practices on page 277 or anywhere in the book.  Thus, it makes no difference if (which I doubt) the page numbering of the 2005 paperback edition I consulted differs from that of the original hardback issued in 2003.  The (somewhat unreliable) index gives 11 references to "homosexuality/ sodomy" (pp.108f., cf. 52 and 111, Donatello "made no secret of his homosexuality"; p.178, Poliziano "was homosexual";  p.188, "Leonardo's homosexuality", and p.189 L. "denounced for sodomy"; p.195, "the first, perhaps unconscious, inklings of [Michelangelo's] homosexuality"; p.354, "a homosexual social-climber called Concino Concini"; p.376, Ferdinando II added his name to "a long list of all those holding high office in the grand duchy who were homosexuals"; p.391, reference to strict moral legislation under Cosimo III, but no actual mention of homosexuality or sodomy; p.397, two sons of Cosimo III, one with "dissipated behaviour and homosexual inclinations", the other "also homosexual").


 * The citation of Strathern must therefore, and not before time, be struck from the section since he neither "suggested" nor "concluded" that Leo X was "homosexual". We can, rather, add him to the list of those who absolutely disregarded the coarse and vulgar imputations all of which derive from scurrilous pasquinades to which no reputable source gives any credit.  The balance now turns towards denouncing this claim of "homosexuality" as WP:FRINGE. Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= Second sentence = Pierre Bayle writing in 1697 observed "Nothing contributed more to his elevation to the papacy, than the wounds he had earlier received in Venerean combat", implying an anal fistula Leo had allegedly developed at the time of the conclave which elected him pope was a result of sexual activity.

The citation here is Bayle's Dictionnaire Historique et Chronique (a mistake for Critique), Paris 1697 (no page ref. given) which I have seen only in the abridged English translation published in 1826. My ref. is vol.2 of that translation at pp.389-391 (the treatment of Leo occupies pp. 389 to 412, but the last 8 pages are the texts of letters).

There are at least three serious problems with this sentence:-

(1) The quoted part has been truncated. Bayle's full sentence is this (English trans., pp.389f.):-

"It is thought that nothing contributed more to his elevation to the popedom, than the wounds he had received [p.390] in the combats of Venus."

Bayle then proceeds to quote a French Catholic historian (whom we can identify, from a later reference, as Antoine Varillas, 1624-1696, and who was drawing on Giovio) on events prior to and during the conclave. This source attributed Giovanni de' Medici's election to a misapprehension on the part of one faction of cardinals that Giovanni had not long to live; a misapprehension attributable to a faulty prognosis by the physicians who were treating him in the conclave for his ulcer (which produced a foul smell when it broke). In this sense, Giovanni's ulcer was the leading cause of his election.

(2) Everything after and including "implying" is both WP:SYNTH and incorrect.
 * Bayle (following Giovio, as he claims) positively asserted – claiming to correct Varillas (who, had not, for modesty's sake, actually named the place) – that the ulcer was "in the fundament". Bayle's comment is that this location "would suppose a disgraceful cause" (p.391).  Thus Bayle did speculate, from the location of the ulcer, that it resulted from improper sexual activity.  But since Bayle reports that it was the ulcer which retarded Giovanni's journey to Rome, he cannot have believed (and did not write) that it "developed at the time of the conclave which elected him".  Thus the passage at this point traduces what Bayle wrote and is pure invention.
 * There is no justification for attributing to Bayle a belief that the "wounds . . received in Venerean combat" comprised an anal fistula. The English translation (p.390) has "an imposthume in those parts which modesty will not allow us to name".  At this stage, Bayle is quoting Varillas.  In Book 3 of his Vita Giovio wrote of the ulcer (innatum ab ima sede abscessum) that it sedem occupabat.  According to the English translation, Bayle took this to mean "in the fundament" as we have seen, but that may or may not accurately represent the French original.  At all events, whether Bayle visualised the ulcer as precisely in the rectum, on the anus, in the peri-anal area, on the perineum, or anywhere on the lower inside part of either buttock, cannot be established from anything Bayle, Varillas, or Giovio wrote.  The claim that Bayle was implying an anal fistula (if that is what the mangled syntax is actually trying to say) is WP:SYNTH.

(3) Bayle makes a point of balancing his supposition that the ulcer had "a disgraceful cause" by recording this qualification (p.391, I include the introductory matter already cited above):- "Not to conceal anything, I am obliged to acquaint my reader that Paulus Jovius does not place this ulcer in the place where Varillas does, but in the fundament, which would suppose a disgraceful cause: and with the same sincerity I add, that this pope ascended his throne with a great reputation of chastity, if we believe Guicciardini, and was reckoned very continent from his youth, if we credit Paul Jovius."

Thus Bayle, while relying on Giovio to support the supposition of a disgraceful aetiology of an ulcer which pre-dated the conclave, did not omit to record the testimony of two authors (including Giovio) to the effect that it cannot have had a disgraceful cause.

There are, then, severe problems with citing Bayle at all. He is not an independent source and builds upon the main source he relies on here (Giovio) in order to erect a supposition of sexual impropriety the very possibility of which is excluded by that same source. No wonder Roscoe dismissed his treatment of Giovanni de' Medici's sex-life as anti-Catholic polemic. The sentence has no place in wikipedia, being (a) a misrepresentation (b) of a mere imputation ("It is thought . . which would suppose") by (c) a source that is neither credible nor reliable.

Comments (including motivated objections and corrections)
(comments are most welcome) Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think shorter comments would be clearer in the article... Bayle wouldn't be an "independent source", but who is a "independent source" ? It's not the point. And I don't see why the very possibility of "sexual impropriety" would be excluded from Giovo, who is absolutely not conclusive : it's an interpretation too in my view. But I think that if Bayle is really the only one to make his interpretation (I don't know, but if you say so, it must be true), we could add it is not strictly corroborated by another author/source. Frimoussou (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not "independent" only in the sense that Bayle is simply reporting what Varillas had written and not even vouching for it. I have a longer post on this sentence which I shall get round to later.  As for Giovio, Bayle certainly understood him to be claiming Leo was (or at least was reputed to be) sexually continent all his life:- . . depuis son adolescence il passait pour fort continent, si nous croyons Paul Jove (whom he then quotes, vol. 9, p.146).  The quoted passage in Giovio is explicit: Constat tamen eum, quod a prima adolescentia opinione omnium summam continentiae laudem fuisset adeptus, non importuna quaedam pudicitiae castitatique praesidia quaesivisse . .. Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: In fact, not even Bayle credits the implication that the abscess had a disgraceful cause. I have now accessed Bayle's article on Leo as it appears in vol. 9 of his Dictionnaire (1820 edn.), at pp. 143-162.   I begin the quote at p.143 (the capital letters refer to footnotes):-". . . On prétend qu'il n'y eut rien qui contribuât davantage à l'élever a la papauté, que les blessures qu'il avait reçues dans les combats vénériens.(B) . . et il mena une vie peu convenable aux successeurs des apôtres, et tout-à-fait voluptueuse (D). Il se plaisait trop à la chasse. . . Je ne voudrais pas garantir le conte qu'on fait, qu'il traita un jour de pure fable toute la doctrine chrétienne (I). .."


 * Lengthy footnotes follow from the foot of p.144. Footnote (B) begins on p.145 with the extended quote from Varillas noticed by me above.  Bayle then comments :- "Pour ne rien dissimuler, je dois avertir mon lecteur, que Paul Jove ne met point l'abscès aux mêmes parties que Varillas : il le met au fondement [here he quotes the passage from Giovio I have already quoted], ce qui ne marquerait pas une origine honteuse [my emphasis]."


 * [Note: Bayle took Varillas to mean the ulcer was on Leo's private parts (aux parties que la pudeur défend de nommer), which would suppose a venereal disease.]


 * The English translation I formerly relied upon is at fault:-


 * au fondament means "on" the fundament, and marquerait is not correctly translated "suppose".
 * it inverted Bayle's comment about what might be deduced from its location. What he says is that the location of the ulcer au fondament would not manifest a disgraceful cause.  The precise opposite of what the wiki sub-article (following the English translation I, too, used) asserts.


 * The "implication" of a disgraceful origin of the ulcer is, then, baseless. For Bayle it would only be disgraceful if it was where Varillas said it was (and Bayle regarded him as wholly unreliable); Giovio (abscessus, passage quoted above) and Guicciardini (fistola under the buttocks, Book 13, cap.VII) both mention the ulcer, but in different contexts, and neither drew, nor reported that anyone else drew, sexual implications from it; Gregorovius (fistula, Book 8, Part 1, p.175) mentions it, but makes nothing of it.  Roscoe (abscess, vol. II, p.237) relies on Fabroni to dismiss out of hand the imputation that the malady was attributable to "the irregularities of [Giovanni de' Medici's] past life".  Specific mention is made of Bayle at this point (p.238), with Roscoe quoting in a footnote the passage given above starting "On prétend" and adding a long comment which carries the footnote over to the following page (p.239). Strathern (for what it is worth) says the fistula was "caused by his long period in the saddle during his military campaigns" (p.266).


 * The second sentence of the sub-section is therefore a complete distortion of the cited source (Bayle) who was simply reporting what Varillas had written – and in this sense was not "independent".  Even so, Bayle does not vouch for what Varillas wrote "On prétend").


 * I observe that that these remarks significantly affect my original comments about Bayle without restoring the credibility of the statement quoted in the wiki article since in footnote (B) Bayle effectively disowns it. The "fistula" point is pure WP:FRINGE. Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= Third sentence - Part 1 =

The first part of the third sentence in the sub-section reads:-

''Leo's 19th-century biographer William Roscoe dismissed [Bayle's allegations] as Protestant polemic, failing to take into account two of the leading papal historians of the time who shared a belief that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice" these were Leo's governor Francesco Guicciardini, who wrote "At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to those kinds of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named". . ''

Two cited sources are noted at the end of the quote. These are: Guicciardini Storia d'Italia (no book or chapter ref. given; the actual ref. is Book 16, cap. XII; cf. Book 11, cap.VIII), and Joseph McCabe, A History of the Popes, 1939, p. 409. The referend of this latter citation is opaque.

The first part of the translation from Guicciardini is not very accurate. The original reads "Credettesi per molti, nel primo tempo del pontificato, che è fusse castissimo; ma si scoperse poi dedito eccessivamente e ogni di più senza vergogna, in quegli piaceri che con onestà no si possono nominare." The translation should be more to this effect:- "It was believed by many, in the first part of his pontificate, that he was very chaste; but it was then discovered that he was excessively addicted, with increasing shamelessness, to those pleasures which virtue forbids us to name."

The main question here is whether Guicciardini is reliable, any assessment as to which must come from a reliable source. I see that CarlosPn provided some relevant material on the article's talkpage in 2009 and 2014:-


 * CarlosPn section 9 (13 May, 2009): [Pastor] adnotes also that Guicciardini was not a resident of a papal court during Leo's pontificate, that on another occasion he contradicts himself in his statements concerning Leo's moral conduct


 * CarlosPn section 15 (16 December 2014): Pastor dismissed this testimony as unreliable, noting that Guicciardini was not a resident of papal court under Leo X and that on the other place (apparently in Storia d'Italia) he expressed completly different opinion about morality of Leo X . . The note in question is to the following fragment: As to the purity of the morals of Leo X., it can only be said that as a Cardinal his reputation in this respect was absolutely spotless ; there is no proof that as Pope he was in any way different.


 * I take this "fragment" to be a quote from Pastor. Contrary to what CarlosPn supposed, the adverse passage is certainly in Storia d'Italia; so what is the source of this other passage (relied on by Pastor) which allegedly contradicts it?  Then again, there is a question mark over Pastor's own partiality in favour of the Church, but CarlosPn had addressed this too (talkpage section 15) arguing that Pastor's analysis of claims adverse to popes can be perverse, but that in the case of Leo X his analysis is solid. Pastor continues to be freely cited by academics as a source, especially on cultural matters.

As for the rest of this first part of the sentence under examination, I note these problems :-

(1) Which reliable source says Roscoe "failed to take into account" anything? It is certainly false (see Part 3 below).

(2) Which reliable source says Guicciardini and Giovio were "two of the leading papal historians of the time"? "Contemporary historians" suffices. Giovio is not in the same rank as Guicciardini: Zimmerman, p.271, says the former worked within the constraints of an obsolete historiographical tradition which it took the genius of the latter to transcend.

(3) Which reliable source says Giovio and Guicciardini "shared a belief that Leo engaged in 'unnatural vice' ", and why is this phrase in quotation marks? Neither of the cited contemporary sources uses this phrase.

(4) "Leo's governor" is uninformative. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Leo took him into service in 1515 and appointed him civil governor of Reggio and Modena and (in 1521) Parma. He began the Storia probably in 1536 and died in 1540 before its final revision. The key feature of Guicciardini's evidence about Leo is that it is non-particular about the pleasures alluded to (note the plural) and is given in a book begun 15 years after Leo's death.

Comments
(comments are most welcome) Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= Third sentence - Part 2 =

The second part of the third sentence in the sub-section reads:-

. . and the bishop, historian and physician to Clement VII Paolo Giovio, who explained that "the pope did not escape the accusation of infamy, for the love he showed several of his chamberlains smacked of scandal in its playful liberality", and suggesting that what occurs in the night remain left unexamined.

The cited sources, again, are bundled at the end, and they are McCabe, p.409 (again); Giovius, Vita (no closer ref. given); and Zimmerman's 1995 book on Giovio (no page ref. given).

(1) Since there is a link to Giovio it seems excessive to identify him so elaborately.

(2) I have no serious problem with the rather free but faithful translation of the Latin (which is the passage shown in quotation marks, although I would replace "for" by "in that", reflecting the construction quod+subjunctive used for virtual indirect speech). What it does not do is manifest a "belief [held by Giovio] that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice." (3) Nor does the paraphrase that follows manifest a "belief [held by Giovio] that Leo engaged in 'unnatural vice'.". This paraphrase is not only ungrammatical ("who explained . .  and suggesting"; "remain left unexamined") but is an inadequate representation of what immediately follows the "infamy" passage in the original.  Nothing Giovio wrote justifies the assertion that he held (or shared) "a belief that Leo engaged in 'unnatural vice' ".  Quite the contrary.  Giovio is unequivocal that Leo was chaste before and after his election (a testimony which even Bayle could recognise – see above).

(4) Furthermore, Roscoe does indeed cite the precise passage of Giovio quoted in the sentence in the sub-section in as much as he closely paraphrased it in the text and quoted it in full in a footnote (vol. IV, p.483 and 484, footnote (a)). The claim that Roscoe "[failed] to take into account . . . Giovio" is, therefore, false.

(5) Nothing in Zimmerman supports the statement in the text of the sub-section, and that reference can only have been added to give a spurious access of credibility. The sole allusion by Zimmerman is on p.23 where we read that Giovio"'. . also revealed 'the darker sides of of Leo's character and pontificate, the political ruthlessness surprising in so amiable a character, and the faults of his private life and character. The 'outstanding virtues of a liberal and lofty mind,' Giovio cautioned, in a particularly Senecan passage, 'were obscured not only by an excessively luxurious style of life but by passions of a nature opposed to those very virtues.' . . [Giovio] noted with disapproval the pope's familiar banter with his chamberlains-handsome young men from noble families-and the advantage he was said to take of them."

Zimmerman, I might add, has gratuitously described the chamberlains as "handsome young men", a description doubtless true, but nowhere to be found in Giovio's text. Higher up on the same page, I might add, Zimmerman quotes Giovio's encomium on the golden age of Rome established by Leo: according to Giovio "a pope of preeminent virtue and amplitude" (p.23). The upshot is that Bayle (1697), Roscoe (1805) and Zimmerman (1995), while noting that Giovio reports slanders against Leo, all concur in the view that he had no doubts about Leo's sexual continence. I have yet to find a source asserting the contrary.

Comments
(comments are most welcome) Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= Third sentence - Part 3 = The unsuccessful attempt to discredit Roscoe.

What is at issue here is Roscoe's dismissal of Bayle's insinuation that the ulcer which afflicted Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici was referable to "Venerean combat". The sub-section as it stands claims that Roscoe's strictures against Bayle are vitiated by his failure to cite Giovio or Guicciardini on this point. This claim is partly false and partly sophistry :-


 * Roscoe did cite Giovio in this specific connection (footnote (c) to page 238 of vol. 2 of the 1806 2nd edn edition, running over to page 239)


 * the reason he did not cite Guicciardini is because Guicciardini did not mention the ulcer in connection with any "irregularities of life": see, e.g. Book 13, VII (p.187, line 26) in connection with the Petrucci conspiracy which involved introducing poison through the aid of Batista da Vercelli, famoso chirurgico: ". . il Pontefice, il quale per una fistola antica che aveva sotto le natiche usava continuamente la opera di medici di quella professione." This is the first reference in the sources to a fistula as such, which Guicciardini, let it be noted, locates "under the buttocks".

The only point that can possibly survive scrutiny is the fact that Roscoe does not cite Guicciardini in the passage in vol. 4 (pp. 483-486) where he rejects en masse the generalised attacks on Leo's morals which he asserts are unfounded (p.486). Since Guicciardini's insinuations fall within this class, it would not be necessary for Roscoe to cite him by name. Contemporary testimony from Matteo Herculano (quoted by Roscoe in footnote (a) on page 485) is express that Leo not only manifested sexual continence before and during his pontificate, but that, more remarkably, he was also free from every imputation of incontinence during his life. The adverse imputations are all post-obit.

For more on the fistula, see my UPDATE to Comments under "Second Sentence", above at 3.1.

Comments
(comments are most welcome) Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

= Fourth sentence = There were suggestions that Count Ludovico Rangone and Galeotto Malatesta were among Leo's lovers, and there were numerous pasquinades posted around Rome's statues to that effect (even though they are inevitably an unreliable source).

The source cited at the end of the sentence is Valerio Marucci (ed.), Pasquinate del Cinque e Seicento, Salerno, Rome 1988, p. 170. In the first place I observe that the verse libels known as pasquinades were pasted not "around Rome's statues" but on a small group of specific statues (known as "talking statues"), principally that known as Pasquino.

The sentence appears to make two distinct claims: (A) the "suggestions" relating to Ludovico Rangone and Galeotto Malatesta; and (B) the existence of "numerous pasquinades . . . to that effect". In fact, the imputations regarding LR and GM were themselves pasquinades, of the sub-set known as satirical epitaphs (see Giovanni dell'Orto's website). Why any space is being devoted to a primary source "inevitably. . . unreliable" and in fact rejected by Falconi is a mystery, and, having regard to the flimsiness of the other material alleged in support of the claim that Leo was "homosexual", is purely prejudicial.

Comments (including motivated objections and corrections)
(comments are most welcome)

= Fifth sentence = ''Carlo Falconi has examined in particular Leo's infatuation with the seventeen-year old Venetian noble Marcantonio Flaminio, with Leo arranging the best education that could be offered for the time. However, suspicions of Leo's motives seem to have led to the direct intervention of Marcantonio's father, who took the unusual step for the time of refusing the career in the church that Leo had mapped out for the son and instead demanded a return to Bologna.''

(1) Once again, a string of citations – this time seemingly buttressing a statement that is tied exclusively to the testimony of Falconi. These are:- Cesareo, Pasquino e pasquinate [ecc.], Wotherspoon & Aldrich (eds.) Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History, Wagner, Missverstandus und Vuororteil in "Der Unterdruckte sexus" (this form of citation does not accord with wiki-policy, and the German orthography is clearly defective), and Falconi himself. I observe that not one of these citations offers a page reference. Since there is an article on Leo X by Giovanni Dall'Orto in the Wotherspoon book (p.264), it is reasonable to assume this is what that reference intends to cite.

(2) The sentence is full of what I suspect is editorialising interpretation. The following claims are not found in the summation on Dall'Orto's website:-
 * "examined" attributes a depth of consideration of the sources that is not justified. Falconi considered the case of Flaminio and concurred in the tentative conclusion that Roscoe had previously reached (see below under "Suspicions of Leo's motives").
 * Where (if at all) does F characterise Leo's interest as an "infatuation"?
 * Nowhere, if we believe that Dall'Orto intended to put the best construction on source material in order to justify not only the relative biographical entry on his website (Storia gay), but also his article on Leo X in the book Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History, p.264 where he goes so far as to say that Marcantonio "pleased Leo so well that he offered to take him under his protection and to pay the best tutors for his lessons". This in the context that Marcantonio, when 16, had been taken to Rome by his father.  Next, Dall'Orto, still paraphrasing Falconi, explains "The purpose of the trip was to present to the new pope a poem urging him to wage war against the Turks".  Leo's enthusiastic reception could as well have been a response to the boy's manifest intellectual accomplishments as to his speculative personal attractions.  On the Storia gay website, the Italian for Leo's interest is attirò subito le simpatie di papa Medici. "Infatuation" is pure editorialising. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Leo arranging": he offered to provide for the education of a boy who was something of a prodigy and later became a noted for his Latin poetry and for his advanced (for the time) theological interests.
 * "Suspicions of Leo's motives": what was the nature of the suspicions, and who entertained them?
 * From Dall'Orto's article in Wotherspoon et al. (p.264):- "The story has led Falconi, not without reason, to imagine that [Marcantonio's father] suspected (or even knew about) the pope's ulterior motives". In this, Dall'Orto is going too far, for on his website he quotes directly from Falconi who wrote (pp.456f.):- "Un rifiuto, come ha cautamente osservato il Roscoe, che 'può indurre in qualche sospetto: che o il padre o  il figlio non approvassero la morale, e le pratiche della romana corte, o non fossero pienamente soddisfatti della condotta del pontefice'." [a refusal, as Roscoe cautiously observed, that "might induce a suspicion: that either the father or the son did not approve of the morals and manners of the Roman Court, or had not been fully satisfied with the conduct of the pontiff" - see Roscoe, vol.1, pp.439f.].  The suspicions therefore were not necessarily held with respect to Leo at all. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Seem to have led": seem to whom to have led?
 * "unusual step for the time": who says so?
 * "the career . . that Leo had mapped out": pure surmise.  One of Leo's secretaries offered him a post which would have been an introduction to a career, but the statement that the actual career had been mapped out is extravagant.

Comments (including motivated objections and corrections)
(comments are most welcome)

= Edit history =

Inklings, 2002-2008
1. The article Leo X was created in February 2002 out of material in an unidentified "old encyclopedia (1888)" and was brought to its current state in January 2007 by Attilios who re-based it on the article "Leo X" in The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). Neither encyclopedia (1888 and 1911) made any reference to Leo's sexual habits.

2. On 5 March 2008 Contaldo80 added a new sub-section "Sexuality" under "Reformation and last years". The opening sentence read "Various indications point to Leo's homosexuality". The material was organised in three paras, the second of which presented the view taken by Falconi (1987) of the story of Marcantonio Flaminio. The third speculated that the question of Leo's homosexuality "may in future be discussed on the basis of firmer evidence." – a clear statement that the claim was not at all secure and reposed on speculation.

3. As was pointed out by the editor who deleted the sub-section on 2 May 2008, Contaldo80's edit plagiarised part of an article by Giovanni Dall'Orto at page 264 of a book edited by Wotherspoon and Aldrich entitled Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History.

4. In response, Contaldo80 made a new edit on 11 May 2008 restoring the sub-section with a paraphrase of the formerly plagiarised material presented in two paragraphs. The first opened with the sentence "Several historians have suggested the likelihood that Leo may have been homosexual." (no inline citation given). The second rehashed Falconi's treatment but with two significant additions:- it was now said first, that Leo was "infatuat[ed] with younger men"; and second, that "Leo is said to have fallen in love with Marc'Antonio". Neither statement appears in Giovanni Dall'Orto's article in Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History. Nor is it remotely likely that it derives from Falconi, for Dall'Orto, on his storia gay webpage, relies heavily on Falconi's book for evidence about Leo (quoting from it, indeed) and yet we find no hint of this sentimentality there either. Thus, this interpretative leap into Leo's emotional inner life by way of "infatuation" and "falling in love" can only be attributed to Contaldo80 himself.

5. On 13 August 2008 CarlosPn moved the sub-section from "Reformation and last years" to "Behaviour and papacy". On 30 October 2008 Contaldo80 changed the title of the section "Behaviour [etc.] to "Legacy", changed the title of the sub-section from "Sexuality" to "Personal relationships" and re-wrote some of the material, deleting in particular the reference to Wotherspoon and Aldrich and abbreviating the para discussing Marcantonio Flaminio. The claims of "infatuation" and "falling in love", however, remained as did the tentative assertion made in the opening sentence of the sub-section: "Several historians have suggested the likelihood that Leo may have been homosexual." (no inline source offered).

Comment
The 220-word coda to an article by Giovanni Dall'Orto in Wotherspoon & Aldrich (2000) may be said to represent the high water mark of pseudo-academic claims that Leo X was "homosexual" (idem., p.264). That coda commences: "Various indications point to Leo's homosexuality. The principal evidence is the account of the historian Francesco Guicciardini." Here Dall'Orto quotes the famous sentence from Storia d'Italia, Book XVI, cap. XII. He then adds: "the accusation of sodomy often reappeared in libellous tracts, one of which, written after his death, named Count Ludovico Rangone and Galeotto Malatesta as his lovers."

Then Dall'Orto cites Falconi, who, he says: "finds particularly significant the story of Marc'Antonio Flaminio." There follows a quote from Falconi's book: "He was taken to Rome in 1514 by his father Gian Antonio when he was barely sixteen years of age. The purpose of the trip was to present to the new pope a poem urging him to wage war against the Turks". Dall'Orto then paraphrases, to this effect: "The youth pleased Leo so well that he offered to take him under his protection and to pay the best tutors for his lessons. However, Gian Antonio declined the offer, and the boy returned home, though he later managed to change his father's mind." In 1515 Gian Antonio ordered the boy (by then back in Rome) to go to Bologna to study "at which point" - Dall'Orto again paraphrasing Falconi - "the pope intervened and had his secretary, Beroaldo, offer to take the youth into the papal secretariate. Thus the doors to a career, to which many better educated and more powerful men aspired, effortlessly opened to a 17-year-old youth.  Yet Gian Antonio again forced his son to decline the proposition.  The story has led Falconi, not without reason, to imagine that Gian Antonio suspected (or even knew about) the pope's ulterior motives." As we shall see, this is a perversion of Falconi's view.

The coda closes with this: "The existence of other unpublished documents suggests that the question of Leo's homosexuality may in future be discussed on the basis of firmer evidence." The sources Dall'Orto gives are (1) Cesareo, Pasquino e pasquinate nella Roma di Leone X (1938) esp. pp. 74f. and 88; and (2) Falconi, Leone X (1987), pp.455-61.

To summarise, according to Dall'Orto there are three "indications" that "point" to something:- (1) The "principal evidence" is the guarded and allusive reference by Guicciardini to "those kinds of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named" (in quegli piaceri che con onestà no si possono nominare). Then (2) libellous tracts (in fact, the pasquinades are brief verses, not tracts at all); and (3) the Flaminio story as examined by Falconi, as to which Dall'Orto misrepresents Falconi's conclusions which, as it happens, are precisely those reached by Roscoe in 1805 (and which Falconi quotes in an Italian translation). The final comment about the possibility of firmer evidence emerging from as yet unpublished documents is a candid reminder that what has preceded amounts to no more than "indications [which] point" in a certain direction. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Enter Strathern 2009
6. On 12 May 2009, CarlosPn introduced material balancing the tentative claim of homosexuality, viz., by reference to the views of Herbert Vaughan and Ludwig von Pastor ("Many authors reject the accusations of immorality . . "). At the same time a new source, Strathern, was added, who (so it was said at the end of the sub-section) "concludes that Leo was not an active homosexual . . " This, I might add, was a hostage to fortune since Strathern says nothing whatever about Leo's sexuality.

7. The next day Contaldo80 amended the previous edit by, inter alia, deleting the reference to Vaughan thus making it seem that only von Pastor rejected the accusations of immorality.

8. On 14 July 2009 Contaldo80 again changed the title of the sub-section, from "Personal relationships" to "Character" and again re-edited the material, although the opening sentence remained tentative "Several historians have suggested Leo may have been . . ". Strathern, still referenced only at the end of the sub-section, is now said to "argue" rather than "conclude" that "Leo X was not an active homosexual".

9. On 24 October 2010 an anonymous editor described the sub-section as "a mess" and made a citation request against the first sentence "Several historians have suggested . . ". On 12 November 2010 Realism1972 deleted material from the Character sub-section.

10. On 2 December 2010 Contaldo80 (1) restored the deleted material, (2) deleted the citation request, (3) cited Strathern as the sole source for the opening sentence (now reading "Some historians" in place of "Several historians"), and (4) expanded the later reference to Strathern to read " . . argues that Leo X while homosexual was not sexually active" [my italics for the expansion]. This new statement that Strathern "argues that Leo [was] homosexual" was not true.

11. On 26 December 2010 Contaldo80 changed the verb in the opening sentence from "suggested" to "concluded" and changed the subject of the verb from "Some modern historians" to "Several modern historians". At this point, there was still only one inline reference for the opening sentence: Strathern - and that citation was, of course, untrue.

12. On 28 October 2011 Contaldo80 changed the title of the sub-section yet again to "Homosexuality" ( from "Character"). On 30 March 2012 Kaihoku raised the sub-section "Homosexuality" to a new section on the ground that sexuality is not part of character.

13. The balancing para reporting the contrary view of von Pastor was deleted by PiCo on 13 October 2012, bizarrely offering the justification WP:NPOV.

Comment
It was CarlosPn who first introduced mention of Strathern who, in company with Pastor and Vaughan, proposed a view of Leo's sexual morality in conflict with the lead claim : "Several historians have suggested Leo may have been homosexual". That claim, first introduced by Contaldo80 on 11 May 2008, stood without any inline citation for 30 months until an anonymous editor logged a citation request on 24 October 2010. In response, Contaldo80, despite giving only Strathern as the source, changed "Several historians" to "Some historians". At the same time he amended the existing reference to Strathern at the end of the sub-section so that it no longer read as a counter-weight, but was converted into its opposite - an untrue assertion that Strathern claimed Leo was "homosexual". Three weeks later, on 26 December 2010, Contaldo80 changed the verb in the lead sentence from "suggested" to "concluded" and reverted his own amendment of "Several historians" to "Some historians".

These cumulative edits by Contaldo80 made Strathern appear to be the major proponent of the proposition that Leo was "homosexual". In fact, in the cited book (which we shall assume Contaldo80 had never read) Strathern neither asserts nor hints anything about that pope's sexual preferences or activity. We shall see that two years later Contaldo80 finally accommodated the wording of the lead sentence to the fact that only one inline citation had been forthcoming (and that one false, as we now know). So, for almost 5 years (from 11 May 2008 until 18 January 2013) he let stand his own edit beginning "Several historians" with never more than one citation (and that one provided late in the day). It is notable that Falconi (whom Contaldo80 had introduced into the sub-section from his first "homosexual" edit on 5 March 2008) was not offered as an inline citation for the lead claim of "Several historians" until 22 March 2013. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Resistance, 2013-2015
14. On 13 January 2013 the section "Homosexuality" was retitled "Personal life" by an anonymous editor who also changed the verb in the opening sentence from "concluded" to "claimed". Subsequently, the title was changed back to "Homosexuality" by Roscelese. Then Wkharrisjr scaled the section down to a sub-section. On 19 December 2013 Sparafucil renamed it "Alleged homosexuality" and on 30 June 2014 Rbreen renamed it "Sexuality" (with the chaotic justification that this was "more neutral approach"). The truth is that there has never been anything more than speculation, supposition and allegation supporting these wild claims that Leo X was homosexual.

15. On 18 January 2013 Contaldo80 replaced "Several modern historians" in the opening sentence with "At least one modern historian"; on 29 January 2013 Roscelese restored the previous formula and changed the verb "has claimed" (per 13 January 2013 edit) back to "have concluded".

16. On 22 March 2013 Contaldo80 for the first time cited Falconi in support of the opening sentence.

17. A sentence referring to Leo's "possible homosexuality" was added to the lede by Sparafucil on 5 April 2013; deleted on 12 August 2013 by an anonymous editor and reverted by Contaldo80 two days later. On 13 January 2014 an anonymous editor deleted it again, and Contaldo80 reverted the next day.

18. On 4 December 2013 Contaldo80 added the complex sentence (a) introducing Bayle's allegation of sexual immorality, (b) noting Roscoe's rejection of that allegation but (c) mitigating the impact of Roscoe's view by alleging he had failed to take into account the evidence of Guicciardini and Giovio.

19. The first edit by El Huinca deleted the entire sub-section on grounds WP:EXCEPTIONAL on 17 December 2013.

20. El Huinca's second edit (14 December 2014) was reverted by Contaldo80 on 22 December, offering no justification. El Huinca restored his edit on 29 December objecting WP:REVEXP against Contaldo80. On 1 January 2015 (1) Frimoussou reverted back, (2) El Huinca reverted again, (3) Frimoussou reverted claiming WP:OR, (4) El Huinca reverted back, (5) Frimoussou reverted back again.

Comment
Apart from what appears from the edit history, substantial and eirenic discussion about sources relative to Leo's sexual mortality is recorded in [Talk:Pope Leo X]] in May 2009 (topic 9, "Knowledge or speculation") to which Contaldo80 and CarlosPn were the main contributors.

Although there was brief sparring in December 2013 and January 2014 in topic 14 ("Alleged homosexuality") between El Huinca and Contaldo80, to which Kansas Bear made some pertinent observations in December 2014, this cannot be compared with an explosion of interventions in topics 15 to 18 in the months of December 2014 and January 2015, to which I contributed. The other major contributors from December 2014 onwards are Contaldo80, El Huinca, CarlosPn, and Frimoussou.

A long and sterile discussion about the correct translation and meaning of two 16th c. Italian texts occupied much of topic 16 ("Content dispute with conduct issues"). If it had a merit, it was in showing that the evidence of Guicciardini and Giovio is expressed in too guarded and too allusive a manner to be relied upon. Even allowing that Guicciardini is probably talking about (inter alia) sexual promiscuity in Book XVI, cap.XII, nothing whatever points to sexual behaviour with men. Giovio, for his part, seems to confirm that Leo did "flirt" (if that is the correct word) with his male personal attendants, but it is tolerably clear (the Latin is particularly dense here) that he did not credit the rumours of impropriety and held in disdain those who sought to pry into what went on in the bedroom. It is only by illicitly (WP:SYNTH in wikipedia terms) combining these two pieces of primary evidence that any kind of argument can be erected that it was generally accepted that Leo was "homosexual" (I keep using the apostrophes because the use of this term necessarily involves projecting modern ideas into the past - the pasquinades show that contemporary thought was directed at sodomy not same-sex attraction).

In that often intense and occasionally brittle exchange that erupted in December 2014 and January 2015, three contributors (myself, El Huinca and CarlosPn) were concerned that the text of the sub-section was unbalanced whereas Contaldo80 and Frimoussou were more concerned with defending it as it stood. Contaldo80, in particular, was adamant about what the evidence showed:"The claims above are rather hysterical. The homosexuality of Leo X is relatively well documented (considering the subject and the period). Sources cited include bishops and contemporary historians. Contaldo80 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"

For all that, Frimoussou showed a laudable desire to achieve a proper balance in his comments on the evenings of 2 and 3 January 2015 (topic 18, "Content dispute with conduct issues"), and has been the only editor to comment in this sandbox - again, in quite a positive spirit of cooperation. On the other hand, under topic 16 ("Leo X was homosexual") he posted rather aggressive comments on 12 and 13 January 2015 which were not free of imputations of partisanship - implicit bad faith - against Catholics.

Contaldo80 himself, in comments made under the same topic on 23 and 27 January, after he had taken the opportunity to scrutinise other edits of mine, accused me of bias and offered that as his excuse for not joining in the sandbox. In doing this he misrepresented my comments rather seriously:"You also talk about the absurdity of a pope being homosexual, and yet happily edit articles like the Virgin of Chiquinquirá with genuinely 'absurd' and impossible tales around miraculous pictorial images. Why not be honest - you don't like associating the leader of the Catholic church with the charge of homosexuality? Or else aren't you able to keep an open mind. By all means interrogate the sources - but with the objective of finding the most reasonable answer, and not trying simply to discredit 'the procrustean bed of a tired and artificial construct'. The absolute certainty you have that Leo was not - and could not have been - homosexual scares me, and really suggests you are not capable of neutrality. Contaldo80 09:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)"

I made no posts "about the absurdity of a pope being homosexual", nor did I ever opine "that Leo was not - and could not have been - homosexual". Later Contaldo80 posted this (his last comment to date):"Can I also make clear Ridiculus mus that I will refuse to engage with your sandbox exercise until you can reassure me that you are capable of taking a neutral approach - and you are not trying to find a solution that meets Catholic sensibilities. Contaldo80 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"

No new comments were made until my creation of two new topics in February (March 2015, announcing this sandbox and denouncing the Bayle sentence respectively) which gave rise to a single intervention by CarlosPn.

= The hermeneutic of suspicion =