In the tenth century, roughly contemporary with some very powerful women in the Byzantine world, there were powerful women in Rome. The period is oh so delightfully known as the “pornocracy”, or the rule of the harlots.

“… two generations of aristocratic women managed to make or break the careers of several popes, some of whom they reportedly also bedded. The first of these women was Theodora (died ca. 926), who along with her husband, the Roman senator Theophylact (died ca. 920), led the dominant aristocratic faction in Rome and advanced several men to the papcy, including John X (reigning 914-28), her alleged lover, and Sergius III (reigning 904-11), who reportedly fathered a son with her teenaged daughter Marozia (ca. 892- ca.937). Later, assuming powers that her parents had exercised, Marozia orchestrated the deposing of John X and, after a brief interval, the elevation of her son John XI (reigning 931-36) to the papacy.”

From C.M. Rustici, The Afterlife of Pope Joan: Deploying the Popess Legend in Early Modern England Uni of Michigan Press, 2006, p. 2.

It follows what seems to be the generally accepted historical line, that Pope Joan didn’t actually exist, but arose as anti-papal satire or slander. One suggestion is that the “pornocracy” was at least part of the inspiration.

Rustici also suggests that it arose in the 12th and 13th century, when women were making “unprecedented demands” for participation in religious life.

“male orders such as the Premonstratensian canons and the Cistercian monks quickly felt overwhelmed by the number of nunneries that sought to affiliate with their foundations. … While the order had ignored them, Cistercian convents had developed extraordinarily autonomous practices. In 1210 Pope Innocent III noted with dismay that abbesses bestowed blessings, heard their nuns’ confessions, and preached from pulpits. Canon lawyers such as Bernard of Parlma found it necessary to argue that regardless of past practices women could not teach or preach, handle sacred vessels, or grant absolution. Women, however, resisted attempts to impose such restrictions. In 1243, for example, when the Cistercian abbess and sisters of Parc-Aux Dames learned of plans to curb their liberties, they shouted at official visitors and walked out of their chapter house in protest.” (p. 11)

There was also in the 13th and 14th century the beguine movement, communities of single women that “sought neither patrons nor papal authoization and functioned withour irreversible vows, a definite “rule” or disciplinary code … or a complex or hierarchical organisation”. … One bishop, Bruno of Olmutz, challenged the beguines apparent piety as a pretense for evading subjection to priest or husband”. (p.12)

Yes, it is in some ways anachronistic to describe all of this as feminist, yet in a broader sense it is not in the slightest bit anachronistic – women have always been fighting for autonomy and self-determination.