Talk:John of Ravenna

Numbers assigned
"John X" was the 11th bishop of that name for Ravenna. The "Johns" have been misnumbered following the erroneous listing by Andreas Agnellus in his Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis: he conflated John I and John II as "John Angeloptes", omitting one "John". Giovanni da Besate's WP article (John X (archbishop of Ravenna) unnecessarily included "X" in its title; it could easily be moved to a naturally disambiguated title, like Giovanni Vincenzo or Giovanni da Besate. Because of that "X" in the article name, I have kept to that in the listing here, although it is spurious. The others are all numbered as they are ordered in non-Agnellus ([slightly] less antique) sources. To avoid mis-ordering, succession numbers are now listed discontinuously: the bishop that was redlinked as John IX, archbishop (905–914) now misses the ordinal, as there is a unique name available. It has been renamed "John of Tossignano, archbishop of Ravenna 905–914, later Pope John X". (It is preferable not to obscure links by piping them the way this one was, anyway: as "Pope John X|John IX"). "John IX" is now used in its correct position for the bishop in office 898–904.
 * Thomas Hodgkin (historian) (1892) "Bishops and Churches of Ravenna"
 * Darley Dale (1920) "Agnellus of Ravenna American Catholic Quarterly Review Vol. 45 No. 177

This could be sidestepped if the naturally unique names, where available, were used, including in redlinks. Also, there were several versions of the redlinks for the same Johns (e.g as "Giovanni") both here and in the Bishop of Ravenna article. I've tried to unify them, but as they mostly linked to one page each, it was a 50/50 guess which one should be preferred. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your numbers are wrong. For example:
 * Veronica West-Harling, Rome, Ravenna, and Venice, 750–1000: Byzantine Heritage, Imperial Present, and the Construction of City Identity, p. 218, gives John V's dates as 726–744.
 * Edward M. Schoolman, Rediscovering Sainthood in Italy: Hagiography and the Late Antique Past in Medieval Ravenna, p. 200, gives John IX's dates as 905–914.
 * Judith Herrin, Ravenna: Capital of Empire, Crucible of Europe, p. 209, gives John II's dates as 578–595. The index calls him 'the Roman'.
 * In short, three modern sources all agree with the previous numbering. Moreover, the Italian WP (Arcidiocesi di Ravenna-Cervia) agrees with it. I do not believe there was an early 5th-century bishop named John. Srnec (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you have seen the Bishop of Ravenna page, and the quote from Hodgkin explaining Agnellus' misdating at all? What did you think of that and the quote there? Or the other link, above, for Dale?
 * And yes, I see what you mean about John V and IX, etc., and those sources. To tell the truth I knew this would be tricky and I do not really have a good solution. The fact remains that there was indeed a Bishop of Ravenna named John around 430, to the John of 477–494; there is no doubt about that at all.
 * The CE is a little confused (and dusty) but mentions the 430-433 John, a later 5th-century John, as Hodgkin and others  do. And this 1980 article suggests that John VIII (as I have it) is ... well, John VIII!
 * I cannot see that the Italian Arcidiocesi di Ravenna article having the same erroneous listing is relevant. Plenty of confusion on this topic has been generously spread around!
 * There needs to be a list that makes sense includes Angeloptes and the later 5th-century John without adding confusion. How to reconcile that with WP:COMMON, the sources, etc., I do not know. I only know we must incorporate factual information, despite it being messy and hard to present in this case.
 * I will try to think of some better alternatives, and post here again. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced there was a John in c. 430–433. I think the the Bishop of Ravenna article and its sources are wrong on this. Agnellus, of course, has only one John. Here is what Deliyannis' translation of Agnellus says in a footnote:"John I reigned after Exuperantius, from 477 to 494; however, because of Agnellus's misunderstanding of his sources, the events told in his Life cover the years 423–94. The church of St. Laurence was certainly built in the early fifth century, presumably under the sponsorship of Honorius; it is mentioned by St. Augustine in his Sermon 322. Agnellus tells us below that Bishop John consecrated the altar of St. Laurence, a piece of information he probably learned from an inscription; this may simply refer to the altar, and not to the entire church."In her list of bishops in Ravenna in Late Antiquity (p. 304), she has no space for a John between Ursus and Peter I and her numbering matches the former numbering of this page. Is there any source other than Agnellus for a bishop named John in the early 5th century? Srnec (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, when you ask "Is there any source other than Agnellus" for an early 5th century John?, because that's the problem: Agnellus the earlier John, so not sure what you mean ...The confusion has arisen in the historiography because he used the earlier John's epithet for the later 5th-century John. (He conflated the two, as if they were one.) So, when you say, "source other than Agnellus"...?
 * The numbering should, perhaps, go back – mostly – to the previous version due to WP:COMMON, but it has to accommodate two fifth-century Johns. I was not the editor who originally introduced John Angeloptes, I just wanted to smooth out the titles / numbering, as, for other, off-wiki reasons, I was aware of his existence and the "Agnellus problem". I did not realise I would have to prove his existence, but if I end up having to convince you to get to a sane numbering scheme, I will try. I can provide more sources than the ones [above] below  – which are accessibly linked and mostly do mention the two fifth-century Johns – but that is really a separate issue. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, think I might be speaking (writing) at cross purposed here. Or there's something I don't understand in your post. Or something? I will come back to it when I am able to form a clearer idea of what is meant. Sorry and thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I should have said is, "What is the source for an early 5th-century bishop named John?" From my reading, it seems to be a conclusion derived from Agnellus's placing some of the late 5th-century John's actions early in the century (without realizing it). That is, as Deliyannis says in her note, Agnellus erroneously stretches John's career back in time to the early 5th century. What she doesn't say, that I say, is that some modern scholars (like Hodgkin) have seen this as evidence that Agnellus has actually combined two Johns into one (rather than simply misdated some of John's acts). Who is right? Is there one late 5th-century John whose acts are partially misdated by Agnellus or are there two Johns in the 5th century whom Agnellus has mischaracterized as a single individual? Agnellus has only one John, so what is the basis for saying there are two? Srnec (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my misunderstanding, Srnec; that makes sense.
 * From what I have gathered, Thomas Hodgkin was following Holder-Egger's annotated version of Agnellus in Monumenta Germaniae Historica. According to Holder-Egger (1878): That is, John I was elected bishop around 418, from a letter of Pope Zosimus (417–418). He says that this John I had died by, at the latest, 440,  and that, from sources external to Agnellus, Peter Chrysologus was definitely the immediate successor of John I (the 'died in 433' version) meaning that the later John, of the extant inscription, has to be another person.
 * It could be erroneous, for sure, but it is not a case of Holder-Egger merely inferring a separate John because Agnellus has confusedly stretched events of first John's history (or, John XX, the 20th bishop, as it's usually shown in editions of Agnellus) over a longer and earlier period than is possible (for the John of 477–494). He had other sources, which I am not qualified to judge – not least because I am only learning Latin! – but it's clear in his numerous footnotes and citations that he had evidence he considered in drawing his conclusion; his competence and scholarship would be regarded by experts as sound, I'd have thought. I'd be reluctant to disregard what seems a reliable source (just as I would be to disregard Deliyannis ). AukusRuckus (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. A letter of Pope Zosimus would appear to be the ultimate source for the theory that Agnellus has combined two Johns. I see Holder-Egger cites it as Jaffé 137. It appears to be a letter dated 3 October 418. This is the letter Ex relatione, available here. There appears to be a complete English translation here (if it doesn't work, try Cambridge University Press via WikiLibrary). No bishop John here. In fact, no bishop at all, which is what I think Holder-Egger means by "suspicari possis". He is guessing that the earlier John must have been elected around the time of the vacancy implied by Zosimus directing a letter to the church at Ravenna without naming the bishop. If I am correct, this still leaves us with no evidence beyond Agnellus for an earlier bishop John. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Srnec, that helps.
 * But I think I may have misrepresented or somewhat oversimplified Holder-Egger. If you look at his annotations throughout, you will see he has something of a fully-integrated timeline. He goes into documentation, for example, around the Peters, or who Felix is connected with, and so on, and how that fits into succession timing overall. There are known identities attending councils, or otherwise interacting with events or people at fixed points and he extrapolates from the certainties. I do not believe someone such as Holder-Egger has based an entire schema on something so flimsy as a single tangential letter, and I'm embarrassed that I inadvertently suggested that.
 * I'm sorry my Latin is not up to untangling that web, (as it seems yours might be?). I have read offline (English!) material that riffs on Holder-Egger's primary sources and Ravenna, which is how I came to know a tiny little bit about his writings. I will see if I can find online versions. (This will not happen speedily, as I have very low vision, and online accessibility can sometimes be a barrier.)
 * A little mystifying, to me at least, that Deliyannis refers often to Holder-Egger, citing him as support, presenting reasoning where she does not concur, as:


 * and especially: and yet does not address Holder-Egger's assessment of the first Johns at all. It's a strange silence to me, given she pushes back, in a scholarly way, in other areas. I'd love to ask the author why; although, even if I could, this talk page is already super-OR directed! AukusRuckus (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm stilling not seeing actual evidence for an early 5th-century John apart from Agnellus. This seems to come down to competing interpretations of Agnellus. I read Deliyannis complete avoidance of the issue as a sign that the theory of two Johns was passé and unnecessary in light of Agnellus' other chronological mistakes. The net will have to be cast wider to resolve this, but I do not support the current enumeration, contradicting modern reliable sources as it does. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My intention (in my last remarks above) was not to supply evidence, but purely to say that Holder-Egger did not base his conclusion on a single letter, as I accidentally suggested. (About chasing his arguments: I do not read Latin well; do you?) And then, that the source apparently used by us to determine that there definitely two 5th-century Johns, itself uses Holder-Egger as a secondary source, sometimes disagreeing with it, but is silent on this specific contention. It may well be for the reason that it's passé, as you say, but Deliyannis' silence is not evidence of that, and we can conclude nothing from it. I merely found it intriguing. [Hidden: AukusRuckus (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]
 * My intention (in my last remarks above) was not to supply evidence, but purely to say that Holder-Egger did not base his conclusion on a single letter, as I accidentally suggested. (About chasing his arguments: I do not read Latin well; do you?) And then, that the source apparently used by us to determine that there definitely two 5th-century Johns, itself uses Holder-Egger as a secondary source, sometimes disagreeing with it, but is silent on this specific contention. It may well be for the reason that it's passé, as you say, but Deliyannis' silence is not evidence of that, and we can conclude nothing from it. I merely found it intriguing. [Hidden: AukusRuckus (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)]


 * When you say "I'm still not seeing actual evidence", am I to understand that evidence beyond reliable sources' understanding of there being two Johns is required? Are we straying, then, into WP:OR? You say: "the current enumeration, contradicting modern reliable sources as it does", in regards to that, I commented below, in response to "I cited multiple sources for the numbering, so I don't necessarily agree that they come from Deliyannis" and went back to the Bishop of Ravenna article, but was not sure to which sources you were referring in that comment: Would that be Delyiannis, together with Martindale, Jones & Morris (1992) Prosopography?
 * Again, I really believe that the enumeration of bishops-as-article-titles (redlinks) and the historicity of an earlier John are two separate issues. I ask a question below about my understanding of redlinks. Could you assist?
 * Is there a WP project with an interest in this area? I would love some more input / help. I'll take a look round to see. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible alternative
What about this? A listing which eliminates as many numbers from the article titles as possible. The numbering that remains (mostly) returns to the old designations. This leaves gaps in the sequence of course, but with a short note, could that still work?:

A short explanatory note would be needed to cover the discontinuous numbering. And I strongly feel that John X (archbishop of Ravenna) article should be moved to either Giovanni Vincenzo, like the It:WP article or, possibly, Giovanni da Besate. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Updated (John 898 adjusted) AukusRuckus (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my view that the whole titling of prospective articles – the red links – with succession numbers is suboptimal. These are, in part, a cause of the confusion. Now that I've managed to find an accessible version of Deliyannis (2004; the first Agnellus in English translation), I realise it is from her that the succession numbers on the Bishop of Ravenna page have come about. They may not be WP:COMMON names at all. And for me, how best to label each John is a separate issue from the historicity of an earlier John, anyway. There are sources with the extra John, those without, some of both kinds seem quite reliable. The source dates are all over the place, too. But there are ways to present these (probably unresolvable) uncertainties. At the very least, I don't think we can just discard one version in favour of the other. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I cited multiple sources for the numbering, so I don't necessarily agree that they come from Deliyannis. After all, any reader of Agnellus would naturally number them the same way. See also my most recent response above. I think the previous numbering is both correct and standard, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every bishop's article must ultimately be titled that way. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Srnec. I didn't see other sources for the numbering. And I did not realise at all that you were the editor who placed the numerals. I'm interested in that, as Deliyannis says, as quoted above: "One deviation from the manuscripts, however, is that in the table of contents and the titles of the Lives, Roman numerals have been added for bishops with the same name (e.g., John I, John II, and so on)." (p. 308) Do other writers use it before 2004?
 * Perhaps, as you say, any reader of Agnellus would naturally number them like that. I've always thought succession numbers in such cases to be more of an internal thing, like a handy navigational aid as you're reading or discussing the work. Myself, I don't think I'd ever try to look up a bishop of Ravenna by a roman numeral – a pope or a king, yes, but with such a narrow, specific set, no. And I thought that was what we were supposed to try to do: Make red links that are couched as prospective-article titles; with article titles to be a term people are most likely to search ... ? AukusRuckus (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can find, nothing beyond Deliyannis and Holder-Egger attempt any kind of comprehensive episcopal-succession chronology. I did note, as you have, that there are sources that use succession numbers per Deliyannis / Agnellus. In my reading, though, this is always in discussing only a single John, or perhaps two or three. No-one (else) seems to give a comprehensive list or succession timeline. And, just as there's material agreeing with Deliyannis on a "per instance" basis, there's some that does not (for example, Belletzkie, cited above). That's not  modern (1980) of course, but there are more. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)