About This Bishop

Regnal dates: Unknown
Regnal length: Unknown
Profession before consecration: Unknown
Father: Unknown
Birth place: Unknown
Burial place: Unknown
Distinctive features: Unknown
Key players: St. Peter himself, Sinicius of Soissons, Divitian, Memmius

Episcopal Stats

Miracles performed: Unknown
Dead revived: Unknown
People converted: Unknown
Priests ordained: Unspecified, but elevation of Memmius to episcopal seat of Chalons, founding of Soissons and elevation of Sinicius to episcopal seat of Soissons were particularly important events.
Precious objects donated: Unknown
Churches built: Unknown
Martyred: Unknown
Interesting fact: Sixtus' successor Sinicius was buried with him, and the grace of the two saints thus bestowed on the church of Reims was clearly illustrated by miracles.

Sixtus’ life is a lovely example of the original Peter Principle (not that new-fangled incompetence theory that has overtaken the world, but the Petrine Doctrine of a Christian church based on St. Peter’s consecration as Christ’s successor) playing out in episcopal lives and authority structures. In Flodoard’s version of Sixtus’ life, St. Peter was a princeps of the church who acted as such, ordaining important successors and representatives like Sinicius to administrate valuable church property and endowing them with his own authority in the process.

Works cited: Historia Remensis Ecclesiae.

About This Bishop

Regnal dates: Unknown
Regnal length: 16 years
Profession before consecration: Unknown
Father: Unknown
Birth place: Unknown
Burial place: Unknown
Distinctive features: Unknown
Key players: Gregory the Great

Episcopal Stats

Miracles performed: Number unknown but described as "remarkable"
Dead revived: Unknown
People converted: Unknown
Priests ordained: Unknown
Precious objects donated: Unknown
Churches built: Unknown
Martyred: Unknown
Interesting fact: Sent by Pope Gregory the Great to minister to the Anglo-Saxons

William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Pontificum Anglorum begins with a single chapter on the early years of the see of Canterbury (597-690), a chapter based on Bede’s The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. (For more on this, see David Preest’s footnotes.) Still, each of the bishops mentioned is mentioned within the context of a discrete life that conforms to the structure of Carolingian gesta and the Liber Pontificalis.

Works cited: De Gestis pontificum Anglorum or The Deeds of the Bishops of England.

William of Malmesbury. De gestis pontificum Anglorum. Edited by N.E.S.A. Hamilton. Longman, 1870.

William of Malmesbury. The Deeds of the Bishops of England (Gesta Pontificum Anglorum). Translated by David Preest. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2002.

Flodoard of Reims. Historia Remensis Ecclesiae. Edited by George Colvener. Patrologia Latina 135, edited by J.P. Migne. Brepols, 1956.

About This Bishop

Regnal dates: Unknown
Regnal length: Unknown
Profession before consecration: Unknown
Father: Unknown
Birth place: Unknown
Burial place: the basilica of Probus (died in Classe on Sept. 27?)
Distinctive features: Unknown
Key players: Unknown

Episcopal Stats

Miracles performed: Unknown
Dead revived: Unknown
People converted: Many (most of which came after the end of Vespasian's persecution)
Priests ordained: Unknown
Precious objects donated: Unknown
Churches built: Unknown
Martyred: Unknown
Interesting fact: Although Apollinaris was the first bishop in Ravenna (as far as Agnellus is concerned), and thus the first episcopal life to appear in the LPR, Aderitus was the first consecrated bishop of Ravenna.

Aderitus’ life is somewhat less detailed, to say the least, than Agnellus’ life of Apollinaris, but the structure of the gesta genre requires that each bishop have a fully fleshed out life. Aderitus is thus instructive for the modern historian studying Ravenna’s episcopal politics because his life offers an example of the kinds of topoi Agnellus uses in the absence of any other data about a bishop.

Works cited: Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, or The Book of the Pontiffs of Ravenna, ch. 3.

About This Bishop

Regnal dates: Unknown
Regnal length: 28 years, 1 month, 4 days
Profession before consecration: Unknown
Father: Unknown
Birth place: Antioch
Burial place: Unknown
Distinctive features: Sanctity and mildness
Key players: St. Peter himself, Rufus the Patrician

Episcopal Stats

Miracles performed: Many (footprints in stone, blind man healed, sick people cured, demons cast out)
Dead revived: One (the daughter of Rufus the Patrician)
People converted: Many (baptisms along the shores of Corinth and the Danube, plus a pagan temple in Ravenna razed by prayer)
Priests ordained: Many
Precious objects donated: Unknown
Churches built: Unknown
Martyred: Yes (plus torture)
Interesting fact: In the middle of his sojourn in Ravenna, Apollinaris was imprisoned just outside the city, and then exiled for three years. As a captive, he traveled to Illyrica, Pannonia and Thrace prior to continuing his conversion mission in Ravenna.

Apollinaris was sent by St. Peter himself to convert Ravenna, and it seems Apollinaris was an excellent choice. In addition to bringing down Ravenna’s pagan Temple of Apollo with prayer, Apollinaris converted many pagans, ordained many priests and died a martyr in Ravenna during Vespasian’s persecutions. Apollinaris’ martyrdom gave Ravenna’s newly converted Christian population a patron saint around whom they could rally.

Notable in Agnellus’ version of the life of St. Apollinaris are the echoes of miracles Agnellus ascribed to St. Peter. In the opening lines of the life of Apollinaris, Agnellus mentions two instances in which St. Peter’s touch alone melted solid rock, leaving imprints of the holy man’s body in the rock itself. Agnellus tells us that Apollinaris, too, left imprints of his feet where he stood in prayer in a basilica in Ravenna.

The echo is important not only because it further sanctifies Apollinaris but because Agnellus underscores Apollinaris’ inheritance from St. Peter while simultaneously demonstrating his ability to rival St. Peter’s miraculous touch. Agnellus’ need to justify Ravenna’s independence from Rome asserts itself immediately in his descriptions of the very first bishop in Ravenna.

Apollinaris’ life also provides the foundational topoi which Agnellus uses for standard hagiographical miracles–healing the sick and blind, cleansing lepers, bringing the dead back to life. I would argue that these topoi can then be used to help differentiate between standard hagiographic miracles and less formulaic, but far more meaningful, instances of divine intervention in significant conflicts between later bishops and their Roman and Byzantine contemporaries.

Works cited: Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, or The Book of the Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna, ch 1-2.

Agnellus. Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis. Edited and with an introduction by Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2006.

Agnellus. The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna. Translated, edited and with an introduction by Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis. 1st ed. Medieval texts in translation. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004.

This gesta has it all: sermons, miracles, piety, riots, murders, political intrigue, city pride, personal vendetta, and so on. You name it, it’s probably here. A good place to start as gesta go.

Edited and translated by Deborah Deliyannis, my advisor at Indiana University. Agnellus’ Latin is notoriously eclectic, but the broad brush with which he paints Ravenna’s history, art and architecture is worth it.

Primary sources.

These creations of the days of yore—paintings, texts, law codes, and for people who will study us someday, the Web and new media like Twitter and Facebook—are the bread and butter of a historian’s world. They’re also, frustratingly, the bane of any history teacher’s daily existence.

It’s difficult for practicing historians to step back and explain how to unpack a document written a millennium ago by someone inhabiting a completely different world. The process we use for our own work is often second nature, entirely internalized and completely instinctive, especially after so many years spent grafting new theory and new methodology to the processes we learned when we were novices to the craft.

But a clear process is key to helping students hone the evaluative skills they use in everyday life in service of reading a historical document critically. The 5 “P”s presented here offer up a systematic way to communicate the process of interrogating a primary source to students. For a little bit of fun–and a particularly astute graphic representation of the underlying educational theory–have a look at Drawing Things Together, an epic educational graphic novel by Indiana University Education Professor Joshua Danish.

The document itself is still a work in progress, if only because—as with any document created in a specific historical context—the analogies and metaphors that tie a student’s ability to question their own peers motives and contexts to their ability to question historical motives and contexts tend to shift with each new set of student expectations.


PERSON: Who is the author, and what do you know about him/her?

    Every primary source we read had an author, even if we do not know who the author was. It’s important to determine how reliable and accurate that author was and how close the person was to the action that he/she describes. Sometimes the author was trying to influence the outcome of a certain event or process. Making sense of the author’s writing thus depends on figuring out who he or she was.

    QUESTIONS: What kinds of beliefs did the author have? What kinds of choices—educational, political, religious, economic, personal—did the author make for him/herself? How did the author see him/herself relating to the things he/she describes? Just as important, what don’t we know about the author?

PLACEMENT: Where and when is this document placed in space and time?

    A document doesn’t materialize out of thin air.  Each belongs in a specific time, place, and social setting, and we have to place the document in its historical context. If you’re still not sure why context matters, think about how the Declaration of Independence would sound if it were written today, or if it had been written in 18th century China rather than the American colonies.

    QUESTIONS: What can we tell about the context—social, cultural and environmental—in which the author lived and in which the document was produced? How close in time and space to the events described was the document written? What do we not know?

PURPOSE: What is the intention of the writer? Why is he/she writing?

    In the same way a TV ad is selling you something, a document was usually written in an attempt to get an audience to do or believe something specific. These documents may have more than one message or purpose. Also remember the difference between intent and result: none of these documents tells us what sort of influence it had. For example, a medieval document urging people should go to confession once a year may not have actually caused people to go to confession once a year.

    QUESTIONS: What does this author want the audience to do or believe? What overt, explicit, or surface message does the document contain? What hidden meanings or hidden agendas does the document contain? Did the document actually make people do or believe something? How do we know?

PLAN: What kinds of tone, form, genre or imagery did the author employ? Are these choices important and if so, how?

    Most documents are written according to particular forms and rules.  A poet, for example, might follow a metrical or rhyme scheme. The language appropriate in a formal petition to a ruler is very different than the language one might use to record a small loan or the language one might use in a letter to a friend.

    QUESTIONS: What type of language is used—formal, informal, technical, inflammatory, prescribed? Does the author use metaphors, analogies, or imagery (e.g. embodying the concept of “liberty” as Lady Liberty in human female form)? What kinds of document organization—bullet points or prose, simple or complex—does the author employ? Why might the author use these particular approaches in his/her writing?

PUBLIC: Who is the intended audience? What kinds of assumptions does the author make about the audience?

    In the same way a television commercial is aimed at a certain audience, a historical document is always aimed at an audience.  You’re probably familiar with the impact “great” documents have on history—the Magna Carta, for instance—but consider also how certain audiences influence the way a document was written. The Magna Carta would have been written very differently if it had been written in France instead of in England. Consider also how different audiences might react differently to a document, just as different audiences might react differently to an episode of “The Simpsons.”

    QUESTIONS: Who is the audience?  Who would have been able to read, or wanted to read, such a document?  What language was it written in?  What references does the document make that assume an audience will have preexisting knowledge?

5 “P”s, Kalani Craig & Heather Vrana.