Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Agnellus of Ravenna, The Book of Pontiffs of The Church of Ravenna

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous hXQMt5
    162 views191 pages
    An English translation of Agnellus of Ravenna's The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna

    Original Title

    Agnellus of Ravenna, The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    An English translation of Agnellus of Ravenna's The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    162 views191 pages

    Agnellus of Ravenna, The Book of Pontiffs of The Church of Ravenna

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous hXQMt5
    An English translation of Agnellus of Ravenna's The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 191
    MEDIEVAL TEXTS IN TRANSLATION ee EDITORIAL DIRECTOR ‘Thomas F. X. Noble Usiwrsity of Neve Dame EDITORIAL BOARD, Paul Dutton Sion Fraser University Geoffrey Koziol University of California, Berkey Carol Lansing Unive of California at Santa Barbara Batara H. Rosenwein pl Univesy of Cs Agrellus of Ravenna THE BOOK OF PONTIFFS OF THE CHURCH OF RAVENNA Translated with an introduction and notes by Deborah ea The Catholic University of Ameria Press Vishingor, DC Tay father Sonic © aoog ‘The Catholic Unie of Americ Press Allright reserved Printed inthe United Sites of America ‘The paper wed inthis publiain meet the minimum sequins of ‘Anerican Naonal Sanda for Infrmaton Scenes —Peomanenc of Paps fr Printed Libary teas ant apie Le § Ce Cay Pn Da Ages of Rarer Alber oh ce [Ler one ie Raa The bosk of pos he cach of Rae / Aga of Revo emted witha nreducon an ea Deke Masog Plums ae Pc — (Medel ein rata) Incas igrpiacrc an idee ssi ots peal pope = Babope—n Raven Bp, Cale Chad Ach f Ravana hyip. 1 Delp ach Masso so- TT MSane ites oy swoon scojngSs CONTENTS Prefice / vil Acknowledgments / ix List of Abbreviations / xi Maps / sii Introduction / 1 Background / ‘Scructure and Genre / 20 Writen Sources / 46 Oral Sources and Oraity / 57 ‘Art and Architecture in the LPR / 66 Note on Editions and This Translation / 91 ‘The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna / 93 Profan Ves / 95. Prog / 99) pliner / 101 Ades | 104, Elewaus / 1095 Marion / 108 ot Galeers / 108 Precis / 107 4 Probw / 107 Dats [08 Libris 1/108 Agspits / 108 Morals / 109 + Sewers / 109 Lier I/ 14. Probus / 16 oe Floentis / 17 se sberns UL/ 07 Urus / 8 1 Peer 1/120 Nom / 125 Bvpronins /134 ibe I/ 36 Peer I/ 57 Aaron 165 0 Exess / xp Ursin / 178 Vor / 181 os Masinian / 184s Agnls / 198 ‘eer I the Elder / 204, J Ube Roman / 213 vi CONTENTS Marinian / 215 Jobu IIE 218 oe John IV / 228 Boras / 225 8 Mawes / 227 ot Repeats / 33 Theadore/ 236 Damien / 247 Ric / 298 Hebe / 275 6 Seg | 278 se Leo / 285 08 fbn VE/ 286 os Gratis / 290 “Marin / 295 Garg / 258 ‘Table of the Bishops of Ravenna / 307 Glosary of Artistic and Architect Terminology / 09 Biblogsphy / up Genel Index / 6 “Topographic Tex of Ravenna and Clase/ 367 PREFACE Since the sixteenth century, Agnellus of Ravenna’s Book of Pon- tiffs ofthe Church of Ravenna (Liber polis ecsie Ravennat, ot LPR) haas been mined by historians and art historians for facts. Though Agnelus is alternately praised for his openness and criticized for his inaccuracy, what he says has generally been taken at face value, after cross-checking against other historical texts and surviving monuments. His reliance on hearsay and his use of invented dia- logue have been seen as interfering with the facts, yet these prac- tices were rooted in the literary traditions of his models and sources. He employs a variety of narrative and descriptive styles derived from several different literary genres, and thus only when the origin and context of each passage has been identified can his “information” be understood. ‘Agnellus’s text was written in the 830s and 840s to demonstrate two strongly held opinions. One of these was the apostolicity and independence of the Ravennate archbishopric; the other was the moral decline of recent bishops, and their erosion of clerical rights These views affected Agnellus’s presentation of individual bishops, which often depend solely on the bishop's treatment of the clergy ot his stance toward Rome: the lives of good bishops are filled with miracles, while bad bishops are unrelievedly bad. Agnel- Jus’ vehemence stemmed from his experiences as a member of the clergy in Ravenna at a time when the city had lost much of its for- ‘mer political importance. Agnellus’s motives for writing also strongly influenced the structure of the work. He modeled the LPR on the Like pontfals (LP) of Rome to emphasize the equal importance of Ravenna to viii PREFACE Rome; categories of information from the Roman LP are routinely Prorided by Agnellus, and descriptive language also imitates tha of the Roman prototype. However, the LPR also contains two oth- er types of text: hagiography and exegesis. In using, and in some «cases borrowing, material belonging to these three genres, Agnellus also uses the language, style, and literary conventions proper to cach Agnellus is often criticized for his seemingly haphazard use of information from his sources; many of these can be identified and rang: from other literary texts to documents to inscriptions and images from Ravenna, His text is at times personal, at times annal- istic, erudite and colloquial, factual and miraculous, well docu- ‘mented and full of uncredited borrowing. Although the LPR seems to be a random hodgepodge of information, this is actually the re- sult of Agnellus’s difficulty in knowing how to assiga information to the life of a particular bishop. ‘The LPR has always been particularly important to art histori ans because of the wealth of information it contains about the art and architecture of Ravenna. And yet descriptions of monuments are themselves literary conventions, and are often found within one ot other of the generic types of narrative already mentioned. The functions performed by monuments in each context affect the way they are described; even the words used to refer to and describe these monuments are affected by these conventions, and yet they are abo influenced by Agnelfus' firsthand experiences, Pechaps the most remarkable thing about the LPR is its success- fal inzegration of features taken from widely different literary gen- tes and sources. The formulaic entries of information characteris- tic of gata episxaporun, the narrative unit of the scene, used for miracles as well as for historical events, and the rhetorical ques- tions and direct exhortations taken from exegetical and sermonic forms are all intermingled to produce some type of text for every bishop of Ravenna, It is a work unlike any other known from the early Middle Ages ACKNOWLEDGMENTS was first introduced to Agnellus in Cecil L. Striker’s Ravenna seminar at the University of Pennsylvania. Lee encouraged me to work on the text for my doctoral dissertation, and both he and James O'Donnell have been extremely generous with their time and advice, both while I was writing the dissertation and especially af- ter my graduation while I was preparing this volume for publica- tion. During the time that I have been working on the LPR, there has been a surge of scholarly interest in Agnellus, and the “Agnellus group” has been extraordinarily collegial. I am deeply indebted to Ruggiero Benericetti, Thomas Brown, Ann Moffatt, Claudia Nauerth, and Joaquin Martinez Pizarro, who have all been most {generous with their advice, their comments on my work, and their own publications and materials. Thomas Noble has gone well beyond his duties as series editor for Catholic University of America Press in answering many ques- tions, and I am very grateful for his enthusiasm for this project David McGonagle and Susan Needham of the press have beea helpful throughout the process of publication, and John Osborne’ comments as reader were much appreciated. T would like to thank several others who have offered various types of assistance, advice, and support during the past sever years. These include Raffaella Farioli Campanati, Florin Curta, William Diebold, Diana Greenway, Thomas Head, Renata Holod, Rand Johnson, Michael Lapidge, Traugott Lawler, Eric Owen, Franca Pierpaoli, Leah Shopkow, Paul E. Szarmach, Susan Teg meyet, Giordana Trovabene, and Augusto Vasina, X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘Tam most gratefil for funding I received from the University of Pennsylvania, from the Kolb Foundation at the University Muse- tum of the University of Pennsylvania, and from Western Michigan ‘University, without which I could not have completed the research for this volume. Finally, none of my work would have been possible without the help of my family. My husband Constantine's support of my ca- reer has been continuous and unstinting. My sons Alex and Harry are learning to love mosaics. My parents, in-laws, and siblings have been unfailingly enthusiastic. My father, Seymour Mauskopf, was going to be a medievalist until he turned to the history of science, and his abiding interest in things medieval has been a constant in fluence throughout my life. He is my model of what a historian, an academic, and a teacher should be, and I dedicate this book to him. ABBREVIATIONS BHG Bibles hagegrapica Grae 3 vols. Brussels, 1957, with suppl. 1969. BHL Biblothea bgographica Luna. 2 vos. Brussels, 1899-1901, with suppl gz and 1986. CARB. Corso di calrn sulfate Ravennatee Bizantna CCM. Corpus Christianoru, Continuatio Mediaeval CSL Corpus Christanorum, Svies Latina CHL Corpus inseritionsans Latinaron. LP Le Liber Pontifical Txt introduction et commentaire. Ed. L. Duchesne. 3 vols, Pais, 1955. LPR Andreas Agnellus, Liber pnifliseclsiae Ravennats MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, AA Auctores Antiquissimi. SS ree, Lang. et Ital. Serptores rerum Langobardicaran et Lialicarun sae. VI-IX. Hanover, 1878. ‘SS ret, Merow..Scrptores rerum Merovingcarn. SS_Seriptore. PL Patologia Latina, Ed. JP. Migne. 221 vols. Paris, 1844-64. RIS. Renan Llicarom Seritore a anno aeredristanae 500-1500, Ed. L.A. Muratori, Milan, 1723-51. RIS, ns. Rerum Lialcaren Scriptores ns. Ed. G, Carducci and V. Fiorini, Bologna, 1900-75. Revena and Clase in he Fifth and Sect Conures Ravenna and Clase inthe Ninth Century mip al Finn Ca Ter i ~ TSe Babi s6 Ports Novis Space f Thendece 47/5 Ande Major 2 PoraS.Vicoris Port Artemia 34 SSour Big Horne $ Poweala Ovo 1 Hel Apo, fp Pore Aare ‘Borage rie ‘Persia Semple {Su john snd Babacian 1 ScPulio sete tt ESeSephen Msjor i. Eec Gochorum Palace Vilenuman? lle gt t 17S Apalinais’ ae SiViaor tL St Eophenis 3 Hay Cree 2 SeAndew Se Apel ad Arce mH [Simaoleum of Gall 2: Stn the Baptist jp Forts Wanda Soin Pa a re Phd 2 Se Apolinacie -4PoctaS, Lateci/ 5 arpa ce SeZackiae 2Se Theodore Cosma Serge Lae Sin Viale SeNaarae 46 San Gowns Mindat 5 mi onan mecca Engine, stad Sedge 1 Se Mary Major 24 Se Michal pS Dons ia Sirol Nope 27 StMaryin Comedia" Monteione SS Scere sere le ‘Aran Bape) 44.SeMaty ad Blchermas jy Ussians Te Mnwalem of ak rgead Fie ENenina Bape “Theodore 2.SeTheodowethe Dr mi 1, Gp rind ‘deacon aia 9 der he Sein Senate ‘Space nS SaerOde INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Brief overview of the history of Ravenna Palitalbistory Ravenna was founded during the reign of Augustus (31 8.c.— ‘A.D. 14) immediately to the north of the port Classe, which took its rame from the Roman fleet (dass) that was stationed there. Ravenna and Classe were surrounded by marshes, which provided a defensive barrier that greatly increased their strategic importance, and when, around gor, the emperor Honorius was faced with the threat of a Visigothic invasion, he moved the capital of the western Roman Empire from Milan to Ravenna, Ravenna remained un- touched by the Visigoths and the Huns, who invaded Italy in 408 and 450, respectively, and whose attention was drawn to Rome. Possibly because Rome was in a state of decline following these at- tacks, Odoacer established himself in Ravenna after deposing Ro- ‘mulus Augustulus in 476. After the Ostrogoths conquered Italy in 493,Theodoric also made Ravenna his capital and the seat of his court. Soon after Theodori’s death in 526, Justinian T sent an army to reconquer Italy; again Ravenna, unlike Rome, seems to have been largely spared during the destructive wat, which lasted from 535 © 554. Although the Lombards conquered much of Italy after 568, Ravenna remained under imperial control and was the seat of the Byzantine exarch, or governor, of Italy. The eighth century was a time of great confusion and upheaval in Italy. The empire was unstable, with five emperors between 711 and 717 alone. Then, in the 7208, the emperor Leo IIT imposed heavy taxes on the Italians, and he promulgated Iconoclasm, which 3 4 INTRODUCTION alienated much of the western Church, including Ravenna and Rome. In 727 the Italian churches and nobility united in rebellion against Leo II and his representative, the exarch of Ravenna. The Lombards took advantage of the chaos to attack the exarchate, in 71798, 726-27, 732-53, 738-40, and 743-44. In 751 Ravenna was captured by the Lombards and Byzantine rule in northern Iealy ceased. The strugele for control of the former exarchate involved the papacy, the archbishops of Ravenna, the Lombards the Byzan- tines, and the Franks, in various shifting combinations The Can, olingian rulers of the Frankish kingdom had become involved th the Italian situation in the 750s; with the conquest of the Lombard kingdom by Charlemagne in 774, previous power tela. tionships were disrupted. Ravenna was caught between Chale. ‘magne's kingdom in Italy and the emerging political entity that Mould late be known as the Papal States, Noble identifes the po- litical siuation of Ravenna at this time as a “double-dyarchy": “on the one hand pope and king shared rule, and on the other hand Pope and archbishop divided authority”! This was the situation in Ravenna when Agnellus was writing the LPR. The Church in Ravenna According to legend, Christianity was introduced into Ravenna by Apolinais a disciple of St. Peter in the late frst century ap. Howeversthe frst archaeological traces of Christianity ia the area of Ravenna are found in the cemeteries of Classe, from the late second century. The first externally documented bishop of Raven. na is Severus, who was listed as a participant at the Council of Sardica in 343. When Ravenna became the capital of the westera mpi, the bishop also rose in importance. Sometime in the etiy fifth century a bishop of Ravenna was given the pallium, with met, ‘opolitan rights over an area of northern Italy: it seems clear thar by the middle of the fifth century the bishop of Ravenna was or. dining bishops for lage areas of northern Italy, 1 Noble Rp gf Sh nop. 2 Tie coooney over who the fist metropolitan bishop wae Delyan- nis, CCM elicon of the LP, introduction, BACKGROUND 5 After the reconquest of Italy from the Ostrogoths by the Byzantine empire, the bishops of Ravenna increased even more in power and presigs Manian appointed ro che se by Jinan himself, was made an archbishop by the pope at the order of ¢ emperor: this devation was part of a larger poicy of raising church leaders in rank to match the secular status of their ati The pops stated coming nto confit with Ravens acs cops over the latter's ecclesiastical status in the late sixth century. In 666 the emperor Constns game preg ope of sto cephaly, or independence from Rome, to Archbishop Maurus of Ravenna, Autocephaly meant that the archbishop of Ravenna would be consecrated by three of his suffragan bishops rather than by the pope, and that he would not be subject to orders from the pope. Ravenna’ autocephaly did not las long; Archbishop Theo- dore, although consecrated in Ravenna, resubmitted Ravenna’s church to Pope Agatho in 680, and returned the typus of auto- cephaly to Pope Leo Il. By 682 the emperor had issued a decree formally revoking it. ed Fhe achichope of the eighth century, notably Felix and Seri, continued the srg or auonomy, wih lined success; the shifting political situation in Italy meant that some of the time the archbishops were necessarily allied with the popes, as cover Iconoclasm, After the death of Archbishop Sergius in 769, there was a contested election, which involved, besides the clergy, the Duke of Rimini, the Lombards, the pope, and the Carolin- gians-‘ Leo, the successful candidate, was from the pro-papal party; nevertheless, when Charlemagne conquered Italy, Leo wrote to Cialemage, ening him of thi cartier conics and eae ing autonomy from Rome. His successors never seem to have given up hope of berg granted absolute contol ove the old earhate and continued to make personal appeals to the Carolingian emper~ ors until the middle of the ninth century. 4. rows, “he Church of Ratenna”7. See also Markus, “Carthage—Prima Ju tiniana—Ravenna” sae 4. Agnelhus's Life of Leo is missing fom dhe manuscripts; what we know of che eves cones from ke Roman Ler piel 6 intRopuction Ravenna in the late eighth and early ninth centuries was a city riven by factions and conflicting interests; the different civic, ec. clesiastical, theological, and politcal concerns were inextricably linked. Various groups campaigned at vatious times for Lombard, Byzantine, papal, and archiepiscopal control of the territory. Be. clesiastically also there were pro- and antipapal groups, and there also seem to have been tensions between the Greek and Latin cler. £87 within the city: Ravenna’s pivotal position at the center of these various struggles maintained the strategic importance of the city up to the ninth century, bue by Agnelias's day the archbishops were finding ic increasingly dificult to keep up with the tuinously ex- pensive bribes and gifts that were necessary to maintain theit prominence. It was in this complicated environment that Agnellus vas raised, and it is symptomatic of the complexity of the city’s politics that even his sympathies for the various factions are not al. ways clear: in some cases the exarch isa hero, in others he isa teai- tor. The same is true for popes, archbishops, emperors, Carolin- gians, Lombards, and even Ravenna’s citizenry. Agnellus’ life Everything that we know about Agnellus comes from the eight- ten passages of the LPR in which he tells us something about him- self; thereis no external evidence of his existence.S Some of these pieces of information are included to fulfil chetorical functions Within che text, and some details may have become corrupted in transmission. It should be noted in particular that specific dates 5 LPR prologue, 26, $54 84.778 10 61461491815, 16215 167. Farther peso information about Agnes ppess in the wn at eben, ‘ning of the LPR, written by the anonymous author whe cll himself minimus seas, ras often refered ro by scholars the adler Bene the lst says that Age rnelas wrote the Lives of the bishops up crough Peonas (166) he mas have bene contemporary of Apu, and moreorer mast have write the posi before the LPR vas concaded with the Life of Perna’ sucesor, George. Gente eugats a- tof the poem and the derivative ature ofthe information gies we eat sly confidently on these statements about Agnes BACKGROUND 7 and numbers in che LPR are often of questionable accuracy ot originality and in many cases cannot be fixed with precision. Nonetheless, the basic outline of Agnells' life can be discovered from the text a follows. Agnellus tells usin c. 54 that at the time of composition he was thirty-two years and ten months old; given a date of composition for this part of the LPR around the year 827-36, he would have been born sometime between 794 and 804.° He came from distin- guished families; most of what we know about Agnellus's descent comes from passages in cc. 146 and 165 that mention his relatives. However, inconsistencies within these two passages make a recon- struction of Agnellus’s family tre rather difficult. Two statements in c. 146 contradict each other: “Basiius who sired Andreas [Ag- neh] wat he som of Andes son af asin? aed Ande. ‘grandfather, che father of my mother” which result in the two versions of the family ee foun in Fig 1? One of dese two sem. tences must be corrupt, but it is impossible to say which one. Complicating the matter is the question of what is meant by the term cogntus in c. 146; in the early Middle Ages the term had vari- The de of Api th dept on td of composion of «se abutwith tbo Ares to oe pil on 2 pec es co prone sno Lane Ii ena”, bigs ol. spermine pet aig piu (eso Als He, cnc that Ag mat re en (Tre fLannf so atest bss thas a reps a tery pi ma an “Te Repos "Nete mail 540 and oe 7 comin one cr asin ies hes he sie st ae Iescme peop on pronation rar an ty to ein ope ie 7B Ads ane B gt nd a Anda. em tr wine Helge (LPER oy ind, nh ep by Tesco Noe Sania” yg), redhat pp mart re oti» el ee libel mod pr po meh ipsa in hay EZ vetat ake amis th acer af gel fates in reson se Lanon "Tier Poti” ys Goni, stp, Bd "De Liber ti si al "Rigged 46,7, an nom ely ad hero on ei for roan 8 NTRoDUCTION Alla! amily te: possible reconstructions @ sis ape Peers Aad = (ots) Dee Baslus = (mother) { ‘Andeas Agnelis © Harn Agnes Peter uibucis ! ee ESE Animas = Davsdedie \ Basin = (noth) Andress Agnelae ous meanings, from “blood relative” to “in-law.” In the two occut- ences of the word elsewhere in the LPR it has the latter meaning* IF Andseas was the brother-in-law of Deusdedit, then version (3) of the family tree must be correct; if (b) is correct, then 4 ‘must mean simply “relative,” ot pethaps “relative by marriage”? In 6 Se Bllogh “Ely Meinl Socal Groupings” 1. Tet Raspon, "Now sap sp-p cined the the word san san tat Aes ‘late’ of Deuce bene ht sm bt mured Bend sess apes (Age thera i odin eon (of the fanly ee Hose te TPR rts fondness ine ih Mh es cosinor th he np iy en ir 9 Ids nese lon so: lar seman a An mt ae bs tne can ara pee a then ede of he page inal he Deon pul ee lk tthe hn the younger cer sm, wat mame ale the pel pete et woe mor ly he Ags wales younger sed te BACKGROUND 9 addition to these family members, Agnellus tells us that the grand- father of his father was one of the noble Ravennate judges who were lured to Rome and died in prison there (c. 159), and his pater- nal cousin was the deacon Sergius, who bequeathed him a monas- tery (cn). Agnellus's emphasis on his relatives does not simply indicate vanity or selfaggrandizement, as is often claimed: itis a topos of carly medieval historiography. As Fasoli points out," the passage describing Agrellus's descent is very similar to Paul the Deacons story of the deeds of his own great-grandfather and his descent:!! He [Leupchit] sired my grandfather Arichis, Arichis sired my father Warneftit, Warnefrit by his wife Thedelinds sired me, Paul, and my brother Arichis, which bears the name of our grandfather. Agnellus imitates Paul both in phrasing and in placing the geneal- ogy after a legendary story about a famous ancestor, Johannicis, on whose life, carer, and fate he provides extensive information. In this he imitates not only Paul the Deacon but also Gregory of Tours, who frequently refers to, and provides information about, his own ancestor, St. Gregory of Langres.!? That Agnellus was very aware of this literary tradition is shown by another borrowing, Gregory of Tours reports that his great-grandfather used co pray secretly at night in a baptistry near his residence, until discovered by a deacon who followed him stealthily one night and saw che doors open by themselves." Agnellus relates exactly the same story about Johannicis in e. 147. The borrowing of hagiographical leg- Tir mara grader and dedicated tothe church can ely age. Tat he does ot snention ay living family members does no mean tat hey dit nee 10 Faso, "Rigged 465. te Pal the Deon, Histor Laren 437: “Hic [Leuphis) ei get ava meum Archi, Avchis veo patem mean Warne, Warefie autem ex “Theadelinds coige emit me Pals snare german Arch ql nota ava cognomine eli ‘a, Paul wat nor nique inthis spect ode horas, inling Jones anc Gregory of Tours mention their descent fom people who grein thei histories Foran, Gi 26, and Grgory of Tous, Hrs Farr, pete 15 the Libr wu pron v3.4 work hat Age knew 10 INTRODUCTION ends occurs frequently in the LPR; in this ease, Agnellus seems to be deliberately comparing himself and his descent to Gregory of ‘Tours’. Like Gregory and Paul, Agnellus is descended from a re- ‘markable actor in his history and therefore like them is uniquely qualified to have charge of writing it. Agnellus was placed in the Church at an eatly age and was “raised in the bosom of the holy Ursiana church” (€. 25) Ie is sometimes suggested that he knew Greek, since in the LPR he pro- vides several derivations from Greek words. As knowledge of ‘Grock was a sign of an outstanding scholar (like his ancestor Jo- hannicis), Agnellus probably used Greek words and etymologies to ake his own work seem erudite, although he did not necessarily know the language.* While still a boy he was “given” the monateri- tum of St. Mary ad Bladernas’ by Bishop Martin in exchange for two hundred gold solid, an indication of the wealth and connec- tions of his family. Sometime later he was also given, as an inher- itance from his cousin Sergius, the monasterium of St. Bartholemew. He mentions his two monasteria several times, noting that previous abbots had held high offices in Ravenna’s church.”? Agnellus states 4 Hide ge LPER yo, La, "De Forgas sued he incdece of word of Geek ori in the LPR he conciade that most come ete ene SECT Somer Keehn Te ee Gr indicate that Agel may hae picked up a paste understanding Grek, not ‘cee knoe Cin ht mos if eof Ada eel serve in Latin seme ily that he did now haow Gaede slash commentry and easton, ames of churches wl be angled, with she exepon ofthe flowing, whore lian name ate more wide wed in the schlaty era: San Vie St Apolline Novo, San” Api Clase San Giovani Eranglis,and the cape aciscovde 16 LPL ce asand rapt Since Man reged fom S088 Age- Jax wold have be betes and swenty-four eas lth ine Tet Rao "Note mili oz, who coop tae Agel nas born in 799-4 for She ssxon sad hath tanacton mt hve faken place athe en oF Maes fe ‘hen Agi as rnd seventeen, hich say is more ting buen Aga woul proaty nr hae feed to hie a ad pr v7 Archos Maras and Fel ad been abbot of St Barthalnen, nds spect, gone and sabi, bie they became bishops (eee tad 16) Sep hal been ys (14) and Uris had been achdeacon 8) The BACKGROUND 1 that in 833 he was the “tenth priest in order of the see” (c. 8), pre- sumably quite high-ranking. ‘Other information that Agnellus gives us about his activites in- dlicates that he was actively involved in construction and mainte- nance in Ravenna, perhaps to the point of being an official “mas- ter of the works." He tells us of several instances of his personal involvement with antiquities and monuments. When the body of ‘Maximian is being translated from its grave to a location inside the church, Archbishop Petronax tells Agnellus, “who was at that time filled with the skills of all the arts,” to supervise the workmen so that they don't break the sarcophagus. Agnellus is then the one who removes and counts the bones before they are placed in the reliquary (¢. 83). Also in the time of Petronax, when a porphyry slab is removed by the emperor Lothar and sent north, Agrellus is asked by the bishop to supervise the workmen in removing and packing it in wool, lest they break it (c. n3). He knows the details of the removal to Bologna of the sarcophagus of Rufus, which had happened five years earlier (c. 1). And finally, he tells how he went to the Petriana Church in Classe to find the bones of Bishop Peter 1, and removed the lid of the sarcophagus to view the body (c. 26). Personally, Agnellus was also a patron. Twice he describes the Iocation of his house near the church of St. Agnes; he himself buile this house on property of his mother's, using materials his servants had brought from the palace in Laure, demolished by his order (cc. j9 and 77) He also completed the decoration of the al- tar of St. Bartholemew, which his cousin Sergius had begun (c. 149). ‘Although he was not widely traveled, Agnellus made at least one long trip. He tells us that he accompanied Archbishop George to assist in the baptism of the daughter of the emperor Lothar at [Beat earch and patron Theodore, who gave many gifs to the mesa of St. Mary Blader, as buvied dere with his wife (c. 19). Since Agnells never telus that bei admin or noms of azchdescon, perhaps his mention ofthe former abbots {is his subtle way of campaigning for one ofthese postions. Or perhaps he thoughe hae should be archbishop cf Vasina, "Cleo e cise” 4 18. "Superintendent of monuments in Foi, "Rleggenda” 466 12 INTRODUCTION Pavia (c. 171), and he mentions that he himself saw the palace built by Theodoric in that city (c. 94). Since the passage in c. 94 was written in 839-40 (see below), Agnellus must have made this trip between 837 and 83. In one other passage Agnellus mentions hav- ing himself seen the church at Argentea (c. 89), a town that is about twenty-two miles from Ravenna on the way to Ferrara, If he ‘ever went to Rome he does not say so, although since George was consecrated in Rome it would be odd if Agnellus had not been ‘one of the ecclesiastical party. ‘Agnellus’s quarrel with Archbishop George enters the work in several places. In c.136, Agnellus says about Geonge that “before he ascended to such a height, we were like brothers to each other.” “Agnellus seems to have been sufficiently friendly or highly ranked at the beginning of George's reign to have been included in the party that accompanied George to Pavia (c. 171). However, Agnel- lus says that later George turned against the clergy, and in particu- lar deprived Agnellus of his monasteriun of St. Bartholemew “with- cout cause” for a short period of time (c. 136). He gives no further details, but we assume from the text that the monasterim had been restored to him by the time he wrote c. 0, in which he states em- phatically that he is abbot of this structure; when Agnellus refers to St. Bartholemew in the later part of the LPR, itis always with the phrase “where, God willing, I am abbot” or the equivalent ‘Testi®Rasponi suggested that Agnellus’ insistence on his posses- sion of this monacerium was a result of the legal cace thar nearly de- prived him of it2” ‘We know nothing about Agnellus after the death of George in £846; Holder-Egger cites a papyrus charter of donation for the year £854 (oF 869) chat contains the name of a certain Andreas priest of the church of Ravenna” but there is no evidence to connect him with our Andreas Agnellus. We do know that he never became archbishop of Ravenna. 15, Ths it no reaton to think thatthe ede AB Geog in a6 was the same perion athe man who became bishop. 2. Test Raspon, "Note marginal 350-5 2 Holder Egger, LPER, 272,83 BACKGROUND Agnellus presents us with a picture of himself, a nobly born, wealthy young priest, educated within the Church, abbot of two smonasteria, and owner of a luxurious house in the center of town, ‘Ac the time of writing, particulary in the later parts of the LPR, he had become bitter toward the Church hierarchy; possibly he had been passed over for high office. These autobiographical facts re- late directly to information about the Lives of bishops or other prominent figures and thus validate the truth of his accounts, Some of them emphasize his high social status, and may serve t0 express his grievances against the Church hierarchy of Ravenna. Fi- rally all such statements also identify the credentials of the author as a member of the community about which he is wsiting?® Date of composition of the LPR The date or dates of composition of the LPR have been debat- ed by several scholars.” There are two main sources of evidence for the dating: Agnellus's own statements in the LPK referring to chronology, and the evidence of the poem that introduces the text, which was supposedly not written by Agnellus, Every date or refer- ence is open to interpretation; not least from the fact that some numbers given in the manuscripts are clearly wrong, which leaves open the possibility that any given number has been miscopied from the original. Nonetheless, certain chronological trends can be ‘Several times in the text, Agnellus provides information about when the passage was written. For example, inc. 94 he says: “And now almost thirty-eight years ago, when Charles king of the Franks had conquered all the kingdoms and had received the em= pire of the Romans from Pope Leo IIL.” Charlemagne was crowned 22 See Austin, "Autobiography and History? 64. 23. Fora detailed discussion, ee Deliyannia, CCCM edition of the LPR, introduc- tion; see also Test-Rasponi, "Note marginal” 86aot and 226-47; CPER, passim: Lanzoni,“'Liber Ponta” 3-70; Benercei I Pie. 65-94, 24. LPR, ce. 47680, 83 94, 5 8 1614.4 149,167, and 75 14 INTRODUCTION ccriant 1. Caloated Dates of Composition the LPR. 00 818 820 30 840 ASO 860 870 880 990 900 Yes AD ror in 800, so this passage must have been written in 838 o fe this is che most precise date given inthe entre text In adai- tion, it seems that Agnells never identifies the present in terms of its bishop; a mention of a bishop by his name indicates that the passage was written after his death2® Thus some passages can be dated to after the deaths of the contemporary bishops Petronax (c. 818-57) and George (c. 837-46). It seems that the LPR was written sr to ssn Apt ie ee ec eengarenc mea crne oor Cr ee rohan oo Se en ee eee eae ue he arena aa ie cease emcee Te ee Shape weenie Geabemiete ty meinen ee aoe crt eae we re lacie po Sy eee ete Cs acdpuelRorma Sn cape re esate tastes BACKGROUND 15 cover a period of at least fifteen years, from sometime during the reign of Petronax to sometime after the death of George. Using the dates from the text, we can produce the schema found in Chart 1. Leaving out the dates from cc. 18 and 167, which are based on numbers that were probably not accurate the termini post quem be- ccome progressively later as the text progresses. While this does not prove that the LPR was written in chronological order, it strongly implies it. While some precise breaks in composition can be seen, particularly between ce. 70 and 80 and between cc. 133 and 136, there is unfortunately relatively litle that can be said about the date at which Agnellus began the work or the progression of the catly chapters.” By looking at some of the sources Agnellus used and when and how he used them, and at some of the conventions that occur only in parts of the text, we can see stylistic changes correlated with some of the dates Agnellus provides, and can identify significant breaks in composition.» It seems likely that ce. 79 were written during the years 831-36, at which point the work was probably in- terrupted in the middle of the Life of Maximian by the death of Archbishop Petronax and the activity of the next few years. Agnel- lus completed the Life of Maximian and continued through the Life of John IV or Bonus (cc. 80-107 oF 109) during 837-9, after which he was again interrupted, this time by the lawsuit concern- 26, Tn 8 Agnes sys tat Acishop Theodoe died “peape bo years gp" Theodore ded in, thus ony 48 to 6 years before Agel wat wting Pehaps he muri the ext was miscopied ot pechaps Agel was ony ging 8 round number Ine 167 Achbishop Martin (foi) i sid to hve “obained his see alow cighty years ago” We know that this passage was writen afer 845, hence he phrase "ight years ag fer to sometime afer the ya 76 the passage snus eferto either Martins arr in Ravenna or his consecration pis, pe tap isan Agel vay of fadging a number he tse abou 127. The peor poe contains some dating informational: sae that Age ells began hit work ring the reigns of Pope Gregory II (827-44), Emperor Louis the Pius (814-40). King Lothar (825-35) and Archbishop Peron (81837) “Taken together these dts refer othe ers Beween 8 and 28, Fora dened dcusion of these ee Delain, CCCM eton ofthe LPR, inmotion 16 INTRODUCTION ing his possession of the monasrium of St. Bartholemew2* In 841-42, after a two-year hiatus, he took up again with the Life of Maurus, and wrote the succeeding chapters relatively continuously, up to or after the death of George in 846 (cc. 10-35); the Lives from that of Felix to the end (cc. 136-73) were certainly written af- ter 846. ‘The IPR contains several passages in which Agnellus tells his audience shat he is stopping for the day but will tell them more to- morrow. They do not occur throughout the text but only in ce. 17-92." These statements are intended to create the effect that Ag- nellus is reading his work aloud to an audience, and they have al- ways been accepted at face value; indeed, Agnelhus is often noted for the fact that he read his work aloud to an audience. Rather than necessarily indicating a week of intense lecturing, however, these passages may simply reflect a style chat was influencing Ag- nellus atthe time in which he wrote, derived from written sermon collections." I suggest that Agnellus inserted these passages to ‘mask long breaks in the time in which he composed these parts. We know that cc. 1-13+ were written over the course of about ten years, from around 831 to 84s; itis likely that Agnellus was con- strained to stop and start several times during these years, Perhaps in order to give his work a sense of continuity that he felt was lack- ing, he included statements that imply that the work was being read dit to an audience during the course of a week. This explana- tion would help to reconcile the disparities between the statements of closure and the dates of composition we have described above. 25.The at-piscopal passages, which ae sometimes assumed to have been writ ten after Archbishop George aroused Agnelia's hatred, ate found in ce. $868 82, 100,104,105 ind 6, Since ce. 58, and 68 must have been written efor 836 thai, brig the tegn of Petronas, chey cannot refer to Agnella’s quateel with Geom, aed ‘thus are only marginally sel for dating purposes. 3. LPR, 17 38,3945, 46,54 $8, 627992 31 See bel, “Oral Sources and Oral BACKGROUND 17 ‘Why Agnellus wrote the LPR In his preface and elsewhere, Agnellus refers to a group of peo- pple who asked him to write the LPR. He mentions no one by name, which is rather odd, as it might be thought that he would dedicate the work, perhaps to Archbishop Petronax if not to some other patron. The vagueness of the references to the people who asked Agnellus to compose the work probably indicates that there were rno such patrons, that Agnellus was writing under his own volition. But what could have spurred him to write this particular work at this particular time? Two themes recur throughout the LPR: an anxiety for the rights of the clergy in the face of oppres- sion by bishops, and a fir preference for the autocephaly of Ravenna, with a particular dislike of control of Ravenna by the Roman pope. That the LPR was directly modeled on the Roman LLP suggests that anti-Roman feeling was probably the direct stima- Jus that caused Agnellus to write this text, but he undoubtedly had the rights of the clergy in mind during the entire time he was writ- Eells ineighs strongly against the abuse of the clergy by bishops in part because of the quarrel between himself and Arch- bishop George. However, there are afew references in the exrly part of the text, written before George became bishop, that lead us to think that some (or one) of the bishops preceding George must also have had disagreements with their clergy. In c. 58, Agnellus quotes in fall a letter of Pope Felix IV, which details the property rights of the clergy and was in force until che time of Bishop ‘Theodore (675-93), as Agnellus later states. This is the only docu- ment Agnellus quotes in full, and it shows that the rights of the clergy were indeed very much on his mind. Unfortunately, the Life of Petronax is missing from the manuscripts of the LPR, and there 42. Whether or not hi work can be en asa manifestation of the "collective py chology” ofthe Ravennate clergy inthe ealy ninth cencury seems tome a different ‘question ftom the more direct ia of patronage and stimuli, mich les fom any questions of literary form. See Capita, “Agnello Ravenaate”i94-95, who cites allow, Riedie inden 18 INTRODUCTION is very ltele other information about the history of Ravenna at this period. It may have been a reign during which tensions ran high (pethaps this is even why the Life is missing from the LPR): ‘Anti-Roman sentiment at Ravenna had been developing since the 660s and was a live issue after the Carolingian conquest of Italy and due subsequent scruggle for control of the old exarchate. By the 830s Ravenna had effectively lost this struggle and was being ruled fom Rome; the struggle was not over, however, at least as far as some of the bishops of Ravenna were concerned. The absorp- tion of Ravenna into the lands controlled by the pope must have been intolerable to Ravenna’s clergy, of at least to one faction of it; Agnellus wistfully describes Bishop Sergius, who “administered everything just like the exarch, as now the Romans are accustomed to do” (c. 159). Again and again Agnellus makes anti-Roman state- ments: “if the body of the blessed Andrew .... were buried here, the Roman bishops could not thus subjugate us” (c. 76); “As a true shepherd he lived piously with his sheep. He did not subjugate himself to the Roman see” (c. 36).5 Stories of bishops of Raven- nna defying the popes are told with approval; bishops who worked with the popes are vilified. Maurus has “many difficulties with the Roman pontiff... many struggles, many tempests, many disputes,” and is hailed as the liberator of the church of Ravenna from Rome (© uo-1g); Sergius, who was arrested and tried in Rome, was miratulously released because he bribed the pope (c. 157-58); Mar tin, who was summoned to Rome and shepherded there by the bishop of Arles, feigned illness, bribed his keeper, and ended up not going (c. 169). By contrast, Theodore's main crime was that he restored the church of Ravenna to the pope's dominion, which Ag- nellus depicts as the result of a diabolical plot against Ravenna's clergy (©. 124). ‘The evidence for Ravenna’s relationship with Rome during the 13 See Faso, “Rileggenda” 470-7. 34. Fora comprehensive account of Ravenna relationship with Rome and the Frankish kings in the ety ninth cenrury see Brown, "Louie the Pios and the Papa 9 3 Cted by Brown, sid, 504, 48 BACKGROUND 19 time at which Agnellus was writing the LPR is less clear. Bishop George bought himself the sponsorship of Lothar's daughter at hee baptism and went to Francia with a large part of Ravenna’s treasure, apparently in order to gain influence with the emperor.® ‘Agnellus might even have approved of these actions, had he not hated George for personal reasons.” But George's predecessor, Petronax, whose Life is missing from the manuscript of the LPR, seems to have pursued a pro-papal policy. Agnellus refers several times to treasure that disappeared under Petronax, possibly in bribes to the emperor or his agents, but equally possibly sent in- stead to the pope. Petronax received a privilege from Pope Paschal Tin 819 and later attended a council held in Rome in 826 by Pope Eugene IL Ie is likely that Agnellus, sa member of an antipapal faction to which George also belonged, was seriously alarmed by the direction in which Petronax’s policies were going in the late 8208 and early 8305, and that it was this rapprochement with Rome that caused him to begin the LPR. But the most persuasive evidence that Agnellus was writing a work to elevate the claims of the church of Ravenna against those of Rome comes from the nature of the text itself. As we will seein detail below, the LPR is based in concept and format on the Ro- aman Liber pontfvalis. OF all the historical and literary gentes avail- able to him, Agnellus chose this one; it cannot be doubted that Rome was very much on his mind from the very conception of the LPR, and that the work was primarily intended to demonstrate Ravenna’s ancient history of independence from Rome. 46 George lost the ueasute atthe Battle of Fontenoy; LPR, ce. 1775 37. Brown, “Lois the Pious and the Papacy 305. 38. Cited by Brown, ibid, 304 STRUCTURE AND GENRE ‘The LPR contains a Life of each bishop of Ravenna from the founding of the episcopate by St. Apollinaris to Agnelhus's time. Agnellus attempts to include, at a minimum, the date and place of burial and the length of the reign of the bishop. In many of the Lives, the following information is provided when known: national or civic origin; a physical and/or spiritual portrait; information about the election and/or ordination; artistic or architectural pa- tronage done by the bishop or during his reign; historical events and natural phenomena; exegetical and exhortatory passages, mira- cle stories, and other narratives. Within a Life, information is gen- erally provided in the following order: origin, portrait, ordination, historical events, patronage, miracles, sermonettes, date and place of burial, length of reign. However, this sequence is not very pre- cisely fixed, and there are great disparities in the amount of infor- matin included in the Lives. Three literary genres—serial biography, hagiography, and ser- mon—contribute almost equally to the composition of the LPR. All three types of literature had close and specific connections with bishops: while the two former were often written about bish- ‘ops, the latter was often written by bishops. Agnellus’s combina- tion of these three gentes displays his inventiveness with respect to his subject matter, The Roman Liter ponfcals and the gente getaepizoporum The LPR is genezally classed with a group of histories of epis- copal sees or monasteries that has been defined as the genre gesta STRUCTURE AND GENRE 21 picoporum et abhavon (deeds of bishops and abbots)! This genre be- came popular in the Carolingian period and consists of works of serial biography, that is, institutional biographies of each bishop or abbot of a particular locality, in onder of their tenure. Lists of church leaders were provided as part of historical works from as carly as the fourth century and continued to exist chroughout the carly Middle Ages:? What distinguishes all of the works grouped in the gente gestaepixaporum is that they are modeled on the Roman Like ponies? The first codification of papal Lives occurred in the early sixth century.’ Around 64o the series was brought up to date and con- tinued thereafter after the death of each pope. The papal Lives contain a variety of different types of information, depending on how soon after the reign of a given pope they were written and how much information the author(s) had. From even the earliest Lives, information in certain categories is provided for every pope: national origin and parentage, length of reign, emperox(s) or kking(s) in whose eign they lived, death or martyrdom, church reg- ulations promukated, number of ordinations, burial place and date, and length of time that elapsed before the next pope. From the Life of Silvester on, detailed information about patronage is 1. See ep, Sot, Gets pier geal, fr a detailed analysis of the gears 2 In Eusebius’ Bull Hist for example, lit are given for Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alana 3. The fundamental anaiyss of the Roman LP was published by Louis Duchesne, slong with his authostative edition ofthe tet Excellent recent discussions ofthe LP are found in Berchin Bagapi a Epes :270~77 and 225-8; Dai, Buk of Pon- ‘Gand Neb Coney pe ied Noble "A New Lack she Llc apc 14 The felling rots on the eaely history of the LP are derived fom Dai, Bask & Poms i-ay, and Brschin, Bape ed Epes 1270-7 For an excellent and comprehensive study of episcopal lines and thee significance in ealy medial aly, tee Picard, Seni Iie interesting to ote tha twas inthe eal sch cenuty that an iotret in episcopal lists began to manifest itself in oder cities in Italy sch a8 ‘Milan, Ravenna, and Aquileia, This was possibly due co the influence ofthe ealy LP bute als che cate that at chi tie these ies wer all caming tobe metropolitan ‘ox patriarchal ses, ac onthe model of Jrome's Chon, they knew that patriarchal sees all possessed epacopal lists see Picard, Swen, so. I is therefore also possible thac the EP was fist produced in onder to emphasize Rome's preeminent sats. 22 INTRODUCTION given. Lives that were written soon after the reign of their subjects often contain, in addition, historical narrative, personal informa- tion about the pope, and descriptions of natural phenomena. In order to have had access to these various types of information, itis assumed that the authors of the Lives worked in some branch of the papal bureaucracy In the mid-cighth century, histories of the bishops of other cities began to be written, modeled on the LPS While the first three imitations of the LP were written by Italian authors (the LPR was the third), most of them were written for institutions north of the Alps, where they formed a well-defined genre.* Agnellus himself ‘may or may not have been aware of these other texts. He refers to the LPR as a pontifical several times, as though this were a generic term for the type of work he was writing? It has been suggested that the Roman Liber pontficais was only known by this name from the twelfth century? did Agnellus make up this term for his own work, or was he writing in a genre chat had already developed, of 5 lfrmain in he Ps iat cl be tani’ quite py hight Eso: Bed nhs Dr pn ing wen ino ces eas a ak ps 75-7 hse fo inthe Pinte Lif of Gary Iwo det ony 23 Se Bohn Baad tel so a8 Capitan hp Roe fs pone ou ht them cory mary has ne undapig dee ios oft lant wth he apcy flowing the Casings eteion ste ofthe opal tae and hat these of alls aye ese Heat te pone ‘Whe he IR an ely member ofthe gee i df in evel reapecs fon th eh mene of hee spc ne ms ote oe ee tare ben fil ictal dcumcts, ves he PK unt comedy the bop and dos noe a ae had an cil prove et sd ne sry be epee in th cnet of tester te Se Pa, Many Roses 13s an ra, Sts 4-440 5- fort iflecesbves Ta od acorn pe 17 PR vei peice 25. 4 & Berlin “ier pnt” 4s wae dain he a igh and sinh cons the wok nas kw Li gl and/or epg on tht the combi Le ads ot ppc ay manne a he ec cena. In the pba! cao of Sein paper Gina Ara oe Inte, "The he npreson a tie came an Raven” bat Bool a ‘tins is comment ins rapes STRUCTURE AND GENRE 23, which his work is one of the few surviving examples? Whether or not he was aware of other imitations of the LP Agnellus was very ‘well acquainted with the Roman work, up through the Lives of the carly ninth-century popes, and he specifically imitated those as- pects of it chat ft hs intentions and resources. In the LP almost every Life begins with the name of the pope, followed by “born in [place], son of [name],” occasionally fol- lowed by the father's rank or occupation, or by a city, province, oF region. Agnellus begins the LPR with “St. Apollinaris, Antiochene by birth," a direct imitation of the LPs Life of Se. Peter. No fur- ther information is given until the Life of Peter I, “From the time of blessed Apollinaris up to this man, all his predecessors were from Syria” (c. 24). After this, however, only ive bishops have their national origin specifically provided, and all are foreigners; chat three of these are among Ravenna’s greatest bishops is unfortunate for Agnellus, since he must explain how each became bishop in Ravenna Otherwise, most of Ravenna’ bishops were of local ori- a Aier the name of the father ofthe pope, each Life in the LP gives the length of the pope's reign, in the formula “sedit annos [number], menses [number], dies [number),” In the surviving man- scripts of the LPR, the length of reign is provided for only some of the bishops of Ravenna, those for whom Agnellus knew the in- formation.!” The same formula is used, but the information is giv- cn at the end of each Life. A curious feature of both surviving manuscripts of the LPR is that for all those Lives for which the length of reign is not known, the same formula—"sedit annos ‘menses dies’—is included at the end of each Life, with blank 1 Peter Il, whom Agnellss eroneouly hims wa Chrysologus, Msximian, Damian, John II the Raman, and Manin. One other bishop, Leo x clled oxi cv but a his Life i mostly lot we cannot know if he wa also born csewhere 'o, Apollinaris (fom the Past), Ursus (years only) Joha I Eelesis, Ursin, Victor (posily fom epitaph: se Holder Egger: [PER 38a, 310. 9.1 and ok sand 23.1 espectively), ad all the bishops aftr Bishop Agnlls excepe Maria- fan, Bonus and John V. The ends of the Lives of Sergius, Leo, Martin, and George sxe mising 24 INTRODUCTION spaces left where the numbers stould have been. This feature must have appeared in the exemplar of these two manuscripts; however, it is impossible to say whether it goes back to Agnellus, For many of the papal Lives, the information immediately fol- lowing the length of reign is the phrase “fait autem temporibus [emperor] usque/et {emperor},” giving the consuls, emperors, ot kkings under whom the pope reigned. Agnellus uses a formula sim- ilar to the LP in only two places ¢. 26, “Puit enim in Valentinian temporibus” about Peter 1, and c. 134, “Fuit enim temporibus Constantin’ imperatoris" about Damian (which is incorrect)" ‘The frst mention of a pope's career comes in the Life of Agn- pitus; he was one of the first popes whose Life was written almost contemporaneously, and thus for whom such facts might be known. This sort of information is reported only sporadically un- til the Life of Gregory I, after which the careers are given in some detail, with names of churches and papal sponsors. In the LPR, the fist clerical carer is that of the lete-sixth-century Bishop Agnelhis (@. 84). Ecclesiastical careers resume only with Maurus in the mid seventh century, and continue with Reparatus, Felix, Gratiosts, and Martin, Agnellus may have used the LP especially after Pope Gregory Il, as a model for categories of information relating to the bishops’ backgrounds, but the details and manner of presentation differ from the LE Encomiastic phrases and passages appear in the LP after Severi- nus (d, 638), when the LP began to be written regularly after the death of each pope." Ac first the encomia are short, consisting of only a few formulaic phrases, but gradually they become auch longer." There is only one description of the physical appearance of 4 pope, in the Life of the eldery and saintly Conon.!* Agnellus 1 In ft, mos other amples of gt ppm donot ince impel infor imation che; Pea, Smt 55 1 Bench, Bape wd Spi as, rematks on this 1, Davis Le 9 notes thar the encom of Leo Il and egy Il are almost ‘dential. "4 1B Life of Conon, This pase hovers, comes not tthe bepionng ofthe Life br inthe course ofthe matavexplaning wy he was eeted pope, STRUCTURE AND GENRE 25 introduces most of his Lives with an encomiastic passage, borrow= ing the concept and many of the same words from the LP The en- comia in the LPR also include other elements, such as etymologies of names and frequently a short physical description."* Agnellus tells us in two places that he has learned about the appearance of the bishops from their pictures, and he even cites St. Ambrose as, an authority for doing this." Agnellus's physical descriptions actu- ally do match what he saw in the pictures, at least as far as we can, tell from what survives.” As Paulo Squatriti notes, in both the LP and the LPR, “before the narrative truly began, a physical-moral sketch fixed in the reader's (or author's) mind pie ime 's personality, preparing thus to launch into the events of his ponte "Tis no dabei Pai aspect of the LP that ‘was copied and expanded by A\ Descriptions of ae ora aa integral part of the LR 15 Theis only one instance ofan eymologil drivin ia the LB for Benedict 1 of whom itis sid, “be showed he ax beled 3 man worthy of his ame: him grace and benediction from abore uly overtiowed” (LE, Life of Benedict I stan Davia) Fora dscsion of emoloy in history, ee Guente, Hie et erg 84-93, and Hiaubrichs, “Vion mii” TC Lek co The tne aly aed feces th ee clastic controversy and the ole of the bishops of Raves a saunch opponents of iconola:they emphasize Alls iconodale elie hat pce perform impor: ta fancons. Se Dela, “Aguas of Ravenna and Teonocasm” 17 See Nauerh Apis oe Ra, Unter Agalss mentions pices of fourteen bishops, of which seven uvine—of Sor, Urs, Elsi (90), Us 1, Masimian, and Repsit Physical decptions are provided for teat Bishops. There are ewo bishops fr whom pices ae mentioned but physi de- scription are absent (Putra Ain). A comparison betwen the phrases sued inthe descriptions and those of bishops wth Kaown pice shows an entice of terminology Fo example, Agnes derribes Bec, Pete, Bons, and Jo Tas having grey be te), yet only mentions pices of Ezlsis and Per I, Squat, "Pesonal Appearince and Physiopomies” amined the infuence of plysiognomi tery on Talan episcopal boprapy, nai the LPR; or more on Such pla desepion and dh elation to io in Byzantine hagiography se Dagron Holy Images and Likeness” 35-28 : 1 Squat “Psion Appearance nd Pysognomies” 7. 19, Croquson,"Liconographie chréienne 3 Rome” dices patronage in dhe LP bur concentates more on what is sid aber than ow isa. 26 INTRODUCTION ‘Monumental patronage represented a pope's lasting contribution to the religious life of Rome, and the lists emphasize the sanctity and piety of each donor. As with the other categories, the accounts of patronage found in the LP change in style and extent based on both the availability of sources to the authors and the importance of patronage to those authors.” By the late eighth century, the style of the accounts had become highly developed and formula- ic" Subjective assessments of workmanship become common: ob- jects are mire puldrindins, churches are mirae magnitudinis, marbles are puldrrima, and technical work is done mince Agnellus uses terminology very similar to that in the eatly-ninth-century LP to describe decorative elements in a church, liturgical furnishings and the materials from which they were made2 Hie tells of the same sorts of patronage as the LP nimely church foundations, decora- tions, restorations, donations of property liturgical vessels of precious materials and altar doths, all sponsored by bishops, rulers, and other wealthy patrons. Since Agnellus was attempting to outdo Rome and claim equal status for Ravenna, ic is natural that he should emphasize the preeminence of the city’s monu- ments But Agnellus’s mention of patronage also performs a function different from that of the LP In the LP the popes are presented, al- ‘most without exception, as good; patronage is presented as simply another category demonstrating the power and piety of the papa- cy. For Agnellus, by contrast, some bishops are good and others 20. As noted by Geertman, Morr wna, 84, Fora lengthy bu somewhat ours ‘ed dscusion ofthis evidence sce Pipes, Bnetng i de Mom Tra, 35-49 2 In pat tis tend ean be explained by the dase co emphasize images atthe time of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which th popes condemned: se Andale, "TL Lier prises questione dele magi” 22, These phases refer to the qualiy of the materials, and hence chee value, sather than thee iocangible merits; see bid, 73-74, who noces dat the sisaton changes somewhat inthe Lives of Haan and Leo IT, when ages were being 3t- tacked in che Lint Caring tat i that cher ace stronge hes of aesthetic sppeecia- tion in the adjectives sed to describe than inthe LP ‘ay See ene in he 24. There ace two mentions of donations of property, in cand 8. STRUCTURE AND GENRE 27 ate not. The bad bishops are not said to have founded anything and indeed are depicted as despoilers of church property, while the good bishops are responsible for construction, donations, and the receipt of gifts to the church of Ravenna> ‘The place and date of butial is given for almost every pope at the end of each Life In the late seventh century, the manner of death begins to be reported also, and by the mid-eighth century, the death of the pope begins to be reported in quasi-hagiographi- cal terms. Many of the bishops of Ravenna die in the odor of sanctity, especially the very eaely bishops—literally, in the case of ‘Marcellinus: “And when the course of many years was run, he lost the pontificate and his life; his body emitted such fragrant odours that the noses of those burying him thought they smelled incense ‘of most precious myrsh” (c. 12)2” Agnellus attempts to provide the anniversary date and place of burial for each of the bishops of Ravenna, Perhaps more honest than the redactors of the LP he ad- mits when he does not know where a particular bishop had been buried, or when he is making a guess; this is true especially for the carly bishops. As in the LP the dates of death and places of bur- ial in the LPR are usually found at the end of each Life. 25, CE Sot, "Hisoriographieépincopale et modal famille” 444. 26, As Picard, Seen, 11 has shown, at Rome the place of burial of the early popes had nt been known, but che redacror(s) of the LP assumed chat they had all been buried at the Vatican. ‘7. This is one of the mor elaborate. For oes, sec. 5 7,891 19 20, 33.26, Be 5 58 65.68, 97515 18, Agnes did know the place of burl for Proculus or Liberus Tl, and he says he is guessing the place of burial for Adertus, Marcian, Calocerus, Dats, Liberae I Apspicas, Maclin, Probus I John I, nd Jon TV. For che aly bish- ‘ops, dates of death ate gien only for Apolinaris,Adernas,Eleuchaius, alocerss, Probus I and Severs; as Pca Semen, 450, points out, each of these bishops was the object of cule From Ussus on, dates are given forall che bishops through “Masinian, with the exception of Belesius and Uric; the next dae given i for Bonus, and then From Repartus to George all are known (ofthe Lives that are com- ere) act for Jn VI. Despite the gupin the early seventh century, Picard, Sen, 5-54 propotes that Agnes had acces to 2 necology o€ lst of the anniversaries of death, for the bishops of Ravenna, separate from the regular episcopal lis, since more death dates are gen than lengths of eegns. 28 INTRODUCTION Ac the end of every papal Life, the number of priests, deacons, and bishops ordained by the pope and the number of different ot- dination ceremonies are given. Then the length of time in which the see was vacant is given in years, months, and days, This in- formation is completely omitted from the LPR, with one excep- tion: Marcian “increased the clergy who were learned in holy doc- trine and consecrated many deacons and priests” This is no doubt an echo of the EP even if a very faint one, but it was not repeat- ed® From all of this we can see that, in addition to the most basic structure, that i, the sequence of bishops’ Lives as serial biogea- phy, Agnellus borrowed several specific categories of information from the LP Nore significantly, he not only borrowed them in concept but also imported the terminology and rhetorical devices of the LP, particularly with regard to encomium and patronage. He also omits some categories, either because he did not have access to the information or because it was relevant only to popes. How much of the LP could Agnellus have known? Redactions of the LP seem to have been disseminated after 715, 757, and 795. Agnellus, living in a city so closely connected to Rome, must have acquited a recent version of the LP Some of the elements he in- cludes in his Lives, such as encomia and meteorological informa- tion, frst begin to be recorded in the LP in the eatly eighth century. Cernain thetorical features, particularly those related to patronage, are closely related to those in the late-eighth- and ninth-century Lives in the LP Agnellus also used the Roman LP as a historical source, as will be discussed below. His confusion of the mid- cighth-century popes has led most scholars to believe that his copy of the LP ended with the Life of Constantine; however, as we shall see, the LPR’ clese connections to the historical content of the LP also indicate that Agnellus had a copy of the LP that covered the petiod atleast through the 770s. Ie should be -emembered that Ravenna, and pethaps Agnellus personally, had a connection with Pope Leo III and certain mem- 25. TestiRasponi CPER, 0. 5: STRUCTURE AND GENRE 29 bers of his administration. In c. 168 of the LPR Agnellus writes that Leo sent his eubilarins Chrsafus to oversee repairs to Sant’ Apollinare in Classe; the LP also mentions this event, without naming Chrisafus.° The details of the restoration, namely, the te- placement of old roof beams, agree so precisely in the two pas- sages that itis tempting to state that Agnellus must have seen the text of the Life of Leo TIL A eubicularius was a member of the papal hhousthold, and such a man, especially one charged with architec- tural responsibilities, might have had a close connection with the lists of papal donations that found their way into the LP®! Chrisa- fus may have brought an updated copy of the LP to Ravenna, or perhaps he even showed Agnellus the style in which items wete recorded in the LP In any event, when Agnellus wrote his own liber ‘ponticals, he drew upon the format and style of the entire LP in or- der to write about the archbishops of Ravenna. The LPR and hagiography Bishops, especially founding bishops, who were also sain's were particularly honored in every Christian city, both because of civic pride and because of the later bishops' interest in maintaining ven- se DRL of Leo Note pS By provide mee decipion of hppa adelante ih cea. The cry oon snd cna he par array oad ppl ee, ad sheets ele flaws de comportn of te LPC Now Leck th Li Bre) On ‘Roeder hand cnn rhe hares nd he wah or enced fcr of cer pare pple ie el en we peed Ij theo nd he mle For hs ese chee hal pope ht he LP Se conpecd nee, co wn of ia wad ae Ten copond or wer nal ve rn fred dln he Por Ketel yon ci ctr Grea Mr ra, paes he compotion of the ar in the ray scises de mye Pain cing ye of no tr he eps Terie ep of rans we sed te {hes and pied by sus ati he 2 he comport ye pb ttc ha fh erin in he ol wih be snr Cr po ably belonged jo. INTRODUCTION ration for their office2* Many early medieval saint, particulaely from the fourth through the sixth centuries, were bishops. Biogra- phies of saintly bishops, as forall saints, are intended to provide examples of virtue for its own sake, but when such hagiographical Lives are included in a work of serial biography, they also glorify the institution. Sot points out that the gata cpicoporen are by nature a mixture of historiography and hagiography, due in part to the sacramental or liturgical role played by these works: Hagiography is almost entirely missing from tke Roman LP Lives of a very few of the martyred early popes retain traces of passion stories (Cornelius, Sixtus II, Marcellinus, ard Marcellus), but many of the early popes are simply identified as having died as martyrs, with no elaboration. Gregory I has only a very short Life in the EP although he was the subject of other biographies in which his divine exploits are recorded. Only one real miracle is documented in the whole LP: Bishop George of Praeneste, who consecrated the schismatic pope Constantine in 768, had his right hand shrivel up while celebrating mass, and subsequently died. Correspondingly, very few popes are presented as bad, except for those who were schismatic; and of course, since the papacy had an interest in protecting its legitimacy as an institution, the losers in the various schisms are necessarily depicted as bad. By contrast, in the LPR miracle stories make up almost a fifth of 432 Sot, “Plstorigraphie éiscopale et modile familial” 46, notes da in northern Europe, the prcesion of an apostolic foundation received new emphasis in the ninth century: however, at Ravenna tis claim goes back a les to the composi- tion of the paso of St. Apolinars, sometime berween the eal sith andthe lat w= cath century if not tothe constuction of Sant Apolinare in Clas in the mid-sich century Fora discussion of apostaliciy in noethern Ili chucha, see Picard, Su- ins 9-95. 33 Sot, “Arguments hagiographiques et histosiographiqus” identifies thre types of argument used che authors of pte to substantiate thee sims te propery a a= ion: claiming char something was founded by a ssindybishop; providing 2 dated precedent or document, a old as possible: or an argument between the two, 4 1e- course co the origins, preferably apostolic, of che entity: He identifies each of these angumens inthe LPR. 34 IE Life of Stephen I, 6 STRUCTURE AND GENRE 31 the entire text. Miracles relating to the Ravenna’s monuments and/or historical personalities demonstrate God's active interest in the affairs of the city, while the presence of saintly bishops in Ravenna's history increases the prestige and glory of the episcopal see, In effect, Agnellus compiled, within the framework of the gota

    You might also like