AGNELLO OF RAVENNA. - Priest of the 9th century, author of the Liber Pontificalis of Ravenna. Born in Ravenna around 805 to a noble and powerful family, at baptism he also received the name of his grandfather Andrea. He entered among the clergy of the Cathedral as a child, at the age of 12 he obtained the monastery of S. Maria ad Blacherna for money, and then also, from the aforementioned Sergio, the other one of S. Bartolomeo. He stood out among the other priests not only for his wealth but also for his learning, that is, he was less uncouth among the very uncouth; he knew Greek and had a certain expertise in the manual arts. We do not know when he died.
Asked by his colleagues, he composed the Liber pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis from its origins down to Bishop George, under whose rule he wrote (835-46) with many interruptions of time. With that bishop the work ends, with a biography that is a veritable libel: besides, even earlier the author had not let slip any occasion to vent his feelings against the man who had sought to take from him the possession of the monastery of S. Bartolomeo.
A. evidently took as his model the Liber Pontificalis (v.) of Rome, but did not use it as a source, certainly because it did not suit one who sought every occasion to inveigh against the usurpations of the Roman Curia to the detriment of the liberties of the Church of Ravenna; indeed throughout the whole work one can always discern the intent to set up a counterpart to the deeds of the Roman Pontiffs. Many other ancient works appear sporadically used and cited: somewhat copiously only the consular annals of Ravenna, even where he sometimes says he has instead drawn on the elders, ordinarily padding them out with verbose amplifications. As the basis of the work he placed the diptychs of the cathedral church; for many more ancient bishops everything else is his own personal invention, that is, empty praises and generalities. Besides then besides popular legends, he also extensively exploited the documents of the episcopal archive and the monumental sources. These are the two parts that make his book particularly valuable to us, which thus turns out to be a singular mixture of futile fables and first-hand historical information. In substance it is an uneven compilation, anecdotal, made without historical sense and with very narrow-minded local and clique criteria. As much as and more than the similar Roman compilation.
A. cordially despises the laws of grammar and deliberately contents himself with the incorrect Latin of the common people, although, according to the different sections of the work and the different moments in which he wrote, he shows himself more or less careful. The style is for the most part neglected and full of long-windedness, the period labored and disordered, at times almost childish. But every so often the tone rises and A. becomes impassioned, full of warmth and passion, when he rises in defense of Ravenna's autocephaly against Rome, or grows indignant against Archbishop George, or must put himself and his own affairs on fine display. Besides, he adorns himself only with borrowed ornaments, scriptural phrases and Virgilian reminiscences in great abundance; perhaps the not few Grecisms and the many ἀπέξ εἰρμένα were for him gems of speech.