Deliyannis Review

We have awaited this work, the first complete edition of the 9th-century Agnellus of Ravenna's Liber Pontificalis (LPR) in nearly 130 years, since D. M. Deliyannis presented a version of it for her Ph.D. in 1994. It undoubtedly breaks new ground in Agnellian scholarship throughout the extended commentary, as well as in its establishment of the text, and it is testament to a great deal of scholarly effort. It is with some disappointment, however, that we note some faults in the work.

Much of this new edition will be familiar to those who have read Deliyannis's previous work, especially the expansive introductory sections (pp. 1-135). Here Deliyannis includes a good discussion of Agnellus and his motivations for writing the LPR, and follows this with a discussion of its manuscripts. This section is especially notable because it identifies several new manuscripts useful for establishing the text. An overview of the very limited reception of the LPR follows, and philologists will appreciate the section on Agnellus's orthography and syntax, something too often neglected in editions. Appendix 1 provides a useful summary and important contribution to the debates surrounding Agnellus's confused chronology. There are some, usually minor, faults in the introduction. References to important historical facts are often made only via a single secondary source (e.g. p. 11), not commensurate with the learning demanded in an edition. The Codex Estensis, undoubtedly 15th century, is implied to be 13th century on pp. 112-113. Some sections feel disordered, especially that on Agnellus's use of the Roman LP. Finally, the bibliography lacks essential items about Agnellus, e.g. Cortesi's 'Andrea Agnello' (1981) or crucially Brown's 'Romanitas and Campanilismo' (1986).

The text of the LPR here established, based as it is on a much broader selection of manuscripts than any before, is an indisputable achievement. And yet, although Deliyannis herself states that she has attempted to restore the original text (p. 84), she frequently makes dubious emendations or removes good emendations previously established. For example, on p. 225, Deliyannis discards the useful emendation of amoto suggested by every previous editor, maintaining against reason the reading admonitio, conjuring a noun unattested in Latin. On p. 335, ampliatur becomes ampliaris, when a more logical emendation would be achieved by ampliatus. Likewise on p. 335, postolatus is emended apostolato, making a non-existent adjective, when apostolatūs would suffice. Removing Holder-Egger's suggestion for the sentence in c. 37 (Tanta etenim...), Deliyannis leaves us something that cannot be construed. Deliyannis's neglect of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae may explain some of these errors, and becomes more apparent, for example, when she claims advigilantia (p. 226) occurs nowhere in Latin, although the TLL notes use by Ruricius. The reader will note that these examples are by no means all, and are limited to words beginning with 'a'; unfortunately, therefore, more errors are likely to be found.

Even if the text it provides is not yet perfect, this edition provides ample and thorough background to the many interesting aspects of Agnellus's Liber Pontificalis, and it is hoped that it will spur new research into this oft-neglected source for early medieval Italy.

R. M. Pollard, U. of Cambridge