<p>Andreas Agnellus, author of the ninth-century <i>Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis</i> <i>(The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna</i>), has attracted the attention of scholars not only as the first historian of Ravenna, but also for his skill as a narrator. An anecdote he tells about the birth of the Langobardic king Aistulf has been described as “a rather dramatic story,” but there has been no study of it as narrative. Agnellus adapts a legend about another Langobardic king, Lamissio, from Paul the Deacon’s eighth-century <i>Historia Langobardorum</i> <i>(History of the Langobards</i>). However, as it has come down to us, his own version contains a glaring absurdity. Following the model set by Paul, the author claims he will tell us why the king is named as he is, but then fails to provide an etymology. This narrative illogicality may explain why his version has not been the subject of literary analysis. However, if we read the passage with our eyes on the author’s source material, it may be possible to make sense of this apparently puzzling text. What alterations does Agnellus make to the tale he finds in Paul? How and why does he redesign it? What does it mean that he places a refashioned heroic legend in a new narrative context—episcopal history—a genre with a particular ideology concerning the proper relationship between church and crown? Can we read changes he makes to the tale as traces of his oral public reading of it?</p>