Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:33:22.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joachim of Flora: A Critical Survey of his Canon, Teachings, Sources, Biography and Influence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Morton W. Bloomfield
Morton W. Bloomfield*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most significant and influential figures of the ‘renaissance of the twelfth century,’ though not mentioned by Charles Haskins in his monumental work of that title (Cambridge 1927), was the Calabrian Joachim of Flora, a man who contributed nothing directly to the revival of science, to a knowledge of Greek or Latin antiquity, or to the rise of a secular attitude. Long before the date of the appearance of Haskins' work, however, since Michelet in fact, Joachim's name was associated with the Renaissance, and in the early years of this century this link was emphasized by Burdach and his followers. He is supposed to have done more to orient men's minds towards, and to have aroused expectations of, a coming new age in the later Middle Ages than anyone else. Whether one wishes to go as far as Burdach went (and I myself certainly do not wish to do so), it is at least true that his works and the works associated with his name helped to create the ferment that was eventually, in a few centuries, to make men feel that they were in a new era of rebirth and that a period of darkness lay behind them.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 13 , 1957 , pp. 249 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Eugène Anitchkof, Joachim de Flore et les milieux courtois (Rome/Paris 1931) 12ff. attacks Burdach's theory of Joachim as a precursor of the Renaissance. Grundmann, H., Studien über Joachim von Floris : Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig and Berlin 1927) 5 n. 6 also questions the role of Joachim as a forerunner of the Renaissance; see also the measured criticism of Burdach's views of Joachism in Borinski, Karl, Die Weltwiedergeburtsidee in den neueren Zeiten, I: Der Streit um der Renaissance und die Entstehungsgeschichte der historischen Beziehungsbegriffe Renaissance und Mittelalter (SB Akad. Munich 1919, Heft 1) 15ff.Google Scholar

3 Although the unauthentic nature of the Commentaries on Jeremiah and Isaiah had been recognized earlier in the century (see note 6), the pioneer work on Joachim's canon was done by Heinrich Denifle, ‘Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni,’ ALKG 1 (1885) 90ff. See also Ehrle's, F. article on Joachim in Kirchenlexicon 6. For recent works on Joachim's canon, see Jordan, E., ‘Joachim de Flore,’ DThC 8.1429ff.; Emil Donckel, ‘Studien über die Prophezeiung des Fr. Telesforus von Cosenza, O.F.M. (1365–1386),’ AFH 26 (1933) 50ff.; Jeanne Bignami-Odier, ‘Notes sur deux manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Vatican contenant des traités inédits de Joachim de Flore,’ Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (École française de Rome) 54 (1937) 211–41; Huck, J. C. Joachim von Floris und die joachitische Literatur (Freiburg im Breisgau 1938) 127ff. and 190ff. (a poorly organized and unreliable book; see the review by Grundmann in Theologische Literaturzeitung 64 [1939] 176–8. Huck has printed two of Joachim's minor works — the Dialogi de praescientia Dei et praedestinatione electorum [pp. 278–87] from MS Padua Bibl. Anton. 322, and the Enchiridion in Apocalypsim from MSS Paris, lat, B.N. 2142 and Vatican Reg. lat. 132 [pp. 287ff.]. The Enchiridion, however, exists in another version. Both texts are apparently inaccurate [see Tondelli, ‘Gli inediti’ 3–4]); Tondelli, L. ‘Gli inediti dell'abate Gioacchino da Fiore,’ ASCL 12 (1942) 1–12; Herbert Grundmann (note 1) 15–31; Russo, F., Bibliografia gioachimita (Biblioteca di bibliografia italiana; Florence 1954). (A modernization of an earlier bibliography which appeared in ASCL 6 [1936]. It covers a wider range, of course, than Joachim's canon and is the most useful extant guide to writings by and on Joachim in spite of its errors and imprecisions.) A definitive bibliographical and canonical work on Joachita and ps.-Joachita cries out to be done. It is an absolute preliminary to the long hoped for definitive edition of all his works.∗∗Google Scholar

4 There is a summary of this work, called Summula seu Breviloquium super concordia novi et ueteris testamenti, to the MSS of which in Russo's Bibliography (p. 20) should be added British Museum MS Egerton 1150. It is probably the work of a 14th-century Spanish or Sicilian Joachite, possibly a Minorite. Google Scholar

5 A long summary of parts of the Expositio is available in English in Elliott, E. B., Horae Apocalypticae: or a Commentary on the Apocalypse… 4 (5th ed. London 1862) 384–422.∗∗Google Scholar

6 Printed by Lazarus de Soardis in Venice 1516; by Bernardin us Benalius in Venice 1525; and in Cologne 1577. It is noteworthy that this pseudo-Joachite work was printed three times in the sixteenth century as compared to a single printing of each of Joachim's three major works (1519 for the Concordia and 1527 for the Expositio and Psalterium, both in Venice). The root of the Jeremiah Commentary is probably Concordia 5.107, fols. 125r-v. The classic article on the Jeremiah and Isaiah Commentaries is Baur, D., ‘Friederich's kritische Untersuchung der dem Abt Joachim von Floris zugeschriebenen Commentare zu Jesajas und Jeremias,’ ZWT 2 (1859) 349–63; 449–514. Friederich gives a history of their interpretations, good summaries of their contents, and showed for the first time that they could not be genuine works of Joachim.Google Scholar

7 Printed by Lazarus de Soardis in 1517 in Venice. Google Scholar

8 I am following the recent interpretation of the Jeremiah Commentary given by Marjorie Reeves, ‘The Abbot Joachim's Disciples and the Cistercian Order,’ Sophia 19 (1951) 360ff. The older interpretation sees in it a work of the radical Franciscans and its criticism mainly directed against their conservative brethren. The date c. 1240 seems however too early for it to have emanated from Franciscan circles. Dr. Reeves’ arguments are strong. She sees the work, as issuing from the Florensian order in the south of Italy. Besides the symbolism of the raven and the dove, the Jeremiah commentary also uses the pairs Esau and Jacob, Joseph and Benjamin, etc. Google Scholar

9 In the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance Joachim was thought, on the basis largely of this work, to have also predicted the rise of the Austin friars; see Possevini, A., Apparatus sacri … 2 (Venice 1606) 102. Gregorio de Lauro, in 1660, goes much further in his Magni divinique prophetae beati Ioannis Ioachim … (Naples), and in a reductio ad absurdum proves that the Abbot predicted the advent of the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Austin Friars, Theatines, and Jesuits as well as the subsequent history of the CisterciansGoogle Scholar

10 Joachim is even supposed to have done the mosaics of St. Francis and St. Dominic in St. Mark's, Venice. See Jordan, , ‘Joachim,’ DThC 8.1440 and Campolongo, F., Il Gioachinismo nella storia e nell'arte (Naples 1930) 20–1.Google Scholar

11 And his ‘seed,’ as with Peter John Olivi in the last decades of the thirteenth century. Google Scholar

12 Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia di Gioacchino da Fiore (Istituto storico italiano, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 67; Rome 1930) and De Articulis fidei di Gioacchino da Fiore (ibid. 78; Rome 1936). See the critical reviews by Ezio Franceschini, ‘Il codice padovano Antoniano XIV, 322, e il testo dei Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Aevum 9 (1935) 481–92 and Ottaviano, C. in Archivio di filosofia 1 (1931) 73–82.Google Scholar

13 Dr. Reeves in her dissertation, Studies in the Reputation and Influence of the Abbot Joachim of Fiore, chiefly in the 15th and 16th centuries (University of London 1932) 93ff. has shown why Venice (see above note 6) was especially a center of Joachim interest in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. It was there that a bitter quarrel centered between the Augustinian friars and canons, and Joachim was called upon as an authority. The mosaics in St. Mark's were no doubt a further stimulus, not to speak of Venetian political ambitions which could use prophecies. The edition of the Oraculum Cyrilli cum expositione abbatis Joachim, a pseudo-Joachite work printed in Venice by de Soardis in 1516, fols. 51v-54v, contains several small prophecies which were supposed to have been found in Mestre just outside of Venice. Google Scholar

14 Also found in the prefatory material in the printed version of the Concordia. Inasmuch as I have not been able to examine the MSS, I am not sure, but following Russo's bibliography and my own knowledge, I think there are a Praefatio seu Introductorius to the Apocalypse (not to be confused with Gerardo de Borgo San Donnino's Introductorius to the Eternal Gospel; see below p. 295) and an Enchiridion in Apocalypsim, both of which sum up Joachim's theories and his interpretation of the Apocalypse. However, MSS of the Enchiridion show some surprising differences, and two works may be masquerading under that title. One version of the Enchiridion is partially printed by Huck (see above, note 3). Then there is an introductory epistle to the Expositio itself which is apparently Joachim's so called Testament. If it can be accepted as genuine, and I think it can, it is very valuable not only for giving us a picture of Joachim's own attitude towards the Church but for deciding problems of his canon. See Tondelli, , Da Gioacchino a Dante , Nuovi studi — Consensi e contrasti (Turin 1944) 62–63 and Wilmart's sage comments, in his catalogue of the Vatican Reginenses, on MS Reg. lat. 132, fols. 49v-95v.Google Scholar

16 Questioned by Mario Niccoli in his article ‘Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Enciclopedia Italiana (Treccani) 17.148 and others. (Niccoli regards Joachim with disapproval.) Google Scholar

16 Joachim was probably well aware of the possible dangers in his interpretation and method and no doubt sincerely submitted to papal judgment. Although we do not hear of papal disapproval before the Lateran Council, in fact the contrary (see below p. 292), it is possible that in his attack on Peter Lombard, which may be an early production, Joachim became aware of strong opposition to his views and his skirting of heresy. Google Scholar

17 ‘ … idem Joachim omnia scripta sua nobis assignari mandaverit apostolicae Sedis judicio approbanda, seu etiam corrigenda; dictans epistolam cui propria manu subscripsit, in qua firmiter confitetur se illam fidem tenere, quam romana tenet Ecclesia, quae cunctorum fidelium, dispor erte Domino, mater est et magistra,’ IV Lateran Council c. 2 in Mansi 22.981–2 = Gregory IX, Decretals 1.1.2.Google Scholar

18 Cipriano Baraut, ‘Un tratado inedito de Joaquin de Fiore: De vita sancti Benedicti et de officio divino secundum eius doctrinam,’ Analecta sacra tarraconensia 24 (1951) 33–122. Foberti, F. Gioacchino da Fiore: Nuovi studi critici sulla mistica e la religiosità in Calabria (Biblioteca storica Sansoni 9; Florence 1934) 98 ff. denies its authenticity, while Huck, J. C., Joachim von Floris (note 3) 6–7, 18ff. and 169ff. defends it.Google Scholar

19 For the text of the condemnation, see Mansi and the Decretals loc. cit. Many scholars see in this condemnation a very important landmark in the history of Western thought — a sign of papal approval for the kind of thinking exemplified in Lombard which was to flower in 13th and 14th-century scholasticism. See de Ghellinck, J., Le mouvement théologique du xii e siècle (Paris 1914) 160ff., esp. p. 163; 2nd ed. (1948) 263ff., 266; Chenu, M. D., ‘Le dernier avatar de la théologie orientale en occident au xiiie siècle,’ Mélanges Auguste Pelzer … (Université de Louvain, Recueil de travaux d'histoire et de philologie3 26; Louvain 1947) 177–81; and above all, Erich Przywara, ‘Die Reichweite der Analogie als katholischer Grundform,’ Scholastik 15 (1940) 339–62; 508–32 (who does not distinguish between Joachim and the Joachites and who sees pantheism in Joachim — a judgment I find hard to support).Google Scholar

20 Vigorously argued in various articles and notes, but most completely presented in Gioacchino da Fiore, Nuovi studi (Florence 1934) and Gioacchino da Fiore e il Gioacchinismo (Padua 1942). As far as I know, Foberti converted no one, but, as Jeanne Bignami-Odier has acutely pointed out, op. cit. (note 1) 153 and 161, Dr. Reeves’ recent work (note 8) on the Southern Italian Joachite movement after his death has given some support to Foberti's argument. Bignami-Odier, op. cit. 159 also notes seventeenth-century suspicions of the Cistercians’ role in the condemnation of Joachim (see note 23).∗∗ Google Scholar

21 Matthew Paris puts it under the year 1179, which would make it an early if not the first work of Joachim's. See below p. 263 on its date. Friedrich, , in ZWT (note 6) 350 n. 3 suggests the De essentia was the first book of the Psalterium, but this is most unlikely The Liber contra Lombardum from Oxford MS Balliol 296, noted by Denifle, and edited by Carmelo Ottaviano (Reale Accademia d'Italia, Studi e documenti 3; Rome 1934) is — as even its editor admits, although he does not carry his scepticism to the title page — not by Joachim at all. It may be a Joachite attack on the Lombardian position, although it needs to be carefully studied in the light of the Trinitarian disputes of the 12th century.Google Scholar

22 See Faucon, Maurice, La librairie des papes d'Avignon … I (Bibliothèques des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 43; Paris, 1886) 125 (No. 361).Google Scholar

23 The idea of Cistercian hostility to Joachim as the cause of his condemnation is old (see Giacinto d'Ippolito, L'abate Gioacchino da Fiore [L'Archicenobio florense e le nuove ricerche storiche sulla vita del grande Calabrese], Saggio storico [Cosenza 1928] 155). Manrique, seventeenth-century historian of the Cistercians, recognizes this antagonism; see his Cisterciensium seu verius ecclesiasticorum annalium … (Lyons 1649) under the year 1188 (III. iv n. 11, p. 211). There is of course the threat of censure issued to Joachim and Brother Raynerius by the Chapter of the Order in 1192. See below p. 293. Google Scholar

24 ‘ Un nuovo documento intorno alla condanna di Gioacchino da Fiore nel 1215,’ Sophia 3 (1935) 476–82 and the later ‘Un documento intorno alla condanna di Gioacchino da Fiore nel 1215,’ Siculorum Gymnasium: Rassegna semestrale della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’ Università di Catania N.S. 2 (1949) 291–94. See Foberti's, answer to Ottaviano in ‘Nuova illustrazione del documento intorno alla condanna di Gioacchino da Fiore nel 1215,’ Sophia 5 (1937) 46–52, and Ottaviano's reply, ‘Postilla’ ibid. 53–58, Just recently, however, after this paper was written, I discovered Francesco, P. Russo, ‘Un documento sulla condanna di Gioacchino da Fiore nel 1215,’ ASCL 20 (1951) 69–73, which very successfully impugns the genuineness of Ottaviano's document (from MS Rome Casan. 1411), in which Peter Lombard appears as a devil. For one thing the document is dated April 1215, whereas the Lateran Council did not begin its deliberations until November of that year. There are other inconsistencies and difficulties, but all this does not make Foberti's non-existent Cistercian forgery a reality.Google Scholar

25 The accusation of Trinitarian heresy bothered the Joachites, as it reflected on the truth of the Abbot's prophecies and his theory of history, which were the only elements in his teachings which interested them. The Ottaviano document, even if it is later than 1215, still provides evidence for this point. As Dr. Hirsch, B.-Reich has pointed out, the aggressive phrase ‘errore procul haeretico’ in the Antiphon to Vespers sung in Calabria in honor of Joachim provides further evidence on this point. William of St. Amour in his De Antichristo uses the Lateran condemnation as evidence that everything Joachim argued must be suspect. Miss Lucy Allen Paton, Les Prophecies de Merlin, edited from M.S. 593 in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Rennes 2 (The Modern Language Association of America, Monograph Series 1; New York and London 1927) 189–90 points out that the author of the Merlin Prophecies (written between 1250 and 1279) emphasizes the orthodoxy of Merlin as a covert criticism of Joachite prophecies.Google Scholar

26 On St. Thomas’ criticism of Joachim, see Benz, Ernst, ‘Joachim-Studien III: Thomas von Aquin und Joachim de Fiore, Die katholische Antwort auf die spiritualistische Kirche und Geschichtsanschauung,’ ZKG 53 (1934) 52–116. St. Thomas according to his biographer William of Tocco (AS, March I 667) took Joachim seriously enough to read him carefully and underline his errors in the text he was using. Aquinas’ attack on Joachim's Trinitarian views may be read in ST 1 q. 39 a.5 (the core of his objection is that Joachim confused ‘essential’ nouns with ‘personal’ nouns when speaking of God. Joachim apparently stated that essence begot essence in his endeavor to stress the reality of the three-ness of the unity. See below, p. 264); on his idea of a third age (although he does not mention his name), in ST 2.1 q. 106–108, esp. q. 106 a.4 and in De potentia, q.5. a.6 ad 9 (‘Non enim legi evangelicae alius status succedit, quae ad perfectum adduxit’); and on whether the date of the end of the world can be predicted, in ST 3 suppl. q. 77 a.2 (on this last point see below, notes 233 and 234). On Joachim as a prophet, St. Thomas wrote ‘Joachim qui per tales conjecturas de futuris aliqua vera praedixit et in aliquibus deceptus fuit,’ In lib. IV sent. dist. 43 q.1 a.3. See also his Expositio in decretalem secundam (Parma ed. 16, Opusculum 20) which is devoted to a discussion of Joachim's Trinitarian theory and a defense of Peter Lombard. It gives us some knowledge of Joachim's arguments and should be studied carefully. St. Bonaventure, although he was to some extent influenced by Joachim, also attacks his views on the Trinity, In lib. I sent. dist. 5 a.2.q.2, dub. 4 (Quaracchi ed. 1.121). See also below note 83. Grundmann views Bonaventure's whole Collationes in Hexaemeron as an attack on Joachim, especially the Concordia, Book V, which is to some extent a commentary on Genesis and the account of the Creation (‘Dante und Joachim von Fiore, zu Paradiso X-XII,’ Deutsches Dante-Jahrbuch 14 [1932] 232ff.)Google Scholar

27 See Expositio 9.1ff. (f. 130v) (references to the Expositio are by chapter and verse of the Apocalypse when possible, and folio). Joachim also was suspicious of Gratian andCanonlaw. Google Scholar

27a See note 17. Google Scholar

28 ‘ In nullo tamen per hoc Florensi monasterio, cujus ipse Joachim extitit institutor, volumus derogari.’ IV Lateran Council c. 2 in Mansi 22.981–2.Google Scholar

29 See Huck, J. C., Joachim von Floris (note 3) 267–8. Honorius III even defends Joachim's general orthodoxy in letters to the Archbishop of Cosenza and the Bishop of Bisignano (see Charles du Plessis d'Argentré, Collectio judiciorum I [Paris 1728–1736] 121); AS, May VII 101–02; and apparently in Domenico Taccone-T. Gallucci, Regesti dei romani pontefici alle chiese di Calabria (Rome 1902) 133, which I have not been able to consult. See Russo, 's review of Niccoli's articles in the Enciclopedia Italiana on Joachim and the Spiritual Franciscans, ASCL 7 (1937) 88–89.Google Scholar

30 A most ardent patron of the Florensians. See Callebaut, André, ‘Le Joachimite Benoît,’ AFH 20 (1927) esp. 221–22 and Caraffa, F., Il monastero florense di Maria S. della Gloria presso Anagni (Rome 1940), passim. See also below note 202. — Lazarus de Soardis, before printing in Venice a number of Joachite and ps.-Joachite works in 1517 (see above note 7), obtained in 1516 the Pope's approval to do so.Google Scholar

31 De patria celesti and De gloria paradisi, printed at the end of the 1527 Venice edition of the Expositio and Psalterium. For these two poems and their possible influence on Dante, see Mango, Francesco. ‘L'Abate Gioacchino, a Giovanni Mestica …,’ Il Propugnatore (of Bo logna) 19.2 (1886) 241ff. Most scholars accept them as genuine. See also Hirsch-Reich, B. in Reeves, M. and Hirsch-Reich, B., ‘The Seven Seals in the Writings of Joachim of Fiore,’ RTAM 21 (1954) 231–32 and notes 73 and 75. The latter article also prints the opusculum De septem sigillis which the authors argue convincingly is genuine. To their list of MSS (pp. 231ff.) should be added the version in the Pierpont Morgan Library MS 631, ff. 47r-48r.∗∗Google Scholar

32 See the long review article by Russo, F. ‘Il libro delle figure attribuito a Gioacchino da Fiore,’ MF 41 (1941) 326–44. Russo sees the influence of the Jeremiah Commentary on the Liber and hence tends to doubt its early authenticity. Both may owe their similarities, however, to a common source in Joachite circles. He also raises some troubling objections, as for instance the anti-German element in some figures, which does not seem to have been characteristic of Joachim in his later years, when the Liber is supposed to have been written.Google Scholar

33 On Salimbene's Joachism, see Emerton, Ephraim, ‘Fra Salimbene and the Franciscan Ideal,’ Harvard Theological Review 8 (1915) 480–503 and Coulton, G. G., From St. Francis to Dante (2nd ed. London 1907) 150–66.Google Scholar

34 The Protocol of Anagni also alludes to a book of figures; see Denifle, (note 3) 122.Google Scholar

35 For excellent clarifying articles on the various figures associated with Joachim's works, see Reeves, Marjorie E. ‘The Liber Figurarum of Joachim of Fiore,’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1951) 57–81 and Reeves and Hirsch-Reich, ‘The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore, Genuine and Spurious Collections,’ ibid. 3 (1954) 170–99. Note however Lorenzo Minio-Paluello's review of Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 and his comments on the first article in Rivista storica italiana 63 (1951) 255–57. To the various illustrated MSS mentioned in these two articles, MS Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Conv. Soppr. 358 should be added. A strong argument for the genuineness of the Liber figurarum is that Joachim frequently in his authentic works refers to, and uses, figures to clarify his argument.Google Scholar

36 Actually Fournier, in Revue des questions historiques 67 (1900) 459n and Bondatti, G. in Giaocchinismo e francescanesimo nal dugento (S. Maria degli Angeli 1924) had earlier suggested that the Dresden MS A. 121 was a copy of the Liber figurarum. Google Scholar

37 Two volumes, Turin. Google Scholar

38 In 1913, Gardner, Edmund G., Dante and The Mystics (London) 195 suggested Joachism as the explanation of this figure. Papini in 1933 (see his Dante vivo [trans. New York 1935] 280–97) before the discovery of the Liber suggested the Joachite origin of veltro and urged its name might conceal the VangEL eTeRnO (see below, p. 304). There are many difficulties in any identification of the veltro with the Holy Ghost or any Joachite concept, not the least of which is the fact that the veltro is to be the saviour of Italy, a somewhat restricted nationalistic task for a Person of the Trinity. See Foberti, 's criticism of Papini in MF 39 (1939) 158ff. and Russo, F., ‘Rassegna gioacchimito-dantesca,’ MF 38 (1938) 70. On the whole subject of Joachite influence on Dante, see below pp. 303ff.Google Scholar

39 See Manacorda, G., Poesia e contemplazione: Gioacchino da Fiore — S. Francesco — Dante —S. Caterina (Florence 1946/7), who denies a Joachite model for the Dantean circles. In general, however, there is a much better case for the circles being of Joachite origin than for the preceding identification. See the article by Hirsch-Reich, B., cited below, note 121Google Scholar

40 Although southern France has also been suggested as its provenance; see Minio-Paluello, (above, note 35).Google Scholar

41 Turin 1953. See also Hirsch-Reich's, B. discussion of the edition and a defence of the work's authenticity in ‘Das Figurenbuch Joachims von Fiore,’ RTAM 21 (1954) 144–47.Google Scholar

42 See Tondelli, , ‘Nuove prove della genuinità del Libro delle Figure di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ La scuola cattolica (April 1942) 3–23, reprinted in Da Gioacchino a Dante: Nuovi studi — consensi e contrasti (Turin 1944) 34–63.Google Scholar

43 Schott, E., ‘Die Gedanken des Abtes Joachim von Floris,’ ZKG 23 (1902) 164 makes the point that Joachim is more interested in the past than even the present. Miss Reeves has been emphasizing recently the importance of a double parallelism (between the Old Testament age and the present age) rather than a triple one in Joachim. Mrs. Bignami-Odier points out (‘Travaux recents,’ Le moyen âge 58 [1952] 158) that Dr. Reeves’ emphasis on Joachim's double rather than triple mode of thought agrees with Grundmann's view in his Studien über Joachim von Fiore (Leipzig 1927) 72ff. See, however, Bloomfield and Reeves, ‘The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 793 n. 87, where the point is made that it is after all rather difficult to be detailed about a third age not yet entered upon.Google Scholar

44 See e.g. Foberti, , Gioacchino da Fiore e il gioacchinismo (Padua 1942) 227ff.Google Scholar

45 Russo is less dogmatic on the point. See above note 32 for Russo's opinion. Mrs. Bignami-Odier, in her review of Tondelli's edition in Bibliothèque de l'École de Chartes 103 (1942) 250–51, discusses the objections of Foberti and Russo. For Tondelli's defence, see above note 42.Google Scholar

46 Liber figurarum , first edition, II 61 (reproduced from the Dresden MS).Google Scholar

47 ‘ Il me semblerait qu'il s'agit plutôt d'un disciple imbu des idées de son maître, vrai joachimite, dans le bon sens du mot et non dans le sens péjoratif, et qui, dans les dernières années de la vie du penseur, ou dans les vingt-cinq années qui suivirent, élabora ce résumé pour illustrer les œuvres de son maître,’ Bignami-Odier's review (above, note 45). Some drawings, of course, found in MSS and editions of the genuine works, undoubtedly are Joachim's own. See above, note 35.Google Scholar

48 ‘ … non una costruzione teologica, ma una grandiosa visione poetico-religiosa,’ Manacorda, G. (note 39) 40. This is a point which Buonaiuti has emphasized especially in his attack on Fournier's interpretation of Joachim's thought (see below, notes 100 and 101). For Buonaiuti's view, see his Gioacchino da Fiore: I tempi — La vita — Il messagio (Rome 1931) 184, 195, 208 etc.Google Scholar

49 ‘ Sum homo agricola a juventute mea,’ Expositio 14.14ff. (fol. 175r).Google Scholar

50 Buonaiuti (note 48) 129 n. 1. See the summary in Rivista storica italiana 48 (1931) 305–23.Google Scholar

51 ‘ Appunti gioachimiti: la nascita, casato, la condizione sociale,’ ASCL 3 (1933) 224ff. (reprinted in Gioacchino da Fiore, Nuovi studi… [Florence 1934] 21ff.) and Gioacchino da Fiore e il gioacchinismo … (Padua 1942) 99–100. Giuseppe Marchese, La Badia di Sambucina: Saggio storico sul movimento cistercense nel mezzogiorno d'Italia (Lecce 1932) 158–59, also argues that the statement cannot be literal.Google Scholar

52 See e.g. 1 Cor. 3.9. Google Scholar

53 ‘ Sicut ipsi vidimus Hierosolymis …,’ Super quatuor Evangelia (ed. Buonaiuti) 93. Joachim apparently did have various mystical and illuminative experiences. See e.g. Expositio 1.10 (fol. 39r-v) and preface to the Psalterium, fol. 227r-v. Yet as I read these words in their context (e.g. the reference to the Armenians in Jerusalem), it seems obvious that here at least the words are to be taken literally.Google Scholar

54 See Reeves, (note 35) 77ff.Google Scholar

55 See Buonaiuti, E., ‘Prolegomeni alia storia di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 404. As a good example of Joachim's inattention to detail and contradictions, we may look at Concordia 2 tr. 1 c. 4, fol. 8r, where he says the ‘initiatio’ of the present age ‘est ab Helyseo propheta sive ab Oçia [Uzziah] rege iuda’ and then further in the same passage ‘initiatio ab Oçia sive a diebus Asa, sub quo vocatus est Helyseus ab Helya propheta.’ Who is the initiator (precursor really) of the second age? We have, as most commentators, taken Uzziah (see below, p. 268), as it is he who is most frequently so denominated. This would seem to us to be a most important point in his system, and yet Joachim is here, as elsewhere, vague. We are therefore wrong in pressing Joachim to an absolutely clear-cut and unambiguous scheme, for he did not think in that fashion nor consider it important.Google Scholar

56 See Jordan, , de Flore, 'Joachim; DThC 8.1429 and Reeves (note 13) 11 n.Google Scholar

57 Cf. the sage words of Étienne Gilson, ‘En annonçant la bonne nouvelle, l’Évangile n'avait pas seulement promis aux justes une sorte de béatitude individuelle, il leur avait annoncé l'entrée dans un Royaume, c'est-à-dire, dans une société de justes, unis par les liens de leur commune béatitude,’ L'Esprit de la philosophie médiévale (2nd ed. Études de philosophie médiévale 33; Paris 1944) 367–68. Walter Nigg, Das ewige Reich: Geschichte einer Sehnsucht und einer Enttäuschung (Erlenbach/Zurich 1944) 169 stresses the centrality of the ‘Reich’ concept in Joachim's thinking. Google Scholar

58 On Joachim's exegetical method, see Pézard, André, Dante sous la pluie de feu (Enfer, Chant XV) (Études de philosophie médiévale 40; Paris 1950) 390–92 and 265–66 (comparison With Dante); La Piana (note 1) 265; and below, note 92.Google Scholar

59 ‘ Istud donum, scilicet donum intellectus, tantae claritatis est et acuminis in quibusdam, ut valde assimiletur spiritui prophetiae, qualem crediderunt nonnulli fuisse in abbate Joachim, et ipsemet de seipso dixisse [dixit?], quia non erat ei datus spiritus prophetiae sed spiritus intelligentiae. Si quis autem inspexerit libros ejus, quos scripsit super Apocalypsim et super concordiam duorum testamentorum, mirabitur donum intellectus in eo,’ William of Auvergne, De virtutibus (after 1217) in Opera 1 (Paris 1674) 152. Joachim speaks of ‘nos qui cum essemus nouissimi’ being allowed by grace to penetrate the literal meaning of the Bible so as to go ‘de claritate in claritatem,’ Concordia 2.1, fol. 6r. In his preface to the Concordia, he said his work is a new kind of exegesis. Traditionally the gift of intelligence is associated with the Holy Ghost (‘ad quem specialiter pertinet misticus intellectus,’ Concordia 2.2.2, fol. 7V) and with interpreting Scripture. This in turn is the essence of religious prophecy. See Guillaume, of Thierry, ‘Est etiam prophetia discretio spirituum, et in Scripturis sensuum cognitio occultorum,’ Expos. in Epist. ad Rom. 7 (PL 180.673) and Abelard, ‘[Prophetia], id est gratia interpretandi, id est exponendi verba divina,’ Expos. in Epist. Pauli ad Rom. 4 (PL 178.939). Of course secular and pagan prophecy was recognized as possible (Aquinas, ST 2.2 q. 174, last article). The Sibyls, not to speak of others, had to be accounted for. See Kamlah, W., Apokalypse und Geschichtstheologie (Berlin 1935) 108.Google Scholar

The orthodox view of Christian prophecy is that the revelations must not be contrary to the truth of the Catholic faith (see Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae 19 [PL 43.428–32] and cf. his De Genesi ad litteram 12 [PL 34.453 ff.]) and that the function of the true prophet is to interpret by the spirit of intelligence the secrets in Scripture. Peter Damian, De sancta simplicitate 4.5 (PL 145.698–99) argues that the act of humility whereby one renounces learning is compensated for by the gift of mystical penetration into the deepest meanings of Holy Scripture. This thought would not be at all alien to Joachim. See the references in P. Alphandéry, ‘De quelques faits de prophétisme dans des sectes latines antérieures au Joachimisme,’ RHR 52 (1905) 207ff.

60 See below, p. 283. Google Scholar

61 Études sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris 1909). Tocco, L'eresia nel medio evo (Florence 1884) 326 denies any connection between Joachim's Trinitarian and historical theories, as does Buonaiuti, Gioacchino (Rome 1931) 208. However, Grundmann, Studien über Joachim (Leipzig 1927) 8 and Crocco, ‘L'età dello Spirito Santo in Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Humanitas 9 (1954) 729–30 agree that there is at least some connection.Google Scholar

62 Joachim in his Enchiridion tells us his (historical) system arose from reading the Apocalypse. He saw that the concordance between the Old Testament and its head, Jesus (New Testament), would also apply to His body (the Church); see Tondelli, , Il libro delle figure dell’ abate Gioacchino da Fiore I (Turin 1940) 145ff. See below, quotation in note 105.Google Scholar

63 Bach, Josef, Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christologischen Standpunkte oder die mittelalterliche Christologie vom achten bis sechzehnten Jahrhundert II (Vienna 1875) 734 recognizes that the Psalterium could not have been the condemned work, although he finds a few anti-Lombardian statements in it. The Protocol of the Commission of Anagni appointed to investigate the Eternal Evangel (see below, n.207) tried to find tritheism in the Psalterium.∗∗Google Scholar

64 Besides the references in the preceding note, see Ottaviano, C., ‘Postilla,’ Sophia 5 (1937) 55–56. The most suspicious statement in the Psalterium occurs on fol. 229v in the passage beginning ‘Item quod hiis nequius …,’ where Joachim argues that substance (or essence) must also be in the persons (see above note 26), using the traditional image of the sun, its fire, rays, and heat. Note the marginal comments in MS Vat. lat. 5732 (XVth cent.) of the Psalterium, fol. 2r etc. which point to parts of the work (one of which is the ‘Item quod hiis …’ passage) which seem to the annotator to be ‘contra Peter Lombardum.’Google Scholar

65 Matthew Paris discusses Joachim's Trinitarian heresy under this date, although perhaps too much ought not to be made of it. The time of the Council of Tours (1163) is also a possible date, for it too was concerned with Christological and Trinitarian problems, but on the whole 1163 seems too early. In Concordia 5.92, fol. 121v, Joachim speaks of the pre sence of numerous Trinitarian and Christological errors in his time. Google Scholar

66 In his lost early work, Joachim may have, as Th. de Régnon, Études de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité II (Paris 1892–98) 255ff. urges, taught a crude tritheism, but on the basis of our present evidence that seems to be going too far. He certainly wished to emphasize the threeness and persons of God, but that is not equivalent to tritheism. In general it seems most unlikely that he did, although he may have used some unhappy or unfortunate metaphors or similes to suggest collectivity, which gave rise to the misapprehension. For instance even in the Psalterium, dist. 1, fol. 232v, discussing the Trinity, he speaks of the three tribes of Judah — Judah, Benjamin and Levi — as one people. The text of the Lateran Council indicates that Joachim used the following Biblical verses to support his position: Acts 4.32; 1 Cor. 3.8; 1 Kings 22.4; John 17.21ff.; 1 John 5.7. Joachim was no dialectician and should not have entered the lists against Peter Lombard. Google Scholar

67 See Benz, E., ‘Joachim-Studien I: Die Kategorien der religiösen Geschichtsdeutung Joachims,’ ZKG 50 (1931) 24–111.Google Scholar

68 There is some small evidence that the replacement of the second age will not be as complete as that of the first. Joachim has very complex theories about the various ages and various kinds of ages; he was intoxicated with the idea. The three-fold division is, however, the best known and most common in his writings. The concept of pattern, as the illustrations and figures show, is a fundamental trait of his thought. Google Scholar

69 Its history is of a special kind. The people whose story it treated, the Israelites, bore — to use Hugo of St. Victor's phrase — a ‘status excellentior.’ Hugo's theory was that certain peoples or persons at times become the true representative of their age and are divinely ordered to move history forward. This conception is the philosophical root of the translatio regni (or in some cases, studii) idea which so gripped medieval man, See Schneider, W. A., Geschichte und Geschichtsphilosophie bei Hugo von St. Victor (Münstersche Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung 53; Münster i.W. 1933) 54, 56, 92ff. and 105.Google Scholar

70 Joachim is very generation-minded. See e.g. Concordia 5.118, fol. 134r and 5.1.11ff.; Psalterium 2, fols. 272–77, etc. Google Scholar

71 Some passages in the New Testament apparently admit the possibility of several antichrists; see e.g. John 2.18 1 and John 7 2. In the latter part of the Middle Ages, it was widely believed that there would be at least two ar tichrists, the ultimus, magnus, verus, personalis or purus who would immediately precede Christ's last coming and Judgement and the mysticus (in the sense of foreshadowing) (sometimes corrupted to mixtus). On the latter, see Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, trans. Mierow, C. C. (Columbia Records of Civilizantio; New York 1928) 457. St. John of Capistraro (d. 1456) wrote a De antichristo ultimo. This creates a curious problem, for one of the accusations of the Commission of Anagni, appointed in 1256 to look into the Eternal Evangel dispute (see note 207), was that Joachim taught two antichrists. On the distinction between the two see also Moriz Ritter, ‘Der Streit der Franciscaner über die Armuth,’ Theologisches Literaturblatt 12 (1877) 123 and Angelo Messini, ‘Profetismo e profezie ritmiche italiane d'ispirazione gioachimito-francescana nei secoli XIV e XV,’ MF 37 (1937) 41–42.Google Scholar

72 Often erroneously said to be Hosea. See e.g. Alfons Rosenberg, Joachim von Fiore, das Reich des heiligen Geistes (Munich/Planegg 1955) 26 (a German translation of parts of Joachim's writing with an introduction).Google Scholar

73 Concordia 5.48. As Joshua had been appointed before Moses’ death to the leadership of the Jews (Concordia 3.1.14, fols. 31v-32r), so St. Benedict was the leader of the monastic spiritual age before it is actually initiated. In a sense there are two initiators (or precursors) of the third age, for Elisha in the Old Testament is also a precursor of St. Benedict. See the rubrics in the MS of the Concordia in the Biblioteca Laurenziana, Conv. Soppr. 358, fols. 10r-11v. With Uzziah and Isaiah we are informed by the rubric that these are the initiatio ordinis clericorum and with Asa and Elisha, initiatio ordinis monachorum and with Benedict, secunda initiatio ordinis monachorum. Google Scholar

74 Joachim has a whole series of triplets to characterize these ages such as: fear, faith, love; law, cross, rest; work, suffering, contemplation; flesh, blood, spirit; Peter, Paul, John, starlight, dawn, day; winter, spring, summer; grass, corn, wheat; water, wine, oil; servants, children, friends; old men, youths, children (and in the opposite order); knowledge; wisdom, perfect intelligence; married (or laity), clerics, monks, etc. See Concordia 5.84, fol. 112r-v. Google Scholar

75 But ordinary man would apparently continue to marry and live, though under monastic supervision. Each age does not cancel out entirely the preceding one. Joachim's tremendous admiration for monasticism may be seen in Concordia 5.14 and 48 and De articulis fidei (ed. Buonaiuti) 55ff. See also below p. 280ff. On characteristics of the future age, see Buonaiuti, E., ‘Il testamento di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 509ff. and Crocco, A. (note 61) 728–42 (a very conservative interpretation of Joachim but based on texts). Very revealing for Joachim's view of the future age is the figure, ‘Dispositio novi ordinis pertinens ad tercium statum ad instar superne Jerusalem’ (Tavola 12, Liber figurarum, ed. Tondelli), discussed at length and reproduced in Grundmann (note 1) 85ff. The trouble here is that the figure is much more detailed about the future age than any of Joachim's known writings are. Grundmann, however, makes out a good case for the figure as representative of Joachim's view and shows how it corresponds in general with Concordia 5.23. On future orders see Expositio 11.3–6 (fol. 145vff.) and 14.4–5 (172r-v) and 17.5 (195r-v) (on filii Jerusalem as opposed to the filii Babylonis) etc.∗∗Google Scholar

76 Three orders (lay [or married], clerics, and monks [or contemplatives]) are discussed in Expositio, Introductorius fol. 5r-v and 1.8, fol. 37v; Concordia 5.48ff.; Commentary on Rule of St. Benedict (ed. Baraut, C.) 45; Super quatuor Evangelia (ed. Buonaiuti) 91, etc. These three grades or orders of chastity (and perfection) are traditional and may be found in Jerome, Ambrose, Bede etc. The last two are grades usually presented as widows and virgins.Google Scholar

77 For Joachim's attitude towards the papacy, see Concordia, 5.65, fol. 95v (where Joachim says the pope like the old David needs to be warmed by a virgin; the Church of Peter is the throne of Christ, etc.) and Concordia 4.39. In Concordia 5.92, fols. 121v-122v, Mordecai prefigures a future great pope. Joachim, it seems, is deliberately ambiguous in his comments on the papacy. Huck, J. C., Joachim von Floris (note 3) 236 says the Church of the third age will be presided over by a pope.Google Scholar

78 Joachim predicts then both a new age and a time of troubles. Pessimists were, as might be expected, more common. Millenarianists of all types welcomed Joachim for whatever support they could find in him for their predictions of the coming of an Antichrist and the last Judgment. Those who looked forward to a new age were fewer and are to be found mainly among the ‘spiritual’ Franciscans. (See below p. 299f.). See Messini, A. (note 71) 41.Google Scholar

79 See K. Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago 1949) 151. Google Scholar

80 On his orthodoxy, see Russo (note 32) 333ff. In general, Dempf, Benz, Grundmann, and even more so Buonaiuti, tend to emphasize the non-orthodox side of Joachim's thought, while Huck, Foberti, and Tondelli stress the orthodox. The line cannot be drawn, though, as Protestant or anti-clerical vs. Catholic interpretations, for some Catholics take a very disapproving attitude towards his faith, and occasionally a non-Catholic defends his orthodoxy. Nineteenth-century scholars in general tended to see Joachim as more revolutionary and proto-Protestant than modern ones. See e.g. Wilhelm Preger, Geschichte der deutschen Mystik im Mittelalter I (Leipzig 1874) 196–207.Google Scholar

81 See e.g. Delacroix, H., Essai sur le mysticisme speculatif en Allemagne au quatorzième siècle (Paris 1900) 44, where he argues that the third age exists only in germ in Joachim's genuine writings and is not really of this world at all. This position is hard to maintain if one reads Joachim carefully, and is even more difficult if one takes as sound the evidence afforded by the Liber figurarum. Google Scholar

82 ‘ … nullus autem status praesentis vitae potest esse perfectior quam status novae legis … quod immediate in finem ultimum introducit,’ ST 2.1 q. 106 a.4; cf. De potentia q. 5. a.6 ad 9 (see above note 26).Google Scholar

83 ‘ Post novum testamentum non erit aliud, nec aliquod sacramentum novae legis sub trahi potest, quia illud testamentum aeternum est,’ Collationes in Hexaemeron 16.2- (Quaracchi ed. 5.403).Google Scholar

84 The stigmata confirmed to many the similarity of St. Francis to Christ and helped to establish the gloss on Apoc. 7.2 (dealing with the angel of the sixth seal ‘having the seal of the living God’) that St. Francis was here being referred to. This interpretation is not Joachim's of course — he usually interprets the angel traditionally as the pope or Christ, but at one point (see below note 239) likens him to the novus dux — yet it soon came to be accepted even by non-spirituals like Bonaventure (in his Legenda maior) and Dante. The conservative view of Francis’ likeness to Christ is summed up in Bartholomew of Pisa's De conformitate vitae Francisci B. ad vitam Domini Iesu Christi in 1399. This sense of parallelism goes back even to St. Francis’ lifetime, although many details are later developments. See Delorme, Ferdinand M. ‘Élévations théologiques sur Fran, S. çois “l'autre ange au signe du Dieu vivant” (Traité inédit du xiiie siècle: c.1282),’ Studi francescani N.S. 10 [21] (1924) 233–61 and Stephanus, P. Bihel, ‘S. Franciscus, fuitne angelus sexti sigilli? (Apoc. 7,2)’ Antonianum 2 (1927) 59–90. See below note 217.Google Scholar

85 His story may be found in 2 Chronicles (4 Kings) 26 and 2 Kings 14.21 and 15.1ff. Uzziah (Vulgate: Ozias) is his name in Chronicles and Azariah in Kings. ‘Oçias quia usurpavit officium sacerdotii elephantino morbo percussus de domo Domini expulsus est,’ Concordia 5.118, fol. 134v. In Concordia 4.2, fol. 43r, Joachim works out some kind of parallel between Uzziah and Adam, precursors of the second and first ages respectively. Both were expelled, for instance, from God's presence because of pride. Although it may not be of any significance, it should be noted that St. Ephraim the Syrian draws, in his hymns, this very same comparison between Adam and Uzziah; see Edmund Beck, Ephraems Hymnen über das Paradies, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Studia Anselmiana 26; Rome 1951) 28, 130 and 160ff. Uzziah was frequently held up as an example of the king who tried to usurp priestly functions and was stricken with leprosy by God as a punishment. See e.g. Grosseteste's Letters No. 124 (ed. Luard, H. R. R. S.) 348–51 and Osbert of Clare, Letters No. 14 (ed. Williamson, E. W.) 81. He was used as Biblical support for ‘papalists’ and a Biblical warning for interfering laymen in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; see Max Hackelsperger, Bibel und mittelalterlicher Reichsgedanke: Studien und Beiträge zum Gebrauch der Bibel im Streit zwischen Kaisertum und Papstthum zur Zeit der Salier (Dissertation Munich; Bottrop i.W. 1934) 39 and 60, where references are given to the works of Placidus of Nonantula and Honorius Augustodunensis. Rabanus Maurus in the ninth century in his commentary on 2 Kings 5 says Uzziah signifies the devil (PL 109.246) and in his commentary on 4 Kings 26 that he was originally a good man who went wrong (PL 109.511). The latter is probably Joachim's view.Google Scholar

86 Cf. Concordia 5.63, where Joachim takes the story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah as a warning against monks immersing themselves in the world. It is a confusion of orders. Google Scholar

87 See below, p. 290. Google Scholar

87a See above, note 85. Google Scholar

88 Buonaiuti, , Gioacchino 194.Google Scholar

89 ST 2.1. q. 106 a.4. See above note 26. Google Scholar

89a See also p. 276 and note 208 below. Google Scholar

90 ‘ Die Neuheit seiner Ansätze und das Revolutionäre seiner Gedankengänge sind ihm selbst [Joachim] wohl nicht immer ganz klar geworden,’ Karl August Fink, ‘Joachim von Fiore und die Krise des mittelalterlichen Geschichtsdenkens,’ Grosse Geschichtsdenker, ed. Rudolf Stadelmann (Tübingen and Stuttgart 1949) 100.Google Scholar

91 ‘ Così la sua [Joachim's] teoria veniva ad assumere il carattere della più alta apoteosi che mai sia stata fatta del monachismo,’ Crocco (note 61) 733.Google Scholar

92 Wilhelm Kamlah (note 59 above). For Joachim's role in the history of the exegesis of the Apocalypse see also Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, begründet von Meyer, H. A. W.; Göttingen 1906) 73ff.; P. E.-B. Allo, Saint Jean, l'Apocalypse (3rd ed. Études Bibliques; Paris 1933) ccxlviiiccci; Alois Wachtel, ‘Die weltgeschichtliche Apocalypse — Auslegung des Minoriten Alexander von Bremen,’ Franziskanische Studien 24 (1937) 338–56; and the introduction to his edition of Alexander's Expositio in Apocalypsim (MGH, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 1; Weimar 1955) (Wachtel is rather suspicious of Joachim and his orthodoxy. Alexander of Bremen's Expositio was an early German commentary on the Apocalypse influenced by Joachim and the Jeremiah Commentary [c. 1250]. In his prologue he accepts the Joachite principle that the Apocalypse is a prophecy of the history of the Church of Christ on earth); Arduinus, P. Kleinhans, ‘De studio Sacrae Scripturae in ordine Fratrum Minorum saeculo XIII,’ Antonianum 7 (1932) 413–40, esp. 430. See also above, note 58.Google Scholar

93 ‘ Thus St. Augustine transformed the Apocalypse from a revelation of history into a book of consolation for the spiritually besieged members of the City of God,’ Ernest Lee Tuveson, Millenium and Utopia: A Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1949) 17. See also Kamlah (note 59) 126.Google Scholar

94 ‘ Secundus status fuit sub evangelio, et manet usque nunc, in libertate quidem respectu preteriti, sed non in libertate respectu futuri. Dicit enim apostolus: Nunc ex parte cognoscimus et ex parte prophetamus …,’ Expositio , Introductorius, fol. 5r.Google Scholar

95 ‘ Considerata sul terreno della metodica esegetica, l'originalità di Gioacchino è pertanto puramente quantitativa,’ Buonaiuti in the preface to his edition of Super quatuor Evangelia, p. xlvii. ‘Sein [Joachim's] Drang, das Schriftwort richtig zu verstehen, war im Mittalter nichts Neues, wohl aber war die Intensität, mit der er seiner Bibelbeschäftigung oblag, nicht alltäglich,’ Walter Nigg (note 57) 161.Google Scholar

96 See Campolongo, F., Il gioacchinismo nella storia e nell'arte (Naples 1930) esp. 21ff.∗∗Google Scholar

97 See Lossky, V., Essai sur la théologie mystique de l'église d'orient (Paris 1944).Google Scholar

98 Not unknown in France and England. Abaelard springs to mind for the first, and see also Hugo of St. Victor (W. Schneider, A. [note 69] 110). For the second see Gilbert Crispin's (d. 1117) De Spiritu Sancto, still unprinted in toto, cf. Armitage, J. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin (Notes and Documents Relating to Westminster Abbey 3; Cambridge 1911) 70ff.Google Scholar

99 On Guillaume, see J. M. Déchanet, Guillaume de Saint-Thierry et son oeuvre (Bibliothèque médiévale, Spirituels préscolastiques 1; Bruges and Paris 1942) (pp. 89ff. for views on the Trinity, which he considered to be for contemplation, not speculation); Un traité de la vie solitaire: Epistola ad fratres de monte Dei de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry, ed. M. Davy, M. (2 vols. Paris 1940–46); André Adam, Guillaume de Saint-Thierry: Sa vie et ses œuvres (Thèse Lyon; Bourg 1923) esp. 63ff. (on his hatred of dialectic); Martin Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode II (Freiburg im Breisgau 1911) 274ff.; Otto Baltzer Beiträge zur Geschichte des christologischen Dogmas in 11. und 12. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1898) 39ff. For Greek influence on Guillaume see Lossky, V., Essai (note 97) 63 n. 2, and Déchanet, ‘Aux sources de la doctrine spirituelle de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry: I, Saint Grégoire de Nysse,’ Collectanea ordinis cisterciensium reformatorum 5 (1938) 187–98 and 262–78. Ivanka, ‘Byzantinische Theologumena und hellenische Philosophumena im zisterziensischen-bernhardinischen Denken,’ in Bernhard von Clairvaux, Mönch und Mystiker: Internationaler Bernhard-kongress Mainz 1953 (ed. Lortz, J., Veröffentlich. des Instituts für europäische Geschichte 6; Wiesbaden 1955) 168–75 states, without any documentation, that Guillaume's psychology is at the basis of the Joachite movement — especially the linking of the spiritual aspect of the soul with the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, it seems to me, this kind of psychologizing is very alien to Joachim's mode of thought.Google Scholar

100 The basic book on Gilbert's influence on Joachim, especially through the Porretanian Liber de vera philosophia (last quarter of twelfth century, from Grenoble MS 290), is Paul Fournier, Études sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris 1909). On Gilbert and the Porretani, see Vicaire, M. H., ‘Les porrétains et l'avicennisme avant 1215,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 26 (1937) 449–82 (Vicaire does not deny, p. 450, the influence of the Porretani on Joachim, yet he makes the point that Gilbert and his followers emphasized the divine unity above all); J. de Ghellinck, Le movement théologique du xii e siècle (2nd ed. Bruges, Brussels and Paris 1948) 175 (and bibliographical footnote p. 177); Jansen, W. Der Kommentar des Clarenbaldus von Arras zu Boethius De Trinitate, ein Werk aus der Schule von Chartres im 12. Jahrhundert (Breslauer Studien zur historischen Theologie, ed. Seppelt, F. X. 8; Breslau 1926) (Clarenbaldus opposed Gilbert apparently because he felt he threatened the unity of the Trinity); Die Sententiae divinitatis, ein Sentenzenbuch der gilbertschen Schule, ed. Geyer, B. (BGPT 7.2–3; Münster i.W. 1909); Artur Landgraf, ‘Untersuchungen zu den Eigenlehren Gilberts de la Porrée,’ ZKT 54 (1930) 180–213; Williams, Michael E. The Teaching of Gilbert Porreta on the Trinity (Analecta Gregoriana, Series facultatis theologicae, Sectio B [n.23] 56: Rome 1951) (to be used with caution); Sofia Vanni Rovighi, ‘La filosofia di Gilberto Porretano,’ Miscellanea del Centro di studi medievali, Serie prima (Pubblicazioni dell’ Università cattolica del Cuore, S., N.S. 58; Milan 1956) 1–64; Martin Anton Schmidt, Gottheit und Trinität nach dem Kommentar des Gilbert Porreta zu Boethius De Trinitate (Studia Philosophica; Jahrbuch der schweizerischen philosophischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. 7; Basel 1956); and the very important articles and texts printed by Haring in Traditio 9 (1953) 177–211, Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 1–40, 15 (1953) 243–89, and AHDL 29 (1954) 241–357. Haring has been an ardent defender of Gilbert's orthodoxy, although he admits that some of his followers may have transgressed in this matter. It is certain, however, that Gilbert at least left himself open to misinterpretation; see, e.g., his statement ‘Omnis persona [of the Trinity] est per se una’ (Haring, Med. St. 13.19) etc. Haring, however, bases his comments on a close study of the texts.Google Scholar

101 See Buonaiuti (note 48) 208–09. Google Scholar

102 See e.g. Concordia 4.38, fol. 59r and Expositio 3.8, fol. 87v. On the twelfth-century suspicion of the new dialectic, see Baltzer (note 99) 28–44. See below, note 107. Google Scholar

103 Bergeron, M., ‘La structure du concept latin de personne,’ Études d'histoire litteraire et doctrinale du xiii e siècle 2 2 (Publications de l'lnstitut d’études médiévales d'Ottawa; Paris and Ottawa 1932) 154 and J. de Ghellinck, L'essor de la littérature latine au xii e siècle I (Brussels and Paris 1946) 90 both take Joachim as a pure Porretan, as is still the generally accepted opinion since Fournier. See Haring's criticism of Bergeron's understanding of Gilbert in Med. St. 13 (1951) 18 n. 62. Antonio Crocco, ‘La formazione dottrinale di Gioacchino da Fiore e le fonti della sua teologia trinitaria,’ Sophia 23 (1955) 192–96 denies categorically Gilbert's influence on Joachim in the matter of the Trinity.Google Scholar

104 See references to Haring's works in note 100 above. Google Scholar

105 ‘ In un'epoca ammaliata dal nascente dialettismo scolastico, che minacciava, ai suoi [Joachim's] occhi, di ridurre il mistero più augusto del Cristianesimo ad un semplice paradigma di verità astratte e lontane di cui era estremamente arduo cogliere l'intimo nesso con le esigenze della vita e della storia, egli considera la Trinità come il prototipo trascendente ed il centro supremo di convergenze di tutta la storia umana,’ Crocco (note 61) 729.Google Scholar

106 By Glorieux, P. in AHDL 27 (1952) 187–335. The accusation is made in op. cit. 3.4 (p. 252), but the force of the parallel is weakened, for Walter in this tendentious and illtempered work finds a ‘quaternity’ containing two Sons in the Lombard's teaching. However, in the ‘Additamenta posteriora’ (p. 310) he comes closer to Joachim's position (although the term quaternity is not here used) by accusing Lombard of separating the essences or substance of God from the three Persons. Quaternity was a common counter-word and term of abuse in the Trinitarian disputes of the period. St. Bernard and Geoffrey of Auxerre apparently used it against Gilbert (!), see Haring, , Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 13 and 21; Achard of St. Victor, however, like Gautier apparently also attacked Peter Lombard with the same term; see Jean Chatillon, ‘Achard de Saint Victor et les controverses christologiques du xiie siècle,’ Mélanges offerts au Ferdinand R. P. Cavallera … (Toulouse 1948) 332. Gerhoh of Reichersberg accused Gilbert, on the other hand, as Joachim did Peter Lombard, of overemphasizing the unity of God at the expense of his three-ness (Liber de nov. hujus temporis 13). All this gives some idea of the difficulty of arriving at the truth in this matter.Google Scholar

107 See above, note 102. Joachim's resentment against dialectic or early scholasticism may be seen e.g. in Expositio 3.8 (fol. 86v ff; esp. 87v). A recent statement of St. Bernard's attitude towards knowledge, science, and theology is to be found in Erich Kleineidam, ‘Wissen, Wissenschaft, Theologie bei Bernhard von Clairvaux,’ Bernhard von Clairvaux, Mönch und Mystiker (note 99) 128–67.Google Scholar

108 See e.g. Johann Nepomuk Schneider, Die chiliastische Doctrin und ihr Verhältniss zur christlichen Glaubenslehre (Schaffhausen 1859) 224ff.; A.T.S. Goodrich(?) (note 1) 19ff. and 47–48; Carroll, John S., In Patria : An Exposition of Dante's Paradiso (London, New York and Toronto 1911 [?]) 229 n.3; Tocco, L'eresia nel medio evo (Florence 1884) 406ff. and more recently, Anitchkof, E. (note 2) 72, who has a fanciful theory of neo-Montanists in the Basilian monasteries of Mount Mercurion in Calabria. See also Alfonso Ricolfi, ‘Influssi gioachimitici su Dante e i Fideli d'Amore,’ Il Giornale Dantesco 33, N.S. 3 (1932) 182.Google Scholar

109 See Jaroslav Pelikan, ‘Montanism and its Trinitarian Significance,’ Church History 25 (1956) 99–109 (he makes the point that there was possibly a variety of Trinitarian theories among the Montanists).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110 For Tertullian's views about the reign of the Holy Ghost, see his De exhortatione castitatis 4 (PL 2.968–69), De pudicitia 11–12 and 21 (PL 2.1053–54; 1077–80) and De jejunio 12 (PL 2.1020–23). ‘Justitia … primo fuit in rudimentis, natura Deum metuens: de hinc per Legem et prophetas promovit in infantiam: de hinc per Evangelium efferbuit in juventutem: nunc per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem,’ De virginibus velandis 1 (LP 2.938). ‘Si enim Christus abstulit quod Moyses praecepit … cur non et Paracletus abstulerit quod Paulus induisit,’ De monogamia 14 (PL 2.1000). Google Scholar

111 ‘ Apparently the idea that a new age, the Age of the Paraclete, had set in was advanced to explain the prophetic gifts of the leaders of the new movement [Montanism] and not to elaborate a new theory of history,’ George Boas, Essays in Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages (Baltimore 1948) 208. See also Alphandéry, P., ‘De quelques faits de prophétisme …’ RHR 52 (1905) 177 n.1, where he points out significant differences between Joachism and Montanism. There is, of course, a Montanist stream in the history of Christianity, and some of Joachim's disciples no doubt immersed themselves in it; but I am concerned with Joachim himself and with historically possible, direct influences. See David Saville Muzzey, ‘Were the Spiritual Franciscans Montanist Heretics?’ American Journal of Theology 12 (1908) 392–421 and 588–608 (His answer is no.)Google Scholar

112 ‘ … la révélation joachimite est le contraire de la prophétie spontanée; elle est calculée et raisonneuse …,’ Alphand, P.éry (preceding note) 200.Google Scholar

113 See Ottaviano, C. in the preface to his edition of the Liber contra Lombardum (Rome 1934) 54ff. He claims Origenism reached Joachim through Basilian monks or through Erigena or both. Earlier Xavier Rousselot, Histoire de l'Évangile éternel (Paris 1861) 59–60 also made the same claim. Przywara (note 19) 347 also links Origen and Joachim, although it is doubtful whether he is thinking of an historical link. H. de Lubac, Histoire et esprit: L’ intelligence de l’ Écriture d'après Origène (Paris 1950) 220–21 denies any connection between the two, possibly to some extent because he is concerned with defending Origen's orthodoxy.Google Scholar

114 For some texts of Origen which bear on this subject, see De princ. 4.25; In Joan. 1.9.10; In Rom. 1.4.11.54 and In Lev. Hom. 13.2. Google Scholar

115 On the whole subject of world ages (resting on Old Testament and classical speculation), see Ernst Bernheim, Mittelalterliche Zeitanschauungen in ihrem Einfluss auf Politik und Geschichtsschreibung, I: Die Zeitanschauungen (only part published) (Tubingen 1918); Schneider (note 69) 102–15; Heinrich Scholz, Glaube und Unglaube in der Weltgeschichte (Leipzig 1911) 154ff.; Daniélou, J. ‘La typologie millénariste de la semaine dans le Christianisme primitif,’ Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 1–16 (especially on Irenaeus); Roderich Schmidt, ‘Aetates mundi, Die Weltalter als Gliederungsprinzip der Geschichte,’ ZKG 67 (1955–56) 288–317; Grumel, V. ‘Les premières ères mondiales,’ Revue des études byzantines 10 (1952) 93–108; Hipler, F. Die christliche Geschichts-Auffassung (Cologne 1884) 9ff. Augustine gave currency to the idea of seven ages paralleling the seven days of creation for the Middle Ages (see Scholz above): De Genesi contra Manich. 1.23, 35–41 (PL 34.180–93); Ennar. in Ps. 92.1 (PL 37.1182); De diver. quaest. 83.58.2 (PL 40.43–44) (the biological metaphors and references to generations here may have directly influenced Joachim); De catech. rud. 39 (PL 40.338); and De Trin. 4.7 (PL 42.892). For the four-kingdoms idea based on Daniel, see Conrad Trieber, ‘Die Idee der vier Weltreiche,’ Hermes 27 (1892) 321–44; Rowley, H. H. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories (Cardiff 1935) esp. 61ff; Kocken, Edmund J. J. De Theorie van de vier wereldrijken en van de overdracht der wereldheerschappij tot op Innocentius III (Academische Proefschrift, Nijmegen 1935); Swain, J. W., ‘The Theory of the Four Monarchies, Opposition History under the Roman Empire,’ Classical Philology 35 (1940) 1–21. These are concerned primarily with the early history of the concept. St. Jerome was the chief source of this notion, along, of course, with the book of Daniel, for the Middle Ages.Google Scholar

116 Like all seminal thinkers, St. Augustine is hard to categorize simply. To some, like Paolo Brezzi (‘Ottone di Frisinga,’ Bullettino dell’ Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo e Archivio muratoriano 54 [1939] 151ff. and ‘La concezione agostiniana della Città di Dio e le sue interpretazioni medioevali,’ Rivista storica italiana, Serie 5.3 fasc. 4 [Dec. 1938] 62–94), Augustine had a progressive view of secular history. If accepted, this view would put Joachim closer to Augustine than is usually assumed. Brezzi's two articles are of the utmost importance for understanding Augustine's influence on medieval historical thinking and for Otto of Freising and twelfth-century historiography. See also Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951) 346–74 and W. von Loewenich, Augustin und das christliche Geschichtsdenken (Munich 1947). On St. Augustine's influence on Joachim, see Super quatuor Evangelia, ed. Buonaiuti, pp. xlvi-xlviii, n.1; Coulton, G. G., From St. Francis to Dante (2nd ed. London 1907) 151; Heinrich Scholtz (note 115) 183.Google Scholar

117 John Scotus Erigena has been suggested as a source for Joachim's historical theories, see Anitchkof (note 2) 283ff. and 397; Gebhart, E., Mystics and Heretics in Italy at the End of the Middle Ages . trans. Hulme, E. M. (London 1922) 75ff.; George Boas (note 111) 208–09 and 201–03; Hipler, F. Die christliche Geschichts-Auffassung (Cologne 1884) 38–9; Ottaviano, C., ‘Il Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Archivio di filosofia 1 (1931) 77. However, Erigena in general seems to follow his master, the Pseudo-Dionysius, in making the historical pattern the ‘sacerdotium’ of the Law, the ‘sacerdotium’ of the New Testament, and the third ‘sacerdotium’ of heaven, see Comm. in s. evangelium secundum Joannem (PL 122.308).Google Scholar

118 L ‘eresia nel medio evo (Florence 1884) 402ff.Google Scholar

119 Joachim de Flore (Paris/Rome 1931) 56ff.Google Scholar

120 He attacks the Waldensians also; see De articulis fidei (ed. Buonaiuti) 64. Google Scholar

121 There persists even today an old theory that Joachim was a gnostic. ‘The doctrine [of Joachim] was a non-descript monster, with Marcion for its father and Maximilla for his mother,’ H. [Algernon Herbert?], ‘Antichrist in the Thirteenth Century,’ The British Magazine and Monthly Register 16 (1839) 493. We find this charge again in Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics: An Introduction (Chicago 1952) 110ff., who sees Joachim as the villain of history. It is hard in any normal use of language to see how Joachim can be accused of Gnosticism. The problem of the ‘villain of history” raises another Issue which cannot be discussed here. See some of my comments below, pp. 307ff. Alfons Rosenberg (note 72) 12 also calls Joachim a gnostic, but he says he is using the term in a special sense. What this sense is I have not been able to discover. For possible Jewish influence on Joachim, see Scholem, G. G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (2nd ed. New York 1946) 178-80 (who points out parallels but says the influence is probably not direct) and ‘The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism II,’ Diogenes 15 (1956) 68, 86, 92–3. See also Beck, F. ‘Die rätselhaften Worte in Dante's Vita Nova (§ 12),’ Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 47 (1927) 1–27, esp. 7–8 (his conclusions are doubtful); Henry Bett, Joachim of Flora (London 1931) 59ff.; and B. Hirsch-Reich's important article, ‘Die Quelle der Trinitätskreise von Joachim von Fiore und Dante,’ Sophia 22 (1954) 170–78 (who shows that the source of Joachim's [and probably Dante's] circles representing God is Petrus Alphonsus, a converted Jew. It may be significant in view of Joachim's emphasis on the ‘threeness’ of God that he leaves out Peter's overall unifying circle around the three smaller circles). The Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, in a section devoted to the subject of the duration of the world, reports the opinion of the school of Elijah that the world will last 6000 years — 2000 of Tohu (no positive law), 2000 of Torah, and 2000 of the Messiah (also repeated in Abodah, Zarah, 9a). Rashi glosses this passage by saying this pattern is prefigured in the six days of the Creation followed by the Sabbath (of another 1000 years). Cf. also the old Jewish idea of the tertium genus hominum (Zechariah 13.8ff.); see Leo Baeck, ‘Das dritte Geschlecht,’ Jewish Studies in Memory of Kohut George A. 1874–1933, ed. Baron and Marx (New York 1935) 40–46. — Coulton, G. G., Five Centuries of Religion (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 2; Cambridge 1927) 116 n. 2 and p. 120 suggests vaguely an Islamic source for Joachim's characteristic theory.Google Scholar

122 Grundmann, H., Studien über Joachim (Leipzig 1927) 90ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123 Dempf, Alois, Sacrum Imperium (Munich and Berlin 1929) 268 et passim , Rosenberg, A. (note 72) 28 sees Joachim as the apogee of medieval symbolism.Google Scholar

124 On Otto, see Brezzi (note 116); Hipler, F. (note 117) 41ff.; Schmidlin, J., ‘Die Philosophie Ottos von Freising,’ Philosophisches Jahrbuch 18 (1905) 156–75; 312–23; 409–23; Johannes Spörl, Grundformen hochmittelalterlicher Geschichtsanschauung (Munich 1935) 32ff. To Otto, history is Heilsgeschichte, and we can realize on earth the Kingdom of God.Google Scholar

125 On Anselm, see Spörl (note 124) 18ff.; Georg Schreiber, ‘Prämonstratenserkultur des 12. Jahrhunderts,’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 16 (1940) 91ff. et passim, and ‘Studien über Anselm von Havelberg,’ ibid. 18 (1942) 5–90; François Petit, La spiritualité des Prémontrés au xiie et xiii e siècles (Études de théologie et d'histoire de la spiritualité 10; Paris 1947) 62ff. (especially for his view of the Holy Ghost and of progress); Kamlah, W. (note 59) 66ff.; Foberti, Gioacchino da Fiore, Nuovi Studi (Florence 1934) 64ff.Google Scholar

126 See Kamlah, W. (note 59) 75ff. and Moureaux, A. ‘La Vie apostolique à propos de Rupert de Deutz,’ Revue liturgique et monastique 21 (1935–36) 71–78, 125–41, 264–76; Beumer, J., ‘Rupert von Deutz und seine “Vermittlungstheologie”,’ Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1953) 255–70. Rupert's De Trinitate et operibus eius has a Trinitarian concept of history but the third age is not in the future.Google Scholar

127 For a good example of Gerhoh's Biblical symbolic writing and his rather strident voice, see his letter (1155–56) to Pope Adrian IV printed in Oliver Joseph Thatcher, ‘Studies concerning Adrian IV,’ Investigations Representing the Departments of Political Economy, Political Science, History, Sociology and Anthropology (The Decennial Publications, The University of Chicago, First Series 4; 1903) 184–238. Google Scholar

128 Especially his Speculum Ecclesiae. See Schneider (note 69) 111, where he refers to Honorius’ argument that if Christ is the center of history and if there were five ages before Him (on the basis of the seven-ages theory of Augustine), there must be five after Him (those of the Apostles, Martyrs, Teachers, Monks and Antichrist). He thought, significantly enough, that his own lifetime fell in the age of the monks. Google Scholar

129 Xavier Rousselot (note 113) 43–44 suggested certain similarities between Joachim's ideas and those of Hugh and Richard of St. Victor (and Abaelard). Franz Kampers, Die deutsche Kaiseridee in Prophetie und Sage (Munich 1896) 71 proposed the Victorines as Joachim's main source. For further material on Hugo see below, note 131. Google Scholar

130 For a general treatment of these figures and the rise of a sense of history in the twelfth century, see M.-D. Chenu, ‘Conscience de l'histoire et théologie au XIIIe siècle,’ AHDL 29 (1954) 107–33. The dispensatio concept is most important. See above, note 115.Google Scholar

130a See below, 282ff. Google Scholar

131 ‘ Sex diebus perfecta est rerum conditio, et sex etatibus perficitur hominum reparatio,’ Hugo of St. Victor, De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum, ed. Green, William M. Speculum 18 (1943) 491. On Hugo's theory of history, see Grabmann (note 99) II 272ff., esp∗ 276ff.; Brezzi, P. ‘Ottone di Frisinga’ (note 116) 169–70; Schneider, W. A. (note 69) passim, esp, 115; Hipler, F. (note 115) 40–41.Google Scholar

132 ‘ Der christologische Gedanke gilt als Zentralidee des Systems von Hugo; er beherrscht auch die Geschichte, und zwar in ihrem tiefsten Sinn,’ Schneider (note 69) 26.Google Scholar

133 Buonaiuti (note 48) pp. xi and 97ff. has most strongly urged this point in recent years. My own feeling is that he went too far and ignored some important differences; see above, p. 262 and below, p. 282. For Buonaiuti's position, see La Piana (note 1) 258. Ottaviano in the preface to his edition of the Liber contra Lombardum (Rome 1934) 49 criticizes B.'s thesis and asks why Joachim did find it necessary to leave his order. Mario Niccoli, however, in ‘Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Enciclopedia Italiana 17.148–49 denies all German and Greek influence on Joachim and finds the origin of his thought in Latin monasticism and Cistercianism. See also for Cistercianism as a way of thought in the twelfth century, Brezzi, ‘Ottone’ (note 116) 174ff.; Spörl, J. ‘Das Alte und das Neue,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 50 (1930) 338ff.; Max Dietrich, Die Zisterzienser und ihre Stellung zum mittelalterlichen Reichsgedanken (Dissertation Munich; Salzburg 1934) (primarily concerned with Hohenstaufen politics); Grundmann, H., Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter (Berlin 1935) 5; also his excellent supplementary and bibliographical article, ‘Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der religiösen Bewegungen im Mittelalter,’ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 38 (1955) 129–82, on a variety of ‘religious movements’ in the later Middle Ages.Google Scholar

134 See his important article, ‘Die mittelalterliche Reform-Idee und ihr Verhältnis zur Idee der Renaissance,’ MIOG 60 (1952) 31–59. esp. 48ff. On p. 57, he discusses the relation of Joachim to the Cistercian movement. — See also Georg Schreiber, ‘Vorfranziskanisches Genossenschaftswesen, Baurisse und Forschungsaufgaben: Byzantinische Beziehungen,’ ZKG 62 (1943–44) 35–71 (reprinted in his Gemeinschaften des Mittelalters, Recht und Verfassung, Kult und Frömmigkeit, Gesammelte Abhandlungen I [Regensburg and Münster 1948] 397–436, the whole of which should also be studied). See also Schreiber's ‘Die Prämonstratenser und der Kult des hl. Johannes Evangelist: Quellgründe mittelalterlicher Mystik,’ ZKT 65 (1941) 1–31. Schreiber argues for a strong Byzantine influence in the foundation, organization and life of the Cluniac, Premonstratensian and Cistercian movements. See also Rose Graham, ‘The Relation of Cluny to Some Other Movements of Monastic Reform,’ Journal of Theological Studies 15 (1914) 179–95. — On the tradition of monastic scriptural exegesis in the West, see Leclercq, J. ‘Écrits monastiques sur la Bible aux xie-xiiie siècles,’ Mediaeval Studies 15 (1953) 95–106.Google Scholar

135 See Concordia 2.1.8, fol. 9V, where Joachim says mankind has to pass through the Trinity to attain perfection. — The root of the ‘deification’ idea is perhaps to be found in Plato's Theaetetus 176a-c, and it is certainly present in Philo and St. Irenaeus. See, on the whole concept, the important article by M. Lot-Borodine, ‘La doctrine de la déification dans l’Église grecque jusqu'au xie siècle,’ RHR 105 (1932) 5–43; 106 (1932) 525–74; 107 (1933) 8–55; Jules Gross, La divinisation du chrétien d'après les pères grecs: Contribution historique à la doctrine de la grâce (Thèse Strasbourg; Paris 1938); Wild, Philip T., The Divinization of Man According to Saint Hilary of Poitiers (Pontificia facultas theologica Seminarii sanctae Mariae ad Lacum, Dissertationes ad Lauream 21; Mundelein, Illinois, 1950); Fritz Taeger, ‘Zur Vergottung des Menschen im Altertum,’ ZKG 61 (1942) 3–26. Ladner (note 134) 37ff. discusses the concept especially in Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine.Google Scholar

136 The root of the idea of the cloister as heaven on earth is in the Pseudo-Dionysius, who saw in the monastic hierarchy the pattern of the heavenly hierarchy. On Anselm of Havelberg's view of monks, see Spörl, , Grundformen (note 124) 27 (monks as the ‘geschichtsbildender Faktor’). For Odo, see the quotation in La Piana (note 1) 257. See also Hugh de Fouilloi's De claustro animae, which treats of three cloisters, the material, the spiritual (the soul) and heaven. St. Bernard writes ‘vere claustrum est paradisus,’ Sermones de diversis (Xenia Bernardina 1.3; Vienna 1891) 906. Cf. Piers Plowman B X 300–01.∗∗Google Scholar

137 See Benz, E., ‘La messianità di San Benedetto, Contributo alla filosofia della storia di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 7 (1931) 336–53 on the role of the philosophy of monasticism in Joachim and others; and Ursmer, D. Berbère, L'ascèse benédictine des origines à la fin du xii e siècle: Essai historique (Collection Pax 1; Paris 1927).Google Scholar

138 ‘ Der Reformeifer Bernhards glühte auch in Joachims Seele von Jugend an,’ Huck, (note 3) 5. On Bernard's eschatology, see Radcke, Fritz W. H., Die eschatologischen Anschauungen Bernhards von Clairvaux … (Dissertation Greifswald; Langensalza 1915). Joachim discusses in terms of various parallels the Cistercians in Concordia 4.36–39 inter alia, and in Table 23 of the Liber figuranum. See below, note 141.Google Scholar

139 See Dumontier, P., Saint Bernard et la Bible (Paris 1953) esp. 84ff.Google Scholar

140 ‘ Que est autem firmitas Christi, nisi illa vita que instituta est a sanctis patribus et tradita nobis in eisdem libellis? Quos non omnes fideles eo modo quo deuoti monachi legunt et reverentur, quia de sola in eis agitur prefectione monachorum,’ Concordia 5.74, fol. 102v.Google Scholar

141 See Concordia 2.1.13, fol. 11v, and above note 138. Google Scholar

142 Gioacchino da Fiore (note 48). The same view was presented earlier by Buonaiuti in ‘Prolegomeni alla storia di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 385–419. Even earlier August Heisenberg in ‘Das Problem der Renaissance in Byzanz,’ Historische Zeitschrift 133 (1926) 405 denied Byzantine influence on Joachim. Huck (note 3) 101ff. et passim, strongly repudiates Greek influence. Very recently, Crocco, ‘La formazione dottrinale,’ Sophia 23 (1955) 192–96 also denies, except for Joachim's Trinitarianism, any Byzantine influence. He points out that Joachim rarely quotes or makes reference to Byzantine or eastern Fathers and that the Latin monks of Calabria were bearers of Latin traditions. It may be said, however, that Joachim rarely refers to any authority except the Bible.Google Scholar

143 Leaders of Christian and Antichristian Thought . trans. Wm. Thompson, M. (London 1891 [?]) 129–205 esp. 189–90 (French original in Revue des deux mondes 64 [1866] 94–142).Google Scholar

144 Studii francescani (Nuova biblioteca della letteratura, storia ed arte, ed. Torraca, F. 3; Naples 1909) 191–222 and L'eresia nel medio evo (Florence 1884) 261–409, esp. 387ff.Google Scholar

145 Mystics and Heretics in Italy at the End of the Middle Ages , trans. (London 1922) 70–93.Google Scholar

146 Études sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris 1909) 4ff., 14, 16.Google Scholar

147 Joachim de Flore et les milieux courtois (Paris/Rome 1931) — a stimulating but very unsound book.Google Scholar

148 On southern Italy and its relations with Byzantium, see Jules Gay, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin depuis l'avènement de Basile I er jusqu'à la prise de Bari par les Normands (867–1071) (Paris 1904) and ‘Notes sur l'hellénisme sicilien, de l'occupation arabe à la conquête normande,’ Byzantion 1 (1924) 215–28; Peter Charanis, ‘On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages,’ American Historical Review 52 (1946–7) 74–86; Ferdinand Chalandon, Jean II Comnène (1118–1143) et Manuel Comnène (1143–1180) (Paris 1912) and Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile (Paris 1907); Haskins, Charles H., Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science . 2nd ed. (Harvard Historical Studies 27; Cambridge 1927) 141–93 (on Sicily mainly); Baronne Diane de Guldencrone, née de Gobineau, L'Italie byzantine, Étude sur le haut moyen-âge (Paris 1914); Francesco Giunta, Bizantini e bizantinismo nella Sicila normanna (Palermo 1950?); Silvano Borsari, ‘La bizantinizzazione religiosa del mezzogiorno d Italia, ASCL 19 (1950) 209–25; 20 (1951) 5–20 (mostly concerned with the early medieval period); Francesco, P. Russo, ‘Relazioni culturali tra la Calabria e l'Oriente bizantino nel medioevo,’ Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, N.S. 7 (1953) 49–64 (somewhat over-enthusiastic and unreliable).Google Scholar

149 Who, as I have suggested above, may have been influenced themselves by Byzantium, especially since the days of Otto II. Google Scholar

150 See M.-D. Chenu, ‘Le dernier avatar de la théologie orientale,’ Mélanges Auguste Pelzer … (Louvain 1947) 165–66; Haskins (note 148) 194ff. et passim; Werner Ohnsorge, ‘Byzanz und das Abendland im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert: Zur Entwicklung des Kaiserbegriffes und der Staatsideologie,’ Saeculum 5 (1954) 194–220; Otto Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Jena 1938), Bernard Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du xi e siècle: Rapports religieux des Latins et des Greco-Russes sous le pontificat d'Urbain II (1088–1099) (Paris 1944), Gay, J. ‘L'abbaye de Cluny et Byzance au début du xiie siècle,’ Échos d'Orient 39 (1931) 84–90; Charles Diehl, La société byzantine à l’époque des Comnènes, Conferences faites à Bucarest (avril 1929) (Paris 1929) 75–90; Iorga, N. Relations entre l'Orient et l'Occident, Conférences faites a la Sorbonne (Institut roumain pour l’étude de l'Europe du sud-est; Paris 1923) esp. 121–39; Dondaine, A. ‘Hugues Éthérien et Léon Toscan,’ AHDL 27 (1952) 67–134. — In art there is much evidence, see, e.g. the representation of the Trinity in Herrad of Landsberg's Hortus, fol. 8r, and in MS Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 113v of the late eleventh or twelfth century, containing illustrations to the homilies of Jacobus Coccinobaphos (I am indebted for this reference to Miss Rosalie B. ‘Green of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University).Google Scholar

151 See note 134 above. Google Scholar

152 For Italo-Greek monasticism in Calabria and Sicily, see Lake, K., ‘The Greek Monasteries in South Italy,’ Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903) 345–68;517–42; 5 (1904) 22–41, 189–202; Alberto Vaccari, La Grecia nell’ Italia meridionale, Studi letterari é bibliografia (Orientalia Christiana 3.3.13; Rome 1925) 273–328 (pp. 277ff. deal with the study of Scripture in the Basilian monasteries of the south); Raschella, Domenico L. Saggio storico sul monachismo italo-greco in Calabria (Messina 1925), who discusses, pp. 46ff., the study of the Bible and its exegesis in Calabrian Basilian monasteries. ‘Della Scritture, S. i monaci greci rivelano perfetta cognizione … di tutti [Bible and eastern Fathers] e specialmente del Nazanzieno fanno delle esposizioni esegetiche, le quali formano poi argomento di discussioni,’ ibid. 49. Cf. also p. 93. — For the Latin monasteries in the south see Hans-Walter Klewitz, ‘Die Anfänge des Cistercienserordens im normannisch-sizilischen Königreich,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige 52 (1934) 236–51; Lynn Townsend White, Jr., Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Mediaeval Academy of America Monograph 13; Cambridge, Mass. 1938); Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande (Paris 1907), esp. II 708ff. et passim. — For St. Nilus’ interest in Scripture, see PG 120.145A. St. Luke of Armenti (d. 993) (AS Oct. VI 332ff.) was much given, as was Joachim, to meditating on and interpreting the ‘profunda mysteria’ (338) of the words of the Bible. He was instructed in these by St. Elias Spelaeotes (d. c. 960). Luke also had the spirit of prophecy and prophesied, moved by the Holy Ghost, about the Saracens. See also Simeon the New, Oratio 19 (PG 120.401ff.), Oratio 15 (PG 120.385) and Capitula practica 60 (PG 120. 633–34).Google Scholar

153 See Leclercq (note 134 above) and Berlière (note 137) 169ff on ‘lectio divina’ in monasteries. Google Scholar

154 There is also a Byzantine tradition of prophecy centered especially, but not exclusively, around Emperor Leo the Wise; see e.g. Ch Gide], Nouvelles études sur la littérature grecque moderne (Les littératures de l'Orient 3; Paris 1878) 303–12; Rodolphe Guillaud, ‘Le droit divin à Byzance,’ Eos, Commentarii societatis philologae Polonorum 42 (1947) 160ff.; Alphandéry, P. ‘De quelques faits de prophétisme,’ RHR 52 (1905) 206 n.1 (argues that the Basilian monks of Southern Italy especially cultivated prophecy). See Michael Psellus, The Chronographia (trans. Sewter, E. R. A. Rare Masterpieces of Philosophy and Science, ed. Stark, W.; New Haven 1953) 95, 138–39, 150–52, 201 and 204. — Direct influence on Joachim is possible although debatable; but on the later Joachite prophecies Greek prophecy definitely did exercise a notable influence.Google Scholar

155 See Theodor Schermann, Die Gottheit des heiligen Geistes (Freiburg im Breisgau 1901) 146ff. Google Scholar

156 See Jules Lebreton, History of the Dogma of the Trinity I (trans. Thorold, A.; London 1939) 416. Among the Fathers, perhaps Hippolytus, most of whose writings are, however, lost, comes closest to Joachim, at least in his view that the whole history of the Church (not merely the life of Christ) can be predicted from the events of the pre-Christian times, especially the lives of the patriarchs. On this point see Hipler (note 115) 16. In his Contra haeresin Noeti 14 (PG 10.821–22), Hippolytus seems to speak of a progressive revelation by each of the Persons of the Trinity. A much more common but less Joachite view is to see the history of the Church in the life of Jesus; see Leo the Great, e.g. Sermo 38(37).1 (PL 54.260) and Gregory, Moralia 23.1 (PL 76.251). — Some heresies like Sabellianism may have believed in some form of Trinitarian ages; see Athanasius, , Contra Arianos 4.13–14 and 25, and Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 62 (PG 41.1051ff.)Google Scholar

157 See Jean Daniélou, ‘Akolouthia chez Grégoire de Nysse,’ Revue des sciences religieuses 27 (1953) 219–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

158 See, besides Crocco (note 142 above), Tocco, F., L'eresia nel medio evo (Florence 1884) 401; Buonaiuti's preface to his edition of Joachim's Super quatuor Evangelia, p. xxv, where he says the fact that Joachim expected a revival in the Greek Church does not prove a friendly attitude towards the Greeks; he also expected a revival and conversion of Israel. But Joachim does speak at times more warmly of the Greeks than a mere expectation of a return to the fold would warrant. For Buonaiuti's opinions expressed elsewhere, see note 142 above; and see ‘II testamento di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 506 n. 3 (where he speaks of the antipathy towards the Greek Church which pervades all his writings). See also Grundmann, H. Studien 9–10 and Haupt, H., ‘Zur Geschichte des Joachimismus,’ ZKG 7 (1885) 390–91.Google Scholar

159 He praises the Greeks in Concordia 2.1.27, fol. 17v; 2.2.4, fol. 20v; 4.8. fol. 47v; 5.47, fol. 82r and 5.48, fol. 83r; Expositio 1.20, fol. 49v and 11.1–2, fol. 143v. He writes, ‘… populus Grecorum, qui electus est ad imaginem spiritus sancti’ in Concordia 2.2.4, high praise indeed for one who felt the future belonged to the Holy Ghost. Anti-Greek views may be found in Concordia 5.47, 48, 50, 70 (fols. 82r, 83r, 85r, 98v) and Expositio 11.1–2 (fol. 142v) and 15.7 (fol. 185v). In general he devotes much space in his writings to the Greek Church, its nature and destiny. Frequently, as the above references show, the same section contains both praise and blame for the Greeks. See below, note 162. Google Scholar

160 ‘ … sicut ecclesia Graecorum, quae negat spiritum sanctum procedere a Filio Dei,’ Expositio 11.1–2 (fol. 142v). Cf. Concordia 2.1.2, fol. 7v and 9r.Google Scholar

161 Expositio 11.1-2 (fol. 142v). See also Super quatuor Evangelia (ed. Buonaiuti) 139 and 278 and Concordia 2.1.27, fol. 17v.Google Scholar

162 The Greeks are rebels ‘qui gloriantur de perfectione illa antiqua monachorum suorum,’ Concordia 2.1.27. This chapter has much on the whole subject of the Greeks; on the same folio side, however, he describes them as ‘ambulantes usque in finem in erroribus suis.’ In Concordia 2.1.7, fol. 9r, he says the separation of the Greek and Roman Churches is the work of the Holy Ghost. Google Scholar

163 ‘ [Greci] … persequuntur eos qui ambulant secundum spiritum usque in presentem diem,’ Concordia 5.57, fol. 89r. Cf. Concordia 5.50, fol. 85r.Google Scholar

164 On these figures, see Irénée Hausherr, Un grand mystique byzantin: Vie de Syméon le nouveau théologien (946–1022) par Nicétas Stéthatos, Texte grec inédit publié avec introduction … (Orientalia Christiana 12 [No. 45]; Rome 1928) (a good study; but see M. Lot-Borodine's criticism of it in RHR 107 [1933] 14n). The long life by Nicetas is lost; Hausherr prints the abridged version by the author. For Simeon's emphasis on the Holy Ghost see pp. 188–89. See also Basile Tatakis, La philosophie byzantine (Histoire de la philosophie ed. Bréhier, E., Fascicule supplementaire 2; Paris 1949) 141–51. For some Works of Simeon and Nicetas, see PG 120; Symeon der Theologe, Licht vom Licht: Hymnen trans. Kilian Kirchhoff (Munich 1951); Nicetas Stéthatos, Le Paradis spirituel et autres textes … ed. Marie Chalendard (Thèse Paris; Paris and Lyons 1945); and Hausherr, above. — In Capitula practica 60 (PG 120.633–34), Simeon grants that the future may be known from the Bible. See also references to Simeon in note 152 above.Google Scholar

165 See Russo, ‘Relazioni culturali,’ Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, N.S. 7 (1953) 53. Google Scholar

166 Also an important point in Bonaventure's spirituality. This emphasis on a spiritual guide or director may be another indirect influence of Joachim on Bonaventure. Google Scholar

167 See Chalandon, , Jean II (note 148) 54–55. This special reverence for the Holy Ghost is very characteristic of the Eastern Churches. See M. Lot-Borodine, ‘La doctrine de la déification,’ RHR 107 (1933) 35ff.; and Lossky, V. (note 97) 153ff. and 241ff. and La procession du Saint-Esprit dans la doctrine trinitaire orthodoxe (Mélanges de l'Institut orthodoxe français de Paris; Paris 1948).Google Scholar

168 There is some evidence for an interest in the idea of progressive perfection in the Trinity. See the discussion of Eustratios of Nicaea's (early twelfth century) views in Salaville, S., ‘Philosophie et théologie ou épisodes scolastiques à Byzance de 1059 à 1117,’ Échos d'Orient 33 (1930) 153–54.Google Scholar

169 See his article in Russian, ‘The Philosophical Movement …’ published in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction for 1891 (see Salaville [note 168] 132ff.). Earlier Josef Bach (note 63) II 725ff. made this same point. See also Louis Petit, ‘Documents inédits sur le Concile de 1166 et ses derniers adversaires,’ Vizantiiski Vremennik (BυζαντΙνα Xϱoνıϰά) 11 (1904) 466ff. Google Scholar

170 ‘On Soterichos Panteugenios, see Lysimaque Œconomos, La vie religieuse dans l'empire byzantin au temps des Comnènes et des Anges (Thèse Paris; 1918) 30ff.; Hussey, J. M., Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire 867–1185 (London 1937) 99ff.; Johannes Dräseke, ‘Der Dialog des Soterichos Panteugenios, neu herausgegeben,’ ZWT 29 (1886) 224–37; Heinrich Pachali, ‘Soterichos Panteugenios und Nikolaos von Methone,’ ZWT 50 (1907) 347–74; Grumel, J. V., Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople 1.3 (Le Patriarcat byzantin, Recherches de diplomatique, d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, publiées par l'Institut français d’études byzantines; Bucharest and Paris 1932ff.) 105ff.; Basile Tatakis (note 164) 219–21; Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium III (Paris 1930) 317ff. — The synodica, which were read on the Feast of Orthodoxy (the first Sunday in Lent), established in 842 or 843, poured out anathema on all heresies. These synodica, especially older versions, are of the utmost value in establishing the nature of various Byzantine heresies. Uspenskii published an old version, possibly from the time of Soterichos, with a Russian translation in Zapiski Imperatorskago novorossijskago Universiteta 59 (Odessa 1893) 407–502 (pp. 428–33 on Soterichos’ errors). (See the attack on Uspenskii's text by Anton Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts II [Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte in Verbindung mit ihrem historischen Institut in Rom, ed. Görres-Gesellschaft; Paderborn, 1930] 2 n.1, on the bibliography of the synodicon). See also Norbert, D. Cappuyns, ‘Le synodicon de l’église de Rhodes au xiiie siècle,’ Échos d'Orient 33 (1934) 196–217, esp. 199. Besides these synodica, see also the History of Cinnamus 4.16ff. in PG 133.517ff. and the Treasury of Nicetas Choniates 24 in PG 140.137ff. (preceded by Soterichos’ dialogue reprinted from Mai, Spicilegium Romanum 10 [1844]).Google Scholar

171 Cf. also the earlier ‘case’ of John Italos, whose teachings were condemned in 1076–77 and 1082; see Pelopidas Etienne Stephanou, Jean Italos, philosophe et humaniste (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 134; Rome 1949). Google Scholar

172 See Œconomos (note 170) 50ff.; Hussey 110ff.; Cappuyns loc. cit.; Petit (note 169) 465–93; Dondaine, A., ‘Hugues Éthérien et Léon Toscan,’ AHDL 27 (1952) 82–84; Chalandon, F. Jean II (note 148) 643ff.; C.-J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux V 2 (tr. Leclercq, H.; Paris 1913) 911–13; 1045–1049. — Lampe returned from Germany around 1160 full of the problem of the equality of the Son (and presumably the Holy Ghost) with the Father.Google Scholar

173 It was Constantine, Patriarch of Russia, who raised the whole Panteugenios issue by asking for a ruling on the subject from Constantinople. He may have had good reason from the situation in his own patriarchy for so doing. Google Scholar

174 See Conybeare, Frederick C., Russian Dissenters (Harvard Theological Studies 10; Cambridge 1921) 165ff. (on some bezpopovtsy sects).∗∗Google Scholar

175 On Joachim's biography, see Schott, E., ‘Joachim der Abt von Floris,’ ZKG 22 (1901) 343–61; Buonaiuti, E. Gioacchino da Fiore (note 48) 123ff.; Nicola Lafortuna, Vita dello abate Gioacchino, Tabellione profeta e novatore del secolo XII (2nd ed. Girgenti 1876) (somewhat romanticized but not bad); Grundmann, H. Neue Forschungen (note 1) 31ff. There are any number of romantic reconstructions of Joachim's life such as Vol. I of L'Évangile éternel by Emmanuel Aegerter (Les textes du Christianisme 3 and 4; Paris 1928) which cannot be trusted. Vol. II of L'Évangile éternel contains translations into French of selected passages of Joachim's works, the exact sources of which (except for the book) are not given. The early materials for Joachim's biography (the Tutini MS, see below, note 177) have recently been printed in part by Baraut, C., ‘Las antiguas biografias de Joaquin de Fiore y sus fuentes,’ Analecta sacra tarraconensia 26 (1953) 195–232. The Bollandists, AS, May VII (Paris and Rome 1867) 87–141 (for May 29) also printed some basic source materials including Luke of Cosenza's (note 176) thirteenth-century Life. Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacentium 9 (ed. 2, Venice 1721) under appropriate years, cols. 195ff. reprints a number of basic documents on the life of Joachim and that of his Order. He, too, apparently used the Tutini MS. He also prints Luke's Life (cols. 205–08). Especially valuable is Ughelli's report of Joachim's relations with the various archbishops of Cosenza and the royal family. On the English chroniclers, see below.Google Scholar

176 Virtutum beati Joachimi synopsis. Google Scholar

177 Printed Cosenza 1612, and reedited with omissions in the AS. The Tutini MS (Naples, Brancacciana, B.N. I.F.2) of the late sixteenth century is copied from earlier materials at Giovanni, S. in Fiore, see Rousset, J. as reported in the communication of Ch. Diehl, Comptesrendus Acad. Inscr. (Paris 1932) 177–78; Jamison, E., ‘The Sicilian Norman Kingdom,’ Proceedings British Acad. 24 (1938) 266 and 284 n. 79.Google Scholar

178 A petition for his canonization was actually presented in 1346 (printed in AS, May VII 111b), but it apparently never got very far. A notable defense of Joachim, although not presenting any new material, may be found in Gregorius de Lauro, Magni divinique prophetae beati Ioannis Ioachim abbatis sacri cisterciensis ordinis monasterii Floris et Florensis ordinis institutoris … (Naples 1660), dealing with his life, miracles and prophecies. He also used the Tutini MS. As a Cistercian writing with great pride of a fellow Cistercian, there is no. allegedly successful prophecy which he hesitates to attribute to his subject (see above, note 9). Cistercian pride in Joachim in the same century may be seen in the historian of the order, Angelo Manrique, Ecclesiasticorum annalium… 3 (Lyons 1649) under 1189 etc. For further evidence of the interest of the seventeenth century in Joachim, see the two MSS of that century in the Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Rome, I.33 and 0.89. Google Scholar

179 Note 175. See also the Jesuit Ant. Possevini, Apparatus sacer … 2 (Venice 1606) 101–03 for a long and not unsympathetic notice of Joachim. He attacked the Lutheran interpretation of Joachim's prophecies, which had created a problem for Catholic supporters of Joachim in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Google Scholar

180 See Tondelli, ‘Un epistolario di Gioacchino da Fiore e un falso di Filippo Stocchi,’ Sophia 19 (1951) 372–77.Google Scholar

181 See his Chronica 3 (ed. Wm. Stubbs, R.S.; London 1870) 75–79 (sub anno 1190). Hoveden follows this description of Joachim with Adso's work on Antichrist and another anonymous tractate on the same subject, to contrast their views with those Joachim has just expressed in his discussion with Richard. It was this dramatic aspect of Joachism — the possible prediction of Antichrist and other prophecies — which most interested his immediate contemporaries. Google Scholar

182 One was concerned with the defeat of Saladin. Google Scholar

183 1 John 4.3 makes the point that the Antichrist has already been born. St. Martin of Tours c. 380 believed that the Antichrist had been born and was in his boyhood. So also Bishop Rainer of Florence (1071–1113). Google Scholar

184 The crowning evidence is, however, the fact that Joachim makes the same point in his genuine Expositio 9.11, fol. 133r: ‘presentem puto esse in mundo.’ See also Stubbs on the authenticity of Hoveden's report in his edition pp. 76–77. Google Scholar

185 Chronicon Anglicanum (ed. Stevenson, R.S.; London 1875) 69, reporting the testimony of Abbot Adam of Perseigne. According to the Cistercian Coggeshall, Joachim told Adam that Innocent III would not have a successor and that Babylon, where Antichrist is to be born, is Rome. Pp. 67–70 deal with Joachim in general, who, Coggeshall says, was not subjected very much to Cistercian discipline.Google Scholar

186 ‘ Travaux recents,’ Le moyen âge 58 (1952) 149. — On Joachim's iconography and portraits, see Jean Rousset, ‘Il più antico ritratto di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ ASCL 3 (1933) 317–24.Google Scholar

187 Huck did so in Joachim von Floris (1938) 87ff. on the basis of a comment he read (or misread) in MS Vat. Lat. 3822 and urged the date was 1205. However, Caraffa, Il monastero florense di Maria S. della Gloria (Rome 1940) 3 n.5 and Oliger, ‘Ein pseudo-prophetischer Text aus Spanien,’ Kirchengeschichtliche Michael Studien P. Bihl, O.F.M. als Ehrengaben dargeboten (Kolmar 1944) 23 n.1, have both proved that the traditional date is correct. Google Scholar

188 Gioacchino da Fiore (Florence 1934) 27ff.; Marchese, G. (note 51) 158–59.Google Scholar

189 On some of the problems connected with this vision, see Grundmann, H., ‘Kleine Beiträge über Joachim von Fiore,’ ZKG 48 (1929) 151–52. The text of Joachim's office contains the phrase, ‘Deus qui gloriam tuam tribus apostolis in monte Thabor manifestasti et in eodem loco Joachim, B. veritatem scripturarum revelasti …,’ printed in Nicola Lafortuna (note 175) 112 n.Google Scholar

190 Foberti, F. in ‘Appunti gioacchimiti, la nascita, il casato, la condizione sociale,’ ASCL 3 (1933) 220 says that 1147–49, during the time of the Second Crusade, would be a suitable date for his trip to the ‘luoghi santi.’ This date seems too early to me.Google Scholar

191 See A. v. Kremer, ‘Ueber die grossen Seuchen des Orients nach arabischen Quellen,’ Sb. Akad. Vienna (1880) 81 and 126–27 (there were also plagues in the east in 1142 and 1163 but one is too early and the other probably too late); Georg Sticker, Abhandlungen aus der Seuchéngeschichte und Seuchenlehre I 1: Die Geschichte der Pest (Giessen 1908) 39 (for 1157). Google Scholar

192 See Marchese (note 51 above); Grundmann, Neue Forschungen 41–42. Google Scholar

193 A good introduction in English to the Buonaiuti view of Joachim is to be found in Vida Dutton Scudder, ‘Joachim of Flora and the Friars,’ The Privilege of Age; Essays Secular and Spiritual (New York 1939) 193–210 (reprinted from Christendom 1938). Google Scholar

194 Yet in 1190–1, the Gesta (first version of Hoveden) refers to Joachim as Abbot of Corazzo, see Jamison, E. (note 177) 263. (This lecture gives a good picture of the interview with Richard I.) J. de Ghellinck, L’essor de la littérature latine au xii e siècle I (Brussels and Paris 1946) 199 accepts 1192 as the date of the foundation of the Order. This is the year of the Cistercian command to Joachim to return or be considered a fugitive. Possibly he left for the Sila in 1188 or 1189 and only a few years later decided definitively to break with his original Order, or Hoveden may have been using the title ‘abbot’ loosely. Ughelli (note 175) 195 and Russo, ‘L'eredità di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ ASCL 21 (1952) accept 1189 as the correct date.Google Scholar

195 There may have been a strong Calabrian tradition of hermits which about a century before had apparently sufficiently impressed Stephan of Thiers to found, on returning to his native France, c. 1080, a community from which the Order of Grammont developed. See Jean-Berthold Mahn, L'ordre cistercien et son gouvernement des origines au milieu du xiii e siècle (1098–1265) (2nd ed. Paris 1951) 28–29. Many Basilians lived as hermits. In the 1090's, St. Bruno founded a few Carthusian houses of hermits in Calabria. Google Scholar

196 Printed in Martène and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 4 (Paris 1717) 1274 § 12. Google Scholar

196a See Additional Note, p. 310 below. Google Scholar

197 It ended apparently in 1633 when the last houses reentered the Cistercian Order. Some had earlier done so and some had joined the Dominican friars (there are differences of opinion on the date and mode of the final dissolution of the Florensians). On the history of the Order see Schott, E., ‘Joachim, der Abt von Floris,’ ZKG 22 (1901 ) 358ff.; Russo (note 194 above); André Callebaut, ‘Le joachimite Benoit,’ AFH 20 (1927) 219–22; Giacinto d'lppolito, L'Abate Gioacchino da Fiore (Cosenza 1928) (a local historian who must be used with caution); Biagio Cappelli, ‘Il titolo dell’ ordine del Fiore,’ ASCL 22 (1953) 39–54; Cesare Minicucci, ‘Contributo agli studi storici florensi,’ Brutium 17 (Reggio Calabria 1938) 77–79, 92–93; Caraffa, F. (note 187); Baraut, C., ‘Per la storia dei monasteri Florensi,’ Benedictina 4 (1950) 241–68 (not seen).Google Scholar

198 Documents printed in Ughelli (note 175) 198–201. See also Campolongo, F., Le dottrine dell’ abate Gioacchino e il delitto di eresia (2nd ed. Naples 1929) 22 n. and Lafortuna (note 175) 100–03.Google Scholar

199 See Franz Pelster, ‘Ein Elogium Joachims von Fiore auf Kaiser Heinrich II und seine Gemahlin die heilige Kunigunde,’ Liber Floridus; Mittellateinische Studien, Paul Lehmann … gewidmet … (ed. Bischoff, B. and Suso Brechter; St. Ottilien 1950) 329–54. Pelster strangely persists, in the face of simple chronology (not to speak of the opinion of all Joachim scholars), in regarding the De seminibus (or semine) scripturarum (see below, note 236) as a genuine work of the Abbot although he admits it was written in 1204–05. The work may be Joachite, although its main method of determining the future by the alphabet is not; it was certainly associated with Joachim's name from the late thirteenth century on.Google Scholar

200 Coggeshall (see note 185 above) on the authority of Adam de Perseigne reports that Joachim was at the Curia in 1195, probably, as Jordan suggests, to get papal approval for his new Order. For Celestine's bull, see PL 206.1183. Google Scholar

201 Buonaiuti, ‘II testamento di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 507 n. suggests that an outline the of rule may be found in Concordia 5.23, be ginning, ‘Bene autem redirent christiani ad formam illam, si unaquaeque …’ Caraffa, F. (note 187) 5ff. speculates on the possible contents of the rule. See also Grundmann (note 1) 85ff., who suggests that Table 13 of the Liber figurarum (Dispositio novi ordinis pertinens ad tercium statum ad instar superne Jerusalem) gives us clues. The crucial question here is how Joachim regarded his Order in terms of the third age — was it to be a pattern for it? To some extent at least he must have thought so, but it is obvious that at least the picture in Table 13 of the seventh oratorium sancti Abrae for conjugati cannot have been a feature of Fiore (see Grundmann op. cit. 101–02). Joachim may, as Grundmann suggests, however, have had an initial grouping of 5 houses with the hope for two more (for conjugati and clerici in the new age). The Order could have been ready to take over in the new age — a kind of skeleton third-age monastery so to speak. The pattern of various houses is no doubt based on the conception of heavenly mansions and reveals the Order's eschatological orientation as well as Joachim's (and the monastic) theory of the monastery as the closest terrestrial imitation of heaven, which it prefigures and of which it is a foretaste. On the heavenly mansions in the Middle Ages, see Petry, Ray C., Christian Eschatology and Social Thought (New York and Nashville 1956) 337ff. with appropriate references.Google Scholar

202 In his bull canonizing St. Dominic, Gregory IX referred to the Dominicans, Franciscans, Cistercians, and Florensians as the four pillars of the church. See above, note 30. Google Scholar

203 For the early years (before 1250) of Joachim's influence, see Bloomfield and Reeves, ‘The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 772–93 and Reeves, ‘The Abbot Joachim's Disciples and the Cistercian Order,’ Sophia 19 (1951) 355–71.∗∗CrossRefGoogle Scholar

204 Chenu (note 150) 173ff. sees the condemnation of some of Joachim's Trinitarian views at least implied in the condemnation by the masters of the University of Paris in 1241 of some ten propositions held by some of their number there. — For a bibliography of this dispute, see Bloomfield and Reeves (note 203) 772 n. 2 and Seppelt, F. X., Der Kampf der Bettelorden an der Universität Paris in der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen 2 and 6; Breslau 1905–08) I 197–241; II 73–139; Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages I (new ed. by Powicke, F. M. and Emden, A. B.; Oxford 1936) 344–97; Denkinger, T., ‘Die Bettelorden in der französischen didaktischen Literatur des 13. Jahrhunderts, besonders bei Rutebeuf und im Roman de la Rose,’ Franziskanische Studien 2 (1915) 63–109; 286–313, and ‘Die Bettelorden im sogenannten Testament und Codicille de Jehan de Meun,’ ibid. 3 (1916) 339–53; Max Bierbaum, Bettelorden und Weltgeistlichkeit an der Universität Paris: Texte und Untersuchungen zum literarischen Armuts- und Exemtionsstreit des 12. Jahrhunderts (1255–1272) (Franziskanische Studien, Beiheft 2; Münster i.W. 1920) (a valuable collection of texts); Apollonia Koperska, Die Stellung der religiösen Orden zu der Profanwissenschaften im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, Switzerland 1914) 135–77.Google Scholar

205 ‘ Disputes scolastiques sur les états de perfection,’ RTAM 10 (1938) 279–93 (Schleyer under-emphasizes the theoretical and dogmatic issues of the quarrel, but it is a valuable corrective) and Anfänge des Gallikanismus im 13. Jahrhundert; Der Widerstand des französischen Klerus gegen die Privilegierung der Bettelorden (Historische Studien 314; Berlin 1937). — William of St. Amour claimed that bishops, and hence parish priests, derived their authority immediately from Christ through the Apostles and not from the pope.Google Scholar

206 Salimbene, , Cronica II ed. Bernini, F. (Scrittori d'ltalia 187–188; Bari 1942) 132. This southern Italian background tends to support Reeves’ thesis of a Joachite center in southern Italy in the decades following Joachim's death, although not the thesis that it was in Cistercian and Florensian houses, for Gerardo was a Franciscan.Google Scholar

207 See ‘Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni,’ ALKG 1 (1885) 49–142. Apparently glosses on this work, rather than the introduction or extracts from Joachim himself, were condemned by the Commission at Anagni. From Cardinal Eudes de Châteauroux, a member of the Anagni Commission, we get in one of his sermons another picture of this dispute which has generally been ignored; see Gratien, P., Sermons franciscains du Cardinal Eudes de Châteauroux (d. 1273) (Extrait des Études franciscaines 29 and 30, Année 1913; Paris and Couvin 1913) 35–39, Sermon 4. — Gerardo paralleled Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Zechariah, John, and Jesus; and Joachim, Dominic and Francis; see Benz, E., ‘Joachim-Studien I’ (note 67) 107.Google Scholar

208 To Joachim, the eternal Gospel of Apoc. 14.6 means a new spiritual interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, and certainly not a book. In Psalterium 1, fols. 259v - 260r he discusses the concept, saying inter alia that it is ‘illud quod procedit de evangelio Christi, littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat.’ — The third age is not to have a newer Testament but to possess a new enlightenment into the meaning of the two already given us. See Robertson, James C., History of the Christian Church from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation V (revised ed. London 1874) 345. In Super quatuor Evangelia (ed. Buonaiuti) 86, Joachim also says, ‘evangelium regni, vel a Iohanne evangelium eternum, nisi quia illud quod mandatum est nobis a Christo vel apostolis …’ or in other words, the eternal Gospel is the true commands of Christ and his Apostles.Google Scholar

209 Most recently published by Benz in ZKG 51 (1932) 415–55 along with general comments. The fourth is the most controversial: ‘quod recessus ecclesiae grecorum ab ecclesia romana fuit a Spiritu Sancto’; a statement actually to be found in Joachim's genuine works, but taken out of context; see reference in note 162 above.Google Scholar

210 Who says that Joachim taught that Peter (the New Testament) and Paul must give way to John (the third age). Cf. Psalterium 1, fol. 265v and Concordia 2.2.5, fols. 20v ff. etc. on Peter and John. Google Scholar

211 La Complainte de Constantinoble , lines 37ff.; Du Pharisian; Les Ordres de Paris, lines 61ff.; De Sainte Église, lines 37ff.Google Scholar

212 ‘ Nos sumus in ultima aetate hujus mundi, et illa aetas jam plus duravit aliis, quae currunt per millenarium annorum; quia ista duravit per 1255 annos,’ De periculis 8. Schleyer, Anfänge (note 205) 32 n. 27 denies, however, that William has true eschatological fervor. For the criticism see Rashdall, H. (note 204) 386 n. 1 and Benz (note 209) 449.Google Scholar

213 Edmond Faral has recently edited another work of William of St. Amour's; see his ‘Les Responsiones de Guillaume de Saint-Amour,’ AHDL 25 and 26 (1950–51) 337–94. The Responsiones, poorly edited in the 1632 edition of William's works as Casus et articuli super quibus accusatus, is a further defense of his position, written after 1256 with somewhat attenuated arguments. Google Scholar

214 Inasmuch as this last divisior of my paper (see above, p. 250) has been more fully treated and explored than the others, I shall cover the ground very rapidly. I am also passing over a number of ‘fringe’ theories such as those of Anitchkof, best summed up in his Joachim de Flore (note 2), that the Catharists and Joachim are behind the Grail Legend and much other literature of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (see the thorough criticism by M. Lot-Borodine in Romania 56 [1930] 526–57, and Antonio Viscardi, ‘Settarismo e letteratura nel medio evo,’ Rivista di sintesi letteraria 1 [1934] 31ff.). Joachism in general has much appeal to various esoteric interpreters of European culture. See also, e.g., Gertrude Leigh, The Passing of Beatrice: A Study in the Heterodoxy of Dante (London 1932). Most of these attempts, needless to say, are worthless and devoid of scholarship and genuine insight. However, this should not be said of Anitchkof, who often is very perceptive even though he must be used with caution. See below, note 256. — Joachim's name was frequently thrown around with abandon in the Middle Ages and was attached to many prophecies which are patertly not his; see e.g. Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein, ‘A Joachimite Prophecy Concerning Bohemia,’ The Slavonic and East European Review 34. 82 (1955) 34–55. The thirteenth-century Italian aspect of the subject was studied at some length, with texts, by Holder-Egger in Neues Archiv 25 (1899), 30 (1905) and 33 (1908). Joachim was especially popular as a so-called herald of Antichrist, while his serious historical theory had less appeal.Google Scholar

215 Morghen sees this desire, and not doctrinal concerns, at the root of most later medieval heresies and religious protests. See his ‘L'eresia nel medioevo’ (which first appeared in the Archivio della Deputazione R. romana di Storia patria 67 [N.S. 10; 1944] 97–151) and ‘La crisi della religiosità medievale’ (which first appeared in Ricerche religiose 1947 and in which he sagely discusses Joachim), both reprinted in Medioevo cristiano (Biblioteca di cultura moderna 491; Bari 1951) 212–86 and 287–303. — Joachim himself writes, ‘Necesse quippe est, ut succedat similitudo vera apostolice vite, in qua non acquirebatur possessio terrene hereditatis, sed vendebatur potius …,’ Concordia 4.39, fol. 59v (cf. 4.25); ‘Reformari statum ecclesie in eum gradum et similitudinem, in quo fuit tempore apostolorum,’ Concordia 5.86 fol, 114r. Google Scholar

216 ‘ The whole thirteenth century was conscious of a most intimate kinship with the first century of the Christian era, introduced by the prophecy of Abbot Joachim of Flora,’ Ernst Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 1194–1250, trans. Lorimer, E. O. (Makers of the Middle Ages; New York 1931) 335. According to Kantorowicz, Frederick II was also influenced by Joachism and looked upon himself as the briger of a new age (see ibid. 395–96 and 506–07). His enemies agreed with this view but equated him with Antichrist, a position he too at times accepted (pp. 603ff.).Google Scholar

217 On the whole subject, see Foberti, , Gioacchino da Fiore . Nuovi studi (Florence 1934) (who denies any influence); Grundmann, H. ‘Dante und Joachim von Fiore, zu Paradiso X-XII,’ Deutsches Dante-Jahrbuch 14 (1932) 226; the long review of the Enciclopedia Italiana articles on Joachim by Russo, F. in ASCL 7 (1937) 79–90; Hefele, H. Die Bettelorden und das religiöse Volksleben Ober- und Mittelitaliens im XIII. Jahrhundert (Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, ed. Goetz, W. 9; Leipzig and Berlin 1910) 39 (who denies any influence of Joachim on Francis and finds little influence on popular life in Italy anywhere). — Buonauiti has been the strongest supporter of direct influence although his parallels are too general. He even proposes that the term ‘minorite’ was suggested by Joachim, see ‘Prolegomeni …,’ Ricerche religiose 4 (1928) 418–19 n.1. Joachim in Concordia 5.18, fol. 69v uses the term parvuli to characterize the monastic order of the future. Joachim is probably echoing the parvuli of Matt. 18.3. See also the point made by Bloomfield and Reeves (note 203) 772 n. 3; and below note 219. — For the common Franciscan gloss on Apoc. 7.2 see above, note 84.Google Scholar

218 On Amaury of Bène and the Amalricians see the comments and references in Bloomfield and Reeves (note 203) 782–83 and n. 47, and Grundmann, H., Studien (note 2) 163ff.Google Scholar

219 See above, note 84 and Lyttle, Charles H., ‘The Stigmata of St. Francis, Considered in the Light of Possible Joachimite Influence upon Thomas of Celano,’ Abstract of a Paper read Dec. 31, 1912, Papers of the American Society of Church History 2 4 (1914) 79–85 (he argues that Celano's picture of Francis’ stigmata was influenced by Joachim, as were Fra Elia's letter on the subject, the canonization bull of Gregory IX, and hymns for his office attributed to Celano and Gregory, with their phrases ‘novus ordo,’ ‘caput draconis ultimum’ etc. Fra Leo was the source for Celano).Google Scholar

220 See the interchange between Foberti and F.R. (Russo) in ‘Gioacchino da Fiore, S. Bonaventura, Frate Elia,’ MF 38 (1938) 519–24. and Russo, ‘L'abbate Gioaechino — Bonaventura, S. — Frate Elia,’ ibid. 35 (1935) 277–80.Google Scholar

221 See René de Nantes, Histoire des spirituels dans l'ordre de saint François (Bibliothèque d'histoire franciscaine 1; Paris and Couvin 1909) 181ff. and the text published by Florovsky, AFH 5 (1912). Google Scholar

222 See Karl Balthasar, Geschichte des Armutsstreites im Franziskanerorden (Münster i. W. 1911) 136ff. Google Scholar

223 Recently Easton, Stewart C., Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science: A Reconsideration of his Life and Work… (Oxford 1952) has argued that Bacon was a sympathizer with the Joachite left-wing Franciscans later known as the Spirituals. Easton may be right, although one would have more confidence in his thesis if he had shown an accurate knowledge of Joachim and his teachings. See also Bondatti (note 36) 45ff.Google Scholar

224 Olivi, of course, did not put St. Francis on a par with Christ — Christ is the center of history, and the third age is the sixth and seventh ages of the Church — but to him St. Francis occupied a unique position as a human, as initiator of the third age. See Benz, , Ecclesia spiritualis (Stuttgart 1934) 301. Most of the Joachite ideas in Olivi are in his commentary on the Apocalypse and not in his other voluminous writings; on this commentary, besides Benz, see Bousset, . Die Offenbarung Johannis (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament begründet von Meyer, H. A. W.; Göttingen 1906) 78ff; and Raoul Manselli, La ‘Lectura super Apocalipsim’ di Pietro di Giovanni Olivi: Ricerche sull’ escatologismo medioevale (Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, Studi storici 19–21; Rome 1955). Until Dr. Manselli publishes his edition of Olivi's Postillae on the Apocalypse, his most ‘spiritual’ work, one must be content with the extracts from it published in Baluze, Miscellanea novo ordine digesta II (ed. Mansi; Lucca 1761–64) 258–76, or Döllinger, Beiträge zu Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters II (Munich 1890) 526–85. A number of Olivi's philosophical works are available in early printed books or in modern editions, thus the Quaestiones in secundum librum sententiarum by Jansen, B. (3 vols. Quaracchi 1922–26). — For some general references to Olivi see Ehrle, F. ‘Petrus Johannis Olivi, sein Leben und seine Schriften,’ ALKG 3 (1887) 409–552; Louis Jarraux, ‘Pierre Jean Olivi, sa vie, sa doctrine,’ Études franciscaines 45 (1933) 129–53; 277–98; 513–29; Koch, J. ‘Die Verurteilung Olivis auf dem Konzil von Vienne und ihre Vorgeschichte,’ Scholastik 5 (1930) 489–522; Bernhard Jansen, ‘Der Augustinismus des Petrus Johannis Olivi,’ Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters II (BGPT; Münster i.W. 1935) 878–95; Ewald Müller, Das Konzil von Vienne 1311–12, Seine Quellen und seine Geschichte (Vorreformationsgeschichtliche Forschungen, ed. Finke, H. 12; Münster i.W. 1934) 236–386; Douie, Decima L. The Nature and the Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli (Manchester 1932) 81ff. Gratien, P. in his excellent Histoire de la fondation et de l'évolution de l'ordre des Frères mineurs au xiii e siècle (Paris and Gembloux 1928) has much to say on Olivi, pp. 380ff. et passim. Google Scholar

225 On the Spirituals and Fraticelli, see José Pou, M. y Marti, Visionarios, beguinos y fraticelos catalanes (Siglos XII-XV) (Vich 1930) (reprinted from Archivio Ibero-Americano 11ff,); Haupt, H., ‘Zur Geschichte des Joachimismus,’ ZKG 7 (1885) 372–425; Bernardus Guidonis, Practica inquistionis heretice pravitatis 5 (ed. Douais, C.; Paris 1886) 264ff.; Livarius Oliger, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Spiritualen, Fratizellen und Clarener in Mittelitalien,’ ZKG 45 (1927) 215–42; Francesco Russo, ‘Gioacchinismo e Francescanesimo,’ MF 41 (1941) 61–73; Mercedes van Heuckelum, Spritualistische Strömungen an den Höfen von Aragon und Anjou während der Höhe des Armutsstreits (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte 38; Berlin and Leipzig 1912); Tocco, F., Studii francescani (Naples 1909) 239-310; 311–38; 406–546 and La Quistione della povertà nel secolo XIV, secondo nuovi documenti (Naples 1910); Ernst Benz, ‘Die Geschichtstheologie der Franziskanerspiritualen des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts nach neuen Quellen,’ ZKG 52 (1933) 90–121; ‘Die Kategorien des eschatologischen Zeitbewusstseins, Studien zur Geschichtstheologie der Franziskanerspiritualen,’ Deutsche Vierteljahreschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 11 (1933) 200–29; and Ecclesia Spiritualis (note 224); David Saville Muzzey, The Spiritual Franciscans (New York 1907, reprinted Washington and London 1914); René de Nantes, Histoire des spirituels (note 221); Buonaiuti, E., ‘Gioacchino da Fiore ed Elia da Cortona,’ Ricerche religiose 7(1931) 53–59 and ‘Il messagio gioachimita e la religio francescana,’ Religio (formerly Ricerche religiose) 14 (1938) 86–109; Gratien (note 224 above).Google Scholar

226 See Francesco Sarri, ‘Pier di Giovanni Olivi e Ubertino da Casale, Maestri di teologia a Firenze (Sec. XIII),’ Studi francescani N.S. 11 (1925) 88–125.Google Scholar

227 For Ubertino, see Huck, J. C., Ubertin von Casale und dessen Ideenkreis: Ein Beitrag zum Zeitalter Dantes (Freiburg im Breisgau 1903); Gurney, E. Salter, ‘Ubertino da Casale,’ Franciscan Essays by Paul Sabatier and Others (British Society of Franciscan Studies, Extra Series 1; Aberdeen 1912) 108–23; Balthasar (note 222) 151ff. and 251ff.; Callaey, F. ‘Les idées mystico-politiques d'un franciscain spirituel,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 11 (1910) 483–504; 693–727 and L’idéalisme franciscain spirituel au xiv e siècle: Étude sur Ubertin de Casale (Université de Louvain, Recueil de travaux 28; Louvain, Paris and Brussels 1911); Ernst Knoth, Ubertino von Casale: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Franziskaner an der Wende des 13. und 11. Jahrhunderts (Marburg 1903); Albinus Heysse, ‘Ubertini de Casali opusculum Super tribus sceleribus,’ AFH 10 (1917) 103–74 (his views on poverty); Benz, E., ‘Die Kategorien’ (note 225) 213; Douie (note 224) 120ff. Stimulated by Bonaventure's Lignum vitae de mysterio passionis and his own passionate views, Ubertino in 1305 wrote his masterpiece, Arbor vite crucifixe Iesu, an important work in the history of modern piety and an influence on Dante, as a long meditation on, and description of, the earthly life of Jesus, in five books, in which he emphasizes His poverty and the necessity of imitating Him. He frequently digresses to discuss current subjects. The last book is essentially a commentary on the Apocalypse where his Joachism and ‘Olivism’ comes out strongly. He makes many parallels between Jesus and Francis. He emphasizes the new men of the future (‘jesunculi’) and the necessity of caritas. The Arbor vitae of the title comes from Apoc. 22.2.Google Scholar

228 On Angelo, see his Expositio regulae fratrum minorum ed. Oliger, L. (Quaracchi 1912) with its excellent introduction, and his Historia septem tribulationum ed. partly by Ehrle in ALKG 2 (1886) 125–55; 256–327, and partly by Tocco, F. in ‘Le prime due Tribolazioni dell’ ordine dei minori,’ Rendiconti Accad. Lincei 5 17 (Rome 1908) 3–32; 97–131; 221–36; 299–328; Victorinus Doucet, ‘Angelus Clarinus ad Alvarum Pelagium, Apologia pro vita sua,’ AFH 34 (1946) 63–200; Lydia von Auw, Angelo Clareno et les Spirituels franciscains (Lausanne 1952); Douie (note 224) 49ff.Google Scholar

229 On Arnold of Villanova as theologian and thinker, see Menendez, M. y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos españoles II (ed. Corso, F. F.; Buenos Aires 1945) 124–56; Heinrich Finke Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII; Funde und Forschungen (Vorreformationsgeschichtliche Forschungen 3; Münster i.W. 1902) 191ff.; Paul Diepgen, Arnald von Villanova als Politiker und Laientheologe (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte 9; Berlin and Leipzig 1909); van Heukelum (note 225) 6ff.; Tomas Carreras y Artau and Joaquin Carreras y Artau, Filosofia cristiana de los siglos XIII al XV (Historia de la filosofia española 1; Madrid 1939) 199–230 and 641–47; Francesco Ehrle, ‘Arnaldo da Villanova ed i Thomatiste: Contributo alla storia della scuola tomistica,’ Gregorianum 1 (1920) 475–501; José Pou, M. y Marti (note 225) 34ff.; Raoul Manselli, ‘La religiosità d'Arnaldo da Villanova,’ Ballettino dell’ Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo e Archivio muratoriano 63 (1951) 1–100, and ‘Arnaldo da Villanova, diplomatico, medico, teologo e riformatore religioso alle soglie del sec. XV,’ Humanitas 8 (1953) 268–70.Google Scholar

230 This conception is developed out of that of the ‘new man’ whom Christ made possible according to St. Paul (see e.g. Col 3 and 2 Cor. 3.18) and the Gospel (John 3.3–8). The new covenant created a new man; a third age must also so do (see Ubertino da Casale, note 227). See Ladner, G. (note 134) 35–37 (on St. Paul's views). Cf. also Benz, E., ‘Die Geschichtstheologie’ (note 225) 95–96 (on Olivi's views) and 102ff. (on Arnold's views).Google Scholar

231 So does logic, apparently. See the interesting ‘Spiritual’ treatise on logic in MS Vat. Borgh. 54, fols. 113v-127v (cf. Borgh. 88, fols. 14r-55v). Google Scholar

232 Although the influence of Joachim on the Franciscans has been widely recognized and studied, it has not in general been noted that the Dominicans were by no means uninfluenced by the Calabrian. Besides John of Paris, see Livarius Oliger, ‘Ein pseudoprophetischer Text aus Spanien über die heiligen Franziskus und Dominikus (13. Jahrhundert),’ Kirchengeschichtliche Michael Studien P. Bihl O.F.M … dargeboten (Kolmar 1944) 13–28; Haupt, H., ‘Zur Geschichte des Joachimismus,’ ZKG 7 (1885) 401ff.; Gardner, E. G. Dante and the Mystics: A Study of the Mystical Aspect of the Divina Commedia and its Relations with Some of its Mediaeval Sources (London 1913) 191 n.2; Jordan, E. in DThC 8.1438–39; Eduardus Winkelmann, Fratris Arnoldi ord. praed. De correctione ecclesiae… (Berlin 1865); Smalley, B. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. Oxford 1952); Bignami, J.-Odier, ‘Les visions de Robert d'Uzès O.P. (d.1296),’ Archivum fratrum praedicatorum 25 (1955) 258–310.Google Scholar

233 MS Lambeth 61, fol. 145v. — Henry shows a very good knowledge of Joachim's writings and, although opposed to him on this issue, he admits that Joachim is right on many subjects. Himself a secular, he is especially opposed to John Quidort (see note 234) and the Dominicans. Google Scholar

234 See Pelster, F., ‘Die Quaestio Heinrichs von Harclay über die zweite Ankunft Christi und die Erwartung des baldigen Weltendes zu Anfang des XIV. Jahrhunderts,’ Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 1 (1951) 25–82 (cf. its earlier version in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle I [Studi e Testi 37; Vatican City 1924] 307–56). B. Hirsch-Reich criticizes and supplements Pelster in her ‘Heinrichs von Harclay Polemik gegen die Berechnung der zweiten Ankunft Christi,’ RTAM 20 (1953) 144–49. Pelster discusses the general debate over this question in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century — with John Quidort, Arnold of Villanova, Peter d'Alverny, Nicholas of Lyra, and the Carmelite Guido of Terrena as participants (Pelster is curiously inaccurate at times; e.g. he refers to one of Joachim's works as the Concordia decem cordarum). —St. Thomas denied that anyone could predict the time of the coming of Antichrist, although he admitted that Joachim did predict some things correctly (ST 3 suppl. q.77 a.2). See also Eudes de Châteauroux, Sermons (note 207) 35–38. In the fourteenth century, besides those referred to by Pelster (note 233), Hugh of Newcastle, Tractatus de victoria Christi contra Antichristum (printed 1470) 2.24–25; John Eshenden, the English astronomer of the mid-century (see Bodleian MS Ashmole 192 [xvii cent. transcript of Ashmole 393] pp. 101ff.; he denies surprisingly enough the validity of suc predictions), and John Wyclif, Trialogus 4.40 (ed. Lechler, pp. 390–91), all show interest in the subject. On Eshenden, see Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science III (New York 1934) 325–46.Google Scholar

235 See Döllinger, ‘Der Weissagungsglaube und das Prophetentum in der christlichen Zeit,’ Kleinere Schriften (ed. Reusch, F. H.; Stuttgart 1890) 535ff.; José Pou, M. y Marti (note 225) 289ff.; Jeanne Bignami-Odier, Études sur Jean de Roquetaillade (Johannes de Rupescissa) (Paris 1952) (based on an earlier thesis of 1925 at the École des Chartes); and Jacob, E. F., ‘John of Roquetaillade,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 39 (1956–57) 75–96. Thorndike (note 234) 347–69 discusses Roquetaillade as scientist and alchemist.Google Scholar

236 Moreover, a number of pseudo-Joachite works were very popular in England. A curious ‘Prophecie Ioachim in maiori libro de concordanciis’ (sic), mostly about the late 1350's and 1360's, is found in a number of MSS (B.M. Royal 8 C IV, Cotton Vesp. E. VII; Bodley Ashmole 393, Digby 218; Cambridge Corpus Christi 138, and apparently Peniarth 50; on the Continent: Florence Riccardiana 688 and fran, B.N. ç. 902 [in Latin]) and needs to be investigated. — The De semine Scripturarum, written probably in Germany 1204/5 (it appealed very much to Arnold of Villanova, who put it on a par with the Bible!), had a strong English following (see e.g. Geoffrey Baker, Chronicon [ed. Maunde, E. Thompson; Oxford 1889] 173 and The Last Age of the Church [ed. Todd, J. H. ?; Dublin 1840]). It attempts to predict the end of the world by using the Latin alphabet, one century for each letter, starting with the founding of Rome. Wyclif in his Trialogus makes use of it (or the Noticia saeculi) as does the author of The Last Age of the Church. On the De semine and the Noticia, see Beatrix Hirsch in MIOG 38 (1920) 580ff. and 40 (1925) 317–35; Herbert Grundmann, ‘Über die Schriften des Alexander von Roes,’ Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 8 (1950) 161ff.; Franz Wilhelm, ‘Die Schriften des Jordanus von Osnabrück: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Publizistik im 13. Jahrhundert,’ MIOG 19 (1898) 615–75 (text of Noticia, pp. 661–75); a recent edition of the Noticia is to be found in Die Schriften des Alexander von Roes, ed. Grundmann und Heimpel (Deutsches Mittelalter; Kritische Studientexte der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 4 [Weimar 1949]).∗∗Google Scholar

237 For pseudo-Joachite prophecies of the later Middle Ages, see Angelo Messini, ‘Profetismo (note 71) MF 37 (1937) 39–54; 39 (1939) 109–30; Leone Tondelli, ‘Profezia gioacchimita del sec. XIII delle regioni veneti,’ Studi e documenti della Deputazione R. di Storia patria per le provincie modenesi 4 (1940) 1–7; Grundmann, H. 's review of Paton, Lucy A.'s Les prophecies de Merlin, in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (1928) 562–83.Google Scholar

238 For a bibliography of the relations between Joachism and Dante, see Appendix. Google Scholar

239 It is not clear whether the dux in Dante is to be thought of as an ideal pope or an ideal emperor. Zerubabbel as a religio-secular leader could be the prototype of either or both. The same problem arises with the veltro. — Joachim's most weighty pronouncement on Zerubabbel occurs in Concordia 4.31, fol. 56r: ‘In ecclesia incipiet generatio 42a, anno vel hora qua Deus melius nouit. In qua videlicet generatione peracta prius tribulatione generali et purgato diligenter tritico ab vniuersis zizaniis, ascendet quasi dux nouus de Babylone, vniuersalis scilicet pontifex noue Hierusalem, hoc est sancte matris ecclesie.’ He immediately goes on to relate this nouus dux to the angel ‘ascendentem ab ortu solis’ (Apoc. 7.2). Expositio fol. 120v compares the ideal Roman Pontiff to Zerubabbel, who rebuilt Jerusalem. See also the picture of the novus Zorobabel in the Breviloquium in Egerton, B.M. MS 1150, fol. 89v (see above, note 4). Osbert of Clare compares Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury to a ‘novus Zorobabel’ (c. 1138) in Letters No. 36 (ed. Williamson, E. W.) p. 124.Google Scholar

240 See above, note 38. Google Scholar

241 The first overt reference to the angelic pope (although he does not use the term) is to be found in Roger Bacon. In his Compendium studii philosophiae (ed. Brewer in Opera quaedam hactenus inedita; R.S.) 402–03, he speaks of a ‘beatissimus papa qui omnes corruptiones tollet de studio et ecclesia … et renovetur mundus et intret plenitudo gentium …’ and links an optimus papa with an optimus princeps; and in Opus tertium 24 (ed. Brewer ibid. p. 86) he speaks of a prophecy written forty years before (c. 1227; the Commentary on Jeremiah ?) according to which an ideal pope will arise who will cleanse the Church and destroy or convert the Saracens and Tatars. There are suggestions of this idea in Joachim, as for instance Expositio on Apoc. 7.2 (see above, note 239). On the angelic pope, see K. Löffler, ‘Der Engelpapst im Volksglauben und in der Prophetie des Mittelalters,’ Deutsche Rundschau 190 (1922) 59–66; Ernst Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe (Leipzig 1896) 175–83; Messini (note 71) 50ff.; Döllinger, ‘Der Weissagungsglaube,’ Kleinere Schriften (ed. Reusch; Stuttgart 1890) 509ff. and 541ff.; Friedrich Baethgen, Der Engelpapst, Idee und Erscheinung (Leipzig 1943; consisting of 3 essays of which two are reprints).Google Scholar

242 The root idea of the saviour-emperor is to be found in the Tiburtine Sibyl and the Pseudo-Methodius, based on memories of Alexander and Constantius (both angelic pope and saviour are linked to the idea of the end of time and Antichrist, or at least to the beginning of a new age and dispensation). On the saviour-emperor, see Franz Kampers, Die deutsche Kaiseridee in Prophetie und Sage (2nd ed. of Kaiserprophetien und Kaisersagen im Mittelalter [Munich 1896]); Vom Werdegange der abendländischen Kaisermystik (Leipzig and Berlin 1924); and ‘Die Geburtsurkunde der abendländischen Kaiseridee,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 36 (1915) 233–70; Carl Erdmann, ‘Endkaiserglaube und Kreuzzugsgedanke im 11. Jahrhundert,’ ZKG 51 (1932) 384–414 and Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt ed. Baethgen, F. (Berlin 1951); Ernst Kantorowicz, ‘Zu den Rechtsgrundlagen der Kaisersage,’ Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 13 (1957) 115–50; Michael Kmosko, ‘Das Rätsel des Pseudomethodius,’ Byzantion 6 (1931) 273–96; Nau, F. ‘Révélations,’ Journal asiatique, Onzième série 9 (1917) 415–71; Sackur, G. Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen (Halle 1898); Kantorowicz, Ernst H. ‘Kaiser Friedrich II und das Königsbild des Hellenismus (Marginalia Miscellanea),’ Varia Variorum, Festgabe für Karl Reinhardt… (Münster and Cologne 1952) 169–93; Hermann Grauert, ‘Zur deutschen Kaisersage,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 13 (1892) 100–43; Williams, George H., The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D.: Toward the Identification and Evaluation of the So-called Anonymous of York (Harvard Theological Studies 18; Cambridge 1951) (the Anonymous has an interesting division of history. In the third age after the second Advent, there will be no priests; all men will be kings, images of God); Percy Ernst Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio: Studien und Texte zur Geschichte des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Ende des karolingisches Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 17; Leipzig and Berlin 1929); Alphandéry, P., ‘Notes sur le messianisme médiéval latin (xi-xiie siècles),’ École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses, Rapports annuels 1912 (Paris 1912) 1–29 (he emphasizes the ritual element); Arturo Graf, Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni del medio evo (Turin 1923) 180–92 et passim; Ohnsorge (note 150 above).Google Scholar

243 By Mignosi; see Russo, ‘Rassegna,’ Miscellanea francescana 38 (1938) 70. See also Auguste Valensin, Le Christianisme de Dante (Théologie: Études publiées sous la direction de la Faculté de Théologie de, S.J. Lyon-Fourvière 30; Paris 1954) 101ff. — The fact that Dante ‘recognized’ him may speak against the identification with Pilate, although there is no positive evidence that Dante knew Celestine by sight; but at least he could have. Of course, if he is referring to Celestine in condemning his ‘rifiuto,’ he is also in a sense paying tribute to the hopes he originally raised.Google Scholar

244 Ambrogio Donini, ‘Appunti per una storia del pensiero di Dante in rapporto al movimento gioachimita,’ Forty-seventh and Forty-eighth Annual Reports of the Dante Society (Cambridge 1930). See Russo (note 243) 75 and Foberti in Miscellanea francescana 39 (1939) 169ff. Donini suggests that in line 126 ‘the one who fled’ is Ubertino and ‘the one who tightens’ is Aquasparta. The only flight Dante could be referring to, if he was doing so here, is the transfer of Ubertino to the Benedictine Order in 1317. If Donini is right, Dante puts Ubertino in a more favorable light than hitherto thought. In any case of course, the indebtedness of Dante to Ubertino is beyond cavil. Google Scholar

245 See above, notes 39, 121, and, for a further possible influence, note 31. There is much Joachite language (e.g. Paradiso 9.142 etc.) and there are many Joachite attitudes in the poem, although proof is most difficult. Joachite Biblical exegesis and historical parallels will be useful, I am sure, in explaining a number of Dante's allusions, e.g. the crucifixion of Haman (type of Antichrist to Joachim, Concordia 5.92, fol. 122v) in Purgatorio 17.25–30 (I am indebted to Professor Edgar Wind for this example). The strong condemnation of the Donation of Constantine is very characteristic of Joachite writings from the time of the Jeremiah Commentary. See Leone Tondelli (note 14) 78ff.Google Scholar

246 See above, note 136. Google Scholar

247 Barbi, in ‘Il gioacchinismo francescano e il veltro,’ Studi Danteschi 18 (1934) 209–11 and ‘Veltro, gioacchinismo e fedeli d'amore, sbardamenti e abberrazioni’ (part 5 of ‘Nuovi problemi della critica dantesca’) ibid. 22 (1938) 29–46, takes a strong position against Joachite and ‘Spiritual’ influence on Dante. Barbi makes some good points although his central position is very dubious. Barbi would have strengthened his case if he revealed that he knew what Joachim actually did say and teach.Google Scholar

248 For a discussion of Joachim's role in Western eschatological thinking, see Jakob Taubes, Abendländische Eschatologie (Beiträge zur Soziologie und Sozialphilosophie ed. R. König 3; Berne 1947) 85ff., who perhaps overrates his influence. On pp. 90ff. he compares Joachim with Hegel. See also Nicolas Berdyaev, The Divine and the Human, trans. French, R. M. (London 1949) 183. For Joachim's influence on Mazzini, see Attilio Pepe, ‘Mazzini e Gioacchino da Fiore,’ ASGL 24 (1955) 489–92 (Pepe is stronger in his knowledge of Mazzini than of Joachim).∗∗Google Scholar

249 Local Calabrian journals provide many eulogizing articles on their native son and his influence, most of which are of course worthless for scholarly purposes. A valuable paper, which provides some names of poets who have referred to Joachim, was published by Francesco, P. Russo, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore nella poesia,’ in Brutium 19 (Reggio Calabria 1940) 25–29.Google Scholar

250 See Mark 13.10 and Matth. 24.14. Google Scholar

251 Erich Dinkler, ‘[The Idea of History in] Earliest Christianity,’ The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (ed. Dentan, R. C. American Oriental Series 38; New Haven 1955) 171–214, who offers an excellent if occasionally tender tious treatment of the idea of history in the New Testament. See also Theo Preiss, ‘The Vision of History in the New Testament,’ The Journal of Religion 30 (1950) 157–70.Google Scholar

252 K. Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago 1949) 155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

253 See Adrian Hastings, ‘The Prophet's Role in the Living Church,’ The Downside Review 74 (1956) 43. Google Scholar

254 Löwith (note 252) 246 n. 14. Google Scholar

255 Some of Joachim's contemporaries, like Otto of Freising and Hugo of St. Victor, at least implied such an historical understanding of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus; but to most medieval thinkers only heaven is the third and perfect stage. Google Scholar

256 I have not dealt here with various libertine groups influenced to some extent by Joachim, especially by his emphasis on the spirit of liberty and the Holy Ghost, like the sect of the ‘spirit of liberty’ discussed by Antonio de Stefano, ‘Intorno alle origini e alla natura della secta spiritus libertatis‘ in Archivum romanicum 11 (1927) 150–67. According to its opponent Alvarez Pelayo, a Franciscan of the fourteenth century, its members may be described as ‘habentes raptum ad placitum et fornicantes ad libitum.’ De Stefano tries, in vain I think, to find some justification for this libertinism in the writings of the genuine ‘Spirituals.’ We also dismiss the ‘Adamites,’ which Wilhelm Fränger, The Millenium of Hieronymus Bosch: Outlines of a New Interpretation (trans. Chicago 1951) evokes to explain Bosch's symbolism. They are extremely shadowy but were probably partially Joachite. Most later medieval heretical groups used some Joachite phrases at least. See above, note 214.Google Scholar

257 See, for instance, the title of Table 20 of the Liber figurarum — ‘Ecclesia que proprietate misterii pertinet ad Spiritum Sanctum fuit in sterilitate a Johanne Baptista usque ad presens, in fecunditate a presenti tempore usque ad finem’ (my italics). Such ‘biological’ metaphors and terms are quite common in Joachim's works. Google Scholar

258 Noted briefly by Schott, E. in ‘ Die Gedanken des Abtes Joachim von Floris,’ ZKG 23 (1902) 182–83 and more fully in Benz, E., ‘Joachim-Studien I’ (note 67) 30ff., 80ff. et passim.∗∗Google Scholar

259 On the similarity of Schelling and Joachim, see Erich Frank, Philosophical Understanding and Religious Truth (London, New York and Toronto 1945) 153, 169–71 and notes 18 and 19; Bett, H., Joachim of Flora (London 1931) 179.Google Scholar

∗∗ Additional Note. The following bibliographical information came to my attention in the course of proofreading; it is arranged here in the order of the pertinent footnotes above.

Note 3: On Russo's Bibliografia, see the recent, important article by B. Hirsch-Reich, ‘Eine Bibliographie fiber Joachim von Fiore und dessen Nachwirkung,’ RTAM 24 (1957) 27–44.

Note 5: A shorter version of the Expositio, the Apocalypis nova, also exists in MSS Dresden A 121 and Vat. lat. 4860, apparently used by Spiritual Franciscans; see Grundmann (note 1 above) 27.

Note 20: The Bollandist Daniel Papebroch in the seventeenth century expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the De essentia in his comments on Joachim, AS May VII.

Note 31: For other short works, see B. Reich-Hirsch, ‘Eine Bibliographie…’ (note 3, addition) 29–30.

Note 63: For a recent analysis of Joachim's Trinitarianism as expressed in the Psalterium, see A. Crocco, I La teologia trinitaria di Gioacchino da Fiore,’ Sophia 25 (1957) 218–32. Crocco argues that at least part of the Psalterium is a well-organized and theologically subtle, logical argument.

Note 75: For the third are, see also E. Benz, I Creator Spiritus: Die Geistlehre des Joachim von Fiore,’ Eranos-Jahrbuch 25 (1956) 285–355, and Ruth Kestenburg-Gladstein, ‘The Third Reich: A Fifteenth-Century Polemic against Joachism, and its Background,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 18 (1955) 245–95. The author of this polemic has a very curious view that the people of the third age would be resurrected persons who would not marry nor eat.

Note 96: See also R. Freyhan, ‘Joachism and the English Apocalypse,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 18 (1955) 211–44.

Note 115: On the world ages, see also J.H.J. Van der Pot, De periodisering der geschiedenis: Een overzicht der theorieen (The Hague 1951).

Note 136: For Odo, see also Jean Leclercq, t Profession monastique, bapteme et penitence d'apres Odon de Cantorbery,’ Analecta monastica 2e serie (Studia Anselmiana 31; Rome 1953) 124–40.

Note 174: Ernst Bloch, Freiheit und Ordnung: Abriss der Sozial- Utopien (New York 1946) 60–61 sees the Joachite spirit in the history of the Eastern, esp. the Russian Church, particularly in the idea of t unabgeschlossene Offenbarung.’ Note 196&: The Cistercian Geoffrey of Auxerre (d. after 1188) speaks of a prophet Joachim as of Jewish ancestry in a fragment preserved in MS Troyes 506, fol. 126v, quoted by J. Leclercq,’ I Le temolgnage de Geoffroy d'Auxerre sur la vie cistercienne,’ Analecta mono (note 136, addition) 200f. In spite of Dom Leclercq's interpretation, I doubt that this passage can refer to our Abbot at this early date in France. If it does, it is our only evidence for this fact. Is it an example of Cistercian hostility to Joachim?

Note 203: Recently, R. Freyhan (note 96, addition) argues that t the English Apocalypse [miniatures] Was conceived in protest against the Joachist heresy' and tries to date the miniatures on this premise. Although his iconographical remarks have some validity, Freyhan makes some serious errors in his general statements, which casts doubt on his conclusions.

Note 236: On the Prophecie Ioachim see Bloomfield and Reeves (note 203 above) 788.

Note 248: See also Will-Erich Peuckert, Die grosse Wende: Das apokalyptische Saeculum und Luther (Hamburg 1948) 154ff., 185ff. and 640–41 (for Germany in particular); and Kestenburg-Gladstein (note 75, addition) (for central Europe in particular).

Note 258: See also the recent article by Benz, ‘Creator Spiritus…’ (note 75, addition) 285ff., esp. 344ff.