¹ City of God 22.22. I use the recent translation by Henry Bettenson, ed. Knowles, D. (Harmondsworth 1972) 1068. Funds to help sustain research for this article (part of a more extensive study of medieval prophetic thought I am undertaking) were provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and by Northwestern University. I am grateful to Professor Richard A. Kieckhefer for his helpful criticism. Abbreviations used below are: BM = British Museum; BN = Bibliothèque Nationale; Clm = Codex latinus monacensis; Reeves, Influence = Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford 1969); Töpfer = Töpfer, Töpfer, Das kommende Reich des Friedens (Berlin 1964); UB = Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar

² Southern, R. W., ‘Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 2. Hugh of St. Victor and the Idea of Historical Development,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series 21 (1971) 159–79 (161).Google Scholar

³ ‘Political Society ,’ in Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Markus, R. A. (Garden City 1972) 311–35 (322). This article first appeared in Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. Smalley, B. (Oxford 1965) 1-21. I follow Brown's treatment of Augustine on the saeculum. Google Scholar

⁴ The Two Cities , tr. Mierow, C. C. (New York 1928) 93. On Otto's theory of historical instability, see further Kaegi, Kaegi, Chronica Mundi (Einsiedeln 1954) 12, and Koch, Koch, ‘Die Grundlagen der Geschichtsphilosophie Ottos von Freising,' in Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtsbild im Mittelalter, ed. Lammers, Lammers (Darmstadt 1965) 321–49, an article that first appeared in the Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1953) 79-94.Google Scholar

⁵ On the Augustinian division of history into ages, Schmidt, R., ‘Aetates mundi: Die Weltalter als Gliederungsprinzip der Geschichte,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 67 (1955/56) 288–317; Schwarte, Schwarte, Die Vorgeschichte der augustinischen Weltalterlehre (Bonn 1966); and Charles, W. Jones (ed.), Bedae opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass. 1943) 201-202, 303, 345.Google Scholar

⁶ Luchaire, Luchaire, Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus , tr. Krehbiel, E. B. (London 1912) 1. (Luchaire was citing Rigord, the late-twelfth-century monk of St. Denis.) For various expressions of the medieval topos mundus senescens, see Siebert, Siebert, Der Mensch um Dreizehnhundert im Spiegel deutscher Quellen (Berlin 1931) 142–45, and Martin Schaller, Hans, ‘Endzeit-Erwartung und Antichrist-Vorstellungen in der Politik des 13. Jahrhunderts,' in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel II (Göttingen 1972)929. Grundmann, Grundmann, Studien über Joachim von Fiore (Leipzig and Berlin 1927; repr. Darmstadt 1966) 80, cites Piur, P., Petrarcas Buch ohne Namen 14, on the view of the present as the sixth and last world age in Petrarch and Salutati. On the widespread expectation of the end of the world in Civil-War England, see Hill, Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (London 1972) 70-87.Google Scholar

⁷ An interesting start has been made by Marjorie Reeves, ‘History and Eschatology: Medieval and Early Protestant Thought in Some English and Scottish Writings,’ Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s. 4 (1973) 99–123. On knowledge of Joachim of Fiore in seventeenth-century England, see also Hill 118, citing further Morton, A. L., The Matter of Britain (London 1966). On the invocation of Joachim by Lessing, Baethgen, Baethgen, Der Engelpapst: Idee und Erscheinung (Leipzig 1943) 51 and 192 (citing further an article on Joachite ideas in Schelling). For Voegelin, E., The New Science of Politics (Chicago 1952) 113, Joachism ‘is the dynamic core in the Marxian mysticism of the realm of freedom and the withering-away of the state,’ and ‘Hitler's millennial prophecy authentically derives from Joachitic speculation, mediated in Germany through the Johannine Christianity of Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling.’ Similar views are expressed by Löwith, Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago 1949) 208–13 (‘Modern Transfigurations of Joachism'), and Cohn, Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (3rd ed.; New York 1970) 109.Google Scholar

⁸ I follow Mannheim, Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia , tr. Wirth, L. and Shils, E. (New York 1936; repr. ‘Harvest Books’ n.d.) 211-19; Hobsbawm, E. J., Social Bandits and Primitive Rebels (New York 1959; repr. as Primitive Rebels [New York 1965]) 57-58; Cohn, Cohn, ‘Medieval Millenarism,' in Sylvia L. Thrupp, Millennial Dreams in Action (New York 1970) 31, and many others in broadening my definition of chiliasm or millenarianism (interchangeable terms) beyond the literal Johannine expectation of a thousand-year kingdom to include all expectations of imminent, sweeping earthly change to be brought about in whole or part by supernatural forces and expected to endure until the End.Google Scholar

⁹ A distinction between ‘Sibylline’ and ‘Joachite’ prophetic systems is found in Cohn, Pursuit 30-36, 108-111, and is developed more fully and thoughtfully by Reeves, M., ‘Joachimist Influences on the Idea of a Last World Emperor,’ Traditio 17 (1961) 323–70 (323-25), and Reeves, , Influence 299-303.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sackur, Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen (Halle 1898; repr. Turin 1963); Konrad, Konrad, De ortu et tempore Antichristi: Antichristvorstellung und Geschichtsbild des Abtes Adso von Montier-en-Der (Kallmünz 1964); Alexander, Paul J., The Oracle of Baalbek, The Tiburtine Sibyl in Greek Dress (Washington, D.C. 1967); idem ‘Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources,’ American Historical Review 73 (1968) 997–1018; and idem, ‘Byzantium and the Migration of Literary Works and Motifs: The Legend of the Last Roman Emperor,’ Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 2 (1971) 47-68.Google Scholar

¹¹ See the recent judgment of Horst Rauh, Rauh, Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter: von Tyconius zum deutschen Symbolismus (Münster 1973) 152: ‘Pseudo-Methodius war kein Theologe. Primitiv mag oft anmuten, was er von überallher zusammenschrieb.’Google Scholar

¹² A useful summary of medieval Antichrist doctrine is Preuss, Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig 1906) 10–28. For the period up through the twelfth century see now the much more exhaustive work of Rauh.Google Scholar

¹³ Reeves, , Influence 302-303. Reeves' recent ‘History and Prophecy in Medieval Thought,’ Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 5 (1974) 51–75, reiterates this position, adding (55) that ‘it is difficult to identify any specific sources for his [Joachim's] distinctive ideas.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ Reeves, Marjorie and Hirsch-Reich, Beatrice, The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore (Oxford 1972) 304. My difference with Miss Reeves on this point ought not to obscure my enormous debt to her monumental research on late-medieval prophecy; it is hard to imagine anyone working in this field who is not deeply grateful for Miss Reeves' pathfinding influence, particularly in this respect for her Influence. Google Scholar

¹⁵ This observation was first made by Bousset, Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche (Göttingen 1895) 149. (I have not seen the English translation: The Antichrist Legend, a Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore [London 1896]). Bousset's observation has hitherto never been intensively pursued.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Hieronymus, S., Commentarii in Esaiam , CCL 73A.740-41 (PL, 24.627B): ‘… de repromissionibus futurorum, quomodo debeant accipi, et qua ratione intelligenda sit Apocalypsis Ioannis, quam si iuxta litteram accipimus, iudaizandum est. … Dionysius Alexandrinae … scribit librum, irridens mille annorum fabulam ….’ Jerome's revision of Victorinus is in Victorini opera, ed. Haussleiter, J., CSEL 49 (1916 ); on it, see Kamlah, Kamlah, Apokalypse und Geschichtstheologie: die mittelalterliche Auslegung der Apokalypse vor Joachim von Fiore (Berlin 1935; repr. Vaduz 1965) 9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Commentarii in Danielem , CCL 75A.848 (PL, 25.534A); ‘sancti autem, nequaquam habebunt terrenum regnum, sed caeleste. Cesset ergo mille annorum fabula.’ Many more passages of this sort are listed by John, P. O'Connell, The Eschatology of St. Jerome (Mundelein, Ill. 1948) 64–72. O'Connell does not treat the theme of 45 days that I develop below.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. , CCL 75A.944 (PL, 25.579C): ‘quare autem, post interfectionem Antichristi, quadraginta quinque dierum silentium sit, divinae scientiae est, nisi forte dicamus: dilatio regni sanctorum patientiae comprobatio est.’ This section of Jerome's commentary was written in 399; see CCL 75A.757-58.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Commentarii in Matheum , CCL 77.233 (PL, 26.182A): 'et nunc ea futura memorentur quae pacis indicia sunt. Sed aestimandum iuxta apostolum quod post pugnas et dissensiones, … brevis subsecutura sit pax, quae quieta omnia repromittat ut fides credentium comprobetur, utrum transactis malis sperent iudicem esse venturum. Hoc est enim quod in Paulo legimus:Quando dixerint: Pax et securitas, tunc repentinus eis superveniet interitus. … [1 Thess. 5.3]. The date of 398 given for this work (CCL 77.v) indicates that Jerome worked on it about the same time as he worked on his commentary on Daniel, which he brought out a year later. It is hard to imagine that anything other than the surplus 45 days in Daniel provided the point of departure for Jerome's comments on the interval between Antichrist and the End in his commentary on Matthew.Google Scholar

²⁰ A tradition that emerged around A.D. 1000 ascribed to St. Jerome a prediction of fifteen dreadful signs that would occur on fifteen days before the Last Judgment, but this is not to be found among the authentic writings of Jerome; see William W. Heist, The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday (East Lansing, Mich. 1952) 49, 108, and nn. 35 and 36 infra. Google Scholar

²¹ Augustine referred to Jerome on Daniel in another context in his City of God, 20.23. His exchange with Hesychius on last things (letters 197-99) is translated in the series ‘The Fathers of the Church': Saint Augustine, Letters IV (New York 1955) 347–401.Google Scholar

²² Bede may have derived his exegesis of the seven seals from Primasius, Commentarii super Apocalypsim (PL 68.836-54), but there is hardly any historicization in Primasius. Bede's use of Primasius is noted by Kamlah (n. 16 supra) 12 n. 16. Google Scholar

²³ Explanatio Apocalypsis (PL 93.146C-154C, 146D): ‘In primo igitur sigillo, decus Ecclesiae primitivae, in sequentibus tribus, triforme contra earn bellum; in quinto, gloriam sub hoc bello triumphatorum; in sexto, illa quae ventura sunt tempore Antichristi, et paululum superioribus recapitulatis; in septimo, cernit initium quietis aeternae'; 154B-C: ‘Post interitum Antichristi requies aliquantula futura creditur in Ecclesia, de qua Daniel ita praedixit. … Quod beatus Hieronymus sic exponit. … Nota quod in sexto sigillo maximas Ecclesiae pressuras, in septimo requiem, cernit, quia Dominus, sexta feria crucifixus, in Sabbato quievit, tempus resurrectionis expectans.’ Kamlah 48-49, and Southern, R. W., ‘Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 3. History as Prophecy,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 22 (1972) 164–65, call attention to the importance of Bede's historicization of the vision of the seven seals without noticing the importance of Bede's interpretation of the seventh seal for the history of chiliasm. See on this, however, Töpfer 88.Google Scholar

²⁴ In addition to the quotation given above, Bede quoted Jerome on the time after Antichrist in Epistola 15 (PL 94.708C) and in his Chronica, as cited in the next note. See also n. 28 infra for a borrowing from Jerome in a commentary sometimes ascribed to Bede but more probably written by Rabanus Maurus. Google Scholar

²⁵ Chronica (MGH, Auctores antiquissimi 13.323-24): ‘Percusso autem illo perditionis filio … non continuo dies iudicii secuturus esse credendus est: alioquin scire possent homines illius evi tempus iudicii, si post tres semis annos inchoate persecutionis Antichristi confestim sequeretur. Nunc autem quia ante consummatum tempus persecutionis illius dies iudicii non veniat, scire omnibus licet: post quantum vero tempus consummatae eiusdem persecutionis venturus sit, nemini prorsus scire conceditur. Denique propheta Danihel … ita concludit: beatus qui exspectat et pervenit ad dies mille CCCXXXV. Quod Hieronymus ita exponit. …’Google Scholar

²⁶ De fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis (PL 101.51D): ‘percusso autem illo perditionis filio, … non continuo dies judicii secuturus esse credendus est, ut adimpleatur quod ipse Dominus in Evangelio ait: De die autem illo et hora nemo novit. …’ Alcuin's language reveals his debt to Bede.Google Scholar

²⁷ A clear expression of Bede's extreme hostility toward materialistic chiliasm is Chronica 322: ‘… sperarent … in hac ipsa vita immortales in diliciis et multa beatitudine regnaturos esse cum Christo. Verum his, quia heretica sunt et frivola. …’ Google Scholar

²⁸ On the ‘Haimo’ problem and the distinction of Haimo of Auxerre from Haimo of Halberstadt and Remigius of Auxerre, see now Riccardo Quadri, ‘Aimone di Auxerre alla luce dei “Collectanea'’ di Heiric di Auxerre,’ Italia medioevale e umanistica 6 (1963) 1–48. Other Carolingian exegetes adhered very closely to the earlier formulae on the time after Antichrist found in Jerome and Bede. See, for example, Pseudo-Bede (probably Rabanus Maurus), Expositio in Evangelium S. Matthaei (PL 92.105A); Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeum (PL 120.828CD); Alcuin, , Explanatio Apocalypsis MS Clm 13581 (9th cent.), fols. 7^v-8^r (the attribution is by Bernhard Bischoff — see Kamlah, [n. 16 supra] 14 n. 21; in a conversation in 1973 Prof. Bischoff told me that he still believes in the probability of Alcuin's authorship). Since this article first went to press I have learned fiom Christe, Y., ‘Ap. IV-VIII, 1: de Bède à Bruno de Segni,’ Mélanges E.-R. LaBande (Poitiers 1974) 145-51, that the late-eleventh-century exegete Bruno of Segni diverged from Bede's interpretation of the seventh seal, making it instead the time of the serenity of paradise. This reading, however, was, to the best of my knowledge, without subsequent influence, although a similar one was devised later on by William of St. Amour, on whom see infra. Google Scholar

²⁹ Haimo's Apocalypse commentary follows Ambrosius Autpertus rather than Bede on the seventh seal. See PL 117.1043D-1044A, and Kamlah 14-15, 31-32 with n. 65. Google Scholar

³⁰ In Epistolam I ad Thessalonicenses (PL 117.773D-774A, under the name of Haimo of Halberstadt): ‘Post mortem autem ejus remanebunt quadraginta quinque dies, in quibus multa erit pax, ut in illis electi qui aliquid titubaverunt in persecutione, poenitentiam agant et salventur, ministri autem Antichristi qui remanserunt post mortem ejus, gaudebunt per illos quadraginta quinque dies, ducentes uxores et convivia celebrantes, et jocos diversi generis exercentes, ac dicentes: Licet princeps noster sit mortuus, modo nos habebimus pacem et securitatem. Et cum talia dixerint, subito veniet eis subitaneus interitus.’Google Scholar

³¹ Rauh (n. 11 supra) 162. Google Scholar

³² In Epistolam II ad Thessalonicenses (PL 117. 781D): ‘Notandum quia non statim veniet Dominus ad judicium, ubi fuerit Antichristus interfectus, sed (sicut ex libro Danielis intelligimus) post mortem illius concedentur electis ad poenitentiam dies quadraginta quinque. Quantulumcunque vero spatium temporis sit usquequo Dominus veniet, penitus ignoratur.’Google Scholar

³³ The implications of this passage were first noticed by Töpfer 88. See the translation by Kunze, Kunze, Heliand. Die altsächsische Evangelien-Dichtung nebst den Bruchstücken der altsächsischen Genesis (Freiburg/Br. 1925) 133 lines 135-38: ‘Und der Antichrist wird zur Erde geworfen, der Feind gefällt. Das Volk wird bekehrt, zu Gottes Reich der Gauleute Sippe für lange Zeit, und das Land steht gesund.’ The dating of the Old Saxon Genesis is uncertain: the best estimate seems to be that it was written not long after the Heliand of ca. 825-835 — see on this, Stammler, Wolfgang (ed.), Verfasserlexikon II (Berlin 1936) 20, 387.Google Scholar

³⁴ ed. Sackur, (n. 10 supra) 113. An English translation is by Wright, Wright, The Play of Antichrist (Toronto 1967) 109–110. On Adso's debt to Haimo, Konrad (n. 10 supra) 28-34. Adso probably took the figure of 40 instead of 45 days from a ninth-century Latin poem on Antichrist (MGH, Poetae latini aevi Carolini 4.644-45). Konrad 62-63 overlooks the argument of Paul von Winterfeld, ‘Zur Geschichte der rhythmischen Dichtung,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 25 (1900) 406-407, that this poem was written at least as early as the ninth century and was either a source for Adso or a relative by descent from an unknown common source. Konrad 87 sees Adso's choice of 40 instead of 45 days as an example of careless work, but this appears to be mistaken: the figure of 40 days was probably chosen as an analogy to Lent or to the time between Easter and Ascension. The latter analogy is in fact drawn by the thirteenth-century Alexander von Roes in his Noticia seculi (MGH, Staatsschriften des späteren Mittelalters 1.1.169).Google Scholar

³⁵ Opusculum 59: De novissimis et Antichristo (PL 145.839CD). Peter Damian was one of the early reporters of the legend of the fifteen signs to come on fifteen days before the End (see n. 20 supra), but he had misgivings about its veracity and did not count the fifteen days as a separate age. For the text of this passage with English translation, see Heist (n. 20 supra) 27-28.Google Scholar

³⁶ Honorius Augustodunensis, Elucidarium, ed. Lefèvre, Lefèvre, L'Elucidarium et les lucidaires (Paris 1954) 454 (PL 172.1164A); ‘Linzer Antichrist,’ ed. von Fallersleben, Hoffmann, Fundgruben für Geschichte deutscher Sprache und Litteratur 2 (1837) 126. Konrad 122-23 lists Adso, Bede, and the Elucidarium as sources for the ‘Linzer Antichrist.’ On the text's debt to Peter Damian for the fifteen signs before the Last Judgment, see Heist 113-14. Here and customarily in other medieval accounts of the fifteen signs, the fifteen days on which they occur are described as coming after the forty or forty-five days of peace and the subsequent time of unknown duration. Thus it is clear that the fifteen dreadful days were regarded as an immediate prologue to Doomsday rather than as part of the good time after Antichrist. Therefore subsequent variants of the legend, except for one by Hugo de Novocastro, on which see n. 117 infra, will not be treated further in this article.Google Scholar

³⁷ Collectanea in Epistolas S. Pauli (PL 192.306D): ‘quadraginta dies’ but otherwise verbatim from Haimo n. 30 supra; ibid. 320C: from Haimo n. 32 supra. A period of 45 days for penance is found in Comestor, Comestor, Historia scholastica (PL 198.1466B), a standard high- and late-medieval textbook on Biblical history.Google Scholar

³⁸ Smalley, Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; Oxford 1952) 64, citing an unnamed authority.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The abbreviated edition of the Glossa ordinaria in PL 114 is unsatisfactory. See the full text in Biblia Sancta cum glossa ordinaria, 4 vols. (Nürnberg 1481) (Hain 3173) III, on Daniel 12.12: ‘dies quietis et pacis post mortem Antichristi xlv superioribus adduntur ad refregerium sanctorum et ad penitentiam subversorum.’ (This is the interlinear gloss on this text). On the authorship of the Glossa, Smalley 56-66. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The marginal gloss on Daniel 12.12 is verbatim from Jerome, as is that on Matth. 24.36 The glosses on 1 Thess. 5.3 and 2 Thess. 2.8 are from Haimo. For the reliance of the gloss on Revelation on Haimo and Bede, see Kamlah, (n. 16 supra) 30-32. (The interlinear gloss on Rev. 8.1 is: ‘Quia post mortem Antichristi pax erit in ecclesia.’)Google Scholar

⁴¹ City of God 20.30: ‘Elijah the Tishbite will come; Jews will accept the faith; Antichrist will persecute; Christ will judge’ (I cite the translation of Bettenson, as in n. 1 supra 963). On Adso's version, Konrad (n. 10 supra) 85-86, who misses Adso's debt to Bede, Chronica (n. 25 supra) 323, a point noticed, however, by Rauh (n. 11 supra) 162 n. 39.Google Scholar

⁴² On relations between this prediction and the origins of the Crusades, see Erdmann, Erdmann, ‘Endkaiserglaube und Kreuzzugsgedanke im 11. Jahrhundert,' Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 51 (1932) 384–414.Google Scholar

⁴³ Elucidarium (n. 36 supra); Gemma animae (PL 172.679C): ‘et tunc post interfectionem Antichristi maxima multitudo baptizabitur'; 726B: ‘… justi super his gaudebunt, qui post interitum Antichristi conversi erunt.’ On the dating of the Elucidarium and the Gemma animae, Lefèvre (n. 36 supra) 221.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Expositio in Cantica Canticorum (PL 172.471CD): ‘Diu commoremur in villis, id est in paganorum conventiculis. … Ager est Christianus populus, aratro Evangelii cultus; villae vero sunt pagani in infidelitate et vitiis inculti.’ On the dating of the Expositio, Rauh (n. 11 supra) 256, and idem 262-66, for a longer commentary than that given here on the passages in question. Honorius' exegesis is followed in the late-thirteenth-century Das hohe Lied by von Schonebeck, Brun, ed. Arwed Fischer (Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 198; Tübingen 1893).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ PL 172.471D-472D: ‘infideles per doctores ad fidem convocat. … In villis commorantur, dum paganorum conventibus maxime praedicando immorantur. … si vinea, scilicet Synagoga, in fide floruit. … Mandragorae ergo sine capite sunt pagani sine capite Christo, ablato sibi capiti Antichristi. … In his portis dederunt mandragorae odorem, dum pagani ad Christum conversi, in doctrinis apostolicis et pro haereticis famam bonae opinionis sparserunt.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 472B: ‘Nox fuit tempus persecutionis Antichristi; mane vero tempus post mortem Antichristi.’Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus 8.7 ., ed. Hofmeister, A., rev. Lammers, W., tr. Schmidt, A. (Darmstadt 1960), p. 596: ‘Percusso impiae civitatis capite infidelis Iudeorum populus iam se delusum cernens ad conversionem venire creditur. …’ See also the translation of Mierow (n. 4 supra) 461.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The argument that Otto made a careless error is by Rauh 359. Max Büdinger, ‘Die Entstehung des achten Buches Ottos von Freising,’ Sb. Akad. Vienna 98 (1881) 325–66, does not treat this passage. Lhotsky, Lhotsky, ‘Das Nachleben Ottos von Freising,' in Lhotsky, Aufsätze und Vorträge (Munich 1970) I 45-46, is justified in calling for further work on the sources for Otto's eighth book.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Scivias (PL 197.436CD): ‘Antichristo dejecto, Synagogam ad veram fidem revocabit. …’ Also (although without explicit mention of the Synagogue) 722B: ‘… populi illi cadaver ipsius sine voce … videntes: se deceptos esse cognoscent … errorem suum declinent, et ad veritatem redeant.’ On the dating of the Scivias, Rauh 475. A German translation is by M. Böckeler, Wisse die Wege (Salzburg 1954). There is also a general conversion to the faith at the end of the Ludus de Antichristo of ca. 1160, but this was probably not meant to include the Jews, who in this version had already been converted by Enoch and Elijah and consequently all been slaughtered by Antichrist. See on this Rauh 408-409, 411, and the English translation of the Ludus by Wright (n. 34 supra) 95-99.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ PL 197.722BC: ‘Et ecce pedes praefatae muliebris imaginis candidi apparent, splendorem super splendorem solis reddentes: hoc est quod fortitudo fundamenti et sustentatio sponsae filii mei multum candorem fidei ostendet, et pulchritudinem illam quae omnem pulchritudinem terrenae claritatis superat demonstrabit, cum filio perditionis ut dictum est prostrato, multi … ad veritatem revertentur.’ See also Hildegard, Librr divinorum operum (PL 197.1037B): ‘Post casum autem Antichristi gloria Filii Dei amplificabitur.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ Otto, , Chronica 8.7 (n. 47 supra) 596: ‘Post haec locus penitentiae manet, cuius spatium omnes mortales latet'; Hildegard, Scivias (PL 197.722C): ‘Sed post casum illius impii, quando novissimus dies in solutione mundi occurrat mortalis homo non quaerat.’Google Scholar

⁵² On Gerhoch, see the basic work of Classen, Classen, Gerhoch von Reichersberg: eine Biographie (Wiesbaden 1960). For the relationship between Gerhoch and Otto, see especially 88-89.Google Scholar

⁵³ Commentarium in psalmos (PL 193.1543AB), cited by Meuthen, E., ‘Der Geschichtssymbolismus Gerhohs von Reichersberg,’ in Geschichtsdenken (n. 4 supra) 235 (the article was originally a chapter in Meuthen, Kirche und Heilsgeschichte bei Gerhoh von Reichersberg [Leiden and Cologne 1959]).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ De investigatione Antichristi (MGH, Libelli de lite 3.352), cited by Töpfer 31 n. 96.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ De investigatione Antichristi , ed. Scheibelberger, F., Gerhohi opera inedita (Linz 1875) I 369-72 (a section of the De investigatione not in the MGH edition).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ De quarta vigilia noctis (MGH, Libelli de lite 3.513): ‘priusquam veniat Dominus ad iudicandum, veniet ad mitigandum periculum tempestatis imminentis imperando ventis et mari, ut fiat tranquillitas magna. …’; 514: ‘Non sit tibi de hoc ambigua coniectura, sed fides firma et spes certissima, quod sicut solis ortum prevenit aurora, qua nox fugatur, etiam priusquam sol super terram videatur, sic manifestum Christi adventum precedet quedam claritas consimilis aurorae solis ortum prevenientis contra densissimas tenebras per novissimum Antichristum in toto mundo dilitatas. … Hec illustratio ipsum Christi adventum creditur preventura et destructura novissimum vigilae huius ultimae Antichristum, quo destructo in proximo erit dies iudicii'; 523: ‘priusquam veniat Dominus manifesto adventu, ecclesia Dei a spurciciis inmundiciae ac symoniae sic purificetur et quasi coronis aureis ornetur, ut fiat leticia magna in populo christiano Antichristo ultimo destructo per dominici adventus illustrationem. …’ I am greatly indebted to the interpretation of Gerhoch's prophetic thought in Töpfer 28-33. The qualification of Classen, ‘Eschatologische Ideen und Armutsbewegungen im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert,’ in Povertà e ricchezza nella spiritualità dei secoli XI e XII (Convegni del Centro di Studi sulla Spiritualità Medievale 8; Todi 1969) 156 n. 56, that Gerhoch's final age is only a brief foreglimmering of Christ's otherworldly kingdom is correct, but it takes no account of Gerhoch's boldness in comparison to all that was written on this subject earlier.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The only foreshadowing of this I can find is Honorius Augustodunensis' statement that the just will rejoice in the conversions made after the death of Antichrist (n. 43 supra). It is possible that Gerhoch knew some of the works of Honorius, but explicit borrowing has never been proved; see Classen (n. 52 supra) 121 n. 36, and 433-34, 442. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ I take the kaleidoscope image from Reeves and Hirsch-Reich (n. 14 supra) 21. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Intellectual History of Europe (Anchor Books; Garden City 1968) I 125. I have found the best general expositions of Joachim's thought to be Grundmann, Studien (n. 6 supra); Töpfer 48-103; and Wendelborn, Wendelborn, Gott und Geschichte: Joachim von Fiore und die Hoffnung der Christenheit (Leipzig 1974). In English there is the fine summary of research done through ca. 1955 by Bloomfield, M., ‘Joachim of Flora,’ Traditio 13 (1957) 249-311, the brief account of Joachim's thought in Reeves, Influence 16-27, and the authoritative study of Joachim's ‘figures’ by Reeves and Hirsch-Reich (n. 14 supra). I refrain here from commenting on problems of interpretation that are irrelevant to the present discussion.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ A useful summary of scattered findings concerning Joachim's sources is in Bloomfield 271-88. This, however, does not take account of the tradition concerning the time between Antichrist and the End. Google Scholar

⁶¹ Glossa ordinaria (PL 114.721B-725A); Richard of St. Victor, In Apocalypsim libri septem (PL 196.760C-776B); Petrus Cantor, Glosa super Apocalypsin, MS Clm 7937 (13th cent.) fols. 224^r-226bis ^ra; Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogues, Livre I: ‘Renouveau dans l'Église,’ ed. and tr. Salet, G. (Sources Chrétiennes 118; Paris 1966) 68–119 (PL 188.1149B-1160C). See the excellent summary of this development in Kamlah (n. 16 supra) 61-70. Anselm of Havelberg's seven stages show the fullest conception of historical progress before Joachim, but his seventh stage hovers on the brink of otherworldliness. On this, see Töpfer 24-25 (with citations of earlier literature), corrected now by Rauh (n. 11 supra) 296: ‘es meint jenen letzten geschichtlichen Status nach dem Tode des Antichrist, von dem auch Hieronymus in seinem Daniel-Kommentar und Honorius in seiner Hohelied-Erklärung sprachen.’ Rauh is correct in pointing to Anselm's debt to the earlier tradition, but Töpfer is still sound in stressing his aversion to chiliasm. Despite Anselm's otherwise progressive conception of history, his final earthly age is most like Bede's in standing so close to transcendence that it is hardly earthly.Google Scholar

⁶² On Joachim's possible knowledge of Anselm, Grundmann, Grundmann, Neue Forschungen über Joachim von Fiore (Marburg 1950) 79; the extensive manuscript circulation of Richard of St. Victor's commentary is shown in F. Stegmüller, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi (Madrid 1950-61) 5 .114. A possible literal borrowing from the Glossa ordinaria is Joachim's reference to the time after Antichrist as being one of refrigerium: see his Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti (Venice 1519; repr. Frankfurt, 1964) fol. 106 ^d.Google Scholar

⁶³ Expositio in Apocalypsim (Venice 1527; repr. Frankfurt 1964 ), fol. 210 ^a: ‘Beatus quoque Remigius incertum esse docens spatium temporis quod erit post casum antichristi: destruens et ipse opinionem illorum qui putant cum casu ipsius antichristi transire tempora secularia et omnino instare consumationem seculi. …’ By Remigius Joachim certainly meant Haimo of Auxerre, whose commentaries on the Pauline Epistles were often ascribed to ‘Remigius’ in medieval manuscripts — see Stegmüller 3.16-18.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See on this especially Reeves, Marjorie and Hirsch-Reich, B., ‘The Seven Seals in the Writings of Joachim of Fiore,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 21 (1954) 211–47.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ On the former, e.g., Expositio fol. 123 ^b: ‘Mediam autem horam arbitror vocari tempus illud quod vocatur in Scripturis dimidium temporis, quod scilicet tempus quasi septimum erit'; on the latter, e.g., Expositio fol. 210d: ‘… tradenturque bestia et pseudo propheta in stagnum ignis ardentis sulphure et ceteri convertentur ad Dominum. Quo consumato prelio erit magna pax qualis non fuit a principio seculi cuius terminus erit in arbitrio Dei.’Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See further Grundmann, Studien (n. 6 supra) 98-99. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Expositio fol. 209 ^d: ‘… illo sabbato in fine mundi futuro quod vocari placuit tertium statum, sive etiam septimam mundi etatem. …’ See further Töpfer 89.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Töpfer 88, and Bousset (n. 15 supra) 149. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The doubts of Reeves, ‘History and Prophecy’ (n. 13 supra) 63, that Joachim's predictions for the last earthly age might not have extended to conversion of the infidels as well as Jews should be allayed not only by the two passages she cites herself but also by a passage in Joachim's still unpublished De ultimis tribulationibus (I cite from MS Vat. lat. 3822 fol. 16 ^va): ‘Ecce ego assumam filios Israel etc. usque et filii eorum usque in sempiternum. Hec scripta sunt inter cetera in Ezechiele propheta, que quantum datur intelligi de populo gentili et populo Israel accipiendi [sic] sunt in spiritu, nimirum quia futurum est, ut conveniant in unum ut sit eorum de cetero unum ovile et unus pastor. Erit autem hoc post illam tribulationem quam faciet rex aquilonis in fine sexte etatis.’ I was fortunate to be able to use a working copy of the De ultimis tribulationibus made by the late Herbert Grundmann; I am profoundly endebted to Frau A. Grundmann for allowing me access to her late husband's papers, which include a rich treasury of working copies of Joachim's works made before the age of easy photoduplication — often under the most arduous circumstances — in the course of a lifetime's dedication to the study of Joachim.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Töpfer himself (32-33) earlier emphasizes the importance of Gerhoch of Reichersberg's proposed time on earth after Antichrist. I do not mean here to argue for direct influences of any of these authors on Joachim. Joachim could surely not have known Gerhoch's writings because they had a very limited circulation — see Classen (n. 52 supra) 312-14. The lack of critical editions of Joachim's œuvre makes it nearly impossible to look for any direct borrowings from the other three named writers (whose works did have wide twelfth-century circulation). But even without proving direct influences, the fact that so many twelfth-century writers elaborated on the restricted formulae of Jerome, Bede, and Haimo helps to put Joachim's contributions into perspective. Google Scholar

⁷¹ E.g., , Expositio fol. 210 ^d, as cited in n. 63 supra. On the problem of the length of Joachim's final time, see Töpfer 83-87, who takes the view that Joachim expected it to be short.Google Scholar

⁷² Reeves, , Influence 305. On the subject of Joachim's ‘pessimism,’ see further idem 132; Reeves, and Hirsch-Reich, , ‘Seven Seals’(n. 64 supra) 222-23; and Reeves, and Hirsch-Reich, , Figurae (n. 14 supra) 166-68.Google Scholar

⁷³ Bloomfield, M. and Reeves, M., ‘The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 772–93; also Reeves, Influence 37-58.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ On Gerard, Denifle, H., ‘Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni,’ Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 1 (1885) 49–142; Töpfer, B., ‘Eine Handschrift des Evangelium aeternum des Gerardino von Borgo San Donnino,’ Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 8 (1960) 156-63; Töpfer 126-31; and Reeves, Influence 60-62, 187-90.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ N. 13 supra. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ I exclude here consideration of the chiliasm of the thirteenth-century Amaurian and Ortliebian heretics, who might possibily have been influenced by Joachim, because the sources about them are insufficient to determine what role the death of Antichrist played in their speculations about the future. For the best treatment of their expectations, see Töpfer 268-80. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale, simply reiterates Haimo; see ed. Venice, 1494 (Hain-Coppinger 6241) sig. CCgg3 ^v. Hugh of St. Cher follows Haimo in paraphrase or verbatim in his glosses on Daniel 12.12, Matth. 24.36, and 1 Thess. 5.3; see Biblia cum postillis Hugonis de Sancto Caro 7 vols. (Basel 1498-1502) (Hain 3175).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ I am grateful to Miss Beryl Smalley for saving me from error on this point by calling my attention to her ‘John Russel O.F.M.,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 23 (1956) 305. The real author and date of the commentary on Revelation printed under Hugh's name have not yet been determined. Noteworthy is its figure of 42 instead of 45 days and its description of the final period as being designed not just for penance but also for the free preaching of the faith. Its comparative originality is a further argument against the attribution to Hugh of St. Cher.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See the detailed study by Patschovsky, Patschovsky, Der Passauer Anonymus: ein Sammelwerk über Ketzer, Juden, Antichrist aus der Mitte des XIII. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart 1968). Dr. Patschovsky is working on an edition for the MGH.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ In addition to the MSS listed by Patschovsky 157, Dr. Patschovsky and I have subsequently found the following copies of the Passauer Anonymous Antichrist tract copied separately from the rest of the compilation: Admont 554 fols. 56^r-62 ^r; Altenburg AB 14 C 17 fols. 235^v-243 ^v; UB Basel A VI 6 fols. 314^v-318 ^v; Kreuzenstein 5667 fols. 189^v-190^r (fragment) (I wish to thank Dr. Julian Plante of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library for calling my attention to this copy); Göttweig 215 (old 176) fols. 123^v-135 ^r; Herzogenburg 49 fols. 199^r-208 ^r; UB Innsbruck 219 fols. 1^r-4 ^v; UB Innsbruck 481 fols. 132^r-139 ^v; UB Innsbruck 625 fols. 178^r-184 ^v; Kremsmünster 99 fols. 134^r-52 ^v; Melk 1690 (old 927) fols 121^v-28 ^v; Clm 7666 fols. 122^v-137 ^r; Clm 8496 fols 208^v-227 ^r; Clm 9653 fols. 68^r-73 ^r; Clm 11430 fols. 313^r-323 ^r; Clm 18652 fols. 1^r-22 ^v; Vienna Cvp 595 fols. 59^r-91 ^r; Vienna Cvp 15032 fols. 169^r-180 ^v; Vorau 122 fols. 130^r-138 ^r; Vorau 367 fols. 39^v-48 ^v. In the Innsbruck MSS and also in the St. Paul MS listed by Patschovsky, the tract bears the title: Opusculum de Antichristo a quodam fratre Ordinis Predicatorum compilatum. This is no certain proof of Dominican authorship, especially since all these MSS date from the 15th century, but, taken together with the circumstance that the original compiler of the Passauer Anonymous may have been a Dominican, it points to a certain likelihood. A very free Middle High German translation of the tract is ed. Völker, Völker, Vom Antichrist: eine mittelhochdeutsche Bearbeitung des Passauer Anonymus (Munich 1970).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Patschovsky 167-68, who refers to the work's ‘Charakter einer gelehrten Stoffsammlung’ and also points to the lack of any confrontation with the ideas of Joachim. Google Scholar

⁸² On him, see Boner, Boner, ‘Über den Dominikanertheologen Hugo von Strassburg,' Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 24 (1954) 269–86, with citation of further literature.Google Scholar

⁸³ 7.13: ‘… interfecto autem Antichristo non statim veniet Dominus ad iudicium, sed secundum Glo. Super Dan. concedunt xlv dies ad refrigerium sanctorum et ad penitentiam subversorum, quantum autem sit spacium inter illos xlv dies et finem mundi nemo scit. Ministri vero Antichristi post mortem illius gaudebunt ducentes uxores et dicentes: “licet princeps noster mortuus sit, tamen habemus pacem et prosperitatem'’ et cum talia dixerint repentinus eis superveniet interitus. Judei vero tunc convertentur ad fidem et sancta ecclesia usque in finem mundi pacifica conquiescet: quia extunc fraudulentia et sevicia diaboli penitus deficiet.’ I quote from the edition of Cologne, ca. 1473 (Hain *434). The work is available in numerous other early printed editions as well as in Albertus Magnus, Operaomnia, ed. Borgnet, A. (Paris 1890-99) XXXIV 1-306; and Bonaventura, , Opera omnia, ed. Peltier, A. C. (Paris 1864-71) VIII 60-246.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ My own experience leads me to concur in the judgment of Walter Röll, ‘Die Antichrist-rede Friedrichs von Saarburg,’ Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 96 (1967) 284: ‘Für die Antichristliteratur des späten Mittelalters ist das … “Compendium theologicae veritatis' ‘die wichtigste Quelle.’ There is no need to list the many late-medieval borrowings from Hugh Ripelin on the time after Antichrist. Suffice it here to mention one of the earliest, a long German poem of 1293: Hugo von Langenstein, Martina, ed. von Keller, A. (Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 38; Stuttgart 1856) 496-97.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ The basic work in this subject is Ratzinger, Ratzinger, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure (Chicago 1971), translated from the original German version of 1959.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid. 104-118; Töpfer 149-53; Reeves, Influence 179-81 (with citations of further literature); Reeves and Hirsch-Reich, Figurae (n. 14 supra) 299-306; McGinn, McGinn, ‘The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore,' Church History 40 (1971) 41–45. As far as I can tell from my halting Portuguese, Falbel, Falbel, ‘São Boaventura e a Teologia da Historia de Joaquim de Fiore,' S. Bonaventura, 1274-1974: II. Studia (Grottaferrata 1973) 571-84, does not seem to draw any important new conclusions.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The central Bonaventuran text on the time after Antichrist is from the Collationes (text given in Reeves and Hirsch-Reich, Figurae 304): ‘… post illam summam Antichristi tribulationem, veniet tempus ante diem judicii tantae pacis et tranquillitatis quale non fuit ab initio mundi, et invenientur homines tantae sanctitatis sicut fuit tempore Apostolorum. Nam persistentibus contra Antichristum dabitur spiritus in summo; eis autem qui per Antichristum ceciderant, dabuntur induciae redeundi ad fidem XLII dierum, quale fuit tempus post Christi mortem XLII dierum. Quando autem post illud tempus veniet iudicium, omnino est incertum.’ The figure of 42 instead of 45 days appears also in the Apocalypse commentary printed under the name of Hugh of St. Cher (see n. 78 supra), but since this has not yet been adequately identified, it is impossible to tell whether it antedated or postdated Bonaventura's Collationes. Another reference to 42 instead of 45 days appears in William of St. Amour, Liber de Antichristo (n. 93 infra) 1439, who cites a ‘gloss’ that I am unable to identify. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Collationes , cited by Ratzinger 172 n. 15.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ I borrow the term ‘Joachite flavor’ from McGinn 43. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ William of St. Amour, De periculis novissimorum temporum, ed. Brown, E., Appendix ad Fasciculum rerum expetendarum II (London 1690; repr. Tucson, Ariz. 1967) 18–41 (27). The passage in question is also quoted in Reeves, Influence 62. A partial edition of the De periculis is in Max Bierbaum, Bettelorden und Weltgeistlichkeit an der Universität Paris (Münster 1920) 1–36; another complete edition (which I have not seen) is in William's Opera omnia (Coutances 1632) 17–72. The suggestion that William's tract may have been meant as parody is made by McKeon, Peter R., ‘The Status of the University of Paris as Parens Scientiarum,’ Speculum 39 (1964) 670. Its rejection by - Dufeil, M.M., Guillaume de Saint-Amour et la polémique universitaire parisienne, 1250-1259 (Paris 1972) 144 n. 205 and 272 n. 102, by no means puts the matter to rest.Google Scholar

⁹¹ De periculis , ed. Brown, , 27: ‘Post enim istam sextam aetatem, quae est pugnantium: cum qua currit septima aetas, quae est quiescentium: non est ventura aetas alia nisi octava, quae est resurgentium. Ergo nos sumus in ultima aetate hujus mundi.’ This passage is also cited by Töpfer 127, n. 132.Google Scholar

⁹² In fact the Augustinian doctrine of six ages could easily be reconciled with a theory of seven periods of Church history, including one period after Antichrist, within the sixth age. Thus Bonaventura (who surely knew William's De periculis) espoused both the Augustinian doctrine of ages (in terms almost identical to William's) as well as the theory of seven times of the Church ending in a wondrous time after Antichrist: see Breviloquium prol. 2.1. in Opera omnia (Quaracchi 1882-1902) V 203-204, and Collationes in Hexaemeron 16 in Opera omnia V 400: ‘Septima aetas currit cum sexta, scilicet requies animarum post Christi passionem. Ad has sequitur octava aetas, scilicet resurrectionis. …’Google Scholar

⁹³ Liber de Antichristo , ed. (under the name of Nicole Oresme) in Martène, E. and Durand, U., Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum … amplissima collectio (Paris 1724-33; repr. New York 1968) IX 1271-1446. The attack on Joachim is on 1323-35. In writing that William ‘made no direct attack on Joachim himself,’ Reeves, Influence 63, overlooks this important text. I am unpersuaded by the recent attempt of Dufeil 329-31 to change the attribution of the De Antichristo from William to his disciple Nicholas of Lisieux. Dufeil presents three arguments: 1) that the later attribution to Nicole Oresme, bishop of Lisieux, could have resulted from a confusion between the fourteenth-century bishop and the thirteenth-century disciple of William; 2) that the style of the De Antichristo, allegedly ‘unctuous,’ ‘modest,’ and ‘reverential’ is so unlike that of William's De periculis as to exclude the possibility of identical authorship; and 3) that the substance too is different from the De periculis, primarily because there is no attack on the mendicants. But Dufeil ignores the circumstance that ‘Oresma’ is a clever anagram for S. Amore, and ignores the boldness of De Antichristo's attack on the conventional theory of a wondrous age after Antichrist, which is fully consistent with William's earlier boldness. Whatever politic phrases there may be in the De Antichristo are easily explainable by William's straitened political circumstances. As for the absence of an attack on the mendicants, one can hardly expect William to attack them directly in every work: in attacking the theory of a final wondrous age he was attacking them on one of their flanks.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Liber de Antichristo 1313: ‘in apertione sexti sigilli, sub quo manifeste praedicatur persecutio antichristi'; 1339: ‘de apertione septimi, sub quo consummabitur mysterium Dei.’ Ratzinger (n. 85 supra) 215 n. 31 is mistaken in viewing William's seven-seal scheme as ‘almost the same’ as Anselm of Havelberg's: the differences in their conceptions of the fifth and seventh seals are more significant than other similarities (i.e., for Anselm the fifth seal represented a mysterious cry of the saints in heaven and the seventh seal stood for an earthly time, albeit on the brink of transcendence).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Liber de Antichristo 1306-12, e.g. 1310: ‘iste repentinus … potest intelligi de adventu Domini ad judicium, mortuo antichristo, secundum Glossae expositionem, potest et non incongrue de adventu antichristi exponi, qui repentinus insurget, cum pseudopraedicatores dixerint pax et securitas, sicut B. Augustinus expresse dicit in epist. ad Ezichium episcopum …’; 1311: ‘Hinc expresse Radulfus super Levit. lib. 18. dicit: Nulla aestimo manifestiora adventus illius indicia, quam cum pacem et securitatem praedicaverint, juxta illud Apostoli. …’Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid. 1439-40: ‘quidam doctores videntur dicere, quia pax erit modico tempore in ecclesia. … Sed quomodo istud sit conveniens, judicet qui potest judicare. … Inde B. Augustinus libro vigesimo de Civitate Dei cap. ult. post finitam persecutionem antichristi, Christum dicit statim judicaturum, non post ejus mortem ecclesiae pacem promittit. …’Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid. 1440-41: ‘et ideo forsitan verba prophetae Daniel sunt aliter interpretanda: Beatus qui pervenit ad dies mille CC nonaginta unum, quando illa pax post mortem antichristi dicitur incoeptura praedicto numero dierum transacto. … Sed dixit: Beatus qui pervenerit ad dies mille CCCXXXV. … Sed tamen in hac parte nihil temere asserimus, nec dicta sanctorum in aliquo reprobamus, sed tantum qualiter recte intelligantur, inquirere monemus. …’ 1443-44: ‘fortasse iste ignis, non solum destruet malos, sed purgabit electos, qui in illa persecutione non ex malitia, sed ex quadam carnis titubaverunt infirmitate, ut sic salvi fiant per ignem. … Unde illa purgatio est ultimum judicium praecessura, et forsitan per 45 dies illa purgatio fiet, malis cessantibus et impugnatione bonorum, ut iis completis, non indigeat aliquis purgatione, sed jam dignus habeatur aeterna beatitudine, ut Daniel dicat … et sic forsitan recte intelligi possunt praemissae de hoc auctoritates sanctorum.’Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The MS used by Martène and Durand — Paris BN lat. 14578 — bears the rubric ‘Liber Bonaventurae secundum aliquos, secundum alios magistri Nicolai Oresme.’ Dufeil 304 lists a total of three other MSS. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ The tract was published several times in the late fifteenth century as part of Sermon 3 of the Sermones dominicales of Hugh of Prato, O.P. (floruit ca. 1300). An Antichrist tract with the same incipit appears separately in six MSS listed by Kaeppeli, T., ‘Iacopo da Benevento, O.P.,’ Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 1 (1955) 463–79 (468); one of the MSS listed by Kaeppeli was written in the late thirteenth century and two others (of the fifteenth century) carry an attribution to James of Benevento. I have not seen any of these MS versions: their authorship, together with their relation to the tract found in the sermons of Hugh of Prato and to the longer Antichrist text referred to in n. 114 infra, bears further study. (A Compendium de vita Antichristi in MS Clm 7025 [year 1475] fols. 6^r-7 ^r almost certainly derives from the ‘Hugh of Prato’ versions; Hugh's sermons de tempore had an extensive circulation in late-medieval Germany.) I wish to thank Fr. L. J. Bataillon, O.P., for calling my attention to the Kaeppeli article.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Hugo de Prato Florido [sic — ‘Florido’ is mistaken], Sermones dominicales (Strassburg 1476) (Hain 9005) Serm. 3 letter K (no pagination): ‘Primo ergo precedet spacium penitendi post mortem antichristi. … Et in isto tempore omnes iudei convertentur. … Et istud tempus vocatur status securitatis. … Que supradicta sunt si tamen sunt vera. Nam de eis apud theologos doctores dubitacio est. Quidam enim dicunt quod possibilia sunt et possibile videtur ea sic evenire. Quibusdam enim videtur omnino absurdam et dicunt quod statim post prehabitum tempus mundus comburetur. Quidquid autem sit predicatoris arbitrio relinquatur.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ In the late fourteenth century Nicholas Eymeric wrote a long criticism of Honorius Augustodunensis' Elucidarium in which he listed all the theological errors that he could find in it — see the edition by Lefèvre (n. 36 supra) 479-521. The fact that Eymeric ignored Honorius' reference to the time on earth after Antichrist indicates that the expectation was regarded as unimpeachably orthodox even by a keen theologian searching for the slightest of false steps. Google Scholar

¹⁰² I make no attempt in what follows to treat all the myriad late-medieval references to the time on earth after Antichrist. In view of the enormous bulk of late-medieval theological and prophetic writing, much of it unpublished, such would be a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that I have dealt with some of the more interesting or influential expressions. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Part of Arnold's De adventu Antichristi is edited by Finke, Finke, Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII. (Münster 1902) CXXIX-CLX. See CXXXIII-CXXXIV: ‘ “… quasi dimidia hora.” Per quod expresse testatur, quod modicum in illa tranquillitate permanebit ecclesia, ut quasi dimidio anno aut medio centenario. …’ This passage is also cited by Reeves, Influence 314-15, and Töpfer 252.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Pelster, Pelster, ‘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) 58 n. 16 (a part of Arnold's tract omitted by Finke and edited from MS Vat. lat. 3824): ‘… quod ibi Spiritus Sanctus per diem intelligat annum patet ex duobus. Primo per exposicionem, quam ipsemet dat Ezechiel [4.6] … secundo per declaracionem visionis, quam angelus in eodem capitulo subiungit.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ John's Tractatus de Antichristo is printed with other prophetic works in Expositio magni prophete Joachim in librum beati Cirilli de magnis tribulationibus (Venice: Lazarus de Soardis 1516) fols. 44^r-51 ^v. Its contents are summarized by Denifle, H., ‘Der Plagiator Nicolaus von Strassburg,’ Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 4 (1888) 322–28. As Denifle first displayed, it was plagiarized in its entirety by Nicholas of Strassburg in the 1320's. See on the original tract also Reeves, Influence 167, and Pelster 37-41; and on the plagiarism Eugen Hillenbrand, Nikolaus von Strassburg (Freiburg/Br. 1968) 15-18, 32-33, 56-57 (Hillenbrand's MS lists are incomplete). John's reference to the time after Antichrist appears in the Venetian ed. on fol. 45 ^v: ‘Post mortem antichristi dicit Beda quod requies aliquantula futura est in ecclesia. … Dicunt tamen quidam quod per 45 dies intelligitur 45 anni qui electis dabuntur ad penitentiam: quod non credo: quia non congruit sacre scripture.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Henry's Quaestio utrum astrologi vel quicumque calculatores possint probare 2^m adventum Christi, ed. Pelster, , 58, 61. Pelster's treatment is an excellent summary of the entire debate that flared up at the beginning of the fourteenth century over Arnold of Villanova's eschatology.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Nicholas of Lyra, Glossae in universa Biblia 4 vols. (Rome 1471-72) (Hain 10363) on Daniel 12 (no pagination): ‘… non est certitudinaliter determinatum quod illi xlv dies sint usuales vel annales. … Talis autem pax et securitas in qua convivia et connubia absque timore exercentur non videtur esse tam parvi temporis sicut xlv dierum, sed maioris.’ Franz Pelster, ‘Quodlibeta und Quaestiones des Nikolaus von Lyra O.F.M. († 1349),’ Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, S.J. (Gembloux 1951) II 962-64, claims that Nicholas took the 1290 days as days, not years, but does not consider this passage. The statement of Reeves, Influence 427, that Nicholas ‘stressed’ the ‘brevity’ of the age after Antichrist must also be reconsidered on the same grounds.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. on Ezechiel 39: ‘… non habetur certum utrum sint xlv dies naturales vel xlv anni et dato quod esset determinatum de diebus usualibus non tamen est determinatum utrum statim post illos xlv dies immediate sequatur iudicium.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. on Matthew 24 and 1 Thess. 5.3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ MS Mainz Stadtbibliothek 151 (old 247) fol. 18^r (section headed ‘Nota quantum temporis fiet post mortem Antichristi'). (The attribution of the eschatological text in this MS to a Carthusian is probable but not certain: the MS comes from the Charterhouse of Mainz and a Carthusian text — in a different hand — follows the eschatological materials.) For Luther, see the treatment of John M. Headley, Luther's View of Church History (New Haven 1963) 252–53.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Bignami-Odier, Bignami-Odier, Études sur Jean de Roquetaillade (Paris 1952) 103, summarizing a prophecy in John's commentary on the Oraculum Cyrilli, written between 1345 and 1349, and 125, summarizing a prophecy in John's Liber secretorum eventuum, completed in 1349. The literal thousand-year millennium is also found in John's most widely circulated prophetic tract, the Vade mecum in tribulatione of 1356; see the edition of Brown (n. 90 supra) 496-508 (506): ‘… M anni, quos oportet currere ad literam. …’ Rupescissa followed Joachim in predicting a final onslaught of evil represented by Gog before the End and in conceiving of Gog as the ultimate Antichrist.Google Scholar

¹¹² The prophetic tract of ‘Telesforus’ is ed. in Expositio magni prophete (n. 105 supra); see fol. 38 ^vb: ‘de supradicto anno millenario tamen non debet intelligi quod mille annis post mortem antichristi debeat pax durare sed longo tempore. …’ Telesforus claims here to be quoting Joachim's De ultimis tribulationibus, but I find no such passage in the text that has come down to us under that name (n. 69 supra). The best introduction to Telesforus is Emil Donckel, ‘Studien über die Prophezeiung des Fr. Telesforus von Cosenza, O.F.M. (1365-1386),’ Archivum Franciscanum historicum 26 (1933) 29–104, 282-314.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Vincent Ferrer, St., De tempore Antichristi et fine mundi , ed. Fages, H., Notes et documents de l'histoire de Saint Vincent Ferrer (Louvain and Paris 1905) 213–14: ‘… quod tempus Antichristi, et finis mundi in eodem coincidunt temporaliter … Quoniam per Sacram Scripturam non invenitur tempus majoris durationis hujus mundi post mortem Antichristi, quam quadraginta quinque dierum. …’Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Some texts that refer to just 45 days are: Terrena, Terrena, Quatuor unum quatuor Evangelistarum (Concordia Evangeliorum) (Cologne 1631) 835, 842-43; Ebendorfer, Ebendorfer, Tractatus de Antichristo , described by Harald Zimmermann, ‘Ebendorfers Antichristtraktat,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 71 (1963) 99–114 (111-12); the German translation of the Passauer Anonymous Antichrist tract, ed. Völker, (n. 80 supra) 114-15; Tractatus de Antichristo (inc.: Antichristus venturus sit circa finem mundi) in MS Munich UB, 2° Cod. MS 678 fols. 68^r-71^v (69^va): ‘Nullam enim certitudinem habemus quod illud tempus plus duret 45 diebus. …’ Among the numerous texts that refer to 40 or 45 days and then an unknown time (usually relying on Haimo or Hugh Ripelin) are: Cursor mundi, ed. Morris, R. (EETS 66; London 1877) 4 .1282; The Pricke of Conscience, ed. Morris, R. (Berlin 1863) 126; De Antecrist in MS Troyes 751 fols. 93^v-95^r (93^v): ‘Et venra le Jugement quant il plairait…’; Tractatus de Antichristo (inc.: Ascendente Jhesu in naviculam) in Clm 11927 fols. 80^v-93 ^v, and Clm 18888 fols. 25^r-36 ^r; Seelenwurzgarten (Ulm 1483) (Hain 14584) sig. v, viii ^r; von Jüterbog, Jacob, De septem statibus ecclesiae , ed. Brown, (n. 90 supra) 104. Dionysius the Carthusian, Dialogion de Fide Catholica, in Opera omnia (Montreuil and Tournai 1896-1913) XVIII 466, has an extra 45 days and then a time of unknown but definitely short duration. An Antichrist treatise mistakenly included in the Opera of St. Thomas (Paris, Vivès 1871-80) XXVIII opusc. 68-69, refers to three successive temporal ‘statuses’ after Antichrist, respectively for the preaching of the Gospel, the penitence of the waverers, and the saying of ‘peace and security'; of these, the middle status is alloted 45 days and the duration of the others is left unspecified. On this text, see Kaeppeli (n. 99 supra) 468-71.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ This did, of course, conflict with Haimo's exegesis about the exultation of surviving ‘ministers of Antichrist,’ but this problem was rarely broached directly. For those who thought about it, the alternatives were to reject Haimo's surviving ‘ministers’ — as did Nicholas of Lyra (supra) — or to allow the conversion of some but not all unbelievers. The latter approach is found in the Apocalypse commentary printed under the name of Hugh of St. Cher (nn. 77-78 supra) and in the work of Dionysius the Carthusian: see his Dialogion (as in preceding note) 461, 466; his Enarratio in Danielem, Opera X 28, 164; and his Enarratio in Zachariam, Opera X 677, 681: ‘Judaei atque gentiles pro maxima parte convertentur ad Christum … aliqui in obstinatione sua persistent usque in diem judicii.’ Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ For Hugh's version, see n. 83 supra, Nicholas of Cusa, Conieciura de novissimis diebus, is quoted by Reeves, Influence 427: ‘Et videntes infideles Antichristi praevaluisse ecclesiam et se victos, victori Christo cedent et ad ipsum revertentur omnes nationes. …’ Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Arnold of Villanova, ed. Finke, (n. 103 supra) CLI: ‘tenebit secure populus fidelis possessionem terrene Jerusalem'; Hugo de Novocastro, Tractatus de victoria Christi contra antichristum (Nürnberg 1471) (Hain 8993) 2.13, makes the reconquest of the Holy Land and conversion of the Jews the first of the ‘15 signs’ (n. 20 supra) preceding Judgment Day: ‘finalis recuperatio terre sancte post antichristum erit immediatum signum et proprium quod debet precedere ultimum salvatoris adventum.’ Hugo (2.1.4) also counted the ‘perfect preaching of the Gospel’ as one of the ‘15 signs.’ (I refer to Hugo by his Latin name because it is still uncertain whether he came from Newcastle or — more likely — Neufchateau).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Twelfth-century forms of this tradition are in Otto of Freising and Hildegard of Bingen (nn. 47 and 49 supra). Two thirteenth-century examples are ‘L'Antéchrist anonyme,’ of 1241-1251, ed. Walberg, E., Deux versions inédites de la légende de l'Antéchrist (Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 14; Lund 1928) 10 lines 233-34: ‘La jent veront mort Anteerist / Si creront tuit en Jesu Crist'; and Geufroi de Paris, Bible des sept états du monde (written 1243), ed. Kastner, L. E., Modern Language Revue 2 (1906-07) 31 lines 161-62. The continuity of this expectation in the later Middle Ages is shown in Vincent Ferrer, ed. Fages, (n. 113 supra) 219: ‘creditur futura hujusmodi adunatio hominum ad unitatem fidei Christiane, videntium se fuisse deceptos per fallacium Antichristi.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Tractatus de Antichristo (inc.: De Antichristo et eius adventu hoc tenendum est, quod nascetur ultra mare) in MSS Budapest, National Museum 391 fol. 217 ^r-v; Eichstätt 698 (old 269) pp. 283^b-284 ^a; Clm 28491 fols. 139^va-140 ^vb; Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale, Convento di Monteripido 1023 (M 46) fols. 151^v-52 ^v. In Eichstätt 698 p. 384 ^a, the pertinent passage reads: ‘Judei autem cum magna reverentia accipient corpus eius et sepelietur in monumento et exspectabunt quod tercia die resurgat. Post tres vero dies videntes quod non resurget sed invenient corpus eius fetidum, cognoscent et dolebunt se male credidisse et tunc omnes convertuntur ad Deum. …’Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Terrena (n. 114 supra) 835. On Terrena's opposition to Joachim, Reeves, Influence 69-70. Other statements of the final conversion of the Jews by Enoch and Elijah after Antichrist's death are in MS Troyes 751 fol. 93 ^v; MS Munich Cgm 426 fol. 79 ^r; Der Antichrist und die fünfzehn Zeichen (Munich 1970) fol. 15 ^r; A Parisian Journal, 1405-1448, ed. and Janet Shirley, tr. (Oxford 1968) 362.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Olivi, cited by Randolph Daniel, E., The Franciscan Concept of Mission in the High Middle Ages (Lexington, Ky. 1975) 84; Rupescissa, Vade mecum (n. 111 supra) 506; Telesforus (n. 112 supra) fol. 39 ^r; MS UB Basel A VI 6 fol. 18^v (same in UB Basel A V 39 fol. 138^v); Terrena 242: ‘pax et quies'; MS Troyes 751 fol. 93 ^v: ‘paix por tout le monde.’ The theme of ‘abundance of peace’ (from Ps. 72.7) is already in Joachim, Concordia (n. 62 supra) fols. 96 ^b, 96 ^d.Google Scholar

¹²² ‘L'Antéchrist anonyme’(n. 118 supra) 10-11, 11.243-262, e.g.: ‘Los rendra la tera son fruit / E reviv(e)runt li abre tuit, / E sera pleine de tot bien, / De pain e de [tres]tote rien.’ Google Scholar

¹²³ Rupescissa and Telesforus, both as in n. 121 supra. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Töpfer 112, 117-18. Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Reeves, , Influence 198, 208. Another prophecy of a renewal of the corrupt Church after Antichrist (written ca. 1280-1290) is described and edited by Oliger, L., ‘Ein pseudoprophetischer Text aus Spanien über die Heiligen Franziskus und Dominikus,’ Kirchengeschichtliche Studien P. Michael Bihl, O.F.M., als Ehrengabe dargeboten (Colmar 1941) 13–28.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ MS Clm 313 fol. 36 ^rb-^va: ‘Et Romanus pontifex in spiritualibus dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum et erit reformatus status ecclesie in eum gradum et similitudinem in quo fuit tempore apostolorum. …’ The printed edition (n. 112 supra), fol. 39 ^ra, has substantially the same text but omits a line.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ E.g., MS Clm 313 fol. 38 ^v; MS Stuttgart theol. 2° 87 fol. 60 ^r; MS Phillipps 3654 (as described in Sotheby auction catalogue of 21 Nov. 1972) fol. 20 ^r. A list of other Telesforus MSS, many of which are illustrated, is in Donckel (n. 112 supra) 34-39.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Passage from Henry's Tractatus contra quemdam eremitam de ultimis temporibus quoted by Reeves, Influence 427. An indication of the tract's popularity in German areas throughout the fifteenth century is the number of surviving MSS: as of now I know of fourteen. See also, following Henry of Langenstein, a Speculum de Antichristo iam nato in mundum, written in Germany in 1452 (inc.: Velle sapere plusquam oportet), in MS Darmstadt 528 fols. 116^r-142^r (fol. 134 ^rb): ‘post mortem Antichristi ecclesia in fide dilatabitur et reformabitur in moribus generaliter.’Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Ferrer, Ferrer, Mirabile opusculum de fine mundi (Nürnberg 1481) (Hain 7020) sig. bv^r-bvi ^r. Proof that this work was not written by Vincent Ferrer is offered by Brettle, Brettle, San Vincente Ferrer und sein literarischer Nachlass (Münster 1924) 157–62, who lists seven pre-Reformation editions of Pseudo-Vincent, all published in Germany. (I know of several pre-Reformation MSS, all copied from the early printed editions.)Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Most exhaustive on Lichtenberger is Kurze, Kurze, Johannes Lichtenberger (Lübeck 1960 ). On the charge of plagiarism, see also Warburg, Warburg, ‘Heidnisch-antike Weissagung in Wort und Bild zu Luthers Zeiten,' in Warburg, Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig 1932; repr. Nendeln / Liechtenstein 1969) 514.Google Scholar

¹³¹ A résumé of Lichtenberger's Pronosticatio is provided by Kurze 15-38; see also Reeves, , Influence 348-49, with illustrations of Lichtenberger's borrowings from earlier prophetic literature.Google Scholar

¹³² Editions of Lichtenberger are listed by Kurze 81-87. On Lichtenberger's pre-Lutheran influence, Kurze 47-53. Luther's preface to the edition of 1527 is ed. Warburg, 545-50, and treated by Kurze 57-62.Google Scholar

¹³³ Various versions of the jingle ‘Cum fuerint anni transacti …’ are described by Reeves, Influence 49-50. Reeves omits a version for 1290 in MS Angers 56 fol. 227 ^v, another for 1365 in MS Breslau UB, B 1752 fol. 11 ^va, and another for 1400 in Pierre d'Ailly, Tractatus et Sermones (Strassburg 1490) (Hain *848) sig. t5 ^rb.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ This is the ‘Visio Tripolitana,’ on which see, e.g., Röhricht, Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (Innsbruck 1898) 998 n. 4, and Töpfer 145-46. I am currently gathering MSS for a study of the fortunes of this prophecy.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Copies with the date 1385 are in MSS Clm 903 fol. 23 ^r-^v, and Eichstätt 698 (old 269) pp. 381^a-382 ^a. In the latter there is a marginal note about the furor the same prophecy, with the date changed to 1440, caused in 1443 ‘in totius almanie partibus.’ A text with the date 1440 is in MS Schloss Harburg, I 3, 2° 18 fol. 13 ^r-^v. The author of the Speculum de Antichrislo (n. 128 supra) knew and recopied (fols. 128^va-129 ^ra) the whole text of 1385 and deemed it ‘satis credibilis'; he also knew the text of 1440, which he recognized as a forgery. I suspect that the reference to a letter about Antichrist in Dionysius the Carthusian, Dialogion de Fide (n. 114 supra) 443, is another reference to the same letter; here a ‘philosopher’ is anxious to believe in its contents, but a ‘theologian’ dissuades him. The handbill version of the letter of ca. 1500 is in Munich, Staatsbibl., Einblattdruck V 57. There must have been a contemporary German published translation that served as the basis for copies in MSS Clm 14668 fols. 103^r-104 ^r, and Vienna, Cvp 4493 fols. 172-173 ^v. Further study would undoubtedly fill in more details.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ E.g., de Fundis, John, Questio de duratione huius etatis mundi (1432-33), described by Thorndike, Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York 1923-58) IV 234-35. I quote from an unnoticed fifteenth-century German translation, ‘Von den bestand und elter diss welt,’ in MS Wolfenbüttel 19.41 Aug. 4° fols. 104^r-119^r (fol. 110^v): ‘und darumb ist nicht ze gelauben den teuschern dy da sprechen der antichrist seÿ geporen oder wert geporen in x oder xx iaren.’ See also Seelenwurzgarten (n. 114 supra) (written 1467) sig. t, viii ^v: ‘unde darumb alle die die da eÿgentlichen fürwar sagen er seÿ geborn und soll bald kommen ist wol zu gelauben das die selben irren. Doch ist etlicher hoher lere meinung das es der zeit gar nahent sey und das nÿement seÿ aus etlichen Offenbarungen die kurczlich geschehen süllen sein, aber daz alles setzen sÿ uff einem zweifei.’Google Scholar

¹³⁷ D'Ailly's Advent sermon of 1385 in Tractatus (n. 133 supra) sig. t5^ra-t6 ^rb; Wimbledon's extremely popular English sermon of 1388, ed. Owen, Nancy H., ‘Thomas Wimbledon's Sermon: “Redde racionem villicacionis tue,” Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966) 176–97; Ferrer's letter to Benedict XIII of 1412, ed. Fages, (n. 113 supra) 213-24.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ An edition of one curtailed MS copy — BN, fonds des cartulaires 170 fol. 102^v — is by Boutaric, E., ‘Notices et extraits de documents inédits relatifs à l'histoire de France sous Philippe le Bel,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale 20.2 (Paris 1862) 235–37. I have used further MS London BM Cotton Cleopatra C. X fols. 157^r-158 ^r, which appears to be a good copy of the full prophecy.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ The date 1325 is in MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 404 fol. 7 ^v; 1360 in MS Bodl. Ashmole 393 fol. 80 ^r; 1366 in MS Aberystwyth, Peniarth 50 p. 167; 1380 in Rupescissa, Liber Ostensor, see Bignami-Odier, (n. 111 supra) 149; 1420 in MS Bodl. Digby 196 fol. 18 ^r, in MS Lincoln Cathedral 66 fol. 123 ^r, and in Hugo de Novocastro (n. 117 supra) 2.27; 1510 in a prophetic text ed. Grauert, H., ‘Meister Johann von Toledo,’ Sb. Akad. Munich Heft 2 (1901) 300.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ On Rupescissa's calculations, Bignami-Odier, , 103, 125; on Telesforus', Donckel (n. 112 supra) 78.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ On Dolcino, Töpfer 283-324, and Reeves, Influence 243-48; on Guiard, my ‘An “Angel of Philadelphia'’ in the Reign of Philip the Fair,’ Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages (Festschrift for Strayer, J. R.) (Princeton 1976) 343–64, 529-40; on Prous Boneta, May, W. H., ‘The Confession of Prous Boneta, Heretic and Heresiarch,’ Essays in Medieval Life and Thought Presented in Honor of Austin P. Evans (New York 1955) 3–30 (esp. 17-18, 27, 29-30); on Frederick of Brunswick, Büttinghausen, C., Beyträge zur pfälzischen Geschichte I (Mannheim 1776) 231–33 (I am planning further study of this case); on the heretics of Augsburg, von Döllinger, J.J.I., Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters II (Munich 1890) 364: ‘Item quidam crediderunt sectam eorum manere usque ad futurum judicium, secrete tamen usque ad adventum Heliae et Enoch, et tunc manifeste. …’Google Scholar

¹⁴² Best on Taborite chiliasm is Kaminsky, Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley 1967) 344–52, and his earlier ‘Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution,’ Church History 26 (1957) 43–71. German translations of the basic texts are provided by Kalivoda, Robert and Kolesnyk, A., Das hussitische Denken im Lichte seiner Quellen (Berlin 1969) 296-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴³ On Nicholas, Wurstisen, Wurstisen, Baszler Chronick (Basel 1580) 405–407; on the Wirsbergers, Gradl, Gradl, ‘Die Irrlehre der Wirsperger,' Mittheilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 19 (1880/81) 270–79, and Schiff, Schiff, ‘Die Wirsberger,' Historische Vierteljahrschrift 26 (1931) 776–86; the most exhaustive work on Hans Böhm remains Karl August Barack, ‘Hans Böhm und die Wallfahrt nach Niklashausen im Jahre 1476,’ Archiv des historischen Vereines von Unterfranken und Aschaffenburg 14 (1858) 1-108. More work on Nicholas and the Wirsbergers, based on new MS discoveries, remains to be done.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Weinstein, Weinstein, Savonarola and Florence: Prophecy and Patriotism in the Renaissance (Princeton 1970) 161, 174.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Reeves, , Influence 436.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Ibid. 435 n. 3.Google Scholar