The development of the «pseudo-Joachim» commentary «super Hieremiam» : new manuscript evidence - article ; n°1 ; vol.98, pg 109-142

Robert Moynihan

Description

Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes - Année 1986 - Volume 98 - Numéro 1 - Pages 109-142
Robert Moynihan, The development of the pseudo-Joachim commentary super Hieremiam : new manuscript évidence, p. 109-142. The history of the spread and evolution of the writings of Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) the twelfth-century Calabrian abbot who profoundly influenced medieval apocalyptic thought and the western idea of pro-gress, remains obscure. One central unsolved problem is the authorship of the pseudo-Joachim commentary on the prophet Jeremiah, the Super Hieremiam. Contemporaries dated this work to 1197 and attributed it to Joachim, but modem scholars have dated it to c. 1243 and generally agreed the work is entirely spurious. Scholars have fallen into two schools on the commentary's authorship : some have attributed it to Joachim's Florensian disciples, others to early Franciscans Spirituals. A new study of the manuscript evidence reveals a previously unknown recension of the Super Hieremiam and a set of intermediate glosses. The (v. au verso) manuscript evidence suggests Joachim might have written a commentary on Jeremiah which was then altered by both his Florensian disciples and the early Franciscans. The manuscripts thus shed new light on the composition of the Super Hieremiam and the development of Joachimism during the thirteenth century. The work presented here remains in progress; the interpretations proposed remain subject to revision.
34 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: MELANGES_DE_L-ECOLE_FRANCAISE_DE_ROME
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1986
• Nombre de lectures: 170
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Robert Moynihan
The development of the «pseudo-Joachim» commentary «super
Hieremiam» : new manuscript evidence
In: Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes T. 98, N°1. 1986. pp. 109-142.
Abstract
Robert Moynihan, The development of the "pseudo-Joachim " commentary "super Hieremiam" : new manuscript evidence, p.
109-142.
The history of the spread and evolution of the writings of Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) the twelfth-century Calabrian abbot who
profoundly influenced medieval apocalyptic thought and the western idea of progress, remains obscure. One central unsolved
problem is the authorship of the "pseudo-Joachim" commentary on the prophet Jeremiah, the Super Hieremiam. Contemporaries
dated this work to 1197 and attributed it to Joachim, but modem scholars have dated it to c. 1243 and generally agreed the work
is entirely spurious. Scholars have fallen into two "schools" on the commentary's authorship : some have attributed it to Joachim's
Florensian disciples, others to early Franciscans Spirituals. A new study of the manuscript evidence reveals a previously
unknown recension of the Super Hieremiam and a set of intermediate glosses. The
(v. au verso) manuscript evidence suggests Joachim might have written a commentary on Jeremiah which was then altered by
both his Florensian disciples and the early Franciscans. The manuscripts thus shed new light on the composition of the Super
Hieremiam and the development of Joachimism during the thirteenth century. The work presented here remains "in progress"; the
interpretations proposed remain subject to revision.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Moynihan Robert. The development of the «pseudo-Joachim» commentary «super Hieremiam» : new manuscript evidence. In:
Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes T. 98, N°1. 1986. pp. 109-142.
doi : 10.3406/mefr.1986.2852
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/mefr_0223-5110_1986_num_98_1_2852ROBERT MOYNIHAN
ACHIM" THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "PSEUDO- JO
AM" : COMMENTARY "SUPER HIEREMI
NEW MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE1
The identity of the author of the Super Hieremiam is one of the great
unsolved questions in the study of medieval Joachimism. 2 Who wrote
this passion-filled commentary on the prophet Jeremiah which purports
"predict" the rise of the two mendicant orders and, in a prefatory letto
ter, claims to be written by Joachim of Fiore in 1197? For several
decades, scholars studying Joachim and the reception of Joachim's works
by the early Franciscans have expended considerable energy attempting
to provide an answer. Two main schools of thought have grown up.
One argues that the work was composed by early Franciscans sometime
in the 1240s; the other, that it was by Florensian monks, direct
disciples of Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202). Unfortunately, a good deal of
the energy expended has been in vain, for the question is a false one.
The Super Hieremiam had no single " author " ; it was composed, as it now
1 1 would like to thank Prof. Nicole Beriou of the Sorbonne for proposing a
collaboration which led to the writing of this article; Mme Jeanne Bignami Odier
for her help in the Vatican library; Prof. Marjorie Reeves for her help and guid
ance in both correspondence and during a visit to Oxford; and Paolo Vian of the
Vatican Library for numerous suggestions. I would also like to thank my odviser
at Yale, Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan; the Charlotte Newcombe Foundation; the trustees
of the American Academy in Rome; and the fellows of the Academy, especially
Darby Scott, Ronald Witt, Charles Radding and Joseph Walsh, for their support
and advice during my stay in Rome.
2 This question was one of two left open at the conclusion of an international
conference of Joachim scholars held in San Giovanni in Fiore in September, 1984.
(So judges Prof. Edith Pasztor of the University of Rome, whom I would like to
thank for her advice and for being the first to encourage me to address the prob
lem of the authorship of the Super Hieremiam.) The other open question concerns
the Liber Figurarum : was it by Joachim himself, or was it a later " Joachite " pro
duction? For this problem, see Marjorite Reeves and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich, The
Figur ae of Joachim of Fiore, Oxford, 1972.
MEFRM - 98 - 1986 - 1, p. 109-142. ROBERT MO YNIHAN 110
seems clear from an examination of most of the surviving manuscripts, in
stages by several different authors. This now seems the riddle's answer :
the Florensians and Franciscans both had a hand in writing the Super
Hieremiam^
The riddle's solution does not end here, however. It does not seem
unreasonable, in light of new manuscript evidence, to consider the possi
bility that Joachim himself authored what has emerged as at least one
previously unknown short version of the Super Hieremiam. There has
been general agreement that the work was not composed by Joachim in
1197, as it claims, but by the abbot's disciples in c. 1243-48. The chief
basis for this general agreement, however, is a wrong pre-supposition :
that the Super Hieremiam is a single text. In fact, the little-studied manus
cript tradition of the Super Hieremiam reveals two versions of the text
much shorter than the one known from the sixteenth-century editions.
These "short" versions have few or none of the obvious pseudonymous
elements which have been persuasive reasons for denying the work's
claim to be one of Joachim's writings. This. does not mean we may now
argue that Joachim was certainly the author of one of these "short" ver
sions of the Super Hieremiam; it does mean that the main arguments
used up to now to prove the Super Hieremiam spurious have virtually no
bearing on these shorter texts. Here, then, we may have a hitherto un
known and genuine commentary on Jeremiah composed by Joachim hims
elf.
The Super Hieremiam is arguably the most important of what are
called the " pseudo- Joachim " works. Little-known today, it was widely
read and cited in the mid-thirteenth century. Indeed, throughout that
century and after, it was, it seems, quite as well known as any of Joa
chim's generally recognized authentic works.4 Scholars of Joachim and
3 Marjorie Reeves did not have a chance to examine the texts in detail, but she
did see a transcription of the "short" version (described below) and encouraged
me to develop the arguments I am presenting here.
4 Majorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middel Ages : A Study
in Joachimism [Henceforth, of Prophecy] (Oxford: 1969), p. 76 : "The
book most usually attached to Joachim's name was the Super Hieremiam. " As
such, we may regard it as the work which for many mid-thirteenth century "Joa-
" summed up the meaning of Joachim of Fiore's thought. These Joachites, chites,
arguably, saw the great themes of the Super Hieremiam as the great themes of
Joachim. Reeves holds that the commentary was "the earliest of the prophetical
" and the work which initiated " a new works put forward under Joachim's name,
phase of Joachimism in that it is the first pseudo-Joachimist work to re-state the
" (p. 56). concept of the three status, DEVELOPMENT OF THE " PSEUDO-JOACHIM " COMMENTARY " SUPER HIEREMIAM " 111 THE
Franciscan studies will recognize the Super Hieremiam as the prophetic
commentary so esteemed by the Franciscan "Joachites" of the 1240s and
1250s whom Salimbene so vividly describes.5 The Super Hieremiam has
been studied almost exclusively on the basis of the text as it appears in
three essentially identical editions from the 1500s.6 Because scholars
have been unaware of the complicated tradition of recensions, the manus
cript evidence presented here provides a new basis for the argument
concerning the authorship of the Super Hieremiam, and should help us
better understand how Joachim's thought was received during the thir
teenth century.7
5 Salimbene attributes the work to Joachim and cites it more than a dozen
times.
6 The Super Hieremiam was edited three times in the 16th century : twice in
Venice, 1516 and 1525, and once in Cologne, 1577. The editions are marred by
numerous errors. On p. 1, to take only one example, the read : "ut Esaias
incarnati Christi humiîitatisque doctorum portât imaginent . . . Daniel A sanctis dei-
" que virginum. The reading should be (as it appears in Vat. lat. 3822, Vat. Lat.
4860 and Vat. Reg. 5732) : "... Daniel ascendentis speique virginum."
7 Grundmann, " Federico II e Gioacchino da Fiore, " Atti del Convegno Interna
zionale di studi Federiciani (1950) p. 89 "Ma le più importanti e più efficaci opere
[pseudo-gioacchimitici], - i commenti ai libri di Geremia e l'Isaia, non sono finora
edite e criticamente vagliate." The 27 manuscripts may be divided into three
major groups : the long version, the short version, and manuscripts containing
only fragments. I owe thanks to Prof. Robert Lerner of Northwestern for informi
ng me about the content