The Originality and Influence of Joachim of Fiore

Abstract

Originality and influence are obverse and reverse of one coin. When extensive influence is claimed for any thinker the question at once arises: Were there no other sources from which these putative disciples might have drawn their inspiration? Since no thinker springs entirely unheralded out of the head of Zeus, he must have drawn on an already existing cluster of ideas and therefore, in turn, his possible influence may merge into a wider intellectual ambience. The problem of influence thus becomes one of establishing marks of originality which can be applied as a kind of ‘litmus test’ to distinguish direct dependence from general affinity. The ideas of the Abbot Joachim have lately attracted wide-ranging claims in respect of their influence in later generations. To cite only one example: Professor Roger Garaudy is quoted as saying that the ‘first great revolutionary movements in Europe’ were ‘all more or less imbued with the ideas of Joachim of Fiore.’ In the last decade or so many medievalists, including myself, have spun the Joachimist coin in order to turn up ‘tails,’ and we have perhaps found Joachimist ‘tails’ in too many quarters. By the law of probabilities it was more than time to turn up heads, and Robert Lerner in an article of 1976 slapped down a challenging ‘head study’ for which I personally am grateful since it set me off spinning the same old coin again. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the background of ideas out of which Joachim's theology of history was generated, to pinpoint the original aspects of his thought, if any, and thence to define and apply criteria for claiming later individuals, groups, or writings as ‘Joachite’ or ‘Joachimist.’

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.