### GIOACHINO da FIORE
One of the most representative yet most complex figures of medieval spirituality: mystic, reformer, prophet, theologian, and exegete; revered as a saint by some, regarded as an impostor by others. St. Thomas acknowledges the holiness of his life but believes that some of his prophecies were mistaken.
I. BIOGRAPHY
Born in Celico (Cosenza) around 1130. It is highly questionable whether he spent his youth as a page at the Norman court. Reminiscences of a youthful journey to the Holy Land appear in his *Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia*. Upon his return, around 1155, he entered the Cistercian monastery of Sambucina (Luzzi), where he was a lay brother and began to preach. Moving to the monastery of Corazzo, he was ordained a priest by the bishop of Catanzaro and, in 1177, elected abbot. In 1182–83, he was a guest at Casamari, from where he traveled to Veroli to seek the pope’s authorization to write down his exegetical ideas on Holy Scripture. At Casamari, he dictated to Luke, his future biographer, the *Concordia Novi et Veteris Testamenti* and part of the *Psalterium*. In 1186, he reached Urban III in Verona. The pope urged him to compile the *Expositio in Apocalypsim*. It is pure legend that from Verona he went to Venice to advise on the composition of the famous mosaics, including the prophetic ones of Sts. Dominic and Francis, which Venetian and Franciscan chroniclers have discussed at length. Clement III, on June 8, 1188, sent him an *Admonitorium* to urge him to complete his works and submit them to the judgment of the Holy See. Soon after, he left the Cistercians and founded the Florensian Congregation, which had its center in San Giovanni in Fiore. It was approved, despite opposition from the Cistercians, by a bull of Celestine III on April 25, 1196. His *Spiritual Testament* dates to 1200, doubted by E. Buonaiuti more out of prejudice than for solid reasons, and defended by H. Grundmann. He died in Canale (Cosenza) on March 30, 1202. His relics were transferred to the archiabbey of San Giovanni in Fiore, where they received public veneration, though the Church never gave it official sanction. An epitaph in Latin was placed on his tomb, later summarized in the antiphon for Vespers, echoed in turn by Dante in the famous verses of *Paradiso* XII, where G. is placed among the luminaries of knowledge between St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure precisely for his prophetic spirit, which, conversely, had been denied him by Aquinas.
II. HIS DOCTRINAL WORK
Joachim’s exegesis is not original; rather, it pushes allegorical interpretation to an implausible extreme, which is the foundation of his system.As a theologian, he suffered a mortal blow with the condemnation of his *Libellus de essentia Trinitatis contra Lombardum* by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The pamphlet is lost, but its content is known through the expressions of the conciliar condemnation: G. reproached Peter Lombard for a mistaken quaternity, while he in turn defended a similarity-based unity that would destroy the unity of essence. F. Foberti, while admitting the justice of the conciliar condemnation, contests G.’s authorship of the libellus, considering it a forgery presented under his name at the Council. But his defense is weak; no less weak is the defense of G.’s orthodoxy regarding the Sacraments and the Church.
More successful, however, is the clarification by E. Dénoiffe regarding the nature of the third age, the keystone of Joachim’s message.
The advent of the third age, that of the Holy Spirit, following those of the Father (of fear) and the Son (of grace), is not to be understood as a new economy or revelation of the Third Divine Person, but as a “spiritual intelligence” of the Christian Revelation. It was a deformation of Joachim’s thought, perpetrated by the Franciscan Spirituals, especially Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, who presented his three main works as the “Eternal Gospel.” Hence the denunciation to the Holy See and the condemnation of October 23, 1255. Alongside Gerard, among the most notable Joachimites are John of Parma, general of the Franciscans; Salimbene de Adam; Ubertino da Casale; and Angelo da Clareno in Italy; Hugh of Digne and Peter of John Olivi in France; Arnold of Villanova in Spain; and others of lesser renown in Germany and England.
As for influences, it must be excluded that Joachim’s message found its fulfillment in St. Francis of Assisi; yet it cannot be denied that Joachimite arguments were also adopted by St. Bonaventure and St. Bernardino of Siena, nor can it be overlooked that the entire movement of the Flagellants, the Spirituals, the Fraticelli, and the Beghards is linked to him. Joachimite influences, direct or indirect, have likewise been detected in Savonarola’s prophetism, in G. B. Vico’s philosophy of history, in Telesforo of Cosenza’s speculations, in Cola di Rienzo’s aspirations, and even in Giuseppe Mazzini and the Norwegian poet Ibsen, as G. Manacorda has noted.
But the most debated question is the alleged Joachimism of Dante, brought to the forefront by very recent studies, to the point of making it one of the fundamental motifs of the *Divine Comedy*. Barbi’s warning against exaggerations and deviations has been in vain; indeed, the recent discovery of the *Codex of Figures* by L. Tondelli has only served to intensify the trend.