Abstract

It is hardly news that medieval Joachism was a protean affair. Ever since Marjorie Reeve wrote, we have been aware that various people who valued Joachim did so for different reasons and, in the process, read him in different ways. They still do, and the different readings of Joachim offered today are hardly unrelated to the varieties of intepretation offered then. The important thing for our purposes is that, within a century after Joachim’s death, various intellectually adventurous souls in western Europe were appropriating what we might reasonably describe as Joachite thought in a variety of ways, often without any indication that they recognized a connection between what they were saying and...