Download PDF | Martha H. Fleming - The Late Medieval Pope Prophecies_ The Genus Nequam Group - (1999).
230 Pages
INTRODUCTION
The Prophecies The Genus nequam prophecies^ are the earliest group of late medieval Latin pope prophecies that describe the progress of the Church from Nicholas III (1277-1280) to the final pontiff. Besides Nicholas and the last angeUc pope, in these fifteen prophecies we see depicted Martin IV (1281- 1285), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-1292), Celestine V(July-December 1294), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and Benedict XI (1303-1 304). 2 The prophecies, ascribed to Joachim of Fiore but linked historically with the fortunes of the Italian Spiritual Franciscans in the late thirteenth century, were an attempt to interpret the events of the times within a larger framework of meaning, one provided by the rhetoric of eschatology.
Marjorie Reeves and others suggest that the prophecies were intended as a vehicle of both propaganda and reform, concluding that the authors not only wished to influence the outcome of contemporary events including perhaps the papal election of 1304, but also wished to inspire a reform andrenovatio in a larger context—that of the church and society as a whole.-^ Bernard McGinn calls the pope prophecies a new literary genre. "^ Certainly it was a genre which quickly became a "best seller," as the range of nine extant manuscripts indicates: they are of Italian, French, English, and possibly German provenance. In an expanded verson of thirty prophecies, they appear in numerous manuscripts of the later fourteenth andfifteenth centuries and in a substantial number of printed editions of the Renaissance. Moreover they were widely imitated. There are other indications of the prophecies' popularity and influence, as can be seen by examining some of the references to these prophecies in the first two decades of the fourteenth century. One of the first expHcit references to the Genus nequam prophecies is that by Francesco Pipini whowas working on his chronicle as late as 1317.''
He refers to the first nine prophecies only (although describing only eight of them, omitting numbereight), associating the prophecies with popes beginning with Nicholas III and ending with Clement V. Another witness, Hugh of Novocastro in his Tractatus de Victoria Christi contra Antichristum (1314—1316), makes reference to this group of prophecies, although not by the incipit, Genus nequam/' His interest is in the group of prophecies following that for Clement V and particularly in the final five units of the set, and he counts seven popes between Clement V and the terrible beast. The evidence of a third witness, Bernard Delicieux, is of even greater interest. He also seems to have possessed a libellus containing the Genus nequam prophecies.
At the time of his arrest in 1317, as Reeves and others have noted, Delicieux spoke of a "papalarius," i.e., a set of papal prophecies, attributed by him to Joachirh of Fiore, "in which past and future popes were represented in pictures."^ Alan Friedlander in his recent work on Delicieux has brought to Hght the testimony of two witnesses, Raimond Curti and Amaude de Nogarede, testimony which confirms that this "papalarius" was indeed the Genus nequam sequence.^ By the mid-fourteenth century, the Genus nequam prophecies were circulating widely. By this time references to the prophecies were often included with—or on occasion conflated with—references to the Horoscopus and the Liber de Flore and their respective commentaries, by, for instance. Gentile of Foligno in 1345'^ and the Franciscan Joachite, John of Roquetaillade, in 1356.^" The Horoscopus is dated to 1303-1304 and the commentary to ca. 1307, and it traces the papacy from Nicholas 111 through a future angelic pope.^^
The commentary on the Horoscopus has been studied in some detail by Robert Lemer in his quest to identify the compiler of the Genus nequam prophecies as one Rabanus Anglicus: the commentary identifies Rabanus Anglicus with the Genus nequam prophecies, citing Rabanus, along with Cyril, Joachim, and Hildegard, as privileged sources of revelation. As Lemer has put it, quoting in part from the commentary, "... the prophetic truth communicated to Rabanus was 'the progress of the church as seen in the figures of the Roman popes from Nicholas III to the final pontiff,' a patent description of the earliest Latin pope prophecies. "^^ The Liber de Flore, known also as the Liber de Flore sive de summis pontificibus, consists apparently of a base text and a commentary designed to explain it.'-^ It has been assumed that the author of the text knew the Genus nequam prophecies, as it begins with descriptions of historical popes(with Gregory IX, 1227-1241, rather than with Nicholas III as do the Genus nequam prophecies).
The Liber de Flore, however, quotes only fromprophecies eleven and twelve of the Genus nequam group (referring to the first of the angeUc popes) J "^ In addition, there are references to Martin IVas the "man of blood" and the identification of Nicholas III with the words"Principium malorum," both references thought to be to the Genus nequamprophecies. What distinguishes the Liber de Flore from the Genus nequamprophecies is the political program identified in the descriptions of the angelic pope and his three successors. ^^ Despite the manifest importance of these prophecies, they have neverbeen edited. For a long time they were known to scholars from the pioneering work of Herbert Grundrnann and later of Marjorie Reeves underthe title Vaticinia de summis pontificibus or Pope Prophecies. Now werecognize that this title, in fact, signified three quite diflferent productions.
The earliest version of pope prophecies {Inc. Genus nequam), probablycirculating ca. 1304, consisted of fifteen pictures with accompanying texts and captions or mottoes—picture, text, and caption together constituting each "prophecy." The fifteen units describe a series of popes, beginningwith Nicholas III (1277-1280). In its early form, the post eventum series continued certainly through Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and possibly through Benedict XI (1303—1304). The final five units, that is, eleventhrough fifteen, describe the coming of an angelic pope, the progress of his papacy and/or those of his three successors. Text arid image alike weresubject to continual emendation and change. This set of fifteen prophecieswas ascribed in the fourteenth century rriost frequently, although quite erroneously, to Joachim of Fiore, and, until recent challenges, was thoughtto have been put together by someone within a group of Franciscan Spiri- tuals in Perugia ca. 1304.'^' It had its origins in the so-called Leo Oracles, a series of prophecies concerning the fortunes of the Byzantine empire in the twelfth century, the central feature of which was the portrayal of a savior-emperor who would restore unity to the empire J ^ Sometime in the mid-fourteenth century, perhaps as early as ca. 1328, a second set of pope prophecies appeared {Inc. Ascende calve), in the same format as the first. ^"
This set began as well with Nicholas III but ended with an image of the dragon of the Apocalypse, and, as a discrete set, seems to have had more limited circulation than the earlier set, as well as a more overtly "propagandistic intention. "^'^ Recent research has demonstrated the close connection between several manuscripts of the Genus nequam group with the Ascende calve prophecies.^^' By the first quarter of the fif- teenth century at the latest, the two sets were joined.^^ The second set came first, typically ending with an image of the Antichrist. The earlier set now constituted prophecies sixteen through thirty in the combined edition. It is in this form that the prophecies were known in the many fifteenth- century manuscript copies and in the sixteenth-century printed editions.
The full history of these prophecies has yet to be written, but its outHne is beginning to take shape. Robert Lemer argues that the time has come to reserve the name Vaticinia de summis pontificibus for the full set of thirty prophecies and that the title "Pope Prophecies" may not be appropriate for the first set usually known by that name, suggesting that this set might best be known by the incipit of the first prophecy, Genus nequam. That this group of prophecies did become identified with a series of popes is uncontested; however, recent research by Andreas Rehberg as well as by Helene Millet and Dominique Rigaux also makes it clear that a very early version, perhaps the .earliest, of the Genus nequam prophecies referred to a series ofcardinals rather than to a series of popes.^^
The number of units in this version remains open to question; however, the work of Rehberg, Millet and Rigaux, and most recently Samantha Kelly, makes it clear that the first six or eight units of the Genus nequam prophecies were in circulation possibly as early as 1287 but certainly by 1292.^"^ Thus arises the problem of nomenclature. The first six or eight prophecies of the Genus nequam group had a life as cardinal prophecies and a life as pope prophecies, as well as a common history in their relation to the Byzantine Leo Oracles. It seems useful therefore to distinguish between the cardinal prophecies and the pope prophecies, and, among the pope prophecies, to distinguish three sets: the Genus nequam prophecies, the Ascende calve prophecies, and the combined set, the Vatinicina de summis pontificibus. The Genus nequam set alone remains unedited.
Questions of authorship, authorial intention, and dating raise vexing issues. Until recently the creation or compilation of the prophecies was connected to the activities of the Italian Spiritual Franciscans and their attempt to influence the outcome of the papal election of 1304. Recent research however would appear to push back the date to at least 1292 and possibly earUer, and, in addition, to call into question previously held as- sumptions about authorship and intention.^^ It is Samantha Kelly's work on the Visio Fratris Johannis that estabUshes the 1292 date. She has demonstrated close connections between the Visio and the first eight units of the Genus nequam prophecies, and if she is correct in dating the Visio to the summer of 1292, the Genus nequam prophecies, in some form, must have been in circulation by that time.^^
The prophecies might then have been created or compiled immediately after the death of Nicholas IV in April of 1292, during what was to turn out to be an interregnum of twenty-seven months, or, more likely, some time during the pontificate of Nicholas IV (1288-1292). The chief difficulty regarding dating and authorship stems firom the relationship between the cardinal prophecies and the early versions of the pope prophecies. The existence of the cardinal prophecies as a separate group depends on the evidence of the commentary on these prophecies identified by Rehberg and MiUet and Rigaux.^^ The commentary quotes firom these prophecies and explicates the text, making it clear that at least the first six units of the Genus nequam prophecies were not originally designed to be pope prophecies, "... and that the first six units were originally meant to apply to five Orsini cardinals." The commentary appears in a Vatican manuscript (Vat. lat. 3819) dated by Rehberg to 1331-1334, and follows a copy of the full fifteen units of the Genus nequam prophecies, separated only by a short prophetic text apparently unconnected to the Genus nequam prophecies, and by a list of popes from Nicholas III to John XXII.
Lemer makes the point, well worth re-stating: "It must be emphasized that the text of the prophecies copied in [this Vatican manuscript] is different firom the text used as a basis for the commentary, the latter repre- senting an early level in the transmission, the former a later one."^^ Lemer dates the commentary to sometime between 1280 and early 1305, Rehberg to between 1285 and 1287.^^^ (Rehberg also suggests a revised and an unrevised version of the commentary.) Lemer also argues that the "... prophecies were invented in Italy by an enemy of the Orsini family who was well-informed about curial poUtics.
Now comes the rub. The Genus nequam prophecies exist in nine extant manuscripts. One of these, among the earliest/^^ records the text of the first eight units only; in the adjacent space are either directions to the painter ofthe miniatures (never executed) or brief descriptions of the miniatures in the exemplar.
The question remains: did the "inventor" of the cardinal prophecies have before him a series of six units, of eight units, or of fifteen units? Analysis of textual and iconographic evidence (as will bediscussed in some detail below) suggests close connections between three ofthe extant copies of the Genus nequam prophecies (that in the Vatican manuscript noted above and the version recorded in two English manuscripts)'^^ and the text of cardinal prophecies, as it is represented in the commentary; but questions do remain. Much hinges on the assumption that the original intention of the creator of the Genus nequam prophecies coincides with that of the interpreter in the cardinal or Orsini commentary.It is on the basis of this assumption that Rehberg as well as Millet andRigaux argue that the original version of the prophecies must have beenonly eight units long (as represented by the Vatican manuscript), anargument reinforced by the work of Kelly.
Lemer, on the other hand, argues that the earUest version must be closer to that represented in the two English manuscripts (i.e., fourteen/fifteen units), and that the Vatican scribe simply ran out of space. The other possibility is of course that the compiler of the version represented by the twoEnglish manuscripts returned to the Leo Oracles for further inspiration, a scenario Lemer finds unlikely.-^"^ It remains clear, however, that the version of the prophecies referred to in the commentary is not always the closest to that of the Leo Oracles.-^'' The arguments then, are strong, if not conclusive, that the first version ofthe Genus nequam prophecies must have been fourteen or fifteen units long, with a cumulative effect, however, that must have been different fi-om that of the cardinal prophecies.
Thus the dating for the creation or compilation of the full set of fifteen units must remain open, ranging firom as early as 1280 to as late as early 1305. Even though it is clear that the first six or eight units of the Genus nequam prophecies were in circulation by 1292 or possibly earlier, there is no conclusive evidence for the circulation of the full fifteen units by that date/^^ Tacitly acknowledging the difference in cumulative effect between the six or eight units of the cardinal prophecies and that of the fifteen units of the Genus nequam prophecies, Lerner sums up the matter of intention as it currently stands: "To portray the author as primarily a political propagandist ignores the fact that his prophecies led up to a supematurally-guided trans- formation in the government of the Church and the crowning of popes by angels." On the other hand, even though no one would argue that the Genus nequam prophecies came to be identified with the fortunes of the Spiritual Franciscans, "... to portray [the author] as a Joachimist or Spiritual Franciscan ignores the fact that distinctively Joachimist or Franciscan points of view are absent in the eariiest level of the evidence. "-^^ A final point to be considered here is the relation between image and text. Recent interest in the manuscript as artifact has led to renewed and newly focused discussions of the relation between text and image, as well as on a more theoretical level, between visual representation and lan- guage.-^^ Images on the page can serve ornamental, memorial, illustrative, or explanatory functions: they can highUght or enhance the text or provide an alternative to the text.
The problem here is to find the language that best describes the relation between text and image in the Genus nequam prophecies. No one to my knowledge disputes the assumption that the images were part of the original conception of the prophecies. It is beyond doubt that the Genus nequam prophecies had their origins in the so-called Greek Leo Oracles, each unit of which also consisted of image, text, and caption or motto. In some instances, units of the Genus nequam series are very faithful to their counterparts in the Leo Oracles in both the language of the text and details of the images. Contemporary witnesses identified the prophecies with the images as often as with the texts. DeUcieux, as noted above, spoke in 1317 of a "papalarius," or pope prophecies, "in which past and future popes were represented in pictures." Pipini, writing no later than 1317, is interested only in the pictures and identifying pictures with popes, perhaps finding the text too obscure. ^'^ It is clear as well that these images serve more than a simple illustrative function, but how much more, and how is this added function to bedescribed? Certainly the total effect of picture plus text (and motto) is greater than that of either component alone.
Additionally, each provides a means of understanding, even decoding, the other. Habits of mind give primacy to text, a logocentric bias, as it were, but in this instance the images are more accessible than the text, often providing a referent in time andspace that the text lacks. The text of unit one, after all, does not refer explicitly to a pope; it is the image that does so. It is not possible to go so far as to say that each component requires the other for meaning to be produced; yet the three parts of each unit, text, image, and motto, mutually elucidate one another.
Page organization illustrates this point. Units of the prophecies are carefully delineated, onefrom the other, often one unit to a page, even when the text is very short. Some witnesses give the text on one page, the image on the facing page. When the units are arranged one to a page, the image takes up two-thirds of the space. Mottoes precede the text, set apart firom it in some way,either as headings or tituli, or by rubrication."^^ Identifications of historical popes, when they are made, are written above the image or sometimesabove the motto. Nothing about the page organization suggests the primacyof one component over the other, and everything points to a special kindof complementarity between text and image.
Yet, this complementarity or movementbetween text and image is anything but straightforward. Pipini, for instance, knew the series was to begin with Nicholas III, and therefore identified the pope in the second unit of the series as Martin IV. The image in unit two, in at least four of the witnesses, shows a pope and to his side a snake-Hke serpent attacked by two crows. Pipini, in an effort to fit the iconography to Martin IV, describes the "serpent" as an "anguilla" or "eel," and elsewhere in the passage refers to Martin IV's fondness for eels.
The snake-like serpent attacked by two crows, however, comes directly from the parent image in the Leo Oracles"^^ where clearly it had quite a different referent. The writer of the commentary on the cardinal prophecies identifies this "flying serpent" as Cardinal Matteo Rossi Orsini and the crows as anti-Orsini forces. In probably the latest of the witnesses, the copy in Vat. lat. 3819, the element of opposition has been retained, but the details are quite different: here the pope stands with a book in his left hand, and holds with his right hand a standard with a large bird perched atop, beak open. To the pope's left is a large dragon figure. The dragon and bird thus face each other, separated by the pope, who, because he holds the standard, is to be aligned with the bird. The significance of these particular changes is lost to us. All we can say is that no change in the text precipitated these changes in the image, yet the changes in the image have the potential at least for altering the reading of the text.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق