The Apocalypsis Nova – Narrating Prophecy and Reform Theology on the Eve of the Reformation

2.1 The Storyline of the Text and the Stories Surrounding Its Discovery

The Apocalypsis Nova, a voluminous opus,^[3] had supposedly been written by Amadeus Mendez da Silva (ca. 1420–1482), founder of the Franciscan congregation of the Amadeites. The text is written in the first person and begins with the words: “I was raptured.”^[4] Amadeus had served as the confessor to Pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471–1484), who, in return, gave the important Roman church of San Pietro in Montorio to the Amadeites.^[5] Amadeus enjoyed considerable popularity at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, with a flourishing congregation and repeated efforts to promote his canonization.^[6]

In the text, the archangel Gabriel appears to Amadeus while he prays in his hermit’s cave on the Roman Janiculum hill. The angel guides the friar through eight lengthy visionary experiences, called raptus, revealing heavenly secrets and the future of the Christian church. Following these raptus, the text presents revelations of words of John the Baptist and Jesus, called sermones or revelationes speciales.^[7] The sheer volume and complexity of the revelations often cause the friar considerable confusion. Compared with other apocalyptic texts of the Christian tradition, such as the apocryphal Apocalypses of Paul or Peter,^[8] the Apocalypsis Nova provides strikingly few visual elements, such as heavenly journeys, focusing primarily on auditory revelations conveyed in dialogue between the angel and the friar, with occasional appearances by other biblical figures. I will revisit these literary observations, and their implications, further on.

The alleged origin and mysterious discovery of the (original) book were surrounded by legends and myths. One of the oldest manuscripts, preserved in the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan, contains copies of letters written in vernacular Italian by Franciscan friar Giorgio Benigno Salviati (ca. 1445–1520)^[9] to his friend Ubertino, informing him about the finding of the original book:

Ubertino! I cannot write to you about the great mysteries recently discovered, which confirm all prophecies. Oh, how I wish you could see them: great, powerful, miraculous secrets that God will reveal very soon in Italy and His church.^[10]

Ubertino, you wrote to me asking to share with you the newly found prophecies. You were referring to our brother, the blessed Amadeus […]. He has created a book as voluminous as Augustine’s De Civitate Dei, which he had kept secret until God would send someone to open it. Before long, some brothers attempted to open it about three times, whereupon, falling ill immediately, they soon died. […] This book was held by Sixtus [IV], then also by Innocence [VIII], but none dared to open it because of what had happened to those friars. Then, at the request of some people, the cardinal of Santa Croce […] commanded the book to be opened, deciding that it could not fall to anyone better than me, as they told me. I was indeed quite afraid. […] Rome, June 18th, 1502. Benignus. Do not tell anyone!^[11]

The mysterious circumstances surrounding the early reception of the Apocalypsis Nova are not unique to this text; they are in fact typical of prophetic and apocalyptic literature.^[12] An ancient appeal, precarious material tradition, and magical powers associated with the object – all these elements underscored the authority of revelatory books and the knowledge they contained. The Apocalypsis Nova itself emphasizes the urgent need for it to be hidden and kept secret until a certain Pastor futurus would arrive to publicly reveal its secrets and proclaim and interpret its theology: “[S]ee to it that, under death penalty, no one opens the book until it pleases God that the occult and secret things come to light gradually.”^[13] This threat is echoed in several early legends surrounding the book, such as the deaths of the friars mentioned in Salviati’s letter and the book’s mysterious preservation from fire, as recounted by later readers who sometimes added these stories to the manuscripts of the text, attempting to shed light on its origins and authorship.^[14]

2.2 Some Remarks on Authorship

The question of authorship has been a central part of the research on the Apocalypsis Nova since its composition. Early on it served as a tool for negotiating the alleged heterodoxy or orthodoxy of the text. It also became one of the main foci of twentieth-century scholars.^[15] Although the author of the text appears to be Amadeus, it is very unlikely that the historical Amadeus could have written the text in its final form as preserved in the manuscripts. Not only does the text include typical vaticinia ex eventu, such as the foreseeing of Amadeus’ death (which occurred in 1482), and oracles about future popes, in the style of the vaticinia de summis pontificibus, but there is also no record from Amadeus’ lifetime indicating a substantial writing practice. In the hagiographic corpus about Amadeus, consisting of vitae studied by Sevesi,^[16] only the later texts mention the Apocalypsis Nova.^[17]

Theologically and chronologically, it is much more likely that Giorgio Benigno Salviati, the author of the aforementioned letters, is responsible for the text in its known form. The origin of the final corpus of the text can be dated to around the year 1502, and it was probably written in Rome, given its strong emphasis on Rome as the New Jerusalem and its knowledge of local traditions, such as the alternative site for the veneration of the martyrdom of St. Peter on the Janiculum.^[18] Salviati was a Franciscan, but was far from being an illiterate poverello. Born in what is today Bosnia under the name Juraj Dragišić, he fled from the Ottoman invasions to Rome where he became a protégé of the famous Cardinal Bessarion. He spent significant periods of his life in Florence, being part of the circle of Marsilio Ficino, and served as a teacher for the sons of Federico da Montefeltro in Urbino, thus living and writing at the heart of Italy’s Renaissance culture, as noted by contemporaries such as Guicciardini:

[C]osì fiorirono in Firenze gli studi di umanità sotto messer Agnolo Poliziano, e greci sotto messer Demetrio e poi Lascari, gli studi di filosofia e di arte sotto Marsilio Ficino, maestro Giorgio Benigno, el conte della Mirandola ed altri uomini eccellenti.^[19]

Salviati was involved in ecclesiastical intellectual and power struggles, and clearly sought a significant career. He later returned to Rome, where he became the protégé of Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal (1456–1523), one of the central characters in the schismatic Conciliabulum of Pisa (1511/12).^[20] Salviati also defended Reuchlin against his Roman critics and wrote an introduction to Pietro Gallatino’s famous work on Christian Cabbala, Opus toti Christianae veritati utile de arcanis catholicae veritatis (1518).^[21]

In fact, the problem of determining authorship is not unique to the Apocalypsis Nova but highlights a specific characteristic of prophetic literature in general. It thus presents a fundamental challenge for the study of prophetic literary corpora: a certain ambiguity regarding authorship. As seen in the case of the Apocalypsis Nova, the legendary lore surrounding the formation of prophetic texts, along with the often-opaque history of subsequent proliferation, frequently makes it impossible to determine authorship with precision.

2.3 The Particularity of the Manuscript Tradition

The unclear authorship connected to the text is intertwined with its unique manuscript and transmission history. Despite the popularity of the Apocalypsis Nova in the early decades of the sixteenth century^[22] and later, the text, in its entirety, was never printed. Instead, it circulated in an extensive number of manuscripts, with more than a hundred known today.^[23] These manuscripts exhibit a wide variety of material, size, and presentation: some are simple copies, while others are beautiful codices. Many of these manuscripts were actively read and annotated, offering a glimpse into the diversity of readers and their approaches to the text. Readers engaged with the prophetic passages as well as with theological claims, such as Angelology and Mariology. Some notes, particularly indices frequently added to copies, suggest a use as a theological encyclopedia or reference book. Some readers’ notes also grapple with the orthodoxy of the text and the potential authorship of Amadeus, as in a manuscript from the Vatican Library, which contains a highly critical note by Fabio Chigi (1599–1667), the later Pope Alexander VII (r. 1655–1667), identifying the text as “fictions and fantasies.”^[24] Other readers and scribes emphasized the piety of the text, praising its beauty and quality.

Similar negotiations are found in later literature as well, such as Luke Wadding’s Annales minorum or Pedro de Alva y Astorga’s Bibliotheca virginalis, Mariae mare magnum. Wadding discusses the Dominican Abraham Bzovius’ condemnation of the Apocalypsis Nova, highlighting Bzovius’ imprecision. Alva y Astorga includes lengthy Mariological passages from the Apocalypsis Nova and fervently refutes Bzovius’ critique, as illustrated in the following example:

Bzovius, where does the blessed Amadeus express doubts about Christ’s soul in line with the Apollinaristic heresy? My copy doesn’t have anything like that. Thus, either your manuscript is corrupted, or you made this up in your brain.^[25]

3.1 Prophecies and Theologies

As mentioned before, the Apocalypsis Nova clearly criticizes the Church and calls for reform, particularly by envisioning a future pastor.^[26] The Pastor futurus announced by the text is portrayed as an ideal pope who will reform ecclesiastical hierarchies. He is expected to reform and reunite the Eastern and Western Christian churches, and reconcile the world. The current state of the Church, as well as the representation of papal power, is repeatedly criticized in terms that were well known at the time, such as the call for humility among clerical leaders or the depiction of the pope as bestia sitting on the throne of God, drawing on the biblical Apocalypse of John.^[27] The Apocalypsis Nova serves as a theological reform program for the Pastor futurus, who the text claims to be its intended reader and executor. However, it appears to be the text’s actual aim to reach out to as many readers as possible. The text’s mysterious appeal made it a compelling work for many of its early modern readers, as can be seen in annotations in the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the prophetic passages constitute only a limited portion of its corpus.

Considering the title and the early circumstances of the text, its main contents are unexpected. It neither expresses a particular interest in topics related to the Last Judgment and the end of the world nor presents a pictorial program similar to that of the Apocalypse of John, to which the title Apocalypsis Nova clearly alludes. Instead, it offers a complex composition of several narrative layers, including legendary passages, elaborate scholastic treatises, and poetic hymns embedded within the narrative framework of a dialogue between the angel and the friar. Gabriel himself points out: “I speak in the style of your philosophers, for I have read and understood the works of Aristotle before he has written them, said the angel and smiled.”^[28] The overall sentiment of the text is optimistic, emphasizing the imminent reconciliation of the world. This character of the text was noted already amongst its earliest readers, as can be seen in the letters of Salviati, who claims that the text “speaks more in the fashion of an evangelist than a prophet.”^[29]

The text contains extensive legendary rewritings of biblical and sacred history, particularly regarding the life of Mary. It emphasizes her extraordinary authority and importance in the task of salvation for humankind and the Church. Not only does she take St. Peter’s place as the foundation of the Church and facilitate the transfer of heavenly knowledge to the disciples, but she is also modeled after Christ in terms of foreknowledge and even physical looks. Consequently, Mary is a representation of an all-encompassing epistemological canon:

She knew grammar, dialectics, rhetoric, poetry, mathematics, […] physics and metaphysics, […] she perfectly knew theology and thus preserved all words and deeds of Christ since the beginning. She knew all mechanical arts as well as the rules and laws of all governments, be it a single house, a city or kingdom.^[30]

Mary is also depicted as teaching and interpreting Scripture, thereby becoming the theological foundation of the Christian Church: “While the Apostles were preaching, she prayed in the house, read, taught, and meditated on the commandments of the Lord.”^[31] The tradition of Mary as one who unties knots, stemming from Irenaeus, is transformed, as she is said to “untie all unclear knots of the Old Testament.”^[32] Given Mary’s fundamental role in the Apocalypsis Nova, it is unsurprising that a retelling of the Annunciation is central to the text, emphasizing her active participation in the history of salvation.^[33]

The almost cosmological notion of the Virgin is clearly rooted in Franciscan traditions,^[34] but it also shares many similarities with speculations found in Christian Kabbala and Neo-Platonism. This influence is evident in reception history, where scholars such as Pietro Galatino and the aforementioned Guillaume Postel drew heavily on the Apocalypsis Nova for their speculations about the Virgin Mary.^[35]

Interestingly, Christological themes are much rarer and more generic in the text; the passion is even omitted entirely from the storyline, which jumps from Jesus in the temple to a theological raptus on the Eucharist and then to his resurrection.^[36] The text is aware of the delicate balance it maintains and occasionally addresses this issue directly, as illustrated in the following description of Jesus and Mary after the Assumption of the Virgin:

Mary is not placed right or left of her Son but in front of him so that they always look at each other. However, the head of the Lord is a little higher than that of Mary.^[37]

Besides the life of Mary, retellings of the creation of the world, angels, and man can be found in the Apocalypsis Nova, drawing on medieval sources such as Lombard’s Sentences.^[38] The focus is particularly on Angelology, with the revelation of the names of seven archangels and a detailed retelling of the war and fall of the angels, which is recounted twice.^[39] The text claims a high revelatory authority, even offering additions to the biblical canon, as seen in both the fifth and eighth raptus, where the Evangelist Lucas dictates additions to his gospel to Amadeus. It also includes authorizations of liturgical and devotional practices and places of veneration, such as the Santa Casa in Loreto and the church of San Pietro in Montorio.^[40]

Embedded in this complex narrative structure, the Apocalypsis Nova contains a vast number of theological elaborations, addressing scholarly and ecclesiastical quarrels and conflicts such as the Immaculate Conception and the freedom of will, aiming to resolve open questions while consolidating controversies between different theological factions. In doing so, the text seeks to bring to light what so far had been hidden and ultimately serve as a tool for the reunification of the Western and Eastern churches, which had been in schism since 1054. The elaborations present themselves in the style of scholastic disputations, drawing on authorities like Aquinas and, notably, Scotus.^[41]

3.2 Traces of Pre-Protestant Theology?

For a modern reader of the Apocalypsis Nova, it is striking to discover theological positions commonly ascribed to Luther and early Reformation theology. This observation, however, should be made with caution: it is well known that the early Reformation offered more continuities than subsequent narratives usually suggest.^[42] Nevertheless, certain topoi emerged as strong confessional distinguishing marks from a very early time.^[43] Some of these topoi can also be found in the Apocalypsis Nova.

One example is the recurring emphasis on justification by God’s grace, which is found in several places throughout the text and is often accompanied by a critique of Franciscan practices. Interpreting the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1–16), Gabriel emphasizes that

Each one rejoices in the good of the other, so that there is really one equal reward for all. And the different mansions and various degrees of merits and rewards come down to one salary, which is given to all in the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth. […] But the more blessed ones cannot justly be indignant, because, whatever they are, they are by the grace of God.^[44]

It is well known that the emphasis on justification was not invented by Luther; it had already been central to Augustine in his conflict with Pelagius and found its way into many medieval scholastic disputes.^[45] It was primarily the theology of Duns Scotus that led authors like William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel to speculate about God’s potentia absoluta and its implications for the relationship between human deeds and divine grace. Thus, the Apocalypsis Nova, drawing heavily on Scotus’ theology, can be seen as an example of how these topics were negotiated before the Reformation.

Another example is the call for communion under both kinds, the practice of bread and wine being consumed in the Eucharist. In the sixth raptus, the text reveals a new version of the Eucharist, calling for both bread and wine to be consumed by all believers:

But it is sufficient to recall the dual mode of redemption by worshiping Christ under both kinds. And the Pastor futurus will order that every Christian sometimes take this food under both kinds.^[46]

The text frequently returns to this topic and closely links it with its ideas of theological and institutional reform.

Communion under both kinds had been relatively common until the Middle Ages, when it was progressively replaced by the practice of taking only the host or merely viewing it during its elevation. In the early fifteenth century the Hussites in Bohemia strongly advocated for a return to communion under both kinds. In response, this practice was forbidden by the Council of Constance in 1415, which coincided with the imprisonment and execution of Jan Hus in Constance.

Thus, the position of the Apocalypsis Nova could be understood as sympathetic to the Hussites. However, the text itself clearly refers to the practices of the Eastern churches, where communion under both kinds had always been common.^[47] Thus, the text’s call for eucharistic reform rather reflects its strong emphasis on the necessity of reconciliation of Western and Eastern churches. The text also seems to be responding to the risk of being associated with the Hussites by emphasizing that “the body of Christ is real-present and not merely in some kind of figure, but in truth, as you shall believe firmly.”^[48]

These examples once again demonstrate the high authoritative claims expressed in the text. It not only presents theological speculations but also reveals ideas about additions to the biblical canon and changes in liturgical and sacramental practice. The reception of the text, however, was ambiguous and does not seem to show influences of the text in liturgical practice, thus ignoring or contradicting the text’s own claims. This ambiguity, however, is clearly anticipated within the original text and is central to its narrative of reform theology.

3.3 Veiling and Revealing Knowledge: The Narratology of the Apocalypsis Nova

At first glance, the apocalyptic framework^[49] of the text serves to guarantee the authority of its epistemological claims. Vaticinia ex eventu transform past events into predictions of future events that actually came true, thereby confirming the prophetic status of the text. The Apocalypsis Nova emphasizes several times that the sheer volume of revealed knowledge serves as proof of its divine authority. The apocalyptic construction of an otherworldly realm of knowledge, beyond human cognition, is particularly underscored by the angel’s precise knowledge of both worldly and heavenly details.

However, the narrative framework of the Apocalypsis Nova introduces small but frequent disruptions that create ambiguities. Such ambiguity is evident in the twofold structure of revelation: although knowledge is revealed, it will ultimately only be comprehended by the Pastor futurus. This paradoxical figure appears so frequently in the Apocalypsis Nova that it is to be understood as a methodological tool of the text. On one hand, revelation is already occurring; on the other hand it is not yet complete.

This delaying tactic goes hand in hand with problems of translation and transcription. The text repeatedly questions whether Amadeus can accurately transcribe the revealed content, let alone understand it. Gabriel repeatedly criticizes him, as in this passage from the seventh raptus:

You see, I teach you in your language, as in my [angelic] language we use different vocabulary, in which there are no equivocations, no ambiguity or doubt, but all things have their proper names and fitting vocabulary.^[50]

Now listen to what I tell you and transcribe it more neatly! In fact, you wrote the other things I told you very confusedly several times. Now listen and imprint it in your mind so that things get written down correctly and nothing is lost from what was said and written.^[51]

When the angel emphasizes that heavenly truths cannot be expressed in human language, and when Amadeus neither understands what he himself asks nor what the angel is having him write down, it to some extent undermines the normative claim of the revelatory writing. These moments of failed, or incomplete communication recur throughout the text, creating small disruptive moments that contain a high degree of self-referentiality: The text reveals something and shortly afterward emphasizes that this process is ultimately not possible in earthly reality, hindered as it is by communication and the act of writing. This contradiction is by no means a result of the author’s incapacity; rather, the ultimate impossibility of communication between this world and the other is expressed here in literary terms. Telling stories about the transcendent always contains a paradoxical moment.^[52] This idea of veiling and revealing knowledge is a thread continuously woven through the Apocalypsis Nova.

The oscillation within the text serves various functions. Most obviously, a relativization of what is said can act as a form of protection for the text: a possibly heretical content, such as its eucharistic theology, can thus be retracted with reference to the narratological processes of mediation. Yet there are other functions as well: The contradiction between the normativity of revelation and the obvious ambiguities seems to have been intended to enhance the appeal of the Apocalypsis Nova. The text employs this narrative freedom to bring different discourses of knowledge into conversation with one another. This is evident in the attempt to reconcile Eastern and Western eucharistic discourses, as noted above, as well as in the interweaving of scholastic authorities and those suggesting a humanist canon.^[53] Scholars of medieval literature have demonstrated how the self-referentiality of narrative texts often accompanies epistemological shifts, such as those posited by authors in the beginning of the sixteenth century.^[54] By emphasizing its own paradoxality between Godly revelation and human narration, the Apocalypsis Nova creates space for theological and epistemological speculation and the articulation of its program of reform.